He does not seem to be particularly concerned about fiscal prudence which is (or was) one of the hallmarks of classic conservatism. What is the nature of his conservative credentials?
He’s shown strong support for family value/religious conservatives, corporate/big business conservatives, neocon interventionists, and law and order/security state conservatives. His credentials with the small government conservatives, fiscal prudence conservatives, and libertarians are weaker.
**Weaker ** may be one of the larger understatements ever made on this board. 
He has nothing to do with Fiscal Conservatives from my observations. He has done nothing towards smaller government. He has done nothing for libertarians.
So I guess I agree with **Little Nemo ** and just want to stress, he has nothing to do with the old fashion conservatives.
Jim
He’s not as staunch as we may have initially believed. Founded upon the basis of previously mentioned conservative behaviour, Bush has transcended to the depths of self-indulgence and pity to the lacking peon state.
Oh, but he does - the reeeeeal old fashioned kind. He has the mentality of a feudal lord; the inbred, incompetent version. He has zero concern for the “commoners”; think’s he’s appointed by God and has the Divine Right to do whatever he feels light without consequences; ignorant and amoral. A few centuries ago he’d fit right in.
Nor does he seem interested in exploring ways to counter terrorism that conserve our long held ideas of what freedom means.
Rather, the administration seems to put security above all else and jumps on the repressive approach every time.
If that’s the case, why was he supported by so many mainstream Republicans? All of the mainstream republicans knew what he was like after his first term and still supported him. Look at the people on his staff and his advisors, they’re definitely what I’d call old fashion conservatives. Many were with his father’s administration.
Is that how you would describe his father? I’m asking because I honestly don’t know and I’m curious.
I never considered his dad a conservative. I thought he was much closer to moderate than his sons. His staff, including Baker was mostly moderates.
I wish I could explain why so many Republicans voted for Bush in the second term. I did not, but then I am not a conservative overall. I think it came down to Kerry was too repulsive for many moderates and independents. Well that and a strange and strong knee-jerk reaction to gay marriage.
I voted for Kerry, but I disliked him only a little less than Bush. It helped that I really hate Cheney.
Jim
I like your comparison, especially since Americans traditionally haven’t been too keen on kings named George. You could also say his big business cronyism and tax cuts amount to belief in a noble class to whom the peasants owe their existence. How impertinent we are! He gives us his soil to till for our livelihood! How dare we complain when he asks of us that which is already his, or when he calls away our sons to die for his cause in the name of our Lord at the hands of the bloodthirsty Saracens?
More on the serious side, this thread brings to mind John Dean’s Conservatives without Conscience. We have our small government conservatives, neoconservatives, corporate conservatives, social/religious conservatives, Goldwater conservatives, etc. Dean argues that Bush is a “high authoritarian,” with his amorality, insistence on loyalty, and the other characteristics mentioned here. I’m not especially sympathetic to conservativism, but Dean makes a compelling point. Considering his analysis among other things, I’m of the opinion that Bush is an authoritarian and an extremist with conservative beliefs. This might mean that he still IS a conservative, and he definitely believes he’s one, but he certainly sucks at it in a lot of ways.
But he told us all along that the terrorists are attacking us because of our freedom - so he’s making us safer by eliminating that freedom. But does he get any thanks?
I would say Bush is on the activist side of the conservative spectrum - those who feel the government should take action to create and support conservative ideals. Others argue that conservative ideals are inherent in society and all the government should be doing is staying out of the way and not opposing these ideals.
By God you done broke the code. My eyes are opened at last.
But has done exactly one thing that pleased a broad spectrum of people on the right - he lowered taxes. Other than that, he has governed as a social conservative and a fiscal liberal.
Anyone with a popularity in the 20’s has lost a good chunk of his own party. The remaining supporters of Bush appear to be the evangelical ‘700 club’ types, who are sticking with him because he’s been a staunch supporter of their principles. Other than that, he’s got bupkis.
He won the last time around for one reason only - John Kerry was a horrible candidate.
There’s irony for you: instead of electing the guy who was a bad candidate, we elected the guy who was a bad president.
Looking from the outside, Bush was doing OK until he decided to stay in Iraq. But he appears to have been lax on immigration - instead of an amnesty, what his backers really wanted was for him to throw the lot out. Your national debt continues to spiral into the abyss. He’s shied away from tough decisions. He’s afraid to admit his errors - sorry, that someone else has a better idea.
Not a good conservative or a bad one, just a plain old politician.
But what has he done for the evangelicals? Last I heard all he ever gave them was lip service. If this is true, how can they still support him?
His only veto was on embryonic stem cell research. He opposes same sex marriage. His administration fought ‘the good fight’ in the Terry Schiavo case (I define ‘the good fight’ in terms of what evangelicals want - definitely not my opinion). He’s a staunch supporter of Israel, which is important to evangelicals.
But most importantly, he comes across as one of ‘them’. He’s their boy. He’s shown so far that he’ll support pretty much issue they care about in terms of social policy. Immigration is about the only issue that’s really hurt him in their eyes.
He lost fiscal conservative and libertarian wing a long, long time ago. He even lost the Iraq war supporters by the incredibly inept way in which the post-war phase has been carried out.
The only thing saving him so far is that the opposition is just incredibly unpalatable to a lot of conservatives. I’m guessing that the support he’s got left represents the, “the alternatives are so much worse” crowd.
I don’t think that he’s a conservative at all. He’s a dictatorial capitalist with a little good al time religion thrown in. Kind of like a born again Hitler.
On his better days, perhaps.
Money and lots of it. “Compassionate conservatism” means turning over various social services from government run programs to privately run programs. Most of these privately run programs are managed by conservative religious groups. And there’s been a minimum of oversight on where the money goes and how its spent. So the Bush administration has been funneling billions of government dollars to conservative religious groups.