Conservatives are cursed with the habit of loyalty; loyalty even to lost causes, to their comrades, and to those in public office who seem inadequate but honest. Bush is the latter, and I've found him difficult to defend as President, but easy to defend as a man against the degenerate snobbery of The Left and all its ugly nihilism, authoritarianism and raging self-importance.
All Leftist arguments against Bush are so skewed and deformed by their thinking that the discussion almost never gets to Bush, the man, but instead turns upon the craziness of The Left. They don't hate Bush for what he is. They hate him for what he isn't, which is someone like them.
For me, where the defense of conservative ideas has meant a defense of Bush, it was just a coincidence. It has, in fact, been up to conservatives to criticize Bush properly. The Left forfeits its credibility to do so simply because of its descent into insanity and incoherence, and The Right is hesitant because it puts us in line with the lunatics we despise.
Bush is a chaotic man held together by his Faith and native stubborness. I see no consistent or compelling sets of ideas in him, ideas that hold up over time, except maybe the single (and very important) conviction that The West is in danger from the threats of Islamism. He's incurious, blunt and combative, and he's not a conservative. He never was.
Conservatives, like leftists (and some liberals), have enduring principles that apply over time, that adapt to revelation and new information. But they still envision their perfect world in the same way. I don't think Bush has any such world in mind. He wants to change the dynamic in the Middle East and to substitute neoconservative policies for international realism in our foreign policy.
That's it. The rest is of no interest to him. The Brits dumped Churchill after WWII because he was wrong (to them) on every issue except fighting the Germans. The same is true of Bush. Forgetting, for the moment, all the complications of it, I will be glad when he's gone from office.
Rhod,
Well said, as usual. I do think that Pres. Bush has some coherent plan on nat'l security and ... I still think, on the judiciary to a degree. Still, this is a massively deflating event.
She might be a judicial conservative. But ... the cost of getting her if that is the case is way too high. What do we get when Hillary is elected? Web Hubbell?
Judicial experience isn't everything, but in all fairness there are many, many people more qualified. And her ideological journey is not a comfort to me. Now, the Republican-first crowd is attacking me.
Yet, while I was fighting off Leftists and liberal Demos at UT, the apparent next SC justice was campaigning against Pres. Bush's father and giving $ to Algore.
I'm with you DC. A bit frustrated. Nothing to do but carry on.
No doubt, Catfish. I am more than a bit frustrated, though. I will carry on. I hope that Miers turns out to at least be a conservative. She has the feel of a gushing politico who could be swayed and "grow", however. This troubles me greatly, especially when there were so many great candidates out there.
The more I think about it. The Miers pick is the safe pick. It is the easy way out, no confrontation from the dems, except now it looks to be back-firing on Bush.
There are a lot of conservative groups who are furious. They were primed for a fight and now they're left holding the bag, and its empty.
The Roberts nomination/confirmation sort of stuck it in the eye of the dems, it totally frustrated the Senate Dems on the Judiciary panel, and this one could have sank their boat to the bottom.
But the President has this idea that he can get along with these people. He keeps offering them his hand in friendship and they keep trying cut it off. Everytime he tries this they hand him his head, after 6 years in office you'd think he would learn that the dems are not going to play ball with him, rather they are out to destroy him.
He still hasn't learned that the dems cannot be trusted to take the garbage out let alone work with him for the good of the country, this should have been made clear when they tried to give aid and comfort to the enemy and accuse him of lying and warcrimes.
I am losing faith in this man.
I know, Mark. THE greatest failing and problem of this administration is that it seems to have more faith in its political enemies than the Republican base. I was ready to battle this one in the good way.
I don't want to discourage people from supporting Pres. Bush. I still do, esp. considering the alternative. Yet, this is a bad pick.
It sends all the wrong messages. We need some one who can talk to the other side in this debate. We need to make sure there will be no more Borks. What this strategy has done is to embolden the President's enemies and deflate his friends.
We were heading in for the go-ahead touchdown and he took a knee.
The most maddening part is the die-hard partisans (of which I am pretty much one) are shelling me and others for noticing.
I've waited decades for this week. I've yearned for the sight of the wooden stake finally being driven into the heart of the blood-sucking Left.
Instead, a plaster stake was used and the President assures us that "plaster is just as good as wood."
As Judge Judy has oft been heard to opine: Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining."
No guts, no glory. And the Emperor has no guts.
"I was conservative, when conservative wasn't cool"
Me too and this whole thing really bothers me a lot!
I want to thank you for putting it into words better then I could.
Commenting by HaloScan
