Posted on 05/08/2009 9:12:19 PM PDT by lonestar67
I’m sure I was for the Patriot act back when. More government power of any kind doesn’t seem appealing at present. It’s to easy to use it to abuse American citizens.
Puts in perspective I was okay with it with a “Republican” President but knew that if the rats were in charge I probably wouldn’t be keen on it.
They went out of their way to turn “patriot” into an acronym, that seems kinda skeevy.
It is laughable that Bush critics never seem to have to put up evidence or any semblance of a rebuttal.
Bush did exercise fiscal restraint— a role which he is not constitutionally assigned— as if that would matter to “conservatives.”
If Bush was a democrat, he would not have been pro-life. If Bush was a democrat, he would have kissed the ring of the Saudi King instead of destroying islamofascist lairs all around the world. If Bush was a democrat, he would have been carved into stone onto Mt. Rushmore by the Media. If Bush was a Democrat he would be deeply admired by John McCain— not scorned by him. If Bush were a democrat, he would be seen as an understandable and comprehensible progression of politics due to improper reverence for an imagined standard of conservatism never articulated or embodied.
But Bush is not a democrat and he is a conservative. He exercised fiscal restraint on the parts of the budget that were discretionary. We now have a clear contrast in the massive spending of the Democratic Congress and President Obama. That contrast makes it possible to admit the seeemingly impossible.
Bush was a fiscal conservative.
Bush vetoed a few of spending bills in 8 years. (none in the first 4 years)
He signed a crap load of them. Starting with the disgusting 2001! farm bill and continuing every year after. He asked for new spending for DHS bureaucracy and other things.
It was his and Rove’s plan to use pork to help Republican incumbents win.
He started this bailout crap and bailed out Detroit via executive order after even Congress declined to act.
Spending and debt greatly increased under him and did nothing to curb it. Calling him a fiscal conservative is beyond laughable.
“Bush did exercise fiscal restraint— a role which he is not constitutionally assigned— as if that would matter to “conservatives.””
I don’t know what the hell you mean by that. You don’t think Presidents should veto spending bills? The constitution empowers him to veto anything except proposed constitutional amendments which need a 2/3 vote anyway.
“If Bush was a democrat, he would not have been pro-life”
You misunderstand. Change NOTHING about him but the letter next to his name. Still like him?
I would guess a democrat with the exact same fiscal record would be pilloried by freepers as a terrible President and rightly so.
Reagan also vetoed spending bills. This did not reduce spending.
Bush did implement ear mark reforms that did two things:
1. created public transparency so we know who the authors are and we can argue about it and hold people accountable
2. He signed legislation with executive signing agreements
Executive signing agreements drove liberals crazy but were more effective on an array of issues than vetoes. In the case of fiscal discipline, the President signed spending bills with specifications that any earmarks not voted upon by the Congress could be ignored by enforcement of executive agencies.
Bush did impose limits on the farm bill. I don’t think any of this would have happened if Rove had a plan to use porks to help Republicans win.
Its crazy how the reactionaries get to talk out of both sides of the mouth. Where are the Republican victories acquired through pork?
Poof from 2006 on— Republicans are getting crushed. Did Bush stop using his spending tricks? Did the vetoes in the second term lead to the loss of Congress in 2006? I doubt it, but your analysis needs to lead you there.
I have said a thousand times that no one has to agree totally with Bush but the outrageous fact that there is no public space for the defense of President Bush is Socialist Fascist nonsense. There is no other way to put it. I don’t dispute that people on these boards view themselves as conservatives.
No one really wants to deal with why Pat Buchannan works so well on MSNBC. That is an ugly little fact about how the paleocons and the radical left are joined at the hip.
Bush bashing is the ticket to public credibility. Both partisan extremes agree about this.
To answer your question about the D— I think Obama would be quite good if he behaved as Bush did. It is not even close and yet as this new reality dawns, the paleocons dig in their heels and fight even harder to supress all positive comment on Bush.
McCain would have increased spending even more than Bush. More conservative candidates vetoing would have served one term and established a more lasting dynasty of democratic power than Obama.
I do think that when you ask this question about Bush-D, I don’t think you can fathom how much I admire his foreign policy. I don’t think his fiscal policy is bad when compared to other Presidents but I think his foreign policy is near divine.
