More projection from the Calpundit:
Despite the supposed rightward drift of America since the early 80s, the fact is that most Americans actually have an increasingly liberal view of most issues: they like Social Security and Medicare, they like strong public schools, they prefer working with the UN to taking action unilaterally, and they are socially pretty tolerant. Taxes excepted, this is why Bush mostly has to advance the conservative agenda by stealth: if he spoke honestly about his goals he’d get very little support. And he knows it.
Talk amongst yourself.
Steve Malynn
Social Security is a conservative issue, we want it privatized so it will exist in 20 years; Medicare needs to be means tested (quit pandering); conservatives want strong public schools, not strong teachers unions peddling junk social science.
Any commentator who thinks the US public trusts the UN is not living in the same world.
Bush as a stealth conservative, I love it – Bush ran left on education, medicare, and right on taxes, social security and mature foreign policy. He’s a big government conservative who has been up front with what his goals are.
Ricky
This isn’t intended as a partisan shot, but I’m going to need some convincing as to why I should ever believe anything I read from that source, ever again. There’s a place for political partisanship, but not when it surpasses honesty and embraces conscious deceit.
michael
(Bush) (acting stealth)Sssssshhh, the American people (now shouting) DONT WANT TO KNOW THAT I PLAN ON TAX CUTS
If being stealth means speaking at a televised fundraiser to announce conservative plans….Yes indeed, Bush is quite the sneaky devil.
JKC
Yeah… you can’t trust anything that guy Frum writes… especially in a liberal rag like the National Review, which is full, FULL I tell you, of left-leaning com-symps like…
Oh… wait. Nevermind.
the talking dog
Actually, none of the above.
Bush was lucky enough to be able to run on “I won’t get blow jobs in the oval office”, and Al Gore was just a little too close to the guy who did.
Otherwise, Bush promised the magical combination of tax cuts, increased spending on defense and education and some other things, and a balanced budget by doing it. It worked fine, except for the last part.
I am amazed that there is anyone out there who is surprised by anything this Bush Administration has done. I think he has really been a testament to truth in advertising (except for the balanced budget part of course, but then, he TOLD us his tax policies and spending policies, now, didn’t he?)
I think Kevin is absolutely wrong on thinking that people have “liberal values”, per se. There are issue voters, character voters, and both and neither. Different circumstances also change people’s voting: under Clinton (after the Bush I recession, which was due to end at some point anyway) suddenly “policy” mattered and character didn’t; after the Clinton boom (which was going to come to an end anyway), suddenly the nation (at least 48% of it) felt prosperous enough to feel “character” mattered again. (Interesting that between Gore and Bush, that was the result– but there’s little question (IMHO) that Gore lost on character, not on policies; and yes, even though its liberal apostasy, Gore did, in fact, lose).
So, while people in general may LIKE Medicare, ed. spending, social security, etc.– they don’t always VOTE that way, so I have to take respectful disagreement with
Kevin on this one.
bittern
Having gotten such good sense out of a talking dog, I expect the humans will cease posting on this thread. I can’t say I’m surprised by anything this administration has done. But I disagree with this here dog on the truth in advertising. The man promised a foreign policy where we weren’t going to impinge our values on other countries (for better or worse), he promised to improve the tone in Washington, he promised to unite not divide, he promised to strengthen the military (versus run it down), and he promised to return honor and dignity to the White House. If you’re right that the last reference was entirely phallocentric, then he’s one for five on the promises I’ve selected. He’s pulled U-eys left and right. Wholly agree otherwise.
Inspector Callahan
I disagree with your assertions Bittern:
– foreign policy where we weren’t going to impinge our values on other countries.
Unless you mean Iraq, I’m not sure where that comes from. Unless freeing 23 million people from a ruthless dictator is impinging our values, then I guess you’re right.
-he promised to improve the tone in Washington.
In fairness, maybe this is impossible, but it doesn’t mean he hasn’t tried. If anything, the other side has ruined the tone by being more shrill than I’ve ever seen politicians act in my lifetime.
-he promised to unite not divide
When two groups have opposing opinions, and one group really tries to compromise, and the other group tries its hardest to score political points instead, how can you blame the guy who made the honest effort?
-he promised to strengthen the military
The military is stronger than under Clinton. I see no evidence otherwise.
-promised to return honor and dignity to the White House.
This must be the one of five. No BJ’s, no stolen fixtures, no missing letters on keyboards. So I guess we agree.
Those U-eys are called compromises. If the other side had done the same, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
If it were up to me and a lot of conservatives, I would have played hardball right back. GWB plays too nice with the Donks – they just stab him in the back for it anyway. Might as well fight back.
