kevin o

…the case against Mitt Romney is more fundamental. As time goes on and the Bush years begin to pass from current events into the annals of history, the abject failure that was the Bush presidency becomes more apparent. Increasingly, one need not be a rabid partisan to wonder if President Bush led the worst two term administration in the history of the United States. He inherited a recession, but bequeathed a near-depression. His main policy achievements either drove us into a deep structural deficit (Medicare Part D, 2001 and 2003 tax cuts) or are widely despised (No Child Left Behind). His reckless foreign policy lies in moral and practical ruins. Faced with a presidency that can credibly stake a claim to being among the worst in American history, we ought not reelect the party of that presidency until that party has done some soul searching and put some genuine distance between itself and its former leader. The scale of the disaster was such that new principles and new policies are the least that should be expected. The Republican Party has comprehensively failed in this task. Indeed, those who have tried to engage in it, such as David Frum and Bruce Bartlett, have been written out of the party. As a result, Mitt Romney is running, truly, for a third Bush term. There is no substantive difference. When directly asked about these differences at last week’s debate, Romney offered some rhetoric designed to imply there were some, but was unwilling to actually state a single policy difference with President Bush.