John Hawkins proves why the mainstream conservative commentariat and bloggers are doing such a bad job. If he didn't see this coming at all, then that's a real indictment of him as a political commentator:
As a party leader, Bush was an utter failure. In his first term, after 9-11, he had the political capital to enact far-reaching reforms in the federal government, such as tightening up domestic spending. Most of the deficits that we have faced in the last seven years are directly attributable to Bush using his political capital to expand entitlement spending and his incompetent handling of Iraq. Let's not forget that most of our struggles in Iraq would not have happened had Bush invaded with a much larger force, as was recommended. The surge was simply a Johnny-Come-Lately acknowledgment that a lot more troops should have gone in during the initial invasion.
It's important to remember that the wild support Obama has today from people who often correctly rip apart the last seven years of Republican governance is based primarily on Bush's policies and leadership. Whatever comes from an Obama Administration will have been set up by the irresponsible and largely incompetent leadership of the Bush Administration, and in many respects, by the people who didn't have the good sense to vote in a new candidate during the 2004 Republican primary who was more conservative on economic and civil liberties issues.
it was impossible to foresee what a lousy President George Bush would be in his second term.A few pre-November 2004 warning signs:
- Federalization of airport security into the wildly incompetent Transportation Security Administration.
- No Child Left Behind.
- The Medicare "reform" that included the prescription drug provisions.
- The dismissal of many Army officers who insisted that our troop levels going into Iraq were too low to occupy and pacify Iraq.
As a party leader, Bush was an utter failure. In his first term, after 9-11, he had the political capital to enact far-reaching reforms in the federal government, such as tightening up domestic spending. Most of the deficits that we have faced in the last seven years are directly attributable to Bush using his political capital to expand entitlement spending and his incompetent handling of Iraq. Let's not forget that most of our struggles in Iraq would not have happened had Bush invaded with a much larger force, as was recommended. The surge was simply a Johnny-Come-Lately acknowledgment that a lot more troops should have gone in during the initial invasion.
It's important to remember that the wild support Obama has today from people who often correctly rip apart the last seven years of Republican governance is based primarily on Bush's policies and leadership. Whatever comes from an Obama Administration will have been set up by the irresponsible and largely incompetent leadership of the Bush Administration, and in many respects, by the people who didn't have the good sense to vote in a new candidate during the 2004 Republican primary who was more conservative on economic and civil liberties issues.
I voted for Dubya in 2000. He ran as a small-government sort, and I believed him.
Then the Patriot Act happened, and I realized I had been suckered. I have not been a fan of Dubya's since 2001.
I don't see how anyone who prefers smaller government could still have supported Dubya after the Patriot Act. It just boggles my mind.
I voted for him twice.
Does that qualify me for some type of mental disability payments or something?
I'm not voting for either commitard this election, however...