Politics

[Print]  [Email]        

Bush 43: Conservative movement is inconsequential

By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
September 15, 2009

Former President George W. Bush addresses a Fourth of July crowd at the Let Freedom Ring 2009 festival at Crystal Beach Park Arena in Woodward, Okla., Saturday, July 4, 2009. (AP Photo)

How many times during the last eight years did you hear that George W. Bush was a dangerous right-wing extremist? Probably too many to count.

What you heard less often were expressions of the deep reservations some conservatives felt about Bush's governing philosophy.

Conservatives greatly admired Bush for his steadfastness in the War on Terror -- to use that outlawed phrase -- and they were delighted by his choices of John Roberts and Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court. But when it came to a fundamental conservative principle like fiscal discipline, many conservatives felt the president just wasn't with them.

You saw that throughout the 2008 Republican presidential primaries, when GOP candidates, while not mentioning Bush specifically, got big applause from conservative Republican audiences by pledging to return fiscal responsibility to the White House.

Those cheering conservatives will find a revealing moment in a new book, scheduled for release next week, by former White House speechwriter Matt Latimer.

Latimer is a veteran of conservative politics. An admirer of Republican Sen. Jon Kyl, for whom he worked for several years, Latimer also worked in the Rumsfeld Pentagon before joining the Bush White House in 2007.

The revealing moment, described in "Speechless: Tales of a White House Survivor," occurred in the Oval Office in early 2008.

Bush was preparing to give a speech to the annual meeting of the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC. The conference is the event of the year for conservative activists; Republican politicians are required to appear and offer their praise of the conservative movement.

Latimer got the assignment to write Bush's speech. Draft in hand, he and a few other writers met with the president in the Oval Office. Bush was decidedly unenthusiastic.

"What is this movement you keep talking about in the speech?" the president asked Latimer.

Latimer explained that he meant the conservative movement -- the movement that gave rise to groups like CPAC.

Bush seemed perplexed. Latimer elaborated a bit more. Then Bush leaned forward, with a point to make.

"Let me tell you something," the president said. "I whupped Gary Bauer's ass in 2000. So take out all this movement stuff. There is no movement."

Bush seemed to equate the conservative movement -- the astonishing growth of conservative political strength that took place in the decades after Barry Goldwater's disastrous defeat in 1964 -- with the fortunes of Bauer, the evangelical Christian activist and former head of the Family Research Council whose 2000 presidential campaign went nowhere.

Now it was Latimer who looked perplexed. Bush tried to explain.

"Look, I know this probably sounds arrogant to say," the president said, "but I redefined the Republican Party."

The Oval Office is no place for a low-ranking White House staffer to get into an argument with the president of the United States about the state of the Republican Party -- or about any other subject, for that matter. Latimer made the changes the president wanted. When Bush appeared at CPAC, he made no mention of the conservative movement. In fact, he said the word "conservative" only once, in the last paragraph.

Bush veterans are going to take issue with some of Latimer's criticisms in "Speechless." As an observer of it all, I certainly don't agree with his characterizations of some Bush administration officials. But looking back at the Bush years, the scene in the Oval Office adds context to the debate that is going on inside conservative circles today.

Right after the Republican Party's across-the-board defeat last November, there was a wave of what-went-wrong self-analysis. Republicans were divided between those who believed the party had lost touch with conservative principles and those who believed it had failed to adapt to changed political and demographic circumstances.

Bush's words in the Oval Office speak directly to that first group. You can argue whether Bush was a fiscal conservative at any time in his political career, but he certainly wasn't in the White House. And some real fiscal conservatives, with their guy in charge, held their tongues.

Now, with unified Democratic control of the presidency and both houses of Congress, we're seeing spending that makes Bush's record look downright thrifty. Republicans have again found their voice on fiscal discipline. And some of them wish they had been more outspoken when a president of their own party was in the White House.

Byron York, The Examiner's chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blog posts appears on www.ExaminerPolitics.com ExaminerPolitics.com.



beltway confidential

A cursory reading of this Las Vegas Sun report, "Prospects For Organized Labor's Legislative Agenda Rapidly Fading," suggests -- and not without evidence -- that Big Labor isn't...

The headline on Bloomberg's obituary for the recently deceased Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., is "Lawmaker Murtha, Supporter of Troops, Dies at Age 77." That's a bizarre headline for...

