Funny, these are the same guys who idolized him for the first five years of his presidency. What changed, all of a sudden? Certainly not Bush, he is still acting the same way he has his entire career.

What's changed is that after five years of presidency, the elections are finally over. It is now safe to criticise Bush, because such criticism can't possibly matter any more - it can't affect his reelection chances.

Forgive me if I don't perceive this as responsible conservatism. Responsibility would have been criticising him before it's too late to do anything about his weaknesses. Responsibility would have been getting Mike Brown out of there before Katrina hit. Responsibility would have been getting Rumsfeld out of there before Iraq was a total loss. What we're seeing now isn't just too little, too late --- it's *intentionally* too little, too late. The criticism was intentionally postponed until it no longer mattered.

Mr. Yelon apparently makes the same mistake as Mr. Taylor in underestimating conservative unhappiness with President Bush.

There has been unending criticism of the President's fiscal and budgetary policies virtually from day one of this Administration. There have been some rather pointed questions asked by conservatives as different as George Will and John Podhoretz regarding winning the peace in Iraq. And the President's social policies have upset many of us on the right who are more libertarian in our outlook.

That said, perhaps Mr. Yelon is complaining that we're not comparing Bush to Hitler or Administration policy in Iraq with Nazi Germany. Or even that Bush hates black people so much he wanted to let them die in New Orleans by delaying the federal response to hurricane Katrina.

If that's the case, then I'll have to plead guilty to allowing sanity to triumph over paranoia and common sense to win out over stupidity.

Or, dare I say, patriotism to trump defeatism?

There have been some rather pointed questions asked by conservatives as different as George Will and John Podhoretz regarding winning the peace in Iraq.

Gasp -- now we see the tremendous extent of conservative resistance to the Presidents policies in Iraq -- pointed questions. I can rest easy now about the extent of conservative concerns about Iraq.

That said, perhaps Mr. Yelon is complaining that we're not comparing Bush to Hitler or Administration policy in Iraq with Nazi Germany

The aforementioned Mr. Will did a similar comparison in the run up to the war. He compared Iraq to Nazi Germany in the late 1930s and pontificated that that was why we must attack. But conservatives never engage in hyperbole, oh no.

The fact is that most conservatives (except the Buchanan types) fell into line easily pre-war. Post-war, for a long time, many conservatives kept (and keep) on saying that things were just hunky-dory in iraq and the fault was that of the evil media in focusing on the half a dozen car bombs a week. Finally, when the problems became too much to paper over, some have tried to cover their butts by complaining a little about the administration (although most of their ink seems to be spent criticizing the evil liberals over Iraq).

With notable exceptions such as Chuck Hagel, there has little genuine open minded criticism from conservatives over Iraq policy (not just specific points).

While Dan (a nominal conservative who voted for Kerry) has been far more critical of the administration on Iraq, the fact is that many right-wing bloggers (including Instapundit) spend most of theit time blaming the media.

Jessie Taylor was correct. Right Blogistan is a pit of denial, Dan, and the few counterexamples you managed to find merely prove the point. Online conservatives are loath to acknowledge the miserable failures that have engulfed the Iraq project since day one (starting, of course, with the total lack of WMD). Glenn Reynolds's newfound and silly obsession with pork is a nice but petty - you could cut all the pork in the world and it won't pay for the first 3 months of Katrina recovery. Your examples of conservative outrage prove only that conservatives are 98% spineless instead of 100%. The bulk of their criticisms are leveled at Kanye West, the ACLU, the media, and the UN. Nutters one and all.

Bush is neither conservative or compassionate, and he lost many real conservatives a long time ago (see the Medicare Rx bill for one reason, also the Iraq fiasco).

Conservative commentators are so desperate to support a Repub after the Clinton era that they have sold their souls - buying them back will be expensive.

Perhaps conservatives are not criticizing Bush over Iraq policy because they agree it is largely correct. I have yet to see any plan by the left that was not seeped in total denial and/or cutting and running from a battlefield we have won, and have kept winning, from day one. What exact battle have we lost, oh mighty lefties?

I have not read much conservative opinion in favor of Bush's open checkbook on domestic issues, and his so-called Republican allies basically deserted him over his most conservative policy initiative - Social Security Reform. These suddenly fiscally responsible Republicans could have killed the Medicare Drug Plan, the ridiculous highway bill, etc., etc. etc., yet they voted for these issues by huge margins. The fact that they are suddenly fiscally responsible is precisely because of blowback by conservatives - you are not actually arguing that liberals are behind this revolt against runaway spending, are you? If so, your argument is as vacant as the space between your ears.

The fact that the so-called conservative author of this site is not a huge Bush supporter is a bit of a surprise - he is a well-known advocate of transferring our trade policy oversight to quasi-governmental entities outside of U.S. government control. Free trade can be accomplished just as efficiently by ending our subsidies to farming interests and other corporations in this country, along with cutting back tariffs - we don't need another U.N. to tell us how many beans to ship to Chile. Bush is with you on this dubious policy, Dan, for what reason I have no idea.

If the Republicans want to act like conservatives again, I highly encourage them to do so. The first step will be growing a backbone, the second is to ignore liberals completely, neither of which they have been very good at doing.

Dan,

What makes Jesse Taylor dead on is that it took the conservative blogosphere about two years longer than it reasonably should have to come to these conclusions. A tell tale sign of a "close-minded, insular, circular pit of denial" if ever there was one.

Just two things encompass all that rank and file conservatives want to see in a President. These are that the President appear as a strong leader, and that he stand up to liberals and the media.

Bush is still the object of a fair amount of reverence among conservatives based on the latter criterion. But the aura of strong leadership that surrounded him after 9/11 is dissipating, and his response to the Katrina disaster gave this process a major shove forward. This is by far the biggest factor in growing conservative discontent with his administration.

Responsibility would have been getting Mike Brown out of there before Katrina hit.

Had there been a public debate about whether FEMA should have been run by an individual with absolutely no qualifications for the job, I certainly would have sided against Michael Brown. However, prior to Katrina I couldn't have told you his name. If the Left ever took any interest in him, I certainly didn't hear about it. Jeff Gannon, sure, but Michael Brown?

I suppose you could argue that I'm a bad citizen for not doing my own due diligence into Bush appointees. But it seems a bit unfair to toss around conspiracy theories because I wasn't more proactive than, say, Nancy Pelosi.

The only thing missing from this of supposed converts is Mickey Kaus -- a supposed endorser of John Kerry, yet you can wade through the year of Kausfiles and not find a shred of substantive analysis of the failings of George Bush -- but lots about Kerry's appearance, his words, and the failure of the LA Times op-ed page to have a gossip column. But since all Kaus does anymore is link to Insta, Malkin, and Taranto, doubtless he'll be on the new message very soon.

Instapundit, Captain's Quarters and Orin at the Volokh conspiracy are none of them partisan Bush-backers. They've all criticized his administration harshly, over many matters, for years. Though it's nice to see Malkin and the Power Line gang show some doubts.

What that says about Pandagon, (except "pot, kettle"), I don't know.

What exact battle have we lost, oh mighty lefties?

The battle for a safe drive from Baghdad airport to the central city.

The battle for foreign civilian contractors, reporters, aid workers, and diplomats to be able to move freely in Baghdad without being beheaded or blown up by a mine.

The battle to diminish the absolute number of Islamist terrorists.

The battle to establish a stable, secular democracy in Iraq.

The battle to create an Iraqi police force that isn't utterly riddled with jihadists, who then abscond with their American-issued weapons and use them against American soldiers.

Shall I go on? Or do these count as "successes" among the "last throes" camp?

JSinger said: "But it seems a bit fair to toss around conspiracy theories use I wasn't more proactive than, say, Nancy Pelosi."

So your point is that "Bush made a bad appointment, but the Dems are the problem because they didn't complain"

JSinger said: "But it seems a bit fair to toss around conspiracy theories use I wasn't more proactive than, say, Nancy Pelosi."

So your point is that "Bush made a bad appointment, but the Dems are the problem because they didn't complain"

What exact battle have we lost, oh mighty lefties?

There's your circular denial pit right there. We have lost every battle that matters. Sure, we have won military victories, but other than ousting Saddam (a good thing in and of itself), our victories are hollow. We clear insurgents out of towns, they come back when we leave. There is basically a low-level civil war brewing. Even Basra, the early success story, is getting worse. The constitution will set up an islamic republic with the rights of women quite clearly not protected. We have stretched our military and national guard to the breaking point, significantly impeding our readiness to deal with other conflicts.

I have yet to see any plan by the left that was not seeped in total denial and/or cutting and running

Typical. A conservative shits the bed and then blames the liberals for not having a plan to clean it up.

I honestly don't recall a lack of criticism of Bush among the many Republicans of various stripes that I hang with-- we just kept it private. Nothing wrong with winning elections unless you think politics shouldn't be, well, you know, political. Of course we wanted Bush to beat Kerry. John Roberts is a good example of why it makes a difference. And GOP members of congress blaming Bush for spending is reall rich--- they passed every appropriations bill on mostly party line votes. But of course they know they are going to be more or less running on their own in 2006, and certainly so in 2008. Again, no surprise unless you didn't realize that politics gets mixed up with politics.

That the right wing blogoshpere doesn't recognize this is no surprise. They are slightly more mature than their lefty counterparts, but most of them still hsaven't learned that politics is about power, nothing else. Always has been, always will be. If you want more in life, give religion a try.

Really interesting discussion. I have to say that Conservatism has suffered across the world due to the incompetence of the Bush Administration.

Even though I'm probably left of center, I do agree with conservatives on some important issues. However, since conservatism is now associated with Mr Bush and Foxnews many of the policies which conservatives hope that Islamic countries in particular implement are now much less likely to happen.

So your point is that "Bush made a bad appointment, but the Dems are the problem because they didn't complain"

Sorry, I forgot I was addressing the sort of people who think in "___ are the problem" terms.

No, I think Bush screwed up disastrously by appointing Brown, period. The gentleman to whom I was responding asserts that anyone who claims to have come to that realization post-2004 election is obviously acting in bad faith -- to which I commented that I'm unaware of _anyone_ making an issue of said disastrous appointment.

I think Katrina was the tipping point for many formerly strong Bush supporters in the right-wing parts of the blogworld. Malkin, for instance, has become notably more hostile. Andrew Sullivan has been going sour for months, not just on the gay marriage issue, but on the issue of "drunken sailor" spending, tariffs, the botched post-invasion phase of the Iraq adventure, etc.

The important thing for liberal gloaters to remember, though, is that the Democrats seem to have hardly anyone senior who seems able - yet - to exploit the disaffection of conservatives, libertarians, independents and so forth. Many such folk must feel politically homeless.

As for Glenn Reynolds, he has been pretty hard on Bush for years. He constantly bashes him on stuff like stem cells, Dept. of Homeland Security, pork, govt spending, as well as pointing out how soft Bush has been on the Saudis.

I think Katrina was the tipping point for many formerly strong Bush supporters in the right-wing parts of the blogworld. Malkin, for instance, has become notably more hostile. Andrew Sullivan has been going sour for months, not just on the gay marriage issue, but on the issue of "drunken sailor" spending, tariffs, the botched post-invasion phase of the Iraq adventure, etc.

The important thing for liberal gloaters to remember, though, is that the Democrats seem to have hardly anyone senior who seems able - yet - to exploit the disaffection of conservatives, libertarians, independents and so forth. Many such folk must feel politically homeless.

As for Glenn Reynolds, he has been pretty hard on Bush for years. He constantly bashes him on stuff like stem cells, Dept. of Homeland Security, pork, govt spending, as well as pointing out how soft Bush has been on the Saudis.

Dumbest thing I've read in weeks: 'After the Democrats' obstructionist approach to Social Security reform, it is more difficult for them to claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility'

Everyone and their mother knows what Democratic fiscal responsibility looks like. Raise taxes to cover the costs. I doubt many Democrats would complain about abandoning Bush's Medicare bill either. Privatization of social security -- which, as everyone and their mother knows would COST trillions of dollars over the next however many years -- has nothing to do with this.

One can argue back and forth about whether Democrats would cut the budget, get rid of pork, etc (in my opinion, a nice start would be to end the corrupt one-party rule under which earmarks and spending have skyrocketed while Bush has yet to veto a single bill). It's probably true that a Congressional majority couldn't vote against farm subsidies or transportation earmarks without Presidential cover, and while this isn't a partisan issue it's worth remembering what happened to this kind of spending under Clinton. But you're not going to do anything about balancing the budget by cutting domestic discretionary spending without substantially raising taxes. And again, while social security cuts would save money, partial privatization would not.

This is to Mr Yelon's comment, way up at the top here.

I think he is partly right and partly wrong. Yes, the election shored up Bush support among conservatives. That's because he looked better than the alternative. To me he still looks better than the alternative. But after the election you stop thinking about the alternatives and just think about the administration on its merits. And it's perfectly natural to go sour on Bush on his merits, even if you preferred him to Kerry. You can prefer 'big whopping mess' to 'big whopping mess in spades' and still be sorry that what you end up with is a big whopping mess.

Even if there is some real 'buyer's regret' in the new sour atmosphere, that may not be strictly rational, but it is hardly intentional. It's easy to get caught up in the heat of competition and think more clearly later.

In other words: Yes, the election mattered, but cool the conspiracy theories.

My God...What a pitiful bunch of people
Republicans are.

Everyone with half a brain knew this was
what George Bush truly was: Not a real
conversative or compassionate person to any
degree. Bush constantly signaled that even
when he was 'governor' of Texas...(which,
by the way, IS NOT the most powerful post
in Texas government.)

Bush is being precisely what he has been
though his whole life...a fraud.

But hey...You all knew that when he walked
away from his pilots service job back in
the '70s.

That cookie is half baked...and now your
stuck with him.....Hahahahahaha....

Yes...The Devil does work in mysterious ways.

Bush will self-destruct most likely, but the Dems haven't had an original idea for twenty years so don;t look for a donkey resurgence.

Such a mess.

I think Bush screwed up disastrously by appointing Brown, period. The gentleman to whom I was responding asserts that anyone who claims to have come to that realization post-2004 election is obviously acting in bad faith -- to which I commented that I'm unaware of _anyone_ making an issue of said disastrous appointment.

There have been tons of complaints about cronyism *generally,* going way back before 2004. Not knowing about FEMA specifically is forgivable, but I'd have to say that anyone who didn't realize that Bush was especially prone to appointing cronies to important high positions wasn't paying attention.

To the Bush apologists who freely acknowledge that Bush is a loser, but smugly assert that Democrats "haven't had a new idea in 20 years" and are "failing to capitalize" on Bush's incompetence, what planetary system do you inhabit? Two recent polls (by the Pew Foundation and by Newsweek) have the Dems with a 12 point advantage over the Dumbo Party on who should control Congress-- and the public's dissatisfaction will only grow between now and November '06.

Bush is the exemplar of the modern GOP: no principles, interested in smearing opponents over real policy, all show and no substance. From the Panama Canal to the "flag burning" amendment, from the Contract with America to Terri Schiavo, American "conservatism" is a hollow, empty sham--and has been for decades.

As for those who voted for George W. Bush, whether once or twice, I can only pity you. Only a moron or a fanatically partisan Republican (the same thing, I know) would have looked at this guy and thought, "Yes, HE should be leader of the free world!"

But you got what you asked for. And you're gonna keep getting it for the next 3 years and 4 months. Enjoy!

What's saddest is the realization that there exists no party that can advocate a reduction in the size of government (not just pork, but Gingrich-style parings) and still be electorally serious. There is a supreme danger to any government when it appears that it structurally cannot come to terms with the problems facing it. That is, sadly, I do not see Republicans, or Democrats, responding to ANY internal political impulse for spending restraint.

Seriously, why does anybody give two sh#@s about the Democrats?

They have no power, NONE.

So blaming them or expecting anything from them is ridiculous. When they did last have power, things were much better and that is historical fact, no matter who blew the guy.

And the current messes were created by the right so if you righties are looking for anyone to blame....go find a mirror.

And thanks for all the current and future misery.

My hands are clean.

To the Bush apologists who freely acknowledge that Bush is a loser, but smugly assert that Democrats "haven't had a new idea in 20 years"

Show me one. Or, even better, quit harping on how much Bush sucks and give me a candidate to vote for that sucks less than Bush does.

and are "failing to capitalize" on Bush's incompetence, what planetary system do you inhabit?

The one around Sol, in the Milky Way galaxy. Which one are you in?

Two recent polls (by the Pew Foundation and by Newsweek) have the Dems with a 12 point advantage over the Dumbo Party on who should control Congress-

Oh, really?

What new ideas have they come up with that resonate with the public? What policy iniatives have they developed, promoted and passed? What are the Democrats doing with their new popularity?

Here's a free clue- you seem to need one- Newsweek and Pew don't decide who runs the government.

- and the public's dissatisfaction will only grow between now and November '06. -Skye

That sounds a lot like what I was hearing back in '02. And '04.

When are the Democrats going to realize that hoping for disaster to happen to the guy in office now is not a plan that is going to win them elections?

Back in November/December 2000, watching how the election fraud/comedy unfolded in Florida from here in Europe, one could only wonder when -- and not if -- the Republican Part would start to self-destruct.

It's incredible that now, almost five years later, one can actually start to wonder if dumbya & Co will themselves not only implode, but that they'll bring down the US as well.

Now, watching the events in New Orleans unfold from here in Europe, it was quite easy to get the impression that the storm blew up a corner of the carpet beneath which the US had long been sweeping some of its fundamental problems.

Among the fundamental problems revealed are:

(1) the enormous divide between rich and poor (which has expanded rapidly in the past two or three decades);

(2) the racial divide leaving blacks in the poorest class (nearly all the stranded, angry, unassisted poor one could see on the TV screen were black),

(3) the failure to invest in infrastructure (not only the failure to protect the dikes and levies, but the failure to storm-proof the electric and telephone systems by burying cables, etc.);

And, perhaps most striking of all,

(4) the bizarre law-and-order mentality which orders the National Guard to shoot-to-kill looters (that is, to give priority to protecting property more than human lives).

Perhaps it is going too far to state that one is watching a collapse similar to the collapse of the Soviet Union fifteen years ago. Much as the total-collectivization and total-centralization of society in the USSR collapsed, eventually, of its own internal contradictions, one can only wonder whether or not the US, too, with its ultra-individualistic, ultra-material ideology and its absence of much concern about the collective needs of society (health care, education, infrastructure, etc.) will collapse of its own internal contradictions.

One thing is for sure: the United States, whose reputation in Europe was already tarnished by its go-it-alone pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, has lost even more respect here thanks to Hurricane Katrina. This is only partly due to the slow and stumbling response of the federal government to the tragedy. It is due more to the revelation of some of your carefully hidden social problems.

--------------------------

"When power leads men towards arrogance, poetry reminds him of his limitations. When power narrows the areas of man's concern, poetry reminds him of the richness and diversity of his existence. When power corrupts, poetry cleanses."

"I look forward to a great future for America, a future in which our country will match its military strength with our moral restraint, its wealth with our wisdom, its power with our purpose. I look forward to an America which will not be afraid of grace and beauty, which will protect the beauty of our natural environment, which will preserve the great old American houses and squares and parks of our national past, and which will build handsome and balanced cities for our future.

"I look forward to an America which will reward achievement in the arts as we reward achievement in business or statecraft. I look forward to an America which will steadily raise the standards of artistic accomplishment and which will steadily enlarge cultural opportunities for all of our citizens. And I look forward to an America which commands respect throughout the world not only for its strength but for its civilization as well. And I look forward to a world which will be safe not only for democracy and diversity but also for personal distinction."

JFK, Amherst, Massachusetts, October 26, 1963

After reading through all the arguments on either side about who is to blame for the sad state of affairs this country is now confronted with, I am astounded that no one has brought up the corruption that, in my opinion, will be the ultimate cause for the decline and fall of American Democracy. Want to save our country? Outlaw campaign contributions, lobbyists, earmarking, and all the rest of the practices that do nothing but corrupt politicians and those around them.

Oh no, George Will says, campaign contributions are free speech. BS, I say. Campaign contributions are corrupting, plain and simple, and if he can't see that then he has a real moral blind spot. George W. Bush's presidency will go down in history as the most corrupt government the American people have ever experienced. We are sliding backwards to the equivalent of a third world banana republic.

Jeez, Dan, where did all these brainless anklebiters come from?

"...quit harping on how much Bush sucks and give me a candidate to vote for that sucks less than Bush does."

Already done. His name was John Kerry. I vote across party lines, but it was perfectly clear at the last election that Bush was incompetent. It was clear he was not "conservative" but radical. To be honest, it was clear before the first election that he never should have been put up for the office. He simply is not bright enough, nor accomplished enough.

The blood, the failures are all on the souls of you who supported this guy. NOW you want to start complaining? Too little, too late. Thanks for ruining the country.

So it was definitely amusing to read Pandagon's Jesse Taylor write: "I find the conservative blogosphere to be one of the most closed-minded, insular, circular pits of denial I've ever encountered."

Okay, let's put all of these folks in the Poly Sci department at good old U Chicago.

Still amused?

Canute, you've made a terrific post.
I have to point out one fundamental error, however, with the four problems revealed by Katrina. Your mistake is in assuming that conservatives even give a shit about them.

Spend some time with a group of conservatives, visit a conservative website, or hang around Instapundit or Malkin or NRO's Corner, and you'll wait an awfully long time before you hear someone suggest we address poverty, racial inequality, or even dare to suggest that we - gasp! - spend money to make our citizens' lives better.

So being a slave under the Democrats is better than being a slave under the Republicans???

To the poster who states the divide between the rich and poor has grown wider the last two or three decades. At three decades that would be 15 years of Repub. rule and 12 years of Dem rule. That is a 60/40 split and during most of that time the Dems controlled Congress and The Senate. How does this translate to an exclusive fault of the Republicans? Doesn't the blame actually lay at the feet of the American voters who keep voting for the idiots of both parties.

Neither Gore or Kerry were ideal candidates.

But to claim seriously that the country would be materially worse of with either in office in 2005 is the best example of 'denial' I've ever heard.

By the way I didn't vote for Gore or Kerry so I am willing to take some of the blame.

Fat lot of good it does now. It's five years in, with four more left to go. We're stuck with him.

The criitcism conservative bloggers have for the administration now would have been more helpful when there was still a chance to do something about it.

It seems to me that venerating or despising Mr. Bush are just two sides of the same false coin. Popularity - even in a democratic republic - is not leadership. He has never been a leader: nobody ever did something he or she didn't already want to do just because Mr. Bush told them to. Americans who like him like him not because they agree with him but because they think he agrees with what they already believe; every time he has attempted to mobilize this "support" in a direction of his own choosing, such as Social Security reform or a trip to Mars, the initiatives stall immediately. On the left one often hears that Bush "took us to war in Iraq based on lies." But we would be in exactly the same position today if Gore had been appointed President in 2000. After 9/11 America wanted to go to war, there were not enough targets in Afghanistan, and any cost/benefit analysis pointed toward the country we'd been demonizing and weakening for more than a decade ("This aggression will not stand, man!" to quote the Big Lebowski). Given the damaged electoral process in Florida and the compromised legitimacy of its outcome, no President would have had the authority to keep us out of Iraq. The corollary though is that where we are today is not Bush's fault but our own, dear Brutus. But none of this matters much anymore. When wars are lost, the consequences are great and unpredictable, and I myself doubt that the tin oppositions between "liberals" and "conservatives," "Republicans" and "Democrats," "blue" and "red" will be sturdy enough to contain the coming political deluge when the fact of defeat in Iraq becomes undeniable. By then, Bush will be remembered, if at all, not as a lost violent soul but only as a hollow man, a stuffed man.

this is the way the world ends
this is the way the world ends
this is the way the world ends
not with a bang but a whimper.

