At Conservative Forum on Bush, Everybody's a Critic By Dana Milbank Wednesday, March 8, 2006; A02 If the ancient political wisdom is correct that a charge unanswered is a charge agreed to, the Bush White House pleaded guilty yesterday at the Cato Institute to some extraordinary allegations. "We did ask a few members of the Bush economic team to come," explained David Boaz, the think tank's executive vice president, as he moderated a discussion between two prominent conservatives about President Bush. "We didn't get that." Now why would the administration pass up such an invitation? Well, it could have been because of the first speaker, former Reagan aide Bruce Bartlett. Author of the new book "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy," Bartlett called the administration "unconscionable," "irresponsible," "vindictive" and "inept." It might also have had something to do with speaker No. 2, conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan. Author of the forthcoming "The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It; How to Get It Back," Sullivan called Bush "reckless" and "a socialist," and accused him of betraying "almost every principle conservatism has ever stood for." Nor was moderator Boaz a voice of moderation. He blamed Bush for "a 48 percent increase in spending in just six years," a "federalization of public schools" and "the biggest entitlement since LBJ." True, the small-government libertarians represented by Cato have always been the odd men out of the Bush coalition. But the standing-room-only forum yesterday, where just a single questioner offered even a tepid defense of the president, underscored some deep disillusionment among conservatives over Bush's big-spending answer to Medicare and Hurricane Katrina, his vast claims of executive power, and his handling of postwar Iraq. Bartlett, who lost his job at the free-market National Center for Policy Analysis because of his book, said that if conservatives were honest, more would join his complaint. "They're reticent to address the issues that I've raised for fear that they might have to agree with them," he told the group. "And a lot of Washington think tanks and groups of that sort, they know that this White House is very vindictive." Waiting for the talk to start, some in the audience expressed their ambivalence. "It's gonna hit the [bestseller] lists, I'm sure," said Cato's legal expert, Roger Pilon. "Typical Bruce," replied John Taylor of the Virginia Institute for Public Policy. Admitted Pilon: "He's got a lot of material to work with." Bartlett certainly thought so. He began by predicting a big tax increase "to finance the inevitable growth of government that is in the pipeline that President Bush is largely responsible for." He also said many fellow conservatives don't know about the "quite dreadful" traits of the administration, such as the absence of "anybody who does any serious analysis" on policy issues. Boaz assured the audience that he told the White House that "if there's a rebuttal to what Bruce has said, please come and provide it." Instead, Sullivan was on hand to second the critique. "This is a big-government agenda," he said. "It is fueled by a new ideology, the ideology of Christian fundamentalism." The bearded pundit offered his own indictment of Bush: "complete contempt" for democratic processes, torture of detainees, ignoring habeas corpus and a "vast expansion of the federal government." The notion, he said, that the "Thatcher-Reagan legacy that many of us grew up to love and support would end this way is an astonishing paradox and a great tragedy." The question period gave the two a chance to come up with new insults. "If Bush were running today against Bill Clinton, I'd vote for Clinton," Bartlett served. "You have to understand the people in this administration have no principles," Sullivan volleyed. "Any principles that get in the way of the electoral map have to be dispensed with." Boaz renewed his plea. "Any Bush economists hiding in the audience?" There was, in fact, one Bush Treasury official on the attendance roster, but he did not surface. The only man who came close to defending Bush, environmental conservative Fred Singer, said he was "willing to overlook" the faults because of the president's Supreme Court nominations. Even Richard Walker, representing the think tank that fired Bartlett, declined to argue. "I agree with most of it," he said later. Unchallenged, the Bartlett-Sullivan tag team continued. "The entire intellectual game has been given away by the Republican president," said Sullivan. "He's a socialist in so many respects, a Christian socialist." Bartlett argued that Richard Nixon "is the model for everything Bush is doing." Sullivan said Karl Rove's political strategy is "pathetic." Bartlett said that "the administration lies about budget numbers." "He is not a responsible human being; he is a phenomenally reckless human being," Sullivan proclaimed. "There is a level of recklessness involved that is beyond any ideology." "Gosh," Boaz interjected. "I wish we had a senior White House aide up here." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/07/AR2006030701403_pf.html
I think this sentiment has been growing for a long time. The reason nobody sees it is because most of what Conservatives disagree with the President on falls outside the scope of the war in Iraq. When we tend to get into disagreements in here it pretty much falls along support/non-support for the war. We then tend to take those views as blind faith or blind hatred for the President when in actuality I'm sure every liberal on this board could find at least one trait that they like about Bush and one thing they like that he's done and every Conservative could find one trait they hate about him and one thing he's done that angers them to no end.
