We all know that Bush is one of the most stubborn presidents that we've ever had. He never, ever, changes his political views. This stubbornness is what allowed him to attack Kerry's "flip-flop" with huge success. So it is strange to see the conservatives trying to claim that Bush is not a real conservative today, but only 3 years ago still claiming that he was the 2nd coming of Reagan. So which is it? Is he a conservative or is he not? Nice article on Salon by Glenn Greenwald: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/06/04/fraud/index.html ... One of the few propositions on which Bush supporters and critics agree is that George Bush does not change and has not changed at all over the last six years. He is exactly the same. And none of the supposed grounds for conservative discontent -- especially Bush's immigration position -- is even remotely new. Bush's immigration views have been well-known since before he was first elected in 2000, yet conservatives have devoted to him virtually cult-like loyalty and support. Just logically speaking, Bush's immigration views cannot be the cause of the flamboyant conservative "rebellion" against Bush since those views long co-existed with intense conservative devotion to Bush. There is really only one thing that has changed about George W. Bush from the 2002-2004 era when conservatives hailed him as the Great Conservative Leader, and now. Whereas Bush was a wildly popular leader then, which made conservatives eager to claim him as their Standard-Bearer, he is now one of the most despised presidents in U.S. history, and conservatives are thus desperate to disassociate themselves from the President for whom they are solely responsible. It is painfully obvious there is nothing noble, substantive or principled driving this right-wing outburst; it is a pure act of self-preservation. Any doubts about that ought to be easily resolved by the following: Jonah Goldberg, May 29, 2007 (Bush approval rating - 32%) Bush, The Liberal [Jonah Goldberg] Richard Cohen discovers something some of us on the right have been saying for a while: if you hold your head just so and look at Bush from the right angle, he looks an awful lot like a liberal. Jonah Goldberg, November 8, 2003 (Bush approval rating - 60%) But it is now clear that Bush's own son takes far more after his father's old boss than he does his own father, at least politically speaking. From tax cuts (and deficits, alas), to his personal conviction on aborrtion (sic), to aligning America with the historical tide of liberty in the world, Georrge (sic) W. Bush has proved that he's a Reaganite, not a "Bushie." He may not be a natural heir to Reagan, but that's the point. The party is all Reaganite now. What better sign that this is now truly and totally the Gipper's Party than the obvious conversion of George Bush's own son? Rush Limbaugh, November 8, 2006 (Bush approval rating -- 31%): Liberalism didn't win anything yesterday; Republicanism lost. Conservatism was nowhere to be found except on the Democratic side. . . . Conservatism did not lose, Republicanism lost last night. Republicanism, being a political party first, rather than an ideological movement, is what lost last night. Rush Limbaugh, July 7, 2004 (Bush approval rating -- 55%): Reagan was right just as George W. Bush is today, and I really believe that if Reagan had been able he would have put his hand on Bush's shoulder and say to him, "Stay the course, George." I really believe that. Bob Novak, March 26, 2007 (Bush approval rating - 32%): With nearly two years remaining in his presidency, Bush is alone. In half a century, I have not seen a president so isolated from his own party in Congress -- not Jimmy Carter, not even Richard Nixon as he faced impeachment. Bob Novak, March 24, 2003 -- (Bush approval rating - 65%): [Bush is] a president who may be more basically conservative than Ronald Reagan. National Review's Rich Lowry, January 28, 2007 (Bush approval rating - 33%): It is, in all seriousness, it is a distressing and depressing time to be a conservative. I'm reminded of the old saying by Mao -- things are always darkest before they go completely black. In recent years, we have watched a Republican Congress disgrace itself with its association with scandal, with its willful lack of fiscal discipline, and with its utter disinterest in the reforms that America needs. And at the same time, we watched a Republican President abet or passively accept the excesses of his Congressional party and, more importantly, fail to take the steps - until perhaps now - fail to take the steps to win a major foreign war. . . . National Review Editorial, Rich Lowry Editor, October 22, 2004 (Bush approval rating - 52%): In his bid for reelection, George W. Bush deserves the support of conservatives. . . . Bush has shown evidence of being able to learn from his mistakes. We have made political strides in Iraq. . . . Bush deserves conservative support, as well, on domestic issues. . . It has been a long and difficult four years, largely as a result of events not of Bush's making. For conservatives, however, backing Bush's reelection should be an easy decision.
A before and after assessment by liberals of John Kerry's qualifications to be president would also be most interesting. Could we get Glenn to work on that?
Bush was difficult to assess at first. I was wondering why he let CA hang out to dry and hasten its demise when he could have brokered a useful compromise which probably would have saved enron as well. (but that is a different story.) Then I realized he was true liar when he tried to sneak harriet miers in there. She was a former liberal and most likely would have pulled a David Souter. Senior pulled the same bullshit when he went with Souter.) (his dad was eastern liberal who pretended to be a bit conservative in the later part of his career to get elected. ) When junior tried to sell the ports, I realized the critics who claimed Bush was out to rob the treasury were right. Now we see millions in iraqi oil missing. Which might be a sign of incompetence if his Dad and VP were not oilmen. It turns out george pretended to be whatever it took so he could enrich his dad and his oil buddies. In my opinion Bush is not incompetent he is a well advised traitor and traitors are not liberal or conservative.
