Posted on 01/16/2009 6:31:14 PM PST by Delacon
Credit: Several key triumphs make Bush’s tenure merely a mitigated disaster. He first deserves praise for preventing another Islamofascist massacre on American soil. History will applaud the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq, and Libya’s consequent de-nuclearization. Bush’s tax cuts buoyed the economy before it sailed into the twin icebergs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Justices John Roberts and Sam Alito will keep the Supreme Court constitutional. The D.C. voucher bill remains a school-choice milestone.
Carter: Otherwise, Bush is the Republican Jimmy Carter. This weak, ill-prepared bumbler let Washington eat him alive. Far worse, his apostasies bankrupted America and bombed the GOP into Dresden (often while an equally unprincipled, profligate Republican Congress navigated). The principled, fiscally responsible free-market/conservative movement is hobbled for its association with Bush, despite his serial violations of its tenets. The Right now must spend years scrubbing away Bush’s stain with brushes and Ajax.
Core: Alas, Bush has no philosophical core. He has a few sensible instincts: Tax cuts good. Terrorists bad. Abortion ugly. Most else is up for grabs.
In 2001, Bush initiated federal stem-cell research. By 2008, Bush nationalized private companies and steered the republic into $13.35 trillion in bailout commitments.
Bush’s instant socialism is the legacy of his Saran Wrap-deep faith in free markets. Under Bush, federal spending grew 32 percent (or 4.1 percent annually) — more quickly than inflation, Heritage Foundation analyst Brian Riedl calculates. Absent the Iraq and Afghan wars, Homeland Security, and Katrina relief, spending swelled 26 percent, or 3.3 percent annually, after inflation.
Since 1932, only FDR expanded Washington’s share of the economy more rapidly than Bush did. The Medicare drug entitlement, No Child Left Behind, two massive farm-welfare bills, and 69,341 un-vetoed earmarks are among the ghastly monuments of “compassionate conservatism.”
Bush kicked fresh gravel into his supporters’ eyes when he kept the Education Department open, increased its budget 58 percent ahead of inflation, and then, for no apparent purpose, christened its headquarters the Lyndon Baines Johnson Department of Education Building.
“More than 60 education laws were part of the vast number of legislative measures that made up the Great Society,” crowed Lynda Johnson Robb when the structure was renamed in September 2007. “But Daddy wasn’t as interested in the number of laws he helped enact as he was in the number of lives those laws help enrich.”
By signing the 822-page Energy Independence Act on Dec. 19, 2007, Bush extinguished the incandescent light bulb. This keystone of Yankee ingenuity failed in some 10,000 experiments until a perseverant Thomas Edison perfected it in 1880. Now it will become illegal in 2014. If compact-fluorescent and halogen bulbs outsell Edison’s invention, so be it. But for this quintessentially American creation to be prohibited by federal law is precisely the sort of abomination the Republican party was invented to prevent.
Communications: Bush raised the failure to communicate to a governing principle. This goes far beyond his linguistic pratfalls—such as Tuesday’s reference to helicopter pilots as “chopper drivers.” Besides not explaining its policies, the administration handed its opponents fresh truncheons with which to pound it silly.
Bush and his minions refused to detail the multifarious ties between Saddam Hussein and Islamofascist terrorists. They even stayed quiet about Manhattan-based, Clinton-appointed U.S. District judge Harold Baer’s May 7, 2003 decision that Hussein provided “material support” to the 9/11 conspirators. In Smith v. Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, Judge Baer ruled that Hussein's Baathist government and the Taliban assisted Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Judge Baer — who President Clinton nominated in April 1994 — ordered Hussein, Iraq’s former government, and this case’s other losing parties to pay $104 million in civil damages to the families of George Eric Smith and Timothy Soulas, both murdered on September 11, 2001, at the World Trade Center. Judge Baer added: “Again, since the al-Qaeda defendants and Iraq are jointly and severally liable, they are all responsible for the payment of any judgment that may be entered.”
Rather than publicize this federal court decision, Bush & Co. instead echoed the Left’s claims that Saddam Hussein had no connection to al-Qaeda, much less September 11.
Bush covered this topic most thoroughly at Kansas State University on Jan. 23, 2006. Bush said:
[Hussein] was a state sponsor of terror. In other words, the government had declared, you are a state sponsor of terror. . . . There’s a reason why he was declared a state sponsor of terror — because he was sponsoring terror.
