Well Bob, I see why I like you so much. How in the world can you be such good friends with David?   Seriously though, I totally agree with you. The only solice in this situation is that I am trust that Bush knows a lot that we don't and he's hoping that his legacy will show that he has appointments are staunchly conservative and strict constructionists his nominees actually were. I hope that is the case.

I too am a bit concerned aobut his popularity. It appears that every time he appears lately, he's just sorta mechanical, seemingly worried, and not very human. I know the President is a caring and compassionate man, I just wish that human side of him was more evident - that side that Reagan seemed to show so well while maintaining his posture as a true and confident leader.

Its a crazy day when the republicans spend more than the democrats and the democrats complain about giving too much too much. What in the world?

The state of politics is really pretty comical in our country these days. I really feel that people are looking for someone that they can connect with, someone that actually seems to be  human, connected, feeling, compassionate and most importantly, honest. Well, on second thought, not necessarily really honest, but just convincing. I really think that is why Clinton is such the consumate politician. The man has a charisma out of the wazoo!  Even I listen when he talks and though I don't often agree with him, I want to agree with him. Where is the next Reagan?

Which begs the question:  Who's gonna be running in '08. I really don't see the front runners at this point (though Hillary looms large, but probably isn't going to be a viable candidate for the Democrats and they know that) because normally, we would have some idea of who's going to run by this point. I heard someone mentioning that Kerry was going to run again. I pray that is not the case, but then again, he's a known quantity and lost once, maybe that would happen again. who knows.

Thanks for your thoughts Bob. I enjoy them and think them quite wise... it must be the gray hair ;).

Well, you get another shot at controversy. Oh, and I think maybe you should extend your list of requirements to someone who has either sat on the bench (in any court) or had ambitions to do so. Miers was never going to make it because of that. She might have stood a chance if GWB only got one appointment, but his second nomination is going to have to have some experience to get confirmed.

I agree, Loni.  If Miers was GWB's first pick instead of Roberts (prior to Rehnquist's death) she might have had a chance.  Roberts probably would have made it as his second pick, too.  But, changing the order definitely changed the odds.  While in Amarillo this weekend we played dominos every evening and had a chance to cuss and discuss the Court appointments with the extended family.  See today's post for some of the opinions that were offered.

It is disappointing to hear you say that you want more division among our elected officials. The requirement that a politician's beliefs be easily discernible from his or her party affiliation is exactly why our representatives in Washington are filled with such rancor, bitterness, and devoid of any remnants of statesmanship or true bipartisan cooperation. Instead of making up one's own mind regarding an issue, you ask that a politician merely consult his party's platform, which if you look at either major party's platform you will find two complete heaps of trash. The Republican party has degenerated into a party of moralizing, controlling old biddies who can't find there way to shut the purse. On the other hand you have the democrats who are falling all over themselves to attack and whine about any policy or program a Republican might have even considered proposing.

During post-primary election periods our political landscape does seem to blur, but that is because the 60% of the country that makes up the middle of the political spectrum doesn't buy the need to protect the flag in the constitution or keep the retirement age artificially low.

We need more John McCains (although fewer Zell Millers -- he's just crazy), more sensible pragmatists, willing to play fair, talk straight (relatively), and do what's right for the country regarding any given policy, not call up Howard Dean for a pep talk on the wonders of overweening unions.

You obviously did not get the point I was trying to make, Lars.  We are on the same side here. I don't want more division among elected officals.  I want the elected officials to be honest with the electorate. I don't like politicians who campaign with one set of values and then, once elected, vote with another.  I don't like politicians who will cast a vote against the conservative movement that elected them, then turn around and hide behind the banner of the Republican Party on the next vote.  I don't like politicans without balls enough to vote their conscience every single time.  Too often the party bosses from both parties beat the legislators into submission.  You know how devoutly Republican I am, so you will appreciate how hard this next statement is for me.  I want people to quit voting for one party or another and vote for the person who most closely represents the ideals and values they have for themselves and thier families.  If legislators knew that each and every vote they cast while in office may lead to defeat in the next election, they might put a little more thought into it. 

I welcome a diversity of ideas.  The discussion of various viewpoints and ideas is what makes the final decision more effective and meaningful. So you see, we really agree here, except the part about needing more John McCains, but that is another discussion for another day.