Even BEFORE the 2000 primaries, I told everyone the same things I am now. That Bush is a compromiser who gets things passed because he allows bills to be watered-down or altered to get as many Democrats as possible on board. That's one thing when you're talking about Texas Democrats (most of whom still have a lick of sense) and another thing when you talk about Washington Democrats (who think any sign of weakness is something to be exploited, not negotiated).
He's "The Great Compromiser". Anyone who wanted to look through his record as Governor could find it.
Yes, he a damn sight better than Clinton. He got a (ahem...watered down) tax cut, stood up on Kyoto, didn't totally cave on fetal stem cell research and has prosecuted the war in excellent fashion. But, ultimately, he's part of the Bush-Dole wing of the party that, while not as despicable as the Jeffords-Shays-Chafee-McCain wing of the party, leave a lot to be desired when it comes to conservative thought and conservative principles.
The *real* question is this:
Do we want to be the majority party with no principles or the principled party with no majority?
I'll take the latter.
You are so right. With some conservatives its a all or nothing game, and if things are not done their way they will just stay home. Unlike the the Rats who just keep plugging away with small wins, we want it all right now.