Strengthening Constitutional Self-Government

No Left Turns

More on the Bush legacy in ’08

Having been given an opening by Huckabee, Mitt Romney is trying to appeal to those who have remained loyal to the President. For evidence of this new Romney theme, go here and here.

Discussions - 7 Comments

Just another flip flop by ole Mitt. Look Huckabee supported Bush his whole Presidency and said one small thing about an admitted failure in Bush's foreign policy. I love Bush, but it's no secret that he has not been a good diplomat. Romney meanwhile did not support Bush and campaigned against the Bush/Reagan Republicans and as governor separated himself often. Now in a blatant appeal for votes he's trying to pretend that Bush is his best buddy. Romney's political amateur show continues...

You haven't made a case that Romney is insincere now, whether he was insincere then or not. In addition, it's not at all clear to me that Romney "campaigned against the Bush/Reagan Republicans." This is very loose talk. If you're going to trash the man who may well be our nominee, you'd better have something specific. What you've given us is loose garbage. And Romney's no "amateur show" if he's poised, right now, for front-runner status. Romney's appeal to pro-Bush Republicans is both smart and honorable. Honorable because there is in fact some political risk to it.

If you loved the deception of the Bush 2d term, then naturally you'll gravitate to Romney.

It was certainly no coincidence that Romney initially enjoyed the support of the Bush clan. They share the same attitudes on everything from abortion on. Yet they'll affect a conservatism that has unfortunately gulled many.

Including me, much to my chagrin. But after this nightmarish 2d term, I'm wise to them now, as are we all.

Which is why Jeb decided to stay out. He knew that his surname was THE killer of all killers.

It's fair enough to point out that Romney isn't much of a conservative. It's equally fair, however, to ask whether the only definite conservative in the top tier -- Thompson -- is as electable as Romney, Rudy, or even McCain. All are underdogs against the Dems, but who gives us the least-bad chance? I would suggest that conservatives will very soon be forced to focus on this overriding question -- if they're politically serious and not just interested in posturing.

Look the definition of conservative is very loose itself David. Thompson is only conservative to the extent that the term means doing nothing. Thompson's stellar accomplishment in the Senate?? Actually one of the biggest things that he did was support and write part of the campaign finance reform bill-a liberal disaster.

Things are not honorable merely because they are politically risky. Things are honorable when they are true and/or honestly believed. I don't know if Romney is sincere now subjectively or not, but I can only use objective evidence of his very recent 180's to surmise that he is not.

Huckabee is a conservative; he is different than Bush as they all are in this race. McCain is also a conservative or a mavarick nature. Bush in his own right was a different "conservative" when he came on the scene, and now after 8 years we think of him as the status quo which is natural, but misleading. Every man must stand for himself and be a principled man in his own right. We can't and don't want to have mere clones of Bush, Reagan, or anyone. This is what I think Dan references that is most troubling about Romney. He refuses to really stand up for what he is. He has changed so much I can't even tell what he is. The way to judge a President is whether they are consistent with themselves, not whether they claim to be consistent with someone else.

For the record I remain loyal to Bush unlike Dan. I do find great contrasts though between Romney and Bush. For example this clip

Here Romney passes the buck to the military and tries to hide from past views. Bush would have answered much stronger, as Huck did.

Here is a depressing set of polls. I wanted to argue with David Frisk about Republicans all being underdogs against Democrats and now just can't be happy with what I see there. I am hoping that the current polling is deceptive because the Republican field is so badly divided and because there are so many people, like me, who are undecided as to a Republican candidate, but that doesn't really answer.

This is an aspect of the Bush legacy and a sad one. I think the Bush legacy is going to depend a lot on who is elected next and what happens next. He'll show well or badly in that context. Still, if he keeps up such things as this manipulation of the mortgage market - why does he do things like this?

Leave a Comment

* denotes a required field

No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL:

Warning: include(/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/2007/12/more-on-the-bush-legacy-in-08.php on line 573

Warning: include(): Failed opening '/srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/sd/nlt-blog/_includes/promo-main.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/opt/sp/php7.2/lib/php') in /srv/users/prod-php-nltashbrook/apps/prod-php-nltashbrook/public/2007/12/more-on-the-bush-legacy-in-08.php on line 573