Comments on: Bush’s Approval Rating…with Me http://www.byron-harvey.com/2006/03/bushs-approval-ratingwith-me/ refusing to drink the kool-aid for anyone Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:00:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Byron http://www.byron-harvey.com/2006/03/bushs-approval-ratingwith-me/comment-page-1/#comment-3903 Byron Sun, 19 Mar 2006 19:19:19 +0000 http://www.byron-harvey.com/2006/03/15/bushs-approval-ratingwith-me/#comment-3903 And Mark, I'm going to take issue with the whole "selling the soul" idea, that it absolutely has to be done to get anything accomplished in Washington, and my reason is two words: <b>Ronald Reagan</b>. And Mark, I’m going to take issue with the whole “selling the soul” idea, that it absolutely has to be done to get anything accomplished in Washington, and my reason is two words: Ronald Reagan.

]]> By: Byron http://www.byron-harvey.com/2006/03/bushs-approval-ratingwith-me/comment-page-1/#comment-3900 Byron Sun, 19 Mar 2006 18:55:06 +0000 http://www.byron-harvey.com/2006/03/15/bushs-approval-ratingwith-me/#comment-3900 Sorry it took me a bit to respond, PS. I didn't consider it to be a "lesser of two evils" at the time, but I'm thinking now that that might be an apt description. The one key thing---one of the few things that still DOES set the two apart---involves the Supreme Court. With Kerry, there was no chance we'd get a constructionist or an originalist nominated to the Court---and make no mistake about it, in this day, given the arrogant power-grabbing by our judiciary, this was imperative. With Bush, there was a reasonable chance---and the Harriet Miers fiasco aside, it <b>looks</b> like we're 2-for-2. If Bush is able to appoint one or two more good justices to the Court, then his eventual legacy will be improved, because we'll see the restoration of some judicial sanity to this country. I don't know if GWB was corrupted by Washington, or if he just never has been a real conservative, or if, as George Will hypothesized several years ago, Bush has always seen the Supreme Court as the prize, and for the sake of political success in a 51/49 divided country, he was willing to give a good bit on "lesser" issues (I guess that runaway spending like a drunken sailor is one of these "lesser issues") in order to maintain the political capital to win on justices. For my money, if that was his strategy, I don't think it did him any good; the Democrat Party is so politicized, and lacking principle, that 23 of the rascals voted against Roberts, and even more against Alito, despite their over-the-top-impeccable qualifications. That's my two-and-a-half cents worth... Sorry it took me a bit to respond, PS. I didn’t consider it to be a “lesser of two evils” at the time, but I’m thinking now that that might be an apt description. The one key thing—one of the few things that still DOES set the two apart—involves the Supreme Court. With Kerry, there was no chance we’d get a constructionist or an originalist nominated to the Court—and make no mistake about it, in this day, given the arrogant power-grabbing by our judiciary, this was imperative. With Bush, there was a reasonable chance—and the Harriet Miers fiasco aside, it looks like we’re 2-for-2. If Bush is able to appoint one or two more good justices to the Court, then his eventual legacy will be improved, because we’ll see the restoration of some judicial sanity to this country.

I don’t know if GWB was corrupted by Washington, or if he just never has been a real conservative, or if, as George Will hypothesized several years ago, Bush has always seen the Supreme Court as the prize, and for the sake of political success in a 51/49 divided country, he was willing to give a good bit on “lesser” issues (I guess that runaway spending like a drunken sailor is one of these “lesser issues”) in order to maintain the political capital to win on justices.

For my money, if that was his strategy, I don’t think it did him any good; the Democrat Party is so politicized, and lacking principle, that 23 of the rascals voted against Roberts, and even more against Alito, despite their over-the-top-impeccable qualifications.

