Interesting press coming from Matt Latimer’s new book: (Hat Tip: Hot Air.) Latimer was writing a free speech for President Bush to give at CPAC. The President had a problem:
“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.”
Before, I go on, it must be said that there are two sides to the Bush Presidency. The first was the resilient, Churchillian response to the worldwide terror. That’s not only defensible, but laudable.
However, there’s a second part of Bush’s presidency that we have to address. Tony Blair also showed a brave worldwide terror, however many of the problems Britain and Labour faces are the result of the poorly executed domestic policies of Blair, so it is with George W. Bush.
President Bush did redefine the Republican Party. Prior to his nomination, it was a behemoth, holding more than 30 governships, 55 Senate Seats, and a House Majority. When he left, the Republican Party was staring down at a 40 seat House Minority, and a 58-40 (soon to be 59-41 deficit in the U.S. Senate.) The man he went to Pennsylvania to save from the wrath of party regulars in 2004 turned it into a 60-40 majority.
As Bush told Michael Brown, heck of a job.
Bush redefined the party from the party of small government, fiscal restraint, and local control to the party of Medicare Part D, bailouts to Auto Companies and Financial Institutions, and high deficits. What was it President Bush said?
Oh yeah, he abandoned free market principles to save the free market system. The President’s actions weren’t out of ignorance or lack of care, but were a deliberate attempt to redefine the Republican Party into big government conservatism. The result, however leaves conservatives looking at the wreckage feeling like Charlton Heston in Planet of the Apes:
In fact, what this anecdote indicates is that Bush ticking off conservatives was the act of a political conquerer. Just like Obama, he WON. Of course, the facts aren’t on President Bush’s side. Alan Keyes beat Gary Bauer, so that’s a low benchmark. In fact, this defeated conservative movement picked Bush up and carried him to the finish line in South Carolina to stop John McCain’s assault on the first Amendment known as McCain-Feingold (which Bush went ahead and signed anyway.)
However, the Bush-redefined GOP is a mess, and is very much reminiscent of the Pre-Reagan GOP that got its rear end kicked around by Democrats for 70 years.
The most remarkable polling data came out recently from Rasmussen. And despite all the talk about wanting to move beyond Reagan by the party establishment, the most positive label with the American people is “like Ronald Reagan.”
Get back to that type of conservatism, and we have a chance.
However, after this whole affair, I think conservatives will learn a lesson. We won’t believe the next multi-millionaire scion of a political dynasty who never identified as a conservative until he decided he wanted to be President, and who tries to build his street cred by surrounding himself with full of themselves beltway insiders who have long since grown more concerned with their own power and influence than the movement they claim to lead.
Or will we?
September 16th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Nice shot.
September 16th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
For three decades, I have always wondered how the lady of liberty end up on the shores of California?
September 16th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
This FPP is hilarious. Yes Bush was a terrible president who destroyed the GOP. But he has a ton more in common with Huckabee than Romney. How convenient of you to forget that Huck grew Arkansas state government enormously, just like Bush grew the federal government. Also quite convenient that you fail to point out how Bush and Huck are both touchy feely compassionate conservatives who can’t say no to illegals or shoot down the lies of man made global warming. Oh yeah, and both Bush and Huck think that God was the one who elected them to their offices. I could go on, but what is the point? All you care about are the politics of identity, just like Huck.
“However, after this whole affair, I think conservatives will learn a lesson. We won’t believe the next multi-millionaire scion of a political dynasty who never identified as a conservative until he decided he wanted to be President, and who tries to build his street cred by surrounding himself with full of themselves beltway insiders who have long since grown more concerned with their own power and influence than the movement they claim to lead.”
Oh how does it feel to know that Palin is cornering the market on the anti-rich, anti-establishment movement that you wish you could tap into with pathetic posts like this?
September 16th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
street cred? As far as I’m concerned, Romney has the most credibility of the bunch. Or hasn’t he proven himself his whole life? You name it… if he’s touched it, it’s turned to gold. I know there’s no convincing some people that he is a conservative; I guess they’re just more conservative than the rest of the party…
September 16th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
http://highschool.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=989089
HS Football team beat 83-0.
Ouch.
September 16th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
DanL – Adam won’t care if Palin gets it, as long as Mitt doesn’t. That’s Huckabee’s goal in life; it’s Adam’s goal in life. Next!
September 16th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
I’m with you Dan – this post is hilarious. I was wondering when Adam’s Romney-phobia would rear it’s incoherent head again.
Nice points, Dan.
BTW way, Adam. Romney has by far more in common with Reagan than your boy Huck, or Palin. Romney is a leader, a thinker, and a doer.
September 16th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Dan,
Do you really want to establish Romney’s bona fides by attacking others on such things as global warming and cap and trade ? Romney was a Pioneer for Cap and Tax.
September 16th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Illinois,
Stop being paranoid. Not everyone’s life revolves around Mitt.
September 16th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
MWS, why don’t you put that lame attack to bed. You know and so do we that he would only favor the US passing Cap and Trade if China and India and everyone else did too. In other words, he was hedging his bets and saying that he didn’t favor Cap and Trade for the US. Yes, I know that this tactic of trying to appeal to both sides drives you nuts because you find it dishonest…whatever. As long as Cap and Trade didn’t get his endorsement then I don’t care.
September 16th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Oh and Reagan was also multi-millionaire. I guess that he should have earned Adam’s disdain as well.
September 16th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Martha,
“BTW way, Adam. Romney has by far more in common with Reagan than your boy Huck, or Palin.”
Romney sure didn’t think so.
At least, not when he was pandering only to the voters of Massachusetts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pVqZzHm3Z4
September 16th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Adam, I don’t have a problem with Romney surrounding himself with anyone and everyone. He’s interested in appealing to all parts of the republican party, and to all Americans. To my mind, that is exactly the right strategy. I don’t know how you think anyone can win without a comprehensive strategy, and unfortunately, the inside the beltway repubs still hold some influence.
The ‘one of us’ ‘I feel your pain’ strategy isn’t going to cut it.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Dan,
So why did Romney try to start a coalition of New England states that would have their own cap and tax? He didn’t wait for China then. Hell, he wasn’t even waiting for the rest of the U.S.!
September 16th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Martha: “Romney is a leader, a thinker, and a doer.”
