It just needed more cowbell and Cheney!
Posted on 04/23/2013 5:17:04 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
Ignorance upsets me, and FTR, I did not want the defeat of Mitt or McCain - and what you seem oblivous to is how Bush’s communications weakness helped set the stage for those defeats, and the very same consultants worked for all three and the very same mind set permeated all three campaigns.
Where do you think the run came from? It was all a big heist... Wall Street/ government theft and escape.
Wall Street, the Fed and the Treasury are all on the same team, what else is there to know?
If you can, watch Khan Academy’s breakdown of the Paulsen and Geithner plans. Nauseating... just search for them under the economics section of his website.
needs to happen sooner or later...
Johnny Boehner is just putting it off.
(he’s been the most silent ex-president in my lifetime),
***Sounds like you weren’t around during Nixon’s exile.
Hope an ultra conservative candidate named Bush does not run for President. Sounds like they would not get your vote...
You don’t burn down the house to save it.
HOning the deficit down to 200b after a recession and horrific terror attack is a commendable feat but purists will always find fault.
An ultra conservative Bush? Like an ethical Kennedy?
Your scenario is not possible, so no worries...
Bush never caved in on the same sex agenda. I don't think he was perfect but he was better than Gore/Kerry. Some in talk radio blasted him for years. He did things I don't like/never will agree with but man, give this a rest. Focus, on Obama and the lame / weak republican Speaker. We can't look back to blame everyday; only to change the way the powers to be should protect our liberties. To all, no one is pushing Jeb that I see here; he would be defeated. Most of us do know that. Imo.
Conservatives look back to learn. You can ignore history if you want but conservatives refuse to not learn from history lest they repeat it.
I look forward to defeating the GOPe which I think will happen in the 2014 elections.
Bush/Bush/McCain/Romney are all RINOs. The goal is to rid them of positions of power and influence. They can be as rich as they want but should hold no influence over the public.
We are done with RINOs. We know what they are and how much damage they can do. The damage they do is to make people like you compromise your principles, to sell out by deciding to side with the lesser of two evils when in fact both are members of the ruling class where the Republican elite are a subsidiary of the Democrat Party.
Obama is perversely good for conservatives because his ineptness, his Muslim leanings, his non-mainstream values and lack of leadership are now unfolding and damaging the democrat brand. Romney would have confused the party faithful. But as it stands, if Sarah Palin and the Tea Party continue to succeed in the GOP primaries with gathering more candidates like Rand, Rubio, Cruz, Lee and others, then the GOP will be more conservative and be poised to win the Senate in 2014 and the White House in 2016.
The key thing is to prevent another McCain or Romney from getting the nod because they damage the GOP brand by confusion whereas Obama and Hillary help the GOP brand by their hypocrisy.
Because there are many people even those who think they know everything fell and fell hard for the bovine excrement the liberal main stream media put out.......even today people beleive that he is/worse than obama.......even people on FR.
Absolutely.
You must really admire the much more popular Presidents Clinton and Obama?
Popularity and morality are the same thing you know /s
I am very ambivalent about President Bush. He stood up to terrorism in a way I think only Reagan would have among presidents in the last 30 years. He was more resolute than even his own father. In spite of the missing WMD in Iraq, he held Saddam and the worthless UN to account for resolutions that the countries of the UN agreed to. Saddam had violated 17 resolutions and empowered other UN-backed thugs. The Oil for Food scandal would not have been found if the US had not pressured an accounting of where the money went. It is another press disgrace that this was not covered hardly at all. His greatest moment was 09/20/11 in his speech in front of the joint session of congress - made me proud to be an American.
On the other hand, his weak handling of congressional spending, failure to push for Fanny / Freddie investigations, TARP and GM bailout set awful precedents that opened the doors for the Left to horribly abuse. His lack of a communications message to fight the lies of the Left hurt not only him, but the GOP. We still have not recovered. A good man, but a mixed result for his presidency.
Bush’s communication skills were strong and clearly stronger than Obama’s. The myth that they were poor is part of the larger anti-conservative mythology that animates our intellectual establishments.
The counter arguments:
1. Bush did put a bulldog into the press position: Tony Snow. Snow was excellent.
2. Bush’s rhetorical frames survive him. We are fighting a war on terror— not a war on Islam. The war on Islam was not and is not viable.
3. The with us or against us phraseology was compelling.
4. Bush succeeded in persuading both Congress and dozens of allies in joining the US in the war on terror— including two wars.
5. Bush had two way communication which his critics pretend is a weakness. He did not force issues that conservatives disliked. He did not force Harriet Miers. He did not force Amnesty. Reagan the “great communicator” did force amnesty. Reagan caved on many conservative positions including debt management.
6. Bush delegated to competent individuals which made his administration more effective. The absurdity of Obama deciding his own kill list is supreme dangerous and foolish arrogance.
7. Bush negotiated close relations with India that are the cornerstone of a capacity to contain China.
8. Bush used self deprecating humor with devastating and consistent positive results.
9. Bush galvanized more than 300 million people to vote for the pro Bush candidate in places as diverse as Poland, Georgia, Ukraine, South Korea, Canada and France. Many of those conservative movements remain with us to this day. Harper is a profound force for conservatism.
10. Bush’s silence which you mock created space for the tea party and other conservative voices. Bush let republicans and conservatives make their own cases in 2012 and 2008. He did not criticize Obama but he also did not criticize conservative rivals. His architect Rove has been much more vocal and is considered a more trained communicator. Rove is a disaster and you know that. Seeing the obvious daylight between Rove’s secular delusions and the kinder gentler evangelical spirit of Bush is now abundantly clear. Bush’s silence is an important pre text to current conservative movements.
