Bush takes the path of least resistance with every domestic decision he makes. Roberts was definetly nominated because he would be acceptible to Democrats. I hope he was also nominated because he is a textualist or an originalist. Given Bush's tendency to alienate conservatives, I am not going to get my hopes up.
Kyoto. Tax Cuts. Social Security. ANWR. Embryonic Stem cell Research. Like them or hate them- His immigration proposal, Prescription Drugs. neither popular, one pushed through, one still campaining.
Your argument in untrue.
Roberts was definently nominated because he would be acceptible to Democrats.
No. Under consideration would have likely been reasonable demands that he be qualified, but he wasn't nominated to appeal to the unappeaseable. He was nominated because he best suited the criteria Bush desired, and given reports, veted to the point Bush felt confident he would remain consistent through the years.
I hope he was also nominated because he is a textualist or an originalist.
The President made it clear he would appoint someone that woud interpret the constitution, not legislate. That is a known consideration from his own mouth.
Given Bush's tendency to alienate conservatives, I am not going to get my hopes up.
Given Conservatives own unreasonable expectations, it is easy to alienate some of them. If you expect the president to do what he said he wouldn't do, the alienation is on your head. Ex. Immigration. Disagree with proposal but he promised no different. It would seem to be that some conservatives wish the President to be the type of man they ridiculed in the campaign. Someone that states one thing, does another.
Meanwhile a President like Reagan is lionized because his rhetoric matched the conservative movement, but in action he granted amnesty. A little hypocrisy on part of conservatives? Put Reagan on a pedestral but demonize Bush for a proposal that doesn't go as far as that blanket amnesty did. Perhaps if the President were less honest, perhaps if he didn't tell you and I were he stood and instead focused on conservative rhetoric he would be more accepted? If he did that I'd respect him less.
It is the same as in the case of abortion. He won't do as Reagan did, pinpoint its evil in stark dialogue. But yet he's done far more. Signed a bill preventing partial birth abortion. Puts limits at the U.N. on abortion. Will not authorize embryonic stem cell research funded by the Government. Erred on side of Life in Terri's case. Emphasizes abstinance in courses. Etc.. Nor was he formerly a pro-choice Governor as Reagan was. And yet he's attacked because the furthest he will go in rhetoric is to state the Truth. The population still isn't at a place to be rid of it on their own, must continue changing hearts and minds.
This isn't to diminish Reagan, but to state the fact. Bush is not a miserable failure, and Reagan was not a god. Yet the template is extablished Bush bad, Reagan good, and it is that distorted template by some conservatives that repulses me.
Bush has also done much good conservatives have cheered, yet you end with focus only on what he didn't fullfill to your desires.
I don't care whether you have Faith in the President. Neither does he. This isn't meant to change your mind. Only to document flat out objection to your statements barring anyone believe an uncontested argument is then accepted conventional wisdom.