Howard Kurtz completely botched excerpting this thread in the Washington Post today.

There have been some rather pointed questions asked by conservatives as different as George Will and John Podhoretz regarding winning the peace in Iraq.

Funny you should mention that. I remember reading Will's "pointed questions" for months before the last election. For all his misgivings -- which were substantial -- when push came to shove, in the end he took the party line, and endorsed Bush.

So, yeah, "pointed questions" don't mean jack if they don't result in actions. What's changed? Last November Bush was the same inept, in-over-his-head wastrel that he is now -- but so-called "conservatives" were willing to do or say anything to get him installed. To hear them describe themselves, right-wingers are sole possessors of virtues like responsibility and tough-mindedness. Own up to your intellectual sell-outs before you piss and moan about how liberals don't have a plan to fix the debacles you've helped create.

You reap what you sow.
The Slate commenter hit the nail on the head. Neither party can have fiscal discipline because in order to get elected you have to bring home the bacon. So everything becomes arguements about social policy, the only place most elected officals have a difference of opinion. Even this is in doubt if you look at what is happening as the criminal behavior of the Roman Catholic Church comes out. Neither party is interested in protecting our children. The following is the newspaper synopsis of the Grand Jury's investigation into sexual abuse in Philadelphia:
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/12707671.htm
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/12707671.htm
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/12707671.htm

Spend some time with a group of conservatives, visit a conservative website, or hang around Instapundit or Malkin or NRO's Corner, and you'll wait an awfully long time before you hear someone suggest we address poverty, racial inequality, or even dare to suggest that we - gasp! - spend money to make our citizens' lives better.

It might help to answer your accusation by clarifying what you said: or even dare to suggest that we - gasp! - spend OTHER PEOPLE'S money to make our citizens' lives better.

Some folks still have a few issues with threatening people with police violence in order to get a portion of their wealth (otherwise known as "taxation") so as to hand over to *insert needy group here*. Not that Mr. Reynolds, the Corner folks, or Mrs. Malkin stand on this principle openly, consistently, or even regularly. But it does occasionally filter down to their writing.

You conservatives will have to excuse us liberals for finding people who think that a monument in the shape of a semi-circle is a paeon to radical Islam are, well, just a teensy bit taken with their own separate reality.

I find it rather ... interesting (though not surprising) that Dan got more than 40 comments out of this post, a big jump over the number of comments on recents posts.

Robert:

"Neither party can have fiscal discipline because in order to get elected you have to bring home the bacon."

Slate lies #1 - if we call it for one side or another we're (shudder!!!) biased. Better to lie.

After Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II, the blame for the deficit is clear.

Sorry - 'Slate lie #1'. It's amazing how many people there find 'split the difference' to be so appealing. It probably shows the economic pressures of modern journalism.

During the last election I pleaded with my Republican friends to consider what it meant to govern--have good people in place to set policy that would address the worst-case scenarios and exploit to everyone's benefit the best cases should they happen. I said, "I am voting for Kerry because he believes in appointing qualified people to important positions." They said, "Bush does that." Now, having watched the Iraq war unfold, the 9/11 environmental catastrophe (not to mention the attack itself), the No Child Left Behind debacle and seeing first-hand the fraudulent California energy crisis, I knew GW Bush had no ability to govern the largest military and economic power in the world.

I never identified myself as a liberal before 2000. A pragmatist, yes. A fan of Clinton, but not because he was a George Bushian beacon of "moral values." I was a fan of Clinton because he got the job done. But, I have identified with liberals because the modern GOP machine said that liberals were everything they are not ... which to me seems like a very good thing.

Now, I do not per se disagree with many "conservative" principals--small government, right to property and privacy, minimal taxation (but enough to get the job done right, right?), and fiscal restraint in government. That isn't what I've been seeing from the Republican-controlled government. I see frosting on a cardboard box.

Now, why you folks have resisted seeing the people you've put in control of our government for who they are (Karl Rove) and not who you want them to be (St. Reagan) is indeed a mystery to me. For example, why you tolerated the smearing of John McCain in 2000 and the Swift Boating of John Kerry in 2004 is equally confounding.

Regardless of how much money they have, this is still a country in which the grassroots members of the Republican party choose their leaders by voting for them, not sitting back and watching as the strongest (read wealthiest) and most viscious members of the pack fight each other for dominance.

There are plenty of mechanisms by which you could set in motion the removal of this president and other corrupt congressmen from the leadership of your party, and plenty of instances of corruption for which to prosecute them.

But, that means you have to stop letting them divert your attention to the devil down the street (gays, feminists, atheists, socialists, whatever) and look with fresh eyes to the mess in your own backyard.

Your dilema is not intractable, merely unpleasant. But, your problems (and ours, since your folks are running our government) will not be resolved by hand-wringing and wailing and blaming liberals for pointing out the obvious.

I believe there are honorable, capable Republicans in your party who would govern well (Patrick Fitzgerald comes to mind).

Your mission (and you must choose to accept it sooner or later, so please, make it sooner) is to cull the bad elements from your party. You are only stuck with them if you choose to be.

Impeach GW Bush, Cheney and all their goons. Throw the bastards in jail and get to work cleaning this mess up. That simple. You put good leaders up for election and I will vote for them.

The basic "your fault/no, your fault" tone of this thread reminds me of a joke.

A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost.

She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him, "Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."

The man consulted his portable GPS and replied. "You're 30 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude."

She rolled her eyes and said, "You must be a Democrat."

