What they opposed, correctly, was dragging him in front of Congress to testify about the fired US Attorneys. We opposed Congress' attempt to usurp the President's Constitutional authority to hire and fire executive branch employees at will.

But, it seems, that Congressional Democrats only embrace the parts of the Constitution with which they agree.

Nevertheless, the ground you can defend has shrunk even more.

Yes, it was silly to say that. Everyone knows that George W. Bush is too lazy to do the work necessary to run for an third term.

Granted that occasional complaints indicate that not all Conservatives are mindless automotons for the Bush white House.

However, when George W. Bush demands protection from real accountability: Meaning Congressional hearings, with supoenas that would compel his staff to actually tell the truth, Conservatives fall in lockstep, 100% protective mode.

When AG Alberto Gonzalez actually had to testify, under oath, about his management of the DOJ, his incompetence was so blatant that no one this side of Sean Hannity coUld deny the man was not up to the job.

Imagine how many American soldiers would be alive or uninjured today had Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld been subject to true scrutiny for his planning of the occupation of Iraq. (Before the 2006 elections forced George W. Bush to "accept" the rsignation of the "Greatest Secretary of Defense in US History" (Dick Cheney's words).

As long as the Bush White House can count on that protection, the true magnitude of George W. Bush's incompetence will remain hidden from the public.

1) Medicare Prescription Plan

2) No Child left Behind

3) Harriet Miers

4) Alberto Gonzalez

5) Immigration Reform

6) Campaign Finance Reform

7) How to fight the Islamists.

To say, as you did, that conservatives agree with him 100 percent and would vote for him in the impossible situation that he violated the Constitution is simply silly. You need to review your history. That or just read a few dozen posts here where I've taken the President to task for something.

George W. Bush is the man Conservatives nominated twice for President. He is the man they defend, virtually unconditionally. George W. Bush is also the man, were he to choose to ignore the Constitution (again) and run for President in 2008, who would get 100% of the Conservative votes (again).

Declaring that he is "not conservative" is only the Conservative's way of denying any personal accountability for the man they have unconditionally supported in the past.

It will happen again in 2008. Conservatives will follow their 100% Republican loyalty for whomever is nominated, and pretend that he "will cut government" (though no Republican since WW II has), and that he "will keep the government out of our personal lives" (unless James Dobson says to do it).

Then, should we have a Republican President through 2012/16, we will get to hear the "President X is no Conservative" as Conservatives have fooled themselves again, as always.

And the required Conservative answer is "But Democrats will be worse". Of course, since George W. Bush, with a Republican Congress, has outspent even Lyndon Johnson, that is not true, but Conservatives will be required to believe it anyway.

It is required if you are Conservative to believe whatever the Republican party says is true at the given momemnt. Always.

So, socialsm is on the scrap heap of history? I guess you didn't see the Democratic debate last night.

Once an aberration, twice a trend.

It took socialism only one (admittedly huge) failure to be tossed onto the scrapheap of history.

Face it, guys. You have pandered to the religious crackpots for two decades. You created the monster. Now, it's on the loose. Ha! Ha! Now try to get the genie back in the bottle…