In The Nation, leftoid journo Robert Scheer rains down hellfire on "moderate Republicans and "consistent conservatives" for supporting George W. Bush:
How else to explain their cynical support for this shallow adventurer, a phony lightweight who has bled the Treasury dry while incompetently squandering the lives of young Americans in a needless imperial campaign? If Al Gore had been knighted President by the Supreme Court and overseen this mess instead of Dubya, the rational remnant of the Republican Party would be rightly calling for his head.
Scheer's invective is somewhat puzzling--is Bush a phony lightweight or a real lightweight? But he may well be on to something. Certainly, it seems pretty likely that had President Gore marched into Baghdad, the GOP would have been less enthusiastic about the adventure. Whole thing here.
Of course, Scheer neglects to point out something else too: Why the hell do Democrats all the sudden hate budget deficits and humanitarian justifications for war? Could it have something to do with the fact that Bush is from the other side?
And speaking of "consistency," why won't The Nation ever say it's the right year for Ralph Nader--who clearly fits their ideology 1,000 times better than the Bay State's answer to the Frankenstein monster--to run for president?