He’s also a man of destiny, a prospective saint, a master of the universe, better dancer than Fred Astaire…
He’s planning to single-handedly revive the economy when he starts spending on the next campaign.
Win or lose he’s a man for all seasons WHO MUST BE HONORED OR MARTHA WILL KILL KITTENS AND POST THE PICTURES!!!
September 16th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Bush is everything wrong with the Republican Party. If the 2012 Republican nominee wants to win, he/she needs to come out and denounce and disown him and his presidency.
He started a huge awful, unneeded, expensive war based on false pretenses, wiretapping, torture, interfered on a federal level with personal family matters, doubled national debt, allowed the financial crisis to happen, caused huge deficits…how is any of that conservative?
One of the worst presidents ever, especially from a conservative viewpoint.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
12. Yup, we all know he said that eons ago. So what. I was talking about character traits similar to Reagans. I stand by my point 100%. Romney comes the closest.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
MWS, I really don’t give a crap about the New England coalition. And yes I knew about it already. What I do care about was his most recent stance, and more particularly, his stance on Cap and Trade for the entire US. And that is the stance that I mentioned in 10.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Doug, I’m glad you’re starting to see the light.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Nice hit piece. Will you tell us what you really feel next time?
September 16th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Kevin,
Your guy is still wire-tapping, doesn’t want to stop at merely doubling the debt again, is talking about escalating in Afghanistan, will break his promise on Iraq (and Gitmo), and has sold Stimulus, Cap and Tax, and Health Care all on false pretense.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Adam is as transparent as KOS.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
MWS, We all know Pawlenty is the most progressive on the environment – like cap and trade. Remember that he instituted the most aggressive renewable energy mandates, and then went around the country trying to sell it to all the states. Sheesh. Romney doesn’t hold a candle to him.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Adam, the dynasty stuff just makes you look desperate for a point.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Dan,
“I really don’t give a crap about the New England coalition. And yes I knew about it already. What I do care about was his most recent stance, and more particularly, his stance on Cap and Trade for the entire US. And that is the stance that I mentioned in 10.”
Well that’s mighty convenient. Perhaps Adam doesn’t care about Huck’s spending in AR, but rather cares about his most recent stance .
How come the past is fair game on everyone but Romney? Martha doesn’t think what he’s said before matters, and you don’t think how he governed matters. And yet, we are supposed to be in awe of his biography, and all that he has said and done.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
#23 You have a point. Pawlenty just isn’t going to match Romney’s glorious hair.
I think Romney doubled the hole in the ozone layer with all the hair spray he slathers on his noggin.
Pawlenty can’t match that.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
Adam: The article was very good. I agree that Bush was a disaster for the party and for conservatism. The insight by Latimer (if true) into his grandiose vision of himself is interesting.
That said, the close was a cheap shot. Funny, but a cheap shot.
Stop being paranoid. Not everyone’s life revolves around Mitt.
MWS, I think it’s projection rather than paranoia. For the obsessed, it’s easy to believe that everyone shares his obsession.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Yes, MWS. So you want the Republican party to be like Obama?
September 16th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
MWS, shouldn’t you care about Pawlenty’s stance on all things green? Or is it only Romney that deserves scrutiny?
You are purposely being obtuse about this. What I care about is the best indication of what Romney would do on Cap and Trade if he was the President of the United States. The position that I took in #10 is what I believe he would do.
I have been willing to give Pawlenty the benefit of the doubt when he conveniently opposed the Cap and Trade bill immediately before it was voted on in the house.
Really though, you are just trying to pick a fight with this line of attack to try to sideline my, and others, criticism of Adam’s hit piece. Good luck with that.
I’m sure that Adam will curry my favorability points with Kavon for this piece because he has started a gas fire here that will generate more hits for the site. It’s time for me to back out of this argument so that I don’t further aide him in this endeavor.
Have a good night.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Martha,
“Adam, the dynasty stuff just makes you look desperate for a point.”
To the contrary, the heirs of political dynasties are often in politics not for a cause or a movement, but because it is the family business. They inherit politics, rather than kicking the door in because they are impassioned about something.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
29 should have read …Adam will curry *many* favorability points…
September 16th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Romney reminds me more of Bush Sn., not Jr.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Dan,
“shouldn’t you care about Pawlenty’s stance on all things green? Or is it only Romney that deserves scrutiny?”
Hey, you were the one who brought up Cap and Tax as it relates to others’ backgrounds. I just thought that was a rather…….. awkward……. move for a Romney supporter. Don’t try to pretend that I was the one that saw fit to start picking apart everyone else’s past on the environment.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Dan,
And you have a good night, too. I still love ya’.
(in a strictly Platonic way)
September 16th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Adam only likes the type of politicians that make their money from the political arena such as Huckabee and Palin. How dare Romney have success from the outside of politics!!!
This entire thread is assinine.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
A point that is worth pursuing — and not just in regard to Romney. I found the election of 2000 very troubling, because we were given a choice of two dynasties — families that had made politics their career for generations.
Being in Illinois, I know you know how bad the situation is here — Blagojevich/Mell, the Madigan, the Daleys, the Strogers, etc.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Kris,
“Romney reminds me more of Bush Sn., not Jr”
I agree. Both men were Rockefeller Republicans at heart and attacked Reagan at one time. Both had a prudent conservative epiphany. The book on Bush Sr. ended with him showing his true Rockefeller roots. The Republican Party and the American people will decide in 2012 if Romney gets the chance to end the same way.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
#32 Romney reminds me more of Ward Cleaver.
I wonder which of his sons is more Beaverish?
September 16th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Bob,
Indeed. We know all about how dynasties work here in Illinois, especially you there in Chicago. Finding a “true believer” in a political dynasty is like finding a Redwood in the Sahara.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
30. MWS, neither George Romney nor Mitt were career politicians. They were businessmen turned Governors. It’s just joke to call it a political dynasty.
If Mitt inherited anything from George it was leadership/business competence.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Micah,
“Adam only likes the type of politicians that make their money from the political arena such as Huckabee and Palin. How dare Romney have success from the outside of politics!!!”
I don’t think Adam ever said that. Could you give me a quote?
September 16th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Martha,
“If Mitt inherited anything from George it was leadership/business competence.”
The last name and the Rolodex didn’t hurt any either.
