Dean, I was being tongue in cheek about grumbling Conservatives. I am in total agreement with you when you say that Bush is a centrist. I was actually calling out quite a few of the RINO-riders out there, who are more to the right that John Cole is. I'm in no way baffled or angered. If anything, I'm quite sure that ANY of the Dem candidates right now would be more extravagant than Bush is.

That goes to the shallowness of political labels and the inadequacy of the simplistic "liberal" and "conservative" labels that American political discourses limits itself to. Economically, Bush is a corporatist, not strictly a conservative. He certainly isn't in favor of smaller govt, like conservatives claim to be.

Except for foreign policy where clearly Bush is anything but conservative. It's revolutionary. Perhaps not in substance but in baldness and scope.

"on all but a very tiny handful of issues, Bush is virtually indistinguishable on a policy level from Bill Clinton."

I'd love for Bush to make this statement the motto of his re-election campaign. "I'm just like Clinton."

"Bill Clinton make it the stated policy of the U.S. government that we needed regime change in Iraq, but Clinton was very supportive of the Iraq invasion when Bush was proposing it."

Again, it's hilarious that Bill Clinton is now the political model for Bush-defenders. All we need is for some GOP hack to approvingly cite George McGovern! Besides, you forget that the far left (which you seem to assume most Bush bashers must belong to) hated Clinton too.

Furthermore, we didn't need regime change in Iraq. IRAQIS needed regime change in Iraq. And there's a big difference between something being desirable and something being imperative enough that we must send in the military to make it happen. For 40 years, the policy was regime change in Eastern Europe. But we never sent in the troops to liberate Prague and Moscow. And they were far greater threats than Saddam's Iraq ever was.

"Bush is a moderate centrist who is actually to the left of his own party on several major issues, guys. He ran his entire 2000 campaign that way, and now you're baffled and angered by it? Did you, you know, even bother to listen to what the man said when he was running for President, or look at any of his campaign literature?"

This stuff makes me laugh. I mean, when Ralph Nader said there was little fundamental difference between the Gore's and Bush's positions, Republicans thought he was a crackpot and Democrats flew into fits of indignant rage. Now someone like you says basically the same thing.

Uh, how did Iraq get into this?

And who exactly is "someone like me," Brian?

Are you under some sort of illusion that I'm a conservative? Or a Republican? I am neither. Nor am I even really a centrist; my views are all over the map.

What I am is a liberal. It's just that most so-called "liberals" are merely reactionary socialists who repel me as much as the hard right. They are no more open-minded and tolerant than their political opponents, and a pox on both their houses. Ann Coulter is no more and no less vile than Michael Moore.

I am a "Bush defender" for one reason only: I happen to respect honesty, and I'm tired of the left's obsessive and shallow tendency to shriek "LIES!!!!!!" As tired of it as the Clinton bashers who tried to tell us that Bill and Hillary killed Vince Foster and dealt drugs out of Mena airport in Arkansas.

What gets me about people on the hard right and the hard left is their continual attempts to fit me and others into conveniently labeled pigeonholes. When will you guys, you know, kind of grow up and actually start talking about ideas?

In fact, what I really am is a liberal who believes in American incrementalism, and American exceptionalism. Who is repelled by people who think "patriotism" and "jingoism" are the same thing--and who is repelled by people on both the left and right who create that confusion.

So sue me.

I think while you can say there are many similarites between Gore/Clinton and Bush, it is still a stretch to say they are indistinguishable.

For one thing, Clinton's main attempt to bring about regime change consisted of lobbing cruise missiles at aspiring factories...he's was unwilling to risk his political life to make a real attempt at regime change.
Gore believed the Constitution was a living document that could grow to exclude the 2nd Amendment.
Big differences. There's more than that, but I don't have time right now.

“I am a "Bush defender" for one reason only: I happen to respect honesty, and I'm tired of the left's obsessive and shallow tendency to shriek "LIES!!!!!!" As tired of it as the Clinton bashers who tried to tell us that Bill and Hillary killed Vince Foster and dealt drugs out of Mena airport in Arkansas.”

