Smaller Government , Fair Weather Friends and Special Cases

You probably already know about this, but I'll tell you anyway. Hehe...

I have been a fairly consistent GW Bush supporter mainly due to my perception of him as a sincere and honest man of integrity. I saw in him a commitment to values and a belief in doing what you know to be right, regardless of the forces against you. But, like the unfaithful example in your story, I have found Mr. Bush more than willing to compromise his own inner convictions for convenience, or other such excuse, and to take the exact opposite direction to that he has embraced as his path.

Yesterday, in response to Congress' decision to NOT bail out the Big 3 Auto Makers, Mr. Bush explained that he was willing to shed his free market conviction in order to save the auto makers. He then authorized the payment of billions to them from the remainder of the $700 billion not allotted to TARP.

When Congress passes a law the President doesn't approve of, he can veto that law and send it back to Congress. But what is NOT allowed is for him to approve a law Congress has rejected. But, he did it anyway, and as far as I'm concerned, he has lost any claim of integrity or trustworthiness that he might have enjoyed.

Glenn

I am afraid bailout mania has turned me rather sour on both parties. I am still a Republican for the reasons I explained before, no matter how bad they may be at times, they remain the only viable tool to move the country in the right direction. It is sad that we have to fight our own party so often, and that it takes so much effort to wrestle them into moving in the right direction, but there really is no alternative. A viable third party, at this moment, is a pipe dream. Third parties need to originate in local elections, and, except for the socialist in VT, there are no third party holders of major state office.

As to the specifics of Bush's allocation fo bailout money,in general, and from a constitutional perspective you are absolutely right. On the other hand, as we have granted excessive power to both congress and the president, it is possible the president really does have the executive authority to do exactly what he did. I agree, he shouldn't do such things, shouldn't have the executive authority to basically rewrite laws, but he probably does have the power, in the same way congress shouldn't do 90% of what they do, but they currently have the power to do so.

However, I do agree that it was a disappointing end to his presidency. I have been writing a review of his presidency, which I hoped to post soon, and this will have to be mentioned at the end. Ah, well, maybe I will get that posted today.

I agree with 100% of what you've said. There is no future for conservatism in attempting to create a new party. We have to rebuild the Republican party again, rather than start brand new. I'm hoping (I've almost come to hate that word, hope) that Blackwell and Steele will prove to be the leaders that they have the potential to be.

I sent Mr. Bush a "farewell" letter a week or so ago, I guess I will have to send him a seperate postscript addressing my disappointment in his decision I referred to. I, will though, be respectful as I still believe him to be a kind and sincere man, just not always dependable. Besides, if you can somehow apportion his pros and cons (which is foreign to my mind) he has done more good, than bad, I hope.

I finally posted my review of the Bush administration. Overall, I think his foreign policy successes and his bravery in persisting in what he knows is right in foreign policy, despite the costs to his popularity, makes him a success. And I think history will view him kindly. But I suppose we will have to wait and see. For the next few years I know the liberal press will do nothing but tear him down, but I think in time he will be viewed much more favorably.