Replies

TLB, take it easy. First, many of us (likely, the vast majority of conservatives) may be unhappy with Bush over amnesty, steel tariffs, ed., and most of all, CFR, but VERY few (the squeaky dozeon on FR) would actually desert him in an election because people really do have enough sense to know that no one can govern without compromise and lots of it.

I challenge purists who think Reagan didn't compromise all the time to read his own book, "An American Life," where he constantly complained about the "HARD RIGHT," and how they sabotaged elections.

There are two things at work here, totally unrelated. The first is 9/11, and if indeed (as many suspect) Bush sees not only this 4-year term, but his next, taken up primarily with confronting this evil that Clinton put off for 8 years, then it is likely he will "cave" on several conservative issues. (By the way, can we please understand that not all conservatives agree that "amnesty" is wrong; that CFR is bad; or that tariffs are dumb.) Nevertheless, Reagan gave in time and again (higher taxes in 1986, no killing of the Ed Dept., trade with the USSR) in order to militarily and politically defeat the Soviets.

I don't claim to know Bush enough to know if this is indeed his mindset, but it is a reasonable theory.

The second thing that happened was Jumpin' Jim. But even before Jumpin' Jim, we were pretty well screwed in the Senate. Lott is so incompetent that even with a 10 seat MAJORITY he'd be at a disadvantage. When Jeffords went, though, we have seen how now the Dems can make their own stupid 60-vote rules and bottle things up in committee.

Given that, Bush has brilliantly run rings around these guys, using executive orders on three separate occasions to reduce abortions; making the recess appointments; getting the tax cut through; and, for all its bad side, at least using CFR to likely ensure that the GOP gets a majority in the Senate. What they can do with it is anyone's guess, but I would bet if the GOP has a 3-4 seat majority, Miller and possibly Breaux would switch parties to get in the majority.

but VERY few (the squeaky dozeon on FR) would actually desert him in an election because people really do have enough sense to know that no one can govern without compromise and lots of it.

Hide and watch, my man.

Assuming there is an election in 2003, millions of principled conservatives will cast votes on principle.

We bought the Gore=death of Republic.

Now Dubya is doing it kinder, gentler version of the same; and without stains on blue dresses.

But, we won't get fooled again.

We will either not vote or vote our convictions. And Bush will fulfill his destiny - father and son - one termers

Well put and in the main accurate. Even I, who left the GOP two years ago, still consider myself an arch anti-Democrat and I will still vote, albeit as a non-aligned voter. I do believe, even in admitting that you are more than likely correct about my vote and the votes of a majority of "principled" conservatives, it would be pure folly for the GOP and GW to continue to take that vote for granted. The only reason a majority will continue to vote for the GOP candidates is because the alternative would be worse. But to be sure, the power brokers realize, that in every conservative the heart beat of hope springs eternal and just prior to the election they will sound the clarion call and many will answer. But, to be sure, each and every time compromise becomes the agenda for "political power" and action in the form of principled leadership is sacrificed, the heart beat will dim. Somewhere down the line the GOP leadership is going to have to take a principled stand.

tic.

The clock is definitely running.