That’s my two-and-a-half cents worth…

]]> By: Pastor Sam http://www.byron-harvey.com/2006/03/bushs-approval-ratingwith-me/comment-page-1/#comment-3896 Pastor Sam Fri, 17 Mar 2006 13:05:46 +0000 http://www.byron-harvey.com/2006/03/15/bushs-approval-ratingwith-me/#comment-3896 Byron,in your opinion was voting for GWB a vote for the lesser of two evils? I think most Christians that ad anything to say about Kerry had the idea that he is evil incarnate and would have done just about anything to keep him out of office. Nevertheless, I've heard Christians in our neck-of- the-woods describe politics as the lesser of two evils. One man in my church said that the good men that get elected to office are quickly corrupted by Washington when they get there. Was/is that the case with GW? Byron,in your opinion was voting for GWB a vote for the lesser of two evils? I think most Christians that ad anything to say about Kerry had the idea that he is evil incarnate and would have done just about anything to keep him out of office. Nevertheless, I’ve heard Christians in our neck-of- the-woods describe politics as the lesser of two evils. One man in my church said that the good men that get elected to office are quickly corrupted by Washington when they get there. Was/is that the case with GW?

]]> By: Mark Merritt http://www.byron-harvey.com/2006/03/bushs-approval-ratingwith-me/comment-page-1/#comment-3894 Mark Merritt Thu, 16 Mar 2006 23:43:16 +0000 http://www.byron-harvey.com/2006/03/15/bushs-approval-ratingwith-me/#comment-3894 I used to get called by the pollsters about 10-15 years ago. Seriously, I relished the opportunity to answer each and every question they asked - and when it was over I would always say something like "Is that it? No more questions? Awwww." They probably sensed that I was extremely pleased and actually enjoying the otherwise tedious and time-consuming task. Therefore I don't get called anymore. Or maybe it's actually because I moved 4 times between then and now! I'm an independent that voted for Alan Keyes in '00 and GWB in '04. I regret neither vote. Really. One thing that really does bother me is that there is not a viable third party (candidate). I smell a conspiracy. Who said Dems and Reps can't agree on something?! They both know that a viable third party would threaten the stronghold that they have on our political system. More like a stranglehold. Bush looks like a Socialist because in order to accomplish ANYTHING in that corrupt city (DC), one has to sell their soul to the highest bidder. Period. I hate what THEY'VE (Dems and Reps) done to our country. Maybe I should have voted for Keyes in '04 after all. Sad fact is GW is (one of) the best of a sorry bunch. Do I seem irritated? Good. Hillary isn't electable, except for the presidential candidacy of her own party. That's what worries the liberal dems. Bush really does spend like a drunken sailor. That does make him a fiscal screaming liberal. Just like everyone else except (brace yerself) Bill Clinton. hmmm, maybe Hilary is electable..... Nawwww! Looks like another vote for Keyes in '08, even if he doesn't run. I used to get called by the pollsters about 10-15 years ago. Seriously, I relished the opportunity to answer each and every question they asked – and when it was over I would always say something like “Is that it? No more questions? Awwww.” They probably sensed that I was extremely pleased and actually enjoying the otherwise tedious and time-consuming task. Therefore I don’t get called anymore. Or maybe it’s actually because I moved 4 times between then and now!

I’m an independent that voted for Alan Keyes in ’00 and GWB in ’04. I regret neither vote. Really. One thing that really does bother me is that there is not a viable third party (candidate). I smell a conspiracy. Who said Dems and Reps can’t agree on something?! They both know that a viable third party would threaten the stronghold that they have on our political system. More like a stranglehold.

Bush looks like a Socialist because in order to accomplish ANYTHING in that corrupt city (DC), one has to sell their soul to the highest bidder. Period. I hate what THEY’VE (Dems and Reps) done to our country. Maybe I should have voted for Keyes in ’04 after all. Sad fact is GW is (one of) the best of a sorry bunch. Do I seem irritated? Good.

Hillary isn’t electable, except for the presidential candidacy of her own party. That’s what worries the liberal dems.

Bush really does spend like a drunken sailor. That does make him a fiscal screaming liberal. Just like everyone else except (brace yerself) Bill Clinton. hmmm, maybe Hilary is electable….. Nawwww!

Looks like another vote for Keyes in ’08, even if he doesn’t run.

]]>