Bush the pre-socializer: “I readily concede I chucked aside my free-market principles”
Update: And right on cue, Bush agrees to collaborate with Obama on TARP…
***
President George W. Bush gave his final press conference this morning, but he already wrote his domestic policy epitaph on Dec. 16 and there’s not much more to say:
He re-worded it slightly today:
“I readily concede I chucked aside my free-market principles when I was told … the situation we were facing could be worse than the Great Depression,” Bush said. “(But) we’ve taken extraordinary measures to deal with frozen credit markets (that) have helped thaw the credit market.”
Last week, I caught grief from some readers on the right for lambasting Bush for pre-socializing the economy for Obama, while some readers on the left derided me for “finally” acknowledging the truth about Big Government George Bush.
These folks haven’t been paying attention. Some of us knew what we were getting with George Bush long before he was “chucking aside his free-market principles” and forking over billions in tax dolars to failing private companies and failing public education.
In September 1999 (and many subsequent posts), I warned about his Texas Rangers corporate welfare subsidies and minority contracting set-asides:
As reported in the June 1999 issue of Texas Monthly, the awarding of minority-earmarked government contracts was instrumental to the stadium measure’s passage. Black and Latino leaders attacked the deal � until Bush assuaged them with the promise of government giveaway goodies. Bush “spoke from the pulpit of the Mount Olive Baptist Church in Arlington,” Texas Monthly reported, where he declared, “A vote for the tax would be a vote for contracts for African American businesses.”
Egad. If this is the voice of compassionate conservatism, Democrats have nothing to fear.
In March 2000, I wrote:
For all of his campaign bashing of John McCain as a liberal, Bush himself has a record of being soft on affirmative action, soft on wasteful education spending, and soft on Big Government mandates. This vote-getting social engineering, masquerading boldly as “compassionate conservatism,” is what appeals most to Bush’s left-lurching supporters.
In April 2000, I assailed Bush’s massive education spending proposals:
UH-OH. It looks like Texas Gov. George W. Bush has been smoking some strange remnants from President Clinton’s ideological ashtray.
The GOP presidential candidate who balked when he was compared to Clinton now wants to spend $5 billion — yup, that’s a “b” as in boondoggle — to create a classically Clintonian federal program to combat childhood illiteracy. Clinton had proposed a similar jihad three years ago with a more “modest” $2.75 billion pricetag.
In Virginia last week, Bush laid out his alarmingly liberal proposal for increasing the federal government’s role in education. Sounding more like Lyndon Johnson than Ronald Reagan, Bush asserted that illiteracy was a “crisis” that “therefore requires a national response.” Bush’s “Reading First” program would dole out $1 billion in federal funds each year to help public school teachers identify early reading problems in kindergarten through second grade with diagnostic tests. Teachers would then get additional training and learn how to teach reading effectively.
Weren’t these certified, college-educated teachers supposed to know how to teach effectively when they got hired in the first place?
After receiving their tax-subsidized remedial training under the Bush plan, public school teachers would then “intervene” to help problem readers in after-school, summer school, and tutoring programs. Bush’s goal is that every child be able to read “by the end of third grade.” It’s as lousy and mediocre a goal for the most prosperous nation in the world as when Clinton set the same third-grade reading standard in his 1997 State of the Union address.
Yes, illiteracy is a problem. But the federal government already spends nearly $10 billion on more than dozen programs that focus on promoting literacy (not to mention the untold time and money expended by private organizations, non-profit and religious groups, and individual volunteers). On top of that, governments at all levels in the U.S. spend another $40 billion on special education � with a large chunk earmarked for learning-disabled children with reading problems.
Such election-year pandering to the educrats is to be expected from Democrats. Vice President Al Gore has offered billions of dollars for higher teacher salaries and subsidizing pre-kindergarten for all 4-year-olds. But Bush almost out-Clintons Clinton and Gore by throwing in another $30 million for the expansion of a nationwide “troops to teachers” program; $400 million for additional teacher training; and an annual $400 tax deduction for teachers who buy classroom supplies with their own money.
In August 2000, I chastised the GOP establishment for parroting Bush’s “Leave No Child Behind” pabulum:
IF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY grows any softer, it will need to replace the grand old elephant with a new symbol: the Pillsbury dough boy.
This week’s GOP national convention in Philadelphia is a spectacle of sensitivity. A gala of giggly good feeling. A confab of can’t-we-all-just-get-along compassion. Real conservatives should be reaching for their extra-strength Dramamine. The party leadership’s liberal rhetoric is more nauseating than a boat ride in “The Perfect Storm.”
Take Texas Gov. George W. Bush’s pet phrase, “Leave no child behind.” Take it, drive a stake through it, and bury it, please. The slogan was the convention’s opening night theme, parroted and expanded upon by a rainbow-colored group hug of speakers:
“We must work together so that no child is left behind to ensure an America — an America whose future is one of unlimited hope and boundless opportunities,” declared Paul Harris, a black state legislator in Virginia.
