Given that Bruce and I (as well as John and Nick) have been faulting Republicans, including former President George W. Bush, for not holding the line on federal spending for almost as long as we’ve been blogging, I find it most amusing to read snarky comments from liberal readers who ask why didn’t we protest the then-President’s bloated budgets. Well, we didn’t take to the streets as we did on Wednesday. And maybe we should have organized such protests. But, we did take Republicans to task for losing sight of their conservative fiscal principles.
So, I thought I’d offer a few posts with their dates of publication to show that we’ve been doing just that–even when our party was in power.
2008 Elections: The Republicans’ DUI (November 17, 2008)
DeLay’s 1994 Election as House GOP Whip: Harbinger of GOP’s 2006 Defeat (November 14, 2006)
2006 Elections — Ronald Reagan’s Vindication (November 10, 2006)
GOP’s Failure to Hold True to Conservative Principles Cost Party Its Majorities
(November 8, 2006)
Conservatism Still Ascendant even if Democrats Prevail (October 30, 2006)
2006; An Election, not a Realignment (October 23, 2006)
Wall Street Journal Blasts GOP (October 2, 2006)
Reagan on My Mind (August 3, 2006)
George W. Bush: Moderate (May 15, 2006)
Grading the President on Reagan’s Legacy (March 20, 2006)
*Partial listing.
And, your commentors (such as myself) have long bashed Bush as a big-spending, Big Government guy to anyone who would listen. “Leftist canard destroyed.”
So what’s your point? You want an award for lightly admonishing perhaps one of the worst presidents of all time? Hell liberals are already criticizing Obama and it hasn’t even been 100 days into the presidency. (do you have posts before the 2006 mid terms when the writing was on the wall?)
The point your critics have made is that you are not protesting the fiscal policies of Obama, but instead the man himself.
You are not protesting taxes, but you are protesting the President.
You are mad. You lost. You are one of the bitter people Obama talked about.
Its fine.
But be honest about it.
Dan, the Democrat farLeft Talking Point #47 –aka, “Sure, now these people protest Obama’s critical spending! Where were all these 2nd-guessers when their Party and their Prez was spending like drunk sailors in port”… it’s applied to you and Bruce and other blogs by critics without concern about whether or not you did criticize Bush on that issue.
That’s the whole point about people using Talking Points -whether it’s from MoveOn, LogCabin, Olbermann or OReilly– the use of talking points isn’t to further dialogue on the issue… it’s to score debate points in the minds of the opponents. They don’t care what GP’s record is on that matter.
Your readers know GP has been tough on Bush and his Administration on spending issues. Heck, you’ve also been tough on his selections for govt office, too. And his conduct of the political affairs of the WH. And his leadership of the conservative movement, the GOP and capitalizing on the Reagan legacy.
Your readers know that.
The critics? It’s just those Talking Points speaking. And a penchant demand for immediate attention from you and others.
Don’t let it get under the skin and fester like the concern about why critics who heap scorn upon you come back, time and again.
You’re doing a great job here and your coverage of the Tea Party events has been superb.
Talking points; debate tricks.
Just like gillie above: tag your opponent as a sore-loser and you discredit his argument… sorry gillie, I doubt there’s much “sore-loser” in these threads or any. For that, you’d need to return to when AlGore and your team lost their bid for the ObamaPreviewAdmin with a touch more GoGreen in 2000.
Talk about sore-losers run rampant. You guys kept it up all through the 2000-2008 era of Prez W. It’s one reason why Obama is the Prez.
Um, Gillie, please read the posts before you comment. Five of the pieces were posted before the mid-terms, with three posted before the fall campaign of 2006.
And please note the asterisk. I only spend about 30 minutes rooting around our archives for posts and since I was going in reverse chronological order (starting from most recent), I had stopped before I had gotten that far back.
And the two earliest were not two I searched for, but two I had remembered writing.
So nice of you to tell me we are protesting Obama the man and that I’m mad and bitter. Guess you do know me so much better than I know myself even if you do misrepresent my points in nearly every comment you write.
Finally, the tone of your comment suggests an anger that isn’t present in my posts. Why must you slur us so?
