Chirac was stupid with Sarko. He should have offered him the PM's job in 2002, take it or leave it. If Sarko had backed off (Prime Minister is a great preparation for losing in France, ask Lionel Jospin or Dominique de Villepin), Chirac could have sent him out into the wilderness, and Sarko would have looked wimpish. Then he would have had a job becoming head of the UMP (a major condition for winning in 2007). Instead, he let him play a double game as N° 2 in the government while posing as a rebel, which still allows him to get away with not being accountable for the last five years in government. Meanwhile, Chirac did very dumb things to counter Sarko, like the Clearstream smear campaign that backfired on him (and on Villepin, oh dear...) One might almost conclude that Chirac played it so badly he made Sarko president. Er, so Newt's saying Bush is as useless as Chirac??
Newt's "logic" could also be taken to mean that Chirac was (of course) a dangerous socialist disguised as a rightie, while Sarko is the Real Right™.
Now, let's see: America needs a Real Right™ candidate because Bush and Cheney...
Oh well, that's neat. When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind
Yet another bit of his legacy of failure - the only rightwing guy he failed to "kill" is the most dangerous. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Years ago, someone coined the term "neoliberal." I was never sure what it meant, and it has since fallen into disuse, but whatever the case, I'd like to revive (and mangle) the term and apply it -- brace yourself -- to George W. Bush. He's more liberal than you might think. You recoil, I know. After all, the conventional wisdom is that Bush is the most conservative of all presidents, an advocate of limited government, minimal taxes and, when it comes to the quintessentially liberal concern with civil liberties, the man who gave us the twin black eyes of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. It's an appalling record. But consider this: An overriding principle of conservatism is to limit the role and influence of the federal government. Nowhere is this truer than in education. For instance, there was a time when no group of Republicans could convene without passing a resolution calling for the abolition of the Education Department and turning the building -- I am extrapolating here -- into a museum of creationism.
You recoil, I know. After all, the conventional wisdom is that Bush is the most conservative of all presidents, an advocate of limited government, minimal taxes and, when it comes to the quintessentially liberal concern with civil liberties, the man who gave us the twin black eyes of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. It's an appalling record.
But consider this: An overriding principle of conservatism is to limit the role and influence of the federal government. Nowhere is this truer than in education. For instance, there was a time when no group of Republicans could convene without passing a resolution calling for the abolition of the Education Department and turning the building -- I am extrapolating here -- into a museum of creationism.
This is the typical American conservative strategy. It basically can be explained as such: 'conservatism cannot fail, only you can fail conservatism'. If you fail True Conservatism™, then you are a liberal. Q.E.D.
Another classic example of this can be seen on the Powerline blog, stenographers of the Rovian Republican talking points, which wrote:
Former Majority Leader Tom DeLay apparently has announced that he will not seek re-election in the fall. No indication, yet, of his reasons. It's too bad, I think. DeLay was an effective leader, albeit too liberal in recent years.
It's too bad, I think. DeLay was an effective leader, albeit too liberal in recent years.
So yes, conservatives such as Gingrich will try to explain away George W. Bush and his conservative Republican policies as 'liberal' and state that is why they failed. It is an old tactic. The question is... has the American voters caught on yet?
