Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, January 05, 2009
William Rusher :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Republicans Look Ahead
by William Rusher
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


It seems as likely as anything in politics can be that the Democratic candidate for president in 2012 will be President Obama, seeking re-election to a second term. But who will the Republicans put up to oppose him? It may seem a little early to be worrying about that, but you can bet that that is already the question on a lot of the nation's best political minds.

And already there are a number of names in the hat. For a party out of national power, governorships are the logical place to turn, and, happily, a number of them are available for consideration by the GOP.

One, certainly, is Tim Pawlenty, the Republican governor of Minnesota. Elected in 2002 and now in his second term, he is 48 years old and previously served as majority leader of the Minnesota House of Representatives. He probably deserves to be listed as a moderate among possible Republican presidential nominees.

Then there is Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, who, at 37, is also in his second term as the state's chief executive. He is somewhat more conservative than Pawlenty -- not surprisingly, in view of his Southern roots -- but not overwhelmingly so.

Another possible source of presidential candidates is, of course, the Congress, and the current one doesn't lack for possibilities. Still on the Republican side, one name often mentioned is that of Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, At 57 and serving his first term in the Senate after six years in the House, he is an outspoken conservative, rated at 100 by the American Conservative Union in 2006.

These names, of course, by no means exhaust the list of those mentioned for possible nomination by the Republicans in 2012. But it is probably fairer to stop naming names now rather than try to list everyone and risk omitting somebody who deserves to be included.

And never overlook the possibility that a major contender might emerge, not from Congress but from the ranks of business or the military, both of which have produced powerful candidates in past decades. Witness Wendell Willkie, who in 1940 moved from a career in business to the Republican presidential nomination and gave FDR a thoroughly credible battle for the White House.

In general, however, it is in the political ranks that we are likeliest to find plausible candidates for high political office. For one thing, they tend to have the kind of political experience that such office requires. A businessman may know many things of value, but he hasn't been schooled in the strikingly different arts of politics, and his performance in the latter field is almost bound to suffer as a result.

In any case, there is plenty of time for attractive possibilities to emerge. The off-year elections of 2010 are fewer than two years away, and any one of them could produce a brand-new governor, senator or even Congressman capable of making an important splash in 2012.

The nation's politicians and political observers are well aware of this and will keep a sharp eye on who emerges from the political cauldron in 2010.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

William Rusher is a Distinguished Fellow of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy and author of How to Win Arguments .

Be the first to read William Rusher's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Looking Ahead
If the Republican Party is to ever win again,they must consider conservatives. If they do not,there will be a strong third party and Republicans will surely lose again.

Conservatives will not again support a RINO.If the party thinks they can win without the base,let them try it .

We voted for a RINO in November against a dangerous unknown. I doubt we will ever have a more dire reason to vote AGAINST someone as we did to vote against Obama.


You can't see in there
The Republican Party has its head so buried in the locale of its posterior that its vision potential is severely limited, all forward vision is blocked. For example, the author puts forth "Tim Pawlenty, the Republican governor of Minnesota."

Shoot, boy howdy, that’s what we need, a governor from a state that once elected Jesse Ventura to be its governor and now is anxious to seat a flaming mental case to be its next senator.

There is no hope for the Republican Party; they are now nothing more than sycophant politicians with all the spine of a jellyfish. The opening paragraph of this article said it all, "political minds."

Politicians, we don't need no stinkin' politicians, we need pragmatic strategists with the audacity to lead, not more political pukes who grovel for their very existence.

Au Contraire
Is it honestly looking to the future? If someone like Pawlenty is being mentioned, the answer is clearly no, unless that future is to dig it's own grave. I agree that the likelihood is for a strong third party to emerge, without..I said WITHOUT..a dramatic paradigm shift, toward one that will be putting forward only candidates who clearly understand the limits of the Constitution (particularly Article 1, Section 8), and will wholeheartedly and without compromise fight against the blatant encroachment of the power hungry, the misguided, and the illiterate(those who apparently can't read THE CONSTITUTION), and that's just in the Republican Party. Currently the GOP suffers from schizophrenia. Take this from the 2008 platform for example.."Constrain the federal government to its legitimate constitutional functions.", but then we have this.."The job of modernizing Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid calls for bipartisanship, not political posturing", and I beg of you, show me any one of those in the Constitution. So much more to say, but enough for now.