Bruce and Dan have been fair in their comments of former President GW Bush. They have been supportive of him when merited and critical when warranted, especially his increasing the size of government and his fiscal policies. Many conservative commentators had done like wise, which proves that we conservatives don´t march lockstep out of party loyalty, as liberal Democrats do. Our loyalty is to our message not necessarily the messenger. For the libs, Obama can do no wrong and is above criticim. I feel sorry for the blue dogs who have the temerity to vote against their leadership. I´m sure they will pay a heavy price for showing a streak of independence.
Mr. Gilltard above simply demonstrates the glaring differences between the GOP and the Dhimmicrats.
We on the right can take our party to task and be considered “patriots.” However, if someone in the DNC like Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman even dares to question either The Party or The Snob, then they must be destroyed.
Maybe that’s why the tea parties were so successful in the first place.
Regards,
Peter H.
Peter, two perfect examples of a perfect contrast! Well done.
March 2006 is the earliest example you can find?
Color me unimpressed. Whenever I accuse you guys of being unquestioning defenders of George Bush and his policies, there’s a few broader points I’m trying to make about the nature of the Republican party and its so-called conservative adherents. First among those points is that yours is a party that focuses almost exclusively on winning elections as a means of gaining credibility, since there are practically no alternative means for an ideology such as yours to do that.
Bush won elections almost exclusively on classic wedge issues like gay marriage and gun rights and abortion. For this, he was rewarded with praise and adulation from virtually all conservative quarters for each and every one of his policies for years. That all changed, of course, when it no longer became possible to ignore the writing on the wall – that George Bush was a moron instituting a never-ending series of disastrous policies that was going to lead to a Republican slaughter in 2006. For conservatives, Bush had outlived his usefulness – he was no longer winning you guys elections, so you began to re-write history in earnest.
Real conservatives, people like Andrew Sullivan, bailed during Bush’s first term. Quickly scribbling about how upset you are about the Harriet Miers appointment when his approval ratings are crashing and Democrats’ poll numbers are going up doesn’t reflect anything other than unprincipled, wishy-washy political survivalism, in my view. The extent to which you guys went over the cliff for Bush has provided for some extremely entertaining straddling on your part, where you try to criticize him but almost always conclude that he was still a good leader with admirable qualities. I guess there just aren’t very many places to go after you’ve signed on the dotted line ‘I support torture, domestic eavesdropping without warrants, and the most senseless war of all time.’
Where was the criticism in 2002? 2003? 2004? Not happening, of course – he still had elections to win! He was still riding high from popularity spikes due to 9-11 and the Iraq War! Permanent conservative majority for ever and ever!
It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can’t get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.
– John Hideraker
I find that more indicative of conservative writings re: Bush during those heady, first term days than any of the muttered, qualified criticisms borne out of his destruction of your party’s electoral viability.
March 2006 is the earliest example you can find?
[Levi, can you read? That’s only as far back as I got when doing the search last night and wanted to limit myself to 10 links. Remember I did this in reverse chronological order. Do you understand what that means?]
Color me unimpressed. Whenever I accuse you guys of being unquestioning defenders of George Bush and his policies, there’s a few broader points I’m trying to make about the nature of the Republican party and its so-called conservative adherents. First among those points is that yours is a party that focuses almost exclusively on winning elections as a means of gaining credibility, since there are practically no alternative means for an ideology such as yours to do that.
[No, Levi, you’re ignoring our points because you want us to fit into your little stereotypes of what we’re supposed to be so you can more readily malign us. Wow, you do know so little about the GOP and the conservative movement. If we focused exclusively on winning elections, what are we doing in the minority now? Seems you’re talking about the Democrats. They’re the ones who seek credibility by winning elections. Note how Obama said, “I won” to make the case for a policy (the “stimulus”) at odds with his campaign rhetoric (“net spending cut)”]
Bush won elections almost exclusively on classic wedge issues like gay marriage and gun rights and abortion. For this, he was rewarded with praise and adulation from virtually all conservative quarters for each and every one of his policies for years. That all changed, of course, when it no longer became possible to ignore the writing on the wall – that George Bush was a moron instituting a never-ending series of disastrous policies that was going to lead to a Republican slaughter in 2006. For conservatives, Bush had outlived his usefulness – he was no longer winning you guys elections, so you began to re-write history in earnest.
