Replies

It has been suggested that use of the terms bushbot or bushbasher be suspended.It tends to inflame rather than inform.

Actually, I lean toward the terms 'Bushbot' and 'bashbot'.

There are groups of both here at FR. To one, Bush can do no wrong. To the other, he can do no right.

To the dwindling 'middle', where I am, it's still about policy and principle.

For instance, in 2000, I abandoned Buchanan and voted Bush so he could have one more vote in the popular vote count (my state being solid Red already). And I worked the fax lines and compiled fax lists here at FR for the Battle for Floriduh. But I'm not seeing a good reason to turn out in '04.

Bushbots or bashbots don't matter actually. Both are already committed. I think Bush has to give a solid reason to people of conservative principle to actually turn out and vote for him and for the downstream GOP candidates.

Of course, you can reassure yourself that this is an unappeasable fringe. But this very attitude nearly cost Bush the 2000 election. Well, that and Rove's idiocy in campaigning in California and that stupid minority outreach.

I know it offends some of you that the rest of us apply the same standards to a Republican president that we did to a Dim president. In truth, we still let Bush get away with plenty that would have had FReepers inciting armed rebellion if Clinton had even hinted at them. What's droll here is that the biggest Clinton-haters have morphed into the biggest Bushbots. Hard to perceive that any principles are involved.