Retired Gen. Colin L. Powell said: “Governor Bush’s proposals for improving education and expanding health care are examples of his vow to ‘leave no child behind’ and ensure access to quality care for all Americans.”
“No child should be in a school that doesn’t work. Every child deserves the chance to learn and succeed,” urged Pilar Gomez, a Hispanic “parent-training coordinator” from Wisconsin.
“Every child should grow up in a permanent, loving family,” pleaded Conna Craig of Boston, director and president of something called the Institute for Children…
…Coming from Nanny State do-gooders, this nonsensical sloganeering is standard fare. The Democrats are supposed to be the Mommy Party, ruled by emotion; Republicans, the Daddy Party, ruled by rationale. But in Philadelphia, the alleged advocates for stern fiscal discipline and responsible public policy are putting on an embarrassing cross-dressing display — apron, high heels, hankies, and all — in pursuit of the White House.
In claiming that her husband will make a “great president,” Laura Bush didn’t cite George W.’s ability to cut government down to size. She didn’t give examples of his political courage or principled conservatism. Instead, Mrs. Bush praised her husband’s $5 billion Reading First proposal. Calling for “more clubs and programs,” Mrs. Bush described how “George and I always read to our girls — Dr. Seuss’ ‘Hop on Pop” was one of his favorites. George would lie on the floor and the girls would literally hop on pop.”
My husband reads “Hop on Pop” to our daughter, too. We all turn into human marshmallows when it comes to kids. But that’s no excuse for conservatives to launch federal education spending sprees and other liberal child exploitation programs, no matter how well they test with soccer moms in focus groups. The presidential nominee of the Republican Party should stop impersonating Mrs. Clinton and start talking like a grown-up. The best way for government to exercise “compassionate conservatism” and help children get ahead is to leave their families’ pocketbooks alone.
Bottom line: George W. Bush is leaving exactly the Big Government legacy he promised to leave. The only uncertainty was over how large of a hole he would dig.
“Compassionate conservatism” and fiscal conservatism were never compatible. Never will be.
***
I think this would be a very healthy step toward un-rebranding the Bush GOP:
Republican Party officials say they will try next month to pass a resolution accusing President Bush and congressional Republican leaders of embracing “socialism,” underscoring deep dissension within the party at the end of Mr. Bush’s administration.
Those pushing the resolution, which will come before the Republican National Committee at its January meeting, say elected leaders need to be reminded of core principles. They said the RNC must take the dramatic step of wading into policy debates, which traditionally have been left to lawmakers.
“We can’t be a party of small government, free markets and low taxes while supporting bailouts and nationalizing industries, which lead to big government, socialism and high taxes at the expense of individual liberty and freedoms,” said Solomon Yue, an Oregon member and co-sponsor of a resolution that criticizes the U.S. government bailouts of the financial and auto industries. Republican National Committee Vice Chairman James Bopp Jr. wrote the resolution and asked the rest of the 168 voting members to sign it.
“The resolution also opposes President-elect Obama’s proposed public works program and supports conservative alternatives,” while encouraging the RNC “to engage in vigorous public policy debates consistent with our party platform,” said Mr. Bopp, a leading attorney for pro-life groups who has also challenged the campaign finance legislation that Mr. Bush signed.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- BAM Stimulus: Crack that Whip « JoHNBRoDiGaNDoTCoM
- Why Bailouts are a waste of time and Taxpaer $$$ or CITI Shares Go Down 10%+ in one day…
- With “Republicans” Like Bush, Who Needs Socialists? « The Sisyphus Files
- RNC’s Bush Rebellion: Necessary « Jane Q. Republican
- Michelle Malkin spanks President Bush « The Daley Gator
- Anerica’s sliding down economic freedom ladder: « Riggword Weblog
- ButAsForMe! » Bush the pre-socializer: “I readily concede I chucked aside my free-market principles”
- Maggie's Farm
- Goodbye President Bush « Dianej’s Weblog
- Michelle Malkin: Illegal Illegals: Stop, thief! Kill the bill, melt the phones call now folks! 1-202-224-3121 | Illegal Illegals Report Call ICE 1-866-DHS-2ICE Report Employers Call ICE 1-866-347-2423 “No Amnesty” English National Language
- Michelle Malkin » Obama: I’m not a socialist, I just play one on TV
- Michelle Malkin » Obama: I’m not a socialist, I just play one on TV
- Michelle Malkin » Diana West speaks the truth
- The Liberty Papers »Blog Archive » Afternoon Reads
- One Big Awful Mistake America (OBAMA): Veterans Will Now Lead The Fight To Defeat Radical Socialism! « Pronk Palisades
- Mark Levin: I’m in No Damned Mood to Surrender to These People « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Michelle Malkin » An Army of Tax Revolters — and a warning to fair-weather Republicans
- Barf-worthy or Genius? Evan Thomas Says Obama Is Above Us All, “Sort of” God… He Meant “False God” « Frugal Café Blog Zone
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: George W. Bush
Mudville Gazette
» The five-year plan
Stop The ACLU
» SEALs Charged With Assault for Arresting Top TerroristLegal Insurrection
» Is "Finish the Job" the New "Peace With Honor"?JustOneMinute
» Getting Ready For The TurkeySister Toldjah
» WaPo and NYT to Obama: We love ya, you stylish deep thinkerPundit & Pundette
» Hiding the decline: Deniers made them do itPower Line
» More From the East Anglia Archives
The only problem I see with bush leaving is obama coming in.
I don’t capitalize their names on purpose.
Once you lose integrity, the rest as they say, is a piece of cake.
In all ways other than defense we are definitely going out of the frying pan and into the fire. All those socialist leaning programs of President Bush are going to look half-hearted compared to the full socialism of incoming President Obama.
I have to agree w/SONOFDY… Michelle hit it on the head again, BUSH has PRE-SOCIALIZED the country for B. HUSSEIN… Kinda like the frog in the pot of water… Turn the heat up SLOWLY, he won’t even know he is being COOKED… It will take probably 5 times as long to get this country back on track with the BUSH/OBAMA stimulus plan…
A government this bad cannot survive. History has proved this over and over. Obama will not change a thing and has already proven he will do business as usual.
Gosh, what kind of mindless Bushbot followers are we? I thought the left had been caricaturing everyone who supported Bush on the War as a brainless follower of the ‘Dear Leader.’ Yet, these posts suggests there was actually dissent on the right.
Who’d'a thunk it?
Yes, George set us up for the big O. It is the old saw; “One party tells the lie, the other swears to it”. Our great country is going the wrong direction and George had 8 years to take it that way. SO, The real question is: What do we the people do about it? Where do we conservatives come up with a vehicle (GOP appears lost) to have an input, a chance to change the direction for the better?
One oddity here is that, in a post intended to be critical of Bush, Michelle included a picture of one of his finest moments–throwing a strike from the mound while encumbered by a bullet-proof vest.
Bush meant well, but I always thought it was ridiculous that Michael Moore, the MSM, Hollywood, et al all described him as the most evil Right Winger since Generalisimo Franscisco Franco, Hitler and Mussolini combined, when he was about as conservative on the budget as Bill Clinton.
Lets hope the GOP does set a clear goal of no more “me too” politics, the Republicans as Democrats-Lite.
Bush as an aging President Bismarck comes to mind…
When we get that question answered, we can, in the words of Ronald Reagan “Make America Great Again”.
In the mean time, prepare to take care of yourself and your family without government help. . . store food, plant a garden, save cash, load more ammo and keep fighting, because it’s going to get worse before it gets better.
Excellent article by Fred Barnes. I only disagree with one of these.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/986rockt.asp
Before you kick too much dirt on The President, you might want to read it.
It really tears at me to slam on President Bush like this because of all the good he did over the past eight years. Even so, this whole economic situation is turning into a nightmare and he appears to be cheering it on. Dammit George, stop giving me reasons not to like you!
Anyway, a bit of levity…
Nope. Not a darn thing you can do. Three letters – TVA. Yes, the TVA you should have] learned about in school. Government never gives back what it takes over. America is going socialist. How will you adapt?
There is no liberal or conservative when it comes to sound fiscal policy. It either is or is not. Craft whatever budget you want emphasizing whatever priorities are deemed most important. The real “bottom line” is that you must balance the budget. There is no mechanism in the federal government to mandate this. No one and no entity is responsible or accountable, therefore every budget year involves a spending orgy by unaccountable politicians. This has got to stop.
I still say we need law mandating a balanced budget (better a constitutional amendment) and economic impact analyses similar to environmental impact laws prohibiting Congress from making law detrimental to the economy. Can you say Community Reinvestment Act?
Maybe there too. Afghanistan will look trivial compared to a nuclear Iran.
And Michelle – beware today’s designated smiter…
Michelle,
I have no idea why people come here, but you have never been ambiguous: this is a Conservative blog site. Not Republican, not “Compassionate Conservative,” not “anti-liberal.”
Conservatives have seen Bush for what he is for a very long time. Why this is news to people here is beyond me.
What’s NOT closed, however, is the “lesser of two evils” debate. That’s a worthy debate amongst conservatives.
It would be interesting to debate some “what if’s,” now that we have some hindsight.
What-if we had let Al Gore win in 2000? Since we really weren’t sure that Bush was a RINO, and we clearly had 8 years of Bubba-fatigue, I can’t see a lot of people aligning with that – but it’s worth discussing.
More interesting to me is: what-if we let Kerry win in 2004? What if we rejected the RINO as “non-conservative,” and allowed Kerry to run these past 4 years.
How would today be different than it is now?
A solid discussion around this, perhaps as its own thread, might generate some interesting ideas…
A miilion people would have committed suicide after hearing his wife complain for four straight years…
obviously two terms of a republican who wasn’t conservative enough has reached it’s breaking point. Of course McCain would have been better than Obama, but he wasn’t conservative enough. Let’s hope that this ‘we need a jimmy carter to get us a ronald reagan’ by magic! plan here actually works. Or we’ll all be faced with 4, more likely 8 years of president obama as this cunning plan utterly fails and our selves and our country are the beneficiaries.
At that point, all of this complaining about Bush will be nothing more than a fond memory by comparison.
A resolution is a good start, but unless the Republican Party changes the way it holds primaries, we’ll get another “compassionate conservative” RINO offering socialism-lite as our next presidential candidate.
There were 12 states that put McCain over the top by Super Tuesday in the last primary. But did you know that only 4 of those states actually voted for McCain in the general election? (One of those 4 states was his home state of Arizona and another one, Missouri, was a virtual tie.)
So, if we continue to let blue states vote first in our primary before red states, we will never end up with a true conservative candidate in the future. Doesn’t it make more sense to allow the states that voted Republican in the last election (the red states) to vote first in the next primary?
wise man,
The carter/reagan argument only holds water if certain conditions apply, such as:
1. Is there another Ronald Reagan out there? Can’t have one if one doesn’t exist, and
2. Will Obama leave anything salvageable behind?
Had this been 4 years ago, there clearly wasn’t another Reagan waiting in the wings. We certainly didn’t see one during this campaign. Fred Thompson was probably the truest conservative in the bunch, but he’s hardly a Reagan in terms of “fight.” Never forget the number of times that Reagan ran and lost – never changing his message.
The questions, then, are: would Kerry have left enough of the USA behind that he could have been successfully challenged in 2008, AND would his liberal agenda have been strong enough to bring another Reagan from out of the shadows?
Is the RNC even capable, never mind willing, to find another Reagan? Is the whole party RINO, by its very nature?
Would Pelosi and Reid have ascended if Kerry were POTUS, or would his agenda have turned the nation towards the RINO’s?
I’m interested in opinions…
Just a “Thought”…
Open Up The CREDIT MARKET? Dont you think that THE CREDIT MARKET has alot to do with our CURRENT MESS?
People Spending Money THEY DONT HAVE? And once they GET IT… They OWE 18%!!!
Here is MY suggestion…
Go BACK to the GOLD STANDARD of Pre-1900, DISSOLVE the FED (worthless Organization), Raise TARRIFFS on ALL IMPORTS and FOREIGN GOODS… And Make MADE IN AMERICA mean something AGAIN!
The Republican Patry’s “resolution” is too little too late. So what do they intend to do about the next “President” who runs as a Republican then immidiately turns into a RINO?? Who was doing the yelling when Bush proposed “No Child Left Behind”? or the Medicare Prescription debacle?? If the Pres doesn’t follow the party line who is going to pull the plug??
The RNC has no power to do squat. They need to put their money and principles behind the local/state elections and start developing the “conservative candidates” who DO follow first principles and start listening to we, the people, again.
There are, in my opinion, two “Reagans” out there:Palin and Jindahl. The problem is that the GOP does not want to fight. They could have all voted for Dingell for speaker and forced the Moderate/Connservative “Blue Dog” Democrats to make a choice between Pelosi and Dingell. Would you want to be a representative of a rural district and say you voted for San-Fran Nan for Speaker over Dingell, a NRA member? They could have made themselves relavant, but Noooo.
The problem is that if conservatives break off from the GOP, the GOP will die but the new conservative party will be in the wilderness for a long time. probably permanently. The only hope is probably sucession of some states. Tell me where to move to.
Texas, Oklahoma and Utah should be the first three Republican primaries. Then the cross-over Dems from New Hampshire can have their say. Nah, they can wait for Alaska.
BTW, with cross-over voting, unlike this year, when Dear Leader and the Pantsuit had a real battle, and it was just independents crossing over, unless Obama has really screwed the pooch so bad even Marxists are mad, he’ll run unopposed in the primaries, and it won’t just be independents picking our nominee, it’ll be the KoS Kiddies Klub.
By all means, let’s change the rules so this doesn’t happen again.
I think that governors make better presidents. While Romney is no Reagan, I think he would have made a good president. I think that Sarah Palin has the potential to be a great president. A president’s ability to make the right decisions in my mind trumps other qualifications, such as what school they went to.
.
In redard to Bush’s disappointing decisions and actions, especially as of late – I will give more credit to a sitting president who has more information available to him than the political commentator or author that he is doing the right thing as he sees. Bush as in my opinion been more of a president for all of America and what is best for America than being 100% best for conservatives. He thought that if he allowed sectors of our economy to fail, as a good conservative should do by so many opinions here – that this would be unacceptable to America as a nation and our people who live here.
I must be one of the few conservatives left who give him some slack for doing the right thing.
I see where B. Hussein Obama, the interloper, has started saying that many of his promises will have to be scaled back because of the recession. Really? I would have never imagined that he would ever do such a thing
He knew the economy was tanking during the election but continued to make all of those promises. Why wasn’t he scaling back on his promises then? (rhetorical question)
Aww, the change. It’s like a breath of fresh air. Can you feel it coming? It makes one’s leg tingle. /sarc
When Bush cried that he needed 700 billion dollars to bail out the US economy, I didn’t see ANYBODY in media DEMAND that at least have a news conference.
