Bush is not a conservative in the traditional mold. He is looking for conservative outcomes, not conservative process. His objective is to give people more control over their lives and less control by government. If removing a program or reducing it's size will work, he is for doing that. If a new program or spending more money is how you accomplish an outcome, he will do that as well.
None of the things he has done should be any surprise to people who paid attention during the election. He is fulfilling campaign promises.
One other thing that is important to know. It is well known that Bush doesn't have any use for the Beltway media. What is less known but equally true is that he also isn't particularly interested in Beltway think tanks, lobbyists, pundits (even if they are conservative) or "power players." He considers them all part of the Washington culture that is all talk and no action, and is out of touch with the majority of the people. Given the behavior of some of the people in this category, I can see how he would hold that view.
Well, President Bush isn't running again, and continued attacks against him will probably not help get conservatives elected. I am not going to waste time defending him because I won't be able to convince people who are of the anti-Bush opinion. Get a candidate that you think will be more to your liking and support him in the primaries. Meanwhile, I will sit here and wonder why the Washington Post has suddenly become so credible.
Conservative process is precisely what produces conservative outcomes. Conservatism is defined by the means employed, not the ends produced. Rationalization is neither a process of conservatism, nor a logical by-product of a conservative outcome. It is the fuel, the fire, and the smoke of liberalism. Therefore, by inductive reasoning, one can only come to the conclusion that Bush is a progressive, big-government, multi-culturalist liberal.
(Walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and leaves little piles of duck-excrement in his wake.)
"Get a candidate that you think will be more to your liking and support him in the primaries."
Conservative candidates are being actively discouraged by the Beltway think tanks, MSM, and special-interest 'power-players' that you decry in your post. The fact that they are being gleefully aided-and-abetted by the RNC does not bode well for the Republican party in either the short or long terms.
"He considers them all part of the Washington culture that is all talk and no action"
--- You know, after medicare epansion, ever increasing Bush federal budgets etc, I really miss the days of gridlock when it really was all talk and no action
It's too early in the day for you to be so drunk. I don't see that anyone is engaging in anti-Bush activity on here. They are seeking a conservative president. That's something that New England "W" is far from.
I agree with most of what you've said about W. Like it or not (I don't) he campaigned on the Medicare drug benefit. To not have followed through on it would have been betraying his own principles.
My largest disappointment with W has been the explosion in spending and his failure to use the veto power to do anything to control it. I think this was a strategy on his part to show deference to the very Congress that now claims he's "high handed". I'm also a little mystified about why, in a time of war, Bush couldn't allow some taxes to be increased.... even if it's just political cover by hitting the extremely wealthy.
Good post.
Miss Marple, the "outcomes" of the Bush admin has not been conservative but as liberal as ever.
In theory, it would be nice to think that "if a new program or spending more money is how you accomplish an outcome, he will do that as well" . . . it would be nice if that worked but that ain't happening. Perhaps his new welfare program of giving free downpayment for homes to minorities would work, but after all, they were given free HUD housing for years and that did not work either.
The New Orleans spending is a pefect example of Bush kicking taxpayers in the groin. The fraud after 911 was huge, as was the waste. The fraud after the 2004 Florida hurricanes (that I saw first hand) was huge, as was the waste. Bush knew that, yet after Katrina, money is pouring in by the hundreds of billions as freeloaders sit around in posh hotels (paid for by taxpayers) drinking beer and watching TV. After the history of fraud and waste, there was no accountability but just an open checkbook with taxpayer money.
It is the totality of it all that we should focus on, not the 100s of examples we could list. We are furious at Bush because he has been worse than Scumbag in many respects. Now think about this. . . yes, Scumbag, Reno and all the scum were as bad as it gets from most respects. Scumbag was slime where Bush and Laura are good decent people.
HOWEVER, . . .
1] from a fiscal comparison, Scumbag was far better than Bush (less social spending). From growth of government, Scumbag was better than Bush (less govt expansion under Scumbag). These are facts and are not debatable, as the facts are in the OMB and other stats.
2] Re SCOTUS . . . yes, Gore or Kerry would have appointed another Ginsberg and the spineless Respendicans would have helped approved the Marxist nominee 97-3, like they did Ginsberg.
But Bush did not appoint Sam Alito, he appointed Harriet. It was a revolt by true conservative activists like me and others at FR and conservative national commentators that forced Bush's hand. Re Roberts, Bush did not have the balls to appoint Luttig, Brown or other conservatives.
3] Re the war . . . yes, Scumbag failed to respond to attacks on USA interests all through the 90s and in 2000 after the USS Cole attack.
However........
Bush's policy in Iraq is horrible. We are nation building. We are doing a police action. My nephew in the Marines, who was trained as a specialist in long range artillery, is doing door-to-door police action with a rifle in cities, as the Iraqis are unable UNWILLING to do that.
We should have gotten Hussein then left, after a reasonable attempt to get them set up. Spending $400 billion plus for a black hole that will always be unstable and radical is nuts. Bush also promised to go after nations that support terrorists, yet he has given a free pass to Syria and Iran who are waging war against us through IEDs and funnelling terrorists into Iraq. Bush has sent charity aid (taxpayer dollars) to Iran, even though Iran is killing our troops.
What other president in America's history sent aid to enemies at war with us the way Bush has?
A good Commander in Chief would have used air power and financial warfare and diplomatic warfare and SOFs after the initial surge into Iraq, and little to no boots on the ground. We would be spending a fraction of what we have. Hell, let them go into civil war. Terrorists killing each other is not a bad idea. If a new anti-American dictator appears, then we do it again if need to. Bush's nation building is killing America.
Meanwhile, N. Korea's nuke program rolls on as does Iran's. We are less secure under Bush than we were under Scumbag; even though Bush called N. Korea and Iran part of the axis of evil, their threat has grown under his admin. Instead of a full robust ABM system (not a token one) and anti-bioweapon program, money is being spent on charity to Africa and other global and domestic welfare programs. Hell, we have to eliminate the entire F-117 fleet and 50% of the B-52s just so we can buy FOUR Raptors (due to the $1.7 TRILLION we pay for social welfare, that Bush has grown).
No matter how you look at it, Bush has done little right. He has been a real disaster. He has not been a conservative. Fiscally, he has not even been a moderate, but a flaming liberal. Our hatred for the RATs, which we all share, should not cloud our analysis of the damage Bush has done to the nation and the Republican party.
After Reagan, the GOP party was a proud organization. Personal responsibility, limited government, America first, et al. come to mind.
After George Bush, the GOP will never be looked at by Republicans themselves as the party of limited government. The GOP will never be thought of as the party of national security (shrinking military with rising social welfare). The GOP will be looked at as the party of government expansion, open borders (like an open house with free food and shelter for anybody that can walk across the nondefended border) and as a twin sister to the RAT party.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1598257/posts
Fantastic post and well deserving of the derision, scorn, and personal attacks heaped upon you by the scurrying anti-Bush roaches. The light of your post has left them blindly lashing out in anger and fear. It is a testament to your effective use of logic.