Reply #18: Plenty he "could" have....

[bonzotex]

None that he would have...

It's not that DUers or Dems are just anti-anything Bush, it's that he is is anti-anything we hold dear. If for no other reason we should distrust his nominee because it's HIS nominee. Bush is taking an action and he says it will be good for us. By definition, we are about to get screwed somehow. A quick glance at his nominees' history and pedigree just confirms what we already know.

He is mentally unable to select anyone for any appointment that will further Democratic interests.

So, big surprise, he nominates a pro-corporate, anti-choice company man.

Big surprise, progressives have a problem with him.

It's not our fault. We aren't closed minded. We are not blindly prejudiced. We are at least as smart as lab rats and learn when we get repeatedly shocked. Every time he's been given the chance he's lived up to and beyond our worst expectations. At what point do you quit giving him the benefit of the doubt?

Another way to phrase it, "is there anyone he could have picked that wouldn't have made his political base gush with adoration?" Yes, plenty he could, but he wouldn't, and didn't and won't next time.