Years ago, someone coined the term "neoliberal." I was never sure what it meant, and it has since fallen into disuse, but whatever the case, I'd like to revive (and mangle) the term and apply it -- brace yourself -- to George W. Bush. He's more liberal than you might think.

You recoil, I know. After all, the conventional wisdom is that Bush is the most conservative of all presidents, an advocate of limited government, minimal taxes and, when it comes to the quintessentially liberal concern with civil liberties, the man who gave us the twin black eyes of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. It's an appalling record.

But consider this: An overriding principle of conservatism is to limit the role and influence of the federal government. Nowhere is this truer than in education. For instance, there was a time when no group of Republicans could convene without passing a resolution calling for the abolition of the Education Department and turning the building -- I am extrapolating here -- into a museum of creationism.

This is the typical American conservative strategy. It basically can be explained as such: 'conservatism cannot fail, only you can fail conservatism'. If you fail True Conservatism™, then you are a liberal. Q.E.D.

Another classic example of this can be seen on the Powerline blog, stenographers of the Rovian Republican talking points, which wrote:

Former Majority Leader Tom DeLay apparently has announced that he will not seek re-election in the fall. No indication, yet, of his reasons.

It's too bad, I think. DeLay was an effective leader, albeit too liberal in recent years.

So yes, conservatives such as Gingrich will try to explain away George W. Bush and his conservative Republican policies as 'liberal' and state that is why they failed. It is an old tactic. The question is... has the American voters caught on yet?