Is George Bush a Conservalib or a Liberacon?: Andrew Ferguson

Bloomberg ^ | May 7 | Andrew Ferguson

[rambo316]

President George W. Bush chose last week to give a major address articulating his political philosophy. The timing was one of those cruel tricks that life sometimes plays, for it was the same week in which three events conspired to demonstrate that the president has no political philosophy to articulate.

[rambo316]

Is the, "I love George Bush because he loves Ozzy Osborne"crowd out today.Wheather you all want to admit it Bush has turned out to be more leftist in some aspects than the Treasonous/Rapist and his Leftist B!tch of a wife Hitlery Clinton. Bush does the Big Government thing with a smile on his face that's all. Bush has turned out to be part of the "Establishment".

As you all know, big Government hinders our Freedoms.

One other thing, Bush and his people scoffed the term, "Compassionate Conservative" from Michael Savage, who called himself that in 1994.

[Iwentsouth]

And Micheal Savage scoffed the term "Compassionate Conservative" from George Bush who used it in 1980

[RJCogburn]

It pains me to think it, let alone say it, but it seems more and more the GWB is turning out to a moral, decent man version of Bill Clinton when it comes to policy....9/11 excluded.

[ImpBill]

Bump for further read. This should be a fun thread.

[serinde]

America doesn't need more big government.

This from someone who has established approx. 7 major new govt. agencies in less than 2 years. Right. Sure. Whatever you say.

At least his speeches are consistent!

[Dante3]

While Bush is an enormous improvement over Clinton or Gore, he has his faults:
His desire for more illegal immigrants surely is profit driven (no matter what, he won't get their vote or the votes of blacks and would only add crime, corruption, and drug problems, etc. to this country)
He likes big government -- instead, he should ferret out the outrageous incompetence in the IRS, a result of unworkable procedures adopted on advice of mudled Harvard consultants during the Clinton years
He has been slow, very slow, in securing our borders. Could it be he has visions of One World?
He all along has liked weird McCain's ONE ISSUE
He has kept a large number of Clinton appointees. Why? Obviously he shares their orientation.
Why isn't he fighting more for his judicial appointees?

[rambo316]

You are right on that one. Bush has been a big disappointment in regards to big government. He loves it like all establishment politicians. Which brings me too, where the hell are all the Conservative Republicans speaking out against the slave making, big government. I had an inkling that when the Treasonous/Rapist, Slick Willy left office, and Bush said let's just forget everything that the Treasonous/Rapist inflicted on America, while in office and just move on, I started to feel uncomfortable.

[robertpaulsen]

"I would love to meet ... the lefties who hoist the banner reading ``More money is always the answer!''"

Mr. Ferguson, I'd like to introduce you to the NEA. NEA, Mr. Ferguson would like to meet you.

[IW]

When Bush turned his head and made the statement pertaining to the crimes of the Clinton's, with the words of "Let Us Just Move On", Then I won't be voting Bush again in this life time. By pulling the DOJ off the Clinton's, Bush has become a co-conspirator to the Clinton crimes. He's weak and it becomes clearer every day.

[Leclair10]

typical neo-con not enough to win elections but enough to yell and get a talk show somewhere; and where do all these anonymous sources come from just say who you are and have some guts about it geez everything leaked out of this whitehouse is from anonymous sources; the article itself never takes political reality into its thought; reagan vetoed the farm bill lost the 86 senate think tim johnson wasn't looking for bush to throw farmers out in the cold? If you want to read what bush's government idea is he's uses reagans m.o. steel tariffs reagans harley davidson tariffs, amnesty for illegals reagans 86 amnesty, huge defense spending, heck he's even more pro second amendment then reagan; reagan supported the brady bill, federal funding for overseas abortions taken out; tax cuts (what he could get anyway),Neo-conservative judicial nominees.

