President Bush called for a $7 billion energy bill. Last week Congress gave him a $12 billion bill. President Bush called for a transportation bill that did not exceed $284 billion. Last week Congress gave him a $286 billion bill. Both pieces of wasteful legislation will receive George W. Bush's signature. Just three Republican senators voted against the spendthrift bills. One of those senators is John McCain, the man many conservatives have designated as in-house enemy number one. Does not this say more about conservatives than it does about John McCain?

McCain also voted against the most egregious, big-government bill during the Bush era, the prescription drug plan. He voted against the Farm Bill, which he called an "appalling breach of our federal spending responsibility." "The paradox of McCain's politics," noted a recent article in The Economist, "is that he frequently clashes with conservative activists not because he wants to advance liberal goals, but because he wants to promote conservative ones." So why do party conservatives despise McCain? Certainly it's not his support of campaign finance reform. If party conservatives can overlook President Bush signing it into law, then they can forgive the man who attached his name to the ugly legislation. A more plausible explanation is that John McCain opposed George Bush in the 2000 race for the White House, feels free to criticize Bush's foreign policy, and often votes against the worst of the Bush legislative agenda. What explains the animus toward John McCain on the Right? Too many conservatives mistake Bushism for conservatism.

Yes.

That's why I chose to designate most rank and file conservatives as Bush cultists.

McCain was the Neocon candidate of 2000 who destroyed his candidacy when he took the advice of his handlers to attack Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson in Virginia and attempt to alienate the "religious right" from the GOP. He called for a secular politics of foreign interventionism and a more activist domestic politics as well (as cover for foreign affairs). Bush said Jesus Christ was his favorite philosopher and that the U.S. needed to act more "humbly" and avoid "nation-building." Many people who are conservatives voted for who they thought was a conservative, in the primaries and then the general election. But instead it turned out that the GOP just pulled a fancy trick of offering only an apparent choice in the primary since Bush turned out to be the neocon that McCain had already declared himself to be.

One can possibly argue that McCain went along with his neocon handlers as a political strategy to get elected not b/c of his convictions. Likewise, Bush may have picked the Reaganesque conservative route to the White House. Then post-election they reverted to true form. I dunno.

Of course the apparent lack of consistency on the part of both pols during the 2000 campaign and in the years since only further justifies my support of Buchanan back then.

Psssssst.... McCain fathered a black child. Pass it on.

I largely agree with Brian. The conservatives who wanted a candidate more closely associated with religion were disenchanted by McCain's non-courting. There went the nomination. Now he is seen as uncooperative with the party in its drive to consolidate power. The party has largely left behind a large part of its principles in order to hold power by buying votes with our tax dollars. For whatever reason, McCain is not taking part, and his party colleagues are angry over this.

I do think McCain was wrong on campaign finance, but I think he did what he felt was best.

Oh, is it Bushism to remember the Keating Five? Is it Bushism to remember that McCain has NO personal character? Would you want your daughter to marry the SOB?

Is it Bushism to remember that McCain uses every talk show on cable TV to pump up his own agenda at the expense of House and Senate Republicans? When has McCain EVER shown a desire to support Republicans as a political party?

The man has turned to garbage!

>>That's why I chose to designate most rank and file conservatives as Bush cultists.

Actually, that attitude demonstrates your position as an "anti-Bush cultist". You're knee-jerk reaction to anything "Bush" seems to be derision and opposition. Can you name ANYTHING good that Bush has accomplished while in office?

I can name several things of which I disapprove and so can most conservatives. I can name several good things that Clinton did while in office, can you identify anything that you condemned him for?

Projection is a common psychological malady of the left as evidenced by the charges that Supreme Court Justices who enforce the clear intent of the Constitution are termed "activists" by the left.

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but as a conservative/libertarian I feel betrayed by McCain in some ways. True, he votes for fiscal responsibility which I appreciate and respect, but he consistently votes to undermine Constitutional freedoms including both the First and Second amendments.

I don't despise him personally...I don't know the man...and Webster may very well be right in that McCain does what he thinks is best for the country. The bottom line is I disagree and, therefore, will not vote for him. It has nothing to do with animus. It has to do with philosophical disagreement.

Curtis: Since George Bush supported the assault weapons ban and signed McCain-Feingold into law, did you feel "betrayed" enough into not voting for him? If not, why do you hold McCain to a higher standard than Bush on First and Second Amendment questions? I ask this in seriousness, as I am trying to understand why the same folks who give Bush a pass can't seem to do the same for McCain.

I give Bush more of a pass than McCain because Bush is under more constraints than McCain. McCain freely leads the attack on the First Amendment through increased political campaign regulation; Bush goes along with it (perhaps because he cannot afford lower prestige among the mainstream and still advance his other policies--whether his practical judgement on issues like this are correct or not they are constraints he must consider).