Future?
Pleeeeease..........pretty please repubs. Nominate Sarah Palin - she would be fantastic at the top of the repub. ticket.

Lenerd
What should be the limits of the Article I, Section 8? I don't mean just listing specific programs you don't like. What, if you had your way, would be the ideal, universally-applicable standard?

Many people feel that government is wasteful (rightly so), and would like to get rid of wasteful programs. But I think very few voters, including Republican voters, have an appetite for the across-the-board narrowing of Congress' regulatory power that would be required by a rethinking of Article 1, Section 8 jurisprudence. Voters generally aren't that principled. They like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the FDA, the Department of Education, etc. They would not want to get rid of programs they find valuable because of a broader, more abstract principle of separation of powers. If you really think this is the direction the GOP should go, go ahead. But I guarantee you will be a much smaller party. The GOP would be better off attacking wasteful programs individually, where it can make the case to voters that the specific program is not helpful.

Most likely
The most likely situation in 2012 is enough discontent with the foreignpolicy/economic situation to provide basically the same opportunity for the Republicans these items provided for the Democrats this year. So it will probably be a battle for the direction of the Republicans. Goldwater and Reagan led a move towards conservatism, but the Bushes restored the so-called Rockefeller wing to power by merely saying one thing to get elected, then doing another. There has been a lot of Republicans posting on TH who say things like take off conservatives, we don't need you, or take off religious fundies, we don't need you. Its hard to believe these people are not planted trolls trying to sow dissension. The Democrats function quite well, accepting the votes of Catholics who put politics ahead of religion, and blacks who many conservative views, but feel they muyst vote Democratic. Obama has shown genius at telling diverse groups what they want to hear, even when he contradicts himself. Inded, a characteristic of left wing voters seems to be they ask to be suckered. Like the Crystal Gayle song "Tell me some lies. I don't want the truth i want alibis". The point is that a majority in this country does believe in honesty, reward of merit, fiscal responsibility, good schools, and national security. The record of recent Democrats is so lousy in these areas it almost defies belief that Republicans could do worse, but they managed it. We have 4 years to stand up for what has been proven to work. But the main thing is to select a Reagan, not a CINO like Bush, Kennedy, Souter and so many others who talked the talk and veered left as soon as they were walking.

Pennsylvania Yankee
What proposing? It's already given, and what does "like" have to with it? It's the law. If you want I will revisit all that has gone before (well as much as possible in such a limited forum), 1) Declaration of Independence, 2) Articles of Confederation,3) Won War, 4) Con Con, 5)Public debates and State Ratifications. We have an immutable (excluding the Amendment process) form of Government in place to preserve our UNALIENABLE rights, if we do not adhere to it then government, which we blatantly are not, then what do we have? Government by might, NOT right. SO I ask you, are these rights UNALIENABLE, or is it pick and choose? Do I get to pick and choose what laws I want to follow? There's so much more to say in regards to the accuracy of your statements, and whether or not people confuse things like the Department of Education as Education, think State and local. Is the bureaucracy, which is really the only thing provided by the Dept.of Ed. truly necessary or does it actually detract from overall Educational efficiency?

Pistol
It seems a little pollyanna-ish to simply state that the "mostly likely situation in 2012" is one that offers "the same opportunity for the Republicans" as Democrats had in 2008. The GOP should be realistic, and accept that Obama's future is uncertain. Democrats who were similarly confident that George W. Bush would be unpopular once he was alone in the glare of the national spotlight certainly found their plans upended in 2004. Your statement represents the wild enthusiasm of a fan, not an objective political analysis.

Second, an important message from the 2008 GOP primaries seems to have been missed -- posters on Townhall and similar sites are not a cross section of the Republican Party, and you cannot choose who the party picks as its nominee without the rank and file. Few on Townhall or Redstate liked McCain, but primary voters liked him more than more conservative candidates. Republican primaries tend to be more like coronations, but the GOP should learn a lesson the Democrats have gotten used to -- voters have a way of making up their own minds about who they will support.

