Was George W. Bush a conservative?

[Shellhead]

During the 2008 election, a lot of Republicans felt the need to distance themselves from the increasingly unpopular Bush administration. A common criticism was that Bush wasn't really a conservative. And yet a lot of people voted for him in 2000 and 2004. Did he fool all those voters? Did anybody here vote for Bush, only to later realize that he wasn't a conservative? If so, what changed your mind about Bush? And if Bush wasn't a conservative, what was he?

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

During the 2008 election, a lot of Republicans felt the need to distance themselves from the increasingly unpopular Bush administration. A common criticism was that Bush wasn't really a conservative. And yet a lot of people voted for him in 2000 and 2004. Did he fool all those voters? Did anybody here vote for Bush, only to later realize that he wasn't a conservative? If so, what changed your mind about Bush? And if Bush wasn't a conservative, what was he?

Good Question.
He labeled himself a "compassionate conservative" which always irked me due to the inference that mainstream conservatism isn't. The medicare Part D bill was extremely unconservative, at least economically. Not to mention his democracy spreading was more in line with kennedy liberalism (JF, not teddy obviously). But still, overall I think he was a pretty good president. Was he a conservative? Depends on which kind. Socially? yes pretty much. Economically? not so much. But then Ive always felt that one of the virtues of Conservatism isthat its not as reflexively dogmatic as modern liberalism.

I think the main reason so many people were"distancing" themselves was much simpler. He wasnt very popular.

[o1pickleboy]

he also was in line with the hawkish conservatives on foreign policy.


So 2 out 3

[moonknight11]

Do Neo-Cons even qualify as real conservatives?

[Acecool]

Do Neo-Cons even qualify as real conservatives?

Probably not.

[o1pickleboy]

Do Neo-Cons even qualify as real conservatives?

Does anybody? Seems like too many claim their way is the real way and that your not a real insert whatever belief or title you want.

[MacQuarrie]

I think very few people voted for him; they voted against the other guy. Some were of the "better the devil you know..." philosophy. Others found Gore an alarmist and were put off by his constant lying during the campaign. Four years alter, many found Kerry to be an arrogant and elitist oligarch with a condescending attitude. I think that if the Democrats had run virtually any other candidate in these two elections, they would have defeated Bush handily. Gore and Kerry were simply the wrong guys at the wrong times.

Having said that, I agree with the assertion that Bush is not a Conservative. He's not. He's an authoritarian. He (well, Cheney, really) is firmly of the type that believes other people need to be controlled, and that lying to them is an acceptable way to do so.

[MacQuarrie]

he also was in line with the hawkish conservatives on foreign policy.


So 2 out 3

Not really. The hawkish conservatives wanted to stay focused on Afghanistan and finish routing the Taliban and tracking down Bin Laden. Bush & wanted to go after Hussein for their own agenda.

[MacQuarrie]

I think the main reason so many people were"distancing" themselves was much simpler. He wasnt very popular.
He was, if not popular, likable. It was only when we realized just how much of a sockpuppet for Cheney he was that his popularity dropped.

[Shellhead]

Not really. The hawkish conservatives wanted to stay focused on Afghanistan and finish routing the Taliban and tracking down Bin Laden. Bush & wanted to go after Hussein for their own agenda.

I don't remember any public dissent from conservatives along these lines. Even a lot of Democrats jumped on the bandwagon for the invasion of Iraq, at least in Congress.

[o1pickleboy]

Not really. The hawkish conservatives wanted to stay focused on Afghanistan and finish routing the Taliban and tracking down Bin Laden. Bush & wanted to go after Hussein for their own agenda.

The smart hawks did, but they are many(hawkish voters I mean) that agreed with Iraq for many reasons. I was also thinking of his anti UN approach, and other foreign policy stances

[Slackjaws_ate_my_brain]

He played up to the Neocon agenda, which, as a whole, isn't really as "conservative" as it is self-serving. He also played up to the "Religious right" (aka the base of the Neocon movement) and got their support.

I'm still of the opinion that if the Dems would have run somebody that was more charismatic and moderate than Kerry in 04 that they would have taken the presidency.

Sadly, I don't think that a paleoconservative could get the backing from the Republican party today. Hopefully the Neocons will take a back seat directly and allow this to happen, bit I'm not sure that it will.

[Tages]

Do Neo-Cons even qualify as real conservatives?

Take a look at how many neocons, like the Kristols for example, started as Trotskyites and you'll find your answer.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

I honestly dont think it would have mattered who the dems ran in 04.Whens the last time the American people changed presidents during one war, much less two?

[o1pickleboy]

He played up to the Neocon agenda, which, as a whole, isn't really as "conservative" as it is self-serving. He also played up to the "Religious right" (aka the base of the Neocon movement) and got their support.

I'm still of the opinion that if the Dems would have run somebody that was more charismatic and moderate than Kerry in 04 that they would have taken the presidency.

Sadly, I don't think that a paleoconservative could get the backing from the Republican party today. Hopefully the Neocons will take a back seat directly and allow this to happen, bit I'm not sure that it will.

I agree about the Charismatic part. It is has been a while since the most Charismatic candidate lost the election

[Tages]

I honestly dont think it would have mattered who the dems ran in 04.Whens the last time the American people changed presidents during one war, much less two?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_VZemF-5B1H4/RzcKj-VgLgI/AAAAAAAAASE/_enUt_wuUt0/s400/eisenhower.jpg
http://www.conservapedia.com/images/thumb/1/15/Nixon68.jpg/250px-Nixon68.jpg

[o1pickleboy]

I honestly dont think it would have mattered who the dems ran in 04.Whens the last time the American people changed presidents during one war, much less two?

