Bush, 2008: “There is no conservative movement”; Update: Palin “unprepared”, McCain “a five-spiral crash”
posted at 9:30 am on September 15, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
During the 2008 CPAC convention, George Bush only mentioned the word “conservative” once, in the closing — and apparently that was no accident. A new book by the man who wrote the speech for Bush, staffer Matt Latimer, retells the story in Speechless: Tales of a White House Survivor, and Byron York relates it in today’s Washington Examiner. When Latimer tried to include supportive language about the conservative movement, Bush attempted to set his speechwriter straight:
“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.”
I don’t think there’s any doubt about that last statement. Before Bush’s election, the Republican majorities in Congress had worked themselves into a role of fiscal responsibility and a check on Bill Clinton’s more expansive notions of government. After Bush took office, however, the two branches of government went on a spending spree, and not coincidentally a lobbyist lovefest, that threw out the GOP’s credibility on fiscal responsibility in six short years. Bush and his big-spending policies (and K Street strategy) set the stage for the Democrats to seize control of Congress in the 2006 midterms and a Democratic takeover of the White House last year.
Many of us admired Bush for his stalwart policies on national security and the war. But starting in 2002, we began to figure out that Bush was no conservative on domestic policy, but instead at best a centrist, and probably more of a Rockefeller Republican, with one big exception: abortion. It started with his partnership with Ted Kennedy on No Child Left Behind, especially when he threw away school vouchers to keep Kennedy on board, and again with Medicare Part D, a brand new entitlement on an already sinking program.
However, Bush had never been considered a movement conservative before running for President. His father hardly had given any credibility to that claim in his single term in office, and George W Bush’s tenure as governor in Texas revealed him as a centrist accommodator, a man who worked across the aisle to get things done. That reputation was one of the reasons Bush had to choose Dick Cheney as his running mate — in order to get movement conservatives enthused about the ticket against Al Gore and Joe Lieberman.
So, when he said he redefined Republicans, that’s not just arrogance; it’s the truth, and we’re still paying for it. But Bush was wrong when he rejected the notion of a conservative movement, and very wrong when he calculated that Gary Bauer was the leader of it. The conservative movement had to bide its time during the spending spree of the Bush administration, and has been vindicated by the spending insanity of the Democrats afterward. It will outlive the Bushism that alienated people from Republicans as long as the GOP learns its lesson about the long-term commitment to fiscal responsibility.
Update: Well, if those quotes didn’t endear Bush to the Right, these about Sarah Palin will offer even more offense:
“I’m trying to remember if I’ve met her before. I’m sure I must have.” His eyes twinkled, then he asked, “What is she, the governor of Guam?”
Everyone in the room seemed to look at him in horror, their mouths agape. When Ed told him that conservatives were greeting the choice enthusiastically, he replied, “Look, I’m a team player, I’m on board.” He thought about it for a minute. “She’s interesting,” he said again. “You know, just wait a few days until the bloom is off the rose.” Then he made a very smart assessment.
“This woman is being put into a position she is not even remotely prepared for,” he said. “She hasn’t spent one day on the national level. Neither has her family. Let’s wait and see how she looks five days out.”
On the other hand, conservatives might agree with Bush about John McCain:
I was once in the Oval Office when the president was told a campaign event in Phoenix he was to attend with McCain suddenly had to be closed to the press…
“If he doesn’t want me to go, fine,” the president said. “I’ve got better things to do.”
Eventually, someone informed the president that the reason the event was closed was that McCain was having trouble getting a crowd. Bush was incredulous—and to the point. “He can’t get 500 people to show up for an event in his hometown?” he asked. No one said anything, and we went on to another topic. But the president couldn’t let the matter drop. “He couldn’t get 500 people? I could get that many people to turn out in Crawford.” He shook his head. “This is a five-spiral crash, boys.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Next »
We were in the Cold War during the Reagan presidency, though he ushered in one of the greatest peacetime economic booms in US history. Also, we have run deficits since Truman. How do you think Reagan was responsible for deficits? Looking at his record, which policies do you blame for these deficits?
alliebobbitt on September 15, 2009 at 3:24 PM
Nope. That is clearly not what I said. Are you arguing in bad faith here or just twisting the words of others out of anger?
Really? What beliefs were they forced to change? Catholic charities have a legal right to supervise adoptions? Adoptions clearly being a matter of law courts and a function of the state for MILLENIA now it -can- be said that they were granted the ability to do so on the condition that they met all the same conditions and requirements of law as anybody else. That doesn’t mean they have some right to conduct legal adoptions.
dieudonne on September 15, 2009 at 3:24 PM
Sure. There’s also plenty of international precedent for a coup. If you want to pretend that the price of losing elections is extradition and lifetime imprisonment in Europe, there won’t be another election.