Why the hell NOT?
FlyoverMan, do you honesty think the Pu blic Schools are better today because of “No Child Left Behind”? I don’t know anybody who does. In fact most conservatives see it as a “Dumming Down” of education. No child can move faster than the slowest student in the class.
I love what and how you write, Michelle.
We agree about 90% of the time. But I think some day you’ll realize that Bush lied about everything he touched.
I’ve got a, “No empty commiserating” resolution for 2009, so I will just wish you all well for 2009.
God Bless!
What is it with the left’s trutherism/conspiracy theories/”He lied! He betrayed us!!!” about George W Bush that has now infected some of us.
This really is disgusting.
So Bush was “burning the village in order to save it.” That’s just great. Bush was softening us up before Obama moves in for the kill.
Nice way to pat yourself on the back now that it’s fashionable again for the right to question Bush’s conservative bona fides. Where were you when he pulled a fast one on congressional Republicans in the Dick Foster-Medicare fiasco? Or when Tom Delay went pay-for-play to get votes for same egregious “generational theft?”
The lesson from these embarrassments to government, as well as Sarah Palin, who couldn’t have been more of a RINO with her support of the bailout and amnesty, is that the right will give its members a pass for abandoning their principles only if the left hates them even more. Apparently, the principle that stands above all for conservatives is enraging Democrats.
After reading comment after comment, listenting to commentary after commentary, reading article after article, most people seem to believe Bush’s greatest (and only) accomplishment is having kept this country safe from another terror attack.
As I’ve said before, if this is the only nail he has to hang his hat on, he’s failed. He’s failed as president, he’s failed as leader of our party, and he won’t be missed.
I see plenty more comments that agree with me than with the terror thing.
Later, Bush. I never want to see you again.
Instead of platitudes, could we get an explanation of why fiscal irresponsibility was “best for America?” Could we have an explanation of why open borders are “best for America?” Could we have an explanation of why not vetoing the pork-laden highway and farm bills was “best for America?” Could I hear how putting cronies like Harriet Miers, Michael Brown, and Scott McLellan in key positions was “Best for America?”
Conservatives opposed most all of those. I should very much like to hear the explanation of how it was better for America that Bush supported them.
Let’s see… Last post dated August 2000. Election was November 2000. Bush took office January 2001. Today is January 12, 2009. My word, there’s quite a gap in that timeline! Eight years to be exact. What could possibly have been going on during those 8 years? Hmmm…
Nice try, but you can’t re-write history. Just as you hold the left accountable for policing their own, perhaps you should hold yourself to the same standards. Your party, your president, your problem. Own it.
I’ll always cut someone slack if they’re doing the right thing. That’s what being right is all about. I’ll even give them slack if there is room for significant doubt.
But things like No Child Left Behind were boondoggles from the word go. They were “feel good” measures that liberals – including GWB – truly believe in. I have no doubt that GWB, in his heart of hearts, thought that NCLB was a great idea.
The trouble is, we’re living in the United Burueaucracy of America – and he should KNOW that. Instead of raising the caliber of students by teaching them, it fast became an exercise in lowering the bar. Teachers now teach to the test, instead of actually teaching subjects. They will spend HUGE amounts of time repeating themselves until “everyone gets it,” while the smart kids are going insane since they “got it” 4 weeks ago, and even the average kids got it 3 weeks ago.
Worse, we’re POURING money down that rat hole.
NCLB is a *classic* case of liberal feel-good gone horribly wrong – and it’s one that you will NEVER hear on the MSM because…
…well, you already know why. It’s the MSM – you expect actual news reporting from them?
But Bush did lie to us. Here’s one of the big ones.
“Our responsibility is clear: We are going to protect the border.” – Bush, November 2005
Here’s another one:
“From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” — George W. Bush, 9/20/01
Offer not valid in Gaza or the West Bank.
Michelle, in a couple of months, you will be wishing you had ole George back in office.
Save your powder for the left.
Sure… They’ve taken extraordinary measures to further screw up our country. They have yet to take extraordinary measures to actually fix anything.
Such as removing policies that allow people who can’t afford to pay back a loan, to get that unaffordable loan in the first place.
Has anyone in a position to fix that done so?
No… they have not. So President Bush, Obama, Dodd, Frank and all the others need to shut their ignorant, payola sucking pie-holes and fix the problem.
So far all they’ve done is perpetuate it. They’ve given more drugs to the addict rather than get him into rehab.
I’m wondering if before the first year is out, that some here will even regret everything they did to keep McCain out of office.
You mean like, if Obama continues to pass massive bailouts, pass amnesty for illegal immigrants, push Draconian global warming regulations, push new regulations on business, appoint liberal activist judges, and enact regulations on political speech?
Oh, wait, McCain supported all those things, too.
Never mind.
I think Bush thought he could repeat the success he had working with Democrat Bob Bullock and a bipartisan Texas Legislature to get things done.
