I am beginning to wonder. With a republican (hardly conservative) Congress and Kerry as president I kind of think the true conservatives would have given him a battle and forced the issue. With the social liberalism of GW there really is no battle about conservatism and liberalism here in the U.S. The pubs in Congress are mostly afraid to go against Bush. They would probably have put up one heck of fight agianst Kerry.
There is logic in what you say.
Are you kidding me.
You would need two thirds of congress to overide a veto over Kerry.
Kerry is for amnesty of all illegals. The dems are united for amnesty for illegals.
You would need 290 votes in congress to have overidden Kerry.
Kerry would never let any conservative legislation through. He would have pocket vetoed it.
Bush is for the border security bill that the house just passed. Kerry is against it like all the dems are.
Ah, yup! Not to toot my own horn, but I've been warning since 1999, that we needed to keep this government divided. It should NEVER be controlled at all branches by the same political party. NEVER! Blackbird.
Wow, dude, that would be a stunning revelation to about 270 million Americans. Just try telling that to NOW and NARAL and other left wing groups. Try explaining that to those who applaud GW for the PBA ban, appointing pro-life, pro-gun judges, reversing the Mexico-city abortion policy, cutting taxes, pushing for Marriage Amendment, etc.