Chris_Balsz on September 15, 2009 at 3:25 PM
Yeah but you’ll have to buy his book to realize how much he espouses said principals. Don’t forget to read it!
whiskeytango on September 15, 2009 at 3:26 PM
+1
csdeven on September 15, 2009 at 3:27 PM
Judicial review isn’t the last word in anything and has been happening for more of our history than it hasn’t. We can pass laws restricting jurisdiction and we haven’t We could pass amendments to explicitly change the constitution and we haven’t. It seems that it conveniently becomes thuggery when we don’t have the majority sufficient to pass those laws or amendments.
Oh. You’re right. I’m positively quaking with fear. I’ll support you ineverything now.
dieudonne on September 15, 2009 at 3:27 PM
This woman is being put into a position she is not even remotely prepared for,” he said. “She hasn’t spent one day on the national level. Neither has her family. Let’s wait and see how she looks five days out.”
True. Yet Palin has proven herself except for 2 ambushed interviews she has excelled at the national level.
bush was no conservative and those that do not see that are blind partisians. Bush did more to destory the conservative movement than any President since FDR just like Obama running as a moderate and governing as a liberal will destory the democrate party.
The problem arises when you lie to ge elected. why do they haver to lie to win if their ideas are so replused by the majority they are doomed to failure once in office. The problem with runnign campaigns on “poll tested words” you lose trust.
So yes bush was right he was no conservative he gave Palin a chance which she seized and rose above and McCain was a dud
unseen on September 15, 2009 at 3:30 PM
I understand that there is much variation between public schools — this is certainly true here in Canada. The problem is much worse in universities.
gh on September 15, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Which Alinsky rule said vote for the war hero with a lengthy service record, so your inexperienced, secretive, radical leftist candidate could get elected?
Yeah, this bad blood between the Baptists and the Mormons is like the Jets and the Sharks; it’s like the Thirty Years War all over again. For the record, though, anyone who thinks Jesus came to America in a canoe is batshit crazy.
alliebobbitt on September 15, 2009 at 3:31 PM
so you don’t see the restriction on their freedom of religion?? it doesn’t bother you that they had to stop giving adoption because the state thinks they are ‘discriminatory’ so whats the state going to restrict next beause its ‘discrminatory’??
we’ve already seen the free speech rights of christians lost in Canada and europe because of the gay-rights movement…you’re either ignorant, or a gay-rights advocate, and you are fine with restricting the rights of christians.
right4life on September 15, 2009 at 3:32 PM
allibobbit:
Well, yes we were in a cold war for decades, but the point is that Reagan ran a 5% of GDP deficit which was very high..I am not saying he was a bad man for doing it, I am sure he did what he felt he had to and it also should be remembered that Congress does indeed ultimately control the purse strings…my point was that even a conservative like Reagan could tolerate deficits when he felt it was necessary.
Terrye on September 15, 2009 at 3:33 PM
oh yes you talk real tough…why don’t you walk through the suburbs of france with a star of david on, then we’ll see how tough you are…
moron.
right4life on September 15, 2009 at 3:33 PM
I dunno. If you believe he walked on water then coming to America in a canoe doesn’t seem like a big deal.
gh on September 15, 2009 at 3:33 PM
really?? yeah they overturned that ‘separate but equal’ and abortion stuff real fast haven’t they?? duhhhh
right4life on September 15, 2009 at 3:34 PM
Like Sun Szu said in The Art of War — when your enemy tells you to do something, DON’T.
alliebobbitt on September 15, 2009 at 3:34 PM
There are very good scientific explanations for how Moses parted the Red Sea. No need to get snotty about miracles.
alliebobbitt on September 15, 2009 at 3:38 PM
I also think there is a lot of confusion as to what conservative even means.
I think a lot of Democrats thought that Bush was conservative because he was pro life, he did not support the expansion of federal funds for embryonic stem cell research, and he wanted a Constitutional amendment to stop gay marriage. Put that together with his stated desire to privatize part of social security and he would always be considered a conservative to them.
I do think that there are a lot of conservatives who debate what it means, fiscal vs social vs small government etc. There is not always agreement there.
Terrye on September 15, 2009 at 3:38 PM
As a Roman Catholic I do not feel my religious rights were restricted. My faith might motivate me to participate adoption but it is not a direct confession or command of my faith. Adoption is a legal matter – not a religious one and the state has every right to determine the rules of participating in it. As a Catholic I can either abide by those rules or find other avenues to express my motivations.
And we are also already seeing those abuses – and they were abuses of law – being rolled back with new court decisions and precedents. I do not believe that those abuses necessarily follow from permitting gay marriage. They may follow but do not necessarily do so.
dieudonne on September 15, 2009 at 3:38 PM
The judges do not have to overturn themselves – they are NOT the final legal remedy. Pass an amendment. You can do it!
dieudonne on September 15, 2009 at 3:39 PM
Whose being snotty. It was just a syllogism. I doubt there are any scientific explanations for how Moses parted the Red Sea though. No data (just anecdotes). No science.
gh on September 15, 2009 at 3:40 PM
The interviews were scheduled in advance and she had a team available for prep. The Supreme Court question wasn’t unforeseeable.
dedalus on September 15, 2009 at 3:41 PM
I just do not believe all this he said he said stuff people say after the fact. Maybe it is all the years of watching media and hangers on of media spin things, but I think we have to take some of this with a grain of salt.