[Wrong. Bush hardly campaigned on gay marriage, won largely in ’04 on national security issue and doubts about Kerry. And if you think he won praise and adulation from all conservative quarters, you get your information about conservatives from left-wing blogs. I’ve been reading regular criticism of W’s spending habits at least since 2003. I recently discovered a National Review piece from 2004 faulting him for his poor efforts at public diplomacy.]
Real conservatives, people like Andrew Sullivan, bailed during Bush’s first term. Quickly scribbling about how upset you are about the Harriet Miers appointment when his approval ratings are crashing and Democrats’ poll numbers are going up doesn’t reflect anything other than unprincipled, wishy-washy political survivalism, in my view. The extent to which you guys went over the cliff for Bush has provided for some extremely entertaining straddling on your part, where you try to criticize him but almost always conclude that he was still a good leader with admirable qualities. I guess there just aren’t very many places to go after you’ve signed on the dotted line ‘I support torture, domestic eavesdropping without warrants, and the most senseless war of all time.’
[Levi, if you call Andrew Sullivan a real conservative, you have no idea what conservatism is. Amazing how all you can do is throw insults out and question our motives. I’m trying to get the reasons you spend so much time here, insult us so readily, so regularly and remain clueless about our beliefs and doubt our very sincerity. Yes, Bush was a good leader with admirable qualities, but he promoted some bad ideas and executed some good ones poorly.
Interesting though how quick you are to turn everything back to Bush. How you obsess about this guy. Just wonder why it is, why, why, why do you have to convince yourself that we were unquestioning defenders of W when the record is clear that we were not. I mean, even if it were so as you begin this comment that our criticism only goes back to March 2006, that’s nearly three years before the end of his second term. And it shows that you’re adjective “unquestioning” is far off the mark.
Last night, when I put together this post, I did so in order to show our critics that we had taken W to task. Once I had ten posts, I stopped searching. Your comment proves to me that I was right to stop looking after 30 minutes of effort. It makes no difference to people like you for us to reference what we actually said when Bush was in office. You’re not going to respond to our ideas. You’re simply going to continue with your prejudiced (in the true meaning of the term) view of us.
So, I just gotta ask, if you have such narrow views of us and doubt our very words, why do you keep coming back? Do you find some psychological benefit in attacking us? Do our threads allow you to exorcize your personal demons by projecting them on people you refuse to understand?
You comment reminds me of a child shouting at his mother who has just calmly explained to him why he can’t have a second dish of ice cream. He didn’t even hear her explanation and continues to rant about his view of her earlier promise that he could have a treat.
The analogy may not be perfect, but it is reflective of your attitude. No matter what we say or do will convince you of the sincerity of our motives or our commitment to conservative principles. You’re here to attack, plain and simple. Your response to this post proves it. –Dan]
Levi, I question your definition of ‘real conservative’ when you include Andrew Sulivan.
Well I question a lot of things about you, apparently your inability to read comments, specifically where GPW said he was working backwards.
And you are moving those goal posts. To quote Ronald Reagan “There you go again…”
You’re not going to find critism of the BushCheneyHaliburton conspiracy, because, well, it doesn’t exsist outside of your delusions.
Mr. Gilltard above simply demonstrates the glaring differences between the GOP and the Dhimmicrats.
We on the right can take our party to task and be considered “patriots.†However, if someone in the DNC like Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman even dares to question either The Party or The Snob, then they must be destroyed.
Maybe that’s why the tea parties were so successful in the first place.
That is precisely the difference between the parties, only in reverse. Maybe you missed the highly publicized period a few weeks back when a handful of Republican Congressmen and leaders criticized Rush Limbaugh, only to take everything they said back and apologize profusely within a day or two?
Meanwhile, Obama’s been criticized profusely by Olbermann, Maddow, Greenwald, the Huffingtonpost, Paul Krugman, and various other leftist outlets since his inauguration.