The difference being that the anti-Clinton rhetoric was pure bullshit.

“In recent days, the White House has taken positions on international trade, foreign policy and campaign finance reform that seem to contradict the president's campaign stances, a number of political observers in both parties say.”

From: From Bush, Some Flexibility on Election Promises
Observers See Administration Changing Course on International Trade, Campaign Finance, Foreign Policy
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, March 25, 2002

And now it’s nearly two years farther from Bush’s campaign rhetoric on both foreign and economic policy (BTW, there’s nothing “centrist” or Clinton-like to run up giant deficits and untenable debt to pass on to our children and future generations). Perhaps you should get over “the left” and start looking for another reason to be a "Bush defender".

The big difference between the two is social issues. On most other things they are quite similar.

Nathan...proving Dean's point.

You do realize that Bush and Gore both support moderate gun control? In fact, their positions are virtually identical (trigger locks, assault gun ban, etc.)

Also, with regard to Iraq, Clinton (and Gore) both sought actively to get rid of Saddam. Unfortunately, the pre 9/11 political/social climate wouldn't allow an invasion. 9/11 was simply justification for a pre-existing policy put in place by Clinton.

I think you can make (and have made) a strong argument that Bush and Clinton are strikingly similar in terms of their policy accomplishments overall. I believe that they traveled substantially different paths to a related position, however--and I think that foreign policy is the one area where a difference in degree amounted to a truly substantive difference (and here I'm talking about post-9/11 Bush and pre-9/11 Clinton, so this comparison is more unkind to Clinton than he probably deserves).

Bush could not honestly campaign as "I'm just like Clinton," though, because on a personal level, the two men are almost polar opposites. This is very important; professed policy positions aren't everything; character matters.

Also, the comparison between Bush and Clinton on policy is substantially different from the comparison between Bush and Gore. To the extent that Clinton followed a coherent approach, it was DLC-type centrism that leaned somewhat left. Gore's not that guy--remember, he was the author of Earth In The Balance, which is rhetorically indistinguishable from the Unabomber Manifesto. Also, Gore endorsed Dean in the midst of his lefty-pandering fury, not a theoretical post-nomination Dean that was trying to tack back to the center.

Shep: The difference being that the anti-Clinton rhetoric was pure bullshit.

Bwahahahahaha!

Such a statement says far more about you than it does about either Clinton or Bush. ;-)

"In recent days, the White House has taken positions on international trade, foreign policy and campaign finance reform that seem to contradict the president's campaign stances, a number of political observers in both parties say.”

Yes. The President has admitted quite openly, and on numerous occasions, that 9/11 changed his views on foreign policy matters on a fundamental level.

Since mine changed in exactly the same way, I find this utterly unsurprising, and utterly forgivable.

BTW, there’s nothing “centrist” or Clinton-like to run up giant deficits and untenable debt to pass on to our children and future generations.

Here I laugh at you once again.

Clinton fought hard against Congress' attempts to cut spending and get the deficit under control. When he was re-elected in 1996, he was promising to balance the budget "within 7-12 years"--i.e. long after he actually left office.

He was as surprised as anyone when he managed to deliver a balanced budget by the late 1990s. But how did he do it?

Answer: he didn't do anything, because he didn't cut spending and didn't raise taxes--in fact, he lowered taxes. His great luck was that the economy massively expanded, and thus raised revenues.

Now Bush comes in and inherits a shrinking economy, and has a war on his hands.

Instead of playing these ridiculously stupid games of pretending that Presidents control economies, why don't you actually look at the policyi proposals and initiatives between the two? If you bothered to do that, you'd see very little difference between Clinton and Bush on domestic spending--except that whenever Bush diverges from Clinton, he's to Clinton's left.

Obviously, Shep, partisanship matters far more to you than facts or ideas. ;-)

Mike: The big difference between the two is social issues. On most other things they are quite similar.