Never voluntarily

[Serik]

The Bush Administration was, first and foremost, legendarily incompetent and loaded with political cronies.

"Traditional" conservatism would not advocate foreign adventurism, taking a dump on the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, and massive deficit spending coupled with steep tax cuts during wartime. (It's well and good to sacrifice our privacy, patience and civil liberties in the name of fighting them there terrorists, but god-forbid if we actually have to feel the pinch in our pocketbooks.)

The 10th Amendment was given its fare share of sodomizing thanks to stuff like No Child Left Behind. (Newt and friends advocated that the feds abolish the Department of Education back in 1993-1994. Quite the shift in less than 10 years.)

Those difficult concepts of "rule of law" and "responsibility for one's actions" weren't taken seriously by any of those assholes.

So no, the Bush Administration was not really conservative; it was something beyond easy classification, but it can be said that it was disastrous for America -- economically, philosophically, and intellectually.

[Tages]

Never voluntarily

*points up*

Americans changed presidents and the party of said president mid-war twice. Once with Eisenhower in '52 during Korea and once with Nixon in '68 during Vietnam. In both cases the incumbent declined to run again as he was certain he couldn't win.

[Acecool]

Others found Gore an alarmist and were put off by his constant lying during the campaign.


Gore and Kerry were simply the wrong guys at the wrong times.


What did Gore lie about?

Didn't he have more votes? The democrats ran the exact right guy in Gore, it was that he followed some bad advice and the supreme court stopped the democratic process so that Bush would win.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

What did Gore lie about?

Didn't he have more votes? The democrats ran the exact right guy in Gore, it was that he followed some bad advice and the supreme court stopped the democratic process so that Bush would win.

Not according to, among other periodicals studying the issue after the fact, the NYT.
Even if Gore had won every legal challenge and gotten the exact type of recount he wanted, he still would have lost.

[Acecool]

Not according to, among other periodicals studying the issue after the fact, the NYT.
Even if Gore had won every legal challenge and gotten the exact type of recount he wanted, he still would have lost.

Yeah, but there were a lot of district that were close, any one of them could have given gore the win, and the supreme court stopped them all.

My point though was that gore was the correct candidate for 2000 since he received more votes, just not in the right areas.

He might have won if he had actually campaigned in had campaigned in his won state, hence the bad advice.

Edit: And the supreme court still shut down the process arbitrarily to give bush the premature win.

[Iangould]

And if Bush wasn't a conservative, what was he?

A Democrat, obviously.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

Yeah, but there were a lot of district that were close, any one of them could have given gore the win, and the supreme court stopped them all.

You missed my point, The NYT and several other news organisations comiissioned a study which counted the ballots Gore wanted recounted. He still would have lost.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html

Acomprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.
Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.

Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff ? filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties ? Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.

[Iangould]

In order to answer this question, you really need to answer another question: what is a conservative?

[Acecool]

You missed my point, The NYT and several other news organisations comiissioned a study which counted the ballots Gore wanted recounted. He still would have lost.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html

First the Supreme court should not have cut off the process no matter what the outcome would have been.

In case you missed that point: should not have cut off the process. No cutting process. Process should not have been cut off. Outcome doesn't matter.

The process is important. It is there for a reason. Should not have been cut off.

Second, your right, in the first month of initial recounts, Gore would have lost with what he had asked for at the time. Not even those where counted.

Third

If the democratic process had not been cut off prematurely, gore may have also looked at over votes. That is votes that got thrown out because they marked a person and wrote in who they where voting for. If he had asked for those to count, and I don't know why votes that can determine the intent of the voter shouldn't count, he could have won.

"Just when you thought the Florida recount story was settling down into a familiar bitter partisan dispute, the Orlando Sentinel has changed the story line again. The Sentinel, remember, was the paper that first uncovered the hidden cache of valid, uncounted "overvotes"—seemingly double-voted ballots that, as the massive media recount of Florida has now confirmed, were the key to a potential Gore victory, if only he had known it."

http://www.slate.com/id/2058603/

In summary, if the supreme court had let the process go, Gore would have found these votes, and would have won.

[Acecool]

Furthermore, letting the process take it's natural course could have uncovered things like republican caging list and other under handed tactics that then could have been taken into account and dealt with.

The process is important no matter the outcome.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

[

http://www.slate.com/id/2058603/

In summary, if the supreme court had let the process go, Gore would have found these votes, and would have won.

We know because in Lake County the Sentinel examined 3,114 overvotes. And one-fifth of them contained exactly the "write-in mistake" that Boies had dismissed as nonexistent. More perversely, the majority (376) of these ballots were clear votes for ... Boies' client, Gore.



Slates math seems a bit, fuzzy to me.

Not to mention the author of the piece in question invalidates his own contention.

But the Florida court was very clearly wrong, in retrospect, when it allowed a count of both undervotes and overvotes in mainly Democratic precincts in Miami-Dade County while adding to those results a count of only undervotes in mainly Republican precincts. The only way that apple-orange sandwich could be fair is if recounting overvotes never yielded anything. But we now know that overvotes can contain a huge (one in five) stash of salvageable ballots.


So to say that a statewide hand recount would have given gore the win is not IMO justified. Not on the basis of a few hundred votes from one dem leaning county.

[Loren]

I think very few people voted for him; they voted against the other guy.

