Skip to comments.Did George W. Bush help the GOP or hurt the GOP?
Posted on 11/20/2008 1:40:22 PM PST by jmikes20
Over the last 8 years, did George W. Bush help or hurt our party? We did see 2 electoral wins, and the first majority win since his dad trounced Dukakis. He helped keep a Democrat out of the White House for 8 years, and stave off out and out John Kerry liberalism, who is probably more liberal than Barack Hussein Obama. however, we got trounced pretty badly on November 4, all across the board, even in Governor's mansions, where Dems managed to do well in 2002. The Dems ranks grew over the '90's, going from 43% of the vote steadily up to 52% of the vote now. He kept us from losing Appalachia, which was starting to go for Clinton stronger than his predecessors. (With the matter of Ross Perot, while most agree he took from conservatives, I'm starting to believe Clinton might still have won 1992, given Bush I's poor approvals in 1992, and if enough Perot voters would have stayed home without him, Bush would still have lost. Clinton did solidify CA, IL, MI, NJ, CT, VT, ME, DE, and PA securely into the Democrat column, even after Perot was gone. Perot was also an abortionist, anti-family, and protectionist, but none the less, may have took from our demographics). Will conservatism survive, now that the brand his been so tarnished by incompetence? Will people see the achievements once the Messiah Hussein sees Iraq succeed, and us come back? One thing President Bush did was to put marriage on the table, which may well be the death knell for the Dems if Prop 8 managed to pass in the most liberal Democrat of Democrat states, California. Bush also kept Texas from even reverting Dem, as Gore, Kerry, and Obama won fewer counties there than Clinton, who won some in northern Texas. Do you think George Bush will have helped our party, or hurt it?
He damn near killed the GOP.
By what measure is Kerry “probably more liberal” than Obama?
Overall, he hurt the GOP. At first he seemed to be doing well, but as time passed, he sold out Domestic policy to the Dems, turned his back on the platform and principles, and made Republicans unelectable. 7 years later and he still has done little to close the southern border with Mexico.
The GOP is dead to me.
Maybe so, but he was killing a patient that was already in the throes of death by suicide.
There is simply no explaining what we saw our Party did to itself and those of us who entrusted them with our vote and control of the game plan.
We lost Indiana and North Carolina.
He was popular enough among conservatives that we by and large were cajoled into just barely supporting him and his ilk (e.g. Tom DeLay, etc.) enough to keep them in the majority.
If instead of just limping along with quasi-conservatives we had given support to true conservatives, then we may have lost some of the previous battles, but we would more likely win the ultimate war with liberalism.
What is happening with the Republican Party now is similar to what is happening with the economy: both Republicans and Democrats did things to keep the bubble from bursting sooner than it did, but it burst anyway.
Unless and until Republicans get back to being sound managers of smaller governments then whatever bubble of approval they receive will soon pop.
The only recent Prez to escape flame is Ronaldus Magnus. The rest are traitors doncha' know?
The United States hads’t been attacked since 9-11.
He did appoint conservative judges and he’s done good with war on terror.
He’s way better than Gore or Kerry. Of course, I would have taken Gore or Kerry over Obama.
That having been said, he did not advance conservatism. Under his watch, Republicans became the caricature that the left always claimed we were. Ted Stevens, Mark Foley, Medicare, No Child Left Behind...
I realize much of this was not George W. Bush's fault-- but actually, it was. In that he could have stopped it. Or he could have advanced conservatism. He could have controlled spending.
But the point is he is a patriot, a true American-- and in comparison to Terrorist-Elect Obama-- a great man.
Emblematic of his attitude toward the GOP was his selection of his crony Mel Martinez to head up the RNC, which turned out to be the disaster we all predicted.
Screw Bush! I hope I never hear that name again come January.
why the hell did we nominate him in the first place? Because he had a machine? i would love to know why, was it because McLame was his only real opponent? In many senses, he was our own Bill Clinton, a man who could come off moderate to enough, a young, Southern Governor. We see where slickness takes us now.
If he had of helped their would have been no Obama.
It is plain and simple he did NOT adhere to tried and true conservative principles.
It's time for conservatives to realize that we are the RINOs. The big government hordes own the party and we just tag along because we got nowhere else to go.
I can agree with that- and I'll add a snippet I wrote elsewhere:
Like many who voted for the man twice, I went through stages of lukewarm support, enthusiast support, and finally just wish he'd go away, but...
But I think shortly most of us will wish he were still in office, due to the imminent Obama Thugocracy...
Is the Pope Catholic?
After 8 long years you are asking this question?
Where have you been?
But I predict that history will show that the Dims and the media were happy to hold US safety and security hostage and to teeter on the edge of throwing the country under the bus and thus force him to fecklessness in any number of areas. I think history will show, that is, that the libs were perfectly happy to cripple our fighting forces and our security efforts if it would get them more socialism.
I think Dubya will look better when the facts come out.
One of the worst Presidents ever, turned the GOP into a minority party, possibly for years to come.
It all depends on one thing - if we get attacked again under a Democrat Administration.
It's not writing in paragraphs that kills off political parties!
Just ask the Federalists and the Whigs!
Bush won by appealing to that 50% of the population that was disposed to vote for him.
He wasn't active or imaginative enough to try to build on his support. He thought if we just kept on pushing the same buttons we'd go on winning.
Some of those were very good and important buttons, but politics is an active sport. You can't just sit on a majority and expect to win every time.
In general, he didn't risk much. He didn't even risk vetoing bloated appropriations bills.
Bush had his good qualities and some fine principles, but when the country needed leadership on some issues he was a status quo president and didn't even aspire to be much more than that.
Yeah. “Compared to what?” is always a good question to ask. WE don’t know what the media and the Dims would have done to another president or how another president would have reacted to the Dim willingness to hold the country’s safety and security hostage to their agenda.
