That is about the only excuse for this
Thomas Roeser "piece" in the Chicago Sun-Times:
His enemies fault him for many reasons, but of this there is no doubt: With 10 months left in his first term, George W. Bush has already become one of a handful of the most important presidents in U.S. history. He toppled two pro-terrorist regimes, sparing America from further incidents of terrorism; revived the economy, and now leads a defense of traditional values by initiating a constitutional amendment to prevent runaway courts from junking the multi-millennia-old concept of marriage.
Any one of these actions would justify him as a memorable chief executive. (FDR supplied confidence to overcome Depression qualms and win World War II; Ronald Reagan bounced us back from recession and won the Cold War.) Considered together, Bush's attainments certify that his energetic presidency has landmark significance.
Landmark Presidents are usually determined
after their term, when the full scope of their policies, decisions, successes and failures can be seen.
This guy is plain ridiculous. And his final statement is either laughable or frightening:
Not since Lincoln vs. McClellan has there been a more pivotal choice. I'll take my stand now: Keep Bush.
Is that the best they can do?