I'm waiting for an ambulance ride to the above place as I post this article.
The shock of seeing an intelligent, unbiased commentary in the Washington comPost was simply too much!
Posted on 04/03/2010 9:14:23 AM PDT by Zakeet
From William F. Buckley Jr. to Barry Goldwater to Ronald Reagan, the creators of the modern conservative movement always taught that excessive concentration of power in government leads inevitably to corruption and the diminution of personal freedoms. But while Rove credits these leaders for shaping his early political views -- ... he did not pursue their values while in the White House. To the contrary, as the chief political architect of the Bush presidency, Rove was instrumental in directing an administration most notable for its enormous expansion of national government.
[Snip]
The truly unique aspects of Bush and Rove's compassionate conservatism were in the arenas of education and entitlements. The goals of Bush's No Child Left Behind education initiative were certainly worthy, but its trampling of states' rights sounded early alarms for traditional conservatives. And Bush's market-oriented proposals for Social Security reform notwithstanding, the Medicare prescription drug benefit the president signed into law in 2003 has created an unfunded liability of $9.4 trillion over the next 75 years, according to the 2009 report from the Medicare trustees. This is far beyond what the White House estimated would be saved with Social Security reform, and the first new major entitlement since the days of Lyndon Johnson.
[Snip]
In his memoir, Rove defends the Bush record as a truly conservative one. ... "Just look at his tax cuts, pro-life and pro-family stands; his support of free trade and reducing regulation; his belief that competition improves health care, the environment and Social Security; and his insistence on education results."
But the results speak otherwise. In total, Bush increased federal spending on domestic programs more than any president since Richard Nixon, easily surpassing Bill Clinton, Carter and his own father, so much so that by 2008, America had two big-government parties.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I'm waiting for an ambulance ride to the above place as I post this article.
The shock of seeing an intelligent, unbiased commentary in the Washington comPost was simply too much!
The purpose of the article was to show that even Republicans believe in big government and that conservatives are a tiny minority without power or relevancy.
Unbiased? C’mon. Think that through.
Really, it couldn't have been obvious half way thru the article.
Leni
Well, he doesn’t believe in God so I know he’s not a christian conservative. We’re all sure he’s not a fiscal conservative. He believes in more Government so he’s not a libertarian conservative.
What kind of conservative is he?
I thought the main distinguishing feature of the so-called “neo conservatives” was their love of big government, which is anathema to a true conservative. Is this article true which would fold Rove into the neo-conservative thing? I wouldn’t have known that.
Pretty sure Rove is a born-again Christian.
He’s a Republican. These days that just means socialism at a slower pace.
Really? What was the first clue?
And you base this on......???
I think I have a different take on the prescription drugs benefit. I can see where Bush II thought without such a benefit, calls for socialized medicine would overwhelm the conservative movement and win over the Sr’s for the Dems. In other words, they were doing the Lord’s work to prevent even worse action from the Lefty’s. I doubt Bush or Rove could have envisioned that the next POTUS would be a rigid Marxist with massive congressional majorities that would overwhelm both our sensibilities and our Constitution and make that prescription benefit seem nothing more than a radar blip. In sum, Bush (Rove) wasn’t giving into to the socialists, he thought he was beating them to the punch with only a quarter loaf.
I felt Rove had the gift of taking a highly electable George W Bush and squeaking him twice across the finish line of elections that shouldn’t have been so close. Under his direction, Republicans chose RINOs over conservatives for federal office, even from conservative states that could have been better served with a stronger voice (NC, SC, TX as examples). They petulantly refused to support Republican conservatives that upset their darling RINOs in the primaries (Shundler in NJ, Simon in CA), dooming them to defeat in the general election.
I’ve always taken Rove with a grain of salt. He’s not a bad man but he’s no conservative hero.
..but I don't trust either of them.
The best one sentence summary of Karl Rove that I've seen.
** meaning: confused democrat at best, democrat mole at worst..
Bravo! And Sean Hannity is Karl Rove’s biggest sycophant.
Rove with the help of Grover Norquist is who led GW down the amnesty path, and didn’t hesitate to call anyone who didn’t like it ‘bigots’.
Karl Rove says George Bush missed chance for immigration reform
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2468200/posts
[snip[According to a congressman’s wife who attended a Republican women’s luncheon yesterday, Karl Rove explained the rationale behind the president’s amnesty/open-borders proposal this way: “I don’t want my 17-year-old son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds in Las Vegas.”
There should be no need to explain why this is an obscene statement coming from a leader in the party that promotes the virtues of hard work, thrift, and sobriety, a party whose demi-god actually split fence rails as a young man, a party where “respectable Republican cloth coat” once actually meant something.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTZhZDdiYmJlNDViYTAwOWExNmUyMmQ5ODlmMWYwYTU
Bush made clear his feelings about traditional conservatism. According to a memoir by former Bush speechwriter Matt Latimer, the president was unhappy about references to the conservative “movement” in the draft of the speech. “Take out all this movement stuff,” the president said. “There is no movement.”
George W. Bush: Worst Republican President since Gerald Ford
It may be good for the President himself, but it's bad for the country as a whole.
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.