Good piece. The ones who won't support anyone but the Perfect (Imaginary) Conservative Republican seem to think that all that has to be done is to let Republicans lose an election and they will be replaced with Perfect Conservatives. But politics is far more complicated than that, and we are lucky to have W. He's achieved more than almost any R could have, through an amazing mix of the ability to choose one's fights and the ineptitude of the opposition.
I'm still waiting for the "smaller Federal government" to show up. At this point, even the one Clinton and Gore talked about would be a welcome sight.
Peole wonder why Bill Clinton did not try to enact a liberal agenda. The reason is pretty simple. From 1992 until 2000 the times were good and the nation was secure. When that is the case the voters do not want change. Clinton who used Dick Morris's polling to document public opinion, understood the voters did not want change. Clinton did not try to change things.
Today on both the economic and foreign policy fronts, there are problems. When the voters perceive problems, they want them fixed. That is they want change.
In this situation a smart politican proposes fixes. In the 1990s the problems were few and small, now they are many and large. That means the public wants the problems fixed. That is why Bush is proposing and in some cases inacting change.
The Demorats having witnessed the Republicans in the 1990s achieveing success by pushing the status quo, are doing the same thing. They mistakenly believe the voters will reward those that stand in the way of change.
If the Democrats and the MSM portrayed the situation as good and getting better, they could oppose the Bush agenda and get voter support. But when they constantly point out un resolved problems and then try to stop the presidnet from fixing them, they are prescribing their own defeat.
Someone needs to write a book "Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Strategy" or "How to get everything wrong!"
The Democrats experience history, they just don't understand it.
Liberals continue to lose because for one thing, they're the biggest pessimists around. Here we live in the richest country in the world with unlimited opportunities for those with ability to do so, and the witless Dems try to convince Americans that most of us are poor, starving, oppressed peons with no prospects for bettering ourselves and no legal recourse when we are wronged. And insisting that only about one percent of Americans live good...off the sweat and toil of the 99% indigent Americans who must work three jobs to live in hovels and eat gruel. They are basically trying to convince the American public of the lie that life in the U.S. for the average American is awful. That's why they continue their descent into the swamp.
Bush is a good dude, but for heaven sake, someone tell him to start proposing spending cuts. Hopefully, by doing that, he will not only decrease the size of government, but also cause all liberal leaders to die of either heart attacks or massive strokes.
Ping
I don't know about the others, but Saxby won because Max Cleland finally outed himself as a leftist creep. Bush may have helped to a degree, but that race was Saxby's to lose.
Consider yourself pinged.
He makes 5 good points, but his conclusion is weak. He fails to recognize the political momentum, that will carry for several decades, and limits Conservative ascendancy to 1 or 2 years. Bush was re-elected before his Iraqi strategy was vindicated. Also liberalism (socialism), is continually being discredited where ever it exists (Europe, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea...etc. all in decay).
"These five factors have produced a rare political moment for Republicans. It's a moment that won't last more than a year or two. The question is whether they'll do anything with it. Nothing is guaranteed. But a lot is expected."