Republicans and business interests were already deeply suspect of Craig Becker, Obama's nominee to the National Labor Relations Board. Becker was formerly counsel to the AFL-CIO...

Just a few years after scandal nearly destroyed the Buckeye State's GOP, Rasmussen has the Ohio Republican candidates for governor and Senate leading their Democratic...






To view this site, you need to have Flash Player 8.0 or later installed. Click here to get the latest Flash player.


Most Popular Headlines





 


 



 

Reader Comments

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Examiner or its staff. Comment box is limited to 250 words.

HKLee

Sep 15, 2009

I know Bush will come out with his own book but with respect to that and this book by Mr Latimer, I believe THE definitive book will be Dick Cheney's. When that come out, we'll will have a reckoning of sort. Hopefully, we'll have an accounting of just what the heck happened, from the CIA and Venezuela, to the last 3 months when Bush abandoned the free market principal.

 

brewpop

Sep 15, 2009

For most of President Bush's tenure it was difficult to discern the difference between the two political parties. Republicans went on an uncontrolled spending binge, looking very much like Democrats. And Bush, until the very end, never once lifted his veto pen over a spending bill. A fiscal conservative he was not.

 

drjohn

Sep 15, 2009

Defense-wise Bush was a conservative. The problem was that he spent like a drinken sailor- like a Democrat.
I don't know why they don't love him than they do. Especially after that garbage "No Child" program.

 

JBean

Sep 15, 2009

HKLee -- I also look forward to Cheney's book, but I don't expect it to be much about fiscal policy. Cheney's lasers were set to terrorism, and how to keep the US safe. It still consumes him, and on that subject I think we'll see some things we only now suspect.

 

Ceme

Sep 15, 2009

"we're seeing spending that makes Bush's record look downright thrifty"

We can accuse this administration of stuff all we want, but it was our party that ran the most devastating and destructive govt in US history. And we all cheered. Sad! Very Sad!!

 

r€nato

Sep 15, 2009

Ceme is the only one here who gets it. Republicans cheered on Bush endlessly and unquestioningly for 8 years. Now that he's no longer useful...

 

r€nato

Sep 15, 2009

If Bush's spending record looks downright thrifty, that's in large part because of the dishonest off-the-book accounting gimmicks they used which Obama ended, like keeping the Iraq and Afghanistan wars 'off the books'.

When you account for that and disregard the stimulus (most likely that is going to be a one-off), Obama's spending is not a whole lot different than Bush's.

 

DaveinMD

Sep 15, 2009

So Cheney was the expert in terrorism? Well, I guess 9/11 was his mulligan, right? Does every administration get a do-over of that magnitude?

You should be cheering the Obama administration on. After all, this administration is the first one in years that didn't have 3,000 Americans killed under their watch!

 

swamptroll

Sep 15, 2009

I love this schtick!

Bush totally sucked. Therefore, Bush must have been a closet liberal!

Bush's paradoxes are really those of the contemporary Republican party:
they rail against "pork," but Red states are the largest recipients of pork.
They preach fiscal discipline, but need to continue supporting a nonsensical war in Iraq in order to stay in power.
They say they're for "small government" but one half of their base wants the federal gov't to prevent individual women from choosing what's best for them, federally ban gay marriage, and they had the Congress intervene in the case of one woman on life support in Florida. Very small government!
Now our new canard: Getting Medicare recipients to attack "socialized medicine."

Plutocrats, Libertarians and Theocrats cannot together run a party.

 

Xanthippas

Sep 15, 2009

"And some real fiscal conservatives, with their guy in charge, held their tongues."

If by "some real fiscal conservatives" you mean "nearly every conservative on every issue" then you might be onto something. What you mean to say is, the GOP defined conservatism to mean "whatever Bush did while he was in office." It won't be quite as easy to back out of this as you hope, especially given that many things that conservatives still believe in things the Bush administration did.

 

DaveinMD

Sep 15, 2009

Keeping the Iraq and Afghanistan wars off the books wasn't an accounting gimmick, it was an outright lie.

