Posted on 12/02/2012 8:32:38 PM PST by MinorityRepublican
I think I owe an apology to George W. Bush.
William F. Buckley once noted that he was 19 when the Cold War began at the Yalta conference. The year the Berlin Wall came down, he became a senior citizen. In other words, he explained, anti-communism was a defining feature of conservatism his entire adult life.
Domestically, meanwhile, the right was largely a “leave me alone coalition”: Religious and traditional conservatives, overtaxed businessmen, Western libertarians, and others fed up with government social engineering and economic folly. The battle against tyrannical statism abroad only buttressed the domestic antagonism toward well-intentioned and occasionally democratic statism at home.
The end of the Cold War gave way to what Charles Krauthammer dubbed the “holiday from history” of the 1990s and the “war on terror” in the 2000s. People forget that Bush was elected during the former and had the latter thrust upon him. But at the end of the 1990s, he was one of many voices on the right trying to craft a political rationale to deal with a demographically changing electorate.
He campaigned on a “humble foreign policy” in 2000 and promised something very, very different than a “leave me alone” domestic policy. He called his new approach “compassionate conservatism.”
For years, I’ve criticized “compassionate conservatism” as an insult to traditional conservatism and an affront to all things libertarian.
Bush liked to say that he was a “different kind of Republican,” that he was a “compassionate conservative.” I still hate that formulation. Imagine if someone said, “I’m a different kind of Catholic (or Jew, or American, etc.): I’m a compassionate Catholic.” The insinuation was that conservatives who disagreed with him and his “strong-government conservatism” were somehow lacking in compassion.
(Excerpt) Read more at kansascity.com ...
RINO File.
I Think I Owe an Apology to George W. Bush.
Compassionate Conservatism Redux [Was "Compassionate Conservatism" of Bush 43 Correct?]
Hey Jonah - check the facts instead of rewriting history:
November 8, 2004
...the untold story of the 2004 election, according to national religious leaders and grass-roots activists, is that evangelical Christian groups were often more aggressive and sometimes better organized on the ground than the Bush campaign. The White House struggled to stay abreast of the Christian right and consulted with the movement’s leaders in weekly conference calls. But in many respects, Christian activists led the charge that GOP operatives followed and capitalized upon.
This was particularly true of the same-sex marriage issue. One of the most successful tactics of social conservatives — the ballot referendums against same-sex marriage in 13 states — bubbled up from below and initially met resistance from White House aides, Christian leaders said.
In dozens of interviews since the election, grass-roots activists in Ohio, Michigan and Florida credited President Bush’s chief political adviser, Karl Rove, with setting a clear goal that became a mantra among conservatives: To win, Bush had to draw 4 million more evangelicals to the polls than he did in 2000. But they also described a mobilization of evangelical Protestants and conservative Roman Catholics that took off under its own power. (snip)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32793-2004Nov7.html
It almost seems as if it really doesn't matter who you send to Washington. Once there they are taken over by ‘advisers’ who make sure there is not one honest or sincere emotion allowed to be shown.
Bush was running against white guys, Gore and Kerry. Bush would have lost to Obama too. Hispanics, Asians, Blacks and even Cubans voted for the half-African marxist because they dig his getting one over on whitey.
Moreover, according to exit polls, Romney decisively beat Obama on the questions of leadership, values and economic expertise but was crushed by more than 60 points on the question of which candidate “cares about people like me.”
Also, Bush would have lost because he would have rolled over and said nice things about Obama too. Just like McCain and Romney.
Add to that the swift boaters.
Oh brother. Guess what? By 2008 GWB would have lost to O in a landslide. His compassionate conservative strategy was a short term one and those single Moms and Hispanics he got votes from in 2004 would have voted against him in 2008.
Romney's problems were of his own makings, standing for nothing (except what appeared to be rich guys like himself) blaming the voters instead of Obama. He was great at going after Republicans and the voters but he treated O with kid gloves.
