Dear PV,

The writer was correct in observing that President Bush was not as conservative as is desired. Without reviewing the article, I submit, as others have, that Bush is running in the middle or the road politically. He is pushing conservative matters that he can get passed.

The split in the Senate precludes real conservative measures. The majority in the House is still not sufficient to carry strong conservative measures. His emphasis is on the 2004 election and is directed toward a majority in the Senate (65) that is sufficient to halt filibustering and a few more in the House to pass conservative legislation.

Take the prescription medicine program. Bush has preempted the democrats here. Too many political groups (AARP) are demanding free medicine (At 78, I can speak here). A huge taxpayer-funded medical payment program is the last thing we need. But if Bush is not reelected with the majority he needs, we have a major problem.

Henry Stringfellow

Dekom's Response: Republicans have this curious self-loathing which translates into the idea that if we run on our beliefs, we will lose. As a result our candidates run to the center, or in Bush's case, outright left.

Reagan faced far more daunting legislative odds, yet proposed spending that reflected our beliefs and used the veto vigorously when Congress did not agree. Polls show that even though being pro-life ignites a vocal opposition, it provides a marginal electoral benefit. Again, our strength lies in enacting our beliefs, not through some imagined ability to out-democrat the democrats.

[Mr. Stringfellow] suggests that if Bush is not reelected with a majority, we have a major problem. We already have a major problem in that the national GOP leadership has become a spendocracy that comes out strong for a socialist-lite agenda, and treats the fundamentals of conservatism like a mutant offspring. Not only is this an electoral liability, but an ethical one as well.