[Gumlegs]

Depends on how you mean what you say. Yes, I'm a conservative in favor of smaller government. Yes, I feel I can criticize what the President does (or how he does it), when I feel the criticism is warranted.

However, I will not join the "It's the end of the world" crowd who threaten to defect to the Libertarians or the America First Party or the Know-Nothings when Bush fails whatever the ideological purity test is fashionable this week. He's an elected official. He will never be ideologically pure. Reagan wasn't.

I find it irritating that Bush isn't as perfect as I am, but I'm going to live with the irritation because I firmly believe that every protest vote in the last election served to undermine the eventual victory Bush won. It's undermining his presidency today -- just take a look at what the Democrats are doing to his judicial nominations. And if Al Gore were in charge of the country right now, I'm sure we'd all be discussing just how many square miles of the United States would be enough to appease Osama. I don't want to run that risk in '04, either.

[BigTime]

However, I will not join the "It's the end of the world" crowd who threaten to defect to the Libertarians or the America First Party or the Know-Nothings when Bush fails whatever the ideological purity test is fashionable this week. He's an elected official. He will never be ideologically pure. Reagan wasn't.

But here's the problem: I don't think many of the people being critical here about Bush's actions in this case are the "end of the world" crowd you're talking about. I know I'm not.

The question is when is not appropriate to play politics with your ideology. Some things must be sacred. Tarrifs for steel would fall into the political playbook for me. Messing with the constitution is not in the political zone in my book.

So I think there is a MAJOR distinction that is being lost on many Freepers who want to paint with a broad brush all the critics of CFR.