“Last Eight Years” Were no Conservative Era
If Obama wins as the candidate of change from the “last eight years,” the media will try to portray this as a triumph of liberalism over conservtism, the final death knell to the Reagan era.
A Democratic victory this fall would be anything but. Save on foreign policy and judicial nominations (that is most such nominations), George W. Bush has not governed as a conservative would. The domestic policy of his Administration has been marked by well-intentioned profligacy, the establishment of new federal programs and increased financial regulation (e.g., Sarbanes-Oxley). He made no attempt to contain the size of the federal government or reduce the scope of its regulatory authority.
Conservative ideas did not fail us; the Republican President failed to govern as a conservative.
Should McCain win, it will because, in the closing days of this campaign, he more clearly articulated a conservative message on the economy. Had he done so throughout his campaign, that victory would appear more likely.
19 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
From Another Blog,
Bush and McCain would do well to learn that lesson as well.
Comment by V the K — November 1, 2008 @ 7:01 pm - November 1, 2008
It was not just Bush but the whole republican party that governed like a bunch of drunken idiots. Yet the conservative movement circled the wagons and did everything possible to keep them in power. Dissent was stifled and all who dared to question were said to be suffering from BDS, TRAITORS or worse.
CYA (Cover your arse) posts in the waning months of his presidency won’t do any good. Too bad you didn’t follow Andrew Sullivan’s lead when it would have mattered.
Comment by gillie — November 1, 2008 @ 7:07 pm - November 1, 2008
No, Gille, the conservative movement did not circle the wagons. No, dissent was not stifled. No, all who dared question were not said to be suffering from BDS. Nor called traitors.
Go check the conservatives blogs, the conservative periodicals, you’ll find a reality at odds with your spin. There has been a lot of healthy criticism from the right. Indeed, it’s form conservative blogs and editorial pages (i.e., Wall Street Journal) where I first became aware of the Administration’s profligacy.
I’ve been criticizing him on his domestic record at least since I penned, er, pixeled, this post in May 2005.
Once again, you, like so many other critics of conservatives, criticize us not as we are but as you imagine us to be.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 1, 2008 @ 7:16 pm - November 1, 2008
Once again, you, like so many other
conservativesgay left Borg drones, criticize us not as we are but as you imagine us to be.Fixed it for ya.
Comment by V the K — November 1, 2008 @ 7:40 pm - November 1, 2008
Yes, I have defended President Bush on many occasions because of the insanity of BDS. But, once he went ahead with the so-called “comprehensive immigration reform” bill-scam, I did not get a bad case of BDS, but realized that not all that President Bush did was right. Same with the bailout/rescue. I did not support it and still do not. However, Larry Kudlow has had me thinking a lot on that. And he is not a “big government” conservative. In a strange way, I think that a President McCain would govern as an actual conservative on many issues. Much more than President Bush has, especially in the second
term. And, we conservatives have to give it to Sen. McCain for going out of the box and choosing Gov. Palin to be the running mate. I really am hopeful that when Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin win on Tuesday (or thereabouts) that they will learn the lessons of “big government” conservatism. It does not work.
Comment by Mark J. Goluskin — November 1, 2008 @ 7:41 pm - November 1, 2008
We on the right have been deeply and consistently critical of Bush for his reckless spending and expansion of government, his total neglect of border security, the persecution of border agents, and his cronyism.
But, has the left criticized Obama for his close associations with anti-American radicals? No.
Has the left criticized the Obama campaign for disabling security protocols and collecting millions in probably illegal campaign donations? No.
Has the left criticized the Obama campaign for using thug tactics against critics such as threatening Justice Department investigations of those running ads critical of The One? State employees illegally running background checks on Joe the Plumber? Mass call-ins to radio talk shows where Obama critics were invited guests? No.
Seems to me it ain’t the right who are circling the wagons every time Dear Leader screws up.
Comment by V the K — November 1, 2008 @ 7:56 pm - November 1, 2008
Meanwhile, gillie, Barack Obama campaign workers have been caught committing more voter fraud in Ohio with the full cooperation and encouragement of the Obama campaign and Obama-supporting poll judges.
Now we also find out that Barack Obama got his aunt, an illegal immigrant under a deportation order, welfare housing and a job at the Boston Housing Authority, both of which are illegal, and that he took campaign contributions from her, which is also illegal.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 1, 2008 @ 8:31 pm - November 1, 2008
gillie – since Bush and the GOP Congress spent like drunken idiots (spending other people’s money), I don’t see what your problem is… unless they weren’t spending enough money fast enough.
If McCain wins, I hope he’s learned a lesson from the Bush years: being a RINO won’t make the Dems like you.
Comment by SoCalRobert — November 1, 2008 @ 8:35 pm - November 1, 2008
Look your post is basically the same thoughts that Andrew Sullivan has posted so many years ago. But instead of listening, he became a “barebacking†“traitorous†fool. By any fair account Sullivan is as fiscally conservative as he ever was, yet now he is BDSing scum, Bartlett was fired, McClellan is loony, Powell sucks and on and on and on.
