Noonan to Bush: It's over

You're right about that, Roberto. Please note that I don't exempt myself from that accusation.

As the conservatives go through this self examination, not unlike autopsying a divorce, I hope they look closely at conservatism as policy. I see the arguments already falling similar to the apologies for failures of religion. "It's not the faith but the individuals that failed." Integrity and honesty might provide a reason to consider that it's the concept that's weak and the people just reflect it. I know right now everyone is believing the worst thing that could happen has happened and we need to just get through with getting through it. There is one thing that could happen that would pale to what has transpired. That is some assume the position that "they" failed and not "we". Looking back at Nam and the belief that we could have won for all the wrong reasons if we'd only done all the right wrong things is a perfect example.

The Drug Benefit - The idea of a "right to health care" sounds good, but people really don't know what they are saying. I don't have a right to food or shelter, far more basic than medicine. Are we advocating for the right to go into a supermarket and basically steal food? The Bill of Rights doesn't give us the right to any material good. When we claim the right to medicine, the right to be seen by a physician, the right to treatment at a hospital, we're talking about taking something that belongs to another person. We've seen today's Europe - let's avoid that fate at all costs. Immigration - The Bush apologists' equation of opposition to illegal immigration with racism is truly sad. Invoking one of the Left's most overused techniques shows their desperation. The funny thing is that while throwing accusations of racism used to be a pretty potent silencing weapon in the 80s and 90s, that ole dog just don't hunt no more. It's like water off a duck's back now. Opposing reward for criminal behavior is such basic common sense that inverse race-mongering demagoguery is just plain impotent. I look forward to 2008. The election will be less about the desirability of Democrats than a referendum on the governing by Republicans. One way or another the establishment Rockefeller RINO Republicans will reach ever closer to extinction. The loss of Chaffee-RI, Dewine-OH, Rob Simmons-CT and Nancy Johnson-CT in 2006 was well worth the short term pain. The reaction to the ram-rodding of the Immigration Bill of 2007 shows how the ground is shifting.

Speaking for myself, I guess it just took me awhile to understand that Bush just WON'T LISTEN to anyone outside his circle if it conflicts with his aims. I held my nose when I voted for him (the whole "compassionate conservative" label angered me, since I never viewed compassion and conservatism as mutually exclusive), and did the whole "lesser of two evils" thing. But now I see that surely we could have made a better choice of candidates in 2000. This time, I'll write somebody in (Tom Tancredo? Alan Keyes?) if I have to. Anyway, sometimes I can't help but wonder--could Al Gore have screwed things up worse? In the meantime, I have been re-reading the Declaration of Independence--it has been instructive and inspiring.

Rod,
The problem is not simply that Bush had power, so everyone went along - "that we pretty much loved the guy - when he was a winner." The problems are deeper, and they are three. One - a remember a political leader in Ohio telling me on a bright and sunny day in Spring of 2000 that he was backing Bush "because we want a winner." The assumption was always that Bush could win - and so other questions did not get asked. Two - the American electorate, both conservative and liberal, are grossly ignorant of political philosophy and history. Television has degraded the debate so that "likeability" has become cosmically important. Once half-informed voters think they have a "bond" and a candidate has become "their guy" that bond becomes emotional. Do you remember the phone calls that came in to talk shows during the Miers fiasco? It was shocking listening to people who were literally choked up (or enraged) and saying "I just trust this man" and "I just know our president is doing the right thing" and worst of all "we have to follow our leader." It made me feel physically sick. Is this a Republic, or the Third Party Conference? Bush's anti-intellectualism does not just reflect his base, as sneering New York Times readers like to believe, it reflects most of the electorate. Finally, Conservatives view the press with such profound suspicion that it took a very long time for a lot of us to see that Bush is incompetent. When the press believes that everything which has happened in the last 6 years is Bush's fault, it is easy to see how the equal and opposite distortion - nothing is wrong with Bush - could take hold. Carter's incompetence was more apparent because he failed at literally everything he touched. Bush had some genuine successes, which he was not credited for, and so his base ignored the failures. A more profound understanding of history and political philosophy would inform the conservative hermeneutic of suspicion in filtering the press. I do not view Iraq as the grotesque failure you do by the way. Only an idiot would argue that Bush's incompetence is not on full display there, however

Responding to Lucius: Harriet Miers-agree with all that you said. Katrina- I don't think that the criticism was preposterous. The criticism was directed at Bush because he appointed the people in charge of FEMA. The public didn't expect things to be perfect, but the public was right to expect FEMA to mobilize in a timely manner. FEMA would need to kick into action if we were ever attacked by terrorists. They weren't ready. Iraq- Bush couldn't have gone into Iraq without public support. The base supported it.
Drug Benefit-People might not have a right to food, shelter, clothing or medicine. I might not have a right to any of those things, but I want to live in a country that cares about its'weakest. Especially, when that country is the richest nation in the world. Immigration- The Left might invoke the race card, but demagoguery isn't a tactic that only the Left uses with regularity. It's a favorite of the Right. Actually, I think that we could say that Bush won the White House in the last election because he was so much better at using the tactic. It hurts more when your own is using it against you.

