"Bush has set conservatism back 20-25 years, and the election results from Tuesday prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt." I repeat, Bush at his WORST gave us better numbers in Congress than Reagan at his best. That doesn't mean he wasn't a great man. It means that he was a human being working within realistic parameters. You go on and on with all these platitudes about Reagan, but you completely dodge the fact that he was behind some very less-than-conservative things: amnesty for illegals, raising taxes on Social Security, increasing the deficit, etc. Reagan was a pragmatist, just like most effective politicians. Reagan is not a myth -- your characterization of him is!
>>>>I repeat, Bush at his WORST gave us better numbers in Congress than Reagan at his best.
Without Reagan getting the ball rolling in the 1980`s, there would have been NO Republican Revolution of 1994. It was Newt Gingrich who brought a GOP majority to the Congress, and it was George W. Bush who lost that majority by not governing as a conservative. Newt led the GOP to an historic vicory in 1994 by building on the Reagan record of advancing CONSERVATISM. Not through some status quo nonsense to advance more LIBERALISM. The Contract With America was a success. The Reagan Revolution was a success. The Bush agenda has failed.
Dubya handed the Democrats control of the Congress, and without a return to a more conservative policy agenda, the GOP has no chance of retaking the Congress anytime soon. And the 2008 race for the WH looks like a lock for the Democrats at this point.
>>>> .... you completely dodge the fact ....
LOL I dodged nothing. You're attempting to make Bush43 look better after an historic political defeat, by taking pot shots at the Reagan legacy. Fine. The truth of the matter is crystal clear. Bush is no Reagan. Period. Never was and never will be. Reagan was a conservative. Bush is a moderate. The record speaks for itself.