Defending the Truth

Why do conservative pundits find it necessary to defend GW Bush?

It is clear he isn't a conservative, by any definition of the word. Aren't true conservatives for LESS government intrusion?

So, why? Why don't they just call a spade a spade, and say their boy isn't what they had hoped. In other words, why don't they just face the truth?

I would say that the ones that defend him(in government) are actually Neo-conservatives and have thier hands in the till too.

Possibly, but I was thinking more along the lines of conservative pundits, like Bill O'Reilly.

I was watching Bill Maher, and he had this woman on who is a conservative commentator. She seemed like a reasonably intelligent woman, but everytime it came around to GWB, she blindly defended him, even though what she was saying was clearly untrue.

Why?

Thats a really good question! I think I'll pass and let someone with a less liberal view answer.

Perhaps they feel like they still have to support him, as he is still the president and they are the ones who supported his election and reelection and they do not want to have to admit to their mistake as a collective whole.
I've noticed politicians never answer questions directly, they play around with words and skirt the issue when asked a question. I think it just points out that politicians, in general, are dishonest.
Fancy words and skirting issues goes back to the Constitution, in which slavery was never mentioned directly, which led to generations of Americans debating slavery, often violently, and led to our own Civil War.