I didn't vote for Bush any of the four times I could have. I voted for Libertarian Harry Browne in 2000, and for some write-in guy in 2004 because I couldn't bring myself to vote for anybody. Honestly, though, I regret voting for the write-in guy too, even if it was purely a protest vote. I wish I'd just written in Sam Nunn or somebody else I liked on principle.

Had I been forced to pick a major party candidate in 2004, it would've been on the 'voting against the other guy' principle. Regardless of which one I picked. I didn't like Kerry, but I really didn't like how Bush had conducted his first term, so I could have chosen to vote against Bush. On the other hand, Bush at least had Social Security reform going for him, and I might have decided to go with the evil I knew over the evil I didn't.

And to answer the thread title: no, I didn't consider Bush a conservative. Hence why I never voted for him. His proposed Social Security reforms were some good conservatism, but he didn't really stick to his guns there or accomplish anything, did he?

[o1pickleboy]

*points up*

Americans changed presidents and the party of said president mid-war twice. Once with Eisenhower in '52 during Korea and once with Nixon in '68 during Vietnam. In both cases the incumbent declined to run again as he was certain he couldn't win.

But we have never voted the incumbent out during wartime, both of them very well may of won their elections

[Acecool]

Slates math seems a bit, fuzzy to me.

Not to mention the author of the piece in question invalidates his own contention.


So to say that a statewide hand recount would have given gore the win is not IMO justified. Not on the basis of a few hundred votes from one dem leaning county.


Gore only lost by a little over 500 votes. So yeah, one county was pretty much the tipping point.

That and he won the popular vote by half a million votes.

edit: It also worked for Franken. Once the system had time to work, it *gasp* actually worked.

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

Gore only lost by a little over 500 votes. So yeah, one county was pretty much the tipping point.

Which assumes you wouldnt have seen the same or more "overvotes" in republican leaning districts. Not to mention the whole"throwing out military absentee ballots which tend to favor reps by massive margins.


That and he won the popular vote by half a million votes.
And if the popular vote mattered, or had at any time in recent history, that might mean something.

[FanLove4Blade]

i'd call him a conservative. everything he believed in would be thought of as being on the right wing side of things. even farther right than that.

what left winger or even middle of the spectrum, for example, would think abstinence only education is the only thing that should be taught in schools and global warming is a myth or something?

[Acecool]

Which assumes you wouldnt have seen the same or more "overvotes" in republican leaning districts. Not to mention the whole"throwing out military absentee ballots which tend to favor reps by massive margins.


So you are in favor of disrupting the process? Should we just allow the supreme court to stop the counting as soon as the one they favor is in the lead?

Texas just came in, it is for the republicans.

Opps the supreme court just stopped the vote. And the republican has won.

My argument is that they shouldn't have disrupted the process because it makes for bad policy.

You argument in no way answers my argument at all. You argue that in the 2000 election, that it didn't matter that the supreme court routed the process, because either way it would have turned out the same.

I showed you evidence that we don't know what would have happened because of over votes which didn't even have a chance to become effective, because the process was routed.

I showed that recently such process can change the initial outcome, especially if it is only 500 votes.

You said, it might not have changed the outcome which does not answer and actually admits that we don't know what would have happened. The initial argument that the process should not have been routed is still in effect.

Of course you are in favor of stopping the process in mid stream because it favors your world view. Republicans never seem to be for the constitution unless they can use it for political power.

Now you bring in the absentee ballots, they where counted. There was still only 500 votes between gore and bush.

[Tages]

But we have never voted the incumbent out during wartime, both of them very well may of won their elections

Truman's approval rating in '52 was hovering just over 20%. I find it unlikely.

[Serik]

what left winger or even middle of the spectrum, for example, would think abstinence only education is the only thing that should be taught in schools and global warming is a myth or something?

See I don't view those as fundamental issues for deciding whether or not someone is conservative.

Policy-wise, I don't care what sex-ed program the president supports; curriculum should be a state and local issue, not a federal one.

And dismissing global warming, and the rest of the sciences for that matter, is just ignorant. (But the GOP goes out of its way to celebrate its ignorance of all things. That's why, as small-government, fiscal conservative, I cannot, in good faith, support such a party.)

[Disciple_of_the_Bat]

So you are in favor of disrupting the process? Should we just allow the supreme court to stop the counting as soon as the one they favor is in the lead?

Im from Florida, I lived there in 2000. Calling what happened "soon" is a gross distortion.


My argument is that they shouldn't have disrupted the process because it makes for bad policy.

Which could, and nearly did lead to a perpetual recount cycle.




I showed you evidence that we don't know what would have happened because of over votes which didn't even have a chance to become effective, because the process was routed.

You showed very flimsy "evidence" IMO.



You said, it might not have changed the outcome which does not answer and actually admits that we don't know what would have happened. The initial argument that the process should not have been routed is still in effect.

Don't hurt your hand there.


[/QUOTE]
Now you bring in the absentee ballots, they where counted. There was still only 500 votes between gore and bush.[/QUOTE]

No, in fact many, were not.

[Acecool]

Im from Florida, I lived there in 2000. Calling what happened "soon" is a gross distortion.




wow, you really don't pay attention. you are no longer worth my time.

[Sabrinaset]

I think very few people voted for him; they voted against the other guy... Four years alter, many found Kerry to be an arrogant and elitist oligarch with a condescending attitude. I think that if the Democrats had run virtually any other candidate in these two elections, they would have defeated Bush handily. Gore and Kerry were simply the wrong guys at the wrong times.

Having said that, I agree with the assertion that Bush is not a Conservative. He's not. He's an authoritarian. He (well, Cheney, really) is firmly of the type that believes other people need to be controlled, and that lying to them is an acceptable way to do so.

