Try not to overinflate your importance; it's not 25 percent of Freepers who are doing the carping here.
But it IS the ones who are continually harping about SOMETHING, ANYTHING that doesn't go their way.
And as I said, most of them never supported Bush in the first place.
You don't even pretend to care about insulting 25% of the poll respondents on FR, or the effects that has on debate and discussion here.
I don't suppose you consider it an insult to imply that the other 75 percent of us who don't agree with this mad rush to judgment and condemenation you all are so hell bent on are not "real" or "true" conservatives, and don't care or know about the Constitution or moral values or the United States Supreme Court, blah blah blah, right?
That is incoherent. It was not implied. Why is this being put into terms of a personal attack on your integrity? Why are you taking broad strokes at fellow conservatives? The 25%(granted it's the unscientific number from the current FR poll) are adamantly arguing that the entire Conservative movement would be better served in the process of selecting a nominee if one had been picked with an established record. Including those Miers supporters who are openly anti-elitist in their stance here and in their defense of Miers, including those who are Evangelicals, even including Freeper lawyers.
I don't see how you can accept this outside of rational purview.
Howlin, if you re-read the thread, all the name calling against other posters goes one way.
No one that I know is disparaging those who support W in this choice; it is understandable what their position is, and why they have it. Hewitt as usual is the exemplary spokeman for not overeacting, and that man is too good to disparage.
W was not the best choice when he ran for president, imo, true, and the reasons for my thinking so have not been allayed, and in fact the Miers choice is a good example of why. I did not think he was a conservative then, and I think he has pretty much proven he is not a conservative by the way he has conducted his administration.
I refuse to believe that loyalty to a government official should be very high on anyone's list of principles. But I understand why you and others do, and there are good reasons for that position. It is just not my position, because I dont think the reasons are good enough.
I do not doubt for a moment that the ardent supporters of W are true conservatives. But this situation reminds me exactly of the Nixon years. Nixon was not a conservative either, and like W he did not operate from principle. He was so unfairly trashed and falsely maligned by the left, tho, conservatives defended him despite his antipathy to their cause.
The unfair criticism from the left rendered some conservatives unwilling to accept any criticism at all. IMO, that is the same dynamic here.