It is just a little too early to be sure, but we may entertain the hypothesis that McCain has been, is being and lill be presented as the Great Left Hope of an alternative to Buhhhitler.

Thus the Republicans in 2008 retain their winning coalition while not losing the WoT fatigue--time-for-a-change vote.

Sirs: This lefty Harvard professor goes to London to attack the President. Does he know that he is possessed by the BDS and therefore is simply a hack spouting? He needs therapy for he is a predictable loony. Go 'Gate

One recalls Gladstone, campaigned over the Afghan
debacle of Disraeli, yet partially due to his
investments in the Suez Canal Company, drove into
the Egyptian and later Sudanese quagmires.

I have read quite a few articles by this looney and his fellow reporter in the Daily Telegraph who comments on the Washington political scene. They are to the left of the WaPo, the NY Slime and the Globe. Bush can do nothing that these reporters will agree with and they write as many things against him as they can. I think this guy is originally a Brit. Can we send him back there and sent his WH correspondent for this newspaper back with him? They surely can say nothing good for the American way of life other than the LLL one. This group and Robert Fisk and the Guardian crew all belong together on a desert isle so that they do not cause any more damage than they already have.

And, of course, to compare the American federal system to the nineteenth century British parliamentary system is pure nincompoopery. A Prime Minister has much different powers and perogatives than an American president.

Not an apt comparison at all.
Compared to many American presidents, Mr. Bush will likely hold up quite well.

Mikey, Best since Lincoln.

For starters, the Telegraph is a reliably center-right paper. And Niall Ferguson is surprisingly bright for a Harvard professor; many of them are loons but Ferguson isn't one of them.

I think George W Bush is a fine president, the best in many decades. But that doesn't blind me to a number of failures of execution in foreign policy. Bush has never misrepresented the difficult path he's taken us, nor promised a quick and easy victory. But while the uniformed military has done a tremendous job, the civilian at State and CIA haven't always executed national policy with the skill it requires.

I'd also be happier if we had a better immigration policy, and if the federal government spent less money.

To summarize, Ferguson's criticisms are valid. And so is his point that the Democrats aren't in any position to make those criticisms their own.

The way I figure those sell us goods on credit generating such a high trade deficit on our part actually hold the short end of the stick. They hold our debt, our money which, if we are such a risk, would devaluate. That means foreigners are financing our consumptions. Doomsayers always say our economy would crash if the Chinese start selling the US dollar. I say bring it on. If the Chinese start mass selling, the US dollar plummets, value of Chinese US dollar reserve plummets with it. No sane and insane persons would do such a thing. Others say they would diversify their reserve in Euros. Yes, they should. But until the Germans and the French shape up, their Euro is actually more wobbly than our dollar. Our debt-to-GDP ratio is 65.4%, Euro zone is 79.7%. Those who criticize Bush always use absolute numbers. Our debt is out of sight, so is out GDP. (ps. I understand debt is not deficit, but things are not as bad as the MSM say, nor as good as we want.)
http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/

ic:

And the better comparison is of our debt at the end of WWII or the Brits after defeating Napoleon. By comparison, our debt as we reach the end of the Long War is laughably small.

J:

The important thing isn't just that Ferguson is wrong, which he is, but that he's arguing against everything he's previously said about the value of Anglo-American imperialism. This is just his Fukuyama moment.

Lou:

Wasn't W supposed to lose in '04 because of WoT fatigue?

Ferguson's been sometimes dicey during the past year, but here's the final paragraph from his 1/05/06
article, The origins of the Great War of 2007 - and how it could have been prevented
By Niall Ferguson
"[...] Yet the historian is bound to ask whether or not the true significance of the 2007-2011 war was to vindicate the Bush administration's original principle of pre-emption. For, if that principle had been adhered to in 2006, Iran's nuclear bid might have been thwarted at minimal cost. And the Great Gulf War might never have happened."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=3EY11ZPK0CBJPQFIQMFSFFOAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/opinion/2006/01/15/do1502.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/01/15/ixopinion.html

Ferguson's been sometimes dicey during the past year, but here's the final paragraph from his 1/05/06
article, The origins of the Great War of 2007 - and how it could have been prevented
By Niall Ferguson
"[...] Yet the historian is bound to ask whether or not the true significance of the 2007-2011 war was to vindicate the Bush administration's original principle of pre-emption. For, if that principle had been adhered to in 2006, Iran's nuclear bid might have been thwarted at minimal cost. And the Great Gulf War might never have happened."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=3EY11ZPK0CBJPQFIQMFSFFOAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/opinion/2006/01/15/do1502.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/01/15/ixopinion.html

once the wot is completed successfully -- and it will be -- then no one will care at all about misteps along the way. bush will be seen as America's finest warrior president, perhaps our first. caeser americanus.