I completely agree with this. Had I known then what I know now, I probably would have voted third-party, or done a write-in vote. In any event, W was nowhere near what a conservative should be. And part of my vote was definitely against Kerry. I've said it before, if the Dems really wanted to win, they would have nominated ANYONE but Kerry.

I honestly dont think it would have mattered who the dems ran in 04.

Please ... had it not been for the Dean Scream, he could have taken it easily.

I And to answer the thread title: no, I didn't consider Bush a conservative. Hence why I never voted for him. His proposed Social Security reforms were some good conservatism, but he didn't really stick to his guns there or accomplish anything, did he?

Well, there were the tax cuts ... I thought that was about it from him.

[Shellhead]

In order to answer this question, you really need to answer another question: what is a conservative?

That's an important question, and more relevant to the topic than re-hashing the dispute over the 2000 election outcome.

So what is a conservative? Just brainstorming here... someone who believes strongly in property rights and unrestricted commerce. Fiscal and personal responsibility. Traditional family values. There are plenty of other concepts identified with conservatives, but I think that those concepts really only apply to sub-sets within the conservative label, like the religious right, the neocons, and the corporate tycoons.

If Bush wasn't actually a conservative, why did he enjoy so much support from his party for so long? Were they just glad that there wasn't a Democrat in the Oval Office? Or did they actually support all of his actions up until maybe 2007? Was there any serious opposition for the Republican nomination in 2004?

[o1pickleboy]

Truman's approval rating in '52 was hovering just over 20%. I find it unlikely.

I give you that and add to your case that Ike was extremely popular, but on Nixon vs Johnson 68 I have no idea

[RolandJP]

Bush was certainly Conservative.

Enough so, that GOP Congress rubber-stamped whatever he wanted.



GOP Congress Pays for Tax Cuts for Wealthy with Child Health Cuts

Wealth redistribution measures perpetrated by our Republican controlled Congress. Three recent Congressional votes make their priorities very clear.

The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005

Signed into law by George Bush on February 8, 2006, this bill cut federal spending by $38.8 billion over 5 years, according to the Drum Major Policy Institute for Public Policy, with much of the cutbacks coming from Medicare and Medicaid cuts and the college loan program. The bill also cut funds for child support enforcement, foster care and support for the elderly and disabled. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill will reduce funding for Medicaid over the next ten years by $26.1 billion.



Repeal of the ESTATE tax

The repealed estate tax will be re-instated in 2011, so that individuals who inherit more than $1.5 million after that date (or more than $3 million for married couples) will have to pay taxes on amounts above that figure. Concerned about the unimagined misery that this would cause to their favorite constituents, 100% of House Republicans, along with 21% of House Democrats, voted to permanently repeal the estate tax, despite the fact that this would add one trillion dollars (click on “death tax repeal permanency act”) to the federal deficit between 2012 and 2021.

[RolandJP]

The bill was passed by the Senate 51-50, with the Vice pResident breaking the tie. Every Democrat voted against it, as did five Republicans (Snowe, Collins, DeWine, Chafee, and Smith). The bill was passed by the House by a 216-214 margin, along a similar party line vote, with 100% of Democrats voting against it and 6% of Republicans voting against it..

[Radioactive Zombie]

The majority voted for him because they felt he could tackle the terror issue.

With the PATRIOT Act and a strong emphasis on government, I doubt he was following the whole conservative thing to the letter.

[spoon_jenkins]

I think the main reason so many people were"distancing" themselves was much simpler. He wasnt very popular.
I think very few people voted for him; they voted against the other guy.
The empirical evidence belies the notion that Bush was unpopular. Pollsters like Gallup broke down Presidential approval numbers by party affiliation and that showed that George W. Bush was hugely, hugely popular among Republicans/conservatives for most of his Presidency. George W. Bush was to rank-and-file Republicans what Marisa Miller is to frat boys. In two other similar threads I dug up Gallup's partisan breakdown and it should how huge Republican support for Bush was.

It's not right that other Republican politicians and rank-and-file Republicans voters are trying to shirt the completely deserved blame they bare for inflicting Bush on the rest of the country and back him so single-mindedly for so long. Bush was buoyed by all the lemmings who devotedly follow him. This is a big problem because the Bush seem merely to want to dump the unpopular Bush brand name and repackage the producet under another name.

[FanLove4Blade]

See I don't view those as fundamental issues for deciding whether or not someone is conservative.

Policy-wise, I don't care what sex-ed program the president supports; curriculum should be a state and local issue, not a federal one.

And dismissing global warming, and the rest of the sciences for that matter, is just ignorant. (But the GOP goes out of its way to celebrate its ignorance of all things. That's why, as small-government, fiscal conservative, I cannot, in good faith, support such a party.)

well ok then. :smile: fair enough. but those are just two of bush's beliefs i gave as examples.

[Nick Soapdish]

If Bush wasn't actually a conservative, why did he enjoy so much support from his party for so long? Were they just glad that there wasn't a Democrat in the Oval Office? Or did they actually support all of his actions up until maybe 2007? Was there any serious opposition for the Republican nomination in 2004?

Dubya is (or was) as conservative as the Republican party is. Whether they aren't conservative or whether they've redefined the term to what they are now is arguable.

[Shellhead]

I think the main reason so many people were"distancing" themselves was much simpler. He wasnt very popular.

Pre-9/11, I think Bush wasn't especially popular or unpopular. Right after 9/11, I believe that he was very popular. When did he lose that popularity, exactly, and how? When did he lose your support? Was it a gradual process, or was there an a-ha moment?