Are you suggesting the fact that Mitt’s dad was a governor had no bearing on his life? Does/did your dad have any influence on your life?
Goodness, Martha, Romney isn’t a reptile or a fungus. He is a human being!!! And I would appreciate it if you started treating him like one!
September 16th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
MWS,
You’re not bugged by Adam’s incessant (and vacant) arguments about Romney’s dynasty/elitism/millionaire baloney?
Really, there needs to be a better line of attack, if you guys are going to be serious.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
MWS – you may or may not realize this, so I won’t make any accusations, but I would think you would know by now that the part of your little video that is always chopped off was that Mitt was saying he would not be returning to the raising of taxes that Reagan did, and I believe the spending increases if I recall correctly, so nice try.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
When the elder Bush ran in 1980. I had the feeling that he had no beliefs at all. That he had spent his life in politics and wanted to be President not because of anything he believed in or anything he wanted to accomplish in the office, but simply because it was the culmination of a career well-spent.
In ‘88, he acted like he believed in conservatism (“read my lips, no new taxes”) because that was his ticket to the nomination, but as soon as the slightest pressure was put on him he folded, because he had no core beliefs.
I think that’s the concern many people (including myself) have about Romney — we don’t know what he really believes. I think that the pragmatic moderate conservative who governed in Massachusetts is the real Mitt, but his true believers here assure us over and over that he’s really the hard-core conservative culture warrior of 2008. We’ll know in early 2011 which one is going to campaign, but we won’t know until (if) he’s in the White House which one will govern.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Martha, I disagree. There were many good qualities passed down to Mitt, from his father. I believe Mitt understands right and wrong, he sees the good in people and he believes in public service.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
I was wondering when this was coming…..What is your problem with people making money OUTSIDE of politics. I have problems with people using politics and their supporters as stepping stones to the bank….
September 16th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Bob, remember at the convention when Senator Helm forced Reagan to speak to Bush and have him reject his pro-choice position?
September 16th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
42. I didn’t say that at all. I’m sure Romney inherited a lot from his father. But George didn’t earn the honors at BYU or Harvard for Mitt. And he didn’t make Romney an extremely successful businessman, or a Governor. I don’t believe that Romney’s success boils down to his name. If that were the case, it would be obvious by now. I don’t think Romney should be criticized simply because of the family he was born into. (Adam is the snob here, not Romney.)
Romney learned early to stand on his own feet. I’ve read that he gave his inheritance to charity. Romney worked hard for what he has, and took care of his own family from the beginning. Adam just can’t stand that Romney has raw intellect and talent – with an outstanding record of success. He has to chalk it up to birth.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
46. I entirely agree. I did not mean to imply that Romney didn’t inherit anything from his family.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
I am going to leave the Romney-vs-Huckabee feud aside.
What I do not want to see or hear during the 2012 primary season, is who is more conservative. Oh my gosh, if that is all they are going to debate about, I myself am going to skip the primaries and just show up in Nov of 2012 to vote.
I think the polls have shown, and the way Americans have reacted over the last couple of months, that America is still a center right country. I don’t think that talk radio, Foxnews, political pundits should waste the countries time with arguing about which of the candidates is the most conservative. Let them have a chance to talk about their political beliefs, how they governed their states, what they would have done differently, how they could apply their experience to the problems we face in 2011/2012. Who cares if one candidate is more conservative on one issue than another candidate. It’s the overall picture that matters.
So again, who cares about the Romney-vs-Huckabee debate? What really matters is finding a candidate who is overall pretty conservative, but can appeal to most Americans who are center right.
And one who does not need a teleprompter to give a great speech.:wink:
September 16th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
45. I agree with you about Bush. I just don’t believe there are 2 Romneys. He was more pragmatic as Governor than moderate.
If you go back to the letter from social/religious leaders in Mass about Governor Romney – well they didn’t seem to think he was moderate at all. They said he was all over their issues – standing with them on everything, and doing all he could.
The line about Romney being 2 people has stuck, true or not. He needs to deal with it, I guess.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Another interesting fact about Bush Sr. that many people do not know;
When he was a Congressman in Texas and supported civil rights legislation, he face angry mobs at town hall events who were threatening him, but he would not back down and ‘apparently’ gave some incredible speech about the African Americans he visited in hospital beds in South Vietnam and how he was not going to turn their back on them when they were fighting for America, against communism.
Unlike many other southern Congressman and Senators who lost their seats over civil rights, like Al Gore Sr.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Mitt Romney won’t get the nominee in 2012. He is done! Romney is not conservative.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Bob,
I think #45 is spot on. My own sense is that Romney does care about good governance, but that is not synonymous in his mind with conservatism, as he would have us believe in ‘08. His conversion, like Bush’s at the Convention in ‘80, was simply too late and too necessary to be believable.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
51. Texas, I agree with you, but unfortunately, the religious right are mostly bullies. I’m as conservative as anyone, but I don’t want the party hijacked bu the far right again.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
I had forgotten, but it’s indicative of what I said about him:
“I’m pro-choice.”
“Oh, someone’s offering me the vice-presidency if I’ll change my mind?”
“I’m pro-life.”
September 16th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Texas, that makes sense to me. IF we could have a primary with all of what you said and with no religious bigotry, it would be great.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
55. MWS,
Wasn’t Huck’s conversion during the campaign on many issues simply too late to be believable?
Oops, that’s right. Romney is the only one allowed in that club.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Kris,
Interesting story about Bush Sr. I think he (like Romney) is NOT a man without principles. He certainly had them. They just weren’t necessarily the principles he campaigned on and promised to govern on.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
#35 – That was a cheap shot at Palin.
She earned a little over 100k as Governor of Alaska (for 3 years), but her husband took a LOA to help with the kids, so it was a single income…plus, if you have been to Alaska (I have), you would know that the prices of many commodities are much higher, then in the lower 48. $5 gallon for gas in rural Alaska.
They Palin’s worked for a living.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
I’m afraid Romney will be the nominee in 2012. We’re talking Republicans here, and he’s next in line.
Of course, Romney has one advantage over Obama: he’s already passed a
system requiring people who can’t afford it to buy government mandated health insurance.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
60. Yeah, like when Huckabee promised not to raise taxes during his last campaign for Gov, and a few weeks after taking office happily broke the pledge.