Watsy, thanks. My responses: Katrina- Whether FEMA was mobilized like D-Day or sat on their lazy rumps, they couldn't have fixed anything. The power of a hurricane is beyond comprehension. I don't think a FEMA dog & pony show ("Hey NBC, takes some newsreel footage of our helicopters flying around")really accomplishes much rather than window-dressing of advertising how effective they are. When it comes to hurricanes, all is ineffective when it comes to damage (however, evacuation saves lives). From the media reaction at the time, I really do think people were of the opinion "how could Bush let this damage (hurricane) happen?" Iraq- I agree with your indictment. Better to stick with Lucius' stance of "total war or sit this one out" than dabbling with warfare. War isn't for dilettantes. Drug Benefit- I've got no problem with caring for the country's weakest. But when people use a certain language, the language of Rights, we've got to know the probable outcome. A Right to something means I don't have to pay for this, that the government cannot stop me from accessing this, that I can have this and nobody can stop me. The Depression was a terrible time, but from discussions with my grandparents and parents, there wasn't the attitude that I have a constitutional Right to food, shelter or wages. Hammer the robber barons if we want (not that there were so many of those folks during the 1930s), but let's drop the language that we are constitutionally guaranteed the produce of another's labor. That is plain wrong. Immigration- Agree. Your comments were echoed by Larison.

I don't know this Daniel Larison fellow, but I see on his "recommended sites" list is lewrockwell.com and Ron Paul's campaign website. That scares me. It scares me even more that these are the people you listen to now Rod.

Watsy: "It hurts more when your own is using it against you." You hit that nail on the head. It is no wonder that the name of Benedict Arnold has survived history, while that of General Cornwallis will warrant a shrug and a "Who?" Cornwallis, although far more damaging, is excused because he had integrity; we knew and expected him to be on the English side. Benedict Arnold, of far less import, was a traitor, a liar, a dissembler; he had no integrity. We thought we knew him and we had expectations that were not met. Turning on your allies, failing to keep promises, failing to live up to the commitments you've made, these all raise intense feelings of treason and betrayal. If your enemy stabs you in the back, whatever....it's expected, a fair battle, you knew the fox was a fox. It is truth in advertising. But when your friend stabs you in the back....oooooooo....it may say "vengeance is mine saith the Lord", but the anger of a voter scorned is a supernova.

Conservatives have a curious tendency to award global approbation or damnation as if that explained everything. Once Bush was a Good Person--for whatever reason--now he is a Bad Person. Peggy Noonan thinks he has hubris. Swell. The President has character flaws. Now there's a news flash. I think it would be more useful to ask Lenin's question--who/whom--more often. Who is doing what to whom? And why? Bush isn't making the choices he does at random. As a rational actor, he must be pursuing goals he thinks are worth risking the loss of voter approval. Perhaps he is serving interests from whom he stands to gain more. I'm not in a position to find out what those interests are. But I no longer cherish the illusion that my government is being run by the people, for the people.

That sound you hear is the world's smallest violin, playing just for conservatives. Suddenly, Bush is no longer a conservative. (Jonah Goldberg, a few days ago, called him "liberal.") Noonan expresses shock that Bush would use such hurtful, inflammatory language against his own base. Rush Limbaugh told his audience he has been a water-carrier for the administration! He actually confessed that he helped keep the party faithful in line even though he may not have agreed or believed in the policies being espoused. (Of course, that's not as shocking as the fact that this confession was met by cricket chirping by his fellow travelers; Jesus, even when you guys are selling out, you're selling out.)
And, Rod, well, there's a quite colorful Internet trail regarding his pre-disillusionment thoughts on Bush, and even more colorful thoughts on those who disagreed with him. Whatever. Most of these guys sold their conservative ideology to this administration without batting an eye or asking for much in return. Now, they want to snatch it back and say that conservatism works, even though the man didn't. Despite the recriminations and hand-wringing, I just can't buy that most of these folks will act differently should a Republican win the White House in 2008. Whether they swoon over McCain's standing-at-the-gates-of-hell foreign policy; Romney's doubling of Gitmo; or Tancredo's hiring of a fictional TV character to hunt down bin Laden, most of these folks will likely be happy to pimp their principles for some faux-tough guy talk. It's very easy to trash a lame-duck president with talking points opponents have been using for years. I'd like to see some introspection on the part of Bush's water-carriers. What might Rod do differently with another Republican in the White House? Is there going to be more traitor talk about the opposition? More fear-mongering? My bet is, very little.