To quote David Brooks, the conservative movement has become “Sean Hanitized†which means dissent must be loudly yelled down, critics must be delegitimized and party loyalty trumps all else. This post is symptomatic of that philosophy, the party is threatened so now your Dear Leader is thrown under the bus.
Comment by gillie — November 1, 2008 @ 8:41 pm - November 1, 2008
Gillie, let me repeat the point above, “like so many other critics of conservatives, criticize us not as we are but as you imagine us to be.”
You provide no facts, no links in your rant. Sullivan? Fiscally conservative? Give me a break, going googly-eyed over a candidate who wants to expand the size of the federal government? That’s not fiscal conservatism.
Party loyalty must trump all us? Where do you get that notion? You repeat your rant, yet offer no facts. Where do we yell down dissent? “Delegitimize” critics?
One moment, you’re telling me we conservatives stifle dissent of Bush, the next your criticizing me for throwing him under the bus for criticizing him?
Where has any conservative, any serious conservative at least, even hinted at calling him a Dear Leader. It’s only our critics who imagine us doing that.
I’ve been criticizing Bush’s fiscal record for at least 3 1/2 years on this blog, but praising his leadership on national security. And you just rant at some fictional conservative of your imagination. Seems you’re just looking for someone to demonize.
Why do you so need to vent against a group of people you repeatedly misrepresent and refuse to understand?
Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 1, 2008 @ 9:43 pm - November 1, 2008
Please, Guillie, exactly. If you’re going to rant, at least make it educated/footnoted. It really makes you sound like a rambling idiot.
Sorry
Comment by Timothy — November 1, 2008 @ 10:14 pm - November 1, 2008
GPW—thank you so much for stating the facts so clearly! Back in 1996, the RNC selected Bush for the 2000 GOP candidacy. I deplored the choice at the time, as did those conservatives following closely the Texas record. Obviously, our small attempts to reach the RNC and object to Mr. Bush were of no avail.
President Bush has been nothing more or less than what I expected 12 years ago: an honorable person, a political and economic centrist, a weak leader, and not a conservative. I fault him chiefly on 3 accounts: a) he has confused an entire generation of Americans as to the actual meaning of “conservatism”, b) he has failed to make use of his national podium to explain his principles, defend them, and demonstrate why they are right, and c) he has failed to a build a future for others in the GOP, for example, is there anyone in his cabinet whose political fortunes haven’t been trampled in the dust? Is there anyone who has worked for him who will have gained something for their resume?
How strange that Democrats, while disparaging opponents on the right for “lacking nuance”, can only refer to Pres. Bush in completely black or white terms. They themselves hate and despise him, and they assume that all conservatives love him and approve of everything he does. The childish level of political observation in this country depresses and frightens me.
Comment by Vivian — November 2, 2008 @ 1:08 am - November 2, 2008
Gillie, Dissent stifled? What country have you been living in? Ive seen anti-war protests almost weekly for the last 6 years, about a billion anti-bush books, several major anti-Bush movies, anti-Bush TV — plays, books and film depicting his assassination. Songs, sitcoms, talk shows, Air America, websites, blogs … and none of it stifled.
People who display BDS have been called on it. People who leak national security documents for partisan gain or try to actively undermine the war effort have rightly been called traitors. None of them, unfortunately, have gotten so much as a wrist-slap.
Ahh, it all makes sense now. Gillie=Miss Sullivan
Your “fiscal conservative” is endorsing a man who has promised to raise spending by a trillion dollars, raise a shitload of taxes, and cant even begin to pay for a small fraction of it. No one but Sullivan thinks Sullivan is conservative, fiscally or otherwise. Certainly no one dealing in reality.
Nonsense, he didnt become a barebacking traitorous fool. I believe he has always barebacked. Milky glutes or something like that?
By any fair account Sullivan is a deranged lunatic.
To translate David Brooks, “WAAAAH! They said I wasn’t conservative for supporting a socialist!”
Do grow up. Free speech applies to everyone. You’re the one whining about being criticized.
Comment by American Elephant — November 2, 2008 @ 6:41 am - November 2, 2008
I’d just like to point out that President Bush RAN for election on a prescription drug benefit. It was the big issue of the 2000 election. People wanted it, and in order to get elected, Bush felt he needed to offer an alternative to Gore’s proposal. Criticize it, and NCLB, and Faith Based Initiatives for that matter, all you want, but lets not pretend its something he sprang on us. He told us he was going to do it from the very beginning.
That accounts for a huge chunk of the increased spending. The Department of Homeland Security which he fought and lost, accounts for another, the War another, scheduled increases in existing entitlements like medicare, medicaid, and Social Security, which he also tried to reform and lost, account for most of the rest.
He proposed huge cuts in federal spending and proposed eliminating redundant programs in every single budget he proposed.
So where exactly has he done anything other than what he said he would from day one?
Comment by American Elephant — November 2, 2008 @ 6:53 am - November 2, 2008
The funny thing about David Brooks is that he was McCain’s biggest cheerleader in the primaries. Brooks championed McCain’s open-borders, work-across-the-aisle moderate Republican model as the GOP’s only hope, then stabs him in the back when he got the nomination.
It makes you wonder whether these moderate, “go along to get along,” repudiate conservatism in all its forms Republicans really have the party’s best interests at heart, or just prefer the good old days of the 1970’s when Republicans were a permanent minority and social democrats ran the show.
Comment by V the K — November 2, 2008 @ 8:45 am - November 2, 2008
Vivian,
I agree with you that Bush’s greatest failure has been his failure to publicly defend himself and his policies. I think your last criticism is part and parcel of that. (not that I don’t think he had other failures. he did. just not as much as the bandwagon thinks)
But I couldn’t disagree with you more that he has been a weak leader. leadership has its limits. You can lead people in a direction they don’t want to go only so much. Bush provided strong leadership on a great many issues before he used up every bit of his “capital” as they say, to win a war that had become decidedly unpopular and was being undermined at every turn by Democrats lusting to get back in power. In other words, Bush did what Nixon and Johnson could not. He not only prevented another Vietnam style loss, while Democrats were doing everything in their power to ensure one — he actually delivered victory in the face of all that. That is an enormous achievement in leadership matched by very few American presidents.
No, count me out of all this Bush isn’t a conservative, Bush was a failed leader BS. I’ll just sit here and wave as that bandwagon goes by.
Comment by American Elephant — November 2, 2008 @ 9:31 am - November 2, 2008
AmElephant: Yes, I agree with what you say about his actions on our national defense, I was simply taking that part of his leadership for granted. I suppose I should have defined what I meant by leadership. There’s a part of leadership which requires someone to stand up, make a decision ahead of the crowd, and act on it. But there’s also a part of leadership which means doing your part to make sure that that crowd is indeed following you. That’s the aspect where I wish President Bush had been more effective. It seems to me that he cares too much about being liked, and not enough about being followed. I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to come across as a Bush-basher. I just get teed off from time to time by those on the left who assume that anyone who doesn’t have Bush Derangement Syndrome automatically approves of everything Bush does. But then, those of us who aren’t motivated by 100% pure rage can afford to have more “nuanced” opinions…
Comment by Vivian — November 2, 2008 @ 6:39 pm - November 2, 2008
Vivian, you had me, then you lost me. Bush? Too concerned with being liked???? President George Walker Bush????
If he were concerned about being liked he would defend his actions and policies. If he were concerned with being liked we would have pulled out of Iraq long ago. If he were concerned with being liked he would be out there defending himself during this financial meltdown instead of staying quite so McCain could get elected. But he is content with letting history judge his actions and allowing the public to hate him.
I think you have it exactly backwards, he is more concerned with being followed than liked.
And you can bash Bush all you want, I do sometimes as well. I just try to keep people in perspective. Americans seem to have lost it entirely.
Comment by American Elephant — November 3, 2008 @ 12:09 am - November 3, 2008
AmericanElephant–I forget, you don’t know me yet! You are right, except that in his speeches he seems to think he can appeal to everyone, and perhaps I’m talking about his time up to the past couple of years, where he has been somewhat absent. I have attributed that of late with perhaps a noble desire to stay out of the GOP nominee’s way, to try not to make things harder for that person to run. I remember some of his very softball speeches 5 and 6 years ago that irked fellow conservatives by their very mildness. His rhetoric never struck me as very forceful or very extreme, and perhaps, at a time when one might have liked it to be just that. I would like a GOP President, should we ever have one, to expect the demonization from the left, ignore it, and continue to address those who support him, making sure HIS side understands and supports him.
Perhaps you or someone else can enlighten me as to a comparison between the media demonization of Reagan and that of GW Bush at their first terms? I was not politically aware at all back in 1980, in fact, I believe it was the first time I voted. It seems to me that the media were dead-set against Pres. Bush because he had beaten Al Gore, ideological differences aside. Is there anything in particular which Pres. Bush has done other than not losing the elections for which he is considered especially blameworthy by the left?
And while I’m at it, can someone tell me just what are the horrible things Cheney is supposed to have done? Believe it or not, I’ve never actually heard him accused of anything, since the inane liberal mutterings around me are more on the order of “well, you know, Bush, the war, Big Oil, Dick Cheney, Halliburton, blah blah blah!” No actual sentence is ever formed, no accusation made. I remember the same scenario with Reagan. “Scandal, you know, Reagan, Iran-Contra, blah blah”–was all I heard back in the day.
Comment by Vivian — November 3, 2008 @ 2:32 am - November 3, 2008