In light of the gross incompetence and malfeasance of the Bush Administration, we have seen in the past 12 months, that folks who voted for Bush loudly proclaim the Bush “isn’t a real conservative”. That he’s in fact a Neocon at best; perhaps even a nominal liberal at worst. The argument, in effect being: “Don’t blame conservatives!”
Let’s start with the premise that the Republican party is largely made up of conservatives. Not moderates, or liberals. This is not the party of Lincoln Chaffe.
The protestations from cons that Bush isn’t one of them, and that his failures should instead be placed at the feet of “big government” liberal policies, is quite akin to the kid standing next to the open cookie jar, with cookie crumbs on his lips, pointing his finger at his brother and telling Mommy that it was his brother who took the cookies.
Bush was elected, acted, and governed with the almost universal consent of american conservatives.
He was elected twice, in 2000 and 2004, with probably close to 90% of the vote and support of self-identified conservatives.
If cons didn’t think Bush was a real conservative worthy of being president in 2000, they could have elected someone else. If, by 2004, cons “suddenly” figured out that Bush wasn’t a real Con, they could have put up a challenger (a real con more to their liking) in the GOP primaries. Everyone here knows full well, that none of us heard barely a peep from Cons in 2004, advocating a GOP primary challenge to Bush.
Until the past 12 months, Bush traditionally had 80 to 90% support and approval from the GOP base in all polls - which clearly indicates, he had overwhelming support from American conservatives. To this day, I would guess that in polls, Bush maintains at least a 70% approval rating among republicans and conservatives.
Bush is, in fact, a modern American Con. He acted, and governed (for the most part) exactly how they wanted him to: Cut taxes, increase defense spending, implement an aggressive and (almost) belligerent foreign policy, that asserts american authority and dominance. -- Downplay governments role in social services, downplay environmental oversight, disregard for labor protections, be hostile towards government interaction or services with regard to the economy or with individual american citizens. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see where this road leads: the emasculation of FEMA; the installation of political appointees who are fundamentally hostile to government, and who consequently harbor no core commitment to seeing government function properly in the realm of public and social services. Can you say “Heck of a Job, Brownie”?, or “Privatize social security!”?
Its true, that a small fringe of true constitutional conservatives have consistently brayed at the malfeasance of Bush. This small band of constitutional conservatives deserves our salute. But, to suggest that Bush isn’t a “real Con”, and is not - and has not -been supported by the overwhelming mainstream of republican conservatives, is simply wrong. It doesn’t take Einstein to see that Bush did 80% of what conservatives wanted him to...and that when those policies failed on a massive scale, that cons would act like the kid who stole the cookies from the cookie jar, and protest that it wasn't really them (their policies and their president) who drove the bus off the cliff.
Let’s start with the premise that the Republican party is largely made up of conservatives. Not moderates, or liberals. This is not the party of Lincoln Chaffe.
The protestations from cons that Bush isn’t one of them, and that his failures should instead be placed at the feet of “big government” liberal policies, is quite akin to the kid standing next to the open cookie jar, with cookie crumbs on his lips, pointing his finger at his brother and telling Mommy that it was his brother who took the cookies.
Bush was elected, acted, and governed with the almost universal consent of american conservatives.
He was elected twice, in 2000 and 2004, with probably close to 90% of the vote and support of self-identified conservatives.
If cons didn’t think Bush was a real conservative worthy of being president in 2000, they could have elected someone else. If, by 2004, cons “suddenly” figured out that Bush wasn’t a real Con, they could have put up a challenger (a real con more to their liking) in the GOP primaries. Everyone here knows full well, that none of us heard barely a peep from Cons in 2004, advocating a GOP primary challenge to Bush.
Until the past 12 months, Bush traditionally had 80 to 90% support and approval from the GOP base in all polls - which clearly indicates, he had overwhelming support from American conservatives. To this day, I would guess that in polls, Bush maintains at least a 70% approval rating among republicans and conservatives.
Bush is, in fact, a modern American Con. He acted, and governed (for the most part) exactly how they wanted him to: Cut taxes, increase defense spending, implement an aggressive and (almost) belligerent foreign policy, that asserts american authority and dominance. -- Downplay governments role in social services, downplay environmental oversight, disregard for labor protections, be hostile towards government interaction or services with regard to the economy or with individual american citizens. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see where this road leads: the emasculation of FEMA; the installation of political appointees who are fundamentally hostile to government, and who consequently harbor no core commitment to seeing government function properly in the realm of public and social services. Can you say “Heck of a Job, Brownie”?, or “Privatize social security!”?
Its true, that a small fringe of true constitutional conservatives have consistently brayed at the malfeasance of Bush. This small band of constitutional conservatives deserves our salute. But, to suggest that Bush isn’t a “real Con”, and is not - and has not -been supported by the overwhelming mainstream of republican conservatives, is simply wrong. It doesn’t take Einstein to see that Bush did 80% of what conservatives wanted him to...and that when those policies failed on a massive scale, that cons would act like the kid who stole the cookies from the cookie jar, and protest that it wasn't really them (their policies and their president) who drove the bus off the cliff.
Last edited:
