Well, I found that hardly fair.

Funny you should recall that conversation, I recalled it myself just recently and used your ominous warnings from that time in recent discussions with Obama supporters.

But ... come on Titus, were we to interview a GOP policy wonk I'm sure he could name, or go down the list, of one admirable piece of legislation the Bush White House got through, after another. It is hardly sufficient to sum up an entire 2 term presidency, 6 years with Party control of congress, in a single, brief post.

And just off the top of my head, to add to your rather short list of accomplishments ... 49 million people liberated in Iraq (and its becoming a very stable nation at present, a severely under reported story I might add). Several million liberated in Afghanistan. Also, partial birth abortion - the GOP ended it as a practice in the US. That never occurs in a Gore or Kerry presidency. Tax cuts - sticking to his guns (at least during his time in office, they have sunset clauses) on that policy (rectifying his father's mistake). And his post 9/11 behavior is the stuff of US history's most moving moments, in my opinion. The Patriot Act, and the leadership shown in its application ... and were I to do a little research I'm sure I could go on.

Now, I will be the first to lament on the missed opportunities - securing our borders; gratuitous spending in forms too numerous to mention; and the complete inability to of this administration to wage a PR war as effectively as it (eventually in Iraq) waged real wars. Reagan conservatism was applied only in terms of national security strength and tax policy. Besides that, spending, government growth, etc - forget it. "Throwing money at it" became as much the solution for Bush as we conservatives once complained was the sole purview of Democrats. The "movement" Reagan began and Gingrich continued, Bush allowed to simply stall out. But again, trying to sum up the overall pros and cons of a two term presidency in a single post, even my hubris doesn't have that level of sustainment. I DO think, however, (as I have said before), the "Truman effect" could come into play for Dubya. IF Iraq and Afghanistan become flourishing democracies and export that theme to their neighbors, Bush could get a monumental historical "bump" the way Harry did. Everybody from McCain to Bush to Guliani invoke Truman's name to represent their own supposed "no nonsense, the buck stops here" traits. Also in terms of strength (the Atom bomb employed) his name is routinely thrown around by pols of all stripes to represent their own ability to make tough decisions (Mac may be counting on his name once more ... Obama=Dewey?). Little do most of them know Truman left office with an approval rating beneath Nixon's! And one of the reasons he did not seek a second term (of his own) was because he might not of even won his own Party's nomination, as a sitting PoTUS.

So, my point is this: YES, I remember that conversation. You noted to me, in a warning like fashion, "Ok, you've got 4 years, lets see what they can do because there will be no excuses, no one to blame but themselves this time." At the time I thought, "ya, ya, you'll see. It will be Reagan on steroids because THIS TIME we even have the congress!" So ... how do I feel now, at its conclusion 8 years later? Hmmmm .... that's a good question. Well, even though (as I stated) it's grossly unfair to attempt to sum up a presidency in a few paragraphs, I will say this: Bush, in my opinion, was far and away a better choice then either Gore or Kerry would have turned out to be. And hey, we had some fine moments - partial birth abortion banned; the ink stained thumbs of those Iraqis on election day; his post 9/11 strength etc, etc, and I am surely missing a ton. However, it's sort of like an old girlfriend you always have a soft spot for but know it would have never worked out had you stayed. It wasn't the relationship of your dreams, the communication sucked, and you HAD to move on, but ... you were better off for the experience.

And I think on the whole, given the modern ideology of the Democrat Party, Bush was a much sounder choice for America, thus making her better off for the experience.

And for any Obama supporters out there I have that same warning: Ok, you're probably about to get what you want. You've got 4 years (with at least 2 in control of congress). And you'd better hope you don't muck it up because when that pendulem swings back, and you've left us in collective tatters, it will swing hard right ...