Rick you strike me as being what I call an honest Leftist, so allow me to give an honest Rightist's assessment of Bush, of the Western Right, and other related topics.
Ever since the reputed end of the Cold War there has been much confusion among Rightists regarding our role and regarding just which ones SHOULD be our core principles. Particularly in vogue have been two popular threads - one of which is sort of a rabidly idealistic and individualistic libertarianism, and the other of which is a variety of center-right 3rd wayism, commonly mislabled as "neoconservatism."
The second thread has clearly taken center stage.
While I personally agree with certain aspects of so called "neoconservatism" where I differ is on the topic of national sovereignty and how it really needs to, in certain cases, trump purely economic or commercial concerns. I also differ with so called "neoconservatives" whereby I believe that good old fashioned geopolitics and nation-state to nation-state conflict is still the main deal, whereas many of them somehow now believe that there is a new deal, whereby "non state actors" and "rogue states" come up against an overwhelming majority of countries, around 85% of them, who are considered "civilized."
As I see it there are a couple of misconceptions that have fueled the so called "neoconservative" view. The first is that we "won" the Cold War. In many ways, we did. But it was not the "clean" sort of win where we occupied the enemy's cities, hung their leaders, and unlocked their concentration camps. It was more like the end of WW1, but even more watered down than the Treaty of Versailles. When so called "neoconservatives" beat their chests about "winning the Cold War" I personally find such claims to be quite unimpressive and such claims have zero currency for me. The second misconception is that the commercialistic, globalist, center-right construction currently in vogue is "in the process of winning the world." [To those who might think that I am coming at this via a LEFTIST critique, I'd like to remind you that the construction I've illuminated here is in and of itself essentially a liberal, elitist, intellectual one, much popularized by folks like Francis Fukuyma and Thomas L. Friedman. It is more a relic of the Clinton era than it is somehow truly current.]
All of that said, what I admire about Bush is that he took action quickly after 9/11. He also showed a sense of national identity, and perhaps even a much needed small dose of nationalism, when he gave a series of two speeches, a few months apart, rallying the USA to the fight in our War on Terror. So, at the end of the day, even though Bush has largely staked his own electoral bet with overtly identifying with the center-right globalist, economistic, 3rd Way, he still strikes me as someone with whom I and my cohorts further to the right can work with. Therefore, come November, my vote shall be for George W. Bush.
FReegards!
Ping.