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.
Yeah me too, Bush played me all the way. I finally woke up when he wouldn’t close the borders.
I could kick myself now for playing the Democrats vs Republicans game.
This is why the supporters of the Republican party are going back twenty years and dusting off the speeches of Ronald Reagan to play on talk radio and putting his face on t-shirts to sell.
There was a Republican in the White House for the last eight years and now, considering the damage he did to conservativism, nobody wants anything to do with him.
But at the time, Republicans were falling all over themselves to defend him. If McCain had won in 2008, they would probably still be doing so.
Very well stated. Both Bush and McCain had good AND bad points, but at least they are transparent about them.
I agree with your post in detail.
He went way past Carter instead of Giving a foreign Country to the Whack Jobs (Iran) This Pompous Fool Gave America to the Crazies and made a point of continuously Insulting real Americans.
Sigh - he had such potential but devolved to bush41 country club liberalism.
Bush is only slightly more conservative than my congressman, Mark Kirk (RINO-IL), a U.S. Senate candidate. Kirk is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control, pro-spending increases, pro-tax increases, pro-illegal alien, and anti-Iraq surge. If you know any Illinois conservatives, please ask them to support Dr. Eric Wallace, in the Feb. primary. His site is www.wallaceforillinois.com.
the rinos are part of the progressive movement with the democrats.
read the shadow party by david horowitz and richard poe.
george soros funds dozens of political action groups and controls the shadow party.
the shadow party does not confine its activities to the democratic party. if it did,
it would be less effective. a number of notable republicans, among them senator john mccain,
have exchanged political favors with the shadow party.
Unless, of course, Dana Perino publishes one...
...with lots of pictures of her.
Correctomundo. The only reason we got Alito was because of the disastrous Miers pick.
I'm not so sure. McCain has been all over the map temperamentally for the past two years. At least the stimulus bill would have been vetoed.
McCain and Obama are both clueless in economic matters.
I don't blame the Perotistas one iota. The fault for Billy Jeff lies at the feet of George H.W. Bush. His campaign was absolutely terrible.
The Bush legacies (41 & 43) are tarnished IMO by their inability, or desire, to effectively use the bully pulpit of the Presidency.
How easy we are ... some nobody looking for his 15 minutes and 30 pieces of silver brays and we all jump on the bandwagon.
Yeah, they redefined it virtually out of existence, creating the hysteria that rolled
Obama & Biden into the White House.
I never finished reading that book, it’s still in my bedroom. I will look for that. Sometimes what we call RINOism is just a re-election strategy because they are in a liberal area, and liberal area’s grew under Bush.
I suspect that Shadow Party is having support problems since election day, that is why the democrats demonize 24/7, to keep liberals in campaign mode.
If Democrats stay in power for a while, Republicans will have a Shadow Party too.
That you did George, that you did.
A real mensch. /sarc
I have no problems with the points you're making. BTW, I voted for the Bushes in '92, '00, & '04.
Hopefully, there won't be any more Bushes on future ballots. I'm done with family dynasties, and the pedigree of an Ivy League education.
Sarah Palin got much more for the education dollar from the University of Idaho than from any Ivy League college.
How do I know that? I've had the good fortune in my life to interact with numerous UI alumni, and they're just as intelligent as any I've met with an Ivy League degree.
Bush is inconsequential.
You are forgetting Jumpin' Jim Jeffords who defected from the GOP in early 2001. It was a 50 - 50 Senate with Cheney as a tie breaker until then. Tom Daschle became the Senate Majority Leader until January 2003.
That said, as a general rule, nothing gets done without 60 votes in the Senate.
Except for the Harriet Myers nomination for the Supreme Court, GWB tried to nominate conservatives to the federal courts. Remember the gang of fourteen. All in all, GWB was quite a mixed bag, IMHO, more notable for his fondness for loyalty than his appreciation of conservatism.
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.