I saw the following this morning and I read the reactions to it and I honestly had to chuckle at it.

The National Review actually gave Governor Mitt Romney some rather good advice in a piece penned by the editors. The crux of it is here:

Americans are more likely to blame Bush for the financial crisis that started on his watch than to blame Obama for the slow recovery from it. And even before the financial crisis, the last period of Republican governance was not especially good for America’s middle class. Wages were flat for people in the middle of the income spectrum even when the economy was growing.

The Romney campaign acknowledges that the crisis began before Obama took office, but it has next to nothing to say about what Bush-era Republicans got wrong. The result is that Romney appears to be saying that everything was going swimmingly until Obama came along. That impression lends credence to Obama’s attempt to portray Romney as running for Bush’s third term. Romney’s silence about the errors of the Bush years is, on the other hand, understandable, since many Republicans continue to hold Bush in high esteem as a good man who tried to do a lot of good things. Since most Americans consider Bush a failure, Romney cannot embrace him either. So Bush has been an awkward non-presence in the campaign: the man who was not there.

Instead of an explicit repudiation or an embrace, Romney needs to move beyond the controversies of the Bush era. To do that, he has to alter his critique of Obama. What Romney should say is that our country has problems that have been building since long before Obama took office, and that what’s wrong with Obama is that he has either left them unaddressed or made them worse. The country’s looming debt crisis, its dysfunctional health-care system, and its irrational tax code are three of them. Romney will take on those challenges head-on. Those are the ideas he has been running on, after all.

….and of course, most on the right hated it. The American Thinker:

Hmm.  Really?  Romney saying that the economic crisis began before Mr. Obama assumed office means that it began under…George W. Bush?  Or did we miss something?  Why should Mr. Romney be pointing fingers at his fellow Republicans?

The NR editors say that Romney’s silence on the Bush years is “understandable”?  But, you know, maybe if Romney could take a few shots at Bush, well, that might not be so bad.  But the NR editors appreciate why Romney isn’t going to pull the trigger on that one. 

[…]

Most voters, who are living their lives for much more than politics and elections, aren’t likely to tune in to nuances.

Romney may win this critical election — let’s pray he does — but it will be due more to a bad economy, mounting troubles overseas, and the grace of God than to a good strategy, which should be based on rock-solid conservative principles and ideas, and not neutered arguments and finding fault with one’s own.

They were not the only one, One of Lew Rockwell’s writers was not impressed either:

Gee, maybe George Bush was a disaster after all!

The NR sycophants who cheered W’s every crime now realize that he’s a ball and chain. Hilariously, these failed “conservatives” desperately want the Ministry of Truth to work overtime:

“Since most Americans consider Bush a failure, Romney cannot embrace him either. So Bush has been an awkward non-presence in the campaign: the man who was not there. Instead of an explicit repudiation or an embrace, Romney needs to move beyond the controversies of the Bush era.” [Ah — Why do they hate us? Now we know: because Ron  Paul made Bush a presence, and calmly exposed his malefactions for all to see.]

A little late, children. Bush’s crimes are not “controversies,” they are realities — but today’s faux conservatives don’t understand metaphysics, they’ve bought into the Trotsky-Kristol-neocon dialectic instead. Nothing is real but power. Hence, Romney must use the Memory Hole, ignore the past, and look to the future.

FORWARD!

Uh, doesn’t that have a familiar ring to it? As in, Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee?

Yes, they are always wrong. And no, they will never, ever apologize.

Now that takes talent; when you can manage to get your writings criticized by the grassroots right and by the ultra-libertarian/almost left-wing crowd, at the same time. You must be doing something right. Good job NRO!  Also too, it is good advice for Mitt Romney. He can acknowledge mistakes without shooting his own Party. It has been done before and can be done again. It just has to be done the right way.