McClatchy Washington Bureau | 10/24/2007 | Bush is the biggest spender since LBJ
WASHINGTON — George W. Bush, despite all his recent bravado about being an apostle of small government and budget-slashing, is the biggest spending president since Lyndon B. Johnson. In fact, he’s arguably an even bigger spender than LBJ.
You can’t buy friendship or support. You have to earn it.
Bush is well on the way to pulling a Clinton: Enter office with control of both houses of congress and the White House, leave office having lost all three. George Bush and Karl Rove: Political geniuses.
Submit to Stumbled Upon!
This is another example of why I lean toward “W” being the worst POTUS since the last mid century. Via all the methods of full duplex communications that we have nowadays, Bush has a face full of united citizens giving him sage advice that he willingly ignores. Carter was just incompetent. LBJ was a blowhard who I don’t think understood the ramifications of what his policies would reap; Bush cannot claim such ignorance.
Bush is an aristocrat. One of the hallmarks of aristocrats is contempt for any information not emanating from their own class.
In the coming years, bush will be reviled as the worst president ever to walk the halls of the WH. History will pound him again and again for his lies and his embrace of an imperial presidency. His smirk is a big FU to anybody who doesn’t bow down to his ‘relevance’. We get the government we deserve. My question is: Do we deserve better?
So, what is unusual about this?
Republican candidates ALWAYS declare they are “small government” Conservatives. Republican Candidates NEVER keep that promise: Reagan created a new Cabinet department, as did Bush. Nixon signed off on the EPA and all the programs (passed by a Democratic Congress, but signed by him) that Conservatives now decry (EPA, …)
Conservatives just want to HEAR those promises. They never actually believe that ANY Republican will EVER keep them.
In 2008, whomever the Republicans nominate (Guiliani, Thompson, McCain, ..), the candidate will make an absolute promise to deliever small government. Everyone knows that he will NOT keep that promise, but Conservatives will BELIEVE EVERY WORD, 100%.
We will, of course, hear the alibi, “but Democrats would be worse….”. Bull! Conservatives love being lied to by Republicans. The Religious Right has enjoyed it for about thirty years. And it will never stop (either the lying, or the absolute belief). Not in 2008. Not in 2088.
Any other questions?
well the one difference between Clinton and Bush when they leave office will most likely be the approval rating…where Clintons was way, way higher than Bush’s,
unless Bush moves from his 25% to over 60% in the next year…but I dont see that happening
Gee, Republicans must be feeling kinda stupid for supporting this guy in 2004, huh? Also, I noticed that 3 of the top 5 spenders were Republicans. So much for the ’small government’ plank of their platform. Tell me again, why does anyone support the GOP anymore? isn’t their base tired of being lied to?
Brent, for me at least you are partly correct. That is why there is no way in hell I’ll vote for a McCain, Giuliani, or Romney. You are wrong though in your implied statement that the Dems have put up candidates that are better than the Republicans. That is why some folks will still support the GOP.
Re: “Gee, Republicans must be feeling kinda stupid for supporting this guy in 2004, huh?”
Nope!
Conservatives are confident of their absolute brilliance because the Republicans SAID THE WORDS they wanted to hear.
Remember, Republicans do not actually care about results (hence the fact that there is not one single Republican who cares that Osama bin Laden is still alive and free).
Conservatives only care that they be TOLD what they want to hear on the campaign trail. In fact they actualy prefer that they be lied to, since if any Republican actually KEPT any of the promises they made, the results would be so disasterous that Conservatives would be discredited (for reference check, “we will be greeted as liberators”).
As long as Republicans never actually keep a promise made to Conservatives, no Conservatives has to be accountable for the results of their demands, and can continue to tell each other how intelligent they are.
Add to that the fact that Conservatives are incapable of embarrrasment, no matter what they do (how else do you explain George W.Bush yukking it up about searching for “lost WMD’s” under his desk after an invasion that he launched over WMD’s that has cost the lives of tens, or hundreds, of thousands of people?), and you will see that, “no”, Republicans are not embarrased at all.
Brent and Coffee:
I’m an ex-Republican. I voted for President Bush in 2000, but will never again. The Republicans seem committed to spending our country into bankruptcy. Remember Bill Clinton? He balanced the budget. I’ve had it with the faux fiscal responsibility “schtick” the Republicans peddle. The Democrats, who paradoxically rarely discuss the issue, at least use the “pay as you go” philosophy.
