Clinton/Bush/Obama Part IV
Timothy Birdnow
Richard Viguerie rightly concludes that Mitt Romney is the return of the George Bush Presidency.
According to his piece at Conservative HQ:
http://www.conservativehq.com/article/7361-romney-takes-failed-bush-franchise
"The first President Bush, conservatives will need no reminding, shook the Etch-a-Sketch once he was elected and infamously broke his campaign promise not to raise taxes. Bush’s description of his administration as “kinder and gentler” was really establishment Republican code announcing his plans to begin un-doing the policies of Ronald Reagan.
In this, Bush was aided and abetted by a loyal band of henchmen who went on to serve in the administration of his son, President George W. Bush, and long ago gravitated to Romney as the establishment Republican favorite in the race.
Personnel is policy. Conservatives recall all too vividly that as soon as George H.W. Bush took the oath of office as President he made it clear that Reagan conservatives were not welcome in his administration.
As Tom Pauken, who served on Ronald Reagan's White House staff and later became chairman of the Republican Party of Texas recalls, "A lot of people who had been in the [Reagan] administration were systematically thrown out by the Bush crowd… They only wanted people who were more pragmatic... moderate... middle-of-the-road and establishment Republicans.”
End excerpt.
And right he is.
Herb Meyer was the CIA analyst who first predicted that the Soviet Union was going to fall. He once told me that the George W. Bush Administration had a lockout of any and all former Reagan people - including himself. This fits with what we know about the Administration in general; you didn't hear any of the old names except Chaney. George H.W. Bush may have claimed the mantle of Reagan, and said he was a convert to Reagan's views, but he governed as Richard Nixon (albeit a cleaner, less paranoid Nixon) and his son didn't do much better. Yes, they were war hawks, willing to defend this country. But it should be pointed out that both Bushes fought wars that were international, for international purposes as much as anything. Iraq was ostensibly for American security (and I think it needed to be done) but it was sold as enforcing U.N. resolutions and helping to shape a "New World Order". Yes, Bush Jr. cut taxes (unlike his father who foolishly raised them to an "ahah!" chorus from the Democrats) but he also exploded spending and created a new entitlement program. Bush's "conservativism" was certainly of a peculiar stripe; neither socially nor fiscally conservative. Both father and son were Progressives in the end.
And Romney will be likewise. Granted, Romney is a better choice than the BHO, but what does that say? I would be a better choice than the BHO, as would most Americans (since this guy holds little in common with Americans in general.) Barack Obama may not be Hitler, but Mussolini...
So Romney will be a better choice, but not exactly what we need now. America is on the brink. This nation could conceivably collapse from loose fiscal policy, from social deterioration, from cowardly military policy and vacillating foreign objectives. We need a RESTORER not a go-along-to-get-along type. America needs a surgeon and not a masseuse. I fear Romney is just a guy with a bottle of baby oil.
Democrats have often tied Herbert Hoover's policies to Calvin Coolidge and the Republicans proceeding him, but this is grossly unfair; the tie is much more solid between Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt, who maintained and expanded Hoover's experimentalist policies in the economy. It should be Hoover/Roosevelt that is thought of when the Great Depression is mentioned. So too, it should be Clinton/Bush/Obama, as they all pursued a similar course of action leading to this current mess. Obama is different only in degree; he is accelerating a course that was started under Bush, but had it's genesis under Clinton. Clinton was lucky; he had a booming economy and a shrinking defecit, so could afford to spend money. Bush broke the bank with TARP. And Obama has broken the whole economy. But their policies really have no differed much in kind. Romney will continue this tradition. We will have four years of a holding action at best, and will have to drag this guy kicking and screaming the whole way. Oh, and it will hurt us in Congress and at the local levels. And Romney's court picks will likely be Stephan Bryer types, or at best Anthony Kennedys.
All conservatives need to go in with their eyes open. We aren't going to save this country here, nor are we going to really be building for the future. This is not a mustard seed, from which a mighty plant will grow. This is more like a cover crop of clovers to keep the weeds from competing with what meager grain we have sprouting. Or if you prefer, a patch on a bicycle tire that leaks but keeps some air in for the moment. Or, if you prefer, a finger in a dyke (no Rachel Maddow jokes, please!) instead of a concrete sea wall.
Half a loaf is better than no loaf at all, granted. Of course, if you were a passenger on the Titanic I doubt that any loaf would much matter to you in the end.
Richard Viguerie rightly concludes that Mitt Romney is the return of the George Bush Presidency.
According to his piece at Conservative HQ:
http://www.conservativehq.com/article/7361-romney-takes-failed-bush-franchise
"The first President Bush, conservatives will need no reminding, shook the Etch-a-Sketch once he was elected and infamously broke his campaign promise not to raise taxes. Bush’s description of his administration as “kinder and gentler” was really establishment Republican code announcing his plans to begin un-doing the policies of Ronald Reagan.
In this, Bush was aided and abetted by a loyal band of henchmen who went on to serve in the administration of his son, President George W. Bush, and long ago gravitated to Romney as the establishment Republican favorite in the race.
Personnel is policy. Conservatives recall all too vividly that as soon as George H.W. Bush took the oath of office as President he made it clear that Reagan conservatives were not welcome in his administration.
As Tom Pauken, who served on Ronald Reagan's White House staff and later became chairman of the Republican Party of Texas recalls, "A lot of people who had been in the [Reagan] administration were systematically thrown out by the Bush crowd… They only wanted people who were more pragmatic... moderate... middle-of-the-road and establishment Republicans.”
End excerpt.
And right he is.
Herb Meyer was the CIA analyst who first predicted that the Soviet Union was going to fall. He once told me that the George W. Bush Administration had a lockout of any and all former Reagan people - including himself. This fits with what we know about the Administration in general; you didn't hear any of the old names except Chaney. George H.W. Bush may have claimed the mantle of Reagan, and said he was a convert to Reagan's views, but he governed as Richard Nixon (albeit a cleaner, less paranoid Nixon) and his son didn't do much better. Yes, they were war hawks, willing to defend this country. But it should be pointed out that both Bushes fought wars that were international, for international purposes as much as anything. Iraq was ostensibly for American security (and I think it needed to be done) but it was sold as enforcing U.N. resolutions and helping to shape a "New World Order". Yes, Bush Jr. cut taxes (unlike his father who foolishly raised them to an "ahah!" chorus from the Democrats) but he also exploded spending and created a new entitlement program. Bush's "conservativism" was certainly of a peculiar stripe; neither socially nor fiscally conservative. Both father and son were Progressives in the end.
And Romney will be likewise. Granted, Romney is a better choice than the BHO, but what does that say? I would be a better choice than the BHO, as would most Americans (since this guy holds little in common with Americans in general.) Barack Obama may not be Hitler, but Mussolini...
So Romney will be a better choice, but not exactly what we need now. America is on the brink. This nation could conceivably collapse from loose fiscal policy, from social deterioration, from cowardly military policy and vacillating foreign objectives. We need a RESTORER not a go-along-to-get-along type. America needs a surgeon and not a masseuse. I fear Romney is just a guy with a bottle of baby oil.
Democrats have often tied Herbert Hoover's policies to Calvin Coolidge and the Republicans proceeding him, but this is grossly unfair; the tie is much more solid between Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt, who maintained and expanded Hoover's experimentalist policies in the economy. It should be Hoover/Roosevelt that is thought of when the Great Depression is mentioned. So too, it should be Clinton/Bush/Obama, as they all pursued a similar course of action leading to this current mess. Obama is different only in degree; he is accelerating a course that was started under Bush, but had it's genesis under Clinton. Clinton was lucky; he had a booming economy and a shrinking defecit, so could afford to spend money. Bush broke the bank with TARP. And Obama has broken the whole economy. But their policies really have no differed much in kind. Romney will continue this tradition. We will have four years of a holding action at best, and will have to drag this guy kicking and screaming the whole way. Oh, and it will hurt us in Congress and at the local levels. And Romney's court picks will likely be Stephan Bryer types, or at best Anthony Kennedys.
All conservatives need to go in with their eyes open. We aren't going to save this country here, nor are we going to really be building for the future. This is not a mustard seed, from which a mighty plant will grow. This is more like a cover crop of clovers to keep the weeds from competing with what meager grain we have sprouting. Or if you prefer, a patch on a bicycle tire that leaks but keeps some air in for the moment. Or, if you prefer, a finger in a dyke (no Rachel Maddow jokes, please!) instead of a concrete sea wall.
Half a loaf is better than no loaf at all, granted. Of course, if you were a passenger on the Titanic I doubt that any loaf would much matter to you in the end.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 6:14 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home