The Conservative Case Against George W. Bush (Oh. My. God.)

[WilliamPitt]

There is a ton of stuff in this article I vehemently disagree with - the idea that the Clinton impeachment was justified, for example - but the fact that this is the cover story for this magazine is very, very interesting.



Righteous Anger

The Conservative Case Against George W. Bush

By Doug Bandow
American Conservative Magazine

December 1, 2003 issue

http://www.amconmag.com/12_1_03/cover.html

Some liberals admit that they hate President George W. Bush. Many conservatives say they are appalled at this phenomenon. Indeed, some of them believe any criticism of the president to be akin to treason. So much for the political tone in Washington.

American politics have never been for the faint-hearted. Even George Washington suffered some public abuse, and presidential campaigns involving revolutionary luminaries John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were vitriolic. After the Civil War, Republican candidates routinely waved the “bloody shirt”; one GOP stalwart denounced the Democrats as the party of “Rum, Romanism and Rebellion.”

The GOP did not treat Harry Truman with kid gloves, and Democrats never let fairness impede their attacks on Barry Goldwater in 1964. Richard Nixon was widely reviled on the Left. Some fringe partisans expressed sorrow that John Hinckley failed in his assassination attempt against Ronald Reagan. And then there was Bill Clinton. Some Republicans saw him as a drug-dealing murderer whose wife killed family friend Vincent Foster.

Now Jonathan Chait of the New Republic says simply, “I hate President George W. Bush.” Not one to hold back, he explains, “You decide Bush is a dullard lacking any moral constraints in his pursuit of partisan gain, loyal to no principle save the comfort of the very rich, unburdened by any thoughtful consideration of the national interest, and a man who, on those occasions when he actually does make a correct decision, does so almost by accident.” More concisely, charges James Traub in the New York Times Magazine, “George Bush is a craven, lazy, hypocritical nitwit.”

(snip)

The president and his aides have given imperiousness new meaning. Officials are apparently incapable of acknowledging that their pre-war assertions about Iraq’s WMD capabilities were incorrect; indeed, they resent that the president is being questioned about his administration’s claims before the war. They are unwilling to accept a role for Congress in deciding how much aid money to spend.

Some of Bush’s supporters have been even worse, charging critics with a lack of patriotism. Not to genuflect at the president’s every decision is treason. In two decades of criticizing liberal politicians and positions, I have rarely endured the vitriol that was routinely spewed by conservatives when I argued against war with Iraq over the last year. Conservative papers stopped running my column; conservative Web sites removed it from their archives. That was their right, of course, but they demonstrated that it was not just the Clintons who were fair-weather friends.

...more...

=====

Oh...and they have begun a three-part series on Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, the whistle-blower from the Office of Special Plans. Here:

http://www.amconmag.com/12_1_03/feature.html

Keep an eye on that.

[wtmusic]

1. Wow...

this is terrific. A "craven, lazy, hypocritical nitwit". I agree--does that mean I'm conservative?

[hlthe2b]

9. If you read more closely... that comment came from

a non-conservative columnist, Traub. The author was only pointing out the "extreme" range of views from lib to conservative on Bush*.

[wtmusic]

26. Yeah, and there's a lot of the usual crap in there

about the 2000 election, defending the electoral college system in there, without mentioning Katharine Harris' purging of voter rolls.

Nonetheless, the fact that Traub's statement isn't attacked is remarkable--and even more so, the cover byline.

[ibegurpard]

2. Good to see.

Thanks for posting

[StopTheMorans]

3. Will, did you see the Last Word in Newsweek this week?

I hate George Will with a passion, but his point was exactly this: Bush is not an old-time conservative, the GOP has increased discretionary spending by 26% in the last two years, and they are plotting a dangerous course for the future. I couldn't believe it coming from George Will, but it's good to see that some people are standing up for true ideals rather than blind partisanship.

[wtmusic]

5. He loosened his bow tie

and is now getting some blood to his head

[ibegurpard]

7. The thing that really pisses me off

is that they can voice these opinions and yet fall back into line when it really counts. So they recognize how radical and dangerous these people are and yet continue to cover for them? I don't get it.

