Although I didn’t say he’d be better than W, just no worse, I’ve reconsidered and I concede that he may well be worse in some ways. However, W was infuriating with the way he rolled on immigration, NCLB BS, Part D, and would never veto spending bills, and had that quisling as press secretary who would never fight back, and spent too much GOP capital on the wars, with weak rhetoric and justifications, letting the Wilson/Plame debacle drag on for years, all of which which led to devastating defeats in 2006 and 8, and thus Obamacare. In any case Mitt beats the hell out of BO, the African-centered Liberation Theologist agitator with the giant chip on his America-transforming shoulder.
But I’m once bitten twice shy. Heck, multiply that.
If Mitt does the same, what truly is the difference? I just don’t get the confidence I need to believe he would do anything strong enough to stop this madness.
While I don’t think Bush wasted capital on the wars, I agree his reasons were badly stated as well as the implementation of the aftermath. Bremer in Iraq? What a joke. Not a position at the time for a frat house committee chairman.
But his daddy wasn’t much better letting Colin Powell advise him to take it easy on Saddam at the end and giving them offensive weapons (helicopters) for “humanitarian reasons”.
I forgot about the Wilson/Plame crap and you are correct. Badly handled and he let good people be treated unfairly for no reason. That’s Rove for you.
I know 0 is the worse, but at least we had Reagan in 1980. Mitt isn’t even up to one tenth of that. He’ll be a middle of the road president that will start off on the defensive with every petty attack the Dems will make.
They took down Bush 41 just like that and I don’t think Mitt will fight.