[hchutch]

The fact is, despite claims of the Left and the "real conservatives" to the contrary, George W. Bush has probably though through the aspects of his agenda, and he has come down on the side of items he feels are right and in the best interest of his country.

Furthermore, a lot of the way he explains things isn't a lecture, it's appealing to common sense - and most folks can see the logic of what he is doing, and they have a good sense that Bush is an honest person. They'll TRUST him. Furthermore, Bush heeds the advice froma fine man and fine leader:
"Good manners will open doors that even education cannot and will not. Even though you have strong feelings about something, that does not give you license to have bad manners."
Clarence Thomas, June 16, 1996 speech to students at Thomas G. Pullen Creative and Performing Arts School in Landover, MD

That's a lot better than can be said with Bill Clinton.

[RLK]

Furthermore, a lot of the way he explains things isn't a lecture

-----------------------

What has he explained?

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks for the ping to this excellent article. I have bookmarked it.

[My2Cents]

I think you nailed a big part of who Geo. W. Bush is. In Frum's book, and I think he says this, Bush isn't ideological. But he has a sense of what is right, or correct, or as you say, what is in the best interest of the nation. He is guided more by instinct and common sense than by ideology. So, he's going to run afoul of the "true believers" on the right, because Bush does not come to his decisions by the same path the ideological person does. But by his instincts, he will end up being "conservative" more times than not.

I've wearied of debating the purists about how politics and government operate. One needs to operate in the sphere of politics from the basis of values, and if those values are informed by a conservative philosophy, that is fine. But often one needs to be as much pragmatic as ideological in order to achieve anything. Reagan gets bashed for not being as ideologically conservative as he was often assumed to be. But a President has the opportunity to leave a legacy in one or two areas. For Reagan, he wanted to do three things: not only check, but bring down Soviet communism; reduce the tax load to unleash the engine of the American economy; and thirdly, to restore America's confidence in itself and renew healthy American patriotism. Everything else he pretty much ignored. He did all three things magnificantly. Some on this thread think that wasn't enough. I think they're warped if they think Reagan's accomplishments should be minimized. Bush, too, will end up doing two or three things very well. If he is successful in defeating Islamist terror, and has a hand in reshaping the politics of the Middle East, he will go down in history as a great President. It will be up to his successor (and us) to build upon what Bush accomplishes to achieve a greater conservative consensus in the country, and to achieve more conservative principles within government.

[JohnHuang2]

Thanks for the ping, amigo.