Yes, and I am using both. I do not advocate doing nothing.
Moore's claim to fame is ignoring the rule of law, how is what Moore did different than what is happening in SF?
Roy Moore disobeyed a judge's order. That order had no basis in law, so he had no obligation to obey it. He lost his job because his colleagues falsely believe the federal judiciary is the law. California has established, as a matter of law, that marriage is solely between one man and one woman. San Francisco's mayor is issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in violation of that law. That is the difference.
Do I disapprove, no! Was it against the law, yes! ... HE COULD NOT AND WOULD NOT MAKE A GOOD COMMANDER IN CHIEF, HE HAS NO QUALIFICATIONS ... I do not want a untested, CinC whose only qualification is he broke the law for a good cause
Are you saying that you do not disapprove of Moore's actions, even though you believe he broke the law, but because of those actions, he is incapable of being Commander in Chief? Or am I missing something?
Bush was elected to political office and had support of a national party. That is why he was elected. Was he prepared to be a Commander in Chief. More than likely not! But since 9-11 he has become a outstanding Commander in Chief.
President Bush has indeed proven himself as Commander in Chief. I would have no misgivings at all about not voting for him were it not for the military response to 9/11. I believe that any principled conservative would have taken similar action, and that lessens those misgivings.
It seems that you would rather not risk what we have in President Bush. That position has merit. I just think we can do better. I am rather certain that I won't get what I want this year, but if we are ever to halt the march to the left, it has to start somewhere.