I don’t believe a lot of the stuff Palin’s detractors say about her either…people often have their own agendas.
Terrye on September 15, 2009 at 3:41 PM
And the Republican Party that held every lever of power early in your administration is, after your redefining, almost powerless.
From Reagan to powerlessness, brought to you by the Bush Presidents 41 & 43.
RJL on September 15, 2009 at 3:41 PM
Easier said than done.
gh on September 15, 2009 at 3:41 PM
doesn’t matter what you ‘feel’ what matter is the catholic charities can no longer give adoptions…because their beliefs are now ILLEGAL. just like the doctor in CA…he can no longer do business according to his beliefs….they are now illegal.
thanks for admitting that we are ruled by the courts.
its rather obvious you either don’t know about the issues surrounding gay marriage and the assault on freedom of religion or you dont’ care.
Same-Sex Marriage and the Threat to Religious Liberty
right4life on September 15, 2009 at 3:42 PM
True but judges aren’t tyrants – the people CAN overrule them. The fact that we haven’t done so says more about us and what most Americans really believe than it does about people in black frocks being tyrants.
Thanks for the chat GH but it’s sammich time! A nice crispy fake tofu/bacon lettuce and tomato with soy mayo for this cardiac patient! (I want to die)
dieudonne on September 15, 2009 at 3:44 PM
and then the judges get to ‘interpret’ that amendment….just like the 4th amendment…you know the KELO case??? just ‘interpreted’ the 4th amendment out of existence…
right4life on September 15, 2009 at 3:44 PM
Bush was a great conservative when it came to social issues and national security but a liberal when it came to spending. You can’t call Bush a liberal b/c he wasn’t one but you can’t call him a full conservative. I guess he would be considered more of a conservative than a liberal but whatever you call him he was a great man who loves his country and fought hard for it. I will remember him for rallying our nation after 9/11 and protecting it after.
On the comments on Palin, if you read it the way I did Bush wasn’t just saying she wasn’t ready for the national spotlight which was a legit argument at the time considering she had no national history.
I love both Bush and Palin.
lavell12 on September 15, 2009 at 3:44 PM
Reagan had a Democratic House, and he worked hard to encourage bipartisan efforts to cut spending. Between 1980 and 1989, defense spending was curtailed when the Cold War ended and fell by 15 percent between 1989 and 1993. However, means-tested entitlements, which do not include Social Security or Medicare, rose by over 102 percent between 1980 and 1993, and they have continued climbing ever since. The majority of spending in the Reagan years was domestic, and it was a hangover from LBJ’s Great Society that would not be cut by a Democratic House.
alliebobbitt on September 15, 2009 at 3:45 PM
You’re welcome. Sorry about your diet.
gh on September 15, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Horse$#!t. They’re beliefs are not illegal – they stood by their beliefs and when doing so were not able to meet the same legal requirements as anybody else that wanted to offer adoptions. They kept their conscience clean. Adoption is a matter of law – not a religious practice. Has been for MILLENIA.
Off to lunch. You have a good day too.
dieudonne on September 15, 2009 at 3:46 PM
you’re an idiot…
right4life on September 15, 2009 at 3:50 PM
alliebobbit:
I think every president comes into office thinking he will do one thing…and then reality strikes. My guess is Bush did not intend to go to war when he became president. I can remember him saying he wanted to bring troops home from the Balkans and the Democrats had a fit.
So each president had their challenges and Bush had to deal with a lot..9/11 and Katrina just being two examples.
Yes, Reagan allowed deficits to run up so that he could jump start the economy..I am not criticizing him..I am just saying that even a conservative President like Reagan can and will tolerate deficits if he feels he has little choice in the matter or if he feels the alternative is worse.
But Reagan was not the president that tried to reform social security, Bush was. Reagan ended up supporting higher pay roll taxes rather than seeing the program collapse.
Terrye on September 15, 2009 at 3:52 PM
There are all sorts of variables, but it is physically possible. Even if it were a remote possibility, that would make it a miracle pulled off by an omnipotent superbeing.
alliebobbitt on September 15, 2009 at 3:53 PM
Be nice … he seems to be on the right side.
gh on September 15, 2009 at 3:54 PM
The Democrat Party of the 1980s whined that we were not putting 8% of GDP as government “investment” in the United States and that meant we would have economic failure and lose ground to Europe, which did have budgets in that area.
Whenever an old guard liberal like Kennedy sounded off about “Reagan’s Debt”, inevitably they began bemoaning all that money wasn’t put into another Great Society movement. They did not mind the debt one bit.
Chris_Balsz on September 15, 2009 at 3:57 PM
A miracle is more likely.
gh on September 15, 2009 at 3:58 PM
And I also think the remarks about Palin are questionable.. I mean how do we know what was and was not said really…and does it all matter anyway?
I like Palin, I am a big fan of hers. I have been right from the first time I saw her.
But Paul over at Powerline was an example of a conservative who was not so supportive of Palin. I don’t agree with him, but I do think he is a conservative.