But even more dishonest was the Senior Presription Bill. The chief actuary for Medicare lied about the cost at the behest of the head of Medicare, Thomas Scully. This is not someone's opinion, it is a fact. Scully was removed as head of Medicare, but does anyone really believe that he, by himself, decided that the actuary should lowball the estimate. He was named by Bush, but is there any doubt this was a Karl Rove enterprise?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_A._Scully

Of course Conservatives seemed to have no problem with this sort of crap as long as they were in charge. After all, it was only a $1.2 trillion unfunded program, and a gift to the drug companies.

 

r€nato

Sep 15, 2009

excellent comment swamptroll but you forgot: "They rail against the gays, but not a few of them seem to enjoy sex with other men on the down low. They want the 10 Commandments posted in schools and courthouses... but they sure seem to have trouble with not having adulterous affairs."

 

steve

Sep 15, 2009

York has Buyer's Remorse.

 

this is rich

Sep 15, 2009

disgraceful, but all-too-typical of byron york and his dimwitted attempts to explain away the outright failure of conservatism as a governing philosophy. i'm not worried, though, as york couldn't argue his way out of a wet paper bag. does anyone here remember when he was having a converation with matt taibbi about the housing crisis and couldn't explain what a credit default swap was? without wingnut welfare york would be working in a wal-mart in alabama.

 

Vlad Beck

Sep 15, 2009

He sure redefined the party all right.

 

booger

Sep 15, 2009

As a conservative, I am of the opinion that Bush was not a conservative. He expanded government spending, was weak on border security, and I thought he did not go far enough on the war on terror

 

Don L

Sep 15, 2009

I'll credit him with the right stance on what some of us see as the sould of America -the "culture of life" and the "culture of death." If you'll slaughter an innocent baby, you'll have no problem fixing a little wall street deal.

He was wrong on spending and the border, and the worst defender of his positions of any president in history - and his poor speaking skills wasn't the problem, it was his heart. He lacked the will.

 

Reginald Perrin

Sep 15, 2009

If only there had been a conservative Republican Congress all those years to rein in that faux-conservative Bush. Mr. York seems to forget that Congress has the power of the purse, and from 2001 to 2006, Republicans were in charge and did nothing to stop spending. Were they not really conservatives either? I guess Tom DeLay was not a conservative when he was strong-arming votes for Medicare Part D? Mr. York would like us to associate all the failures of 2001-08 with Bush, when in fact they were failures of the conservative movement and conservative policians at every level of government.

 

comics

Sep 15, 2009

Bush was not a conservative in any regard. If he was we wouldn't have an open border leaking criminals through like a rusty bucket, how is that being conservative on defense?

 

Reginald Perrin

Sep 15, 2009

Booger beautifully represents the contradictions of the modern conservative movement. Bush "expanded government spending" but at the same time "he did not go far enough in the war on terror." Wars cost money, Booger, and a lot of it. I'll grant you, though, that this is an American, not just a conservative, contradiction; Americans, conservative and liberal, want a government that provides a lot of benefits but that doesn't spend any money to provide them.

 

BobInFL

Sep 15, 2009

I objected to Bush's 2000 "Compassionate Conservative" campaign -- implying that, somehow unlike all those other evil conservatives, he was a "Compassionate" one. When he supported McCain's Incumbent Protection Act (aka Campaign Finance Reform) I howled in protest. Ditto the "pass it before reading" 3000-page Patriot Act. My family can tell you how much I abhorred the Bush spending spree. About the only thing Bush got right was 1) tax cuts generally boost the economy, and 2) the War on Terror (sorry, newspeak translaton "Overseas Contingency Operations"), and 3) SCOTUS (after we kicked his ass over Harriet Myers).

And now, when The Messiah has already quadrupled this year's deficit over Bush's largest, and is gunning for 2 or 3 TRILLION more, I'm not allowed to criticize him because "we conservatives" supported Bush all the time on everything?

Who is this "we", kemosabe?

 

par4

Sep 15, 2009

Booger? You can NOT be serious.

 

jiffy

Sep 15, 2009

Bush did not abandon free market principles in the last three months. He let them triumph. Why should the government decide how much debt it should issue? Leave it to the private sector - the surviving Wall Street banks - and it will result in the best of all possible worlds. We are living in the post government age. The titans of Wall Street are making the consequential decisions as Ms. Rand desired.

 

AST

Sep 15, 2009

I don't like Gary Bauer much myself, but I am a conservative and part of the conservative movement. Maybe Bush was just irritated by conservatives sniping at him while he was being excoriated by the left.

