I feel that I should help the liberals out a little and put down a bit of what I don't like about our current crop of conservatives, including GW. I think it comes down to pandering to the lowest common denominator for votes, to make a long story short. They are gutless.
Bush put forth some great agenda items during his campaign for a second term: reform the tax code (i.e., a flat tax or some other massive restructuring of the code to simplify the tax system and make it more fair for all taxpayers), reform social security (although this goal in itself is a good example of the attitude which I am condemning-social security should be abolished, not reformed!), end lawsuit abuse, and close bankruptcy loopholes so that duty-shirking morons will need to pay for what they buy. Now, we all know that liberals want people to get stuff for free (that is, they want the government- taxpayers- to pay for it) and they want people to be held unaccountable for bad decisions (you know people are just mindless idjits, controlled by every advertisement they see on the tube and slaves to corporate megalopolies). This means that any real, meaningful reform of these systems would be opposed tooth and nail by the Democrats anyway. Why not use the power of the bully pulpit and go for the gusto?
During the months after 9/11 Bush had a most prodigious bully pulpit to use. He was immensely popular and should have used this to his (and our) advantage. Did he? Absolutely not. He has yet to use a veto! He worked with Ted Kennedy to co-opt a sensible education reform bill into a money-sponging nightmare. He campaigned for and celebrated a medicare reform bill that furthers, rather than fetters, a leviathan government boondoggle. All the while he has watched and said little (veto, anyone?) while congress has continued to increase both the size of government and the cost of those "services".
Yes, you say, but this is because he has been preoccupied with a war. The War on Terror. Let's look at that success story. It all started with "Shock and Awe", right? Where did that go? We are concerned about civilian casualties beyond reasonable belief. The most precise, pin-point accuracy in bombing achieved by any military in history is apparently not good enough to the world and it's US liberal cohorts. To them we will always be the colonialist bad guys, no matter what the engagement. Can you tell me what lessons we learned from Vietnam? Again, since the liberals will always criticize, regardless of the humane nature of our actions, why not do the job right? How much criticism do you hear from the world, liberals and muslims, when the terrorists bomb a mosque in Iraq? Not a peep! How many accolades do we get from these same quarters when we wait out bloodthirsty murderers in Sadr City/Fallujah for months, rather than squashing them and their terrorist-harboring citizens as they deserve? Not a peep! Go for the gusto.
Now we see Bush's opportunity to place a strict constructionist on the bench of the Supreme Court. He places a guy, John Roberts, who has apparently lived for fifty years without saying or writing anything at all controversial see Ann Coulter. After hearing what liberals will condemn, with absolutely no reasonable justification, why wouldn't you use this opportunity to place a solid constructionist on the bench? No, let's choose a guy the libs can't complain about, even if he turns out to be a Souter in disguise! Very disappointing.
So, as this screed is getting far longer than I intended it to be, I will close by saying that conservatives need to get on the stick! Seize the day! It may not last long this conservative majority. We need to enact lasting change, now! That may mean hurting the feelings of some of our liberal friends, calling a dingbat a dingbat (Ted Kennedy, anyone?), and perhaps actually killing some terrorists (and maybe even some collateral damage among those not pointing them out in their neighborhoods), but I think it's worth it.