Terrye on September 15, 2009 at 3:59 PM
Yes, Presidents come into office with high ideas, and then they are faced with the realities of governance. Reagan accomplished a great deal, and his tax cuts added to federal revenue as predicted. However, he could not get Democrats and their constituents to give up entitlement programs. It doesn’t mean he didn’t try, and it doesn’t mean it was his fault, either.
Also, why would you trust Bush to reform SS when he expanded Medicare and cut deals with Big Pharma and other lobbyists? This is the difference between a politician, and a leader. Bush was myopic and greedy. He was not a nice person. Although, he respected this country more than the current President, but that’s not saying much. Bush and Obama are virtually indistinguishable.
alliebobbitt on September 15, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Chris:
No doubt, the Democrats were never in a position to talk about spending, that is for sure. My only point is that when it comes to fiscal conservatism Reagan was not always able to tow the line either. That does not mean he was not a conservative, he certainly was.
Terrye on September 15, 2009 at 4:01 PM
It doesn’t sound like you know much about miracles, even if you send your kids to Montessori schools.
alliebobbitt on September 15, 2009 at 4:02 PM
Powerline seem to be respectibly conservative.
However, Palin is the only serious presidential candidate fighting Obama right now. Therefore she is the leader by default.
gh on September 15, 2009 at 4:02 PM
How much do you know about Montessori?
I’ve read C.S. Lewis’ “Miracles” (sometimes “On Miracles”).
gh on September 15, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Yeah, well your point is not backed up by fact. Reagan tried unsuccessfully to reign in spending, and he cut defense spending, because Democrats love that. That doesn’t mean he didn’t try. For a President who succeeded in so much I applaud his efforts and know he tried his hardest. But a conservative is defined by their fiscal responsibility, national security principles and their regard for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Reagan was conservative in ALL of those respects, not just some.
alliebobbitt on September 15, 2009 at 4:08 PM
alliebobbit:
Cut deals with big Pharma? Oh please, how many conservatives even supports drug imports?
I work in the health care field, and that plan that was passed on drug prescriptions is the exception rather than the rule in that it actually costs less than it was supposed to. But it was a concession in that Bush wanted Medicare Advantage, a private/public plan that Ed Morrisey has spoken highly of. Bush also wanted Health Savings Accounts. The Democrats wanted a drug prescription program that allowed the government to deal directly with drug companies and was far more costly than the one eventually passed. The drug prescription plan was a concession to get the HSA and Medicare Advantage. It is public private and it is not free, it is not a giveaway…it is a discount program and since its inception drug costs have actually started to back off a little. It was after this program came out that Wal-Mart came out with the $4 dollar drug plan.
The Democrats want to overhaul this plan to make it strictly a government program and they want to shut down Medicare Advantage and the Health Savings Accounts as well.
Terrye on September 15, 2009 at 4:08 PM
alliebobbit:
When the Democrats took control of the House and Senate in 2006, Bush’s plan to cut the deficit had worked well enough that it was down to $168 billion, about half what it had been a couple of years before.
And like I said I am not criticizing Reagan, I am just saying that he did do things he thought he had to..he ramped up military spending to try and out spend the Soviets and help bring down their system. Well, it certainly seemed to work..but he knew that it was not going to be cheap, he knew it would mean deficits. He just thought that it was more important to do certain things. That does not mean he was a spend thrift.
Terrye on September 15, 2009 at 4:11 PM
gh:
I agree.
Terrye on September 15, 2009 at 4:13 PM
Miracles don’t bend the laws of physics. They are just highly improbable events.
alliebobbitt on September 15, 2009 at 4:17 PM
True, but it also added to a program that was already in the red, and it gave the Democrats a defense for whenever Obama is called a socialist. Even in this post, Ed says:
However, I also know the Clinton surplus was never realized and that the “roaring 90s” were largely based on fraud.
alliebobbitt on September 15, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Dr. ZhivBlago on September 15, 2009 at 4:25 PM
I’m of the position that Bush’s whole presidency changed b/c of the events of 9/11. I think it changed him forever and all of his policies. I think he had tunnel vision and only really cared about security and killing terrorists. I think he didn’t really focus on other issues. We don’t really know what he would have done on the other things if the attacks never happened. I think he had one goal and that was to prevent another attack. Nobody in the world is in a position to judge him b/c nobody else knows what it is like to be President during that moment.
lavell12 on September 15, 2009 at 4:31 PM
I wonder how McCain rose from the ashes midway through the presidential campaign ? My thought on this is that George Soros covertly funded his campaign because he WAS THE WEAKEST Republican candidate running. His advisors picked Palin because they thought she would fold under pressure. In my estimation this makes McCain, his campaign staff, and anyone who defends him afflicted with “liberalism” which is known to be a mental disease.
hamradio on September 15, 2009 at 4:32 PM
You obviously have not read Lewis.
gh on September 15, 2009 at 4:32 PM
allibobbit:
Well for one thing, if those folks can not afford their meds, they end up being taken care of by Medicare because they are already on the program. I knew people who were trying to live on a thousand a month with $400 in meds. Those are the folks that often as not ended up on medicaid with all their needs be taken care of by the state.
