A President All Alone

[26 X World Champs]

There are not too many right wing columnists who have supported Bush more than Robert Novak has...but now even Novak has joined the "Bush Sucks" crowd, a group that is growing rapidly amongst Republicans.

The real question is who outside of the White House actually stands next to Bush and would be willing to do so when running for re-election?

Here's some of what Novak wrote today:

But this is less a Gonzales problem than a Bush problem. With nearly two years remaining in his presidency, George W. Bush is alone. In half a century, I have not seen a president so isolated from his own party in Congress -- not Jimmy Carter, not even Richard Nixon as he faced impeachment.

Republicans in Congress do not trust their president to protect them. That alone is sufficient reason to withhold statements of support for Gonzales, (snip)

The I-word (incompetence) is also used by Republicans in describing the Bush administration generally. Several of them I talked to cited a trifecta of incompetence: the Walter Reed hospital scandal, the FBI's misuse of the USA Patriot Act and the U.S. attorneys firing fiasco. "We always have claimed that we were the party of better management," one House leader told me. "How can we claim that anymore?"

The reconstruction of the Bush administration after the president's reelection in 2004, though a year late, clearly improved his team. Yet the addition of extraordinary public servants Josh Bolten, Tony Snow and Rob Portman has not changed the image of incompetence.

Source: washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

 

[1069]

There are too many right wing columnists who have supported Bush more than Robert Novak has...but now even Novak has joined the "Bush Sucks" crowd, a group that is growing rapidly amongst Republicans.

The real question is who outside of the White House actually stands next to Bush and would be willing to do so when running for re-election?

Here's some of what Novak wrote today:


Source: washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

Well, I'm glad they finally woke up.
I'm afraid it's a little late, though.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Well, I'm glad they finally woke up.
I'm afraid it's a little late, though.

Do you think our Forum's Right Wing Posse will ever back away from Furious George?

Damn! Novak was the guy protecting Libby and Cheney. He WAS the voice of the Bush White House on CNN! For him to throw them out says a lot about how far Bush has fallen in creditability within the GOP.

 

[Rhapsody1447]

How is this breaking news? This is some guy's opinion mixed in with your own personal bias and hatred for our President.

 

[26 X World Champs]

How is this breaking news? This is some guy's opinion mixed in with your own personal bias and hatred for our President.

:rofl It was in today's Washington Post...it's relevant considering that every week there's a new Bush scandal that makes major headlines and this story is relevant because it shows how even the most hard core Bush supporters have turned against his lame Presidency...but if you're not able to see that Bush's effectiveness is so poor and that it's negatively affecting the Republican parties ability to not become irrelevant for the next decade then you might want to switch the channel away from the Fox News Channel....or you can pretend that Bush is a strong, effective and successful President...of course that would put you in denial...a state that Bush himself has resided in for quote some time now.

Just ask Senators Hagel, Spector, Graham and Smith among others (all Republican)....

 

[Rhapsody1447]

I never said it wasn't relevant. I never said it wasn't current. I asked how was it Breaking News? Come on, r-e-a-d-i-n-g c-o-m-p-h-r-e-s-h-i-o-n. Also, where did I stand up for Bush? Where did I even begin to state that I support his policies and his Presidency? Sheesh try to contain your hatred, it makes you look partisan.

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

ALL of the Republican politicans that have been siding with Bushie boys invasion that has killed 3,000+ of our troops should be voted OUT of office!
Seems that even many of Bushie boys voters have even gone against him, well except his still hanging on bunch of "water boys" that will NEVER say that their god Bush has done something wrong.

 

[26 X World Champs]

I never said it wasn't relevant. I never said it wasn't current. I asked how was it Breaking News? Come on, r-e-a-d-i-n-g c-o-m-p-h-r-e-s-h-i-o-n. Also, where did I stand up for Bush? Where did I even begin to state that I support his policies and his Presidency? Sheesh try to contain your hatred, it makes you look partisan.

I apologize to you for suggesting that you were a Bushie. The Reagan avatar twisted my mind.

It is breaking news to me because Novak has been a consistent Bushie for 6 years and now, due to the breaking news of the last month he has jumped off the bandwagon.

I have nothing against Republicans, I respect them greatly. But I do have a whole lot against Bush...who one could easily argue is not really a Republican...yet he is the head of the Republican party and he has done more in his tenure as President that is wrong and evil than any other American I've known in my 51 years on this planet, even Nixon!

So I apologize to you, I was wrong.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

I wasn't aware we could post OpEds in the Breaking News forum.

 

[Iriemon]

What has been fundamentally a failure is the conservative supply-side and neocon foreign policies that the Bush Administration has faithfully effected. Supply-side policies have once again led to nothing but huge deficits and neocon foreign policies led to the Iraq war disaster.

The conservative pundits, rather than admit that their own programs and policies have been failures, instead circle like sharks to devour their own elected and faithful servant who delivered the policies that they wanted.

