Other than the appointment of John Roberts to SCOTUS, what precisely has George Bush done to advance the agenda of Republicans or fiscal conservatives during either term?

[sound of crickets chirping]

Its natural now that his presidency has failed, however, for conservatives to disavow any association with him, but it seems like a disassociation based on political convenience to me

There’s more to it than that, though “political convenience” is part of it. On another thread I mentioned a book I own that I currently have in my vehicle (always read at stops when on road trips), about the fall of the Shah of Iran. While he was in power, much of the world loved him. When he fled, nobody wanted to host him. Iranian oil and political correctness made him a political liability. Carter wanted him gone from this country, for example, even after risking political wrath initially by allowing him to come here for medical treatment.

Where the foregoing leads is this: Bush is currently in that position, developed into a political liability, as you shall see next year when the GOP campaign for the Presidency is in its main stage. It is an obvious question whether the GOP candidates will want Bush to visit them, be seen with them, and endorse them.

Other than that, Bush is also unpopular not only for his administration’s antagonism toward critics (even though the Democrats in Congress are hardly angelic). He is also unpopular for not having pursued many non-liberal goals that so many people want to see met.

In that sense there’s a sense of betrayal (as this immigration bill exemplifies) and a worse feeling toward him nowadays than was felt toward his father after his father had betrayed us by raising taxes (and by not going all the way to Baghdad as Dubya chose to do, don’t forget). Before the 1992 election, I believe it was at Heritage that activists marched around with a fake head of the elder Bush on a platter. Bush, in fact, lost in 1992; Clinton was a nobody who could have been replaced by Cuomo with liberal approval as late as the debates or the convention, and Perot is not to blame for Bush’s loss then.

What now Dubya’s behavior does for Jeb Bush’s prospects (obviously he’s going to want to try someday to be President, too, with his family’s approval and support) is probably negative, though Dubya has been so bad at times that even Bush haters won’t transfer “taint” thereby to Jeb.

There is some convenience behind it, K., just as was true with the Shah out of power. (Note that Bush is a lame duck and he may not be asked to appear with or endorse candidates for Congress, even.) But it’s more. In Bush’s case, it’s a big sense of betrayal and disappointment (or worse) among non-liberals.

One has to have political clout in order to have it suffer a blow.

Well, Bush has no clout, yet suffered anyway and rightfully so with this bill.

That is, without accidentally building it in Mexico.

(Take that, Pancho Villa.)

More ineptitude!

cut his losses earlier (as he did with his failed Social Security privatization initiative).

Note that the Democrats were highly obstructionist and can be excoriated for not proposing any badly needed solutions to rescue the program in its future. However, your subject was the Bush plan itself, and yes, there was a huge amount of opposition publicly to what Bush was proposing; many who know Social Security in its current form is doomed were suspicious of what Bush was seeking — and they smelled Wall Street investment firms waiting to enjoy huge fees no matter how well the quasi-private (they were never truly private) investments actually performed, while long-needed revision of the totally public part of the program was neglected. Also, these accounts were for a government program and constituted government investments as much as private investments, and the last thing we want is the federal government to become the nations’ largest institutional investor by far, ready at any time to engage in wrongful “shareholder activism” to force businesses to pursue political objectives, such as “social responsibility,” make the companies “greener,” divest from Israel, and so on.

In this case, opposition to it was more sound than what has been the case with opposition to the war over the past several years.

But I disagree with those who have stated that he was out of step with his party from the start. The Social Security initiative, his Supreme Ct picks, his actions during the Terry Schiavo controversy, his rejection of funding for embryonic stem cell research, faith based initiatives and his tax cuts were in keeping with the GOP party platform. His foreign policy initiatives of using force to maintain a strong US presence in the ME come straight out of the PNAC’s charter statement.

Its natural now that his presidency has failed, however, for conservatives to disavow any association with him, but it seems like a disassociation based on political convenience to me

While I can appreciate the need to repetitively post up obituaries for George Bush in order for it to sink into the minds of the left and the Democratic Party candidates that they continue to campaign against an essentially fictitious candidate…….I certainly hope you harbor no delusions that you are somehow addressing Republicans or fiscal conservatives with these.

Other than the appointment of John Roberts to SCOTUS, what precisely has George Bush done to advance the agenda of Republicans or fiscal conservatives during either term?

Yes, we did want to (and continue to want to) fight against terrorism, but he did not possess the insight or acument to fight it effectively once the big armor phase against uniformed enemy combatants was completed, nor did he possess the communication skill to even keep his constituents behind “the purpose” when the “manner and duration” was either being challenged or misunderstood. OK, perhaps Petraeus was a good, albeit late, find as well, but likely will be more of an actual help to a subsequent CIC.

Whether excused by circumstances or not, he failed to advance, much less accomplish, anything of a domestic policy agenda to suit his party.

While he was titular head of his party, he allowed a good number of his party representatives trade in their moral and ethical compasses for ones that directed them towards laziness, graft and totally bone-headed behaviors. Now, half of them that are left are functioning as responsible Democrats.

I will be repetitive myself, his support came only in the form of support for the CIC of US Armed Forces engaged against an enemy that would not hesitate to blow you or anyone else, that does not subscribe to a radical interpretation of Islam, up at that drop of a hat. As far as political party leader advancing an agenda that would serve the platforms of his party he never gained support.

1.) Enforce current immigration laws and develop a national ID system of back ground checks and begin Legalizing current immigrants IF they pass a background check and kicking them out if they do not. Pass legislation that allows guest worker numbers to increase from 165,000 per year now to 450,000 per year which adjusts yearly on a sliding scale. In other words if only 400,000 return their visas then next year allow only 400,000 guest workers into the country.

2.) Build a fence and hire guards to enforce the drug and human trafficking issues. The drug cartels in Mexico are killing more people daily in Mexico then any terrorists are killing daily in Iraq. During this phase then current legalized immigrants and permanent residents can then petition for the admittance of their family members into the USA.

3.) Once these issues are resolved, in place and working we can then pass legislation that addresses hiring ILLEGALS. IE. punish employers and Landlords for not hiring or housing only legal immigrants. Enforcement of the use of the national ID carried only by non citizens. National ID goes away once they become US citizens.

4.) Once that is working fairly smoothly then address the needs for changing the current numbers of immigrants to meet the needs of an expanding and growing economy.

Agreeing on this format in order will make sure that the speed in which each of these items is implemented will increase so that each political base gets what they want~!

Dead wrong. All this government has to do is enforce the current laws instead of trying to make up new laws that further encourage MASSIVE immigration. The difference?

This bill would have legalized MASSIVE immigration. Enforcing the existing bill is dull and monotonous and makes it look as if our government is doing NOTHING.

This is the Republican fear mongering at its best and the democrats countering with BIGOTRY at its best.

WE MUST fence the border but in order to make sure the other side agrees with a fence we MUST allow incredible amounts of immigrants into the country legally. What a sham.

We need NO fence and we need NO massive influx of Immigrants. If we have to grow so fast that America cannot assimilate its immigrants then we need to address our growth issues.

And keep in mind that, even right after 9/11, Bush didn’t have support from the Democrats. Sure, they went along with his proposals, but only grudgingly and out of fear that they were on the wrong side of the public and would punished at the polls, and not because they agreed with the substance of what he was doing.

The immigraiton bill would have created million more hispanic voters who would never vote Republican. The Republicans are going to be made irrelevent by changing demographics in the U.S. The immigrationbill would hav just sped up the process.