I think the perception would be that he is abandoning his choice because most people disagreed with the choice.

But so what if he pays attention to the result of the election and makes some changes? He's the one who took office in his second term talking about a "mandate". If he considered less than half of voters voting for him and winning by the absolute slimmest of margians a "mandate", what do you call the largest shift in political control in over a decade? THAT'S a mandate.

Hardly-

Hardly a mandate.

YOU want to call it a mandate- does not make it so.

On top of that the mistake would be with his own base-not the left. I have already seen anger at the resignation of Rumsfeld. Some feel that Bush lied to them- and is a traitor to the right. If he had bailed on Bolton without even trying it would have been worse.

So you're advocating party before country? Appease the base, don't worry about what the electorate feels is the right direction for the country?

I wouldn't call anything a mandate. But in the context of Bush calling his re-election a mandate, what happened this week is comparatively a violent military coup.

Bush would be stupid to not take the election results into consideration when making future choices. But, then, we ARE talking about Bush.

:rolleyes:

What an inciteful response. Gosh, you've convinced me that your points have merit.

Sometimes I get so sick of the way words get twisted here and the constant battle to be on the defense against a majority of people who seem to get a thrill out of doing just that-

so yeah- :rolleyes:

And sometimes I get so sick of someone just throwing up their hands simply because they want to get in a huff rather than have a discussion which clarifies their position.

So yeah, "Are you advocating party before country?"

I'm not in a huff.

Thanks

Of course she is! That is the Rebublican platform, isn't it? ;)