I don't much care for that image of Bush, whom I've admired a lot in the past. I hope there's more to this story.

 

Ted

Sep 15, 2009

I wonder if Harriet Myers was a choice that would "redefine" SCOTUS picks by a Republican President.

 

Right thinker

Sep 15, 2009

We all loved W because he drove the left crazy. We had our heads in the sand and now we are left with Tea Baggers. We lost big time.

 

Marc B

Sep 15, 2009

Conservatives are irritated because they gave Bush huge leeway when they should have been reigning him in. Bush is NOT a conservative, he was a big government, open borders, globalist, Straussian neo CON man.

I held my nose and voted for him too, only because Kerry was so much worse, but refused to do the same for Juan McCain. The Republican party is at risk of becoming a minority party because of the policies of the Bush-Rove team. I'm all for a real conservative party, but the repubs have to assert and return to their core nationalist and majority population values if they want my vote, the same for independents and dems.

 

Get Over It

Sep 15, 2009

People...Bush is gone. He screwed some things up and he did some things right. You never heard him blaming Clinton for anything...he stood up and took responsibility. Something that Obama and his corrupt team have to learn to do. This isn't a community organizing gig - this is about being accountable and looking forward...at least it should be. Leaders lead. Losers blame others.

 

tyler

Sep 15, 2009

George Bush was a disgrace. Sean Hannity Mark Levin Rush Limbaugh all kept quiet the only one to call bush out as the socialist he was was Michael Savage. I learned a lot about so called leading voices of conservatism with George Bush. They are hacks. If you can't express outrage with what George Bush did then you are not a conservative. But now that the president has a d next to his name the gloves come off. Its a gimmick and it works on most people.

 

Culpepper

Sep 15, 2009

I'm not surprised Bush didn't understand it. He wasn't a conservative, but a "neo-con" for a lack of a better word. His brand of "compassionate conservatism" politics are dead. Good riddance. He left the country in a disaster and the only good to come out of it was that a lot of conservatives woke up. Spare me that he kept us safe. He did more damage to us than good.

 

RobbyS

Sep 15, 2009

Bush is not a socialist, but he certainly is not a conservative. More like a Tory Democrat like Lloyd Bentsen.

 

EagleEye

Sep 15, 2009

BUSH did it on PURPOSE- This article is NONSENSE- Just Like the Republicrats sent in Befuddled old Compromiser- Juan McCain to Lose to the Demicans- BUSH DESTROYED THE CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT- BUT WE ARENT SO EASILY DISSUADED FROM FREEDOM- Look Out Washington in 2010 Its Time for REAL CHANGE.

 

david

Sep 15, 2009

How can an unnatural thing like gay mariage be right.Thats why I am a conservative. When bush did nothing about borderguards locked up for doing their jobs, He was a RINO.He was not conservative. On keeping America safe, I give him hi marks.

 

Conservatism

Sep 15, 2009

Conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed.

Right guys? Right? Guys?

@david - Keeping America safe? WTF are you talking about? On who's watch did 9/11 occur again? Who was president when 4000 true patriots gave their lives to prevent Saddam from using WMDs/prevent Saddam from using WMD-related programs/free Iraq? Who again said he wanted Bin Laden "Dead or alive" and what happened with that?
Seriously?

 

Mike

Sep 15, 2009

@HKLEE - Cheney is the one who stated "deficits don't matter", so I doubt his book will lament a loss of fiscal sanity.

 

gustavopena02116@yahoo.com

Sep 15, 2009

Read the piece. It is very good and very funny. However, Latimer trashes Kyl (not by name...thanks Byron).


Bush Jr. was a liberal.

 

Neverday

Sep 15, 2009

The Republicans and Democracts are cut from the same cloth.

 

devan

Sep 15, 2009

The fiscal conservatives have been disowned and dispossessed by the religious conservatives in their takeover of the Republican party. The remaining viable fiscal conservatives are blue dog Democrats.

 

Truelive

Sep 15, 2009

"I NEVER KNEW A MAN I DIDN'T LIKE!" YOU COMMITTED MORE UNDERHANDED CRIMES THAN ADOLF HITLER. CONSERVATIVE MY @#%&@!