McCain freely brokers an unneeded (and likely unheeded) compromise on filibustering judicial nominees. Bush feels constrained to finesses the situation. In 2000 McCain freely attacked Bush for speaking at Oral Roberts University-- a grandstand play to show his mainstream supporters he shares their religious prejudices. He later freely made remarks about abortion rights to an audience of rich people that showed that obviously were meant to have the same effect.

Whether or not you agree with Bush's view of foreign policy, those views together with his office and the rest of his domestic agenda create constraints that McCain does not have.

DocMcG: I trust McCain's convictions on abortion over Bush's. Besides, it remains completely up in the air whether the "compromise" that Graham and McCain were involved will be a good or bad political move for conservative judges. Besides, Bob Jones U. does deserve scorn for ITS racial/religious prejudices, no?

Bushies pretend Bush is under constraints he's not really under. Bush makes choices. He would rather fight about and then recess-appoint Bolton than the conservative judges (which would have made the "constitutional" nuclear option moot). That is a choice, not a constraint. Bush chose to support McCain-Feingold. Why, when Bush has a Republican congress, do Bushies pretend he is "constrained" in everything he does?

Psst.... McCain fathered a Vietnamese child. Pass it on.

"Is it Bushism to remember that McCain uses every talk show on cable TV to pump up his own agenda at the expense of House and Senate Republicans? When has McCain EVER shown a desire to support Republicans as a political party?"

The question is whether conservatism is pumping up the agenda of the Republicans as a political party. What politician doesn't pump up his own agenda?

As for Bush's supposed constraints. With the exclusion of McCain and a few others, almost all the Republicans in Congress are his lapdogs, so the idea that he is constrained and can't do what he wants is completely ridiculous. I can sort of buy that explanation for why Reagan did nothing to stop the growth of government, but it doesn't work for Bush.

The reason why Bush is supporting an unconservative domestic agenda (and for that matter an unconservative foreign policy) is because he isn't a conservative.

"Curtis: Since George Bush supported the assault weapons ban and signed McCain-Feingold into law, did you feel "betrayed" enough into not voting for him?"

Fair question. If, in 2004, there had been a competitive Republican Primary with a viable conservative alternative to Bush, I would have voted for the alternative in the Primary. That doesn't happen when there's an incumbent who is running.

In 2000, I didn't vote for Bush. I voted libertarian because during the campaign, Bush's answer to every domestic issue was basically the same as the Democrats: throw money at it. He has lived up to his promises and then some. This should have come as a surprise to no one. What came as a surprise to me, and made me feel betrayed, was his refusal to enforce border security, his pandering to illegal aliens, and the issues that you mentioned. Since, he betrayed all Americans by characterizing participants in the legal and Constitutional "Minuteman Project" as "Vigilantes".

However, in 2004, in my humble opinion, the most important issue was the security of our country. I believe that Bush reacted correctly and effectively to the terrorist attack on 9/11 (with the singular exception of certain provisions of the USA Patriot act). I would not take the chance of having the safety of my children and grandchildren entrusted to the likes of John Kerry...it's nothing personal...I just don't like his politics and I didn't like his rhetoric during the campaign. I think he did much to undermine the morale and effectiveness of the military during the campaign all the while trying to convince us that he supported them. I didn't vote for Bush because I feel "unbetrayed" by him. I voted for Bush because there was no viable alternative.

The short answer is: I DO feel betrayed by Bush in many ways just as much as by McCain and if there had been an alternative in 2004 I would not have voted for Bush.

But McCain voted against Bush's tax cuts and in favor of curtailing the First Amendment (the McCain-Feingold campaign finance "reform" bill). Bush may be no angel to conservatives in terms of his domestic agenda, but McCain is positively awful.

Curtis,

I'm not an anti-Bush cultist. I'm a conservative. I did support President Bush's reduction in marginal tax rates. However he is neither a good President nor a good man and anyone who supports him is not a conservative. The Bush cultists now -- Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter etc -- were formely anti-Clinton cultists. Remember? That's when nation-building, the Department of Education, immigration, and big spending were "liberal." Now they're "conservative."

Politics these days is just two contending personality cults. America: Theatre of the Absurd.

Marcus,

Reagan had to contend with a Democratic Congress and he was actually able to reduce the growth in domestic discretionary spending more than any President in the last half century. For this accomplishment President Reagan deserves credit. There are no traces left of conservatism in the Republican Party or in the broader conservative movement. Their concern is votes and/or money. They don't care about social issues, moral issues or the future well-being of this country. Every breath made in defense of President Bush is breath taken away from America's future.

Wilds just proved Curtis' point better than anyone else would have been able to do.

Ben,

I just gave President Bush credit for cutting taxes -- which I supported. Can't you read?

I have a feeling he was referring to these kook-to-the-max statements:

There are no traces left of conservatism in the Republican Party or in the broader conservative movement.

