Tea Party Is Evidence 'Democracy Works,'--President Bush

FoxNews.com ^ | November 5, 2010 | FoxNews.com

[luvie]

The rise of the Tea Party movement shows "democracy works ," former President George W. Bush says in an interview to air Tuesday night on Fox News' "Hannity."

"Here's what I see. I see democracy working. People are expressing a level of frustration or concern and they're getting involved in the process," Bush told Sean Hannity in advance of the release Tuesday of his memoir, "Decision Points."

"And the truth of the matter is, democracy works in America," Bush said.

[ohioWfan]

Of course he's a conservative......just not across the board. Roberts and Alito and scores of federal justices alone are proof of his conservatism........and for two years the Republic hung on by a thread precisely because of them.

Again, he was consistently pro-life and has been honored by pro-life organizations. That's conservative.

Also, he consistently cut taxes and never raised them (and didn't buckle as Reagan did)......even when he had a radically leftist Congress for the last two years. And he was perhaps the best CinC ever. Ask his troops. And that's conservative.

We can argue the facts until the cows come home, but you can't factually state that President Bush was not a conservative, nor that Reagan was a perfect conservative. Neither is true. The myth of Reagan isn't backed up with the reality of the man. It's only opinion and emotion that continue to insist that Reagan was a god-like creature. Both men did things I disagreed with, and I respect them both as leaders more than I can say.

What I do oppose is how often the anti-Bush crowd around here used Reagan as a bloody weapon against President Bush. It was nauseating if you respected both men. Perhaps that's why there is a need to balance the reality of both men by the facts that DrDeb (and I) have brought up.

I know it's cool around here to belittle President Bush, but it's, as you have admitted, not based in provable facts.

Perhaps you should stop trying and just appreciate the moral clarity, leadership and character of the man God chose to lead us through some very dark days.

[ohioWfan]

There is absolutely nothing 'revisionist' about anything I've said.

And none of it is 'crap.'

President Bush had an awful and weak Congress for 6 years (forgotten the 'gang of 14, McCain, Graham, DeWine?? I haven't.) and then the hardest left, most hostile Congress in history for two.

btw, why don't you just address the issues brought up and leave off the 'crap' stuff you keep adding onto your arguments?

[perfect_rovian_storm]

Of course he's a conservative......just not across the board. Roberts and Alito and scores of federal justices alone are proof of his conservatism........and for two years the Republic hung on by a thread precisely because of them.

And if Bush had had his way, he'd have Harriet Myers there instead of Alito...

Again, he was consistently pro-life and has been honored by pro-life organizations. That's conservative.

No arguments there, though being conservative in certain ways does not a conservative make.

Also, he consistently cut taxes and never raised them (and didn't buckle as Reagan did)......even when he had a radically leftist Congress for the last two years. And he was perhaps the best CinC ever. Ask his troops. And that's conservative.

Taxes weren't raised, but spending went through the roof all over the place. That's NOT conservative.

We can argue the facts until the cows come home, but you can't factually state that President Bush was not a conservative

That isn't a statement of fact. It is a statement of opinion. My opinion is that Bush is not a conservative. Your opinion is the opposite. Your opinion seems to be based on a rather shocking penchant for ignoring actual facts. So, based on that, my opinion is that your opinion is wrong. You have failed to convince me.

[perfect_rovian_storm]

There is absolutely nothing 'revisionist' about anything I've said.

Sure there is. Either that or you're ignorant of civics. Spending bills come out of where? Who controlled the purse strings for 6 of Bush's 8 years? Hmm????

btw, why don't you just address the issues brought up and leave off the 'crap' stuff you keep adding onto your arguments?

I'll get right on that the second you stop making crappy arguments. :p

[ohioWfan]

LOL! My opinion is based on the whole of conservatism. Not being conservative in some ways doesn't negate being conservative in others.

Alito is SCJustice because of President Bush, and President Bush alone. Are you actually saying someone else nominated him, or that he did it unwillingly? I would like to see evidence of that.

