Despite the media’s newfound love for the guy, the Republican Party would do well to steer clear of any new embrace of him or his legacy. Just reading this post makes my stomach roil in thinking about how much time I spent agonizing over the Bush agenda of immigration amnesty, entitlement-expansion, and pork barrel spending.

It is worth noting that Newt Gingrich was complicit in much of this, especially the entitlement expansion.

The “Bush” GOP brand is in the midst of being overthrown. And as Erick pointed out today, they are not so happy about it. DO NOT indulge in thoughts of bringing back the Bush brand, no matter how tempting.

That said, being from Florida, I would love to see Jeb take a stab at Bill Nelson in two years . . .

I am beginning to think the Left lets MSNBC do their thinking for them on who to hate. For years, the MSNBC hosts would accuse Bush/Cheney of being Big Oil, War-mongers. But then, during the Ground Zero Mosque saga, MSNBC suddenly had a strange admiration for Bush for not spreading “anti-Islam” bigotry.

good gosh

playbook is always the same

they can never just simply defend what they *purport* to believe, can they?

http://www.aolnews.com/nation/article/bush-kayne-west-katrina-comment-disgusting-moment/19701252

Lauer read from Bush’s soon-to-be-released book, “Decision Points”: “I faced a lot of criticism as president. I didn’t like hearing people claim that I lied about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction or cut taxes to benefit the rich. But the suggestion that I was racist because of the response to Katrina represented an all-time low.”

In another passage from the book, according to The New York Times, Bush wrote that he considered dropping Dick Cheney from his 2004 re-election bid to dispel the vice president’s image as the “Darth Vader” of the White House and to “demonstrate that I was in charge.”

I sat stupefied in front of my TV and heard broad and sweeping praises from the EXACT same people who called him a dunce, a teflon cowboy, a closet racist, and a warmonger.

But I will be even more dumbfounded to hear it of Bush, because the hate for Bush was even more visceral.

It is just more proof that you cannot believe anything that comes out of a Dhimmicrat.

now onsale at GeneralElectric/NBC/Nat enquirer bookstores everywhere !!!!

is because, on several issues of importance, Obama is turning out to be very similar to Bush. That great tragedy that was our nation’s black mark under Bush, Guantanamo, is still open for business, as are renditions. Obama has not changed policies vis a vis transparency in nat sec issues, and he has doubled down on the growth of executive power. Obama has stuck to Bush/Gates’ timetable on Iraq, and has increased funding in Afghanistan (unwisely, IMO). As noted on the campaign trail, Obama voted for the Patriot Act without so much as a backwards glance at his base. As others have gone on at length concerning the un-conservative nature of Bush’s domestic policy, I will only say that Obama’s administration has been a difference of degree, not kind, and that it revealed what was already known by anyone paying attention: that Dems were being craven concerning Bush’s spending. (It’s not even mention the hypocrisy of Dems attacking Reps for ethics violations.)

In short, comparisons between Bush and Obama aren’t particularly favorable to the Anointed One, as there is little difference between the two on issues that aren’t cosmetic* or of degree. That is not to say that Obama=Bush (differences of degree do matter), but that arguing on principle typically requires a preference for a difference in kind. Given that the Dems’ were supposed to be arguing on “principle”, it makes sense that they would try to change those principles in retrospect.

*The two general exceptions being abortion and some odd aberrations on foreign policy (Obama’s foreign policy is significantly more hostile to Israel and Europe than that of Bush or any of the preceding Presidents).