Zing! 🙂
Levi, just as W was criticized profusely by O’Reilly, Kristol, Powerline, Instapundit and numerous other right-of-center blogs, including this one.
My view exactly.
I have always distinguished between rational and irrational criticism of the President; constructive vs. destructive criticism. I’m talking about any President. I long defended Clinton in the 1990s from what I thought was irrational or excessive criticism, and I’m sure to do the same with Obama as I see any.
Rational, constructive criticism of a President:
1) Is rooted in facts/reality;
2) Has, as its aim, benefiting the cause of human freedom, and benefiting the United States to the extent that the latter is aligned with the cause of human freedom.
Irrational / destructive criticism of a President would, of course, be the opposite. And it’s what the most public, most visible voices of the Left gave us in the Bush years, most of the time.
Did anyone notice that gillie’s idiotic second paragraph is directly contradicted by the post preceding this one?
And did Farva call Milky Loads a “real conservative.” My ribs hurt from laughing. If Milky Loads were a real conservative, Farva would hate his guts.
“Real conservatives, people like Andrew Sullivan”
Okay you just lost any argument you were trying to make. Sully is at least as conservative as say Bill Maher.
Dan, I mean this to be constructive so please don’t take this as an attack but… point taken. I think the meta-blogging is going a little overboard and it seems like, lately, there is at least one post a day for the last week talking about your own blog’s critics. There is an old internet maxim: “Don’t feed the trolls.” Now, I don’t know the term “troll” precisely applies but it’s close enough. If the criticisms are valid and reasonable, engage. If not, let them wither and die or let your supporters deal with them individually. Surely you’ve been doing this long enough that you have to have developed a thick enough skin to know you are ALWAYS going to be attacked on the internet by someone for anything you say. Focus more on the real issues and less on your critics. Just my $.02. Cheers.
Answering the charge that this blog doesn’t criticize those on the right serves no purpose except to give the baseless charge attention it doesn’t deserve.
Levi, just as W was criticized profusely by O’Reilly, Kristol, Powerline, Instapundit and numerous other right-of-center blogs, including this one.
For about the hundredth time, the test of political principles doesn’t come when your party is in inglorious decline, it’s when your party is ascendant.
And yeah, you guys failed that one.
And again, Levi moves the goal posts and doesn’t provide any proof for his points.
CR I agree with your point,
Levi’s proof that all you’ll get from the trolls is more blather.
Levi: You’re only harsh on democrats.
GayPatriotStaff: No, look here here and here.
L: But you didn’t critique Booooooosh when he was in power.
GPS: No, look here, here, here.
L: But you didn’t critique Boooooosh early enough in his term.
etc.
People like Levi wouldn’t be satisfied until a post was provided that President Bush stole the election in 2000, used the KaRRDIS(tm) to travel back to 1998 and plant evidence to put the liberation of Iraq in motion.
Oh and admit that George HW Bush suited up in a SR-71 to fly to Iran to negotiate delaying the release of the Embassy staff until after the election and the inaugeration of Ronald Reagan.
I can see the truth in that. On the other hand, not answering a baseless charge lets the baseless charge become ‘true’ in people’s minds, through repetition. As an example: consider a lot of the Left’s charges about Bush, which became ‘true’ because they weren’t sufficiently and aggressively answered… in contrast to Clinton, who aggressively answered and refuted every charge no matter how true the charge was, and who (as a result) has survived and thrived, politically speaking, much better than he has deserved to.
Which says what exactly about Farva’s complete lack of criticism of the Democrats? (Except for, “Oh, perhaps he shouldn’t have hired that nice, b-r-i-l-l-i-a-n-t man with the inconvenient tax history.”)
You are correct, ILC and Livewire, Farva has not shown himself to be anything other than a partisan hack. And a bit of a conspiracy nut.
I do so love Levi’s demonstrations of the utter hypocrisy of liberals.
First, he says here:
First among those points is that yours is a party that focuses almost exclusively on winning elections as a means of gaining credibility
But then what does he use for his credibility index?
You want someone to give a sh*t about what you think? Win an election.
