[Psudo]

Many (Zipperfish, for example) have claimed that the conservative claim that Bush had too many liberal policies is a new thing, spawned on the eve of the 2008 election as damage control against Bush's dramatic unpopularity. So today I was taking a walk down Nostalgia Lane and reading some of my posts from 2005 in an extremely right-wing forum I frequented (namely, Ann Coulter's forum). Apparently, I started a thread back then entitled "Why Bush Rocks" and listing some points of praise. I was surprised (then; I know better now) that it got some rather significant backlash from right-wingers indicating that no, he in fact did not rock on several fronts.

If you have an account, you can see the thread in question. It's a little more difficult a process than the average forum, but if you doubt my word it'll provide substantiation.

Some responses to "Why Bush Rocks":

GaShooter wrote:

LOL spending cuts. Thats a funny one.

AvgDude wrote:

-Because he's putting a halt to the welfare state... Nope. He's actually expanding it.
-Because he's doing something about illegal immigration... Nope. He's actually encouraging it.
-Because he doesn't by into liberal nonsense about social engineering and poverty... Nope. He's appears to have swallowed the bait.

coelacanth wrote:

Psudo wrote:

Spending Cuts

I also included a poll that allowed respondents to place Bush just above one of the following figures: Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, and Saddam. In the right-wing world, this is considered a gradient scale. 5% said Better than Reagan, 55% Bush 41, 25% Clinton, and 15% Saddam. Ergo, a third of the 64 respondents from this this very right-wing group still preferred Bush 41, and 10 of them even preferred Clinton!

The last post in the thread is dated Sep 28, 2005. I offer this as proof that 1) I used to be a naive Bush fanboy, for which I hereby apologize and repent, and 2) the mainstream of conservatives were less naive and already clearly recognized Dubya was liberal on various issues at least three years before the 2008 election. Thus, the criticism didn't appear as election-year damage control, as has been alleged.

For those of you who don't give a flying crap, I apologize for the self-indulgent thread.

[Pseudonym]

While I concur that Bush supported some policies which did not fly with the conservative mainstream, the fact that you made this argument on the Ann Coulter forums is not going to fly as a "mainstream" conservative opinion. Expect that point to be attacked by those who wish to point to Bush as the exemplar of conservative politics. Perhaps you should preempt that argument by finding other sources indicating where Bush departed from his base, such as on the immigration issue and No Child Left Behind.

[OPP]

There is a two party system in the U.S for a reason. It's to make sure that no significant change is made so that this countrie continues the same policies for decades to come. The false left right paradigm seems to be alive and well, still.

[CanadianJeff]

Quote:

the mainstream of conservatives were less naive and already clearly recognized Dubya was liberal

I would argue the reason Dubya failed was he was far too inconsistent with either being liberal or being radically conservative. the man had no balance and no clear set plan in his policies. One minute he passes Medicare D (a very liberal policy) and the next he starts vetoing any and all homosexual and abortion laws while passing more programs and more funding for the War in Iraq which is a very conservative policy.

He was totally and utterly unbalanced. I may be a bit of a centrist myself but I would have taken care in office with the republican party to take on a very moderate conservative stance. Especially when appointing my cabinet.

Of course it doesn't help that Bush has Cheney right there with him the whole time whispering in his ear. I think Cheney rightfully represents what I dislike about the republican party.

[Sapio]

Bush is very very liberal. Liberal spend billions.. no trillions of other people money. He started the "no child left behind". He increase media care spending.

Need I saw more. That being said my idea of Conservative is very different form main people.

[Pseudonym]

Sapio wrote:

Bush is very very liberal. Liberal spend billions.. no trillions of other people money. He started the "no child left behind". He increase media care spending.

Need I saw more. That being said my idea of Conservative is very different form main people.

As always, it is important to define terms. Bush was socially conservative and fiscally liberal, meaning he loved unborn babies and also loved spending other people's money to do "nice things."

[Taospark]

OPP wrote:

There is a two party system in the U.S for a reason. It's to make sure that no significant change is made so that this countrie continues the same policies for decades to come. The false left right paradigm seems to be alive and well, still.

Hey, don't knock it. The system almost kept out Johnson and Nixon.

[JJ]

OPP wrote:

There is a two party system in the U.S for a reason. It's to make sure that no significant change is made so that this countrie continues the same policies for decades to come. The false left right paradigm seems to be alive and well, still.

As opposed to say, a healthy, vibrant democracy like Sweden, in which there is oh-so-much genuine, substantial ideological difference between the two major political parties.