Is George Bush's Passionate Conservatism a Fraud?

That seems to the the question at the Vox Nova at his post Whatever Happened to Compassionate Conservatism?

These post reminds me that I still need to buckle now and write that post how Bush is many ways is the first "Catholic" President.

I admit the some of the criticism Bush is getting from the left and the right at times riles me up. I usually have to take a step away from the computer when I post a response. I am sometimes successful at that. The post at Vox Nova engages a piece written here regarding the current the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The author of this piece created some controversy and buzz because he served as first director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in 2001. He also has been critical of the adminstration since he left.

In the paragraph before that quoted by Vox Nox( I realize they don't have to post the whole thing) he does give Bush some kudos:
" I helped draft the speech and served in 2001 as an adviser to Bush. He has made good on some compassion pledges. For instance, he has increased funding for public schools that serve low-income children. His $150 million program for mentoring 100,000 children of prisoners has made progress. In May, he pledged an additional $30 billion in U.S. aid to combat the global HIV/AIDS epidemic and save Africa's affected children. "
Ahh that was so yesterday.

The next line though is classic." In 2005, Washington fiddled while New Orleans flooded, and the White House has vacillated in its support for the region's recovery and rebuilding process".

A warning. My objectivity as to Mr DiIulio goes out the window with that statement. To be fair he probally just repeats the spin he hears and is just ignorant.

I think Mr DiIulio needs to get some more sources of information of what is happening down here. I have been critical of Bush, Nagin, Louisiana, the US Govt , and finally we as an American people for not seeing what was coming. A lot of us were fiddling for a long time as to this event that was forcasted as a certainity to happen. However, let us remember was a huge natural disaster. The problems New Orleans and Coastal Louisiana currently have as to the aftermath of Katrina have little to do with the Federal Govt.

The Federal Govt is not responsible for how the The Road Home program was ran for instance. Bush is not responsible for a Mayor or City Council that has taken forever to make choices about where to rebuild and where not too rebuild-(not to say that those choices are not heartbreaking)Bush is not responsible for problems in the Governor's office, Bush is not responsible for a Crime wave and people being murdered in NOLA in great numbers thus not making it a attractive place to come home too.

People need to realize that we have something called Federalism in this country and local Government. "Compassonate Conservativism" and "Catholic Social Thought" could be used down here at our level where many the roadblocks are occuring. It is not all big daddy federal govt. Shockingly problems occur at the state and local level

One other thought before I leave my rant as to New Orleans. The night Mayor Nagin got re -elected, he thanked Bush for being a man of his word and delivering on his promises. The audience( they were not the Bush Demographic) met that statement with appaluse. When Nagin mentioned Governor Blanco's name the reaction was quite the opposite. Didn't see that on TV did you? That should not surprise us since this was the same irresponsible media that reported ever rumor in New Orleans after Katrina from massive deaths to canibalism that was causing a panic .Well I should still have the audio file of Nagin's speech of it at home if anyone want me to email it.

Ok, enough on that New Orleans rant. Mistakes were made and blame goes out in a million directions. However from where I am sitting Bush nor his vision of "compassionate conservatism" is the major fault at the problems I am seeing.

Bush's Compassionate conservatism has been on display during the immigration debate. I know people of good faith can disagree with the immigration proposal. But there is no doubt in my mind that the political captial and the arrows he took for two years comes from that view. I think many of us that supported that view dropped the ball. Not him.

Compassionate Conservatism has many forms. One is to confront hard choices. As to Bush's pleas about Social Security reform before the whole thing goes broke it was we the American people that were and still are "fiddling". Did you agree with Bush's view on Faith based programs and wonder why we are not seeing more of it? Let me ask did you ever call your Congressman to urge him to support it?

As to this current program that the author talks about.The author knows that there is more going on here than uninsured children. There is a debate about the if the Federal Govt should provide national healthcare. We also find this interesting piece of news-
The House version is just as financially irresponsible but goes a step further by gutting the current pro-life law and removing abstinence funding. Under the initiative, House Democrats have removed the Unborn Child Rule, a regulation that allows states to provide prenatal care to unborn children and their mothers under SCHIP. The new House bill's "pregnant woman" rule seeks to deny the existence of the child in utero while still covering the adolescent mother. This is a calculated move to open the door to federal taxpayer-funded abortions. In the 17 states that now fund elective abortions (14 of them are forced to do so by court order) this coverage could be used as a license to kill. If liberals succeed, a popular program once intended to save children's lives would now be directly responsible for ending them.

Well that is not as Sexy as BUSH BAD. I realize that many Catholics are supporting this as well as Catholic leaders. I am not in principle at all against making sure that kids have health care. I do have to wonder though why no one seems to be trying to do similar actions at the state level if this expansion will have such great results. So I shall educate myself on this subject. However, I do take issue with the overall tone of the Pax Nova piece. Especially this last line.

Bear this in mind as more and more prominent Republicans fall over themselves to don the pro-life mantle, given a less-than-perfect history in this area. But we should take comfort in the fact that they will never back-pedal on their commitments to big business!-

Republicans have been in the forefront in the Right to Life movement. Yes it is less than perfect. WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD. We even have pro choice republicans. The Democrats will not even let Pro- lifers speak at their national convention. The last line is pretty much a bumper sticker line so I shall not spend too much time on that. Yes Republicans are friendly toward business. Even BIG business. It might shock people that BIG business hires BIG numbers of people and that many Americans have their retirements funds through the stocks of BIG business.

However, that is largely a red herring in this debate. The underlying issue is if this is a move to go through the backdoor for National Federal Health Care. Perhaps that is where we should be going? But right now the American people are not aware that this bill might be a way it is happening through the back door. If we are going to have a debate on that then it should be done in the open and not in the shadows.