Posted on 01/17/2009 7:11:11 AM PST by drellberg
"... to win over Senate Democrats, Mr. Bush both phased in the tax rate reductions and settled for politically popular but economically feckless tax rebate checks."
"...Mr. Bush's spending record is less admirable, especially during his first term. He indulged the majority Republicans on Capitol Hill, refusing to veto overspending ..."
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
And for all of you true, pure, and untainted conservatives who love to pound Bush relentlessly on this site, who is the true, pure, and untainted leader who will deliver us from the mess we are in? Will it be Fred Thompson in 2012? Pro-life Giuliani? Universal health care Romney? If the pure conservative case is so compelling, how is it that our party has no leader who can effectively make that case?
I look at Bush's record and I see a guy with balls of steel, who kept us safe and who advanced this war against radical Islam in ways that won't be fully evident for many years. We have lost nearly 5,000 precious American lives, but any objective counting of the enemy casualties in the decade after 9/11 will rise to more than 1 million worldwide, especially if we include intra-terrorist fighting, and with trillions of dollars in losses to those we wage war against.
To husband his scarce political capital for this effort, he ended up punting on some issues that are dear to conservatives, and that I believe he would like to have tackled. But in doing so he did the right thing, and if others in the GOP had not been so stupid, and if our leading think tanks and pundits and other GOP luminaries had been more disciplined and on the offensive, Bush would have had a good deal more political capital to wield. We Republicans let the Democrats piss away a lot of political capital defending against a gold-digging Valerie Plame, a handful of waterboarded terrorists, and a Katrina debacle that was 100% the fault of the locals -- Nagin, Blanco, et al. Truly, what did all of the so-called scandals of the Bush Administration amount to, and where were Bush's Party compadres? The vast majority of them, from elected officials to pundits at National Review to posters at places like FR, all found it easier to put all blame on Bush than to stand up for what is right.
I love this President. The Bush-Rumsfeld-Cheney-Gates-Patreus war has fundamentally and profoundly changed the course of human history, entirely for the better, and with breathtakingly few adverse consequences for our side. Anything else he may have accomplished would be gravy. And oh, what he could have accomplished but for the weak, unprincipled, and corrupt fellow Republicans who should have been at his side but were not!
Bush was a disaster when it came to domestic spending. Karl Rove, a legend in his own mind, was the one pushing such things as the prescription drug program, no child left behind, etc. in order to co-opt Dem issues. It didn't work and we are left with enormous programs with huge unfunded liabilities. Bush scarcely used his veto for most of his term, during which he enjoyed Rep control over Congress.
The RINOs in Congress who sent him all that spending? The corrupt Delay leadership that passed out entitlements like candy? And exactly how was President Bush supposed to muster the political capital to fight this war and at the same time succeed against all of this foolishness?
The buck stops in the WH. It is something called leadership. Bush could have vetoed McCain-Feingold. Instead, he signed it and then issued a statement about his reserverations about its constitutionality. He supported amnesty against the majority of his own party and failed to support Sensenbrenner' enforcement only bill [HR 4437] in the House.
I look at Bush's record and I see a guy with balls of steel, who kept us safe and who advanced this war against radical Islam in ways that won't be fully evident for many years. We have lost nearly 5,000 precious American lives, but any objective counting of the enemy casualties in the decade after 9/11 will rise to more than 1 million worldwide, especially if we include intra-terrorist fighting, and with trillions of dollars in losses to those we wage war against.
I support his foreign policy and the war in Iraq, but I have a difficult time reconciling that with his failure to move quickly on securing our borders, including fully implementing the US VISIT program to track and deport visa overstays. If this country is hit again with a 9/11 attack and it is found that the perpetrators came into this country thru our porous borders or thru a visa overstay, then you might want to reevaluate how safe he really made this country.
To husband his scarce political capital for this effort, he ended up punting on some issues that are dear to conservatives, and that I believe he would like to have tackled.
An amnesty will destroy this country with the stroke of a pen, and yet, Bush in his validictory expressed regret that he couldn't get it done. This is insanity.
And oh, what he could have accomplished but for the weak, unprincipled, and corrupt fellow Republicans who should have been at his side but were not!
Sorry, but loyalty begets loyalty. Bush took stances against the majority of his own party on critical issues. And he failed to use the Congressional majority he had to make some real changes. And now he leaves office with a Rep party in disarray and in the minority, perhaps for generations. I was particularly dismayed with his appointment of Martinez as RNC Chairman, a slap in the face to conservatives.
Thank you, Grey-Whiskers, you’ve demonstrated my point. I’ll just respond to the first few lines of your post (my replies are in caps) just so you can get the drift:
“Bush’s ‘new tone’ began when Gore tried to sue his way into the White House; even in the aftermath of *that*, and with the extreme vandalism and literal filth left in the White House in a fit of spite by the childish Clintonites, Bush didn’t call them on it.”
UM, BUSH WON, DIDN’T HE? OR DID I MISS SOMETHING????
“Then you had 9-11, and Bush didn’t clear house and have Gorelick sent to Leavenworth for treason.”
BUSH COULD HAVE THROWN GORELICK INTO LEAVENWORTH FOR TREASON? REALLY? I NEVER KNEW HE HAD THAT PREROGATIVE.
“Shortly after 9-11, you had the ‘Axis of Evil’ from which Bush backed down, to be replaced by the “Religion of Peace” fellation.”
I’M SURE YOU THINK WE ARE LOSING THIS WAR. BUT CHECK THE NEWS. THE WAR IN IRAQ IS ALL BUT OVER. THE ISRAELIS ARE KICKING TAIL IN GAZA. EVEN HARD CORE BUSH CRITICS LIKE M. LEDEEN (WHO I THINK IS JUST GREAT) CONCEDE THAT IRAN IS ON THE BRINK OF REAL TROUBLE EVEN AS DEMOCRACY IS GAINING A FOOTHOLD THROUGHOUT THE MIDDLE EAST. THE DEATH TOLL FOR ALL OF THE JIHADISTS SIMPLY MUST BE AT OR NEAR THE 1 MILLION MARK, AS AGAINST OUR < 5,000. SHOULD I GO ON?
“Then you had the Harriet Meiers fiasco ...”
WHO IS HARRIET MEIERS? OH, RIGHT. I HAD COMPLETELY FORGOTTEN. BUT I COULD HAVE SWORN THAT ROBERTS AND ALITO ARE BUSH’S TWO APPOINTMENTS TO THE SUPREME COURT. DO THEY SOMEHOW OFFEND YOUR CONSERVATIVE SENSIBILITIES, OR WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT THEY ARE THE FINEST APPOINTMENTS TO THE SUPREME COURT IN SEVERAL GENERATIONS?
Hmmm ... I know you hate our president. But take a few deep breaths. Get a grip. Look at what he had to work with (Specter, DeLay, et al). Overlook the intermediate stumbles and focus instead on outcomes. And praise the Lord that we had him in the White House.
Like the investor and GM/UAW bailouts? Did democrats force him to do those too? So we blame everything GWB did big gov, wall street, socialist, on democrats. That makes GWB our greatest president ever I guess. Massive spending on the nation's credit card is cowardly and it set a precident for what democrats plan this year. In fact using his logic, republicans should give their full support to democrats now and blame them later.
And yet he saw fit to leave our southern border wide open for illegal aliens and only God knows what else.
But by posting in ALL CAPS, you have outed yourself as a Bushbot.
Incidentally, when posting responses, it is also a good idea to address the actual topics, rather than attempting to move the goalposts or redefining terms on the fly.
Case in point:
UM, BUSH WON, DIDN'T HE? OR DID I MISS SOMETHING????
I never alleged he lost; I pointed out that by refusing to play PR hardball against Gore during Gore's attempt to sue his way into the White House, he legitimized Gore's claims, and delegitimized himself. This carried throughout both of his terms, and greatly diminished the GOP "brand".
You appear to be the one who "missed something."
BUSH COULD HAVE THROWN GORELICK INTO LEAVENWORTH FOR TREASON?
Yes, it's called rhetorical hyperbole. Gorelick is the one who championed the wall of separation which helped keep the government from stopping 9-11 in its tracks. See also the reports of the FBI agents who attempted to warn their higher ups of Muslims taking flight lessons but not being interested in *landing* the planes. These things *should* have been laid at Gorelick's feet -- instead she was appointed to the commission investigating 9-11.
Too many other examples to mention.
Thanks for playing, troll.
Cheers!
..And prosecution of US border agents and immunity for illegal Mexican drug dealers to testify against them. More of what is right that we should stand up for I guess
Kabar,
What truly seems to upset you is Bush’s immigration policy, since that is what you refer back to repeatedly. I’m not fully on board with that either. But I have four responses ...
First, Bush did not create this problem. Reagan did, Bush and Clinton made it worse, and unless I am mistaken this was not an issue that got all that much media attention or political capital until roughly 2005. Aside from a handful of Republicans like Tancredo, who else was pushing this aggressively before then? My only point is that there is lots and lots of blame to go around. I’m not defending Bush. But I’m also unwilling to lay all of the blame at his feet. The venom and invective that is focused entirely on Bush is simply stupid.
Second, Bush’s recent efforts at enforcement have been quite effective, judging by demonstrated empirical evidence. This is the first real progress in a quarter-century. I would find those who hate Bush’s immigration policy more credible and sympathetic if they would give him his props ... It’s important if only to keep those efforts going. To say that Bush has come through with too little too late effectively invites the Obama Administration to drop the effort.
Third, Bush and Rove are right that we must formulate immigration policy in ways that do not alienate Latinos, Asians and other demographic groups. Our immigration policy can not be punitive. It must be hopeful. Now ... I don’t agree with the balance that Bush has tried to strike. Like you, I think it is too soft. But the truly hateful positions that I see put forward on this site will doom the GOP to minority status for decades to come.
Fourth, everyone wants their own agenda items. I want the war prosecuted well and with no holds barred. You may want immigration reform. Others might want lower taxes. Bush’s popularity gave him virtually no political capital. Let’s be real.
Other than that, it was a weak presidency. Virtually NO CONSERVATIVE LEADERSHIP for the party, not even a token effort, and the RINOs just ran wild pandering to the rotten DIMS as he did on many occassions. To a large degree, this passive role helped the DIMS, and for us, ended in the disastrous and weak McCain campaign which cost America far more than most have yet to realize. The Repubs have basically fallen apart and are no longer a conservative check and balance against the rising tide of radical criminals and socialists taking over Washington. Until we again see the rise of true conservatives in Washington, that care about AMERICA FIRST, will we see this mess we are in get fixed. We are in for a period of mob rule, over the rule of law, in Washington and the people are going to have to fight for their given rights.
“Thanks for playing, troll.”
I must admit that I do not know how to do the fancy stuff with the italics. So I distinguished my text from yours by posting in caps. I apologize for offending you.
The “troll” thing, by the way, is one of the preferred mechanisms by which the “true” conservatives on this web site seek to intimate everyone else. I’m not intimidated, and you are no more or less a conservative than I am.
One more thing ... Get over the Harriet Meiers thing already. She won’t even rise to the level of an historical footnote. You should reserve your abundant anger for something that is at least historically relevant. Bush’s record on judicial appointments is unmatched in recent history. He has nothing whatsoever to apologize over.
A lot of the rest of what you write will also be forgotten, if it hasn’t been already. But the Harriet Meiers thing is just pathetic.
