CATO Institute . . . 'nuf said.
---
Attacking the messenger rather than the message? I thought only our friends on the left did that?
I support Bush's foreign policy nearly 100%. But I find it hard to believe anyone can support his domestic agenda.
"Attacking the messenger rather than the message?"
I 'attack' both when appropriate.
[I'm certain that you don't wish to suggest that one should never question the personal bias/credibility of the 'messenger'? Debaters routinely address ETHOS, pathos, and logos!]
BTW: I do support MANY aspects of the President's domestic agenda. On the macro level, I support his emphasis on LIFE, ownership, accountability, and results. On the micro level, I support his focus on tax cuts, litigation reform, RESULTS-oriented/business friendly environmentalism, (strict constructionist) judges, educational testing/accountability, social security reform, life and marriage affirming legislation, and on and on and on.
President Bush is a conservative pragmatist (read Reagan incrementalist) and so am I.
Do you mean to say that you don't, and we shouldn't support tax cuts, nominating conservative judges, trying to privatize Social security, getting us out of Kyoto,(well, I guess that would go under foreign policy)signing a ban on partial-birth abortion, not supporting funding for using more embryos for stem cells, turning back Clinton's forest policy, and putting a much better balanced one in that involves the public, instead of going over their heads, just to please the environmentalists, that is, after all a lot of his domestic agenda, isn't it? So, tell me why we shouldn't support these measures?