In addition, he has more of a global view rather than the accepted Christian worldview. The global view is again closer to dad than either Goldwater or Reagan. He may not like this UN and its existing problems, but is prone to to having a world body solve some of our world concerns, including........maybe some of our own? He sees the need for a Palestinian homeland in parts of Isreal. He faith is rooted in a liberal mainline church rather than in a more evangelical home.
I'm not saying he's a bad man. There are many things I have doubts over, but I'm sure some conservatives sometimes scratched their heads over something Reagan did. But the fact remains, that to evangelicals, he was more marketed for what he believed and represented rather than the reality that the is. I'm frankly surprised that more evangelical leaders haven't drawn a line in the sand before now.
You said a mouthful. I second the points of your entire post. I was a youth for Goldwater and campaigned for Reagan in California. I had to hold my nose to vote for Bush41 and Bush43 in '88, 2K and '04. The Bush's are Eastern liberal Rockefeller RINO's. To expect otherwise is to be constantly disappointed.
I don't disagree with your reservations about W. We don't have much excuse for being too surprised, really, because he never ran as a total, pedal to the metal doctrinnaire conservative (like me!). Truth is, I've been pleasantly surprised far more often than disappointed, because my expectations were low.
But we always argue that a president should have his choice for SC justices. That's why we work so hard to get "our" guys in office. I think conservatives have been two-faced and hypocritical in fighting SO hard and implacably against Miers. Stating reservations is fine; then we should have shut up and waited for the hearings. His judicial record warrants that. Shut up, or at least toned it down.
Plus -- is W on record as opposing preferences? If not, then would we expect him to demand such of an appointee?
Dan