Replies

I voted for President Bush because I thought he was a principled Conservative leader.

Well, that was your first mistake.

George W. Bush had a clear record in Texas of compromising with the Democrats to get some of his agenda passed. He called himself "A uniter, not a divider" and used the term 'Compassionate Conservative' that (we all hated but) rang true with the middle. What ever made you determine that he was a 'conservative leader'? He never claimed that.

Bush does holds some conservative principles (right to life, tax cuts) but stopping the growth of government - if that's even possible for a President to accomplish any more - is not one of them. The War on Terror is guaranteed to expand the government so that's a no-brainer at this point.

Yes, CFR stinks, the education bill was a waste of money and the tariff bill was poorly advised. Flash: President Bush isn't Pat Buchanan, which is how and why he was elected. He's not a conservative leader, he's a compromiser but he's the best we're going to be able to do in the beginning years of the 21st century.

This is now a nation of people - many millions of them recent immigrants - who expect 'government' to 'do something' about everything. The liberals still control the media (although that control is slipping more with each passing year) and the Democrats control the Senate. The Senate stalling of his conservative judicial nominees is a good example of the fact that Bush isn't a dictator, he can't simply decree things, he has to compromise.

George W. Bush isn't 'a pansy' because he doesn't throw his presidency away by attempting to do the impossible; turn the country around from years of entrenched liberal policy and programs with a hostile media and no real mandate.

It's easy to sit on the sidelines, pick the Presidential political act that isn't 'conservative', make a list and then call the man silly schoolyard names. Many here do just that and feel pretty good about themselves in the process. Accomplishes nothing.

I take President Bush as I find him. He's a good man, politically about 10 times smarter than Clinton and 100 times more so than his father. He was elected by a whisker, he knows that half the county is not 'conservative' and he does a balancing act; he doesn't give the Democrats all they want but he doesn't cave on every issue, either.

I believe his goal is to appear fair and reasonable to the mushy middle voters that actually elect people. That President Bush doesn't do everything I would like him to do doesn't make him a 'pansy', but like me, you're entitled to that opinion, for whatever good it does you.

I see Bush as a good man with a terrorist war on his hands - and he needs our support. You apparently see him as some White Knight of conservativism that fell off his horse. I think that's a very skewed view of Bush, the politician.

So, you may call him names like 'moron' and 'boob' if it makes you feel better (the Democrats do exactly the same - they love it when 'Bush voters' like you gleefully join them) but I'll bet you couldn't do much better in his shoes. Hey, we can all fantasize about how we would fix everything immediately if we were President. So what? We aren't, George W. Bush is and he's doing fine under the conditions he has to work in and with.

I believe Bush's huge, sustained popularity will help Republicans to gain seats in Congress this November and that will be a big help to conservatives, and President Bush.

Bush, the politician

bush is not a conservative white knight, as much as we all hoped he might be.

He's a politician, nothing more, nothing less.

We all need to decide for ourselves if being a politician and a menber of the "R" party is sufficient reason to vote for a candidate.

If what you want is a conservative white knight, vote for one, do not vote for a politician.

If on the other hand, you feel that you can vote for anyone who has an "r" next to their name, because that is the only way to get the perceived power of majority, then vote for the politician.

Jim, you make some valid points, however I notice that you totally failed to acknowledge and respond to the fact that the Government has grown more in Bush's two years than in all eight years of Clinton. George W. Bush is NOT doing all that he can to do what is best for the country. Signing legislation that he himself admits is unconstitutional is totally unacceptable, and I cannot, and I will not support a politician who willfully spits on the most sacred document of our nation. He says he is for "local control" of schools, yet his education bill did the exact opposite, swelling the power of the Federal government and reducing the power of local communities to run their schools the way they see fit. The fact that he does not have a "mandate" is totally meaningless. What do you mean he'll "throw away his presidency"? Is his job to lead the nation, or get re-elected? He needs to adhere to the principles upon which he ran, and the simple fact of the matter is that he isn't, and hasn't. He claims to support free trade, and signs a tarriff on steel! The list goes on and on. He says one thing, and then turns around and does the opposite. I'm sorry but he already is throwing away his Presidency, because he repeatedly betrays his base. Sure, most of them will probably begrudgingly vote for him, because the other choice is worse. Will we ever get a real Conservative leader? Doubtful. We get people like Bush who actually give a damn if the media whines about what he does. Reagan pushed his agenda forward with the media wailing all the way, and in the end he accomplished some of the greatest things in this nation's last 100 years. You can say what you want, but George W. Bush is a poor excuse for a Conservative, OR a Republican. I can barely tell him apart from a Democrat.