"No" has a proud tradition on the Right. "It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones," observed Calvin Coolidge. National Review "stands athwart history, yelling Stop," William F. Buckley wrote in the inaugural issue of that flagship publication of conservatism. "My aim is not to pass laws," explained Barry Goldwater, "but to repeal them." Echoing this theme, Ronald Reagan declared: "Government isn’t the solution. Government is the problem." "No" helped elect George H.W. Bush when many still believed him a Reaganite. "Read my lips. No new taxes." Liberals believed making this promise was his biggest mistake. Conservatives know breaking this promise was his biggest mistake. Reports of the death of "no" on the Right are greatly exaggerated. "No" still lives, albeit more quietly for the time being. Jonathan Rees, a candidate for DC City Council, has plastered my neighborhood with refreshing signs declaring: "AND I WILL VOTE NO," referring to hikes in business, property, income, and other taxes.

Unfortunately, "no" is a word that rarely passes through George W. Bush's lips. He said yes to No Child Left Behind, the Prescription Drug Plan, the Farm Bill, nationalization of airport security, campaign finance reform, the assault weapons ban, affirmative action, nation building, federal funds for embryonic stem-cell research, amnesty for illegal aliens, the airline bailout, massive deficit spending, and increased spending for the National Endowment for the Arts, Mars exploration, and Americorps. George Bush has yet to say "no" to Congress. The last veto occured more than 55 months ago, the longest period without a veto since the vetoless time between the presidencies of James K. Polk and Franklin Pierce. The last president to serve a full term and fail to veto any legislation was John Quincy Adams. George Bush's refusal to say "no" is a major reason why surpluses have become deficits and the federal government has grown by nearly 40 percent during his time in office. One needn't look far to find conflicts between traditional conservatism and Bushism, the most obvious being their antipodal dispositions toward the short but excellent word "no."

I have great respect for the man's resolve and personal qualities, but zip for his fiscal restraint. I cannot argue with your assessment.

It is amazing that President Bush, a President who supposedly stands in line w/ the conservatives, acts like a liberal in a conservatives suit. He has signed more legislation thus expanding the apparatus of federal government. As stated, we have had surpluses blown away because of the tax-cuts enacted and all the legislation this President has failed to veto, therefore proving this President's inability to use fiscal restraint thus begging me to ask this question, Is he putting this unneccessary burden on the backs of future generations to come? I believe so.

We could've done w/out nation-building(which he said in 2000 he stated he was against), amnesty of illegal aliens, Mars exploration(I understand he needs a legacy like JFK's man will go to the moon.. laughable), and No Child Left Behind(I believe more children are being left behind and more will be left behind if we do not re-address this issue).

This President may stand w/ his party on social issues BUT doesn't stand with them on fiscal issues.

"It is amazing that President Bush, a President who supposedly stands in line w/ the conservatives, acts like a liberal in a conservatives suit."
You took the words right out of my mouth Old Ironsides. I especially do not agree with him on Amnesty for Illegal border-jumpers. Nice name by the way, Were you ever in the 1st Armor Division?

I don't understand the point of this Bushism/Bush-cult stuff. It's certainly true for a tiny portion of the Right -- the Hannity's of the world. However, the vast majority of people do not blindly follow the Godly Edicts of St. Bush. As Thom and Ol' Ironsides said, it's "resolve and personal qualities" and "social issues" which win Bush support, in addition to 1) tax cuts, and 2) his aggressive stance against terrorism. No level-headed person would applaud such nonsense as farm subsidies, for instance.

To most people, war alters priorities. In my view, this is why Bush gets defended so often on the Right. It's the same principle that explains why someone like Thomas Sowell would list FDR as one of his most respected Presidents. When I first read that (it was mentioned in a BookTV interview), I was puzzled; FDR obviously enacted some terrible socialist policies. But the reasoning is much more obvious and is simple common sense: FDR's leadership helped defeat one of the most evil, imperialistic regimes in history. Sometimes it's important to take a step back from the infinite intricacies of a debate and examine the big picture. When we do that in this situation, we see that Bush is determined to fight terrorism, standing in staunch opposition to appeasement. He does so more forcefully than most candidates would, including those with domestic policies I'm much more attuned to. In fact, this is why many people across the political spectrum support Bush.