In The Shadow of Bush

Ahh yes, the Bush Derangement Syndrome still churning away I see. Libs never got over the first Bush election, and they really, REALLY lost it when Bush was re-elected. Honest to God, Newsweek / MSDNC, how many "we hate George W. Bush" articles do you have left in you?

It never ceases to amaze me the kinds of things reporters are able to extrapolate from a simple, basic issue or premise and then spin yards worth of whole cloth alternate universe theories???and distortions???from it???I guess it???s the nature of journalism. Yes, Bush made a mistake in invading Iraq, but Iraq has been turned out to be a killing ground of Islamists and this will strongly effect history???s evaluation of his presidency. No peep or mentioned of this is made of this in the article for the simple reason that the reporter is obviously a democrat and wants a democrat to become president. Also not mentioned is Bush???s ruinous sympathy for and support of amnesty legislation???something the democrats are in favor of, too. This issue has yet to register strongly in the primaries where the typical voter???s concern is somewhat different from those in a general election. McCain will eventually pay a substantial price for his support of last summer???s amnesty legislation and the author???s all too evident enthusiasm to pump up McCain because he knows that this is a dead on fact says it all.

What wreckage? Bush has more courage and commitment than the entire staff of this left wing rag. The Republican Party has been damaged by wavering congressional politicians, not Bush.

Pett77 -

If you wish to see a moron, you need only find the closest mirror.

As Republicans, why don't we just trade Romney for Obama and let him run against Ms.H.R. Clinton as a Republican?

Since change is America's paramount desire (versus "staying the course"), an Elmer Gantry politician is going to be the most effective as we come out of the nominating conventions. Obama can make 'em cry. As yet, the Repubs do not have a charismatic on that scale. Reagan and Bill Clinton had it in spades, and the Electorate flocked to them. Bob Dole and Al Gore did not have it. Bush won by not beating over the Electorate's head the embarrassing peccadilloes of B. Clinton. H. Clinton is the Queen of Mean, and she will not survive out into the general election. She can???t speak effectively, is associated with her husband???s past, and the politics of class envy. Obama is going to win the Presidency with his JFK delivery, and by not bashing the current occupant. It matters not what his platform is, nor his personal misdeeds, if any. He???s got the Bright Future thing going. And in this era of a Nation wanting a sea change, that is all he needs to win.

Citizen Phil: I understand the logic behind saying "Time will tell" is not an acceptable answer, but there is actually some merit to looking at events through the distillation of time. For example, Harry Truman was one of the most unpopular presidents in history during his terms -- at one point, his approval rating 23%. However, I think history now regards him as a very successful president who steered the country through a huge post-war economic boom.

Iraq certainly won't be a US-style democracy, but what if 10 years from now this whole things has actually worked? What if the Annapolis Conference in November actually turns out to be the jump start to a negotiated final settlement between the Israelis and Palestinians? I don't think these things are slam dunks, but there is certainly the possibility. If those two items succeed, Bush could indeed come out of this thing looking like a good president, just like Harry Truman.

PinkPanther, I'm as concerned as you are about the future of this country, but yelling in all caps type and inciting panic is not the best way to convince people of the urgency. There are people in both parties (Ron Paul is a Republican) who want to change course and end the war. I really believe that we are headed towards a different two-party system of those who believe our liberty is most important, and those who choose security above liberty. The candidates who are on the side of liberty get a lot less coverage than those on the side of security. Don't panic--vote!

We should ask two questions of every Republican Presidential candidate: (1) How would you define "Neo-Con," and to what extent do you consider yourself a Neo-Con? (2) Is George W. Bush a great American President? Explain the reasons for your assessment. ("Time will tell" is NOT an acceptable answer.)

I SEE BUSH ARMING THE SAUDIS AS PREPERATION FOR JEB TO RUN IN 4 YEARS ON A PLATFORM OF CHANGE AND DISARM THE SAUDIS. THIS WILL HAPPEN. THE MIN A TERRORIST USES A "SMART BOMB" WE SOLD TO THEM THIS YEAR, AS 14 OUT OF 16 OF THE TERRORIST WHO TOOK OUT THE WTC CAME FROM SAUDI, AND OUR ONLY REACTION? TO THEM IS SELL THEM WEAPONS? REAL SMART TO KEEP THE WAR ON AN ADJECTIVE GOING! JUST LIKE LAUDEN WHO BHUTTO WARNED US ABOUT WHEN WE ARMED HIM IN THE EARLY 80S! THEN WE HAD HER KILLED FOR YELLING AT A BUSH LIKE HUSSAIN AND HIS ATTEMPT ON DADDYS LIFE, WHO EVEN STATED WE COULD NEVER AFFORD TO INVADE IRAQ IN 91! TO BAD GW DON'T KNOW HOW TO LISTEN! WE DIE HE REFUSES TO HERE! GREAT MAKINGS OF A JANATOR [NO DISRESPECT TO THEM AT ALL] BUT THE ONLY THING A BUSH SHOULD EVER BE ALLOWED TO DO IS CLEAN TOLITS! WE HAVE TAKEN ENOUGH SHEIT FROM HIM!

PLEASE PLEASE NO MATTER WHO WINS THE DEM VOTE DON'T GO GOP JUST CAUSE IT'S A SHE OR BLACK NEITHER IS IMPORTANT AS BOTH ARE NOT THE "STAY THE COURSE TYPE" AND WE NEED A CHANGE OF "COURSE" WE ARE ON, OR WE MIGHT AS WELL CONCIDER THE HUMAN RACE HISTORY! AS WITH ANY GOP, WE WILL CERTINALY DIE IN USELESS WARS, AND NOT A DIME TO US SOIL! NOT ONE MAJOR TERRORIST DEAD, BUT BY LIE, AND BULL, AND NOT TRUSTING OUR OWN GOV FOR GOOD REASON, IS NOT THE COURSE TO STAY ON!

This was an intelligent article that presented facts instead of attacking the candidates. My only concern is that Ron Paul is conspicuously missing once again. It's possible to conclude from the absence of his name that he doesn't suffer from the same types of flaws as the Republican candidates mentioned in the article, but I'd rather see him equally analyzed for defects and counted among the contenders than omitted altogether.