It's fair to blame Bush, but blame him for his stubborn insistance of delivering and sticking to these conservative policies.

 

[26 X World Champs]

I wasn't aware we could post OpEds in the Breaking News forum.

I'm happy I could enlighten you....refreshing, isn't it?

 

[26 X World Champs]

What has been fundamentally a failure is the conservative supply-side and neocon foreign policies that the Bush Administration has faithfully effected. Supply-side policies have once again led to nothing but huge deficits and neocon foreign policies led to the Iraq war disaster.

The conservative pundits, rather than admit that their own programs and policies have been failures, instead circle like sharks to devour their own elected and faithful servant who delivered the policies that they wanted.

It's fair to blame Bush, but blame him for his stubborn insistance of delivering and sticking to these conservative policies.

I agree with you completely.

If you consider politics in whole moving in cycles I think it's apparent that the cycle of the Neocons is ending and it's bringing down Republicans with them. This benefits the Democrats in the short term and could solidify them greatly if the 2008 election cycle moves this trend further down this path.

 

[danarhea]

What has been fundamentally a failure is the conservative supply-side and neocon foreign policies that the Bush Administration has faithfully effected. Supply-side policies have once again led to nothing but huge deficits and neocon foreign policies led to the Iraq war disaster.

The conservative pundits, rather than admit that their own programs and policies have been failures, instead circle like sharks to devour their own elected and faithful servant who delivered the policies that they wanted.

It's fair to blame Bush, but blame him for his stubborn insistance of delivering and sticking to these conservative policies.

What's so Conservative about Bush?

1) Conservatives believe in strict construction of the Constitution. Bush has bent the crap out of it. That's not Conservative.

2) Conservatives believe that government should only spend within its means. Bush spends like a drunken sailor. That's not Conservative.

3) Conservatives believe in limited Federal government. Bush wants a big Soviet-style central government. That's not Conservative.

4) Conservatives believe in personal freedom. Bush wants to take those freedoms away. That's not Conservative.

4) Conservatives believe in personal responsibility. Bush makes excuses. Everything is someone else's fault. That's not Conservative.

Say what you want about Bush, but don't you dare blame Conservatism. Bush, rather than embodying Conservatism, has betrayed it.

 

[26 X World Champs]

What's so Conservative about Bush?

1) Conservatives believe in strict construction of the Constitution. Bush has bent the crap out of it. That's not Conservative.

2) Conservatives believe that government should only spend within its means. Bush spends like a drunken sailor. That's not Conservative.

3) Conservatives believe in limited Federal government. Bush wants a big Soviet-style central government. That's not Conservative.

4) Conservatives believe in personal freedom. Bush wants to take those freedoms away. That's not Conservative.

4) Conservatives believe in personal responsibility. Bush makes excuses. Everything is someone else's fault. That's not Conservative.

Say what you want about Bush, but don't you dare blame Conservatism. Bush, rather than embodying Conservatism, has betrayed it.

I agree with you in principle however Bush has connived Conservatives into following him because they believe that he is Conservative.

So while the reality might be that he's a Neocon not a Conservative he's been able to manipulate Conservatives into believing that he does represent Conservatism. This is, of course, his modus operandi. The less intelligent buy right into it and the more intelligent took a long time to come to terms that he was using them like he's used most Americans.

 

[CurrentAffairs]

There are not too many right wing columnists who have supported Bush more than Robert Novak has...but now even Novak has joined the "Bush Sucks" crowd, a group that is growing rapidly amongst Republicans.

The real question is who outside of the White House actually stands next to Bush and would be willing to do so when running for re-election?

Here's some of what Novak wrote today:


Source: washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

This link points only to the Washington Post homepage. What article do you want us to read?

 

[aps]

This link points only to the Washington Post homepage. What article do you want us to read?

Did this work?

washingtonpost.com

I am not sure if you have to be a member to see it. Here's another cite:

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Bush Alone

 

[26 X World Champs]

This link points only to the Washington Post homepage. What article do you want us to read?

washingtonpost.com

Try the above...not sure why the first one didn't connect.

Thanks SO much for policing my every move. It's comforting to know that you have enough time to closely examine my work here on DP. It would be refreshing if you actually debated but that would be out of character, wouldn't it?

Perhaps a little less time being the DP SS and a bit more time expressing your thoughts re the thread topic might make for more interesting reading, you know?

I'm not surprised that not one of DP's Radical Right Wing Hit Squad has debated this topic because at the end of the day they would have to either defend the indefensible (BUSH) or swallow their pride (a healthy thing for all of us to do) and admit that Novak's assessment has some truths in it that are hard for our little squad of right wingers to live with...

 

[CurrentAffairs]

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

Try the above...not sure why the first one didn't connect.

Thanks SO much for policing my every move. It's comforting to know that you have enough time to closely examine my work here on DP. It would be refreshing if you actually debated but that would be out of character, wouldn't it?

