Conservative Bush: An Effective and Pioneering President

michaelnovak.net ^

[rhombus]

Pop some corn, this should be one interesting thread. :-)

[Vaquero]

very little conservative about either president named Bush.

Better than the Dim choices...YOU BET. but conservative??? I think not.

[Nextrush]

Why get into a super big argument anyway.

The tax cuts and Supreme Court appointments were good things.

The fruit of those court appointments may take time but if Roe Vs. Wade is somehow overturned with Alito and Roberts supporting it then Bush will be remembered for doing something good.

Of course, Bush signed Campaign Finance Reform after saying he opposed it in the 2000 campaign (trying to ‘make peace’ with McCain).

And there’s always the infamous Medicare Part D (prescription drugs). A budget buster that will cost untold billions in the years to come. And yes, George W. Bush signed it.

That’s my “fair and balanced” look at Bush on some issues although others should figure on the scales as well.

[freespirited]

Two hallmarks of this administration that are at odds with my concept of conservatism are the unprecedented federal involvement in education and the refusal to uphold our nation’s sovereignty.

[NeilGus]

Oh, and by the way, he has kept our country from being directly attacked since 9-11.

He gets little credit for this and yet virtually no one would have guessed that this would be true. I was like almost 70% of Americans who expected another homeland attack within a year. It is almost six years and counting.

[rhombus]

I agree that CFR was probably the result of a deal cut with McCain - he did campaign for Bush 9in 2004 instead of running against him (with or without Kerry). As for prescription drugs, I believe it was going to happen anyway. The AARP was pushing for it; the drug companies were pushing for it and the media was creating another faux-crisis over it. What Bush did accomplish is to steer it toward a private sector approach much the same way Romney handled the march toward socialized health care in Massachusetts. Like it or not, being President means you pick priorities and cut deals to make things happen.

[wny]

Fine. W may not be the uber-conservative dream you want, but he is conservative, not a spineless “moderate”. If he was running for reelection against Hillary, would he have your vote?

[Flintlock]

About the only things Conservative:
W’s willing to fight a war most want to ignore.
W’s trying to keep a tax cut on the books.

Border defense? Faaahhgedddabaahtit!

[Vaquero]

If he was running for reelection against Hillary, would he have your vote?

no question....I would have to vote for him....

but I didn't like voting for him in 2000 or 2004....and in 2000 he was not my pick in the primaries by any stretch....

and his record on illegals and his North American nation/globalism, is nearly treasonous

[ClaireSolt]

It seems to me that Reagan had huge and mounting deficits from his Dem Congress. Bush has consistently cut deficits that appeared early, and they will soon disappear. Spending increases come largley from entitlements that have escalators that make them grow on their own.

[raybbr]

I am trying real hard to see "consevatism" in a president who has not once vetoed a increased spending bill.

Has not, in his first six years of office, stood in the bully pulpit and fought for deficit reduction through reduction of spending.

Has implented the greatest increase in federal control over education. Not to mention (okay I will) the fact that the Dept. of Ed. has doubled its budget in his first five years as president.

You already mentioned CFR and "drugs for seniors".

Is tacitly advocating for open borders and WILL NOT close our southern border to the daily invasion of illegals.

Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

[rhombus]

Agreed that public education is pretty un-conservative. I think Bush was cutting deals with education money and to his credit he did try and insert some standards for the money. However, considering that Laura is a librarian (or is it a teacher?), they both probably have a pretty un-conservative attitude about public eduction. Nonetheless, the majority of Americans love money thrown at education.

As for the immigration issue he inherited an almost recession and the financial crisis that resulted from 9/11. People needed and wanted jobs during the first term. Jobs usually come from small and mid-sized businesses as Bush constantly reminded us during the first term. Unfortunately small and mid-sized businesses also use an awful lot of illegal labor. An immediate crack down would have pressured these same businesses who also hire the most legal workers. So it was a matter of priorities. The “guest worker program” was an attempt to deal with the problem legally without putting these businesses out of business. You may have noted there are more immigration crack downs now that the economy is better. Surely it’s because of conservative pressure but I think the economy is a big factor too.

[rhombus]

Spending increases come largely from entitlements that have escalators that make them grow on their own.

No doubt and it's just going to get worse. How many of you folk out there collecting Social Security will give up you your next couple of increase for the "good of the nation"? Bush did try to address the SS issue with private accounts but Republicans and Democrats alike ran away from the issue. And young people were too mired in Bush-hatred to realize what was being offered.

[DustyMoment]

(Tangent to the topic) What we fail to understand about elections and the people for whom we vote, is that we are employers hiring those who will represent us at the local, state and federal level. Too many times I read that it is perfectly acceptable to elect “the lesser of the two eveils”.

Think about that. Someone comes into your office looking for a job and their resume lists them as the “lesser of the two evils”. Is that really someone you want to hire to work for you? Is that really that caliber of employee you are seeking?

This government was famously described by Abraham Lincoln as being one “of the people, by the people and for the people”. The president, Congress, et al, serve at OUR pleasure and are OUR employees.

When we go into the voting booth in the primaries and in the general election next year, it is incumbent upon each of us to remember that we are hiring the people who will represent us. “Lesser of the two evils” simply doesn’t cut it.

[bray]

Bash Away FR DBS!

Pray for W and Our Troops

[rhombus]

Not vetoed a spending bill: He supposedly had a Republican Congress which were supposed to be his “friends”. You don’t make enemies of people who you need to fight a war on terror.

Education: Pure deal-making with a supposedly Republican Congress and liberals demanding compensation for losing a close election. To his credit, Bush did try and institute some standards for getting the money.

Immigration: I believe it was a matter of timing as I noted in another response. In the first term, the economy would have suffered from such a crack down. In the second term, we see more of it. Surely the result of conservative pressure but also made more palatable by an improved economy.

etc, etc... Don’t it always seem to go, That you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone

[wny]

Agreed. No one is perfect. I don't like his stance on immigration either. I don't like that he won't play hardball with the demholes. I don't like that he didn't put the Clinton's in jail after taking office. I didn't like the prescription drug plan, No Child Left Behind, Campaign Finance reform.

But I love his tax-cuts, his unwavering commitment to national security. Roberts and Alito anyone? I love that he has the demholes and MSM foaming at the mouth. He must be doing something right.

But Fred, Rudy, Romney, Newt or whoever won't be perfect either. There may never be another Reagan. So all those here on FR that opine, pontificate and whine about any of these guys not being perfect, and insist they'll stay home and not vote-well-- I hope they'll be happy sitting home with their principles watching Hillary's inauguration.

By all means, support your guy-Hunter, Paul, Tancredo whoever, but when it comes to Hillary vs. Rudy, Mitt, Fred or whoever, if you stay home, you're a fool.

[TNCMAXQ]

I am disappointed in some things Bush’s administration has done, and I have disagreed with some policies. But still I admire the man tremendously for his character. In the face of a vicious personal and political attacks perhaps worse than any political figure in modern times has had to endure, he stands by his principles. Thanks to a biased media and a populace that seems unwilling to face reality, Mr Bush’s approval ratings are very low. That he does not seem to care and continues to do what he thinks is right makes me admire him all the more. If you ask me, he is truly a profile in courage. Some day the world will come to realize this (and probably find it hard to admit!) but sadly I think it will not happen in our lifetimes.

[rhombus]

When we go into the voting booth in the primaries and in the general election next year, it is incumbent upon each of us to remember that we are hiring the people who will represent us. “Lesser of the two evils” simply doesn’t cut it.

Disagree. This is my 9th presidential election coming up and it's always the lesser of two evils...or weevils if you're in the British Navy :-) People must make hard choices. There isn't an endless flow of candidates and no one exactly matches each one of us. Republican democracy is always about compromise so you make the best choice you can given the circumstances. You also must choose a candidate who can win. Otherwise it's just self-indulgent political masturbation.