"If this be treason, make the most of it."
September 12, 2006 12:17 PM   Subscribe

Conservatives on why the GOP should lose in 2006. Let's quit while we're behind by Christopher Buckley • Bring on Pelosi by Bruce Bartlett • And we thought Clinton had no self-control by Joe Scarborough • Give divided government a chance by William A. Niskanen • Restrain this White House by Bruce Fein • Idéologie has taken over by Jeffrey Hart • The show must not go on by Richard A. Viguerie
posted by orthogonality (77 comments total) 3 users marked this as a favorite

 
This makes sense, since the GOP in its current incarnation is nothing resembling conservative. They'd be orders of magnitude less repugnant if they actually were.
posted by mullingitover at 12:21 PM on September 12, 2006


• Worst President Ever by StrasbourgSecaucus
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 12:22 PM on September 12, 2006


I wish conservatives had realized this before the last election. Thankfully, there is a palpable change in the air among conservatives, hope it continues.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:31 PM on September 12, 2006


Hmm... Whatever happened to "You Broke it, You Fix It."?
posted by Freen at 12:31 PM on September 12, 2006


I remember reading an article about how the former UK Prime Minister John Major damaged the Tory party, allowing the current reign of the Blair-led Labour party, and why the Tories should have let go after Thatcher. The argument is very similar, and I wish I could find this article.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:32 PM on September 12, 2006


mmmm political implosion

(goes to grabs popcorn)

seriously though, I expect mass voter fraud and disenfranchisement this year, that will make 2004 look like a real election.
posted by sourbrew at 12:33 PM on September 12, 2006


As far as I'm concerned, "conservatives" have all been indicted by their complacency in everything up to this point. As I've said before, rats off a sinking ship.
posted by bob sarabia at 12:36 PM on September 12, 2006


I think I'm starting to like Joe Scarborough. Ach, now I feel all dirty.
posted by Mister_A at 12:37 PM on September 12, 2006


Really, I'm just disgusted that they want off the hook for supporting this whole fucking mess.
posted by bob sarabia at 12:39 PM on September 12, 2006


Reading some of these is just like watching a star trek robot deal with logical paradoxes. I expect the next Scarborough Country to feature him sputtering "Conservative... but... spending... growth... Democraaaaaattt.... CARTER... does not... compute..." before exploding like a Scanner victim.
posted by boo_radley at 12:41 PM on September 12, 2006


I don't mind Joe Scarborough. I'm usually in a giving mood after watching Olbermann.
posted by unSane at 12:41 PM on September 12, 2006


Freen, do you really think that these pussnuts are capable of fixing this?

No, I think it's time to put the bad kids in "time out" and let the adults sort the mess out. Or at least alleviate the pain.
posted by C.Batt at 12:44 PM on September 12, 2006


The Democrats don't want to win either. If the Democrats win a majority, then the Republicans will have two years to beat them up before the main event, blunting the Dems attack come 2008.

It's a problem when a country has no leaders, right?
posted by recurve at 12:44 PM on September 12, 2006


A narrow Democratic majority in the House, with Republicans keeping the Senate, assures the confirmation of conservative judges, keeps most incentive-oriented economic policy and pretty much all security policy alive, while also spelling quick doom for renewal of No Child Left Behind and a lot of the more noxious Republican-tolerated (or Republican-originated!) pork. It's very tempting for conservatives, I must say.
posted by MattD at 12:46 PM on September 12, 2006


it is time, as Madison said in Federalist 76, to “Hand over the tiller of governance, that others may fuck things up for a change.”

Heh.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 12:47 PM on September 12, 2006


I strongly recomment that Democrats vote Republican this fall. They shat the bed, let them wash the sheets.

