[mosel-saar-ruwer]

You know, if you can overlook the fact that this guy is a raging kook, he actually has some interesting things to say.

[mosel-saar-ruwer]

Monday AM sodomy bump.

[Always Right]

Wishful thinking by Sullivan who charishes his homosexuality more than anything.

[reluctantwarrior]

The sheeple feel their way through life and the future isn't a concern if the threat has been forgotten. Churchill was a victim of his sucess and the leftist media will shill for the dems shamelessly this cycle, a close election decided by less than seven electoral votes.

[CatoRenasci]

This essay, which is certainly useful in reminding everyone not to take Bush's reelection for granted, fails to note the fundamental difference between the American system in which people vote separately for President, senators and representatives. In England's parliamentry system, no one votes for prime minister, but for the local member. Oh, one knows one is voting for a party - typically Tory or Labour since the collapse of the Liberals (Whigs) after WWI -- but one actually votes for the local candidate. No such thing as divided government in England: the party that controls Parliament determines the Prime Minister.

[boomop1]

He will go the way of David Brock into obscurity, he embarrasses his self each time he pens, but is too caught up in his own slime to realize.

[Finalapproach29er]

Andrew is pouting.

[tbpiper]

Andy seems to have forgotten that the war is still on. Churchill wasn't ousted in the middle of WWII.

[dawn53]

Here is Sullivan's flawed premise:

The British people ejected Churchill not because they disapproved of his war but because they didn't think he was the man to lead them in peacetime.

We are not in peacetime!!!

[Consort]

Pyrrhric posturing from the former homogenius.

[Steve_Seattle]

Folks can blast Sullivan for the irrelevant arguments pertaining to his homosexuality, but he is on to something. One factor he doesn't mention explicitly, but which I think is important, is that war causes stress, and the public can tolerate the stress of war only so long. If the public can be convinced that the war was unnecessary, or is already won, it might want to get rid of the president associated with that war as a form of anxiety-reduction. The public does not want to think we face an ongoing danger from terrorism, and Kerry's comments that the threat of terrorism was exaggerated play up to that tendency.

[baseballmom]

I think the war on terrorism is far from over, and Bush's toughness is a vital part of the struggle.

Obviosly, he is NOT saying the WOT is over. He is simply pointing out the fickleness of the voter.

Churchill's opponent in 1945, Clement Attlee, was, like John Kerry today, no heavyweight

Sullivan is cautioning us that just because GW has done such a great job as a war president, there is a real possibility that a mediocre man such as Kerry could pull off an upset.

It's getting to be routine on FR lately, that if some don't like the message, they start trashing the messenger. It really demeans all of us.

[The Wizard]

Churchill's war was over.

[Poincare]

Perhaps it's just coincidence, but the gays on KGO radio San Francisco are screaming that the was is over.

[Porterville]

What?? Where not British, how can anyone compare America to Britain? Even one of the Princes would rather be an American.

[Scenic Sounds]

Here's what a really smart Democratic contender could say to the President this fall: "Thank you, Mr. President, for your leadership in difficult times. You made some tough decisions, and we are safer as a result. But the very qualities that made you a perfect pick for the war so far are the very ones that make you less effective from now on. You are too polarizing a figure to bring real peace to Iraq. You are too unpopular overseas to allow European governments to cooperate fully in the attempt to hunt down terrorists. And your deep unpopularity in half the country makes it impossible for you to make the necessary compromises that the country needs domestically. Thanks for all you've done, but bye-bye."

I think that the Democrats will take a variation of this tack. I don't think that their nominee will question the President's honesty (although a lot of his henchmen will use that theme to preach to the Democratic choir). I think that the Democratic nominee's theme will be based upon competence. I think it will be argued that the President has mismanaged both the economy and the situation in Iraq.

[longtermmemmory]

seems like he realy is desperate to hurt Bush after that whole marriage is one man one woman thing.

[jordan8]

The "war", will have no positive effect for Bush. Not the war on terrorism and especially not Iraq. It is just not an issue for the vast majority of people. The real comparison is not Churchill but his own father. GHWB got no boost from Iraq I and GWB will get less from Iraq II. The biggest war issue will be the money spent on Iraq (they'll throw in the lives lost, but the money is the thing). The biggest issue will probably be the deficit. Beyond that, Bush has the same problem his old man had: the vision thing. He is essentially a non-ideological individual who believes he should rule because he is from the right class of people. He's the CEO with the MBA who doesn't care whether the company he runs makes widgets or computer chips, he doesn't know or care about widgets or computer chips, he's just interested in being a success, in not being a failure, and in a bright quarterly statement for those who count.

So will he win? Hard to say. American politics have become difficult to predict. 25 years ago it would have been an easy call, he would have won in a landslide against an Uberliberal like Kerry, who's a bigger stiff than Dukakis was. But externally the Republicans had communism then (and internally a larger cultural base). The hope many people put in the boosting effect of the war on terror or in Irag is in inverse proportion to their inability to compete on the domestic front. No matter how hard people try to pump up the "War On Terror" as the new Soviets it just isn't going to fly, barring any spectacular repeat of 9-1-1.

[NYCVirago]

One other thing Sullivan doesn't mention -- the British electorate of 1945 are still perceived as ingrates, to put it kindly, for throwing out Churchill.