George Will Says G.W. Bush "Undermines Conservatism"

Cheyenne, Wyoming Tribune-Eagle ^ | 07-24-03 | Will, George F.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

So?

[veronica]

To say nothing of drawing a line in the sand on terrorism, then suddenly turning to Arafat for help in "stopping terrorism." That is so craven. Maybe it's just a Powell/State. Dept thing. I hope so.

[kesg]

What you described is a leftist/fascist. I would like to see the word liberal restored to its true meaning. Today's leftists are anything but liberal.

You are arguing for the 19th Century meaning of the word, a meaning that attempts to differentiate liberals from statists -- a meaning which has gone the way of, well, the 19th Century. Frankly, these labels (or others such as "libertarian") are not helpful in most cases. Instead, I look to see whether a particular political position promotes or impairs individual rights. "Conservatives" like George Will think it is perfectly fine for government to seize my income to pay for someone else's drug prescription, and his only disagreement with the statists is one of degree rather than kind.

[1Old Pro]

The likelihood of a vacancy has given rise to a grim joke among conservatives: How do you say ''Souter'' in Spanish? ''Gonzales.''

If Bush gets another Scalia on the Supreme Court I'll forgive the complcency on the rest of the stuff George Will mentions.

Keep your eye on the prize....conservative judicial appointments. If Bush fails here then I'll agree that he let down conservatism.

[My2Cents]

Conservatives think; W's trying to appeal to people who feel

I don't know about that. I've seen quite a lot of *emoting* from the pure blue-flame conservatives over the conservative credentials of George W. Bush.

[Consort]

Will spends entirely too much of his time around Liberals. He's turning into a major whiner.

[tdadams]

But I don't subscribe to that misnomer. I will not refer to someone who is decidedly not liberal as a liberal. People like Clinton/Schumer/Boxer/Biden/Kennedy are leftist/fascists.

There is a lot of value in calling a spade a spade because far too many people have been enticed by the fascist left because they call themselves liberal, and many people consider liberalness (in its true definition) a virtue and something to be admired. They're seduced by false advertising.

[My2Cents]

I don't want to get into a huge (or is it "hugh"?) debate on the Powell "outreach" to Arafat yesterday, but I think one point is important to make:

Bush has done something no previous Administration has been able to do, and that is to isolate and diminish Arafat's stature within the PA itself. As long as Bush thinks there's a thread of a chance that peace can be achieved, he's willing to work with the PA, but not with Arafat, and his promotion of Abbas as a "working partner" is intended to marginalize Arafat, and perhaps to bring reform to the PA itself.

Powell's "appeal" to Arafat was actually an appeal for Arafat to give up to Abbas the remaining authority he (Arafat) has in the PA -- authority over the security forces. Arafat won't do this, of course, and Powell knows this. Hence, Powell's statement and "appeal" yesterday wasn't so much to Arafat, but the broaching of a policy to the international community in general that what remaining power Arafat has, he needs to give up. This being the objective of the Powell statement, it makes sense.

I'm not ranting at you, Veronica; I'm more responding to this because of the two chowderheads I heard on KSFO in San Francisco this morning blathering on about the "moronic" Powell and his "appeal" to Arafat. They gas off in complete ignorance of our strategy in the Middle East.

[habs4ever]

Will said the same things, more or less, about Ronnie back in 1986.He left those comments out of his book, The Levelling Wind, mind you.

[My2Cents]

I agree with you 100%. Personally, my biggest priority in supporting Bush is to remake the judiciary, and the Supreme Court, with solid conservative judges. I've been impressed with his judicial nominations, and the Democrats' obstruction of many of them indicate how solid Bush's nominees have been, and how important Bush's nominations are. If he fails to reform the philosophy of the judiciary, he's failed as a President. To me, everything else is secondary (except, perhaps, success in the war on terror).

[My2Cents]

I think what's worse is that George Will thinks he's the conscience of conservatism, that we all should take our cues from him.

[steve in DC]

Kennedy asserted, in effect, that laws intended to strengthen a majority's moral principles are constitutionally suspect.

But, aren't all of the so called"Great Society" programs just that? Laws intended to strengthen a majority's moral principles? By compelling citizens to fulfill their "charitable duties" via government programs?

[DLfromthedesert]

Sounds more like Tucker Carlson than George Will.

[My2Cents]

Will said the same things, more or less, about Ronnie back in 1986.

Which goes to show that it's a lot easier being an armchair pundit than it is to being Chief Executive of the United States.

[4CJ]

Not counting the military, just how much have SOCIAL programs increased? Don't include the 15 BILLION given to Africa to fight AIDS.

Just wondering.

[Theodore R.]

Bush Undermines Conservatism


BY GEORGE WILL


July 24, 2003

That was the posted headline above.

[montag813]

Bush has disappointed me in two major ways:

1. Failure to recess appoint his Judicial nominees (dozens of them at all levels) who are being illegally blocked by the Democrats. Or even to light a fire under flaccid Bill Frist's butt.

2. Embracing the Saudi-created "Road Map" and his foolish endorsement of a "Palestinian state by 2005". Talk about rewarding terrorists. So much for the "Bush Doctrine".

[kesg]

There is a lot of value in calling a spade a spade because far too many people have been enticed by the fascist left because they call themselves liberal, and many people consider liberalness (in its true definition) a virtue and something to be admired. They're seduced by false advertising.

I understand and sympathize with your point, but the fact remains that if you call yourself a liberal, most people who don't yet know what you really mean will assume that you are much closer to Hillary Clinton than Thomas Jefferson. That's okay, of course, if you are willing to take the necessary time and effort to clarify what you really meant.

[Wild Irish Rogue]

" I think what's worse is that George Will thinks he's the conscience of conservatism, that we all should take our cues from him."

It seems that lately, many conservative pundits have taken to lecturing and hectoring the base as to what they should and shouldn't think. Many of the columns are condescending and assume,apparently,that conservatives are turnipseeds that have just fallen off the truck.I think controlling and shaping the base to only think within the box, is as big an issue with some conservative pundits,as it is with the liberals.

[1Old Pro]

To me, everything else is secondary (except, perhaps, success in the war on terror).

Yes, I agree that this is also a top priority for any President. Things like affirmative action rulings etc and the like are important but secondary.