I do have one question for you. Since you hate Bush so much, please tell me ... In whom are you putting your faith in 2012? Who, exactly, is so superior?
Lower taxes??? He ran up massive deficits when he had his own party for 5-6 years, and got worse afterward. I take away any credit I gave him for tax cuts before. It was insanity. What good are tax cuts now with what remains of the economy handed to Pelosi/Obama by Bush with the Bush debt?? And he wanted to give illegals SS and other benefits by legalization. HIS two bailouts sent the WORST possible message about what republicans stand for.
Bushes popularity?? He had 90% and a republican congress in early 2003. You blame his massive loss in popularity as a defense for him doing even WORSE things?? So everything bad he does he loses more popularity and gets a pass for worse actions? Unfortunately that is how he acted.
“Where is the blame for the democrats with whom he had to compromise? The RINOs in Congress who sent him all that spending? The corrupt Delay leadership that passed out entitlements like candy? “
Where was his veto pen?
Yo sickoflibs—You get it! It amazes me how some freepers are trying to make a saint out of Bush. I voted for him twice—to keep dem out of WH. Big mistake. I should have drawn a line in the sand the first time he ran. Even if Gore won, I think he would have been a lot less virulent than The Marxist Onada. And it might have provided the stimulus for conservatives to take the GOP back from the RINOs.
Now the RINO led GOP is firmly in the demrat camp. A new opposition party must be created—and quickly.
This next four to eight years will be a rough ride pardner.
LLS
Okay, so you disagree with Bush, who claimed lots of political capital. Fine.
Even if he had only a little political capital, he expended it unwisely. When you have little, you don't use it to make things worse.
TRUE.
entirely for the better
FALSE.
and with breathtakingly few adverse consequences for our side.
ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS...
...unless, of course, you're a liberal.
In that case, the Bush Presidency was a grand success!
LLS
Bush was in charge, he gets the larged piece of blame pie.
I loathe the democrats. I would like to see them reduced to the gays-only party. They are the fecal icing on the blame pie.
“Political capital” is not a stack of 20’s that he “spent” all on the war. I’m so sick of hearing about “political capital”. What a stupid nonsense red herring.
He could a have vetoed McStain Feingold and the disgusting farm pork bill in 2001 BEFORE 911. He could have vetoed ANYTHING. He didn’t till term 2.
Of course the rinos get a ton of blame but he went along, he never vetoed their pork-laden bills.
DeLay was a good on many fronts but yes he used pork, he and incompetent twit Hastert presided over the RINO congress. Hence they suck. And rats took both their seats (Delay’s only because a judge wouldn’t let the GOP on the ballot and we took it back in 2008)
Bush didn’t have to pick 3 epically crappy Treasury Secretarys. The first was an idiot. The third is a DEMOCRAT!
He decided to be for the bailout, no one held a gun to his head, he’s a fool. Then the auto-bailout FIAT! Despicable.
Katrina was not his fault. Nagin and Blanco get most the blame. But “Browie” was NOT “doing a heck of a job” Brownie was a Bush crony completely unqualified for the job of FEMA director so it’s his own fault he took a hit over that.
The Iraq surge (which as we see easily won the war) was needed for over 2 years before it actually happened. Bush did nothing and watched his and his parties poll #s head to the toilet as needless American causalities added up. All he ever did was repeat the same lines about WMDs and such (they aren’t there the intel was wrong oh no I forgot they were secretly moved to Syria right). And we need to “stay the course” when the course was a new American corpse everyday. He was Lyndon Johnsoning it up over Iraq. Boneheaded move.
He NEVER stood up for his good polices. Never countered the media and the democrats. I will never understand this. It doesn’t make any sense.
As of now he hasn’t pardoned a wrongly imprisoned solider he allowed to be scapegoated over a civilian death. He should have sent the guy home for Christmas.
If he doesn’t do it he’ll lose even more points with me.
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.