[Southack]

"In the mean time, as stated in the article, Bush has increase spending in unConstitutional areas to astronimical heights, established new surveillance programs that put Americans under greater governmental scrutiny than ever before, and has signed the CFR bill. He certainly ISN'T a Conservative..."

Nonsense. Congress increased spending. Sure, Bush could veto every budget bill and shut down our government. During wartime.

And he could devote all of his energies to fighting 51 Democrats in the Senate. Instead of fighting terrorists.

But sooner or later he'd have to sign a budget bill no matter how much he fought Congress.

What you want is for Bush to spend all of his time fighting Democrats in Congress (rather than fighting terrorists) so that you won't have to get off your butt to help make Congress see the light of lower spending.

Ergo, it is you who isn't Conservative.

Bush killed federal monies for foreign "family planning" activities. That's Conservative, and that's far more than you will ever accomplish in your life.

Bush withdrew the U.S. from the U.S. - CCCP ABM treaty. That's Conservative, and it is certainly more Conservative than your grand idea to fight Congress over the budget instead of paying attention to our national defense.

Bush got Congress, including a Democratic Senate, to fund our national missile defense system over their own objections to it. That's not only Conservative, that's some major political manuevering.

Bush got one tax cut for increased depreciation for businesses as well as another tax cut for lower income taxes for individuals passed. That's Conservative, and that's far more than Clinton/Gore/Buchanon/Phillips/Nader/Brown ever delivered.

Is current Congressional spending unConstitutional, as you claim above? No.

Are Americans and foreign visitors under greater scrutiny now under Bush than before, as you claim above? Yes. In case you haven't heard, we're in the middle of a War on Terror. Gee, you emails might be read by a software program in Quantico now. Oh, how I feel sorry for you.

Not.

[Eagle Eye]

You might want to re-read your reply to me. I'm sure that you didn't really mean to come across as naswty as you did becasue I disagreed with you.

Go back and re read the article. Although I doubt you'll see it, the author took deliberate effort to show that he didn't dislike Bush as a person, but disagreed with his politics. You stated that the author showed hatred and that is not true.

The things that Bush has done that are right are not, for the most part, remarkable, but we've grown wo accustomed to clinton that anything that isn't debauched is treated as a spectacular success. Cutting funding to foreign family planning, while a moral victory, doesn't stop abortions overseas and has virtually no impact on US citizens. It wasn't really a bold stroke, merely correcting a bad policy.

What this thread is revealing is that it is very hard to get civil discussion regarding Bush's position (moderate or conservative) and criticism of his policies.

We used to shake our heads in frustration over the clinton supporters who stood by their president through thick or thin. I don't recall ANYONE on FR praising them for their loyalty. Now we have people doing the same thing and putting on blinders and making excuses for half to two thirds of the president's policies while maintaining that he stands for Conservative policy AND getting personally nasty with those who disagree.