I never said spending was conservative. It most certainly isn't. But spending too much doesn't negate the FACTS that President Bush appointed two strong SC Justices as well as federal judges, cut taxes and never raised them, was pro-business, was a strong CinC and was strongly pro-life.

Those are FACTS, rovian. The ones that you apparently are shockingly ignoring.

Your opinion is, therefore, the one that is wrong.

[ohioWfan]

You see, my FRiend, I haven't made a single 'crappy' argument. I've just made arguments that you have evaded rather than accepted.

For example, when I brought up Roberts and Alito....FACTUAL Justices, now sitting on the bench.......rather than saying, "You are right. He appointed two strong justices."....and admitting the FACT.....chose to evade and slip in the evil Harriet Miers.

Changing the subject like that is bad debating, rovian. Not good at all.

The Republicans DID hold the purse strings for 6 years, and that is why I blame the Congress for the spending. They blew it BIG time, and paid for it.

So there again, we should be in agreement, but you chose to slip out of the argument by flip-flopping. Not good debating there either.

I'm sticking with the facts. Stop revising and evading, OK?

[perfect_rovian_storm]

My opinion is based on the whole of conservatism. Not being conservative in some ways doesn't negate being conservative in others.

Not raising taxes is conservative. Spending like a drunken sailor is not conservative. Doing both at the same time is foolish and gutless and again NOT conservative.

Alito is SCJustice because of President Bush, and President Bush alone. Are you actually saying someone else nominated him, or that he did it unwillingly? I would like to see evidence of that.

It must be nice in your little world. You want evidence? How about reading on through the hundreds if not thousands of threads here at Free Republic from during the Myers appointment. GWB's choice for the SC was Harriet Myers. She didn't withdraw because he wanted to appoint someone else. She withdrew because the entire conservative movement erupted over what was clearly seen as an attempt to appoint another Souter.

Your facts aren't facts, by the way. Each one has an asterisk next to it. Let's go through them:

President Bush appointed two strong SC Justices

Yes and that is very nice. However, it is certainly worth noting that prior to appointing Alito to the court, he tried to appoint Harriet Myers. Slight asterisk there.

cut taxes and never raised them

True, but a pesky little asterisk for allowing spending to go completely out of control even before the Dems took over and then going hog wild insane after.

was pro-business

Of course he was. The guy who signed the bill banning the incandescent light bulb is fantastically pro-business. And that part where he 'abandoned the free market to save it' was awesomely pro-business. I know it helped the heck out of my business, that's for sure.

was a strong CinC

I'd personally like to know why he allowed things to drone on for so long in Iraq and didn't bother to change anything about it until after the Dems took congress, but other than that, he seemed to be a strong CinC.

strongly pro-life No arguments there other than he could have been a more effective spokesman for the cause.

Your opinion is, therefore, the one that is wrong.

Now THAT's funny.

[perfect_rovian_storm]

You see, my FRiend, I haven't made a single 'crappy' argument. I've just made arguments that you have evaded rather than accepted.

Only in your own mind.

For example, when I brought up Roberts and Alito....FACTUAL Justices, now sitting on the bench.......rather than saying, "You are right. He appointed two strong justices."....and admitting the FACT.....chose to evade and slip in the evil Harriet Miers.

No, YOU are the one ignoring Harriet Myers, glossing over the facts and claiming that Bush's SC appointments don't have that black mark on them. In the end, he did the right thing, but the right thing wasn't his first instinct.

Changing the subject like that is bad debating, rovian. Not good at all.

That's not changing the subject. It's introducing information that you have ignored.

So there again, we should be in agreement, but you chose to slip out of the argument by flip-flopping. Not good debating there either.

Oh, dear. I hesitate to ask where you're getting this flip-flopping thing. I've been quite consistent here. In fact, it seems I'm having to repeat myself many times to get you to admit the facts you are ignoring.

revising and evading, OK?

No, it's not okay that you are trying to revise history and evade being called on it. Enough already. I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you.

[ohioWfan]

No, actually, it's not funny.

Because you disagree with SOME of what President Bush did, you are trashing him for everything he did.

