New at Reason

March 6, 2007

Dave Weigel searches for George W. Bush love at CPAC, and finds that most activists have already moved on.

Comments

edna|3.6.07 @ 8:09AM|#

fred thompson or dick armey would certainly be an improvement...

how cool would it be to have a president named dick armey?

Antarctic Penguin|3.6.07 @ 8:35AM|#

So would Condi Rice.

|3.6.07 @ 9:10AM|#

As long as we're fantasizing, how about Colin Powell? It would be a novelty to have a President who wasn't an embarrassment.

|3.6.07 @ 9:18AM|#

Jeb Bush would be the best Republican candidate, if he had any other last name.

|3.6.07 @ 9:32AM|#

I will never forgive Colin Powell for betraying his principals and toting water to the UN.

Ron Paul isn't just the only candidate I could support, he's the only one that doesn't make me wretch. Dang that's depressing...

|3.6.07 @ 9:41AM|#

Republicans' ability to move on from Bush is hamgstrung by the fact that they've spent three consecutive elections defining their party and what it stands for in terms of loyalty to Jesus' own president.

wernher beit|3.6.07 @ 9:48AM|#

But, joe,

even if we suppose this was true, there remains the fact that there's no Bush running in 2008, so they wont be hamstrung any longer, or what?

|3.6.07 @ 10:12AM|#

wehrner,

But his legacy, in the form of the Iraq War and a thousand other actions, lives on.

No one who denounces Bush's record can win the nomination, and no one who endorses it can win the presidency.

|3.6.07 @ 10:13AM|#

...well, unless the Democrats really screw up. But what are the chances of that?

50/50?

Antarctic Penguin|3.6.07 @ 10:54AM|#

"...well, unless the Democrats really screw up. But what are the chances of that?"

WAY more than 50/50. They have positioned themselves in such a way that if Iraq does turn out OK, they lose and lose big. If things do NOT go well in Iraq the more left-wing 20%their party (without which they lose control of congress) would be considered at least partly to blame for supporting resolutions that would tie the hands of the troops. In the chess game of politics the Democrats' King is trapped.

|3.6.07 @ 10:59AM|#

I guess we'll see, Penguin.

But of all of the things keeping Democratic candidates up at night, the Republicans being vindicated on Iraq over the next two years ranks just below asteroid strike.

"If things do NOT go well in Iraq the more left-wing 20%their party (without which they lose control of congress) would be considered at least partly to blame for supporting resolutions that would tie the hands of the troops."

I'm sure you're going to try to blame the 65% of Americans (not 20% of Democrats, 65% of Americans) who are now, in March 2007, agitating for withdrawing from Iraq for the disaster in Iraq, but I doubt it would work. The disaster predates the majority's call to end the war by 2-3 years.

|3.6.07 @ 11:04AM|#

In the chess game of politics the Democrats' King is trapped.

Get real Penguin. First of all, even McCain realizes that things are going very badly in Iraq. And Iraq gets laid at the President's feet. The Democrats are bulletproof on Iraq.

The Democrats real problem is that HRC has declared, and since she is the Godfather of that family, what Hillary wants Hillary gets. There's a sizable number of people who will vote for "anyone but Hillary". People that might otherwise stay home in the face of a disappointing GOP nominee will come out to vote against her.

|3.6.07 @ 12:37PM|#

People that might otherwise stay home in the face of a disappointing GOP nominee will come out to vote against her.

As a former lukewarm Republican, I can say that the only Republican I wouldn't vote for over Hillary is Bloomberg. Even Giuliani(shudder) or McCain(vomit)....oh man, I'm depressed.

|3.6.07 @ 1:04PM|#

It would be a novelty to have a President who wasn't an embarrassment.

Colin Powell is pretty much the last word in cautious bureacratic Organization Man. There is certainly a role for men such as he, don't get me wrong.

He might not be an embarassment, but he would be a liability if the country were to need any actual, you know, leadership.

|3.6.07 @ 1:06PM|#

The Democrats are bulletproof on Iraq.

Not so much. Many of them voted for going into Iraq (HRC, for one). They are actually walking a tightrope - if the balloon really goes up in Iraq and the Dems have done anything to reduce support for Iraq, they are very exposed.

|3.6.07 @ 1:07PM|#

Yes, nominating an Iraq hawk like Hillary would be a problem for the Democrats. But even she could put distance between herself and the war better than a Republican.

|3.6.07 @ 1:08PM|#

Oops, sorry, one more paragraph: The Dems are actually walking a razor's edge here. If things turn around in Iraq, they are not in a position to take credit. If things go badly in Iraq, they are beginning accumulate a record that makes them vulnerable to having undermined the mission there and contributed to the defeat.

Remember, the Dems were punished at the ballot box for being anti-war while Vietnam went down the tubes.

Antarctic Penguin|3.6.07 @ 2:16PM|#

"First of all, even McCain . . ."

McCain is contrary for the sake of being contrary. That is his personality. The situation in Iraq is not as bad as WWII was for the allies at various times in that war. It could turn around with the right strategy, whether the current strategy is the right one history will decide.

"And Iraq gets laid at the President's feet. The Democrats are bulletproof on Iraq."

Had the Democrats not won in November I would agree but they are now the ruling party in congress and have influence. Many in that party are making lots of noise about forcing the president's hand in Iraq in one way or another; if they succeed voters will take note.

|3.6.07 @ 2:18PM|#

Good point, RC. If the Democrats nominate a McGovern-type like Kucinich (who's actually quite a bit more pacifist than McGovern, in that he actually is a pacifist), the next election could look like 1972. The fact that being more anti-war that George Bush is a political winner doesn't mean they can run off the map in that direction without consequence.

Still, that's a very dull razor. There is a lot of room between Dennis Kucinich and John McCain, much more than between Nixon and McGovern.