Tuesday, February 28, 2006
What Was Buckley Thinking?
But more importantly - Why are Dadmanly and Blackfive both so deferential to him? Both have written excellent refutions to Buckley's declaration of failure in Iraq in National Review, but they write with a timidity and apology unworthy of their excellent blogging history. My opinion, when you're wrong, you're wrong, even if you're a conservative icon. Maybe even because you are a conservative icon.
I think Buckley's oppostion to our actions in Iraq are rooted more in his opposition to "compassionate conservatism" than anything having to do with Iraq itself. There is an ever-growing strain of displeasure with the domestic policy of George W. Bush amongst hardcore conservatives. It surfaced loudly in the nomination of Harriet Miers for SCOTUS, and it rears its head routinely in pieces we see on the growing deficit and other "financial woes" of the government. It was only a matter of time before it leaked over into the prosecution of the GWOT and Iraq in particular. After all, that is the lynchpin of Bush's political power, if you want to rob him of that power for the domestic agenda, you are going to have to tackle the lynchpin.
The reason the Democrats keep coming back, despite their continued drift into lunacy, is because we keep in-fighting and letting them in instead of guarding the gates. Will we ever learn?
More importantly, the pork-laden government we are experiencing is the government people want. I learned that lesson under the worshipped-more-than-even-Buckley Ronald Reagan, whose deficits were astronomical. There are limits to how much anyone can govern contrary to the will of the people and the mark of a good President is knowing where that line is. This current one seems to know that line pretty well.
Do I agree with everything Bush has done? Oh no, of course not. But he is a whole lot better than the alternatives, and I don't think a truly hardcore conservative is electable.
Mr. Buckley would be better served figuriong out how to make things work right instead of telling us where thay are wrong.
Related Tags: William F Buckley, Iraq, George W Buch, Dadmanly, Blackfive, failure, GWOT
I think Buckley's oppostion to our actions in Iraq are rooted more in his opposition to "compassionate conservatism" than anything having to do with Iraq itself. There is an ever-growing strain of displeasure with the domestic policy of George W. Bush amongst hardcore conservatives. It surfaced loudly in the nomination of Harriet Miers for SCOTUS, and it rears its head routinely in pieces we see on the growing deficit and other "financial woes" of the government. It was only a matter of time before it leaked over into the prosecution of the GWOT and Iraq in particular. After all, that is the lynchpin of Bush's political power, if you want to rob him of that power for the domestic agenda, you are going to have to tackle the lynchpin.
The reason the Democrats keep coming back, despite their continued drift into lunacy, is because we keep in-fighting and letting them in instead of guarding the gates. Will we ever learn?
More importantly, the pork-laden government we are experiencing is the government people want. I learned that lesson under the worshipped-more-than-even-Buckley Ronald Reagan, whose deficits were astronomical. There are limits to how much anyone can govern contrary to the will of the people and the mark of a good President is knowing where that line is. This current one seems to know that line pretty well.
Do I agree with everything Bush has done? Oh no, of course not. But he is a whole lot better than the alternatives, and I don't think a truly hardcore conservative is electable.
Mr. Buckley would be better served figuriong out how to make things work right instead of telling us where thay are wrong.
Related Tags: William F Buckley, Iraq, George W Buch, Dadmanly, Blackfive, failure, GWOT