You need to be more discerning in your thought process, rovian. And in addition, if you actually think that the anger and venom on FR had ANYTHING to do with Mier's withdrawal, you are delusional. She didn't make it through the process. She was failing in the interviews interviews, and withdrew.

It was President Bush who then nominated Alito immediately after she withdrew. A fact that you 'shockingly' ignore.

But I understand that there are those of you here who are not independent thinkers and are 'go with the flow' types. I never had much respect for people who let others sway their opinions, and have always made sure to think for myself. It's a good quality in a conservative.

In time, you will most likely see that your entirely negative assessment of President Bush is not historically accurate, but I promise I won't say, "I told you so."

In the mean time I'm sure you'll keep posting that Reagan was perfect and Bush was in the mud, but you and I will both know that your argument is, well, in your own words, "crappy."

Peace, rovian.

[ohioWfan]

I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you.

Not as sorry as I feel for you, rovian.

To be so unable to discern and make judgements must make it rough to make it through life intact.

See you.

[perfect_rovian_storm]

[ohioWfan]

Fitting ending to your less than cogent and rather cartoonish argumentation. Thanks for backing me up here.

See you. :)

[luvie]

You’re welcome! I am sure it’s going to be wonderful and it’s
#1 on my Christmas list! WOOHOO!

[luvie]

Awesome pictures, GB! I miss this man and appreciate so much
how much he loves the troops and his country! I felt SAFE
when he was in office. I feel scared now....and there is the
difference!

[GlockThe Vote]

GWB is the reason for the Tea Party in the first place. On some issues he was good, but overall, he gave us Obama, don’t forget it.

[luvie]

You are so right...and thank you for your loyalty and love
for this president who did what was right! Indeed, the left
and the bashers would love to see the conservative movement
shattered. We must stand hand to hand to prevent this.

OUR president knows what to say and WHEN to say it. He is not
swayed by the ones who wish to bring dishonor upon his name
by their evil lies and innuendos!

[luvie]

LOL! I am sooooo ready to see the fireworks! :)

[luvie]

George Bush did NOT give us Obama...if anyone did, it was
John McLame, the RINO, who did...who ran a crappy campaign, and if it hadn’t been for Sarah, would have lost even worse
than he did!

You can TRY to blame every little nit-picky thing on President
Bush, but it doesn’t wash. It must be sad to be so angry about
everything......

[perfect_rovian_storm]

Whoops, I missed one of your fun little posts.

Because you disagree with SOME of what President Bush did, you are trashing him for everything he did.

Nonsense. I'm doing nothing of the kind. I'm just saying he isn't a conservative.

You need to be more discerning in your thought process, rovian.

And you need to start actually HAVING a thought process, so you can be more discerning about the thoughts that you process.

And in addition, if you actually think that the anger and venom on FR had ANYTHING to do with Mier's withdrawal, you are delusional.

It is representative of what was being said throughout the conservative movement. FR isn't the be all and end all, but the arguments happening here were happening amongst conservatives all over the country. That, combined with her utter incompetence, was why she withdrew. But not before Bush's people called everyone who opposed her 'sexist'. That was a nice little bit of warmth from the uber-conservative GWB.

It was President Bush who then nominated Alito immediately after she withdrew. A fact that you 'shockingly' ignore.

Ummm...nobody said he didn't. WHY did he appoint Harriet Miers first? Why was the vastly more competent and more conservative Alito the SECOND choice and not the first?

I never had much respect for people who let others sway their opinions, and have always made sure to think for myself.

You should consider outsourcing, because you're doing a really lousy job.

In the mean time I'm sure you'll keep posting that Reagan was perfect and Bush was in the mud

And that, folks, shows everyone that ohioWfan has lost the argument. He has to resort to telling me that I said things I didn't say in order to make points.

Peace.

[Morpheus2009]

Works,’—President Bush, be-baw wrote:

The best thing I can say about Bush is that he wasn’t nearly as bad as Obama is...

Well, if there’s one sensible thing I do remember about Bush, it was that he at least tried to look empathic in how he spoke, Obama not as much. He was liberal, but I guess if there’s something positive I would remember about then, it probably would be that.