• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

George W. Bush "skeptical" of Romney's chances in November

Not a typical supply-sider*. 'Supply-sidism' and 'conservatism' are not synonymous, and wishing will not make it so; the conservatives in the 19th century were generally the Party of increased government scope. Bush was a Hamiltonian conservative, even if he didn't know it.

And if you hate Bush's approach to immigration, you should loathe Reagan for his general amnesty.

* Which was initially a liberal orthodoxy anyway.

I think Reagan was aware of his mistake, and most people cite that decision as a reason to avoid amnesty now.
 
I expect you to be suspicious of anything in the media that might suggest disunity among the conservative faithful, so that's not surprising. But neither is the idea that Bush is not particularly thrilled with Romney. The two of them have virtually nothing in common with each other.

That maybe be true, but he's has ample opportunity to voice his opinion. Why three weeks before an election?
 
But you are fond of Ronald Wilson Reagan, yes? He suits your definition of a Platonically Ideal true conservative?

Its not often an OP derails his own thread and reveals his agenda on the first page.
 
Not a typical supply-sider*. 'Supply-sidism' and 'conservatism' are not synonymous, and wishing will not make it so; the conservatives in the 19th century were generally the Party of increased government scope. Bush was a Hamiltonian conservative, even if he didn't know it.

And if you hate Bush's approach to immigration, you should loathe Reagan for his general amnesty.

* Which was initially a liberal orthodoxy anyway.

So you admit that nobody can be defined by one label. They are defined by what they actually do and support. Conservative is a broad term and there can be no doubt there were things about Bush that more straight line conservatives didn't like. So I really don't understand what you are arguing about. Do you doubt that there were many conservatives who didn't like Reagan's amnesty? If one is looking for perfection in a candidate they won't find it in our political system.
 
Its not often an OP derails his own thread and reveals his agenda on the first page.

My 'agenda'? I don't think it's ever been disguised: to support Gary Johnson and to oppose Mitt Romney at every opportunity.
 
So you admit that nobody can be defined by one label. They are defined by what they actually do and support. Conservative is a broad term and there can be no doubt there were things about Bush that more straight line conservatives didn't like. So I really don't understand what you are arguing about. Do you doubt that there were many conservatives who didn't like Reagan's amnesty? If one is looking for perfection in a candidate they won't find it in our political system.

Certainly. I agree with you wholeheartedly. And that's why I oppose the slanderous lie, spread by some conservatives, that Bush was a 'big government progressive' with a secret agenda. They're attempting to define him without allowing him to define himself.
 
That maybe be true, but he's has ample opportunity to voice his opinion. Why three weeks before an election?

He didn't voice his opinion. His private opinion was made known by an aide to his brother.
 
Something tells me you will say whatever the Political Analysts on TV say in regards to each candidate's performance in the Debate's.

Something tells me your wrong and that theres a strong possibility you didnt watch the debate
 
I find it quite sad, that we are so sectarian, of course bush was a conservative if he said he was, the word barely has any meaning anymore anyway, same with liberal, basically meaningless.

Gwb did increase government spending this is true, however aside from doing nothing to curtail Medicare spending (to be fair my understanding is that part d was expected to lower it but didn't) defense spending is really where it all went.

Some conservatives are domestic focused and think that we need to be isolationist again, while others are defense hawks that think we need to maintain a hegemonic balance of power, it nothing else to protect our markets.

To split hairs so finely is a bit silly. Romney too wishes to increase defense spending, decrease taxes and regulations, reform Medicare and likely will want to do something with social security. There are plenty of areas where they differ, but I don't see them as too fundamentally different in thier goals. They may not have much in common as human beings, but goalwise it is hard to see them as worlds apart.

To see anything related to bush as somehow tainted is naive, people like Condi Rice are some of the smartest hardest workers the republicans have, to pass her up due to her previous affiliation or even her stance on abortion is a travesty.
 
Back
Top Bottom