For another thing, the Democrats wanted a more costly bill, and one that was not in the least a public/private program. That was their alternative, more money, not less. Bush got concessions from them in order to get Health Savings Accounts which are an entirely private alternative. And Medicare Advantage was also a private/public plan. That is why the Democrats want to kill these programs, they are not under their control enough.
And what did anyone do to stop Medicare growth? Let’s face it, by the time Bush came along these programs were well entrenched…and one of the reasons they were well entrenched was because conservatives had not managed to get rid of them or privatize them years earlier.
Terrye on September 15, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Soros and the bunch conspired with the media to PICK our candidate for us. Think about how the media LOVED McCain UNTIL he got the nom. Planned and executed.
marklmail on September 15, 2009 at 4:33 PM
This:
is not a “law of physics”. It is what is called a “back of the envelope” calculation.
You seem to be weak on both science and religion.
gh on September 15, 2009 at 4:40 PM
Right, I’m just pointing out Reagan did not impose deficit spending on anybody.
Chris_Balsz on September 15, 2009 at 4:48 PM
Well, this explains a lot. The veil has been lifted. So many things about him were too confounding like amnesty, expansion of social programs, etc. I supported the guy – I mean who could stomach the thought of AlGore or John F’in Kerry (who served in Viet Nam), for what I believed to be conservative principles. His insisting on the stimulus passing was the one that really got me, tho. I’ve been wondering where he’s been hiding since The One took office and why no comment on our quick clip to socialism. This helps explain that. Maybe Cheney can take the gloves off, for real, now. Hopefully, Sarah is using this time out of the spotlight wisely – to brush up on foreign policy – and can take a lead getting conservatives to our next step.
LoneStarGal on September 15, 2009 at 4:52 PM
Chris:
Well yeah. But the truth is if Reagan had been prepared to cut the military he could have stopped the deficit spending, but he thought that bringing down the Soviets was more important in the long run.
And to be honest, short term deficits that are not a huge part of GDP can be tolerated from time to time. For a short term goal.
Terrye on September 15, 2009 at 4:54 PM
LoneStar:
Once again, I think people have a short term memory. Reagan signed an amnesty bill, honest to God amnesty. Not a pay fine get at the back of the line amnesty, but straight up amnesty. And I don’t remember anyone saying that he was not a conservative.
I guess my point is that I just do not believe a lot of this. I don’t believe the stories about Palin in her bath robe either. I don’t believe the stories about Gingrich being mean to his sick wife…I think that a lot of people have agendas, they like to stir up trouble for reasons of their own. So when I hear a new book is out or that Vanity Fair has a new expose on some Republican or whatever, I have to wonder.
Terrye on September 15, 2009 at 4:59 PM
This is so dumb… true conservatives know palin was Queen of Guam (for two years).
benny shakar on September 15, 2009 at 4:59 PM
benny:
I think Obama was unprepared. I think he was completely unprepared for what it was like to play a prominent role in national politics. The only reason he was not beat up on like Palin, was that the media covered for him and shilled for him and made excuses for him.
Terrye on September 15, 2009 at 5:04 PM
True, which is a good thing Dubya’s history.
As for Palin’s “inexperience”, I wonder what he thought of Obama’s experience level?
ddrintn on September 15, 2009 at 5:13 PM
*which is why it’s a
ddrintn on September 15, 2009 at 5:14 PM
I never said the Slate article was a law of physics. I agreed with your citing CS Lewis “On Miracles.” And you were snotty. And this came from my remark that Mormons are a bunch of loons. And you’re Canadian, which means I’m more right about you than you are about me.
alliebobbitt on September 15, 2009 at 5:27 PM
ddrintn:
Well, Palin did not have a lot of experience, but she does have good instincts. But you know what? I do think that she might well have been unprepared for what the media would do to her and her family. Some people who have been in that world for years and years can kind of role with the punches.
As for Obama, my guess is Bush was not a fan. We know Cheney wasn’t.
And you know what? How do we know if Bush even said that?
In 2000, there was Bush and McCain to chose from and most conservatives considered Bush the more conservative one. But there was not a Gingrich up there to pick from.
Terrye on September 15, 2009 at 5:28 PM
How is that restraining order working out for you? I bet your collar hurts when it zaps your neck.
alliebobbitt on September 15, 2009 at 5:29 PM
Huh? Lewis’ argument is that if you are Christian you must believe in miracles. However his definition of a miracle is that it is something which is supernatural — it violates the laws of nature. You said the opposite.
So I was not being snotty. I was merely pointing out that if you are Christian rather than Mormon then walking on water is as an extremely miraculous as canoeing across the atlantic — especially as someone recently rowed solo across the atlantic.
I don’t know how my being Canadian makes you more right.