 

Pinbot

Sep 15, 2009

I think it's actually fair to blame the Bush administration in part for the current insane levels of spending. Bush spent a ton when he should have had conservative restraint. Some Democrats may have wagged a finger of shame, but inside they were thinking, "We will NEVER be outspent by Republicans." Of course, that's exactly the course they have set.

If the Republicans didn't set the bar as high as they did, would the Democrats still be able to spend as much to clear it? We'll never really know, but the Dems seem bent on spending and borrowing until there's nobody left who dares make us a loan.

 

realdeal

Sep 15, 2009

Bush was one of the most liberal presidents in US history. The reckless spending, bailouts and growth of federal government was only one aspect. What was the patriot Act and Dept of Homeland security other than empowering the feds and Executve branch to bipass the other branches?

What did the Iraq war do other than fit the Trotsky doctrine of spreading ideology around the world?

 

rush-t

Sep 15, 2009

Let's just include "Conservative" with "Patriot", "National Security" and the decades other tainted words or phrases.

 

Mary

Sep 15, 2009

I'm with Beck and have been for a very long time. It ,ade no sense or logic that Bush said he was securing the country and then left the border as wide open as you can get. It does not compute. Therefore the liberals were right all along. Bush is an idiot!!Or a closet traitor to the sovreigntry of the country.....I think it 's both!

 

Bryan

Sep 15, 2009

Tyler, I could not agree more with your point of Michael Savage being the only true voice of conservatism. He sticks to his principles and that is why he will always be supreme.

 

Civility

Sep 15, 2009

I love this. Some people are so predictable. Mooning over Bush those eight years while he(led by Cheney and Rove) trashed this country and now you're turning on him because he's down. So predictable, turn on your own, never take responsibility. These comments are really amusing.

 

Civility

Sep 15, 2009

The GOP, the Grand Old Pouters

 

Civility

Sep 15, 2009

OK, one last question and I'll be satisfied. So you guys would have been fine if a Democrat, or wait, how about Joe Wilson, yelled "liar" during a speech by Bush over weapons of mass destruction or the war in Iraq? Quiet as field mice, better get instructions from Fox News.

 

Vincent F

Sep 15, 2009

Of course Bush wasn't a conservative. His Presidency was a disaster. Therefore, he cannot be a conservative, because that would mean that conservative policies failed. And if we know anything about conservatism, it means never taking personal responsibility. That's for losers on welfare, right?

 

Sep 16, 2009

I don't get this stuff about "Bush is a Democrat." You can similarly say, because Clinton kept spending under control, and cut the deficit almost to nothing, he was a Republican. (This makes no sense.)

After all, it wasn't a Democrat who said, "Deficits don't matter."

I voted against Bush because it was obvious from the start that he was going to blow up the federal debt even more than Ronald Reagan.

 

Simon

Sep 16, 2009

There has to be a distinction between the parties. I submit when there is the repubs sweep, but when you have a good golly gent like McCain agreeing with everything the great Obama says in most debates (even concerning Wilson) the folks lose focus hence no distinction and a rout ensues. The dems actually need to hide who they are, that's why they NEED repubs to be that stupid to sign on to Obamacare - it's their political cover.

 

Malcom Z.

Sep 16, 2009

George Bush was and is a politician. All presidents have MASSIVE egos. Bush was a "compassionate" conservative. Remember that awful phrase?? That means liberal-lite. What was equally unfortunate and undisciplined are Speaker Hastert and Tom Delay.

 

Frostbyte

Sep 16, 2009

Bush the great protector? Open borders, 100's of new Wahhabi centers, islamic jihad training camps a few miles from the capital, 30 million illegal aliens, Medicare Part D, border guards and soldiers imprisoned, ACORN funding increased, appointment of czars, and assaults on our financial system. The only real difference between these two is Obama's unlimited power arising from owning the media, the House, and the Senate. Keep fighting this (D) and (R) war and you will insure to victory of the Progressive Movement over our Constitution!

 

Civility

Sep 16, 2009

The middle class carries the weight of the well to do and the poor. We bear the brunt of the "medical vacations" insurance companies are now sending people on to get their care in India and other countries (they save money on hospitals in other countries)...essentially outsourcing jobs but still keeping premiums high. Then when the 'screamers on health care' find themselves in the emergency room, they don't pay and leave the bill in the lap of the middle class. Give the middle class a break for once, we need health care reform. Going after our president through health care reform is the most short-sided, tool of the Dick Cheneys of the world effort to keep CEOs in big bonuses. Hope you all read AARP's article supporting health care reform. Oh wait, I forgot, you really don't care about health care, your real agenda is .......