He failed to come up with a convincing argument that his policies would help the voters that he needed. He was the wrong candidate for sure. And Akin and CO didn't help either.
Lets not learn the wrong lessons here.
Bush did NOT win 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004. That has been debunked, from analysts from both the Left and the Right. He got maybe 40%. And while that is still great for a Republican, it was still a large, double-digit loss to a weak and dull opponent in John Kerry.
Only Republican leaders could be stupid enough to think that repeating this performance is a path to victory going forward. Just do the math; if the Hispanic vote continues to rise, then eventually a relative increase can still end with an absolute loss. And when it comes to battleground states where the margins are close and Hispanics (or some other group the GOP is told it must pander to) are said to be decisive, the truth is that any group could be said to be decisive in a close race. Yeah, the increase in Hispanic voters hurt Romney big in Florida, but what if Romney had done a few points better with whites? Well, he’d be President elect right now.
And I’m always suspicious of why people like Jonah Goldberg repeat this bogus 44% figure. Someone like Goldberg, who’s job is to live and breathe politics, has to know that the number is bogus. So why does he repeat it?
Still blaming Akin? Sorry, I believe he could have been rehabilitated, if Republicans had not cut and run on him. He lost by less than some of the RINOs did (such as Allen in VA and Mack in FL).
Why do you not also rag on Allen and Mack?
If Romney faced the same percentage demographics as Reagan, he would have won by an even bigger landslide than RR.
Bush left us with huge deficits and an economy in desperate shape. He started TARP and the GM bailout. It hardly pays to elect Republicans who give us statist liberal policies. If that is what Jonah is selling I will pass.
Bush left us with huge deficits and an economy in desperate shape. He started TARP and the GM bailout. It hardly pays to elect Republicans who give us statist liberal policies. If that is what Jonah is selling I will pass.
What good is that today?
Is there something hidden in the US constitution that says that only whites (how about 50+ whites) get to pick the POTUS?
Is that what Romney was counting on and planned his campaign on? That only whites could vote?
George W did a lot to damage the Republican brand.
The 9/11 attack and the war on terror dominated the Bush presidency but can anyone remember what he campaigned on in 2000? I wonder what his administration would have been like it there had been no September 11?
George W did a lot to damage the Republican brand.
The 9/11 attack and the war on terror dominated the Bush presidency but can anyone remember what he campaigned on in 2000? I wonder what his administration would have been like it there had been no September 11?
They didn't make themselves national figures this race by giving Dems exactly what they were praying for, like Akin did.
Allen and Mack did not make such stupid statements that could be used as clubs to beat on all other Republicans with as Akin’s were, and used to get out the Dem vote in swing districts.
Didn't he see what Dems were up to before he said that dumb stuff?
Electing Dems never saved one unborn babies life, sorry that is true,
Wrong. Bush created the biggest federal entitlement program since the Great Society. It did get him re-elected, but left the country saddled with yet another unaffordable entitlement. For it he had neglected the war in Iraq, and then, after re-election, he still failed to make the war his prime focus. Blame it partly on Casey, another affirmation of the Peter Principal, but because hope is not a policy. We may never find out what the hell was going on in 2005-6, but obviously it was a pushmepullye thing. Bush wanted to forget he was a war president. He didn’t take care of first things first. Finally, he did what he had to do, which was to give Petraeus his head. Too late,
The 9/11 attack and the war on terror dominated the Bush presidency but can anyone remember what he campaigned on in 2000? I wonder what his administration would have been like it there had been no September 11?
Bingo!
The Bush presidency was floundering badly until he climbed on top of that crushed fire truck in NYC. He had no mandate, and no real idea what he wanted to do. Then he became the 9/11 president, which flew for a few years. He tried to ride that horse into Iraq, which may have been worth doing, but it really damaged the Republican brand.
I guess you don't recall the Bush tax cuts. Remember them? They're the ones that turned around the stagnant economy Bush inerited from Clinton.
They were passed in June, 2001 -- a bare five months after Bush was inaugurated. A pretty hefty accomplishment...
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.