You should have understood with Bush. His nomination was about buying votes with taxpayer money. 'Compassionate conservatism' means we'll grow government and dole out the money, you don't need the Democrats we can do it too! It's about besting you at your own policy by cutting the difference between us.
That was the Bush Presidency, and why his betrayal of conservatism ran so deep.
No, it was because his 'conservatism' when it's defined as 'choosing policies that support the rich while cutting policies good for everyone else' was being found to be getting him opposition, and so the marketers had him start talking 'compassionate conservatism' to appear more concerned about the American people - the actor again.
It would be like Romney talking how much he cares about the poor. Acting.
The nominations of McCain and Romney are the continuation of that policy. They're obviously not concerned with their own image, the Republicans are marching to the beat of 'electability'. They see a Massachutees moderate and see 'winning one for the team'. They are too busy betraying us on policy to look at the image of the men they're nominating.
You appear to still be confused about the difference between 'conservatism' and simply policies for the rich at the expense of everyone else.
You can consider Bush's 'rancher' image to be a fluke. Either that or he was the smartest among these men. Heh, imagine that.
Consider it a fluke? Let's remind you of the history.
He campaigned for his father for Congress, and his Texan competitor accurately campaigned against his father by pointing out he wasn't a 'real Texan'.
He correctly pained Bush's father as a 'New England elitist' - and Bush's father lost. He said at the time he was determined his family would not lose for not being real Texans again.
And that was the start of manufacturing the advertising image of being 'real Texans'.
So things like forced mispronunciation of 'Nookleeur' were political tactics, like Liberals said.
Leading up to the 2000 presidential campaign, Bush bought that ranch. It had plenty of cows - that Bush didn't own, but were owned by the previous ranch owner, who stayed on as ranch manager. Bush owned a total of the two cows given to him by his staff in 1999 and their calf.
There was a rundown home used for photographing the ranch - which isn't where Bush actually stayed on the ranch, his actual residence more hidden without the press.
The political ally who helped Bush purchase the ranch, the former Texas Secretary of State, made a point of saying 'this isn't image, it's all about his wanting a ranch'.
He did protest too much IMO.
When the Bush presidency ended, he bought a house in Dallas (though he kept the ranch also).
IMO, the 'ranch' was likely primarily for that image in the tried and true political image lessons he'd learned. He likes it - many people wouldn't mind having one - not the issue.
Issue was - as even that ally noted - the ranch was a big political boost for him. Just like Clydesdale horses are for Budweiser and Stagecoaches are for Wells Fargo.
Facebook
Twitter