"I think the government ought to allow employers to say to an employee ..."

Sigh.

And you people think this guy is conservative. Not only that, but a lot of you actually call him the "most conservative" president in [fill-in-X-amount-of-time].

A real conservative does not present ideas in a "government-ought-to-allow" construction. A real conservative thinks from a "government-is-barred-from" position.

A real conservative would say:

"Government has no role in the voluntary associations forged between individuals -- for instance, the associations between an 'employer' and 'employee.' Therefore, I'm setting out to eliminate the National Labor Relations Act and all the bureaucracy attached to it.

"America is the land of the free. I know you've heard that cliche so many times, it just kinda goes in one ear and out the other. But it's real. It's simple. Startingly simple, really.

"Over time, a lot of freedom has been taken away by legislators and others seeking power. So I know that a lot of you probably take for granted that one of government's roles is to regulate the way your 'job' situation is set up, and to manipulate the relationship between you and the individual who has agreed to give you money in exchange for labor. But the truth is, that's NOT one of government's roles, not in America.

"I'm sorry you've been misled over the years. But neither I nor anyone in Congress has any business telling somebody how they have to run their business. I mean, if you don't like your job, it's up to you to fix the situation, even if that means quitting. If your boss insists that you work 100 hours a week for no pay -- well, if I were you, I'd tell him to shove it, and leave. That's up to you -- not the government. This is the land of the free. That means you and your employer are BOTH free. The government doesn't have anything to do with either one of you."

That's what a real conservative would say. And that's why George W. Bush isn't a conservative, or even close to it.

Oh yeah, cue for Orrin Judd: Here's the part where you step in and talk about how Bush is being "politically" prudent. Maybe with a sentence tossed in about how this kind of rhetoric "plays" with the "electorate."

Tell you what. I'll buy that line of thinking -- that playing "smart politics" is more important than principle -- on one condition: that Bush plays "smart politics" right now, for this moment only, simply to ensure that he gets into office for four more years. And that during those four years, he actually does conservative stuff.

In other words, I'll grant the wisdom of pretending not to be conservative, only if it's for the sake of setting up four years of actually BEING conservative.

Tomas:

1. You're thinking of libertarianism, not conservatism.

2. Given that the government now prohibits these contracts, saying that the government should allow it is perfectly acceptable.

3. Are you sure that you want to take the position that, rather than push for achievable improvements in liberty, the President should insist on an absolutist agenda in terms that will be unacceptable to many voters?

4. Have you been listening to the left at all for the past four years?

Tomas:

What's prudent about the overtime rules?

"Campaigning in voter-rich Ohio"

Not all Ohio voters are rich, I know I am not.