[Ben Ficklin]

There is an interesting political ad currently being run on Texas TV. Tony Sanchez, the dem candidate for governer, makes the statement: "Bob Bullock was a democrat. George Bush was a republican. They reached across party lines and did what was right for Texas, and that is what I want to do as Governer of Texas."

Bullock had more political power than Bush, and Bush had an agenda that he couldn't accomplish without Bullock's help. Bush made the first telephone call. The first item they issue they worked on was tort reform. Of course, the pubs didn't get everything they wanted but the system was a vast improvement. And today, further reforms are being pursued. Bullock and Bush continued to work together and accomplished many things for Texas.

Bullock became Bush's biggest fan and had he lived he would have endorsed Bush for Prez. Bullock's widow endorsed Bush on Bullock's behalf. Many other Texas dems also endorsed Bush. The centerpiece of Bush's prez campaign was based on this reduction of rhetoric and getting things done.

There is much in the media these days about the whys of Bush's popularity. The war bump is over so where is he getting his numbers? The voters recognize Bush's efforts to tone down. To be polite and congenial. To get things done.

The Education Bill is a prime example: Dealing with a man more powerful than himself, but a getting a deal that would be unassailable by any other dem. Did he get vouchers? No. Did spending increase? yes. He did get accountabilty and funding tied to performance. Vouchers will be revisted and are still active at the state/local level. Spending will always be subject to budgetary constraints and there have been recent stories in the media of a possible reduction in these spending increases.

The voters like Bush. You, on the other hand, are unhappy because Bush didn't spit in Kennedys face.

[Geezerette]

Bump for further read. This should be a fun thread.

You said it!

g

[FreedomSurge]

So many Bush apologists, so little time! The ratchet towards socialism is just as fast as had Gore won. Some of us warned you, but we were called traitors.

[Geezerette]

Like the posts above, I started getting very uneasy when GWB blocked all punishment of clinton crimes. Even the vandalism in the White House offices was just "Tsk, tsk, tsk ... a few pranks."

It looks to me like his "new tone" just works one way ... the dems keep up their old ways.

g

[Lucky]

yep

[MattMa]

Just to be a smart a$$, what does "Wheather" mean?

[IronJack]

This moral uncertainty isn't solely the province of George Bush. There are only a handful of politicians today who know the history and philosophical derivation of the ideologies they espouse. George Bush ain't one of 'em.

He is a panderer, a man so determined to "unite, not divide" that he represents nothing, and ends up uniting nothing. He has lost every major domestic battle where he's been challenged: the Pickering nomination, ANWR, and Campaign Finance Reform.

He seems to make his decisions based on input from focus groups, not principle. Sadly, that may spell success for him as a politician, even as it spells abdication of morality.

[rdb3]

Did he get vouchers? No.

Actually, that provision is still there. The voucher battles are not over by a long shot.

[RJCogburn]

Did he get vouchers? No. Did spending increase? yes. He did get accountabilty and funding tied to performance.

Watching the Bushophiles support the education bill is better than watching one of those oriental contortionists, and no ticket to buy!

Bush is a decent man who has by deed, if not in word, embraced the 'third way' politics of Blair and Clinton.

[wardaddy]

Bush is a pragmatist. I think he has a more ideologically conservative heart than his father but he is constrained. Since Nixon's fall, the executive branch has had their wings clipped by Congress a bit.

I wish Bush were a bit more ideological but one simply has to try to accept one victory.....or defeat at a time. Like most FRepers I do not agree with 245(i) or CFR or the mixed signals on Arafat......plus that little gun law case in TX about the ammo charge in Mexico bothers me too.........BUT...a big huge giant BUT......If Bush's alternative had been in office for 18 months I guarantee we would all be seriously bitching about nearly everything he/she had done.

Anyone who could make most FReepers happy all the time cannot get elected. It's that simple and fragmenting will only insure further total defeats.

Holding Bush's feet to the fire when he strays is fine...it's politcs...no Conservative (neo-Con or otherwise) is above taking heat from his or her own ranks but not to the point of self destruction. Rememeber, we only won because Nader ran.