Then you are one of the people to whom the author was writing. Rather than read the Constitution and judge the president's actions by how they measure up to that document, you would rather sit back and trust him in everything he does. After all, if you can't trust a Republican, who can you trust?
This thread has been very enlightening. Bush supporters honestly don't seem to understand why constitutionalists and advocates of limited gov't are so disappointed in Bush. To them, he is doing pretty much what they would do in his position.
Especially telling is how they react to the question "What would you say if a Democrat were to say that no one should pay more than one third of their income to the Federal gov't?"
Most seem to see nothing wrong with paying 33% of their income to the gov't. One actually said he would congratulate the Democrat:) If we have a huge increase in the budget, well so what, the government must need the money or they wouldn't have made the budget so big. In short Bush supporters seem to have a pretty much blind trust in the gov't as long as Bush is heading it.
Hence, their inability to see why some of us would prefer Bush to follow his campaign rhetoric promising small and limited gov't.
Bottom line for me is the size of the federal government. If it grows as a percentage of GDP under his watch, I will judge Bush a failed president. This criterion has the benefit of being objectively measurable, with a well-defined metric. The other pros and cons listed by you and Southack have no objective weighting or metric, and the importance placed upon each will vary considerably from person to person.