IRONIC: LIBS BLAME BUSH FOR CURRENT FINANCIAL CRISIS, BUT IT WAS BUSH'S LIBERAL POLCIES WHICH CONTRIBUTED TO IT, NOT HIS CONSERVATIVE POLICIES

GWB was a mixed bag - a staunch conservative on some things - like national security and taxes and right to life, and a liberal on other things - like amnesty for illegal aliens, medicare spending, education spending. And he was a centrist on other things - like AGW and Iran and North Korea.

But because of the Iraq War, the left thinks of him as a fascist war-monger and much of the MSM agrees with this shallow and incorrect assessment.

I think Iraq may go down as Bush's greatest success. Along with his two SCOTUS appointments.

But on balance, Bush was - IMHO - a liberal, albeit a liberal hawk like FDR, Truman, JFK, and LBJ. And Scoop.

YES: BUSH WAS A BIG-SPENDING LIBERAL. COMBINED WITH HIS RIGHT TO LIFE STAND, AND HIS LOW-TAX STAND, THIS MAKES HIM - ON BALANCE - A CENTRIST.

FDR and Truman were HAWKIER. JFK more bellicose. LBJ more liberal. But Bush is more like them than any other presidents.

Bruce Bartlett - a conservative economist who served under Reagan agrees - and has written a book about Bush LIBERAL BIG-SPENDING; according to PUBLISHER WEEKLY:

From Publishers Weekly

Liberal commentators gripe so frequently about the current administration that it's become easy to tune them out, but when Bartlett, a former member of the Reagan White House, says George W. Bush has betrayed the conservative movement, his conservative credentials command attention. Bartlett's attack boils down to one key premise: Bush is a shallow opportunist who has cast aside the principles of the "Reagan Revolution" for short-term political gains that may wind up hurting the American economy as badly as, if not worse than, Nixon's did. As part of a simple, point-by-point critique of Bush's "finger-in-the-wind" approach to economic leadership, Bartlett singles out the Medicare prescription drug bill of 2003— "the worst piece of legislation ever enacted"—as a particularly egregious example of the increases in government spending that will, he says, make tax hikes inevitable. Bush has further weakened the Republican Party by failing to establish a successor who can run in the next election, Bartlett says. If the Reaganites want to restore the party's tradition of fiscal conservatism and small government, he worries, let alone keep the Democrats out of the White House, they will have their work cut out for them. (Feb.)

Over the last 8 years, the liberals frequently blamed Bush for running up HUGE deficits.

They are not so angry about deficits NOW, are they!?

And they argue all the tax cuts went to the wealthy - a patently false claim proven wrong by any and all factual analyses of the tax data.

NONE criticizes Bush for his (1) endorsement of Fannie Mae (albeit with MUCH MORE OVERSIGHT THAN THE DEMS WOULD ALLOW!!!) or for (2) his HUGE increase in HIV drug aid for Africa - as if it was our colony, and as if USA taxpayers had as responsibility to pay for the treatment of an STD by ignorant tribalistic primitives - who are generally antagonistic to US policy - on the other side of the Earth. Or for his HUMONGOUS increase in education spending. In fact, GW BUSH presided over the LARGEST INCREASE IN DOMESTIC SPENDING SINCE LBJ! (And he kept calling Islam the "religion of peace" - YUCH; insane!)

And all this liberal policy stuff got him ZERO credit among the libs or the MSM. ZERO. ZILCH. BUPKUS. All it did was inflate the deficit and INFURIATE CONSERVATIVES.

This is why Bush declined at the polls: because he did not govern as a CONSISTENT CONSERVATIVE; he governed as a "compassionate" conservative - which actually meant in practice a LIBERAL conservative.

Now.... well, now the libs are in control and they're blaming Bush and doing the VERY SAME CRAP WHICH GOT US HERE!

We have 18 months to inform the electorate.

We have 18 months to look into every nook and cranny of the PORKULUS Bill and find all the pork, all the special favors, all the corrupt payola.

It's there in black and white.

IT MUST BE: if it wasn't there then Obama would have made sure that we all had time to read it BEFORE it was voted on.

THIS IS OUR MISSION: EXPOSE PORKULUS - AND THE SOONER THE BETTER.

AND THEN NOMINATE AND ELECT REAL CONSERVATIVES.

Not half-assed ones like GHW Bush.

We haven't had a REAL conservative president since Reagan. And the one before that was.... Coolidge. WE NEED ANOTHER!

[ASIDE: Bush will go down in history as a great president if we recover from the economic mess this year - as I think we will, and if Iraq holds together. Defending the USA from a second attack while decimating the enemy and reshaping the Middle East - and appointing two YOUNG CONSERVATIVES to the SCOTUS - are GREAT accomplishments.]