The amazing thing to me is we see many here on OTB who praise the likes of both Gore and Kerry demonstrating their complete lack of the mental capacity to know the difference between winning and surrender.

The idea that human life is special predates Catholicism. Indeed, Protagoras said that "man is the measure of all things" long before Christ's time.

Most, although certainly not all, American conservatives believe in limited government including a very minimal welfare state and that the most vile criminals deserve the ultimate punishment.

And even the Catholic church, whose theologians did invent the just war theory, believe that going to war to achieve just aims is morally right. That the pope disagreed with this one is just one man's opinion.

Opposition to abortion and the sanctity of human life are cornerstones of conservativism.

This is so patently untrue James I am surprised at the audacity of the lie.

The Catholic church, which introduced the concept of the sactity of human life, opposes the death penalty, opposes the war in Iraq, opposes the nuclear arms race and opposes the benefit cuts, all of which are cornerstones of conservative ideology.

You cannot pick and chose which human life is sanctified James, you don't have that priviledge. And you risk your immortal soul by holding such immoral beliefs.

And again, no argument that neither of them have been particularly rooted in fiscal conservatism.

And your point about being one not equalling governing as one is well taken. To this point, I'd point out that this is not so much where they're coming from as what they're willing to sacrifice to go along/get along. They're both certainly more fiscal conservative than any Democrat in the field... however, that tends to get dumped more easily than I'd like for expedience.

Which of the two is more the fiscal conservative is hard to judge, given the elder didn't have nearly the problems requiring money, that the younger has. Thereby, apples and bowling balls get compared directly.

Unlike his dad, Bush is a genuine cultural conservative and born again Christian. His judicial appointments and his stances on those issues are rock solid. Otherwise, he hasn't done much to actually promote the social conservative agenda beyond lip service to religious based initiatives and the like. But, then, the country isn't really with him on those issues, let alone a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.

He is decidedly not a fiscal conservative but then he doesn't claim to be.

In 2000 Bush ran as the regular Republican candidate and it'll be rough for regular Republicans to get shed of his shortcomings. I take a certain amount of satisfaction in this since I've been speculating for the last 5 years that both Republicans and Democrats would be trying to run against Bush in 2008.

Two years ia a long time (heck, 8 months is) and a lot can happen in that time. What's going on now strikes me as hyperventilating. Bush could look a lot better by November. If he looks much worse, he won't be president.

All of which makes the efforts to label Bush as the new Hitler all the more laughable.