MORE SAMPLES:”In other words, Bush talked the talk but he did not walk the walk. This was almost always true when it came to wielding the veto pen. Bush couldn’t find the veto pen — let alone use it. Bush would not even veto legislation that he knew was unconstitutional. “Taking a constitutional view” is not the same thing as taking a constitutional stand. Statesmen don’t “take views” on the Constitution — they defend the Constitution with their deeds.
The follow-up question proves the point. DeMuth asked Bush if it was harder to work with a Republican or Democrat Congress. Here is part of Bush’s response:
In some ways it was more difficult because when you work with the [Republican] Congress, there was an ability at times to forgo Republican principles, and it put the President in an awkward position.... It’s easier to veto bills ... when the Democrats are in power, because, after all, it’s Republicans who crafted the bills coming in.
Bush did nothing to stop profligate spending by the Republican Congress. His excuse was that the situation was “awkward.” These are not the words of a statesman. Statesmen do not “forgo principles.”
If additional proof is needed that Bush “takes views” on principles, but does not defend them, take a look at the video of this disquieting declaration by the President, “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.” Listen to his voice. Watch his demeanor. This is a defeated man, a tired man, anything but a statesman.”
Yes, of course. The old "I had to destroy the free market system to save it" argument. You gotta just love that one. Deer in the headlights indeed. On most principals important to Conservatives, Mr. Bush, unfortunately, couldn't buy a clue if his life depended on it.