[HeartlandOfAmerica]

I happily voted for George Bush through 2 election cycles, but damn the guy now. If he was up for election today, he sure wouldn't get my vote. Nobody would.

he spends like a drunken Democrat.

His prescription program cost a friggin fortune.

I could understand having to spend after 911 to dampen all the fires. But he's done more to grow govt than Clinton even.

The list goes on and on.

But I find his stance on illegals to be revolting. Repubs are supposed to be the defenders of America. It's their number one advantage with the electorate and its their number one selling point.

During the amnesty debate, we had almost as many R's voting for the amnesty as D's. This is CONSERVATIVE??? No, it's not.

I don't demand that a politco agree with me 100% but I do agree that they agree with me and my values at least 80% otherwise why bother? At this stage, I'm in the why bother category about all the candidates.

As far as I'm concerned the Party's broken.

[antisocial]

“As far as I’m concerned the Party’s broken.”

Same here!

[fightinJAG]

During the amnesty debate, we had almost as many R's voting for the amnesty as D's. This is CONSERVATIVE??? No, it's not.

You've raised the fundamental question: what is conservatism?

Yes, I know, and wholeheartedly believe, that conservatism is a set of unchanging ideals ("immutable," as Rush likes to say).

But it seems to me there are only two conclusions that can be reached here:

1. Either there are not enough "conservatives" out there to cause the election of "conservative" congresscritters to cause the implementation of "conservative" policies (on issues such as immigration), or---

2. What you are advocating as an essential expression of "conservatism" (the rejection of amnesty) isn't.

Neither of those conclusions is pretty.