Really? Do tell.

Clinton said he believed marriage was between a man and a woman, and signed the Defense of Marriage Act to prevent the courts from imposing gay marriage on the states.

Bush has refused to back the Federal Marriage Amendment, but since he sees gay marriage as a state issue, promises to back it if the courts try to impose gay marriage upon the states.

Bill Clinton said "mend it don't end it" on Affirmative Action. Bush went to court to defend some Affirmative Action programs, and oppose others.

Bill Clinton wanted to make abortion "safe, legal, and rare." Bush wants to "encourage a culture of life."

Clinton said he wanted to outlaw partial-birth abortion, but wanted to preserve the procedure if the mother's "health" was threatened. Bush wanted to end partial-birth abortion, but only if an exception was made for the "life" of the mother.

Clinton gave us "don't ask don't tell" in the military. Bush says "don't ask don't tell" is fundamentally sound and doesn't need changing.

Clinton backed a proposed Constitutional amendment to return prayer to the public schools. Bush has remained mostly silent on that matter, although he supports school prayer.

Clinton was very proud of his Baptist heritage and invoked God and faith on numerous occasions. Bush is very proud of his Methodism, and invokes God and faith on numerous occasions.

Clinton was/is a lifetime member of the NRA, supported the right to keep and bear arms although he backed the Brady Bill and similar gun control measures, but opposed national registration or bans on anything other than assault rifles. Bush backs the right to keep and bear arms, but has supported the Brady Bill, trigger locks, and other moderate gun control measures, but opposes national registration or bans on anything other than assault rifles.

So the big difference between these two men is on social issues, eh? Do tell. ;-)

Patrick,
Are you sure about that assertion? After all, there is a huge gap between "I'll sign a continuation of an assault weapons ban if it is put in front of me" (Bush) and "I will spend political capital to ensure the assault weapons ban is continued and expanded" (Gore).
Ummm, not direct quotes, obviously. Therefore, while I am not happy with Bush's failure to make even a slight gesture toward reining in spending, I'm not going around screaming about him "betraying conservative values". In fact, he's fairly close to my own opinions on many matters. He might be the perfect candidate for me, at least.
And shep, there is no difference in the anti-President bashing, since the anti-Bush rhetoric is also pure bull____. Once you get a little perspective on the issue, you'll see that the projections of "massive defecit" were no more real than the projections of "massive surplus". These things are all based on "If current trends continue unchanged" which is complete idiocy. So if you completely buy into it, that tells me something about you.
In fact, the spending freeze the President Bush is proposing currently, combined with the recent economic recovery which the deficit projections didn't take into account (because those projections were made before Bush's tax cuts brought about the recovery), would return surpluses to the budget within 3-4 years.

...there are some people who are saying Bush allowed/encouraged the spending increases over the last few years in conjunction with successfully bringing about the tax cuts precisely to be able to silence Democrats regarding the spending freeze (and cuts) that he is proposing right now. If his plan works, we may end up with a smaller government yet.

In any case, since everything he has done has been successful in bringing about what he clearly said he was going to do (or at least made significant progress toward fulfilling his promises), I'm willing to trust him on govt spending, as well.
(I'm sure many of you will insist he has failed at everything. I'm sure you will lack any evidence to back up your insistence, which would be typical)

Umm...you don't think Bush spent a lot of 'political capital' by signing on to the continuation? Give me a break!

And it is not an 'assertion' that their policies are nearly identical. Just do a little research.

But more to Dean's original post, here is an interesting bit on the motivation of Bush/Clinton hating.

Patrick,
I'm sorry, dude, but you lose a great deal of credibility just by saying Bush signed on to the continuation. Bush hasn't signed anything yet.
Or did you just mean by saying he would sign if it were in front of him? Yes, that did irk many people, including me and Kim du Toit and other like-minded gunowners. However, despite the irritation, it's clear that was a (failed) political move rather than a promise to bring about a bill continuing and expanding the ban. Wasting political capital (what Bush did), is not the same as spending political capital. Bush said that because he's fairly confident no such bill will ever end up on his desk, nor will he sponsor one. Do you really think Gore would not have pushed for such legislation to be introduced?

