I'm having a bit of a problem with the logic of some of my liberal Bush-hating friends, and I'm wondering whether I'm alone.

While I make no secret of the fact that I voted for Bush, what I'd like to know is how does that make me a Bush spokesman? There are a lot of things I disagree with Bush on, and I have described my approach to voting as a hold-my-nose experience. Frankly, John Kerry disgusted me a lot more than Bush, notwithstanding Bush's many faults, and in general the Democrats disgust me more than the Republicans. (There are of course many individual exceptions.)

So why is it that I go to a get-together (I'm a known Bush voter, of course, who doesn't bother to hide it) people start saying "How's George?" in this really condescending manner as if I'm the president's boyfriend or something. (Um, no, I'm not. Just thought I'd make that perfectly clear. And I've long been frustrated by people insinuating that Republicans have some big macho sexual insecurity thing, too, OK? It's really tired. Democrats are just as sexually insecure and frustrated. Trust me.)

It's as if because I pulled a lever or pushed a button while holding my nose, I'm to be held "accountable?" And for what? The "George" taunt might mean any number of things -- war, the vast Karl Rove plot against mankind, anthropogenic global warming, the Federal Marriage Amendment, or just generalized chimpanzee-like stupidity. I'd prefer it if people asked me more specific questions rather than just taunt me about "George."

Anyway, I replied that I thought George Washington was a great president.

But I voted for Clinton too. No one ever came up to me and asked me about my buddy Bubba, or Hillary.

And why aren't conservatives who are angry with Bush about things like immigration (and I know plenty) greeting me with similar scorn and derision? Is it because they voted for him too?

If asked about specific issues, I'm always happy to admit what I think. So, if someone's angry about anthropogenic global warming, the war in Iraq, the FMA, or Bush's alleged simianism, I'll be glad to discuss each issue individually. I don't follow anyone's party line, though, and calling me "George" just doesn't give me enough of a clue. In a court it would be objectionable as "vague and ambiguous" as well as "argumentative."

But we're not in court. We're in my blog. And fair is fair. Notwithstanding my legitimate legal and logical objections to being put on the spot yesterday, I have decided to face the most pressing Bush issue of the day. (Besides, since no specific issue was raised, I feel as if I was given a blank check to address whatever Bush issue I deem most pressing.)

Not until last week did I finally learn about the Most Pressing Bush Scandal Of Them All -- something which the usual suspects in the MSM seem to have utterly missed. Even bloggers -- usually quick to pounce on the MSM's omissions -- have missed it for the most part (at least I haven't seen any discussion of it in the major blogs).

The issue, or course is the major fight between George W. Bush and Queen Elizabeth over his "divorce war"! And Bush attacked the Queen, God save her!

"What attack?" "What divorce?"

Glad you asked.

Here's the proof -- in the form of a full story which includes pictures of the attack:

Obviously, the fact that you didn't know about this proves that the MSM and the blogosphere are involved in a vast coverup.

Here's more:

My reaction? Well, I voted for Bush, but am I responsible for his alleged messy divorce or the fact of the vast MSM coverup? I don't think it's my business, so how does it become the business of Queen Elizabeth? I mean no disrespect to Her Majesty, but didn't we once fight a war to keep her from having any right to meddle in America's internal affairs?

But again, I voted for Bill Clinton, and no one said I was responsible for his marital issues, so I think this is all terribly unfair.

There.

Never let it be said that I have avoided the important issues of the day!