The Enemy of My Enemy or, How I Learned to Quit Worrying and Love the Gipper
tee bee
Byron York notes, tongue in cheek, that Salon is finally out of the closet: they do love Reagan, after all.
The online magazine Salon displays a heretofore unseen reverence for conservative ideals and the Reagan legacy:
Join Salon Premium today and receive a free copy of Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy.
In this new expose, conservative economist Bruce Bartlett depicts a White House obsessed with secrecy and terrified of upsetting the boss with bad news.
Fired from a think tank for diverging from the party line, Bartlett writes that "Bush is more like Richard Nixon -- a man who used the right to pursue his agenda, but was never really part of it. In short, he is an impostor..."
Written by a self-described Reaganite, Impostor makes the case that Bush is an "unprincipled opportunist" who "creates a cult of personality."
I don't find much Reagan-lovin' in there, but I do see a whole, fat, happy lot of Bush bashin'.
posted by Jane Bellwether @ 5:56 PM
11 comments
11 Comments:
Since he's dead now, I guess they figure it's OK to admire him.
I know I'm not admirable while alive.
(I prob'ly won't be dead, either...)
More like any tool looks like a hammer if they can use it to bash the errant Shrub...
It doesn't even make sense, which wasn't a problem for the Slate crew:
Fired from a think tank for diverging from the party line, Bartlett writes that "Bush is more like Richard Nixon -- a man who used the right to pursue his agenda, but was never really part of it. In short, he is an impostor..."
The think tank fires him, and it's a Bush conspiracy?
Did the voters not vote for Bush so he could "pursue his agenda"? Whose agenda should he pursue?
Since neither of these actually prove anything, how do we arrive at Bush being an imposter?
I can't believe I used to read Bartlett. He seems to have gone off the deep end.
I know. It has become fashionable in certain circles to hate Bush.
It was fashionable in certain circles to hate Reagan when he was in power too, and now the same people want to canonize him. It makes me sick. We always feast on our own.
Why can't these people get a f**king grip? Politics is a dirty business. We want leaders, but we love to diss the ones we elect and as soon as we scent blood in the water the feeding frenzy begins. Viewed up close, there is always a fleck of mold on the grape. Get over it folks. You want the goddamned job, you run for it and see how well you do.
It always looks so easy when you're the wise guy in the Barcolounger.
Yeah, I'm disgusted in case anyone is wondering. Really disgusted.
If Bush has promoted the idea that he is the new Reagan, then he is in fact an imposter. I don't know that he has done so though.
Is it still alright, I think, for a conservative to complain that Bush being not "conservative." Bush is subject to criticism for his policies. He is spending us to death on domestic matters, he is not fighting growth of government, he does have a predisposition against open government, he is holding American citizens arrested on American soil without trial or charges, his attorney general is fighting the states on Federalism principals at every turn, he signed McCain-Feingold, and except for his tax and WOT policies, I wish I could have any number of other Republicans, and even a few (very few) Democrats in his place.
It isn't always about smelling blood or just bashing our leaders. I liked Reagan when he was President, and I support Bush on the most important issue of our day. But he is not helping government overall. He is fighting the most important fight, and he is to be commended. That doesn't insulate him from criticism on the many issues I disagree.
Bush is not a conservative on MOST issues, even if he is conservative on the issues he talks about the most.
KJ, I agree.
Nonetheless, Bartlett's false charges - of Bush claiming to be Reaganesque while really being another Tricky Dick - and using Salon for a mouthpiece aren't about the criticism that Dubya needs to start responding to.
Is Bush the real neo-con, as in "talks conservative, acts liberal, and gets enough votes from both sides to be elected"?
Is that what Bartlett should really be writing about?
Would Salon or any other MSM outlet bother with Bartlett if he did?
Reagan wasn't that conservative either on a whole slew of issues.
He had the Republican right up in arms against him for that reason. All you have to do is dig up some old National Review articles and read all about it. I believe I wrote about this once...
Sigh. I'm tired of arguing this. It gets old.
If Bush would just go ahead and die (or better yet get assassinated) the idiots at NRO could go ahead and start with the beatification process. Just like before the election they were all villifying him then after he was a fricking genius, now they all hate his guts again.
Make up your mind. They guy has essentially done what he said he would do. Compassionate conservatism.. hmm...doesn't exactly sound like Newt Gingrich's Rethug revolution does it? Unless of course you were snoozing or on drugs during the election.
The education and Rx bill. Ummm... I seem to remember him campaigning on those issues and...presto! What a surprise. Not exactly a "read my lips" moment either.
Oh, and look at the disastrous SCOTUS we have. And thank God our Congress is going to free us from the horrid clutches of a Dubai port TERMINAL management so we can have SINGAPORE for God's sake or some other f-ing Muslim terrorist-free place managing our ports...with the added benefit that we will now have thorooughly pissed off the UAE, the only Arab nation that was really helping us in the GWOT and the one that was porting more Navy ships than any other.
Gee. How will our guys get home now? Walk? Good question. Maybe (*&^ SINGAPORE can levitate their butts out of the ME when the war is over.
I hope so.
In case you're wondering, I'm still disgusted.
Cass,
I never claimed Bush lied about his liberal stupid policies like the drug benefit plan or his education bill. I just held my nose and voted for him anyway. I made up my mind a long time ago on him. He was the best WOT candidate, and that was my only issue of concern.
But if it is alright with you, I am going to complain about his big government, expensive, and frankly looney liberalness on those other issues till I'm blue in the face.
Reagan's liberalness, where it upset the religious right, was at least libertarian leaning liberalness. Bush's liberalness is just big government intrusion liberalness. There is no redeming aspect to that at all.
If he wants to be just the war president, fine. Then he should quit introducing and signing awful, expensive, anti-federalist and anti-first amendment domestic legislation that Scalia and Thomas have to vote to overturn, but only in dissent. Otherwise, he gets judged on it all.
I haven't called him a liar. I haven't called him Hitler. I haven't called into question his motives. I haven't called him stupid or an evil genius. I opposed his positions on those issues when he ran on them; I oppose them now. Conservative leaners, especially Conservatives as opposed to "Republicans," don't have pat Bush on the back all the time. He doesn't deserve it from those who apply their principles of government consistently. Just like we point out when Kerry all of a sudden claims to care about national security.
And that is fair.
KJ, that wasn't aimed at you, OK?
I will respond later, right now I'm ... processing a gnu drawing.
Cass,
Not aimed at me? That is impossible. The world revolves around me.
I'm betting your gnu drawing says you have some denial issues.
Yes dear. Of course it does :)
No, I just need to stop reading the Corner.
Post a Comment
<< Home