However, I agree that Bush has marginalized the GOP but not because of the wars. He marginalized it because he's the same type of squishy, go-along-to-get-along Rockefeller Republican as his father and every other Republican who has destroyed the party in the Northeast and West Coast. On economic policy, he is a Liberal, pure and simple. He has no governing philosophy. Like his father, he is not interested in building a conservative Republican Party on the domestic front. He is more interested in governing from the “center”, which means taking attack after attack from the Dems and turning the other cheek. His father did the same thing and we ended up getting whipped in the 1992 election too.
On the wars, Bush has been a great success. On the most significant domestic issue—limited government—he has been an abject failure.
It is sometimes very difficult to explain to those of faith, that in politics one must not turn the other cheek.
I believe you have identified exactly the issue.
The GOP, and Bush, far too often meekly turns the other cheek. This is perceived by the voting public, and most Reagan Republicans, as wimpiness.
Democrats, fight to win.
People don’t want leaders who are mamby-pambies.
So Democrats win, when Republicans act this way.
This is also why, people love Sarah Palin. We need to see more of her, these last 2 weeks.
Well stated.
“If the GOP losing is the result of that, then so be it. I accept it.”
You’re a fool if you accept this.
“On the wars, Bush has been a great success.”
There is no objective measure of warfare by which you can come to this conclusion.