"I am," replied the man. "How did you know?"

"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to do with your information, and I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help to me."

The man smiled and responded, "You must be a Republican."

"I am," replied the balloonist. "How did you know?"

"Well," said the man, "you don't know where you are or where you're going. You've risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise that you have no idea how to keep, then you expect me to solve your problem. You're in exactly the same position you were in before we met but, somehow, now it's my fault."

For all those saying we would vote for Kerry now . . . that's probably not true.

Bush was pitted against all the former presidents since Carter, and they outpolled him. Only one figure did not - Kerry. Kerry was a lousy candidate for many reasons.

Also, impeach Bush? Don't you need high crimes and misdemeanors? Not only that, but don't you need ones convincing enough to get a Republican House to pass the articles, and a Republican Senate to convict with a 2/3rds majority?

Just not going to happen. You've got to have some real dirt (like Bush sold us out to Al-Qaeda in a provable way) to convince that many Republicans to kick Bush out.

The right managed to impeach Clinton over a blow-job and now you tell me you can't control the corruption in your own party? Granted, the phone lines aren't fully functional in parts of the south right now, but if the people lead the government will follow. Your congressmen will do what you make them do or allow them to do. Choose. Stop acting like a helpless bystander.

Choose. A government who will cut the funding for the federal Center for Disease Control when HN51 flu is verging on a pandemic, or a government with the will to govern in the face of climate change, peak oil and over population.

I have voted Democratic or Green for years, although most of my life I voted Republican or Libertarian (for fiscal and social issues respectively). I find the gloating of fellow Democratic posters here unseemly. Surely we all hope for the best from our candidates. Surely many of us try to save a bit of face, or put the best foot forward when serious problems arise that at least temporarily test our commitment. It is counterproductive to, well, play the blame game. Such time is better spent finding areas of consensus and moving forward (e.g., Porkbusters).
And while I think the accusations that the Democratic party doesn't have concrete ideas is quite unfounded (check their website), I believe many Democrat partisans -- at least as evidenced by various posts here -- are guilty as charged. If the only thing you have to say is "my hands are clean," or, worse yet, "That cookie is half baked...and now your [sic] stuck with him ...Hahahahahaha," you are doing the grand tradition of progressive politics a huge disservice. Keep it to yourself.

I never identified myself as a liberal before 2000. A pragmatist, yes. A fan of Clinton, but not because he was a George Bushian beacon of "moral values." I was a fan of Clinton because he got the job done. But, I have identified with liberals because the modern GOP machine said that liberals were everything they are not ... which to me seems like a very good thing.

Now, I do not per se disagree with many "conservative" principals--small government, right to property and privacy, minimal taxation (but enough to get the job done right, right?), and fiscal restraint in government. That isn't what I've been seeing from the Republican-controlled government. I see frosting on a cardboard box.

Ditto.

Jeez, Dan, where did all these brainless anklebiters come from?

...back on the main page...

" ANOTHER UPDATE: Man, you get linked by Andrew Sullivan, the National Journal, and Howard Kurtz, and suddenly it's a party. [...] "

"The conservative blogosphere is not really thrilled with the administration either"

I've noticed that also. Just say "Iraq".

I supported the war, still do but not the way it has been handled. When leaders hype "victory" and find that they are suddenly taking ongoing casualities it has a tendency to erode sympathy.

Also Bush has retreated from his former bullish enthusiams for exporting "freedom and democracy" and now seems like a guy caught in an interval of uncertainty ... that goes on and on and ...

My anger though isn't directed at Bush, it's directed at those legions of Americans who wanted him to fail; those who cheered with America haters around the globe willing failure. The negativists and the self-interested who could only see doom and gloom. Now we have these hurricanes and the skies are quite literally turning leaden. Is this an omen? I'm sure many of Bush's enemies see it that way. One more nail in the coffin.

Of course the irony is that should a Democrat follow Bush into office, there is a great liklihood that he or she will be called upon to flex the military might of the USA in ways that will make Bush seem low key. World events may demand it. And if they do, it will be fine because when a Democrat does it, well ... it's got to be for the right reasons.

Americans who stabbed Bush in the back because of his politics; those who would have embraced a shameful defeat faster then a hard won victory, look worse in my eyes than Bush.

Bush to some extent has become a scapegoat, a whipping boy. That's too easy and I don't buy it.

Breaking news. The votes are in. Conservatives are stupid. You were slickied by Reagan and this guy's father, but you didn't learn. You never learn. Forrest Gump: Stupid is as stupid does.

Just why in the world any true conservative—and I am one—would ever have supported this administration is beyond me. Shame on all of you. You talk about patriotism? From a retired US Army officer, you are the true sell-outs. I hope you enjoy your tax cuts while our country goes down the tubes.

Aiden,

Is pointing out that Bush's policies, including the Iraq war, are not working out well for 98% of us, gloating over Bush's failures?

Personally, nobody rubbed Bush's presidential elections in my face. But, I do have friends who had to endure the gleeful revelry of their Republican friends when he won.

How do you think it feels to stand there and know that the emperor has no clothes, yet watch the cult of personality refuse to believe it?

Personally, when he won my despair knocked me off my feet for several months. I never "hoped he would fail." How would our government failing help any American? It doesn't, of course.

There are fewer out there enjoying this situation than you think. There is a lot more righteous anger and grieving over how bad the situation is, and there is fear over how bad we might find out it really is once we look under the facade.

This isn't a marriage, where we pledged until death do us part. He is an at-will employee. The job is very important. The stake-holders can't afford to employ a man without the wherewithall to do the job right.

"What exact battle have we lost, oh mighty lefties?"

The battle to maintain the Constitution, and the laws and treaties passed under it's authority, as being both higher and applicable to the executive branch. Start at Article VI Clause 2 of the US Constitution. As soon as Bush violated it to go to war in Iraq, we lost an important battle. I'll be interested to see how many of my conservative brethren argue to hold Bush accountable for this act, and possibly salvage the rule of law. But, so far, such voices have been few and far in between.

These journalist that are disenchanted with Bush now have nobody to blame but themselves.
If they had done their job properly to begin with, they would have exposed Bush for what he really is. The corruption in this White House STINKS and no one is in a rush to expose it.
The election process is a joke.
And for starters, perhaps they can start with why NO is allowed to question this government or its actions.
The media has always been a place where people could learn the truth about what is going on. The best example in my lifetime was WaterGate.
We now have a corrupt as government as we did then, and the MSM is just starting to awaken.

"On the left one often hears that Bush "took us to war in Iraq based on lies." But we would be in exactly the same position today if Gore had been appointed President in 2000. After 9/11 America wanted to go to war, there were not enough targets in Afghanistan, and any cost/benefit analysis pointed toward the country we'd been demonizing and weakening for more than a decade ("This aggression will not stand, man!" to quote the Big Lebowski). Given the damaged electoral process in Florida and the compromised legitimacy of its outcome, no President would have had the authority to keep us out of Iraq."

And this is what you say when you know your position is weak. Would Al Gore REALLY have invaded Iraq because "there were not enough targets in Afghanistan? This sort of delusional thinking is typical when you're desperate to pass the blame around. No, Al Gore would have kept after Osama in Tora Bora, not bogged us down in an OPTIONAL war in Iraq. But keep trying, your desperation is delicious!

"[. . .]and any cost/benefit analysis pointed toward the country we'd been demonizing and weakening for more than a decade"

So now we're invading countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 OR the War on Terror - because it looks good from a cost-benefit standpoint?! Comments like this show why liberals shouldn't "turn the other cheek" (advice that sounds more and more like 'bite the pillow'); because it will be considered a sign of weakness by the ironically named "conservatives". No. This is your fault, conservatives, and we're going to hang the festering carcass of Iraq around your collective necks until you learn that global politics is something to take SERIOUSLY, not just swaggering around the world stage yelling "bring it on" like an adolescent.

I wonder when the Republicans will end Republican Socialism: Price supports for criminals. Such as the War On Drugs.

Or as I prefer the War On People self Medicating for PTSD.

The Drug War costs about $100 bn a year at the Federal, State, and Local levels. It does nothing about the root cause: PTSD.

However, if the Republicans are right and police can cure addiction perhaps they ought to be in charge of cancer treatment as well.

Bust Pork, Not Drugs

BTW for those interested the DEA says drugs do not cause addiction. Well they said it for a little while until they figured out it might affect the gravy train.

DEA Pain FAQ [pdf]

There is no more corrupt government program in America than the war on drugs.

It keeps competition of the pharmaceutical, alcohol, and tobacco companies off the legal market. i.e. rent seeking.

It supports a vast array of police, FBI, DEA, etc. officers.

It does not keep drugs from children.

It supports a vast array of smugglers who routinely breach our borders.

It corrupts police.

It corrupts the CIA.

"The Latin American drug cartels have stretched their tentacles much deeper into our lives than most people believe. It's possible they are calling the shots at all levels of government."
- William Colby, former CIA Director, 1995

Prohibition is an awful flop.
We like it.
It can't stop what it's meant to stop.
We like it.
It's left a tail of graft and slime,
It didn't prohibit worth a dime,
It's filled our land with vice and crime,
Nevertheless, we're for it.

Franklin P. Adams

Sound like the drug war?

Aidan,

Supporting Freedom and Democracy is now official US Foreign Policy.

Voted on by Congress by a better than 4 to 1 margin.

It is not just Bush.

BTW I was a Democrat in the 60s. The support democracy and self government policy would have been right at home in the Democrat Party of that era. We were all for self determination. An end to dictatorships. We thought such a policy was the most important foreign policy objective.

And the Democrats of today? Not so much.

Which is why I voted Bush.

I still support the policy even if mistakes have been made in execution. Tell me one time or place where huge mistakes were not made in war. Such a time or place only exists in fantasy. What you do in such cases is keep the policy and correct the mistakes.

Every move towards self government in Iraq leads to a spike in attacks. So what is it the Islamic fascist fear most?

By most historical standards this war is very cheap it the metric that counts the most: lives. In addition the Iraqi people want us to stay until they can defend themselves against the fascists. As their army gets bigger and better trained that day comes closer. Every attack on civilians increases recruitment for the Iraqi Army. So the Iraqis want to stay the course.

Should we do what we did in Vietnam who can tell what the bloodbath might be like? Kerry told us no morethan 3,000 would be murdered. The actual number? In the range of 100,000. With another 250,000 dying at sea for fear of murder. Why should we repeat that shameful episode.

Or is the war cry on the left these days "No Worse than Vietnam"? Or maybe no worse than Rawanda?

Is the Constitution a greater power/authority than the executive branch of government? If you support the war, than your answer is "no." It all starts at Article VI Clause 2. Why does it feel like I'm the only conservative that feels this way, and hasn't fallen into the WMD red herring trap (it didn't matter if there were any there in the first place)? Regardless of whether or not you think this war was a good idea or the right thing to do, it was a violation of international law which applies to us because of our own Constitution.

Why is it that most conservatives haven't seemed to blink when it was admitted that Bush approved rigging elections in Iraq?

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050725fa_fact

I'm so tired of it. I'm tired of watching people who pretend they are like me make excuses for violation of the law, rampant hypocrissy, ridiculous spending, etc.

i don't see why conservatives ever liked him, unless it was purely opportunistic pragmatism: to win the white house.

conservatism is about respect for tradition and experience. bush's experience is short and weak at best.

J.M.,

Seymor Hirsh is not very reliable as a source of information on anything to do with the current war.

He decries the caucus system used to select delegates to the constitutional convention.

Does that mean something needs to be done about the Iowa caucuses?

As to the Sunnis not paricipating. That was a strategy of their leaders. Now that the democracy is moving ahead in Iraq they have changed their tune.

In any case they pine for the days of Saddam when they were on top and could oppress the majority not just politically but also with a campaign of murder and torture and rape. Of course they want to go back to the "good old days".

Further, Hirsh, thinks having a Shiite majority elected by a country that has a majority of Shiites is a bad idea. He calls an election that produced such results by a "one man, one vote" method wrong.

Perhaps Bush needs to consult with the U.S. Supreme Court to find out what the correct way forward ought to be. As I understand it the Supreme Court supports "one man, one vote". i.e. it is good enough for America but not good enough for Iraq according to Hirsh.

Kerry was very experienced. He knew how to support a policy that got hundreds of thousands killed and left a country to be run by a tyrrany.

Pardon me if I chose Bush as the lesser of the two evils.

I knew Bush was not the best. In fact as you can see from my comments above I knew he supported policies I am vhemently opposed to.

Unfortunately I had to chose between him and Kerry. No brainer.

M.Simon

Yeah your vote was a 'No-Brainer' alright. You said it not me.

Just think our kids could be home right now and the Iraqi Civil War would be Iran's Problem.

You want to save some lives? Send $200B worth of AIDS and malaria drugs to Africa and South Asia and bring the National Guard back over hear to prep for some terrorism or disasters.

Michael,

Nice to see you favor civil war in Iraq.

It is a policy.

It will get a lot of folks killed.

It is likely to end in tyrrany.

Kerry would have been your perfect candidate.

I believe that puts us in some kind of agreement on the relative merits of the two candidates.

Conservatives are wasting their time if they think "pointed questions" have any impact on the Bush cabal. They know they have you in their pockets, that you'll just blame Bush's corruption on the Democrats for not offering anything more palatable. To them, you're merely a special interest group they snowballed long ago.

In my view, the Bush cabal is neither stupid nor incompetent. They represent corporate vulture capitalism, the opportunists who profiteer off the mammoth reconstruction and security contracts generated by major disasters. The only policies they're concerned with are manipulating their elections and promoting their cronies' business interests. From their viewpoint, both Iraq and Katrina are "catastrophic successes" - fat opportunities to loot the treasury for hundreds of billions to feed their corporate cronies - the Enrons and Halliburtons that make up their financial power base.

If you ideologues had the slightest bit of integrity, you'd be howling incessantly for Bush's impeachment. The crimes are appalling - fraudulent claims of WMD, unprovoked invasion of a foreign nation, violation of Genena Convention bans on torture, exposing the cover of a CIA agent, criminal neglect in New Orleans. And compared to this, you whipped yourselves into a frenzy over Clinton's consensual blow-job? What a pack of shameless hypocrites.

BTW back in the 'Nam era Mr. Kerry convinced me that cut and run was the right policy.

The subsequent events convinced me that he was wrong. For that reason alone I would never consider voting for him.

L,

I was never incensed about Clinton's BJ.

Getting head from a nice Jewish girl while talking to Yasser Arafat seems to me to have been entirely appropriate. And completely ironic.

The Dem talking points don't seem to have much traction.

BTW who should do the rebuilding? Companies with the scope and capability to do the job at a moments notice? Or companies that lack such capability.

I also note that Clinton signed on to the no bid idea for Haliburton when time was of the essence. Was Clinton wrong?

M. Simon: "I was never incensed about Clinton's BJ."

Right, but did you raise any "pointed questions" about the Republicans who exploited it solely for the purpose of character assassination? I thought not.

M. Simon: "The Dem talking points don't seem to have much traction."

But they've gotten a lot better at shucking the bullseyes off their backs.

M. Simon: "BTW who should do the rebuilding? Companies with the scope and capability to do the job at a moments notice?"

Your presumption that technical competency is what endears these corporate swindlers to Cheney's heart is touchingly naive. But I see you already know they scored the New Orleans contract on a cost-plus basis without having to make a competitive bid. So you really can't be as uninformed as you sound, now can you?

I have no sypathy for conservatives who are biting their fingernails over junior's actions.

You dug your grave, you lie in it. selah.

In LA a few years ago voters were faced between a choice for Gov between a crook and a klansman. By the logic displaced above, those voters who went with the crook should have been denied the right to complain about any crime committed by the crook since they could have voted for the klansman. I suppose politics have always been waged at a third grade level. Pity.

One thing that's always puzzled me: why didn't Paul O'Neill's warnings make more of an impression on Bush supporters? Didn't get it then, still don't.

O'Neil was considered a one off: a starchy guy who was a little odd anyway so people discounted his views. Also, most O'Neil's affect on Bush supporters probably would have had the biggest meaning for fiscal conservatives (the hawks didn't mind what he had to say about Iraq so much) and fiscal conservatives had already started to abandon Bush by the time Suskind's book came out.

Also, as a matter of White House management O'Neil's indictment probably wouldn't have seemed that useful to Bush's corporate supporters. O'Neil wanted a more thorough everyone gets a chance to talk approach to policy making. Not many CEOs, or the Republican voters who prefer a corporate model for human interaction, like the messy exchange of ideas. Order is preferred and by that sweeping, but not insane, generalization O'Neil's call for a more open-ended policy process probably wasn't that attractive to Bush supporters.

A whole bunch of whining that while Republicans criticize Bush, they still voted for Bush... Pathetic.

Get used to it, Kerry was the worst presidential candidate in decades, someone who's only positive quality was the war honors he repudiated and the former servicemen he betrayed. Quality-wise, perfectly representative of your party.

Kerrry was the second worse candidate in 2004. And you speak as if you see into parallel universes where he won the election and we all became the love slaves of Osama. You backed the dumbass you all now say is a dumbass and keep telling yourselves he was the lesser of two evils. We'll never know how good or bad Kerry would have been but we all knew all about Bush. Let's go with what really happened and not some dark fantasy where you know the various possible futures mkay?
Bush was the worst candidate in the 2000 primary and the republicans bought it. Then they got him into office and couldn't admit they might have made a mistake. Good Call.

Sure, both sides have their wackos and losers, It just hurts to see us keep electing them.