"I know it's going to be the private sector that leads this country out of the current economic times we're in," President George W. Bush explained to an Erie, Pennsylvania business group. "You can spend your money better than the government can spend your money." It would have been nice had he heeded his own advice as president. Bush, not Obama, first pushed through the budget-busting bailouts of banks, auto manufacturers, Iraq, and pill-popping seniors. More galling than those words coming out of that man's mouth were the words of the reporter covering the speech, who wrote: "Mr. Bush was optimistic, pressing, as he did as president, free trade, open markets and the free enterprise system."

I understand your dissappointment with Bush as he was anything but tight fisted Conservative. But I don't get how he didn't, as President, "press for free trade, open markets and the free enterprise system." ?

I could stand some edumacation on this.

Big problem with Bush is he did three dumb things in my mind to make his statements regretable. 1st he was NEVER a Reagan anti spender (I know Reagan couldn't do it either- but he sure the hell tried.) 2nd- He started this mess on his watch- so it will forever be him that history looks back to for a beginning. 3rd and the worst to me is his statement-(I paraphrase)- " I had to go against the free-market to save the free market". This makes Bush a hypocrite and is exactly Mr. Flynn's point I believe. The thing with conservatism is there is only a few CORE values which need be followed to keep ones position as a true conservative- National Defense, Limited government and values which are traditional and have time honored and tested means of evaluation. There are many interspersed variables at play within those three- but to me Bush violated limited government and actually was a proponent of government expansion- ie- subscription drugs/ no child left behind.

Still though, Obama, not Bush, pushed to convert government bailout money into voting shares. That's where the crypto-communism began. Before that, it was just a bad idea.

I agree with that completely- Obama is a Marxist at heart and demonstrates it daily (too bad the American electorate is so ignorant). But I still agree with Mr. Flynn- Bush is the wrong messenger. Bush is a good man and has some strong convictions- particularly national defense. However, he's just not a good mouthpiece for the conservative message on the economy.

I do get some entertainment value out of people always comparing Reagan to previous and subsequent Presidents. Admittedly, by degree, he was likely the best in a long line of probably the last 100 years. But he had his faults just like the rest and history has been kinder to him than the reality of a guy who did make some mistakes in his time. In fact, he too had his share of deficit spending. You could look it up!

But he was a great American who unequivocally loved this country right or wrong and worked tirelessly to protect it. Something, no doubt, that even the often hated GW Bush did and continues to do.

"I really love my wife," pleas the wife-beating husband.

"I believe in the free market," says Dubya, the man who centralized power away from the markets in education, health care, banking, housing, money, etc. throughout his presidency, while more than doubling the amount of capital the centralized state leaches off the private economy by promoting his own and also signing the first-ever $2 trillion and then $3 trillion federal budgets.

great point Eric

EFL,

You're nuts if you think Bush did anything CLOSE to the GM raid--and violating the terms debt ownership. The Obama administration stalled GM, who wanted to go into bankruptcy and renegotiate union contracts. Once the spoils were divided and senior investors screwed, there was no issue with GM going into bankruptcy. For ~2/3 of the total debt that senior investors held on GM, the government cut themselves in for 10 times the share, giving back the most secure of investors pennies on the dollar.

If you think there's some sort of equivalence there, then I have to wonder how little you know about our economy.

Socialism is defined by ownership not how unadvisedly the government spends its money. The government cutting itself into control and ownership happened only after Obama took office.

"I understand your dissappointment with Bush as he was anything but tight fisted Conservative. But I don't get how he didn't, as President, "press for free trade, open markets and the free enterprise system." ?

I could stand some edumacation on this." - asdf

Well, he expanded the size of the federal government more than any other president since LBJ, including things like the Medicare Drug Benefit. He also failed on his more capitalist friendly ideas like privatizing Social Security and reforming the tax code (This was a promise in 04, but he never even visited it). Also ran up mind bogglingly massive deficits (It is a testament to how crazy the Democrats are that they are spending even more). Doesn't strike me as very free market friendly.

I was born in 87 so I missed out on all the hoopla, but I don't really see what was that great about Reagan, either. He energized people but he didn't seem to accomplish a whole lot, unless you credit him for the fall of the Soviet Union, but that's probably another debate.

That's funny: my comment above had nothing to do with socialism or Obama. Rather, it simply dealt with the facts of Bush's record in seconding Dan's opinion that Dubya is a woeful free-market messenger - and a hypocrite at that.

But perhaps Sea King has another "EFL" in mind?