Posted on 02/28/2006 7:02:23 PM PST by RWR8189
Last week, I published a new book, "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy." A lot of my friends are not happy with me for writing it, and I have been embraced by a number of people on the left whom I would ordinarily consider my political enemies. Both are mistaken about why I wrote the book and what I hope to accomplish with it.
Some of my former friends on the right have attacked me as an opportunist who sold out his party and his president to get a best-seller. They would not think so if they knew that I started this project knowing that I would probably lose my job with a think tank closely allied with the White House, which I did. My advance on the book was less than the salary I was making, so if I am an opportunist, I'm a pretty poor one.
My new friends on the left are, of course, delighted to find someone on the right who is articulating a critique of George W. Bush. But if they read the book, they will find that my criticism bears nothing in common with theirs. Just because I find fault with a president from my party doesn't mean I've switched sides. On the contrary, I wrote the book in order to help my side win.
My basic argument is that Bush has enacted policies contrary to conservative principles on too many occasions. Some of those that disturb me the most are these:
-- No Child Left Behind Act. Republicans used to campaign on the idea of abolishing the Department of Education. Bush greatly increased its budget, despite a paucity of evidence showing that educational outcomes are correlated with educational spending. No wonder Sen. Ted Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts and Congress' leading liberal, loved it. The "reforms" Bush got in return were far too modest to justify his support for this legislation, and it hasn't even helped him politically. All we ever hear from the education lobby are demands for even more spending.
-- Campaign Finance Reform. I don't know a single conservative who doesn't think that this legislation is a fundamental violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution, the Supreme Court's ruling to the contrary notwithstanding. Personally, I consider Bush to have violated his oath to defend the Constitution by signing this monstrosity, especially since he said he would veto such a bill during the 2000 campaign.
-- Medicare Drug Benefit. This was really the final straw for me. The Medicare system was already $50 trillion in debt in 2003, and we should have been looking for ways to cut its spending, not increase it. The unfunded liability of just the drug benefit added another $18 trillion to that debt, an increase of nearly 40 percent. Sooner or later, this legislation is going to cause a massive tax increase, in my opinion and that of many budget experts.
The book details many other areas where I feel that Bush's policies are totally contrary to Ronald Reagan's. Readers can judge for themselves whether my indictment holds water. The reaction I have received thus far suggests that a lot of conservatives share my concerns and believe that Bush has done deep damage to the conservative movement and the Republican Party.
The last time a Republican president -- Richard Nixon -- sold out his party's core beliefs, it led to huge losses for his party in 1974 and 1976. I think Republicans are deluding themselves if they believe that gerrymandering in the House of Representatives and millions of lobbyist dollars will protect them from big losses this November. It's worth remembering that Republicans took control of Congress in 1994 not because more Republicans voted, but because fewer Democrats did. They, like many Republicans today, were dispirited by a president of their party who took their loyalty for granted.
I think Republicans are also wrong to assume that Democrats will always behave as stupidly as they have lately. One of these days, they are going to get their act together and stop nominating lousy candidates who run awful campaigns. Once Republicans lose the votes of those who are only voting against the Democrats, not for them, they will be in serious political trouble.
I wrote my book so that Republicans and conservatives can start a debate about the future of the party and the movement. If we wait until 2008, it will be much too late. It is important for potential Republican presidential nominees to start thinking about and articulating a vision for the future now. And Republican voters need to ask themselves whether they are satisfied with the direction George W. Bush has led them or whether they would really prefer to get back to the policies and philosophy of Ronald Reagan.
Copyright 2006 Creators Syndicate
To all the Reagan bashers on this thread, I dare to speculate what Reagan would have accomplished if he were President today. And I'd hate to think what Bush would have done had he been in Reagan's shoes. He may have "...looked the man [Brezhnev] in the eye," and got "...a sense of his soul."
Congressional make-up by party during Reagan's tenure. Democratic Party majority counts highlighted in yellow.
Source:
The office of the Clerk U.S. House of Representatives
Party Division in the Senate, 1789-Present
House Senate Reps Dems Reps Dems 1981-1983 192 243 51 53 46 7 1983-1985 167 268 101 54 46 8 1985-1987 182 253 71 53 47 6 1987-1989 177 258 81 45 55 10
"....most of whom probably haven't even read the book."
Much less our Constitution!!!
I commend your post - and this link is for those who want to see how the Progressives rewrote our constitution via judicial fiat and what new laws allowed what.
http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=2655
BTW, in my book, ANY so-called conservative that holds up criminal FDR as any kind of role model whatsoever is a blatant political hack.
Not sure I follow - is Weinersavage just a joke re: Michael Savage??
I have a hard time listening to him sometimes. Most of what he says is true about left.
He tends towards the same emotionalism that gives the left little credibility.
But hey, any anti-socialist/leftist, no matter how much I may disagree with them on some isssues, I still consider them to be on my team.
You couldn't exactly have a show called Weiner Nation...........LOLOLOL
Another Jew that changed his name? Like Marx's father Herschel Levy did, or Adolph?
What's up with that? Of course I understand stage names etc., just strikes me as funny!
False. "Bush has enacted policies contrary to conservative principles on too many occasions." "Too many" is not "all."
Why not, since they apparently think hating liberals is all it takes to be a conservative?
A massive new Medicare entitlement has made us safer?
Sickening to ponder what might have been.
Bottom line is that Kerry & W are both CFR creatures, and while Reagan was not, his cabinet like W's is chocked full of them as have most presidents and their cabinets been, going all the way back to the big one, and even before.
The CFR usually has a horse from both parties in the race - they win no matter who gets elected. Reagan is the only exception that I can think of.
Bob Grant didn't use his ethnic Italian name when he broke into the business.
Perhaps your bias is showing?
NO, I wasn't refering to Domestic policies, but you knew that and are simply engaging in juvenile musings
You read others' thoughts as poorly as you express your own.
LOL, And you've contributed so much to this thread, Go back to DU
You cannot ignore the fact that he raised corporate taxes and signed Bill Bradley's tax reform.
You can never take away from his vision of defeating the Soviet Union but you cannot ignore the domestic side of his spending either.
He did what he had to do to further his vision.
I don't see that as any less honorable than what President Bush is doing.
Preventive medical care and prescription coverage will mitigate the spending down the line.
Neither activity can make Bush more conservative.
I love Bush for what he done against terrorism but I beleive that Mr. Bartlett is dead on correct. GWB has betrayed the Reagan legacy. In 6 years he has not issued 1 veto.....NOT 1! Yes, spening increased under Ronaldus Magnus, he was saddled with a RAT congress. He tried his best and stuck to his conservative priciples. I personally think the Contract with America was a goiod idea, virtually none of the programs marked for closure ever died. As soon as real conservatives realize you just can't vote AGAINST something or someone forever, it will come back to bite us in the ass.
I can't think of a single liberal spending program that they didn't claim would decrease spending "down the line."
It has now started on the security issue. The neocon 'bomb the world' group versus the 'free trade is God' group. A plague on both their houses from American worker citizens.
Not biased in the least - every individual proves his own integrity and their roots have no bearing on the matter AFAIC.
But you make a good point I failed to consider re: the media.
THEY are the biased ones playing to the prejudices of wasps, which I guess I was raised one of.
It just struck me that Jews, even under freedom, seem more inclined than other ethnicities to more frequently hide their heritage, that's all. But as you say others have as well.
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.