Rove Unrepentant on Bushonomics

Human Events ^ | 10/14/2009 | Mark Skousen

[SharpRightTurn]

This past weekend, I had the opportunity to spend several hours with Karl Rove, the “master political strategist” of the Bush administration . . . where he defended the Bush agenda in a raucous debate . . . .

I wondered if Rove would appear introspective, slightly humbled by the demise of the Republican Party in the most recent elections and the litany of disastrous big government policies he and his boss engineered over the past eight year that led to the lowest public approval rating in history.

No one expected Rove to confess error. But like most conservatives, conservative economists believe that our principles -- really, Reagan’s -- have to be distinguished from those of George Bush in order to restore the public’s faith in them.

But there was none of that from Mr. Rove. He exhibited confidence and pride, determined to vindicate the righteousness of every Bush maneuver in the White House, even the spendthrift -- and oxymoronic -- “big government conservatism” which real conservatives never embraced.

. . . .

Rove went on to say before an incredulous audience that Bush was in fact fiscally responsible and worked hard to cut the deficit. (And this despite the report by the Cato Institute that Bush grew spending faster than any other president since Jimmy Carter.)

. . . .

But facts are a stubborn thing, and despite his heroic efforts to defend Mr. Bush’s record, the fact remains that under George W. Bush’s White House years, the stock market stagnated (despite the tax breaks for investors) and gold tripled in value. If Bush had done the right thing and pursued the principles of Reaganomics, Wall Street should have soared, as it did during Ronald Reagan’s eighties. And that's the ultimate bottom line for investors.

[SharpRightTurn]

Reaganomics vs. Bushonomics.

[Tublecane]

I don’t think there is such a thing as Bushonomics. There was no consistent thought behind it. Just a bunch of stuff they did.

[ClearCase_guy]

Jeez. I'm not going to defend President Bush. I don't have him on a pedestal as an economic genius -- he could have (and should have) done a lot better.

But given the current occupant in the White House, the current economic policies, and the current economic situation, I think it is quite a waste of time to go and kick President Bush.

[rhombus]

I don’t think there is such a thing as Bushonomics. There was no consistent thought behind it. Just a bunch of stuff they did.

I think the consistent thought was the War on Terror and if that meant letting Congress then controlled by Republicans to continue their spending ways then so be it.

[BufordP]

Eight Wasted Years ...Margaret Thatcher used to talk about the “ratchet effect.” When the Left gets power, she said, they drive everything Left; when the Right gets power, they slow the Leftward drive, perhaps even halt it for a spell; but nothing ever gets moved to the Right. U.S. politics in the 21st century so far bears out this dismal analysis. What does the Right have to show for eight years of a Republican presidency? I supported George W. Bush in 2000 because I thought he had a conservative bone in his body somewhere. I supported him in 2004 because I thought him the lesser of two evils. At this point, I wouldn’t let the fool park his car in my driveway. Bruce Bartlett was right, every damn word... Bill Gertz interview on Hannity and Colmes Gertz: Well he casts himself as a compassionate conservative and I argue that he's neither. That his administration is neither. He's done tremendous damage to the conservative movement...

[dfwgator]

Rove, you bastard!

[avacado]

"Rove went on to say before an incredulous audience that Bush was in fact fiscally responsible and worked hard to cut the deficit. (And this despite the report by the Cato Institute that Bush grew spending faster than any other president since Jimmy Carter.)"

That's complete BS! Public debt under Bush grew at 5.1% and under Clinton it grew at 5.0%. What the article is confused about is that national debt is public debt (budget deficit) plus intergovernmental debt (entitlement programs). Intergovernmental debt has a life of it's own and until huge entitlement programs are cut it is going to keep growing regardless of who is president. But Bush under the Republics had a decreasing budget deficit from 2004 onward until the Democrats took over Congress for fiscal budget 2008.

[Tublecane]

“But given the current occupant in the White House, the current economic policies, and the current economic situation, I think it is quite a waste of time to go and kick President Bush.”

If and when Cap ‘n’ Trade and/or Healthcare Reform pass, then I’d say it’s small potatoes to continue Bush-bashing. However, everything Obama’s managed thus far, economically speaking, was done by Bush. Obama’s going bigger, to be sure. But Bush had his stimulus package last year. Bush had his bailouts last fall. Bush had what was then the biggest deficit in history. And Bush shares credit for the new biggest deficit, whatever it is we’re up to. A billion-trillion dollars? Who knows?

