Bush supporters who are gay?

I have never been hardcore on a political party. In all cases I try and take every thing a candidate has and balance it as well as I can. Over time I have voted on Democratic tickets, Rebublican tickets, Independent and even Conservative and once Liberal. Clinton screwed a lot of people early on and then smiled about it George Bush screwed us and looked confused I am not happy about either man.

Back to the starting topic I still find George Bush to be an average President Nothing spectacular to set him above all the others and yet not so horrendous as to be at the bottom of the barrel.

How about that he has the lowest approval rating of any president in modern history, and has managed to sustain it longer than any president has sustained his lowest score? By that reasonably objective standard he is absolutely the worst.

That's one way of looking at him but not mine.

Each time he speaks it becomes embarrasingly clear how vacuous he really is. As for standing up what he believes in, I can't fault someone for that. But GWB seems incapable of understanding that stubborness, inflexibility and singlemindedness will only get a leader of a democracy so far before they render him ineffective.

Or the fact that most other presidents understood that executive orders are merely "serving suggestions" and not laws, but this president is working under the impression that he can legislate by EO? No other president in history, that I'm aware of, had less respect for the US Constitution... and no other has worked so hard to circumvent the Constitution by use of secret laws, secret courts, secret trials, and secret meetings.

He has been assured by his appointees and advisors that by proper manipulation, ANY law can be circumvented by the use of two key phrases: "national security" and "executive privilege." And so far, he seems to be succeeding.

If Bush would have listened to his father (not surrounded himself by the likes of Rove, Cheney, wolfowitz, libby, rumsfeld) none of us would be debating this and he would have gone down as a great.

He blew things terribly after 9/11. Not even with afghanistan, nor Iraq. If Iraq would have been handled differently we wouldn't be talking about it right now. IMO when right after 9/11 and the speach "the rest of the world hears you" he had a mid 60s approval rating. Had he continued to gain international support, and not listen to cheney he would easily be in the mid 50s. Cheney is the one that is getting off easy in this whole ordeal. Rumsfield has already been ousted, and had his reputation ruined. Bush is a lame duck president and will go down with the ranks of Jimmy Carter. Libby has been convicted, and wolfowitz lost it all with the bank scandal. Cheney on the other hand has managed to stay hidden enough to take the blunt of the mistakes.

You can be Black and Republican or Gay and Republican an not be a sell-out. Some people are Republicans because there family is, and some like Nancy and Ronald Reagan's kids are Democrats.

I like Jimmy Carter. I think he is a good man with a good heart. You don't see anyone else buildng homes for the homeless. I was a kid when he was in office so I don't know his whole history.

He also did alot of work to free the hostages but Reagan (who made a deal with the scumbags) took the credit.

One of the very worst reasons EVER to support any political party.

Well, that may or may not make Bush more honest, but hardly more pro-gay. I don't believe that Clinton was more anti-gay than Bush.
Don't ask, don't tell was disappointing, but the political reality was that Clinton wasn't going to get more than that. There was too much opposition, not just among much of the population, but among the military. That doesn't mean Clinton's intentions weren't good, and absolutely pro-gay. (And yes, yes ... I know he tended to fold his hand too easily much of the time, but sometimes circumstances compel that.)
I would be surprised if Bush doesn't think that all or virtually all gays will burn eternally. I'm certain Clinton holds no such view.

Well, ff, since I think Bush is dreadful, I am tempted to buy this. But I can't. You could be a wonderful president, one whom future historians would come to see as outstanding, and still be in the dumpster in the terms you cite.

Unresonant as Carter may have been as a president, I can't believe, in 30 years time, he will compete with Bush as one of the supreme arseholes to ever sit in the Oval Office.

Amen

I guess, citing Truman, there could be something to that, but it is truly hard for me to see how a President that works long-term against the will of the people (because he is in his second term and he can) would ever come to be heralded by historians as a success. I will think on it, however, out of respect for you. When an argument is unconvincing in your mind, it usually has a big hole in it. (Not that there is anything wrong with big holes... )

Trust me, SR, DADT doesn't come anywhere near DOMA in legislated discrimination. And from what I understand, he didn't so much as threaten a veto, let alone sign one. The "Defense of Marriage Act", which he signed into law, basically gave states the right to ignore the Full Faith and Credit clause of the US Constitution as far as it may relate to gay rights.

(For those not familiar with Full Faith and Credit, here's the Wikipedia entry.)

Idiot Bush is against stem cell reseach.
Bush thinks a fertilized egg is life.
I am almost in favor of killing newborns in favor of stem cell reseach.

Oh, but ff, I absolutely agree. But my post, if I can dig myself out from under my senescence for a moment, strictly referred to your reference to Bush's basement-level poll support. That's all I was referencing.


(Though the best fun comes when they don't begin that way.)

I will take your word that he wussed out.
My original post addressed someone's assertion that Clinton was more anti-gay than Bush, which I decided to interpret in personal terms. And I don't believe that Clinton, in personal terms, is anti-gay at all, but I would be surprised if Bush isn't. (I don't really know though ... just extrapolating from everything one hears about his religious beliefs.)
The poster seemed to suggest that DADT was proof of Clinton's anti-gay stance; and I disagreed.
DOMA is a new element in the equation, which I don't know much about.
Clinton didn't even threaten a veto.
Would such a threat from him have carried weight?
Or was the vote in favor already great enough to overcome a veto, if a second vote, following his veto, had been required?
I will trust you, DC.
Because you are smart and love the truth.
And because you are an informed American.
But tell this Canadian a bit more.
200 words.
When you can.

True, but a very common occurrence nonetheless.

We shall have to agree to disagree on this one, mem0101. I only know one LCR and when he told me he had joined the Young Republicans club at college we had a huge fight and didnt speak for a year.