I don’t think you fathom the scope of your question. I am trying to defend what i think is the weaker part of his record— fiscal discipline.
I started this thread to do what i do think is vital across the political landscape. Validate the conservative components of Republicans— and yes Democrats if they can be found.
President Bush has solid material in that category.
I really was a committed Rush dittohead in early 90s but now I try to enjoy him again BUT he is talking this crap about how Bush saved economy with tax cuts (alone)and he knows Greenspan created massive new cheap money supply and Bush government spending went through the roof at the same time as tax cuts. Obviously those other two things will create revenues too till the fed raises interest rates. I want real tax cuts, especially mine BUT I dont want simple-ton talking points like those that are untrue. Rush used to be the voice of truth, but with GWB election he sets his message to fit what he wants you to think just like the libs.
Bush’s budgets were too liberal. They increased spending more than Clinton’s budgets. In 2004, the Depts. of HUD, HHS, Education, and Energy received at least 22% more than they received in ‘01.
Bush did not veto even one Democrat/Rino spending plan his entire first term. Then after that, I can count the number he vetoed on one hand.
In addition to his tax cuts, he increased spending and increased the size of government even bigger than Clinton did. Thanks mostly to a Stock Market bubble and his resulting tax cuts, the economy thrived on rampant irresponsible credit lending.
If Bush had not nearly doubled the size of government spending, the deficit would have gone down much more than it did.
And giving Bush credit for only spending “half” of the TARP money in 2008 is downright comical. We all know that he should have stuck to his guns and refused to let it pass, which would have allowed the free market system to settle it, which it what it has finally done now all on it's own. The TARP money was a complete waste, without a dime going back the taxpayers. Instead, we have a growing and unconscionable future debt.
But the biggest damage Bush did to this country was his inability to stand up to the MSM and counter their rhetoric and lies. Thanks to Bush hatred syndrome, we now have Obama as POTUS and a super majority of Democrats in Congress and the Senate.
That my FRiend, is the REAL Bush legacy.
That was a Bush/Rove "Win the 2004 election by buying off certain groups" strategy. In late 2004 it was considered brilliant(because of the win) that he expanded republican voters over 2000. But as you can see voters that are bought are not owned, in fact the always want more and more. Like Kids each Christmas they want constantly new presents. So it was short term strategy, not much to praise him for long term.
Stop denyiing reality .
Bush did many solid positive fiscally conservative things. You simply want to drown them out.
The overwhelming majority of the budget is unchangeable by a President.
Moreover, Bush did increase spending on defense and domestic security programs such as Homeland Defense. These are sensible and even conservative spending actions because they are in line with his Constitutional duties.
His efforts on earmarks already noted did have positive effects on reducing spending. Since his re-election the deficit was again trending downward until the economy tanked at the end of his second term.
Most of Clinton’s surplus action came from a combination of economic growth and cuts in military spending which lead to the attacks of 911.
Barack Obama and the Democrats are dramatically increasing spending and began work on that when they won power in 2007. That spending is increasing exponentially.
The lack of authentic alternatives by faux conservatives who describe mythical unicorn conservatives as engaging in actual fiscal conservatism means that the political debate being engaged here is not only unproductive— it is counterproductive.
We need to acknowledge that those who do not offer real alternatives are like Pat Buchannan working at MSNBC and helping promote the demise of conservatism.
Refusing to acknowledge any fiscal conservative actions by President Bush is part of establishing a hegemony of Leftist Politics. The abstractions of how it could be continually take precedent over meaningful political alternatives. Bush was more conservative than McCain in 2000— that is why he won.
McCain and Palin— as noted here— bashed Bush in precisely the terms noted on this thread. Where is the win?
It is fair for Bush defenders to say that Bush bashing did not help win the election— it helped lose the election.
Even Bush’s most egregious spending plan Medicare part D cost tens of billions less than his opponents projected.
All Bush bashing is the same.
Reagan could not lead the present crowd of conservatives. They know better
The nation is intellectually lazy and this thread is a monument to that fatigue.
Thank you for this thread. “True” conservatives are the Dhimmicrats’ best hope.