[Omega Alpha]

Economically, not really. Socially, he clearly was. In foreign policy, not really in the usual conservative sense (as in "let's mind our own business and screw other countries"), but in the neocon way of "let's make everything we want out business and screw the world".

But overall, yes, he was. Saying he was not strikes me as a "No true Scotsman" type of fallacy. He was a conservative mostly, though a bad one.

[mikekerr3]

Never voluntarily

1952 Was not voluntary:rolleyes: A much bloodier war was in progress.

[mikekerr3]

Pre-9/11, I think Bush wasn't especially popular or unpopular. Right after 9/11, I believe that he was very popular. When did he lose that popularity, exactly, and how? When did he lose your support? Was it a gradual process, or was there an a-ha moment?

I think Katina was the killer for those in the middle, local and Stated governments messed up, but that excuse didn't cover Bush for the federal mistakes, It made many people ashamed of the country.

[J. Robb]

America's conservative party is the Democrats. They want to move forward, just very very slowly.

The Republican Party is regressive- they want to move backwards.

[The Black Guardian]

Bush is/was a lot more conservative than I am. That's all I care about.

[Donald M.]

He was whatever Cheney told him to be.

[Adam C]

He played up to the Neocon agenda, which, as a whole, isn't really as "conservative" as it is self-serving.

For Bush maybe, but Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Libby, Elliott Abrams, etc. who didn't necessarily have a personal stake in it through their daddies, it was a moral crusade. It was certainly cast as such in the Statement of Principles (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm) for the Project For A New American Century, a neo-con think tank that was calling for regime change in Iraq long before Bush decided to run. And everything I've read about the "planning" for the Iraq occupation and its subsequent disaster shows them to have been very much in the thrall of these ideals, even to the point of ignoring very basic practical issues like warnings not to disband the Iraqi army quickly or the number of necessary soldiers for effective peace-keeping in Iraq.

[Tages]

Please ... had it not been for the Dean Scream, he could have taken it easily.

Much more pertinent than Howard Dean's behavior, I think, was that Gore endorsed him too early. If he would have waited until Dean could consolidate his support then Dean probably would have gotten the nomination.

[Adam C]

America's conservative party is the Democrats. They want to move forward, just very very slowly.

The Republican Party is regressive- they want to move backwards.

I believe the term you're looking for is "reactionary".

[Slackjaws_ate_my_brain]

Adam C : Like I said, not much about the Neocons can really be considered "conservative". They very much have their own agenda ( The Project For A New American Century being a big part of that agenda) and, personally, I think that pushing said agenda under the false pretense of being economically or fiscally "conservative" is laughable at best and angering at most (I generally feel much more of the latter than the former when it comes to Neocons).

Most people I talk to seem to have a problem separating the economic issues from the social issues. "Man, that politician guy hates abortion and love church and guns! He must be Conservative!"....Regardless of the fact that said politician may want a larger federal government and supported spending billions of tax dollars on a pointless war....

But, being from PA, I think I'll just cling to God and my guns and see how it all turns out, lol. 8)

[Pól Rua]

I believe the term you're looking for is "reactionary".

"Evil" works too.

[Paradox]

Neo-Cons are about as conservative as Nazis were Socialist.

Blah blah Godwin blah...

[Tages]

The word "conservative" has been abused and tortured by the Far Right for so long people can be forgiven for not quite getting what is and isn't conservative.

Here's a starter: can you picture what is being proposed coming from the mouth of Edmund Burke?

[Gary_B]

He was whatever Cheney told him to be.

Most of Cheney's instructions to Bush were associated with the nuances of tea-bagging techniques.

[Pól Rua]

Most of Cheney's instructions to Bush were associated with the nuances of tea-bagging techniques.

hehehehehehe...

[Minkie]

In the fifties, William F. Buckley was already questioning whether there was really a conservative movement in the US. He said in a mission statement in the first issue of National Review that his magazine would "stand athwart history yelling Stop". He said this while acknowledging that practically everyone thought that the country was already a "bastion of conservatism" and would probably consider his "conservative journal of opinion" to be superfluous.

Regressive and reactionary enough for you?

Whether National Review was the prime intellectual force behind modern American conservatism is open to debate, but it is certainly a very strong contender for the title.

Oddly enough, at least in our terms today, he also stated that the magazine was "without reservations on the libertarian side". Few today would posit such an intimate symbiosis (or identity?) between libertarianism and conservatism. Am I wrong? I know someone will tell me if I am and why. (It's one of the things I really like about this place, and I'm being completely serious in saying so.)

All this is to say that the struggle to define conservatism in America, and to claim the mantle, has been underway for longer than most of us have been alive.

A second point, and one I have never seen refuted, is that the presidential candidate who is perceived as the happiest is the one who wins. Maybe the assertion is too silly to bother refuting. But is it true? If not, I'm positive someone here will know and explain it to us. It seems to me to be true to the extent that I can recall.

[Paradox]

Minkie gives proper compliment:

Few today would posit such an intimate symbiosis (or identity?) between libertarianism and conservatism. Am I wrong? I know someone will tell me if I am and why.

I can't really answer your question, but I don't think you're wrong. I mostly posted because of this...

(It's one of the things I really like about this place, and I'm being completely serious in saying so.)

Oh, lord, I am totally with you there! Agree with me on something or no, this place is one hell of a "go to" place for information on more subjects than one can wiggle a twig at! I've learned more about everything here in the past twelve years than I've learned anywhere else.

[MacQuarrie]

Gore only lost by a little over 500 votes. So yeah, one county was pretty much the tipping point.

That and he won the popular vote by half a million votes.

edit: It also worked for Franken. Once the system had time to work, it *gasp* actually worked.

Abe Lincoln became President with less than 45% of the Popular vote. That's how the system works.

[MacQuarrie]

What did Gore lie about?

Didn't he have more votes? The democrats ran the exact right guy in Gore, it was that he followed some bad advice and the supreme court stopped the democratic process so that Bush would win.

He lied all the time throughout the campaign about everything, big and small.

He said his mother sang him to sleep with the "Always Look for the Union Label" song, which was written when he was 27.

Here's a bunch more. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmExMjFlNzFmNWM5YWYwYzBiNWFmOTMzNmExOTkzZDU=

[MacQuarrie]

i'd call him a conservative. everything he believed in would be thought of as being on the right wing side of things. even farther right than that.

what left winger or even middle of the spectrum, for example, would think abstinence only education is the only thing that should be taught in schools and global warming is a myth or something?

Neither of those are Conservative opinions; they are authoritarian religious positions. I know a lot of conservatives who support abortion for economic reasons: "abort them so I don't have to support the little welfare deadbeats and their mothers."

[MacQuarrie]

If Bush wasn't actually a conservative, why did he enjoy so much support from his party for so long? Were they just glad that there wasn't a Democrat in the Oval Office? Or did they actually support all of his actions up until maybe 2007? Was there any serious opposition for the Republican nomination in 2004?

Because the most important trait in partisan politics is loyalty. If you identify as a member of a party, you have to support your guy no matter what he does, and attack the other guy no matter what he does, regardless of logic, reason, ethics, morals or common sense. When the Party says "this is our guy", the thinking has been done.

[Nick Soapdish]

Neither of those are Conservative opinions; they are authoritarian religious positions. I know a lot of conservatives who support abortion for economic reasons: "abort them so I don't have to support the little welfare deadbeats and their mothers."

I think that they're socially conservative, not fiscally conservative. But how long does a position need to be held by "conservatives" before it becomes a conservative position.

Abortion has been a hot topic for the Republicans for as long as I've paid attention to politics (which is only a bit over 20 years, but still ...) and abstinence-only for nearly as long.

[Adam C]

The word "conservative" has been abused and tortured by the Far Right for so long people can be forgiven for not quite getting what is and isn't conservative.

Here's a starter: can you picture what is being proposed coming from the mouth of Edmund Burke?

No, but I can easily similar coming from the mouth of Joseph de Maistre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_de_Maistre) whom for his time was conservative but very far from the views of Burke, a classical liberal whose focus on the importance of property was radical for his time. Of course while he showed a conservative temperament by reasonably opposing the extremes of the French revolution and the damage to local customs that the East India Trading company had wrought in India, Burke also established the principle that the British Empire was a moral undertaking to protect and elevate the subject peoples. A view not all the far removed from the Neoconservative idea of an American empire.

Which brings us back to Kosmopolit's question "In order to answer this question, you really need to answer another question: what is a conservative?" While America may have been founded on the precepts of classical liberalism, intrusive religious moralism by the state has long been a vice of American politics and I question whether this is some great innovation. I remember reading about far worst examples that were widespread in Emma Goldman's autobiography and its an ideological tendency the Republican party picked up from the Democrats following the Civil Rights movement. Bush running roughshod over constitutional controls and use of torture are dangerous innovations, though Iraq is just him returning American adventurism to direct involvement rather than manipulating by proxy. Even his "compassionate conservativism" comes out of not only the right-wing religious moralism but holds as a basic tenet that social programs should best be addressed by cooperation between private individuals, charities, and corporations with government encouragement. It's not strictly adhering to the framework of liberalism conservativism, but it's not hard to see where it comes from.

So what's conservative in the United States, especially when it is questionable that what has strictly been labeled as 'conservative' has actually been that way?

[fly on the wall]

During the 2008 election, a lot of Republicans felt the need to distance themselves from the increasingly unpopular Bush administration. A common criticism was that Bush wasn't really a conservative. And yet a lot of people voted for him in 2000 and 2004. Did he fool all those voters? Did anybody here vote for Bush, only to later realize that he wasn't a conservative? If so, what changed your mind about Bush? And if Bush wasn't a conservative, what was he?

I never voted for Bush. Domestically he was somewhat liberal, the prescription drug thing for the elderly and his pro-amnesty stance on immigration.

I don't know how you would categorize all the wars he started. Neither liberal or conservative just reckless and dumb. And then there was Katrina, another PR nightmare. I don't know how Bush got elected twice.

[Acecool]

He lied all the time throughout the campaign about everything, big and small.

He said his mother sang him to sleep with the "Always Look for the Union Label" song, which was written when he was 27.

Here's a bunch more. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmExMjFlNzFmNWM5YWYwYzBiNWFmOTMzNmExOTkzZDU=

Wow, those are some terrible lies. My goodness, saying there weren't enough desks in a classroom when there where. Oh no! Its not like the hyperbole took away from his actual argument.

Lying about which song his mom sang to him. EEEK we should string him up.

Wondering if George bush has enough experience or not. Well we all know he didn't now.

Seriously these are the dumbest nit pickings I have ever seen.

At best they are exaggerations on Al Gore's part and no where near as bad as lying about tax shelters like George Bush in the 2004 election.

Or rush Limbaugh forcing his maid to illegally pick up prescriptions for him.