Clinton left office with a 68% approval rating and a budget surplus.
George will be lucky to slither out of the White House with 30% approval, and we’ll all be paying for his 8 years — and 2 wars — for the rest of our lives.
So to say Bush is “well on the way to pulling a Clinton”, is, imo, awfully generous.
note also that when you adjust for inflation…inflation does not include the costs of energy or food. actual inflation as felt in the pockets of most americans is much worse than the numbers show.
Add to that the fact that Conservatives are incapable of embarrrasment, no matter what they do (how else do you explain George W.Bush yukking it up about searching for “lost WMD’s” under his desk after an invasion that he launched over WMD’s that has cost the lives of tens, or hundreds, of thousands of people?),…
George W. Bush is not a conservative.
Small point of order here. Bush is not the biggest spender “since LBJ”. He is simply the biggest spender. Ever.
I am ashamed and disgusted with what has happened to the GOP.
Yep, there’s deep murmurings reverberating through the DC malarial feverish jungle canopy like them crazy drums and pointy-head pundits that never stop. When I asked (or axed if you’re stupid or have lousy taste in music) somebody if the drums ever stop, they replied, “No. Very bad when drums stop. Then we get bass solo!”.
Okay, bad joke. Anyway, have you ever seen those lists of all the elements in the human body and how much they would be worth if you could cook them down, extract, and sell them? The gist of it is that we’re all made of mostly oxygen, hydrogen and carbon with small amounts of stuff like potassium and phosphorus thrown in for flavoring and color, and altogether our component elements are worth a little less than a dollar, assuming you could find a buyer for tiny amounts of easily obtainable elements. Well, we’d have to take a loss on this seven year disaster (don’t know if it’s tax deductible) but it just might be time to accept a tolerable level of loss and throw Boosh, Chainy, the whole Republican congress, and, ah hell, let’s throw in Coulter and her adam’s apple, any employee at Faux, and even Rush (careful, don’t strain yourself – don’t know if it’s covered by rip-off insurance), and see if we can walk away from this disaster of stupendous proportions with enough chump change in our pocket for a twelve pack of Schlitz and a pound of head cheese. Hell, the resultant hangover and intestinal upset would be tolerable if I didn’t have to gaze one more time upon the slack-jawed mouth-breathing Gimp attempting to thrash out some brain dead 3rd graders half-baked glue-inspired “thoughts”.
The only problem for America is that, bad as Bush has been, the Democrats would have been worse.
It’s a real problem for them.
You might have actually wanted to read this blog before making an ass out of yourself with your comment …and I apologize to you if you did read it but couldn’t follow along.
Don’t confuse my distaste for Bush with your moonbat stance.
Hey Bill, what happened, did you get another Salon link?
Carl Gordon said
Remember, Carl: Wood alcohol is bad for you.
OG, no this is the Salon link I thought b represented. My mistake, sorry.
Bush is not a Conservative, Bush is nothing but an opportunist that used his name, and family conections to get to where he is. Bush in fact has for the most part destroyed Conservatism in a way that no Democrat could have ever done. It is amasing and frankly sad, that Conservatives still support this man.
The Republican Party that I used to vote for has been hijacked by a bunch of wacos from the Religious far right (The Taliban Wing) , and derranged Neo-Cons hell bent in starting World War III.
You know Gil spell check does work on most browsers and in the comment section(just look for the underlined words). That said I have a feeling that you never voted for any republican. If you ever voted.
jugger, I suggested once before that you find a new email provider. Any address in the .ru domain marks your comments as “trash” — that is to say, deserving immediate and grisly death without even a brief respite on the spam queue death row — from which fate they will be reprieved only if I happen to notice them. Normally I don’t bother to look any more; you lucked out this time only because I’ve been gathering data on a new variety of spam, deciding how best to blow it out of the water. Given the sheer volume of spam caught and discarded by this one rule upon email addresses in the .ru domain, and the paucity of false positives (so far, only two comments from you, plus whatever other comments you might have submitted that I overlooked and flushed), I have no intention of changing the rule, which means, if you want to comment here, you’ll need to get yourself a more reputable address.
Re: “Bush is not a Conservative,”
Yes he is.
Conservatives enthusiastically supported George W. Bush, twice. Referring to him as “Conservative” each time.