Your assertions are similar to some liberal assertions that people support liberal goals by not wanting people to starve, wanting to end racism, wanting to ensure our children are educated well. It is an implicit assertion that all that matters is the stated goal; your assertion ignores that methods also matter, andlimitations matter. Those goals are not "liberal", because it is not a conservative goal to starve people, to expand racism and ensure are children are unable to read, write, or do arithmetic.
Am I making sense?
Research may tell me that both Gore and Bush supported common sense gun laws. Research may tell me that Gore and Bush want fair taxation. Research may tell me that Gore and Bush both support the military and want to promote our national interest abroad.
So are they similar? Or would they interpret those basic goals extremely differently? If you think having Gore in the White House would mean being in the exact same situation we are today, I would assert that you are delusional.
We would not have had the economic-spurring tax cuts, we would not have removed Saddam from power, the Levant situation would be far worse, we would not have the Patriot Act, John Ashcroft would not be our Attorney General, we would not be publicly debating how much a President should trust or reveal his intelligence sources....

For good or ill (and I tried to include a little of both), it would clearly be a different world with Gore as President rather than President Bush.

I accept that Bush is a centrist. A true hard right conservative could no more get elected than a true hard left liberal.

But NEA?

Gore as President ??? What an deplorable thought. Has anyone listened to his out of office speeches. He's off the wall... He had to quit his own notion of re-running for high office, he got that idea right.

He rants, he raves about global warming and New York City is freezing their buns off. Then, he endorses Dean, the maniac from Vermont.

Can anyone tell us what in the hell, Dean's concession speech was about ?

Sorry, I had to get it outta my system.

“Such a statement says far more about you than it does about either Clinton or Bush. ;-)”

I think it means that I share your sentiment that the Clintons didn’t deal drugs or kill Vince Foster. Are you now saying that you think they did? Wouldn’t that mean it is you who cares more about partisanship than facts ;-)

“Yes. The President has admitted quite openly, and on numerous occasions, that 9/11 changed his views on foreign policy matters on a fundamental level.

Since mine changed in exactly the same way, I find this utterly unsurprising, and utterly forgivable.”

Oh yes, I can see why realizing that Islamic fundamentalist terrorism was a threat would change your view of steel tariffs and McCain/Fiengold. I can also see why you were ignorant of the threat before 9/11 but how do suppose POTUS missed it?

“Clinton fought hard against Congress' attempts to cut spending and get the deficit under control. When he was re-elected in 1996, he was promising to balance the budget "within 7-12 years"--i.e. long after he actually left office.

He was as surprised as anyone when he managed to deliver a balanced budget by the late 1990s. But how did he do it?

Answer: he didn't do anything, because he didn't cut spending and didn't raise taxes--in fact, he lowered taxes. His great luck was that the economy massively expanded, and thus raised revenues.

Now Bush comes in and inherits a shrinking economy, and has a war on his hands.

Instead of playing these ridiculously stupid games of pretending that Presidents control economies, why don't you actually look at the policyi proposals and initiatives between the two? If you bothered to do that, you'd see very little difference between Clinton and Bush on domestic spending--except that whenever Bush diverges from Clinton, he's to Clinton's left.

Obviously, Shep, partisanship matters far more to you than facts or ideas. ;-)”

Wrong again, Dean. Clinton started fixing the Reagan-Bush mess almost from day one (at least after finishing the recovery from the Bush 1 recession).