I hate it when that happens.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Martha,
“Wasn’t Huck’s conversion during the campaign on many issues simply too late to be believable?”
I have found fault with him several times on this board over his immigration flip. I liked the old Huck better on that one. On taxes and spending, that’s not a flip, as circumstances in Arkansas =/= circumstances in the federal government. Arkansas had crumbling infrastructure and schools that needed funding. He addressed that and balanced the budget. The federal government, on the other hand, is a bloated hog.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
61. I think all he said was that Palin has made her living from politics.
September 16th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Martha,
Did Romney honor the sacred oath he swore to Big Abortion?
September 16th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
WHY IS EVERYONE ATTACKING THE CAREERS OF THE 2012 POTENTIALS????
Romney was an honest businessman and a VERY successful one. Huckabee was a pastor who wanted to help his community. Palin was ran a small business and was a house wife.
Compare that to the current President. A Lawyer for ACORN and a community activist.
September 16th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Bob Waters – Actually, those than can’t afford it get some help, for good or bad. But he sure stopped the freeloading, which I assume is what you are ticked about.
September 16th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Kris,
You should see how poorly Obama is polling among housewives in the most recent SurveyUSA state-by-state polling.
Democrats used to won this demographic with Clinton as their leader.
I chalk it up to housewives being the most informed because they have the most time to get informed about what’s going on in the news.
September 16th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Off-topic: Mary Travers (Peter, Paul & Mary) has died. Politics aside, I loved their music. Requiescat in pace.
Can you imagine a time when folk-singers would have three of the top six albums?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090917/ap_on_en_mu/us_obit_mary_travers
September 16th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
64. Right. When Huck flips it’s not a flip! It’s simply necessary due to government reality/constraints.
It’s only a flip when Romney does it.
LOL.
September 16th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
MWS – That’s the most dishonest slam I’ve ever seen on here. It would be different if you didn’t know better. He promised he would not allow the issue to move either way, then governed 100% pro-life without having to break that promise. SO JUST WHAT IN THE H___ ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!
September 16th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Easy question. The easy answer is that Adam Graham put up a purposely divisive post
Here’s a novel idea. Romney doesn’t matter. Huckabee doesn’t matter. Palin doesn’t matter.
What matters is the task at hand – namely increasing our numbers in both houses of congress next year. There is plenty of time to tar and feather our presidential candidates. Now, today, September 16, 2009, our party is better united (thanks to our reckless excuse for a president) than at any point in 2006, 2007 or 2008. It does no good to beat up on opposite factions of the GOP when we are all in this together to take back the country from encroaching radical liberalism.
September 16th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Kris,
Just sent you an e-mail.
September 16th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
#73, I was not calling out Graham.
Adam was not attacking Romney’s private sector career, he was highlighting the fact that Mitt had $ before he began working, but it was in a larger context.
September 16th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Thanks Tommy. I still have to reply to your other email. Been busy at work and buying hockey equipment for my son.
September 16th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
75,
You don’t have to call out Graham. I am.
Graham (in keeping with a pattern) selectively criticizes Romney for impurity while our amigo Huckabee has undergone plenty of conversions to built his “street cred” as something resembling a mainstream conservative in a GOP primary contest.
September 16th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
75. Yes, in a round about way he was. His point is always that Romney’s success is primarily due to being from a wealthy, influential family. He doesn’t ever give Romney credit where credit is due, and I think that’s why so many people jump all over him. He is not intellectually honest when it comes to Romney.
Honestly, I wish he would post more about why he supports Huckabee him rather than making up stuff about Romney all the time. (Little Palin lingo there for you, Kris.)
September 16th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
73. You are right, Adam.
September 16th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
If Romney runs in 2012 he must ‘project’ why he is running. What is his purpose and desire for the Presidency. This essentially summarizes many concerns people had of his candidacy in 2007-2008.
If he can do this, he may win the nomination. If he is up against Obama, he better do it, or we will be stuck with the former ACORD lawyer for another 4 years.
September 16th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
#73:
Adam, let me go ahead and take on this garbage that we get when we have debate on this site. To the advocates of, “Let’s be one big dysfunctional family or the Democrats win.” The argument is rubbish. If blog posts could destroy the GOP, believe me they would have done so long ago. This blog post speaks for the vast majority of Republicans who feel this party’s establishment has left the roots of true conservatism.
Too many conservatives shut up and tolerated things they knew were wrong during the Bush years in the name of unity, this is where we’re at. There is a battle going on for the soul of this party, and of this movement. I’ve posted much the past few months on the Democrats, and gone after them. But I will not remain silent.
As Kris said, I didn’t attack Romney’s private sector career. The focus of this post was George W. Bush, and what was apparently an act of deception foised on the conservative movement in this country by President Bush and many of its leaders. They led us over the clift. To quote Charlton Heston above, “You blew it up!”
And you look at the Bush people, and they’re Romney people. It was Karl Rove pushing Mitt Romney to be McCain’s VP after the primary. The Bush/RNC/Romney, all really cut from the same cloth, and they have done too much harm to too many good people. And I’m not going to stand for it.
As for Huckabee, who wasn’t even mentioned in this thread. Let me say this. Mike Huckabee is a movement conservative, not a perfect conservative, but a movement conservative who grew up reading, “A Choice, Not An Echo” and was a follower of Paul Weyrich’s. While Bush and Romney were off doing whatever. Huckabee’s conservatism, however imperfect it is was not an invention to dupe the masses, as was the case with Bush, and as I strongly feel is the case with Mitt Romney.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
September 16th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Let’s see:
a) George Romney born in Mexico to a poor family
b) Moved to the states and lived in a dirt floor house
c) Somehow or another found his way to being Governor of a large state, and CEO of an automobile company.
d) Served a two and one half year mission for the Lord overseas paying his own way and getting NO money, like all LDS Elders!
e) Mitt Romney – valecdictorian of his class at BYU
f) Baker scholar and cum laude JD Law degree simultaneous graduations
g) Mitt and Ann had children while in college and lived on their own money
h) Mitt inherited money from parents – gave it all to charity
i) Very successful in business – when he left he could have taken 8 billion, but left with a small part, leaving the rest for others.
j) Rescued the olympics and took no money for it.
k) Served as governor and took no money for that either.