 

Kestrel

Sep 16, 2009

The People have become nothing but expendable pawns to be used by the two fake political parties. With every election we are further distracted by divisive issues while allowing the shackles of tyranny to grow tighter.

 

milescaughey@hotmail.com

Sep 16, 2009

President Bush was John the Baptist for President Obama. Few libertarians/conservatives I know were excited by him. He definately showed his true covers after the 2004 election. He is a puppet of the Trans National Elites establishing their New World Order. President Obama just accelerated it. Don't have to look past the BANKSTER giveaway started by President Bush and rapidly expanded by President Obama. It's all Good Cop/Bad Cop game, with our children/grandchildren going to pay up!

 

bobc

Sep 16, 2009

As Republicans should kick out all RINO's, the Democrats need to kick out all Progressives!

Citizens need to clean House, then the Senate.

Corruption is running rampant in D.C. and it is up to us to see many are prosecuted!

 

FrankDG

Sep 16, 2009

Nothing really new here. Just confirmation about Bush. The reason his approval ratings collapsed the last few years is that conservatives finally started catching on that he was not a conservative. He got a pass with a lot of people after 9/11 but the truth is that dem/libs were going to hate him anyway and he betrayed most of the people who voted for him with his stances on spending and immigration and foreign policy. He's a big government/globalist for sure.

 

JasonSC

Sep 16, 2009

Bush was a joke. He called himself a Compassionate Conservative for crying out loud. I can't think of a more condescending title because it implies conservatives aren't compassionate. Low and behold he was just another Washingtonian elitist in conservative clothing.

 

EddyTX

Sep 16, 2009

Kestrel
You couldn't have said it better. Bush did this. Obama did this. Meanwhile, the country is burning down. WAKE UP PEOPLE!

 

Sep 16, 2009

Everyone writes a "tell-all" - so WHAT! Obama is the pres and he's our handy, dandy Marxist in chief who will dazzle us with things we don't want!

 

need fresh air

Sep 16, 2009

Everyone writes a "tell-all" after a pres is gone - SO WHAT! Ob is our handy, dandy Marxist-in-chief who will dazzle us with his take overs and suppression. His history is being written as we speak and it ain't pretty!

 

Andre

Sep 16, 2009

Does this mean that those fat-cat conservatives are going to give back their tax cuts? Yea, I didn't think so.

 

CFStrategies.com

Sep 16, 2009

Why would this be a surprise to anyone? We all knew that GWB was not a conservative, but he was the best choice we had at the time. His fiscal policy certainly contributed to the economic mess we are in, but the war on terror was the preeminent issue. On that, I think he did as good a job as could be expected.

 

FreeStateYank

Sep 16, 2009

I believe fiscal conservatives [of all parties] didn't voice their disapproval of President Bush's wild spending because of 9/11 and the resulting war. I'd also wager that many conservatives were not too sure we should have gone into Iraq, but once there, we felt it our duty to support fully funding the needs of our troops.

Bush misread a lack of objection to spending as agreement. Big mistake on his part as well as those, like me, who piped down out of loyalty to our troops.

Coulda, shoulda, woulda. Conservatives aren't generally a wildly vocal group, but we're learning. Keep it up, fiscal conservatives!

 

GracefulConsonance

Sep 16, 2009

I admit I was with Bush 43 on taxes and the war on Terror, held my tongue a bit too much when Bush 43 was going off the reservation on NCLB, illegal immigration, and the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Lesson learned.

 

BigZ

Sep 16, 2009

Bush was second to Carter as the worst President of our time. It didnt take Obama long to replace him on the list. Bush problem was he wanted to be the King of Mexico more than President. Obama wants to out do Carter.

McCain was no option since he is a TransParty Politician.

 

Jim

Sep 16, 2009

"War on Terror" isn't an outlawed phrase, Mr. York, it's just a stupid thing for officials to say in public. It makes them look like they have a four-year-old's understanding of human affairs, and when they're asked to use it anyway they understandably (and discreetly) resist. The previous administration dropped the phrase after thousands of smart people in the government requested an end to its use. The current administration pointedly dropped it not only because it's bad communication policy, but also because the Democratic base enjoys seeing the President demonstrate knowledge and understanding.