Lenerd
You're ignoring you own prior point. If you want to get into an argument about the correct interpretation of Art I, Section 8, we can do that. But your original point was that there was an appetite for a third party that would push for a narrower interpretation of Section 8. I was arguing that there is no such appetite among the voters. A third party (or either current party) can certainly score points by aiming to eliminate individual programs that it can convince the public are wasteful. But I think you're kidding yourself if you think that a narrowing of the current interpretation of Section 8 that would put Social Security and Medicare at risk of being struck down will win any support at all.

Also, the phrase "unalienable rights" is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The rights in the Constitution obviously aren't "unalienable," since there is a process by which they might be alienated, or abandoned (amendment).


P.S.
What was meant in the Declaration of Independence by "unalienable rights" is that there are certain rights that cannot be morally taken away, because they are endowed by the Creator. It is hard to believe that the right to not have the federal government interfere in the commercial behavior of actors within states is such a moral absolute.

Unalieanble
Yankee the Constitution presents the form of government that protects and preserves those unalienable rights,and even Amendments cannot take those rights away only serve to enhance the care of them. How much of history and already hashed out debates must I revisit? Well I will leave that to you, I encourage you read the aforementioned in my earlier response to you. As for interpretation, that's frankly a novel concept, we have the plain language of Article 1, Section 8 to go by. I don't understand, do you have difficulty with the English language? The powers of Congress are given and the 1oth Amendment says the rest belong to us and the States. What exactly do you think "requires" interpretation?

Lenerd
I certainly think many of the parts of the Constitution have a moral dimension, and that taking them away would violate an "unalienable" right. But maybe you could explain what unalienable right Section 8 provides. It seems to be that it -- like many passages in the Consitution -- are mostly about setting out the structure of the country. We could discuss whether having the electoral college, for example, is a practical or impractical idea. But I don't think even you would argue that the electoral college is an unalienable right, one endowed by our Creator.

Second, if you think the scope of "necessary and proper" and "interstate commerce" is straightforward, perhaps you could take up my earlier challenge and explain where the boundaries are.

Peoplepicked John McCain
This is certainly not completely true; only people in some states chose him,by the time it got to Ohio in the primaries, we had no choice in who the Republican canidate would be. I think every state's primary should be held on the same day so we all have a say in who the candidate to represent each party in the general election will be.

Republicans
With the continued demise of the media the Republicans will have a much easier time. As I predicted the election of Barack Obama is the last hurrah for the left. It also happens to be the low point for the Conservative movement, but things will get better soon. http://stopthepresses2.blogspot.com/

PennaYank - On unalienability
--
The rights specifically and explicitly *protected* in the U.S. Constitution (as well as in various of the several states' constitutions) are quite completely unalienable.

Remember, the restrictions articulated (especially in Article 1, Section 9 and in the amendments making up the Bill of Rights) are imposed on the officers of federal government.

(( And, via the Fourteenth Amendment, upon the officers of the several states. ))

Our individual rights are not conferred upon us by the Constitution. Certain of them are merely made un-goddamn-avoidably "hands off!" to the prehensile sonsofbitches who make up our government.

They are *negative* calls upon the "malevolent jobholder."

Proscriptions to be enforced upon these bastiches, not prescriptions required for our exercise of those rights.





=====
"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have... a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean the characters and conduct of their rulers."

-- John Adams

Donna
It is certainly true (and problematic) that later primary states have basically no role in picking the nominee. However, I don't think a national primary day would be a good idea. In a national primary system, the vote across the country would be split many ways. In the last election, for example, McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee, Thompson, Paul, and Tancredo would each probably have gotten a sizable amount of the vote. With such a large field, getting a third of the vote would probably be enough to win many primaries. The results could be extremely unrepresentative of what GOP voters actually wanted. If you had three social conservatives and one candidate less interested in social conservatism, the more moderate candidate would likely win, because social conservatives would split their vote. If you had two candidates primarily known as budget hawks, it would be almost impossible for either to win, even if the cause of fiscal conservatism got far more votes, taken together, than any other.

