NO WONDER BUSH WAS A FAILURE AS PRESIDENT
As far back as 1999, it was apparent to anyone who listened closely to what he was saying that George Bush was not much of a conservative. This despite the lip service he gave to some conservative ideas (I wouldn’t say he was a study in advocating conservative principles), and his ability to excite the party’s evangelical base.
True, he was “more conservative” than Al Gore in 2000 and John Kerry in 2004. But so was about 70% of the country. It took about 5 years for the scales to fall from the eyes of many conservatives (some have never lost their true belief) for them to see that George Bush was a crony loving, big government elitist whose tangential connection to conservatism was more for convenience and political calculation than any belief in the efficacy of its principles.
Were we taken in? Partly, yes. But an honest appraisal of my former support for the man must include the fact that I was fooling myself more than anything. The writing was on the wall all along regarding the man’s faux conservatism - not to mention his many screw ups including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the prosecutors fiasco, justification for torture, and his curious habit of promoting and appointing incompetents for important jobs in government who also happened to be big campaign contributors or other cronies.
Now a book has been written by a former Bush speechwriter which has pretty much confirmed what most on the right now think of the ex-president. Matt Latimer reveals Bush to be an arrogant, self centered, elitist who looked down his nose at the conservative movement:
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.”
Yes, Mr. Bush. You certainly “redefined” the Republican party by showing the GOP could be even more careless with the public purse than Democrats, as well as being a political cynic of the first order by pandering to the base of the party - the “movement” - while sneering at what it represented.
The charge of “patrician” made against his father back in the day should also be applied to the son. Here, the blue blood shows why you can’t trust elites. At bottom, their arrogance directed toward ordinary people is so profound as to cloud their judgment.
Given everything we now know about Bush, would I have pulled an Andrew Sullivan and voted for Kerry in 2004? Definitely not. But, as I did in 1992 when his father ran for re-election, the chances are pretty good that I would not have voted for president at all.
True, Bush’s fiscal profligacy was known back then, but weighed against the war on terror and what most of us believed was a slowly improving situation in Iraq, it would have been enough to dissuade me from voting against him.
Now we have a different story - that of Bush the hypocrite who had few, if any, guiding principles save “Whatever’s best for George Bush, is best for the party and the country.” That kind of selfish conceit may be endemic among presidents - it certainly was for Nixon, and probably Johnson - but it explains a lot as far as Bush’s cronyism as well as his cozying up to Wall Street, his sticking with Rumsfeld long after he had outlived his usefulness, and other stubborn acts that many conservatives still mistake for resolve. Quite simply, it didn’t matter if all the wise heads in government were telling him to change course in Iraq. He, George Bush, knew better. And the United States paid a bitter price in blood and treasure because of this hubris.
And, it explains Karl Rove to some extent. No doubt that Clintonites like James Carville had vast knowledge about the intricacies of American politics. But Rove is a human computer - a veritable font of information about the most arcane, and fractional tidbits of political trivia. There may never have been his like in the White House.
But Rove was decidedly not a creature of ideology. He possessed a burning desire to win as all good political consultants have. Beyond that, Rove eschewed the idea of using the movement for anything except what he termed a “permanent Republican majority” that combined massive numbers of evangelical Christians energized by relying on “wedge” issues like gay marriage and abortion to turn them out, as well as the foreign policy hawks. Fiscal conservatives could come along for the ride if they wished but it was clear that neither Rove nor Bush gave a tinker’s damn about them. Add supply siders and libertarians and Rove believed he had his “permanent” majority - a majority not based on conservative issues as much as on political expediency.
The results were predictable; a fracturing of the “permanent” coalition within two years of his 2004 victory. The corruption, the spending, and the war between libertarans and evangelicals over the Terri Schiavo matter exploded any hope that Rove’s makeshift, rickety political construction would outlast his boss.
So here we are in the wilderness with many conservatives still clinging to the notion that Bush made some mistakes but was still a good president. I have said in the past that fingering Bush as the “worst president in American history” is ridiculous. In the bottom ten, yes. But I abhor those who would use history for political purposes and the facts simply do not bear that judgment out.