 

Civility

Sep 16, 2009

"conservatives" -- which appears to be the catch-all phrase for a group of misanthropes --- characteristics: 1. doublespeak lingo, with lots of cliches and soundbites that essentially say nothing (think tanks, such as the Heritage Foundation, are very clever coming up with these sparky, meaningless words and how clever is that to accuse Republicans who fail of being Democrats!) 2. never take responsibility, never say I'm sorry (aren't parents supposed to teach that, it's part of being an adult, family values and all that... hmmm) 3. opinions fed through partisan radio and TV (oh wait, there is that misinformation network...you know, like sending out letters saying if health care reform goes through only Democrats will reap the benefits.) Too bad you have beat up all the moderates. I have to admit, in the past on occasion, I have voted for GOP. Why? Because I respected the individual. Now lots of people with big mouths and guns.

 

milidude

Sep 16, 2009

people: get beyond the left/right paradigm.... both parties are ruled by the same elite bankers and financed by same as well. the grandiose spending is nothing more than a coup de etat' of sorts; trying to plunder (1) the savings and assets of the global middle class(2)to eviscerate the present financial system with such force of failure as to guarantee the installation of the nwo/mono-theist-banking system. this is why nobama has picked it up even to a much higher frenetic pace. all who are involved in this treachery should be hung to death on a yard-arm.... for treason

 

thomaskust@hotmail.co.uk

Sep 16, 2009

Fiscal discipline and fiscal conservatism are not synonymous.

The first is having a reliable mechanism to inform the policy-making process and sticking with it, the later is a dogmatic iteration which may or may not be appropriate to the situation.

Of course on occasion there may be some overlap between the two, but that is a matter more of luck than judgement. And who would be willing to surrender control of policy by refusing to calculate the consequences?

 

Mac-101

Sep 17, 2009

Milidude, keep it up. The BANKSTERS led by Goldman Sacks and George Soros will open up anyone's eyes who wish to see. I like to compare President Bush to John the Baptist for President Obama. The Banksters have completely owned President BUSH I, Cinton, Bush II and now President Obama.

 

Mac-101

Sep 17, 2009

Milidude, just preach my four points which neither party has ever recently adressed:
1. Unrestricted Illegal immigration
2. Energy policy which makes us dependent on foreign energy
3. Eliminating our manufactoring base
4. Purposefully bankrupting the US

1. Secure the borders
2. DRILL and BUILD NOW
3. Tariff on countries that have UNBALLANCED trade with US. Spank China hard!
4. Fair Tax NOW! Balance the Budget, Get rid of the FED

 

ggordon

Sep 17, 2009

hey Mac-101, you left 1 out.

term limits

3 brings inflation - need national "discipline" to stop buying total junk

 

alainL

Sep 17, 2009

Yes, I have buyers remorse until I think of two words: President Gore. After I stop laughing, I realize America dodged a bullet on that one. I thank the people of Tennessee for not sending their favorite son to the White House.

 

Darvin Dowdy

Sep 17, 2009

Mr. York its so much more than simply fiscal discipline. George W. Bush was/is clearly a Transnational Progressive. Google that term if you're perplexed. He surrendered so much of our nations sovereign power over to world orgs and foreign gov'ts. And after 1/21/05 he and his sidekick Rove displayed outright contempt for the Conservative Base. Sadly, there remains too many in the GOP like "W". They have not been purged and our Republican Party is still a dysfunctional mess. Darvin Dowdy

 

ricardoh

Sep 17, 2009

alaint your remark about Gore being the alternative is right on. Who knows where we would be if that whack job had been elected. Bush turned out to be a disappointment.

 

bank on it

Sep 17, 2009

Bush only represents what the ppl wanted.. more government: now we cannot board a plane or do business w/o being suspected a terrorist and privacy is an anathema

 

goss

Sep 17, 2009

I never though Bush a liberal, but I also never thought that he was religious by any stretch of the imagination. He played the religous community like a fiddle. How often does Bush go to church now that he's out of office or hang out with the zealots- never would be my guess. If you want the Republican nomination its what you have to do- McCain got the nomination but little of the hardcore support because he didn't pander enough.

 

He was a humble, bold president

Sep 17, 2009

Bush was a humble President. I don't believe the quote. Personal arrogance in him just does not compute. (Unlike our present leader.) He led by his principals, boldly.

 

ambro

Sep 17, 2009

Anyone remember the hosannas in response to "big-government" and "compassionate" conservatism. Republicans on Bush KoolAid like Tony Snow, Karl Rove, Hugh Hewitt, et al. never Faulted Pres. Bush on philosophy only on tactics. Conservatives had the one choice of holding their noses and pulling the lever and correctly supported the Pres. on the Iraq War because of the scorching rage and hatred of the Left that opposed the war. Pres. Bush was arrogant in the same way Pres. Clinton was in respect to left feminists - if they don't vote for me where else can they go? and Pres. Johnson during the Vietnam War was in regard to blue-collar Democrats supporter of the war effort that generally were not supporting his domestic agenda.

 

Andrew

Sep 18, 2009

Oh so President Bush wasn't a conservative? In some ways, he wasn't conservative enough for sure. But I'll tell you that there were a lot of good things that he did in the White House that America should be thankful for years to come. Just don't forget that politicians are just that. That said, this article reads a little ridiculously to suggest that President Bush wasn't a conservative.

 

herfbert

Sep 19, 2009

"We" didn't all cheer as Bush and his cronies looted the country. I voted for Bush because he ran on a true conservative platform, once elected he did the old bait and switcheroo, began doing the OPPOSITE of his campaign promises. So much for voting. They're all crooks, and Ron Paul is the only real conservative, Bush is a Neocon.

 

dkmeller

Sep 19, 2009

Does it really matter? Long before king George the Stupid was coronated as President, there really was almost nothing to conserve in the GOP. Even during Wendell Willkie's campaign in 1940, the Republicans were known as the "me too" party regarding their craven imitations of policies associated by that Obama prototype--and hero--FDR.

The more things change...

PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller

 

somedude

Sep 27, 2009

A lying hack publishes lies and the BDS afflicted lap it up. Typical. Scumbags like Ossiah and the toon get people to fall on their swords while the Reagans and Bushes get a ream of blades in their back. There may not be justice in this world but most definitely the next. Pres. Bush has more character and courage than all his critics have in their pinky nail. When true history is told, children will ooh and ahhh at the giant that is George Walker Bush. His critics will be forgotten as the hateful idiots they are.

 

somedude

Sep 27, 2009

And I absolutely refuse to be lectured on conservatism by the same clowns that denigrated Reagan, demonized everyone who is not 100% with them as "socialists" and "liberals", praised/ignored the Ossiah, and thinks incrementalism is a dirty word and the only way to bring real change is to let the Marxists win and "teach America a lesson." Well, you got your wishes. If America survives unscathed it will be no thanks to the Perpetually Pure and Perfectly Peeved Posse wing of the conservative movement.

 

haohao

Jan 7, 2010

Gucci
Gucci shop
Gucci bags
Gucci shoes
Gucci ON sale
Gucci Belts
Gucci small accessories
Gucci hats & scarves
Gucci wallets
Gucci Handbags
Gucci Women's Shoes
Gucci Men's shoes

 

mytiffany

Jan 25, 2010

Colin Mathers tiffanys was the lead author of the study. tiffany co He is the W.H.O.'s coordinator for epidemiology tiffany rings and burden of disease tiffany jewellery. He says the research points to major differences around the world.

 


Post a comment


Email:
(This will not be displayed or shared. Privacy Policy)

Your Name:

Comment:




Local

Another snowball fight planned for Dupont Circle

The Official Dupont Circle Snowball Fight facebook fanpage has over 6,000 fans now, and it looks as if snowed in DC'ers will return for another battle. Full story

Politics

GOP winning war over Miranda rights for terrorists

Even as the administration defends its decision to grant accused Detroit bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab the right to remain silent, the president himself is hinting that things might be done differently in the future. Full story

Local

D.C. region braces for up to 20 more inches of snow

The National Weather Service has the entire D.C. metro area, from Prince William County north, under a winter storm warning for 10 to 20 inches of snow. Forecasters have had their eyes on this storm for days, but the projected snow totals were bumped up late Monday. Full story