I don’t think Mitt Romney has been helped much by money….less than anyone else I can think of in today’s society, given what he could have had. He’s pledged to also serve as President for no money, just to be consistent.
September 16th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
Ironically enough, the GOP politician who voted against Bush 1’s tax increases and voted against Bush 2’s prescription drug plan, was John McCain…the candidate many conservatives tagged as a RINO!!!
We used to be deficit hawks and supported the shrinking of the federal government…and the voters loved us.
Bush didn’t damage our party because of the Iraq war, he damaged our party because he alienated ficons.
September 16th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
82 – we are not denying that (although his post-secondary $ was paid for), what Adam is saying is,
F$%k the beltways insiders, who led us astray!
September 16th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Kristofer, we need all the votes we can get, so wouldn’t it be kind of stupid to not encourage support from peole who have influence over constituents back home? People like Adam G. will try to make that into a bad thing, but I think it’s the only smart thing to do. You don’t drive away support from influential people.
September 16th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Now, even among the right, it is fashionable to bash President Bush as the root of all our current problems. But to me, he will always be the President who stood up after 9/11 in the ruins of the WTC and vowed that the terrorists would hear from all of us. He kept our nation safe for 7 1/2 years after that day, and he liberated 50 million people from the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. His policies towards diseases and aide in Africa helped save millions of lives, and he never bashed Israel unlike our current President. He also appointed Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, Samuel Alito and John Roberts to the bench.
Bush had his flaws, and yet history will be kind to him. In many ways he is the Republican Harry Truman.
September 16th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
#83:
I’ve wondered to myself whether we’d have been better off nominating McCain. With Bush, we got the one thing we feared most from John McCain (McCain-Feingold.) and we wouldn’t have gotten near as much fiscal claptrap.
#84:
Yes, though I might throw in a few more characters to hide what a **** is.
Truth is that what I find bothersome about Romney is what so many of his supporters site as attract. He has the support of a lot of Republicans in Congress and DC Insiders like David “Pay for Play” Keene. The same people who declared Bush a wonderful guy who’d give us a permanent majority are the same people telling us Mitt Romney walks on water. That’s the connection.
September 16th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Rod Dreher: My fellow conservatives: Can we think?
I’m no liberal — and I don’t trust this president. But please: Call off the clowns.
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/59547247.html?elr=KArksc8P:Pc:Ug8P:Pc:UiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr
September 16th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Bush had his flaws, and yet history will be kind to him. In many ways he is the Republican Harry Truman.
Except Truman had 4 balanced budgets.
September 16th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
I agree with Kris, let’s lose this intraparty bickering and focus on uniting the party in principles that we all can agree with. 2012 will come soon enough.
September 16th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
No one is claiming that blog posts are going to destroy the party. The larger point is that the sort of arguments that are taking place over favored candidates can be better directed against the Left. Your “true conservatism” is going to be at least marginally different than mine or anyone else’s. Political movements aren’t successful without co-opting the center so “true conservatism” is always going to be compromised. It’s a matter of degree and direction.
What you derisively claim to be Bush/RNC/conservatism can easily be countered with the charge Bush/Huckabee/Christian Socialism. The Schiavo thing was a bridge too far, just like big spending by Bush (of which Huckabee was a like mind). But the biggest problem was the Iraq War and the president was cornered.
Thanks for helpfully pointing out Huckabee’s absense from this thread. But you’ve so outed yourself as an unapolgetic Huckabee shill that everyone knows your agenda as soon as they read a few sentences of your posts. So was Huckabee right about Bush’s Arrogant Bunker Mentality? Was he being a movement conservative then? When Huckabee looked the other way on illegal immigration or worse yet, embraced it, was he a movement conservative then? Maybe he was a movement conservative when he took a hard line on the issue. Surely he couldn’t have flip-flopped because only Romney has the capacity to do that.
And Rove and Bush weren’t perfect but they did win twice. Reagan lost the congress too. Should any and all good feelings of him be confined to the ash heap of history because of it? Stuff happens in the course of a presidency. You just find it all too convenient when 43 is held in low esteem to denigrate Romney simply because Bush and Rove thought he was better than your boy. Anything to marginalize the real threat to the ascent of Christian Socialism Part II.
Santorum has his ideas about who should be president. Something tells me that someone from your point of view woulsn’t blithely cast aside that using his 18-point drubbing as a reason for doinf so.
September 16th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
#85:
The real influence of many of these characters is far less than the proportion of their influence. I’d bet that Joe the Plumber had more influence at the height of his popularity than David Keene.
September 16th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
What does Palin no show at “Values Voter” summit say about her 2012 intentions?
http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2009/09/16/what-does-palin-no-show-at-values-voter-summit-say-about-her-2012-intentions/
September 16th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Can you imagine if McCain had won in 2000?
- Balanced budgets…no pork…less corruption…no quagmire in Iraq. God forbid!
September 16th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
#89:
Truman was also reviled by the Republicans at the time and considered an embarrassment by his own party. Sound familiar?
September 16th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Aron, someone is looking for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-SSHxGGpjM
September 16th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
#91:
Anything to marginalize the real threat to the ascent of Christian Socialism Part II.
Give me a break, First of all, Mitt Romney was for socialism to save Wall Street. He was for socializing risk, just not profits. As a taxpayer, I’m on the hook for Citibanks bad loans, for Fannie and Freddie’s loans, and the other companies bailed out by the Crony Capitalists in the Bush Administration.
He was one of the cheerleaders urging us to cheerfully march down the road to hell and cast aside moral hazard, while Huckabee was taking the opposite view, with really only Ron Paul, Neil Cavuto, and Dave Ramsey on the same side, along with some congressional stalwarts like Mike Pence.
September 16th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Kris,
But I suspect McCain doesn’t beat Gore. Bush was the perfect counterweight to someone who should have won election very easily.
Gore may have been able to hold parts of the Clinton South against McCain.
September 16th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
I now have less respect for Adam than I do for Kris and “Gamecock”.
That’s quite an achievement in such a small space of time.
100% grade A imbecile.
September 16th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
#93:
To me, I think Sarah Palin right now is trying to get back her life. I’m not redoing my probability post until October, but Sarah Palin will have dropped a considerable amount. She seems to be taking leadership outside politics. Very low key. Also, she has to do is make a post on Facebook. She’ll sell a lot of books, but I just don’t think she’s got the heart to run. She could change my mind in a hurry, and believe me, there’s a grassroots demand for her, but I don’t think she wants it.
