Like Ronald Reagan!
…
wait…
Big expansion of federal government
…
ran up huge deficits…
The fantasy that most conservatives have is that, once they get a True Conservative in office, he will indeed rein in all that wild spending. But I suspect, and the history of Republican administrations over the last 30 years has borne out, that few GOP leaders actually believe in true fiscal conservatism (some undoubtedly do). It would require a pretty much wholesale housecleaning of all the current lunatics to ensure that they’ll actually get an honest candidate on this score.
The same Turkey whose armed forces engineer coup d’etats once each decade to remove democratically elected Islamist heads of government and state?
Yes, that would be a tremendous stabilizing influence.
Why would they do that? They have convinced the single issue, anti abortion people, that they are on their side. If they outlawed abortion, who would they vote for next time?
I would be much more willing to give conservatives the benefit of the doubt on the “BUSH IS TOO A LIBERAL” meme, if there were any historical consistency there in that criticism. On Bush’s two most costly endeavors–his stimulus tax cuts at the beginning of his term and the war on Iraq–Congressional and grassroots Republicans wholeheartedly supported him. And for the war, they called opponents traitors trying to destroy the United States (not on this board, to my knowledge, but in the media and government, including the VP himself).
As far as Bush’s health care initiative goes, 207/229 House Republicans voted for the Medicare modernization act, while only 9/205 Democrats did. And in the Senate, of the 29 votes against the cloture motion, only 3 of them were Republicans–and those Republicans are known for being a bit less than conservative (Lincoln, McCain, and Hagel).
At least Democrats will genuinely be able to say a large component of the grassroots was pissed off at Obama’s health care bill as being corporatist Romneycare. Not very plausibly, considering most of the Democratic caucus still voted for it in the end, but maybe a bit more so than the Republican morning-after.
In the end, conservatives might’ve grumbled under their breath about some of Bush’s policies, but in public and when it mattered most (on the actual, you know, votes) they were more than happy to line up behind him. And you sure as hell know they weren’t rioting and threatening to murder Senators who voted for policies he supported.
Nonsense. For one thing, none of that will raise the dead or refill the nation’s finances. I find it difficult to imagine anything that could happen that would be worth the damage. For another, Iraq has seriously damaged the Middle Eastern movement towards democracy.
As for Al Qaeda, why would they bother attacking us, when we were doing so much damage to ourselves, when we were doing so much that helped their cause? They wouldn’t want to do anything to weaken Bush’s hold on power. Now that Bush and the Republicans are out for the moment, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Al Qaeda do something in hopes of scaring America into re-election the Republicans.
I think they’d prefer to see Dennis Kucinich or Maxine Waters as President.
Al Qaeda was delighted to see Bush-Cheney win the White House. If you don’t understand that, you have a distorted understanding of Al Qaeda’s goals and methods.
No, they loved Bush and did what they could to keep him in power. I recall a leak from the CIA, how Osama Bin Laden was timing his news releases so as to whip up right wing outrage whenever Bush’s polls went down. The Democrats are much more dangerous to Al Qaeda and terrorists in general.
Bush for most purposes might as well have been a deep cover agent of Al Qaeda. He did that much damage to America, and served their interests that well.
Simply speaking, Bush was NOT a conservative. Government vastly expanded its size and power, under his watch. His foreign policy was amateurish and disastrous-we will be stuck in Afghanistan forever.
He was arrogant and unable to learn from his mistakes-case in point-setting up the Transportation Security Agency. It is an ineffective agency that abridges personal rights, costs a fortune, and (thanks to Federal personnel rules) cannot be gotten rid of.
His main legacy was to vastly accelerate America’s economic decline-and also weaken American influence.
He was an ideologue, much like Woodrow Wilson-his faith in democracy blinded him to the realities of the world.
Quite a tragic figure, really.
Yes, he was. You don’t get to disown him just because he became an embarrassment.
None of which disqualifies him as conservative. Conservatives are fond of wars. Arrogance and an inability to learn from mistakes are hardly antithetical to conservatism; the latter is nearly a requirement.
And as for making the government bigger, small government is just a talking point. Conservatives clearly don’t actually believe in it, or if they do that’s just an example of how incoherent conservatism is. You can’t do the sorts of things conservatives want without a large and intrusive government. You can’t regulate what goes on in bedrooms, run a world hegemony, have a huge military, hand out pork to corporations, put millions in prison, spy on people right and left, and otherwise act as conservatives without a huge government,.
That’s because he was incompetent, and because conservatism is a bad idea. Not because he wasn’t a conservative.
I didn’t conservatives blasting him when he was winning elections. They got the leader they wanted, and the one they deserved.
But Bush FOOLED them!
It turns out that W was too smart for America’s real conservatives.
I’m sure that next time the party will swear that their pick is a true dyed-in-the-wool conservative. We should believe them because they’ve suffered and because they’ve so obviously learned from their past mistakes, whatever those may have been.
??? Starting a needless war is doing good?
AFTER screwing the pooch six ways from Sunday by not thinking the occupation through and not bothering to fund the war, FINALLY it MIGHT be less than a complete disaster.
I might give him credit for this if he hadn’t dropped the ball for his Iraq misadventure.
I don’t things are particularly bright in the Israel-Palestine dispute but it is well that Bush kept as much distance from it as he did.
It would have been much better had he not insisted that Medicare pay the drug companies whatever they have the nerve to ask for, which I blame Obama now for as much as I blamed Bush.
Compared to who?
If you define “bipartisan” as “the right wing and the very right wing and the really far out right wing all thought it was a grand idea to go out and kill any Muslims with or without connection to 9/11” then you could call it bipartisan.
I’ve also heard he wasn’t a Scotsman.
Funny, but for me it was the exact opposite. I was always pretty much detached from the political process (“They’re all a bunch of lying shitbags, and there’s no difference between the sides”), but thanks to Dubya that changed.
The funny thing was, it wasn’t so much Dubya…let’s face it, he just helped reinforce my original views, it was actually the GOPer voters. Not the ones like you, but rather the ones who blindly and thoughtlessly defended him when it was clear that he was in the wrong on so many things.
-Joe
That only counts when you do unpopular things that are nevertheless necessary. A lot of of his administration was unnecessary things, and done badly, to boot.
This really isn’t a Liberal or Conservative thing.
Conservatives don’t make mistakes.