At one point before the election, I wanted to write about how so many Republicans and conservative journals were coming out against President Bush's re-election. But then, before I could come up with some grand theory, he got re-elected. Now all I have is these links:
Afghanistan, Iraq: Two Wars Collide -- They are not the same, no matter what the Administration says.
The Case Against Bush -- He has no principles, only a narrative. Apparently the majority of voters conflates a simple story with strong leadership.
Without a Doubt -- "This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy," says a libertarian supporter. "He believes you have to kill them all. They can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them." Scary.
Why We Cannot Endorse President Bush For Re-Election -- A conservative newspaper explains my reservations about Bush all too well.
The Case Against George Bush -- A conservative magazine explains my reservations about Bush all too well as well.
The Choice -- So many voters seem to completely ignore The Administration's dismal foreign and domestic record, one lawyers would call dispositive. Instead, the damage done is only growing worse by the week.
There were more articles. More of the same. Deeply researched, thoughtfully written, terribly insightful. In the end, the facts didn't matter. I have to remember that next time I need to make my case to a myopic group like "voters."