Until conservatives can let go of Bush and his checkered legacy, we will not learn the lessons from supporting him and probably end up voting for someone similar. That is the mistake Democrats made when they were in the political badlands and we would do well not to repeat it.
(Note: Please do not crow in the comments “I told you so.” What - you expect me to listen to partisan lefties at the time? That’s unreasonable and you know it. Your verdict on Bush was reached looking through the prism of partisanship just as mine was. Just because the left was right about some of Bush’s shortcomings does not mean they had - or have today - a corner on truth when it comes to criticizing him. I would also add that their hate of the man - as virulent a hate directed against another politician I had not seen before, even against Clinton - disqualifies most on the left from making any rational judgment on Bush that a reasonable person could agree with.)
*golf clap*
“(Note: Please do not crow in the comments “I told you so.” What - you expect me to listen to partisan lefties at the time? That’s unreasonable and you know it. Your verdict on Bush was reached looking through the prism of partisanship just as mine was. Just because the left was right about some of Bush’s shortcomings does not mean they had - or have today - a corner on truth when it comes to criticizing him. I would also add that their hate of the man - as virulent a hate directed against another politician I had not seen before, even against Clinton - disqualifies most on the left from making any rational judgment on Bush that a reasonable person could agree with.)”
Rough translation ;
Yeah, so you were right about the man and we were completely wrong.
That doesn’t mean that your opinions are better founded than mine.
And hating someone who was so utterly corrupt, useless, murderous and generally ignorant of the people that he was supposed to be serving is wholly unreasonable.
Your analysis of Bush is so poisoned by hate that you can’t see how truly laughable it is. You’re just flinging shit against the wall, trying to sound like you know what you’re talking about.
Murderous? Prove it moron. You can’t because you would have to have special insight into the man’s soul - something only partisan haters who unthinkingly throw out juvenile cat calls believe they have. In fact, your idiotic, over the top, exaggerated criticisms make my point quite well, don’t you think? Everything with you is knee jerk - as predictable as night follows day. Don’t you get tired of being such partisan, clueless git?
I would say that most 3rd graders would do a better job of evaluating Bush than you - at least they wouldn’t be so stupid to inject the emotion of hate into their analysis.
ed.
Comment by Drongo — 9/15/2009 @ 10:47 am
RM write: Were we taken in? Partly, yes. But….
but but but
Classic RM MO. You eventually get around to facing the reality that you previously denied but but but…
…but the LEFT is did it first.
…but the LEFT hated Bush.
…but how dare them to say 4+ years ago what I am saying now.
One step forward; one step backward. Not the way out of the wilderness.
Being unable to take “yes” for an answer is the sign of a juvenile mind.
And not recognizing that partisan hate can cloud someone’s judgment and make their analysis false is the sign of stupidity.
So, to sum up, you are a stupid juvenile without a clue who can’t recognize how their own analysis of Bush is about as good as that of a racist’s evaluation of Obama.
ed.
Comment by HyperIon — 9/15/2009 @ 11:00 am
That’s great! apparently hyperlon’s definition of “out of the wilderness” is becoming a liberal democrat…
A side note about verbage:
you use the term “elitist” in this article, what exactly does that term mean?
Its one of Sarah Palin’s all time favorite words in the English language.
I remember Hillary and Mccain smearing leading economists as being “elitist” when they did they called them out on a “gas tax holiday” being a joke.
I often get called an elitist by my fellow conservatives when I lay out the scientific explanations of things like evolution, climate change, the age of the earth, etc…
In case you can’t already see where I’m going with this, I see both left and right often using the term interchangeably with “Intellectual” or perhaps even “well educated”. Though I don’t think you are doing that in this case.
The growing streak of anti-science and anti-intellectual sentiment worries me greatly and the term “elitist” only seems to further the problem.
Perhaps you have a well thought out reasoning behind using the term, if so could you share it with us? If not, I would like to politely encourage you to try to remove the term from the political discourse.
By no means do I equate the word “elitist” with intellectuals or academics. Two kinds of elites; the blue bloods like Bush, born into the upper caste - specifically, a political family - where they are either taught from birth or simply absorb the message that they just like other people - only better.
