[Tax-chick]

I've been one of the people saying, "What's wrong with these Republican wimps?" Your post definitely offers some perspective. What really matters is that we get the conservative judges; whether this route will achieve the goal remains to be seen.

On this issue, as with the administration's Middle East policy, I'm of two minds. I'd like to think that Bush et al are doing something really cagey, so subtle that I just don't get it. However, sometimes I fear that they're just clueless, and actually believe that being nice to people who want to destroy your way of life (Democrats, Saudis, Palestinians) is really going to work.

[jocon307]

"I've been one of the people saying, "What's wrong with these Republican wimps?" Your post definitely offers some perspective."

Count me as a ditto-head to tax-chick.

I especially like your point about the pro-life viewpoint becoming more wide-speard. Also, the whole gay rights group got a big kick in the teeth today with the revelations about that Bishop. After the RC priest/child molester/homosexuals scandals I think and hope that guy is toast. And isn't he practically "married"?

The key, key, key thing is for Bush to win re-election. If the dems can't bring Harry Truman back from the dead they SHOULD be hopeless after their knocking of the President and the war.

[AFPhys]

However, sometimes I fear that they're just clueless, and actually believe that being nice to people who want to destroy your way of life

This, at least, is not true. President Bush is very aware of the liberal dangers. He simply has chosen a different method (which has in the past been very effective) in dealing with them. His actions in dealing with them now reflect his long view, rather reminiscent of the way he chose Cheney as VP - to govern rather than the more traditional modus of helping him to be elected. There is definitely more to this man (I remind you a Yale MBA and a very successful businessman and governor) than nearly anybody gives him credit for.