But Texas Democrats, especially 1990s era Texas Democrats, did not reflect the national party. They were not hard core Marxists.
You could compare and contrast the policies of the late Ann Richards and Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins, and Richards was probably more conservative.
More than anything else, this “reaching across the aisle” is what messed things up so badly.
He handled 9-11 well, I think he had good intentions, he won’t be judged as quite the failure of Jimmy Carter, but early actions like NCLB, and later actions like supporting amnesty, and now the bailout, well, GWB was better than Gore or Kerry would have been, but he isn’t Mount Rushmore material.
But since they have already named a submarien after one term failure Jimmy Carter, and aircraft carriers for one or half term failures GHWB and Gerald Ford, unless Obama really scraps the defense budget, GWB will get a ship named after him.
I don’t think McCain would appoint the ideological equivalents of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and his global warming fraud cap-n-trade/carbon taxes would have been less draconian than Obama’s, and with a Democratic Congress, some of his stupid ideas, even the liberal ones, would have been blocked, just for spite.
In the land of ifs and buts-
if Gore had stolen 2000…
When 9-11 happened, if public outcry had forced Gore, against his better MoveOn.org instincts, to invade Afghanistan rather than just lob the proverbial million dollar missile at the empty ten dollar tent, and get a resolution from the UN Security Council expressing deep regret over al Qaeda’s rash actions, if Al Gore had taken us to war, Hollywood and the media would have loved him, and we would have had the second renassaince of modern versions of “The Sands of Iwo Jima” and “Guadalcanal Diary”. You know that in time of war most Republicans would have supported their President, even a Democrat President who may not have won Florida cleanly.
And a Republican Congress probably wouldn’t have voted such giant budgets out for Al Gore, and we might have had some fiscal discipline.
Who knows.
Which is why when people asked whether Obama is a socialist, it was the wrong question.
(For the record, I think Obama is not a socialist in the traditional sense, but more of a managerial state type).
In fewest words, the primary problem with the Republicans is they have no idea who their Democrat opponents are, how they function and what their attitude is towards anyone not embracing their agenda.
They are Charlie Brown convinced that next time Lucy is not going to jerk the football away at the last second.
I supported Bush against Al Gore and John Kerry, and I was glad to get someone respectful of the military back in office.
However, he was near last on my list back in 99-00 due to his father’s record (I would have supported Jeb, but he lost his initial bid for Fl Gov, IIRC). I didn’t wind up supporting Bush until every other possibility had dropped off, and HATED “compassionate conservatism” as bad marketing, PR, and philosophy. It showed he didn’t really “get” conservatism.
In addition, I was cursing his decision to hand NCLB to Kennedy, “new tone”, and for the sake all that is sane, Harriet Miers, and probably more that I can’t think of besides this bailout disaster.
Oh, immigration and giving SSI reform such a weak, weak rollout.
Ed Mahmoud — I disagree with you. Look at Vietnam. Vietnam was in many ways JFKs/LBJ’s war. JFK even had the president of South Vietnam overthrown because he was not serious enough in fighting the communists.
Hollywood and the rest completely turned on LBJ by 1968.
In an act of supeme irony of course, the GOP and Nixon got blamed for it anyway.
Flyoverman….Barnes is full of it. Truman was a putz,a classic liberal. In fact in a weird echo of Gulf War 1, his State Dept sent signals that we wouldn’t defend S.Korea and that encouraged N.Korea to attack….maybe they would have anyway but that’s what happened. Worse yet Truman refused to use Atomics which would have defeated the Chinese. What good is a nuke if you can’t use one on the Chicom hordes. 58000 GI’s died holding a line. The fact that we are still there is both Truman’s and Ike’s fault. The buck stopped with both of them…they failed to win.
BOTH Bush’s have been problematic. Bush41 failed to win Gulf War1 (leading to Gulf War2) and he lied about taxes. Bush 43 had SoS Rice playing down what they knew about terrorists (remember Able Danger?), soft immigration policies have lead to hundreds of dead Americans via illegals who drunk drive and commit other crimes, and he played a disastrous middle game in Iraq that cost thousands of unnecessary GI deaths.
With the financial meltdown as a topper, it is going to be very hard for duh1 to top Bush43 but I have no doubt he is going to try to outspend him.
We are being hosed by the political class. They enrich their friends at our expense. We vote for the lessor of two evils….we don’t make a hard choice between two supremely qualified Presidential candidates…Ever!I hate it. This situation must end.
I consider Harry Truman on of the 5 worst Presidents in our history.
We did not need nukes in Korea. In November 1950 China entered the war. At the end of March 1951, four months later, there we no divisional sized units of the Chinese or North Korean Armies intact in Korea. They had all been destroyed. Source: Conflict by Robert Leecke
We advanced re-took Soeul and we heading back to the Yalu when the Chinese said let’s negotiate…… Truman stopped. NUFF SAID.
We did not need to “win” Gulf War I. All we needed to do was go for another 48-72 hours and destroyed the Republican Guard and Saddam’s own people would have dispatched him. Dumb error. Thank you General Powell.