The other kind of elitist are those who believe they have achieved a status, that requires them to teach the less sophisticated, or smart, how they should think. This elitism manifests itself most often inside the beltway.
ed.
Comment by peter_wayne — 9/15/2009 @ 11:26 am
rick,
Do you think that’s how the majority of people use the term?
Comment by peter_wayne — 9/15/2009 @ 11:41 am
This piece is amazing. It really highlights the kind of king/subjects mentality of the administration. I think this next quote is crux of all the Bush related insanity…
It almost defines the feelings I got while watching Bush address the people. I felt like he honestly believed he was addressing a nation of retarded children who didn’t have the congnitive capactity to understand the high minded ideas he was telling us.
There must be some very strong feelings of bitter betrayal amongst people who consider themselves true conservatives. I had no idea how real conservatives actually felt about him.
Anyhoo, you’ve blown my mind, Rick.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 9/15/2009 @ 11:42 am
Excellent post, Rick. I would like to add my experience and reasons for being taken in by the man. First, Bush masked his liberal fiscal policy by his conservative stance on abortion and gun-rights. Sadly, there is a HUGE base of conservatives that vote solely on a candidate’s position on one or both of these issues. I am not one of them, but in the general election, he was my only option. Second, 9/11 drew all of us (R’s and D’s) together against a common enemy. Sure, we were spending like drunken sailors, but we were at war, which swamped the other deficit spending. Third, I was terribly uneducated on the impact of the Medicare -D plan, and the unsustainability of it. Fourth, the unfairness of the media towards him invoked my sympathy (and concommitant support). There are other reasons, but those are the main ones, for what it’s worth.
Comment by lionheart — 9/15/2009 @ 11:50 am
“I would say that most 3rd graders would do a better job of evaluating Bush than you - at least they wouldn’t be so stupid to inject the emotion of hate into their analysis.”
Ahh, you’re so cute when you’re cross. Like being savaged by a deflated balloon.
Comment by Drongo — 9/15/2009 @ 12:10 pm
“And not recognizing that partisan hate can cloud someone’s judgment and make their analysis false is the sign of stupidity.”
So, let me get this straight. Your opinion of Obama is worthless as you are a partisan hack, yes?
No, of course not. Your analysis stands or falls on the evidence. Bush was an obvious frat-boy waster who relied on kickbacks and connections from day one. That’s my evidence, and you couldn’t see it then because, wait for it, your views were clouded by your inability to get over your idealogical bias. A bias so strong that you couldn’t see what you can now see so clearly.
On the other hand I have virtually no opinion of Obama except to say that he seems a pretty standard Democratic centrist of the weak variety. How’s about that for an idealogical blinker…
Comment by Drongo — 9/15/2009 @ 12:18 pm
Lionheart:
I’m sorry, but for the last 30 years, can you point to one Republican president and say that he was a fiscal conservative? You guys can claim that fiscal responsibility is the exclusive domain of the right, but until you prove it, and stand up to your people (in real time, not in hindsight), those claims are just words.
Political movements are defined by how they are implemented, not how their adherents would want them to be seen. Communist die-hards claim that “real” communism has never been tried. Regardless, the totalitarian communist governments of the past 100 years define communism. Likewise, American conservatism has been defined for the last 30 years by fiscal irresponsibility. You guys can claim that you stood up to W on his spending, but we never saw it. If you guys had worked up 1/1000th the outrage over W’s spending that you did over, say, Scott Beauchamp or Harriet Meirs (sp?) or the immigration bill, then you’d have a leg to stand on.
Until you guys walk the walk, the only fiscally responsible president we’ve had in the last 30 years was a Dem.
(And don’t try to claim the Republican Congress held him in check. The moment Clinton was gone, the finances went to hell again)
You will get no argument from me. Reagan had a cow over Carter’s $100 million deficit and then tripled down on that. Bush 41 was doing fairly well until the recession. And Bush 43 never gave a damn.
It’s no accident that we had a balanced budget during Clinton years. Not due to GOP congress but because of the massive amounts of wealth being created - largely due to GOP policies of the 1980’s. Drove tax revenues into the stratosphere (conversely, please do not argue that Clinton had anything to do with the dot com boom or the renaissance of the entrepreneur.) The surge in wealth creation started before any of his policies could possibly have affected anything. He was smart enough not to get in the way.
