The American Spectator

Tim| 9.16.09 @ 11:59AM

"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."

"Nietzsche is dead. "-God.

Alan Brooks| 9.16.09 @ 12:05PM

At least Bush was no Carter or LBJ.

Thank God for that.

Conservat Bob| 9.16.09 @ 12:15PM

I have never had much time for tell all for former and mid and low level employees regardless of in whose administration they served. If you disagree and have something to say resign and speak out at the time. Have some integrity, otherwise shut up and continue to lick the hand that feeds you.

Most if not all past tense tell-alls are simply cashing in one last time on a trust that was given, and generally speaking they are a betrayal of that trust.

Jeremy Davis| 9.16.09 @ 1:04PM

I'm quite sure Reagan expressed similar thoughts at times. Like it or not, there are a whole lot of kooks in any movement. I consider myself a conservative, but movements scare the hell out of me.

Spicy Joker| 9.16.09 @ 1:13PM

Bush's alleged comments are consistent with his nomination of feminist liberal Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court. Bush was clearly trying to sneak a liberal onto the Court to preserve the liberal status quo. When he got busted, he had to nominate Alito.

SoCon| 9.16.09 @ 1:19PM

Bush was contemptuous of Conservatives? Really? You're kidding Me? I had no idea.

And to think I defended the nitwit for eight long years. NO MORE BUSHES EVER!!

Wayne| 9.28.09 @ 11:26AM

I will vote for that!!

Paul McGrath| 9.16.09 @ 1:23PM

As the policies of his father begat Clinton, the policies of W begat Obama. Gawd, what a couple of losers. George W. Bush was probably the worst Republican president in American history. And I say this in full recognition of what Herbert J. Hoover begat.

(God almighty, how have we survived?)

Daisy| 9.16.09 @ 1:44PM

Barely, Paul, just barely.

Grzmlyk| 9.16.09 @ 1:45PM

JP, I agree there are some things Bush did that I appreciate. Unfortunately, the WOT - while I supported it completely - was managed with breathtaking incompetence.

It was hard to defend him after about mid-2005. I mean, take a city, kill a few terrorists and then cede it back to their replacments? This appeared to be formal policy. Astonishing, and in my opinion, it betrayed the Viet Nam mentality of not fighting to win.

As the great Walter Brennan, playing a rare villain, admonishes his incomptent son in My Darling Clementine - "If you pull a gun, kill a man." Bingo.

I'm still keeping my fingers crossed on Iraq. If it returns to a state of nature, we will have been wrong. I pray it doesn't.

And while I'm eternally grateful for Alito and Roberts (Bush's best legacy), it took me about two weeks to get my jaw off the floor after he nominated Harriet Meyers to the SCOTUS. I mean this was unforgiveable and unfathomable.

I think I parted ways with Bush for good, though, when he unveiled his immigration policy. And the difference between his approach and Ted Kennedy's would be what? And let's not even talk about his letting Teddy write the education legislation.

Philosophically, I think Bush's tax cuts were right on the money. But while I think Bob is perhaps the most blinkered troll I've ever seen, I'll agree with him this much: You can't condone, and contribute to, profligate spending on the one hand and then buy fiscal conservatives off with the sop of a tax cut with the other. The math won't work.

I am sorry to say that, overall, Bush was a disaster. It gives me no joy to say that.

And he killed the GOP, which was already on life support.

Of course, Obama is exponentially worse.

Derek Leaberry| 9.16.09 @ 1:51PM

When you get beyond the veneer of his supposed Chistian piety, George W. Bush is just an arrogant plutocrat. Had he been born George W. Smith rather than the son of a future president, he would have likely have risen no higher than an Odessa bank vice-president or the manager of a K-Mart sporting goods department.

Conservatives and Republicans must turn their backs on the Bush family, the cause of every major Republican political disaster of the last twenty years. Jeb Bush must be destroyed in any attempt for the presidency. That is imperative.

S.L. Toddard| 9.16.09 @ 2:07PM

Grzmlyk - did you and I have a disagreement here recently? I think someone might have hijacked your username.

