• 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

Einzige

Elitist as Hell.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
2,655
Reaction score
942
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Report: Bush 'skeptical' of Romney's chances

Former president George W. Bush is keeping up with the presidential race, and isn't crazy about what he sees from Republican candidate Mitt Romney, says a new report.

In a long profile of brother Jeb Bush, New York magazine reports that George W. "gets a regular drip feed of political news from (former aide) Karl Rove and others -- he's been critical of Romney's campaign and skeptical of his chances."

There is no elaboration.

The former president -- who is an issue in the campaign; President Obama often cites the bad economy and two wars he inherited from Bush -- is also "living as invisibly as possible," reports Joe Hagan in New York magazine.

In addition to golf and Texas Rangers baseball games, Bush also has a new hobby, the article says: Painting, "making portraits of dogs and arid Texas landscapes. 'I find it stunning that he has the patience to sit and take instruction and paint,' says a former aide."

Say what you will about the man, but he's always had razor-sharp political acumen.
 
Most 'real' conservatives couldn't stand GW. I most certainly wasn't fond of him. He was a big government progressive.
 
Most 'real' conservatives couldn't stand GW. I most certainly wasn't fond of him. He was a big government progressive.

If that's the case, why did so many conservatives endorse him wholeheartedly?

See, it seems to me that he became a 'big government progressive' in the eyes of conservatives at about the time he became unpopular. Reagan never became a 'big government progressive', and he was every bit the profligate spender Dubya was.

In short, I've always found your statement dishonest to the point of scumminess. I think you're lying. I think you were a Dubya fan until roundabouts 2006 and his decline in the polls, or even 2007 and his attempt to follow in Reagan's footsteps on the issue of immigration.

Incidentally, I find it more amusing yet that Romney used to be a 'big government progressive' but isn't today even more than I find the notion that George W. Bush wasn't a 'big government progressive' until he became one.
 
Last edited:
I'm not fond of Mitt either.

But you are fond of Ronald Wilson Reagan, yes? He suits your definition of a Platonically Ideal true conservative?
 
He was certainly better than the alternative (Carter).

Rothbard disagrees:

At first, the only "cut" was in Carter’s last-minute loony-tunes estimates for the future. But in a few short years, Reagan’s spending surpassed even Carter’s irresponsible estimates. Instead, Reagan not only increased government spending by an enormous amount – so enormous that it would take a 40 percent cut to bring us back to Carter’s wild spending totals of 1980 – he even substantially increased the percentage of government spending to GNP. That’s a "revolution"?

Why was he better, from your perspective, if he spent much more than Carter ever did?
 
Rothbard disagrees:



Why was he better, from your perspective, if he spent much more than Carter ever did?


Character: Reagan's charm, geniality, and ability to connect with average citizens as well as world leaders earned him the nickname "The Great Communicator." Through his speeches and actions, Reagan restored the confidence of the American public in the office of the president. Decades after he left office, Reagan's legacy remained strong with admirers wanting to add his portrait to Mount Rushmore and to US currency. [6]

Crime: On Oct. 2 1982, Reagan launched a "War on Drugs" that helped reduce the high rate of casual drug use lingering from the 1970s. [7] He increased funding for the drug war from $1.5 billion in 1981 to $2.75 billion in 1986. [8] Reagan also signed eight major Executive Orders related to crime and justice as well as five major crime bills: Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1984, Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, and Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. [9]

Defense: Reagan strengthened the weak, ineffectual, and vulnerable military which Carter left behind. The Reagan administration funded research and development of weapons systems, including stealth technology and precision weaponry, later used in both Persian Gulf wars. Reagan's largest peacetime defense buildup in history, which included larger training ranges and military pay increases, helped invigorate the American military from its Vietnam War-era despondency. [10]

Economy: Reagan's economic policies, such as a reduction in government spending and regulation and cuts in taxes, resulted in an unprecedented 92-month long economic boom, from Nov. 1982 to July 1990, with expansion and growth in the GDP (+36%), employment (+20 million jobs), and the Dow Jones Industrial Average (+15%). [11]

