Skip to comments.Who Is the Anti-Bush?
Posted on 07/03/2007 5:07:11 AM PDT by gpapa
One of the things that surprises me so far in the race for the White House is that none of the Republicans is positioning himself clearly as the anti-Bush. I think there is a yearning for such a candidate among the Republican electorate.
Here's some evidence. For some time, Strategic Vision, a polling company, has been asking Republican voters if they see George W. Bush as a conservative in the mode of Ronald Reagan. Not only did very few Republicans view Bush that way when the question was first asked last fall, but the number has fallen to the level of rounding error.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Why in the world would a Republican want to run as the “anti-bush”? That is a defeatist attitude if I have ever seen one. Bush has made some mistakes, I grant, but we have all the anti-Bush candidates we need running now: Hillary, Obama, Paul, etc., and they are all losers.
Whoever gets the nomination at the Republican convention will need the support of the President to win. That won’t be enough by itself to elect the next Republican President, but without it the Democrats will win.
Flawed thinking. We (at least I) don’t want an “Anti-Bush”...
someone who seeks an “Anti-Bush” can go vote for Hillary or Obama. I want someone who is to the right of Bush on important issues, namely sovereignity and immigration, and who is more media savvy. That has nothing to do with being “anti”... the candidate just has to be more on the right.
Kiren Chetry had Duncan Hunter on CNN’s morning show today to talk about Libby’s commutation. Instead of dumping on Bush for not pardoning Libby as was clearly expected by CNN, Hunter zeroed in on the issue of pardons for the two Border Patrol agents who are imprisoned unjustly for shooting a drug smuggler in the butt on the Mexican border. That took the wind out of the sails of Chetry...a brilliant job of high-jacking the interview that one rarely sees GOP candidates do. Kudos to Hunter!
It sounds defeatist, crappy and just like admitting the left is correct with their hatred for Bush.
If it does mean someting different for the GOP, than it does for the Dems, we should coin an own phrase, instead of parroting the lefist moonbats, who own “anti-Bushism”.
Why not say we want someone to the right of Bush, or “no more moderates, we want a real conservative”. Let’s make clear we want someone more conservative, more right... “anti” implies to me, and I’m sure to most GOPers and Americans, something on the left.
On the subject of the "anti-Bush" -- President Bush has got a lot right (at one time or another). He cut taxes, he put excellent people on the Supreme Court, and Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Lebanon are all less of a threat to us now than they were. To run as an "anti-Bush" a candidate would have to express unhappiness with some of that. I don't see it.
I doubt it. Whoever wins the nomination probably won't want the president anywhere near them.
Bush won partly by advocating No Child Left Behind and Prescriptions in Medicare, and he got them done. So far, I don’t see any Republican advocating anything original. This is such a ho hum casmpaign we can do it with our eyes closed.
He also has a press office that simply doesn't do much of anything. Reagan faced a more monolithic liberal press by far, but was tenacious in getting a message out with clear themes, that couldn't be obscured by taking sound bites out of context. Even when ABCBSNBC editing the day's debate down to 15 seconds from a White House spokesman followed by 20 minutes of response and analysis from liberal experts, you knew which side wanted lower taxes and a strong national defense. On issue after issue, this White House simply refuses to fight back against partisan attacks.
Reagan also had a special charisma and charm which will be very hard to duplicate. Even his adversaries, like Mitterand and Gorbechev, found it hard to dislike him personally. One of the things that makes Fred Thompson so appealing is his ability to articulate a conservative viewpoint with a similar folksy 'there you go again' charm.
I am more interested in finding a Republican candidate who is the anti-clinton.
I thank God George Bush was in charge when 9-11 took place.
There’s no money in being an anti-Bush, that is a liberal-democrat-socialist ploy. Conservatives just want conservative governance...
Out of my wallet,
out of social reform,
out of the business of business,
out of daily life.
“Whoever wins the nomination....”
More then likely that is correct, most President’s get a “bump” as their time in office expires, but with GWB, I don’t think that will happen for him.
A pity really as GWB has done some darn good things for America, from the Court to the War on Terror to Tax Cuts and Home ownership growth and there has not been a better time to be in an investor, from Bonds to Wall Street, making money in the GWB term via investing is completely attainable.
Besides, what would an “Anti bush” look like other then Rudy Guliani....err...maybe that is the point...
If that is the attitude of the Republican nominee, mark my words, he will lose in the general election. Republicans cannot afford to be divided next year in November. If we cannot pull together by then, we will deserve the Democrat President we help to put into office.
Nope. I don't want President Bush bashed. I don't agree with him on some things, but I don't want him attacked personally. His stand on immigration is fair game, but he's not not fair game.
Conservatives have lost trust in him because he came within a hair's breath of selling our country out from under us....
..and I don't call that 'decent'!
I continue to admire and trust President Bush very much. I believe he has been nearly as profound a leader as was President Reagan. I believe that it is the nation that has failed President Bush, not the other way around.
We’ve tried two Bush’s as the heirs to Reagan, we’ve learned our lesson. A Bush couldn’t get elected to the Drain Commission as a Republican. He’s screwed the pooch, destroyed his family’s business.
If you are speaking for Hunter, it is this kind of talk that keeps him down in the polls. Be assured that you don’t speak for all conservatives. I’m happen to be one who is for the most part pleased with President Bush, and I refuse to dump on him for the few times he has done things that I disapprove.
If Hunter said what you have just said, and won the election in primaries, I would not vote for him in November. Bush is “a decent man,” and anyone who says otherwise has his own problems.
.....and so will I.
You're the one trying to confuse the issue.
