[Republican_Strategist]

I have never argued that opposing Kyoto was a conservative position, but that alone hardly makes for calling someone a conservative. He nominated Whitman of all people who is basically saying Global Warming is a fact while he tripled the EPA budget.

Opposing the ICC would be conservative, but again it is another issue that does not mean the individual is conservative through and through.

Killing the ABM Treaty was a good move. Never said otherwise.

Ashcroft added the Second Amendment did not prohibit Congress from enacting laws restricting firearms ownership for "compelling state interests."

He supports a Clinton gun ban.

There are thousands of taxes to be killed - income tax would be a good one - but Bush hasn't seriously cut down on taxation.

The above article shows Bush agreed to $15 billion for overseas abortions.

[piasa]

Could the founding fathers pass your definition of "conservative," were they plopped into today's world as is- along with their slaves?

The federal government and the state governments infringed on the inalienable right of liberty - at least for persons of color and lily white indentured servants- for how many decades after the founding fathers signed the constitution, until a war put an end to much of the slavery they had not had the proverbial nads to deal with?

Does that mean the founding fathers were sellouts?

No- it means that those who loved human liberty thought the first order of business was to overlook that little nasty aspect of things called "slavery" in the interests of unity in order to rid themselves of the Brits.

If they had chosen to pressure the governors to abolish slavery first would they have succeeded or would they have been ignored? We don't know, but they probably wouldn't have succeeded.

Would they have been able to fight the Brits at all if they took an absolute stand against slavery and failed to get some colonies to go along with the rebellion?

Just curious.