Is Bush a Conservative? (Warning – opening this thread forfeits your right to gripe at me!)

Commentary Magazine ^ | February 2004 | Daniel Casse

[quidnunc]

By the end of 2003, after months of falling popularity and an unceasing barrage of criticism from Democratic presidential aspirants, George W. Bush suddenly seemed to be leading a charmed life. His surprise visit to U.S. troops in Baghdad over the Thanksgiving holiday introduced a note of high confidence and inspiration. Two weeks later, the world was treated to footage of a helpless and disheveled Saddam Hussein in American custody. Although attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq continued, their ferocity diminished amid promising signs that the battle to rebuild Iraq and fight terrorism elsewhere was on course. Within days of Saddam Hussein’s capture came the announcement that Muammar Qaddafi had agreed to open his program for amassing nuclear weapons to international inspection. That same week, France, Germany, and Russia, persistent opponents of the Iraq war, acceded to American requests to forgive a portion of Iraqi debts. By mid-December, a CBS poll showed 59 percent of Americans approving of the way the President was handling Iraq — the highest level since early July.

At home, there was still more good news for the White House. In late November, the Commerce Department reported that the economy had grown at a startling 8.2 percent in the third quarter — the highest level in nearly two decades and a figure that exceeded even the most optimistic projections. There followed a cascade of other positive economic announcements. Inflation and interest rates were at their lowest point in decades. Productivity was historically high. Housing starts were soaring. Manufacturing, only recently thought to be disappearing from the America landscape, hit its highest level in twenty years.

Congress, meanwhile, had passed a bipartisan overhaul of Medicare that, while highly controversial, was clearly a political victory for the President. Flush with this legislative success, in late December the White House released word that it was considering an overhaul of Social Security — and possibly re-establishing manned flight to the moon.

Is everybody happy, then? Hardly. For one thing, not since Richard Nixon has there been a Republican occupant of the White House who has provoked such naked antipathy from his political enemies on the Left. Bill and Hillary Clinton generated their own fevered response from the angriest and most conspiratorial corners of the Republican Right. But what is striking about today’s liberal hatred of George Bush is not how shrill it is, but rather how even the most extreme outbursts have been fully embraced by mainstream Democratic politicians and journalists.

But criticism of the President has not been confined to Democrats or the Left. For the past year, a chorus of dissent has arisen as well among some conservative pundits and intellectuals — the very group one might have thought would rush to the defense of a President under assault by his liberal antagonists. In a particularly harsh and surprising condemnation, the talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh told his listeners in December that Bush’s legacy to the nation would be the greatest increase in domestic spending, and one of the greatest setbacks for liberty, in modern times. “This may be compassionate,” warned Limbaugh, playing on Bush’s 2000 campaign slogan, “but it is not ‘conservatism’ at all.” To be sure, conservative discontent with President Bush is likely to have few if any political consequences in the short term; unlike his father before him, George W. Bush will win the Republican nomination unopposed. Despite grumbling among some conservatives in the House of Representatives, no splinter group of disaffected Republicans seems set to take on the cause of Bush’s Democratic opponent the way some embraced Clinton in 1992. Still, Bush’s ability to remain a popular Republican President while causing so much dismay on both Left and Right does demand an assessment of the direction in which he has been taking the GOP and the country. Should he be reelected this fall, he will remain not only a controversial figure but possibly one of the most consequential Presidents we have had in the modern era.

-snip-

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

 

Compare Candidates

		Remove	Remove
				Choose Another Candidate
		Kerry	Bush
General Information
Party		Democrat	Republican
Has Held Elected Office		Yes	Yes
Served in the Military		Yes	Yes
Issues
Abortion
Appoint Judges Who Will Outlaw Abortions		Strongly Opposes	Strongly Favor
Outlaw "Partial Birth" Abortions		Strongly Opposes	Strongly Favor
Outlaw Abortions Except for Rape/Incest		Strongly Opposes	Strongly Favor
Parental Notification for Minors Under 18		Strongly Opposes	Strongly Favor
Gay Rights
Constitutional Gay Marriage Ban		Somewhat Opposes	Strongly Favor
Equal Rights for Civil Unions		Strongly Favor	Somewhat Opposes
Allow Gays to Openly Serve in the Military		Strongly Favor	Strongly Opposes
Religion in Government
Organized Prayer in Public Schools		Strongly Opposes	Strongly Favor
Commandments Displayed in Federal Buildings		Strongly Opposes	Strongly Favor
Federal Funding of Religious Charities		Strongly Opposes	Strongly Favor
Gun Control
Safety Devices on All New Guns		Strongly Favor	Strongly Opposes
Background Checks on Gun Show Purchases		Strongly Favor	Somewhat Opposes
Require Safety Course, License Before Gun Purchase		Somewhat Favor	Strongly Opposes
Allow Lawsuits Against Gun Manufacturers		Somewhat Favor	Strongly Opposes
Death Penalty
Abolish the Death Penalty		Strongly Opposes	Strongly Opposes
National Review of Death Penalty Fairness		Strongly Favor	Strongly Opposes
Education
No Child Left Behind Act		Somewhat Favor	Strongly Favor
Vouchers for Public, Private or Religious Schools		Strongly Opposes	Strongly Favor
Increase Federal Funding for Higher Education		Somewhat Favor	Somewhat Opposes
Homeland Security
The Patriot Act		Strongly Opposes	Strongly Favor
Tighter Immigration Controls		Strongly Favor	Strongly Favor
Iraq
The War in Iraq		Somewhat Opposes	Strongly Favor
Turning Over More Political Authority to U.N.		Somewhat Favor	Strongly Opposes
Immediate Withdrawal of U.S. Troops		Strongly Opposes	Strongly Opposes
Foreign Trade
Embargo on Cuba		Somewhat Favor	Strongly Favor
U.S. Involvement in NAFTA		Strongly Favor	Strongly Favor
Mandatory Labor/Environment Standards in Trade Agreements		Somewhat Favor	Strongly Opposes
Health Care
Universal Government-Supervised Health Care		Somewhat Opposes	Strongly Opposes
Medicare Prescription Drugs Coverage By Private Insurers		Strongly Opposes	Strongly Favor
Expand Medicaid to Cover More Uninsured Americans		Strongly Favor	No Opinion
Limit Malpractice Suits Against Doctors, Insurers		Somewhat Favor	Strongly Favor
Welfare Reform
Hiring Welfare Workers Tax Incentive		No Opinion	Somewhat Opposes
Welfare Benefits for Legal Immigrants		Strongly Favor	Somewhat Opposes
Child Care Services for Getting Off Welfare		No Opinion	Somewhat Opposes
Social Security
Raise Retirement Age		Strongly Opposes	No Opinion
Privatize Social Security		Strongly Opposes	Strongly Favor
Cap Payments to Wealthy		Somewhat Favor	Strongly Opposes
Tax Cuts
Roll Back the Bush Administration Tax Cuts		Somewhat Opposes	Strongly Opposes
Roll Back Cuts for People Making Over $100,000		Strongly Favor	Strongly Opposes
Additional Tax Cuts for Businesses		Strongly Opposes	Strongly Favor
Jobs
Raise the Minimum Wage		Strongly Favor	Strongly Opposes
Extend Unemployment Benefits		Strongly Favor	Strongly Opposes
Environment
Oil Drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge		Strongly Opposes	Strongly Favor
Mandatory Clean Air Emissions Standards		Strongly Favor	Somewhat Opposes
Tougher Fuel Efficiency Standards		Strongly Favor	Strongly Opposes

[Sir Gawain]

Do you have a point or was that just a free tidbit of info you're handing out?

[Dane]

Two major polls now have Bush losing the general election by nearly double digits.

Reagan(incumbant) was behind Mondale during the 84 demo primaries and Bush was leading Gore(incumbant) during the 2000 primaries.

You should look at recent electoral trends.

[Dane]

Do you have a point or was that just a free tidbit of info you're handing out?

Yep that your spam list comes from an uber Libertarian and it shows. It comes from a Harry Browne supporter, you know the guy who said that 9/11 was America's fault.

[Da Mav]

Bush is the most conservative electable candidate. Period.

We are going to have to work our butts off to make sure he doesn't get knocked off by the other side.

Complaining that he isn't conservative enough is like spending your time whining about ants at the picnic instead of cooking the steaks.

[nopardons]

The term RINO has NOTHING whatsoever to do with Conservative. Republicans come in many stripes. Just because a Republican is NOT as far to the right as YOU, that does NOT mean that he or she is a "REPUBLICAN IN NAME ONLY ".

Refrain from misusing terms you neither understand, nor know the meaning of. Elsewise, you just PROVE what everyone suspects a bout you.

[cyncooper]

I think you have your polls mixed up. Fox has Bush up with those numbers. You're thinking of that Quinnipac (sp? too lazy to look it up right now) poll that has the numbers flipped favoring Kerry.

[annyokie]

Hell, I won't flame you, FRiend! I, too, am more than a little pissed off at the "Bush is a RINO" crowd. If they want to practice saying "President Kerry" while they suck on their pride with their cornflakes, well......... Me, Dubya in 2004!Here's my youngest:

[Southack]

"Invented the status of "enemy combatant" making all US citizens subject to arrest and indefinite detention without judicial intervention, charge or trial. This eliminates everyone's due process rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment."

Patently untrue. You should be ashamed for saying such things.

Enemy combatants are routinely rounded up during wars and held without trials, without attorneys, and without the protection of POWs. The Geneva Convention states that enemy combatants are those spies and/or sabotuers who are caught on the battlefield without internationally recognized military uniforms or military ID tags. Such people can, per the 1947 Geneva Convention, be SHOT ON SIGHT or given any other battlefield justice deemed appropriate by their captors.

That's hardly Bush "inventing" anything.

During WW2, FDR faced a similar problem to what Bush faces today. In 1940, Adolph Hitler had sent letters and placed ads worldwide calling on all true Aryans to return to the Reich to fight for the Fatherland. More than 1,000 U.S. citizens answered Hitler's call to arms, all of whom were killed or captured on the battlefield during WW2 after the U.S. entered the war. None of those enemy combatants were given attorneys or trials, either, save for 8 of them who were caught on U.S. soil (they were brought back here by German U-Boats) wearing civilian clothes with no military ID's.

Those 8 were given military tribunals, and at least 5 of them were executed without appeal.

Again, this is hardly something that Bush has invented. See Taliban Johnny fighting U.S. troops in Afghanistan or dirty bomber Jose Padilla getting caught here on U.S. soil.

[Howlin]

To: honeygrl

"Bush needs to move back over to the right a little if I'm going to be motivated to vote for him."

Any person claiming to be conservative who is not motivated to keep the Democrats out of power after knowing EXACTLY what they will do with it if given the opportunity, has a real problem with reality. They're either political martyrs, have not been paying attention to what the Democrat candidates have been promising they will do if elected, or are ignoring (or are totally or willfully ignorant of) the history of the last seventy years, or are incredibly dense or insane, or have a morbid desire to toil their lives away in the misery of a Liberal Hell! Any person who would support a third party candidate who has absolutely zero chance of winning even one state or even a single electoral vote is so politically naive and devoid of the brainpower that The Creator so graciously endowed upon them, that it's not even worth wasting pixels on.

And I can tell you, that I probably won't be wasting very many more pixels on people who are coming to FR to trash and bash our candidates and or to trash and bash and drive away the very posters I'm trying to attract. If the intent of third party supporters is to cause as much hell and discontent on our forum and to inflict as much damage to FR as they possibly can, well, I can assure you we will have many fewer third party posters left on FR very soon. The LePur colony can have them. Thank you very much.

It might be different if there was a primary involved. These kind of battles need to take place as part of the process of selecting the best person to run. In this case, there will be no primary. God willing and barring any major disasters, George W. Bush will be the candidate. So it will either be Bush or one of the Democrats that gets elected. No one else stands a snowball's chance in hell. And I've given every person on this web site plenty of advance notice (I've been saying it for the last three years) that FR will NOT be used to help replace Bush with a Democrat. Period. End of story.

Again, if that is your intent, leave now or get yourself banned later. Excessive and repetitive attacks on our candidates or our posters will not be tolerated. Try your luck at DUh or LibertyPost. In presidential politics, they are interchangeable.

712 posted on 02/01/2004 6:55:33 PM EST by Jim Robinson (I don't belong to no organized political party. I'm a Republycan.)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 669 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[Jim Robinson]

"Bush needs to move back over to the right a little if I'm going to be motivated to vote for him."

Any person claiming to be conservative who is not motivated to keep the Democrats out of power after knowing EXACTLY what they will do with it if given the opportunity, has a real problem with reality. They're either political martyrs, have not been paying attention to what the Democrat candidates have been promising they will do if elected, or are ignoring (or are totally or willfully ignorant of) the history of the last seventy years, or are incredibly dense or insane, or have a morbid desire to toil their lives away in the misery of a Liberal Hell! Any person who would support a third party candidate who has absolutely zero chance of winning even one state or even a single electoral vote is so politically naive and devoid of the brainpower that The Creator so graciously endowed upon them, that it's not even worth wasting pixels on.

And I can tell you, that I probably won't be wasting very many more pixels on people who are coming to FR to trash and bash our candidates and or to trash and bash and drive away the very posters I'm trying to attract. If the intent of third party supporters is to cause as much hell and discontent on our forum and to inflict as much damage to FR as they possibly can, well, I can assure you we will have many fewer third party posters left on FR very soon. The LePur colony can have them. Thank you very much.

It might be different if there was a primary involved. These kind of battles need to take place as part of the process of selecting the best person to run. In this case, there will be no primary. God willing and barring any major disasters, George W. Bush will be the candidate. So it will either be Bush or one of the Democrats that gets elected. No one else stands a snowball's chance in hell. And I've given every person on this web site plenty of advance notice (I've been saying it for the last three years) that FR will NOT be used to help replace Bush with a Democrat. Period. End of story.

Again, if that is your intent, leave now or get yourself banned later. Excessive and repetitive attacks on our candidates or our posters will not be tolerated. Try your luck at DUh or LibertyPost. In presidential politics, they are interchangeable.

[Liberty Valance]

I just love an underdog. Bring it on. Tell me again how wonderful it will be with a rat in the WH.

W'04

[Mike4Freedom]

Nonsense. The Patriot Act is demagoged by people who have never read it.

So are you going to stop with the Patriot Act defense? It is complicated enough that no one can know what it all means or how it will be interpreted. How about commenting on the other items on my list! I am especially anxious to hear what you think about enemy combatant treatment for native born US citizens.

[nopardons]

You keep posting that garbage from a DISCREDITED source. No one's impressed by it and no one even reads it anymore. Stop spamming that tripe to threads.

[cyborg]

I like that pic of Bush too. Like screaming babies, I'll just ignore the haters' babble.

[Southack]

"Promised to sign a renewal of the Assault Weapons ban, thus [alledgedly] limiting everyone's Second Amendment rights."

Indeed. Bush promised not to sign any new gun control during his 2000 campaign, though he also said that he would consider signing renewals of old measures providing that they didn't have new anti-gun restrictions in them. The AWB falls into that latter catagory.

But the AWB is hardly more than symbolism. I can still buy my high capacity clips, and so can you. That's hardly the stuff of great restrictions.

And a *promise* to renew that one existing law is hardly worthy of bashing the same man who has given us numerous pro-gun victories in the last few years.

For instance, Bush:

Signed TWO bills into law that arm our pilots with handguns in the cockpit

Is currently pushing for full immunity from lawsuits for our national gun manufacturers

Ordered Attorney-General Ashcroft to formally notify the Supreme Court that the OFFICIAL U.S. government position on the 2nd Amendment is that it supports INDIVIDUAL rights to own firearms, NOT a leftist-imagined *collective* right

Told the United Nations we weren't interested in their plans for gun control (i.e. the International Ban on Small Arms Trafficking Treaty)

And he also signed the 2004 Omnibus Budget 1/26/2004 that now MANDATES that gun buyers' background check information be fully and permanently destroyed within 24 hours of the completion of the check, no matter what.

[Sir Gawain]

Yep that your spam list comes from an uber Libertarian and it shows.

Logical fallacy - guilt by association.

If you noticed, those little "source" tags means they are real news stories. Try to to better with your retort next time.

[Mike4Freedom]

or dirty bomber Jose Padilla getting caught here on U.S. soil.

Yes, about our friend Jose-How do you know he had plans to do a dirty bomb? Did a jury of his peers look at the evidence and find him guilty? No, all that happened is that John Ashcroft and George Bush said so. He has been in jail for 19 months and counting with no charge or trial. If that precedent stands, then some future president (maybe Hillary) could decide that FReepers are enemy combatants and round up the bunch of us.

[Southack]

c#4

[Sir Gawain]

You keep posting that garbage from a DISCREDITED source.

All those linked sources are discredited? Do tell. Otherwise, just another guilt by association logicall fallacy (from you yet again).

[Dane]

If you noticed, those little "source" tags means they are real news stories. Try to to better with your retort next time

So? They still constitute your agenda, which is a Libertarian one, whose nominee in 96 and 2000, publicly stated that 9/11 was America's fault.