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-

[Southack]

"I am not arguing international conventions. I am debating as to whether it is sensible to bestow upon the executive branch the power to declare a citizen not apprehended on a foreign field of battle (such as Taliban Johnny) as an enemy combatant and have the power to detain that person indefinitely without some kind of due process, some kind of check and balance, to ensure that such an awesome power cannot be abused against domestic political enemies."

Is it sensible?! Heavens no, but it is *expediant*, which is why such treatment was placed into such international treaties as the Geneva Convention(s).

I haven't been arguing *for* such treatment, only that such treatment of enemy combatants predates Bush by half a century, making it pointless to try to blame Bush for how we treat enemy combatants today.

We've had more than half a century to change and amend the Geneva Conventions. You'd think that if all of these complaints were a really big deal that people would have been making those challenges against it for decades now.

[dirtboy]

Is it sensible?! Heavens no, but it is *expediant*

It's also expediant in solving crimes to allow cops to execute searches without warrants. Expediancy is not the point of the Bill of Rights.

I think that Congress needs to act here and put constraints upon this power - that if the executive declares someone to be an enemy combatant who is a citizen and who was not captured on a foreign field of battle or directly in the commission of a terroristic act, that person is entitled to a military tribunal within three months, unless the executive can convince, say, a three-judge panel on the DC Court of Appeals that they need more time for interrogations, and that should not exceed three additional months.

[Southack]

Indeed, such domestic constraints on the Geneva Convention have been needed for more than 50 years...long past due.

But hey, it must be all GWB's fault, right?!

[dirtboy]

But hey, it must be all GWB's fault, right?!

Well, the Bush Administration claimed the power to detain enemy combatants indefinitely - they could have instead, like FDR, gone the military tribunal route. So they bear some culpability for this issue. But the only real solution is for Congress to act and put proper constraints on this power when used against citizens apprehended in this country.

[NittanyLion]

Passed Medicare Reform (authorized $39.5 Billion per year for preventive medicine such as drugs and doctor visits as well as included a ten year Privatization option)

You need to update this item to $53.5 billion per year.

[NittanyLion]

You keep posting that garbage from a DISCREDITED source. No one's impressed by it and no one even reads it anymore. Stop spamming that tripe to threads.

Gawain, I enjoy seeing both sides of the discussion. My vote is to keep posting it where appropriate (when others spam laundry lists of accomplishments). The best argument is one where all the facts are available.

[Sir Gawain]

Don't worry, I ignore nopardons anyway. Her posts are valuable for a laugh and not much else.

[Southack]

"You need to update this item to $53.5 billion per year."

That budget hasn't been passed by Congress.

[Southack]

"My vote is to keep posting it where appropriate (when others spam laundry lists of accomplishments). The best argument is one where all the facts are available."

See Post #146.

[NittanyLion]

The administration has already said the cost will be $535 billion or so over 10 years. That item should be adjusted.

Incidentally, it's a shame no one on this forum anticipated the cost of the PDP increasing. Oh wait...

[MEG33]

Post #4

[jstolarczyk]

Name one individual, name a column or editorial, I am aware of a Pakistani gentleman that appeared on a terrorist list and was not a terrorist. Would you rather just say screw security gue sera sera? Who needs large buildings anyway. Again name one AMERICAN, One article that supports your position with facts.

[Mike4Freedom]

Again name one AMERICAN

I have numerous personal contacts, whose name I will not use here who have been so afflicted. There have been stories all over the news about such happenings. I remember several stories in the Wall Street Journal. They discussed the problem at great length. As to the FISA court, just read the Patriot act. It is right there.

You might also look up the name Jose Padilla on google to learn how lucky he has been with our justice system.

What has happened here since 9/11 is unfathomable. Any individual's risk from terrorists pales in comparison to his risk from the government.

[jstolarczyk]

OK, very convenient, no names and vague references to the WSJ. Are you defending Padilla? I am well aware of Padilla, are you prepared to defend him? I cannot believe Padilla is the poster child of your argument.

[jstolarczyk]

It is easy to pontificate about other peoples lives at risk, versus your perceived rights. How easy would it be if terrorism reached out and touch you or your family. (God forbid).

[jstolarczyk]

Or the Administration, could have copied FDR and put all Muslims in camps. I would not be too quick in using FDR as an example for anything remotely dealing with individuals rights.

[Mike4Freedom]

Are you defending Padilla? I am well aware of Padilla, are you prepared to defend him? I cannot believe Padilla is the poster child of your argument.

Of course, we all must defend Padilla. We do not know whether he is a bad guy or not but obviously there is no sustainable criminal charge the government can bring or they would not be going to all this trouble.

Freedom loving people MUST defend anyone who is arrested and held indefinitely without charge, no matter who he is, simply to protect our right to be free of such action. Don't you realize the danger such a precedent brings?

[Mike4Freedom]

It is easy to pontificate about other peoples lives at risk, versus your perceived rights. How easy would it be if terrorism reached out and touch you or your family. (God forbid).

Life is always a trade off. It is clear to me that the odds of me and my family meeting up with a terrorist are vanishingly small. The odds of having a run-in with an Ashcroft JBT is far greater and the risk extends much farther in time.

[jstolarczyk]

What do you have against goats? They love each other, isn't that enough? Sheeeeesh!

[jstolarczyk]

Ignore the Patriot Act, you and your family have a greater chance of harassment from a police officer after some crime story nut, claims they saw you on "Americas Most Wanted" I am sorry you hold other peoples lives so cheaply. I do not. Terrorists, American or Arab, are a threat to humanity and deserve no protection afforded to non-combantants.