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 ...
I’m so glad that carpet-bagging asshole is out of the White House. Too bad his replacement is worse, though.
Conloserman does not a conservative party make.
1. OBOZO was not a national figure when he quit the senate after 100 days to begin running.
2. OBOZO never accomplished anything in the IL state senate or US senate.
3. Sarah had far more accomplishments as governor for the most important state in terms of energy freedom.
4. The marxist media threw everything they had at Sarah AND HER FAMILY.
5. Considering the unprecedented attacks and video editing. Sarah did quite well in surviving the marxist media attacks. "When your over the target, you get the heaviest flack"
It's clear Sarah was MORE THAN QUALIFIED even after the level of attacks from the marxist media, her elitist RINO handlers from mccain and the elite liberal Republican establishment.
It appears you and those attacking Sarah embrace the mccain-bush-gramnesty liberal wing of the republican party. I suggest you go back to your country club.
After reading these quotes I have to say that while he may have said similar things, the phrases uses and what he said don’t really ring true.
1st, referring to Obama as a “cat” like he’s just finished listening to Bird Parker and John Coltrane in the Lincoln Bedroom or something. Just doesn’t sound like somethig W would say.
The Biden quote sounds plausible.
The Hillary and her “fat keister” quote also doesn’t really sound like something he would say. Again, “keister” doesn’t sound sound like a term he’d use and I know he and his father are good friends with Bill. I don’t think he’d say something like that. Unless it was in a context where he was obviously 100% joking.
On Palin some of the stuff rings true about being unprepared. But his joke about Guam and not knowing her doesn’t. He’d met her at least 3 times, twice when she went to the WH as part of a Governor’s delegation and at least once in AK on a stopover during a trip to Asia. Even though she was unknown nationally she was still fairly well known in GOP and conservative circles, leading pundits had mentioned her, she was mentioned as one of the top contenders for the VP slot for most of the spring and summer. Bush was the head of the GOP for 8 years and was no doubt being kept updated on the campaign. Of course he knew who she was.
W is a straight guy who if you belive his Hillary remark clearly pays attention to a woman’s looks and her body. If you’re in politics and used to meeting guys like Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Bill Frist, John McCain, etc... there’s no way you’d meet Sarah and not remember her. None.
Even if was just to say “oh yeah, so he picked that babe from Alaska, interesting” he would have remembered her. Remember, top level politicians meet people for a living and have to remember them. It’s part of being personable.
The family part I buy but some of it seems exaggerated. Also, he’s supposed to have said “lets see where she is in five days” Five days in she was giving a speech on TV that was watched by as many if not more people than wathced Obama, was hailed as the best speech since Reagan in 64, and gave McCain a lead in a race that by all objective standards he shouldn’t even have anywhere within 10 pts of. She was well on her way to almost singlehandedly winng the election for him until the economic nuclear bomb detonated with Lehman Bros collapse and pretty much sealed the outcome in November.
However, Obama was a national figure when he started running for President (and no, he did not "quit" the senate, he just stopped doing his job there).
Of course, nothing in your response had any relationship to what Bush said, or what I said. Your response was a non-sequitor, a knee-jerk reaction without thought.
When McCain chose Sarah Palin as VP, Palin was NOT a national figure. She was largely unknown, except to a subset of politically active conservatives. Her views on most issues were unknown to the country, her accomplishments as Governor were unknown to the country, she had made no publicised national speeches, published no national op-eds, made no national campaign tours.
This is not a "criticism", it is simple truth. It would be like complaining that it was sexist to note that she was female.
You don't need to tell me that Palin was more qualified than Obama to be President. Here is an opinion column I wrote on the subject September 4, 2008.
Excerpts:
Two recent developments have brought the issue of preparedness to the forefront. And the truth is that, of the four major party candidates, Obama is the least experienced....
Of course, Governor Palin leads Alaska, not just Wasilla. Alaska has over 25,000 employees, and a budget quite a bit larger than the Obama campaign. Worse, Obama doesn’t actually run his campaign — his campaign manager does. So essentially Obama argued his campaign manager was qualified to be president — maybe more qualified than Obama.