Deficit/Surplus Fiscal year as percent of GDP

1991 -4.5
1992 -4.7
1993 -3.9
1994 -2.9
1995 -2.2
1996 -1.4
1997 -0.3
1998 0.8
1999 1.4
2000 (estimate) 1.7
2001 (estimate) 1.8

Spending Revenues as percent as percent Fiscal year of GDP of GDP

1991 22.3 17.8
1992 22.2 17.5
1993 21.5 17.6
1994 21.0 18.1
1995 20.7 18.5
1996 20.3 18.9
1997 19.6 19.3
1998 19.1 19.9
1999 18.7 20.0
2000 (estimate) 18.7 20.4
2001 (estimate) 18.3 20.1

And, although Clinton lowered taxes when fiscal probity could sustain it, facing the transfer of $trillion of dept to our children and grandchildren, he would never have promoted permanently lowing the marginal tax rate in the top bracket, eliminating the estate tax and severely cutting capital gains revenue.

BTW, I agree that Bush is no conservative. Pure political opportunists aren't very ideological.

He who laughs last (more of sad, head-shaking snicker, really ;-)

nathan:
"Therefore, while I am not happy with Bush's failure to make even a slight gesture toward reining in spending, I'm not going around screaming about him 'betraying conservative values.'"

"failure to make even a slight gesture"? Wow. I think that's the most tactful thing I've ever heard. I'm awed.

I don't know, Sean. I guess I have to admit I'm pretty weird: I'll swear up and down I'm the most conservative of conservatives...but then I find myself with all these moderate views I can't explain away. So maybe I made the understatement of the century... One of these days I will face the reality that I'm just goofy.

...All we need is for some GOP hack to approvingly cite George McGovern! Besides, you forget that the far left (which you seem to assume most Bush bashers must belong to) hated Clinton too...

Well, look at how many "fiscal Conservative" RINOs mouth platitudes about one John Fitzgerald Kennedy?

The times, they are a changin!

Your ridiculously partisan use of numbers is rather telling, Shep. You take ridiculously simple-minded assumptions, and generalize broadly about the political party you like, and the one you don't, as a result.

I mean, you're willing to bloviate--like a squawking partisan hack--about the recession Clinton inherited, but not willing to acknowledge that Bush inherited one?

You're willing to talk about deficits, but not the actual policy proposals to fix them?

Once again, you say far more about yourself than you do about any of our Presidents.

You are a partisan hack. In fact, you are very much like Ara Rubyan: Democrats Good. Republicans Bad. Nothing more need be said, for that is the automatic response to everything.

It mostly amuses the rest of us. Just so you know. ;-)

"And who exactly is "someone like me," Brian?"

As I hoped was clear but perhaps wasn't...

"someone like [you]" is someone who I doubt supported Ralph Nader in 2000.

Re-read the whole paragraph with this context and hopefully it will make sense.

"Ann Coulter is no more and no less vile than Michael Moore."

I would say you're 1000% right but the math major in me won't let me. But let's say you're absolutely spot on.

"I am a "Bush defender" for one reason only: I happen to respect honesty, and I'm tired of the left's obsessive and shallow tendency to shriek "LIES!!!!!!""

Well, I happen to respect his willingness to take a stand. I wish politicians on the left had that spine.

I just think the stands he chooses to take in foreign policy are horribly reckless. You probably disagree with me. So be it. I may respect someone I disagree with, but I'm not going to defend policies I not only disagree with but think are dangerous.

If you read my blog, you'll notice I've never called the president (or vice-president) a liar. I've never called them scumbags or war-mongers or thieves or morons or anything of the sort.

Heck, I've never called them Dubya, Dick, GW or anything other than "the president/vice-president" or "President Bush/Vice-President Cheney."

(I do refer to the Secretary/Department of War but it's a commentary on how the department has been used not on the man who happens to be its head)

I don't have much good to say about the administration, but I focus on their policies. The rest (like the president's academic, or even military, record or "Dr Duck"'s yell) is of no relevance to me.

Brian:
"That goes to the shallowness of political labels and the inadequacy of the simplistic "liberal" and "conservative" labels that American political discourses limits itself to."

True.

