Replies

I understand. Bush has squandered opportunities. I agree with that. But as the elections approach, I think writers for the National Review and other great conservative publications, should focus their energies on how we can all work together to salvage as much as we can from the midterms, rather than staring at our navels in disgust of what might have been.

Bush is not Reagan. Accept it. Move on.

In the interest of fair disclosure, I'm not conservative myself--I'm a libertarian. Your point that the conservatives need to concentrate on what they need to do to win is well taken, but I think it also bears pointing out that the party has not been doing those things and might need to make some changes.

Myself, I would like to see the GOP take back the Senate. If nothing else, it would stifle the excuses for why the GOP is not doing anything about making govt smaller, defending gun rights (more than lip service that is), etc. It would be "put up or shut up" time.

Reagan was not "Reagan." Accept that.

So many here at FR act like he was a god among men or something. He sent deficit spending budgets, never used his "landslide popularity"-- you know the kind Bush didn't get en route to losing the popular vote-- to bully Congress to agree to a flat tax or to approve Bork's nomination or to pass any of the things in the Contract with America. He appointed Liddy Dole-- who many at FR despise as a RINO-- to his Cabinet. He appointed Day O'Connor to the SCOTUS rather than Bork and then Kennedy. He was only able to briefly hold the Senate (for 5 years) and didn't wage war against Congressional Democrats to sweep Republican House members in. Reagan even allowed parts of his tax plan to be reversed in subsequent years.

And that deficit thing-- that gave us Ross Perot, who gave us Bill Clintoon for eight years. Even when he left office, Reagan didn't use his senior stateman drawing power to bring GOP majorities to Congress and fill campaign coffers to overflowing.