I do so love Levi’s demonstrations of the utter hypocrisy of liberals.
First, he says here:
First among those points is that yours is a party that focuses almost exclusively on winning elections as a means of gaining credibility
But then what does he use for his credibility index?
You want someone to give a sh*t about what you think? Win an election.
Winning elections is an important step towards being a credible political movement, but so are things like intellectual honesty and empirical evidence. The Democrats simply have a better combination of those qualities at the moment than the Republicans do, because again, you’ve put your focus on winning to the detriment of your party’s coherence and cohesion.
CR I agree with your point,
Levi’s proof that all you’ll get from the trolls is more blather.
Levi: You’re only harsh on democrats.
GayPatriotStaff: No, look here here and here.
L: But you didn’t critique Booooooosh when he was in power.
GPS: No, look here, here, here.
L: But you didn’t critique Boooooosh early enough in his term.
That wasn’t exactly my initial point. I’ve always maintained that Republicans only got around to criticizing Bush at the end of his term, after he started to become a political liability that no one wanted anything to do with. Far from proving me wrong, posting a bunch of links to articles written in the 2006-2008 vindicates that point completely.
If I’m scoring points, it’s not because I’m moving the goalposts, it’s because you guys are scoring on yourselves.
Levi:
A little rhetorical advice: anyone who uses the words "always" or "never" flags themselves as unserious.
Democrats always…
Republicans never…
Gays always…
Jews never…
See what I mean?
Best wishes,
-MFS
Levi, before I started blogging, I used to express myself more regularly on two gay libertarian listservs to which I then subscribed (now I subscribe to just one). In February and March 2004, I articulated why I might vote Libertarian that fall, given my various frustrations with George W. Bush.
If that listserv was archived, I could cut and paste the proof.
And it wasn’t just me. Go back and read the Wall Street Journal. Or any conservative blogs up and running in ’03 and ’04.
One reason I first started reading Andrew Sullivan regularly in 2003 was that while he then had respect for the then-president, he did not hesitate to take him to task for his spending habits. Other conservatives appreciated his willingness to call Republicans out on their spending.
And John McCain said his fellow Republicans were spending like drunken sailors–this back in 2004.
So your criticism is based not on reality but your own prejudice.
McCain regularly slammed Bush and Congress on spending, all the way back to 2001. It was one of the few policy things he’s ever gotten right. And he wasn’t alone.
On the other hand, not answering a baseless charge lets the baseless charge become ‘true’ in people’s minds, through repetition.
It’s either already true in the minds of those making the baseless charge (despite the disconnect between truth and reality — that never seems to be an issue no matter how many links to the contrary) or it’s merely leveled to distract for the purposes of attention, i.e. to stir up trouble on a right-leaning blog. Answering such comments the first or second time might be understandable (depending upon the uniqueness of IP addresses), but repeated proof proves both futility and the purpose of the comment having nothing to do with truth. Arguing with a tar baby merely greets you with a blank stare and only serves to get you dirty.
The left seems to forget that while we were criticizing Bush’s spending and big Gov’t leanings, Obama’s best projection exceeds the worst of the Bush deficits by a large margin, and realistic projections are even higher than that. So, yes, we didn’t take to the streets, it was because we were taking other action (06 was a loss for very much that reason. Republicans tend to stay home to show their displeasure), and we figured a good fiscal conservative in ’08 would be able to fix the problem.
Obama complained about those “Large Deficits” and what does he do once elected? Makes us wish for mere Billion Dollar Deficits! With interest, Obama has in just under 100 days made Bush look like a Fiscal Skin Flint!.
Can’t say I’m surprised. And remember how he wished to cut the spending for the Wars in Iraq and Ashcanistan? Yeah, he wants more than Bush asked for to continue those as well.
So to make it even simpler for these buffoons:
Bush+Cut Taxes=higher Tax Revenue (JFK knew this as well)-bit too big on the deficits(hence our criticizing him and the Repubs who enabled this).
Obama+raise my taxes+raise Gov’t Spending+MASSIVE Deficits+Print more money(guarantying Inflation)+indenturing the future generations(by passing the debt to them)=Protest Worthy actions.