Obama is more dangerous, for what he wants to do. But I see no reason why we can’t bash Bush, even though his economics were merely embryonic Obamanomics. If only because it demonstrates our integrity.

[Sacajaweau]

Bush gave us tax cuts. He also begged Congress on the drilling when we were struggling to fill our tanks and buy goods at the same time. He wasn't shoving Health Care down our throats and remember that the Dem prescription plan was DOUBLE of what was passed.

Bottom line...He kept us safe for 7 years.

Tough times...but we're tough!!

The biggest problem I see is "Values"...gay marriage, abortion...

[Will88]

This past weekend, I had the opportunity to spend several hours with Karl Rove, the “master political strategist” of the Bush administration,...

It's strange this writer spent all those hours with Rove discussing policies during the Bush years, but apparently never asked Rove about the most divisive issue of the Bush years: The Bush/Rove, multi-year push for amnesty for illegal aliens.

Nothing damaged party morale and alienated the base more than the insulting nonsense of: "Doing jobs Americans won't do," and other similar drivel. That was the most memorable period of W's second term, and it caused enormous damage to the party's fortunes in 2006 and 2008.

[ex-snook]

None are so blind as those who refuse to see. Political operatives are no exception to the rule. Older Bush should apologize for electing Clinton and younger Bush should apologize for electing Obama.

[Will88]

Another subject not mentioned: the wonderful, conservative appointments to the SOCTUS. That is often mentioned as the "signature" accomplishment of the Bush years. The problem is, most conveniently forget who W's first choices really were: Alberto Gonzales and Harriet Meiers.

The second one is undeniable, and that Gonzales was his choice before Roberts is most likely true, also.

[Hawthorn]

>> I think the consistent thought was the War on Terror <<

Absolutely. I believe future historians will rank GWB as a successful POTUS, maybe even “great and ranking alongside” Harry Truman, because of the way he kept us safe for 7+ years.

So as much as I admire Mark Skousen’s economic writings, I think his “Bush bashing” is wrong-headed.

[weezel]

Why should Rove be repentent? Once dim-0s were gotten completely out of power,in jan ‘03, this happened.......

2006 unemployment #s
4.7...jan.
4.8...feb.
4.7...march
4.7...april
4.7...may
4.6...june
4.7...july
4.7...aug.
4.5...sep.
4.4...oct.
4.5...nov.
4.4...dec.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000

When Republicans had both houses and the WH..........................

http://www.icmarc.org/xp/rc/marketview/ ... oduct.html

The 1st quarter of ‘06 saw 4.8% growth in GDP. Then came dimos running for control of congress promising “CHANGE.” They won, and after 2 years in power, things HAVE “CHANGED” GDP growth is now -. Happy with your “CHANGE?”

[rhombus]

I believe future historians will rank GWB as a successful POTUS, maybe even “great and ranking alongside” Harry Truman, because of the way he kept us safe for 7+ years.

Bush was successful in that after 9/11 he made a commitment to us that he would focus on the War on Terror and that's exactly what he did. He never said he could deal with the entire axis of evil during his term alone and he never said it would be easy - in fact he said exactly the opposite. Many wish the WOT was not at the top of the list and many have derided him for letting other things drift. Regardless, I agree with you that he was successful in regard to his primary focus after 9/11. No, the terror problem ain't solved yet but Bush effected a lot of changes that are still keeping us safe. I also agree with your longer look at history. I further think that after the "fit is gonna hit the shan" people will look back on the Bush years with a different perspective and that many of his warnings will be quoted.

[BufordP]

My Momma would have given us tax cuts, drilled in ANWR and off-shore and fought the war as vigorously - if not more.

It amazes me how so many defend Bush by saying, “He’s not as bad as the Dems!”

[TASMANIANRED]

I think Bush would have done a lot better on the economic side had it not been for 911.

The terrorist situation took all of his attention and he largely let the domestic side of things slide.

Bush made plenty of mistakes but he took defending the US from foreign enemies he took deadly seriously.

[Favor Center]

“I think the consistent thought was the War on Terror”

There was a more consistent thought: keeping our borders open for Mexico and others. The terrorists on 9/11 were visa overstayers. That hole is STILL WIDE OPEN.

[rhombus]

I agree. He should have set up a program that did a better job of keeping track of people who come here to work legally and those who come here illegally. Had he done that I’m sure everyone would have embraced it. ;-)