Bush was and remains awesome. I don’t care how many times I get bashed on FR, the man was an extraordinary leader and a worthy role model.
He saved this nation from tremendous harm. Those pains are now being unleashed on us and hopefully we will not have to go much further on that front.
My biggest hesitation in the current conservative movement is the disingenous effort to triangulate against Bush.
Bush was arguably more conservative and effectively conservative than Reagan and yet so many strident faux conservatives paint him as more liberal than Nixon or Ford. He was certainly more conservative than Ford, Nixon, and Bush 1— probably Reagan.
History cannot come fast enough and rewarding President Bush with a positive legacy as far as I am concerned.
The pack of theives, liars and power mongers that constitute the modern Democrat party can not be trusted. The care nothing about working together for the good of the nation and to pretend they do is beyond foolish.
You are right on about GW!!!
Hey my user name is Friend of George, prior to that I was Presidents Friend. I love the man, was a great President.
His appointments to the Supreme Court, and his handling of 911/terrorism are a few of his high points, but he was also strong on pro life issues (the most important issue to me)
The troops adored him for the most part, and rightly so! Howbout his flight to Iraq for Christmas, many high points.
He was just a good man all around. He was strong on life issues and he does NOT have a Sandra Day O`Connor to blacken his record.
Reagan was a very good man as well, but I can not get my mind around the fact that his post Presidency memos said he had no remorse for appointing Sandra Day to the High Court. Even dismissive to pro lifers that were upset by her appointment.And he wanted this woman to have a large roll at his funeral, so kind of suspect on his pro life views. So yes I would say GW was more socially Conservative.
It's probably not fair to compare the "conservatism" of Bush vs. Reagan, as they both had to operate within the political and geostrategic context of their own times.
As a friend once told me, "we couldn't have elected a more conservative president than Reagan." I think the same probably goes for Bush.
In both cases, one has to remember that in politics one seldom gets a clear-cut victory. Politics has been called called "the art of the possible," because victory obviously depends on getting more people to support your position, than oppose it. That means making deals.
For Reagan, the overwhelming priority was to defeat the Russians in the Cold War. That meant spending money on defense.... and to do that meant making deals with the Democrats in the House.
For Bush, the overwhelming priority was to conduct the WOT, and again, that required him to make deals with the opposition.
Did Bush get everything he wanted? No ... but if you look back at what he did accomplish, he was extraordinarily effective.
He was a good president in many respects, However he lost me on 3 major issues:
Medicare expansion into prescription drugs
Not vetoing Campaign finance reform
Pushing for TARP and using part of the money to save the auto companies from a proper bankruptcy were the final straws.
He also shares in responsibility for not stemming the flood of illegal immigrants into the country.
I’m with you.
Bush was far more of a big government POTUS (like his dad - I voted for both) than Ronnie. Ronnie was a transformative POTUS with a strong Libertarian streak. Both loved America, but they had different visions. The Bushes believed that government could solve problems. Ronnie believed that PEOPLE solved problems.
Amen brother, I saw it the same way. I think people get contextually lost being in the moment, whereas history has a great way of making the context become the focal point of the decision, besides we can now judge Bush on his most recent predecessor and as we see that contest is quickly becoming a victory for W.... History will be kind and serve George W. Bush well.
I'll second that!