Besides The God Language & The ESC Federal Funding Ban, How Was President Bush Conservative?

July 21, 2009 / 9:56 am • By Dr. Melissa Clouthier

David Brooks flaps his jaws again and this time, he’s going after his beloved, well-spoken Barack Obama for falling into the same trap as Republican president George W. Bush, except, I don’t see the parallel. At all. Here’s Brooks:

It’s not that interesting to watch the Democrats lose touch with America. That’s because the plotline is exactly the same. The party is led by insular liberals from big cities and the coasts, who neither understand nor sympathize with moderates. They have their own cherry-picking pollsters, their own media and activist cocoon, their own plans to lavishly spend borrowed money to buy votes.

Well, that perfectly describes the Senate on both sides, but I don’t see how it’s the Conservatives controlling anything. In fact, had Republicans stood up for fiscal responsibility, one could argue that an Obama presidency wouldn’t have even occurred.

So, President Bush talked God with a cowboy dialect but his actions were all moderation. Hello? AIDs spending in Africa? School reform with Teddy Kennedy? Amnesty? And all these things made the federal government bigger (or would have), more powerful and invasive. The Bush presidency wasn’t about restraint and limiting government power–traits I associate with conservatism.

David Brooks and the Beltway elites are delusional. If President Bush governed conservatively, then David Brooks would put nearly every conservative person I know into the Right Wing Extreme camp. No wonder Barack Obama sounded good to him. Obama moderate? Is he insane?

Dan Riehl says of Brooks new found Gah!-Barack-Obama-Is-A-Liberal! Religion:

This is all great. But if Brooks is so smart, where the hell was he during the campaign when the rubes knew what to expect?

Right. David Brooks knows politics. He’s smarter than you. And he knows a Moderate when he sees one.

Posted in Political Animals
Tags: • •

  • http://kingshamus.wordpress.com/ KingShamus

    If David Brooks wasn’t so unintentionally hilarious, he’d be less than useless.

  • J David

    I don’t care who you are, if you claim Bush(either one)is anything other than a nice guy, personally, you are knowingly lying. Dying to be everyone’s buddy, however, is a serious moral character flaw. Therein lies the problem for me, I do not now, nor have I ever, wanted anything other than someone liberals recognize as a deadly enemy out for their total destruction, and it’s a plus if he is smiling and joking while knifing them, like Reagan. “Nice guys finish last”, and their parties are doomed. Politics is WAR! Opposites cannot both be right, which the godless heathen, who would destroy all semblance of moral standards would like everyone to believe. I don’t want “nice” or “non-partisan”, I want deadly accurate, ruthless, merciless, attack-dog, die-hard conservative pure Constitutionalist.

  • J David

    I feel only revulsion for anyone who identifies themselves as friends of Kennedy, Feingold, Bill Ayers, Dodd, Reed, Pelosi, Boxer, or Juan Amnesty McVain, or Lindsay Gramnesty, etc…

  • http://histerribleswiftsword.blogspot.com galensmark

    I used to tolerate liberal/progressives, whatever (tired of their ducking code words).
    It’s ‘game on’ now that anyone with eyes and ears cannot help but KNOW how brazenly stupid and incompetent they are.
    GWB was a liberal more than anything else and will never be confused with anyone who can communicate, but wasn’t he dandy by comparison to the Kenyan village idiot?

    “We sit by and watch the Barbarian, we tolerate him; in the long stretches of peace we are not afraid. We are tickled by his irreverence, his comic inversion of our old certitudes and our fixed creeds refreshes us; we laugh. But as we laugh we are watched by large and awful faces from beyond; and on these faces there is no smile…” Hillaire Belloc