Or straight out lying the country into war that has cost lives and has nearly bankrupted the nation.

You have to get your priorities straight.

[metr0man]

Republicans started making that criticism when election season approached and they saw Bush's down-in-the-dumps approval ratings weren't rising. It wasn't because of anything Bush suddenly did. At least that's how it started among the right's thought leaders started making that criticism, and it filtered down to the party faithful.

It's "after the fact" criticism used to try and improve their credibility in the here and now.

[Nick Soapdish]

The word "conservative" has been abused and tortured by the Far Right for so long people can be forgiven for not quite getting what is and isn't conservative.

Here's a starter: can you picture what is being proposed coming from the mouth of Edmund Burke?

It wasn't torture. It was enhanced interrogation.

[Laurence]

I tend to see conservatism as being a centre-right position.

So, no. No he wasn't. But neither were the Republicans that distanced themselves from him.

[Alex]

We must check the definition.
Incredibly not safe for anyone.
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Conservatism

[MacQuarrie]

Wow, those are some terrible lies. My goodness, saying there weren't enough desks in a classroom when there where. Oh no! Its not like the hyperbole took away from his actual argument.

Lying about which song his mom sang to him. EEEK we should string him up.

Wondering if George bush has enough experience or not. Well we all know he didn't now.

Seriously these are the dumbest nit pickings I have ever seen.

At best they are exaggerations on Al Gore's part and no where near as bad as lying about tax shelters like George Bush in the 2004 election.

Or rush Limbaugh forcing his maid to illegally pick up prescriptions for him.

Or straight out lying the country into war that has cost lives and has nearly bankrupted the nation.

You have to get your priorities straight.
None of that has anything to do with my point, which was that a lot of people were voting against Gore in 2000, largely because of the way he campaigned.

The point is, Al Gore damaged his campaign by being seen as a chronic liar, which damaged the credibility of his alarmist tone regarding the environment, with the result that a lot of people who might have voted for him were turned off.

How could Bush's 2004 lies have damaged him in the 2000 election? Or his lying about a war that was still 2 years away? Limbaugh wasn't running for office, so his drug problems are irrelevant.

Don't move the goalposts.

[Paradox]

Having all the charisma of a stone didn't help him much, either.

[Michael P]

Most of Gore's "lies" were either misrepresentations of what he actually said or simply made up by Karl Rove and disseminated through right-wing hacks like Drudge, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly.

And campaigning with a plank of "Hey, we need to stop fucking up the environment" is hardly alarmist.

[Fenris]

For a lot of people, conservatism boils down to "Whatever the Republicans are doing this year." Obviously, that leads to some ridiculous conclusions, given that the Republicans are politicians first and philosophers a very distant second (third? Fourth? Twenty-seventh?)

The easy, vague answer is that conservatism is about the frailty of vital institutions, and the unpredictable nature of change; how every change has opportunity costs and transition costs, which we cannot always judge in advance, so it pays to be really careful and not make changes lightly.

But that is an almost-impossible argument to sell, politically: it's boring and pessimistic, and it's a lot more fun to yell. So the public face of conservatism is associated with Limbaugh and Beck, who are good at yelling.


õ
Alas and alack!

[rick]

Politically speaking despite hiding behind the name “Compassionate Conservative”, Bush, like all modern Republicans was a full blown fascist.

The fascist state imposes authority and then either alters or ignores the rights of citizens for the sake of both political expediency and to build and maintain power for the Supreme Leader.

The modern Republican Party is controlled by three separate types of fascists,. Political Fascists such as Bush who are interested in power for its own sake and have a limited “social” agenda. Religious Fascists such as James Dobson who have a limited interest in worldly interests but who wish to use government to force people to follow their social and religious dictates. And finally the “Greedy” Fascists such as Glen Beck, who push a fascist agenda because of what they can get out of it personally.

[rick]

The point is, Al Gore damaged his campaign by being seen as a chronic liar, which damaged the credibility of his alarmist tone regarding the environment, with the result that a lot of people who might have voted for him were turned off.


Gore did not damage his campaign by appearing to be a chronic liar. The Bush campaign succeeded in smearing Gore in the eyes of the public as a liar by misrepresenting, misquoting and straight out making up items to make Gore appear to be dishonest.

Now I grant you that Gore just stood there like a deer looking into headlights and let himself, just like Kerry would four years later, be painted in the worst possible terms in an election by their opponent. However we should not confuse the Bush campaign painting Gore as a liar as being the same thing as Gore having lied.


For buying into these Republican lies, and for letting these criminals steal an election and gain control of all three sections of the Federal government every American, but especially the ones who supported them, should feel deeply ashamed.

[Adam C]

The easy, vague answer is that conservatism is about the frailty of vital institutions, and the unpredictable nature of change; how every change has opportunity costs and transition costs, which we cannot always judge in advance, so it pays to be really careful and not make changes lightly.

But that is an almost-impossible argument to sell, politically: it's boring and pessimistic, and it's a lot more fun to yell. So the public face of conservatism is associated with Limbaugh and Beck, who are good at yelling.


That's probably the best general definition of "conservativism" I've seen on this thread and it's relation to the modern-day Republican party. The necessity of long-standing social institutions and the caution that comes with changing them warped into full-blow tribalism for the sake of expediency.

[RolandJP]

Ah the distancing of the GOP brand from Bush.


Is Cheney Conservative?

How about Karl Rove?

lol!

