Replies

Maybe because in the early 1980's the country was sick of being burned by Carter malaise and thus was open to change. 2000 was a different situation, far fewer were willing to risk change. Further, things didn't look to good for Reagan at some points early on, with a rough recession taking place. However by 1984 the economy had rebounded, many of his changes had taken root, and most importantly most of the country credited him with that. He had earned their trust.

Bush is still earning trust, and more likely solidifying it. Would I advise him to take more direct conservative stances on several issues? You bet, but I'm not going to forget all the other things he has done for conservatism, nor the position he is in, nor the environment in which he is operating in, nor the hand he has been dealt, nor the cost of the alternative, nor the heavy damage of the previous 8 years that still lingers and flares up. I'm not going to abandon ship just because everything isn't going exactly as I would like.

Would I advise him to take more direct conservative stances on several issues? You bet, but I'm not going to forget all the other things he has done for conservatism, nor the position he is in, nor the environment in which he is operating in, nor the hand he has been dealt, nor the cost of the alternative, nor the heavy damage of the previous 8 years that still lingers and flares up. I'm not going to abandon ship just because everything isn't going exactly as I would like.

Admittedly, I'm painting Bush with same brush I'd use on the Rep Party and their abysmal handling of Clinton's impeachment. Add to that, Bush's signing of CFR, and other flip flops (Israel shouldn't fight terrorism like we are), and I see how it all infuriates grass root conservatives (in addition to myself) and I can not fathom the logic behind it.

He is perhaps starting with an patience deficit left to him from his father and the Rep Party during the Clinton years, but he is losing hearts and minds.