And it wasn’t just me. Go back and read the Wall Street Journal. Or any conservative blogs up and running in ‘03 and ‘04.
One reason I first started reading Andrew Sullivan regularly in 2003 was that while he then had respect for the then-president, he did not hesitate to take him to task for his spending habits. Other conservatives appreciated his willingness to call Republicans out on their spending.
And John McCain said his fellow Republicans were spending like drunken sailors–this back in 2004.
So your criticism is based not on reality but your own prejudice.
Look, I can believe you had your points of contention with George Bush. He directly contradicted himself so many times, that as individuals, I’m sure you did get a bit angry from time to time. But as a broader movement and as a political party, was that individual anger channeled into any sort of vocal criticism that could potentially get back to the President?
It quite clearly wasn’t, as Bush continued to spend like a madman. Angry individuals obviously made the decision that any concerns they might have had needed to be subordinated so that the group could continue winning, which again, is what binds your coalition together.
I’m curious, when did you switch to despising Andrew Sullivan? If he was out ahead of most other conservatives for pinging Bush on his spending, as you say he was, why has he been totally ostracized by the party? A similar thing happened to John McCain – he generated a fraction of the enthusiasm that George Bush created, and a person he ran against, Ron Paul, was dismissed out of hand by most Republican rank-and-filers. If Andrew Sullivan, John McCain, and Ron Paul are better conservatives than Bush, why are they so marginalized or loathed by the conservative movement?
It seems to me, they’re on the outside because they were examples of vocal critics. You guys just aren’t built to tolerate vocal critics. The Republican party is built upon a series of fantasies, not to put to fine a point on it, and so anyone that pipes up about the emperor having no clothes has to be discarded. There’s no room for Sullivans or McCains or Pauls because they spoke truth to power.
I don’t despise Andrew Sullivan, Levi. I’d be a fool to. He’s a good man who’s made it a lot easier for guys like us to come out conservative.
The answer to when I started losing interest in him is in my archives. I have learned it does no good to dredge up past posts when debating with you, so if you want to learn that just do an advanced google search for references to Sullivan on this blog.
It’s amazing how you keep digging your hole, based not on facts, but faith, a faith built on the animus expressed on left-wing blogs.
We do tolerate vocal critics. I mean, Levi, do you realize that it takes time to respond to your comments? Do you realize that I have rescued dozens of your comments from the spam filter? If I didn’t tolerate critics, I’d have deleted them and banned you. But, I don’t.
I take the time to respond to you, but it does me no good. You’ll continue to hold your fixed view of me no matter what my response.
We are truly the devil’s disciples of your creed.
“But as a broader movement and as a political party, was that individual anger channeled into any sort of vocal criticism that could potentially get back to the President?”
Alright, I’ll bite…
Three words: Comprehensive… Immigration…Reform…
Wait, I can name that tune in two… Harriet… Myers…
Well, what did I win?…
Best wishes,
-MFS
It quite clearly wasn’t, as Bush continued to spend like a madman.
But of course, when Obama spends quadruple the amount that Bush did, it’s OK.
Since the spinning shill Levi refuses to say that Obama’s spending is wrong, he has no right to criticize Bush. Indeed, all Levi’s posts are is a demonstration of how liberals like Levi project their own inability to criticize their black Messiah and their own willingness to set aside any principle or morality for the sake of the Obama Party onto Republicans.
Ah hah!
Dan’s new blog nickname. Sisyphus. Constantly pushing uphill, against liberals who are dumb as rocks
NDT, now you’re channeling Garofalo!
Best wishes,
-MFS
The Republican party is built upon a series of fantasies, not to put to fine a point on it, and so anyone that pipes up about the emperor having no clothes has to be discarded.
Fantasies…. FANTASIES????? Have you looked at Obama’s budget projections for the next five years? Even fellow liberals know his numbers are about as real as a day dream.
This is too good. Gillie and Levi prove that you can lead an ass to water, but you can’t make him think. As to this:
In what alternate universe do two people constitute “a handful”?
Then I think you should be able to provide both, right?