What makes one a conservative? Right off the bat is taxes. A government that excessively taxes will shit on any other liberties you have left. Sure they'll throw you the occasional bone, as long as that "bone" is homo sex rather than pot, but by and large when a guy cuts taxes every which way but loose he's a conservative. Conservatives believe your earnings are sacrosanct. Secondly a conservative believes strongly in Second Amendment rights. The Left hates gun rights. Funny because Blacks are 99% of the gun "problem" and the Left normally loves blacks because they're so exploitable. the reason the left cringes at guns is because of the intent behind the 2nd Amendment. The Left knows that if they get out of line a bunch of rightwingers will start killing them. Bush is pro-gun. Score 1 for conservatives. Everyone knows the Supreme Court is as important as Congress in the art of lawmaking. The pre-Bush court was atrocious. Assaulting states rights in abortion, assaulting property owners rights in eminent domain, assaulting....well assault gun owners in other anti 2nd amendment rulings. Bush's most important, longest lasting legacy will be this Court. Score it conservative. Way Down The List of Importance is Iraq. As a fiscal conservative/isolationist I loathe the war for it's expense of needed revenue and the loss of young American lives. Because of Bush's hawkishness during the 2000 primary's I was wary of Bush. In fact I was elected as an alternate-Delegate to Forbes. Needless to say my ass wasn't at the GOP convention that year. Conservatives don't start wars. Except for the Bush's Republican's don't either. WWl- Wilson, WWll-FDR, Korea-Truman, Vietnam- JFK/LBJ A motley crew of liberal, socialists who felt the divine right of intervention. Iraq certainly is certainly smaller in scope than the wars previous but it's the kind of stupid war a Democrat fights. Alas I see the Middle east EXPLODING after a Dem is elected in 2008. Iraq=Not conservative. Medicaid Give away= Liberal, greedy and on the government dole America isn't even grateful. Aids in Africa and other BS=Liberal Social Security Reform though equals conservative. So on the most important issues he's been fine for conservatives.
bazzarre, and true one of the leading one's is bill kristol's(of fox news & weekly standard) dad, irving kristol, a neocon, who openly admits he was a trotskyite he admitted this was a mistake, then went on to neoconism what's interesting, that upon realizing he was wrong about overthrowing the world for communism, he didnt pause and say 'whew! what a mistake! what a disaster that would have been, had i succeeded! Maybe I DONT have to wisdom of what's best for the whole world' but no, with his chutzpah, he went on to ANOTHER scheme to mold the whole world to his new ideals, whether anyone else liked it or not his interest in trotskyism & neoconism actually have a lot in common - him shoving his point of view, down the whole world's throat supreme a***ole
Bush is clearly not a true conservative, nor did he ever claim to be. He ran as a "compassionate conservative", which was troubling because it seemed to imply inaccurately that real conservatives were not compassionate. His compassion turned out to be very liberal in nature, meaning gargantuan government spending programs that he could throw in his political opponents' faces, even if they were failures. Bush has had two successes, both mixed. He cut taxes, although in a way that was about as inefficient and anti-supply side as possible. Scrapping his tax cuts and starting over would actually not be a bad idea, but with democrats in charge, we know any changes will only make things worse. Bush also appointed some good judges, notably to the Supreme Court, although he failed to fight hard enough for other nominees and allowed them to hang in the wind and ultimately be blocked by the actions of partisan democrats and backstabbers like McCain. His idiotic nation-building exercise in Iraq is not conservative. In fact, it is right out of the Clinton playbook. Send soldiers off to get killed without adequate backup for no good reason. Brilliant. His treacherous immigration policy is a betrayal of the country and those who supported him. Ultimately, Bush has been a very bad president who damaged the country and may have inflicted mortal wounds on his party. He is loathed by the left and despised by the right.
And that includes indirect taxes on Americas wealth through INFLATION! What good is your 10% tax cut if the Fed is inflating it away at nearly 10%, YEAR ON YEAR?? Pure smoke and mirrors. No, Bush is anti-gun. Bush wanted to renew the BAN on semi-autos. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3013559.stm He later caved to his NRA base (flip flopper) and let it expire. Tide is turning. Over half of REPUBLICANS surveyed said the war is going somewhat badly: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/24/opinion/polls/main2846638.shtml Isolationist that promotes open borders? Thats a good one. CORRECT! Either will continue to fuck it up even more. Sure, for neocons like you. Thankfully, you've only got 28% of country behind you. Bush Approval Rating Falls to 28%, http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB117752895118782401.html