Bush is bankrupting the conservative movement

MatthewStinson.net ^ | 08.22.05 | Matthew Stinson

[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.

Continue reading....

[Dane]

JMO, this guy like to hear himself write.

Take for example abortion, a partial birth abortion has been signed, much more than President Reagan signed.

[Black Tooth]

Bookmark

[Crackingham]

Fiscal conservatism is long-dead. This guy needs to wake to the obvious truth.

[Dane]

Fiscal conservatism is long-dead. This guy needs to wake to the obvious truth

Also he sounds like cindy sheehan and michael moore about Iraq.

[Hank Rearden]

Bainbridge makes some excellent points and raises good questions.

So, Republicans, how's that "limited government" thingie you promised us coming along, anyway? Hmmmmmmmmmm? What's your excuse now - the lack of a 100-seat Senate majority? You haven't even knocked off PBS, NEA, Welfare Farmer subsidies or "road" pork.

And I'm certainly not going to kneel before any professional politician who's willing to assault the First Amendment or dump more trillion-dollar boondoggles onto our backs.

[leadpenny]

" . . . the lack of a 100-seat Senate majority?"

??

[Dr. Marten]

JMO, this guy like to hear himself write.

Take for example abortion, a partial birth abortion has been signed, much more than President Reagan signed.

Actually, I like to read his writing. I think he has his head on straight. Just because one is a conservative, doesn't mean they have to agree with everything Bush says and does.

 

It's funny how Bush likens himself to Ronald Reagan when Bush's idea of conservatism seems to be moving in the opposite direction.

[Dr. Marten]

Also he sounds like cindy sheehan and michael moore about Iraq.

Ah yes, disagree with or criticize the President where criticism is due and the ad hominem attacks start flying....

 

 

[Dane]

Actually, I like to read his writing. I think he has his head on straight. Just because one is a conservative, doesn't mean they have to agree with everything Bush says and does.

It's funny how Bush likens himself to Ronald Reagan when Bush's idea of conservatism seems to be moving in the opposite direction.

And this guy likens himself to cindy sheehan and michael moore, IMO.

Oh BTW, can you show me where Ronald Reagan signed a partial birth abortion ban or where Bush has signed complete amnesty for illegal aliens as Ronald Reagan did.

[Dane]

Ah yes, disagree with or criticize the President where criticism is due and the ad hominem attacks start flying...

What ad hominem attacks?

The guy sounds like cindy sheehan.

[Hank Rearden]

Well, no matter how big their majority in the Senate, Republiweenies always whine that it isn't big enough to get anything done and so they simply must go along with all the Big Stupid Government BS that comes down the pike.

And of course, Bush Jr. is too spineless or unwilling to veto anything. So the cancerous growth of Big Stupid Government continues apace.

[Dr. Marten]

And this guy likens himself to cindy sheehan and michael moore, IMO.

Well, your opinion isn't worth much when you have to result to childish personal attacks. I dare you to take your lickspittle comments to his blog...unless of course you're afraid to defend your ridiculous remarks...

 

Oh BTW, can you show me where Ronald Reagan signed a partial birth abortion ban or where Bush has signed complete amnesty for illegal aliens as Ronald Reagan did.

Is that all you've got? Can you show me what Bush has done to fight illegal immigration? Didn't think so. In fact, Bush was pushing for an amnesty of sorts before 9/11.

 

 

[bigfootbob]

"And I'm certainly not going to kneel before any professional politician who's willing to assault the First Amendment or dump more trillion-dollar boondoggles onto our backs."

You should add Kelo & Raisch decisions into the mix of reasons to continue standing upright.

[leadpenny]

Thanks. I wasn't taking a position on your comment or the article. In fact, I love these kinds of discussions. The "100" thing just made me curious. A 60-seat anti-filibuster Senate (plus a few to counter the RINOs) would be ideal, imo.

[JABBERBONK]

Another psudo-conservative with an obviously limited knowledge of history...sad.

[Tarpon]

When you look at the world through the AP prism, you get a distorted picture at best. You would think a 'law professor' would know that. His post is a little addled, and his reasoning shows little more than what you read in the everyday Cindy Sheehan press release, er .. ah sorry, AP wire report, about Iraq. I think he probably needs to get out and about more often. A law school perch surly can't help with your world view.

I know a few lawyers, friends, but they sure don't know which end is up. I definitely wouldn't consult them on a war strategy.

[HisKingdomWillAbolishSinDeath]

Idealist thinking never works in a fallen world. Now if he started preaching the Kingdom of God, he could never overstate how good everything will be.

[Dr. Marten]

"Another psudo-conservative with an obviously limited knowledge of history...sad"

Did you mean "pseudo"?

What I find to be even more sad are the slurs and ad hominem attacks in place of a formulated argument. I have yet to see anyone counter his assertions.

...I guess that would be expecting too much when it's much easier to throw out slurs than original thought..

[FBD]

Stinson makes some reasonable statements, but his criticism of the war with Iraq is over the top.

Our hand was pretty much forced there, given the ceasefire agreement Saddam had made, and his violations of that ceasefire.
Plus, everyone thought Saddam had WMD's, and he was in fact working on getting them. In addition, Saddam was hosting a number of well known terrorists and their organizations.
If anything, Bush should have made a stronger case about Saddam's terrorism ties and the WMD's less of an issue.

However, Pres. Bush has proved he is not a fiscal conservative. He has never vetoed a spending package, not even once.

As to abortion, the President has in fact help protect the unborn, by signing the ban on partial birth abortion.

However, last year the President also signed H.R. 4818, which authorized 288 million for family planning projects, (Title X funding) which also fully funded Planned Parenthood.


I'd say Bush has done well in some areas, and poorly in others. He definitely has done well in the WOT, that can't be denied. Establishing a democracy in the heart of Islamofacsist dictatorships? ...No small feat there. Quite comparable to Ronald Reagan bringing down the Berlin wall.

His biggest failures?
Lack of any kind of coherent immigration policy and any serious IRS/ progressive income tax reform...

-Regarding the IRS, and income tax reform, both Bush and the Republicans have done virtually nothing to revamp our overly complex tax system or defang the IRS.

Meanwhile, the well thought out Fair Tax has been waiting in the wings. It would bring both foreign and domestic investment back to the U.S, and it would also eliminate some incentive for hiring illegal aliens under the table.

His Presidency like most, is a mixed bag.