Having said that, however, I am not really sure it will make much difference to President Bush.
I support him. Voted for him. Gave money to his campaign.
I can not imagine not voting for him, if he is the candidate of the GOP against anyone the DemocRATs can field in 2004. He was not my first choice in 2000 in the primary contest, but the obvious choice once the general election was upon us. He will be the obvious choice in '004, but I will not have the same zeal in voting for him as I did last time around. Not that many "men" have met all or even many of my expectations, but GW, based upon what I have seen so far has been a bit of a disappointment on a number of my key concerns. I am beginning to learn that when we hyphenate any idea that it really waters down the concept.
Compassionate - Conservatism isn't Conservatism at all. It is "pragmatic" governance. Conservatism is compassionate at it's core and doesn't need to be further described.
GW seems to have learned the Clinton method of triangulation and is really put an improved look to it, in that he has been able to keep so many of "his" pragmatic base on the reservation and seems to be gaining ground with some of the folks that normally vote DemocRAT.
Let's get together and have an exchange of views after the GOP retakes the Senate and gains seats in the House. I will be anxious to see how GW acts when he has both the bully pulpit and control over the houses. But shucks then the '004 election cycle will be upon us and he will be talking conservative but walking moderate still.
My friend, I think Conservatism (fidelity to the Constitution as originally written) as a force is finished in the country. In fact I think it has been dead for quite some time and those that still cling to the conservative label while willing to look the other way when their "leaders" vote otherwise are whistling past the grave.