Bull...hockey.
I remember the debate here during the 2000 primary. A whole lot of Freepers were not happy with Bush because they thought he was too moderate. They were nervous about the whole "compassionate conservatism" thing. And it was readily acknowledged that he was more of a moderate than was his brother Jeb. We knew all of that in 2000.
This stuff about him going back on all his promises is a load of bunk. Aside from CFR and steel tariffs, we basically got exactly what we elected. Was "No Child Left Behind" something that we shouldn't have expected? He pretty much campaigned on that. And he told us he'd do prescription drug coverage as well. Again, none of that was a surprise, so to say he campaigned as a "conservative" and that he hasn't "lived up to his promises" is not accurate
In 2000, we were so terrified of the prospect of the CLinton legacy being continued by Gore that we valued electability over conservatism. In 2004, we had to go with the sitting President, and valued his position on the war. And that was after he failed to veto CFR, expanded the Department of Education, etc.
I'm not saying that we were right to have supported a moderate. I'm just saying that accusing the guy of going back on his promises is bogus.
History? I see many people here who can't seem to recall the last 12-24 months and countless filibusters. I want to know what the all those who erroneously claim to represent the entire base, led by Bork, Kristol, Coulter, etc. are going to do to tame the Senate...and why they didn't do it earlier?
Obviously the conservative movement made their case against Miers and obviously did a good job of it.
I would argue that a "true conservative" at least in the mold you appear to espouse, would never win an election as President. Witness Buchanan, Falwell, and even McCain in 2000. That's history. Bush ran as a compasionate Conservative, he won. It's a big tent, but Miers was very much towards the outside of the tent. Bush failed to recognize this.