Perhaps a little less time being the DP SS and a bit more time expressing your thoughts re the thread topic might make for more interesting reading, you know?

I'm not surprised that not one of DP's Radical Right Wing Hit Squad has debated this topic because at the end of the day they would have to either defend the indefensible (BUSH) or swallow their pride (a healthy thing for all of us to do) and admit that Novak's assessment has some truths in it that are hard for our little squad of right wingers to live with...

Policing? Don't flatter yourself. I was interested in reading where your quote came from and your link was bogus. You would demand the same.

 

[Thelost1]

I never said it wasn't relevant. I never said it wasn't current. I asked how was it Breaking News? Come on, r-e-a-d-i-n-g c-o-m-p-h-r-e-s-h-i-o-n. Also, where did I stand up for Bush? Where did I even begin to state that I support his policies and his Presidency? Sheesh try to contain your hatred, it makes you look partisan.

I'm sorry if this is a little weird, but I find it really funny when people spell things out wrong.

 

[Iriemon]

What's so Conservative about Bush?

1) Conservatives believe in strict construction of the Constitution. Bush has bent the crap out of it. That's not Conservative.

2) Conservatives believe that government should only spend within its means. Bush spends like a drunken sailor. That's not Conservative.

3) Conservatives believe in limited Federal government. Bush wants a big Soviet-style central government. That's not Conservative.

4) Conservatives believe in personal freedom. Bush wants to take those freedoms away. That's not Conservative.

4) Conservatives believe in personal responsibility. Bush makes excuses. Everything is someone else's fault. That's not Conservative.

Say what you want about Bush, but don't you dare blame Conservatism. Bush, rather than embodying Conservatism, has betrayed it.

I personally agree with you that Bush is not what I would call a "conservative," or what a "conservative" used to mean 30 years ago. Today's "conservatives" however elected Bush and the other politicians who controlled the Govt until a few months ago, and he represented their policies. Bush and the Republicans certainly weren't going around calling themselves liberals, were they.

So while you and I may have old-fashioned ideas of what conservatism means, todays crop of folks who call themselves conservatives have a whole different conception of the word. Today's "conservative" economic policy means slash taxes regardless of the consequences (on the supply side theory that it will magically increase revenues), big government imposing conservative Christian mores, corporate welfare, and agressively militaristic foreign policy.

So ironically, I find myself much more aligned with the "liberals" of today, even though 25 years ago I would never have identified myself as such.

Maybe the majority of conservatives reinvent themselves into the fiscally responsible, religiously moderate, and internationally oriented group they used to be, in which case maybe I'll be a conservative again.

Until then I'll wear the liberal hat.

 

[niftydrifty]

Jee-zus. Does anybody remember the dozens of articles in 2000, expressing concerns about how Bush wasn't up to the job? and now here it is, 2007, and we have Novak saying, "The I-word (incompetence) is also used by Republicans in describing the Bush administration generally." if that wasn't apparent at the outset to EVERYONE, it must've been because the media were saturated with stories about Gore's earth tone clothes, his "lies" about "Love Story", and how everybody would rather have a drink with a former alcoholic.

Seven years later!

 

[disneydude]

What's so Conservative about Bush?

1) Conservatives believe in strict construction of the Constitution. Bush has bent the crap out of it. That's not Conservative.

2) Conservatives believe that government should only spend within its means. Bush spends like a drunken sailor. That's not Conservative.

3) Conservatives believe in limited Federal government. Bush wants a big Soviet-style central government. That's not Conservative.

4) Conservatives believe in personal freedom. Bush wants to take those freedoms away. That's not Conservative.

4) Conservatives believe in personal responsibility. Bush makes excuses. Everything is someone else's fault. That's not Conservative.

Say what you want about Bush, but don't you dare blame Conservatism. Bush, rather than embodying Conservatism, has betrayed it.

A lot of people equate conservatives with neoconservatives. And I agree with your points in principle...but not in reality. For example:

1. A lot of people who claim to be "conservative" don't actually believe in strict construction of the constitution. They believe in a strict construction of the constitution only on issues that are important to their social agenda. Otherwise they don't really care

2. agreed

3. A lot of people who consider themselve "conservative" believe that there should be big government in regulating a great deal of our personal lives...many believe so to the point of "big brother"....take right-wing stances on gay rights issues, reproductive choice, patriot act, search and seizure.
Many "conservatives" favor increasing power to the state into areas that have for generations been constitutionally protected.

4. A lot of conservatives don't believe in personal responsibility. They believe in government regulation and control rather than personal choice and accountable. Just take a look around at the Republican leadership and GWB in particular. Pretty much across the board they have failed to take responsibility for anything, choosing rather to cover-up, deny and deflect....no personal responsibility - no accountability.

I enjoy reading your thoughts and in theory I think you are absolutely correct on true "conservative" philosophy. However, I guess it depends on what your definition of a "conservative" is. By todays standards....most of those principles are exactly opposite the reality.