Education: After "A Nation at Risk" (131 KB) , a negative report on the nation's educational system, was released in Apr. 1983, President Reagan increased the budget for the Department of Education by $6 billion over the next three years. During the Reagan Administration, state education aid increased 20%, or almost $35 billion and, in 1988, it comprised a nearly 50% slice of revenue from all sources for education. [12][13]

Environment: Between 1982 and 1988, Reagan signed 43 bills designating more than 10 million acres of federal wilderness areas in 27 states. This acreage accounted for nearly 10% of the National Wilderness Preservation System at the time. Reagan had signed more wilderness bills than any other president since the Wilderness Act was enacted in 1964. [14]

Foreign Policy: Reagan helped bring an end to the 46-year-old Cold War, through a combination of hostile, anti-communist rhetoric and a massive arms buildup followed by skillful diplomacy and disarmament. On Nov. 9, 1989, just over two years after his famous Brandenburg Gate speech (32 KB) , the Berlin Wall fell, marking the end of communism in Germany. [15] On Dec. 15, 1991, after four bilateral summits with Reagan, General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev dissolved the Soviet Union. [2][16]

Health: On Apr. 7, 1986, Reagan signed the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) into law. As of Sep. 30, 2010, COBRA is still in effect and gives some workers who lose their health benefits, for example in situations such as job loss or reduction in hours worked, the right to choose to continue health benefits provided by their employer's group health plan. [17]

Labor: When Reagan followed through on his Aug. 3, 1981 threat to fire 12,176 striking air traffic controllers (PATCO), he held the controllers to their signed affidavit stating that they would not "participate [in any strike] while an employee of the Government of the United States." [18] Reagan brought in military air traffic controllers as replacements to ensure there was no disruption of a major public service. [19] His actions helped curtail future frivolous strikes as they plummeted from an average of 300 each year in the decades before the PATCO strike to fewer than 30 in 2006. [20]

Science/Technology: Reagan was a big supporter of the National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA). In his 1984 State of the Union Address (91 KB) , Reagan announced plans for what came to be the International Space Station. On Jan. 30, 1987, Reagan also announced that he planned to fund the building of the Superconducting Super Collider, a $4.5 billion dollar particle accelerator used for high energy physics research. [21][22]

Social Policy: To "finally break the poverty trap," as Reagan stated in his in his 1987 State of the Union Address (48 KB) , he signed the Family Support Act on Oct. 12, 1988. The Act required states to establish and operate a Job Opportunities and Basic Skills program (JOBS) to assure needy families with children obtain the training and employment necessary to avoid long-term welfare. [23] Reagan also helped save Social Security by passing the Social Security Reform Act of 1983. It provided extra revenue dedicated to securing the solvent future of Social Security. [24]

Taxes: Through massive tax cuts, Reagan helped restore an economy that had both high inflation and unemployment left over from the 1970s. As he brought taxation down from 70% to 28%, Reagan proved that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, increases economic activity, and boosts tax revenues. Government revenues from income tax rose from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989. [25]

Other: Reagan helped to reduce inefficiencies in the federal bureaucracy. When Reagan took office, it took seven weeks to get a Social Security card and 43 days to get a passport. By the time he left office, both could be had in 10 days. [26]

Reagan - ProCon.org
 
I'm glad that you know how to copy-paste from other websites. But my question was why was he better than Carter, when he spent much more than Carter ever proposed?
 
Like ive said all along...THE DEBATES THE DEBATES THE DEBATES tell the tale...and romney definitely right at this moment has a big edge.
The first debate is not only the most important but its the debate that gives the lasting impression and romney won that hands down...and im an obama supporter, regardless the truth is the truth...Obama can still pull it out...but if he screws up this debate tomorrow he is DONE....
 
If that's the case, why did so many conservatives endorse him wholeheartedly?

See, it seems to me that he became a 'big government progressive' in the eyes of conservatives at about the time he became unpopular. Reagan never became a 'big government progressive', and he was every bit the profligate spender Dubya was.

In short, I've always found your statement dishonest to the point of scumminess. I think you're lying. I think you were a Dubya fan until roundabouts 2006 and his decline in the polls, or even 2007 and his attempt to follow in Reagan's footsteps on the issue of immigration.

Incidentally, I find it more amusing yet that Romney used to be a 'big government progressive' but isn't today even more than I find the notion that George W. Bush wasn't a 'big government progressive' until he became one.

Give you two reasons conservatives supported GWB: Al Gore and John Kerry.
 
Give you two reasons conservatives supported GWB: Al Gore and John Kerry.

If the choice is between two 'big government progressives', and you're a conservative, why not vote for, say, the Constitution Party?

Mainly because I don't think a single 2004 Bush voter thought of Bush as a 'big government progressive'. He was still popular then, and as such obviously a shining example of conservative successes.

In short, I think every singly modern conservative who just knew that Dubya was a liberal Trojan horse is a - liar. And lying is a sin.
 
Oh, so NOW Bush is just a friggin' genius. :lamo

Quite conversely: it's only now that Bush is a 'big government progressive' Trojan horse.

Or, at least, since 2006.
 
It's just that suddenly there's something good to say about him.

I'm not saying it's good. Bush is a politician, and an astute one; that's hardly a good thing, in my view.

Again, conversely: only now do these True Blooded Conservatives feel that Bush was an enemy at the gates all along. Their silence was deafening last decade, with the notable exceptions of Pat Buchanan and the folks at Pak's American Conservative magazine. Most assuredly the long-haulers in the Religious Right, Robertson and the like, still adore Bush and don't agree with you folks at all. You would have called yourselves traitors in 2003.
 
Like ive said all along...THE DEBATES THE DEBATES THE DEBATES tell the tale...and romney definitely right at this moment has a big edge.
The first debate is not only the most important but its the debate that gives the lasting impression and romney won that hands down...and im an obama supporter, regardless the truth is the truth...Obama can still pull it out...but if he screws up this debate tomorrow he is DONE....

Something tells me you will say whatever the Political Analysts on TV say in regards to each candidate's performance in the Debate's.
 
If the choice is between two 'big government progressives', and you're a conservative, why not vote for, say, the Constitution Party?

Mainly because I don't think a single 2004 Bush voter thought of Bush as a 'big government progressive'. He was still popular then, and as such obviously a shining example of conservative successes.

In short, I think every singly modern conservative who just knew that Dubya was a liberal Trojan horse is a - liar. And lying is a sin.

Nobody thought he was a liberal so don't exaggerate. The massive amounts spent on education and the prescription drug programs and the do nothing approach to immigration and basically a go along approach to social program spending proved he was not a typical conservative. And yeah, voting for the Consitution Party candidate would accomplished so much.
 
I'm not saying it's good. Bush is a politician, and an astute one; that's hardly a good thing, in my view.

Again, conversely: only now do these True Blooded Conservatives feel that Bush was an enemy at the gates all along. Their silence was deafening last decade, with the notable exceptions of Pat Buchanan and the folks at Pak's American Conservative magazine. Most assuredly the long-haulers in the Religious Right, Robertson and the like, still adore Bush and don't agree with you folks at all. You would have called yourselves traitors in 2003.

But apparently it works for you. I find it quite suspicious that this is coming out now. Except for his book, he's been quiet as a church mouse for four years.
 
Nobody thought he was a liberal so don't exaggerate. The massive amounts spent on education and the prescription drug programs and the do nothing approach to immigration and basically a go along approach to social program spending proved he was not a typical conservative. And yeah, voting for the Consitution Party candidate would accomplished so much.

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.
 
But apparently it works for you. I find it quite suspicious that this is coming out now. Except for his book, he's been quiet as a church mouse for four years.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom