Did I say that? Another allegation without proof. No, I didn't love 41. I did prefer him over Clinton, but nearly anyone was preferable.
But don't say my criticism of him is without merit.
I stated your allegation was biased to reflect against 41 and 43 but conveniently ignore Reagan
I bet you were one of the ones here citing "strategery" during the CFR debacle, mocking those of us who knew what would happen.
Another unbased allegation. Maybe I'll take you seriously when you respond with fact. I wasn't on this board when that passed.
His son has been better to conservatives in some ways, but I say again, he and the Senate WILL cave.
And one of those ways has been on Judicial appointments. My problem with you is that you base your prediction on "feelings" rather than fact. I haven't argued against your assumption of the Senate. The failure to pass through judges or break the filibuster gives concerns there validity. The problem is that Bush has been rock solid and yet you disparage him on this issue. Until and IF he fails on the issue of judges, your opinion on his "spine" over this issue is without merit.
Look, we can argue all day. Remember there is a difference between an opinion and an agenda. I'm sure we both want the same results, I do not think we will get them. In the end we will see how the Bush-led GOP and the Senate fight. I say they cave at some point, maybe even in the initial nomination. When it is done, I'm sure we can then argue if it really is Bush's fault or just the weak Senators. I say there is plenty or blame and shame to go around. Again talk is cheap, Bush talked a big game with Estrada but wound up lacking.