Bush, 2008: “There is no conservative movement”

Hot Air ^ | SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 | ED MORRISSEY

[RobinMasters]

During the 2008 CPAC convention, George Bush only mentioned the word “conservative” once, in the closing — and apparently that was no accident. A new book by the man who wrote the speech for Bush, staffer Matt Latimer, retells the story in Speechless: Tales of a White House Survivor, and Byron York relates it in today’s Washington Examiner. When Latimer tried to include supportive language about the conservative movement, Bush attempted to set his speechwriter straight:

“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.

[RobinMasters]

Ping.

[ConservativeMind]

That helps explain things a bit more.

At least liberals can’t say Bush was ever conservative. This one is for the books. Note it.

[Lou Budvis]

If W had fired Rummy in the Spring of ‘06, it’s doubtful the dims would’ve taken back the House. Now we have 0bama and dim supermajorities in Congress. Heckuva job, Bushie.

[Jedidah]

Frankly, I’m tired of labels.

I refuse to pigeonhole myself. I think. I ponder. I make informed decisions. I choose candidates and policies that I think are right and good.

If we must use labels, I consider myself a “reasonable.”

[CedarDave]

Just so we’re clear, talking about George W. Bush, X43, not George HW Bush, he of the “read my lips, no new taxes” broken pledge.

[outinyellowdogcountry]

You make a very good point. Labels can be used to manipulate. We HAVE to look at actions.

[Alex Murphy]

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.

Ping for later

[Mr. Jazzy]

If true, just wow.

How sad.

[ecomcon]

Well, well. Assuming Latimer is not a self serving jackass like one Scott McClelllan, this might explain a lot.

[TexasFreeper2009]

A conservative message alone isn't good enough, the people want someone inspiring to lead them, Gary Bauer was a dork and it didn't matter what he said people can't see past that to actually HEAR what he is saying.

It's sad, but that's just the way politics in the modern world is, actually it's been this way since Kennedy.

This is only reason I think Romney has a chance, he LOOKS like what people think a president should look like, so at least people will listen when he speaks.

This doesn't make it right, it's just dealing with the reality of the situation.

[Dr. Sivana]

“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.”

If the last names were reversed, or if Bush ran a non-profit while Bauer governed Texas, the results would have been quite different.

Let's also not forget that Bush cranked up over $100,000,000 before the primary in 2000 to clear the field. Steve Forbes was the only one with the money to compete.

[RobinMasters]

Update: Palin “unprepared”, McCain “a five-spiral crash”

[newfreep]

Makes sense since Jorge Bush pushed so many leftwing policies and causes. Disgusting!

[newfreep]

On Sarah after being picked as VP:

"I’m trying to remember if I’ve met her before. I’m sure I must have.” His eyes twinkled, then he asked, “What is she, the governor of Guam?”

Everyone in the room seemed to look at him in horror, their mouths agape. When Ed told him that conservatives were greeting the choice enthusiastically, he replied, “Look, I’m a team player, I’m on board.” He thought about it for a minute. “She’s interesting,” he said again. “You know, just wait a few days until the bloom is off the rose.” Then he made a very smart assessment.

“This woman is being put into a position she is not even remotely prepared for,” he said. “She hasn’t spent one day on the national level. Neither has her family. Let’s wait and see how she looks five days out.”

[Uri’el-2012]

Confirms my suspicion.

The IQ of cow poop.

[b4its2late]

Big disappointment to me in his second term.

[RetiredArmy]

Georgie II was not a conservative, never was. He was simply all we had to vote for. Like McCain, it was either him or the latest socialist the Dims put up for view. Bush was a total over all failure as president. While he did a fair job on the war effort, he made mistakes there also. I believe he was too obsessed with Saddam. Sure, Saddam needed taking out, but I think he might have heard too much about Saddam from daddy. Sadly, our side has few good ones to choose from any more. When they say the era of Reagan is dead, that in my mind, simply means we have no one on our side that resembles Reagan on the national level. The republicans have gone center, moderate, left. Few good conservative republicans any more. We are simply stuck with what the stinking republican party gives us. I dropped my membership in the republican party years ago. I do not call myself a member of any party. I am simply a conservative. That defines me. That and my religious beliefs. Thus I guess I am a Christian Right Wing Conservative if I had to label myself. But, too me, George W. Bush, junior, the second, Dub-ya, whatever, was a dud, a failure. If I had had anyone on our side better than he or McCain too vote for, I would certainly not have gone with them.

[reagan_fanatic]

No one was ever under the illusion that Bush was a Conservative. We voted for him because we could not stand the alternative, which was worse. The same reasoning was used for McCain.

It would be nice to have another strong Conservative leader like Reagan on the field, but that doesn’t look to happen anytime soon.

[Jedidah]

Wow.

I love Sarah Palin. I’m hoping she stays on the national stage and, if she wants, runs for very high office.

