Andrew Sullivan is often hard to disagree with. Here he compares Churchill the war leader and what happended to him after the war--he lost big time to Clement Atlee--with what may well happen to Bush: He could be seen to be succesful in the war, therefore his services are no longer needed by November. And, it will also be the case that because Bush (like Churchill during the war) expanded the size of government, he has little credibility when he criticizes Kerry on spending and his liberalism regarding the size of government. This would, in effect, make Bush the architect of a liberal takeover.
Brits went hard left in 1945, nationalizing several industries as they went. Furthermore, FDR’s successor, Harry Truman, was victorious in 1948.
And finally, can the last four years of war on terrorism even begin to realistically compare to WWII, much less what the Brits went through? Hard to disagree? Hmmm...