I maxed out to him financially early in the Republican primary in 2000.
I gave to him financially in 2004, though I confess I didn't max out.
How much did you give?
Obviously I voted for him on both occasions.
In 2004 when a lot of conservatives were bitching, I posted here talking about his conservative achievements. Some of these are still worthy of note, including war on terror, telling the UN to go "elsewhere" shall we say, and for making some decent pro life stands, including stem cell. For those reasons, especially national security, I urged people to vote for him. Like many here, I was scared out of my gourd on election day in both 2000 and 2004.
Even in this controversy, I have pointed out that his Court of Appeals nominees are outstanding. Perhaps even better than Reagan's. Moreover, I have consistently said that he was a man of faith, a genuine and good man.
That said...I am not going to just keep my mouth shut when anyone gives us the largest entitlement since LBJ (inexcusable), who eviscerates the First Amendment by signing McCain Feingold (which he acknowledged was unconstitutional...but wanted to leave that up to the courts). Nor am I going to keep my mouth shut when someone says that "institutional racism" played a role in the New Orleans response. And let's don't even get started on borders on the "assault weapons" ban.
The bottom line for me is that GWB's domestic agenda is liberal in the extreme. We never would have let Clinton get away with this crap!
And...in that context...came this appointment. This is his single most important domestic act. The second most important was Roberts. And he gives us this. The only defense is that we must trust him.
I agree that if you just think about his court appointments, he might merit some trust. But if you think about his larger domestic agenda, he deserves to be mistrusted, because he has, in fact, betrayed us.
Now people are telling me that if we knock down Miers, Bush is going to really screw us and show us that he's in charge. The only rational conclusion is that he was never for us.
In which case...the only rational conclusion...is that we should not have supported him (in the 2000 primary, that is...after that, there is no real choice).
So don't try your glib remarks on me. My support has been real. As have my criticisms.
The Bush bots are going to just have to accept that this problem was not created by freepers....we are only responding.
Bush didn't give us the largest entitlement Clinton gave us that by doing nothing about terrorism for all those years. Clinton gave us that by doing nothing about energy police for all those years.
Clinton remember wanted Universal health care if that had passed through he would have had the largest entitlement.
Also remember bush has no line item veto power to control the budget.
Bush also has had 5 of the biggest hurricanes ever and 9/11.
The republicans are the ones that stood up last week and are making Louisiana pay back the loans while Landreui wants 250 billion.
You want big spending look at Blanco and Landreui.
You want really large entitlements put Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Hillary in charge and give us universal health care.
Dems block medical malpractice reform by fillabuster threat.
Dems block the whole gop agenda and budget cuts and gop gets blamed for it. You need 60 seats in the senate to have power. Gop doesn't even have 50 conservatives in the senate.
I hope the Gop never again has 50 to 60 seats in the senate.
Because having 50 to 60 seats in the senate is the worst position to be in. People say you have a majority but it is a meaningless majority because the dems can block your agenda by fillabustering or threats of a fillabuster. People say you have all this power when you don't have any power. If you don't have 60 seats in the senate you have no majority.
After all that, believable or not, you don't recognize what a good choice you made?
How many of those complaints he had no control over.
Do you not remember him promising in his campaign to give a prescription program, No Child Left Behind, and Campaign Reform?
If you didn't like it then, you should have saved your money.
George Bush liberal? Bwahahahahaha
Give me a break, the MF law in NO WAY "enviserated the First Amendment." Read the law. Butting easily avoided restrictions on political parties has ZERO impact upon the First Amendment which was not intended to apply to political parties but to individuals. Read the law. Individuals lost NO rights by MF.