September 16th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
#98 – great question.
Based on the fact that the media would have supported McCain over Gore and the love indy’s had for McCain in 2000, I would say McCain could have won.
Great point on the south…but we’ll never know.
September 16th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Kris,
I suppose one could argue that mac would have performed better in Oregon, New Mexico, and Wisconsin than Bush but Bush’s compassionate conservative message was incredibly strong, especially against a guy like Gore where he probably would have performed as well as Mac in New Mexico and Wisconsin.
Mac would probably have been stronger in Oregon but I think we have a race in Arkansas, West Virginia, and Tennessee with McCain as our nominee
September 16th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
#101:
The media would have turned on McCain the moment he won the Republican nomination, just like they did in 2008. The MSM is a propoganda arm of the Democratic Party, and they would have gone with Gore no matter who we nominated.
September 16th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
103 – in 2000? No way. The media HATED Gore.
September 16th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
#98:
Yeah, 2000 was a goofy election. I wouldn’t say that Gore should won easily, but he did get the plurality of the popular vote. This was an election were there were five of Lichtman’s keys turned against the incumbent party indicating the incumbent should win the popular vote.
The election turned on Florida. And there were a number of factors that hurt Gore. One was that President’s Bush’s brother was a popular Governor down there. Another thing was the Elian Gonzales flap. I think that right there probably cost the Democrats at least 537 votes in the Cuban community, and made those Cubans who did vote for Bush more determined to.
The one thing that may make us doubt McCain is his “Agents of Intolerance” speech absolutely infuriated Religious Conservatives. When Rove calculated it up, Bush lost with 2 million less religious conservatives showing up at the polls. Could have gotten more, or drawn more Independents?
Independents are a fickle lot as they brought McCain to victory this time and this disappeared, so we learned the folly counting on them. Could a killer Veep have made the difference. In many ways, picking Huckabee as his running mate would have made a lot of sense for McCain in 2000 as Huckabee would add charisma and could be a big draw for a lot of Evangelicals ticked off at McCain, and helped solidify the South against the Buchanan brigades. It would have been close.
So, who knows?
September 16th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Romney can tap dance, says Forrester? Always something delightful and new to learn about the the man.
This piece with the picture of Romney at the end was a poorly disguised effort to get the thread past 100, admittedly I couldn’t resist.
In the current environment, anything could happen. I am strongly hoping for a mandate with leadership that has the moral code and skill-set of a Romney.
BTW, I watched Huckabee’s show for the first time about 3 nights ago. It was sweet in a way, in a way I was embarrassed for him. There is no way I want that guy leading the entire free world, course I said that about Obama and here we go on the ride of our lives…..
September 16th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
#104:
The Democrats could have nominated Josef Stalin and we could have nominated Mother Theresa and the media still would have gone with Stalin. The media supports Democrats, it is just the way things are.
September 16th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
105 – I never considered that, but you are correct….in 2000, McCain would have had to select a Huckabee-type.
September 16th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
104 – I put up a post a couple of weeks ago, referencing 2000 (I posted the Rage Against the Machine video). Many far left organizations sat out 2000 and the media (although anti-Bush) did not act as cheerleaders for Gore in any capacity close to what they do for Obama.
September 16th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Kris,
But don’t you agree that Gore isn’t the best matchup for someone like McCain? He’s a better fit against someone like Barack Obama.
I like Mac a lot but my conclusion is that Mac would have had to fight tooth and nail in many states that were easy for Bush whereas the opposite isn’t true (e.g. there are no states that McCain would have won easily but where Bush struggled).
September 16th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Pawlenty, Bachmann to share stage in Washington
During the Values Voters Summit in Washington, D.C., sponsored by the Family Research Council and other conservative organizations, a presidential straw poll will be conducted. In addition to Pawlenty, potential candidates on the ballot will include Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin, Ron Paul, Mike Pence, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/59455502.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUBP7hUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU
September 16th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Tough question, Tommy.
In 2000, McCain wins some blue States against Gore. The problem for Gore, is that southerners do not view him as one of their own, as they do with Bush and Clinton.
Do not underestimate how many notherners will not vote for a southerner and vice-versa.
September 16th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Adam Graham….I don’t even know if you know it or not, but the rest of us do…..if Huckabee were the one getting a lot of ‘establishment’ ‘insider’ type backing right now, we wouldn’t be seeing this post from you.
September 16th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
It must be good news for Mitt if Huckabee supporters attack out of the blue. Adam wouldn’t write this if Romney wasn’t considered the front-runner. Personally I’d rather see Adam promote Huckabee instead of tear down someone who stood in his way.
I think this is an ugly cheap shot. Your one paragraph encapsulation of Romney is the type of smear I’d would expect to hear from liberals.
This site, and this party don’t need your divisiveness Adam.
September 16th, 2009 at 11:28 pm
#114 – any thoughts on Adam’s fantastic observations on the GOP’s (lead by Bush) abandonment of our economic values?
September 16th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
Looks like PPP is going to be swapping in Jeb Bush for Newt Gingrich on their next 2012 poll.
http://twitter.com/ppppolls/status/4035545087
September 16th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
That should be interesting. Perhaps they’ll try Rudy next month.
September 17th, 2009 at 12:39 am
#87 I just add my voice to the rest of the chorus – Adam Graham – you’re a moron. So Mitt Romney has the support of a lot of republicans in Congress…and that’s a bad thing??? You say “guilt by association” because he is liked by republicans and Bush was liked by republicans – so he must be another Bush?? You are an idiot. It’s hard to find another candidate who is as well-qualified for POTUS as Mitt Romney – Methinks thou dost spin too much.
September 17th, 2009 at 1:17 am
What a lot of people see in Romney is a guy who knows how to solve problems and who really cares about America and the people who comprise it. They see an unbroken career of success and very hard work. They see a man who has literally given away hundreds of millions of dollars to the needy and the worthwhile. Then there are the Adam Grahams who resent all of that, or envy it: it’s a study in contrasts.
September 17th, 2009 at 1:32 am
Hang in there, Republicans. It’s a movement that can’t be stopped. Unite, folks!