Former New York Mayor Rudi Giuliani is really just a one-issue candidate. We are supposed to believe that because he did an admirable job on 9-11 that this alone qualifies him to be president. I don’t really see this as being enough, but I’m not sure he has much more to offer. I think the vast bulk of his support comes from those Republicans who simply think he has the best chance of winning the general election. This support will vanish if the polls show another candidate with a better chance.
That candidate could be former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, who like Reagan, also had a long career in Hollywood. Thompson looks and sounds the part, which is why he is leading some polls despite not even being an official candidate. If he were to hire some of Reagan’s speechwriters and articulate a clear Reaganite vision for the future that explicitly repudiates Bush’s deviations from conservative principles, Thompson could go all the way.
Sure we do. We want a candidate who is a REAL conservative, not a RINO in "compassionate conservative" camoflage. THAT is the kind of "anti-Bush" we need.
Then why not call it “right of Bush”, “real conservative”, “no more moderates” etc. ? Anti-Bush sounds like pacifist, blame-America, pinko protesters.
But this latest bill was fortunately defeated. The Simpson-Mazzoli bill of 1986 which legalized millions of illegals was passed and while Reagan was president. Now I ask you, did Reagan sell the country out?
My sentiments too. I didn't like the immigration bill either or the spending. But Bush's positives far outweigh his negatives. The tax cuts, the war on Islamo-fascism, the conservative supreme court justices are not mean accomplishments. Plus one other unmentioned good deed: his failure to act like an oversexed moron while President.
This is nauseating...
Being anti-Bush is a dem ploy. Ignore it...and move on.... ;-)
I will settle for an "Isn't Bush", which by the way describes every single Republican candidate, as none of them "Are Bush". Bush is not running again, yet only the Democrats seem to fail to realize this.
The Democrats are burdened and saddled with the "Clinton" as Hillary is not only not an "Anti=Clinton", she is directly responsible for some of the most egregious and outrageous policy blunders and frauds of the long, mendacious Clinton years.
Why is fred thompson a keyword? Am I missing something....?
His name is mentioned in the article. For balance, I added these additional names to keywords: Bush, Reagan, Romney, Giuliani
I think Republicans WILL pull together. They'll pull together in looking forward, not backwards, and in forging a new course. It's really a blessing that the Bush admin has no successor, or else we'd REALLY be looking at a DEM president. As it is, we get a clean slate, which is a good thing. I don't think the nominee has to run away from policies, per se, but they will most likely want to be seen as a fresh start, not a continuation. Some policies started under Bush will remain, but with a new face, as it should be.
It has more to do with swing voters. You may be in Bush's ideal demographic, but there are definitely people out there who won't respond to the same appeals and qualities that they identify with the current President.
I guess Bartlett's mistake is in thinking that you can produce a candidate in accordance with a recipe. Republicans weren't looking for another Eisenhower in 1980. They chose Reagan on his own merits.
Older voters may see Fred and think Reagan, but a lot of younger voters will see him and think Bush, for better or for worse. Maybe he has to find his "inner Fred" and hope the rest of us will respond, and not try to copy someone else.
Whoever gets the nomination at the Republican convention will need the support of the President to win. That wont be enough by itself to elect the next Republican President, but without it the Democrats will win.
Well, if Bush is going to be "that way" and try to boss the party around, maybe people are right to be fed up with him. I'd hope he'd have the graciousness to support the party's nominee wholeheartedly, and not make it about himself.
Where did I say anything about Bush boss8ing the party around? I have never seen any tendency on the part of Bush to boss anyone around. Whoever is the Republican nominee will have the support of Bush to win the Presidency, but if the nominee is "anti-Bush," and thinks he can win without the President's support, he will be in for a really great fall.
I'm not saying we need a Bush clone as nominee, but that the "anti-Bush" rhetoric is counter-productive.
It seems to me that no one eats there own like Republicans. It never ceases to amaze me.
The "Eleventh Commandment" works both ways, though. I hope the President recognizes that his successor is probably going to want to do things differently and doesn't expect too much deference.
I disagree with the idea of an “anti-Bush.” Yes, he is wrong about Amnesty, I will give you that. I don’t think that means that he was terrible, he was still a decent president, he’s just a little confused on that issue over immigration. It’s probably because his family is very insulated from the everyday consequences of illegal immigration. It has never impacted them and and it never will because of their status, but that doesn’t mean the rest of us should be asked to suffer anymore then we already are.
Reagan signed a bill which legalized three million illegals. Bush tried to sign one, but failed. Reagan’s bill set the stage for what is happening now. So why is Bush evil while what Reagan did was wonderful?
..I'm not in the mood to argue with you.
Think what you will.
Yes, but I’m interested in what you think. Answer back when you’re feeling in the mood. And again I reiterate I’m as happy as anyone that the current bill was defeated. But unfortunately there are many people on this forum who give Bush no credit for anything positive he’s done. And he has done a lot of positive things. Have a good nights rest.
I want a man who will follow this President when he did the right thing, and diverge from this President when he did the wrong thing.
If I wanted a simpleminded Bushbasher, I’ll vote for Kucinich.
Who is the Anti-Bush?
I don’t know, but I do know that I’m damm sure not voting for Bush in ‘08!
Because Bush is no Conservative, that’s why.
The Republicans continue to “NOT get it”. He’s done far more than make mistakes. People can forgive mistakes. Sheer determined arrogance against the very people who put him in office is quite another matter.
The Republicans can and will put a conservative up for the presidency, or the Republicans will be defeated in 2008
Liberal Democrats and Liberal Republicans are still Liberal.
The party be damned.
I wonder what kind of intellegence it takes to consider Bush a liberal. His appointments to the SCOTUS alone prove that judgement to be in error. He may not be as far right as folks like you, but that wouldn’t even make him middle of the road.