Posted on 12/31/2009 10:18:52 AM PST by rabscuttle385
When conservatives used to bash Bill Clinton their arguments usually centered on one thing — Monica Lewinsky. He lied to the American people! Clinton disgraced the office of the presidency! “Slick Willie!” Much like the popular culture they often claim to abhor, conservatives tend to focus on the personalities in politics rather than policy.
I never cared much about Clinton’s relationship with Lewinsky. My greatest problem with our 42nd president was that he wasn’t much different from the 41st or 43rd. Under Clinton, the size of government grew, our worsening illegal immigration problem was ignored, the U.S. needlessly punished the citizens of Iraq with sanctions and bombings and we foolishly intervened militarily in places like Kosovo, Somalia, and Haiti. Like his predecessor and his successor, Clinton simply maintained and expanded the already established American empire he inherited.
And yet in 2000, conservative reaction to the Clinton administration had the Right singing a much different tune on foreign policy.
Consider the language then-candidate George W. Bush thought necessary to appeal to his GOP base and voters-at-large during the 2000 presidential campaign. Attacking Clinton’s military adventures, Bush said during a debate with Al Gore: “I’m not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say ‘this is the way it’s got to be… I think one way for us to end up being viewed as the ‘ugly American’ is for us to go around the world saying ‘we do it this way, so should you.” Criticizing Clinton’s military debacle in Somalia, Bush said “I don’t think our troops ought to be used for what’s called ‘nation building.” When asked how people around the world should view the US, Bush responded “It really depends upon how our nation conducts its foreign policy. If we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll resent us. If we’re a humble nation, they’ll respect us.”
And Bush wasn’t alone. Consider the words of conservative talk host Sean Hannity toward Clinton’s foreign policy. Said Hannity in 1999 concerning Kosovo: “It seems that we’re talking about a very ill-conceived military action here. And now the question is, do you go in further and deeper, or do you pull back and rethink what the strategy’s going to be here, because there has really been no stated goal, mission, or objective… I say, back out of it, because innocent people are going to die for nothing. That’s why I’m against it.” When Clinton compared Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic to Adolph Hitler, Hannity asked “Is the president purposefully using propaganda and hyperbole to garner the American public for support?”
After 9/11, warnings from the Right about “nation building,” or support for a more humble foreign policy evaporated, along with any concern for limited government. Being the world’s policeman, or what Bush once called being an “arrogant nation,” “around the world” would come to define the Bush presidency. Even worse, for most of the last decade, being a conservative simply meant being pro-war and Bush ended his second term as the biggest big government president since Lyndon Johnson, much less Bill Clinton.
As Obama continues to spend even more than Bush and steps up US efforts in Afghanistan, the political environment on the Right is far closer to 2000 than 2003. In 2003, conservatives quickly became comfortable with Bush’s statist agenda because they were so enthusiastic about his invasion of Iraq. As this decade ends, conservatives are outraged by Obama’s spending and many are beginning to voice serious reservations about his end game in Afghanistan. Conservative columnist George Will, who was once one of Bush’s greatest supporters on Iraq is now one of Obama’s greatest critics on Afghanistan. Lest anyone think this hypocrisy is unique to Republicans, Democrats who once despised the belligerent neoconservatism of Bush-Cheney have now largely embraced that exact same foreign policy, only repackaged as Obama-style, liberal internationalism. When it comes to being antiwar under Obama-the Left is now completely useless.
And the Right may be as well. But conservative skepticism about Obama’s war coupled with widespread grassroots outrage over spending, makes the possibility of a genuine and comprehensive anti-government, anti-empire, “America first” movement, once again, at least tenable. The ingredients are there. What good did it do conservatives to elect George W. Bush, who was worse on both domestic and foreign policy than Bill Clinton? Obama is already proving to be worse than Bush. With each successive administration, government keeps getting bigger, our debt gets larger and our military stretched greater, for reasons that are vague at best. Americans may indeed be ready for a serious “change,” especially as they begin to realize Obama ain’t it.
It does not take a genius to figure out that railing against big government at home while championing it abroad doesn’t make much sense — one cancels out the other. But it might take a Democratic president, as it did a decade ago, to convince conservatives to question — and finally reject — both the welfare state and the warfare state for good.
In before the Bushbots.
In before the Bushbots
Just so you know, it doesn't count on your own thread, especially when it's your ping.....
I love the reference to that idiot Hannity. He was one of the worst. With the help of Sept 11 they (Hannity and friends) transformed conservative followers into this war drumbeat religious mob. I understand you cant just give up once you invade. (that would be a disater) But the same group happily going after Obama on the WOT now, claimed for 6 years it was treasonous for US to question Bush on his prior war policies and they still claim that now.
Bush lost me late 2006 after election when he announced a huge change in strategy was needed, asking NEW Rat congress to fund it, rather than before the election with his own congress. It was all political. Yet his worshippers seem to believe he was sent from above with pure motives.
I disagree with that, it was the media that kept deflecting conservative attacks about Clinton selling technology and taking foreign bribes, purging the military, incredible corruption, and so on into a sex deal about a hip, modern president that conservatives didn't like because of sexual hang ups.
Even now the Clinton administration is portrayed that way.
In after the Paulies....I heard the SA’s little rant against all things Conservative this morning in SC. As ever he makes some good points regarding small gov but once again runs off the rails just like the rest of the Leftytarians and Paulies on the Islamist war on civilization as well as his little rants against Christians. Reminds me of the Paulies attack on the Tea Parties.
I could never understand that. One of my big gripes with GWB is that he did nothing in the way of "party-building." The GOP seemed to be winding down during the entire 8 years of the Bush presidency.
And if all Republicans have to offer is more of the same -- Bush III or McCain II -- they are not going to be able to utilize this opportunity not to fade into into complete obscurity, once and for all.
LOL! Why would the RP supporters "attack the Tea Parties", given that they pretty much started them?
Your RP hatred is really warping your mind.
I can however believe that they were worried about the Tea Parties getting hijacked and exploited by the GOP cronies who got us here in the first place and who want us back on the Plantation where they think that we belong.
I don’t hate RP or most Libertarians just the Lefty imposters and some like the SA, who constantly attack Conservative Christians. BTW I’m under the impression that the Paulies and RINOs were both trying to assimilate the Tea Party movement.
They all work for the New World Order. That’s why the policies never change.
Yep, especially if you disagree with them in any way.
If you're not a "Bushbot", you're a "RINO".
Obama is a cynic wrapped in a hypocrite inside a bully.
The party building peaked in 2002 when he even had blacks and Hispanics supporting him over Sept 11. After that is was damage control. Iraq was his undoing.
He did pull a win in 2004, based on many optimistic Iraq projections, and buying off a couple of key voting groups with borrowed money. But that was only a short term strategy, from 2005-2008 it hit the fan with everything going wrong, one after another with the worst at the end, TARP crisis. There was nothing to build on, he had a 20% base left, if that. He picked a path of no return.
Yes, at the end of eight years of Bush, I doubt that there was single mainstream Republican who could have beaten Obama with any assurance -- even many traditional Republican voters abandoned the Party.
It's as though the Parties decide to swap power every eight years, then just run show candidates to assure that predetermined outcome. This way they aren't competing, just cooperating, so each guy in office gets to further it's own big-government, globalist agenda. It's a lot like like the elections used to be in communist countries.
Kind of funny.
I’m not a Republican at all.
As gloomy as last years election was I tried to look at it then as positively as I could, that since Republicans would lose, we might as well feed them John McCain so we will never again have to tolerate the MSN liberals telling us who to pick.
John McCain was MSNBC’s hero, and they cast him aside for McCain. I have Obama loving liberals at work, both black, tell me they liked McCain, then told me how mean Bush was to McCain in 2000 primary, a liberal myth irrelevent to them voting for Obama.
I really see little to be optimistic about now, so I just enjoy democrats misery while I can.
Sorry, try :
“John McCain was MSNBC’s hero, and they cast him aside for Obama like a wet rag”.
Interesting. Kind of like why promote a Republican wanna-be Democrat like McCain when you can vote for the real thing in Obama?
I think that anyone who doesn't believe in "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you" (under the same circumstances), doesn't get to speak for Christians.
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.