Conservatives to Bush: You Suck

[mofish]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03_pf.html

At Conservative Forum on Bush, Everybody's a Critic

By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, March 8, 2006; A02



If the ancient political wisdom is correct that a charge unanswered is a charge agreed to, the Bush White House pleaded guilty yesterday at the Cato Institute to some extraordinary allegations.

"We did ask a few members of the Bush economic team to come," explained David Boaz, the think tank's executive vice president, as he moderated a discussion between two prominent conservatives about President Bush. "We didn't get that."

Now why would the administration pass up such an invitation?

Well, it could have been because of the first speaker, former Reagan aide Bruce Bartlett. Author of the new book "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy," Bartlett called the administration "unconscionable," "irresponsible," "vindictive" and "inept."

It might also have had something to do with speaker No. 2, conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan. Author of the forthcoming "The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It; How to Get It Back," Sullivan called Bush "reckless" and "a socialist," and accused him of betraying "almost every principle conservatism has ever stood for."

Nor was moderator Boaz a voice of moderation. He blamed Bush for "a 48 percent increase in spending in just six years," a "federalization of public schools" and "the biggest entitlement since LBJ."

True, the small-government libertarians represented by Cato have always been the odd men out of the Bush coalition. But the standing-room-only forum yesterday, where just a single questioner offered even a tepid defense of the president, underscored some deep disillusionment among conservatives over Bush's big-spending answer to Medicare and Hurricane Katrina, his vast claims of executive power, and his handling of postwar Iraq.

Bartlett, who lost his job at the free-market National Center for Policy Analysis because of his book, said that if conservatives were honest, more would join his complaint. "They're reticent to address the issues that I've raised for fear that they might have to agree with them," he told the group. "And a lot of Washington think tanks and groups of that sort, they know that this White House is very vindictive."

Waiting for the talk to start, some in the audience expressed their ambivalence.

"It's gonna hit the [bestseller] lists, I'm sure," said Cato's legal expert, Roger Pilon.

"Typical Bruce," replied John Taylor of the Virginia Institute for Public Policy.

Admitted Pilon: "He's got a lot of material to work with."

Bartlett certainly thought so. He began by predicting a big tax increase "to finance the inevitable growth of government that is in the pipeline that President Bush is largely responsible for." He also said many fellow conservatives don't know about the "quite dreadful" traits of the administration, such as the absence of "anybody who does any serious analysis" on policy issues.

Boaz assured the audience that he told the White House that "if there's a rebuttal to what Bruce has said, please come and provide it."

Instead, Sullivan was on hand to second the critique. "This is a big-government agenda," he said. "It is fueled by a new ideology, the ideology of Christian fundamentalism." The bearded pundit offered his own indictment of Bush: "complete contempt" for democratic processes, torture of detainees, ignoring habeas corpus and a "vast expansion of the federal government." The notion, he said, that the "Thatcher-Reagan legacy that many of us grew up to love and support would end this way is an astonishing paradox and a great tragedy."

The question period gave the two a chance to come up with new insults.

"If Bush were running today against Bill Clinton, I'd vote for Clinton," Bartlett served.

"You have to understand the people in this administration have no principles," Sullivan volleyed. "Any principles that get in the way of the electoral map have to be dispensed with."

Boaz renewed his plea. "Any Bush economists hiding in the audience?"

There was, in fact, one Bush Treasury official on the attendance roster, but he did not surface. The only man who came close to defending Bush, environmental conservative Fred Singer, said he was "willing to overlook" the faults because of the president's Supreme Court nominations. Even Richard Walker, representing the think tank that fired Bartlett, declined to argue. "I agree with most of it," he said later.

Unchallenged, the Bartlett-Sullivan tag team continued. "The entire intellectual game has been given away by the Republican president," said Sullivan. "He's a socialist in so many respects, a Christian socialist."

Bartlett argued that Richard Nixon "is the model for everything Bush is doing."

Sullivan said Karl Rove's political strategy is "pathetic."

Bartlett said that "the administration lies about budget numbers."

"He is not a responsible human being; he is a phenomenally reckless human being," Sullivan proclaimed. "There is a level of recklessness involved that is beyond any ideology."

"Gosh," Boaz interjected. "I wish we had a senior White House aide up here."

[Spazz]

I have a hard time seeing how anyone after these past 6 years and all these fuck ups later would support or defend bush.