Anyhow, I’m Canadian like Obama is Hawaiian (father is English and I was born in Britain ;-)
gh on September 15, 2009 at 5:40 PM
The 2000 election was not about who was most conservative. It was about Bill Clinton’s disgraceful conduct in office, yet convincing the electorate that the Republican party is not heartless, even if they opposed Democrat tax and spend policies. The economy was relatively strong then, and voters wanted to hear that their tax money would go to programs that would benefit them.
Clinton was still popular, despite his scandals, and restored the Democrats’ economic credibility after the hit it took under Carter. Gore’s problem was that he tried to distance himself from Clinton, despite having an incumbent you hardly wanted to run from. Newt Gingrich didn’t run then, because he attacked Clinton for Lewinsky while cheating on his own wife. He was hated.
alliebobbitt on September 15, 2009 at 5:46 PM
Bush Certainly was no conservative. That is what we need. Went to Pete Stark’s Town Hall Meeting. Here are my observations with video clips
http://mark24609.blogspot.com/2009/09/pete-starks-town-hall-meeting.html
Mark
mark24609 on September 15, 2009 at 5:49 PM
CS Lewis in his own words.
“It is therefore inaccurate to define a miracle as something that breaks the laws of Nature. It doesn’t. … If God creates a miraculous spermatozoon in the body of a virgin, it does not proceed to break any laws. The laws at once take it over. Nature is ready. Pregnancy follows, according to all the normal laws, and nine months later a child is born. … The divine art of miracle is not an art of suspending the pattern. … And they are sure that all reality must be interrelated and consistent. I agree with them. But I think they have mistaken a partial system within reality, namely Nature, for the whole. That being so, the miracle and the previous history of Nature may be interlocked after all but not in the way the Naturalists expected: rather in a much more roundabout fashion. The great complex event called Nature, and the new particular event introduced into it by the miracle, are related by their common origin in God, and doubtless, if we knew enough, most intricately related in his purpose and design, so that a Nature which had had a different history, and therefore been a different Nature, would have been invaded by different miracles or by none at all. In that way the miracles and the previous course of Nature are as well interlocked as any other two realities, but you must go back as far as their common Creator to find the interlocking. You will not find it within Nature. … The rightful demand that all reality should be consistent and systematic does not therefore exclude miracles: but it has a very valuable contribution to make to our conception of them. It reminds us that miracles, if they occur, must, like all events, be revelations of that total harmony of all that exists. Nothing arbitrary, nothing simply “stuck on” and left unreconciled with the texture of total reality, can be admitted. By definition, miracles must of course interrupt the usual course of Nature; but if they are real they must, in the very act of so doing, assert all the more the unity and self-consistency of total reality at some deeper level. … In calling them miracles we do not mean that they are contradictions or outrages; we mean that, left to her [Nature] own resources, she could never produce them.”
Lewis rejects that supernatural intervention disrupts God’s creation: “In other words, there are rules behind the rules, and a unity which is deeper than uniformity. … I do not say that the normalities of Nature are unreal. … But to think that a disturbance of them would constitute a breach of the living rule and organic unity whereby God, from his own point of view, works, is a mistake.”
In other words, given that God is all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful, and He created the universe, then he could have scheduled something truly mind blowing, if he felt like it, but he can’t break the order of his own creation. The issue of whether Jesus crossed the Atlantic in a canoe was not whether He could, but when and for what purpose?
I have lived a few years in Toronto, my husband’s family is involved in their regional politics in Ontario, and I know more about where you came from than anything about me or my government. I don’t pretend to know or care much about Canada, but I know Canadians.
alliebobbitt on September 15, 2009 at 5:58 PM
This is something that a lot of people seem to overlook. I’ve heard gingrich interviewed on talk radio and almost puked all over my dashboard.
I think that there are a couple of things at work here
1. Many of the republicans are brainwashed by the lamestream media. I’ve mentioned before my discussions with elected republican officials who drool over obama and bash palin with CNN and SNL talking points.
2. Palin went after corruption. There are a lot of people on both sides of the aisle building a kleptocracy. (More on the Dems side but there are a LOT of dirty republicans in the fed, state and local gov). They don’t want a true reformer anywhere near a position of power. They will take a marxist who gobbles the knob of the saudi king rather than an Alaskan Republican Reformer.
3. I knew a guy once who joined his fraternity with absolutely no pledging or hazing. They really wanted him in. A lot of his bros resented the heck out of him for that. I think it is the same with Sarah Palin.. No Yale, no history of cocktail parties, no favors given, no boinking of influential party figures etc. They resent her true maverick status.
bullseye on September 15, 2009 at 5:59 PM
and I know more about where you came from than you would know about me or my government.
alliebobbitt on September 15, 2009 at 6:01 PM
Which has lead us to here. Thanks buddy.
JellyToast on September 15, 2009 at 6:04 PM
allibobitt:
Oh yeah, I agree, the 2000 election had a lot to do with what a class A cad Clinton was, the point however, was that neither Republican candidate was someone conservatives seemed to like all that much…so why is that? Why not push a conservative back then?
The thing is the Democrats will demonize Bush because they say he was too conservative, too far right…and the conservatives will often complain about Bush because they say he is too far the other way, to much of a centrist or whatever.