[Skittles]

8. YUP

in the end they will all goose-step to the party line. Always.

[Bunny]

13. You've got a point, but remember that it was a group of

Republican congressmen who went to see Nixon and told him that he had to go. Dare we dream for the same now? I honestly think that it will take a growing number of righteous Republicans to send Young King George away.

[ibegurpard]

14. Righteous Republicans?

Are there any left? They used to exist once but most of them have left office.

[Bunny]

16. Yeah, they've been displace in office

by the neo-Cons. But if more of the press and pundits, like George Will, start to point out the flaws in Junior's thought processes, the better off we'll be (along with the rest of America and the world).

[aquart]

18. I always said that.

No one can get rid of him but his own. HIS people have to doubt him, not ours.

We, however, can say "told you so" till the cows wander back by moonlight.

[DoYouEverWonder]

31. None of them

wants to be the one to pull their finger out of the dike. Because has soon as the first one among them comes clean with the truth about recent events and this misadministration then the whole thing will self destruct. Who the hell wants to go down in history has the one who ended the American dream?

[KharmaTrain]

35. A Slippery Slope

I wasn't in favor of a lot of things Clinton stood for...primarily the '96 Telcom fiasco that set the real stage for the large corporation control of broadcasting. Personally I felt his problems with his libido, while a personal one, was wreckless and self-destructive (which it was).

No matter, when it came down to the big issues...especially the inquisition, I was fully supportive of Clinton than to even give the GOOP the satisfaction that any of their trumped up charges, and the procedure was totally rigged. My anger and resent for the Repugnicans made me look beyond Clinton's personal wrongs over the big picture of the over-turning of an election and the destruction of the Constitution (one prevented, one not).

This is the case with many Repugnicans now. The fiscal CONservatives are not happy with the defecits and big spending, the social CONservatives want the anti-gay and anti-choice agenda front and center, along with a growing list of people who've lost jobs, savings and future...a lot of them are in the Red states as well as the Blue. But when it comes down to brass tacks, Will and other good Repugnicans will come home with their tails between their legs.

You'll know there's a real trouble is when you hear rumblings about sitting home during the election, or calls for replacement of various cabinet members...the "this is my price for my vote..." stuff that the GOOP has been good at avoiding in the past, but now with all that money and power, it isn't as easy.

[izzie]

30. Well if you were a real member of the GOP of old I can see being.....

mad as hell. GB would have drove my father up the wall.It is like a new party he is running. These neo-cons and Christians nuts are bring the old party down.

[janx]

34. It IS a new party he is running. The old one is gone.

There are very few real, old conservatives still alive. Even those people call the "paleos" aren't like the really old conservatives, the fiscally responsible ones.

There has been a huge shift in the political landscape since first the fundies, then the neocons hijacked that party.

And the Democratic party has had to make some shifts as a result.

[Sugarbleus]

38. Right - O.. N/T

[janx]

4. Wow. They're beginning to realize the peril, finally?

We can only hope.

[9215]

36. Spelling monitor: that's "Perle"

:evilgrin:

[La_Serpiente]

6. Frick

anything that undercuts Bush's support is fine with me. (Not saying I agree with it: just that Buchanan could become the next Nader and siphon off votes from the Republican party because they lost their "conservative" vision.

[Zomby Woof]

10. not to be a pain

But this magazine is hardly the biggest in circulation for the wingnuts. Now if it were National Review, The Economist, or U.S. News & World Report (a RW rag dressed up as a centrist one so it can compete with Time/Newsweek), then I would be more encouraged. So I am not dissing this, I am just not sure it will have a lot of long-term rippling effects. It's the blue-collar, "values" conservatives who need to understand the truth about this bastard, and are hard to reach because they love Chimpy and his anti-choice stance, his 'christianity', and other emotional matters. This magazine looks like it appeals to a thin slice of the Country Club/Wall Street set, or a good slice of the libertarian populace. So far, there doesn't seem to be a dent in his campaign contributions from the rich crowd, so we'll see...

Any criticism of Bush is welcome, but I'll be more satisifed when it comes from the rank and file "mainstream", where the votes are.

[WilliamPitt]

12. See post #3

[Zomby Woof]

17. I did

Back in '88, George Will also called Bush Sr. "a lapdog" among other unflattering names, and Bush went on to still beat Dukakis. That is to say, Will isn't a barometer for how mainstream conservatives, or especially "values" conservatives feel. Will is only a barometer for how HE feels (I hope no one thinks I am talking about you because his last name and your first name... oh, never mind, lol) George Will can love ya one week, and kick ya the next. Hey, he defended Dean (no, not flaming Dean here, he really did) on the whole Dixie flag flap, and said other kind things about him, but I NOT think Will was endorsing Dean, nor will he be so kind to him the next column which addresses him I bet.

So I stand by the arguments of the DUers in this thread who said pretty much to the effect that no matter what, they will tow the party line in the end, even after some squawking.

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. The Economist thinks Bush couldn't run a whelk stall

Medicare reform: The biggest turkey of all?

This week's law-making may have helped George Bush win next year's election—providing voters don't do the sums

ACCORDING to Otto von Bismarck, the making of laws, like the making of sausages, should never be watched. Congress this week illustrated his point. The Republican leaders were very keen to pass two laws that would help the White House—the energy bill and a huge extension of the Medicare programme—before adjourning for Thanksgiving. To do so, they subjected the world's most powerful democratic body to a messy mixture of arm-twisting, procedural manipulation and special-interest politicking.

Despite these sterling efforts, the Republicans actually failed on energy. Some 40 senators, including six Republicans, stood firm against the proposed law, enough to delay it by filibuster if necessary. A costly law that does little for America's energy problems, but piles subsidies and tax breaks in the lap of every conceivable business connected to energy, has been shelved—at least until January.

The mammoth Medicare bill, however, squeaked through. It passed the House of Representatives at 5.53am on Saturday, November 22nd, after an unprecedented three hours of voting. Normally, congressmen have 15 minutes or so to cast their votes. This time, the House Republican leaders held the roll-call open for three hours while they bullied the fainthearted. George Bush, just back from Britain, stayed up unusually late on Friday to lobby congressmen, and was woken before dawn on Saturday morning to plead with a few more. Disillusioned Democrats accused the Republicans of “stealing” the vote, just as they were supposed to have stolen the 2000 election.

...

You could argue that, after presiding over double-digit increases in non-defence discretionary spending, Mr Bush already sounded pretty hollow talking about budget discipline. Post-Medicare “reform”, his rhetoric is a sham. When Americans see the consequences of the red ink and start to care again about the budget, the Republicans could pay a high political price.

http://www.economist.com/World/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2246429

[Zomby Woof]

28. good

That helps. Still, as much as that magazine is mainstream among conservatives - a great start, I am really pushing for more honest assessments of him in the rags in supermarket checkout lines.

[Devlzown]

11. If we want to take votes away from Bush

next year, civil liberties and spending are the issues to do it with.
If our candidate can assure the voters that he will do everything in
his power to keep spending under control and restore civil liberties
lost under the Patriot Act, I think we could win enough independent votes to put Bush out.

[Zuni]

15. Bush is not a true conservative at all

No real conservative would go on a spending spree like a drunken sailor like the Bush White House. No true conservative would relish foreign entanglements in the Middle east and make them worse.

[RBHam]

Bowman For President

http://www.rmbowman.com/

[terryg11]

19. good article and posts

I missed the article from George Will which is a huge shock to me. Can Bandow take the heat from Rove I wonder. Rove is a bastard of a politician and can make life hell for this guy if he really felt this article to be a threat. It's stilll nice to see some "help" from the right though

[Armstead]

20. Pat Buchanan

That's his magazine. Saw him on CNN last week, and he barely concealed his contenpt for Bush and the GOP/Corporate/Neo-Con wing of the Republican Party.

Oh if only Buchanan of someone like him would become their version of Ralph Nader in 04, but alas he or no one seems eager to take that role on.

But maybe they will be less-than-enthusiastic in the election and cause enough of the true conservatives to sit this one out.

