I’m not trying to “split the difference” here but I really do accept part of what each of you are saying.
If we think about all the Presidents we have had in our history and all the likely ones that we might have from the current crop of politicians, I do think that George W. Bush has been one of the best we could have had on SOME of the War on Terror issues. There are lots and lots of pols of both parties who would have settled for taking some symbolic steps after 9/11 and who would have been far less aggressive at making America safer and showing that jihadist groups and regimes could be crushed. Yet, we still have a looooong way to go, but that would be true now no matter who was POTUS these past 8 years.
However, the continuing lack of border security truly is appalling beyond description for any POTUS.
On many other issues, especially on domestic, economic, and budgetary issues, I think that Pres. Bush has been far too liberal and socialistic, though it is amazing how much liberal propaganda portrays him as some troglodyte conservative.
Yes, there were clear signs in his 2000 campaign that we were getting a “compassionate conservative” with some bad liberal ideas on education, big govt., etc. but guess what, the choices were extremely limited! Certainly Albore was not a reasonable alternative, and neither was John McCain. We don’t often get a choice worth making ala Ronald Reagan.
Most of the time we are stuck choosing between the RINO socialist and the Democrat socialist.
To recall a famous phrase, most of the time what we are offered in politics is not a CHOICE but an ECHO!!
Both parties are trending much too socialistic on economic issues. The Mediascum intimidates all but the most principled conservatives into backing more and more socialistic policies and one-world UN-globalistic b.s., because that is how any politician gets praise and good coverage from the Mediascum.
Anyone who deviates from liberal socialistic norms is treated as a pariah.