@F'n English

Let me check with some six year olds on how to effectively respond.

You really do your hero proud.

"Trolls! BDS! Trolls! BDS! Trolls! BDS! Trolls! BDS!" sez our new mascot sock puppet.
Quick, get Crappo-diapers some meds. Crappo's foaming at the mouth!

@F'n English

You were the original BDSB, Bush Dumb Shit Backer, who kicked this off by showing he considered four short paragraphs 'much ink' to plow thru.

"Troll! BDS! Troll! BDS!"

Your ability to argue,analyze and use the English language is remarkably similiar to the 'tremendous mediocrity' you defend. I guess not only great minds think alike but so do mrns.

The Bushies aren't going away, anymore than the Clinton-Gore people did. Karl Rove, Nicole Wallace...the list is long and whiney and then of course we have the BDSBs patrolling the blogs: Trolls! BDS! Trolls! BDS!

Twenty years from now after George P. Bush is leaving office, I guess that would make him George III, you BDSBs will still be at it: Trolls! BDS! Trolls! BDS!

OK, Neo-Cons are Leftists. And you're good guys.

And I simply don't care about what you think. I am a Bush-backer and there is nothing you can do about it. You must have been infected with what Charles Krauthammer calls the Bush Derangement Syndrome and there is no cure for it apparently.

No more time to lose on you. :)))))

Perfect example of BDS rotting the brain. Can't you picture Crappodysentery ranting about Bush, years from now?
News Flash: Crappo; Bush left office. Please, enough of your ceaseless input on this topic. We get it already, you are a troll-- its o.k.!

@Marcfrans

You are right about something being askew in Trevino's 2nd paragraph, maybe he would like to post-edit to help clarify his point?

As to "certainly most Conservative Americans..., I believe we have a different reading of the conservative base. I don't think the 30% support numbers around which W hovers represents a one to one correspondence with the 30% of the pop you identify as conservative. I would argue that a large proportion of that 30% who find W likeable is made up of RINOs, Hispanic-Americans, Texans, and other sub groups across the political spectrum obviously decreasing in numbers the farther left one goes. I stick to my original assessment of the conservative base, because that is where I'm from and that is where I live and that is what I have observed.

The conservative media and the conservative elite is increasingly way off base and I believe it is because they generally voice the sentiments you identify that you are misreading the base itself.

@Monarchist

Apparently Norman is unaware of the W Legacy Bill passed by the Dem Congress which is a compendium of all the times W caved in to the Dems on principle, otherwise known in DC as the "Leave No Conservative Behind Bill"

You don't need to be a Leftist to be a Neo-Con, sorry.

Although this is very helpful. :))

Finally. 'Tis was me that crossed the foul line first, Fr. Traveller forgive me:-)

Hey Norman, how old are you? 'Capo did it first,' geez louiz!

@Traveller
One of the best short summations of W's record that I have read. Very precise. Speaking about being precise:

@Marcfrans

What part of your quote did I cite? Certainly something was askew. Was it me or was it you?

"Your sneer about B.H.O" meant: you made it look like Capo was an O. fan. He is definitely not, much more the opposite.

Traveler:
Let me apologise to you for the rather crude language used. However, let me also point out to you that I have not started this. Capostirias did. And now you seem to be surprised at the reaction and want to teach me lessons in manners. You're a bit like some parts of the Muslim world in another context. They attack Israel and then they're angry with Israel's "overreaction". Strange, no? Respect me and I'll respect you, hmmm "pisspot".

"Your sneer about "dear B.H.O." is miles from the truth". Then tell us who Barack Obama really is. Quite frankly, loving the US very much, I really hope he will succeed. That's the very first priority. However, like GWB, he is surrounded by a bunch of old timers who should not be there. And yes, I would prefer a third GWB term to a third Clinton term or even a second Carter term.

Monarchist:
You don't need to be a Leftist to be a Neo-Con, sorry. Neo-Conservatism is NOT NECESSARILY the result of some sort of introspection. Conservatives usually dismiss Neo-Cons as Leftists because they feel increasingly irrelevant, having surrendered to the Left a long time ago. But OK I won't argue any further. I am a foul mouth and I am a stupid Leftist. It is not true. But so what now?

@Norm

It's not pretty watching someone lose control of all his bodily functions in a post.

You toss around liberal media made labels like a monkey tosses his excrement around at a zoo.

You accuse me of being excessive , yet it was your initial response to Trevino which went beyond anything one might term rational. I simply responded the way I always respond to a blustering, blowhard, bully. Can't take your own BS, can ya? Typical.

You're no neo-con, the rap on neo-cons is that they have a mindless allegiance to an Ideology, your rants betray a mindless allegiance to a man, a very small man who continually betrayed his professed principles, and whose only real embrace of Ideology, never really got past the "I"

'I am a neo-Conservative, not a Paleo-Conservative. A Paleo-Con is a clueless Conservative who surrendered to the Left a long time ago.'

