Thread: How President Bush Destroyed the Republican Party

Democrats often complain about people who voted for President Bush are unable to recognize that damage Bush has done to the country and to his own party. Personally, I think that is a load of crap. I have heard the vast majority of the Republicans on this board criticize all kinds of mistakes made by the Bush Administration. So this is a thread for that.

*This is not a thread to simply Bash Bush: keep comments in the context of damage done to the GOP*

1. The divide between traditional and Neo Conservativism. President Bush came to office as a uniter, but not only has he violently divided liberals and conservatives, he has divided his own party between traditional and neo conservatives. President Bush set the tone for the Republican Congress, which went in the opposite direction of the Gingrich Republicans, and spending was out of control. They made Democrats look like fiscal conservatives. President Bush and the Republican Congress put forth an entitlement program for seniors that the Democrats would have been called commie-pinko-leftists for proposing. But, Bush needed to shut up the Seniors for the 2004 election. It worked. The AARP was not to be found.

2. Principled Leadership. President Reagan may go down in history as an inspiration president, but if he does, it is only because he said what he meant and he meant what he said. Many Democrats at the time supported Reagan, because Reagan was acting from principle and not politics. Even politicians are inspired by that kind of courage. President Bush is the opposite of that. Bush says one thing and does another. Then he tells the Democrats to shove it any time they dissent. President Bush showed no signs of willingness to cooperate with Democrats and was indignant, it seems, that Democrats wanted some say in the direction of our nation. But Bush and Rove brilliantly lead a campaign that forced Democrats to either get on board or be labeled anti-American. The resentment this has fostered within the Democratic Party is going to last for years. They want revenge.

3. Communication. They called Reagan the Great Communicator. What will they call Bush? Bush, like Obama, could speak for hours without ever actually saying anything. And what he'd end up doing often times angered Republicans and Democrats alike.

4. Neo-Conservativism and Globalism. Global Corporate Socialism, which is the cooperation of international and national governments with international banks and corporations to direct and manufacture the global economy, has been Bush's foremost policy outside of his war on Iraq. This means that President Bush has used the wealth of the United States to foster and support the growth of emerging capitalist nations, providing cheaper labor for corporations and cheaper goods for people all across the globe. What the NeoCons did not anticipate was that this would lead to widespread over population and that we lacked the natural resources to support that massive increase in population. Now prices are soaring. People are rioting int he third world and struggling in the first.

Originally Posted by Burning Giraffe

1. The divide between traditional and Neo Conservativism.

The difference between Neoconservatisim and Conservatism is the same as the difference between Neo and Mr. Anderson in The Matrix. They're the same, it only depends on who's talking.

Originally Posted by Burning Giraffe

President Bush came to office as a uniter,

No, he didn't. He barely won the election (against Gore? Gimme a break!) because he had a satchel full of liberal promises that turned off the conservatives during the campaign.

He coined the term "compassionate conservative", thereby proving that he wasn't conservative, and also allowing the left and the media to claim the Compassion Crown.

He wanted to finance religious charities using my tax dollars. He ain't no conservative if he's stealing my money to give to churches.

He promised to spend more money on this, and more on that, to every constituency he could find.

Nope, he didn't enter Washington as a uniter.

As for the GOP Congress, Bush lost his Veto Pen for five years, so naturally the children got out of hand. If he was a leader that could never have happened.

Nope, the GOP put a manager forward, not a leader. So the nation got managed.

And this year what do we have? More middle- and bottom- tier supervisory personnel stumping for the CEO slot, and the Board of Directors is going to choose one of them. And what's going to happen, again, when top executive is placed miles above the pay scale they're qualified to handle?

More half-baked schemes and scams, more red ink and red blood.

What will history call Bush?

Mediocre. He's not going to stand out in any "best/worst" lists.

Unhappily the Obama presidency will be so bad that people will get nostalgic for w. In other words his reputation and legacy will soar to undeserved heights. Oh well, oh hell.

The only way to accurately predict the value of the Bush Presidency would be to have Gore win in 2000, have 911 happen and have an insipid response (which I am not sure Gore would have made). Bush was not about to impose Neocon anything and probably would have been a very average, slightly right of center President.

AQ has either been bottled up or is waiting for a less aggressive President to take office. In either case, the Bush policies have kept them from a repeat performance.

I don't think Bush has destroyed the party. Political parties easily reform themselves and take new shapes. The Democrats are on the rise because people hate war, don't know what's good for them and want goodies.

If 911 was a fluke and anyone else would have responded better than Bush did, then I am wrong. But there is no way to tell without playing out alternate timelines and seeing what would happen. I think everything substantive that Bush has done since 911 has been to avoid a replay.

Originally Posted by Burning Giraffe

2. Principled Leadership. President Reagan may go down in history as an inspiration president, but if he does, it is only because he said what he meant and he meant what he said. Many Democrats at the time supported Reagan, because Reagan was acting from principle and not politics. Even politicians are inspired by that kind of courage. President Bush is the opposite of that. Bush says one thing and does another. Then he tells the Democrats to shove it any time they dissent. President Bush showed no signs of willingness to cooperate with Democrats and was indignant, it seems, that Democrats wanted some say in the direction of our nation. But Bush and Rove brilliantly lead a campaign that forced Democrats to either get on board or be labeled anti-American. The resentment this has fostered within the Democratic Party is going to last for years. They want revenge.

Actually that's not true. While harping endlessly on Soviet Communism and using "freedom" endlessly in his speeches, he sat silently while the first imports from Communist China began, and was the frist to declare a "War on Drugs" and appoint a "Drug Czar".

He also did not bring back prayer to schools or end abortion. In fact, I don't recall him ever even trying. He too, left the US government farther in debt than he found it. He did add many cool, slick, anti-government one-liners to the lexicon.

Morning in America was a slogan, nothing more.

Well I'll be damned, maybe he did accomplish something.

Originally Posted by Pragmatist

Well I'll be damned, maybe he did accomplish something.

He has also led our country to kill a whole bunch of terrorists. While I don't like the Iraqi occupation, I'm all for slaughtering terrorists.

Originally Posted by Burning Giraffe

He has also led our country to kill a whole bunch of terrorists. While I don't like the Iraqi occupation, I'm all for slaughtering terrorists.

Killing a whole bunch of terrorists doesn't do a whole lot of good when you create two more for each one you knock off.

Originally Posted by Pragmatist

Killing a whole bunch of terrorists doesn't do a whole lot of good when you create two more for each one you knock off.

Well, that just means that you have to kill them too. Though, my feeling is that at this point, if we left the Middle East all together, those terrorists would kill each other for the next 10,000 years.

Originally Posted by william the wierd

Unhappily the Obama presidency will be so bad that people will get nostalgic for w. In other words his reputation and legacy will soar to undeserved heights. Oh well, oh hell.

Bush is so bad people are nostalgic for Hoover. Obama ain't even President.

At least BG has some balls unlike others.