If Democrats take over the congress and senate, expect Fox to announce that civil war has broken out in Iraq the next day and start pinning it and everything else on "the democrat party".
posted by fleetmouse at 12:47 PM on September 12, 2006


Buckley's piece was quite good. I wish I didn't like him so well, I find his politics abhorrent.
posted by OmieWise at 12:49 PM on September 12, 2006


i give up. i'm voting for hamas.
posted by snofoam at 12:57 PM on September 12, 2006


So is Christopher Buckley now a legitmate conservative commentator? I always thought he was a humorist or satirist. He's actually probably more valuable to mankind in those roles. "Thank You for Smoking" was a hilarious book.
posted by hwestiii at 12:57 PM on September 12, 2006


Discretionary spending - Yeah, pretty much.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:00 PM on September 12, 2006


I strongly recomment that Democrats vote Republican this fall. They shat the bed, let them wash the sheets.

Um, they're just going to keep shitting in it.
posted by delmoi at 1:01 PM on September 12, 2006 [1 favorite]


A Democratic victory in 2008 would probably be guaranteed if they lose in 2006.
posted by jon_kill at 1:01 PM on September 12, 2006


Democrats still don’t get Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, which teaches the superiority of free markets to government-regulated markets...

Uh oh, somebody hasn't actually read the Wealth of Nations
posted by atrazine at 1:01 PM on September 12, 2006


A Democratic victory in 2008 would probably be guaranteed if they lose in 2006.

It's interesting, the republicans swept the house in '04, but Clinton still won re-election (against Dole, there was a compelling guy). Supposedly the electorate likes to keep a split house, but I really think the level of anti-republicanism is at such a high, I wonder if it will be able to be maintained.

If bush was even a halfway competent administrator, we might be locked into republicanism for a long, long time. Oh well.
posted by delmoi at 1:08 PM on September 12, 2006


Mister_A, I hear ya. He's written some decent stuff over at HuffPo.

It's heartening to see some died-in-the-wool Reagan conservatives finally call this administration what it is (although William F. Buckley and George Will beat them to it). That said, realize that the people running the show like Rove and Cheney don't fucking care. And with Iraq going down the toilet, a bombing campaign of Iran with an inevitable backlash from Iranian and Iraqi forces against the remaining, bedraggled 140,000 US troops in the region will be the outcome. And then we'll witness Vietnam-era levels of US military casualties.

Politicians, by definition, exploit their rhetoric about "principles" all the time, but we are now witnessing an administration that, at its very core, has not a whit of anything we might recognize as idealism regarding positive change for the world. They're simply worshippers, brokers, and holders of power for its own sake. And we're only seeing the beginning of it. They know they've lost, they know that the neocon/PNAC pipe dreams have come to nothing, they know that it's no longer hyperbolic to refer to Bush II's administration as being comparable to those of Coolidge, Harding, and Carter, and guess what? They're going to take as many people down with them as possible, since Congress has completely shirked its duties.
posted by bardic at 1:14 PM on September 12, 2006


Whoever gets the keys to the Whitehouse next is going to find that the treasury has been raped and all of the natural resources sold on the cheap to Republican cronies. Our grandchildren will still be paying for this administration's criminal giveaways on their deathbeds.

The United States of Enron.
posted by any major dude at 1:23 PM on September 12, 2006


bardic writes "Politicians, by definition, exploit their rhetoric about 'principles' all the time, but we are now witnessing an administration that, at its very core, has not a whit of anything we might recognize as idealism regarding positive change for the world. They're simply worshippers, brokers, and holders of power for its own sake."

I think you're wrong about this. Did you read the Hart piece? I tend to agree with him that the most dangerous aspect of this administration is its stubborn adherence to (often vaguely stated, incoherent) ideology in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence. A complete inability to comprehend realpolitik, coupled to a staggering policy incompetence.

A leader truly interested only in maintaining power would not have displayed his inability to use it so publicly.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:26 PM on September 12, 2006


I agree. My own hope is for a Dem takeover of both houses in November, and actually a Republican POTUS in 2008, because whoever takes office will be the ultimate whipping boy/girl. The economy, especially in terms of debt, will be one major problem, but even bigger will be a broken, under-manned military. To top it off, oil should be hitting about 4-6$/gallon around then (it's amusing to hear people wonder, with a straight face, when the price is going to go back down under 2$/gallon.)

