Mark Levin On Bush Versus Reagan And Conservatism
The Republican establishment has for years co-opted the label of conservative. We all mostly liked and supported Bush 43, especially because of the challenges we faced together as a nation after 9/11. Most of us still do like him.
However, it's time to set the record straight as regards conservative versus Republican politics. Clearly the mostly Bush-aligned political and pundit class appears strongly committed to falsely defining what both Bush was and conservatism is, for important purposes as we move toward 2012. Before I link Mark Levin's definitive posting on this issue, there are quality sources from Cato to Dan Mitchell, formerly of Heritage, that make it clear Reagan was by far the more genuinely conservative politician and President.
It might also be helpful to re-visit this tid-bit concerning Bush and CPAC.
Bush was preparing to give a speech to the annual meeting of the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC. The conference is the event of the year for conservative activists; Republican politicians are required to appear and offer their praise of the conservative movement.
… Bush was decidedly unenthusiastic.
"What is this movement you keep talking about in the speech?" the president asked Latimer. Latimer explained that he meant the conservative movement — the movement that gave rise to groups like CPAC.
Bush seemed perplexed. Latimer elaborated a bit more. Then Bush leaned forward, with a point to make. "Let me tell you something," the president said. "I whupped Gary Bauer's ass in 2000. So take out all this movement stuff. There is no movement."
Bush seemed to equate the conservative movement — the astonishing growth of conservative political strength that took place in the decades after Barry Goldwater's disastrous defeat in 1964 — with the fortunes of Bauer, the evangelical Christian activist and former head of the Family Research Council whose 2000 presidential campaign went nowhere.
Now it was Latimer who looked perplexed. Bush tried to explain. "Look, I know this probably sounds arrogant to say," the president said, "but I redefined the Republican Party."
No, what Bush, or perhaps more the image minders behind him, did, was re-define conservatism, until it has become relatively meaningless, just as Republican politics was prior to Reagan. It's time to reclaim conservatism for what it was and is, if only to inform political debate and decision-making as we move forward toward the next election cycle. Mark Levin addresses the topic thoroughly today on his Facebook page.
Ronald Reagan & George W. Bush .
My friend Pete Wehner took my criticism of President George W. Bush and some of his most senior staff as a challenge to compare Bush to President Ronald Reagan (link). Comparing Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush is like comparing Margaret Thatcher and John Major. That's not to put down Bush or Major, both of whom were fine leaders, but they were not the historical figures their former staffers and supporters insist.
This is the divide that arouses the Scranton/Rocky/Bush wing of the Party against Palin. If you don’t get this, you don’t know your GOP History and why they hated Goldwater and Reagan.
I never believed he was dumb until I read that quote. How can one involved in politics Not know of the ideological fight between the left and right? Dumb motherf$$$er!
I was a brain-dead Liberal until 9/11/2001; I didn’t vote in 2000 however I always considered GWB to be a JFK (big spending liberal who cut taxes) than a Ronald Reagan Conservative.
There were masses of brain-dead Liberals who once believed Obama was a Centrist when they voted for him; that has all changed as well.
The Ruling Class is stuck in staleville-they think they can still triangulate their pandering manner of attaining power.
After the 2004 elections, Bush reverted to being like Daddy Bush in that he wanted to be liked by the media and others in order to preserve his legacy. Hence, Miers nomination, TARP, etc
Wow you cons really are blinded by the light. Only a moron would find nuke-hating tax-raising Reagan more conservative than Bush.
Bush was a social and foreign policy conservative, so it depends who you ask and what their hot button issues are
We all knew W spent too much money and was no Reagan, but it can always get worse… and it sure as hell did
I would take Bush back in 2 seconds rather than another term of this insanity
What Sam said. the “jesus-ification” of an amnesty-loving, tax hiking, deficit causing cutter and runner like Reagan should embarrass Mark Kevin’s caddy, but, then again, Dan is never afraid to hitch his wagon to that weirdo’s star.
Still, there is not one substantive post in this essay. Wehner, disgusting little hagiographer that he is, at least makes an argument based upon data; yours is based upon bald assertion. Point to Wehner
Bush 41 is/was a Rockefeller Republican (remember “voodoo economics”??) and while he served Reagan faithfully, he never believed in conservative principles. Bush 43 is a little more conservative than his father, having been brought up in Texas, marrying Laura, and getting sober, BUT his conservatism is primarily on social issues- and then, only on “some” things. He was a good man for the job on 9/11 and he had the right instincts regarding healing and protecting the country, but he is NOT a CONSERVATIVE. The Bushes are good, kind people, but they are still believers in big government, just designed according to THEIR principles, not those of the Democrats- not RINOs, but not conservative. Levin’s right.