wm makes an interesting point. Were conservatives and Republicans slow to awake to the disaster that is Bush Jr. because they so distrusted the press they simply refused to believe their eyes? Last time I turned on Limbaugh, he had put aside the "drive-by media" spiel for a whole five or ten minutes.
If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, then it appears blaming the media is the last refuge for right-winger believers. Once they give up on that, they give up, period.

Kit, I believe that's "bogus patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel". :)

"Drug Benefit - The idea of a "right to health care" sounds good, but people really don't know what they are saying. I don't have a right to food or shelter, far more basic than medicine." Finally, the "pro-lifers" reveal their true colors. There is no right-to-life (excepting, of course, if one is curled up in a fetal position, in utero, and incapable of requesting food, shelter, or medical care.
Without food, who gets to live? No food, no live = right right to food = no right to life.
Many times without the adequate health care, there will be "no-life" for other individuals. These same basics that the compassionates would deny to those incapable of self-sufficiency may also extend to those yet unborn; the very ones that conservatives can recognize as having "rights."
If there is "no [recognizable] right to life, i.e. food, medicine," how can they then claim to be "pro" life at all?

Franklin, I looked up the famous Samuel Johnson quote, and no, I believe I had it right the first time. Nothing "bogus" about it.
http://www.bartleby.com/73/1306.html

My thought, reading this amazing Noonan column twice: You know things have deteriorated when Peggy Noonan's seat at the White House dinner for Queen Elizabeth goes to Elizabeth Hassleback.

Don't expect one ounce of compassion over the destruction of your party when the whirlwind comes November 2008. We Democrats are most certainly going to kick you while you are down to do our best to assure that you will not rise again for 20 or 30 years. The 3500 dead soldiers alone is bad enough, but the 25,000 wounded who will spend the next few decades suffering through a decayed system that cannot handle this many maimed vets earn you a special place in the room with no doors. As a former soldier I think what you have done to the Army and National Guard is an umittgated disgrace and I only hope we can rebuild before our enemies take advantage of our weakness. Rot in Hell.

Given this is beliefnet, one would think one would hear more about the administration's abandonment of core conservative--er, human--values. Where is torture (read: enhanced interrogation techniques) in all this breast beating?

I would like to add my voice to the chorus of those saying, "Cry me a river." The Republicans and neocons turning on Bush now are absolutely AMAZED that he would smear anyone who disagrees with him with dishonest terms. "My goodness," they say, "I just disagree with the President on policy and he demonizes me! How could he?" Do these people even live in the same country as the rest of us? Or is it different when he accuses liberals of wanting the US to fail, or that all Democrats side with the terrorists?

To continue, the smart thing to do is to say, "So now you see what the rest of us saw for so long. Welcome to the club." Or something like that. It feels good to be a gloatish sore winner, of course, but how does it help change anything?

Of course it really does not matter very much. Bush will leave office on schedule, Jan 20, 2009 at high noon to be replaced by--most likely a Republican because it looks like none of the ankle-biters running on the Democrat side can win the general election.

I have often why it is that he doesn't seem to have the same BS detector that the rest of us have?

"The difference is we conservatives pretty much loved the guy -- when he was a winner." Whoa there! Hang on a second. The key thing in how all this played out was 9/11. That's why the base bonded with him, that's why it put up with so much for so long. Rally round the president and all that. It certainly didn't return him to office because he was a winner. Quite the contrary. Other than that, I agree with you.

So let s take a vote for the record, ladies and gentlemen. If we get stuck with one of the GOP frontrunners (Giuliani?) against Hillary in 2008, with Ron Paul (or Tancredo if you prefer) running as an Independent, how many of us will stand up for conservative principle ? Clearly no one here thinks any of the Big Three Republicans is a real conservative, but I certainly don t expect a conservative to win the Republican nomination by attacking Bush. Yet I m sure on this website, though hopefully not from Rod himself, we ll hear many commenters say how we must support the Republican candidate in the vain hope of winning the Culture War through politics. In my opinion, we need a competitive third party in this country. Make that two. Conservatives who want to leave the GOP must have a conservative option, and liberals who want to leave the Democratic Party must have a credible option too. In the 2006 midterms, many conservative voters voted for the Dems, which meant trying to end the Iraq War by voting for the party that had enabled it. Without a competitive third party, we weren t given the option of voting for a party that had actually been prescient, that had proven itself to be truly smart rather than just not as dumb as the other one. I know there are drawbacks to multiparty systems, but in a two-party system it is just too easy for a small, wealthy elite to take over both parties. In a multiparty system, any group that feels inadequately represented can form a new party. A choice, not an echo!

