So Harriet Meyers would have been better than someone Gore would have picked? Dont be silly!
As a matter of policy? Not much. But that doesn't change that they believe a more conservative approach to government is wiser. That Bush is no conservative (other than religiously) is something they should have seen before they voted for him again, but that was Kerry he ran against that time so you must not be talking about that time...
I personally voted for Bush that first time because I knew his selections for the SCOTUS would more align with my opinion than Gore's would.
But then, I've told you this before.
Harriet Miers is not on the court, nor do I think she was ever put forward for serious consideration. I think it was done to contrast with John Roberts. I noted particularly that his position on abortion was hardly brought up compared with Justices from the past.
Not very hard. For a President who has totally ignored such stuff and pushed on in the past, how quickly he gave up on that one pretty much showed me what he did. And the relatively quick approval afterward of Roberts pretty much showed me it worked.She was his choice, he nominated and fought for her!
You can keep on with somebody who is not on the court, but it is clear that the choices he made are better than the choices Gore would have made according to my opinion.
The better question would be whether it was worth it to vote again for Bush when it became apparent he was no conservative. I did not.So you have one reason for voting for Bush, I disagree with it, but I can see where it would be a valid reason. Was it worth it?
The better question would be whether it was worth it to vote again for Bush when it became apparent he was no conservative. I did not.
Of course, I also did not vote for Kerry, he was also no conservative.
I did. However it was in an Edit.You may think there was a better question, but you have not answered the one I asked.
I think it was always clear Bush was not a "Conservative" in the classical sence of the word... He is, however, a typical Republican.
I did. However it was in an Edit.
I said...
To answer your question... I don't know yet. It depends on the future and what comes of those choices he made. Including what happens in Iraq once we leave.
And while he is a Republican, he is not typical. Hence his support falling to the lowest in history. Even his own party is not happy with him.
LOL. Because they want those 30% too. They do often denounce his actions. They say he ran the war like a 'tard (not in those words but they say it), they say his border stance is cagey. They say on and on...If he is not a typical Republican, why havent any of the Republican nominees for president denounced him!
No matter what the candidates in both the left and right think, we will be leaving Iraq in the future. The public support is long lost and that will, over time, force the hand of whomever is in the WH, whether they think it will or not.Once we leave Iraq ? LOL
No matter what the candidates in both the left and right think, we will be leaving Iraq in the future. The public support is long lost and that will, over time, force the hand of whomever is in the WH, whether they think it will or not.
No matter what the candidates in both the left and right think, we will be leaving Iraq in the future. The public support is long lost and that will, over time, force the hand of whomever is in the WH, whether they think it will or not.
Well, if we never exit there comes a time where it is no longer Bush's fault.
We may keep a base there, but there will be a time when the military isn't fighting there and leaves. Much like Japan or Germany.