Impostor:How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy

writersreps.com ^ | April 2006 | Bruce Bartlett

[darkangel82]

If not for the terrorist attacks we'd have president Hillary. Um, WTF?

[cartman90210]

Man, the open borders lobby is sure hurting for ideas with Bayourod in the penalty box! Hope he gets back soon.

Ward, I'm worried about the swampster. It's been over a month since he was put on hold. Might this mean his banning is permanent? God, I hope not, the guy is a barrel of laughs!

[BigSkyFreeper]

JUST ON FOX: Dobson said that he was told by the White House that 80 percent of the nominees withdrew their names because they didn't want to go through this process.

"...Well, what Karl told me is that some of those individuals took themselves off that list and they would not allow their names to be considered, because the process has become so vicious and so vitriolic and so bitter, that they didn’t want to subject themselves or the members of their families to it. . . . But that may have cut it by 80 percent right there."

Source: Focus On The Family - October 11, 2005

[BigSkyFreeper]

Scalia said just yesterday that he wouldn't go through the process again, either.

I heard that too, and I don't blame him.

[My2Cents]

Spot on.

[My2Cents]

I completely agree.

I think there's a strain within conservatism that has grown fat and sloppy, as well as self-righteous. You're right that they reflect a kind of reactionary "right wing" that existed in the 1930s (I'd set them also in the '40s and '50s), that simply was a dour group that opposed everything. Of course, the main reason that conservatism "won" under Reagan, and then under the expansion of the Reagan revolution in '94, was that conservativism under Reagan had a smiling face, and a positive attitude. It stood FOR something, not simply against everything. Sadly, the Great Man is gone, and the further we get away from his place in history, conservatism will mutate back into its primordial form, where it will be taken over by the grumps and the kooks.

Personally, outside of God I believe that nothing is eternal and absolute. Look at liberalism -- it's pretty much dead, mainly because it failed to offer anything relevant to our times. In the void that was left, liberalism has been taken over by the fanatics. I suppose in time, 20th Century conservatism will become a spent force, will grow increasingly irrelevant, and will itself be taken over by its own fanatics. We constantly need to be shifting with the times, adjusting to new realities -- essentially, we need to maintain a good dose of pragmatism if we are to remain fresh, relevant, and viable. But the idea that even conservatism needs to change in order to survive runs counter to the concept of "conservatism," and there are some (and we see them here) who are intent on taking conservatism back to the glory days of the mid-20th Century, when conservatism was a plaything among a small cohort of reactionaries and kooks. As the battle rages over the soul of conservatism, it remains to be seen in each election cycle whether there's a soul there to battle over.

[jmc813]

Then tell me why the NEA and ted kennedy now hate the NCLB act. I can tell you why because it involves standards, and oh yeah BTW, GW Bush has proposed school vouchers for hurricane victims and no doubt the NEA will be against that.

Being that you've spent the last few days lecturing people on the Constitution (no set career path for SCOTUS justice), kindly explain how the Constitution authorizes federal involvement with education.

[Dane]

Being that you've spent the last few days lecturing people on the Constitution (no set career path for SCOTUS justice), kindly explain how the Constitution authorizes federal involvement with education.

Ask a still living President Ronald Reagan advisor, since it was his campaign promise to get rid of the education dept.

Oh BTW, if it wasn't for the education dept, tom tancredo wouldn't have a resume.

[jmc813]

Ask a still living President Ronald Reagan advisor, since it was his campaign promise to get rid of the education dept.

So you don't have an answer in other words? You're cool with unconstitutional programs?

[Dane]

So you don't have an answer in other words? You're cool with unconstitutional programs?

Uh Reagan made a campaign promise to get rid of the education dept. He did not.

GW Bush did not make such a promise.

Kinda of stalemate there, but I believe that GW Bush is making more headway in education reform since the NEA and ted kennedy, hate him more, especially after "no child left behind".

It is very rare for a Senator(kennedy) to trash his own bill.

[jmc813]

Kinda of stalemate there, but I believe that GW Bush is making more headway in education reform since the NEA and ted kennedy, hate him more, especially after "no child left behind".

I'm not looking to discuss the success or lack therof of NCLB nor campagn promises by any candidate. I'm wondering if you personally feel that NCLB is a program that passes Constitutional muster.

[Dane]

I'm not looking to discuss the success or lack therof of NCLB nor campagn promises by any candidate

Oh but wait a minute, it's your alls ilk who are crying "betrayal" and Reagan betrayed you by not getting rid of the education dept.

Shouldn't your tagline be, "Bork Reagan's legacy".

BTW, Reagan also appointed O'Connor and Kennedy, another stake in your uber Bush haters hearts.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

AMEN!!!

[jmc813]

Oh but wait a minute, it's your alls ilk who are crying "betrayal" and Reagan betrayed you by not getting rid of the education dept.

You know me. I'm a creepy libertarian individualist. I don't have an ilk. I shall take your 3 consecutive dodges at my question as a concession that you support NCLB even though you cannot cite Constitutional authority for it. I don't see why you're embarrassed to admit it. There are plenty of freepers who feel the same.

[Dane]

You know me. I'm a creepy libertarian individualist. I don't have an ilk. I shall take your 3 consecutive dodges at my question as a concession that you support NCLB even though you cannot cite Constitutional authority for it. I don't see why you're embarrassed to admit it. There are plenty of freepers who feel the same.

Uh maybe if you use would your noggin there and not rely on Libertarian political dogma, you would see that GW Bush is reforming the education system bit by bit, and the libs like the NEA and ted kennedy hate it.

[jmc813]

you would see that GW Bush is reforming the education system bit by bit, and the libs like the NEA and ted kennedy hate it.

Dane, I agree with you on that 100%. My problem with NCLB is that I fail to see where the Constitution authorizes such a thing. If you can convince me of this one last point, you'll have completely brought me over to your side on this issue.

[jmc813]

Also, do me a favor and kill the capital L in the future. I think the Libertarian Party is douchey and effective as Ben Rothlessberger's knee.

[Dane]

Dane, I agree with you on that 100%. My problem with NCLB is that I fail to see where the Constitution authorizes such a thing. If you can convince me of this one last point, you'll have completely brought me over to your side on this issue

Actual results mean nothing to you. Kinda of like a liberal, it's the ideal that is uber alles.

[fallujah-nuker]

"Ward, I'm worried about the swampster. It's been over a month since he was put on hold. Might this mean his banning is permanent? God, I hope not, the guy is a barrel of laughs!"

The understudy has proven unequal to the task. The OBL master would have invoked apocalyptic visions of famine unless we import a billion people to pick the crops rotting in the fields, or come up with a statistic how each illegal alien creates ten white collar jobs for Americans.

I was going to say how surprised I was that he managed to go several posts with no mention of Congressman Tancredo but I see be broke his string in post 108! I myself am undecided about Miers but love seeing the bushbots going postal. I wonder what would happen if Tancredo were to endorse her, Dane would would be very conflicted.

[neutronsgalore]

PING!