The main mistake Peggy Noonan makes is believing that her views represent "true conservatism," when conservatives differ among themselves on issues such as free trade, the Iraq war, immigration (at least legal immigration), tax cuts and so on.
Back in January 2005 a newly reelected President Bush gave an inaugural address that argued that there is a connection between the US's national security and the success of freedom abroad. Peggy Noonan ridiculed Bush's democratic triumphalism and many other conservatives accused Bush of "Wilsonian" rhetoric.
But the idea that the success of liberty abroad is connected to US national security isn't new by any means.
Why did President Reagan give his famous "Tear down this wall" speech in Berlin, over the protests of the State Department and Colin Powell? Clearly Reagan saw a link between freedom in Eastern Europe (then held hostage by the Soviet Union) and US security.
Peggy Noonan has every right to voice her dissent on that issue.
But Bush did not betray conservatism by continuing the Reagan tradition of viewing the success of freedom abroad as important to security at home. Conservatism does not have a unified position on foreign policy.
Then there's the issue of political compromise and political reality that inevitably separates conservative pundits and activists from elected conservative politicians.
As an elected conservative politician, Ronald Reagan believed that higher FICA payroll taxes were part of a necessary compromise with US House speaker Tip O'Neal required to 'save social security.' Many conservatives vehemently disagreed with Reagan on that one. Similarly, many conservatives didn't like the fact that Reagan tolerated 200 billion dollar budget deficits, nor did they unanimously agree with the 1986 tax "reform."
But an elected conservative politician is often persuaded to do very unconservative things, sometimes to retain popularity among the larger public, sometimes to reach a "deal" with political opponents.
We conservatives can feel we have been betrayed only if we were born yesterday and don't remember Nixon's wage and price controls or the original President Bush's broken "read my lips" no new taxes pledge or Reagan's appointment of Sandra Day O'Conner and Anthony Kennedy to the US Supreme Court.
Noonan's column is long on self-righteousness and short on sober analysis, short on a sense of perspective and history.

What a delightful person you must be. Though an orthographically challenged one. The word is spelled d-e-s-p-i-s-e.

Here's Jonah Goldberg on Rod Dreher's reponse to Peggy Noonan. I agree with it. If anyone should feel betrayed, maybe it's Bush himself. He warned GOP voters again and again and again what compassionate conservatism would look like. And, when he delivered, conservatives were shocked that he meant it (or didn't care because his poll numbers were high or they had other priorities in the form of judges and war). The phrase "compassionate conservatism" was always a backhanded slap at traditional conservatism (as I noted in 1998). Ramesh (and I) were saying "don't say you weren't warned" during Bush's first term. For just two examples, see Ramesh's "Swallowed by Leviathan" or see this speech I gave to the New York Conservative Party (if you can get past the really lame Howard Dean joke). Not to revisit old fights, but my problem with Rod's admonition is that it leaves out the fact that his Crunchy Conservatism actually rests on many of the same assumptions of Bush's compassionate conservatism. Conservatism, according to Crunchy Conservatism, has become too cold and calculating, too obsessed with the mighty dollar and the moral unimpeachability of the free market. Conservatism isn't spiritual enough, humane enough, activist enough, quoth Rod. "Hillary Clinton got a bum rap from the right," he admitted, "it really does take a village to raise a child." Well, this is pretty much the same indictment at the heart of compassionate conservatism, which speaks relentlessly of leaving no children behind.
I'd take Rod's laments about how we all should have turned on Bush earlier if only compassionate conservatism and crunchy conservatism didn't have so much in common. Indeed, now that he's aligning himself so much with so-called "paleos" it's worth also noting that Pat Buchanan considered Bush's compassionate conservatism a rip-off of his "conservatism of the heart."
Rod's right that the Bush years should foster introspection. So, for me, I can tell you that lessons like this are among the reasons I've become more libertarian in response to the Bush years. What I would like to know is why on domestic policy even as Rod has become so virulently anti-Bush, compassionate conservatism has made Rod more, well, compassionately conservative.