[mot78]

21. What about the Constitution Party, or the Libertarians

they see any government involved as socialism.

[wuushew]

22. There are some bullshit lines in that article

Liberals should identify with the Bush record. He is increasing the size and power of the U.S. government both at home and abroad. He has expanded social engineering from the American nation to the entire globe. He is lavish with dollars on both domestic and foreign programs. For this the Left hates him?

[Eloriel]

39. What. He's surprised that his wrong-headed cliches

don't actually work in real life?

How funny.

Think it'll make him re-evaluate his cherished boogieman beleifs about the left?

Eloriel

[TheReligiousLeft]

23. Fun quote

"First, George W. Bush, despite laudable personal and family characteristics, is remarkably incurious and ill read. Gut instincts can carry even a gifted politician only so far. And a lack of knowledge leaves him vulnerable to simplistic remedies to complex problems, especially when it comes to turning America into the globe’s governess."

[TheReligiousLeft]

25. Another good quote from the article

The tendency to hate, really hate, opposing politicians surely is not good for American democracy. It is not rational to hate George W. Bush, just as it was not rational to hate Bill Clinton. But after spending eight years hating Clinton, conservatives who complain about the Bush-haters appear to be hypocrites.

George W. Bush enjoys neither royal nor religious status that would place him beyond criticism. Whether or not he is a real conservative, he is no friend of limited, constitutional government. And for that the American people should be very, very angry.

[never cry wolf]

27. Pat Buchanan started this mag

to try to combat the neocon take over of the repug party. He has adamantly been against them and there doctrine of pre-emption. Check out this article:

http://www.amconmag.com/02_24_03/cover.html

snip-------
A new war against Iraq was a gleam in the eye of a small but influential group long before 9/11. In 1998, the newly established Project for a New American Century (PNAC), an advocacy group chaired by Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, began sending open letters from prominent foreign policy hawks. First, it wrote to the Clinton administration calling upon the United States to “remove Saddam’s regime.” When its advice was ignored, PNAC asked Republican Congressional leaders to push for war. The signatories included Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz (now number two at the Pentagon), Elliott Abrams (recently appointed to the National Security Council as a director of Mid-East policy), William Bennett, John Bolton (now Undersecretary of State), and the ubiquitous Richard Perle, chairman of the Defense Policy Board and often considered the central figure in the interlocking web of neoconservative think tanks.

PNAC’s ambitions go well beyond Saddam’s overthrow. Immediately after 9/11, the group began pushing to expand the war against other Muslim states, calling for the U.S. to target Hezbollah and its sponsors, Iran and Syria. PNAC also wants the U.S. to stop trying to foster a peace between Israel and the Palestinians, advocating withdrawal of the small amount of aid the U.S. gives the Palestinian Authority and granting full support to Israel’s right wing Likud government.

I used this in my arguments, pre-war by sending to repug aquaintences back in Feb. and March. Alas, months before I discovered DU.

[Cooley Hurd]

29. I doubt he'll be able to maintain the coalition that got him elected...

The NeoCons and the Fundies are already clashing about him. Where I doubt he'll have any serious challenges for the nomination, I also believe that he won't be able to count on the support he had 4 years ago.

[midnight armadillo]

32. A weird quote

Liberals should identify with the Bush record. He is increasing the size and power of the U.S. government both at home and abroad. He has expanded social engineering from the American nation to the entire globe. He is lavish with dollars on both domestic and foreign programs. For this the Left hates him?

Why is is that conservatives continuously lambast liberals as mindless automatons who simply want to increase government for the sake of size? I understand that this is much simpler arguing against the real ideals of liberalism (democracy, a just society, compassion, opportunity, decentralized power) but it gets kind of tiresome...

[KoKo]

33. Kick

:kick:

[mmonk]

37. The American Conservative

is old time conservative. They are not fond of the Bush admin.

[opihimoimoi]

40. You jus know you became a joke if the Dems are joined in by your

own Pub Party in LAUGHING AT YO ASS.

The W has become a National JOKE.

So has his main Mouth, RASH ASS

Keep up the fight Will

you got them on the run.

Don't let them hide.

Flush um out so we can laugh harder.