Posted on 09/18/2009 12:51:21 AM PDT by neverdem
How many times during the last eight years did you hear that George W. Bush was a dangerous right-wing extremist? Probably too many to count.
What you heard less often were expressions of the deep reservations some conservatives felt about Bush's governing philosophy.
Conservatives greatly admired Bush for his steadfastness in the War on Terror -- to use that outlawed phrase -- and they were delighted by his choices of John Roberts and Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court. But when it came to a fundamental conservative principle like fiscal discipline, many conservatives felt the president just wasn't with them.
You saw that throughout the 2008 Republican presidential primaries, when GOP candidates, while not mentioning Bush specifically, got big applause from conservative Republican audiences by pledging to return fiscal responsibility to the White House.
Those cheering conservatives will find a revealing moment in a new book, scheduled for release next week, by former White House speechwriter Matt Latimer.
Latimer is a veteran of conservative politics. An admirer of Republican Sen. Jon Kyl, for whom he worked for several years, Latimer also worked in the Rumsfeld Pentagon before joining the Bush White House in 2007.
The revealing moment, described in "Speechless: Tales of a White House Survivor," occurred in the Oval Office in early 2008.
Bush was preparing to give a speech to the annual meeting of the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC. The conference is the event of the year for conservative activists; Republican politicians are required to appear and offer their praise of the conservative movement.
Latimer got the assignment to write Bush's speech. Draft in hand, he and a few other writers met with the president in the Oval Office. Bush was decidedly unenthusiastic.
"What is this movement you keep talking about in the speech?" the president asked Latimer.
Latimer explained that he meant the conservative movement -- the movement that gave rise to groups like CPAC.
Bush seemed perplexed. Latimer elaborated a bit more. Then Bush leaned forward, with a point to make.
"Let me tell you something," the president said. "I whupped Gary Bauer's ass in 2000. So take out all this movement stuff. There is no movement."
Bush seemed to equate the conservative movement -- the astonishing growth of conservative political strength that took place in the decades after Barry Goldwater's disastrous defeat in 1964 -- with the fortunes of Bauer, the evangelical Christian activist and former head of the Family Research Council whose 2000 presidential campaign went nowhere.
Now it was Latimer who looked perplexed. Bush tried to explain.
"Look, I know this probably sounds arrogant to say," the president said, "but I redefined the Republican Party."
The Oval Office is no place for a low-ranking White House staffer to get into an argument with the president of the United States about the state of the Republican Party -- or about any other subject, for that matter. Latimer made the changes the president wanted. When Bush appeared at CPAC, he made no mention of the conservative movement. In fact, he said the word "conservative" only once, in the last paragraph.
Bush veterans are going to take issue with some of Latimer's criticisms in "Speechless." As an observer of it all, I certainly don't agree with his characterizations of some Bush administration officials. But looking back at the Bush years, the scene in the Oval Office adds context to the debate that is going on inside conservative circles today.
Right after the Republican Party's across-the-board defeat last November, there was a wave of what-went-wrong self-analysis. Republicans were divided between those who believed the party had lost touch with conservative principles and those who believed it had failed to adapt to changed political and demographic circumstances.
Bush's words in the Oval Office speak directly to that first group. You can argue whether Bush was a fiscal conservative at any time in his political career, but he certainly wasn't in the White House. And some real fiscal conservatives, with their guy in charge, held their tongues.
Now, with unified Democratic control of the presidency and both houses of Congress, we're seeing spending that makes Bush's record look downright thrifty. Republicans have again found their voice on fiscal discipline. And some of them wish they had been more outspoken when a president of their own party was in the White House.
Byron York, The Examiner's chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blog posts appears on www.ExaminerPolitics.com ExaminerPolitics.com.
Except for his wartime hawkiness which passed all too soon, it looks like Dubya was a thoroughgoing squish.
I knew Bush was a fraud when he coined “Compassionate Conservative” (as if to say Conservatism isn’t compassionate — it is FAR MORE compassionate than liberalism, I bet Reagan would have some words for GWB), but he’s still a much better man and president than the current occupant of the White House.
But no more Bushes in the WH. EVER.
F- U RINO BUSH.
Bush saw himself as a post-partisan leader. It worked for him in Texas, where the GOP was surging in the 1990’s. But the non-partisan nonsense didn’t work in DC, since the Dems never bought into it. They continued to be ever more hyper-partisan and it worked for them.
It's not exactly that hard to be "better" than a scum-sucking, Alinsky-loving, America-hating Marxist.
More like spoiled the GOP.
Any further leftward movement stops now. From this moment forward, we move the country rightward, or we shut down the government.
Between Bush and McInsane, I'm hard pressed to make a determination as to which one contributed more to destroying the GOP.
I don’t recall McCain making any audacious boasts like this.
The revealing moment, described in "Speechless: Tales of a White House Survivor," occurred in the Oval Office in early 2008.
Look at the responses! The only people who hate you worse than your adversaries are your "allies," it would seem.
He was close enough to know what it was like when Dubya let his hair down. Until I see Dubya deny it, I take it at face value.
I’m afraid thar we got sucked in because of the Texas accent, W acts more like a Connecticutt yankee every day.
Bush. He caused more life-long Republicans to leave the GOP. I know, I am one.
I wouldn't recommend holding your breath. He's probably developed an immunity to knives in the back by now.
Sounds like he has earned this knife. What was it that drove him so mushy in his lame duck term?
Born in Maine, a Maine-iac.
I take this report with a grain of salt. Consider the source(s).
That said, W never promised to be a movement conservative. In that sense he was consistent. His record as governor of Texas was not totally Reaganesque, nor did he pretend he was.
I supported and continue to support W for the many great things he came through on. He did not do everything I wanted. He did some things I wish he hadn’t. But man, am I glad he was President and not Gore or Kerry.
I felt the same way about McCain. Where he was solid, he was solid as a rock. I didn’t like some of his positions. But he didn’t pretend to be something he wasn’t. And man, do I wish he was President instead of Obama right now.
Maybe it was because he was lame duck.
“But no more Bushes in the WH EVER.”
In the words of Jesse Jackson, “America, stay outta the Bushes!”
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.