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.
well stated.
Do you have a link for that number, or any data to back anything in your statement up?
Or are you just uttering an uneducated personal opinion and pretending it's a fact?
Agreed.
The President and the Congressional GOP have advanced an agenda that is consistent with big government Republicanism. The tax cuts were great, but federal spending on domestic social programs over the last 4-1/2 years has gone through the roof. The conservative agenda has taken a back seat. This President doesn't believe in limited government and his veto record proves it.
Only small minds insist on "the cause" for the war or "the reason" for going to war.
There are many reasons, all totalling together that made the Iraq operation necessary and wise.
That's the first ad hominem in this thread.
I often think that half the ordinary people I meet day to day would make better Congressmen that the professionals.
People like the guy who backhoed our septic tank, the nice couple down the street who helped cut some fire wood, the lady we used to get fresh cows' milk from, and last but not least, you and me.
If you read carefully instead of seeing what you want, you would have noticed that I support the war for different reasons than those that were given to the American public.
Read before you write.
"This is not an 'ad hominem' attack, nor is it 'name calling.' It is YOU who offered no argument."
Um, I posted the article and I was referring to his ad hominem attack on the author. He didn't refute the article or any of the points therein, he simply threw out a few cheap shots.
The guy is right on about the domestic agenda. To increase the size and scope of the Federal government during wartime is unprecedented. Bad ideas keep getting passed with the Medicare prescription bill being at the top of the list. Good ideas like Social Security private accounts fall by the wayside. Even the energy bill was so pork-laden that I'm not sure it was worth passing in its current form. Add in fumbling away the ball on illegal immigration. Yes, the domestic agenda has been a disaster.
But, I do take issue with his over-simplistic take on the WOT. Iraq and Afghanistan were the right thing to do both politically and strategically. Pakistan is going to be a problem, but we were in a position where we needed a friend in the region. Iran may or may not take care of itself, and it's worth the risk to wait and see. North Korea is a potential tinderbox. We have the responsibility to protect South Korea and the Chinese just waiting for an excuse to go in. Combine that with Russian, French and German sabotage and I think that the Bush team has done a creditable job.
Most of these people who are attempting to compare the fiscal conservatism of Bush43 with Reagan must have been asleep during the 1980`s. I've always said, Bush43 can be very Reaganesque, but he is far from Reagan-like.
Not only did Reagan enter office facing the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression, the US military was in bad shap and unprepared to defend the American people, the US was disrespected throughout the world and liberalism continued to make significant advances. Reagan was also faced with communism, the Cold War and a danbgerous superpower in the USSR.
Reagan's record as President speaks for itself. I suggest these revisionists take the time and check out "THE REAL REAGAN RECORD".
Who's referring to you? I'm referring to the article's author. Is that you?
Read before you write.
"The purpose of the Senate is to be a brake acting on the rapidly moving House of Representatives and the Executive. The Senate is intended to prevent things from getting done in a rash manner out of pure political expedience, that is why Senators sit longer in power per term than the president."
Unfortunately, that school of thought was thrown out when it was allowed to have senators popularly elected. They are nothing but political now, moreso in that instead of being representation for their respective states, they view themselves as a House of Lords.
But in reading through the thread, I see that you call many differences of opinion 'ad hominem attacks,' so it's not surprising that you did this one as well.
If you're going to post articles, perhaps you should develop a thicker skin, or a more refined ability to articulate your viewpoint.
SORLF, IT WAS MY OBSERVATION THAT THOSE GENETICALLY SUPERIOR TOMATOES SEEM TO HAVE PLAYED AN IMPORTANT ROLE TOO.
THE POSTER STATED NOTHING.
Amazing OWF, I don't post one word of profanity, but just my opinion that UCLA law professor Bainbridge sounds like cindy sheehan and michael moore with his rhetoric, sounds off atomic alarm bells amongst the ultracons.
Complete non-sequitur. Are you having a stroke?
It is YOU who stated nothing (other than whining, that is).
btw, I've seen a few personal attacks by a certain Dr. Marten on this thread. Good for the goose?
Well, your opinion isn't worth much when you have to result to childish personal attacks. I dare you to take your lickspittle comments to his blog...unless of course you're afraid to defend your ridiculous remarks...
This exchange in post 13 is interesting. You state, unemotionally and without an attack of any sort, your opinion that the author's opinion is shared by the Cindy and Mike show (which it is), and he calls you "childish," and your comments, "lickspittle," and "ridiculous."
If I didn't see it before my own eyes, I would say that no one could be that blind to his own faults while attacking another for what didn't occur.....
"Have we really set the stage for a durable conservative majority?"
Y'all are arguing over the petty stuff. This is the most important point in the whole post. The answer, of course, is "NO" - does anyone want to posit to the contrary?
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.