Bush A Dirty Word At CPAC

This Politico article is pretty funny. Certainly gives you a sense of the sort of legacy Bush has left behind: even the folks who swore by him for 8 years want nothing to do with him. Keep in mind when reading this that Bush addressed CPAC every year of his presidency.

...if there's one thing those attending the annual Conservative Political Action Conference this week agree on, it is this: They don't want another George W. Bush.

Few come out right out and say it, but they don't have to. There's no nostalgia for the past eight years, no tributes to Bush and no sessions dedicated to exploring his presidency.

Indeed, for a president who publicly embraced conservative principles, there is little evidence that the movement returns the sentiment.

The disdain for Bush, particularly of his profligate spending habits, is fueling a new talking point that Obama is just a continuation of Bush. Right.

Conservative icon Newt Gingrich, the former House Speaker, railed against the "Bush-Obama continuity in economic policy" and the "Bush-Obama big spending program" in a speech Friday.

"We had big spending under Bush and now we have big spending under Obama," Gingrich said. "And so now we have two failures."

Throwing Bush under the bus isn't really new. Conservatives have been spitting up the Bush Kool-Aid since 2005 when the left's consensus about Bush -- i..e epic FAIL -- began to become THE consensus. I mean, c'mon, they couldn't have a failed president be a conservative president; that would mean conservatism itself would have failed.


The fact is, Bush's failure WAS the failure of the conservative movement, not an aberration from it. Cronyism over competence, enriching the private sector while starving the public sector, redistributing wealth upwards, it's all precisely what they've been working toward for 30 years. Believing otherwise is just the latest in a long string of conservative delusions.

Tags: CPAC, George W Bush (all tags)




This crowd at one time suggested Bush should be on Mount Rushmore, that Jesus himself appointed him.

Short-term memory loss?

They used to show up at his rallies, these hand-picked sychopants, drooling and slobbering at his greatness. "What can WE do to help you?"

Now, they turn on him, like the rabid pack of jackals they are.

Hey, if they want to go on a purge, Bush, Rove, Ginrich, et all, all the better.

Take out George Will, Bill Kristol...

Anyone that can string together an argument that isn't straight out of that afternoons Limbaugh show.

Put Bobby Jindhal, Sara Palin and Joe the Plumber in charge of the future of the GOP.

Lock in the fact they are basically

the old white theocratic party of Alabama, Kentucky, Wyoming and Utah.

by WashStateBlue 2009-03-01 12:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Bush A Dirty Word At CPAC

This is not a new talking point. This has been what they have been trying to do for at least a year. Their whole argument is that Bush is not "real conservatism" as if what they describe as 'real conservatism" is something better. They want to return to the fantasy of Reaganism. But, I say let them continue to engage in their fantasies. They are where the Dems were in the early 1980s. A party that had not yet recognize that a transformation in the society against them was occuring. I say let them continue to believe they need to just be true to their principles. This will only help us win more races in the forseeable future. I don't see why we try to convince them they are wrong. Their ignorance serves the Democratic goals.

by bruh3 2009-03-01 12:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Bush A Dirty Word At CPAC

But they have it all figured out now because a 13 year old boy in two minutes explained to them what a conservative  was and he got a standing ovation

by j9guy 2009-03-01 03:12PM | 0 recs
actually . . .

Not to be a pain, but Bush only addressed CPAC once during his presidency. He made his first and only appearance in 2008.

by pjdorsey 2009-03-01 03:22PM | 0 recs

What has that got to do with the diary?

The point is, this is a crowd that used to worship the ground he walked on.

Now, the barely can spit when they say his name.

They are morans, all the time Bush was running the country into the ground, they were keeping their heads shoved up their alimentary canals.

Now SUDDENLY they discover he wasn't a true conservative.

Hell, I knew that, and I don't even LIKE conseratives...

by WashStateBlue 2009-03-01 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: And....

It's relevant to the diary because the author of the diary stated "Keep in mind when reading this that Bush addressed CPAC every year of his presidency." That statement is simply not true. After appearing at CPAC as a candidate in 2000 and talking a good game (according to party activists), he lost favor with conservatives on a few (read: a minority of) issues and only appeared at CPAC last year to rehabilitate his image among his conservative base.

by pjdorsey 2009-03-01 06:58PM | 0 recs
Re: And....

"they couldn't have a failed president be a conservative president; that would mean conservatism itself would have failed. "

And that is the point. Bush was the emobodiment of the conservative ideal. It turns out he did even make the functioning parts of government so small it could be drowned in a bathtub.

It turns out Americans don't like their cities to drown. American may be a nation of easily frightened reactionaries, but only the hardcore RW is filled with serious haters.

by redwagon 2009-03-02 07:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Bush A Dirty Word At CPAC

Bush is a dirty word in my house as well.  It's just a shame that so many Republicans stood by his side.  It gave the entire Republican Party a black eye.

by BillW 2009-03-01 05:11PM | 0 recs
So the GOP argument is basically

"Bush wasn't conservative because he didn't veto our bills!"


by Neef 2009-03-01 07:56PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads