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-

[Krodg]

What does your tagline mean?

20 posted on 02/02/2004 2:39:49 PM PST by Sir Gawain (loads of robot monkey fun)

I'm sure you will have an innocent reply, but to a poster who has been called a Bushbot before..I'm just curious.

[Triple Word Score]

Thanks!!!

DOWN WITH KETCHUP BOY! No blood for pickles! No blood for pickles!

[Sir Gawain]

It's in an advertisement for the cartoon Futurama.

[deport]

Long, Tall Texan
He rides from Texas on a big white horse

[Delta-Tango]

– opening this thread forfeits your right to gripe at me!

Hey, I thought there was a shortage of that vaccine!

[ex-snook]

Yes Bush is Conservative. It's a matter of degree. Today anyone can claim to be a Conservative if you don't define what you want to conserve. Hey even bigger government is Conservative.

Being a 'conserve America first' Conservative against illegal immigration, exporting jobs, foreign war entanglements and abortion means getting .5% of the vote. Buchanan learned you can write about conservative issues but not run on them.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

No fair carpet bombing us with facts in a political argument!!!

[DameAutour]

This list must come from a libertarian, because as a CONSERVATIVE, there are a number of things on the list that are not a problem at all. This is a general rant against Republicans in general. It seems to me that if you're just going to accuse George W. Bush of being a Republican...so what? This is a reason not to re-elect him?

You start off attacking Ronald Reagan who is/was without a doubt a conservative.

I'm going to say something you're going to hate. Not all government spending is evil. Yes, government does have to spend money sometimes. Do they spend far more than they should? The conservative position is yes, they do. Do I disagree with the way they get the money (income tax, death tax, etc.)? Yes.

But if your entire argument is "Look, the government spends money under Republicans" than I'm just not outraged. Yes, they spend money on defense (and yes, that includes the Coast Guard), "anti-terror" programs, the US Geological Survey Center, and other things. What's wrong with any of that? What is it with libertarians that they don't understand things like defense?

And social conservatives see little wrong with conserving society via "faith-based initiatives", the war on drugs, and the like. Some may disagree with them ideologically, but they are conservatives.

Quite frankly, the more I look at this list the more I wonder if you actually read it. Railing against teaching English in schools, the Amber Alert system, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, etc.? What's the point of this?

Not to mention that it is Congress that creates and maintains a lot of these expenditures.

[Triple Word Score]

He was adorable as a wee one, wasn't he?

Here, borrow my flame-proof shield...some Bush-Bashers are bound to note that that's a pinto pony, not a white horse....

[Ditter]

Impressive list. Thanks for posting it. Yes, I'm voting for George W. Bush!

[luvbach1]

Fox has Bush up with those numbers [51% to 43%]

Perhaps, but I could swear that's what I heard.

[deport]

a pinto pony, not a white horse....

---

But he found some white paint later on to cover up the spots.....

[Nephi]

Your overuse of the word, "Killed" in your list betrays your overactive imagination. Though your list is somewhat more attractive, I prefer Sir Gawain's emphasis on facts.

[Quix]

Many hereon feel it their inherent, genetic and even patriotic right to grip, harrass, verbally assault most anyone who disagrees with them.

Your headline is unlikely to limit it by much.

IMhO.

[scory]

Bush is a moderate to liberal Republican.

Right now the war trumps everything. But if Bush continues to move left he will eventually cross that line where the choice between having him in office and having a dimrat in his place will be so blurred as to render a vote for him largely meaningless. Some conservatives have already decided that this line has been crossed. I don't think it has - yet.

[Dane]

This list must come from a libertarian Dame, will you be a witness for me in the suit Sir Gawain has threatened to bring against me earlier in this thread for saying the same thing. :^)

[Dane]

But if Bush continues to move left he will eventually cross that line where the choice between having him in office and having a dimrat in his place will be so blurred as to render a vote for him largely meaningless. Some conservatives have already decided that this line has been crossed. I don't think it has - yet

And it won't, the difference between Bush and Kerry is day and night.

[deport]

Well you'd think it has with all the naysaying that has been prevelant on FR and amongst the supposedly conservative columnist..... But the Bush/Cheney campaign hasn't begun and the democrats have been getting nonstop media coverage blasting the President for many months now coupled with the assistance of the "true" or 'real' conservatives. The President's campaign has said all along to expect them to be behind at some point during the process and they are or may be well be depending upon polling data.

Probably after Super Tuesday when a democrat nominee is fairly certain I'd look for Bush/Cheney to roll out campaign events, etc and things will begin to change... If by mid Sept. they haven't then yes, look for a potential one term. However I don't believe that at this stage. I don't think the voting populace is willing to change CinC at this stage... we'll see.

[alwaysconservative]

I always smile when I see it's you posting, Southack! You pull together the important facts and present them in a cogent, rational manner. It is greatly appreciated.

[Krodg]

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

Yep...fire up the grill and p*ss on the ants.