Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
For some, yeah. For most, it's like, we've been waiting for this chance for eons, it's THE most important change Bush can make, and the idea that we should take a chance that Bush (and Bush alone) "knows her heart" - that fries us. There's too much at stake to just trust him on this. This is The Big Chance, and the people who we thought of as being the best nominees would have, by definition, provoked a fight, but the fight ain't the thing - it's just a symptom.
|
I'm still a little confused about the reaction. Isn't one of Bush's strong points the fact that he has conviction and he will do what he thinks is right for the country no matter how popular it may be?
A comparison:
I liked Clinton as a president but one thing that drove me nuts about him was the way he always waited to determine which direction the wind was blowing before making a decision. This, to me, is the opposite of leadership. Clinton was once asked why he didn't invade Afghanistan to get Bin Laden after the 1993 WTC bombing or after the USS Cole attack or after the African embassy bombings. His reply was that the country was not ready for it. This is utter BS. He should have forced the country to take some measures to ensure such attacks would cease. He should have been a
leader.
In the case of this nomination, Bush is leading. He is making an unpopular decision he believes is right for the country. And he is being crucified for it.
So, is Bush only being a leader and showing conviction when he makes decisions unpopular with the left? I mean, do you all trust him as the leader of this country or not? Where is the benefit of the doubt?
