If you think it does, that is a sure sign that you’re pop-con bumblefuck who’s watering down the conservative movement in the US and debasing the debate on the right side of the aisle.
The invasion and reconstruction of Iraq, as it was undertaken, was a insufficiently planned and insufficiently justified venture.
Recognition of this is not the same thing as disavowing the necessity of personal responsibility, not the same thing as advocating bigger govt, not the same thing as any sort of Leftist/ Liberal anything. It is also not the same thing as “hating America”, not the same thing as “suporting/ loving Saddam”, not the same thing as “wanting the terrorists to win”, not the same thing as “treason” or any other such catch phrase that implies that reasoned discussion of the issues at hand is unecessary. The arena of ideas is where we conservatives do our best work.
If one were to assume that the support, (or lack thereof), for this invasion is a viable litmus test for Liberalism, then one would have to conclude that Pat Buchanan was a Liberal.
Get a life, grow a brain and stop watering down conservatism by Coulterizing it, you pop-con bumblefucks.
And just curious… are you directing this toward those that would blindly follow Rush or have you seen some overly patriotic conservative sentiments and name calling here?
Certainly a number of posters on this board who side with the GOP on most issues have concluded that we shouldn’t have gone into Iraq in the first place, or are making a mess of things now, or both.
Oh, lieu, I just linked to the “Rush Hour” article as a way of giving credit for the coining of the term Coulterization.
Personally, I love Rush. I listen to his show whenever I get the chance. He’s a great entertainer. I don’t agree with him sometimes, and I think he’d get his ass kicked back to Sacramento if tried the same crap in GD as he uses on the radio. However, about those who “blindly follow”… But that goes for all who blindly follow anyone but me.
Well, in a nutshell, here’s the problem: the Bushiviks want to have thier cake and eat it too.
There is a section of the Pubbies that have no interest in political philosophy whatsoever. They cling to the Pubbies for social issue reasons: abortion, religion, queer rights, the usual list. Big government, small government is of no consequence, they yearn for a golden age of Ozzie and Harriet families with well scrubbed children whose thoughts and future they can control.
The Bushiviks have a mortal lock on thier votes and thier sympathy, at least so far. But they haven’t been able to really deliver. The best they can come up with as an occassional sop: the “partial birth” fiasco, etc. And, of course, to sound the alarm every once in a while that the Dems want to force Eagle Scouts into gay marriages, etc.
Without thier support, they would have lost the 2000 election resoundingly. They have to pander to them, principles don’t mean squat to Karl Rove.
No doubt, this offends the dignity of principled Republicans. But as long as they are willing to hold thier noses for the sake of power, they’re stuck with it.
Karl Rove sometimes dreams of a charismatic, young extreme right wing leader running a third party ticket, claiming that GeeDubya hasn’t sufficient committment to the Holy Cause. He wakes up screaming.
Well, its certainly a pleasant thought, no? Perhaps not as pleasant as KR packing up his office in Jan 2005 and slinking away in disgrace after the crushing landslide defeat of the Forces of Darkness to take up a career as a junior high civics teacher in Bumfuck, ND.
Well, I work all day.
I don’t get to listen to him nearly as much as I like. I can’t say that I’ve heard him directly address Ms. Coulter on his show.
I have heard him make some comments that I thought were in the same vein as some of Ms. Coulter’s. I can’t recall any of them at the moment, though. Sorry.
Thanks for your post, SimonX. It is truly worthwhile to hear from a principled Republican. Of course, I’m happy that you agree with the criticism of the Iraq war, but what I appreciate most is pointing out…well, what you said. Criticizing Bush Iraq policy != pinko liberal commie. Exactly.
I hate it when people on either side forget that one of their responsibilities, as a citizen of a democracy, is to question the government. Perhaps this is even more important when one’s own side is in power.
The demonization of dissenting voices is not good public policy.
Ugh, I hate when conservatives act like all “Bush-haters” are liberal, especially when Bush, in my opinion, has retained the bad parts of the “right-wing” agenda (“Marriage Protection Week,” militarism, etc.) while throwing the good part (“smaller government”) out the window.
Yeah, if he can enter the Oval Office campaigning to the far right of his party, why in the world would anyone think that the Dems can’t win campaigning to the sane center of their own?
I said it before, and I’ll say it again: the smart Republicans are seeing their party getting hijacked by the ranting mobs of Dittoheads, and it’s not a pretty sight.
I’d never even heard of National Security Letters before. Yet another in the bag of tricks of these would-be (and increasingly might-be) functionaries of a 1984 style state.
Thanks for the link, Already in Use.
