Rod,
L' Affaire Miers made me suspect for the first time, "Maybe he really is stupid." The chief reason I vote republican is the issue of judges, since they exercise so much power. I was disappointed.
I think we *could* claim ignorance, for a while at least -- many of the congressional GOP could talk a good conservative game, and it takes a while to do the analysis and reflection, to get the facts and figures in order to realize that the previous congresses were running of the rails -- especially when you consider the "lesser of two evils" argument, hold your nose a little because democrats are worse, etc.
As for Bush, I somtimes remark to trusted colleagues that my problem with him is not that he is too conservative but too liberal, which makes people look at me funny.
By the way, good catch on the sic on "disinterested". I had to think for a couple minutes why you did that, and then I remembered the entry for it in Strunk and White.
A serious suggestion: editors of the world, assign conservative journalists to cover liberals, and insist on balance; the same vice versa, with liberal journalists covering conservatives, same requirement.
Personally, I am sick to death of the bandwagon false praise coming from every side of the media. They should actually believe in the intelligence of their audience, and present the facts.
Franklin Evans, I totally agree with your sentiments. Don't think it would sell well though, most people just want their opinions reinforced instead of the discomfort of being wrong.
Here's hoping though.
Well, said, Rod. On another issue, I've often wondered lately if 'we' should also consider becoming more scientifically literate in 'our' conservative journals.
Just a thought.
No, George W. Bush couldn't have prevented or redirected Hurricane Katrina- but he COULD have appointed FEMA managers who knew what they were doing, who were prepared to handle evacuation and relief operations, and didn't sit around twiddling their thumbs while a once-great city collapsed.
Or, barring that, Bush COULD have recognized within hours of the levee's collapse that Mike Brown was in way over his head, that a huge crisis was under way, and something had to be done, fast. Instead, while everyone else in the country could see what was happening, the President was blithely telling use that "Brownie" was doing a heckuva job!
Look, a certain degree of cronyism is par for the course in politics. We all know that, and most of us expect it. But is it too much to ask that the cronies and pals you appoint to high office know their butts from their elbows?
I mean, sure, JFK made his brother Robert the Attorney General, but at least Bobby was an actual lawyer with some experience as a criminal investigator! What were Mike Brown's credentials, other than being a buddy of the President?
I would ask Rod to check out National Review's cover stories for the following issues:
- Oct 24, 2005: Spendaholics:
Frum, O’Sullivan, Ponnuru, and the Editors discuss a president and a party that have veered off-course.
- Feb 13, 2006: Say It Ain’t So:
Who would have predicted that ten years after taking Congress and promising to clean it up, Republicans would be rocked by their own set of scandals, including the abuse of earmarks for contributors? Actually, it was predictable, given the typical course of revolutions — a burst of energy, followed by a period of consolidation — and the inevitable temptations of power. By Richard Lowry
- May 22, 2006: A Congress Gone to Pot:
Congressional Republican governance has gone through phases that can be roughly described as Revolution (1994–1996), Consolidation (1996–2002), and Deterioration (2002–present). The deterioration has steadily gotten worse. The Republican majority has lately been notable for its bungling, fecklessness, self-serving defensiveness, and hysteria — sometimes all at once. By Kate O’Beirne & Richard Lowry
It's worth noting A) that two of these articles were written or co-written by your former boss Lowry and B) that these are ONLY the relevant cover stories of the last year and change.
What conclusions are we supposed to draw, Rod, about your flagrant disregard for what NR's actually written? What possible conclusion would not be considered a personal attack?
Settle down, Bubba. The reason I ignore you, even when you make good points, is because you have the hardest time making them without personally insulting me. It's not that hard to say, "Rod, you're wrong about this, here's why."
Anyway, you give me the opportunity to clarify my point: I said "serious and sustained." I applaud the stories you bring up, but I note that the ones you pick out only started appearing in late 2005, only a year before the GOP got walloped. Maybe there were others, I don't know. I hope to find out. I don't mean to trash NR either; I am as guilty of anybody of the same thing, because I didn't start to criticize the president until around the time the first story you cite came out. What I'm trying to say is that the tendencies of Bush and the GOP Congress that many of us on the Right woke up to and started writing critically about didn't suddenly appear in 2005. What I'm interested in is why we only started noticing it then, and speaking out.
Rod, we have such a hard time not insulting you because you have been so insulting to us. If you're gonna dish it out, then you'd better be able to take it.
"Personally, I fell off the Bush wagon with Harriet Miers and Katrina, but until then, I wrote and thought as if the president could do no wrong."
You often still do, Rod. But it doesn't speak well to your thought process that it took you that long. The man is dumber than a post and got selected then re-"elected". Used to be Americans wanted the smartest man in the world to be the President.
"And I think you'd have to look pretty hard to find much criticism in my written work of the Republican Congress."
I agree. So why slough off Bubba's (or anyone else's remakrs) with insults? WE didn't write that 'supportive' material - YOU did.
"I might be mistaken, but I'd guess that's the record of most, though not all, journalists and commentators who identify themselves as conservatives."
You would not be mistaken. What we can't understand is why it took the "conservatives" six years to figure it out.
Impeach the bastard, I say. (That would be W, not you, Rod.)
"I applaud the stories you bring up, but I note that the ones you pick out only started appearing in late 2005, only a year before the GOP got walloped. Maybe there were others, I don't know. I hope to find out. I don't mean to trash NR either; I am as guilty of anybody of the same thing, because I didn't start to criticize the president until around the time the first story you cite came out. What I'm trying to say is that the tendencies of Bush and the GOP Congress that many of us on the Right woke up to and started writing critically about didn't suddenly appear in 2005. What I'm interested in is why we only started noticing it then, and speaking out."
Allow me to venture a guess:
BECAUSE YOU WERE/ARE IN A STATE OF DENIAL. Literally anything that came out of the mouths of a "liberal" (spit!) was God-hatin', un-American treason. You were aided and abetted by White House TV (aka Faux "News"), by Anne Coulter, by Jerry Falwell (heck, Mr. Foulwell is STILL considered a valid commentator on most American news sources!!!), by James (beat the kids) Dobson. etc.
It is a radical, rightwing, 'religious' (not!) agenda that has driven social discourse for the last 6 years -
and still you would not listen.
"It's amazing I won. I was running against peace and prosperity" - George W. Bush, June 14, 2001
Don't you folk on the 'right' even miss those things?
You'll notice I didn't insult you, Rod; I simply asked what conclusion could be drawn that wasn't insulting.
You "hope to find out" if NR was critical of Bush prior to late 2005? YOU DON'T KNOW? I would suggest that, since you are a journalist, you should establish whether a thing is true before pontificating about the reasons why it is true.
"What I'm trying to say is that the tendencies of Bush and the GOP Congress that many of us on the Right woke up to and started writing critically about didn't suddenly appear in 2005. What I'm interested in is why we only started noticing it then, and speaking out."
We didn't start noticing then, as yet another NR cover story proves:
Sept 29, 2003: Swallowed by Leviathan:
Government spending has been growing faster under Bush than it did under Clinton, renewing the debate about how conservative Bush is. A minority of Bush’s supporters have celebrated the president’s alleged embrace of "big-government conservatism." By Ramesh Ponnuru
That's two years prior to the magical milestone of late 2003; how much farther back do you insist that we go? I believe Goldberg was skeptical of the big-government tendencies of "compassionate conservatism" way back in 1998.
NR probably hasn't been as critical of Bush as Buchanan's magazine, but to suggest that you'd "have to look pretty hard" to find criticism of Bush and the GOP Congress before late 2005 is utterly absurd.
Correction: I meant to write that Ponnuru's article was written two years before the milestone of 2005.
There was also a big front page article on why Iraq was going badly the week before the elections in 2004.
And, the Weekly Standard was calling for the firing of Rumsfeld, Condi, etc., since 2004 (at least).
The National Review endorsement of George W. Bush in 2000 was extremely qualified.
So, no, I don't think you're making a fair point. I think that the conservative press in general has done a good job.
And is it possible for Bush to be wrong, to not have acted in a way you think is Conservative without being a 'Liberal'?
If he had been Liberal, don't you think that Liberals would've.. you know, voted for him?
Unless you think the entire depth and breadth of Liberalism is 'Spend money and use the Government to do things', even if they spend money on, and use the Government to do things that are entirely against the other elements of Liberal philosophy.
How about this. Bush is simply a bad Conservative.
Bubba asked, "What possible conclusion would not be considered a personal attack?"
Is this going to be answered? If someone says -- and demonstrates -- that you are wrong, Rod, that equals a personal insult to which you refuse to respond?
Truth is, I was quite sincere about the question: I think it's obvious that the leadership of conservative thought has long been irritated at Bush and the Republicans in Congress. I believe this is an easily proven assertion, and it's stunning that a so-called conservative who used to work for National Review would miss this.
But miss it he did, and I cannot conceive of an explanation that's not damning to his credibility.
And, though I understand that Rod has other responsibilities, I would love to see a response to the subsequent proof I offered that mainstream conservative thinkers were not blind Bush partisans before late 2005.
While we wait, perhaps I should offer further evidence to support my claim: Rod hopes to find out if there's earlier criticism, right?
- "Blowing It" by Ted DeHaven, National Review, April 5, 2004. "The administration's spending is inexcusable, no matter what the White House spin."
- "The Tempting of Conservatism," by Ramesh Ponnuru, December 22, 2003. Ramesh concludes that if conservatives decided to act primarily as "cheerleaders for the Republican party" or even act that way, "they will have negated the reasons for their own existence." He begins his article with the litany of criticisms leveled at Bush during his first three years of office:
"Conservatives have had no trouble denouncing President Bush's steel tarriffs, his Medicare bill, his profligate spending, and so on. Libertarian-minded conservatives have roundly criticized the Patriot Act. Social conservatives have complained that the administration has not done more to resist gay rights."
He says that he thinks that, if anything, conservatives have been "too unreflective in their criticism" rather than too willing to nod their heads at whatever Bush says, though the sub-head of the article is this: "In supporting Bush and the GOP, don't lose yourself."
- And then there's the cover story to the August, 2003 issue of the Limbaugh Letter. Two years before Meirs and Hurricane Katrina, during which time Rod was apparently still nodding at George Bush's every word, Rush Limbaugh himself asked quite plainly:
Whatever Happened To Limited Government?
"Now that the president and the GOP in Congress are on the losing side, we can't credibly claim that they betrayed conservatism and us -- as if we had nothing to do with it."
Horse manure, Rod. Utterly putrid, easily refuted horse manure.
By posting here, you agree to abide by the Beliefnet Rules of Conduct.
