Is Bush a Conservative? (Warning – opening this thread forfeits your right to gripe at me!)

Commentary Magazine ^ | February 2004 | Daniel Casse

[quidnunc]

By the end of 2003, after months of falling popularity and an unceasing barrage of criticism from Democratic presidential aspirants, George W. Bush suddenly seemed to be leading a charmed life. His surprise visit to U.S. troops in Baghdad over the Thanksgiving holiday introduced a note of high confidence and inspiration. Two weeks later, the world was treated to footage of a helpless and disheveled Saddam Hussein in American custody. Although attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq continued, their ferocity diminished amid promising signs that the battle to rebuild Iraq and fight terrorism elsewhere was on course. Within days of Saddam Hussein’s capture came the announcement that Muammar Qaddafi had agreed to open his program for amassing nuclear weapons to international inspection. That same week, France, Germany, and Russia, persistent opponents of the Iraq war, acceded to American requests to forgive a portion of Iraqi debts. By mid-December, a CBS poll showed 59 percent of Americans approving of the way the President was handling Iraq — the highest level since early July.

At home, there was still more good news for the White House. In late November, the Commerce Department reported that the economy had grown at a startling 8.2 percent in the third quarter — the highest level in nearly two decades and a figure that exceeded even the most optimistic projections. There followed a cascade of other positive economic announcements. Inflation and interest rates were at their lowest point in decades. Productivity was historically high. Housing starts were soaring. Manufacturing, only recently thought to be disappearing from the America landscape, hit its highest level in twenty years.

Congress, meanwhile, had passed a bipartisan overhaul of Medicare that, while highly controversial, was clearly a political victory for the President. Flush with this legislative success, in late December the White House released word that it was considering an overhaul of Social Security — and possibly re-establishing manned flight to the moon.

Is everybody happy, then? Hardly. For one thing, not since Richard Nixon has there been a Republican occupant of the White House who has provoked such naked antipathy from his political enemies on the Left. Bill and Hillary Clinton generated their own fevered response from the angriest and most conspiratorial corners of the Republican Right. But what is striking about today’s liberal hatred of George Bush is not how shrill it is, but rather how even the most extreme outbursts have been fully embraced by mainstream Democratic politicians and journalists.

But criticism of the President has not been confined to Democrats or the Left. For the past year, a chorus of dissent has arisen as well among some conservative pundits and intellectuals — the very group one might have thought would rush to the defense of a President under assault by his liberal antagonists. In a particularly harsh and surprising condemnation, the talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh told his listeners in December that Bush’s legacy to the nation would be the greatest increase in domestic spending, and one of the greatest setbacks for liberty, in modern times. “This may be compassionate,” warned Limbaugh, playing on Bush’s 2000 campaign slogan, “but it is not ‘conservatism’ at all.” To be sure, conservative discontent with President Bush is likely to have few if any political consequences in the short term; unlike his father before him, George W. Bush will win the Republican nomination unopposed. Despite grumbling among some conservatives in the House of Representatives, no splinter group of disaffected Republicans seems set to take on the cause of Bush’s Democratic opponent the way some embraced Clinton in 1992. Still, Bush’s ability to remain a popular Republican President while causing so much dismay on both Left and Right does demand an assessment of the direction in which he has been taking the GOP and the country. Should he be reelected this fall, he will remain not only a controversial figure but possibly one of the most consequential Presidents we have had in the modern era.

-snip-

[Digger]

I just read this. I guess it is time me & others that are true conservatives to shut up & ride in the back of the bus. OK. I will concede. I just thought that FR was a grassroots conservative site - it didn't say republican. I'll grant you that I never have nor ever will vote for a democrate for president but I damn well will not vote for a fake conservative either. And all of you that think it is just peachy having GW increasing spending of MY money on the Nat. Endowment of the Arts - adding salt to the wound - then fine. If people like me are band then will we see the likes of Ann Coulter, Phyllis Shafley, McClintock, RUSH & his brother & 50 others etc. banned from here for their views? Just how far off of the conservative wagon can GW/pubbies go before the people here say it is enough? Another half trillion in debt this year? Another give away to Teddy Kennedy? Bottom line - don't make any judgements, just vote for the person with a (R) behind their name. Do as you always do & get what you always got.

[woodyinscc]

How does post #50 prevent you from saying or expressing your opinions?

[Southack]

"Though your list is somewhat more attractive, I prefer Sir Gawain's emphasis on facts."

Facts?!