However, it is not really about what Bush did or did not do. Reagan was not always that conservative in his governing, but he was a good spokesman for conservatism. I can remember when he started talking to the Russians and a lot of people on the right were so upset with him…but he knew what he was doing, It might not have been what some of the pundits thought he should do, but his instincts were right.
So, my point is that taking some quotes someone made out of context does not really give us a full picture of someone. We have to keep things in the context of their time and place.
In truth I think Bush was conservative in terms of social policy and foreign policy and in some other ways in terms of domestic policy he was center right. Whatever that means.
Terrye on September 15, 2009 at 6:07 PM
I was gonna refrain from commenting, but what the hell.
How many turncoats did W. have in his administration?
Let me guess. Matt Latimer is actually Scott McClellan.
Quite possibly just another jag-off trying to sell books.
Terrye, you’re right. George W. Bush was a damn site better than Algore or John F’ing Kerry would have been. Half a loaf is better than none.
It matters little what led to Obozo being elected. The fact is he’s there. Fate is funny. Maybe, just maybe, this idiot in the Whitehouse is just the wake up call our republic needs. If it ain’t, we’re done.
Lanceman on September 15, 2009 at 6:08 PM
Jelly Toast:
I don’t think that is fair. Bush was not responsible for the corruption in Congress, they did a bang up job of that all by themselves.
Bush kept the country safe after 9/11. In many ways he sacrificed personal popularity to pursue a policy in Iraq that he thought was necessary. He was vilified by Democrats and the left in a way that was mean spirited and viciously partisan.
I just think it is kind of sad that so many people in his own party are so ready to believe anything negative they hear so that they can beat that they can beat that dead horse themselves.
Terrye on September 15, 2009 at 6:11 PM
I really screwed up that last sentence didn’t I?
try that again…I just think it is kind of sad that so many people in his own party are so ready to believe anything negative they hear so that they can beat that dead horse themselves.
Terrye on September 15, 2009 at 6:13 PM
Lanceman:
Thank you.
Terrye on September 15, 2009 at 6:13 PM
Hey, W. wasn’t perfect, but I sure do miss him.
Lanceman on September 15, 2009 at 6:14 PM
“Just wait a few days until the bloom is off the rose”
President George W Bush
George Bush would have been right 99% of the time but Sarah Palin is special. The bloom will never come off her rose is my prediction.
technopeasant on September 15, 2009 at 6:15 PM
The creation itself is spontaneous generation. Which does violate physical laws.
Again.
gh on September 15, 2009 at 6:17 PM
Democrats hate Bush, because he said he would restore moral authority to the office of the POTUS. It was a dig at Clinton. Plus, even though conservatives did not like either of the Bushes, GHWB figured out how to mobilize evangelicals. He helped his son with their ground game, and Rove did help set up the volunteer base. That was left untouched after 2004, though. But the Democrats hated GWB personally for putting it in the public’s head that liberal and libertine were interchangeable.
alliebobbitt on September 15, 2009 at 6:17 PM
(First time reading this today)
It’s certainly not surprising, but, it still hurts to hear. This is why I left the republican party. They stopped BEING republican with Bush. So, yeah.
Hilarity shall ensue now when liberals point to Bush spending and we can clearly say, “Dude, he was a democrat.”
Diane on September 15, 2009 at 6:20 PM
technopeasant -
Agreed. I think SP is outside the paradigm of most of the Beltway Banditos. They believe that they can create the rule and everyone must follow them. It’s like the French and their Maginot line. They were so all fired certain that the line would protect them and that the Germans would play by the rules the French laid out. until…
HANS: “Werner iff ve attak dis Maginot ting even our Mighty Wermacht vill be Kerput!!”
WERNER “Ach Das iss true.. Ve vill get chewed up”
HANS “Hey – I have eine Grosse Braingefarten.. Vy don’t ve go around der farking ting?”
WERNER “Ja Das is goot”
THE FRENCH “Wait a minute. You can’t do that. The rules say you have to attack our emplacements head on.. “
bullseye on September 15, 2009 at 6:20 PM
That seems a bit contradictory.
gh on September 15, 2009 at 6:21 PM
“If God creates a miraculous spermatozoon in the body of a virgin, it does not proceed to break any laws.”
By definition, miracles must of course interrupt the usual course of Nature; but if they are real they must, in the very act of so doing, assert all the more the unity and self-consistency of total reality at some deeper level.
The Red Sea doesn’t part every day, but in order for it to do so, it cannot defy the laws of a nature that God himself created. I wasn’t there, so I can’t say if these were literally miracles or if this is anecdotal history or mythology, but I wasn’t bragging about how much I knew about CS Lewis, either.
alliebobbitt on September 15, 2009 at 6:24 PM
The amnesty garbage started my eyes opening, with TARP making them wide open. Speaking of amnesty, Terrye, yes, Reagan signed amnesty. However, it was with the agreement from Democrats that they would fund shutting down the borders after that. Along with him signing tax hikes in ’86 (I think). He signed those increases, with their agreement that for every dollar of tax hikes, there would be two dollars of spending cuts. Just shows to go, don’t ever make deals with the Devil(crats).
bikermailman on September 15, 2009 at 6:29 PM
I do too, but then that’s not saying much. Right now, I miss Bill friggin’ Clinton. I NEVER thought I’d be saying that.
ddrintn on September 15, 2009 at 6:32 PM
I never thought that I’d wish that Hillary Rotten Clinton, Her Thighness had been elected President.
