Obvious, redundant and unnecessary therefore deliberately provocative and insulting. I am glad your not president as well. Saying so in a manner as you did is unsay & obvious and can only have one purpose.
Oh, and, assuming that you're telling the truth about working hard to get the President reelected...
I gave $125 to Bush-Cheney 2004, $50 to the RNC and $75 to the SBVT. I spent $100 or so on GOP & BUSH-CHENEY gear to advertise my choice. I put up signs around my town. I worked the polls for 4 hours as a GOP challenger on election day. I personally convinced at least two people to vote Bush. I had at least one Letter to the Editor in support of Bush printed.
...you sure didn't give him long to stop supporting him, did you?
Sorry. acting like a mindless lemming or Bush-Parrot is not my thing. Among the knee-jerk defense lemmings any CRTs of Bush is a stoning offense.
I see at as BECAUASE of my support I have a greater right (and responsibility) to point out problems as I see them. I have NOT stopped supporting him. Just because I am not a stepford-supporter does not mean I do not support him. Because I have made the obvious observation, corroborated by several Conservative pundits including not just Noonan & Buckley, but Jonah Goldberg and others at NRO as well, that Bush's speech was at best poorly writen and lacking substance (while oscillating between the vapid & saccarhine) you call me "adsorptive".
And, yes. My reply to you was provocative, because I had just read a series of posts from you (the first 5 or so that you posted on this thread) that were deliberately provocative, and, if I might borrow one of your vocab words, 'vapid,' and I was responding to that.
In thinking for myself, as I always, ALWAYS do, I would say that I have the courage to say that Buckley is WRONG because he just doesn't have the gift of vision that makes this speech rise above what one can analyze in concrete terms. In other words, he (and the rest of the critics) are missing the boat on this one. Besides which, the people you listed sit at a computer and write things. They talk about things. They don't DO anything. The President speaks in lofty terms, and then takes the risks of boldly acting out what he has spoken about. Noonan and Buckley are just talkers. President Bush walks the talk.
btw, the same response was given to Reagan when he saw things that others could not see, so this response is not surprising in the least.
Oh........and thanks for helping get the President elected (you didn't have to give the details, though, since I have no way of knowing if you're telling the truth anyway). And, do you mind telling me what 'adsorptive' means? It's not in my dictionary, and I don't remember 'calling you' that.....