With a hat tip to the smartest guys around, Powerline…
Deroy Murdoch comments on where we are, how we got there and what we need to do first in his latest NRO column…
I won’t bother with suspense to get to his money quote…
Once the GOP’s detritus is dislodged, rebuilding can begin. **The best way Republicans can redeem themselves is to ask daily: “What would Reagan do?”**
It’s no secret that I’m no fan of George W. Bush. I think history will show, and certainly any history of conservative leaders will show, that GWB is arguably the worst President in the last century.
On the “good” side, I think his initial run at foreign policy was excellent. The first version of the “Bush Doctrine” was right on the money, it was clear and unambiguous. Unfortunately, over a very short time, it – like most of Bush’s other initiatives – got muddled and misdirected. Bush was right to go into Iraq, and we’ve not had a terrorist attack aimed at the US outside of Iraq or Afghanistan since 9/11. The President should get credit for that accomplishment. He’s also given us two good SCOTUS justices after the Myers debacle. And then, we can’t forget… Oh yeah, there wasn’t anything else.
Deroy Murdoch hammers the nail home.
Comrade George W. Bush has spearheaded the most aggressive federal expansion since Franklin Delano Roosevelt. As a delivery system for socialism, he has been the most effective Trojan Horse since that pine steed rolled into Troy.When Bush arrived, Washington consumed 18.4 percent of Gross Domestic Product. Uncle Sam now devours 22.5 percent of the economy…
President Bush never made any bones about the fact that he wasn’t a small government conservative. He campaigned in 2000 as a “compassionate conservative” and proposed various government expansions (NCLB for one) as a candidate. He also promised that an expansion of the Department of Education would get us vouchers to expand “choice” in education, and he promised to veto campaign finance reform legislation. He gave away the farm on both counts. And, speaking of the farm, he bought it back with current Farm Bill and with his ethanol cave in that has driven up the price of food so we put corn in our gas tanks. Heaven forbid that we should drill for oil when we’ve got corn.
Nevertheless, Bush is the GOP’s Jimmy Carter, a weak bumbler who embarrassed his constituents, betrayed his philosophical movement, sank his party, and eventually surrendered the White House to the opposition, this time led by the Senate’s Number One liberal, still in his first term. Bush should retire quietly to Texas, where he can drive his truck, chop wood, and avoid the limelight for the balance of his natural existence.
Bush could use someone to sweep the leaves at his ranch. I nominate Karl Rove. Why on Earth is he always on TV spewing advice? As “the architect” of the oxymoronic Big Government Conservatism, he counseled Bush to solidify power by spending like a Democrat, slapping tariffs on steel, and locking away his veto pen for six years. Under Rove, the administration’s communications efforts made the Tower of Babel sound like a news channel.
Herein is my only quibble with Mr. Murdoch. He rightly cites the President’s betrayal of those of us who elected him. Twice. And his inability to communicate. And his penchant for taking bad advice. What he leaves out is the President’s virtually complete silence in the face of relentless attacks by Democrats and the press (but I repeat myself), on Iraq and on every other issue they could find a headline. The President promised a Newtone™, and we got it. It sounded a lot like chirping crickets from our side. He allowed Democrats to out-and-out lie about events and issues (16 Words & Plame for easy examples) and he not only didn’t set them straight, he actually agreed with them.
And then there’s the NYT and WaPo publishing top secret information on the War on Terror. What did the President do? He made an angry sounding statement. And then… zip. He could have asked DoJ to impanel a federal grand jury to investigate the leaks, have subpoenaed the writers and editors of the NYT and WaPo and when they refused to give up their sources tossed them in jail for the duration of the grand jury. And then empaneled another one immediately upon the expiration of that grand jury. But no, that wouldn’t be nice. And heck, it’s only national security. And we wouldn’t want the NYT and WaPo or the TV networks or CNN upset with the Administration, they might start slanting their news coverage. Oh. Yeah.
Murdoch does get right back on track though.
With few exceptions, Republican congressional leaders cheered this elephantiasis amid an atmosphere of corruption, incompetence, and unaccountability. Top Senate Republican Mitch McConnell, House GOP chief John Boehner, House Republican whip Roy Blunt, and other failed leaders should go warm the back benches.
Not much I can add to that. Except maybe a few more names.