She’d have been much less damaging to our country.
Lanceman on September 15, 2009 at 6:36 PM
And the fools, blindly, hated their Bushitler so.
Schadenfreude on September 15, 2009 at 6:38 PM
Actually, I don’t recall that Lewis’ writings have much bearing on the old testament miracles. Even the Catholic church does not take the first 5 books of the bible literally. Lewis was more concerned with the new testament, specifically the resurrection of Christ, which is fundamental to Christian belief. As I don’t actually own a copy of Miracles and I’m relying on memory I think I should stop here.
gh on September 15, 2009 at 6:40 PM
I have lived a few years in Toronto, my husband’s family is involved in their regional politics in Ontario, and I know more about where you came from than you would know about me or my government. I don’t pretend to know or care much about Canada, but I know Canadians.
I lived in Canada, I’m married to a Canadian, I married into a political family, and yet I don’t stick my nose into Canadian politics or care much about Canada. I do know a bit about Canadians. They resent Americans, can know nothing about American government, yet just like progressive Europeans, they feel they can comment on America and pass judgment. Superiority and passive aggressive behavior or “politeness” are part of the national psyche.
For their entire lives, Canadians have had to cope with the fact that everyone assumes they’re essentially just like Americans — including Americans. This drives them crazy. There is this dynamic with Russians-Ukraines, Australians – New Zealanders. But America had quite a 20th century, while Canada was pretty unexceptional. We won our Independence, they fought against us in the War of 1812 and remained a Commonwealth for quite some time. Most European countries hate us for our exceptionalism, but they don’t live by us.
Canadians are really schizophrenic about American attention. On the one hand, countries that are the focus of lots of American attention don’t necessarily fare all that well. Canadians like the fact that their country is often below the radar. They have convinced themselves that their mediocrity makes them well-balanced. That their horrible weather makes them an acquired taste. But really, their government has to practically bribe people to move there rather than here. Which is the other weird thing about Canada — they have adopted a non-identity and define themselves culturally a multi culti rather than a melting pot.
alliebobbitt on September 15, 2009 at 6:41 PM
I was quoting CS Lewis directly, but I don’t see how New Testament vs Old Testament has any bearing on what he said about miracles. He certainly did not make any distinction.
alliebobbitt on September 15, 2009 at 6:49 PM
Bushitler, no Obahitler to undermine Europe on ‘climate change’.
Schadenfreude on September 15, 2009 at 6:50 PM
I take your point.
I am sorry,, I go back and forth so much about the Bush’s. It’s like a love/hate thing and I admit it.
He protected us after 9/11,, thank God we had him and not Al Gore.
Yes,, he was so good at fighting terrorists over seas,, but then he ignored the threat on our own border. He kept Mineta for Transportation Secretary which was a disaster.
Yeah,, I respected the man. He was personally a decent man.
I look at it like this.
Bush ignored his own doctrine. He fought the terrorists of the US no matter where they hid, but embraced,, or at the least, could not recognize the enemies of our nation within our own government. Bush, like McCain, have the attitude that government is a club. Their loyalties are to each other first, then to the constitution.
I can’t help it,, I really love the guy. But he makes me so mad too. He is so smart,, so great, yet his mistakes and loyalties to the Democrats have screwed the country he fought so much to protect. He did not have to feel he was the head of a conservative movement. He just needed to protect our constitution from the enemies within as well as those from without.
JellyToast on September 15, 2009 at 6:50 PM
That’s a fair description of most of the political class today but it’s not much different than your own democratic party.
However, Canadian culture has changed in the same way as American culture and there is still a fairly large minority who are as capitalist as Americans.
You forgot to mention the outcome of the war of 1812 …
gh on September 15, 2009 at 6:52 PM
Where is the update:
Clyde5445 on September 15, 2009 at 6:55 PM
I agree with that assessment, and I appreciated your insight into the prescription medicare program, which I think helped a lot of people, even if it wasn’t what a libertarian conservative would endorse.
Another comment said these comments reveal Bush was a political animal. I definitely concur. They cast him in a poor light and explain a lot.
alliebobbitt on September 15, 2009 at 6:56 PM
At NRO, Dana Perino also pushes back:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2U2MjBhYmMzNTE2YjI1NjVlZTE2NTNkYzQzZjdjYTM=
For example, he writes that President Bush didn’t know who Sarah Palin was. That’s rubbish — Bush had just met Palin the previous month in Alaska, and he mentioned that to me literally two seconds after McCain made his announcement.
RWG (someone may have to email AP or Ed to get this updated)
RWG on September 15, 2009 at 7:02 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Next »