The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Bush/Perry Squabble Recalls Reagan/Bush

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Bush/Perry Squabble Recalls Reagan/Bush

By Jeffrey Lord on 7.6.11 @ 2:54PM

Interesting.

In a New York Times story and a Newsmax story it appears there is a problem of sorts between the camps of former President Bush and his successor as Texas governor, Rick Perry.

The core of the problem as presented in both stories is that Perry has taken shots at the Bush camp, describing Bush as "never a fiscal conservative" among other things. One Perry aide says the two men are "in the same church, different pews." In political short hand, Perry seems to be presenting himself as a Reaganite.

Both are surely good men, but it does amuse to hear this kind of stung reaction from the Bush folks. It was, of course, quickly noted by Ronald Reagan's staff that in 1988 then-vice president Bush decided to campaign as both Ronald Reagan's heir (in the primaries) and the champion of something called a "kinder, gentler" conservatism in the general election. First Lady Nancy Reagan sweetly wondered at the time: "Kinder and gentler than whom?" Be that as it may, Reagan loyally stuck with his VP and, notably, his vice president stuck to the Reagan legacy in that 1988 election against the liberal Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis as if glued.

Once elected, however, things changed. The Bush "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge was famously broken. The Reagan-Bush divide began to yawn into a chasm. The New York Times quoted an irate Bush aide as snapping: "This isn't the Reagan White House. It's the Bush White House."

And so it went, with the Bush version of conservatism getting thumped by Bill Clinton in 1992.

This latest kerfuffle raises an obvious point. George W. Bush is one of the world's most decent men. And in terms of a robust, Reagan-esque defense of America in response to 9/11 he was superb. Yet still, there was this nagging business of "compassionate conservatism" -- presumably the sibling or first cousin of the "kinder, gentler" conservatism of George H.W. Bush -- a political concept so bereft it helped induce the Clinton era.

It may be impolitic for the Perry team to say, but among the Reagan crowd the politely unspoken truth of Reagan conservatism versus Bush "kinder gentler" or "compassionate conservatism" is seen in this fashion

1980 election: Reagan 44 states and 50% (in 3-way race)
1984 election: Reagan 49 states and 58.8%
1988 election: Bush 40 states and 53.4% (in 2-way race)
1992 election: Bush 18 states and 37.5% (in 3-way race)
2000 election: Bush 30 states and 47.9% (winning with a 537-margin in Florida and help from the Supreme Court) 2004 election: Bush 31 states and 50.7% (winning with a narrow 118,000-plus margin in Ohio)

In other words, the Bush version of conservatism has lost out to the Reagan version of conservatism every single time.

So to the extent the Bush-Perry kerfuffle becomes a replay of the Reagan-Bush kerfuffle, one can only marvel that the Bush folks think they have the upper hand in an argument about which set of ideas is better at winning presidential elections.

There may well be a thousand reasons Rick Perry shouldn't be nominated -- and those of us who aren't Texans will see what's up. But trying to diss Perry because he separates himself from Bush and, in effect, seems to be approaching a potential race as a discernible Reaganite instead of a Bushie doesn't seem like a real winner of an idea.

Based on the results of not one but six national elections, Rick Perry and his crew seem to be getting the point.

View all comments (28) | Leave a comment

Derek Leaberry| 7.6.11 @ 3:44PM

The Bush family has been a cancer in the Republican body politic since 1980 and George HW Bush's squeal of "Voodoo Economics." The Bushes have been stabbing conservatives in the back ever since. Sadly, they often fool the more simpleminded Republicans. Strangely, some Republicans, usually women, get all gushy over the Bushes because they treat their women nicely.

Perry hasn't much to go for him. He's in the paws of Texas big business which is why he does nothing on illegal immigration. Tyrannically, he tried to shove Gardisil and the Trans-Texas corridor down the throats of conservative Texans. He was a big spender when the money was there. About the only things Perry has going for him is that he crushed Kay Bailey Hutchison and the Bush family hates him. But remember that Richard Nixon was hated by the right people yet he turned into a Republican version of Lyndon Baines Johnson. Just because the right people hate you doesn't mean you are good.

Sean| 7.6.11 @ 3:45PM

The problem is Perry IS a Bush Republican.

JP| 7.6.11 @ 3:57PM

Let us hope Perry has "grown".