A lengthy primary season also lets top candidates get more scrutiny. It is hard for media and individuals to probe a half-dozen candidates. Once the race is winnowed down to a few, the public can focus on them before they become the real nominee. You probably want to see if a primary candidate can withstand such pressure before you send him or her into a general election.

looky looky
Election 2008 - Rudy Giuliani
Giuliani's Immigration Problem by Wayne Barrett, January 15, 2008 Judicial Watch ... Oxycontin, Rudy Giuliani & The Sellout Of America by Mary Starrett, July 29, 2007

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/election2008/reps/RudyGiuli ani.html

Laughable
Yossarian would be proud. Anyone that wants to be president in 2012 has to be nuts and as such should be disqualified. We are going to have such an incredible mess at that point that no one sane will go near it.

election
Hope there is one.

Republicans Blew It

The Republican Party has morphed into Democrat lite. Not only are they a gutless bunch - deathly afraid to stand up for AND PRACTICE fiscal resposibility - but have lost any connection to reality. They blew it big time when, with majorities in both houses of Congress and a Republican POTUS, they carried on business as usual substituting THEIR special interests for those on the left. Nothing changed but the players.

It doesn't take much to be a politician nowadays. Take a look at the collection of incredibly arrogant, ignorant and egotistical lightweights in Congress today, and it absolutely astounds me that Americans are so stupid that they look to these morons for solutions.

That is the problem in a nutshell: the abject stupidity, apathy and ignorance of the American voters as a group. When the Dems do away with all opposition through the Fairness Doctine, Employee Free Choice Act, Cap and Trade, Universal Health Care, Amnesty for illegals with fast-track citizenship and packing the federal courts with ultra-liberal activist judges, the last vestiges of sanity will disappear. We will become what libs so desperately desire: Euopean-style socialist hell-holes with every aspect of our lives controlled by the the likes of Nancy Pilosi, Al Franken and Chucky Rangle along with untold hordes of entrenched and implacable bureaucrats.

Welcome to the late, great USA.

Pennsylvania Yankee

Pennsylvania Yankee posits: "It is hard for media and individuals to probe a half-dozen candidates."

The media is no longer a vetter of candidates. They choose a candidate to champion and then seek to destroy their opposition by omission, distortion and rumor. The media amounts to little more than a cheerleading squad for its candidate of choice. Its sole function nowadays is the incremental destruction of the credibility of all candidates opposing the media darling.

yankee
You appear to be a bit dense. I already said that the Constitution is the Form of the government given to ensure that our rights are preserved and protected. Obviously necessary and proper will not be static, but it seems to me that you are one of those who believes there is a "general welfare" clause. There isn't it is a Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises clause,the power there is for raising money, and what is General Welfare is listed afterward, just as what is Common Defense is. Nowhere in there is authority to force us to take part in Social Security, there is no medicaid, medicare, bailout or any such creature. Department of Education, nope, read the Convention debates,Federal education was twice put forward, and as you can see didn't make it in. If as many say general welfare can be anything why were those at the debate so foolish to enumerate what they did? It would not have been necessary if general welfare is some constant morphing creature.Also, notice where it lies, right after paying debts. Again, the attendees were so stupid they had to include this? No, we are merely being told what the money is for.

re0ublicans in 2012
i find it very interesting and actually disturbing that when predicting or touting republicans for president in 2012, columnists, pudits, politicians and various other predictors never mention sarah palin. (i.e. rusher today). it sure looks like the stop palin movement is alive and well. good luck!

The endless campaign
( started by the Clintons)and the necessary political maneuvering is what has exhausted voters and partially led to the election of Obama, an inexperienced man in politics and the private sector. I propose the republicans simply work at doing the best for voters in light of their conservative values and worry about reelection on the basis of results of their decisions not political maneuvering.

Conservative & Relevant, or Redundant?
The Republican party's apparachiks and Rockie wing joined with the Dems in implementing an agenda to minimize, marginalize, alienate, & blow off conservatism & the conservative base. They're big-gov types all, chugging the same Kool-Aid, & real conservatism is a party pooper for them.

The GOP's base needs to decide whether the GOP will return to championing real small-gov conservatism, or remain redundant Dem-lite neo-Whigs.

