Ultra-con as in pat buchanan and phyllis schafley, jmc.
After all the two above agreed with the two below about CAFTA(they absolutely hate it).
Posted on 08/24/2005 1:15:06 AM PDT by Dr. Marten
Conservative lawblogger Stephen Bainbridge is getting a lot of what they call in Washington “strange new respect” for his strongly-worded criticism of the President’s international and domestic policies. While liberals like Kevin Drum’s commenters are quick to gloat about Bainbridge’s lament, and more tellingly, some Bush backers have accused Bainbridge of recycling leftist cant, Bainbridge has rather solidly made a conservative — not leftist, not paleocon — case against President Bush:
It’s time for us conservatives to face facts. George W. Bush has pissed away the conservative moment by pursuing a war of choice via policies that border on the criminally incompetent. We control the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and (more-or-less) the judiciary for one of the few times in my nearly 5 decades, but what have we really accomplished? Is government smaller? Have we hacked away at the nanny state? Are the unborn any more protected? Have we really set the stage for a durable conservative majority?
He continues with a critique of the shifting rationales for the Iraq War and asks,
…if Iraq’s alleged WMD programs were the casus belli, why aren’t we at war with Iran and North Korea? Not to mention Pakistan, which remains the odds-on favorite to supply the Islamofascists with a working nuke. If Saddam’s cruelty to his own people was the casus belli, why aren’t we taking out Kim Jong Il or any number of other nasty dictators? Indeed, what happened to the W of 2000, who correctly proclaimed nation building a failed cause and an inappropriate use of American military might? And why are we apparently going to allow the Islamists to write a more significant role for Islamic law into the new Iraqi constitution? If throwing a scare into the Saudis was the policy, so as to get them to rethink their deals with the jihadists, which has always struck me as the best rationale for the war, have things really improved on that front?
Though Bainbridge is spot-on in his analysis of the terrible miscalculations made by Bush and Rumsfeld during the war in Iraq, I take issue with his characterization of the war as the reason Bush and the Republican Party have abandoned domestic conservatism. In fact, a strong case can be made that Bush, Rove, and Congressional Republicans had no intention to advance a domestic conservative agenda in the first place.
another koolaid thread.
bingo!
President Bush is as Conservative as Reagan was; if not more so. I suggest that you take a look at the President Bush accomplishment list that is often posted to FR.
Reagan raised taxes, after he lowered them, he did less than NOTHING about abortion, he pulled out of Lebanon, instead of staying to finish the fight and gave a BLANKET PARDON/AMNESTY to every single ILLEGAL alien who was here and did NOTHING about the borders.
Hagel's intern.
Yeah, he's done his homework............which is why it's valuable to have these FACTS on every thread that asserts that President Bush isn't conservative. Try doing some homework yourself, Doc.
The actual facts about President Bush debunk the bunk on threads like this one.
Thanks, Southack! Not that it will have any effect on the sealed shut minds of the ubercons or the leftists here......but it's good to see the TRUTH in black and white (and even in living color ;) right before our eyes.
No one's claiming that Reagan was a liberal. Just that he wasn't the god that you ubercons NOW claim he was (even though you bashed him when he was in office).
The point is that no President can be a complete conservative in office (and no ubercon could get near winning the presidency), and that Reagan compromised on some issues, just as Bush has.
But when all is said and done, Bush will most likely have done more for the Conservative cause than Reagan did........or at a very minimum, as much.
If you ubercons would stop lionizing Reagan and Bashing bush at every turn, the point that Reagan did some very UN-conservative things wouldn't have to be repeated so often in order to keep the discussion honest.
Both Reagan and Bush were/are strong, moral, honorable, visionary conservative leaders who followed horrific leftist Presidents and have saved this great country from plunging into further disaster.
Anyone who truly cares about the good of this country sees that, whether you admit it or not.
Where did you get the idea that I'm an "ubercon"? Because I think it's a shame that folks here bash Reagan to elevate Bush? Well, you don't build people up by tearing others down, you only hurt the overall cause.
And BTW, your characterization of me as an "ubercon" (whatever that is) is absurd. I support this president fully, although I think he's made some mistakes. But I don't require 100% adherence to my values to lend my support to a politician - nor must I support 100% of his/her actions to be considered loyal.
the point that Reagan did some very UN-conservative things wouldn't have to be repeated so often in order to keep the discussion honest.
To keep the discussion honest? Well, then let's be honest - Dane started bashing Reagan to elevate Bush in Post #2. It was your buddy who introduced Reagan into this conversation, not any "ubercon" (whoever they are).
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Those of you who incessantly tear down President Bush hurt the overall cause of conservatism EVERY SINGLE DAY.
btw, Dane is not 'my buddy'........he was just being unfairly attacked by one who falsely claimed he was issuing 'ad hominem' attacks, and I came to his defense.
Honesty is important to me.
And who introduced Reagan into this particular conversation is irrelevant.......the Reagan is god and Bush is trash mantra from the ubercons (whether you are one or not), has been going on for over four years. If they would stop the dishonesty about Reagan (and the hateful garbage about Bush), then introducing the facts about Reagan into articles like this one might not be necessary.
I'll assume that's addressed at other posters. The truth is, I don't see a lot of people on this site incessantly tearing him down. What I see are narrow areas of disagreement that inevitably are characterized as incessant (with a few exceptions).
I'm talking about incessant bashing, some of which is on this thread. Calling him 'slimy' comes to mind. Scroll upthread if you care to read it.
On another thread, an ubercon listed him as one of the worst Presidents ever.
Mindless bashing happens all the time around here. You're obviously ignoring it for whatever reason......
The loud mouths on the right that knee jerkingly hate Bush always bring Reagan up. They think that just by posting his picture(ala the left doing the same thing with stalin, castro, or mao) means there should be no debate.
Well I think there should be some debate, especially about Reagan missteps during his administration.
Ronald Reagan would be the first to admit that he had some faults and was not the perfect conservative, and IMO, would be somewhat distressed at his using his image to knee jerkingly attack another conservative, GW Bush.
Of course I can't put words into Ronald Reagan's mouth, but I can paraphrase Ronald Reagan's 11th commandment, Thou shall not speak ill or do ill to a fellow Republican.
What's with the "ultracon" business? I would assume that it means very conservative. Wouldn't that be a good thing?
Ultra-con as in pat buchanan and phyllis schafley, jmc.
After all the two above agreed with the two below about CAFTA(they absolutely hate it).
I feel that good conservatives can honestly disagree on CAFTA. Is my congressman Scott Garrett (100% ACU lifetime rating) an ultracon in your opinion?
So do I, that conservatives can disagree. BTW, did your congressman Garrett go running to the liberal media(ala buchanan, tancredo, and phyllis schafley) and be on the same side of castro and chavez about CAFTA.
No he didn't. That's why he is a non-issue. Garret doesn't do daily Bush bashing(while trying to hide behind Reagan) ala, buchanan, tancredo, and schafley.
Did you happen to catch Hannity's radio show yesterday? Buchannan was a guest. I'm no big fan of his, but he actually sounded surprisingly reasonable when discussing the staus of Iraq. Sean even acknowledged this.
Blah, blah, blah, same old, same old, from a person on the same side of these two below on CAFTA.
I don't always agree with them, but I like 'em both. I've been sparring with Dane around here since 2001, and OhioWFan seems like a total sweetheart.
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.