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 Kerry, who attacks the troops, would have lost the Iraq war, repealed the tax cuts, and implented a host of pro-abortion policies?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.
Interesting points....I notice that each and every of the complaints you have, *ALL* of them were avoided, none of them were implemented, not least of which because the 'outcry from the base and talk radio' was able to sway enough congresscritters to scurry away from them.
So if the base works hard enough, we will be able to keep enough true conservatives home that we can get Hillary elected with enough coattails that she can take a single fingernail and slit the throat of talk radio, etal.
What do you think we'll be able to do? Call in and fill her voicemail with opposition to fairness doctrine, china arms deals, pullout from middle east, nationalizing healthcare, then oil companies, etc?
Yeah, and we'll have what kind of leverage with whom? None?
Sure, if we'd had just let Kerry or Gore win, we'd have Kyoto, a solid-socialist Supreme Court , higher taxes, UN veto on the US military, all missile defense development stopped, etc etc.
Bush=Democrats is pure, unsupportable hyperbole.
Whether we can stand it or not Republicans will do everything in their power to elect anyone else but Clinton.
In 2000, it was anyone-but-Gore and we got Bush2.
In 2004, it was anyone-but-Kerry and we got Bush2 the Globalist with a middle finger to the conservatives [Dubai ports, Miers, amnesty round 1 (2006), amnesty round 2 (2007), amnesty round 3 (2007) and still trying to get it attached to other legislation].
The RNC is hoping for a rousing anyone-but-Clinton in 2008. But 2006 told them the GOP was in serious trouble with its policies. The GOP/RNC still maintain those same policies. Their anyone-but-Clinton may not work this time — because they are still pushing such policies as open borders and amnesty for illegals. They lost the conservatives. They seem to be heading for a brokered convention. Who emerges (a globalist more of the same or a real conservative) will determine whether they can garder enough support to stop the Hillary machine.
33 posted on 10/22/2007 4:47:21 AM PDT by TomGuy
You would have rather had Gore or Kerry???
LOLOL. Actually, you didn't get any of them.
But if Gore or Kerry had been elected you would have.