[vulturesrow]

Since you and Nicky, two posters I respect in spite of our generally opposed views, seem to think my response was an unwarranted one, I have taken newfant off ignore and will respond to his question. Allow me to address that first:

[ QUOTE ]
So you're saying Bush is just a puppet, then? That he is unable to make good decisions unless someone else tell him what to do? Why would you vote for such a monkey?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Im not saying Bush is just a puppet. The Rove bit was an (apparently poor) attempt at humor. Just because I think that he made a bad decision here hardly means that I think he is incapable of good ones.

Now on to your post AC.

[ QUOTE ]
A reasonable question, posed in decent language,

[/ QUOTE ]

Not reasonable at all. He made an absurd interpretation of my post, followed it up with a question that is a rough equivalent of me asking a man if he has quit beating his wife, along with the whole "monkey" appellation that is quite juvenile and worn.


[ QUOTE ]
in response to an OP that was clearly made to make a political rather than an intellectual point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I am not quite sure what you are charging me with here. I will elaborate on the "point" of my post since it was obviously poorly written as evidenced by the responses.

I am a Repbulican who voted for Bush and have defended him on most fronts. Then he makes the mistake of appointing this woman for this position. My problem with this appointment is on two levels. Appointing people based on their connections/loyalty etc. is wrong, but Bush is hardly the first to do it. Still given that he has put some very talented people in various positions that were still connected and Bush friends, he couldve avoided this scenario. On another level, it was a politically tone deaf move given the controversy surrounding "Brownie". And I have criticized Bush's loyalty at all costs mentality before. Hopefully I worded this a bit more clearly than my original confused ramblings.