Governor Palin has eight years of executive experience, while Obama has none. Palin ran a business, Obama didn’t. Palin has been in public office longer than Obama. Palin took on her party, Obama has not.
...
Now, Joe Biden certainly has more experience in Washington than Governor Palin. He has been there forever. But Biden has never served in an executive position. He’s never had to make the decisions —he’s just been one vote among 100.
The Democrats like to make fun of Wasilla for its population of about 10,000. But that’s about as many people as voted for Biden in the Democratic primary. They ignore that Palin is governor of Alaska, with a population of over 670,000 people. Biden is just one of two Senators representing Delaware’s population of about 850,000. In 2002, Biden won his senate seat with 135,000 votes. In 2006, Palin won the Governorship with 115,000 votes.
Palin was a largely unknown figure when she was chosen. She had qualifications, she had credentials, but she was no national figure. You can get upset about that, but being upset about the truth is not helpful.
Yes, but to omit OBOZO was NOT a national figure is a bit misleading. Ditto, w/Pawlenty the other Gov considered by mccain also did NOT have national exposure.
My point is errors of omission can be as damaging as the typical misleading liberal drivel.
Still "praying" for Bush. Or maybe they've got a "pray for Obama" thread now.
Actually, there is one. Couldn't hurt.
Agreed. I wish more could see that the Republicans and Democrats (with very few exceptions) have morphed into two sides of one coin... the only difference is window dressing.
This seems to be something you either see or don’t see. Once you see it there’s no going back.
But we would have had more conservative Supreme Court justices. Obama will get to appoint 3 in his first term.
I heartily agree with you. One of the MOST frustrating lines at the moment is how bad free-trade is for our economy. How would we know? We don’t HAVE free-trade.
Yeah, look what a great job all of you entrenched pols do/have done, thanks. [/s]
Oh, boo-hoo. If you knew he wasn't a conservative, how could he use you? What was the alternative in 2004. John Kerry? That would have been better?
I don't remember any wild enthusiasm for Bush in 2004, other than support for the troops (rather than the abomination of Kerry as CIC) and the necessity of maintaining the balance on the SCOTUS.
Life's been handing small-government conservatives lemons since Reagan. We couldn't make lemonade, but we did the best we could, with eyes wide open.
Leave the victimology to the left.
Yes it is more costly for a US company to compete. We have placed these burdens on ourselves with elected governments. We think it makes us a better country for our citizens. If world competition is suggesting that we reduce our standards to those of the least cost nation, we can elect that and become one of them.
We have no way of enforcing our standards on others now save to put a tariff on them equal to the cost we placed on American companies. But our choice is to find a way to level the playing field or enter the economic demolition derby to see who could limbo the lowest.
Yea, that sucks. But really, were we assured mccain would’ve appointed Conservatives?
When Obama announced he was running for President, most of us knew exactly who he was. Millions of people around the country had already heard of him, had seen him speak. He had campaigned for candidates around the country, he had spoken at events around the country.
Did he deserve to be a national figure? that doesn’t matter — the media had made him a national figure. They had spoken of whether he would run for President, as far back as when he first became a Senator.
He is unqualified to be President; he did nothing really to earn himself a national spotlight. But this isn’t about what should be. The simple fact is that at the time Obama announced his Presidential campaign, he was much more well-known nationally than Sarah Palin was when she was chosen as VP.
BTW, you are correct about Pawlenty. He was not much of a national figure either. He had started to try to build up national credentials though. And as others have explained, it was easy for those in the 48 lower states to build up a national presense, while Palin was constrained by her office and the logistics of flying around the country from Alaska.
Some excellent points that those promoting the ‘benefits’ of globalism slide right over ... living in a civil society.
Human nature being what it is, we need laws to protect the environment and workers from its dark side - rampant, amoral greed.
People tend to forget Teddy Roosevelt’s Sherman anti-trust laws, and the laws regulating banks that were put in place after the Great Depression were put in for good reason - to keep power from collecting in the hands of a few.
OTH, I believe that these laws (environmental, worker and consumer protection) have been expanded purposely to the point of silliness, with no basis in science, and in order to put the US at an even further disadvantage.
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.