Your use of language is definitely not conducive to a normal discussion.
I know Capo quite well personally and your sneer about "dear B.H.O." is miles from the truth.
Bush had good intentions and the war in Iraq was a good gamble, but he screwed up by bad management, bad communication and misplaced loyalty to his people who didn't deserve loyalty, which is deadly for any president.
He nearly screwed up the US army by running the war on a shoestring. Pure bad judgement.
After 9/11 he had the world at his feet like no other president before him, except FDR in 1940, and he squandered that enormous capital.

That is the truth, and a foul mouth is not going to change that.

I am a neo-Conservative, not a Paleo-Conservative. A Paleo-Con is a clueless Conservative who surrendered to the Left a long time ago.

Trevithick is a betrayer. He has betrayed his former boss for some political, economic or social/professional gain.

Like the Bush-Haters, you've been excessive in your judgement. Excess is meaningless, as you may know.

We look forward to watching what your dear B. Hussein ObHamas will do. Good luck, America.

@ Capo and Norman

Political defeats tend to lead to recriminations among the (temporarily) losing side.  And so it is among 'conservatives' on this website.  Let's try to keep some perspective.  After all, Trevino called the former President "tragic and sub-par", but he called the new President "nothing at all".  In any case, I am already looking forward to Romney, Jindal or....?...next time around.  Congressional elections will take place in less than 2 years.  

@ Capodistrias

I have two bones to pick with you.

1) You contest the statement that "most conservatives consider GWB as affable, likable and profoundly decent".   Actually, my original statement was "Many Americans, and certainly most conservative Americans etc....".  So, the original was even 'stronger' worded than the part that you are contesting.  I maintain that that original statement is true, based mainly on a variety of opinion polls, but we are not going to settle this here with competing polls, especially since this involves subtle distinctions to be made between personality features and 'policies'.  If you had objected to my "Many Americans..." I would have let it go, but you are objecting to the "most conservatives...." part of the statement.  The evidence is simple, based on the following elements: (a) Bush is leaving with an approval rating in the low thirties (the leftie media pretends that this is the worst, etc..., but it isn't, Nixon and Truman left in 'worse' shape) , (b) polls suggest that the country is broadly divided in three roughly equal parts of conservatives, liberals, and 'neither' or nondescript centrists, (c) parts of the 'conservative right' are not really 'conservative', but libertarian, neocon foreign policy hawks etc... Taken together, these elements support the broad contention that "most conservatives" have no significant problem with Bush's personal character traits.  At the same time, I also think that "most" of them are/were disappointed about some of his major policies, particularly w.r.t. immmigration and spending.  Perhaps you are not making the distinction between the character traits and the policies.  Yet, it is precisely the way Trevino formulated this distinction that I considered to be a logical flaw in his 2nd paragraph.

2) How did the "conservative media" contribute mightily  to failures of the Bush administration?  And who specifically do you have in mind, because there is not much of such media in the first place?

@Norman the Homeless Conservative

4. It means I am assuming some rudimentary knowledge and appreciation for conservatism at the grassroots level.

3. I do have knowledge and appreciation for conservatism at the grassroots level, a door to door knowledge. And while Marcfrans has a very sophisticated knowledge of the American political scene, on the point I made, I think reality, as reflected on the ground and in the polls, supports my position.

2.So you agree with Trevino that W sucked as a manager and judge of character?

1.There's 'a ring of truth' in your first bullet point.

As we consider why you think it is necessary to piss bullets on anyone who tags W truthfully, it reminds me of the behavior one often sees in major cities across the US, i.e., the tendency among some individuals 'noramlly' disheveled , angry, foul smelling and foul mouthed who will suddenly just stop in the streets and start pissing on anyone they please. Sorry Norman, W conservatives no longer should have a home at the conservative homestead but here's piece of paper with an address on it, where I hear they are handing out free money and offering free lodging : 1600 Pennsyvania Avenue.

1) A ring of truth is not the truth.
2) "Putting enemies first": like Trevino? like McClellan? GWB's big mistake has been to trust such unworthy people. Trevino must be looking for a job somewhere and becomes a revisionist.
3)"Marc Frans is wrong". You do not provide evidence.
4) "Of course". Well, this is your logic. But what does it mean?

Another Scott McClellan? Give me a break. I don't recall Trevino's background but the general observations he makes in his short piece have a ring of truth about them. Bush and his pals like Rove will ALWAYS be remembered for putting friends, and sometimes even enemies first, and 'fellow' conservatives whereever.

Marcfrans provides an accurate assessment in his comments, except he is wrong in regard to "certainly most conservative Americans, consider GWBush as an "affable, likable, and profoundly decent" " That may reflect the attitude of many in the conservative media and the elite, but not the base.

Of course, the conservative media is going to try find something good to say about W. After all, he and his people are still a source of information, i.e. revenue for them, and secondly the conservative media also contributed mightily to the failure of Bush presidency; they were, history will report, accomplices to the boobs on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Trevino or Trevi-thick?
"There were deeply principled and admirable men in the employ of George W. Bush, and I worked for and with several of them". Obviously, Mr Trevino, you were not one of them.
"But they were rarely the men at the top, and seldom the men who gave the orders. These good men could have truly changed America and its governance". Hence your deep, pathetic frustration?
"Having worked in the former Administration from 2001 through 2004 as a Presidential appointee, I know a little of its mind and aims". You know very little actually. You are another Scott McClellan.
"Instead, they were subsumed by a White House focused upon the acquisition of power, and the myopic pursuit of discrete ends". You were working for a political machine, not for your mother.
"and set them to work on explaining and advancing things antithetical to their ideological creed". Well, the Bush Administration was neo-conservative, not (paleo-)conservative.
"I have written on this before, and there is little point in recapitulating it in full". Yeah, indeed.
With Conservatives like your dear self, Conservatism does not need enemies. Good job. Frustration is the mother of all vices as it were. Mr Trevino, you'tre execrable.
Moreover, I fully agree with Marc Frans. I rarely post comments here, but Marc and I are an old story as it were. His analysis is consistent and balanced. Yours should be published in The New York Times, the Loony Left's official pravda.
  

It was a carbon copy of the inauguration of the previous demo messiah: JFK.

Now I am waiting for a new Bay of Pigs, Cuban missile crisis and the start of a new Vietnam after the catholic JFK approved the killing of the catholic president Ngo Dinh Diem. He did this all in 3 years after the same type of great oratoric hollow nonsense.

There appears to be a logical flaw in the second paragraph. The qualities of affability, likability and profound-decency are NOT juxtaposed to incompentency and being-unprincipled.

There is little doubt that many Americans, and certainly most conservative Americans, consider GWBush as an "affable, likable, and profoundly decent" person.  At the same time, many (perhaps most) conservatives recognise that GWB has not shown much competency nor principledness (which should not be confused with stubborness). 

Perhaps, the tragedy of the presidency of GWBush has been his failure to be an effective communicator.  Modern politicians must be effective communicators in order to be succesful in terms of getting people to follow.  

Given that the left possesses in Obama a very effective communicator, the danger is currently very great that such skills wil be put in the service of 'bad' principles.  The loyal opposition will have to find anew its own effective communicators (like Reagan was), and give voice to criticism of the destructive actions that are sure to follow Obama's lofty words.     

@B.English

You state:
"The author does use much ink to rehash the usual weak arguments against Mr. Bush."

I count four paragraphs. Sorry, sloppy critique.

Trevino,as one who worked for W, makes some useful observations about how W betrayed the people who worked for him and the consequences.

In turn, his brief piece contributes to a better understanding of how one might analyze W's betrayal of the American conservative movement, America itself, and even the universal ideals he never quite bothered to comprehend, not to mention how he botched promoting them to an ungrateful, petulant world.

I believe he is correct in his overall assessment:

"George W. Bush was, at bottom, a tremendous mediocrity, born to privilege but never quite deserving it."

Sorry but sloppy essay.

Yes I agree that Mr. Obama is thin on substance. However, there is no mention about the bad company he has kept as mentors. Where is the critique about the other Chicago cronies? Here are suggestions: Weather Underground terrorists, gangsters, puppet master Soros (investment tycoon) and ghetto housing project as his accomplishment. He has duped voters who are eager to hear slick empty slogans.

The author does use much ink to rehash the usual weak arguments against Mr. Bush.

"He had one war thrust upon him that remains unfinished; he started another that also remains unfinished."

Could we be more specific? If the author is talking about Iraq, well one could say it was Clinton's passiveness that lead to 9-11. Iraq is usually postured by the left as "Bush's War". So here are a few inconvenient facts:

• U.N. declares roughly 14 times, a resolution to intervene with Iraq. That organization seemed to see trouble there too. They do nothing. Oh, but Kofi and Co. were making a fortune in kickbacks with the Oil for Food programme. Germany (chemicals), France (Petro Fina-Elf), and Russia (arms sales) were also doing very well with Iraq in their pocket.

• Democrats were on an equal footing with the Bush administration in regards to the Saddam regime-- the megalomaniac's threats of aggression were taken seriously by both parties.

• The U.S. did not act unilaterally; it did not go to war alone, unless you ignore the approx. 20 countries that also participated with the United States (including Britain, Australia, Spain until it went wobbly, and a host of eastern European countries. Of course France and Germany would not participate, the are already friends of Iraq and officially hated the U.S.

"fiscal stewardship was disastrous" is also dishonest. If the author is referring to the current crisis, then we have to go way back to 1968. To President Johnson's Great Society reform plan. Jimmy Carter's government set things in motion that would haunt the banking system today. By the way, the bank's opposed Carter's signing into law, the Community Reinvestment Act which became the problem we see now.

There is no mention in this essay that the Bush administration had to deal with a Democrat house for part of its term.

The argument disputing the "lack of terror attacks in the United States since 9/11" is dishonest and weird-- almost like a liberal's talking point.

Mr. Bush did make errors, sometimes put trust in people who could not deliver, is not a very good speaker, should have explained more to the public from the very beginning. But the two major complaints in this essay are talking points, cobbled together to fit the writer's sentiment. Referring to Mr. Bush as "tragic" is rather hysterical, wouldn't you say, dear writer?