Dubya will certainly rank among the top 10. One doesn’t have to agree with every single decison he’s made ( I know I don’t) to see that. But these guys’ hysteria and the general intellectual laziness you rightly mentioned render that impossible to see to so many. Add to that the MSM which these guys believe more than the average leftist, as demonstrated by absurd threads started by “true” conservatives based CNN, BBC, Guardian, NYT, MSNBC (and so forth) rubbish for 8 years
Thank you George W. Bush and God bless the USA.
Although Bush bought votes, in 2004, he probably lost at least the same number of supporters, because many voters think that he’s too liberal. In ‘04, I voted for the Constitution Party presidential candidate because Bush was too liberal and because I knew that he would lose my state, Illinois.
Thanks for your comments and analysis.
Well said.
You give me hope.
I agree with your point that substantial criticism of Bush is warranted and fair— I am simply trying to clarify the sources of totalizing criticism that are so counterproductive.
Personally, I’m beginning to think Bush Bots are really dem operatives running a con. Purposes: 1. Encourage pubbie moderates to continue supporting RINOs—and by extention the leftist-led Dem Party. 2. Maintain leftist demrat control of the GOP.
The nonsense the Bush Bots spew mirrors the nonsense the dems say about themselves. No basis in fact, but they are saying what their brain dead voters want to hear.
I would add that Bush’s pro-illegal alien policy turned off many conservatives, too.
Also, I think you have to factor in Bush’s “new tone” nonsense. His consistant failure to respond at all, or in any meaningful way, to dem attacks made him appear weak and guilty. And I got so tired of the same one or two canned speeches he recited for 8 years. In other words, he was the antithisis of a dynamic leader.
And then there was his failure to purge Clintoon “leave behinds”. These people set him up regularly for negative headlines and he never responded—by attacking them and/or dismissing them.
Then, in the only instance I know of, when he changed out a bunch of Justice lawyers (normally a routine action by new presidents) he allowed the dems to politicize it. Again, no meaningful response other than throwing his own Atty. Gen. under the bus.
This mirrored how Bush allowed the dems to politicize the Fed. response to Hurricane Katrina. His administration totally buckled under the demrat onslaught of lies and disinformation. Typically, Bush threw his own FEMA director under the bus.
He got a solid win in Florida and the free medicare drugs was a big part. It was not a long term strategy. Iraq was only beginning to become unpopular. Once it did no amount of borrowed printed cash would get GWB liked again, everything that went wrong was blamed on republicans and he tried, and tried to spend his way back,...now Obama takes over and runs up massive debt but claims it all Bush's deficit fault... the economy. And so far many are buying it.
I was in the navy for 21 years, and I was near Baghdad, in the Triangle of Death, in a marine infantry battalion, Sept. 2004-Mar. ‘05. While I was there, I rarely heard my co-workers (mostly marines and soldiers) complain about American presence, in Iraq. After I returned to the U.S., I heard many people, who haven’t served, in the military, complain about it. The servicemembers know that we protect the Americans from terrorists, but too many Americans aren’t grateful.
The Nov. 5 edition of USA Today states that, in their exit poll, 62% of voters said that the economy was their most important issue. Among that group, 54% voted for Obama. If they really cared about the economy, they wouldn’t have voted for the candidate who promised to propose increasing some tax rates.
You are talking about two different issues. Iraq invasion ruined GWB with voters (via WMDS and daily worsening conditions until the surge) but the financial crisis made sure he would never be looked on as well again.
The voters were given little choice. Obama promised tax increases on the rich and comporations and in return tax cuts for everyone and everyones pet project. His planned tax increases for everyone are kept hidden, and to this day most people dont know Cap and Trade is a tax on them.
On the other side McCain promised more tax cuts with more spending, and cap and trade too (hidden tax only we knew it was that.) Republicans had already took credit for the economy and tax cuts that took place with bigger and bigger spending before the crash (this was a short term political strategy) so when the crash happened they got the blame. Republicans got themselves in a corner, tax cuts pay for themselves supposedly, yet we end up with economic disaster and massive debt and bailouts when the country puts them in charge. Now real tax cuts have a bad name, “tax cuts for the rich.”
I know that I was talking about two different issues. That’s why I used two paragraphs.
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.