The fate of the Republican party?

[glatt]

American Conservative Magazine has found itself in the position of not being able to endorse George W. Bush. The editors are split. Some have actually endorsed Kerry, even though they hate him. Others have only endorsed Bush because they want to see the Republicans take responsibility for the mess they made in Iraq and force a change in the party to toss out the neocons that got them into this mess. One editor has actually endorsed Nader!

One of the editor's endorsement of Kerry has this interesting point:

this election is not about John Kerry. If he were to win, his dearth of charisma would likely ensure him a single term. He would face challenges from within his own party and a thwarting of his most expensive initiatives by a Republican Congress. Much of his presidency would be absorbed by trying to clean up the mess left to him in Iraq. He would be constrained by the swollen deficits and a ripe target for the next Republican nominee.

It is, instead, an election about the presidency of George W. Bush. To the surprise of virtually everyone, Bush has turned into an important president, and in many ways the most radical America has had since the 19th century.

He then goes on to denounce much of what Bush has done.

Bush has behaved like a caricature of what a right-wing president is supposed to be, and his continuation in office will discredit any sort of conservatism for generations. The launching of an invasion against a country that posed no threat to the U.S., the doling out of war profits and concessions to politically favored corporations, the financing of the war by ballooning the deficit to be passed on to the nation’s children, the ceaseless drive to cut taxes for those outside the middle class and working poor: it is as if Bush sought to resurrect every false 1960s-era left-wing cliché about predatory imperialism and turn it into administration policy.

It looks like some people in the Republican party still have the ability to reason.