• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

“Unconscionable,” “Irresponsible,” “Vindictive”, “Inept”

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
These were the words to describe the Bush administration at a recent meeting. Was this a meeting of Liberals out to get Bush? Not at all. These were well known Conservatives.

The title of this thread is a statement by former Reagan aide Bruce Bartlett, who now has a book out called "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy"

Conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan also has a book out. Its called "The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It; How to Get It Back". Sullivan called Bush reckless, a socialist, and said Bush betrayed "almost every principle conservatism has ever stood for".

David Boaz, the Executive Vice President of the Cato Institute, blamed Bush for the Federalization of our schools, and an increase of entitlements unseen since the days of LBJ.

This was the tone of the whole event. White House officials were invited to explain themselves, but turned down the request. Gee, I wonder why? Could it be that they are not really Conservative? You betcha. These Conservatives got this administration's number.

Article is here.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
danarhea said:
White House officials were invited to explain themselves, but turned down the request. Gee, I wonder why?
Could it be Bush has no more elections to win? As promised, Bush does not let himself get drawn into this kind of political muck. No need to explain anything.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Yesterday, Paul Krugman from the New York Times had an article on Barlett and Sullivan's words regarding Bush and this adminstration. He said the following, which I thought was hilarious:

It's no wonder, then, that one commentator wrote of Mr. Bartlett that "if he were a cartoon character, he would probably look like Donald Duck during one of his famous tirades, with steam pouring out of his ears."

Oh, wait. That's not what somebody wrote about Mr. Bartlett. It's what Mr. Bartlett wrote about me in September 2003, when I was saying pretty much what he's saying now.
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/03/10/opinion/10krugman.html

What Krugman is talking about in this article is how the left was criticized for its criticism of Bush but now that the right is criticizing Bush, they're perceived as being gusty and having balls. Here is one of my favorite lines of the article:

Similarly, if you're a former worshipful admirer of George W. Bush who now says, as Mr. Sullivan did at Cato, that "the people in this administration have no principles," you're taking a courageous stand. If you said the same thing back when Mr. Bush had an 80 percent approval rating, you were blinded by Bush-hatred.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
aps said:
Yesterday, Paul Krugman from the New York Times had an article on Barlett and Sullivan's words regarding Bush and this adminstration. He said the following, which I thought was hilarious:



http://select.nytimes.com/2006/03/10/opinion/10krugman.html

What Krugman is talking about in this article is how the left was criticized for its criticism of Bush but now that the right is criticizing Bush, they're perceived as being gusty and having balls. Here is one of my favorite lines of the article:
You make a valid point, but I do not agree with it. The Democrats were on Bush, just as Republicans were on Clinton when he was in office. It does not take courage to bash the other side. It does take courage to go against one's own party, hence the reason I disagree with you on this.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
danarhea said:
You make a valid point, but I do not agree with it. The Democrats were on Bush, just as Republicans were on Clinton when he was in office. It does not take courage to bash the other side. It does take courage to go against one's own party, hence the reason I disagree with you on this.
How dare you disagree with me after all I have done for you on this message board!

LOL Just kidding. :lol: Seriously, I totally understand what you're saying, and that is true.
 

Carl

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2006
Messages
159
Reaction score
0
Location
Lindenhurst, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
danarhea said:
Gee, I wonder why? Could it be that they are not really Conservative? You betcha. These Conservatives got this administration's number.
Several observations.

Firstly, Mr. Sullivan, former editor of The New Republic, enjoys calling himself a Conservative. But his credentials simply don't pan out.

As regards President Bush's fiscal policies, I don't think anyone could characterize them as particularly Conservative until quite recently, with the notable exception of the tax cuts. In fact, most of the Republican party as reflected in the Congress hasn't been very fiscally Conservative. Certainly not in the low-tax, smaller-government mold of Ronald Reagan...or even John F. Kennedy.

President Bush has heard the voice of Conservatism, however. Or perhaps one should say his elbow joint has finally collapsed under the political arm-twisting of the Conservative base.

He has submitted a budget that calls for across the board spending cuts to the rate of growth for all non-defense programs. He attempted to reform Social Security and Medicaire.

Congressional resistance, and the pork-barrel riders, have prevented him from advancing the reforms. His budget plan remains in the hands of Congress, for only the Congress has the power to tax and spend.

In the face of Congressional reticence, President Bush is seeking a modified line-item veto in order to exercise greater power in the reduction of the size of government, and government spending.

Clearly he has also campaigned on, and passed, Education programs and Drug programs that are an insult to the principles of Conservatism. So in the end he's a bit of a mixed bag. But it's an intellectual mis-step to lay abandonment of Conservative fiscal principles solely at the feet of President Bush. At this point in his Presidency, he's the only real voice of Reagan-style Conservatism, even if he is a Johnny-come-lately to the scene.

With regard to Social and Foreign Policy Conservatism, he has always been as strong or stronger than Ronald Reagan.
 
Last edited:

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Carl said:
Several observations.

Firstly, Mr. Sullivan, former editor of The New Republic, enjoys calling himself a Conservative. But his credentials simply don't pan out.

As regards President Bush's fiscal policies, I don't think anyone could characterize them as particularly Conservative until quite recently, with the notable exception of the tax cuts. In fact, most of the Republican party as reflected in the Congress hasn't been very fiscally Conservative. Certainly not in the low-tax, smaller-government mold of Ronald Reagan...or even John F. Kennedy.

