[ohioWfan]

If you haven't seen the bloated egos on this forum, you haven't been reading very carefully.

The bottom line is your demands that he do what YOU want on every issue, IF they result in your staying home in November, or throwing your vote away, you are risking.....deliberately.....giving this country back to the dems who don't give a RIP about this country.

America's security and future depend on keeping strong pro-military, pro-American Presidents in the White House. And Bush is the only one running who qualifies.

[steve-b]

America's security and future depend on keeping strong pro-military, pro-American Presidents in the White House. And Bush is the only one running who qualifies.

Well, then, Bush had better get his rear in gear and earn back the voters who have been giving up on him in disgust. He doesn't have much time.

[The Coopster]

.

[looscnnn]

Again, how can you equate complaining about Bush's amnesty program, education bill, not protecting the Constitution, signing the campaign finance bill, prescription bill, etc. with egos? These are issues that pertain to and affect the country or do you fail to comprehend that? Bush is supposed to be doing what is best for the nation, these are not doing it.

"Bush is the only one running who qualifies."

We do not know who all the candidates are yet, so how can you make that statement?

[Sabertooth]

If you haven't seen the bloated egos on this forum, you haven't been reading very carefully.

The bottom line is your demands that he do what YOU want on every issue, IF they result in your staying home in November, or throwing your vote away, you are risking.....deliberately.....giving this country back to the dems who don't give a RIP about this country.

Conversely, your bottom line is your demand that everyone vote for President Bush, no matter what.

No one owes any politician or party their vote. The votes need to be earned, and it's up to each individual voter to decide the price.

Some issues are intrinsically divisive, and cost votes. When politicians do things that cost themselves enough votes that they aren't reelected, the responsibility for the lost votes and elections is theirs.

That's political reality, and won't change, no matter how you fight it.

So, if President Bush were to squander enough votes that a Democrat is elected, it would be him, not the voters he failed, who is responsible.

[Ophiucus]

America's security and future depend on keeping strong pro-military, pro-American Presidents in the White House. And Bush is the only one running who qualifies.

That means the war would have to be more important than me having my cake....

[WoofDog123]

" And Bush is the only one running who qualifies."

I am in qualified agreement; Bush is clearly pro-military, and is more pro-american than any of his dnc opponents or HRC. On the other hand, he, like pretty much all major candidates, represents the interests of american multinational corporations. Whether it is wholesale exportation of jobs to whatever the country of the moment is (in addition to manufacturing attrition, the new fad of the moment is remote call centers, mainly in India), a trade deficit with china that in great parts funds their military and government, etc.

The major parties are pretty much in lockstep on 90% of issues that involve government (and its expansion), Bush included. The 10% they don't agree on (guns, abortion, some views on new social spending) is given a lot of play to create the illusion of difference in our choices. The major exception to this is appointment of judges and the method/motives by which the military is used in foreign policy.

To me, bush is clearly the lesser of the electable evils. The idea of a kerry, dean or worst of all HRC is a nightmare.