S.L. Toddard| 9.16.09 @ 2:09PM

"You can't condone, and contribute to, profligate spending on the one hand and then buy fiscal conservatives off with the sop of a tax cut with the other. The math won't work."

Precisely - but I will go you one further. Increasing spending and raising taxes is *more* conservative than increasing spending and lowering taxes, because the former, while unwise, is at least fiscally responsible. The latter is neither.

Grzmlyk| 9.16.09 @ 2:24PM

SL, I will concede that.

I concede that because I'm no fan of the Leviathan. And socialism never works. And blame can be laid at both Dem and Repub doorsteps for the metastasized State. No question about it.

But a lot of that is because of where the center of gravity in goverment lies - the critical mass is with the bureaucracy and has been since at least the Great Society.

That's why term limits don't even matter - it ain't our legislators who wrote the health care bill. It was the unseen permanent class that really calls the shots who wrote it.

And what Obama envisions is Statism on a whole different level. He and his cronies believe the state is all - and the entire spectrum of human behavior must be judged within the context of whether it's good for the state. That is tyranny.

Besides, the man is not living in reality.

S.L. Toddard| 9.16.09 @ 2:31PM

Grzmlyk - have you and I had a disagreement here recently? I suspect someone has hijacked your name. And I suspect it is probably the same troll that hijacks mine.

Top Hat| 9.16.09 @ 2:33PM

However bad Bush was as president, Obama is much much worse.

S.L. Toddard| 9.16.09 @ 2:33PM

"But a lot of that is because of where the center of gravity in goverment lies - the critical mass is with the bureaucracy and has been since at least the Great Society."

You are a proponent, I hope, of the concept of subsidiarity? And of strict adherence to the 10th Amendment?

S.L. Toddard| 9.16.09 @ 2:37PM

"However bad Bush was as president, Obama is much much worse"

I would switch their names, but either way - one thing all conservatives should agree on is that neither of of these men is "conservative" in the pre-neoconservative sense. Reckless spending, rapid and dangerous gov't growth, huge deficits, the maintenance of a massive federal social apparatus, the maintenance of open borders with Mexico etc.

Eric Cartman| 9.16.09 @ 2:51PM

I voted for GW both times: The first because I had met him while before when I had an off campus newspaper while at Texas A & M and he was running for governor of Texas. I interviewed him and followed the campaign around, sitting in on Q & A sessions. He seemed like a smart, reasonable, guy who wanted to stop what Gov. Ann Richards was doing to the state. I had some experience with him. In 2000, it was between him and Gore – a simple answer to a stupid question.

After 911, Bush did a good job protecting the country (Chaney influence?) and his schmoozing with Teddy Kennedy and the No Child Left Behind slop could be forgiven. Then the 2004 choice was John “Effin” Kerry and Bush – okay, what would you do?

After the election, Bush faded fast with me. He stopped warring in Iraq and started policing (bad move); never vetoed a spending bill; never stuck up for conservatives; sat there looking stoopid as Democrats became traitors and trashed the nation; and became the idiot always portrayed by SNL. It was (and is) embarrassing. This revelation (in the new book) says a lot and explains more. He has destroyed the Republican Party (and it was doing a fine job on its own), spent us into the crapper, and helped set up this mess with the O Man.

I have to agree with many on this board: No more Bushes! EVER! Not even the guy with the beans! No Bush – not now, not tomorrow, not EVER!

Grzmlyk| 9.16.09 @ 2:54PM

You betcha, I'm a proponent of subsidiarity and the 10th Amendment. (Please don't use this as an entree into the 4th amendment and the FISA stuff. Dear god I'm done with that.)

But, extraordinary circumstances notwithstanding (and the room for interpretation is why we have constitutional scholars), a firm belief in subsidiarity would be essential to conservatism.

I ain't a conservative because I hate gay people (I don't) or because I'm a fundamentalist Christian (I'm not). I'm a conservative because, as they say, the facts of life are conservative. I believe in the words of the Declaration of Independence. I believe individual, enlightened self interest is the only way to prosperity.

And I'm a capitalist because capitalism is to human nature as oxygen is to lungs. Everybody is a capitalist. It's the degree to which people are willing to lie about that fact that determines the the degree to which they eschew it.

But a thousand times yes: The government which governs best governs least.

Or, as Reagan put it, government isn't the solution to the problem, government is the problem.

Top Hat| 9.16.09 @ 2:54PM

Bush didn't take over the financial and auto industries--and he didn't attempt the Obama health care debacle. No equivalency.

Obama is a Marxist; Bush isn't.

Ran| 9.16.09 @ 2:59PM

Shhhh!! Don't tell S.L. Toddard... For 'tis true that a troll hijacked his name. So did a sock puppet... more recently.

"Increasing spending and raising taxes is *more* conservative than increasing spending and lowering taxes, because the former, while unwise, is at least fiscally responsible. The latter is neither. " Gotta love that logic, eh?

Increased spending and increased taxes, both, expand the power and intrusiveness of the Sate. There is nothing "conservative" in the least about either separately nor in the compounding. Their simultaneous application is especially pernicious, in that increased taxes has a productivity-retardant effect... [If one believes Toddard's sophistry, one may as well say that locust parasites "stimulate" crops to grow even higher.]

S.L. Toddard| 9.16.09 @ 3:20PM

"Increased spending and increased taxes, both, expand the power and intrusiveness of the Sate [sic]. There is nothing "conservative" in the least about either separately nor in the compounding"

I would not characterize increasing spending and taxes as "conservative", but I would (and did) characterize it as "more conservative" relative to increasing spending while decreasing taxes. Because, as I said, the former - while it does increase the power of the state - is at least fiscally responsible. The latter increases the power of the state no less, but is fiscally irresponsible as well.

The only truly conservative way would (obviously) be to decrease taxes, slash spending and decrease the size of the state. But if you must increase spending for whatever reason, it is certainly not "conservative" to borrow that money and push the payments off on your children and grandchildren.

Grzmlyk| 9.16.09 @ 3:26PM

Top Hat and Ran, great points.

Top Hat, I agree. Bush may have been a mediocrity, but he was, at heart, a fairly non-ideological, rudderless, go-along-to-get-along pol who felt bigger government was just dandy and deficits could be kicked down the road.

By contrast, Obama is a bona fide Marxist, electrified with the fire of the True Believer, which is proof that he's not living in reality. Also, he's ignorant, a megalomaniac and a sociopath.

And his rigid, blind ideology produces what, in the end? Social justice? Equality? Nope. Misery for those on the outside and corruption on a vast scale for those on the inside - as we see with every totalitarian state. The line between a True Believer in Marxism and a compulsive felon is so fine as to be nonexistent.

As for the racism charge, it's pathetic. That would be like a mugging victim who got waylaid in the dark telling the cops that he didn't see the assailant, but if the crook was white, well, no problem! No crime took place! But if the crook was black. . . . string him up!

Earth to Maureen Dowd et al: A mugging is a mugging.

Ran, your point is very well made. Yes, indeed, those sock puppets seem to be everywhere!

While I always appreciate the tone of civility from a troll, I never cease to be amazed that they are invariably surprised when a conservative who posts on a conservative Web site believes in conservative values.

I don't get it, but there is much about the liberal mind I do not understand. Maybe it's because liberals really don't believe in anything.

Angel| 9.16.09 @ 3:43PM

Ran and Grzmlyk: Two of my favorite bloggers.

Your intelligence is only exceeded by your goodness. Sincere kudos, gentlemen.

Dai Alanye| 9.16.09 @ 3:51PM

"Increased spending and increased taxes, both, expand the power and intrusiveness of the Sate. There is nothing "conservative" in the least about either…"

Ran is correct. There's nothing inherently wrong with going into debt (temporarily) to obtain something of high worth. Mortgage a home or win a war, either can justify debt.

With Obama, of course, you have the worst of both worlds, since the debts will prove unceasing, and the worth of what is obtained will eventually prove nil. I'm investing in wheelbarrows, since everyone will need one to carry cash to the market once Obama's inflation fully kicks in.

Grzmlyk| 9.16.09 @ 3:55PM

Angel, right back atcha.

You always put a glow on my day when I see your name here.

As always at this time of day, I am about to leave the site for the day. But it's always a pleasure, Angel.

Tim| 9.16.09 @ 3:59PM

"George the First was always reckoned
Vile, but viler George the Second.
And what mortal ever heard
Any good of George the Third,
But when from earth the Fourth descended
God be praised the Georges ended "

Walter Savage Landor.

Grzmlyk| 9.16.09 @ 4:00PM

Also, Dai Alanye, businesses almost always carry debt at one juncture or another - it's how they grow and respond to market forces.

I TOTALLY agree with you about the inflation. to be fair, I'll put some of that on Bush - after all, Bernanke and Paulson were Bushies too.

I guess they think they can put off the train wreck if they push the locomotive to its limit. But soon enough, we will be SCREWED.

Now I'm signing off!

S.L. Toddard| 9.16.09 @ 4:02PM

"There's nothing inherently wrong with going into debt (temporarily) to obtain something of high worth"

Yes, our 10 trillion dollar "temporary" debt. Of course.

Grzmlyk| 9.16.09 @ 4:08PM

You and Bob have a very odd idea of what conservatism is. Go for it, I say. As for the schizophrenia, hmmm. You read my mind.

No, I only go into torpedo mode with trolls. Because I find it a fascinating - and pathological - mindset. I don't come here to debate folks or belittle folks or browbeat folks. I come here to be with like-minded people since I see so few in my life.

If you don't believe Obama's a marxist, that's your prerogerative. I believe he's textbook.

Anyway, when people engage in good-natured dispute, that's one thing. When their pursposes are more self-serving and they view people on this site as so many objects to be vandalized, yes, I get my hackles up.

And before American values became so polarized, I was very, very much a "live and let live" guy. I'm in the arts, and ALL of my human contact is with liberals. I just began to see the yawning chasm between liberalism's dogma and how it works in reality. And that is tyranny - be it the small inconveniences of the DMV or looming Death Panels, rat poison is always rat poison, regardless of the size of the dose.

And now I really, really am signing off. I have to be someplace and I'm late.

S.L. Toddard| 9.16.09 @ 4:09PM

There is a yawning chasm between your pledges to sign off and how it works in reality.

Captain Ahab| 9.16.09 @ 4:15PM

"This whole act's immutably decreed. 'Twas rehearsed by thee and me a billion years before this ocean rolled. Fool! I am the Fates' lieutenant; I act under orders."

COnservative Bob| 9.16.09 @ 5:21PM

While I have differences on a number of policies with President Bush I still believe him to be a man of honor and integrity.
I believe that the events of 9/11/01 impacted him to his core and from that moment forward he had a singular focus that was the protection of the American people.
It is so easy for everyone to second guess what he should have done, ascribe sinister motives to the actions he took, to disparage him at every turn. I see him as someone who regardless of the political or personal cost took to heart his Oath of Office and spent all of his energy in that pursuit.
We can all catalog the policies that he embraced with which we disagree. George W Bush however else he may be described is a man of honor and character, at a critical moment in the face of merciless and unrelenting vicious personal attacks of the vilest nature he did everything in his power to keep his oath and protect this country and its people. 8 years and counting without out attack bear testament to the success of his effort.
The left love to denigrate and attack him, to this day he is personally responsible for everything that has ever gone wrong on this country hell his is even responsible for their childhood acne. He remains their favorite foil.
When posterity finally gets a chance to make its judgment I am sure there will be plenty with which to find fault, I suspect however that his rallying of the nation after the attacks and his unflinching determination to protect this country will not be on that list.
The left will attack him regardless of the issue or the accuracy of their claim, but are we required to do likewise to prove how ‘enlightened’ we are? They continue to attack Reagan to this day with the similar ferocity and denigration. I make no comparison between Reagan and Bush other than to point out it is the nature of the left to attack and disparage it is their primary political weapon.
It works so well for them.

SoCon| 9.16.09 @ 6:27PM

I understand your support for George W., CO Bob--but where was his honor when it came time to defend those who believed in him? We didn't turn our backs on President Bush, he turned his back on us.

Conservative Bob| 9.16.09 @ 6:48PM

From his first days in office until the very last day one of the things that I never understood was his silence, his unwillingness to defend himself.
It is my firm belief that if from the early days, after the war had begun and the left openly indicated they would attack his honesty, if he had responded; his vigorous defense against the attacks would have produced a far different outcome. The vacuum of silence was gleefully filled by the anti any war anti conservative left with the most outrageous of lies and distortions. The Dems seized the momentum and the oft repeated lie and distortion became the perceived truth.
While I do not see that failure as turning his back on his supporters, I will grant you the effect was the same.

SoCon| 9.16.09 @ 7:14PM

Just understand--we didn't want things to turn out the way they did, okay? It's horrifying to watch what's happening to our beloved country. :(

Mary Louise| 9.16.09 @ 7:46PM

Bush and Paulson pressed for the first bailout and practically terrorized the Country while doing it.

Bush was a mediocrity, and a wheeling-dealing domestic policy maker. But, if that extended the shadow of the reach of government even further then that mediocrity harmed us positively. He did try to raise the issue of privatizing Social Security, but he expanded Medicare (already in financial trouble) and agreed to some fine print that penalized in perpetuity those who didn't want to join. And wasn't it GW who said he had to suspend the free market in order to save it?

And how do you think a pre-emptive war -that a president either refuses to defend properly or can't- contributes or lays the groundwork for a demagogue whose main goal is to remake the Country into something unrecognizable? Who laid the groundwork of Obama's corporatism?

Cheney too pushed for the first bailout. Said Republicans would never recover if they voted against it. I don't think he would have been as reluctant as Bush was to defend himself and the War. It could be that Bush was being noble. It could be that he was being arrogant.

But for his mediocrity and refusal or inability to defend a War that was spilling our blood, leaving widows and orphans here and there in the wake of our invasion, and helping to bankrupt the Treasury, Obama might still be late for many sessions of Congress, working on a sequel to his autobiography and still waiting for his day to come.

If we are witnessing the disintegration of the US, it didn’t begin today or yesterday and Bush II will not escape the judgment of History.

bob| 9.19.09 @ 12:30PM

The first Bush was a decent and intelligent man but effete. The Republican Party has a serious class problem (something common to conservative parties), its leadership lives in a world of privilege not just removed from the lives of its constituents but remote from the entire society. They live in Richworld where the effects of the social experimentation they are so willing to bargain away to the Left in order to gain tax cuts and what have you doesn't affect them or their families at all. The sound of gunfire from the barrios they helped create can't be heard over the whack of their clubs on their golf balls. It's worse than that, actually, they're not just removed they are social Darwinists who have nothing but contempt for the classes below them, and that includes almost all of their constituents. The present "criticism is racism" campaign is in actuality a call for class solidarity from the ruling Liberal elite to the Republican and Conservative establishments to perform their customary function in the system of keeping their masses in line. Unfortunately for the Liberals the Republicans are too weak at the moment to perform this function, unfortunately for the nation they probably soon won't be.

The second Bush was not a decent man nor an intelligent one. He caved to liberalism, multiculturalism, and profligate spending back home because that was what was best and easiest for George W. Bush, to hell with the Republican Party, Conservatism and the country; and he started useless wars and confrontations overseas to cover the fact to Republicans that he was stabbing them in the back at home. The Iraq war was an absolute disaster for the Republican party but it served GWB well, if succeeded in drowning out complaints over his domestic practices from conservatives and got them to circle the wagons around his administration.

Nonetheless, Matt Lattimer is almost certainly "exaggerating" to sell books. It says something about the Republican Party that it produces so many "touts" like Lattimer. This isn't a real political party with a political mission and a social vision, it's a lobby for big business and not much else, and produces an endless stream of hustlers with the morality of Gordon Gekko.

P.S. - Let us remember how Obama got his start - with that laughable fiasco of an Illinois Senate race. A real political party doesn't depend on personalities, it would have had 2 or 3 qualified candidates waiting in the wings, and would have not had to import an outlandish outlander.