[Tacks]

Theres a husband and wife team on this board who would suck Bush's dick of he asked them to. Bahhh says the sheep.

[Martrae]

I agree. Bush's spending is out of control and he's increased government instead of lessening it.

[Spazz]

So do you still support him or have you seen the error of your ways ?

[Lyion]

Calling Andew Sullivan a conservative is like calling Newt Gingrich a liberal because he says he is. A complete misrepresentation of the facts and truth.

I like Andrew Sullivan but he stopped being even a moderate years ago and is more liberal than most democrats. The guy was a huge Kerry supporter in the last election.

[Tossica]

Doesn't change the fact that Bush is the worst pile of shit president this country has seen in my lifetime.

[Martrae]

He hasn't done too bad a job overall. There's some things I'd wish he'd do differently.

He's still 10x better than Kerry would have been.

[Jay]

He hasn't done too bad a job overall. There's some things I'd wish he'd do differently.

He's still 10x better than Kerry would have been.

Since his presidency we've lost the world trade center, billions upon trillions of dollars, over 2000 soldiers and New Orleans. Yeah, not a bad job at all.

[Lyion]

It's somewhat of a silly stretch to blame 9/11 and Katrina on W. The Iraq War, sure. Cowboy foreign relations, absolutely. Cronyism, definitely. However you show your colors when you blame terrorist strikes and natural disasters on any government official.

[mofish]

He hasn't done too bad a job overall. There's some things I'd wish he'd do differently.

He's still 10x better than Kerry would have been.

This is laughable. The Bush presidency is a complete disaster. We dont even have to wait for history to bear this claim out; its so bad only a select few retards and of course the Christian fundamentalists deny it. Your 10X better than Kerry president would be facing impeachment on the lies he used to bring us into Iraq and the illegal wiretapping if just one house was controlled by the dems.

He also has the worst approval rating since Nixon. And Nixon was 100 times the intellect of Chucklenutz. That's some guy!

[Arlos]

The actual disaster, no. The cronyism you admit to resulting in having no one in positions of power to be able to react capably to the natural disaster, which greatly compounded the impact and human suffering, oh yes.

As for 9/11, I actually happen to believe Richard Clarke's allegations, and have read his book, which supports them pretty well.

I blame him for being in Iraq in the first place, and furthermore, blame him and his administration for having NO plan in place for post-war reconstruction. Hell, people here on NT predicted there'd be a rebellion if we invaded, and that it would turn into a quagmire, they went in predicting flowers and parades. Remember when Wolfowitz sat there before Congress and said the cost to the american taxpayer would be no more than 2-10 billion, period? Missed that by what, a couple orders of magnitude, at least?

I was in support of invading Afghanistan, but I definitely opposed how they did it, only sending a small force, cause they were building up for invading Iraq at the time. We won, but have also botched it up, as we didn't catch most of the Taliban OR most of Al-Qaida either. Warlords are back in the remoter areas of the country, and the opium poppy trade is back, and providing a direct money funnel to terrorist organizations again.

There's too many other issues to list on which I'm opposed to him, but some include: the expansion of the power of the executive, the nixonian secrecy with which they run their administration, the way they have re-opened the environment to rape by big business, the way they've completely kowtowed to every whim or wish of big business, cuts in college student funding, the Patriot Act & illegal no-warrant wiretapping in defiance of FISA law, etc. etc. etc.

I agree with Tossica, he's the 2nd-worst president I've seen in my lifetime, and that INCLUDES Carter. The only one worse was Nixon, and it wouldn't surprise me one iota if Bush's cronies had organizations and activities as bad as anything from CREP or the Plumbers. I predict that 50 years from now, people will be at a complete loss as to how he could've gotten re-elected given his performance over the first 4 years.

-Arlos

[Jay]

It's somewhat of a silly stretch to blame 9/11 and Katrina on W. The Iraq War, sure. Cowboy foreign relations, absolutely. Cronyism, definitely. However you show your colors when you blame terrorist strikes and natural disasters on any government official.

