Posted on 03/22/2007 4:24:28 PM PDT by pissant
I wouldn't vote for him, either.
I would enjoy having a conversation with him, though.
Maybe Donna Hanover had alienated him so much by this point that they were done. We just don't know, do we?
I guess in your world Presidents don't sign/veto bills....
You are making no sense. Bush is a mainstream conservative republican, and a methodist. While they admire Bush, he was not the darling of the evangelicals, he was the darling of the GOP establishment much more so.
And not being baptist myself, but Roman Catholic, it was the shift in RC voting to the GOP that allowed him to win two elections. They had always been majority dem previously. So I credit the Pope for getting him elected.
His main rival was McCain, a thorn in the side to the GOP establishment.
And FWIW, moderate GWB is solid president. And though he normally does not speak well off the cuff, he has given several speeches worthy of the presidential hall of fame. And while he is not nearly as strong on the border as I would like, he gladly signed Duncan Hunter's border fence bill when Hunter ramrodded it through congress. And while he is not been the best at inspiring confidence in the war, the GOP senate has been much worse. And while GOPers were fretting about the war, Bush is committed to victory, and victory is well under way.
Well, practicality first and foremost. I see no practical way we can outlaw first trimester abortions, for example, if more people than not want it that way.
Alongside the false dichotomy and ad hominem they keep their concealed carry Straw Man.
His votes on legal immigration were even worse than his votes on illegal immigration.
Well, a couple of hundred years have passed, after all. To those of us paying attention that is.
Where do you stand on that damned Stamp Act, by the way?
Now there are a bunch of folks calling themselves evangelicals that sound more like greenpeace idiots.
I don't care. If he wanted out, he should have divorced before
starting a fling, not tried in court to force his children to be present during his sleepovers with the little tramp.
Your definition of gay (having sex with men) would make most of the women in this country gay. I think not.
Okay, seriously -- I see the abortion issue going back to the states. Abortions have always been readily available to those who wanted them and could afford them.
I am a judgmental little fellow, I admit! ;-)
LOL. Seems so.
Simple. Pass a law. Substitute any other crime in for abortion and see if your argument holds: If most people want to keep partial birth abortion, I don't see how it can be done. How about if most people want to own slaves? Or...take cocaine? Smoke pot? Drink and drive? Drink underage? Commit bestiality? gang rape a woman? Put Jews in concentration camps?
I am just speaking in terms of the broad dissatisfaction the president enjoys. Whether we like him or not isn't important towards that end.
If I overstated his appeal to evangelicals, I'm sorry. That's been my understanding of the dynamics. Maybe I'm wrong.
You are far too kind! Thank you very much.
Ideally, you are right.
Life isn't ideal, though.
Bush won the white evangelical vote, in 2004, by a margin of 80-20 with record turnout.
if an 80-20 spread doesn't make you a "darling", I don't know what does.
Well, I didn't give my complete definition of being gay. :-)
Anyway, you are correct regarding abortion. I wish more Freepers saw this issue with more clarity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.