September 17th, 2009 at 1:39 am
#113:
You say, “if Huckabee were the one getting a lot of ‘establishment’ ‘insider’ type backing right now, we wouldn’t be seeing this post from you.”
That is totally false. I’ve been railing against the Republican Party Establishment well before I ever supported Mike Huckabee. It was 2006, when I spent 45 minutes scraping the Bush/Cheney 2004 bumper sticker off my car.
If the Republican Establishment types were getting behind Huckabee, either the Republican Establishment would not be worthy of the complete disdain that it deserves or Huckabee would not be the type of candidate I would consider supporting.
To allege that I’m inventing my distaste for the party elites to bolster my case for Huckabee when the former predated the latter is either ignorant or worthy of a Joe Wilson shout.
September 17th, 2009 at 1:39 am
Moderates like Mitt are welcome, too.
Think BIG TENT. Open your mind. Trust us.
September 17th, 2009 at 1:54 am
It’s reality in politics that all serious candidates need the establishment/D.C./RNC behind them. That is the way politics work, that is the reality and always has been.
This is stuff that happens behind the scenes where coalitions are built of both conservatives and moderates who come together with the common goal of electing a Republican President, 1964 was an example where the party couldn’t find common ground, and that, I think is also what happened in 2008 with McCain, he couldn’t build a coalition, and he couldn’t raise the money he needed until later when the Bush machine kicked in after Romney was out. I always felt that was the reason Romney left the race, he released his money supporters to McCain, since they were divided between the two.
Because Bush was our last Republican President, the Bush/Rove/DC people are still around, that’s where the money, the fundraisers and the support is.
So more power to Romney for having the ability to forge these coalitions so our party can hopefully come together.
.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:28 am
Adam,
I agree completely about Bush although i campaigned on the streets for him. He got the war and judges mostly right but kneecapped us with spending and deficits.
That said, you simply display your own dishonesty and bias with that ridiculously cheap shot at the end. You should be ashamed but that would be a bit much to ask of a huckabee man. “We won’t believe the next multi-millionaire scion of a political dynasty…” Next time tell us how you really feel about his money.
You are, and have always been, a Huckabee spin doctor with a disregard for honesty and fairness.
September 17th, 2009 at 2:40 am
Adam:
It’s still early but, the only other person trying to build a coalition is Pawlenty. Candidates need the Republican establishment, why are you so upset…
Most of the Washington Establishment are really non-partisan when the General Election comes around, they want a Republican in the W.H., that’s usually when we all come together and rally behind one candidate.
BTW: I’m not sure I believe the conversation went down like the way Matt Latimer said it did, that just doesn’t sound right……”What movement are you talking about”…. He had to explain…. Why would Latimer write movement without writing conservative?
September 17th, 2009 at 7:12 am
Dident the cleaver family portray good family values?
Oh… yea. Not a real GOP stand. It’s only talk. When someone actually LIVES those values, that’s when the fur flies!
September 17th, 2009 at 7:15 am
Aaron. Palin has not confirmed, and Romney will be there.
September 17th, 2009 at 7:20 am
82. Some people get into politics for money. Others, like Mitt do it out of love of country.
September 17th, 2009 at 7:30 am
Mr. Graham:
You are one of the sharpest cookies around here and you are usually a brilliant political analyst. However, despite the fact that many of those who I respect enjoyed that article, I did not. I would rather not get mixed up in a full fledged contest, but for starters, the broken statue of liberty seemed to me over the top. Neither Mr. Bush or Mr. Romney are perfect Conservatives and you have a point that neither of them are movement Conservatives. However, neither of them are movement liberals and it appears to me like a dirty trick for you to compare the two men. This tactic stoops down to certain elements of the Romney camp who like to compare people. Yes, Mr. Bush should not have let those clowns convince him to bail out the auto companies and the banks among other things. However, Mr. Bush also accomplished a lot of good things. You may scare a lot of other people away from Mr. Romney by this comparison, but at the risk of sounding like a traitor, I am almost tempted to donate to the Strong and Free America PAC after reading this article despite some of the shenanigans from certain Romney elements. If Mr. Romney turns out to be another Mr. Bush, in many respects that would not actually be a bad thing. We would have more Conservative judges and this country would be safer from terrorists.
Am I concerned at the failure of some elements in the Romney camp to promote Conservatism? Yes. Am I concerned that some of the establishement clowns appear to be advising Mr. Romney? Yes. However, to be fair to the Romney camp, although they have loose cannons (you brought a few of them out of the wood-work with this article) there are not many Romneyite are actively trying to sabotage either our movement or our country. Although you do not mean to trash Mr. Romney like this, the tone of this article including the image of the sabotaged statue of liberty leads people to believe that Mr. Romney (and Mr. Bush) is worse than reality.
September 17th, 2009 at 7:32 am
After Mitt loses the next GOP primary I wonder if a lot of Romney supporters will pull for Obama just like last time.
September 17th, 2009 at 7:47 am
#129:
Bush said he defeated the conservative movement. If we had another President Bush, we’re done as a party, we’re probably done as a country. You can’t protect any of the people or have good judges matter if you’re bankrupt.
The image of the destroyed Statue of Liberty in the movie doesn’t represent the State of the Union, but the state of the GOP. But I’m more concerned with the sentiment expressed
September 17th, 2009 at 7:49 am
#125:
It’s still early but, the only other person trying to build a coalition is Pawlenty. Candidates need the Republican establishment, why are you so upset…
Because the Republican Establishment is destroying our country, only a little more slow than the Democrats.
September 17th, 2009 at 8:10 am
86 – Jonathon, well said!!! It is ashame that you were the only person on this long thread to speak of those successes…as a leader and a human being.
September 17th, 2009 at 8:14 am
Romney plans busy weekend in Washington area
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/09/16/romney-plans-busy-weekend-in-washington-area/
September 17th, 2009 at 8:21 am
This Latimer is a jerk, a traitor. By the way it was Bush who give 55 senator to the GOP.
September 17th, 2009 at 8:37 am
Doug you said “After Mitt loses the next GOP primary I wonder if a lot of Romney supporters will pull for Obama like last time.” I wonder how you were able to be in the voting booth and witness such an outrages accusation, or perhaps you are clairvoyant. My anecdotal evidence which certainly is as credible as your broad assumption is completely the opposite. Every person I know that voted for, or would have voted for Romney before he suspended his campaign voted for McCain.
