George W. Bush: Champion of the Left

I've made this point myself, but David Boaz says it great:

So here's your challenge, lefty bloggers: If you don't like the
tree-chopping, Falwell-loving, cowboy president - if you want his
presidency fatally wounded for the next three years - then start
praising him. One good Paul Krugman column taking off from that USA Today story on the surge in entitlements recipients under Bush, one Daily Kos
lead on how Clinton flopped on national health care but Bush twisted
every arm in the GOP to get a multi-trillion-dollar prescription drug
benefit for the elderly, one cover story in the Nation on how Bush has
acknowledged federal responsibility for everything from floods in New
Orleans to troubled teenagers, and maybe, just maybe, National Review
and the Powerline blog and
Fox News would come to their senses. Bush is a Rockefeller Republican
in cowboy boots, and it's time conservatives stopped looking at the
boots instead of the policies.


  1. Travis:

    Agreed. It is hard to see how Kerry could have been any worse. If SCOTUS appointees turn into Souters, the Bush presidency will be a complete fiasco for those who hope for limited government.

    Most of the people attracted to government are mediocre, vainglorious, ignorant and/or greedy. If Bush, Kerry, Clinton et al had any talent, they would be doing something useful for civilization. Read Mises and Hayek to understand why.

    Gridlock is the best we can hope for.



  2. John Dewey:

    "Agreed. It is hard to see how Kerry could have been any worse."

    I'm not happy with Bush and the rest of the Republican leaders. But I still believe Kerry would have been a disaster on the order of Carter. Or worse. Carter was incompetent but honest. Kerry would be incompetent and a liar.

    Bush faced some tough tasks post-2001. We may not be satisfied with Iraq, but the rest of the world respects our power. We couldn't say that in 1979. Does anyone really believe a Kerry regime would be respected any more than Carter was in the Middle East?

    Bush-bashers can argue until blue in the face about the evil of "trade deficits", the loss of jobs, and the plight of the uninsured. But our economy has been pretty strong, unemployment is much lower than 30 year averages, and the "poor" are neither starving nor dying in the streets.

    As for uncontrolled federal spending, I can offer no defense.

  3. TJIT:

    The first problem the democrats have is they can't fight something with nothing. Complaining about Bush policies is entertaining but not having any policy ideas makes it difficult for the Democrats to persuade people to vote for them.

    The second problem the democrats have is if they start laying out specific policy positions they risk driving away voters who don't like Bush but dislike the democrat proposals more.

    I have often argued that constantly saying "but the other guy is worse" is a poor way to run a political party. And that is what many republicans argue when talking about the Bush presidency.

    I think the root cause of the current problems is how the incumbents (using campaign finance regulations and gerrymandered districts) have gamed the system. The fact is once elected most incumbents never face real competition in the elections.

  4. TC:

    As near as I can tell the prescription drug thing managed to create a monopoly for domestic drug manufactures!

    What's that one cancer drug some lady needs for another 6 months or so. Was $77 a week, now it's $540 or some such? I'd like to be able to use such pricing logic on some of them when they travel! [well sir we are going to be full tonight with the big game in town and such, your normal $50 room will be 7 grand tonight]!

    Seems we have proven that allowing folks to sit in the congress for life has not worked to reduce the size and scope of govt at all. Lets try term limitations for awhile shall we?