Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

I think we should not be surprised here.

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.

1 posted on 10/26/2005 10:17:23 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last
To: SirLinksalot

Actually we elected a "compassionate conservative", remember?

Apparently "compassionate" means "false".


2 posted on 10/26/2005 10:19:40 AM PDT by thoughtomator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SirLinksalot

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.


3 posted on 10/26/2005 10:21:24 AM PDT by Peach (I believe Congressman Weldon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SirLinksalot

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???


4 posted on 10/26/2005 10:21:30 AM PDT by samadams2000 (Nothing fills the void of a passing hurricane better than government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SirLinksalot

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.


5 posted on 10/26/2005 10:23:32 AM PDT by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SirLinksalot

At this point, I rate him only a little above President Reagan.


6 posted on 10/26/2005 10:23:56 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SirLinksalot

Um, Bush campaigned as a "compassionate conservative". This article is very bad.


7 posted on 10/26/2005 10:23:58 AM PDT by KC_Conspirator (This space outsourced to India)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SirLinksalot

"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.


8 posted on 10/26/2005 10:24:54 AM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SirLinksalot

Lets face it folks -- We elected a moderate, not a conservative president.

Our only consolation is this -- the alternatives were worse.




In the Primary of 2000? Think again and then remember that when the real conservatives running in 2008 "cant win" talk begins. I want a conservative and I am willing to "take my chances on "winning". 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.


9 posted on 10/26/2005 10:26:26 AM PDT by Waywardson (Carry on! Nothing equals the splendor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SirLinksalot

A national candidate who campaigns as an extremist ideologue is guaranteed to lose.


11 posted on 10/26/2005 10:27:47 AM PDT by tkathy (Do-nothings are not the ones who have saved oppressed people from tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SirLinksalot
Let's face it . . . Any principled conservative would be run out of politics long before he got within a thousand miles of the White House.

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.

13 posted on 10/26/2005 10:30:42 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but Lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SirLinksalot

15 posted on 10/26/2005 10:31:56 AM PDT by Graymatter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SirLinksalot
Our only consolation is this -- the alternatives were worse.

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.

17 posted on 10/26/2005 10:34:06 AM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham (Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SirLinksalot
True, he is a moderate in most things. But here's another reminder that last November we had a good outcome...


23 posted on 10/26/2005 10:37:58 AM PDT by Graymatter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SirLinksalot

I pretty much agree with what's here except for the term "moderate." I think Pres. Bush referred to himself as a compassionate conservative. Since he pretty much created the term, he got to define it.

That included tax cuts, pro-life (rilom), pro-gun, social safety net, no child left behind, faith based social supporter,....


24 posted on 10/26/2005 10:38:51 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SirLinksalot
When Republicans chose GWBush to be their nominee, it came after eight long years of Bill Clinton. We wanted to get someone into office who would respect the Presidency, have integrity, honor and be a moral person. Bush fit that criteria and it was a big part of his overall campaign.

Bush did say he would improve our military defense, push for tax reform, nominate strict constructionists to the courts and advance pro-life issues. I think he's accomplished all that for the most part. Even though I knew he'd probably raise spending in the name of compassionate conservatism, I never thought he'd increase spending to the levels he has and actually get the GOP Congress to go along.

Bush has been a mixed bag. Conservative on some issues, moderate on others. However, Bush`s liberal spending habits has led to the biggest government expansion since LBJ. Bush is no believer in limited government.

27 posted on 10/26/2005 10:40:28 AM PDT by Reagan Man (Secure our borders;punish employers who hire illegals;stop all welfare to illegals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SirLinksalot
"I will nominate judges to the supreme court like Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia."

That doesn't sound too moderate to me. In retrospect, it sounds like a bold-faced lie.
30 posted on 10/26/2005 10:43:09 AM PDT by Antoninus (The greatest gifts parents can give their children are siblings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SirLinksalot
I wonder why so many hard-right conservatives are suddenly furious at Bush when they supported him in two presidential elections.





Many were never so happy with him from the start, but held their nose and supported him. What we see now is the positioning to reclaim the definition of conservatism in light of the fact that he will not run again so there is no longer any need to support him. The battle is whether we are going to allow conservatism to be redefined as "Compassionate Conservatism", or are we going to go back to the Goldwater/Reagan/Contract With America style of limited government conservatism. The attack is not really on Bush personally, but rather on his attempt to redefine conservatism.
40 posted on 10/26/2005 11:09:03 AM PDT by rob777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SirLinksalot

I noticed the author characterized conservatives disgruntled with GWB as "neocons." I supported William Knowland for Governor of California in 1958; and voted for Nixon and Goldwater for president in 1960 and 1964, respectively. Not just neocons out here. But W was never more than a Hobson's choice to me.


60 posted on 10/26/2005 12:00:44 PM PDT by luvbach1 (Near the belly of the beast in San Diego)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SirLinksalot
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.

Interesting. Ping for later reading.

63 posted on 10/26/2005 12:04:56 PM PDT by Alex Murphy (Psalm 73)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SirLinksalot
I'm not sure it's the "neocons" who are mad at Bush lately. That applies to Krauthammer and a few others, but "neocon" now seems to apply most to foreign policy, and that's what most "neocons" are occupied with, not judicial appointments.

2000 was the McCain election. Bush qualified as conservative because he wasn't McCain. He also had a Southwestern accent and an evangelical manner which differentiated him both from his father and with McCain. That was enough to convince many that Bush was the conservative in the race. You might also add Bush's call for a "more modest" foreign policy during the campaign. That may have helped to convince many that Bush was an old-fashioned conservative.

Bush is a combination of insider and outsider. As a businessman who didn't win a political race until relatively late, he's a political "outsider." As the son of a president, who took many of his advisors from administrations his father served in, he's a classic "insider." Outsiders don't quite rise to the interests and passions of the ideologically active. Insiders tower above ideological preoccupations. So it was natural that Bush didn't quite fit in to the "movement" view of things. But then, no president will ever satisfy those who are most driven by political ideas.

75 posted on 10/26/2005 2:10:27 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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