How Did Bush, The Son Of A Liberal Republican, Become A “conservative” Even Though He Governed Like Lbj?
Posted on : 22-01-2010 | By : twitter traffic tips | In : Social Media Marketing
6
Back in 1980, there was a great battle over the Republican Party and its future. On one side was George Herbert Walker Bush, a liberal Republican from Texas, and the heir to the liberal Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party. He was declared the “frontrunner” by the liberal media. In opposition to him was the elderly former governor of California, Ronald Reagan, who was a prominent Goldwater supporter in 1964 (when the liberal establishment of the party stabbed the party nominee in the back and voted for far-left Democrat Lyndon Baines Johnson) and widely considered the heir to the conservative wing of the Republican Party. As we all know, Reagan won the nomination and the conservatives celebrated. Although at first, Reagan said that Bush would not be his VP, he eventually gave in and made the liberal from Texas his 2nd in command. A few months into his presidency, John Hinckley Jr., from a prominent pro-Bush family, and whose brother Scott had a dinner appointment scheduled with Bush’s son Neil (the younger brother of W.) attempted to assassinate President Reagan and put the presidency into the hands of Vice President Bush. After this point, Reagan suspiciously “moderated” his views. After Reagan was term-limited, Bush replaced him as the president. In 1992, Rush Limbaugh and other now famous talk radio hosts first came to fame by supporting Pat Buchanan (who ran against Bush’s tax increase and Bush’s wars; Buchanan did not emphasize the culture war or “economic nationalism” anywhere near as much as he would later on) against President Bush in the Republican primaries.
However, after the Republican landslide in 1994 and the defeat of liberal Republican Bob Dole in 1996, the media immediately declared George W. Bush, the son of the previous Republican president as the “frontrunner” for the 2000 Republican nomination. In 2000, Bush declared himself a “compassionate conservative” and ran as the “conservative” candidate against “liberal” John McCain (who, of course, is slightly more liberal than Bush). As president, Bush proceeded to govern to the left of every president since LBJ. Although even the Dole campaign had pledged to abolish the Department of Education, Bush doubled its size. Bush also expanded government involvement in medical care more than any president since LBJ with his Medicare Part D (of course, the Clintons pushed HillaryCare, but that never passed). Rather than ending welfare, Bush created the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives to hand over management of welfare programs to churches (apparently, these churches must have forgotten about the commandment “Thou Shalt Not Steal”). Rather than attempting to make participation in Social Security voluntary (which was the Social Security reform that Barry Goldwater supported, although he was forced to backpedal on this during the 1964 campaign), Bush supported a “privatization” of Social Security that would have invested the Social Security “trust fund” in the stock market. Bush pushed an “ownership society” in which the government sought to make sure everybody owned a home (of course, this program was nearly as destructive to the American people as the “Great Society”). Bush handed out billions of tax dollars to the banksters and began the process of nationalizing the car companies (a process which was completed when Obama founded Government Motors). Bush also ran record deficits and caused a skyrocketing of the national debt.
How exactly did many people get the idea that the far-left Bush administration was some kind of “conservative” administration? Yes, he may not have been far enough left for some leftists, but he was significantly to the left of their heroes Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, so I suspect their dislike of him is mostly due to jealousy (and to dislike of the specific cultural values he wished to use government to impose). Why do many who claim to be on the right still see the need to act as apologists for a far-left president?