Dean:
"What gets me about people on the hard right and the hard left is their continual attempts to fit me and others into conveniently labeled pigeonholes."

True.

Dean:
"Are you under some sort of illusion that I'm a conservative? Or a Republican? I am neither. Nor am I even really a centrist; my views are all over the map."

That describes me totally. Most of the Right hates me because I'm pro-sex. Most of the Left hates me because I'm pro-gun (and because I'm pro-sex). The Middle doesn't like me because I'm an extremist. I'm off the one-dimensional spectrum altogether!

Well, nathan, even if we believe that government spending should be trimmed, we're all less affronted by funding for programs we like than for programs we don't.

Steven, you're only going to be pro-sex for so many years..then it all goes bye-bye.

I can say one thing that is really true. Dean is all over the map as are most of these posts.

And that's why Michael Savage, that great radio
talk show commentator defines liberalism as a mental disease.

And now back to pet idea of the hour.

I did not vote for George W. Bush in 2000 because I thought that he was too far to the left, a RINO. I will be voting for him in 2004.

What most conservatives who are unhappy with Bush are missing is a sense of history. We've had decades of government expansion based on a script of solving societal problems through government action without accountability. Conservatives have been getting their heads handed to them for decades trying to reverse the growth of government because they've been trying to replace something with nothing.

What GWB has discovered is a method for defanging the defenses around these programs so that they are no longer impossible to assault. He is establishing a culture of expectation that will be friendly to the next Reagan, the next Gingrich, who wants to dismantle programs because the competition and performance standards this administration is putting in will make sure that the general public knows how badly government is serving them.

If we had defanged these programs in the 1980s, we would have been dismantling them today as their defenders ran out of excuses. Instead, we had a decade of bloody political casualties where conservatives tried to dismantle departments and suffered for it electorally.

All I hear from conservative detractors is a call for a return to the failed tactics on spending that marked the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Why should we go back to those tactics when we know that we won't win on those terms?

When conservatives come to terms with the fact that the old tactics don't work and come out with a better way, I'll be ready to jump ship on Bush. I don't see that happening.

This is a great post. When Bush was running for President and all the conservatives were absolutely ga-ga over him I kept trying to point out he was a moderate to no avail.

He campaigned in 2000 on the very things he's done in the last 3 years, aside from the war on terror, which no one thought about until September 11th.

He ran around the country touting his ability to bring Dems and Reps together, ala Texas, as a uniter, not a divider.

Once elected, he joined with Ted Kennedy on education legislation as one of his first big issues and conservatives have a collective cow. Why??? He was clear all along about his plans and goals.

Conservatives were so desperate for a win in 2000 they deluded themselves into thinking that Bush was the ticket to heaven when all the while he was contradicting that with every campaign speech.

I still don't get the conservative rage. He's delivered exactly what he said he would.

I am a liberal-conservative. I believe in the best of each. I am formost an American and lover of this nation. We were blessed by our founders with constitution upon which this nation was founded.

Belonging to a political party is no more than that. It does not mean that everything that party says or does is right...no party, no person, no company, no union, no government, is alway right nor are they always wrong.

We must all, each and every one of us must do our best to guard and protect our nation, quibble we may, but do not hate each other because our egos are wounded.

Tell the truths about known facts, and lets discuss the issues, pretending we're grown-ups

Dean,

"Clinton said he wanted to outlaw partial-birth abortion, but wanted to preserve the procedure if the mother's "health" was threatened. Bush wanted to end partial-birth abortion, but only if an exception was made for the "life" of the mother."

Your other points weren't bad, but this one flatly contradicts your thesis, despite your phrasing. The problematic definition of "health" in the abortion context has been around since Doe vs. Bolton (the companion case to Roe vs. Wade, issued by the Supreme Court on the same day). The definition of a "life" exception is straightforward--a doctor must determine that the continued pregnancy will likely kill the mother, as in an ectopic pregnancy, for instance. A "life" exception is generally viewed as the most stringent restriction short of outright banning under all circumstances. "Health," however, can include claims of depression or other mental/emotional disturbances, and in the real world means "open season--no limits."

