Well that's just a terrific example to follow.
what good is it to have a two party system if when your party is "in" you can't pick your appointments according to their political views?
I have been critical of Bush on many occasions and consider him to be, other than 9/11 and related matters a mediocre President so far. Political considerations in appointments are reasonable, but the head of the CDC or other scientific agencies should be chosen on their qualifications in the field, not their politics, IMO.
No, I don't think we all wanna be like Clinton&co.
I just think, in this particular appointment, her politics will effect procedure and therefore matter. Especially to someone like Dobson (who speaks for people like me). If he doesn't like it he has the freedom to say so. The idea that all Republican's should walk in lockstep whether they agree with a decision or not is appalling to me. Dobson compliments Bush all the time and attacking him for his differences will not aid Bush in the least.
Dobson compliments Bush all the time. He likes Bush for the most part. But Dobson has the right to point out where he differs with Bush. Dobson's voice represents my voice and so I am very appreciative. Conservatives may not always agree on everything and it is important to remember the big picture. At the same time we should not require lockstep following of leadership at the expense of our own consciences.
Hopefully that's clearer.