President Bush has heard the voice of Conservatism, however. Or perhaps one should say his elbow joint has finally collapsed under the political arm-twisting of the Conservative base.

He has submitted a budget that calls for across the board spending cuts to the rate of growth for all non-defense programs. He attempted to reform Social Security and Medicaire.

Congressional resistance, and the pork-barrel riders, have prevented him from advancing the reforms. His budget plan remains in the hands of Congress, for only the Congress has the power to tax and spend.

In the face of Congressional reticence, President Bush is seeking a modified line-item veto in order to exercise greater power in the reduction of the size of government, and government spending.

Clearly he has also campaigned on, and passed, Education programs and Drug programs that are an insult to the principles of Conservatism. So in the end he's a bit of a mixed bag. But it's an intellectual mis-step to lay abandonment of Conservative fiscal principles solely at the feet of President Bush. At this point in his Presidency, he's the only real voice of Reagan-style Conservatism, even if he is a Johnny-come-lately to the scene.

With regard to Social and Foreign Policy Conservatism, he has always been as strong or stronger than Ronald Reagan.
Welcome to the forum, looking forward to your input..........Personally I think President Bush is a social conservative and at best a fiscal moderate......In his defense he has had 9/11/01, the worst natural disater in history and 2 wars take place on his watch...........These things cost money........
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Carl said:
Several observations.

Firstly, Mr. Sullivan, former editor of The New Republic, enjoys calling himself a Conservative. But his credentials simply don't pan out.

As regards President Bush's fiscal policies, I don't think anyone could characterize them as particularly Conservative until quite recently, with the notable exception of the tax cuts. In fact, most of the Republican party as reflected in the Congress hasn't been very fiscally Conservative. Certainly not in the low-tax, smaller-government mold of Ronald Reagan...or even John F. Kennedy.

President Bush has heard the voice of Conservatism, however. Or perhaps one should say his elbow joint has finally collapsed under the political arm-twisting of the Conservative base.

He has submitted a budget that calls for across the board spending cuts to the rate of growth for all non-defense programs. He attempted to reform Social Security and Medicaire.

Congressional resistance, and the pork-barrel riders, have prevented him from advancing the reforms. His budget plan remains in the hands of Congress, for only the Congress has the power to tax and spend.

In the face of Congressional reticence, President Bush is seeking a modified line-item veto in order to exercise greater power in the reduction of the size of government, and government spending.

Clearly he has also campaigned on, and passed, Education programs and Drug programs that are an insult to the principles of Conservatism. So in the end he's a bit of a mixed bag. But it's an intellectual mis-step to lay abandonment of Conservative fiscal principles solely at the feet of President Bush. At this point in his Presidency, he's the only real voice of Reagan-style Conservatism, even if he is a Johnny-come-lately to the scene.

With regard to Social and Foreign Policy Conservatism, he has always been as strong or stronger than Ronald Reagan.
Here, I strongly disagree. Bush's education and drug care initiatives are both expensive boondoggles which are actually helping no one, but costing the taxpayers more than ever. FDR himself would have been proud.

However, there is some truth in what you are saying about Bush's base pressuring him. The Neocons have much less say in Bush's new administration. Bush has allowed Condi Rice to neuter Rumseld on foreign policy, and Bush is now keeping at arm's length from the Neocons, who were the fault for the disaster his first term was. Could be that Bush is beginning to return to his Conservative roots and pragmatism he once had before becoming president. If that is the case, then I will drink a toast to him. However, that in no way undoes all the damage that our nation has suffered under his first term, which WAS a miserable failure. As Francis Fvkiyama stated, this was not the American way, but an ideology close to that of Marxism.
 

Carl

Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2006
Messages
159
Reaction score
0
Location
Lindenhurst, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
danarhea said:
Here, I strongly disagree. Bush's education and drug care initiatives are both expensive boondoggles
You have misread me. I agree that they were that, and constitute evidence that he was not fiscally Conservative in his first term. However, he campaigned on those things. He made it clear he was going to push for those programs, and he was elected. I do not fault him for keeping his campaign promises, and no Conservative should be surprised about those, and any Conservative who voted for him anyway has no basis for indignation.

danarhea said:
As Francis Fvkiyama stated, this was not the American way, but an ideology close to that of Marxism.
As close to Marxism as standard Democrat policy, less so than standard British policy, much less so than standard French policy. It's a bit harsh, but not entirely inaccurate.

I think what serves us best in these debates is a sense of proportion. The Education and Drug "reforms" need to be corrected. As we go into the 2006 mid-terms and the 2008 elections, we need to select much more fiscally Conservative candidates.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Carl said:
You have misread me. I agree that they were that, and constitute evidence that he was not fiscally Conservative in his first term. However, he campaigned on those things. He made it clear he was going to push for those programs, and he was elected. I do not fault him for keeping his campaign promises, and no Conservative should be surprised about those, and any Conservative who voted for him anyway has no basis for indignation.



As close to Marxism as standard Democrat policy, less so than standard British policy, much less so than standard French policy. It's a bit harsh, but not entirely inaccurate.

I think what serves us best in these debates is a sense of proportion. The Education and Drug "reforms" need to be corrected. As we go into the 2006 mid-terms and the 2008 elections, we need to select much more fiscally Conservative candidates.
Agreed, and I believe that is going to happen. The days of the Neocons are numbered. Stick a fork in them. They are done.

and no Conservative should be surprised about those, and any Conservative who voted for him anyway has no basis for indignation.
I agree with you, and BTW, I voted for Badnarik :)
 
Top Bottom