When the administration found 3,894 pounds of low-enriched uranium in Iraq, Bush did not call a news conference. Instead, the Energy Department issued an almost totally ignored press release on July 6, 2004. Ditto the 606.3 tons of yellowcake uranium that the administration moved from Iraq to Canada last July. Despite the Left’s relentless charges that Bush lied about Saddam Hussein’s fondness for yellowcake, this development passed in near silence.
Bush’s Nov. 5, 2003 signing of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban (a good thing) featured Bush onstage at Washington’s Constitution Hall. Behind him stood GOP lawmakers Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, Dennis Hastert, Orrin Hatch, Rick Santorum, James Sensenbrenner, and others — all male. The White House press and advance teams arranged this much-needed curtailment of abortion rights and yet could not place even one woman beside the president. Why were no female senators nor congresswomen near Bush? Better yet, why not surround him with pro-life moms and their infants, perhaps some who were saved through crisis-pregnancy counseling? This public-relations malpractice let the National Organization for Women use a photo of Bush and the boys as an Internet recruitment and fundraising tool.
Cheek: Bush turned the other cheek until both were bloodied beyond recognition. Too nice by half, his “new tone in Washington” unilaterally disarmed Team Bush against critics who devoured them like piranhas.
This problem began with reports that outgoing Clinton staffers had trashed the White House. Had Bush brought in news cameras to document the destruction then only verbally described in the media, Bill and Hillary would have been terminally discredited. But Bush & Co. covered up for the Clintons, perhaps thinking this would buy peace with the Left. Yeah, right.
When then-senator James Jeffords (R., Vt.) became an independent in June 2001, the Senate switched from Republican to Democratic control. The day before the hand-off, Bush included Jeffords in a Cabinet Room photo opportunity. Message: “Go ahead. Ruin Bush’s day; get a bear hug.”
Bush took heat for skipping the NAACP’s 2004 convention. He and his publicists could have detailed the repugnant “old tone” comments by NAACP leaders, such as its then-executive director Kweisi Mfume. He said Bush is “prepared to take us back to the days of Jim Crow segregation and dominance.” Instead, these noxious words went unrepeated, and the notion that Bush is anti-black went unrefuted.
Bush’s lackadaisical response to Hurricane Katrina generated outrageous genocide accusations.
“George Bush is our Bull Connor,” Rep. Charles Rangel (D., N.Y.) said on Sept. 22, 2005. “If you’re black in this country, and you’re poor in this country, it’s not an inconvenience. It’s a death sentence.”
Rather than loudly rebuff such sludge with facts (e.g., the Coast Guard rescued 33,544 Katrina survivors as soon as wind speeds allowed; between 2000 and 2003, federal anti-poverty spending grew in Orleans Parish, La., by 73.3 percent per recipient under Bush), the White House rolled over and played dead, silently confirming for many the despicable lie that Bush let blacks drown in New Orleans attics just for kicks.
Crawford: His ranch in Crawford, Texas, is the perfect place for G. W. Bush to disappear and never be heard from again.
— Deroy Murdock is a columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.
So much opportunity squandered.
With all due respect to a fellow phillies fan, and I am not pouncing on you but I’ve seen this argument used several times on this and other threads but the “it could have been worse” argument really isn’t a strong one. Things could always be worse. I could be living out of cardboard box. I could have been born to ultra liberal parents. Fortunately that is not the case but that doesn’t mean things couldn’t be way better and I am constantly striving to make it so.
An apt epitaph for the Republican Revolution of 1994.
” One quibble, though. I wouldn’t ascribe the turmoil in the GOP solely to Bush. The actions of the GOP majority and its leadership in Congress did much to foul the nest.
I recall our incessantly having to make excuses for them — well, they don’t really have a majority...well, there are some political realities they have to deal with, etc.
Next time, we should know better. Be merciless toward our elected officials. Hold their feet to the fire. And, if necessary, burn them in the primary.”
I would also say as Republican/conservative voters, we let this happen. When the GOP started to imitate the Dems. many cheered them on for having co-opted the Dem agenda. I also remember that almost any criticism of GWB was answered with your argument about not having a real majority. There was also more than a little unrealistic hero worship. GWB was like Brer Rabbit, every time he rolled over on his base or did the Dems. bidding it was explained as a clever ruse. Just wait, and at the proper time GWB would spring the trap and pound the Dems. to dust. It was all part of his stategery.
The funny thing is, if you owned a business and had an employee that had the same shortcomings, you’d probably let them go. Not make excuses for them, or pretend that a looming disaster was in reality a victory of some kind.
