[Joe Bonforte]

I'll give you #2 and #3. But I think I could make a pretty good case that his belief is #1 is rather shaky.

[Cicero]

I think he believes in #1, probably. But he also needs to stay in office and win votes for the Republicans, if he wants to accomplish anything else.

If you cast your mind back to Ronald Reagan's first year, you'll remember that he promised to cut government spending. He tried to do so for his first several months in office. He failed. He gave up, and let the Democrat congress spend as much as they liked. He cut taxes, but not spending, and the result was $2 trillion added to the deficit.

You can say he was handicapped by a Democrat congress. But if he had continued to fight them on spending, the probable result would have been an even larger Dem majority. He did the numbers, and gave up on that aspect of his program.

I don't blame Reagan for this; he did what he could. I'm just saying that presidents have to choose their battles; they can't do everything; and cutting spending is maybe the hardest thing of all.

[Publius6961]

I'll give you #2 and #3. But I think I could make a pretty good case that his belief is #1 is rather shaky.

Possibly.
But not if you accept that politics is the art of the "possible".

Unyielding principle is admirable but always on the outside looking in.
Unless a good leader is in power, principle is simply academics and often sophistry.

[expat_panama]

that his belief is #1 is rather shaky

At first glance what you say rings true (re- tariffs, miniscule tax cuts, increased regulation), but W's actual record is more complex than that.  He succeeded in cutting taxes not once but every year --a far cry from just promising 'no new taxes'. 

And above all, W's record has to be weighed not against some imaginary ideal, but against the probable record of W's rival.