(And I'm not trying to paint my party as a panacea. I just think that quite literally anything other than a Republican House and Senate rubberstamping Bush every step of the way would be better than what we have now. Hell, put in some trained monkeys as far as I'm concerned.)
posted by bardic at 1:32 PM on September 12, 2006


(agree with any major dude, that is. Reading that Hart piece more thoroughly after mr_roboto's comment.)
posted by bardic at 1:33 PM on September 12, 2006


any major dude writes "Whoever gets the keys to the Whitehouse next is going to find that the treasury has been raped and all of the natural resources sold on the cheap to Republican cronies."

I don't get this comment. Most natural resources in this country are privately owned and have been since time immemorial. The only significant natural resource owned by the federal government is the national forests, and there hasn't been a selloff of those during the Bush administration. There's still no approval to drill in ANWR, and Bush has created the largest maritime nature preserve in the world, with all fishing being phased out in the next five years.

There are a lot of things you can criticize Bush for, but selling off natural resources? I don't see it.

bardic writes "My own hope is for a Dem takeover of both houses in November, and actually a Republican POTUS in 2008, because whoever takes office will be the ultimate whipping boy/girl."

What about the judiciary, though? Not just the SCOTUS, but all the federal courts. Even with Democrats in the majority, the Senate would be close, and a lot of Republican nominations could get through....
posted by mr_roboto at 1:35 PM on September 12, 2006


SCOTUS is certainly an issue to consider. But it's the only thing a Republican POTUS in 2008 would have going for him or her. If I had to choose, I'd still want power in Congress over power in the White House.

As for Hart, it's a good analysis, but frankly, I think he's giving Bush and co. far too much credit. Ideology implies sacrificing practical gains on the altar of high-minded issues. Sure, Bush talks a game about "freedom" and "liberty," but personally, I don't believe him. At this point, I really do think it's about padding the retirement accounts of his drinking buddies from Yale and Texas, with a watery mix of incredibly vague, incredibly under-examined notions regarding the advance of freedom (the freedom to do what, exactly?).

Shorter--I wish this administration was simply Woodrow Wilson-lite, fighting the good fight for impossible-to-achieve principles. No, it's something much darker, venal, and unsettling than that. 9/11 provided the cover under which the chicken-house could be raided, and Congress and the media were too afraid to say anything less they be asked, quite literally, "Why do you hate America?"
posted by bardic at 1:48 PM on September 12, 2006


I'm a democrat (at heart) but man the fuckers in the party these days... the DLC is about as bad as the GOP. Hell, they may even be worse because they're more hard-up for cash than the GOP.

I have no illusions that the current democratic leadership will have those ankles wrapped firmly behind their ears for that corporate dollar if they pull off Nov 06.

It's definetly time for a third party... or a bloody revolution.
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 1:50 PM on September 12, 2006


bardic writes "As for Hart, it's a good analysis, but frankly, I think he's giving Bush and co. far too much credit. Ideology implies sacrificing practical gains on the altar of high-minded issues."

I dunno. I think ideology completely explains "staying the course" in Iraq. They have a world view, they believe that's how the world is, and reality be damned, that's the perspective they'll use to form their policy. A real evil power-hungry genius would have declared victory in Iraq and gotten the hell out of there. Hell, I bet that's what Rove was pushing for.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:52 PM on September 12, 2006


Paging Jim Jeffords. Your party has arrived.
posted by zennie at 1:53 PM on September 12, 2006


Or good old fashioned divided government, as one writer talks about. It allowed for some pretty good times for Americans in the late 1990's, in spite of Clinton's impeachment, i.e., a bunch of Republican adulterers have a sham trial regarding the adultery of a Democratic POTUS.
posted by bardic at 1:55 PM on September 12, 2006


If I heard an even remotely apologetic or remorseful tone in any of these articles, I might give these guys some credit. Instead, all I see is the apparently sudden realization that the ship is probably going to sink and they don't want to be too close when it does. These are the same people who cheered for Bush through two elections and now they want to wash their hands, fuck 'em. If they had anything substantive to say, rather than just spin, they should have said it when it might have done some good.
posted by doctor_negative at 2:10 PM on September 12, 2006 [1 favorite]


Anyone who thinks that things will be appreciably better under the Democrats is lying to themselves and/or dumb.