So yes, by all means let's turn our backs on this failed presidency, and save what we can, while we can. But let's not kid ourselves: Bush has failed conservatives, yes, but we have also failed ourselves. Talk about empty rhetoric.
Is this presidency any more of a failed presidency than the Nixon, Ford or George H W Bush presidency?
President George W Bush did better than President Reagan on conservative US Supreme Court justices. Reagan only appointed Scalia (and two moderates, Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Conner). Bush replaced the moderate O'Conner with the conservative Alito.
Bush cut taxes on capital gains and dividends and the economy is doing so well that our unemployment rate is at 4.5 percent and the Dow Jones Industrial Average is closing in on 14,000.
Bush toppled two dictatorships: The Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussain's regime in Iraq.
Bush was reelected in 2004 when all of this, except for the US Supreme Court appointments, were already out in the open.
And what choice did conservatives really have? McCain ran against Bush in 2000, but McCain was even more moderate than Bush was. Could conservatives really have convinced themselves that John Kerry or Al Gore were closet conservatives or more conservative than George W. Bush?
Despite all the government spending which conservatives rightly oppose, the budget deficit is historically small, smaller as a percent of GDP than it was under President Reagan.
So, maybe all the self-righteous rhetoric should be dispensed with and be replaced by a sober analysis of where we go from here.
But can an advocate for organically grown produce really lead the conservative movement? Can someone who voted for the liberal Democrat opponent of Joe Barton really lead the conservative movement?

Bush gave conservatives everything they wanted: lower taxes, crippled or ended regulation of indiustries, health and science policies shaped by religious beliefs, "privatization" of governmental services (mostly in contracts to friends and cronies of conservative politicians and funding sources), a GWoT that justifies the Unitary Executive and enables crackdowns on domestic enemies as well as the star chamber for enemies domestic and foreign, and two more SCOTUS Justices that will uphold the Unitary Executive. I don't see why conservatives have turned against Bush, or tried to re-label him as a "liberal." I mean, I understand why they've turned against him: he's widely despised by the country, which also believes the country is on the wrong track. That has to hurt, a little, when conservatives know they're right and the rest of the country is wrong. But I think you're all engaging in a kind of "kill the messenger" because you don't like the message. I think you'd be better off accepting the fact that most people don't like conservatism, and need to have it forced on them by one concocted national emergency after another.
The GWoT is perfect for that. Since every major Republican candidate has stated his support for an endless GWoT, complete with Unitary Executive powers, you really don't have a problem. Whoever your candidate is in 2008 will espouse the policies you like. Of them all, though, Fred Thompson looks to be positioning himself as the Next George Bush. He's hired a Rovian protege to help run his campaign. This is excellent news for conservatives, because Rove tactics are winning tactics. Whoever the Democratic candidate is will quickly be painted by the Republicans as someone who wants all your money, wants to force people to get abortions and marry a gay person, hates Christians, and will hand the keys of the White House to Al-Qaeda. What's not to like?

The attitude towards grassroots conservatives voicing their disagreement with Bush and imploring the Right to hold fast to the rule of law, instead of the rule of Bush, was to marginalize or silence them. The so-called conservative website "FreeRepublic" was emblematic. Any dissent towards Bush's policies got one banned from posting as being disruptive or a "Troll". I count myself as one of many grassroots conservatives out here in flyover country proud to say "We tried to tell you so." Yep. I too was banned from FR in 2000, because I dared criticize Bush. Good point - part of the problem is the tendency to see any criticism of Bush as prima facie proof that the speaker is one of "them"; i.e., a liberal.

John Savage,
How can he say at the same time that now Rod is aligning himself with paleos and that he s become more compassionately conservative ? Paleoconservatism favors some restrictions on the free market, to be sure, but it s never argued for rising government spending. Rod Dreher's "crunchy conservatism," Pat Buchanan's "conservatism of the heart" and George W. Bush's "compassionate conservatism" all having one thing in common: they all support a larger role for government than Reagan/Ginrich conservatism or libertarianism supports.
Rod Dreher voted for a liberal pro-abortion Democrat candidate for Congress against Joe Barton in Texas and indicates hostility to standard conservatism because of the their belief in free market economics.
Pat Buchanan's views are similar to Dreher's. Buchanan has taken Socialist positions on forced unionization and "protecting jobs" in the US from foreign competition.
George W. Bush has argued that when people are hurting "government must move."
So, all three reject Ronald Reagan's line of "Government isn't the solution. Government is the problem." I personally am much more comfortable with George W. Bush's views on tax cuts (including reductions in high marginal income tax rates and lower tax rates on capital gains and dividends), free trade (including Bush's free trade agreements with Central American nations and Australia) and his general hostility to forced unionization than I am with Rod Dreher's mostly incoherent economic musings and Pat Buchanan's believe in imposing draconian economic sanctions on the United States via higher import tariffs.
Still, one should make the distinction between a conservative politician, who inevitably makes compromises with non-conservative politicians and people like us (and Rod Dreher and Pat Buchanan) who have never been elected to any federal office or even a high ranking state office like Governor).
It's easy to talk conservative (or describe Leftish ideas like trade protectionism or "buy locally grown organic food" as conservative) when you don't have to ask anyone to vote for you. It's quite a bit harder to govern as a conservative when a majority of the voting population holds a variety of non-conservative views on public policy issues.
Still, I wonder what alternatives conservatives really have, besides voting for a minor party candidates who is likely to receive 0.3 percent of the vote (as Pat Buchanan did in his 2000 race for President).
The alternatives to George W. Bush have been John McCain, Al Gore and John Kerry.
It would take an interesting redefinition of conservatism to argue that George W. Bush was not more conservative than those other viable alternative candidates.