TV (Harry)
Dodd
You’re quite right that the tone in Washington has taken a turn for the worse since 2000. But if you mean to imply that Bush is to blame, I must disagree. The man is affable to a fault. His opponents are the ones spreading innuendos, filibustering minority appointees, ginning up scandals, constantly accusing him of every form of dishonour and iniquity known to man, comparing him to Hitler, and otherwise debasing public discourse. And yet, through it all, the only unkind words you ever hear him speak are for *America’s* enemies, not his domestic political ones.
bittern
I don’t find making up pet names for people affable. I don’t take him as affable at all, but I don’t know him personally, so it’s fairly speculative on my part to disagree. Just so, they seem a very hard-nosed team of fighters for something or other.
There were a number of House Democrats in the house that supported Bush’s plans. Crunched in the midterm by opponents recruited by the White House. Compromise? He may have co-opted some Dem issues but he doesn’t include Dems in drafting policies and legislation. Same with Congress, these days. His big gov’t conservatism is adopting, as changelings, all sorts of old big gov’t liberal ideas, but not through any cooperation or compromise. Unless you mean things like larding money for Louisiana projects into the farm bill. That one looked like it had some input for the votes gained. I’ll grant you that one.
Talk tough and carry a big stick. You’re either with us or against us. Take it or leave it. Carrot and stick. My way or the highway. Remake the world for freedom. The wisdom of all that is a different topic. It’s not what I heard him say as a candidate.
In my opinion, Inspector, you need to consider a wider set of news sources if you’re still on the stolen keys story. At some point, it gets hard to know what’s true and who to believe. Eh?
the talking dog
Bittern–
I think you’re confusing substance and style. Yes, Bush loses on “style points”; amidst a relatively hostile, Democratic controlled Texas state legislature, he was “conciliatory” and worked with the other party (seenig as he had to); so now that he controls both Houses of Congress, he’s abusive and a bully toward the other party. Again– should anyone really be surprised about that?
There’s really no such thing as a “compassionate conservative”; a “conservative” in the Bush-de Lay parlance means, simply, reducing social spending in cruel and nasty ways (sorry guys– take a look at the budget he just proposed). You can do that– and honestly, for those of us (sometimes myself) who think the government spends too damned much money, maybe we should do it. But please don’t call it COMPASSIONATE. Also– don’t call the “open season for polluters act” the “Clean Skies Initiative”. The Bush people do have this Orwellian problem. But as I see these things– all style points.
On substance, Bush told us in the campaign what he cared about: tax cuts for the affluent, passing something called an education bill (he abandoned vouchers– the only part that a lot of people, like me, actually liked!), increasing defense spending, more tax cuts for the wealthy, and, frankly, reducing America’s profile in the world (pre-9-11, by NOT engaging in annoying nation building instead of the reverse, but the objective, strangely, was achieved).
Excuse me, but Bush TOLD us what he wanted to do.
You can like what Bush has done (especially if you’re really affluent). You can hate it. But you can’t really deny that he said what he was going to do, and he did it. That’s almost unheard of in American politics, when you think about it.
Dodd
TD: I haven’t examined the budget in detail – I doubt anyone has, even on capital hill – but it seems to me that the major focus of spending reductions is to reduce funding for ineffectual and inefficient programs so that the ones that actually accomplish something can remain. There’s nothing “cruel and nasty” about that – it’s rather a lot like that whole Reinventing Gov’t thing that was so popular a few years ago.
Incidentally, Bush just signed a school voucher bill for DC despite heavy resistance from the Democrats. If not for some DC moms embarrassing ther hell out of a handful of Dem Senators, we wouldn’t have even seen that happen. So the fact that that was all he was able to accomplish has a lot more to do with Teddy Kennedy and the NEA than it does with him.
Ken Hahn
Sadly, I think Kevin has a point. The demand for government services is growing. Everyone wants cuts, so long as their pet program is fully funded. People vote on what a politicians promises to do for them, not on what he or she will do for the country. The trend toward big government is popular because every special interest is fed.
Here in California, we are spending not only our money, but our children’s and onto generations yet undreamed of. The only advertising and the only news stories are by and about groups pleading for MORE money. Bush is trying to promise just enough to get elected. He can’t outbid the Democrats who will promise anything to anybody to get a few votes.
Almost everyone believes that they are poor. The Democrats and their pet media feed this perception at every chance. Join the concepts of “soak the rich” and “there ought to be a law” and you can sell government expansion.
Bush is not a conservative. Like his father, he’s a moderate liberal who appears to be conservative only if viewed from the vicinity of Ted Kennedy. Both Bush and the Democrats will try to buy your vote. The difference is that the Dem’s think they have a limitless budget.
The American people are adopting liberal values because the so called conservatives in government are just go slow type liberals. Since the only reporting done on conservative values is sneering and negative, I doubt that many people will move that way. Kevin’s examples are weak but his basic premise does indeed provoke serious consideration.
Dodd
Some support for my contention (above) that Bush’s “cruel and nasty” budget cuts are in fact aimed at programs that don’t perform.
Brian
When CalPundit says “most Americans” , he really means “I.” Don’t bother with him.