Frumious writes:
I fear rather than a Reagan, we have a Nixon. Talks right, governs Left, while the Pubbies in both sides of the House haven’t the first clue how to handle being in power. They’re spending like a bunch of high schoolers who snatched mom’s MasterCard for the weekend.
I don’t think we have a Nixon. I think we have a pragmatist who sees exactly what we see, and governs in a way that makes it possible for him to continue prosecuting the war. You can scold the “Pubbies” in Congress all you want, but you have to rely on them for spending authority for the things you really want to do. To stop that, you have to somehow overhaul the Republican majority in Congress without losing the Republican majority in Congress. I think Bush is willing to appease a large percentage of RINOs in the short term to accomplish that. But he only gets an election once every two years, and it’s difficult to campaign for the incumbent’s opponent when you really want the incumbent’s vote — and the Specter-Toomey primary race in Pennsylvania is a perfect example. I’m sure Bush would prefer Toomey, but he disses Specter at his peril.
Additionally, this president has already proven that he’s a past master at rope-a-dope. Who says he’s confining his talents to France, Saddam, and the UN?
(And besides, Nixon was shady. I imagine Bush never tells an out-and-out lie.)