To me this goes in the, "well, duh" file. Bush is a proponent of interventionist foreign policy; expanded federal government; and an explosive federal debt. Of course he's not a conservative. But, he's very much a Republican.

Many of today's Republicans seem to be drifting away from true conservatism. Last month, the Republicans of Texas passed a bill increasing taxes on cigarettes to pay for future public school programs. The Republican's excuse for this non-conservative act was that they were concerned for people's health and were tired of seeing medicare/medicade spend so much money on people with lung caner. My attitude is this: OK then, fix medicare/medicade!! Don't raise taxes? And of all things to continue throwing money at, public schools? Is there anything more dead than public schools? I would certainly expect this type of legislation from Democrats. I understand what they believe and I respect them for it, even though I may disagree. But for Republicans to do this makes me throw my hands up in the air and wonder if true conservatives even have a voice anymore!

To the extent that there are very few "true conservatives" out there these days, they have no voice. There aren't enough to get a candidate through a primary, much less elected, in pretty much any arena.

See also: Communists without voices

"Many of today's Republicans seem to be drifting away from true conservatism." That presupposes that they were ever in the vicinity of true conservatism in the first place, and a very large number of them never were. And for many of the rest, the relevant verb would seem to be "sprinting", not "drifting". It's a pretty sorry state of affairs.

Yeah, ditto that.

You're correct! I was being too kind.

Expanded federal government for sure, but also expanded executive power unrivaled since FDR. Is an Imperial Presidency "conservative?" Is it "conservative" for Congress to willingly cede it's authority and ignore it's duty to oversee an executive branch whose management style seeks to dominate it and which has little regard for building consensus?

Note: that very last sneaky little bit comes from the definition of Authoritarianism in Wikipedia: "The term may also be used to describe the personality or management style of an individual or organization which seeks to dominate those within its sphere of influence and has little regard for building consensus."

Not that this excuses all the increase in Executive Branch power under Bush '41, but perhaps if Congress decided to take a serious role in fighting the war on Islamist terrorism--rather than using it as a stage on which to play political games--the executive branch wouldn't have to act so unilaterally. (And this applies to both parties.)

I rather see it as a power grab by the Executive Branch under the guise of a "War on Terror" with a Congressional majority that's all-too-willing to go along and a hapless (and I DO mean hapless) minority struggling to find it's voice, but I guess that should be for another thread on another day...