Declaring that Bush is “not” Conservative is just Conservatives’ way of avoiding the one item they hate the most, “accountabilty for the results of their votes and political support”.
Re: “The only problem for America is that, bad as Bush has been, the Democrats would have been worse.”
Exactly the alibi I predicted.
No proof. Just the declaration. To be believed by obedient Conservatives everywhere, every time.
The sam absolute certainty that Conservatives had when they told America that “Iraqi oil would pay for the occupation after Saddam”.
Philly Steve, have you forgotten who the Democratic nominee was last time? John Kerry. I’m a little more familiar with him than you are. He’s one of the most incompetent people we’ve ever elected here, and that’s saying something. He’s an empty suit, and would have been a disaster in the White House. I’m a JFK liberal dem in the most liberal dem state, and even I know better. Republicans have won the White House in seven of the last ten elections, and guys like Kerry (and McGovern, and Mondale, and Dulakis, and yes - Gore) are the reason why.
I just lurk here on occasion, to scout the opposition, and I’ve learned that Republicans are no more a monolith than Democrats. They’re not all conservatives, and the Christian right isn’t conservative at all. I suggest you stop commenting and start lurking. There’s no better way to learn than to listen while keeping your mouth shut.
George Bush? Conservative? Don’t make me laugh. Let’s see:
- Profligate spending? Check.
- Support for race preferences? Check.
- Bigger, more instrusive government (e.g. NCLB)? Check.
- Pandering to minorities? Check.
- Arrogant, “I know best” attitude? Check.
- Open borders? Check.
- Open contempt and disrespect for people who hold mainstream conservative views on sovereignty, immigration, and unqualified SCOTUS nominees? Check.
Hmm, there’s a word I’m looking for that describes a guy like this…oh yeah: LIBERAL!
Declaring that Bush is “not” Conservative is just Conservatives’ way of avoiding the one item they hate the most, “accountabilty for the results of their votes and political support”.
Nobody would have a problem with that if Bush had behaved and governed the way a conservative is expected to. He didn’t. And it wasn’t just one or two little deviations either.
Re: “Philly Steve, have you forgotten who the Democratic nominee was last time? John Kerry. I’m a little more familiar with him than you are. He’s one of the most incompetent people we’ve ever elected here, and that’s saying something.”
Yup.
John Kerry, in addition to being a jerk, is a terrrible campaigner. We will never know how he successful he would or would not have been as President (although Conservatives, of course, KNOW the answer to that question, as they do to everything else).
Besides, since when is that an alibi for George W. Bush?
Besides, in Pennsylvania, we had Rick Santorum who was holding press conferences in May 2006 declaring that “the WMD’s had been found!” (denied five minutes later by the Pentagon itself).
Re: “Hmm, there’s a word I’m looking for that describes a guy like this…oh yeah: LIBERAL! ”
Of course.
That means Conservatives are NOT RESPONSIBLE for their political support and votes. They never are.
To mis-quote the Pottery Barn Rule: You voted for him. You own him. All the pretending that you did not cannot change the facts (except, of course, within Republican circles, where all facts are subject to Party Rules).
Let me extend the “George W. Bush is not a Conservative” alibi a bit.
If tomorrow, George W. Bush woke up and decided that he changed his mind, and wanted a third term (the 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution being as optional to him as the Bill of Rights), there is not one single “Conservative” who would NOT vote for him in the general election.
Not one.
Re: “Nobody would have a problem with that if Bush had behaved and governed the way a conservative is expected to. He didn’t.”
Conservatives knew that in 2004, after Bush pushed through “No Child Left Behind” (a massive natinalization of education) and the Medicare “Prescription Drug Entitlement” (the largest welfare state initiative since Lyndon Johnson).
Did Conservatives say anything about this in the 2004 Presidential nomination convention?
Nope.
Loyal Bushies all.
Nope. Just aware that, as in 2000, the Democratic nominee was even less attractive, from a conservative point of view.
As both their performances since have amply demonstrated.
Re: “Nope. Just aware that, as in 2000, the Democratic nominee was even less attractive, from a conservative point of view.”
Which makes my point exactly: That no Conservative is ever permitted to vote for any Democratic candidate, ever. They must universally declare that “Republicans are superior” and vote loyally Republican, every time.
Then, when the Republicans prove to be incompetent or corrupt (just as their Democratic opponents prove likewise, let me not fall into the Conservative-like dogma of pretending that my Party represents the most perfect creation in human history) Conservatives re-christen the Republicans as “Liberal” and move on to the next perfect-Republican candidate.
The key is that Conservatives must always vote for Republicans, and justify their 100% party loyalty (unlike Democrats, who voted for Ronald Reagan, a Republican if I recall) with whatever rationalization is at hand.
If, by any chance, we have a President Guiliani, Thompson, McCain, … in 2009, Conservatives will begin the “he is not Conservative…” drumbeat some time in 2011. They will, of course stop saying that for the 2012 elections, then, if the Republican president is re-elected, begin it again in 2013.
That is how Conservatives must behave. Party rules.
PSteve, you sure do seem to be an authority on Republicans but don’t seem to be able to demonstrate the same knowledge about Dems.
All you’re doing is demonstrating that you think as badly as you write. Nothing you’ve posted here has demonstrated that, in any contest between any of the Republicans you have named, and any of the Democrats you have named, that a conservative seeking to vote for the most conservative of the two would be in error to vote for the Republican candidate.
Get back to me when the Dems nominate somebody more conservative than even the most liberal Republican nominee, or when hell freezes over. I won’t be holding my breath, though.
And re-take that course in rhetoric and logic. Maybe you can pass it the next time around.
Re: “Get back to me when the Dems nominate somebody more conservative than even the most liberal Republican nominee, or when hell freezes over. I won’t be holding my breath, though.”
That was not my initial point.
My point is that Conservatives must vote 100% Republican becuase Republican Candiates SAY they are Conservative. Of course, after the Republican office holders prove to be incompetent or deceitful (again, I am not making the “my party is perfect” claim that Republicans are required to make), Conservatives then pretend they never voted for Republicans and that they were somehow fooled, AGAIN.
That is my point: That Conservatives want to be fooled. They just want to hear words on the campaign trail, and they do not particularly care if the Republican candidate actually keeps his/her word.
Republican office holders know that they do not have to keep their “Conservative” promises, because they can count on 100% of the Conservative vote, every time.
Watch the current publicity about “The Religious Right will stay home” coming from the James Dobson wing of the Republican Party (about half of the Party, but 3/4 of the heirarchy). They will tak about this, clear through the primaries. Then every single one of them will vote for whomever the Republican Party nominates in August. The Republican convention could nominate Vladimir Putin for president and Pat Robertson would pull the “All Republican Candidates” lever without a moment’s hesitation.
And so will every single other Conservative (including each and every one here). Without exception.
That was my point.
Re: “Get back to me when the Dems nominate somebody more conservative than even the most liberal Republican nominee”
Who was the last President to submit, and preside over, a balanced federal budget?
Or, like Dick Cheney, are Conservatives now required to believe that “Deficits don’t matter”?
Point of personal curiosity, Philly Cheez - Just who are you blathering to, hereabouts?
Although, based upon the available evidence, I’d agree that some of the commenters (and no small number of the lurkers, I’d suspect) are registered ‘Publicans, and it seems likely that quite a few of those folks count them selves as conservative in their outlook about a lot of things, you seem to keep wanting to spank them as being, without exception, a) personally responsible for George’s currrent presence on Pennsylvania Ave, b) individually and collectively nasty for being unwilling to own up to their responsibility for said presence and c) unable to stare a fact in the face without dissembling, flinching or otherwise attempting to avoid the issue.
Well, face a few facts yourself:
1) Attempted generalizations such as you keep attempting concerning any political affiliation are a massive waste of time - it means, to invert a phrase, you are unable to see the trees ’cause you’ve got this big forest in the way.
2) By no stretch of reality is George W. Bush a conservative, no matter what your opinion (or anyone else’s, for that matter) may be - the behavioral facts speak louder than any words can. At best, he’s a RINO - and not even every Republican can be considered a conservative; there are damn few “conservative” RINOs, and George ain’t one of ‘em.
3) “Because I say so” isn’t a useful argument in favor of an idea (your mistaken allegation that Bush is a conservative, f’r'instance); “because I say so, and here’s the proof” isn’t any better if the “proof” consists of a lot of citations of the “you didn’t disown him, so he’s your dog” variety. Saying Bush is proven to be a conservative because self-identified conservatives didn’t scream “not a conservative!!” and point fingers at him, then refuse to accede to reality and choose him over Kerry, is like claiming your girlfriend must be pregnant because she hasn’t gone around loudly proclaiming, “I’m not preggers! I’m really not!!“, and because she says she’d rather be pregnant than have an abortion.