Two biggest problems with Gulf War 2 was the failure of Turkey to allow the 4th ID to come south and we should not have jsut detroyed the Republican Guard and not disarmed the Iraqi Army. I would have let the Iraqi Army secure their own capital. If those two events had occurred we would not have had a major insurgency.
My opinion.
I always thought that, compassionate conservatism was giving the convict on death-row a blindfold.
Flyoverman, you make valid points. As does Fred Barnes. GWB has some good and, well, horrible points. What Fred points out are some good ones, though I also disagree with a couple. Other posters suggested some devil’s advocate discussions such as what if we let Gore or Kerry win? What would we have today? Interesting and thought provoking. Yes, GWB abandoned (or never ascribed to) conservative economic principles. His bad. Our consequences. The other day, Starr Parker said: “…the political class in Washington transforms our once great, prosperous, and free country into a lumbering socialist mediocrity”. The problem is bigger than GWB. As someone said during the Wall Street meltdown, WE are to blame, WE put the idiots in office. Repeatedly. If the RNC can pass that resolution and make it stick and enough of us out in the hinterlands support it, it may be enough of a shift within the party. At least a microscopic start. As Rush said last Friday, “…we are SO screwed!”. As others have pointed out, how long will it take for “buyer’s remorse” to hit? Most of us, for our country’s sake at least, pray for Obama to be successful in turning things around and do some things right. But we are also realistic that he probably won’t and…well, it’s gonna be a long road back. But let’s not totally throw GWB under the bus. Let’s not look at him with tunnel vision. Back the lens out and look at the bigger perspective. Monday-morning-quarterbacking him ain’t necessarily healthy. My .02 cents. IMHO.
Floyd R. Turbo — excellent points.
The one big possibility with Obama is that he is essentially a blank slate. It may be possible to push him into the center right. I think he is an intelligent man. I get the feeling he got invovled with ACORN and Ayers and the rest to gain “street cred” in his profession. He has shown a willingness to jetison his left wing friends when necessary.
Look, I’m a free-market guy too, and I agree that the marketplace would have solved this on its own, but I also agree it would have thrown us into a bad depression. Bush felt that the pain of a bad depression was unnecessary, and used his socialist bailout to try to avoid that.
I agree that a depression could have been avoided with government intervention, but this was by far the worst possible path to take. Almost all the other options I’ve heard would have been better. Now we have a clear, open path to socialism opened just in time for a socialist president and congress to follow.
Very true—GWB has expanded Government, probably at the most rapid clip of any President since FDR. We’re going to have to wait till 2012 for smaller Gov. and president who will CUT SPENDING !
Small Gov/Frugal spending = Greater Efficiency
2012….but will we make it till then without the Treasury becoming totally insolvent? You might think it can’t happen, but if local governments can suffer bankruptcy…why not the Fed ?
I wonder how much damage the Treasury can sustain before relief in 2012, or if it will be too late by then ???
I don’t believe that anything that happens in 2010 elections will matter. Obama is going to enact things that will take years to undo and are far more long lasting, past 2010.
The only thing to do is pray that the damage is not as bad as expected, and lay the foundation for a 2012 victory, and the Person that can rehabilitate things in 2012….and we all know who that person is….
Hopefully this will clue in “conservatives” as to the need to actually vote for a fiscally responsible candidate the next time around rather than merely talking about them. Just a thought.
I hope Mr. Bush retires to the ranch, finds a nice hobby and keeps off television: does not Carter himself.
Mr. Bush, as with John McCain, was pretty much the Party Bigs pick-a winnable candidate to “save” the White House from the Clinton clone Gore. Pragmatism over ideology. It did not work out too well.
I DO believe the 2010 elections matter, desperately. But under no circumstances will I support the RNC and the “Professionals”–conservatives only.
The other night we received a phone solicitation from the RNC; correct response: No, I will be giving to the Ramos and Compean families.
Flyoverman….I get your point. My point is to use whatever arrows are in your quiver to avoid your own casualties. [Remember that MacArthur wanted a radioactive cobalt DMZ between China and Korea.] Also , win the war. With China invading Korea (both of them) we had license to invade them and liberate the Chinese people from the Chicom butchers. We didn’t. Tens of millions died instead. Atomics would have worked then to our advantage and far fewer good guys would have died. A glow-in-the-dark Mao would have been a good thing. Vietnam, the Kymer Rouge, the Great Leap Forward etc. never would have happened. We could have backed the Russkies out of Eastern Europe while we were at it.
Instead we got cold war, realpolitick, and made in China.
As far as legacy for Bush, absolutely everything, good or bad, pales in comparison to the ushering in of socialism under his watch; He has not only paved the way for PEBO, he has greased the skids; There were alternatives, but he would have none of it; A true fiscal conservative would never have even considered what he and Paulson have done; It will take years to unravel this government intervention mess; Even FDR’s SoT said, after 6 years of the New Deal, that it was a failure, and now we are about to get an overwhelming dose of the same; Please, GOP, step up for the American people and be our firewall.
