Not all conservatives saw opposing the Dubai ports deal as the “conservative” position. I personally believe our ports would be safer today if that deal had gone through, especially since the deal was for much less than what people screamed about.
We always knew Bush had a moderate view on immigration, he ran on it twice. Who would have thought THAT would be the item he’d push the hardest for, as opposed to social security privatization, where Bush was the more conservative and our “conservative” allies in the house and senate couldn’t carry the water for him, to even get it on the agendan.
Most of his judicial appointments have been top-notch. He tried to put Bolton in the UN. He’s stuck with the war when he easily could have given in. He gave us a wealth of good tax cuts that spurred the economy. He vetoed Embryonic stem cells and the expansion of SCHIPs when a good number of republicans were FOR THOSE. He’s pushed and signed the partial-birth-abortion ban, and to keep tax dollars from being spent for abortions here and abroad.
And he’s been strong with the military.
Look, for now we’ve kept the immigration bill from passing. Sure, it was hard work, but successful.
I’m not happy, but “we” also stopped Dubai and Miers.
So of the things you complained about, none of them amounted to defeat for your position.
So it sure looks like the “lesser of two evils” has been a resounding success. Gore in 2000, with his radically wrong views on Global Warming? Kerry, who attacks the troops, would have lost the Iraq war, repealed the tax cuts, and implented a host of pro-abortion policies?
Bush, the “nightmare” that he has been, is the best argument we have that the “lesser of two evils” is the RIGHT choice.
Yeah...you beat me to it. OTOH, no amount of common sense helps much on these threads.
well stated.
Bush, the “nightmare” that he has been, is the best argument we have that the “lesser of two evils” is the RIGHT choice.
#######
Excellent points which I have saved for future arguments with “purists.”
My worst fear about our present field of candidates is that a three- or four-way split will allow a weaker candidate to prevail. I am praying that our primary process will somehow avoid this result.
As an example of what I foresee, in Maryland’s last election, a beloved pol with 50 years in one office after another was perceived as vulnerable by another competent pol for the office of state comptroller. Our Dem primary gives us the winner of the general election. A third candidate got into the race = a flaming socialist who is a DC lobbyist in his day job. He won with about 34% of the vote.
The aging beloved (conservative dem) pol should have retired gracefully, but.....