NoLib| 7.6.11 @ 3:52PM

No more Texas Governors for POTUS for a while please!

JP| 7.6.11 @ 3:54PM

Rick Perry could do worse than to distance himself from W. What concerns Conservatives the most about the current crop of GOP candidates is the "moderate" tone many have displayed. And here I'm talking about the so-called Front-Runners (Pawlenty and Mitt), or Beltway Darling (Huntsman). Bachman is a solid conservative, but her campagin has problems.

Perry is right to position himself as far Right as possible. Even if it upsets Bush. Despite what many think, Bush remains fairly unpopular with Conservatives. Perry should make his distancing as subtle as possible; but, the stakes are too high, and I think Bush can take it.

L A Stich| 7.6.11 @ 3:57PM

Meh.

I read the story and there's no "there" there. Yah, there's kvetching. Surprise! And yah, Perry's not a GWB clone. Surprise!!

My first reaction: NYT's trying very hard to start a war.

RJ| 7.6.11 @ 4:02PM

While I admired George H. W. Bush on a personal level, he was elected largely on the Reagan record and choose to walk away from it. A major disappointment.

George W. Bush implied during the 2000 race that he would be more like Reagan than his father in governing. He was however Lyndon Johnson on steroids. I have never felt more politically betrayed than by W.

I will have serious doubts about any candidate that gets Bush family support in the primaries.

Have you considered| 7.6.11 @ 4:58PM

RJ, agree completely.

Your line of "I have never felt more politically betrayed than by W." is exactly how I feel, augmented by what I think.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.6.11 @ 4:46PM

Besides Obamacare, which I think many Republicans silently rooted for, there really isn't much difference between Bush and Obama since Obama kept many Bush policies in place.

The only difference is that Obama may rightly claim he was a bigger tax cutter than Bush when all is said and done.

CalMark| 7.6.11 @ 4:48PM

"George W. Bush is one of the world's most decent men."

Uh-huh...whatever. Lets Scooter Libby and Tom DeLay and...the list is too long to recount...get destroyed by Democrats for no good reason. Gives Sandy Burger, traitor (the man stole Top Secret documents from the U.S. Archives, remember) a slap on the wrist.

George W. Bush: boundlessly kind to enemies, implacably merciless to friends.

Teflon93| 7.6.11 @ 5:17PM

At least somebody's getting it. Conservatism wins whenever it's on the ballot.

Paul McGrath| 7.6.11 @ 5:56PM

"But trying to diss Perry because he separates himself from Bush and, in effect, seems to be approaching a potential race as a discernible Reaganite instead of a Bushie doesn't seem like a real winner of an idea."

"Doesn't" seem like a winner? Why is it that I seem to have to decipher rather than simply read most of the posts here? (Horner is the worst.) Come on you guys, get it together, will ya!

Paul McGrath| 7.6.11 @ 6:04PM

Oh. I finally figured it out. "Dissing," Perry, for being a, "discernable Reaganite," is not a, "real winner of an idea."

I had to read this about ten times before I got it. But I get it now. Maybe it's time for a single malt.

Occam's Tool| 7.6.11 @ 8:38PM

Paul, "Homey Don't Play that Game. Hear Me Now, Listen To Me Later."

WilliamR| 7.6.11 @ 6:18PM

And in terms of a robust, Reagan-esque defense of America in response to 9/11 he was superb.

There was nothing Reagan-esque about Bush's response to 9/11. Reagan would have never invaded and occupied two Muslim nations.

Just more NeoCon revisionism.

Occam's Tool| 7.6.11 @ 8:37PM

You are correct, William R. Reagan would have nuked them. He smashed the baby's room on Daffy, you know. For this, Mecca would have died.

Just more antisemitism from the Paleoscum.

Clint| 7.7.11 @ 7:04AM

Uh Oh !
Screwball Israel Firster Fanatic Tool Job Attempts To Play The Anti-Semite Card.

Ronald Reagan
“Perhaps we didn’t appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the Marines’ safety that it should have… In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing we should do was turn tail and leave… Yet, the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to re-think our policy there.”

Handy| 7.6.11 @ 10:13PM

Perrry running as the Anti-Bush? Sounds like another Obama to me.

The folks in TX seem to know him.

Perhaps they have gotten wise to the whole "Compassionate Conservatism" idea. Just a bunch of left-handed Northeast elites who want to pose as cowboys with hearts.