I like Huckabee as a radio show host, not as the president, but I will vote for him if he is the republican nominee. I love Palin’s passion, not her lack of skill or inexperience, but I will vote for her if she is the nominee. Please don’t disparage from the dark.
September 17th, 2009 at 8:54 am
#135:
Look up the facts, Republicans had 55 Senators as soon as 1996, sustained in 1998, with that solid majority lost the first time Bush was on the ballot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_1996
September 17th, 2009 at 8:56 am
#136:
I think most of us will support whoever the Republican nominee is, and I thank you for your statement that you’d back someone other than your first choice in the General election. That’s the way a party has to work.
However, zeek, a lot of Romneyites on this site have given the impression they would not support a Palin or a Huckabee over Obama, and I think that’s the reason for what Doug said.
September 17th, 2009 at 9:17 am
#137, Adam, Pres Bush helped us win some tough Senate election battles in ‘02 (which were subsequently lost in ‘08, when Pres Bush wasn’t on the ballot) to get us to 51, and helped win 4 Senate seats in ‘04 on his rapidly-shrinking coattails. From there, Pres Bush cost us big, turning a +5 Senate to a -10 Senate in just two elections.
I agree with the sentiment you express, but I differ in how it got there. Pres Bush, as you noted, was very good on national defense. On spending he was very bad (I didn’t use horrible only because Pres Obama owns that category now), but it was more due to his style of governance (“Hey, you Republicans in Congress send me a bill, and as long as I can make some empty veto threats, I’ll sign whatever you send me”) than programs pushed. An exception was the Medicare expansion, where I fully blame him for pushing a bad idea.
The economy took a huge hit on 9/11, so it was inevitable that revenues would take a hit. That being the case, as Congress increases spending each year, it was also inevitable that the debt would rise. Also remember that Pres Bush took over when the tech bubble was bursting, also leading to declining revenues. His spending was bad, make no mistake, but circumstances outside his control made it seem even worse than it really was.
No excuses, Pres Bush’s domestic policies were much more big gov’t than conservative. With that, he certainly hurt the conservative movement. Publicly denounce him? Why? He’ll not be an issue for most voters in ‘10, and Dem efforts to tie Reps to him would be an act of desperation and a sure sign of the tide being against them. Did Reps run against Pres Carter in ‘82 (I don’t have the answer to that, but if they did, it didn’t work)? His policies of big gov’t, however, are GREAT targets, and should be gone after with relentless fervor.
September 17th, 2009 at 9:22 am
“However, zeek, a lot of Romneyites on this site have given the impression they would not support a Palin or a Huckabee over Obama, and I think that’s the reason for what Doug said.” Yes, there is certainly a lot of truth to that there are also a lot of Romneyites who will put their party first. Hopefully the Romney camp will keep their loose cannons in line, but attacking Mr. Romney is not going to assist the good Romneyites (if you pardon the term) in getting other Romney elements back on the reservation. Yes, we do not know how a President Romney will govern, I do fear that certain clowns have too much influence in the Romney camp, but we also have no guarentee that when the Pawlenty camp emerges that they will keep their loose cannons and liberals in line. While Mr. Romney has gone off the reservation himself on a few issues, he is pretty Conservative overall.
So while I won’t rule voting for Mr. Huckabee or Mr. Pawlenty (assuming my first candidate is out of the picture) I also will not rule out Mr. Romney either. If the clown start running the show over the next few years within the Romney camp, I shall not vote for him, but we certainly should not be so quick to assume that the liberal and establishment elements in the Romney camp will win the day. Let’s see how the cookie crumbles and give him a chance to further pull up his socks. After all, Mr. Romney himself has promoted Conservatism a few times recently on the Hannity show for example.
September 17th, 2009 at 9:26 am
Also remember that Pres Bush took over when the tech bubble was bursting, also leading to declining revenues. Thank you Richard Murray for reminding us of that point. The Bush bashers will not like this point, but I think it is great that you brought it up.
September 17th, 2009 at 9:41 am
#115 Kristofer – I agree that W. abandoned conservative economic values, but I believe he is due a lot more respect than is given him in this post by Adam Graham. I believe Bush was seriously mislead, but I’ve never thought him to be an evil man. He did was right. We are right to look back and learn from the mistakes that he made, but I think he needs to be vilified in the way that Adam has.
Doug Forrester – I know hundreds of Romney supporters. You’re assessment that they all went and supported Obama after Romney lost the nomination is completely false as I don’t know a single person that did. Not one. I’m not saying that wasn’t anyone who did that. But the percentage has to be extremely low because I’m not aware of anyone who did, and I do seriously know and have talked to hundreds of them.
September 17th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Correction – #142 should say “He did what he thought was right”. Other grammatical errors too… should have reviewed before I posted.
September 17th, 2009 at 9:49 am
“but I think he needs to be vilified in the way that Adam has.” I trust the words ‘does not’ should be before needs or need.
September 17th, 2009 at 9:55 am
lol, what a troll of a post.
What’s odd is that the first part is actually a pretty good post, in an of itself. But the non-sequitur cheap shot against Romney at the end? wtf?
I look at the rabid popularity that W. still holds in certain circles and ask myself what kind of state the GOP would be in now had it spent his 8 years governing as a conservative party. Barack who? Seriously, we’d be in a totally different world.
September 17th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Man, I can’t believe I took the bait. I feel like Adam Graham rick-rolled me.
September 17th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Lame post. There are some major differences between Bush and Romney. One is COMPETENCE.
You could have just as easily put Reagan on mitt’s spot there since he has the same issues with how he all the sudden became more conservative when he decided to run for prez.
September 18th, 2009 at 10:08 am
Actually, Illinois guy, what I’m complaining about is the inanity of the whole idea. You don’t fine people for being too poor to buy insurance- which, in case you haven’t noticed, is a key component of Obama’s plan, just like Romney’s.
September 18th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
The same people who choose the worst candidat possible in the GOP are the same people who blame the Romney voters. Sad.
September 18th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
Too bad I got into this discussion late and no one will probably read this, but, Adam said:
And then tried to say that Romney would do the same. Did you forget Romney’s op-ed in the New York Times entitled “Let Them Fail” ?