If the democrats win, we might have some theatrical handwringing about the poor, but those hands are going to be taking money from the same corporations that your enemies did. People willing to settle for Democrats is part of the problem.
posted by Mayor Curley at 2:17 PM on September 12, 2006


Okay, the Democrats win back control of the House and/or Senate: what will happen. GW will discover the veto. Any meaningful change they try to enact will be fruitless. The Democrats will suddenly start real investigations of a dozen different Bush programs/initiatives providing lots of scandal material in time for the 2008 elections. Bush will stonewall and drag it out in court until he is gone.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 2:20 PM on September 12, 2006


Hehe. Bill Kristol and Rich Lowry call for more troops in Baghdad.

Further evidence of what Glenn Greenwald realized not long ago--it's never "the plan" that's wrong, be it Conservatism or Neoconservatism, but always the people who implement it. Yet another strain of IOKIYAR, but on a national and global scale.
posted by bardic at 2:27 PM on September 12, 2006


Democrats still don’t get Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, which teaches the superiority of free markets to government-regulated markets...

Uh oh, somebody hasn't actually read the Wealth of Nations


Uh-oh, sombody actually thinks the Republicans believe in free markets.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 2:30 PM on September 12, 2006 [1 favorite]


Suppose Democrats capture control of one or both chambers of Congress in November. A conservative would instinctively cringe. On the domestic front, Democrats still don’t get Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, which teaches the superiority of free markets to government-regulated markets euphemistically styled “industrialization policy” or otherwise. Smith lacerated the economic philosophy of modern Democrats: “The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.” With Democrats controlling Congress, we could expect command-and-control laws requiring windmills on every farm, photovoltaic cells in every home, and hydrogen fuel in every car.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO YOU FUCKING MORON.

WHY do "conservatives" still not get that the "Democrat = big gov" vs. "Republican = small gov" is utter bullshit?!

What will it take? You think Republicans lowered your taxes? Look at the debt, look at the deficit, look at the REAL inflation numbers. The Iraq invasion is just as socialist (in the sense Republicans mean) as national health care and a lot more expensive and a lot less beneficial to me. "Privatization by no-bid contract" is not "capitalism", it's the opposite.

Windmill mandates? Are you shitting me? This is what you're worried about? Do you still even live in America, Fein?

If Hillary Clinton wins the White House in 2008, conservatives should be equally zealous for Republicans to recapture Congress.

Man, fuck you. HC went along with nearly everything you Republicans wanted, you ought to be sucking her cock by now.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:32 PM on September 12, 2006


Uh-oh, sombody actually thinks the Republicans believe in free markets.

Yeah, better said than my profane rant.
posted by sonofsamiam at 2:32 PM on September 12, 2006


Look, as mentioned I'm not saying Dem control of Congress will do a whole hell of a lot beyond slowing down the damage being done. (However, subpoenas, committee control and appointing investigators did a lot to derail anything Clinton tried to acomplish, lest we forget).

But some of you seem to lack a sense of perspectcive--if your house is burning down, it would be nice if the fire department would show up. But at the very least it wouldn't hurt if the dudes throwing gasoline on it would go away.
posted by bardic at 2:34 PM on September 12, 2006 [1 favorite]


hey know they've lost, they know that the neocon/PNAC pipe dreams have come to nothing, they know that it's no longer hyperbolic to refer to Bush II's administration as being comparable to those of Coolidge, Harding, and Carter, and guess what? They're going to take as many people down with them as possible, since Congress has completely shirked its duties.

I think one of the ways they've shirked their duties is to have become too reliant on Bush/RoveCo for their electoral success in the past few cycles. Fond of trashing custom and tradition, Rove apparently trashed a big one in 2002 by inserting himself and Bush so prominently into those mid-terms. That success and whatever coat-tails 51% gets you in 2004 has tied them way closer to the White House than historical party affliation has. I guess this is why some people look on the current Republican hold on Congress and the White House as having a more Parlimentary flavor than previous "unified" governments. Its tough to uphold your Constitutional responsibilities when you owe your electoral successes directly to the holder of the other branch of government.
posted by hwestiii at 2:42 PM on September 12, 2006


Better Greenwald link re: Neocons are never wrong, only their formerly lauded implementers are.
posted by bardic at 2:42 PM on September 12, 2006


Okay, the Democrats win back control of the House and/or Senate: what will happen. GW will discover the veto. Any meaningful change they try to enact will be fruitless. The Democrats will suddenly start real investigations of a dozen different Bush programs/initiatives providing lots of scandal material in time for the 2008 elections. Bush will stonewall and drag it out in court until he is gone.

If the Democrats take over either house in November, I guarantee you that the final act of George W. Bush and Alberto Gonzales will involve a legal dispute reaching the Supreme Court over whether or not the President of the United States has the authority to pardon himself. I want to emphasize I'm not joking or being hyperbolic here. I sincerely believe this will happen.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 2:49 PM on September 12, 2006


To top it off, oil should be hitting about 4-6$/gallon around then (it's amusing to hear people wonder, with a straight face, when the price is going to go back down under 2$/gallon.)


Gasoline, that is...
posted by c13 at 2:54 PM on September 12, 2006


good call fleetmouse
posted by Max Power at 2:59 PM on September 12, 2006


But some of you seem to lack a sense of perspectcive--if your house is burning down, it would be nice if the fire department would show up. But at the very least it wouldn't hurt if the dudes throwing gasoline on it would go away.

So you're saying that you'd settle for the gas throwers to leave?
posted by Mayor Curley at 3:04 PM on September 12, 2006


Settle? Where did I say that? I think it would be a necessary start towards undoing a hell of a lot of damage. I tried to make my cynicism clear.
posted by bardic at 3:09 PM on September 12, 2006


Heh. Incontinent conservatism. I heart Buckley Jr.
posted by Cookiebastard at 3:30 PM on September 12, 2006


Er, Christopher Buckley is the one I heart. I lung Buckley Jr. or something. Carry on...
posted by Cookiebastard at 3:32 PM on September 12, 2006


Christopher Buckley's column is as good as his books.

Nick Naylor, Banion and Lady Bethmac would be proud to have been created by such a majestic guy.

November will be interesting. Failure vs gerrymander - who will win?
posted by sien at 3:42 PM on September 12, 2006


how about Iran and Iraq meeting today to cement an alliance?
posted by amberglow at 4:02 PM on September 12, 2006


So you're saying that you'd settle for the gas throwers to leave?

I would--that's all the GOP senate and house, and the entire administration--time for them to go away--all of them. If they had any decency they'd resign and go kill themselves.
posted by amberglow at 4:03 PM on September 12, 2006


how about Iran and Iraq meeting today to cement an alliance?

Yup. How about Russert asking Cheney about this on Sunday. The Veep's response? Iran "is a neighbor."

As if the only connection between the former Shia Iranian exiles now running and close to ruling Iraq is proximity. Like they bring in each other's mail when one of them is out of town and nothing more. Jesus fucking Christ.
posted by bardic at 4:10 PM on September 12, 2006


"Anyone who thinks that things will be appreciably better under the Democrats is lying to themselves and/or dumb."

Aww... Bullshit. Take yer Nader pin off and remember that the Democrats not being perfect doesn't mean they're just as bad.
posted by klangklangston at 4:19 PM on September 12, 2006


You know, I was thinking about how great it is that people are coming around and saying what an abject failure this administration has become. But the more I think about it, the more irate I get. Fuck these guys; they supported the idiots at the top this whole time and are just now beginning to see how this administration has screwed us over?

These authors supported this madness and now that the wheels are coming off the cart they want to, and pardon the expression, cut and run. Well screw that. I want these authors to be remembered as the neo-con supporters that they were. When history finally documents they way this all played out, I want their writing used as an example of the journalistic enablers that helped dig the hole we now find ourselves in.

I don't want an 'aww gee shucks, I guess we were mislead.' You want to impress me? Apologize, then quit. Clearly if you were this wrong, we should never have to rely on you for a judgement call again. Ever.
posted by quin at 4:23 PM on September 12, 2006 [1 favorite]


Well, the Democrats at least have the same foreign policy. Judging from Clinton's two terms in office, anyway, during which he ended up having the general outlook on foreign affairs that Bush started with.

The difference probably isn't that Clinton (or Kerry, for that matter) would've changed the plan. It's that the Dems would've done things like the invasion of Iraq a lot more smoothly, they would've handled the torture issue a lot better, and in general would've made things look nicer. Given the fact that how things end up looking is damned important here and now, it would've been a better country if Kerry had won a few years ago.
posted by koeselitz at 4:27 PM on September 12, 2006


I want to emphasize I'm not joking or being hyperbolic here. I sincerely believe this will happen.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 5:49 PM EST on September 12 [+] [!]


Well at least there would be some symmetry.
posted by Skygazer at 4:34 PM on September 12, 2006


They were before it before they were against it. John Kerry got pilloried for basically saying the same thing, in a different context. It's nice to see notable wonks like Buckley change their tune, but the ones currently doing the PNAC cheerleading --Jonah Goldberg, Bill Kristol, Hugh Hewitt, the LGF crowd, etc. -- are the ones that are much more widely read. I think a fun parlor game in the coming 12 months will be to watch which ones are willing to go down into the dustbin of history along with their flightsuited best buddy, and which ones end up blaming Bush for not following "the plan" strictly enough, i.e., it wasn't the neocon wet dream that failed, but the librul media who sabotaged it.

Even Republicans running for re-election are distancing themselves from Bush. Seriously, next time you drive to the store, look at lawn signs. You won't see many, or perhaps any, that advertise candidates as Republican. Even in the reddest of states. It'd be more fun if not for all of the deaths in Iraq, American and otherwise, and my growing sense that we're going to bomb Iran and fuck things up even more.
posted by bardic at 4:36 PM on September 12, 2006


how about Iran and Iraq meeting today to cement an alliance?
posted by amberglow at 7:02 PM EST on September 12 [+] [!]


After I read that I thought "check".

I have a sinking feeling "mate" might be around the corner.
posted by Skygazer at 4:37 PM on September 12, 2006


With Democrats controlling Congress, we could expect command-and-control laws requiring windmills on every farm, photovoltaic cells in every home, and hydrogen fuel in every car.

He says that like it would be a bad thing....

I, for one, would welcome mandatory windmill and photovoltaic legislation. I fail to see the problem here.

Of course, I'm Canadian.
posted by jokeefe at 4:43 PM on September 12, 2006


when I hear someone say that democrats are as bad as the republicans, my brain automatically translates this into, "boy, I sure do love repeating things I heard on TV!"
posted by mcsweetie at 4:57 PM on September 12, 2006


mr roboto wrote:

Most natural resources in this country are privately owned and have been since time immemorial.

That's not true. There is protected federal land that the Bush administration has been selling off the rights to drill and log for years now. Give him enough subterfuge (war in Iran) and he'll be selling off the national parks to his cronies for pennies on the dollar. You see, that's what the war in Iraq was all about in the first place - it's a distraction to keep all of the talking heads busy while he and his band of criminal benefactors rape the treasury and abolish all the laws and agencies that protect individuals from the enroachment of corporate power.
posted by any major dude at 5:19 PM on September 12, 2006


It's that the Dems would've done things like the invasion of Iraq a lot more smoothly, they would've handled the torture issue a lot better, and in general would've made things look nicer. Given the fact that how things end up looking is damned important here and now, it would've been a better country if Kerry had won a few years ago.

We wouldn't have invaded Iraq at all. period. The GOP owns that entirely, whether Dems voted for it or not.
posted by amberglow at 5:23 PM on September 12, 2006


Seriously, next time you drive to the store, look at lawn signs. You won't see many, or perhaps any, that advertise candidates as Republican.

I've noticed it happens in the written press frequently now that articles about a Democrat who is challenging an incumbent for a national seat will not explicitly say that the incumbent is a Republican. How is that happening? Do reporters ask a politician how he or she wants to be identified in terms of party? Or is there pressure somewhere? Or am I just seeing things?
posted by Mental Wimp at 5:27 PM on September 12, 2006


It's that the Dems would've done things like the invasion of Iraq a lot more smoothly.

Why would the Democrats have invaded Iraq? An Iraq invasion was a major element of the neoconservative agenda, but the Dems never considered it in their eight years in the White House.
posted by drezdn at 7:56 PM on September 12, 2006


when I hear someone say that democrats are as bad as the republicans, my brain automatically translates this into, "boy, I sure do love repeating things I heard on TV!"

Or deduced from voting. Or just observing. But by all means, if it's easier for you to justify your naivete by dismissing people who disagree with you as your intellectual inferiors, by all means keep doing it. PAX is showing "Momma's Family" and obviously I'm watching it if I disagree with someone of your mental wattage.
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:47 PM on September 12, 2006


Why would the Democrats have invaded Iraq?

Because Democrats get oil money, too. How many of them voted against military action in Iraq back in the day?
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:49 PM on September 12, 2006


they would not have invaded Iraq, Mayor. Give it up.

Another giant reason why the GOP needs to go:
... It would appear that bin Laden and Bush have a meeting of the minds on this. They and their followers apparently need to see this as a "world war"
but I think it would be very, very unwise to allow them to have their way. These things have a tendency to get out of hand.

posted by amberglow at 10:08 PM on September 12, 2006


If I heard an even remotely apologetic or remorseful tone in any of these articles, I might give these guys some credit. Instead, all I see is the apparently sudden realization that the ship is probably going to sink and they don't want to be too close when it does. These are the same people who cheered for Bush through two elections and now they want to wash their hands, fuck 'em.

Right. On. Doctor_Negative. The Bush wing of the Republican party has never been conservative, this has always been obvious. If I could see this, WF Buckley shouldn't have had any trouble at all. The "conservatives" have willfully ignored the facts in front of their faces and supported these bastards. Now that the smell Republican defeat, they start standing up for the "conservative" values they have already helped defeat??

Fuck' em and the horses they rode in on.
posted by three blind mice at 12:06 AM on September 13, 2006


I don't know if they would have invaded Iraq or not, but one thing I think we can say is that, if past performance is any guide, the Democrats would not have done it or much of anything else "smoothly." After all, they can't even get themselves into office successfully without the other side screwing up so badly that the nation needs trauma care (and even then maybe not).
posted by moonbiter at 12:18 AM on September 13, 2006


Christopher Buckley is awesome, and (quite unlike his father), he's far from a conservative. He tells some terrific stories about tripping on acid while his parents were entertaining the likes of Henry Kissinger at their home for dinner.

Incidentally, I'm going to see Christopher speak tomorrow at a book signing at his home town's (Stamford, CT) public library.
posted by Hypnic jerk at 5:56 AM on September 14, 2006


If I could see this, WF Buckley shouldn't have had any trouble at all.

If things were going a little better, WF Buckley would still be on board.
posted by sonofsamiam at 6:43 AM on September 14, 2006


After all, they can't even get themselves into office successfully without the other side screwing up so badly that the nation needs trauma care (and even then maybe not).
The Supreme Court and Diebold's actions are not an indication of Democrats messing anything up--they're indications of Republicans commiting crimes, gaming the process, and cheating.
posted by amberglow at 8:18 AM on September 14, 2006


Not to mention all the gerrymandering they did before it was legal to do so when not in the allowed periods.
posted by amberglow at 8:18 AM on September 14, 2006


« Older Bow wow wow.   |   Six n+1 degrees of separation. Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments