Compassionate conservatism equaled big government

We all knew it. Bush 43 tried to define his presidency by bringing new tone to Washington D.C., and called his politics compassionate conservatism. By reaching across the aisle and letting Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) write the No Child Left Behind in 2001, propping up the U.S. steel industry with tariffs in 2002, and dishing out billions in pork creatively identified as national defense spending, he failed conservatives around the country.

In the end, what did that new tone get us?

Either Bush 43 was not a conservative in 2000 when elected, or he was quickly convinced that his new tone required him to reach across the aisle, reach out to liberals, and compromise. The problem is when he did compromise – better defined as giving up principles here, there and everywhere – he still was attacked.

Bush gained no ground at all during his tenure, it’s quite clear Bush hatred grew exponentially especially after the 2004 election.

Just look at how Bush was treated concerning No Child Left Behind, a law that he signed, but Kennedy wrote. Bush was blamed constantly concerning the legislations failure to improve student performance. Of note is Bill Clinton also blaming Kennedy just after the Senator endorsed his wife’s Democrat rival, Barak Obama.

Ed over at Hot Air has some good analysis as well.

Dick Armey writes in a Wall Street Journal column today what most conservatives understood for the past several years — that “compassionate conservatism” was just another name for Big Government.

I’m not sure Bush went into office with the intention to grow entitlement programs, but that is certainly how it turns out. Ed also provides a video interview with Newt Gingrich – shown below – and provides this recap.

… in the midst of the Bush-bashing, I want to point out something Gingrich says. He states that as long as the government spends multi-trillion dollars every year, lobbyists will gather to get their share, distorting the political process and leading to corruption. The only way to reduce or eliminate the influence of lobbyists in Washington is to reduce the amount of spoils they can grab.

Damn straight.

Note, Jim over at RadioViceOnline also picked up on this today and points out an opinion article by Dick Army over at WSJ.

5 replies
  1. Terry
    Terry says:

    Let that be a lesson to you RINO's.  The only time you should reach across the isle should be to smack someone!

    Compassionate conservatism.  What a steaming pile.  Conservatives, FIGHT for what you believe in!  Don't compromise your values!

  2. dario
    dario says:

    WOW, thinking about throwing Pres. George W. Bush (the worst president we ever had) under the bus already?
    After 8 years of defending his actions, and policies, you are starting to question what he stood for?
    I remember very well how all the talk radio bigshots from Limbaugh to Vicevich, defended all he did and he stood for every day( yea I know they took a couple of shots here and there)
    All of Conservative land would have gained some credibility if it honestly kept his feet in the fire for accountability purposes; it was too easy to blame all on the Dems and their supporters.
    Back to the wilderness and the hope of a rescue by Gov. Palin?

  3. Steve M
    Steve M says:

    @dario – I don't know you, you don't know me. If you did know me, you would know that I rallied against Bush on many fronts, and supported him on many others.
    <div>All in all, I think he is a very good president specifically due to his strength after 9/11, efforts against terrorists, and his push to cut taxes.</div>
    <div>Bush 43 will not get credit where credit is due due to the pure hatred from the left (media), and remember that Congress is a very important part of the equation since they have significant control of the federal purse-strings.</div>
    <div>The president is still just one person, and who that person is, is very important. That said, we must give more weight – and attention – to state legislatures, governors and local politicians. That is where the power should be when it comes to a significant amount of government dollars.</div>
    <div>Congress has too much power – and they are failing us.</div>

  4. dario
    dario says:

    I mentioned accountability: during the Bush years, the Congress was controlled by the Republicans for 6 of the 8 years. Did the President veto those mongo spending bills? Did he not spend well beyond the country's means by borrowing for the war while cutting taxes?
    Now the President , with all the power he has, has become just one simple man at the mercy of whom? Too convenient an escape.
    Yes, Congress has failed us and so has President Bush. And how, pray tell, are we going to get back the power we have already given? Those who rule make the rules, I am afraid. I am not going to delude myself that it is otherwise.

  5. David
    David says:

    Conservatism has nothing to be ashamed about! The Reprobate Dem's and their godless liberal agenda do. The Dem's can't even blush at the immoral agenda they set forth. The Left demonizes morality and calls people who practice it evil. They twist right and wrong to justify their shameful agenda.
    Bush, sad to say, sunk the boat and the Dem's he appeased knifed him in the back.
    We need not be ashamed to be called Conservatives! It a great war of ideologies which we need to win. Compassionate conservatism is for whips. To all the Bush haters…get a life and a new scape goat…..

    The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!

Comments are closed.