Also conversely, any claim Dems had to fiscal responsibility went out the window with Obama. You can argue recession all you want but we didn’t need an $800 billion stim bill, nor 8,000 earmarks in the supplemental, or the rest to come.
I will admit neither party cares about the long term and that’s why we run at a deficit.
ed.
Comment by IanY77 — 9/15/2009 @ 12:54 pm
Of course Bush was in large part driven by ambition not conviction but that is almost everyone. I actually had (have) more respect for Bush senior who blue blood or not, served honorably in WWII. My biggest problem with GWB was the influence the neocons had in his first term. That did a lot of damage and fortunately the advisers from Bush senior then took over and despite what a lot of you might think I actually thought Condi Rice did a pretty good job in the end.
Comment by funny man — 9/15/2009 @ 1:10 pm
When leftists ask me to “Name two things that Bush did to improve our country” my answer is simple.
He kept the likes of Gore and Kerry out of the White House.
Mission accomplished.
Comment by CZ — 9/15/2009 @ 1:26 pm
<>
This is what is so sad about politics, our choices.
Comment by Ronald Earl — 9/15/2009 @ 1:36 pm
“You will get no argument from me. Reagan had a cow over Carter’s $100 million deficit and then tripled down on that. Bush 41 was doing fairly well until the recession. And Bush 43 never gave a damn.”
Then why do you support the political right? Is it anti-abortion? You don’t want evolution taught in schools? You think that labor unions will lead to a communist uprising?
Are you going to tell us that you understand economics well enough to attribute the economic successes and failures to parties and legislation? If so, then you must be a very rich man from capitalizing on that understanding. Let’s be honest–very few people currently working in finance and economics saw the current collapse. Hence they didn’t understand some fundamentals ; hence they really have a poor understanding of how economies work–and they’re the experts!
So what is it that has you supporting the right wing?
I vote Democrat because I think religious fundamentalists don’t understand how the world works; because I think the antipathy towards blacks, gays, and Mexicans by the Republican base is contrary to our national ethos; and because I think that the economy will work if more people are buying bread than yachts.
Jesus. Should I take off my shoes? Am I in the presence of a fucking holy man here?
What a noble jackass you are. Your understanding of “the right” is childlike. The economy “works” when people like you stop thinking you can control it to suit your own ends. This would put you in the same boat as the fundies since you have no clue how the world works either. As far as racism, look in your own heart first, oh noble and tolerant one. The shameless pandering by Democrats to racial minorites is even more nauseating than the racism you so decry.
I note that you say I am of the “right” while you are but a humble “Democrat” - so tolerant, so fair minded, so much beyond the fundies in sophistication and understanding -
So full of shit.
ed.
Comment by Nick — 9/15/2009 @ 2:11 pm
Not only are you right, the tragedy is compounded by the fact that a man perhaps even more incompetent–and certainly less capable–followed this hypocrite into office. Our nation has fallen into deep shit.
Comment by jackson1234 — 9/15/2009 @ 2:13 pm
RM wrote: Being unable to take “yes” for an answer is the sign of a juvenile mind.
What is being unable to recognize the difference between “yes” and “Partly, yes. But” a sign of?
Conservative thinking!
An honest appraisal. If you are challenging my integrity, don’t. Re-read what I wrote - if you can - and stop taking things out of context. If that is the best argument you can make, I pity you. Your parents spent all that money to send you to school and this kind of juvenile “Aha!” is the best you can do?
I suggest you come back after you graduate - in 6 or 7 years judging by what you’ve shown here.
ed.
Comment by HyperIon — 9/15/2009 @ 2:21 pm
“[A]man perhaps even more incompetent–and certainly less capable….”
By what possible measure can you claim that Obama is more incompetent and less capable than Bush?
An editor of the Harvard Law Review compared to a guy who couldn’t get into law school in Texas. A college basketball player compared to a cheerleader. A sitting senator compared to a man who failed at his bid at Congress, and who governed a state wherein the governor is largely a figurehead? A lawyer and law professor compared to an MBA who doesn’t understand finance or economics?