But Bush was absolutely right. Perhaps he knew, from experience, how rough and tumble and destructive the national stage is. Palin and her family suffered, just as he predicted.

I hope they heal and come back stronger than ever.

[RobinMasters]

That’s right. Georgie boy was not a conservative at all.

In 2007, in his book “Dead Certain”, Robert Draper wrote what W. said to Cheney when he chose him as a VP in 2000 :

“You know Dick, I’m more like Ronald Reagan than my dad. The difference is, my dad was raised in the East, and I was raised in Texas”

Robert Draper, Dead Certain, pp. 110.

[stockpirate]

Any one worth their salt knew Bush was not a conservative. He used us to get elected then in his second term he set up the demise of America to the socialists.

[newfreep]

Sarah Palin was more qualified & had more accomplishments than OBOZO. More successes than even Jorge Bush when he was governor.

For Jorge to say this reflects his hatred of conservatives and why he pushed & signed so many liberal bills, supported amnesty, refused to build a wall and close the borders & attempted to push Harriet miers on AMerica.

Jorge Bush will go down as the republican version of Jammah Carter.

[Globalist Goon]

Pull the 2000 election threads and you will see plenty of folks pointing out that Bush is not this good ol’ boy conservative.

[RobinMasters]

Agree with you.

[gitmogrunt]

Does anyone still believes Bush was a Conservative?

[Melchior]

In the American dictionary of slang, following the entry “tin ear” there is a picture of George Bush, father and son.

[TexasFreeper2009]

There are 3 groups of conservatives that make up the Republican party, collectively they are known as the Reagan coalition.

Social Conservatives

Fiscal Conservatives

National Security Conservatives

Regan was all three, HW Bush was only National Security, Dole was only National Security, W Bush was Social and National Security, McCain was only National Security.

The problem is we need a candidate that has all three, that is wrapped in a package (looks) that Americans can get behind. This is what makes Palin such a threat, she has all three. But she needs to take a crash course on issues, and interviewing to be ready for prime time in 2012.

[stevio]

Could you imagine if mccain won?

[Captain Kirk]

At least liberals can’t say Bush was ever conservative.

Then what is the excuse for conservatives who voted for him?

[Seruzawa]

All those years of certain freepers calling those who criticized Bush’s policies “traitors” and such. Now that was a pretty bizarre experience. Where are all those guys now?

That’s what happens when you care about one issue only. Bush knew that all he had to do was oppose abortion and mildly support gun rights and he could get away with the most expansionist social policy in history. He could hobnob with The Swimmer and still have fanatical support. He was a pretty smart guy after all. Too bad he wasn’t a conservative.

[TexasFreeper2009]

If McCain had won we would of already passed the health care abomination, and granted amnesty to all the illegals *shudder*

[Captain Kirk]

Could you imagine if mccain won?

It probably wouldn't be much different. The main difference is that he would be able to use many conservatives to carry out his whacko policies.

[mbs6]

And then he laid this doozy:

“I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.” — George W. Bush

See video here: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/16/bush-free-market/

[Robbin]

She’s been on the national stage now. She and her family knows what’s up. I want her to run for president.

She’s got my vote.... You won’t see me vote for Romney or the Huckster.

[TADSLOS]

I was once in the Oval Office when the president was told a campaign event in Phoenix he was to attend with McCain suddenly had to be closed to the press…

“If he doesn’t want me to go, fine,” the president said. “I’ve got better things to do.”

Eventually, someone informed the president that the reason the event was closed was that McCain was having trouble getting a crowd. Bush was incredulous—and to the point. “He can’t get 500 people to show up for an event in his hometown?” he asked. No one said anything, and we went on to another topic. But the president couldn’t let the matter drop. “He couldn’t get 500 people? I could get that many people to turn out in Crawford.” He shook his head. “This is a five-spiral crash, boys.”

Bush, lifting the GOP to new heights...

[algernonpj]

>Any one worth their salt knew Bush was not a conservative. He used us to get elected then in his second term he set up the demise of America to the socialists.>

Yup. The prior three administrations paved the way for the socialist take over under Obama. (Plus the ~535 in Congress and 9 in the Supreme court who allowed them to get away with it, even aided and abetted them.)

[Captain Kirk]

The problem is we need a candidate that has all three

If National Security means promotion of national defense, we certainly do. If it means nation-building, Wilsonianism, and world policing (such as support for Obama's expanding wars), we can't afford it.

[stevio]

If McCain had won we would of already passed the health care abomination, and granted amnesty to all the illegals *shudder*

Yep, and all we would be doing is sitting around with our mouths open. And there would be some here saying that it would have been worse with obama.

[OldPossum]

“You make a very good point. Labels can be used to manipulate. We HAVE to look at actions.”

Labels, to the extent they are used in the essential purpose of language, which is to designate and explain what we mean, are necessary.

The prior use of “reasonable” is entirely too vague to serve that purchase.