Grow a brain, people. The 2008 cycle was a disaster because every effort was made to lock out real conservatism.

All you "we have to be moderate" posters are put on notice that we TRIED it your way, against better judgment, & it tanked like the bogus counterfeit it was. Johnny Mack's candidacy was engineered by the pop media & "crossover" Dems, w/ a push from Huck, but he was revealed, come showtime, to be a creature created & destroyed by the pop media. Moreover, the whiz kids all assumed he'd be facing Hillary, whom he supposedly could beat. The minute he got the nod, all the cameras & mikes turned to Obama. The old Bob Dole v. Young Virile Clinton script was replayed. It was the Cool Young Young Dude v. Grampa Grumpus.

Nancy Pelosi is undoing the old Gingrich "new tone reaching out" rules & locking GOP House members out of as much as possible. So much for "bipartisanship." Anybody getting a clue, yet? If the GOP Senators should have the temerity to actually filibuster a bad judicial pick, watch the "nuclear option" get exercised. So much for "Senatorial collegiality comity!"

The Dems are all about advancing a far left downright Communist totalitarian agenda, while destroying this country in every way. What does the GOP stand for? The party that stands for nothing falls for anything, and leftist policies already belong to the Dems. Will the GOP champion the opposing Conservative PoV & be relevant, or not?

Interesting - - kinda....
Speculate. All those "what if's" from a GOP perspective are semi-silly, at lease to me...
As a Libertarian who couldn't vote for Baob Barr (who was more of a Republican than the Republican candidate -- go figure; lost a LOT of confidence in the Libertarian Party jerks who made that dumb choice -- gambler Wayne Root would've been better!!).........
We're in a World'o'Hurt, gang. And the inept Republican folks are badly lacking - badly!

DOES IT MATTER ?
Mr. Rusher I have been an admirer of you for many years but please.......does it matter ? Whomever the choice may be he or she will be pounded day in day out 24 hours by the MEDIA until the mostly ill informed public will think the pick is a disaster for this country. One only has to look as an example of MSNBC with EVERYNIGHT Bush bashing by as showing former Presidents, then Bush making an inarticlutae phrase and then what they did to our poor VP pick, Mrs. Palin..........Other than Fox every major News outlet both print and electronically will be relentless with no shame or moral compass...........Be in Obama (the savior) or any Democrat every New England State, Calafornia, and NY, and all Large Cities which carry their States

MAKES NO DIFFERENCE
DOES IT REALLY ? THE MAJOR MEDIA OUTLETS WILL NOT PERMIT A GOP MAN/WOMAN TO BE PRESIDENT. NO WAY NO HOW.......24 HOUR ATTACK MACHINE 7 DAYS A WEEK......UNLESS AND UNTIL IF EVER MEDIA OUTRIGHT SHAMELESS BIAS BECOMES OBJECTIVE.THE MEDIA HAS DESTROYED FREE INFORMED CHOICE. PROOF? MSNBC

ITS OVER before its Begun...........HIS MAJESTY WILL SERVE TWO TERMS ANYWAY IF NOT ITS HILLARY

Republican Party?
Didn't they merge with the Democrats last year...or was it the year before?

Why keep up this hoax of a Republican party that stands for anything other than more big goverbment and more power?

MSM
I am a conservative and have no use for anything liberal. If I am cut,I bleed conservative blood. I read conservative books,news,etc.

If I was wishy-washy about my political leanings, I could probably be coerced to look at another party. That is not where I am.

So,I can clearly understand why many well-meaning people do choose another party. Unless they watch FOX News and the political shows on that station,they NEVER hear a positive word about Republicans.

They NEVER hear a negative word about Democrats. This goes on 24/7,day in and day out.It is not that FOX is that conservative,though they lean that way,but they do try to be fair to both sides.

To those who only watch the other channels are not even aware of the difference in news presentations. This is called brainwashing. The MSM are champions at it.

Time to look to the real Right
As a liberal Democrat, I have some advice for Republicans. Next time find someone who truly represents the Republican base. That base is religious and conservative, just as the base of the Democratic party is secular and liberal. 2012 is not the time for the Republicans to be worried about finding some sort of experienced moderate candidate. That's not where your voting strength is, so why pretend? McCaiin was a terrible candidate, precisely because he wasn't in sync with conservative voters.

Sarah Palin is a good prospect. She's far enough to the Right for most conservatives, and she has the street-fighting instincts that appeal so much to the Republican base. She's Ms. Red Meat to McCain's bland, white Wonderbread. Go with her, or some other figure truly on the Right.

The next Republican campaign should have no room in it for moderates, RINOs, CINOs, or anything less than God-fearing, patriotic, gay-hating, gun-toting Rightwingers. You folks claim that you speak for the majority of Americans, that you are the majority. So let's try it out.

I urge Republicans to find the furthest Right politician they can, run him or her, win the election, and govern from the Right. You know you want to, so why not make it happen? Why should we liberals be the only ones filled with hope and dreaming of change?

Mr. Rusher needs to get out in the world
What is your point sir? Your assumption that Barry Dunham will win reelection is way off.

Barry has picked Napolitano as his Homeland Security Chief.How long has it been since you visited Arizona? This woman could not control the borders of her own state. Arizona ranchers were finding muslim prayer rugs on their cattle grazing land!There is a border war going on down there. She did NOTHING! This is the woman who will keep our nation safe?

Barry has given the nod to Leon Panetta to head the C.I.A.. He is 70 years old, spent 2 years in the military, and then spent the rest of his time as a go along to get along bureaucrat.He was Clinton's chief of staff, read onto top security, and failed to see any threat from Islamofascism.Hmmmm.

The eyes of EVERY Muslim dictatorship are on Barry. What will he do? Barry has indicated that he will speak with them. Barry does not yet realize that these countries only notice who is carrying the biggest stick. They do not give you respect because you know the second and third verses of Kumbiyah.

Barry has a big job ahead. You know, war on terror, economic collapse, yadda, yadda.

I love my country too much to hope that Barry is a failure. But it is mind boggling to me that when he is sworn in as POTUS he will be assuming his first real job.Thank You George Soros!

Maybe Barry will only serve 4 years.And MAYBE Mr. Rusher, next time, you will write a more cogent article. This one....?, pretty dumb.

Sarah Palin
The fact that Mr Rusher simply ignored Sarah Palin in his column is enough to turn off this conservative voter. If the Republicans decide to nominate another RINO like John McCain, many like me will simply stay home in 2012.

The Republicans Look Ahead.....
.....to what? I always admired Mr Rusher until I started reading his columns. He is exactly what we do not need.

We have tried Democrat-lite and it helped put B.Hussein in office. With a lot of help from ACORN,of course.

What we need is to find us a 'tree'. Maybe an elm tree. E.L.M. Eliminate Liberal Maggots.

Reminds me of when..
Ike was president. Yessir, those were the days (now just an aging Republican fantasy bubble). The GOP conservative Southern male constituency is going nowhere: no place for hispanics, blacks, and asians, not to mention women, and youth.

So, godspeed the GOP on its journey into the wilderness...

CLOSED PRIMARIES
I think there are to many states that have open primaries.McCain won because of non-registered Republicans.Registered Republicans need to demand CLOSED PRIMARIES.We can win,BUT the candidate must be picked by Republicans only.

America is a conservative country.
Americans will join us if we have a clear message.

ROB

who is barak
LC...i call him barry o'neil but yours is good..sits better with me than calling our president by anarab/muslim name

Re Closed Primaries
America is conservative? Please explain why Bush grew BIG GOVT more than any liberal, made by far the largest no-bid contracts ever, made torture a policy of the USA, first time in history, borrowed more than any liberal ever did, hurt America with the most expensive socialist experiment ever, Iraq, doubled the National Debt in less than 8 years, allowed neptistic buddies at Enron to collude to steal billions from a state.

Bush has been the most anti-conservative president ever. When Bush said he looked into Putins eyes and found a friend, Bush might as well have been looking in a mirror, because Bush and Putin are the world's two biggest KGB commies.

The only politician whose a bigger socialist than Bush is Palin. Palin hauled in 60% more in wealth redistribution than Alaskans paid in taxes!
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.