Here's a tidbit of what Sir Gawain listed as "facts":

"SOCIALIST WELFARE PROGRAMS & POLITICAL BOONDOGGLES

• [source] Continued anti-trust lawsuit against Microsoft.
• [source] $10 billion military reserve fund for the Pentagon.
• [source] $28.9 billion "anti-terror" package. (As if the federal government didn't already spend enough on defense)
• [source] Proposed increasing defense spending to $378.5 billion next fiscal year from the $364.1 billion appropriated by Congress for fiscal 2003.
• [source] $11 billion over the next 3 years to build up war capability in S. Korea.
• [source] $8 million for firearms training for commercial pilots.
• [source] U.S. government purchased data on Mexico’s 65 million registered Voters.
• [source] $37.5 million in federal funds to Georgia for "homeland security."
• [source] $100 million to help states run their smallpox vaccination programs.
• [source] $800,000 to $1 million for the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln to make circles in the ocean while George W. Bush aboard.
• [source] $1 billion a year to fund 75,000 new firefighters over seven years via the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Act (or SAFER, isn't that cute?).
• [source] ... $600,000 for RIPTA facilities security upgrades...
• [source] $95 million to spy on Americans for the government's Total Information Awareness database.
• [source] $21 billion deal with Boeing to lease one-hundred 767 tankers...
• [source] $500 million to build ballistic missile interceptors in Alaska."

[DameAutour]

Well the more I read it, the more it is obvious that the list was compiled by a Libertarian. And I do not think libertarian is necessarily synonymous with conservative.

Not saying that a Libertarian can't be a conservative, but I am saying that doing things Libertarians don't like doesn't mean you're not a conservative.

I mean, including the war in Afghanistan was a dead giveaway that this is a Libertarian list. If the point is that Bush is not a conservative because he does things Libertarians don't like, this is a non sequiter.

[woodyinscc]

The flaw in your statement is, Ann Coulter, Rush, his brother, Phyllis Shafley, and even William F. Buckley are backing President Bush.

[cyncooper]

Ach, well, it was the Quinnipiac poll, as Brit just mentioned it a little while ago on his show. But the Rasmussen survey of likely voters also had Kerry up by two over Bush. I believe they said there are about 6 polls showing Kerry leading.

[DameAutour]

"I prefer Sir Gawain's emphasis on facts."

Respectfully, I submit that Sir Gawain's list is an example of someone throwing a lot of "facts" into the mix and hoping people will be overwhelmed by the sheer volume and not pay attention.

I do not think being opposed to any defense spending necessarily makes one a "conservative".

[Triple Word Score]

Get used to saying "President Kerry" then.

Geez.

EVERY President who wants to be re-elected moves toward the center before the end of his first term. W learned from his father's mistake. The stakes are so high he doesn't dare do otherwise. Thinking otherwise is STUPID in every sense of that word. Stupid, and destructive.

Get with the program, darn it! The cards we're dealt are all we have. We have a President who is sensible enough to realize that wishes aren't horses.

You want to throw away the pot, and give a victory party to DU, go right ahead. I think every FReeper who votes for anyone but W ought to be strapped down and required to lurk at DU for 8 hours a day every day of the Kerry Presidency.

I'd propose rubbing tobacco juice in said FReeper's eyes, to make sure he stays awake, but that'd probably be abuse....

[nopardons]

You and your post has been discredited and exposed, on other threads and you KNOW it!

[nopardons]

Sorry! The message was for Sir Gawain, NOT Dane.

I goofed.

[nopardons]

Sorry Dane, the message I posted was NOT for you, but for Sir Gawain. :-(

[PROUDAMREP]

Why don't you go through each line item and tell us who proposed the item and if it was buried in another law that was needed. The pork barrel expenditures plus having to revamp everything including our defense department (thanks to BC spending all his time with his liasons), AS WELL AS 911, have led to this deficit. Do you know any elderly people who cannot afford to buy medicine after they go to the doctor? I would much rather pay for medication for our
seniors and disabled than the frivolous pork barrel deals to buy votes. Do you know a better way to handle the illegal immigrants? Please, don't tell me any of demos running around bashing Bush have the answer to these problems.

[Southack]

#103 was also meant for you.

[Southack]

"I am making the decision to vote third party. Yes Ive already heard that is a "throw away" vote and a way to get Kerry in but I think its beyond time America break free from the two party system..."

You joined FR today to tell us all that you are voting third party?!

Man, no one will ever suspect that you are posting from DNC headquarters. Ssssshhhh, don't tell Terry McAuliffe that you've been outed!

[PistolPaknMama]

bump for later (thanks!)

[kylaka]

Interesting comparisons NLL. I don't think for a minute though that Kerry "somewhat supports" the tax cuts. If Kerry got elected he'd do the same thing Clinton did with his proposed "Middle Class Tax Cut". He declare the budget situation "much worse" than he thought and recind all the tax cuts. It is a freebee for these guys to lie about taxes, that is, there is no downside. If they get 10 people to believe them, that is ten free votes. Democrats do what democrats do and that is raise taxes, on everybody including the unemployed and diabled and the retired elderly. Raising taxes is their essence. Without more and more taxes, there is nothing they can do.

[ex-snook]

"Just because someone questions Bush and supports a third party doesnt automatically mean they love the Democratic party. Far from it in my case! "

I couldn't believe anyone who has been around here does not recognize that smear is used in lieu of discussion. So I was happy to see that you are new. Welcome.