The one thing I like about Bush is that he likes baseball. The one thing Bush did that I like is that he sold the Texas Rangers to an absolute nincompoop like Tom Hicks.
Bush trait I like: He makes me look like I am an excellent public speaker. Something Bush did that I like: Let me think; nope, nothing.
Halfbreed, I wish I could go to bed early just as Bush does, but damn these Rockets games are just killing me.
With the current terminology, isn't "conservative Bush critic" an oxymoron? Doesn't that make all these critics "libpigs"? As far as Bush, I had no issues with the port deal. I did like the multinational talks with North Korea, but hate how we just gave up and didn't really try to hard with it. I do like how he has made me and my parents richer, because we already have a lot of money. I hope he does follow his words on going towards alternative energy, and more nookyouler power plants instead of relying on oil. I also like how he is diverting focus to other areas, and not on China. Before, our old policy of putting pressure on China just made things worse and had them push back. His actions are making the world more globalized and less focused on a hegemonic state. While I disagree with most of the things he does, I can admire that he does what he wants, doesn't overwork himself, knows how to relax and enjoy life, can be very personable with people, and doesn't worry about being the best or overly competitive. While that can describe a good colleague, not necessarily the best for the leader of a country.
Whether Clinton has a direct hand or not in the matter, the U.S. government had a surplus, not a deficit when his administration left office. Under Bush's leadership I feel the U.S. governments policies have swung too far to the right. Keep in mind I voted for Bush Sr. in 1988, so I don't vote a straight Democratic ticket.
Bush will miss your vote when he runs in 2008. You see W doesn't believe in the US Constitution so he won't let that get in his way for a third term.
FB no disrespect but under Clinton the little people were happy ,had jobs,and could get a bj every now and then .Under bush people aren't happy there miserable.
Sorry to be blunt, but what an ignorant opinion you have. Please educate yourself on the economy. I'll even start the process for you. Unemployment is lower now than all but three years of Clinton's 8 years in office. Personal income is higher than it ever was under Clinton Real personal consumption expenditures are also higher than they ever were under Clinton. Wow, I feel like I've done my civic duty for the day - I've educated otherwise blind liberals who only focus on the negative and complain about imaginary problems.
ha ha- you think this chart supports your point? See how high it was when Clinton took over? Notice a downward trend?
Do you not see the mess that Clinton left W with? Look at how W's tax cuts have worked wonders by reducing unemployment.
Interesting... But can you comment on the topic of the tread that it's conservatives that are focusing on the negitive and complaining about very real problems? thanks in advance
You are joking right? I see the lowest unemployment around the time Clinton left office, after lowering the rate from it's highest point, around when he took office. Please, demonstrate to all of us who are "showing our ignorance" how this shows that Clinton left a mess with unemployment that Bush has fixed? This is laughable. Bush has presided over the lowest job growth in modern history. Take away goverment hiring and deficit spending and it looks even worse. His tax cuts will be remembered as dooming the economy that our kids are going to have to dig out of. Please, no one line smart answers. Demonstrate it with more than a couple of little charts.
My bad, I'm derailing the thread. We should take it up somewhere else. But that chart is so ridiculous.
...and after a wild right hook by bigtexxx hits nothing, mc mark counters with a straight left to the chin.