Every breath made in defense of President Bush is breath taken away from America's future.

I think Eric overstated, however he is rightly perceiving the party-in-power syndrome, and it is nonplussing. They are more concerned with maintaining power than with how to wield power for the best end. This will be their ultimate downfall, and we will see the liberals have another crack at it. I suppose it is just the ebb and flow of politics and human nature, but that's no reason to not speak up.

"I'm not an anti-Bush cultist. I'm a conservative...The Bush cultists now -- Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter etc"

I'll take your word for it and apologize for assuming you were a leftist. Admittedly, my evidence for such an accusation is meager as it is limited to my exposure to your political viewpoints on this blog. My mistake.

As far as the people you listed as being "Bush Cultists".

1) They are primarily entertainers. They enhance their marketability by being controversial and provoking spirited discussion. As a result, they frame their viewpoints in the most controversial way possible.

2) I don't watch or listen to Hannity on a regular basis but I do listen to Limbaugh about once a week and I religiously read Ann Coulter's columns (not because I always agree with her, but because I find her sarcastic wit very entertaining). I can say unilaterally that those two are NOT Bush "cultists". Neither has hesitated in the past to chastise and deride the Bush adminstration for policies that they don't support. Ann Coulter's two most recent columns have been dedicated to lambasting the President's nomination for the Supreme Court. I have repeatedly heard both Rush and Ann vehemently criticize the President for his policies regarding border security and amnesty for illegals as well as myriad other issues. I must admit that priase for the Clinton Administration was not exactly forthcoming from those pundits, but they are definitely not simply cheerleaders for the Bush administration. Your characterization of them as "Bush Cultists" leads me to believe that you don't actually listen to or read their product, but base your judgements of them upon what you hear from others.

" However he is neither a good President nor a good man"

Conservative or not, that statement supports my contention that you are an "Anti-Bush cultist". You are certainly entitled to your opinion that Bush is not a good President, but upon what do you base your personal animus against him? Do you know him and know him to be less than a "good man?". Do you have some inside information that leads you to believe that he has some evil intent or is not honorable? Or are you simply basing that judgement upon the assertions of the left?

i've always stated that the animosity directed at McCain is ill-founded. check the '08 posts. he's ardently pro-life and is a budget-balancing conservative. he would put up a good fight against hillary, who is becoming stronger and stronger politically with each passing week.

Sean Hannity doesn't frame his arguments to be "controvesial,"; he frames them in such a way to make President Bush appear as an infallible Messiah, an unimpeachable saint blessed with divine radiance, and those who disagree with him as devilish, little imps.

While Sean Hannity is definitely more devoted to Bush cultism than either Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh, there's no question that if a Democratic President were pursuing the same policies as President Bush that they'd heap much more scorn on him. If you read Ann Coulter's columns or listen to Limbaugh almost all of their rhetoric exists to defend the partisan interests of Republicans and especially George Bush. Making a few pro-forma comments about Bush's fiscal irresponsibility or a dislike of his amnesty proposal doesn't cut it.

A conservative -- a real one - has no partisan affiliation and will devote his comments to promoting conservatism, not wasting time in partisan bickering -- especially over a gigantic statist, anti-American liar like President Bush.

Now, I was hoping President Bush would defeat Al Gore in the 2000 election but since then I've had a sea change in attitude. When a President -- whether Clinton or Bush -- goes on television and lies right to my face then I don't consider him to be a good person. Bush is a liar and thus I have no respect for him.

Again, I can't speak to Hannity, you may be right about him.

You are entitled to your opinions about Rush and Ann, but I would contend that you are blinded by your own irrational hatred. On the whole, both Rush and Ann support the President and his policies, but the fact that they are not shy about criticizing him and his administration when they disagree belies your argument that they are "cultists".

As far as your belief that Bush is a "liar". You are simply mindlessly repeating the talking points of the DNC and Howard Dean.

If you are told by virtually everyone in the world that something is true, you repeat that information and act upon it. Does that make you a liar?

Don't try the transparent "he was told that Iraq didn't have WMD's" argument because that dog doesn't hunt.

We'll refine the question a little: If two or three sources tell you that the rest of the world is wrong and the information you are being given is false, should you base your judgments and actions on the preponderence of evidence, or on the two or three sources that tell you otherwise? If you are basing your decisions on the preponderance of evidence, even if that information turns out to be false and the two or three naysayers turn out to be correct, were you "lying"?

There is a big difference between being misinformed, misevaluating information recieved, or just flat out being wrong, and "lying".

The most honorable person in the world can be wrong sometimes. Even you.

Why do I distrust McCain.

McCain is to the GOP as the Democratic POarty is to National Security.

Okay!

Why do I distrust McCain.

McCain is to the GOP as the Democratic Party is to National Security.

Okay!