Endeavoring to Begin...Again.

Man, you guys had to come out with some bang-up intros, didn't you?  I seemed to miss the mark, so I'll endeavor to begin the begin again, but with brevity, so I can address your Bush comments as well.  Here's a bit more of an introduction:

Hi, my name Is Paul.  I'm married now for nearly twenty years and have two wonderful children, and that is all that is special about me.  I call myself a "recovering evangelical", for which I'd refer you to The Isle of Mulling for clarity (it's there, somewhere).  I also call myself a libertarian leaning conservative, which is nothing more than a Reagan Republican on governance and economic issues, and one who defers to personal liberty in everything.  In light of the Bush era, I believe that makes sense.  I'd say I have a hyper imagination and live in a constant state of flux (I flutter about in my interests) , which irritates the crap out of my family.  And that is the sum of everything one might need to know about me.

In regard to the posts, Endeavoring to Persevere:A Good Title for a Blog Entry and Why I Would Party With GW (Now), I thought it might be wise to qualify my own perception of Bush 43.  And I shall keep these comments short as well, for there isn't much to explain that hasn't already been said by brighter, more knowledgeable minds than my own.  The bottom line is Pres. Bush was no conservative.  Outside of the campaign rhetoric used to solidify his base support, there doesn't seem to be anything else to qualify him as one.  In a side-by-side comparison of the first term of the presidents since 1964 (Bush Beats Johnson: Comparing the Presidents), no one spent more money than George W. Bush.  He increased discretionary spending with each pork laden bill that came his way, increased entitlement spending with the Medicare overhaul, and spent enough money to destroy the budget surpluses he inherited from the Clinton era.  That just ain't conservative.  When you throw in the hubris by which the Bush Administration handled the weapons of mass destruction intelligence debacle, it's kind of hard for a conservative to hold his head up high when saying he voted for Bush (twice).  At the time, one might think Bush was the best of the two candidates running, but in hindsight, a conservative might wonder.

With that said, I can understand when you say you "don't have anything really nice to say" about Bush 43, Leon.  There are some nice things, but they can be overshadowed by the not-so-nice.  Cody, I can certainly agree with the "love-hate" aspect of your post.  I'm with you on that.  I'd like to contend that his presidency was better than the potential reigns of the other two guys, but the Clinton era seemed to turn out more conservative than Bush's, at least in my humble and uninformed mind.  Since perception is everything in politics, I guess that counts for something.

OK, now that should about clear things up, wouldn't you say?  (Yeah, clear as mud!)