Posted on 09/15/2009 6:57:27 AM PDT by RobinMasters
During the 2008 CPAC convention, George Bush only mentioned the word “conservative” once, in the closing — and apparently that was no accident. A new book by the man who wrote the speech for Bush, staffer Matt Latimer, retells the story in Speechless: Tales of a White House Survivor, and Byron York relates it in today’s Washington Examiner. When Latimer tried to include supportive language about the conservative movement, Bush attempted to set his speechwriter straight:
“What is this movement you keep talking about in the speech?” the president asked Latimer.
Latimer explained that he meant the conservative movement — the movement that gave rise to groups like CPAC.
Bush seemed perplexed. Latimer elaborated a bit more. Then Bush leaned forward, with a point to make.
“Let me tell you something,” the president said. “I whupped Gary Bauer’s ass in 2000. So take out all this movement stuff. There is no movement.”
Bush seemed to equate the conservative movement — the astonishing growth of conservative political strength that took place in the decades after Barry Goldwater’s disastrous defeat in 1964 — with the fortunes of Bauer, the evangelical Christian activist and former head of the Family Research Council whose 2000 presidential campaign went nowhere.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
P.S. He’s the same clown who signed the coming light-bulb ban into law. What an idiot. Our government has absolutely no right to tell us how to light the interior of our homes.
They are still around. Now reduced to merely plastering Bush royalty era infatuation images on FR ad nauseum, ignoring the fact that Bush is and never was a conservative. They are caught up in the regal splendor of it all, much like the Brits fawn on their royals.
Most of this does not sound like “bush-speak” at all. My bet is that Matt Latimer has written a tell-all with profit over honesty in mind and it seems surprising that everyone seems to be accepting his quotes without any verification that his stories are true or accurate. I don’t accept the MSM blindly, why should I believe Latimer?
Labels are a necessary evil. For example, communication would be so much easier if we were all perfect telepaths. No words at all would be necessary. It’s not that way. We use words as shorthand, as containers we can use to ship ideas between each other. Labels, especially political labels, are like large freighters that contain many containers, and they are a useful tool for rapid and efficient exchange of large quantities of ideas.
The problem is that, unlike ships at sea, it is way too easy to slip into multiple uses for the same label. Nobody “owns” the label so everyone uses it to their own purposes and according to their own level of understanding.
Bush equating the movement to Bauer’s presidential run is interesting in this respect. He may have used an eclectic definition of conservative that more closely resembled the “Christian theocracy” variant, for which a Bauer presidency might represent the camel’s nose under the tent. This is significantly different from a Judeo-Christian natural law conservatism, which appeals to a shared, universal sense of right and wrong to set public policy. Whereas a theocracy, Christian, Muslim, or otherwise, relies directly on claims of divine revelation. The Christian position most like this is called theonomy, and it is a movement, but it is so tiny and so fractured it has no real presence on the American political stage. So in that sense, if that’s what he meant by conservative, he was right.
However, Bush actually was conservative in some respects, using the term in a natural law sense. He did do some things that tended to the benefit of conservative values. I am thinking of pro-life, pro free enterprise, and pro strong defense categories. By contrast, on issues of national sovereignty, free speech, and big government, he was definitely a disappointment.
One final thought. With conservatism you always have to ask, what, exactly, is being conserved? The tradition of a certain divine revelation? The legal, philosophical, and religious values that informed the natural law perspective of the Founders and their Constitution? Or some disorganized patchwork quilt of ideas that borrows randomly from a variety of traditions and beliefs? With most politicians it seems to be the last of those three options. This is why public policy is in such disarray. It is a reflection of our own confused thinking over what’s really in that word. That’s why I am trying to make a practice of using the term “Principled Conservative.” It encourages the listener to ask, “What foundational principles govern your policy outcomes?” And that is the question we need to be asking, of our politicians, our political parties, and ourselves.
“Tony Smith argues that the Bush administration and the neo-conservative architects of the Iraq war were the natural heirs of the Wilsonian tradition. Wilson and post-1945 liberal internationalists blazed a trail that Bush followed. In this view, it is America's commitment to promote democracy worldwide - a sort of liberal imperial ambition - that is at the core of Wilsonianism, and it was the animating vision behind the Bush doctrine.”
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05/19/woodrow_wilson_george_w_bush_and_the_future_of_lib/
I recall Bush senior being considered an internationalist also.
I’ll concede that at first McCain MIGHT not promote a government option in health care though the end result would be the same. He’d push for forcing coverage of prexisting condition, mandates and other “reforms” that would eventually lead to a government option. On foreign policy, I can’ imagine that there would be much different. Like Obama, McCain would pour more troops into Aghanistan and would probably have about the same number of troops (about the same as when push left) in Afghanistan.
that’s “can’t imagine”
Oh no, this could be the end of the “Bush for 2012 campaign”.... oh my.
It’s sure a shame that we didn’t have a president Gore or Kerry.
Excellent response. Thank you. I think you are right about President Bush. I am a very conservative Christian but I doubt that I would vote for a candidate who purports to have divine revelation, apart from God’s Word. I have witnessed too many disagreements among conservative Christians. However I prefer that my president believes in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and in His Son. But I know that God is able to work through whomever He chooses.
Well, it kept us on the reservation :^
YOu know, I took this a different way.
IF the writer was “explaining” that he meant “the conservative movement”, that suggests that in the speech, the writer had just said “movement”.
If you think of it that way, Bush asking “what is this ‘movement’” makes sense.
So maybe it’s the WRITERS fault that the word “conservative” wasn’t in the speech. Maybe the WRITER didn’t want to put the word “conservative” in, so instead just wrote “movement”, and Bush didn’t like calling it a “movement”.
It is hard to argue with what Bush said there. No matter what else Palin was, she certainly was not a national figure when she was chosen, and those 5 days did make things look different.
Well, actually it was the possibility of having a Gore or a Kerry as President that kept me on the reservation. I just get so tired of holding my nose.
I don’t think Bush ever wanted McCain to the our nominee, and Bush’s assessment of McCain was spot-on.
The posters on this thread sure are enjoying alot of BDS orgasms...really constructive.
Just the fact that Obama spends most of his day overturning Bush programs and initiatives might be a clue. At least attempt to understand your own stupidity.
What selective garbage.
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.