Angel- Tax cuts are meaningless unless and until you modify AMT. If you lower my marginal tax rate and then hit me with AMT, where's the tax cut? And as a tax attorney, that has become all too common for many middle class people.When I first eopned my business in 1995, less than 5% of my clients(largely EMTs, cops, teachers, nurses, firemen)paid AMT; now 60% pay AMT. And Bush hasn't taken even a step in the direction of ending it because he won't give up that revenue stream. Further, you total free traders act like everyone else follows Adam Smith's invisible hand in all their dealings when in fact they do not; they act in their best interest,as we should. So why should America not demand some element of fairness? And if you think globalization is such a wonderful idea, have you dealt with a customer service rep in Bangalore or Manila lately? Why are those jobs not done by Americans? That does not make pour economy stronger, just gives companies a cheaper wayt to treat customers like total crap.
If your big argument is that Bush was still preferable, based on the way he has run this war, I'd say no, a thousand times no. We lived through 8 years of Clinton and the sky didn't fall.I certainly hope Hillary! or Obama isn't the next president. But just demanding fealty because you supposedly suck less isn't an argument. If that's your big argument-we had no choice-it's really weak. And for the record in the 2000 primary I did vote for Mccain.
If the RNC keeps treating it base as you suggest-treating us like fools- it will die.And given that some RNC people actually think what you say is valid, that might not be the worst outcome. Keep going down this path and we'll even grease it for you. The RNC's bread&butter contributions-wise has always been small businesses. That's off at least 50% as of today, to the point thier clsoing phone banks and firing staff(I've had a few calls in late 2006 that didn't go very nicely; I suspect many other former contributors informed them likewise. Big business-those idiots who would sell us the rope to hang ourselves(as Lenin might say, if youw ant tot talk about calling people socialists)-give to both parties to cover their bets.
If you think this stupidity works, by all means, keep it up. You will be marginalized, not us.

Bugg,
As for the tax cuts and AMT issue, the Bush tax cuts have included adjustments to (though not a repeal of) the AMT. What has happened is that the "threshold" has been increased. The AMT was designed in the late 1960s (or perhaps the early 1970s) as a tax on "the rich." But bracket creep has made it so middle class people who use lots of deductions have been paying. But I don't believe that the Bush tax cuts were meaningless, partially because the AMT has been adjusted to some extent to counteract bracket creep.
Further, you total free traders act like everyone else follows Adam Smith's invisible hand in all their dealings when in fact they do not; they act in their best interest,as we should. So why should America not demand some element of fairness? It all comes down to "fairness" for whom?
If you are a producer of steel, you might want the federal government to protect you from the competition of foreign steel.
If you are a purchaser of steel, you might want the federal government to allow you to purchase steel without high tariffs or import quotas. So, I don't think the word "fairness" really illuminates the issue very well.
I'll put it this way. High import tariffs and import quotas and restrictions have the effect of a nation placing economic sanctions on itself.
Such an economic strategy might help some Americans. But it would make most Americans worse off.
Imagine if we made it illegal to purchase anything from outside the US, including Canadian oil. You're talking economic disaster.
In any case, the Republican party has been a free-trading party going back to Reagan's day. It's the Democrat party, in the pocket of Leftish advocates of forced unionization, that tends to be hostile to competition, including foreign competition. It's free market types who are always looking to rationalize economic decisions and dislike attempts to shield workers and businesses from competition just because there are some votes to be had in doing so. If your big argument is that Bush was still preferable, based on the way he has run this war, I'd say no, a thousand times no. That's fine. But in November of 2004 people who voted for Bush over Kerry knew that Bush had initiated war against Saddam Hussain's Iraq and that the war was difficult. I don't think Peggy Noonan or anyone else can argue that suddenly Bush has changed. Bush basically ran in 2004 as the war candidate while Kerry tried to keep everyone guessing with his "I was for it before I was against it" rhetoric. But just demanding fealty because you supposedly suck less isn't an argument. If that's your big argument-we had no choice-it's really weak. And for the record in the 2000 primary I did vote for Mccain. McCain's views on immigration are nearly identical to those of Bush. Not only that McCain was unhelpful in stopping the Democrats' judicial filibusters. There's a host of other Lefty things McCain has pulled in the last several years.
If the RNC keeps treating it base as you suggest-treating us like fools- it will die.And given that some RNC people actually think what you say is valid, that might not be the worst outcome. Keep going down this path and we'll even grease it for you. I haven't donated to the RNC or any Republican candidate for over a year, not based out of protest, but because I want to pay some bills instead.
As for "going down this path," in the 2008 primaries, Republicans can collectively decide which path they want to go down: the McCain path, the Guiliani path, the Romney path, the Hunter path, the Brownback path.
One path that isn't open in 2008 is the Bush path: he's term limited.
My opinion is that the 2006 Democrat takeover of Congress means that the nation will drift Left whether the next president is a republican or a democrat. So, I actually think we conservatives might, in a perverse sort of way, be better off with a democrat elected in 2008.

AMT has not been adjusted. The tax cuts are in effect meaningless to most people. At the time of it's inception, AMT impacted about 150 very wealthy AMerican. Now it's on the cusp of impacting 30% of Amiercans in the near term. If you're so worried about our economy, what about this revenue stream going to the government for more silly spedning as opposed to keeping it in the economy?
"It all comes down to "fairness" for whom?
If you are a producer of steel, you might want the federal government to protect you from the competition of foreign steel.
If you are a purchaser of steel, you might want the federal government to allow you to purchase steel without high tariffs or import quotas. So, I don't think the word "fairness" really illuminates the issue very well.
I'll put it this way. High import tariffs and import quotas and restrictions have the effect of a nation placing economic sanctions on itself."
Such an economic strategy might help some Americans. But it would make most Americans worse off."
We have the largest market for consumer goods in the world, and it has very few barriers to entry. Again, you green eyeshade types always pretend we're in some college eco textbook perfect world where everyone via Smith's invisible hand allows free movement of good and services. Newsflash-they don't; they act in their own self-interest, often to out detriment, with predatory pricing, loss leading, etc. in attempts to eliminate domesitc production of potential competitors. The Chief Exective shouls set trade policies that best protect the econimic interests of America, not pay homage to an ideal that other countries don't care about.
And as an oilman, why has Bush not made any discernible oil policy? WHy did he not make ANWR and coastal drilling a priority, but spedns what little capital he has on immigration? That isn't just an abdication of responsibility, it shows even when it comes to hisl supposed expertise, the guy is clueless.

Rod, my compliments on owning up to an error of judgment and of the failures of the modern so-called conservative movement. (Linked from Glenn Greenwald)

For all those who would like to read my own defense of economic nationalism as a conservative policy, I've now put it up at my own brand-new blog: http://bravenewworldwatch.blogspot.com To go back to the discussion we were having about the Goldberg column, Bugg: I was hoping Rod would get a chance to comment, but I m afraid I ll just have to try to answer my own question. I think Goldberg is confusing Bush s compassionate conservatism with what Rod now advocates. Goldberg was right in seeing that Buchanan thought compassionate conservatism was a fraud, and in fact it was just code for increasing certain types of entitlement spending, plus increasing regulation of education. Movement conservatives like Goldberg, who consider the slightest restriction on the market socialism , have missed the distinction between big-government conservatism (Bush) and small-government conservatism with certain restrictions on the free market (Buchanan, seemingly Dreher). Instead, they ve proposed a return to Reaganism , criticizing Bush for expanding government from an ultra-libertarian viewpoint, while lumping their enemies together with unpopular figures such as Buchanan. I don t consider myself part of a conservative movement . I don t think social conservatives have ever been offered a major-party candidate who was one of us, so I don t go for the Reagan nostalgia. Because we are a minority, we cannot expect to achieve the goal of returning the country to strict Christian morality through politics, at least not in the short term. When it comes to social issues, we need the monastic option. However, we can work politically with whatever groups will help us achieve goals that are feasible. Free-marketeers could help us achieve the goal of shrinking government, but to me that is not the #1 priority right now.

Bugg,
We have the largest market for consumer goods in the world, and it has very few barriers to entry. Again, you green eyeshade types always pretend we're in some college eco textbook perfect world where everyone via Smith's invisible hand allows free movement of good and services. I agree that wee aren't in "some college eco textbook."
Still, you haven't advanced your argument for import substitution (otherwise known as "trade protectionism" or "economic nationalism") very far at all.
If the US government were to make it illegal for anyone to import anything from outside the United States the result would be economic disaster.
Sure, such policies might lead to "full employment," but they would also lead to lower living standards because the US would be cut off completely from Canadian oil and a host of other items.
In theory at least, the US might be able to create all the resoures it needs to feed itself. But at much higher cost, which would translate into a lower standard of living for Americans.
Now, some advocates of import substitution say to this, "So be it. High living standards don't matter as much as a sense of community." Fine. That's what some believe.
Free market conservatives like me who support low or zero import tariffs prefer that US citizens have access to resources available outside the US.
A businessman who doesn't like competition might support import substitution and, thus, oppose what I am advocating.
Similarly, a businessman who wants to purchase materials from outside the US to help run his business might support my views on import tariffs and oppose your views.
People other than college economics professors and economics textbook makers have opinions on import tariffs.
Great Britain hasn't grown enough food to feed itself for over a century. Instead, British workers do things other than agriculture and import food from Canada, the US, Brazil, France and elsewhere.
If Great Britain were to make it illegal to import food from outside Great Britain, food prices would skyrocket and only British farmers and owners of large amounts of real estate would benefit.

Angel- No sooner do you post that you fall back into your eco textbook Invisible Hand Fantasyland.Break out the Guns&Butter graph, shall you?You must be a creampuff in any negotiation.
No one is saying put huge tariffs on imported goods. Just that when countries like China and Japan or any where make selling their consumer goods in our markets a priority, we should get some reciprication, even if it's relatively marginal. There's no such thing as total free trade; pelase get that nthrough your head, if you come away with nothing else. No one is saying that we should make anything illegal or court some disasterous protectionist policies, merely seek some equity in business dealsings.
Countries have interests which leaders should do their best to protect. And especially so when faced with an adversary looking out for it's own interests. If all we are as a country is a slave to the lowest price for good and services, we aren't much of a country at all.

Bugg,
No one is saying that we should make anything illegal or court some disasterous protectionist policies, merely seek some equity in business dealsings. Sounds like high import tariffs, which I oppose.
All that does is bilk the US citizen and US business.
A US chocolate maker has to pay outrageous prices for sugar because the US sugar lobby has made it difficult, if not impossible, for US chocolate makers to buy sugar from the Central America.
This trade protectionism is a gambit designed to "protect American jobs." But the result is that the US chocolate maker loses business to Belgian chocolate makers because the Belgian chocolate makers can purchase sugar from Central America.
Big brother government on import tariffs is no better than big brother government on a host of other issues.

Kinda missed where it says in the Constitution the USA is required to to place the highest value on total open trade regardless of how it impacts on our own people and industry. Nor is the Constitution some economic suicide pact. This would be news to both the Federalists and the Jeffersonians.
"The US should enact open trade policies, period. It should not resolve only to have an open trade policy when China or Japan decides to do the same." You, my dear Angel, are living in your own private Idaho. And one without much jobs and industry, but which I suspect has no problem calling Bangalore or Manila when your new printer, produced in a different 3rd world dump on the cheap, sucks.

Bugg,
but which I suspect has no problem calling Bangalore or Manila when your new printer, produced in a different 3rd world dump on the cheap, sucks. If I get bad service from one company, I have the right to consider alternative companies.
Low or zero import tariffs do not force anyone to buy anything. Low or zero import tariffs simply lower the cost, making things more affordable for US citizens and US businesses.
Tell the US chocolate maker how great import substitution is as he loses business to Belgium because Belgium allows its businesses to buy Carribean sugar while the US makes it nearly impossible for the US business to buy Carribean sugar. So, the US business is forced to pay 3 to 5 times the world market price for sugar so the sugar farmers in Florida and Louisiana can sell their product without competition from the Carribean.
Unfortunately, when trade policies are negotiated, sugar is often left out of the trade deal because the sugar lobby is so powerful in the US.

"The free marketeers get no credibility with me. They continue to lie most times their lips move. So long as trade is politicized, there can be no such thing as free trade; I cannot find a more oxymoronic phrase than "free trade zone"." If all we are about is as per Angel a never-ending search for the cheapest price for good and services, consequences to our fellow man be damned, we woud be totally soulless.

You mean Bush isn't one of us?
It was so hard to tell when he put up protectionist measures for steel and farming, passed the prescription drug benefit, increased the size of government and started spending like a drunken sailor on shore leave, and simply *forgot* that 9/11 was Bin Laden's baby. This isn't revisionist history for ALL of us. I didn't like him then, I don't like him now. He's was then and remains an idiot. The Original RINO.