[Black Vespa]

was George W. Bush a conservative?

from a social conservative stance, yes : he enforced/encouraged (heh) a moral ideology principled in modern christian values: he was against abortion, stem cell research, supported the death penalty.

was he a fiscal conservative? HELL No. How could he be? - Tax cuts are one thing, but to do so, while jacking up the budget deficit through increased military spending...it was a recipe for disaster, that and last minute bailout plans set the table for the nation's current dilemma....then again, - why should anyone in government be accountable when they've got the fed to create a surplus of money out of thin air? ....i can feel a derailing tangent coming so i'll stop there.

[FanLove4Blade]

Neither of those are Conservative opinions; they are authoritarian religious positions. I know a lot of conservatives who support abortion for economic reasons: "abort them so I don't have to support the little welfare deadbeats and their mothers."

I think that they're socially conservative, not fiscally conservative. But how long does a position need to be held by "conservatives" before it becomes a conservative position.

Abortion has been a hot topic for the Republicans for as long as I've paid attention to politics (which is only a bit over 20 years, but still ...) and abstinence-only for nearly as long.

that and I've yetto see a left winger who believes in any of those views.

that and go by what someone else said, they some of them either see change the way they'd see a root canal - minus painkillers too - or else they accept changes as unavoidable and good but are real careful about it.

The beliefs I posted kinda fit in with that.

[Fenris]

That's probably the best general definition of "conservativism" I've seen on this thread and it's relation to the modern-day Republican party. The necessity of long-standing social institutions and the caution that comes with changing them warped into full-blow tribalism for the sake of expediency.

Aw, thank you! :)

I'm not really a Republican anymore; the party seems like some kind of remarkable artistic project to sink lower and lower, without limit, while everyone watches and wonders, "What can they possibly do next?"

At any rate, I don't expect anything from them. What third party I end up with is going to be... interesting.

õ
But then, it always is!

[mikekerr3]

Aw, thank you! :)

I'm not really a Republican anymore; the party seems like some kind of remarkable artistic project to sink lower and lower, without limit, while everyone watches and wonders, "What can they possibly do next?"

At any rate, I don't expect anything from them. What third party I end up with is going to be... interesting.

õ
But then, it always is!

The Repulicans are following their parent part the Whigs into oblivion , it seems.

But watching these lemmings run for the sea is fun.

[Fenris]

The Repulicans are following their parent part the Whigs into oblivion , it seems.

But watching these lemmings run for the sea is fun.

I suspect that the Republicans will last, despite whatever silliness they indulge in, until some other party comes along to fill in their niche. One third of the politically-involved population aren't just going to stop voting; they'll trudge along until they have something else worth voting for.

Organizational inertia can resist almost any amount of nonsense.

õ
A hypothesis that is being sharply tested!

[mikekerr3]

I suspect that the Republicans will last, despite whatever silliness they indulge in, until some other party comes along to fill in their niche. One third of the politically-involved population aren't just going to stop voting; they'll trudge along until they have something else worth voting for.

Organizational inertia can resist almost any amount of nonsense.

õ
A hypothesis that is being sharply tested!

The whigs probably thought the same thing:biggrin:

And their organization inertia has been moving with th e lemming for almost 30 years,. The rational part of the base looks to have gotten tired of being labeled RHINOs and has mostly bailed.

[wolvie616]

Neo-Cons are about as conservative as Nazis were Socialist.

Blah blah Godwin blah...

hey godwins law!:rolleyes:

well, now that I got that comment out of the way.....

I agree with the general consensus, in that he was socially conservative, which approved of, but was economically reckless and a bit autoritarian.

now the question is, are we ever going to have a morally upstanding canidate with sound economic plans and conservative ideas about the gov't?

hasn't happened in my lifetime. at least not in the two main parties........

[Michael P]

By the way, what's with the "was?" Last I checked, they're both still alive.

[mikekerr3]

By the way, what's with the "was?" Last I checked, they're both still alive.

Bush is about as relevant today as a pet rock:biggrin:

[mikekerr3]

By the way, what's with the "was?" Last I checked, they're both still alive.

Bush is about as relevant today as a pet rock:biggrin:

[o1pickleboy]

We must check the definition.
Incredibly not safe for anyone.
http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Conservatism

We have the same problem defining blue dogs

http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=284391

isn't nice that when someone says they are something politically that it means nothing because no one can agree on the definition

[Ontir]

I used to do fundraising for the Heritage Foundation. Their members were about 60% no. A good many of them were mad as hell at the things he was doing in his 2nd term, in particular. The only one they seemed to hate more, aside from the Mormon candidate (sorry, blanking on his name), was John McCain, whom large numbers referred to as "not a real Republican" when they were feeling generous.

[Nightcrawler]

the Mormon candidate (sorry, blanking on his name)

Mitt Romney

[Ontir]

Thank you. I tried and tried, it just wouldn't come!

[Acecool]

The real question here is, was Jesus a liberal?

Neat page.

http://www.jesusisaliberal.org/

[Paradox]

Ontir needs a new mental image:

Thank you. I tried and tried, it just wouldn't come!

Well, if you're thinking about Mitt Romney, I'm not surprised. :tongue:

[Gary_B]

George W. Bush was not a conservative.

He was a monkey!

http://www.bradler.com/images/bush-monkey.gif

Seriously, though, who the fuck cares what W was other than a nightmare that the entire planet had to endure for eight long years. Conservative, Republican, Corporate Puppet, Moron?

[StoneGold]

George W. Bush was not a conservative.

He was a monkey!


Sure, but I do the same thing with Obama and I'm a racist.

[Paradox]

Which of course, brings to mind the Eddie Murphy "Black people don't look like apes, white people do!" bit. :tongue: