[kabar]

My goal here, BTW, has nothing to do with this one incident. I'm just trying to point out that we need to take the next primary seriously. Bush is the past. And if we keep him on a pedestal, conservatism will never reach JFK levels, because JFK was more conservative than Bush.

You have an odd way of expressing things. I don't understand your statement, "And if we keep him on a pedestal, conservatism will never reach JFK levels, because JFK was more conservative than Bush." What JFK levels are you talking about and why would it be a goal of conservatism to reach them? In what regard was JFK "more conservative than GWB?"

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Spending, for one thing. I don't recall reading him increasing the funding of a tarnished institution like the NEA for another. While arguably more conservative than Bush in many ways, JFK isn't conservative enough either.

Don't get me wrong. Bush, as things stand now, is the most successful wartime president in US history: liberating more people and land with such comparably low fatalities [even the 'unconquerable' Afghanis]-- that's a major accomplishment. It would take over 40 years to reach Vietnam level fatalities.

At the same time, we need to look hard at how the 2000 primary was hyjacked, or the same thing will happen in 2008. But who realizes we were hyjacked?