Replies

I'm not sure I follow the heavy emphasis on having criticized Bush...as long as a person supports the party nominee at the end of the day, are they not allowed to voice disagreement on specifics?

Bush seems to enjoy a working relationship with John McCain - including campaigning together - despite the fact that McCain is constantly carping at his heels from the left on some point or other. Are we not a big enough party that I can say "I think Bush has been dismal on sealing our borders" and yet still be a supporter of his re-election?

One does not have to be a "Bush Republican" to be a Bush supporter. Would the party and the country not be better served with the voicing of a diversity of opinions rather than goose-stepping "talking points" like the Dims use?

Take, for instance, the most notorious quote - the one which sinkspur has tattooed on the back of his right hand, about "the evil you know". Which is better, for one to recognize an evil policy decision and say so, or to keep one's mouth shut and allow it to go unchallenged?

Now, one might disagree that in that particular case, that specific decision was "evil"...but the mere fact that one who finds it to be so raises his voice in protest is honorable, not something to be vilified.

Make it something we agree about and see how it fits - if GWB had, for some reason, nominated a pro-choice judge to the SCOTUS...should those of us who are pro-life hold our tongue and be "Bush Republicans" who dare not criticize? Or should we call it an evil choice? Which is the more honorable path? And may no mistake, it is perfectly reasonable to read that comment as saying Bush has allowed an evil idea, or philosophy, or policy "behind the lines" as it is to read it as saying Bush himself is evil. And, in fact, given that it's not been an issue since, it's likely the former given that Keyes is not the sort of fellow to call you evil once and never go back to that well again.

I think the party is big enough to handle disagreement.