When I connect the dots of what the liberals here say, I see an attempt to let a minority, because of a self-percieved view of being "infinately more comapssionate, wise and intellegent..." become dictators of what the nation can do. If you do not believe the government has OUR best interests at heart, why should I believe that the self-declared "better" people have mine, or the majority of the country's even in their thoughts?

Bush has sworn to uphold the constitution of the United States. He has certain responsibilities as defined by the constitution. The people telling me he shopuld be removed because THEY do not like his actions have made no oath, and seem to be more interested in pushing their own agenda than even the far Right.

I do not agree with all the decisions of this administration- But that does not mean that they should be removed.

A healthy suspicion of the opposing party is fine- but I think that the liberals have gone even farther than the ultra-right in being biased. I do not, IMO, feel that we would be as safe as we are (which is not what I would LIKE) if we were under a Democratic administration. Others may differ- that is fine, but the more conservative side WON the election, which was the means that we change our government leaders. I lived through eight years of Clinton: Liberals can just try to elect their own person in the future. MOST of the dictatorial talk I hear is from the LEFT, demanding that the entire country do only what a minority of those voting support. Had they run a candidate that appealed to a more moderate base, the Dems would have run- It is not that the majority supports everything that Bush does, but that even fewer support what the Democratic candidate seemed to represent. This is called "politics"

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamieson/198304_robert05.html