[srmorton]

The Governor of California can in no way be compared with the POTUS because he can not affect the foreign policy of the United States. Al Gore is obviously unbalanced and John Kerry is a traitor who should not even be a US Senator, much less POTUS. It does not matter how pure a conservative the GOP nominee is if he cannot get elected POTUS. Since 9-11, there is no more important issue to all Americans than the war against militant Islam. The damage a Democrat president could do at this critical time in our history is incalculable. If that president happened to be Hillary, it would also be criminal.

Where your argument falls short is in assuming the DBM will ever allow the Dems to get the blame for anything. The Republicans got the blame for the 1995 government shutdown when it was Bill Clinton that vetoed the bill and actually caused the government shutdown. Newt was the only one to suffer for that politically. Had the situation been reversed, the DBM would have seen to it that a Republican president got the blame and the Congress would have been praised for standing up to the POTUS. Both you and I are obviously well-informed because we seek alternative sources of information such as Free Republic, but most Americans still get most of their information from media sources that might as well be a branch of the national Democrat Party.

I think the PBA ban IS important because PBA is pure and simply infanticide and should be illegal in any civilized country. I am very pro-life, but I am not a purist on abortion. In fact, I agree with Rudy, it doesn't matter if if Roe V. Wade is overturned or not. If it was overturned tomorrow, abortion would still be legal in some states. It was a bad law and for that reason should be overturned, but all that would do would send the issue back to the states where it belongs.

I'm sure that we will never agree about GWB, but I happen to think that he was the perfect man to be POTUS for such a time as this. As I said above. the war against radical Islam is the most important issue of our time. It is a fight between good and evil and we are up against an enemy that is willing to die if they can take as many of us infidels as possible with them. It doesn't matter how pure your conservatism is if you're dead. Many people in the GOP "base" don't seem to get that. What the Dems have been doing to undermine our military since they took over in January should convince any patriotic American, whether conservative or liberal, that these people can not be trusted to do what is best for the nation. They are only concerned what is best for their own political aspirations and the political fortunes of the Democrat party.

[NVDave]

I agree that the war against militant Islam is the most important issue of our time. Trouble is, Bush is bungling the job - badly. He continues to believe some things about the issue that simply aren’t true; eg “Islam is a religion of peace” and will not see the larger picture - that allowing immigration to continue from Islamic countries is only making the future situation worse.

As it is, I believe now that Bush has set us up for a now nearly inevitable attack by playing a weak hand. Bush, being a “compassionate Christian” clearly lacks the resolve necessary to crush enemies. In order to win against the Islamic mindset, one has to be ruthless. I don’t mean a little ruthless. I’m talking Vlad the Impaler ruthless. Bush is utterly incapable of doing this.

eg: The press and the liberals want to make a big deal about Gitmo and how unlawful combatants are treated. Were I in Bush’s position, I’d give the order that no more unlawful combatant prisoners are to be taken. Just kill them in the AO. The various treaties to which we are signatories make that fully legal. Armed, non-uniformed combatants on a field of battle are fair game. The Gitmo program is fully legal, but the press, lawyers and the courts want to make treaties the Islamists have never (and will never) sign apply.

Solution: use the other legal option allowed under the Geneva Convention for unlawful combatants: kill them on the field of battle. Toss their bodies into a hole and get on with the rest of our day.

Another example: Bush, in his “new tone in Washington” nonsense, has allowed Democratic operatives in the intelligence agencies to severely harm the US. Again, because he is unwilling to use power as a leader should, he refuses to deal with these people properly.

In the fullness of history, we will see how Bush was weak. He’s like Carter: a nice guy, but not capable of using force when force is needed. Yes, he has used force in launching us into war, but he wanted war fought the way nice guys fight wars, eg, Fallujah. That city should have been dealt with the first time we took it. Instead, because the local imams complained about how we were dealing with it, we withdrew.

The Democrats would not be any better on this issue, but again, a solid GOP Congress could contain much of the foolishness a DNC president would offer. As it is, look at how much trouble the GOP Congress is having trying to push back on some of Bush’s foolishness. They get their heads beat in by guys like Rove in private meetings. If it were a Democrat in the Big Chair, people in a GOP Congress wouldn’t have to take a meeting with the president’s political operatives due to “party loyalty” — the GOP members of Congress would be able to tell a Rove-like character to go pound sand.