White House Letter: Criticism of Bush leaves conservative in the cold

Herald Tribune ^ | FEBRUARY 12, 2006 | Elisabeth Bumiller

[Chi-townChief]

You have to wonder: if Bush were president rather than Reagan in 1983, the follow-up to the Beirut attack on our marines may have gone down a bit differently.

[Mulch]

Yes, Bush did clearly label himself a "compassionate conservative" which many traditional conservatives were suspicious of from the start.

[saveliberty]

Sorry for you

[xrp]

With regards to spending, what we have now is worse than anything in the last 30 years.

[Darkwolf377]

Great points.

I love Reagan, but people conveniently forget that government didn't exactly shrink under him, either. Not to mention the tax policy in the second term, abandoning Lebanon and accepting our troops being "guarded" with blanks, etc. Bush is far more open in his anti-abortion position, and is giving us a sane SCOTUS--Reagan gave us who, exactly on the court, lemme think...

We've not had a pure conservative in the White House. Bush deserves criticism on policy, no question. But this book sounds like nonstop slamming, and the writer pouts about why Bush fans don't like him?

[Niteranger68]

I hope the Republicans suffer huge defeats in the House/Senate in 2006!

Why???

[saveliberty]

When it comes to defense, is he a liberal?
When it comes to security, is he a liberal?
When it comes to taxes, is he a liberal?
When it comes to justices, is he a liberal?

Sure, I would love to see different items on the agenda. But I never pretended to myself that he would appear to be a different person.

It's refreshing that he is following up on what he said he would do. The unClinton

[Cicero]

Bush called himself a "compassionate conservative" from the start. He has been conservative on many issue, but unfortunately he never promised to be conservative on spending.

Keep in mind that Reagan didn't managed to cut spending either. After a few months, he gave up. Bush has a better congress than Reagan did, but cutting spending is very, very hard. Probably if Bush had tried it, he would have been defeated, and then where would we be?

He has been good on the war, judicial appointments, tax cuts, and several other issues. I agree that he is weak on spending and immigration, but those are very difficult issues to turn around, until the electorate supports them. Not much point in trying the impossible and getting thrown out.

[Russ]

While I have enjoyed reading articles by Bruce Bartlett and have usually agreed with him, I think he is wrong in calling Bush a "pretend conservative". On some issues such as abortion and stem cell research I give him high marks for his conservatism. Most, if not all, of his judicial appointments were men and women to the right. He has not been a slave to the U.N. On spending and immigration he has been a disappointment but since we tend to throw the term real conservative around these days there aren't too many who fit the definition 100%. I would put the President in the 75-80% catagory.

[Eva]

The attack isn't in the criticism, but in the way the criticism was voiced. It had a nasty, angry tone, more suited to a liberal. It was not constructive criticism.

[xrp]

So we can get gridlock back. This one party holding all branches of government isn't boding well for my future income tax rates.

[Alberta's Child]

I think the bigger issue here is that this guy Bartlett -- regardless of the merits of his arguments -- has nobody to blame but himself for the situation in which he has found himself.

Anyone who relies on the generosity of others for his "employment" (and I use that term loosely, after reading the entire article) is probably quite a medicority in many ways.

[Capriole]

There are quite a few of these embittered ex-Reagan Administration officials writing articles or quietly complaining to one another. Some of them are so wild with hatred for Bush that they're organizing to campaign for Mark Warner (!!) I don't understand it, myself. If you won't vote for anyone who doesn't entirely and completely agree with you on every point, you won't vote for anyone but yourself.

[xrp]

No, Reagan didn't cut total spending, but he got a LOT of discretionary spending SLASHED.

[saveliberty]

Thanks. I loved Reagan and didn't need to agree with him on everything or even most things. I valued that he kept my highest priorities as his.

I plan to read the Barnes' book instead because it illustrates that conservatives like this author were influential until W. And it's not because W hates or dislikes them, but because to get real change, you have to get away from the folk pushing the "that's the way we've always done it" mantra. It happens in the private sector and even more so in the public sector.

[Mulch]

I noticed you didn't include spending and illegal immigration in your list where respectively he is a socialist and open border advocate. Those are two very serious shortcomings.

[steelcurtain]

What happens if you're a Republican commentator and you write a book critical of President George W. Bush that gets you fired from your job at a conservative think tank? For starters, no other conservative institution rushes in with an offer for your superb analytical skills.

Maybe his skills are not quite as superb as he would like to think.

[saveliberty]

And he cut the rate of growth on entitlements. Those were the "horrible Reagan budget cuts".

[CWOJackson]

"Bartlett, a domestic policy aide at the White House in the Reagan administration..."

LOL! This is exactly what pat buchanan likes to refer to himself as. I'm beginning to think "domestic policy aide to Reagan" is shorthand for "disgruntled jerk who never amounted to much on his own merits and is trying to blame someone else".

[Little Ray]

George W. Bush NEVER promised to be anything else.
I have a lot issues with President Bush, but look at the alternatives (Gore and Kerry).
'Bout the only good thing I can think of is that we might have had "gridlock" keeping the gub'mint from growing so fast!