Bush Who?

5:05 pm EST May 8th, 2006 | Politics | 8 Comments

When the President is at 32% all of a sudden his right wing credentials come into question.

Related Posts

  • No Related Post
«
»

8 Responses to “Bush Who?”

  1. SaveFarris says:
    May 8, 2006 at 6:05 pm

    Read the comment from the link. It shows that Bush’s “right-wing credentials” were being questioned as far back as 2000.

  2. Oliver Willis says:
    May 8, 2006 at 7:05 pm

    And those questionings have been completely mute from about November 2000-present.

  3. buma says:
    May 8, 2006 at 7:05 pm

    What will bush do in his retirement to try to rehabilitate his image, that his presidency wasn’t complete disaster? Fish?

  4. z_adura says:
    May 8, 2006 at 10:05 pm

    It seems to me that there has indeed been a question on the right as to whether Bush was a conservative. I can recall many questions in think tank white papers about the legitimacy of “compassionate conservatism.”

    Notwithstanding, it is also true that without the patina of compassion, GWB would not be president. The right would have been ideologically pure but out of power.

  5. SaveFarris says:
    May 9, 2006 at 9:05 am

    Completely mute? With the mighty research tools of MediaMatters at your disposal, you should be able to find plenty of evidence to disprove that. For starters, examine the Conservative protestations during:

    No Child Left Behind
    the Medicare bill
    McCain Fiengold
    “America is addicted to oil”

  6. dubbull says:
    May 9, 2006 at 11:05 am

    “What will bush do in his retirement to try to rehabilitate his image, that his presidency wasn t complete disaster? Fish?”

    Maybe he could build houses and criticize future presidents? It’s worked before.

  7. z_adura says:
    May 9, 2006 at 1:05 pm

    SaveFarris, the problem is that GWB would have about 15% of the vote if the “real” conservatives came to power. People generally like Social Security, Medicare, interstate highways, flood control, farm subsidies, VA hospitals and the like. The absence of these things would essentially eliminate most of the red states who principally benefit from these programs.

    Rather than trying to taint him with the “liberal” label, it is probably smarter to just say he was pragmatic about social spending and therefore “electable.”

  8. buma says:
    May 9, 2006 at 2:05 pm

    Maybe he could build houses and criticize future presidents? It s worked before.>>

    bush is suited for neither. He swings a hammer like a girl. He would require speech writers to offer critiques of future presidents.