Murdoch doesn’t just wallow in the negative, he’s got some excellent advice for us with respect to the Congress…
Americans should listen to Republicans who courageously advance pro-market principles today. Senators Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn would make outstanding GOP honchos. House Republicans should elevate Jeff Flake, Mike Pence, Jeb Hensarling, and John Shadegg to key positions.
Mr. Murdoch ends his column with the comment about Reagan that I started with. If the foundation of the Republican Party is anything other than the conservative, small government principles espoused by Ronald Reagan we will be in the wilderness for a whole lot more than the forty years we wandered there the last time. Let’s hope we’ve learned our lesson about moderates, those who need a modifying adjective in front of “conservative” and those who worship at the altar of “bipartisanship”. While we certainly want them to vote Republican, they are not the focus of the Party of Reagan because they stand for “good government” not “less government” and the former will always give us more government.
If we’re going to get out of the wilderness we need solid, committed, conservative leadership. We need a “smaller government” platform that focuses on fiscal responsibility and individual responsibility. We also need to understand that the current version of the Democratic Party is the antithesis of the vision the Founding Fathers had for America and that we are in a war for the very soul of the Nation. The Democrats understand that, we don’t. Hopefully we will and our new Party leadership will reflect that.
In closing, so we have a clear picture of the home for all those who got us to where we are…
)
Jeff Emanuel
Neil Stevens
Caleb Howe
A Truly Ridiculous Claim
IJB Sunday, November 16th at 7:02PM EDT (link)I think history will show, and certainly any history of conservative leaders will show, that GWB is arguably the worst President in the last century.
This is so jaw-droppingly wrong-headed that it needs to be pointed out. Worse than Wilson? FDR? Carter?! Johnson?!!!
OK, you don’t like a lot of what GWB did. We get it. FTR, I don’t either.
But to fully submerge yourself in BDS does yourself or your credibility no favors, and does nothing for our cause.
If you want a lot of us to read what you have to say in the rest of your diaries, MBecker, cut the dross.
Worst? Arguably, yes.
mbecker908 (Diary) Sunday, November 16th at 8:17PM EDT (link)I happen to think that they all fall into the same pot. Bush has left us, as a Party, basically leaderless for the last six years. His unwillingness to defend his foreign policy or his use of the military could well forestall their use in a meaningful, unilateral way in the future. On the economy, he had the right instincts but never bothered to build any kind of support – even in the Republican Party – in Congress and we are in a recession that could turn into a depression because of his inaction.
Obviously time will tell. If you think he’s better than any you mentioned, please note why. Frankly, of the ones you mention only Carter might edge him out as worse. Another good candidate would be Herbert Hoover who left office in a depression and pretty well managed to destroy the Republican Party in the process.
So...
Deleteme (Diary) Wednesday, December 3rd at 8:59PM EDT (link)If Carter “might edge him out as worse” and possibly Herbert Hoover, then why say President Bush is “arguably the worst?”
It’s because you’re waffling. You can’t bring yourself to outright call him the worst president of the century (because you know it’s not true). So instead, you say “arguably.”
Oh, and by the way, I don’t think snide remarks about a sitting U.S. President is something Reagan would do.
Arguably because...
mbecker908 (Diary) Wednesday, December 3rd at 9:16PM EDT (link)a good case can be made for any one of the three you mention, and Wilson as well.
I’m not waffling at all. I’ll put in plain language for you:
George W. Bush has been an utterly pathetic President. He initiated some very good policies and followed up on exactly none of them. He nominated excellent candidates for judicial and executive positions and, when confronted with Democratic delay did nothing to push their nominations to a vote. He stood by while members of the intelligence community openly gave classified documents to the WaPo and NYT and he did exactly nothing (other than making one short speech) to find out who did it and punish the offenders. And he took no punitive actions against the newspapers either. He campaigned in 2000 as an almost conservative and then sold the farm after he was elected. He signed NCLB after support for charter schools and vouchers, which he’d promised in the campaign, were stripped out by Teddy Kennedy. He allowed the Congress to spend like drunken sailors and offered absolutely no restraint. He stood by and said absolutely nothing while the media and the Democrats savaged his policies with lies and distortions. At the end of his term, because of his complete lack of leadership, the Republican Party was in a shambles and is perceived by the voting public to fundamentally stand for nothing.
I haven’t even scratched the surface on his ignoring the economic realities of federal guarantees and entitlements that may crush the economy.