No more Bushies for several generations, please. No more frat boys (DKEs). No more left handed presidents, either. They are sinister. Not that right handers can't be bad.

It's not a joke anymore, folks. We either take our freedom back, or we flush it down the toilet. Assuming, of course that we still have indoor plumbing, rather than slit trenches and outhouses for modesty.

Nite| 7.6.11 @ 11:07PM

Yes, I am from TX and know both Perry and Bush. They seem to get along just fine. They are different in their approach. I voted for both of them. They both want the best for Texas and people who live in that state. Now, with the media articles appearing, and comments all over conservative news sites dissing Perry, I am beginning to wonder if these comments and articles are being planted by liberal Democrats, who are terrified that Perry will run for President. Perry has a good record and can beat Obama at this own game and without a teleprompter. Perry has a strong jobs record among other things to run on, and Obama doesn't have much of anything, since he fouls up everything he touches.

Derek Leaberry| 7.7.11 @ 9:27AM

Explain Perry regarding Gardisil, Trans-Texas Corridor, blind eye to illegal immigration and the spending increases since 2001.

James| 7.7.11 @ 3:12PM

Gardasil's a deal breaker for me. Keep your damned hands off of our young daughters, government bastards!

Casey Abell| 7.7.11 @ 11:30AM

Didn't Reagan raise taxes? Not once but twice? Oh, I guess that's forgotten.

Anyhoo, there has been no discernible change in Texas governance from Bush to Perry. I've been here in DFW for both. No state income tax, balanced budgets, limited regulation. Same under both guys. Perry got into trouble on a few issues - some weird vaccination idea, some dumb highway proposal - but by and large he's followed in Bush's footsteps very closely.

Perry's shots are just "more conservative than thou" jabs. I have to wonder if this is a smart strategy, though. Sure, Bush is reviled on conservative websites, but he's looking better and better to the rank-and-file GOPers who vote in the primaries. (Amazing how Barry has concentrated a few minds.)

If Perry ever runs, and I'm beginning to doubt it, he should spend a lot more time ripping Obama. But if the economy starts to turn up, Perry may figure that waiting until 2016 is the smarter play.

James| 7.7.11 @ 11:55AM

Since when do presidents raise taxes? Perhaps you were referring to the DEMOCRAT congress that was largely responsible for raising taxes in the 80s.

Reagan followed Carter's 4 year debacle and left our country stronger, GWB followed Clinton's successful economic tenure and left our party and country weaker.

Anyhoo, never let facts get in the way of a GWB apologist.

Casey Abell| 7.7.11 @ 1:18PM

Reagan didn't veto those tax increases, did he? In fact, he willingly signed them into law. Come on, it takes two to tango.

As James Antle points out, Reagan remains a net tax cutter despite his budget and Social Security tax hikes. Which is fine with me. But Bush Junior was a net tax cutter, too. Let's remember the past fully and fairly.

James| 7.7.11 @ 3:10PM

I'm not the one who has a problem recalling the past: Care to juxtapose the state of the Republican party after both men left office?

Reagan--an ascendant Republican party and 4 years of President Bush I; GWB--Republican party's reputation in the toilet and the subsequent election of the extreme leftist, Obama.

Bottom line--Reagan's tenure left us far better off than GWB's. GWB continues to be reviled by many of us on the right; with good reason, I might add.

MikeF| 7.8.11 @ 11:27AM

Both Bushes and RWR were/are wonderful men. But the Bushes made many bad decisions. Both should have kicked ass pronto, and then left the middle east immediately. Both were very lame in their inability- or unwillingness to swat down their oppositions' historically well-orchestrated, disingenuous vilification. And they sold us down the river in many, many ways; inviting radical leftism to follow. RWR was the complete opposite in each area of their shortcomings. And I still like both Bushes very much- as good men, but not guarders of our nation conservatively. I'm thinking Perry got the memo(??).

MikeF| 7.8.11 @ 11:30AM

OOPS! GHWB DID leave immediately!! But he didn't secure the Kurds. Big mistake not kicking ass- all the way; (killing Hussein).

yisong| 10.28.11 @ 2:19AM

Slewing ring may be used for slewing conveyer, welding arms and positioners,light,medium duty cranes,excavators and other engineering machines. http://www.1stbearing.com