As in business, losses occur. Sometimes those losses can't be blamed on anything, similar to a natural disaster or a terrorist strike. The saving grace when it comes to big losses is that everything possible was done and that it wasn't something that coulda been helped or avoided. Could he have done more to prevent these disasters or lessen the blow? Maybe not prevent in some cases, but definately coulda helped a lot more. I think if he was truly as prepared as he shoulda been we'd still have a New Orleans. 9/11 was probably unavoidable. I won't even start with the direction we went in post 9/11 though. That's a whole nother 4 threads. Again I say, yeah, I guess he didn't do such a bad job overall...not. Bill was 20x the president he is. If you do the math with their approval ratings, 20x might even be a literal figure.

[Captain Insano]

You know something... I think bush is an OK at best president. I think Kerry would have been a natural disaster had he been elected.

I have some thoughts though about things that have really made bush look bad, namely the war on terror/afghanistan/iraq.


Here goes:

I think it has been and will continue to be, the U.S. governments policy to put governmental pawns and/or dictators in positions of power in order to keep other nations from gaining power; I also think this is a tried and true method used to force other nations to submit to our will and also a method to gather extreme wealth. The main mechanism for accomplishing that is by going to war.

Take afghanistan for example...The current president of afghanistan is a big energy buddy of a lot of the oil companies. He is now allowing the US to use his country to transport all sorts of oil/natural gas etc and consequently helping our country get richer.

Iraq... Lets be honest here. No one really gives a shit about muslims. We are just their to stabilize the region and get extremely lucrative oil contracts in the future.

I know this all sounds terrible and "how could we do something like that?!". But, lets be honest here...Americans enjoy a pretty high quality of life thanks to our international tyranny.


If we just went ahead and left everyone alone they would have to learn to fend for themselves and might actually turn into powerful self sustaining nations that didn't need the U.S.

How much money would we lose if that happened?

Here's another thing...The economy was in the complete shitter up until this little faux-war we started. Now things are back on the rebound hardcore. Lets face it...When times are tough go pick a fight. It's the ultimate economic recovery tool.

Had all the other pussy ass Euro nations and those faggots in Canada actually got involved we could have really started some shit and the world's economy would be booming right now.


Bush is a dumbass... That is true. That being said, I think their is a lot more going on behind the scenes in support of keeping and growing American weath and power than most average Americans know, or frankly, would like to know. I don't think it is just Bush, I think imperialism has become a cornerstone of American world dominance and is essential to maintaining the flow of wealth into our country, as well as maintaining our quality of living.

I would say also that my statement is completely bipartisan. Whether we have a democrat in the house or a republican, we will continue to take what we need to stay on top through the use of aggressive political manuevering or military might.

[Lyion]

W's poll numbers are similar to Clintons, actually overall a bit higher. Which is meaningless, as polls are very easily manipulated, as Zogby has proven.

W has many issues, but there is fair discussion regarding issues, and blind partisan hatred, which would be many who would froth regarding anyone with an (R) who was elected. It gets old reading pure malicious overt untruths simply due to that partisan anger.

I personally dislike W's domestic agenda, outsourcing friendly policies, immigration policies, and lack of vision in regards to many things. However, Katrina was the result of bureaucracy and a complete failure at every level, but primarily the local and state level. First responders are not federal and the state controls it's own areas.

I think his legacy depends on how Iraq and the terror war ends up. Given the state of the economy, the recovery post 9/11, the actual backbone he has shown to foreign powers which is nice after Clinton who couldn't sneeze without a poll, and his Dad, who was way too accomodating, I think the country could be in better shape for the future.

Hopefully the DNC will become a strong opponent, instead of just spouting the kind of nastiness that I see from many here. But I doubt it, which means the RNC will control the entire government, which it really shouldn't.

I think if Iraq ends successfully, given the return of Libya to the world community, the many pushes for democracy, the overthrow of the Taliban, and the other major international accomplishments in the light of foreign political corruption, W will end up in the top 10 Presidents of all time.

Then again some in this thread think Carter was a better President than Reagan, which flies in the face of any logic and reason.

[Markarado]

What many non-Americans fail to realize is that when the American economy improves so does everyone else's.

I agree with Captain completely on the issue of money. Every super power in the history of the world has worked to dominate the rest of the world for it's own economic gain. In comparison we go about it pretty damn nicely.

[Drem]

W's poll numbers are similar to Clintons, actually overall a bit higher. Which is meaningless, as polls are very easily manipulated, as Zogby has proven.

W has many issues, but there is fair discussion regarding issues, and blind partisan hatred, which would be many who would froth regarding anyone with an (R) who was elected. It gets old reading pure malicious overt untruths simply due to that partisan anger.

