2007-09-18 16:01:58 · 12 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I doubt it, but it still numbs me that SO MANY people in this country do defend his policies. You know me, I'm a Republican. But incompetence is incompetence. I won't desert my party, but it really sucks that so many people are blindly party-loyal.
2007-09-18 16:07:50 · answer #1 · answered by l 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The neo-cons would support the neo-cons. Also, in case you haven't noticed, many Republicans running for office are making a conscious effort to distance themselves from Bush.
2007-09-18 16:11:01 · answer #2 · answered by En79 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush is an independent all but in name. Most of the Republican party is abandoning him and the democrats are using him as a dart board to gain political points with the public.
2007-09-18 16:09:53 · answer #3 · answered by PeguinBackPacker 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. For proof, look at the 2000 rimaries when the Bushbots supported Bush over McCain and cheered when the "Swiftboat" trash tried to smear a MEDAL of HONOR winner simply because he dared to run against their little tin god.
2007-09-18 16:13:59 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
He would not have won the presidency in the first place if he was an independent.
2007-09-18 16:07:29 · answer #5 · answered by Lindsey G 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
all of us comprehend from their own statements that Iran needs to be a nuclear means, and it variety of feels probably that they are going to be quickly, if left on my own. all of us comprehend from Achmidenajad's own statements that he might have not have been given any hesitation to apply nuclear weapons on Israel. all and sundry who has appeared at a map knows that they might nuke the yank Invaders in Iraq (i do no longer think "collateral injury" interprets into Farsi) and halt Iraqi oil production for a era, leaving them the dominant tension in Mid-East oil. So, how is it which you somewhat choose in charge united states of america and/or individuals for a nightmare subject? We did no longer grant them nukes. in spite of if Israel provoked them, which it hasn't, how is the U.S. in cost of that? Is it achievable that they even assume united states of america to respire a sigh of relief while it is Iraq that gets nuked rather of Israel, thereby "getting away with it"? we are merely no longer in a position to reason or preclude. All we can do is respond, or no longer. do no longer attempt to sidetrack this with Pakistan or North Korea. Pakistan is barely a threat in the event that they pick somebody like Achmidenajad, which isn't yet probably. North Korea isn't completely irrational, they don't seem to be going to apply nukes while there is not any longer something to earnings, and on the 2d, they have not have been given any probably targets. All they decide to do perfect now's Posture. Yeah, they have nukes and missiles, yet what they don't have is a reason to apply them. they don't seem to be thoroughly irrational. Achmidenajad is, although, and he does have reasons to apply the nukes, finding on how his own value-earnings diagnosis comes out. as a approaches because of the fact the means Iranian casualties, i think of maximum individuals might probably comprehend that the difficulty has by no skill rather been in our administration. the recommendations are all being made by employing Achmidenajad. What he brings down on Iran isn't our fault.
2016-10-09 10:48:58 · answer #6 · answered by blide 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. George W. Bush is not a conservative Republican, but more of a centrist.
2007-09-18 16:12:39 · answer #7 · answered by reaganite27 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
independents never get elected or supported by either party.
2007-09-18 16:07:44 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
If Al Gore or John kerry are running against him my answer is YES.
2007-09-18 16:07:42 · answer #9 · answered by smsmith500 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Fried Air traffic control workers are neocons but you don't want anyone to know that
2007-09-18 16:06:15 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