4)You should face the pertinent fact that dissing ‘Publicans and/or conservatives (not necessarily the same thing, y’know) around here isn’t novel (though, in general, when it’s done here there’s a more logical basis used than you’ve demonstrated - remember, personal prejudice does not a useful argument make). The owner on the blog isn’t a conservative - big c, little c or any kind of c - nor are the other regular posters here - though all may have some conservative views on some things. One way or another, all sorts of political acolytes get their turn in the barrel - some just get extra turns, for extra perfidy.
5) Last, but far from least, the “in-depth knowledge” of the Republicans and/or conservatives you appear to be declaiming on here has no more “depth” than the average sidewalk puddle - it’s just a bunch of (misguided) stereotypical opinion, apparently emanating chiefly from your anal orifice. Word up: get over yourself, you’re not any better as a political observer than you are as a writer - and your writing needs a lot of improvement to come up to “bad.”
Short point: You’re not really impressing anybody here, except maybe yourself.
Don’t you have something else you’d rather waste time (and bandwidth) on?
So, in Phillyville, a balanced budget is all that is necessary to make one a “conservative?”
Do you even think about what you post, or just spew out whatever rattles through the space in which most people keep their brains?
See if you can peddle that “Bill Clinton was more conservative than Robert Dole” idiocy to anybody but the most crazed example of the nutroots.
However, you might have some luck with sane people - even conservatives - if you made the comparison between him and George HW Bush. Which is the primary reason Bush lost, by the way.
To paraphrase:
See how that works?
Not really useful, of course, as a serious argument…
BTW - spellchecker is your friend -
Whoopsie, I did let one little slip get through, there…
It should be:
- not:
- but, then you knew that, right?…
PIMF
Re: ” Just who are you blathering to, hereabouts?”
My target was those who declared “George W. Bush is not a Conservative”.
I was venting some personal frustration at those Conservatives who avoid personal responsiblity for their votes by pretending that they were “fooled”.
No one is being fooled, anywhere.
Conservatives, not Liberals contributed the money (lots of it), gave the time and cast the votes that put Candidate Bush in the White House. The claims of “betrayal” now are nothing more than the same lament we see from “Conservative” Pundit George Will, who declares his distain for Republicans in odd numbered years, and reinforces his unconditionalloyalty to the Republican Party in even ones.
I am not upset at Conservatives expressing their dissapointment with President Bush. In that they have substantial company from everyone not owned by FoxNews
I am upset knowing that these same Conservatives fully intend to be fooled again, consciously and enthusiastically: Coupled with the inevitable denial of accountability for that support with declarations that “X is not a Conservative…” when the empty Conservative promises are ignored the day after election day, as always.
Re: “Watch the current publicity about “The (Radical Left) will stay home” coming from the (Jane Fonda) wing of the (Democrat) Party (about half of the Party, but 3/4 of the heirarchy).”
Except that this item of information is not true. Jane Fonda has made no such public threat. In fact, since she declared her Christian “Re-Birth” she has not been in the political news much at all, other than as a cardboard cutout for Conservative hate.
And, in fact, Far Left Liberals did shift their votes to a third party in the form of Ralph Nader in 2000, giving the United States George W. Bush as President.
My prediction was that no such action will happen for Republicans in 2008. No matter what the Religious Right says now, they will 100% vote Republican in 2008. As will all Conservatives: Without exception.
That was my original point: That, while Democratic Candidates who are not sufficiently in line with thier party’s more extreme wing (such as centrist-Liberal Al Gore in 2000), can expect to lose some of those votes to thrid party candidates (Ralph Nader). That is absolutely impossible for a Republican to experience in 2008 because of absolute, unconditional Conservative voting loyalty. Every Republican Candidate can, and does, promise to “be Conservative”. Not one has to worry about actually paying even the tiniest price for breaking that word.
What price has George W. Bush paid? Some comments that “Bush is not a Conservative” on this blog? That means nothing.
As I stated earlier, were Bush to personally declare the 22nd Amendment “inoperative” (as he essentially has for the Bill of Rights), and run for a third term, every single Conservative here would vote for him in the general election, wihtout even one single exception.
And, as I’ve said repeatedly, every single Republican office holder in the country know that fact, and counts on it in the elections.