We let ourselves be fooled, and now we have to figure out a way out of the wilderness.
“I also don’t see the Christian values behind
inviting criminals to invade our country to
continue their crime and reward the criminal
behavior with citizenship? “
Agree wholeheartedly! My nephew is a border agent (pray for him) and the things he sees are mindboggling.
The situation on the border is critical.
Lately they’ve been catching Guatemalan coyotes, trucking loads of illegals in over the Tex/Mex border.
Recently they interdicted Guatemalan scum guarding a truck with 25 people in it...20 men, five young women. The young women were being raped repeatedly by their countrymen and the coyotes.
Thanks to my nephew and his men, the coyotes were arrested and the women were taken to safety. Who knows how long the scum will be jailed in Texas? It’s out of the agents’ hands once the scum are arrested.
Oh, the Guatemalan criminals all had cellphones and they were repeatedly calling and harassing the relatives of the captives to come up with more money, or they would not be released into the good ole’ USA. They were caught because of the cellphone calls.
God bless our border agents. They need more support from the rest of LEA.
You are exactly right except that Reagan is not fit to shine Bush’s shoes.
Except for that small error you have it quite right.
By the way, is Putin in a Cold War mindset or did Reagan crush the Soviets and bring democracy to the Soviet Union?
I am just curious.
Another question, did which president bombed Libya to no effect and which president actually brought the WMD program of Libya to an end?
I just want to add this for all the faux conservatives who just to attack Bush personally rather than focus on issues.
Though I actually love Reagan, I am going to continue to rhetorical deconstruct and tear down Reagan until you stop.
Consider the Gipper my rhetorical hostage until you come to your senses. I would love to do an installment on fiscal conservatism and Ronald Reagan.
Everything you point to is an indictment on your side.
The Bashing of Bush by Conservatives began in 2005. Conservatives played the RINO card in the 2006 election. Palin and MCCain both bashed Bush mercilessly in 2008. They got nothing.
Bush was elected twice despite basically the same arguments and premises being launched by Kerry & Co.
People who attack Bush personally truly are fools. They are destroying the capacity of conservatives to rebuild.
As I have said in other posts, your crowd has the elementary school playgrojund metnality.
You think by announcing that Bush is not your friend anymore that Bush or some political unknown is going to give you what you want.
This ain’t grade school. Its time to grow up.
I do think by taunting Bush bashers in a personal way it helps clue them in about the mistakes they are making in political argument.
Reagan (and Thatcher) DID crush the Soviet Union. The problem was, the Soviet people had everything handed to them under communism. They did not have any foundation in freedom. They didn't know how things were supposed to work under a capitalist system.
Another question, did which president bombed Libya to no effect and which president actually brought the WMD program of Libya to an end?
What did Libya blow up after Reagan bombed the hell out of them> It sure shut Khadaffi up. Khadaffi's support of the WOT owes more to revenge against Bin Laden (who attempted to assassinate him) than it does to Bush's policies. Khadaffi had not been a player on the terrorism front since the Reagan Administration.
Gotta love the Bushbots.
“Everything you point to is an indictment on your side.”
Ah, the “I know you are but what am I” argument.
“The Bashing of Bush by Conservatives began in 2005. Conservatives played the RINO card in the 2006 election. Palin and MCCain both bashed Bush mercilessly in 2008. They got nothing.”
McCain and Palin are the best you can do? What’s your point anyway? That McCain’s bashing of Bush that lost him the election? Give me a break. How about that Bush so destroyed the republican label that Abe Lincoln resurrected couldnt have gotten elected on todays republican ticket? How about that McCain’s whole hearted embrace of Bush’s big government conservatism got him his loss?
“Bush was elected twice despite basically the same arguments and premises being launched by Kerry & Co.”
Uh, yeah the opposing party does tend to try to claim that the president sucks. Again, what’s your point? If its that its proof that Bush has to be a good president because the opposing party doesn’t like him, thats some pretty twisted logic. FYI, in no way did our criticisms of Bush match those of the liberals. We’ve been arguing that Bush was never conservative enough. Not exactly the dem party’s plank.
“People who attack Bush personally truly are fools. They are destroying the capacity of conservatives to rebuild.”
Who is attaching him personally? My very first post opening up this thread, I said that I thought Bush was a good man. As for destroying the capacity of conservatives to rebuild, if Bush was such a great president, then why is there a need to rebuild? Listen to yourself. That is about the most foolish statement I’ve read in FR for some time.
“As I have said in other posts, your crowd has the elementary school playgrojund metnality.
You think by announcing that Bush is not your friend anymore that Bush or some political unknown is going to give you what you want.
This ain’t grade school. Its time to grow up.
I do think by taunting Bush bashers in a personal way it helps clue them in about the mistakes they are making in political argument.”
You call me a fool, say I have a playground mentality, that I need to grow up and even admitt that you are taunting. Talk about childish. What flavor is that coolaid your drinking anyway little guy?
I think you are missing a key point here.
Bush was re-elected in 2004.
McCain never won. More conservative candidates failed to beat McCain.
Bush must have been conservative enough— he won in 2004.
Bush did not hand off in 2008 because he did not have a VP willing to continue. He gave Republicans a free agency option.
Unsaddled by our allegations, the Republicans were free to pick anybody.
I’m not sure but I think the Republicans lost in 2008— yeah I’m pretty sure that is right. You should have won your argument in 2008.
Its interesting that your about page emphasizes global warming. Bush derailed Global Warming for 8 years, but you could not care less.
There is a need to rebuild conservatives because moderates and faux conservatives have destroyed conservatism. Immigration has been given a false prominence. Bush bashing has become normative among conservatives— even though Bush has been extraordinarily successful as a President. If Bush is not a success, then no one can fill the ideals of being a conservative.
We are being reduced to unicorns and leprechauns because we keep having to imagine a Conservative who does not exist.
Bush increased Republican majorities in 2002— which was unprecedented. New Presidents almost always suffer losses in Congress.
The Bush not conservative enough argument has been made in 2006 and 2008. That argument failed.
Moreover, the effort to deny that he did any substantively conservative is hyperbolic falsehood. I am not going to repeat my 38 point list but Bush has massive conservative credentials whether you care to admit it or not. Moreover, we have to argue with anonymous internet posters who for all we know have done less than nothing beyond tapping on their keyboards.
- Melanie Philips, The Spectator ( UK ) 10/14/08
Exactly.
And he states that he will be able to go home and look himself in the mirror. Only because he is virtually ignorant of his abject failure. This man and HIS party have given this nation over to a command-and-control dictator of muslim heritage. The utter concupiscence of the GOP is the ONLY reason Zero is the new POTUS.
“about too”
??????
Brother we’re a half step from having a bounty put on our heads.
In my very first post on this thread I said Bush is a good man and wartime leader but that he wasn’t a conservative. I should have said that he was awful at helping the conservative movement. I read your homepage also and I agree that many of the items you posted were conservative successes. Hey he is a republican with majority control in both houses of congress for most of his 8 years, go figure. There are crudely 4 kinds of cons. Social cons, traditional cons, fiscal cons and small government cons. He satisfied the social cons to some degree but failed to articulate a cogent policy on gay marriage and abortion. He failed the other 3 groups. As for the WOT, his one shining legacy, well nation building and pre-emptive war aren’t exactly what you call conservative goals, in fact historically they’ve been liberal positions. He convinced me on that front and I mark it as his one success as a leader to change the minds of conservatives. He failed us in not privatizing social security. He failed us on McCain Fiengold. He failed us on the prescription drug benefit. He failed us on NCLB(hell Ted Kennedy helped him on that one). He failed us on immigration and he failed us on GLOBAL WARMING(the single biggest avenue for socialists to get us to sign on to one world government) by folding on this issue last year. This ain’t nitpicking. These issues are massive, broad, and lasting in scope. He failed by turns because he either didn’t, wouldn’t fight, or thought he shouldn’t fight. He often failed because he couldn’t articulate, wouldn’t articulate, or thought he shouldn’t articulate conservative issues. He didn’t get a lot of things done and many of the things he did get done were down right liberal. He was a bad leader.
You are exactly dramatically right.
Until bushies are willing to admit just how horribly we have failed with GWB as the scion of the GOP ... the conservative movement will not even start to revive. Right now its stone cold dead as far as any national power is concerned.
Only after you pry my keyboard from my cold dead hands. Criticizing governance(including Bush) is a bad thing on FR now? We are cons for christ’s sake. Its what we do. I guess I can thank President Bush for one thing. A decade in the wilderness will bring cons back to its ideals. Go figure.
; )
I'm sure Herr Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Obama can make that happen.
Do you think that I will be LESS critical of the one? :)
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.