By what possible measure could you claim that Bush is more competent and capable than Obama? Capable at what?
Comment by Nick — 9/15/2009 @ 2:32 pm
Dear Rick
A provacative post I see…based on a speech writer perspective. No matter how well meaning the Kyle speech writer meant to be but of course W would have issues defining the movement because until 1980 GWB was helping his father who was definately not part of the movement.
As a general comment, I am getting tired of the “kiss and tell” political book from staffers or appointees. Are there egos really that large that anyone will care about what they have to say for their one or two years serving at the pleasure of the president.
On another note Rick GWB bottom 10 of presidents I do not think so. I think corruption charges and spending money is a pretty thin criteria.
Comment by Kevin Brown — 9/15/2009 @ 2:41 pm
“The shameless pandering by Democrats to racial minorites is even more nauseating than the racism you so decry.”
You think it’s worse to pander to the downtrodden than to contribute to the piling on, vis-a-vis the Southern Strategy?
Why do you think blacks disagree in such a high proportion? You think they don’t know what is is their best interest? Or do you think they are so greedy that they will sacrifice their long term interests–and that of their children–for a little welfare money?
And your answer on the economy is that it works best when the invisible hand of the free market is allowed unfettered sway?
Well that worked so well that after 8 years Hank Paulson, lefty extraordinaire–told Bush they had 2 days before the banking system collapsed–and BTW, give me $700 billion to spend to prop up your free market.
Anybody who thinks markets don’t need to be regulated hasn’t been paying attention. And anybody who thinks that we need to wring out every last cent of economic performance through free market efficiency–and damn social welfare–has no understanding of the purpose of politics.
As for the “so tolerant, so fair-minded” schtick–is that the best critique you have, that you rest your argument on a clicheed bit of sarcasm?
Show me where I say the free market should be “unfettered?” Only kept out of the hands of levelers like you.
Learn how to spell “cliche” - then get back to me.
ed.
Comment by Nick — 9/15/2009 @ 2:46 pm
I will not tell you so, Rick, but you nevertheless give Bush too much credit.
In 2001, he was pretty much an empty vessel into which neocons and right-wingers poured their wish lists. It did indeed take about five years to figure out that behind that willing receptacle was a guy who merely took after Bush père: A crony loving, big government elitist.
Comment by shaun — 9/15/2009 @ 2:50 pm
“Learn how to spell “cliche” - then get back to me.”
Definition of Clicheed
1. filled with cliches [adj]
http://www.lexic.us/definition-of/clicheed
———————
There you go. It’s a step down from sarcasm to spell checking, when trying to make your point. Especially when you get the spell checking wrong.
Comment by Nick — 9/15/2009 @ 3:07 pm
” The economy “works” when people like you stop thinking you can control it to suit your own ends.”
But:
“Show me where I say the free market should be “unfettered?””
——————-
So the economy should be fettered, but not by “people like me” (whatever that means–possibly people who know how to spell clicheed?).
Comment by Nick — 9/15/2009 @ 3:12 pm
I remember, in general, being less than enthused with the candidacy of Governor George W. Bush. Although he espoused many conservative positions, every once in a while a moderate (at best) opinion would slip out. The term “Compassionate conservative” is probably the best known. What exactly does that mean? It was a phrase developed to placate the moderates among us at the expense of the Republican Party’s conservative base. To this day, I don’t know if he honestly believed (or cared) if it was necessary to say or it would sound good to moderates.
Once in office things did not necessarily get any better. His economic policies were inconsistent. He made mistakes in foreign policy. Many of his appointments were obviously politically motivated. I was extremely disappointed Keynesian policies the Bush administration advocated the last few years.
He was however, treated unfairly by the media and democrat politicians. After eight months of the Obama administration, the double standard is obvious.
Taking all of this into consideration, there was no other candidate that would have been a better choice from a conservative perspective. Alan Keyes showed us what happens when he is the candidate. After that the conservative pickings were slim. Looking at his opponents in the general election there was no contest. Mainstream politicians have figured out that they do not get elected by telling people what government services and subsidies they will eliminate. Looking forward, who will be the conservative standard bearer? The view is not obstructed with limited government free market types.
