Culling Bush from the Conservative Herd

There are some who are thinking strategically about the election in November and beginning to lay the groundwork for the candidate of their choice. Bruce Bartlett and others have hit upon a strategy that they hope will produce success this fall.

They understand that hanging their hats on Bush is a losing strategy. So what to do? Ban Bush from the circle of "true" conservatives, claim he was unfaithful to the cause, then promote someone, a McCain perhaps but there are others, as an alternative who embodies true conservative values. The reason I think this is a clever strategy is that liberals are willing participants in it. Those on the left side of the fence are very willing to jump onto the conservative Bush-bashing bandwagon.

As Krugman has noted McCain is solidly within the right-wing of the party (The Right's Man), and as McCain's recent praise of Bush makes clear, there is little difference between Bush and McCain on key policy points. While liberals have an overflowing plate when it comes to talking about the shortcomings of this administration, care should be taken to ensure that it is clear that Bush is part of, not separate from, the club of true conservatives.

Here's the latest example of the attempt to throw Bush out of the club, Bruce Bartlett's Washington Times commentary, "Less Than Fully Conservative":

Less Than Fully Conservative, by Bruce Bartlett, Commentary, Washington Times: In every administration, there is always one journalist that the White House trusts above the others ... In this administration, it is Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard magazine.

Whenever you read one of Mr. Barnes' columns, you know that you are getting an inside perspective. ... Now Mr. Barnes has produced a book about George W. Bush, "Rebel-in-Chief," ...

Early in the book, Mr. Barnes concedes Mr. Bush lacks a "conservative governing temperament." ... Mr. Barnes admits that he is "no libertarian or small government conservative," ... Mr. Bush "pays lip service" to limiting government, Mr. Barnes says. "More often than not," Mr. Barnes goes on to say, "he relies on a bigger federal government and billions of taxpayer dollars" to achieve his goals.

Mr. Barnes says Mr. Bush has no sympathy for federalism... "He's favorably disposed to federal power in education and health care," Mr. Barnes tells us. In foreign policy, Mr. Barnes says Mr. Bush's policies are most like those of Democrat Woodrow Wilson...

Mr. Barnes also admits Mr. Bush's governing philosophy ... is incoherent. "Proposing to reduce Social Security's unfunded liability, as Bush has, just after ballooning Medicare's with a prescription drug benefit is hardly coherent," Mr. Barnes writes. "Nor does it make sense to sign a lavish farm subsidy bill, which Bush did, while advocating fiscal restraint." ...

Toward the end of the book, Mr. Barnes more clearly says Mr. Bush is no conservative. "George W. Bush isn't one of them," Mr. Barnes says. On the contrary, he appeals to the "liberal instincts" of his supporters.

In his conclusion, Mr. Barnes compares Mr. Bush to Ronald Reagan on a three-point scale, with Reagan getting a full point on taxes, foreign policy and social values. Mr. Barnes gives Mr. Bush a full point only on values, with just half a point each for taxes and foreign policy. That makes Mr. Bush two-thirds of a real conservative, which sounds about right to me.

Bash away boys, but he's still one of yours.

Comments

[save_the_rustbelt]

Bush is an empty suit and a crony capitalist.

McCain "rebel but not too rebellious" act is wearing thin, except that he looks good compared to Bush.

If gasoline prices are in the $3 range for the next six months, natural gas and fuel oil prices continue to escalate, the American auto idustry tanks, and Iraq continues to be a quagmire (or some combination), the GOP House members are going to have an ugly time. Only the pro lifers and tax cut zombies will stay solidly with the GOP.

Unless of course, the Democrats find more ways to self-destruct.

[Quints]

Liberals have a bit of a problem. Bush created the biggest of big governments and continues to demonstrate how wasteful and ineffective it is. When you simplify the liberal argument, it is that his big government was a disaster but OUR big government will be great. The pursuasiveness of the argument is less than optimal.

[DevsAd]

Is your argument that government worked as poorly under Clinton (even given the obstacles tossed in his path by the right) as under Bush? Tough argument to win.

Remember, strip out security and health, and Bush spending in NOT exceptional.

[johni]

Why is the left upset with the way Bush has increased non-military spending? He has increased spending on everything from education to medicaid to food stamps at a faster rate than anyone since Johnson. Is it the deficit that comes with the spending you don't like? Or is it the tactics that he has used? Like where he has put the money IN certain parts of the education system and foodstamps, for example. Like Quints said, what is the difference b/w bush and left spending (non-military of course) i guess on a micro level? ? sorry this post is not clear...

