So: Are George Bush and Tom DeLay and Bill Frist real conservatives?

The more interesting question is whether "conservative" is a label with any analytic value.

There is a Republican party that can win the mid-terms in 2006 and the White House in 2008. But this Republican party isn't it.

Who says saboteurs don't know how to run factories?

There is a Republican party that can win the mid-terms in 2006 and the White House in 2008. But this Republican party isn't it.

Don't forget that there's also a Democratic party that's able to lose both those elections, and this one has shown a remarkable talent for doing just that kind of thing.

Digby's been flogging this idea for months.

There is a Republican party, and a Republican leader, that could win this election. But today’s Republican party is not that party, and George Bush is not that leader.

Or rather, this George Bush is not. There is another George Bush who could win: the George Bush who wasn't afraid to work with Ted Kennedy to pass an omnibus education bill, the George Bush who came to office vowing to slay the poisonous tone in Washington in the name of working people. But this is not that George Bush.

There is a Republican party that could play to traditional Republican strengths. It could attack the budget deficit and tax code for the huge mess that it. It could insist on the primacy of the Constitution, and the vital necessity of preserving the social programs that so many people rely on.

There is an “ideal form” of Republican party that could do this: the Republican party that once was, the Republican party that might be. But the Republican party that is cannot, nor certainly can its present leader. Mr. Bush cannot attack the federal tax code as illegitimate—not he has done so much to worsen the problems within it. Nor can he present himself as the man to stare down any assaults on the constitution, having done so much to undermine it threw warrantless spying programs, and the sick attempt to scapegoat gays for political gain.

As awful as the Bush presidency has been, it will have its positive effects. (Ill wind and all that.) Imagine that Kerry had been elected. Today, we would be suffering through a vast chorus of right wing blame attempting to pin the loss of Iraq on John K. The waters would be so muddied that lessons could not clearly be drawn and we all know, for the American electorate to get it, the lessons must be very very simple. As it is, the policy failures of the right have been so starkly illuminated, even the Americans can understand. Of course the right will still cast their blame, but it won’t stick. The many absurd ideas of the right have been bedeviling this country for a half century. At last we can put them behind us and step forward into a progressive 21st.

Kevin - Thank you!

Spot on.

James of DC >"...the right will still cast their blame, but it won’t stick. The many absurd ideas of the right have been bedeviling this country for a half century. At last we can put them behind us and step forward into a progressive 21st."

We HAVE been blessed by their failure(s)

Time to look ahead & move forward with a positive attitude

"There's this peculiar asymmetry in time which is that you can know
everything you want about the past and you can't change a bit of it
and you can know absolutely nothing about the future but what you
do changes everything." - Stewart Brand

This must have been Ralph Nader's cunning plan all along.

That Conservative platform in full:

1. Tax cuts for my friends
2. Government subsidies for my friends
3. Massive incompetence at any actual governmental function, including military planning
4. Arbitrary wars for fun and profit
5. Confusing yourself with your country
6. Expanding the police state
7. Putting religious crackpots in charge of the government
er...
That's it

Party of Ideas, indeed!

We have had 2 stolen elections and no righteous outrage. What does that say?

In 2004, as we closed to the election, I could not believe that GW maintained his credibility.

Despite his low poll now, I cannot believe that the US does not see right through this man. But they don't.

I have to admit I am in an extreme minority. Most US citizens have sucked up their school-time and present propaganda:

1) The USA is the greatest nation in the world and cannot believe that anyone else would consider their own country to be better;

2) Our President is infallible, more so than the Pope. Why anyone would consider that the US would do anything "wrong" or "hurt" any innocent people is beyond us:

3) The "war on terror" is a real war and only republicans can protect us.

This last, how close to Nazi fascism is that?

But all are lies. And only reinforced by the Dems in seats lying down. No volume, no protest, no core. Weak, weak, weak.

Why?

Because they are political creatures that listen too much ro the daily verbage. There is no political core of belief.

Too sad. Too had. We get the government we deserve.

Where are the trolls? Al and American Hawk, DHS doesn't pay you good money to sleep through this stuff, you know.

The real problem with hoping we'll turn around from the fiascos wrought by GOP "conservatives" is that they still control the media (either outright as in Faux News and talk radio, or indirectly via mau-mauing as in the rest of it). They're quite talented at blaming others for the disasters they create, and they can fill all public discourse with their nonsense. Not merely the conservatives themselves, but also their fellow travellers, must be completely discredited before anything positive can happen.

A Dem President and Congress taking office in 2008 will face an endless stream of attacks, lies and betrayals by all the same characters who spent the 90's making war on Clinton. The mere fact that they totally screwed up everything when they had power won't stop them or shame them for a milisecond.

Sorry. Forgot to say, missed my main point:

The Dems have been far too passive. No wonder the electorate think they are! If the Dems want to win an election they need to have policies that make sense, not appease.

Employment, education, daycare and healthcare all make sense to many.

Dems recent record on fiscaL responsibility should be played on.

Demolish every Repug hypocrisy and broken pledge. I've said it before: "Attack"!

