Compare and contrast with, say, Enron.
In all fairness, he’s added more than you have. 
Bush and Pat Robertson are Right wing. Neither are Conservative. They both favor unnecessary government intrusion into the lives of citizens. Bush favors military adventurism on a large scale and has no sense of fiscal responsibility.
(I also found it interesting that in your earlier post, you had to redefine Barry Goldwater, (“Mr. Conservative”; author of The Conscience of a Conservative), as other than Conservative. It is almost as though you had found something respectable in Mr. Goldwater and needed to keep an arbitrary distance between him and that label. The fact that the Republican Party has been hijacked in recent years by a coalition of religious extremists and those who would cater to those extremists to avoid splitting the party does not actually mean that the nature of Conservatism has changed, only that the party that used to carry the Conservative label includes many people who are actually something else.)
But you’re still not defining “Conservatism” except by negatives. There must be more to it than fiscal responsibility, small government and military isolationism. (See below.)
No, it’s just that it’s always struck me as odd that what I’ve read/heard of Goldwater’s rhetoric sounds more like that of a contemporary Libertarian than like, say, William Buckley, or anyone in W’s admin, or Pat Robertson, or Pat Buchanan either. (Goldwater stood for “freedom,” which is not the same thing as standing for traditional values at all, at all.) With the glaring exception, that is, of Goldwater’s foreign/military policy, which apparently was “rollback” rather than “containment” of Soviet power – in any scenario requiring “military adventurism on a large scale” plus massive taxes and/or deficits to support it; so AuH20 might not be “conservative” by your standards either.
Why? That was pretty much how I have seen Conservatives over the last 40+ years. (I did not say isolationism, only avoiding adventurism.)
I suspect that Goldwater was not nearly as keen on “adventurism” as he has been portrayed. He wanted a strong military, but his “rollback” policy did not seem to involve wandering into foreign lands for the heck of it. When he advocated military intervention, he also advocated letting the military do its thing. That would separate him from both McNamara in 1962+ and Rumsfeld now, both of whom interfered with the desires of the military in carrying out their mission.
To the extent that Goldwater did support the use of the military offshore, he cannot be claimed by Libertarians.
BTW, I agrere that Goldwater did not sound much like “anyone in W’s admin, or Pat Robertson, or Pat Buchanan either,” which is why I do not consider any of those named parties “Conservative,” only “Right wing.”
(It has been a while since I have seen anything by Buckley, but by the late 1980s, he seemed to be writing more for the pleasure of his word play than from any political conviction.)
I’m don’t see how you can call what McNamara or Rumsfeld did as “interfering with the desires of the military” since they are/were SecDef. In a sense, they are the military, at least when being compared to a Senator.
They’re still civilians. If demanding that an invasion go ahead with far fewer troops than the generals would like isn’t “interfering with the desires of the military”, then what is it?
Desires regarding tactics and logistics. The military should answer to the civilian leadership regarding national goals, but when the Secretary of Defense announces a mission and then orders the military to carry it out with fewer than half the troops that the military “desires,” that is interference.
The answer to the OP’s hopeful question is …
How do you determine what “the military” desires? And I still say that you can’t compare a SecDef with a Senator wrt this issue. You really don’t know how Goldwater would’ve acted had he been a SecDef, and I think it’s naive to suggest that a SecDef should only set high level goals and never “interfere” on the level such as troop strengths, etc. I don’t particularly agree with Rumsfeld, but keep in mind that he ain’t no rooky with no military experience.
We established that yesterday, which is why Bricker graciously acceded to my request that he get the thread title changed.
I’m definitely not adding anything; this is one of many GD threads that I read rather than participate in, since I’m interested in what’s being said but don’t have much to add. I just wish folks like me, without much to add, would keep their traps shut instead of engaging in stupid potshots.
(And with that, I’ll start taking my own advice).
Daniel
Actually I was going to post something similar. I was trying to see how long it took for people to realize they were getting yanked by the same chains they forged. When I see people flinging political poo it’s often too funny to ignore. It’s the electronic equivalent of “food fight”. Rarely do people get the futility of it.
Congratulations, you get it.
:dubious: Never seems to stop you from grabbing a handful and letting fly.
I still recommend Stephanie Miller for a shining example of liberal talk radio done right. Political barbs, celebrity gossip, fart jokes, and top-tier phone-in guests from across the political spectrum (this morning featured Barry Goldwater’s granddaughter discussing her HBO special, and Pat Buchanan is on-deck for tomorrow).
(Ironically enough, her one feature I can’t stand is “Right Wing World,” just because hearing the unfiltered inanity from Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Savage, etc. lowers my IQ no matter how many jokes Steph and her crew make about them…)
Just make sure to clean under your nails when you’re done.
Regarding Randi Rhodes, I find myself agreeing with almost everything she says, but I must admit her voice makes me want to toss her in a shallow grave on top of Fran Drescher.
Well folks, Bricker was right !The have filed for bankruptcy and owe Franken over $300,000!
So, to all of the liberal listeners out there: What would you suggest Franken et al do to save this organization? Is it even possible?
Personally, I don’t see enough unification within the Democrats to pull it off. OK, we know they hate Dubya and Iraq was a mistake. Do they have anything else they can all rally behind?
The Democrats have splintered in so many ways. Use alternative forms of energy to cut our dependency on foreign oil, but don’t put up wind farms because they will kill migratory birds, don’t use coal because of strip mining and air pollution, don’t use geothermal because it interferes with natural habitats, don’t use wave power because it erodes reefs and ruins marine breeding grounds, and don’t even get me started on nuclear.
Affirmative action was supposed to provide a level playing field giving everyone the same access as everyone else but, instead, some groups are given preferential treatment to the detriment of others who are now marginalized. Civil rights legislation and equal opportunity is great until it benefits certain groups.
What will bring the Dems together to save AA? What will the battle cry be? “Air America: ‘Cause Al Gore can’t do it alone!” “We hate Bush as much as Barney Frank and Mark Foley!” “Save Air America before Halliburton buys us and puts Rush on!”
Why would the “Democrats” get together to save Air America? Why would Republicans get together if/when Rush goes down from lack of interest?
But thanks for the update.