I personally dislike W's domestic agenda, outsourcing friendly policies, immigration policies, and lack of vision in regards to many things. However, Katrina was the result of bureaucracy and a complete failure at every level, but primarily the local and state level. First responders are not federal and the state controls it's own areas.

I think his legacy depends on how Iraq and the terror war ends up. Given the state of the economy, the recovery post 9/11, the actual backbone he has shown to foreign powers which is nice after Clinton who couldn't sneeze without a poll, and his Dad, who was way too accomodating, I think the country could be in better shape for the future.

Hopefully the DNC will become a strong opponent, instead of just spouting the kind of nastiness that I see from many here. But I doubt it, which means the RNC will control the entire government, which it really shouldn't.

I think if Iraq ends successfully, given the return of Libya to the world community, the many pushes for democracy, the overthrow of the Taliban, and the other major international accomplishments in the light of foreign political corruption, W will end up in the top 10 Presidents of all time.

Then again some in this thread think Carter was a better President than Reagan, which flies in the face of any logic and reason.

This post made me want to kill myself when I read it. Especially the last two paragraphs.

[Yamori]

I think the history books would be too kind if they remember Bush as a reckless and irresponsible piece of shit who wasted money and lives and undermined the basic foundations of the country at any opportunity he could.

[Ouchyfish]

W's poll numbers are similar to Clintons, actually overall a bit higher. Which is meaningless, as polls are very easily manipulated, as Zogby has proven.

W has many issues, but there is fair discussion regarding issues, and blind partisan hatred, which would be many who would froth regarding anyone with an (R) who was elected. It gets old reading pure malicious overt untruths simply due to that partisan anger.

I personally dislike W's domestic agenda, outsourcing friendly policies, immigration policies, and lack of vision in regards to many things. However, Katrina was the result of bureaucracy and a complete failure at every level, but primarily the local and state level. First responders are not federal and the state controls it's own areas.

I think his legacy depends on how Iraq and the terror war ends up. Given the state of the economy, the recovery post 9/11, the actual backbone he has shown to foreign powers which is nice after Clinton who couldn't sneeze without a poll, and his Dad, who was way too accomodating, I think the country could be in better shape for the future.

Hopefully the DNC will become a strong opponent, instead of just spouting the kind of nastiness that I see from many here. But I doubt it, which means the RNC will control the entire government, which it really shouldn't.

I think if Iraq ends successfully, given the return of Libya to the world community, the many pushes for democracy, the overthrow of the Taliban, and the other major international accomplishments in the light of foreign political corruption, W will end up in the top 10 Presidents of all time.

Then again some in this thread think Carter was a better President than Reagan, which flies in the face of any logic and reason.

I take back anything I have ever said badly about you. Out of all of this venomous bullshit, you are the only one other than Insano to talk sense.

Everyone else sounds like a bunch of drunk football fans in Manchester. "BUSH SOOKS AYIGHT! DOWN WIT WAWR AYIGHT!"

[Lyion]

This post made me want to kill myself when I read it. Especially the last two paragraphs.

Thats just EQ withdrawal.

[Martrae]

I take back anything I have ever said badly about you. Out of all of this venomous bullshit, you are the only one other than Insano to talk sense.

Everyone else sounds like a bunch of drunk football fans in Manchester. "BUSH SOOKS AYIGHT! DOWN WIT WAWR AYIGHT!"

I resent this post.

[Lyion]

Yamori, uber time traveller~~

I think the history books would be too kind if they remember Lincoln as a reckless and irresponsible piece of shit who wasted money and lives and undermined the basic foundations of the country at any opportunity he could.

I think the history books would be too kind if they remember FDR as a reckless and irresponsible piece of shit who wasted money and lives and undermined the basic foundations of the country at any opportunity he could.

I think the history books would be too kind if they remember JFK as a reckless and irresponsible piece of shit who wasted money and lives and undermined the basic foundations of the country at any opportunity he could.

I think the history books would be too kind if they remember Reagan as a reckless and irresponsible piece of shit who wasted money and lives and undermined the basic foundations of the country at any opportunity he could.

[Drem]

This post made me want to kill myself when I read it. Especially the last two paragraphs.

Thats just EQ withdrawal.

No, it's just utter disbelief...

[Martrae]

How many years until you hit 30?

[mappatazee]

what's up drem are you busy can you sign on aim