[Michael Cain]

Liberals have a bit of a problem...

I may be wrong, but I don't think there are a lot of Americans who are actually in favor of "small" government. They may say they are, but they almost all mean they want "their" part of big government and to cut "your" part of it. However, I think almost everyone would be in favor of "simpler" government. There must be some winning issues in this idea.

On the income tax: it's all just income, and there's a small number of rates that make it progressive (since we're talking about liberals). On complex programs at the federal and state level: it doesn't make sense for both state and federal govts to try to run so many things, so you states take education and we'll take Medicare (besides, if the liberals want national health care, this is a step in that direction). Heck, there must be a million little things you could do: my phone bill lists multiple federal taxes and fees, why not just have one and let Treasury sort it out? Better still, get rid of all the damn little taxes and add a point to the income tax rate.

[anne]

No; the problem other than the terrible cost for war is decidedly not big government and was not during the Presidency of Bill Clinton. The problem is effective government that serves properly. What we are losing in this Administration is effective government.

[john i]

anne, in what concrete ways is the gov't less effective?

says...

So, the problem is that Bush has "liberal instincts"?

That's pretty funny. Bush the liberal.

[Winslow R.]

john i wrote:

anne, in what concrete ways is the gov't less effective?

For starters how about - government is less effective in dealing with budget deficits? Oh yea, forgot Bush hit the trifecta.

Robert Reich had an interesting commentary on Marketplace regarding a PR firm representing GM attempting to 'bribe' him. The link is not here yet...

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/pm.html

[bakho]

Bush has hardly created a big government. Bush has created a corrupt government and with the help of his GOP colleagues in Congress has conducted a raid on the Treasury and saddled children yet unborn with a debt to be paid with their taxes.

Democrats will run on 3 issues in 2006. Corruption. Corruption and Corruption. The cure for corruption is oversight. Since the Fox cannot be trusted to watch the henhouse, the only way to bring the needed oversight is to replace rubberstamp Republicans with Democrats that are willing to provide oversight.

Keep these words on the tip of your tongue:

Corruption
Out of Control
Irresponsible
Lack of oversight
Rubberstamp

[anne]

Thank you for asking :) Instances that are troubling include the tragic responses to the needs in New Orleans from the beginning to now in which medical needs of displaced persons are sparingly satisfied. The failure of the Internal Revenue Service to collect ever larger amounts of due taxes. The failure to carefully inspect mine operations. The failure to limit illegal hiring practices. The failure to collect royalties for resource exploration and development on public lands. Limiting public discourse by government scientists....

[pgl]

Barnes claims Bush's policies are incoherent NOW. He used to praise "big government conservatism" as in one can raise government spending AND cut taxes permanently. Barnes was - and still is - as dumb as Donald Luskin.

[Winslow R]

This is link to Reich commentary on how a PR firm asked him to convert his investment in public trust into cash.

http://www.publicradio.org/tools/media/player/marketplace/2006/04/19_mpp?start=00:00:07:40.0&end=00:00:10:20.0

[calmo]

This is a bit rich isn't it?
The WH's favorite (most apologetic) journalist, Fred (The Wizard) Barnes, decides that W is a Rebel, --only 2/3 a real conservative/Reagan. [Imagine the genius it must take to write an entire book filling this theme out.]
It looks like Bolten's job of resurrecting the sagging polls just took another hit for those Republicans masochistic enough to actually read this book. [Seriously, if you like W, would you read it? --no, you'd wait for a critical review and cut your losses. If you like Barnes, you'd be writing him a nasty letter about the difference between 'coherence' and 'consistent' and let him know that he just betrayed his readership horribly.]
I'm trying to read this one as 'any publicity is good publicity', but I just can't make it stick, you? ["W is not as bad as all that: 2/3 of a Reagan is not bad." does not fly for me.]
'The rats have smelled blood and it's feeding time' is how it looks to me. A few more from the stables that house Barnes and we might see some real changes in the administration.
Is Mark's worry serious?

...care should be taken to ensure that it is clear that Bush is part of, not separate from, the club of true conservatives.

Could the GOP that has coddled this malfeasance for more than 5 years cast w as the Renegade President, the president that did not work with Congress [Look at all those vetos!], the president that acted unilaterally without consulting the Senate (possibly even manipulating the Senate)? [Barne's odd glancing blow might have this fatal outcome --it could be only one more Fitz away.] It does seem perilously close to having the impeachment forces at hand should this 'divorce' proceed.
We will know shortly by the reception Mathews gives 'The Rebel', which boy gets skewered, but I'd say Fred is in the lead at this point. And deserves it.

[anne]

Interestingly and ironically, there is quiet fury at the President for what I consider to be the strengthing of Medicare through addition of perscription drug coverage. Though the program was quite poorly designed, I am hopeful and conservatives are fretting that the program will be a success.

[Emmanuel]

To be fair to Dubya, he's fiscally liberal and socially conservative, while Howard Dean is theoretically the opposite--fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

[dd]

Bush is fiscally irresponsible. He is no liberal.

[Bruce Webb]

Quints et al will be laughing out of the other side of their mouths pretty soon.

Big Government programs that have a reliable, dedicated source of funding are perfectly defensible. The Social Security Trust Fund is the prime current example, the Federal Highway Trust Fund is not far behind.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/htfiarafs0405/index.htm

I spent years figuring out how the Social Security numbers worked. Some young buck out there may want to take on the Highway Trust Fund numbers. Near as I can render them the General Fund is in the hole to the tune of $12 billion. Small beer compared to the $1.5 trillion of the Social Security Trust Fund, but then again politicians love freeways and can be expected to pony up General Fund moneys to redeem the balance.

[Bruce Webb]

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/htfiarafs0405/htffs05pt1.htm#a10

Link? I don't need no stinking link! But here it is anyway.

[Lee A. Arnold]

They would be singing a different tune if Social Security had been privatized! Mr Bush wouldn't be incoherent, he'd be a visionary!

The President worked hard at it, too. There must have been a lot of studying that went into his presentations at those "town hall meetings." Go read them.

But it's not just Bush who's the "big government liberal," it's the entire Republican side the House of Representatives. They railroaded Congress to balloon Medicare, to make the crisis to "starve the beast," to knock-off Social Security (--from "The House That Dubya Built.")

I wonder if anyone can find a quote from Mr Barnes a few years ago praising the new prescription plan? Or was he against it then, too?

The Republicans have inadvertently set-up the Democrats to make the next move, and benefit politically from it: reduce the long-term cost to the taxpayers of the plan while making it simpler to understand. "Big government liberal" is a tired canard anyway.

So the Dems may have a bit of a problem, but the Republicans are in over their heads: They all have to run against their own records.

[Bruce Webb]

Social Security Solvency is devastating to a whole range of Right Economic proposals. They are becoming aware of that and are getting increasingly desparate in their claims.

"Tax cuts increase tax revenues". Well show me. Certainly record deficits don't support that a priori and a Social Security system in surplus and likely to remain in surplus doesn't give a lot of underpinning to "Big Government is the Problem".

The Biggest of Big Government Programs is currently running in surplus and given ordinary economic growth will continue in surplus. And Privatizers are scurringly like cockroaches in a kitchen when you turn the light on.

[calmo]

This review of Barnes' 'Rebel' tells me I painted Freddy a little too disloyally to W:
http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_04_10/print/reviewprint.html

[Richard]

It will be interesting to see Republican House members running "orthogonal" to Bush. After all, they passed each and every one of his proposals (save a SS revamp and Ms. Meiers on the court). They embraced his rhetorical excess on 9/11, Iraq, privacy rights, bankruptcy law - on and on. The Democrats are going to hang George like a loadstone over each and every Senate and House race: their speeches will begin with "my opponent, who has supported George Bush for the last six years . . . ."

[calmo]

I hope Richard is right, but I do not forget that Kerry whose military record was available, even respectable if not exemplary by some standards, lost that issue to Bush and Cheney both or whom had no record, atleast not according to the Pentagon. [The power of the media, QED and the force of Chomsky's thesis that much can be manufactured when it comes to shaping public opinion.]
The polls indicate widespread unhappiness with W and Republican politicians may register that as an incentive to regard him as a liability rather than an asset to their re-election campaigns. That tendency solidifies the longer W's poll ratings are mired in the low 30% range.
The more embedded element/support for W in the media is not likely to switch to the Dems out of embarrassment, but more likely to ignore any good news from their side or bad news from W's. [Did Fox report on the announced national anthem of Taiwan during Hu's visit? the absence of a formal dinner? the lack of substantive foreign policy changes? Cheney snoozing through the reception?] Will the media's complicit role in this administration's 'agenda' (I love W's use of the term as much as his use of the word 'nuclear'.) continue to grow or fade as people with a brain in their head look elsewhere for news and opinion?
Is there a critical (official) support level where the media makes a course change that would make the 6 General's report look like child's play?
I hope it does not need to go to 20% approval ratings.