Posted on 08/24/2005 1:15:06 AM PDT by Dr. Marten
Conservative lawblogger Stephen Bainbridge is getting a lot of what they call in Washington “strange new respect” for his strongly-worded criticism of the President’s international and domestic policies. While liberals like Kevin Drum’s commenters are quick to gloat about Bainbridge’s lament, and more tellingly, some Bush backers have accused Bainbridge of recycling leftist cant, Bainbridge has rather solidly made a conservative — not leftist, not paleocon — case against President Bush:
It’s time for us conservatives to face facts. George W. Bush has pissed away the conservative moment by pursuing a war of choice via policies that border on the criminally incompetent. We control the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and (more-or-less) the judiciary for one of the few times in my nearly 5 decades, but what have we really accomplished? Is government smaller? Have we hacked away at the nanny state? Are the unborn any more protected? Have we really set the stage for a durable conservative majority?
He continues with a critique of the shifting rationales for the Iraq War and asks,
…if Iraq’s alleged WMD programs were the casus belli, why aren’t we at war with Iran and North Korea? Not to mention Pakistan, which remains the odds-on favorite to supply the Islamofascists with a working nuke. If Saddam’s cruelty to his own people was the casus belli, why aren’t we taking out Kim Jong Il or any number of other nasty dictators? Indeed, what happened to the W of 2000, who correctly proclaimed nation building a failed cause and an inappropriate use of American military might? And why are we apparently going to allow the Islamists to write a more significant role for Islamic law into the new Iraqi constitution? If throwing a scare into the Saudis was the policy, so as to get them to rethink their deals with the jihadists, which has always struck me as the best rationale for the war, have things really improved on that front?
Though Bainbridge is spot-on in his analysis of the terrible miscalculations made by Bush and Rumsfeld during the war in Iraq, I take issue with his characterization of the war as the reason Bush and the Republican Party have abandoned domestic conservatism. In fact, a strong case can be made that Bush, Rove, and Congressional Republicans had no intention to advance a domestic conservative agenda in the first place.
So?
No I didn't, but what the hey buchanan is a media whore. On Hannity's show he will say one thing, on MSNBC he will say another(i.e giving support to cindy sheehan).
JMO, buchanan has much true sympathy for cindy sheehan and her leftist circus.
So you see nothing wrong being on the same side as chavez and castro?
Yes, he does. One must ask himself "Is Bush the President I was lead to believe he was going to be?"
Well President Reagan didn't have an all Republican congress and Senate to work with either.
Well it's obvious you haven't gotten yourself to rpley #168.
Uh Reagan had a 6 year Pubbie Senate(1981-87) and had many southern democrats supporting him.
You're right, I didn't read rpley #168.
Those are great deeds and I support him for those decisions. I just want more, primarily "STOP IGNORING THE OPEN BORDERS!!!!!! and do more about getting the good news out of Iraq to Joe Citizen, rather than continuing the mantra of "We will take the fight to the enemy" or "America is safer today."
Semper Undercover
It does not matter. I am against this issue because Cafta/nafta is wrong for this country anf or the people in it. Why they are against it, I do not know nor care. It is a straw man argument. I am in favor of good rum, I assume so is Castro. That does not make me a marxist.
communists castro/chavez seem to have the same concerns about CAFTA as do buchanan/tancredo/schafley.
You can ignore it at your peril, but don't get mad at me for pointing it out.
I don't support buchnan either. I am against Cafta/Nafta because I believe that they are not in the best interests of this country. And I have seen a good number of friends and family members of lose their jobs and lower their standard of liveing because of nafta. It is harming America.
Ultracon just means you're so conservative that you've gone around the circle to the right to the point where you meet up with the left.............and no.....i..t's not a good thing.
Maybe so, but they're still more conservative than 95% of the population out there. We may disagree on methods, but I think we're all here to figure out who we advance conservatism. In my book that makes us allies, no matter whether we fight amongst ourselves sometimes.
Yes, I strongly defend President Bush, but always thoughtfully, and reasonably unless people are being ridiculous and extremist in their rhetoric (or posting absurd and silly cartoons with cartoonish dribble in them like you just did).
I was a conservative before most Freepers were born (maybe even you), and I don't blindly follow anyone or anything. I think completely for myself.........which is more than I can say for leftist or rightist Bush haters (who can tell the difference?), who vomit the same talking points without researching the facts.
I disagree with the President on a number of issues, but I'm smart enough to know an honorable and good man and a strong leader when I see one.
If you're not, too bad for you. You're missing out on history. And if you're like the rest of the ubercons who now sing Reagan's praises even though they bashed him while he was in office, you'll be doing the same thing with Bush when you get far enough down the road to see what amazing conservative accomplishments took place during his 8 years in office.
The goal is to advance conservatism, not to bash others with a narrow definition of what conservatism is based on personal preferences, and not what it truly is conservative.
This is not a spitting contest. This is a battle for the future of our country.
We ought to be on the same side...........and those of us who are on the same side realize that in spite of differences with the President, he is doing many things to advance conservatism (tax cuts, pro-business policy, pro-military, strong American sovereignty, pro-life, pro-morality, pro-responsibility), and he most certainly is not 'slimy' as someone stated earlier in the thread.
There are many around here who literally do 'eat their own.'
I know, because I've been on the menu of a number of cannibalistic conservatives around here (just a few posts up, actually), and I'm a deep down, life long conservative, who thinks deeply and cares even more deeply about the direction this country must take.
I really appreciate considered dialogue with those with which I have disagreements (like you), because I have learned much from fellow freepers (though not a thing from blind extremists), and want it to continue.
I always think that it's worth remembering that our disagreements are within such a narrow portion of the overall political spectrum. We all agree on much, much more than we disagree...no sense in inflicting lasting injury on each other.
Agreed.
And if you ask that question the answer is a resounding YES.................IF you listened to what he actually said (and didn't believe the MSM, that is).
He has been far more consistent in doing what he promised to do as President than any in our lifetimes, because he has core values that he sticks with no matter what the critics say, from the left OR the extreme right.
YOU'RE THE ONE WHO MADE REFERENCE TO GLPS, BUT HEY, WHAT DO I KNOW.
I'm still waiting (a day after I asked) to find out the answer to where or when I made reference to "GLPS" (which I confess to still not knowing what it is).
And I also want to know what your histrionics about tomatoes directed at me was all about.
And perhaps waiting for your admission that you got a tad confused??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.