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

Herald Tribune ^ | FEBRUARY 12, 2006 | Elisabeth Bumiller

[saveliberty]

I know that a) he has consistently advocated lower spending and Congress overdoes it anyway. I also know that in the GWOT he does not want to put himself in his father's position in which Leon Panetta threatened to shut down the government during the Gulf War. I also know that no one understands security better than this President and I am convinced that there is more going on in our defense than we know (as we saw with NSA terrorist surveillance-- if he's listening on phone conversations, why would he not be doing more on the border?) And if you have been reading PoliPundit, you would be reading Jayson Javitz's regular updates about what Immigration is publishing about border security. It's a lot more than the hysteria would have you believe. He also has follow up articles about how courts are cracking down on illegal immigrants too.

So if you are not happy with this President, we will agree to disagree.

But Jake the Goose says that McCain (who I would argue is to the left of this President) is out of his mind. And I believe him.

[cinives]

I totally agree with you, but I don't think the Dems would be any better. Look at Carter; then, Clinton was restrained by having to deal with a Republican Congress.

What we need is to elect more Ron Pauls and Mike Pences.

[SmoothTalker]

I see Scott McClellan posts on here.

[jpsb]

Bush, to his credit, never claimed to be a small government conservative, in fact he has been very upfront about his desire to grow government, he believes government can solve most problems. Which is why he's never seen a government program he doesn't like. He thinks government, big government, if managed effectively will be good government. Hardly Reagan like in his approach to government.

[SmoothTalker]

"I have a lot issues with President Bush, but look at the alternatives (Gore and Kerry). "

Thats the problem. Most of the time I don't vote for Republicans, I vote against Democrats. Its been a long time since i've been excited to vote for a candidate.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Not being led around by liars is a good thing.

[saveliberty]

LOL! I am not that kind of gal! ;-)

[SmoothTalker]

Thank you for posting that. It shows just how spendy Bush is and why I don't see him as holding a candle to RWR.

[Redbob]

"Bush was pretty conservative at the start of his first term..."

Oh, really?

Signing McCain-Feingold, that was "conservative?"
How about endorsing Snarlin' Arlen's re-election? THAT was "conservative?"

Don't get me wrong: I voted for Bush twice, and was damn glad to have him as an alternative to algore and John Effin' Kerry, but... I never tried to fool myself into thinking he was a conservative!

[Little Ray]

Well, I just hope the 'Pubbies don't throw McCain or Guiliani into the race. Then we'll have a choice between a nutball, a socialist, and an outright commie (Hillary!). I won't vote for any of the above.

[saveliberty]

Thanks ;-) We will disagree on one significant assumption. He has consistently submitted budgets that are less than what Congress approves.

[Darkwolf377]

Federal spending: 1980: $590 billion 1988: $1.14 trillion National debt: 1980: $800 billion 1988: $2 trillion

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory40.html

"What's more, the number of workers on the federal payroll rose by 61,000 under Reagan. (By comparison, under Clinton, the number fell by 373,000.)"

"The following year, Reagan made one of the greatest ideological about-faces in the history of the presidency, agreeing to a $165 billion bailout of Social Security. In almost every way, the bailout flew in the face of conservative ideology. It dramatically increased payroll taxes on employees and employers, brought a whole new class of recipients--new federal workers--into the system, and, for the first time, taxed Social Security benefits, and did so in the most liberal way: only those of upper-income recipients. (As an added affront to conservatives, the tax wasn't indexed to inflation, meaning that more and more people have gradually had to pay it over time.)"

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0301.green.html

Reagan's "overreach" on Social Security also lost many Republican seats in Congress.

Bush increased the Republican seats. That they are not helping him any is more their fault than his.

I'm trying to be constructively critical in a way Bartlet is not being. Reagan was great, but slamming Bush that he's no Reagan, while true, ignores Reagan's failings and Bush's successes.

[Hop A Long Cassidy]

>>>Haven't read the book, but its hard to disagree with this statement. Bush spends worse than most liberals, has created lots of new entitlements, has signed the atrocious CFR legislation, and ignores bread and butter conservative issues like immigration and border security. He talks a nice game but he has been a disapointment on a lot of fronts. He will not go down as one of our better presidents.

I agree.

Bush I and II were just another of those "hold your nose and vote RINO" type candidates. Bush II is one of the biggest spender presidents ever and has an immigration policy that will prove disastrous for our country. His foreign policy has been quite acceptable though. I'd hold my nose and vote for him again over Gore or Kerry. He was the least bad of the presidential candidates.

The Republican Party is now a coalition. If the RINO's don't watch out the coalition will fall apart.

[Terpfen]

... elect more Ron Pauls...

What? Paul is a kook. Nothing wrong with more Pences, though I think we could use another couple of DeLays just to get things done.

[saveliberty]

Excellent post, thank you!

[Darkwolf377]

Agreed. I think we have to alter the playing field before we can solidify things as we would like it to be, and I do think Bush has shaken things up in ways the general public won't understand for awhile.

His willingness to confront the problem no one else wanted to deal with--the Middle East--all on its own shows Bush has been a president of historic magnitude. I'm sure plenty of the hardliners, Buchananites and Libertarians will snicker at that, but time will tell.

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

W has done a lot of Reaganesque things, cutting taxes, robust foreign policy and appointing good judges. His No Child Left Behind was great until he compromised with Ted Kennedy. Now it is only a half measure. He should have vetoed more spending bills, but face it, he would have been attacking his own party. The GOP runs congress. The Democrats attack the deficits of W but they have refused to support spending cuts like even the puny $40Billion bill that just passed.
The number one bill that I didn't like was the Medicare Drug Bill, which started out good, only directed at helping the poor, to coverage for all.

[Darkwolf377]

and has an immigration policy that will prove disastrous for our country

Agreed.

But was Reagan's amnesty policy for millions of illegals any better? Was his lack of support for sanctions against employers violating immigration law any better?

[Reagan Man]

Too much is being made about Reagan's so-called eleventh commandment. Fact. Reagan did not create the phrase, Eleventh Commandment. Instead it came about during his 1966 run for the California Governorship.

"The personal attacks against me during the primary finally became so heavy that the state Republican chairman, Gaylord Parkinson, postulated what he called the Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican. It's a rule I followed during that campaign and have ever since."

Reagan actually broke that promise when he ran against PresFord for the GOP nomination in 1976. Reagan criticized Ford during the primary season, right up through and including the GOP convention. Reagan was a gentleman and a good politico, he wanted everyone to like him, but when the chips were on the table, Reagan was a tough SOB. Ford found that out in 1976. George Bush found out how tough Reagan was in the 1980 campaign for President.

[Niteranger68]

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

You have got to be kidding me! That's the best you can do? You think gridlock will lower tax rates? You actually want Democrats to have control over any branch of government? Sorry, I don't get it.