So, actually, the Bush and Clinton positions on this topic would be better described as "almost diametrically opposed" rather than "similar."

Ahh! The perfect environment for a hard slantside, back-wing, dictator-type like myself to win the presidency!

Catch-22:
"Steven, you're only going to be pro-sex for so many years..then it all goes bye-bye."

That may be. A few more decades, as I've almost 50 now. And, then, at that point, I would cease to be pro-gun as well, as my fingers will then be cold and dead. And then... Well, I'll just have to see what Anubis has in store for me....

The title of this post: "Conservatives Amuse Me" I'm glad Dean has such a good sense of humor. The only conservatives today that I can think of who amuse me are Ann Coulter and John Derbyshire. Maybe Rod Dreher and Howard Veit and a few others. The conservatives of my day had more _style_. J. Edgar Hoover. E. Merrill Root. Rev. Dr. Billy James Hargis. General Edwin Anderson Walker. Rev. Dr. Carl McIntyre. Major Edgar C. Bundy. Myers Lowman. C. W. Burpo. John W. Biggert. Howard Kershner. Verne Paul Kaub. Dan Smoot. Robert Welch. Gary Allen and Alan Stang. Dr. Medford Evans. Dean Clarence E. Manion. Norman Dodd. Whittaker Chambers. Frank S. Meyer. James Burnham. Willmoore Kendall. I must confess that I love the _NAME_ "Revilo P. Oliver" (too bad...).

Am I disappointed with Bush? Yes. Am I angered by some of his policies? Yes. Did I expect better from this administration? Not really. Do I feel betrayed? Not at all.
I only supported Bush in 2000 because a continuation of Clintonism combined with radical enviromentalism as personified by Gore was too much to bear. I'm not sure I'll support him this year. If one of the current crop of Democrats gets close, I'll consider it self defense. Bush is hardly a conservative but that's not too surprising. The GOP has not managed to find a decent candidate since Reagan,
Bush has only two advantages over Clinton. He does not consider foreign policy as a way to distract voters from domestic scandal and he has avoided nominating hard leftists to the bench. In all other matters they're pretty much alike. I dispise Clinton and my opinion of Bush is not much better.
I'm glad we conservatives amuse you Dean, we haven't accomplished much else in the last 15 years.

I remember Bush campaining and thinking to myself "I hope to God the man's lying his ass off". When he promised to push through a massive expansion of Medicare, I clung to the hope that he didn't really mean it, that he'd conveniently forget the whole thing or try to deniably torpedo it once in office.

I guess conservatives could tell themselves that maybe their guy was playing to the crowds because we'd gotten used to Clinton :)

Anyway, my hopes were dashed, and Bush meant every word of his stated intention to boost funding for all sorts of things.

WTF???? Whoever on his right mind ever thought that Dubya ran as a Conservative?

From day one, I knew that he wasn't a conservative--heck he didn't even claim to be one. That what I *didn't* like about him. My preferred candidate was Phil Gramm. Who, alas, got his head handed to him. Face it, as Dean said, a pure conservative will never get elected in the current political climate, because the people (you know -- the ones that vote) want the government to provide too many goodies.

So, I kept in mind Thomas Sowell's famous saying: "We can only choose among the alternatives that are actually available, regardless of the alternatives that we wish were available but aren't."

Bush fulfills that nicely.

The Republicans picked Bush for the same reasoning that Dems are using for their increased interest in Kerry. Bush was, alas for those of us who didn't support him in the primaries, the only one who would acceptable to centrist types. I would have prefered Alan Keyes or Forbes myself.

What really makes me laugh is idiots like Soros going on about how "extremist' the Bush White House is...

Andrew, the Bush White House is very radical in terms of foreign policy. As for the rest, they're fairly ordinary Republicans.

