GWB is the "great satan".
Ah yes, it's starting already. Anyone who expresses the mildest criticism of President Bush is immediately lumped with those who see him as "the great satan." If you bothered to read the posts to which you were responding, you'd see praise for President Bush on some issues where he's done well, and you'd see criticism for things he's done that are clearly wrong. Most of us are admitting that he's in a tough spot and see how he may feel that he must make these wrong decisions, but that empathy doesn't change the fact that they are wrong decisions. No one has said anything that suggests that they will do something to keep him from being re-elected.
I was in Maceman's position in 2000. I lived in Texas and knew that then-Governor Bush would win his home state by a huge margin. I had a friend in Tennessee, a swing state, who asked me how he should vote because he knew that I was educated about politics. I told him that he should probably vote for Mr. Bush in order to keep Gore from being elected. However, in my own state, I voted for Pat Buchanan. When all was said and done, Pat Buchanan better represented my values.
In voting for Mr. Buchanan, I think I did the most good that I could do. His poor showing made it meaningless, but if things had gone another way, it could have been very important. As it was, the liberals could make some claim to having a mandate for liberal policies. About 51 or 52 percent of the popular vote went to liberal candidates (Gore and Nader). If another 15 million people had voted and spread their votes evenly between Pat Buchanan, Harry Browne, and Howard Philips, the message of the election would have been very different. President Bush would still have won, but there would be a strong small-government and conservative mandate. In that case, there would have been a strong majority of the vote for real conservative change.
It probably won't happen in 2004, but I support Maceman's decision to go with a conservative 3rd party. His vote won't change the outcome of the election, and it could be part of sending a message that we really want a government that is smaller, more conservative, and more Constitutional than the one President Bush has been forced to give us.
Is it "the mildest criticism" to say Bush is no different to the Democrats, a party that Ann Coulter makes a strong case as being treasonous? is it "the mildest criticism" to liken voting Bush to driving off a cliff?
Is it saying "Republicans can do no wrong" to point out that some of the rhetoric used to criticize Bush is just plain nuts? (that last one is not aimed at you, or the person who started this, but at someone else who is likely to make his way to this thread- hey there RJ!)
There is plenty or reason to criticize Bush. CFR was a complete farce, for example. But frankly, if someone tries to say there is no difference between him and a Democrat or tries to say that the Patriot Act formed a Gestapo and we live in a police state, they really should expect people to call them on it.