Posted on 10/26/2005 10:17:22 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
October 26, 2005
Bush Has Been a Moderate All Along
By Ruben Navarrette Jr.
SAN DIEGO -- Now that the neocons seem to be growing disenchanted with President Bush for not being conservative enough to suit them, I can't help but be amused.
That's what I like about Bush -- the fact that he doesn't fit neatly into an ideological box.
I also can't help but think of the story of the woman who complains that her husband won't change -- won't take out the trash, do the dishes, or stop watching football on Sunday afternoons. The husband doesn't understand why his wife is upset. After all, he has always been this way. He was this way when she met him, and she married him anyway. So why is she angry now?
It's the same thing here. I wonder why so many hard-right conservatives are suddenly furious at Bush when they supported him in two presidential elections. Some point to the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court as evidence that the president takes lightly the need to have on the court an ideological warrior. Others go further and suggest the president is straying from conservative principles. Yet this assumes that Bush ever adhered to those principles to begin with. And that's not so.
About a year ago, I wrote a column in which I described Bush as a moderate, and a lot of Democrats wrote back and suggested it was a joke. Now there aren't many Republicans who are laughing.
Bush is the same person he has been since he ran for Texas governor in 1994. What you see is what you get. He doesn't spend a lot of time reinventing or repackaging himself. In fact, he prides himself on not changing his ways. What was it that he promised Republican senators about Miers? That she won't change. You see, for Bush, that's high praise.
Speaking of Miers, her nomination is the big reason that Bush is taking fire from the right. But it isn't the only reason. Many hard-line conservatives have never felt confident that Bush was one of them. Because of his positions on a host of issues -- from increasing government spending to making diversity a priority in Cabinet appointments to promising amnesty to illegal immigrants to increasing funding for public housing to urging that the Supreme Court preserve the ability of the University of Michigan to take the race of applicants into account even while opposing quotas and outright racial preferences -- many Republicans have long been suspicious of the man they have chosen to lead them.
Now failed Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork writes in an op-ed article in The Wall Street Journal that ``this George Bush, like his father, is showing himself to be indifferent, if not actively hostile, to conservative values.''
But why is that a surprise to Bork? Over all these years, where Bush stood wasn't exactly a secret. He was in the middle of the road.
While governor of Texas, he shooed away folks who were proposing a ballot initiative -- modeled after California's Proposition 187 -- that would have denied benefits to illegal immigrants. He displayed a detectable lack of enthusiasm for school vouchers. He avoided making an issue out of abortion. And he declared that bilingual education programs that worked were worth keeping. He also partnered with Democrats in the Texas Legislature, and shared credit for legislative victories with members of the opposing party.
Now conservatives worry that Bush isn't a real conservative, or at least someone who is driven by conservative principles.
Nah, you think?
Here's the real story. Despite his record in Texas and the record he later accumulated during the first term as president, Republicans kept Bush as the leader of their party.
They did so for the same reason that former California Assembly Speaker Willie Brown supported a Democratic governor from Arkansas in 1992, despite concerns that the candidate was too conservative. For Brown, it was all about being practical. ``I'm tired of losing,'' he said at the time. ``I just want to win.'' Bill Clinton was seen as a winner, and so Brown backed him.
For conservatives, the seeds of their discontent were planted in the Republican primaries of the 2000 election. Back then, with much of the GOP establishment lined up behind him, Bush looked like a winner. And so many Republicans threw their support to him. Whether or not he was conservative enough didn't seem to matter at the time, nor did it matter in 2004 when he ran for re-election. All that mattered was that he could win.
Conservatives might not like where they've arrived, but they should at least accept the fact that getting here was no accident.
Bush might support a lot of conservative positions ( e.g., Tax Cuts, Social Security reform/privatization, Partial Birth abortion ban, Defense of Traditional Marriage, Strong Military, etc. )
But in other areas, he has been less than conservative ( and I think he never hid this in his campaign).
For example -- strengthening Federal control of education, steel tarrifs, never vetoing any spending bill, actually out-spending Clinton, Carter and LBJ, signing the McCain-Feingold bill, Diversity regardless of capability ( e.g. Harriet Miers ).
Lets face it folks -- We elected a moderate, not a conservative president.
Our only consolation is this -- the alternatives were worse.
Actually we elected a "compassionate conservative", remember?
Apparently "compassionate" means "false".
I have pointed this out before on FR - that Bush campaigned as a moderate - and been nearly laughed out of the room. But it's true.
When he came to our hometown, I nearly didn't go because I don't particularly care for moderates. And our newspaper labeled his "compassionate conservative" style of govering as moderate.
And I think he's governed as a moderate during his presidency. Some liberal philosophies and some conservative philosophies.
That's why it cracks me up when I hear the media go ballistic because he's too conservative.
Hes a placeholder President. Better than most. The question is placeholding for what? Im afraid hes got the same clueless disengauged gene his father had. What is he working on? What conservative victories are coming down the pipe? Name one.
Conservative brethern..ask yourself..what has he done for conservatives in the last 3 years???
Our only consolation is this -- the alternatives were worse.
------
The choices are pathetic. Bad or worse. This country needs A REAL CONSERVATIVE in the Oval Office. Washington is clearly out of control. Only a Reagan conservative, with a Congressional majority can fix it. It is not being fixed now, because Bush is not a conservative and he is not a fighter.
At this point, I rate him only a little above President Reagan.
Um, Bush campaigned as a "compassionate conservative". This article is very bad.
"Lets face it folks -- We elected a moderate, not a conservative president."
Yup! If he'd been a real conservative, he would not have been elected. He's not, so he was.
My parents, who are now 81 years old actually split their vote in 2004. I cannot remember a time when they did not vote the GOP ticket, right down the line.
Were it not for moderate support for President Bush, we would have a different President in the White House.
I keep reading about Bush's "base." For those who are confused on this matter, Bush's "base" is not evangelical Christians or Constitutionalists. It is middle-of-the road America. That's Bush's base, and always has been.
You can see this in the suprise posted here each time President Bush has gone in a moderate direction. CFR. Immigration. Spending like there was no tomorrow.
President Bush is a moderate Republican. He is not now, nor has he ever been a true conservative. Neither is Miers.
Lets face it folks -- We elected a moderate, not a conservative president.
Our only consolation is this -- the alternatives were worse.
"This country needs A REAL CONSERVATIVE in the Oval Office."
Perhaps so. Name one with a prayer of being elected in the USA of today.
A national candidate who campaigns as an extremist ideologue is guaranteed to lose.
That's right, dammit! Why should we care if he and half his administration is indicted? He's nothing but a stinkin' RINO so let them all twist in the wind. We conservatives should head for the tall grass, hide out from the assault from the left and return in 2008 to fight a new battle.
Thankfully, the same thing usually applies to hard-core liberals, too. Mike Dukakis is one exception I can think of. That ACLU candy-@ss somehow slipped through the cracks -- and promptly got trounced in 1988 by a guy who will be remembered as one of the most limp-wristed, mediocre presidents this nation has ever had.
Are you joking.
Above Reagan?? ??? ????
It's like going into a restaurant where there's nothing but pot roast and meat loaf on the menu, then complaining to the waitress that you want filet mignon.
"Any principled conservative would be run out of politics..." - Alberta's Child
Really? Like Reagan?
We are BARELY majority Republican, and yet people here are upset that the White House and Congress aren't majority Conservative. The country is not majority conservative. I read somewhere recently about estimates that Liberals - Moderates - Conservatives are something like 20% - 50% - 30%. That sounds fairly accurate.
"Winners who spend more than the oposition and nominate people like Miers are worse than losing, because we can always stand united against a Clintonite."
Yeah. We sure did a great job standing against Clinton when he picked Ginsburg for SCOTUS!!
What everyone needs to understand is that except for the Conservatives, everyone in this country took a step to the left.
Everyone on the right was enamored with Bush because he was pro-life, pro-traditional marriage and pro-second amendment. And he comes from a state that has an express line to execute killers.
That didn't make him Conservative. That made him moral. And part of being moral is helping out those less fortunate than you, which explains his support for faith based charities and spending programs that help everyone.
Minus the "Abortion and Traditional Marriage" aspect of it, Rudy can be the 2008 nominee. And he probably is the only one besides Condi that can beat the one that shall be nameless.
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.