George W. Bush

Rand Paul goes to Washington

While laid up in bed last week recovering from surgery, my coworkers sent me a care package that included Sen. Rand Paul’s new book, The Tea Party Goes to Washington. Unfortunately, I haven’t had a chance to get past the first few pages. But Matt Welch brings us this passage from the book of Sen. Paul slamming George W. Bush:

Imagine this-what if there had never been a President George W. Bush, and when Bill Clinton left office he was immediately replaced with Barack Obama. Now imagine Obama had governed from 2000 to 2008 exactly as Bush did-doubling the size of government, doubling the debt, expanding federal entitlements and education, starting the Iraq war-the whole works. To make matters worse, imagine that for a portion of that time, the Democrats actually controlled all three branches of government. Would Republicans have given Obama and his party a free pass in carrying out the exact same agenda as Bush? It’s hard to imagine this being the case, given the grief Bill Clinton got from Republicans, even though his big government agenda was less ambitious than Bush’s. Yet, the last Republican president got very little criticism from his own party for most of his tenure.

For conservatives, there was no excuse for this.

Welch also notes:

Paul goes on to say stuff like “any self-described conservative who ‘misses’ the last president and his version of the Republican Party should probably quit subscribing to that label,” and “if judgment is based on spending and the budget, then Bill Clinton should be considered preferable to Bush.”

Wow. Agreed.

Podcast: Chatting with Stephen Slivinski

This week, Jason and Brett speak with former Cato’s Former Director of Budget Studies and author of Buck Wild: How Republicans Broke the Bank and Became the Party of Big Government, Stephen Slivinski.

The discussion centers around the Republican Revolution of 1994, how the GOP traded principles for power, the big spending, and how the fever of fiscal conservatism from 1994 compares to the tea party movement today.

To download the podcast, right-click here and choose “Save Link As…” The introduction music is once again “Silence is Violence” by the always lovely Aimee Allen.

Glenn Beck Explains the Tea Party to the MSM

See Video

Bush: Worst Ever or Just Misunderstood?

Telegraph has an article up that serves as a wrap-up analysis of the Bush presidency on the eve of his departure. There was one paragraph that really stood out:

Peter Feaver, who served as special adviser for strategic planning on Bush’s White House National Security Council, agrees: “He’s had a once-in-a-century natural disaster, Hurricane Katrina, a once in a history of the Republic terrorist attack and he’s had a once-in-a-century financial crisis. Any one of those would be a pivotal moment. To have three is extraordinary.”

Please, no: Hillary vs. Jeb 2016 is already happening

Hillary vs. Jeb 2016

Please, no. It’s already happening.

The slow-moving train toward the inevitable candidacies of both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush left the station this week with the latter’s announcement on Facebook that he would launch a leadership committee in January to begin a possible run for the White House.

The Facebook note reads:

Columba and I are so proud of the wonderful adults our children have become, and we loved spending time with our three precious grandchildren.

We shared good food and watched a whole lot of football.

We also talked about the future of our nation. As a result of these conversations and thoughtful consideration of the kind of strong leadership I think America needs, I have decided to actively explore the possibility of running for President of the United States.

In January, I also plan to establish a Leadership PAC that will help me facilitate conversations with citizens across America to discuss the most critical challenges facing our exceptional nation. The PAC’s purpose will be to support leaders, ideas and policies that will expand opportunity and prosperity for all Americans.

In the coming months, I hope to visit with many of you and have a conversation about restoring the promise of America.

This, apparently, caught the Clinton machine off guard.

POLITICO reports on this “tortoise and hare” race:

Obama, once the anti-war candidate, now fully embraces the Bush doctrine of preemptive unilateral war

.

Democrats swept into control of both houses of Congress in the 2006 elections on a wave of discontent with the Iraq war and then-President Bush’s foreign adventurism. President Obama campaigned over the next two years as the explicitly anti-war candidate. He was the only Democrat running who had opposed the war in Iraq, though he wasn’t in Congress to have to vote for it at the time. Now President Obama is explicitly embracing the Bush doctrine of preemptive war to pretend he has authority to unilaterally attack the ISIS forces in Iraq.

On Wednesday evening, Obama made a primetime address to the nation to explain the strategy against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, which he said he didn’t have last week. In the address and an interview on Meet the Press the Sunday before, he said he already has the authority to pursue that strategy, which John Yoo, a former Bush administration official who literally wrote the memo on Bush’s war powers, says is exactly the same as Bush’s.

