Do real conservatives have the courage to read this book?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by ZZZzzzzzzz, Feb 21, 2006.

  1. <img src=>

    Reaganite: Bush made fiscal mess
    Posted by William Neikirk at 4:28 pm CST

    A new book argues that President George W. Bush has all but bankrupted the country with his tax cuts and big-government programs, such as the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

    It contends that Bush has put the country in such a financial position that taxes will have to be increased substantially sooner or late. And it says that Bush doesn’t care much for reading or serious policy analysis and runs an administration filled with hubris and doesn’t tolerate internal dissent.

    The title is stunning: “Imposter: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy.” The author is Bruce Bartlett, an economist who worked in the Reagan administration. The publisher is Doubleday, not some highly suspect publishing company with a political axe to grind.

    Release of the book comes at an inopportune time for Bush, who is struggling with low poll ratings and an unpopular war and has just announced the largest budget deficit in American history. Conservatives are increasingly suspicious of him, and Republican members of Congress standing for re-election this year are talking of putting some distance between themselves and Bush.

    Bartlett has written an economics column for years, and has remained true to Reagan principles of small government, low tax rates, free trade and lighter government regulation.

    It is no secret that many conservatives who consider themselves true Reaganites are disdainful of Bush, but Bartlett doesn’t pull any punches in his indictment of a man who, in his opinion, has betrayed many of Reagan’s principles.

    While the White House portrays Bush as a conservative president with a conservative agenda, he writes that conservatives know better.

    “He is simply a partisan Republican, anxious to improve the fortunes of his party, to be sure. But he is perfectly willing to jettison conservative principles at a moment’s notice to achieve that goal,” Bartlett writes.

    Bush faults Bush’s tax cuts, calling them ill-designed. He finds his trade policy too dotted with protectionist moves, adding that he has the worst policy on free trade since Herbert Hoover. The Medicare prescription drug bill is “the worst legislation in history” because of his massive future costs, he says, and he has not vetoed a single bill as he increased the size of government. Two of the unkindest cuts in the book: Bill Clinton had a better record on controlling the deficit, he says, and Bush has the many of the same kinds of policies as Richard Nixon.

    Indeed, he notes, Nixon expanded government and regulation, not to mention his adoption of wage-price controls. Nixon is regarded as one of the worst presidents in history, he writes, and Bush could be well on his way to that same status when the reckoning day comes for his fiscal policies.

    He says that conservatives feel that their agenda has been virtually stalemated since the Iraqi war and don’t like Bush’s immigration policy, which calls for a guest worker program.

    There is great concern among conservatives that Bush’s policies will cause the Republicans to lose the presidency in 2008, he says. Bartlett added he hopes that a “serious conservative challenger for the Republican nomination emerges soon” and that the party does not have to suffer a crushing defeat “before its current leadership is sufficiently discredited to allow new faces, voices and ideas to emerge. Historically, both parties have found people to fill this role when their backs were against the wall. But, sadly, they sometimes had to have their backs against the wall.”

    The book probably isn’t headed for the best-seller list, but it’s bad news for Bush that someone with Bartlett’s conservative credentials has taken up the public cudgel against a president who proudly calls himself a conservative.

    The White House indicated it was aware of the book, but a spokeswoman, Erin Healy, said, “We typically don't do book reviews..”
  2. Arnie


    Bush looks more like a dolt with every passing day. Geeesssh!
  3. And so do the people who voted for him twice. Geeesssh!
  4. saxon



    What is it with you? The 2004 election is over. Your candidate lost. DEAL WITH IT, already!!

  5. One does not need to read yet another book, to understand that G.W. Bush managed to piss off even his Republican base with 5 years of wide open Mexican border, Harriet Myers surprise, and recent Arab port scandal.
  6. You don't appear to understand election cycles, and long term impact.

    Do you know, that the republicans knew that Clinton would not be impeached, because they lacked the votes for it?

    Knowing that, why did they pursue it?

    If you know the answer, they you would perhaps realize the limited perspective that your question was formed from....and why it is so vital for both democrats and genuine conservatives to crush Bush politically and all those who were part of his junta.

  7. Bush could go on TV and wipe his ass with the Bill of Rights and that wouldn't change the fact that the die hard Bush fanatics would still vote for him again in a heartbeat...

    for he is Godlike to them...

    f'n hillbillies...
  8. They prusued it because they had a case. A case, that I might add, That the US Supreme Court seemed to agree with when they disbarred him....

    Surely you're not saying that there's no sense in fighting a fight that you cannot win, even when you're right ?
  9. I don't believe for a moment that their move against Clinton wasn't 100% politically motivated, rather than taking personal risk to be doing what was "right."

    Yes, Clinton was disbarred, by the same partisan supreme court that ruled in Bush's favor in the Florida election, but even with that, a disbarment is not by itself a grounds for impeachment, or holding office.

  10. So impeaching a President that was guilty of perjury, and suborning perjury is 100% politically motivated? Hmmmm, somewhere in the Constitution it speaks about causes for impeachment.....

    So now the Supreme Court is partisan too ? Why ? Because they didn't vote the way the liberals wanted them to ?

    Question - if the USSC was indeed 'partisan', why is Roe v Wade still 'in effect'. Isn't that pretty good evidence to refute what you're alleging ?
    #10     Feb 21, 2006