I don’t know what happened with W. But I know he’s a good guy. So it could be that the War on Terror just sucked up so much time and energy that he couldn’t do much else.
I mean, think about it: Would anybody give a crap about any of the issues that today seem so important— if 911s were happening once a year?
Of course not. It’s only because we believe we’re safe— that we can go around complaining about what we complain about.
He is a liberal BUSH ,,,,,,,,,,
I’m starting to think the only reason he ran was the allay his father’s loss in 1992, which I’m beginning to think less and less was Ross Perot’s doing, and I listed why above. all those states I said Clinton solidified went GOP in the elections before him, Perot or not, not to mention Perot wasn’t really one of us. Bush would have needed too many of his votes to get to 50% anyway. Bush Sr. wrecked us in the first place by not controlling spending with his Congresses or bringing marriage or immigration around in the first place, where we could have gotten willie. Willie was the most pro-gay candidate ever, before Hussein, who actually mentioned them in his acceptance speech. Bush Sr. made people stop believing in Reagan. He was no Reagan. he merely served him because Ford wouldn’t do as VP, and Bush had machine and connections to get on the ticket.
What’s a GOP?
Horrendous. The President is the de facto leader of his party. The last 8 years have seen a free-fall of Republican principles and ideals. If only he had stood against big government like he did against terrorism we might be a little better off.
He lanced the boil of the Middle East before it became terminal. Clinton took on nothing big and coasted to nice approval ratings based on the republican Congress that actually walked some of the conservative talk.
Bush? He inherits a housing bubble and loose money not of his making that was a disaster waiting to happen. Concurrently he had to wage war against jihadism with the headwinds of a fickle populace, a disgraceful media and the two faced scumbags on the left who were for the war before they were against it.
So where does that leave Bush? It leaves him abandoning fiscal sanity in an attempt to gather the votes required to put some steel in Congress' backbone while not having enough juice or communication skills to ram through some restraints on Fanny and Freddy that could have mitigated the current crisis in financial markets.
Washington DC is a cesspool.
The World Trade Center bombings happened in 1993.
Clinton was pres. from 1993 to 2001.
So, that flaming a$$h###, Clinton did the same thing.
Bush didn't do squat to protect us. He just lucked out.
Hes way better than Gore or Kerry. Of course, I would have taken Gore or Kerry over Obama.
Given the choises we had, I can not regret that I voted for W. His tax cuts were a positive and he did understand that national strenth equates to national security. His 2 choices for the Supreme Court were excellent (with only a little goading).
Do I disagree with him on other things? You betcha. But it very well could have been worse.
I would suggest that the congresscritters have to account for most of the blame. The Republicans in the House and Senate showed remarkable little spine during President Bush's administration. A pretty fair number of them got indicted too.
When you review the records, President Bush pretty much got everything he wanted usually without congressonal help and with a great deal of dim pissing and moaning.
Daddy Bush countered all of Reagans policies, Bubba destroyed the militia groups & GW bankrupted us all the while they pushed us toward One World Government. A pox on all 3 schmucks.
idk if this matters, but the deficit did go down in 1993-1994, when the Dems still ran Congress with Clinton. Nonetheless, spending cuts, not just tax hikes helped with the surplus. a President DOES have to help with Congress and political business. Clinton did manage to help increase Dems in the electoral college big time, which further shows why we hated him so. The Dems gained seats in 1996, 1998 even with Monica, and in 2000. With Bush, we lost more seats in 2006 and 2008 than the Dems in 1994 combined. We’ve been cursed with poor leaders. Newt fucked us over big time after such gains, and Bush let us become a southern party only. Bush could have worked fiscal sanity, but not signing so much pork.
Definitely hurt us. There were so many things that he’s done that go against our base.
“Did that iceberg help the Titanic or hurt the Titanic?”
Katrina sunk the Titanic(in this sense.) letting it get that bad really killed our image all over. He had 50%+ approvals until that happened. Conservatives are supposed to be prepared. Bush wasn’t.
2001 - 2003 helped. 2003 - 2008 - hurt.
That being said, George Bush operated under hostile circumstances in Washington, media and even his own party! On the other side, he killed our party when he began to push citizenship to illegals. Once he began to make deals with the dems, some in our party followed him off the cliff
So Yes, George Bush has hurt us in a major way. His tin ear toward the conservative side of the party was a killer. I honesty believe he is a man of integrity, it's just that many of us felt betrayed by his policies and willingness to sign expensive budgets.
Lets ditch the RINO’s and go back to our core beliefs.
Probably the 4th (possibly third) worst president in our history.
Spending has increased every year since 1968. Revenues dropped precipitously in beginning in 2001. Any guess why?
That wasn’t the question.
this picture is poignant. Bush 41 let Clinton into office, which killed us in the Northeast first and foremost. Dems have won every state north of DC on the east coast ever since Bill Clinton in 1992(minus NH in 2000), and we have never recovered California, Illinois, and Michigan either. Ohio and Florida are battlegrounds, going Republican heavily in elections before 1992. 1992 may have been a realigning election which came to full fruition in 2008. Bush 41 began the trend by catering to Congress, and barely governing. he didn’t do shit on the domestic front, which killed us. He ignored health care and jobs, all of which have conservative solutions.
Why did Bush even win the nomination in 1988, other than his machine? Jack Kemp may have been better, as he was more Reagan than Bush ever was. He sponsored the tax cuts, which Bush called voodoo economics. He was in Congress, which would have let him rail heavily against the other side. it would have prevented W.
tax cuts for the middle class may have saved us. I’m a strong believer in supply side, but when you give too much to the top bracket, you risk losing too much money, and too many votes. I think the problem is we let our hatred of Clinton control us into taking things a little too far.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.