Do you think Dubya would be considered too liberal by today's GOP?

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Give reasons for why you think (or don't) think so.

[RightBehind]

W. visited a mosque to reassure American Muslims.

W. refuses to criticize Obama, at least out in the open.

If you're not so far to the right that you're off a cliff, you're a RINO.

[Bigby]

Not socially, but he's still a Rockefeller type in evangelical clothing.

[Blair]

In campaigning- No.

In Governance- Yes

[This account no longer in use.]

By the craziest members of the Tea Party? Yes.
By most Republicans? No.

[dead0man]

You guys forget, Dubya was (and is for that matter) likable.  Like Obama and Reagan and to a slightly lesser extent Bill.  Polar opposites of Cruz, Hillary or Kerry.  GOP Presidents can convince GOP voters that a non-conservative thing is ok if they are likable.  If Dubya's daddy was likable he would have had a second term.  If Dubya wasn't likable, he would have lost to Kerry.  Hell, if Kerry didn't play the role of Douche so well (vs Dubya's Turd Sandwich) he would have won.  Bush in 04 was as beatable as Hillary will be this year, and just like the Dems in 04, the GOP in 16 is giving us a pile of garbage in a suit (and a fat wallet).

[President Johnson]

No, he's a neocon and TRUMP is much more moderate than this guy.

[Santander]

You guys forget, Dubya was (and is for that matter) likable.  Like Obama and Reagan and to a slightly lesser extent Bill.  Polar opposites of Cruz, Hillary or Kerry.  GOP Presidents can convince GOP voters that a non-conservative thing is ok if they are likable.

W's been used as a punching bag by both parties for so long now that it's hard for people now to remember how likable he was.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Any person describing Dubya as "liberal", regardless of the context, is in dire need of lobotomy.

[mencken]

By the craziest members of the Tea Party? Yes.
By most Republicans? No.

This cycle ought to have demonstrated that only about ~30% of the Party actually cares about ideology.

[Murica!]

Any person describing Dubya as "liberal", regardless of the context, is in dire need of lobotomy.

What's the point of lobotomizing people twice?

[Blue3]

He expanded Medicare to cover prescription drugs, created No Child Left Behind, fought for Immigration Reform, and insisted on Islam as a religion of peace.

One of those things would get him called a moderate. All of them make him a RINO. Even with his hawkishness, social conservatism, tax cuts, and SS privatization attempt.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

He expanded Medicare to cover prescription drugs, created No Child Left Behind, fought for Immigration Reform, and insisted on Islam as a religion of peace.

One of those things would get him called a moderate. All of them make him a RINO. Even with his hawkishness, social conservatism, tax cuts, and SS privatization attempt.

I'm not very qualified to say if someone is conservative or not, but I disagree with that analysis.  It's important not just what issues are being tackled but also how they are being tackled.  Most Republicans don't want to scrap medicare, so incremental reform isn't out of the realm of possibility - especially when the method of that reform is a mixed public-private solution.  NCLB was an unfunded mandate meant to enforce standards on schools that were deemed to be "failing," using punishment as a tool to incentivize improvement.  And as for Islam, just because Trump and Cruz are lunatics, doesn't mean the whole party agrees with that.  A lot of them don't.  Though I'll give you Immigration Reform.  He definitely took a lot of heat from all sides for that, but I think he just genuinely believed it was the right thing to do.

Anyway, have to remember that Bush also wanted a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage.  He might be considered too liberal by tea party loons, but I think most conservatives would be fine with him.

He would do well with the establishment wing, the social conservative wing, and the neocon wing, even if he wouldn't appeal to some of the hardest Trumpists.

[RightBehind]

I would beg and crawl on my hands and knees for him to come back before I'd embrace Trump as my president.

[dead0man]

I would beg and crawl on my hands and knees for him to come bacl before I'd embrace Trump as my president.

Yeah, that can't be understated.  Dubya, no matter how much you may have hated him, was much better than Trump will be.

[Figueira]

Judging from who they just nominated, the GOP's issues don't seem to really line up on the left-right spectrum.

[TJ in Oregon]

Today's GOP no longer cares about liberalism or conservatism, only whether you're winning or losing. And whether you're ugly of course. Stuff like that.

[pho]

It's worth noting that the most conservative elements of the GOP circa 2000-2010 thought GWB was too liberal on a whole host of issues (immigration, health care, spending). It was nonsense then and it's nonsense now.

[RINO Tom]

By the craziest members of the Tea Party? Yes.
By most Republicans? No.

This cycle ought to have demonstrated that only about ~30% of the Party actually cares about ideology.

In 2016, that is.

[Bismarck]

By the craziest members of the Tea Party? Yes.
By most Republicans? No.

This.

[Maxwell]

George W. Bushism is still very much alive and thriving in the GOP. Maybe the man himself is toxic because we know how much of a failure he is today, but every modern GOPer follows his model, including Trump.

[RFayette]

The GOP just nominated Donald Trump, a registered Democrat from the entire Bush years, a top donor to Hillary Clinton, a longtime backer of universal healthcare and expanded infrastructure spending, and a foreign policy isolationist.  You can argue Trump is to the right of W due to immigration, trade, etc., but one could just as easily make the opposite case.  But the short answer in my mind is no, he wouldn't be seen as too liberal by today's GOP.

[RaphaelDLG]

As the comments have revealed, in some ways he's conservative enough or even too conservative (foreign policy, economics), on other dimensions he's not conservative enough (nativism)

I should clarify I'm talking about the voters, not the donor base/establishment, for whom he would be perfectly acceptable

[Maxwell]

And Bush would be perfectly acceptable to voters. Ideology does not matter in today's GOP, it's all about perception.

Jeb and George W. had identical policy positions (in fact, it could be argued, Jeb was more conservative), but George W. won by being a kickass Texan, while Jeb got defined as a bumbling, wimpy idiot (I'm not sure he's an idiot, but boy was he bumbling and wimpy).

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Right before the Trump phenomenon, I would've said no on social issues, but yes on fiscal issues. The Tea Party was in large part a reaction to the reckless increases in domestic spending during the Dubya years. No Republican running in 2012 wanted to bring back "big government conservatism."

Now with Trump though, I don't know what to think because Trump is to the left of Bush on fiscal/economic issues.