Why tie your rhetoric to the worst president in history, when, in only four short years, you can claim the mantle for your own?

Yeah, but they all support the war. They all support the tax cuts for the most wealthy that have blown our deficit into the stratosphere (and will be the cause of a mighty downfall). They all support insane immigration policies. They all believe that private health care is the way to go.... Kind of like... what's his name .... oh yeah... George W. Bush. Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck. *

*the exception being Ron Paul, who is being ignored by his party.

Why isn’t the first question in every debate, whether Democratic or Republican: "Do you support the policies and accomplishments of the current administration? If so, how would you continue the work initiated by George W. Bush. If not, how would an administration under your leadership differ from the current one?" For the Republicans in particular: "Given the low approval ratings of the current administration, how and why would you expect voters to support a third consecutive Republican administration under your candidacy?".

I think these are fair and informative questions that address several of the key questions any voter has while heading to the polls: whether their vote is one for change or not, and during the primary season, how a candidate intends to win the upcoming election.

The only reason these questions are difficult for Republican candidates is that under Karl Rove they aligned themselves with the radical right. For Republican candidates there is no right answer: Support the President and alienate the majority of Americans who realize what a catastrophe his tenure has been, or alienate "the base" who would respond to Bush killing puppies by smearing puppies as un-American.

It’s their bed, making them lie down in it isn’t partisan, its just good journalism.

Ron Paul was on The Abrams Report yesterday, Bush came up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2EH_TRa6aU

At about 3:30 in, or 46 seconds left, Abrams asked Paul about an endorsement from Fearless Leader:

Abrams: Do you want President Bush's endorsement?

Paul: ...that has not crossed my mind, because I know that it wouldn't come. I mean, he didn't even endorse me for...

Abrams: Well would you want it? If he [Bush] said, "I want to know, do you want my endorsement?"

Paul: I would lose credibility.

Abrams: So you would say no?

Paul: I think that would hurt me. He wouldn't offer it and I wouldn't ask him.

Abrams: You would say no to president Bush's endorsement?

Paul: No, I would lose all credibility because I've run against his policies.

Ron Paul gets it. The gig is up, Dr. No is crashing the party. He will also crush Hillary in the General election, or any of the other top Democrats, on the war issue alone. Paul is not a centrist and will outflank them all on the war, especially the War Goddess and Edwards, who goes on TV and tells everyone his strategy is focused on using Iraq to beat a pro-war Republican. Paul is their biggest threat and they know it. They are all screwed.

As much as I hate to say anything that can be construed as positive about the loathesome gang of festering warmongers who have corruptly hijacked our nation, the Bush Tax Cuts are not responsible for the deficit.

The fact is that Federal Tax Revenue (the amount that the Government is bringing in) has dramatically increased since 2003. Just as it has every other time that the Government has followed this model.

Three presidents in history have cut taxes on the highest brackets in order to stimulate growth. The first was John F. Kennedy. The second was Reagan. W is the the third. The Reagan administration hijacked this entire economic principle and created the meme of "trickledown economics" being a Republican invention.

Of course, trickledown is a misnomer since few Americans actually see an improvement in their quality of life, since the majority of jobs created by the "economic growth" tend to come in on the lower end of the pay/prestige spectrum and mainly allow people who had been living welfare check to welfare check to live paycheck to paycheck.

All that being said, the Administration has completely wasted this surge in federal income by unwisely spending money like drunken whorehoppers on 6 year Tijuana bender. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (along with the worldwide War Against and Abstract Concept) has caused us to continue the deficit spending which you correctly identify as preparing our nation for a hard hard rain.

All the while, they fail to put money into our Education, Infrastucture or Health Care. Shameful stuff.

is because, just as in Dr. Strangelove whenever the wheelchaired Peter Seller's began his sig heil when he couldn't control his anger, Giulian would be forced through his own subconscious masterbation to sig heil when uttering his hero Bush's name. Mybe that's why he's always calling his wife on the phone when he's cornored with an uncomfortable question. Maybe it's his way of supressing his need to sig heil his hero...

Seems to me Giuliani and Romney do themselves no favor with their mentions of Bill Clinton, who, despite his disgraceful behaviour in "l'affaire Monique," remains an extremely popular figure nationally, a status those two creeps stand no chance of ever attaining. They simply don't compare well at all with Bill Clinton, a fact any nitwit who isn't a nutjob right winger can plainly see.

I can just imagine the invocation of Bill Clinton biting the GOP on the ass -- "Do we REALLY want to return to the years of peace and prosperity we enjoyed under Clinton? Peace and prosperity, yes, but at what cost? No, wait, that came out wrong.... Ask yourself, 'Are you better off now than you were eight years ago....' no, wait, don't answer that!"