Alan Keyes, now he's an example of what how political debates used to be conducted but sadly aren't anymore.

Though it's worth adding that if the president got a moderate vice-president instead of Cheney, then his foreign policy might become more reasonable too.

Carter was a lousy President, but he did come up with one good idea while he was running in 1976: "zero-based budgeting", i.e., periodically reduce all budgets in the federal executive branch to zero, and then force every department or agency to justify any budget higher than that. The burden of argument would be on them, not on the taxpayer. If Carter had implemented _that_ program, we'd have a balanced budget or a surplus today, and much less government.
Of course, it never got off the ground because too many interests got in the way. That's politics. Too bad.

"Bush could not honestly campaign as "I'm just like Clinton," though, because on a personal level, the two men are almost polar opposites. This is very important; professed policy positions aren't everything; character matters."

The difference between Bush and Clinton is that, if Bush were like Clinton, he'd be doing with Condi what Clinton did with Monica. (I opposed the impeachment because government has no business in his bedroom or mine, but anyway...) That's where I'm like Clinton -- but with two differences:
1) If it was me, it would be the other way around, I would be doing for Condi what Monica did for Clinton.
2) If it was me, Condi would be my wife while I was making love to her.
And I would have married her in Virginia. Because the same people who are today denouncing Lawrence and Garner vs. Texas were denouncing Loving vs. Virginia in 1967, and for precisely the same reason, and using precisely the same arguments.

hey there.. new here. I have a few thoughts that I want to add to the discussion. To get a better idea of where I stand you can read by blog.

Bush is a new beast. I dont see why people would see him as a conservative, a political ideal that has SOME currency, though clearly inferior to liberalism. Bush represents a stealth-like wing of the GOP that hides behind conservative rhetoric to really promote a corporate friendly goverment environment. Its powerful because it represents a strong funding arm. Clinton, went after that funding base with his "new democrat" policies. Bush is an extension of Clinton regarding policies that gives corporate America the tools they want to boost profits; albeit with a little different approach.

Bush is not easily labeled. I would say his main driving motivation is political power. He'll do what he needs to to get that power. If that means playing to all sides while making phony overtures to conservatives then thats what he'll do. We can bet his five year budget will be a token gesture to fiscal conservatives. Another wink wink nudge nudge like they got in the 2000 election.

When Bush talked about compassionate conservatism, I though he meant that he wanted to accomplish the liberal agenda using conservative policies, like welfare reform of the 90's. What we see here is just leftist social programs and spending.

Does it not scare anyone that Bush is projecting to reduce the deficits in half in a few years. Of course, that depends upon no new big wars and the economy keeps growning. If both of these assumptions are wrong, we could be staring at a trillion dollar deficit!!!

Republicans are supposed to be about fiscal sanity. This lifelong republican may very well hold his nose in Nov. and vote for a Dem.

Dean is right. When he ran for office in 2000, Bush never pretended to be more than a conservative-with-an-asterisk. Everyone knew that at the time, but voted for him anyway because things had lurched so far to the left that half a loaf was all we could realistically hope for. Now we've gotten spoiled.

Tallan's idea of deliberately helping a liberal Democrat get elected is uncommonly silly. Even the "moderate" Bill managed to cause a good deal of trouble for conservatives. John Kerry, who doesn't even pretend to be a moderate, would only be worse. The only rational thing for conservatives to do is to re-elect Bush now, and to make a better choice in the 2008 primary.

Bush is lurching even closer than ever now to supporting that ----ing Federal Anti-Marriage Amendment. "If necessary", he says. If necessary to get the support of the radicals? There's absolutely no way he'll get my support if he caves in to them, which he is already doing. He has to turn around 180 degrees, turn against them, if he wants my vote. Which is not likely. No matter what he does on the military front, he won't get my vote if he surrenders to the Enemy at home.
And Tallan is right about spendthrify government, opposition to which used to be the defining characteristic of Republicans. Bush is a fiscal liberal and a Constitutional radical.