If the Dems don't, then why wouldn't they be seen as wimps?

George Bush, who got reelected by the smallest margin in the past century despite a decent economy and the tailwind of 9/11

George Bush, who ran for two elections, lost the first, and we cannot be sure won the second...

..The mere fact that they totally screwed up everything when they had power won't stop them or shame them for a milisecond.

Posted by: jimBOB on June 15, 2006 at 3:13 AM | PERMALINK

Just another reason to take the offensive before the election and spike these guns. I really think putting the argument out front is better than fighting a rearguard.

No one is telling the US electorate how f'ed up this administration is. How would they know? Call these guys. Take the offence!

NOW!

Conservatives have done a remarkable job governing considering the rough waters which have defined this new American Century. George W. Bush is not the most pure specimen of what a conservative leader should be, but thanks to the grassroots movement that is the modern conservative movement he will not steer too far off the course of our patriotic destiny.

The American public recognizes this as well, even if occasionally they are misled by the weak-kneed liberal propaganda. I predict a Bush comeback. Better savor your "victories" before the next election continues the conservative march towards a Bold American Future.

Extend this to foreign policy and you have yourself a real theory. Beyond the tough guy campaign photo-ops and the settling of a few old grudges they just don't care.

If it wasn't for the nagging media and whining dems they'd be perfectly happy with the situation in Iraq.

One key for Democrats is to focus on how much the war in Iraq is costing. Events in Iraq are unpredictable, and, since we all hope for the best there, we can't allow Democratic success to be tied to continued disasters in Iraq. If the GOP gets a bounce every time the news from Iraq is less than awful, that's a tactical problem for Dems. We need to restructure the playing field so that less-bad news from Iraq isn't seen as a partisan good. In order to do that, we need to say: if the news from Iraq is better, all the more reason to get our troops out quickly. And staying there is costing us $6 billion+ a month that we don't have. Bush may be able to kill a few more terrorists and pretend we're winning, but he can't pretend we're not spending money.

The only conservative idea is the fear that your taxes might benefit someone else. "Why should [some undeserving person] get any of my money?"

Their sphincters are clinched so tight in dread of somebody taking something away from them that they cannot accomodate the idea that common goods would benefit us all.

The cost of Iraq is the elephant in the room. Many govt programs are being diverted for the war effort, and BushCo is repeating LBJs mistake of fighting a war without asking the nation to pay for it. A war run on credit cards is dead certain to impoverish us. When the Chinese decide to take their trading surplusses elsewhere, or to spend them at home, we are toast.

One key for Democrats is to focus on how much the war in Iraq is costing.

It is typical in a time of crisis and challenge for a liberal democrat to nitpick over the bill. A bolder American would "suck it in", realizing that the battles we fight today are being fought so that our children won't half to fight them while they are preparing for the next battle. This passing of the baton of boldness from Latvian father to son is the linchpin of our multi-generational strategic destiny for a brighter and bolder America.

In conclusion: typical. nitpick. "suck it in". baton. strategic destiny. Nancy Reagan.

Incidentally, we liberals spent some time arguing that GWB wasn't a real conservative because he was spending so much money. That was when GWB was popular and we were trying to alienate him from his conservative base. Now that the base has picked up on this theme and GWB is no longer popular, our game is to tie GWB back to conservatism in order to help discredit the entire philosophy.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do this. Or even that it's really intellectually inconsistent. (What we're arguing is that a. conservatives claim to be in favor of small government but b. actually existing conservatism always practices big government and hence c. conservatism is incoherent and doomed.) But I'm just noting the tactical shift.

This passing of the baton of boldness from Latvian father to son is the linchpin of our multi-generational strategic destiny for a brighter and bolder America.

"Latvian" should read "American". Moderator, please correct.

American Hawk: I don't get it. Is Nancy Reagan sucking in the baton herself? Or is she strapping on the baton and passing it from father to son, who are sucking it in? And, not to nitpick, but what is her bill for suiting up and wargaming this strategic scenario?

Also, do you or do you not believe that the United States should remain the world's sole strategic dominatrix in the future?

It is telling that the troll dont have much to add to this discussion. Only a halfbaked AmHawk post that comes around to their main talking point, that BushCo wins elections. Governing the country isnt important to them.

Just like the old Communist apparatchiks of the 1960s-80s. Holding power is everything. Doing something useful with power is secondary. People in the posts sometimes call the BushCo courtiers "fascists" but the better parallels are with the Old Soviets. Loyalty trumps competence. Lies are standard public discourse. Disloyalty is punished. Hire thugs and trolls. Mess up and blame someone else. Because Americans dont learn history in school the Young Repubs dont realize whom they ape.

Needless to say, American Hawk, I'm sure American voters will be very excited by the scenario you've outlined here.

I don't get it. Is Nancy Reagan sucking in the baton herself? Or is she strapping on the baton and passing it from father to son, who are sucking it in? And, not to nitpick, but what is her bill for suiting up and wargaming this strategic scenario?

Well, I don't know about that. That sounds like some communism.

Also, do you or do you not believe that the United States should remain the world's sole strategic dominatrix in the future?

Only if rightly guided by a suitably magnificent American specimen! What do you guys need, pictures??

Acer writes above:

There is a Republican party that could play to traditional Republican strengths. It could attack the budget deficit and tax code for the huge mess that it. It could insist on the primacy of the Constitution, and the vital necessity of preserving the social programs that so many people rely on.

Yes indeed there is such a Republican Party: it is called the Democratic Party under Bill Clinton.

My recollection is not many Rs then or now wish to enlist. But we'd welcome you.

American Hawk's freudian slip about Latvian fathers and his dominatrix imagery gives new meaning to the term "captive states."

A good case can be made that the two biggest mistakes of the Bush regime were LEFTIST errors.
1) The ' Leninist' foreign adventure. Lenin wrote the book on ideological imperialism.
2) Deficit funding - uncontrolled in some parts of the pentagon budget. The most un-conservative thing you can do is not balance the books.
I don't want to stretch the analogy too far but Bush still has a long way to go to catch up with the damage a Democrat LBJ did. To say that Americans love big government is to pave the way for more classic fuck-ups like the leftist regimes of LBJ and GWB. You are either a criminal of some sort, Kevin or a completely unqualified imbecile and guilty of criminal negligence to pontificate on politics.
Which is it?
Are you in favour of mass outbreaks of crime because you are a criminal or are you simply insane?
This is the burning issue of the day.

Because if you do need pictures, I can get you some.

"...dominatrix imagery..."

Secretly, they long for President HRC.

Every dominatrix will tell you that their client lists are weighted heavily toward businessmen, Republicans.

I'm just at work right now and it's a little difficult to, y'know, access them. My boss is one of these I-done-wrong-but-now-I'm-born-again guys. All right generally, but kind of uptight about us goofing off at work...

Okay, maybe not that uptight.

AH: I've seen some great images of Latvian fathers and sons alternately sucking in the batons of Raisa Gorbacheva and Nancy Reagan. But be careful with that stuff. The Baltic states are still under 18, and downloading those images is a federal offense.

OT-- I just awoke to Washington Post radio in DC (Yes. There is one.). I was too sleepy to figure out who the moderator was talking to, but the question, as sarcastically stated, was, "Well, what do you think about Karl Rove being let off the hook in the Plame investigation?"

The guest answered, "Can you believe it? You had all the Democrats in Congress pre-judging Rove, demanding he give up his security clearance! Even Howard Dean was doing that. It's just like Ronald Reagan used to say, "Now, there they go again.""

I have to find a new radio station to wake up to.

I guess we better get used to it. We're going to learn all about how we have pre-judged and abused this upstanding, innocent man. We're vile. We're low-down. We're Democrats.

免费铃声下载
MP3铃声下载
手机铃声
手机铃声下载
MP3铃声下载
手机铃声
手机铃声下载
免费铃声下载
手机铃声下载
搞笑铃声下载
三星铃声下载
铃声下载
手机铃声下载
免费铃声下载
三星铃声下载
手机铃声
免费铃声下载
MP3铃声下载
MP3铃声下载
三星铃声下载
手机铃声下载
手机铃声下载
手机铃声
手机铃声下载
铃声下载
MP3铃声下载
铃声下载
手机铃声
铃声下载
搞笑铃声下载
搞笑铃声下载
MP3铃声下载
铃声下载
手机铃声
MP3铃声下载
手机铃声
MP3铃声下载
手机铃声下载
吉祥三宝铃声彩信
手机铃声
MP3铃声下载
搞笑铃声下载
手机铃声下载
手机铃声
MP3铃声下载
手机铃声
手机铃声下载
MP3铃声下载
手机铃声
手机铃声下载
MP3铃声下载
手机铃声下载
MP3铃声下载
免费铃声下载
手机铃声下载
铃声下载
手机铃声
铃声下载
铃声下载
搞笑铃声下载
手机铃声下载
手机铃声下载
免费铃声下载
手机铃声
铃声下载
MP3铃声下载
免费铃声下载
手机铃声下载
铃声下载
手机铃声下载
搞笑铃声下载
铃声下载
白色恋人铃声
免费铃声下载
手机铃声
手机铃声下载
铃声下载
免费铃声下载
手机铃声下载
痛沏心扉铃声
披着羊皮的狼铃声
免费铃声下载
手机铃声
搞笑铃声下载
三星铃声下载
手机铃声下载
搞笑铃声下载
三星铃声下载
免费铃声下载
手机铃声下载
铃声下载
手机铃声
免费铃声下载
免费铃声下载
铃声图片下载
手机铃声下载
和弦特效铃声下载
文秘写作
竞聘演讲稿
个人工作总结
八荣八耻演讲稿
中国文秘网
治疗牛皮癣,阴虱特效药
免费歌曲铃声下载
免费手机铃声下载

What cxmmc said, but with more Latvians.

cxmmc nailed it!

Mr. Wolfe is correct. Modern American conservatives think governance simply means looting the U.S. Treasury and giving the money to people who agree with you. Compromise is not in their vocabulary, yet that word is at the core of the American experiment...

Modern American conservatives think governance simply means looting the U.S. Treasury and giving the money to people who agree with you.

Actually, the administration's policy is to give the money to the people who bankroll them. They "agree" with them in the sense that they have a deal to rob the bank and split the proceeds. All that ideology stuff is just carney barking to bring in the rubes.

Damn good vegetarian metaphor. I'm going to rough it up a little and say "... like putting a vegetarian in charge of meatpacking plant".

Hard core conservative movement adherents forgive President Bush the budget deficits, the bungled disaster responses,the intrusions by government into our private lives, etc. etc. because:

a) Republicans have yet to assume responsibility for the consequences of their actions. They have a permanent victim's attitude that forgives all their failures ahead of time because they believe reforming an entrenched, liberal government is an overwhelming task that won't be completed for decades. Deficits and policy compromises are necessary evils for the short term in order to keep ahold of the levers of power. Conservatives I am personally acquainted with strongly believe they are a discriminated Christian minority outnumbered in an ongoing uphill battle against the forces of liberalism.

b) National defense trumps all other issues. It's easy to rally the base around the flag during wartime -- pledge the allegiance, support the troops, fight the enemy (he's everywhere!), WIN the war. Furthermore, Republicans are experts at using the military to leverage support for other pet issues like warrantless wiretaps, unnecessary budget programs and earmarks, opposition to campaign finance reform, even conservative judges.

Victimization and patriotism are two of modern conservatism's core beliefs. When you combine this with religious conviction and anti-intellectualism you have a recipe for intolerance. And when all this is combined with cronyism and corruption you have the Bush Administration.

Something else that impresses me about modern conservatism is the shallowness of the talent pool. The Bush administration is calling conservatives up to the bigs from local, single A teams to oversee important agency programs when their only previous experience has been raising campaign funda in Topeka or organizing college Republican rallies in Houston.

The classic example of this for me was that Texas A&M dropout George Deutsch who was put in charge of reviewing studies about global warming by NASA's leading climatologist. This kid was blocking the release of important scientific findings because it undermined the Bush administration's industry-oriented energy and environmental policies. This has been another Bush administration hallmark -- shaping science to the policy. Takes us back to Galileo and the Pope Urban VIII.

Putting incompetents in charge of government programs gives leadership a convenient scapegoat when the overwhelmed movement operative does outrageous things. It deflects attention from the real source of the problem. But this has happened so often in the Bush administration that I think people are finally beginning to connect the dots.

What Bush is has been apparent from the beginning, so it is disingenuous of the "Conservatives" to act so appalled now. They were glad to go along with him when he was handing out tax cuts and was personally popular. They abandon him only when his incompetent fraudulence doesn't play anymore.

George Bush is a radical fascist, not a conservative, whose only interest is in forming the complete corporate state.

There have been no real conservatives in power in the Republican party since the Dixiecrats and their wretched ilk were displaced by LBJ. The Conservative party is dead, and has been dead for forty years. Its name is as meaningful those of the Republican, or Democratic parties.

Although I'm not a Republican or conservative, the Dems are in trouble in November. The one big issue is still Iraq and if the only response from the Democrats is the split, as per yesterday, between Kerry and Clinton, then the party is in trouble.
No matter how wrong you think Bush is, what was it Bill Clinton said--- about how voters would rather have somebody who is wrong but sure of himself and steadfast, than not wrong but all over the place, i.e. the opposition.

George Bush is a radical fascist

Nonsense. President Bush is 100% conservative fascist and a virtuous American would not have it any other way.

You are wrong about the death of conservatism, my liberal friend. For you see, inside each and every little American boy and girl beats a throbbing conservative. These young patriots will pass on the aforementioned baton of destiny to their own offspring, as we the vanguard have to them.

You cannot stop the baton, little man. You can only anger it.

If I remember correctly it was Ronald Reagan who came to Washington saying, "Government is the problem" and ever since then so-called conservatives have felt justified in running to be elected to be in charge of an institution that they don't believe in.

Combine that with the huge opportunities for self-enrichment together with a complete lack of responsibility for the consequences of their actions and you have the FUBAR mess that we have today.

There is no other way to put it: They. Don't. Care.

It's not incompetence in the sense that the word is usually meant. It's not ineptitude. It's a complete distortion of what government is understood to contribute. It's closer to a pathology.

Slightly OT, but this is something I've been confused about for a long, long time: How is it that the GOP can be both the "Party of Lincoln" and the home to southern Confederate sympathizers at the same time?

Talk about cognitive dissonance.

Slightly OT, but this is something I've been confused about for a long, long time: How is it that the GOP can be both the "Party of Lincoln" and the home to southern Confederate sympathizers at the same time?

Do we contradict ourselves? We contain multitudes of batons.

Seriously, that information is only divulged to those who reach GOP Thetan Level III. If you think you've got what it takes to reach that level, send me an e-mail. We'll discuss the fee and get you started on the paperwork.

If you want to stay down here with the Latvians, all you need to know is this: we have a very big tent. It's made out of baby seal fur, but we like it.

Great post, Kevin.

troglodyte wrote: The cost of Iraq is the elephant in the room. Many govt programs are being diverted for the war effort, and BushCo is repeating LBJs mistake of fighting a war without asking the nation to pay for it.

Indeed, and even worse, Bush insists -- still! -- on paying for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with tax cuts. Talk about unserious on national defense -- Bush is it, baby.

From where I am here in the middle of June the Democrats seem to be hell bent on self-destruction. Everything is laid out for them. The Republican President is deeply unpopular. The Republican Congress is equally or even more unpopular. The Republicans are proudly corrupt to boot. (Have you read about Denny Hastard's earmarks that built a highway near his land--increasing its value many times--and he is one of the more honest Republican leaders.)

What the Democrats need is Newt Gingrich (or somebody like him) to focus the party on the process of winning. Instead we get Rahm Emmanual. Pathetic.

My guess is the Democratic party is about one or maybe two election cycles away from utter collapse. I suspect it is time for folks to start thinking about a new progressive party. Results oriented, free of inside the beltway domination and probably forged by the netroots.

Can you really believe the party insiders think Hillary has a chance in 2008. Neither can I. They are just jerking off over Hillary because they are paid to jerk off. Do you want to be lead by professional masters of their own domains.

Don't you wish we had a party with a better ideology than "had enough" and a better slogan that "together we can do better." Me too.

I'm shocked -- shocked! -- to learn that there is gambling going on here.

If you want to stay down here with the Latvians, all you need to know is this: we have a very big tent. It's made out of baby seal fur, but we like it.

If I could ask President Bush one question at a Presidential debate, it would be this: If you were alive during the time of the Civil War, would you have supported the Union or the Confederacy?

Think he would give a straight answer?

"'Latvian' should read 'American'. Moderator, please correct."

Also, I'd like a peanut butter sandwich and a hot stone massage. Chop chop. That sandwich isn't going to make itself, you know.

I hate these guys. Hate, loathe, despise.

But I bet these scum-sucking dogs will still prevail in November. Because Americans have shown themselves to be ignorant fools, so easily played by BushCo. Sure, the polls sound good now, but in the booth these morons will stay the course.

I don't hate America. But I sure hate Americans -- half of 'em, anyway.

Don't you wish we had a party with a better ideology than "had enough" and a better slogan that "together we can do better." Me too.

Perhaps, but the election isnt now, and the issues that will drive the outcome will continue to evolve. The Dems arent running this cycle to take over the Govt. Practically speaking, they mainly can block the ongoing disasters of BushCo. How often has a midterm election turned on motivations other than the positive or negative perception of the party in power?

The money question for Iraq is still key. Frankly, if the Chinese and Japanese and Arab Shieks could be relied upon to fund our war and our consumption and our real estate bubble in perpetuity, the American people would re-elect BushCo and their baton twirlers again and again. The American consumer is pretty stretched, however, and the Foreign Central Banks wont invest in Fannie Mae securities once the mortgages go belly up. No one knows when the tipping point will occur, but many think it has already been passed. HELOC withdrawals have stalled and credit card debt is rising to maintain consumption. It wont be long before we hear a lot about the teeth in the new bankruptcy law.

In my opinion the Dems should keep their powder dry for the next few months. For politicians to engage in elaborate policy squabbles when they dont have power is counterproductive. Leave that to the thinktanks and the bloggers for now.

I recommend www.xanga.com/russwinter for the curious. Im not Mr. Winter, I just read his blog. It is flamboyant, but insider.

Not to harp on the small stuff, but c'mon:

"world-class boeuf bourguignon" to describe a meat entree?!?

Is it any wonder that people refer to liberals as elites? Talk about playing to your stereotype.

Next time, try "world-class burger" or at least "world-class filet mignon".

Report: $1.4 Billion Went to Fraudulent Aid for Katrina Victims

what is up with this...

If leaders consistently depart in disastrous ways from their underlying political ideology, there comes a point where one has to stop just blaming the leaders and start questioning the ideology.

Slightly OT, but this is a brilliant point that I would like to see applied to religious ideology as well: when people have used Christianity as inspiration/justification for human, all-too-human activities ever since Constantine himself, it's time to stop pretending that they are somehow false Christians who just don't get the real message. It's inextricably tied up with the nature of religious belief itself.

The more interesting question is whether "conservative" is a label with any analytic value.

It has the same analytic value as 'Milwaukee Brewers'. It is the name of a team, period.

troglodyte

Interesting site.

I still think we would be better off spending this summer defining whe people should vote Democratic. We know that the Republicans are on the ropes. Except for the immigration issue Republicans got nothing and we are doing pretty well on that issue. Their base will probably sit on their hands this fall. That said we still have to give people reasons to vote Democratic other than "we are not them." If that is all we do our base will sit on its hands. We will lose because their base is bigger than our base.

God, I wish I could edit on this site. Even congressmen get to revise and extend their remarks.

The problem I have with that commentary is that substitute the word conservative for progressive and you've almost got an article written for National Review already. On both sides of the aisle, there is a large gap between ideology and political reality, and that gap is filled with lobbyists for big business. It's why Bush is hardly a true conservative just as Clinton was hardly a true progressive. In Washington, these terms just don't mean anything.

Think Harding with a war and you get Bush. Same bluster, same incompetence, same corruption, same Congress.

There is a conservatism that is distinguishable from today's REpublican party. Think of the moderate section of the Republican party during the Eisenhower years. But that conservatism has no presence in todays' baby-boomer Republican party. If it's legacy remains at all in American politics, it has more of a home among moderate Democrats.

Today's Republicans are essentially of the old Southerner school: low taxes, low wages, corrupt good ol' boy government, lousy public schools, and a whole political and social structure intended to lock in the wealth and position of the currently privileged, while pulling up the ladder of advancement from the majority.

So, using that logic, he is elgigible to run for POTUS again?

Yep, it's Charlie...

Back on topic, it's worth remembering P.J. O'Rourke's aphorism from many years ago: Republicans preach that government doesn't work, then get elected and prove it.

Excellent comment, vanessa. If howard were here, I'm sure he'd remind us that Bush received a majority of votes in the former Confederacy but lost the rest of the country by more than two million.

This is the most liberally delusional post yet. Kevin claims that Bush was elected with the smallest margin ever despite a good economy and the tailwind of 9/11. This is in direct opposition to what you moonbats were crying about during the election, that Bush would lose because of the poor economy and the "qaugmire" in Iraq. I don't even think you guys listen to what you say anymore, just throwing shit out in a desperate attempt to regain power.

The left has no vision, no core values, no platform, no brains, no mommentum and certainly no chance to win in '06 or '08.

Have a nice day.

Greggy, please pull out that electoral map again, you know the one with a lot of red and a little blue all over it. You'll find that there are ZERO blue states, only counties. Pockets of blue in a SEA of red.

And please please please follow the advice of brooksfoe and notthere and tell Americans that international law should dictate when and where our military is used. Pleeeaase.

You'll find that there are ZERO blue states, only counties. Pockets of blue in a SEA of red.

Putting aside the fact that it's not 2004 any more, you'd still only have a point if this country was founded on the principle of one acre, one vote.

The only conservative idea is the fear that your taxes might benefit someone else. "Why should [some undeserving person] get any of my money?"

Oscar Wilde quipped that Puritanism is the haunting idea that someone, somewhere, is having a good time. To paraphrase him, then, it seems that conservatism is the haunting idea that someone, somewhere, is being helped with "your" money.

Just like the Bilbray election in CA, you guys seem to always find the victory in defeat. Well done. It's a good role for you.

Bush Tried

He Tried to fix social security -- The democrats blocked him

He tried to save marriage -- The democrats blocked him

He's trying to protect the country -- the democrats are blocking him

He's trying to keep our taxes low -- the democrats are blocking him

The problem isn't PRESIDENT BUSH, It's the senate.

Stefan, and you're the one who doesn't want to send anymore money to Iraq. Again, do you guys even pay attention to the drivel you spew?

Per J in Philly: "Next time, try 'world-class burger' or at least 'world-class filet mignon'."

My thought esxactly, except that I would have said "good barbecue."

boeuf bourguignon? Is Mr. Wolfe trying to sound like an elitist pratt?

How about:

Like letting vegitarians cook your steak

or

Like letting Luddites run your data center

Short, snappy.

Good elevator phrases.

pj in Jesusland,

You sure got that right - at least concerning the Levitican half of the GOP. Permanent 'victim mode' with all the perqs and problems that brings with it.

The reason their talent-pool is so shallow is two fold: First, they don't value or reward competence, so those with true competence are likely to seek work elsewhere. Second, and maybe I'm deluding myself but I hope not, I think most people really do have a concience and really do want to be 'productive' and so many people eventually see the shallowness of the Levitican message and bail out.

For example, imagine that a youngster has a deep curiosity about the world and has the smarts to study it. He takes a Levitican course in science and after scratching the surface of the mysteries of the world he is stopped by "God did it." That's the message of creationism - "God did it, so stop your investigation here."

He is then steered to the Bible and expected to make sense and reconcile the convoluted stories within it. How exciting is that for him? How fulfilling? Not very.

George Bush is a radical fascist, not a conservative, whose only interest is in forming the complete corporate state. There have been no real conservatives in power in the Republican party since the Dixiecrats and their wretched ilk were displaced by LBJ.

Actually, I'd disagree. Conservatism has always, deep down, been about consolidating corporate economic and state police power, suppressing dissent, and stealing money for the haves at the expense of the have-nots. It was true when conservatives were 18th and 19th century monarchists and it's true now. If anyone can point me to a real world historical example of a "conservative" government that was authentically small government, respectful of civil liberties, and fiscally prudent, I'd be astonished.

Don't you wish we had a party with a better ideology than "had enough" and a better slogan that "together we can do better."

My idea was "together better we can do" but listen to me did they? They not did.

Of course, Eli Rabett, President Harding was never "re-elected".

Because Harding died in office.

John Galbraith's characterization of conservatism as a quest to wrap greed and selfishnes in a pseudo-intellectual package will always apply.

The problem isn't PRESIDENT BUSH, It's the senate

I am happy to see that TruthPolitik shares my belief in the absolute necessity of a Democratic Senate.

Master Yoda,

Actually, I believe that your syntax might force the Dem spinmeisters their slogans to shorten. Might a good exercise be. Believe in elevator soundbites too I do. People to parse your words carefully forces.

Quinn beat me to the obvious point about Washington. Idealists on both the left and right will inevitably be disappointed and their plans frustrated by the realities of lobbyist-driven politics.

What idealists don't accept is that in the course of human history the occasions on which high-minded ideals have carried the day in politics have been so vanishingly rare as to be essentially nonexistent. Politics are about the distribution of power, pure and simple. Politics can exist without democracy, and the existence of elections only adds a small measure of accountability to a nasty, brutish, corrupt process that would exist anyway.

The other thing to remember is that all politics are tribal. The average person doesn't know or care much about issues unless something affects them personally. The average person simply wants someone from their own tribe (someone who shares their basic attitudes and values) to be in charge.

He tried to save marriage -- The democrats blocked him

I know, isn't it too bad there's no marriage anymore? I'd been planning to marry a girl someday, but now that marriage is destroyed and there's only gay marriage left I suppose I won't be able to and will have to marrry some guy instead....

I absolutely agree with Kevin's analysis, but would somebody tell me one good reason why I should vote for Democrats. Don't tell me they aren't Republicans. That isn't a good reason to vote for a Democrat.

I really have come to the conclusion that the followers of both conservative and liberal political philosphies (along with their respecitve Republican and Democratic parties) have lost their tao. The Democratic party stopped being a national party in 1994, and the Republican party stopped trying to be one more recently. Both are waiting to be replaced. By what I don't yet know, but I suspect we will all find out.

Again, give me a reason to vote for a Democrat, any Democrat. By the way to my way of thinking Russ Feingold comes the closest to being a Democrat I would vote for.

troglodyte: Actually, I believe that your syntax might force the Dem spinmeisters their slogans to shorten. Might a good exercise be. Believe in elevator soundbites too I do. People to parse your words carefully forces.

Agree more not could I.

Hey Eli Rabett:

At least Harding knew how to party.

, but would somebody tell me one good reason why I should vote for Democrats. Don't tell me they aren't Republicans.

Man to EMT trying to bandage bleeding scalp: "Don't just tell me to stop hitting myself over the head with a hammer. Tell me something positive I should do with the hammer."

Conservatives never had any problem embracing Ronald Reagan's deficits and growth of government spending, because he was popular. Someone should ask them what sins against conservatism Bush has committed that Reagan didn't. Offhand, I can think of two: trying to tamper with the constitution (gay marriage) and nationbuilding (the War in Iraq). And conservatives have generally SUPPORTED both of those.

What being a conservative really means is doing away with as much regulation as possible, shoveling as much money to rich corporations and individuals as possible, and screwing everybody else. Oh, and packing the government with incompetent idealogues who hate the agencies they "work" for. Bush has done all of those successfully. But his poll numbers are horrendous, so they've disowned him. Surprise, surprise.

One quibble, however: I'm a vegetarian who cooks wicked-good meat dishes for my family and my guests. However, if mine were the main meat dishes they were generally exposed to, I'd probably cook meat dishes really badly in the hope of converting them. And that's what conservatives do: They "do" government really badly and then say, See, look how bad goverment is!

'When I left college,' he said, 'I did not properly update my résumé. As a result, it may appear misleading to some. However, I was up front with NASA about my undergraduate status when they hired me.'

It may have appeared misleading because George's résumé during college stated that he'd already graduated (!) even though he failed to ever finish his degree. His résumé was already a lie.

Does it seem likely that he simply forgot that he'd never graduated from college when he went to NASA?

Doubtful.

And NASA didn't "hire" l'il lying Georgie: he was appointed to his job by the Bush administration for being a faithful campaign worker. One of the key qualifications for that position at NASA? A strong background in science in order to understand and communicate complex scientific issues to the press. L'il Georgie's science background?

None.

And appealing to the AP stylebook on the use of the word "theory" is not enforcing "pre-existing" policy. Neither is attempting to stop NASA scientists from delivering data on global warming becaue it's politically inconvenient for the White House. But here's the idiot in his own words:

it is not NASA's place, nor should it be, to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator. I know the particular context of these pieces doesn't lend itself to getting into this particular debate, and that's fine with me. But we, as NASA, must be diligent here, because this is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one half of this debate from NASA. That would mean that we had failed to properly educate the very people who rely on us for factual information the most.

Yes, God forbid NASA not tell young people that the creation story in Genesis is what they should be studying if they want to be astrophysicists. It's clear that our top space agency should be using it's probes and telescopes to prove a Creator; you know, looking for heaven in faraway nebulae or signs of angels playing in the stars.

And if NASA has the temerity to tell us that the moon is ridged and not a smooth disk in contradiction to scripture, then I say we place the entire organization under house arrest until they recant.

Sullijan the truth speaks. Conservatives with big deficits happy are. As long as the bill during their term of office not come. Read the lips of George-I we did, because he at the table was sitting when came Ronnie's free-lunch bill.

The problem isn't PRESIDENT BUSH, It's the senate.

Real leaders don't make excuses, they get things done. If Bush can't lead a Republican congress, what can he do ?

TruthPolitik actually does a good job of illustrating what the current GOP is best at: the politics of blame. Bush apologists seek to escape any level of accountablity by having an imagined scape goat for every problem.

The biggest disasters are entirely a creation of the GOP and the Bush administration. The failure to plan for the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq has no one to blame but the President. The rise of pork is the work of the GOP majority. The reckless tax cuts, the same. Bush's proposal to destroy Social Security was far to expensive as well as reckless, and it was defeated not just by the Democrats but by bipartisan opposition with the support of the vast majority of Americans. Odd that he decided to come out with his major domestic initiative for the second term only after the campaign, but thats because America didnt want the snake oil he was selling.

The Medicare Modernization Act that was passed through abuse of voting rules, deception and bribery, is aptly described in the linked article: "Caught between the market and the state, Republicans picked the worst features of each. No single human being could have designed a program as unwieldy as this one. It took the combined efforts of every faction in today's conservative movement to produce a public policy so removed from common sense."

As for protecting the nations security, Bush has gotten everything he asked for from Congress - everything. It is his administrations incompetence and its partisan approach to international affairs that have resulted in America becoming less secure and safe.

Under no circumstances can the fearless leader be blamed for any disaster that is a direct consequence of his decisions.

Catch22 shorter: BushCo honor and integrity not have.

Remember the "Contract with America" ?

Remember how the Cons were going to close the Department of Education and the Department of Energy ?

Term limits ?

Reduce spending ?

End the influence of special interests ?

Change the tone in Washington ?

Wow, that was some revolution..

To get back to Kevin's original post, of all people in the world, David Brooks put the whole thing in a nutshell on the Newshour many months ago:

"If you hate government, you can't govern."

For most "Republicans", conservatism is whatever Rush Limbaugh says it is.

trex,

The talking points they gave me didn't address any of that. Hold on while I find out what I'm supposed to be saying.

What the hell is "boeuf bourguignon"?

Sounds French you silly surrender monkey.

bush was never elected by ANY margin either in 2000 or 2004.

Oh, and he aint leavin in 2008

Barack Obama hit this theme during his closing speech at the Take Back America conference yesterday, saying that the reason things were so bad now wasn't because conservative policies hadn't worked the way they were supposed to, but because they had.

"Bush's proposal to destroy Social Security was far to expensive as well as reckless, and it was defeated not just by the Democrats but by bipartisan opposition with the support of the vast majority of Americans. Odd that he decided to come out with his major domestic initiative for the second term only after the campaign, but thats because America didnt want the snake oil he was selling."

Catch22 on June 15, 2006 at 11:02 AM

Don't forget that the Dems/Kerry made the claim that Bush was going to do what he did on Social Security in the 2004 campaign only to have it dismissed as fear mongering without basis by the GOP and the Bush/Cheney campaign. I sometimes think the best strategy for the Dems is to take the predictions they were right about and how those predictions were received by Bush and the GOP and then follow it up with those predictions being true and that the GOP/Bush lied when they claimed otherwise initially. Much of the problem in America is a lack of any long term memory, if you focused on that and trying to show the chain of events that the GOP and Bush have followed to take America to where it is then perhaps the American people might finally start laying the blame where it belongs, on Bush and the GOP.

After all it is the Dems that have the track rcord of accurately foreseeing the future far more so than the GOP, the GOP just has a much louder voice to drown this out with. Take that away and the GOP are in real trouble.

Just a thought...

Cheney,

Your stirring defense of Mr. Deutsch just confirms for me the extent to which conservatives will go to deny & defend the incompetence of fellow movement travelers.

Mr. Deutsch's job was to communicate an understanding of science. Not only did Mr. Deutsch have no background for his job, he chose -- chose -- to inject unproven, personal religious conviction into his professional responsibilities in a manner that undermined the message of NASA's highly qualified scientists.

Given the choice between a NASA scientist with a PhD and a Christian Texas A&M dropout, give me the NASA scientist any day.

"Given the choice between a NASA scientist with a PhD and a Christian Texas A&M dropout, give me the NASA scientist any day."

It doesn't matter what YOU want - Deutsch was the POTUS's choice and the POTUS was his boss - get it?!

> As Wolfe points out, Americans like big
> government that actually solves real-life
> problems, and that puts a firm ceiling on j
> just