Comment by Gregg — 9/15/2009 @ 3:20 pm
Maybe it best we remember what led to Bush—McCain, Kerry and Gore, three of the most despicable and dishonest figures in all of American political history. Although Mr. Obama may be a total bumbler and premature failure, at least he is honest to his Far Left worldview. None of the four aforementioned men were. When Dems look at the shambles Obama will leave in his wake, they at least will have the solace to know that unlike Mr. Bush, who brought his party down for several cycles to serve himself, their party leader at least did so on what he perceived as principle.
I submit that Gore or McCain or Kerry would have been at the very bottom of any American presidential list. While Obama will be spared from the bottom slot due to the novelty his ethnic background represented, he at least will have tried to serve his Far Left ideology regardless of how close he gets to the basement.
As you point out, Mr. Bush tried to serve nothing larger than himself. Unfortunately, he would have been surpassed in this regard by either Gore or McCain or Kerry.
Comment by obamathered — 9/15/2009 @ 4:13 pm
Rick,
Let me try to be polite here. I’d rather engage your connections to reality than slam you for being late to the party.
You’ve got some pieces of the puzzle. Here are some you’re missing:
#1. There is no constituency for large cuts in government spending. Most popular supporters of “small-government” do not support cuts to the things they personally like and benefit from. Many people are in favor of cutting everyone else’s pet projects, but that’s about it.
#2. The only exception to the above is in a genuine crisis with no other possible solution. Until then, politicians who support massive cuts in most circumstances will not be elected. You want an example, look at Clinton’s re-election on the strength of shutting down Republican attempts to kill entire Cabinet departments.
#3. Where do you get this?
Also conversely, any claim Dems had to fiscal responsibility went out the window with Obama. You can argue recession all you want but we didn’t need an $800 billion stim bill, nor 8,000 earmarks in the supplemental, or the rest to come.
Is this an honest or deep assessment? We didn’t need the 800$ billion stim bill? Do you want to see my collection of links from mainstream economists stating that the stimulus bill is keeping the economy afloat? This is the farthest thing in the world from rocket science. Q1 GDP - down 6% annualized. Private spending is the Titanic. Q2: Down 1%. Private spending down about the same, government spending up, filling the gap between -1 and -6. These are not precise but absolutely the gist. Do you doubt me? Do you think I’m bluffing?
And the “earmarks” in the appropriations - you can tell the difference between “Congress” and “Obama”, so what are you on about? Do you have something tying Obama to those earmarks? Can you demonstrate that they’re Democratic earmarks and that Repubs have abstained? Furthermore, has you ever read any of the pieces making the accurate point that an “earmark” is just a piece of ordinary, programmed spending directed by Congresspersons to a specific target? You do know that just because a Congressman allocates it somewhere, you haven’t in anyway demonstrated “waste”, right?
You’d think you’d have learned this back when Bobby Jindal got humiliated using “volcano monitoring” as an example of “government waste” in such a bill days before a large volcano unexpectedly blew up in Alaska.
You pay attention to some things, some times, like discriminating between fine details. Why not here too?
At least you’ve absorbed that the bank bailout was signed by George W. Bush. That was also neccessary, although done in an ugly and corrupt manner imaginable. Thanks, Henry Paulson, Republican!
Comment by glasnost — 9/15/2009 @ 5:27 pm
My italics are in error. Sorry.
Comment by glasnost — 9/15/2009 @ 5:28 pm
One other thing. GWB’s Treasury Secretaries were abysmal. O’Neil, Snow and Paulson were all out of their element. The first two were pretty much unqualified in my humble opinion.
Paulson had a lot on his plate. I don’t know if I have ever seen anyone tell us what would have happened if TARP had not passed. It is easy to look back, but I would have preferred less government involvement. It is easy for me to say that though, I wasn’t responsible.
On the other hand, after a misfire, GWB did nominate excellent Supreme Court justices. He should be commended for that. I also, don’t buy the opinion that he only made decisions that helped him. Iraq was a tough call. The democrats were allowed to wash their hands of it. One result of that situation is that no politician will risk his neck on a future tough call.
Comment by Gregg — 9/15/2009 @ 5:57 pm
Summarizing:
Liberals were right about Bush. Proof that they are stupid, juvenile morons.
