If you’re still reading this thread, get and read a copy of

Phyllis Schlafly’s 1964 book A Choice Not an Echo:
The inside story of how American Presidents are chosen

It’s an excellent and very eye-opening book.

You say that Reagan was different, and you are right. There is a good reason Reagan was not like the rest. The rest were all the “establishment” choice. The “establishment” choice for 1980 was George H.W. Bush, and Reagan had to battle him mightily for the Republican nomination.

I believe Reagan’s biggest mistake was allowing G.H.W Bush to be his VP, because that paved the way for Bush’s win in 1988, and then 8 years of Clinton.

The “establishment” choice for 2000 was John McCain, but McCain’s hopes suffered a big defeat when George W. Bush won South Carolina. “W.” didn’t have the same level of understanding that Reagan did about the threat posed (both externally and internally) by the godless “Evil Empire”. Bush allowed himself to be surrounded by, and trust, many people who were not conservatives, but rather part of the problem.

Where do we go from here? Ensure that a true conservative, not an “establishment” choice, becomes our nominee in 2012.

As others have pointed out here, W. had a LOT of help from Congress and the bureaucracy in carrying out his fiscal follies including the prescription drug fiasco, shamnesty, and all of the run-away congressional spending. THAT is my main concern. Conservatives need to face-up to fact that the Republican party is NOT “party of conservatism” any more than the Democratic party is. History over the past 5 Republican presidencies proves my point. Think about it. Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43 — how many of these people were truly fiscal conservatives? Reagan pretty much stands alone. What the h*ll, even Clenis was more of a fiscal conservative than most of those guys. It’s one of the reasons that I’ve been telling people for YEARS that there’s not a nickel’s worth of difference between the Democratic and Republican parties. It’s just that all of the conservative Christians that have taken refuge in the Republican party have been telling themselves otherwise — sort of muttering it under their breath, like a mantra, or somethin’.

My collie says:

So if there IS no true “party of conservatives”, what do you suggest that we DO, CC?

Don’t look at me — I don’t have all the answers.

“My guy” didn’t have to lie and bribe to get his program enacted.

So, you DO reside somewhere between the Twilight Zone and an X-files episode….not that it was ever in doubt, mind you.

Next you’ll be telling us how Bush caused global warming after he stole the election in 2000……

I keep hearing how history will judge W. in a postitive light.

History will see him as an average president. That is if the historians are not biased BDS suffering morons like most these days. You know it is possiable to think of him that way instead of either satan or godlike.

I’m all ears.

RSS…another odumbo?

As far as this premise goes, I wouldn’t say Bush ruined conservatism so much as I would say he simply abandoned it (save for a few exceptions).

He definitely abandoned fiscal conservatism and free markets. And he sure as hell didn’t give a rat’s a$$ about national sovereignty.

I believe “W” is not truly a Socialist, but he was highly influenced by people who are.

In 2000, with Al Gore running on a promise of prescription drug benefits, Bush did a “me too”. As much as I hated to see him do the prescription drug program, he was being good for his word and keeping a campaign promise.

Bush was definitely too “open borders”, especially in a post-9/11 world.

In other areas, Bush delegated to people he trusted. Some of those people were trustworthy (like Harriet Miers, who helped produce the Roberts and Alito nominations), and others were not (like Treasury Secretary Paulson, who was a Trojan Horse Socialist).

Bush was too easily tricked by Socialists into supporting things that looked good on the surface, but were intentionally flawed under the covers…

Case in point: thinking an increase in “home ownership” was always a good thing… without realizing that ACORN/Fannie/Freddie were intentionally putting people in homes they couldn’t afford, and intentionally undermining large sections of our economy.

“W”, unfortunately, was an “useful idiot” to many of the Socialists’ plans.

The likes of Rush and Hannity would mention it, maybe once, and then move on. Rarely did they spend an entire week, day after day, hour after hour, segment after segment, repeatedly going sfter Pres Bush, the way they are going after Pres Obama.

For any of you lefties thinking, if that’s possible, go back, check conservative talk show hosts and websites when Bush failed to veto McShame/FineImforgold campaign reform bill. Rush and others spent lots of time complaining how wrong Bush was for that move or lack of. Get your stories straight before making wild accusations, never mind, I forgot that’s all you folks do. Never let facts get in the way of a good story(lie).

So either MM is suffering from BDS or maybe the left was on to something about 43.

I keep hearing how history will judge W. in a postitive light. I guess it’s still to soon. LOL.

BTW. Saturday on HBO, the great Will Ferrell will be doing a live broacast of his W. act from Broadway. It should be golden.