OxBlog

On top of that, Frum has conveniently forgotten is that it was Bush's "regular guy in touch with god" persona that made him electable - not his fiscal policy. People lapped up his comment that Jesus was his favorite political philosipher.

Rudy, on the other hand, has supported abortion, dressed up as a woman, unapologetically had mistresses, and is estranged from his kids. Sounds like family values election gold to me.

# posted by

Anonymous : 8:20 AM

Had McCain won 2000, maybe we'd have seen Bushism done right. Closer analogue than Giuliani at any rate.

That was his moment though. With proper post-war planning/troops, amnesty sold more effectively etc. maybe Bushism wouldn't looks so bad. Now it's the last thing people want.

Course, if frank's right, the GOP are doomed to populist christian democracy and the Democrats start looking a lot more attractive. Not saying much.

Uh, Ron Paul 2008!

# posted by

Anonymous : 9:16 PM

History is going to be a much kinder judge to Bush than the psuedointellectual nitwits of the moment care to admit. Somehow I doubt Hillary or Obama are going to win a national election. Tell me again what either has actually done? And while I haven't decided who I will vote for, Guilani did something no one can deny: make NYC governible. And that is a hell of a lot more impressive than being the former governor of Arkansas, or being married to him.

# posted by

Anonymous : 12:21 PM

History is going to be a much kinder judge to Bush than the psuedointellectual nitwits of the moment care to admit. Somehow I doubt Hillary or Obama are going to win a national election. Tell me again what either has actually done? And while I haven't decided who I will vote for, Guilani did something no one can deny: make NYC governible. And that is a hell of a lot more impressive than being the former governor of Arkansas, or being married to him.

# posted by

Anonymous : 12:21 PM

History is going to be a much kinder judge to Bush than the psuedointellectual nitwits of the moment care to admit.

We've heard this kind of twaddle before but perhaps you can enlighten us as to why you think that history will treat Bush as anything but a failure.

Will it be the strong economy or the massive trade deficit, colossal budget deficit and the Starbucks driven 4.7% unemployment rate?

Will it be his successful foreign policy or the resurgent Russia, the disaster in Iraq, the collapsing post-WWII alliances and our precipitous decline in world prestige?

After all, we're just pseudo-intellectual nitwits in need of enlightenment.

# posted by

Anonymous : 12:58 PM

I'm not speaking for Anonymous, but I do share his sentiment. In my opinion, history will be kinder to GWB than his critics imagine in their worst nightmare because historians have never cared about any of the things his critics go on about and I don't see why this case would be different.

Domestic policy--great economy. They won't care much about the deficit or the incursions on liberty (which are hugely exaggerated anyway).

Foreign policy--every complaint will pale in comparison to the success in Iraq. Including the costs of that success. Only the success itself will matter (maybe I'm counting my chickens here, but failure has never seemed more than a remote possibility and it has never seemed more remote than it does right now).

# posted by

tim maguire : 3:29 PM

Ha! My own tunnel vision is showing--success in Iraq! That's only the half of it. His success in the larger war on terror--that's what will matter.

# posted by

tim maguire : 3:31 PM

Great economy. If that's true then Cheney could get elected and any other Republican wins in a cakewalk.

Success in Iraq ... failure has never seemed more than a remote possibility. That's a half a trillion dollar four and half year remote possibility. A nod to reality and regional history indicates otherwise.

The only thing Bush can do now is drag Iraq out so that withdrawal happens on the next president's watch.

# posted by

Anonymous : 4:07 PM

I think the comparison can be made to Truman or even Reagan, both of whom were assaileds by their domestic critics who assumed that history would share the same negative assessment that they obsessed over. Didn't turn out that way. So if you want to know why, history tends toward a more deliberative judgment as passions cool off and people have time to reassess. Bush's critics despise him, just as Reagan's did and still do. Yet in the end most people are no so self-deluded or so narrow-minded. For example, is the economy really in shambles? Actually no its not, although the media, which I'm sure by coincidence votes overwhelmingly Democratic, always seems in the last couple of decades to claim that the economy is in shambles whenever a Republican is in the White House. It's always amazing how the national mood tends to brighten when a Democrat becomes president.

# posted by

Anonymous : 9:30 PM

The January issue of The American Conservative has an article on Giuliani. It's a conservative takedown of a neoconservative candidate.

# posted by

Anonymous : 8:42 PM

I'm not sure what to call TAC, but calling yourself an American conservative doesn't make you one. See, this is more of how the notion that authors of this site have any insight into conservative thinking is entirely risible. Calling TAC conservative is just trying to conflate conservatism with all the old cryptofascist slurs of the Left. Which, of course is shocking, shocking.

Meanwhile, it is usually you leftist dolts making fun of his if you will gaffes e.g. the opera costume. I hesitate to say "liberal dolts" because it seems entirely illiberal to do so.

Cheney would win in a walk - would surely win the GOP nomination at least. He is not running because he never intended to run, sadly, and because, sadly, his health is not up to it.

You want what you ain't going to get. Sorry it makes you bitter. You folks could really use some new blood.

# posted by

Nichevo : 2:52 AM