Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Impostor:How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy
writersreps.com ^ | April 2006 | Bruce Bartlett

Posted on 10/11/2005 7:09:03 PM PDT by Conservative Firster

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-123 next last
To: Conservative Firster
Bartlett's book will be popular among the wet-diaper crowd around here.

Bartlett weighs in around 300 pounds. I suspect he'll never be invited to mountain bike with Bush, any time soon, either.

21 posted on 10/11/2005 7:23:50 PM PDT by sinkspur (If you're not willing to give Harriett Miers a hearing, I don't give a damn what you think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Firster

I don't know all the contents of this book, but with both a Republican House and Senate, I don't get why Bush had to sign everything that came across his desk without ever a veto. That I never got about Bush.


22 posted on 10/11/2005 7:24:23 PM PDT by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Modok

Hmmmm. Well, to be fair, I haven't paid that much attention to this 'advisory' group.

Thanks; I'll be paying attention now.

So, in short, this council will give W. cover to raise taxes, not by direct means, but by taking away breaks, yes?


23 posted on 10/11/2005 7:25:17 PM PDT by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/Laocoon.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Firster

I was listening to Tony Snow tonight and a caller said Bush was the character Andy Griffith played on TV. Hmm...


24 posted on 10/11/2005 7:25:54 PM PDT by isthisnickcool (Don't get stuck on stupid - Lt. General Honore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fallujah-nuker

>>The bushbots are already in full Captain Queeg mode over all the conservatives "jumping the shark" on the Miers nomination.<<

LOL. True.


25 posted on 10/11/2005 7:30:00 PM PDT by SerpentDove (Oooo! Oooo! Pick me!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Comment #26 Removed by Moderator

To: Dane

Reagan also signed a tax increase in his second term, turned and ran in the face of Islamist terrorism in Lebanon, signed the Brady bill, and kept the Department of Education after campaigning for its demise. But I still love the guy.


27 posted on 10/11/2005 7:35:15 PM PDT by My2Cents (The political battles of our day are battles over morality, between the haves and the have nots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
W will not raise taxes. Period.

So he will make inevitable the victory of someone who will balance the budget.

28 posted on 10/11/2005 7:37:32 PM PDT by Jim Noble (In a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act - Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
Reagan also signed a tax increase in his second term, turned and ran in the face of Islamist terrorism in Lebanon, signed the Brady bill, and kept the Department of Education after campaigning for its demise. But I still love the guy

I do also and think he was the greatest 20th cnetury President, but that doesn't stop so called "true conservatives" from using his name for their petty little books.

29 posted on 10/11/2005 7:38:27 PM PDT by Dane ( anyone who believes hillary would do something to stop illegal immigration is believing gibberish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: fallujah-nuker

"The bushbots are already in full Captain Queeg mode over all the conservatives "jumping the shark" on the Miers nomination"

Captain Queeg was paranoid due to battle stress. How do the Miers supporters, or bush bots as you put it, compare to Queeg? It seems to me, the Miers opponents better fit the Queeg personality...paranoid about the Miers nomination and believing that Bush has betrayed them. Isn't that what Queeg claimed about his crew...that they were distrustful and betrayed him?


30 posted on 10/11/2005 7:40:07 PM PDT by fizziwig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
...Reagan also signed a tax increase in his second term, turned and ran in the face of Islamist terrorism in Lebanon, signed the Brady bill, and kept the Department of Education after campaigning for its demise. But I still love the guy. ...

Reagan was a great President but he wasn't perfect.

Bush is a good President but he's not perfect either.

We're not going to ever have a perfect President unless Jesus himself were to take the job and he's already King of Kings so I don't see him anxious to take the pay cut.

31 posted on 10/11/2005 7:42:25 PM PDT by FReepaholic (If ignorance ain't bliss I don't know what is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Terpfen
Bush never claimed to be Reagan in the first place

You must have been asleep during GWB's 2000 campaign. He all but declared himself the rightful heir of Reagan.

Who would've guessed that on September 22, 2005 GWB would include RR, along with Carter and Clinton, as lacking "courage and character" thus emboldening terrorists worldwide.

32 posted on 10/11/2005 7:45:18 PM PDT by jla (I support Aunt Harriet Miers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tscislaw

Reagan was a pragmatist above all else. He was motivated by conservative ideals, but he said himself that if you're offered two-thirds of what you're after, you take it, and fight again another day. Bush is also a pragmatist, and this drives the ivory-tower snipers on the right crazy (as if they needed a reason to be crazy). I admire Reagan above every other recent president, and on those issues where he "compromised," I trusted his judgment. At the moment, I trust Bush's judgment as well.


