1 George Bush is toast!  Besides chewing food with his mouth open, besides his support of AG Gonzales, besides his inability to realize the internal hatred among the Iraqi peoples, besides his blindness to our open borders, he just has never gotten over his Father's tall persona.  We should have known when he uttered "Compassionate Conservatism" that we were being conned.  Our fault.  Thank god we've got that drug entitlement for old citizens, god knows we'll all be on some in future years after we realize who is paying for this idiot's misdirections--our children!

We should be ashamed for what we've allowed to happen.

2 Well said RJ.  I cannot believe how a little "aw shucks" and envoking God a few times in every speech can keep the 28% or so who support him happy.  The guy is a complete huckster - a fake cowboy, living on a fake ranch, and a fake Christian.

3 BILL CLINTON was no better

4 Our fault.

But thats too simple. What would of been the alternative. Much more of what we didn't want. Shitty policy times 2 is no more palatable when you didn't vote for the person spoon feeding you shit. This should be the lesson for Repubs thinking about not voting in the next election.

5 http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/06/06/true_conservatives/index.html

It is vital to emphasize repeatedly that the havoc wreaked on this country by George W. Bush is, first and foremost, the work of America's so-called "conservative" movement, which venerated Bush to a degree unseen in the modern presidential era. Here was not a mere President, but "our" Commander-in-Chief during a Time of War, and to criticize him was to criticize America. There were multiple culprits-in-arms along the way -- principally the news media -- but the right-wing movement now seeking to re-invent itself as dissatisfied victims of the Bush presidency in search of a "Real Conservative" to lead it are the ones who bear full responsibility for the devastation this presidency has wreaked on the country.
 
[...]
 
There was a time when I, at least, expected far more conservatives to object meaningfully to the endless series of decisions which so plainly contravened the storied, theoretical "conservative principles," yet it never happened -- until Bush's popularity collapsed and his presidency widely viewed as a failure of historic proportions.
One cannot say -- and I never have said -- that there are no conservatives who dissented from the Bush worldview, but their numbers are so tiny as to be irrelevant. That is because this movement's belief in its ostensible political principles is plainly illusory, just a crass political prop. And they simply do not believe in the basic constitutional values which have defined the country since its inception, nor do they believe in the rule of law (hence the virtual consensus that convicted felon Lewis Libby should be pardoned). What else do they need to embrace in order to eliminate all doubts about that?
 
[..]
 
It is worth recalling how common it is -- especially in recent times -- for a political movement to mount primary challenges to sitting Presidents when that movement believes the President has strayed from the movement's defining ideology. Liberals were dissatisfied with Jimmy Carter, believing he did not embody liberal principles, and thus backed Ted Kennedy's 1980 primary challenge. Many conservatives did the same in 1976 by backing Ronald Reagan over Gerald Ford, and again in 1992 by backing Pat Buchanan against George H.W. Bush.

But the idea of mounting a primary challenge to George W. Bush in 2004 never crossed the mind of any prominent conservatives, at least not publicly. The consensus among them was that he was one of them, a True Conservative, someone to be hailed and revered and built up -- and that consensus remained undisturbed until now, when political considerations compel them to pretend that they have been dissatisfied with Bush because he is something other than a "conservative." And with that behavior, this movement reveals itself to be as dishonest and free of principles as they are destructive.

6 Overall, the main reason that Bush has gotten so much support from anyone, is likely due to the left's tireless and very often irrational hatred for him.  That, and as has been basically said before, why order the double platter of something bad, when you can get the diet portion? And Americans want to win in Iraq BELIEVE IT OR NOT! Bush ALSO wants to win in Iraq, and so many people supported him on that issue alone. As I have said before, I voted for Bush, because he was less bad than his opposition. I was only given two choices in our two party system, so I took the slowly bleeding cut, instead of the malignant brain tumor. I figure the tumor is a miserable certain death, but maybe, maybe I CAN stop the bleeding so at least there I have a chance!  If we had a third party, that would be nice ... BUT WE DON'T!!!  So we are stuck with BAD, and REALLY BAD!  This time it might be different, IF Fred gets his hat in the ring.                      USA, all the way!

7 Before you ask .... NO! I didn't expect the cut to develop an infection on top of everything else.  Makes life more complicated though.                           USA, all the way!