It was MM’s columns from 2000 that was one of the factors causing me not to vote for either candidate in that election. I believe now, however, that it would have been much better for the country if Gore had won. Such a victory might have energized Republicans, base and congress. It would have resulted in far more responsible budgets and 9/11 would have fallen completely on the democrats as would the sub-subprime mess. There would have been no downside. Moreover, both Iraq and Iran would be near completion of their n-weapons program — to be used on each other instead of Isreal.
The Bush Administration has been an unparalleled catastrophe in the nation’s history. Future historians, likely Islamic, will write of the “Rise and Fall of America — from George Washington to George Bush.” The man discovered levels of incompetence hitherto unknown in humanity. Even when he did something right, he would work overtime, day and night to find a way to screw it up. When I think of of him I can’t get past his face. I think of either his stupid smirk, or the classic bone-headed, sad sack, “I f*cked up” look that makes me want to throw at him every shoe in my wife’s closet.
He destroyed the Republican Party (Peggy Noonan was right on that), crippled his country, evicerated conservatives, and abandoned his base with utter contempt, all to be loved by democrats. He fell into every trap they set. He will be the Hoover for the 21st century.
Now there’s nothing left after George but a one party state.
Before we throw W under the bus completely, we should look at the good things he did. Socially, he has been relatively conservative. Good on guns, pro-life and pro-family. He took shots from all sides on stem cells and was proven right by further research by the Japanese.
Fiscally, yeah, he spent way too much but was right on tax cuts. TARP was his big boondogle, should have went after the fat cats themselves to pay the freight.
Iraq was the right thing to do, but he should have had the Iraqis paying their own way with oil to the US, and protections for Iraqi Christians. He should have done some pullout prior to November for political reasons. Gitmo, which has we have been drawing down, could have been easy to solve. Open the gates and let the Cubans deal with it.
Overall I would give him a C-, based on his social stands.
On January 12th, 2009 at 1:04 pm, RobM1981 said:
1) Yes.
2) Not if this vision comes true:
Fred Thompson? He was McCain’s Stalking Horse.
President Bush is a good man, with a good heart, but unfortunately he is gullible. He trusts people who shouldn’t be trusted. Secretary Paulson is one of those people who shouldn’t be trusted. Paulson is a Trojan Horse. Paulson presented Bush with a false dilemma, and Bush took Paulson’s advice.
This pre-socialization plan did not originate with President Bush – it originated with Paulson and the globalists – but President Bush deservedly takes the blame because he not only accepted it, but pressured other Republicans to support it, too.
But John McCain deserves an equal, if not greater, share of the blame because he, too, pressured other Republicans, and as the Republican Party’s nominee, other Republicans looked to McCain’s lead.
Bush and McCain together sunk the Republican Party in this election by supporting the bailout.
Please, President Bush, don’t be stupid enough to take any other socialist steps before you take office!
I think the guy honestly tried to change the tone in Washington, not what he was elected to do. I believe he’s a good man at a heart, just didn’t have his head in the right place. Too worried about those crooked politicians getting along instead of taking care of this once great country’s business. Over all he was a terrible president, just an opinion, we all have one ya know.
>1. Is there another Ronald Reagan out there? Can’t have one if one doesn’t exist,
What about SC governor Mark Sanford?
Oh Puleese Wiseman
That presumes, of course, McCain even wanted the office at all…
It was easy for Bush to throw over his principles; principles are loosely held in the Bush family. They are decent people without core political convictions. Like liberals, they don’t think through to the long-term consequences of their actions. They don’t do the vision thing.
On January 13th, 2009 at 5:56 am, love2rumba said:
McCain the “Designated Loser”?
I believe Obama was George Soros’ designated winner,
and McCain was Soros’ designated loser.
McCain was forced (by Huckabee’s delegates, who threatened to walk out of the convention if McCain picked a pro-choice VP) to pick a “true conservative” VP, and that is how we ended up with Sarah Palin.
But McCain and the “upper eschelon” of the Republican Party did their best to sink Sarah Palin and the ticket as a whole. Watch what Sarah said about the “upper eschelon” forcing her to do two additional interview days with Katie Couric, when Sarah KNEW that the first day had been a disaster. Sarah didn’t want to do days two and three, but was forced to.
There are socialist globalists in high places in the Republican Party, and they did not want grassroots conservatism to win in this election.
We lost this election in March when McCain “clinched” the nomination.
It seems to me that there are some mysterious forces at work behind the scenes deciding the future (including the demise )of this country and we the people do not know who these shadowy figures are. The average American does not know who George Soros and his co-conspirators are. This is not a conspiracy theory in my mind. I think money and power (and those who have lots of it) have certain ideas they want to see unfold (global economy/global government). We must be diligent, outspoken, informed, and willing to get the word out someway, somehow about who these people are who want America( the American Republic) to just fade away so they can move forward with their plans for world domination. I pray for my country. Americans had better stop watching celebrities and start watching their so-called elected representatives. We may be on the brink of losing everything, including the right to speak freely here on MM’s site.