Right now it’s too soon to tell if he’s worse than Carter. Give me ten years and I’ll tell you. He’s absolutely worse than either Wilson or Hoover. I hope he has a nice retirement and we never hear from him on any subject even remotely related to government.
Good counterpoints
Deleteme (Diary) Sunday, December 7th at 3:21PM EDT (link)I still have one question for you, however. Do you think Bush-bashing is something Reagan would engage in?
If so, could you elaborate?
If not, then how do you reconcile Murdoch’s quote at the beginning of your post with everything that follows?
Ever wonder why?
SteveLA (Diary) Sunday, December 7th at 3:38PM EDT (link)mbecker
I’ve pondered the “why” behind the issues that you point out with President Bush, which I mostly agree with.
My thinking goes along the line of President Bush put so much on the line in Iraq that he felt that alienating anyone, Democrat or Republican in Congress or the Senate would have undermined his very weak hold on being able to continue his strategy in Iraq.
By going along with profligate Republican spending, by folding on his comprehensive immigration reform proposals, by any number of fights not fought, President Bush drew the line of success and failure of his Presidency around his policy in Iraq even more tightly.
It will be interesting to see how history, your 10 years later look, will judge President Bush. Right now it all depends on how Obama leaves Iraq, ether rapidly resulting in a failure of the infant Democracy in the country, or some other way, and for that matter on how the Iraqi people handle their own affairs once our military footprint is reduced.
I tend to think, history of the Bush years will be a bit like how Truman’s legacy has evolved over time.
______________________________________
Competency over ideological purity and litmus tests
I agree, SteveLA. But what about the support of the 'Security Prosperity Partnership
Xasteius (Diary) Sunday, December 7th at 4:07PM EDT (link)If you take out the war on terror and Bush’s support of the military, he basically is Carter.
Mbecker, you forgot his support of the
Don’t leave the party, hijack it back!
The only poll that counts is the one at the ballot box.
I don’t want to be Reagan. I want to be a Chance/Soros hybrid.
Off the tracks
SteveLA (Diary) Sunday, December 7th at 4:18PM EDT (link)zsmvf6
No I think you’re wrong there about bush being Carter, at least at the core level.
President Bush made a decision to invade Iraq, once he made that decision, all other issues to him became secondary. Other issues were worth fighting for, but only to the extent that they did not cause risk to the primary objective of waging war on Terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan. There were glimmers of other conservative principles at work in the Bush Presidency, but when they became conflict points, or rather ran the risk of derailing the primary objective they became secondary.
In some ways, President Bush by having a Hawk VP in Dick Cheney (who does not do warm and fuzzy) had no back pressure to do much on other issues outside of the war on terrorism. I’d point out that the VP was invisible during Katrina, and during just about anything that has confronted this nation except the war on terrorism.
In fact, Bush has been successful in keeping this country safe post 9/11, but at a cost. History will judge the success of combating terrorism and for that matter the state of everything else once President Bush leaves office.
Carter was successful in selling more sweaters, that’s about it.
______________________________________
Competency over ideological purity and litmus tests
Carter was unique.
Diogenes314 (Diary) Sunday, December 7th at 4:38PM EDT (link)Comparing Bush to Carter is lame.
He was a political unknown who was a lightweight on forign policy and economics. He won because of depressed voter turnout in the GOP in an election where many said there was nothing to differentiate the two candidates. He was helped by a sour economy and running against a candidate who ran a lousy campaign, who was disliked by many in his party and unfavorably likened with the massivly unpopular president who won the last two elections, even though he was the Democrats favorite Republican before being elevated.
Why does this seem familiar?
yes he was
kyle8 (Diary) Sunday, December 7th at 6:35PM EDT (link)He combined the heart of a scold
the disposition of a Puritan
the economics knowledge of a soap dish
the common sense of an academic
The morality of a hypocrite
and a heaping helping of arrogant self assurance.
May his kind never again win public office.
“Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty”
Kyle
Tommy Wilson without a doubt.
Diogenes314 (Diary) Sunday, December 7th at 3:41PM EDT (link)He ran for re-election on an anti-war platform, immediatly got us into a war that was winding down, sanctioned measures that would insure the next one in order to get his League of Nations through, and adopted policies that would be the inspiration for the new Fascist governments of Europe.
Just off the top of my head.
Night of the Long Knives????
Diogenes314 (Diary) Sunday, December 7th at 3:58PM EDT (link)If comparing your political opponents to Nazis is over the top, what is comparing your party to them?