It's not easy being a conservative these days. In fact, it's downright frustrating. The Republican Congress paid the price for its ineptitude and corruption, and was replaced by a Democratic Congress that is hardly less corrupt and is arguably more (read William Jefferson and Dianne Feinstein and Alan Mollohan as but three examples). But that frustration is over, far as I'm concerned, because the other party is large and in charge.
My current main frustration is with George W. Bush, not just because he hasn't governed as a conservative, but also because of his goddawful personnel decisions. Who can forget Mike "heckuva job" Brown. Not all of the problems from the Katrina aftermath can be laid at his feet (as I noted in my At All Levels post), but the tragic events in New Orleans clearly revealed that he was unqualified for the job.
I'm still frustrated that George W. Bush appointed a mystery date crony to the Supreme Court (as I wrote about here) before succumbing to a conservative revolt which resulted in the better-qualified Alito. For me, this mess remains a blot on Bush's judgment.
I'm frustrated that George W. Bush didn't accept Donald Rumsfeld's resignation in late 2004, after the election. To me, it is clear that we made major mistakes under Rumsfeld's watch. We were undermanned after major combat operations were finished, which led to chaos. The chaos led to the birth of an insurgency, a growing al Qaeda terrorist movement, and the emergence of an Islamist Shiite radical in al-Sadr. Rumsfeld and his generals failed to respond quickly enough to the insurgency, leading to more problems. Once the insurgency was finally recognized and acknowledged by the upper echelons, we failed to execute a proper comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy. These events led me to join the ranks of the Dissatisfieds. Our half-baked strategy led to the unwarranted deaths in Haditha, in my opinion, not to mention countless others.
It took a blown election last November for President Bush to get off his ass and make the hard decision to hire someone who has a workable strategy for turning Iraq around. General Petraeus is the right man for the job, but he should've been running the show two years ago when our chances for success were so much better.
I'm frustrated that Karl Rove is still advising the president. His political strategy helped get Bush reelected, but it hasn't gotten his approval numbers above 40%, thus hamstringing his ability to put forward any meaningful initiatives. I wrote about this a year ago, and little has changed, and even Robert Novak has remarked on Bush's lack of communication and outreach. Although the addition of Tony Snow has helped (BTW, prayers for a complete and speedy recovery), Bush and his administration are still horrible at communicating to the American people and the world.
I'm frustrated that Alberto Gonzales is still US Attorney General. If Bush won't listen to me, then perhaps he should bend his ear to National Review. The US Attorney firings were inexcusably mishandled, and Gonzales still can't reconcile his false statements (at least, that's how they look) that he was out of the loop (Captain Ed explains it well). US Attorneys serve--and can be removed--at the president's pleasure. Bush doesn't need a reason to fire them, although a little reasoning doesn't hurt. The troubling part of it is that the proposal to fire the Fired Eight occurred in early 2005, but wasn't acted upon until after the Patriot Act was modified, when an important check-and-balance was removed.
Added to the US Attorney firings are the violations of the Patriot Act. Sure, Robert Mueller took it like a man and accepted responsibility, but why didn't the Gonzales-led Justice Department be more diligent in monitoring the goings on? National security letters are a hot-button issue, and it's only too obvious that liberals and Democrats would jump on the violations when they became known, and rightfully so.
Because of all this, I've basically lost confidence in the president. The only Bush administration issues I really care about are Iraq* and the economy, mainly that neither major issue get too futzed up over the remaining lame-duck term.
On a personal blogging level, I'm also frustrated. At Obsidian Wings, it becomes wearing--sometimes too wearing--when the liberal/conservative ratio is consistently around 40-to-1. There's no backup from the ranks, which means I'm usually the only out there defending my point of view. It gets to be a lonely job sometimes, and the tone and tenor from the commenters has worsened over time. Recently, I severed ties with my "hate" site when it became clear to me that one of its editors was not acting in good faith, and that has also left a bad taste in my mouth. I enjoy the comments from the more thoughtful commenters, but the hardliners (and there is no small number of them) are a pain in the caboose.
I'm also frustrated with Redstate, and perhaps the directors are a little frustrated with me, too. I didn't make any friends with my Answers Needed post, regarding the plagiarism charges against Ben Domenech, but I thought it needed to be said and I said it with the best interests of the site in mind.
I became further alienated from the directors last September when I called for Rumsfeld's removal. There are several on the board who remain dazzled by Rumsfeld, and there is no seeming end to their defense of this failed Defense Secretary. Redstate is still a conservative site, and there needs to be a political blog which will defend Bush from the excesses of the Left, but it also should be a place where constructive criticism can made of the administration and its actions. To me, the site has fallen short of the latter. The GOP is a big tent party, but I find myself too often outside the smaller tent of Redstate. Because of this, I'm sort of a man without country. At least, that's how it feels.
Also, too many comment threads at Redstate are substandard. Say what you want about the Left, but they are a chatty bunch and they oftentimes invigorate debate, wrong as their positions are ;). In my opinion, the Redstate keyholders are too trigger-happy with banning commenters. Yes, there are quite a few trolls and quite a few stupid and inflammatory comments from left-wingers but, to me, the way to answer stupid-inflammatory speech is with reason and common sense and civility, not censorship. Some bannings are well-earned, I'll grant you, but I think the editors have gone too far too often.
Which leads me to here. So, if it's OK by you all, I think I'll pull up a chair and come back to my roots for a while. I don't plan to resign from ObWi or Redstate, but the motivation to post new material at either place has ebbed, partly because of my own schedule, but also because I'd rather not be so frustrated.
* Actually, I'm supporting Petraeus and his plan. By extension, I'm supporting Bush's support of Petraeus, not Bush per se.
--
Sucking and ruining since October 2003.
I'm not frustrated at all
(#37219)must be the Coors Light.
"We should not tie the hands of law enforcement in the effort to bring these terrorists to justice"- Leon E. Panetta
THAT'S frustration personified... :)
(#37245)The K Codes explained HERE.
Heh
(#37248)my girlfriend isn't much of a fan for it either. While it doesn't taste much different than the others, most of the time (for whatever reason) it doesn't leave a hangover.
"We should not tie the hands of law enforcement in the effort to bring these terrorists to justice"- Leon E. Panetta
That's because it's carbonated water nt
(#37257)I blame it all on the Internet
And because according to an old friend who's a big time
(#37269)beer fan (as I am not...) it has a secret chemical additive that enables it to bypass the kidneys and go directly to the bladder where it magically doubles in volume. :)
The K Codes explained HERE.
General comment
(#37187)I appreciate all the "welcome back" comments, and all others as well.
"...I ended the war in Iraq."
--Barack Obama, October 2012
Most excellent
(#37176)to cruise by tonight and see your byline of the front page, BD.
Welcome back.
Comedy Gold
(#37175)"replaced by a Democratic Congress that is hardly less corrupt"
That is funny stuff. Good read. I haven't laughed so hard in years. I laughed until I cried. It was better than Cats.
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
Bird Dog For Moderator!
(#37160)[Scott looks longingly at the "Civilians Only" entrance to The Forvm and tries to look innocent]
. . .and Don Mattingly must be fired (bye Ned--don't let the door hit you in the @$$ on the way out!).
Welcome, BD
(#37125)Vote out all incumbents, either party, both suck and are ruining this country!!!
(and I share almost all your frustrations)
The K Codes explained HERE.
In this context, this essay from 1997
(#37124)is remarkable
Excerpts:
and this:
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
Welcome back, BD
(#37109)Hopefully, it will be a sort of relief to you to do your blogposting at a site where you don't catch heat from the commentariat for being the Infidel (as at ObWings), or as the Heretic (a la RedState).
And anyway, fwiw, I think your posts have slowly-but-steadily improved over time since the early suck-and-ruin days at Tacitus - just try to keep a lid on the more risible Birdisms* and I think you'll find The Forvm a much more congenial venue (just step around the occasional bloodstain on the pavement).
* e.g. "democratsunami" - that one was a washout, huh?
Excellent!
(#37106)I am happy to see you here! While I don't always agree with you your posts are well structured and thought out. It's nice to have you contributing again.
Believe it or not, I feel your pain.
(#37097)I've often said that there really isn't a Party for principled conservatives; the Democratic Party is trending Progressive as the Southern leadership is replaced by Western and Pacific leadership, so there are real ideological barriers. Meanwhile, the Republican Party has become institutionally corrupt; no organization which was genuinely governance-oriented would have reacted well to George W. Bush's candidacy or Karl Rove's move from political to policy advisor. The USA scandal is something of a Grand Unifying Theory of Republican corruption, and I honestly hope that it catches most of the Administration and the Republican Congressional leadership, if only because it would allow the Party as an institution to clean house.
What is there to do? I really don't know. When the Democratic Party began defaulting on its values after Bush's election, we as Progressives had insurgent candidates and some lucky electoral losses (Daschle in particular) which allowed us to capture Party leadership (in Dean) and then to find Congressional leadership (in Pelosi, and to a lesser extent Reid) which viewed us as an asset worth managing, rather than as a threat. I can't see any equivalent movement within the Republican Party, though I freely admit to a lesser understanding of that institution.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
Your Take on This Administration
(#37095)is an almost perfect replica of mine, particularly as it relates to Donald Rumsfeld. If it were possible to sue a man for public service malpractice, I'd offer to serve as named plaintiff against him on behalf of the class consisting of anyone with a damn brain. More broadly, political obeisance ought to serve intellectual and moral objectives; it is not an end in itself. The ability to recognize that is a mark of sanity. In the current environment far, far too many -- and far too many Republicans -- seem unable to draw the distinction.
Welcome back.
That's how it is on this bitch of an earth.
Hmmm . . .
(#37087)By the GOP metric de jour I'd say you are now officially a leftie.
Welcome.
= = =
A quote from the link:
another quote
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
I'd rather read Brooks directly than...
(#37092)...Greenwald's spin on what Brooks wrote. I don't subscribe to the Times, so I can't read Brooks. After Greenwald wrote the following, I can't take what he says at face value or in good faith: "I don’t think I’ve done anything to lead anyone to expect otherwise. I see the Bush movement and its various component parts as a plague and a threat, as anything but well-intentioned. My goal, politically speaking, is to do what I can to undermine it and the institutions that have both supported and enabled it."
"...I ended the war in Iraq."
--Barack Obama, October 2012
I was really interested in how you would finish that sentence
(#37385)Everything I'd finish it with would involve intense physical agony and permanent organ damage, at a minimum.
Welcome back, by the way.
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
You quote Greenwald
(#37115)Thusly,
but if the Bush-ian GOP truly believes that it is security which leads to freedom (here is a Brooks quote):
then, anyone who is a true American patriot (recall Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty or give me death")
MUST oppose the Bush-ian "security = freedom" meme.
How is Greenwald wrong on this point?
= = =
The Brooks' reference to child psychology also is creepy. Do the Bush-ian GOP-ers see government as something that should be like our fathers?
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
Greenwald is not translating Brooks
(#37100)He's making his own point and using a quotation from Brooks to illustrate it.
Both Brooks and Greenwald are opinion columnists. Nothing that either writes is meant to be taken as gospel or considered as a fact source to be cited; rather, each writer writes opinions which should be evaluated on their own merit and not on the merit of their author.
To dismiss Greenwald's ideas because they come from Greenwald is the good old ad hominem fallacy in a nutshell. Of course makes sense for you to come to a general conclusion about the value of Greenwald's ideas and way of thinking and then to make a personal decision as to whether or not you would choose to read Greenwald on your own. But when someone else puts forth Greenwald's ideas, it's simply not meaningful to suggest that they should be rejected because of their source.
No one's ideas or opinions should be taken at face value. Everyone's ideas should be taken for what they're worth.
Some ad hom, agreed
(#37104)Nevertheless, I'd rather read the entire source rather than snippets and Greenwald's interpretations of those snippets. He has a habit of taking bits of information out of context, and then overgeneralizing to the point of smearing the ideology.
Actually, Harley did point me over to Sullivan, who does a better and less hyperbolic job than Greenwald. All I can say is that Brooks doesn't speak for this conservative, nor a whole host of others. It hasn't happened often lately, but this time I fully agree with Sullivan. I generally like Brooks' stuff, but not this. He's way off. We lost last November because we went off the Reagan reservation and because the Republican Congress became the entity that Gingrich railed against in 1994.
"...I ended the war in Iraq."
--Barack Obama, October 2012
Sullivan wrote this
(#37118)Maybe less hyperbolic that Greenwald, but in essence the same point.
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
Better and less hyperbolic
(#37105)I obeyed Harley's implicit command as well, and I had an entirely different reaction. I thought Sullivan was out to lunch--but NOT because he's Sullivan. . . . :)
As for Brooks, I rarely care for what he says, and not much more this time.
Fair Enuf
(#37096)Check out Sullivan's fisking, which includes the op-ed itself. His point is that Brooks is deeply wrong about what ails conservatism, and, in a post he just put up, links to old Brooks and Kristol pieces that 'paved the way' for the Bush catastrophe.
And yes, Sullivan clearly sees this as a battle for what he considers the soul of the movement.
“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco
Not to plug my blog
(#37166)Oh, okay I'm plugging my blog but Sullivan quoted an email I sent him so here I respond to his response.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
Greenwald is one sharp cookie
(#37089)And that's one sharp sweetmeat of an essay. Little in the part you quote that I would pick any sort of bone with. (Although I wouldn't call the warmongering "mindless": just dumb.)
More Here
(#37091)First, a former JOD official remembers:
I spent more than 35 years in the department enforcing federal civil rights laws — particularly voting rights. Before leaving in 2005, I worked for attorneys general with dramatically different political philosophies — from John Mitchell to Ed Meese to Janet Reno. Regardless of the administration, the political appointees had respect for the experience and judgment of longtime civil servants.
Under the Bush administration, however, all that changed. Over the last six years, this Justice Department has ignored the advice of its staff and skewed aspects of law enforcement in ways that clearly were intended to influence the outcome of elections.
More, here.
Then there's Sullivan's fisking of the Brooks op-ed that led to Greenwald's piece in the first place. Here.
There will be more, I'm sure. The floodgates have more or less opened.
“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco
Remember when the right-ie blog-o-sphere
(#37120)suddenly realized that Sullivan was a leftie?
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
Remember when Sullivan
(#37182)suddenly realized that the Republican Party was antigay?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again -- Sullivan's whole schtick is that he wants white male privilege to be extended to gays. That's why he's such a fascinating dancing bear, because we all get to watch as he endures disprilege because of his sexual orientation and, over and over, fails to come to the conclusion that privilege isn't a great idea, just that it'd be teh awesome if he could be let in on it.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
What ever happened to wanting a balanced budget?
(#37370)I'm generally a social liberal but a fiscal conservative.
I think it'd be morally wrong to hand my kids my debt.
Hey, not going to argue.
(#37397)I mean, I'm willing to fudge a bit for business cycle and demographic reasons, but yeah, fundamentally, to spend is to tax, either now or later.
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
Is it really?
(#37080)Actually, I'm supporting Petraeus and his plan.
It's not his plan. He's going with what the political guys offered him and that's fair enough. Who wouldn't want a fourth star?
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
Well, yes, I think so
(#37086)The strategy in Petraeus' counterinsurgency manual (published in mid-2006) is consistent with what he's doing on the ground today. He's embedding more US personnel into Iraqi patrols, he's focusing on clearing and holding Baghdad (the oil-spot strategy), and he's getting troops out of forward operating bases and onto the streets. There's quite a bit more to do, such as working on the Information War (see here and here), but it looks to me like he's trying to put his doctrine into practice as quickly as possible. McCaffrey's latest report illustrates the steps being taken. The "surge" is only a small part of it. Of course, none of this could work without al Maliki's full cooperation and commitment.
"...I ended the war in Iraq."
--Barack Obama, October 2012
Not exactly
(#37093)In the manual you cite Petraeus specifies a 20:1 troops to civilian ratio when fighting a counterinsurgency. That is not foreseen in Baghdad, let alone the rest of the country.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
The numbers
(#37102)I've heard a range of numbers, and 21,000 is at the low end. I wish we deployed twice as many more, but there are parts of the country where we don't need US forces such as Kurdistan and the southern provinces. Fallujah is predominantly handled by Iraqis--as are other burgs in Anbar, with US advisers in MTT (military transition team) roles. In Baghdad, there are five or so hot spots where more security and checkpoints are needed. Other parts of the city aren't in so bad shape. Also, the troop-civilian ratio should include IA and IP personnel. The bottom line is, I don't know if 21,000 is going to be enough because a lot of it depends on other factors such as politics and whether or not the Sadrists decide to get militant.
"...I ended the war in Iraq."
--Barack Obama, October 2012
Slartibartfast
(#37077)per your wondering in the Hate Site post, was a regular on Tacitus 1.0 back in 2002, as I recall. I could be wrong, but I remember joshing him about the fjords of Norway on at least one occasion. No way to check now, those archives were deleted long ago I imagine.
It's good to have you back around -- seems you've had about the best blogger's education no money can buy, and the evolution shows in your thinking and your writing.
On to business.
Bush. A fundamentally unserious leader whose very good personal qualities do not translate in any way to communication skills or competence in policy. He sticks by his people and sticks to his values: both good traits in a leader. But he sticks by the wrong people and when the real world doesn't match his values he simply ignores it. What many people took for strength of character was really just tunnel vision.
Frustration. A lot of us have been frustrated since 2002 (or earlier), and not necessarily for partisan reasons, although a policy's flaws do tend to jump out at you when you're kind of hoping they're there. But I'm frustrated with the Democrats too. More and more it seems their sole policy objective is not-Bush, just as the new Bush administration's sole policy objective was not-Clinton. The Dem house is tearing itself apart over the question, not what should become of Iraq, but how far to distance themselves from Bush and his war. The consequences of pulling out of Iraq, for US foreign policy, is an issue that seems to be barely on the radar. Timelines, deadlines, and full withdrawals are all just different ways of leaving the scene of the crash we caused over there. The Democrats act like they can just put the consequences of taking a powder on Bush's bill. Partisan politics is dictating foreign policy to what I think is an unprecedented degree (I know Ken White is going to slap this idea down, but so be it). At the same time, there are a lot of good ideas percolating around, on both sides of the aisle; all that's missing are some grownups to seize those ideas and put them to work.
Meanwhile in Iraq, according to majority opinion, the Pentagon has finally figured out that it is fighting a counterinsurgency campaign, and has started making changes accordingly. Unfortunately, this comes at exactly the moment when public opinion has turned resoundingly against the war, and political interference from home is likely to derail the first smart thing the Army has done in decades (exaggerating).
As someone who was fiercely against the war from the beginning, I wouldn't qualify as one of the Dissatisfieds. However, I can wholeheartedly support any serious foreign policy that aims at making the best out of a bad situation and continuing the War on Terror in a more effective way.
"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes
Senate passes a March 2008 withdrawal deadline
(#37079)in its emergency spending bill. Right on cue.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/washington/29cnd-congress.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
"Hell is truth seen too late." --Thomas Hobbes
welcome!
(#37076)IMO you're just what the Doc. ordered.
... your 'severed ties' link is something of a history of the blog-o-sphere. Wasn't payin attention back then.
Anyway, you describe a more intemperate BD at the old tacitus than existed at Obwi. However, I recall a few intemperate posts at obwi that got called to our attention here, one which you retracted on reflection.
Just wanted to encourage the trend towards less inflammatory postin'. From what I've observed, there's other ways to provoke discussion 'round these parts...
With that small caveat, again, glad to see you pull up a chair!
I wasn't here in your early days
(#37075)But please stick around
Welcome Back, Again
(#37072)We're lucky to have you. As for Rove, we agree (I think). The strategy that got Bush elected is the same one that is tearing his admin. apart. And his political party too. Rove either doesn't know the difference, or is simply sticking to what worked in the past.
'Cept it ain't working any more.
Frank Luntz, who looks at this stuff as marketing and will probably burn in Hell as a result, nonetheless put it this way in a recent Vanity Fair article:
The brand isn't just sick, it's dead. The GOP is cracking up.
“Two clichés make us laugh but a hundred clichés move us, because we sense dimly that the clichés are talking among themselves, celebrating a reunion." - Umberto Eco
We sort've do agree
(#37078)Rove was an asset to Bush in 2000 and 2004 on the campaign trails, but he's been a liability in the other years when it came to governing. I'll be checking out the VF piece.
"...I ended the war in Iraq."
--Barack Obama, October 2012
Rove is a one-trick pony:
(#37168)"Play to the Base" is the only thing he knows. The trick worked in 2000, '02 and '04, but crapped out in 2006, and never worked as a governing strategy.
"I've been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)
Cool
(#37067)There's not a lot of blogs where bipartisan debate is even attempted, let alone realized. The Forvm is lucky to have you back.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
As people keep telling me
(#37065)I think you're confusing conservative with Republican. The only thing conservatives have to be frustrated or embarrassed about is that many of them supported Bush longer than they should have, long after it became apparent what he really was. Conservatism as a philosophy (or in many cases an emotional affinity) doesn't have to be as unreasonable and divisive as the Republican party and their enablers have tried to make it.
As far as hard core partisans, as Mac advised me once: ignore them (on both sides). They're just the white noise of the blogosphere with dials that go to 11.
I'm glad you've decided to come back, but what the heck are you doing posting today? It's 65 degrees outside, man, get out there and come back and post later tonight!
I blame it all on the Internet
I will say it again
(#37055)Welcome back BD. This site needs another voice like yours - an articulate and principled conservative (even if mostly wrong-headed -) ). I am looking foward to the ideological discussions between you and Blaise with great interest.
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. -Mark Twain