[mbs6]

P.S. He’s the same clown who signed the coming light-bulb ban into law. What an idiot. Our government has absolutely no right to tell us how to light the interior of our homes.

[TADSLOS]

All those years of certain freepers calling those who criticized Bush’s policies “traitors” and such. Now that was a pretty bizarre experience. Where are all those guys now?

They are still around. Now reduced to merely plastering Bush royalty era infatuation images on FR ad nauseum, ignoring the fact that Bush is and never was a conservative. They are caught up in the regal splendor of it all, much like the Brits fawn on their royals.

[ZGuy]

Most of this does not sound like “bush-speak” at all. My bet is that Matt Latimer has written a tell-all with profit over honesty in mind and it seems surprising that everyone seems to be accepting his quotes without any verification that his stories are true or accurate. I don’t accept the MSM blindly, why should I believe Latimer?

[Springfield Reformer]

Labels are a necessary evil. For example, communication would be so much easier if we were all perfect telepaths. No words at all would be necessary. It’s not that way. We use words as shorthand, as containers we can use to ship ideas between each other. Labels, especially political labels, are like large freighters that contain many containers, and they are a useful tool for rapid and efficient exchange of large quantities of ideas.

The problem is that, unlike ships at sea, it is way too easy to slip into multiple uses for the same label. Nobody “owns” the label so everyone uses it to their own purposes and according to their own level of understanding.

Bush equating the movement to Bauer’s presidential run is interesting in this respect. He may have used an eclectic definition of conservative that more closely resembled the “Christian theocracy” variant, for which a Bauer presidency might represent the camel’s nose under the tent. This is significantly different from a Judeo-Christian natural law conservatism, which appeals to a shared, universal sense of right and wrong to set public policy. Whereas a theocracy, Christian, Muslim, or otherwise, relies directly on claims of divine revelation. The Christian position most like this is called theonomy, and it is a movement, but it is so tiny and so fractured it has no real presence on the American political stage. So in that sense, if that’s what he meant by conservative, he was right.

However, Bush actually was conservative in some respects, using the term in a natural law sense. He did do some things that tended to the benefit of conservative values. I am thinking of pro-life, pro free enterprise, and pro strong defense categories. By contrast, on issues of national sovereignty, free speech, and big government, he was definitely a disappointment.

One final thought. With conservatism you always have to ask, what, exactly, is being conserved? The tradition of a certain divine revelation? The legal, philosophical, and religious values that informed the natural law perspective of the Founders and their Constitution? Or some disorganized patchwork quilt of ideas that borrows randomly from a variety of traditions and beliefs? With most politicians it seems to be the last of those three options. This is why public policy is in such disarray. It is a reflection of our own confused thinking over what’s really in that word. That’s why I am trying to make a practice of using the term “Principled Conservative.” It encourages the listener to ask, “What foundational principles govern your policy outcomes?” And that is the question we need to be asking, of our politicians, our political parties, and ourselves.

[algernonpj]

Could you imagine if mccain won?

It probably wouldn't be much different.

You are absolutely correct. About the only difference I see would be McCain would present a classier image, not so in your face, and would be forgiven more because of the label Republican. McCain thinks Zero is doing a splendid job, would not secure our borders, agrees with Cap and Trade and Bailouts, would continue his march through the Bill of Rights, push for amnesty, and bring in as many guest workers as could be fit in the US for jobs American can't/won't do.

[franky8]

From a column.

“Tony Smith argues that the Bush administration and the neo-conservative architects of the Iraq war were the natural heirs of the Wilsonian tradition. Wilson and post-1945 liberal internationalists blazed a trail that Bush followed. In this view, it is America's commitment to promote democracy worldwide - a sort of liberal imperial ambition - that is at the core of Wilsonianism, and it was the animating vision behind the Bush doctrine.”

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/19/woodrow_wilson_george_w_bush_and_the_future_of_lib/

I recall Bush senior being considered an internationalist also.

[Captain Kirk]

I’ll concede that at first McCain MIGHT not promote a government option in health care though the end result would be the same. He’d push for forcing coverage of prexisting condition, mandates and other “reforms” that would eventually lead to a government option. On foreign policy, I can’ imagine that there would be much different. Like Obama, McCain would pour more troops into Aghanistan and would probably have about the same number of troops (about the same as when push left) in Afghanistan.

[Captain Kirk]

that’s “can’t imagine”

[Gator113]

Oh no, this could be the end of the “Bush for 2012 campaign”.... oh my.

It’s sure a shame that we didn’t have a president Gore or Kerry.

[outinyellowdogcountry]

Excellent response. Thank you. I think you are right about President Bush. I am a very conservative Christian but I doubt that I would vote for a candidate who purports to have divine revelation, apart from God’s Word. I have witnessed too many disagreements among conservative Christians. However I prefer that my president believes in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and in His Son. But I know that God is able to work through whomever He chooses.