I would like to imagine that the devoted fans of Sarah Palin, the people who believed her to be Reagan and Joan of Arc combined, who held out such hope for her as a future leader in the GOP and conservative movement, will be as irrationally and powerfully angry at McCain for putting her in the impossible position she is now in as they were enthusiastic about the selection of her in the first place. As critical as I have been of her, I liked Palin too much to see her become McCain’s apologist and I still like her enough to wish that she could be spared all this. Meanwhile, McCain’s election effort truly has become the MonDole campaign I once joked about.

http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/200…
http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/200…

The fact that he got elected twice means nothing. He will go down as one of our worst presidents who made spectacular mistakes during his first term, and failed to make up for them in his second.

First – I wasn't talking about Bush (43) but for the record – decent campaigner, talented staff (Rove and Hughes), and boring opponents.

Second – I was talking about campaigning, not governing. Most of us agree that there is a big difference between the two skill sets.

Please…If that's all I cared about I wouldn't be commenting on this blog, or paying attention, or even asking questions. Bush was a great campaigner. He could raise money better than anyone before him (Obama has him beat now). He had people all over the country mindlessly cheering “4 more years!!” Some may even argue that he won a couple of his debates against Kerry, who was supposed to clean his clock. And his strategy was better, he went after people that Kerry largely ignored, and turned out people in record numbers (i.e. evangelicals).

I'll repeat, he was an excellent candidate–he won–he has just sucked as a president.

So how about you? Does it all come down to “anyone but candidate X” for you?

Just because he won doesn't mean he was a good candidate as you yourself pointed out.

What skill did you find above par on the campaign trail. His outstanding oratory ability? His knowledge of the issues? Or does it all come down to the old “having a beer with” thing for you?

There's a big difference between being a good politician and a good president. Bush was great at campaigning. Governing? Not so much.

Since I was 18 years old, from Ronald Reagan through George W. Bush, we have only had one sub-par presidential candidate. Heck, that wasn’t even Bob Dole’s fault.

The fact that you actually believe Dubya wasn't/isn't a sub par candidate pretty much explains why you are a Republican. Quit whining about do overs, you've gotten not only exactly what you deserve, but exactly what you wished for.