33 posted on 10/11/2005 7:46:58 PM PDT by My2Cents (The political battles of our day are battles over morality, between the haves and the have nots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: gobucks

>>>"W will not raise taxes. Period."

Read my lips... when interest rates skyrocket on a collapsing dollar, Bush will attempt to raise taxes.

The big question is, will he try to cut spending?

Hoppy


34 posted on 10/11/2005 7:50:19 PM PDT by Hop A Long Cassidy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Stingy Dog
...he said he's a conservative, although in reality he's not, not ala Reagan.

I would characterize Bush as a middle-of-the-road conservative, a "moderate," if you will...

A decent man who strives for a position that places himself into the central, silent majority, of the electorate, Bush was the ideal candidate to win the presidency and to advance the concept of being conservative to the bulk of the voting fence-sitters. But now, true conservatives, in large part thanks to Bush, have been emboldened and demand their day in the sun.

35 posted on 10/11/2005 7:56:24 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Stingy Dog
But if people would have paid attention, he would not have been elected and re-elected. So, the people were in a dilemma and decided to elect the lesser of two evils.

You just contradicted yourself, though. How could someone consider Bush the lesser of two evils unless they knew he wasn't like Reagan to begin with?
36 posted on 10/11/2005 7:57:23 PM PDT by Terpfen (Bush is playing chess. Remember that, and stop playing checkers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: jla
You must have been asleep during GWB's 2000 campaign.

I was quite awake. He was honest about what he was going to do, and lo and behold, he did it! Just because you're not happy with what he did doesn't mean he somehow mutated after assuming office. He's carried out his campaign pledges exactly as he said he would.
37 posted on 10/11/2005 7:58:54 PM PDT by Terpfen (Bush is playing chess. Remember that, and stop playing checkers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Firster

Yeah, he's right. Al Gore and John Kerry would have been so much more loyal to conservative ideals. ( /sarcasm )


38 posted on 10/11/2005 7:59:17 PM PDT by PackerBoy (Just my opinion ....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents
signed the Brady bill

Although Reagan come out in favor of the Brady bill, Clinton signed it.

39 posted on 10/11/2005 8:01:43 PM PDT by sinkspur (If you're not willing to give Harriett Miers a hearing, I don't give a damn what you think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: fizziwig; Howlin; PhiKapMom; Mo1; ohioWfan; Wolfstar; onyx
It seems to me, the Miers opponents better fit the Queeg personality

If someone wants to oppose Miers for some higher principle, that's fine. But what I've observed since joining FR seven years ago is that there is a strain within conservatism which neurotically resents being a majority, and hankers for the "good old days" of the 1950s when they could howl at the moon, promote a wacked-out negative perspective on things, and represented no more than 20% of the electorate.

I don't think that much the current angst has anything to do with Miers. Let's face it...there are a lot of Bush-bashers on the right, and they've been bashing him since 1999 when he announced his candidacy. They came out in force in January of '04 to take pot shots at Bush (resulting in some of the more egregious ones being bounced from the FR fraternity because of the corrosiveness of their vitriol). What I've concluded is that all of the Bush-bashing from the "true conservatives" is essentially a front in the war for the soul of conservativism, in which the paleos- are trying to run the neo-conservatives (whose emergence on the scene resulted in the election of Ronald Reagan) out of the conservatism. The fact is, some people have a narrow definition of "conservatism" (their own), and anyone who strays from that narrow definition, really isn't a conservative. They, and their leader, most likely Pat Buchanan, want to take conservativism back to the "glory days" of where it was in the 1940s, when it couldn't get a dogcatcher elected in central Kansas. They claim Reagan is their hero, but it is Reagan who pulled together all of the people with various interests whom the "true believers" now want to drive out of the movement.

These "conservatives" are a pretty exclusive bunch, and a pretty exclusionary bunch as well. Their view of the world is fairly narrow; they are essentially pessimistic about everything; they are strident in their attitudes and obnoxious in their behavior. But, I guess, they think the glory days of conservatism were when conservatism was narrow, exclusive, strident and obnoxious.

I think what really bothers them is that George W. Bush operates, pretty much all of the time, from a set of values which are decent and honorable, and not from a rigid "conservative" ideology. What I'd like to know is when did honor and decency stop being conservative values?

40 posted on 10/11/2005 8:03:00 PM PDT by My2Cents (The political battles of our day are battles over morality, between the haves and the have nots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-123 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson