Is Bush conservative?

[FishHooks]

I'm letting Bush off the hook for most of his fiscal positions, but I will not let the republican senators off the hook for their spending and pork. I think we both agree the Republican party needs to shape up fiscally we just have differeing opinions where more of the blame should go.

[FishHooks]

I would agree to that regarding things such as the patriot act, and a few others. But to say a re-alignment in all political ideology, I dont think is correct.

[MtSmalls]

Is Bush the titular head of the Republican party or not? He's a Republican President with a Republican majority in both houses. Bush, Frist, DeLay and the rest COULD impose fiscal responsibility on the country, remembering that they were handed a budget surplus (or at least the closest thing we've had to one in sixty years).

But then I forgot, Bush is just a meat puppet with Cheney's hand up his ass, and is never responsible for anything.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Going by traditional conservative politics, is Bush a conservative president?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's go down the check list:

FISCALLY TIGHT: Strike.

CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST: Check.

STRAIGHT-ARROW PERSONAL CHARACTER : Strike.

FOREIGN POLICY HAWK: Check.

PROUD MILITARY SERVICE FOR COUNTRY: Strike.

BIG-TIME ENEMY OF THE ENVIRONMENT: Check.

...Mixed bag.

[ QUOTE ]

FISCALLY TIGHT: Strike.


[/ QUOTE ]

Please point out a single Republican IN OFFICE who was fiscally tight? Conservatives talk economic conservatism when out of power but do not walk the walk in power. And yet you Repubs keep voting for them thinking that "this guy will be different", when he/she is probably no better fiscally than a democrat of a decade ago at any point in time. I jumped ship from the lying bastards on the right years ago and have never looked back. Repubs really should look into the Lib Party if they mean what gthey say about wanting smaller govt and fiscal conservatism. Otherwise, you're just pretending to support those beliefs. Until the Repub Party fears it will lose its base, they'll do whatever sells once in office just like any other lying politician, and they know they have you by the balls because you think "anything's better than a democrat." Let them see 10% or more of their base vote Libertarian and lose them a big election and then they'll have to take fiscal conservatism seriously, until then its pure b.s. out of their mouths. Perot could have taught a lesson in '92 -- tighten the govt belt or lose due to 3rd party swing voters. Instead the wrong lesson was learned by the Repub voters -- don't vote 3rd party or risk a 2-term democrat. Well, based on the budgets I've read, looks like we have another 2-term democrat named Bush.

After 9/11, a call for "global war on terrorism" was made, and under a Repub Pres, House, and Senate, the funding for the NEA went up to higher levels than even the 1990s. The silence on the right was deafening.

[FishHooks]

Become a realist and realize how politics works.

[FishHooks]

Bad analysis but can't fault anyone for trying.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Become a realist and realize how politics works.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you should lecture others to 'realize how politics works'. Have at it, if you must; but it seems silly, in light of your arguments.

Your claim is that President Bush is kowtow-ing to Republican Senators; let's assume it's true, for the sake of argument; of course it's not true, but let's assume it's true anyway.

Why?

Your answer (if I understand you correctly) is that he 'needs to get things done'.

What exactly is he trying to get done? Why would the President need to build up so much political capital? How would a fiscally conservative president spend such capital, if not on budget restraint?

If Bush is truly a fiscal conservative, what strategies is he implementing to tighten federal spending?

Your answer seems to be that he's abandoned fiscal conservatism to achieve other ends (as you’re arguing that Bush needs to be pragmatic to get things done). If this is the case, he's not a very committed fiscal conservative. Certainly, committed fiscal conservatives would make limiting government their first order of business; and would sacrifice their other goals in order to build the political capital necessary to achieve budgetary restraint.

I assume most conservatives see limiting the size and scope of government as one of their guiding principals (if not THE guiding principal); if Bush will so willingly abandon fiscal conservatism to achieve other ends, I think it's contradictory to claim he's still a committed fiscal conservative; or even a fiscal conservative at all.

[FishHooks]

What you just talked about has nothing to do with politics, thats just policy.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
What you just talked about has nothing to do with politics, thats just policy.

[/ QUOTE ]

So...you're claiming the President is (politically) a fiscal conservative; but when it comes to policy, he's not? I can't even make sense of that. Is the implication that policy and politics are mutually exclusive? Is not politicking (that is, the practice of trying to secure power, or perhaps even less broadly, in the case of the President of the United State, the art of governing) an exercise with the obvious end of trying to steer policy?

As I said...if your claim is that President Bush needs to appease Republican congressmen (and pass their bloated budget bills) in order to build political capital, what does he intend to use this political capital for?

If he's trying to acquire political capital by sacrificing of fiscal restraint, I think we can say that he's not a very committed fiscal conservative, and I'd be hesitant to call him a fiscal conservative at all; as cutting federal spending, and limiting the size and scope of federal government ought to be an imperative for fiscal conservatives that cannot be negotiated away.