Vulnerable Senate Democrat who once complained about Washington’s addiction to spending has failed to live up to her rhetoric

Kay Hagan made out of control federal spending and the surge in the national debt an issue during her successful 2008 campaign for U.S. Senate against then-Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-NC).

“You only need to look at what kind of state senator I’ve been for the last ten years to see what kind of U.S. senator I’ll be,” said Hagan in a 2008 campaign speech, a clip of which was made available on the NRSC Rapid Response YouTube channel. “While Washington spends itself into a hole and mortgages the future for our children and our grandchildren, I’ve produced five balanced budgets,” she adds before the clip cuts away.

The criticism was valid. Dole had largely toed the party line on spending, approving much of then-President George W. Bush’s domestic and foreign policy agenda in her first and only term in the upper chamber.

How convenient: House Democrat forgets that she actually wanted impeach George W. Bush while railing against House Republicans

House Democrats are really playing up the lawsuit that Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) plans to file against President Barack Obama. Before and immediately after Wednesday’s vote to authorize the lawsuit, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee blasted out nearly two-dozen fundraising emails to its list, most of which play up the phony prospect of impeachment.

Let’s not kid ourselves here, the impeachment talk is being driven by Democrats. Sure, they’ll point to a handful of mostly backbench Republican lawmakers who’ve said they’re either open to impeachment or would vote for it. But there aren’t many on the GOP’s side of the aisle who are seriously considering such a step.

Don’t tell that to Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, though. She ran to first reporters she could find to tell them how the vote on the lawsuit “is about the road to impeachment.” Boehner, of course, has already said House Republicans have no plans to impeach President Obama. It’s the political tit-for-tat that drives pretty much everybody crazy.

With all of that said, however, most Democrats are conveniently forgetting that, unlike this current situation, there was actually a push in the House in 2007 to impeach then-President George W. Bush.

Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), for example, claimed last night that, even though President Bush took the United States into a war based on false premises, Democrats never sought to impeach him.

Republicans are right, Obama should be held accountable for his power grabs, but the problem didn’t begin when he took office

Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) indicated this week that he’s preparing a lawsuit against President Barack Obama over his many abuses of executive power, which, he said in a memo to House Republicans, gives the executive branch “king-like authority at the expense of the American people and their elected legislators.”

Republicans, of course, have a legitimate complaint against President Obama, one that brings up very real concerns about separation of powers. This White House has run roughshod over the Constitution by ignoring laws passed by a duly elected Congress or enacting new laws through executive and regulatory fiat. But there’s also a hint of hypocrisy from the GOP.

Fox News host Neil Cavuto brought up the hypocrisy in a contentious interview with Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) on Wednesday afternoon.

“Where was your rage when Democrats were going after President [George W.] Bush on the same use of executive orders?” Cavuto asked. “Because I think you knew then that was a waste of time then, and I think you know in your heart of hearts this is a waste of time now,” telling Bachmann that there are “more important things that you guys have to be addressing than filing lawsuits past each other.”

“Listen, I’m not the one — I’m not the one talking about that,” Bachmann replied. “What I’m saying is that what we have — what’s very important is this, the President trying to establish lawlessness in the United States. That’s a big issue.”

Barack Obama has been a terrible President, and that’s “unfair” for Democrats in 2014

Obama Sad

Barack Obama is causing Democrats to haz a sad.

According an editorial by Charlie Cook in the National Journal, the Democrats’ 2014 electoral woes are “unfair” because of President Obama’s tanking popularity:

Obama’s approval rating since his 2012 reelection has declined gradually through 2013. It picked up a bit in 2014, to an average of 44 percent approval and 51 percent disapproval for the months of April and May. To be clear, these are bad approval ratings, but they have been worse, and they now appear to have stabilized in the spring of this year, at that 44 percent level. It is not that surprising, though, that the aftermath of the controversy surrounding the administration’s trade of five Guantanamo detainees for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, combined with the disclosures concerning the Veterans Affairs health care system, would move the president’s approval and disapproval needles. Over Gallup’s seven-day sampling period ending Saturday, June 21, Obama’s job-approval rating was 41 percent (with a disapproval of 54 percent). During the week of June 9-15, the same poll showed the president with an approval rating of 42 percent—noteworthy because for the full months of April and May, Obama’s approval rating remained at 44 percent.


The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.