Conservatives, including Rick, were wrong. Which is evidence of their superior intellect.
Short list of other things liberals were right about:
Civil rights.
Women’s rights.
Medicare.
Social Security.
Environment.
Gay rights.
Conservatives now agree with liberals on the first five, not yet the sixth. Which once again just goes to show how juvenile, stupid and moronic liberals are.
Apparently the smart, mature and sensible thing is to be wrong and wrong and wrong again, and to abuse all those who are right and right and right again, and only to be right once it’s too late to matter.
Conservative: a person who is wrong when it matters, right too late, arrogant and insulting throughout.
Comment by michael reynolds — 9/15/2009 @ 6:03 pm
Can I say the Nelson Muntz “Ha Ha”?
BTW, some of us despised George Bush for perfectly legitimate reasons like almost destroying the Army that I once served in.
It may not have been clear from where you were standing but it was perfectly obvious to me he was playing the anti-abortion, NRA, anti-gay crow of the GOP for suckers.
It may be irritating to hear we told you so… but we did.
Comment by Richard bottoms — 9/15/2009 @ 7:57 pm
P.S.
You have every right not to accept getting laughed at on your own blog.
Elsewhere…
Comment by Richard bottoms — 9/15/2009 @ 8:29 pm
[...] No Wonder Bush Was Such A Failure As President By tnredstate Leave a Comment Categories: Uncategorized It took about 5 years for the scales to fall from the eyes of many conservatives (some have never lo… [...]
Pingback by No Wonder Bush Was Such A Failure As President « TNRedstate — 9/15/2009 @ 9:56 pm
It’s easy to call Rove’s failure to create his permanent Republican majority “predictable” in hindsight, but I don’t think it was so obvious in prospect.
I’m thinking here of the career of Yassar Arafat. Back in the 1970’s, Sadat invited Israel and the Palestinians to a peace conference, which eventually led to the signing of the Camp David accords. Egypt got the Sinai Peninsula, Israel got a peace treaty with its most powerful neighbor, and the Palestinians got practically nothing. The reason Arafat was such an ineffective negotiator is rather obvious–he never showed up at the negotiations. But that self-imposed failure didn’t hurt him politically the way that making a more serious attempt and still failing would have; he remained in power until his death. So that is one example of gaining a permanent majority based on the prescription: don’t try to do a good job at running the country; just get good at managing your failures.
Just because that strategy worked for Arafat doesn’t mean it would work in the United States. But before Bush and Rove, had anyone really tried?
Comment by Kenneth Almquist — 9/15/2009 @ 11:17 pm
Was there a choice in 2000 or 2004 for a conservative voter?
Bush has just tarnished his legacy. I will always honor him for his work in the war on terror. He redefined the Republican Party? He’s taking credit for the mess we’re in now? He put the conservatives in such a fix and is taking credit for it?
A friend of mine took a picture with Clinton in 1999 and is proud of it. Personally I will be sending W my badges from 2000 and 2004 and would not ask him for an autograph (much less a photo) if I had the chance.
Congratulations, President Bush, you have now earned the sobiquet “turd blossom”.
Comment by Harry O — 9/15/2009 @ 11:51 pm
Such passion, such vitriol.
Great post and comments.
I think this discussion highlights the thoughts of many, that we have very poor choices in this matter and after the choice, no control over what happens. I think I am a conservative but question what that means. Am I against big government? I live/work in the North East but winter in Arizona. I have for 14 years driven across the fruited plain in the fall and spring. I could not do this if the Interstate system did not exist.
I have a limited knowledge of economics/finance and do not understand debt and spending since the 1950’s. I look at my grandchildren and wonder, how is this sustainable?
At this point my position is a pox on both their houses! but what do I have to offer in a positive vein?
The Constitution was designed to create a more perfect union, perhaps we should go back to first principles.?
Comment by djh — 9/16/2009 @ 6:49 am
“it was apparent to anyone who listened closely to what he was saying that George Bush was not much of a conservative.”
