"Why Didn't You Do This Under Bush"

One of the "signers" of the Mount Vernon Statement is "named" "Whydidntyoudothis Underbush."

REACTION #1: "Underbush" is a surprisingly plausible last ("family") name.  Further, I would even describe it as an excellent last name, other than in that it suffers (by incorporation, I guess) from the same well-explored frailties of the "Bush" family name.

REACTION #2: For the same reason, I assume, that they did not do this under Clinton, under the other Bush, under Reagan (well, there would have been a couple of reasons, for that one), under Carter, under Ford...

REACTION #3: Throughout the Bush administration, President Bush's policies frustrated many conservatives (including many of the primary signers of the Mount Vernon Statement, who vocally challenged and/or criticized those policies, and who were ignored), particularly as they related to individual freedom, procedural requirements that were instituted to protect individual freedom, the United States Constitution, economic freedom, and the rule of law.  (These categories overlap.)  So why was the Mount Vernon Statement not created until now?  Well, because President Obama's administration has been a focused, determined application of the thinking (so-called) behind most of Bush's objectionable policies.  I am not as interested in why they did not create this document under Bush as I am interested in what would be the best way to describe the relationship between the two Presidents: Bush as a Proto-Obama or Obama as a Neo-Bush.

Also, realistically (and admittedly, I would say, even though I do not speak for the committee of 80), political reality.  Why did President Obama's enthused 2008 supporters not make the same kinds of efforts in 2000 and 2008 (excluding those individuals who did, and those who would have been ten or fourteen years old at the time)?  Probably because, collectively, they were not upset enough, yet.  It is hardly scandalous that opportunity and viability would have affected a person or group's choice of timing.

REACTION #4: This does, nevertheless, leave some reason for conservatives to question whether this statement repudiates coercive, unconstitutional government action to the extent that it was practiced under Bush.  Some of the signers certainly would repudiate those practices, but is that repudiation a part of the agreement?  Without knowing the story behind the Mount Vernon Statement, I can only speculate (and my guess would be "no").

However, I can state with certainty, once again: The Twelve Points Are Different.  The Twelve Points are based on my attempts to write statements of conservative principles throughout the Bush administration.  It was in 2007 that I was inspired to create the Twelve Points, and it was in late 2007 that I wrote a plan to describe what they would need to communicate.  I completed the first draft in March 2008 and had substantially completed the Twelve Points by the end of the year (though I continued to refine the Twelve Points into 2009 as I searched for supporters).  The Twelve Points are meant to apply regardless of whether the President is a Democrat or a Republican and regardless of which party controls Congress -- a point that I believe is demonstrated by their content.

The Mount Vernon Statement is easily better than nothing, and if I had not already put so much thought into what a statement of conservative principles needs to contain, I cannot say with certainty that I would have any objection to it.

It does appear, however, that the Twelve Points have the advantages that I expected.