11. Bush won many political battles including multiple tax cuts through his communication skills.
12. The fact that academics and hollywood think Bush is a poor communicator is meaningless. Bush was not dependent on a teleprompter and remains one of the most gifted speakers at speaking from the heart. Idealizing Clinton requires a fundamental repudiation of Ethos that allows for lying as a legitimate rhetorical art.
13. As this thread is predicated, Bush has rebounded to 47 percent. He is adored in Africa— even in muslim majority countries. He is adored in many parts of the world where is message of freedom is respected.
14. The deeper refusal of conservatives to defend President Bush is the real problem and obvious at FR. I could easily thrash Reagan— whom I love— but I admire what I like about Reagan and recognize the value of Reagan’s 11th commandment. Keep in mind that the Boston bombers believe that Iraq and Afghanistan were unjust wars— much like many conservative Bush bashers. We provide the bipartisan cover for BDS. It is wrong and unethical.
It just needed more cowbell and Cheney!
you make a few valid points, but many more flawed statements as well, and have created a fantasy over all narrative. Snow was the best of Bush’ spokespersons, but he died. Bush did use self deprecating humor well, but it was his only rhetorical weapon of any effectiveness. Bush did have a couple moments, the bullhorn moment and the “with us or against us” moment - but then ran scared of “the cowboy” image and never was good again. Your point #10 about his silence being some kind of genius to set the stage for the tea party is totally absurd. Your point 13 misses the obvious about polling and ex Presidents, and your point 14 is also absurd, as it was Bush’ obligation as President to stand up for his constituents - and for you to blame the constituents who finally gave up after many years of emptiness from Bush is just astounding.
You have a man crush, and it’s very unappealing.
I didn’t vote for Bush either time (Buchanan in 2000 & abstained in 04). The context of the article was that 0bama has “improved” GWB’s approval ratings. I agree with that. He was no conservative, it’s true- but he was the product of the system we’ve been condoning forever. I think he did the best he could.
Some people think that “worse is better”. I don’t. Worse is worse. I hate it. It’s self destructive & crazy. I see a president & first lady who despise America & are doing everything they can to undermine us. No one can ever say that about George W & Laura Bush.
I was *no* fan of George HW Bush. But if you set these men alongside the Clintons, the communist creeps in Congress since 07, & the 0bamas, there is no comparison. Except for a very select few in Washington, they all squander the opportunity to correct the mistakes. They back down & they “compromise” & they sell us out.
We are our own worst enemy.
The Wall Street stuff started under Clinton with the repeal of Glass-Steagall. (though IIRC, NAFTA belonged to Bush I)
Wanting and getting are different
There is no conservative such as you describe with the charisma and clout to be elected. Conservative narrow mindedness blocked the process in 2012 and Romney was t result.
> “The Wall Street stuff started under Clinton with the repeal of Glass-Steagall. (though IIRC, NAFTA belonged to Bush I)”
That was all Sandy Weill and +++Phil Gramm+++.
Gramm was the PhD Economist and Texas conservative member of Congress for over 20 years as a Congressman and Senator.
By all accounts Gramm was insightful with his mind in the right place but who as many do when they get steeped in Beltway culture, they lose their common sense.
By teaming with Weill over the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Gramm forgot that Human Greed is timeless and universal. As a brilliant PhD and policy formulator, he forgot millennia of experience and history of what governs and elicits the worst of the human behavior. Following the spirit of Ronald Reagan whose deregulatory movement created an atmosphere of empowerment to American business, Gramm thought the same should be done with the US banking system meanwhile forgetting that banking is a fundamentally different business creature than other businesses that produce goods and services.
In effect Banks are the financial treasury and security to businesses and individuals. If American financial treasury and security are lost, the consequences are disastrous and possibly fatal. Therefore, banks and banking need a heavy government oversight to maintain and govern their critical role.
Gramm, a Republican, forgot all that. His brilliant mind overruled his common sense.
Gramm’s reforms were analogous to allowing city police to ask for donations for their police fund from the public every time they would respond to a call to duty. Pretty soon those requests for donations could become extortionist or else they would respond only to households that had given the most in the past.
The way to view Bush following this analogy is that the police internal affairs (SEC) was down-funded and muted allowing bad cops (banksters) a free hand on the financial security of the public.
Bush did the squelching of the SEC not because he was sinister but because he was charmed by the economic statistics coming forth from Wall St. and he didn’t want anyone disturbing his political golden goose. He didn’t think it would all become a charade.
Bush’s family was and is to this day involved heavily in banking and financial trade. Bush was influenced by his family, many of whom were moderates and ruling class minded when it came to business and banking; especially in regards to tax reform (which was a total waste).
Bush was weak and lost the game. As Americans and as conservatives we cannot afford to have our quarterbacks fumble or pass to interceptions on a frequent basis, to have our baseball team hitters strike out over and over again or to have the pitchers give up the long ball every inning. We cannot tolerate poor team performance and lost games even if an individual player has great statistics. We need star performers, not mediocre ones but we also need the team to win. We demand this from the conservative bleachers.
Bush became a RINO, a loser. He lost the game. Therefore, we must resolve that there will be no more Bush’s, McCains, Romneys and the like.
Strongly disagree Bert.
Check out my about page. I’m supporting those folks and I’m proud to.
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.