…
“Note: Please do not crow in the comments “I told you so.” What - you expect me to listen to partisan lefties at the time? ”
I think the point is that *you* told yourself so, i.e. what you needed to know, in 1999, but you didn’t listen to you (pardon the ugly phrasing …)
Many of the dynamics in play here are familiar to people who have worked on large boondoggle projects in construction, software, or people who have successfully anticipated market bubbles etc. (http://www.amazon.com/Death-March-2nd-Edward-Yourdon/dp/013143635X, http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/kahneman07/kahneman07_index.html, http://www.irrationalexuberance.com/) People see the schedule slipping and somehow rationalise it. Anybody who expresses concerns based on the actual data is nonetheless branded an apostate, lazy, incompetent etc. Groupthink abounds.
The difficult question is how to conduct oneself knowing that all this is true. Say you were a traditional conservative foreign policy realist/minimalist circa 2002 who didn’t believe in nation building. What could you have done? Oppose the war and become a pariah? Vote for Kerry in 2004? Start a third party?
Comment by Robert Bell — 9/16/2009 @ 7:03 am
djh,
What does this mean?
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 9/16/2009 @ 9:01 am
Nick:
“An editor of the Harvard Law Review compared to a guy who couldn’t get into law school in Texas.”
Bush released his transcripts. Obama’s remain sealed. My guess is because like Bush he was a second-rate, “C” student of limited capacity. As for editing the Harvard Law Review, it is one of the few that allows that post to be filled by a popular election rather than academic merit. I’m sorry, but my point stands. An incompetent has been followed by an unqualified incompetent. Spin all you want, but as I wrote above this country is in deep shit.
As for the economics of Bush vs. Obama, the former has the edge since the latter basically is illiterate on the matter. To be fair, Obama was elected to end the war rather than fix the economy. The fact he has done neither and made both worse makes me debate whether he will edge out Bush, or the reverse, in rankings of pathetic, failed presidents.
From a partisan standpoint, I should fall on my knees and thank whatever powers there are that such an unqualified and ineffectual president of the other party followed Bush. As an American, I simply see a continuation of incompetence and cronyism on steroids.
Comment by jackson1234 — 9/16/2009 @ 9:17 am
“Your verdict on Bush was reached looking through the prism of partisanship just as mine was. Just because the left was right about some of Bush’s shortcomings does not mean they had - or have today - a corner on truth when it comes to criticizing him. I would also add that their hate of the man - as virulent a hate directed against another politician I had not seen before, even against Clinton - disqualifies most on the left from making any rational judgment on Bush that a reasonable person could agree with.”
The fact that someone on the Left blindly hated Bush is your cover that THE Left was overwhelmingly blinded by hatred. Anyone that said “but look . . . he’s an embarassment to your club and a crappy President” was shouted down with “partisan zealot!”
There are certainly easy pickings when it comes to finding Righties that “blindly hate” Obama . . . can I mock and discount all Right criticism of the man as a result? Your rules.
What about those on the Left (and the Center) that blindly hated him because he was an incompetent fu@kwad who nevertheless managed to get seemingly otherwise intelligent people to blindingly defend him . . . not on the basis of his talent and ability, but apparently for no other reason than he was a club member and the other club was the source of the critique?
You don’t want an “I told you so”? Fine. But unless every person that spoke out against him was a rabid party mouthpiece you owe quite a few people an apology for sneering and mocking what you now admit were valid criticisms.
“But an honest appraisal of my former support for the man must include the fact that I was fooling myself more than anything. The writing was on the wall all along regarding the man’s faux conservatism - not to mention his many screw ups including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the prosecutors fiasco, justification for torture, and his curious habit of promoting and appointing incompetents for important jobs in government who also happened to be big campaign contributors or other cronies.”
So the writing was on the wall . . . but anybody that saw it was not worth considering.
Let me ask you this . . . WHY did you decieve yourself? Was it because shucks darn you really liked him? Was it because he was a Red? Was it because “Teh Left” was saying what “the writing on the wall” said and that was something you just couldn’t accept? Was it for some other reason?
Comment by busboy33 — 9/17/2009 @ 3:09 am
[...] – that isn’t stopping the Bush-Haters from coming out in full [...]
Pingback by The Far Right Attacks GWB (again) : The Pink Flamingo — 9/17/2009 @ 5:50 am