Peggy Noonan has a good column on the widening rift between the Bush Administration and the conservative movement, and more broadly on the administration’s failures. Money quote:
What I came in time to believe is that the great shortcoming of this White House, the great thing it is missing, is simple wisdom. Just wisdom–a sense that they did not invent history, that this moment is not all there is, that man has lived a long time and there are things that are true of him, that maturity is not the same thing as cowardice, that personal loyalty is not a good enough reason to put anyone in charge of anything, that the way it works in politics is a friend becomes a loyalist becomes a hack, and actually at this point in history we don’t need hacks.
Bill Quick writes, “In the vein of LBJ and Walter Cronkite, I think it is fair to say that if George W. Bush has lost Peggy Noonan, then he has lost the Republican Party.” (Hat tip: InstaPundit.)
Regarding the Walter Cronkite comparison, it is ridiculous to compare a pay-for-play pundit like Peggy Noonan with Cronkite, even if she did write speeches for Reagan. A more apt comparison for the Right would be Rush Limbaugh (yes, he’s an idiot. But as far as the Radical Right in America, he is their “most trusted man in America.”)
Angrier, the Democratic base in 2004 was convinced (and still is, and has been since 2000, actually) that the Bush Administration is nefarious, not merely incompetent. It’s a little disingenuous, therefore, for the Left to now claim, “We told you so!” when in fact the conclusion that the majority of Americans, Peggy Noonan included, are reluctantly coming around to (they’re incompetent and unwise) is quite different from the radical and ridiculous conclusion that the Left has been pushing all along (they’re nefarious and evil).
Why can’t someone think they are both “incompetent and unwise” and “nefarious and evil”? Such a person could then be saying “I told you so” about the former, and still try to convince people of the latter.
I’m being a bit coy though. I what you mean… you mean nefarious and evil in the “evil genius” kind of way. That is indeed incompatible with the notion that they are incompetant and unwise. But this brings me to my second objection. Who are these “Democratic base” and “Left” that hold these contradictory views of the administration? Seriously, I want names.
Well, you obviously know what I was thinking in 2001 when I went to Bush’s inauguration. Or in October 2001 when I cheered - along with other restaurant patrons - when Bush launched strikes on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Or when I reluctantly supported the invasion of Iraq based on Colin Powell’s testimony.
However, what Noonan figured out today should have been obvious to most people by the 2004 election.
Its also entirely possible to believe that certain elements (Bush) are incompetent and unwise and are being influenced by the well maybe nefarious and evil is a bit strong, but lets say corrupt and unscrupulous elements (Cheney, Gonzales, etc). It’s remincient of Grant’s presidency actually.
ps. I’m not really challenging you to find me names. For one thing, it’s not worth your time. For another, if you decided it was worth your time I’m sure you could find me some names. I concede that.
What I’m saying is that the number of people who hold those contradictory views is too small to describe them as “the democratic Base” or “the Left.” I for one consider myself a member of the first group, and also of the second depending upon how you define “Left.” And I don’t think Bush is nefarious or evil.
It’s a slight tangent, but I want to say how odd I feel to even write the words “Bush is not evil.” Of course he’s not evil. I’m one of those people who doesn’t think the word has much meaning. Of course, there are evil deeds, and there are people for whom the sum total of their deeds defines them as having led an evil life. But there are no mustache twirrling villians, and I don’t believe in evil as existing above and beyond the actions of men.
On a DVD commentary for Firefly, Joss Whedon recalled hearing an interview with the actor William Dafoe, in which Dafoe was asked whether he liked playing heros or villians better. His answer was, “ain’t no difference, everybody thinks they’re righteous.” I think this is basically true, and it’s good thing to remember when evaluating people, including polititians.
——–
Buffy: (about Wesley) New Watcher?
Giles: New Watcher.
Wesley: Wesley Wyndam-Pryce. It’s very nice to meet you.
Buffy: (to Giles) Is he evil?
Wesley: Evil?
Buffy: The last one was evil.
Wesley: Oh, yes. Gwendolyn Post. We all heard. No. Mr. Giles has checked my credentials rather thoroughly and phoned the Council, but I’m glad to see you’re on the ball as well. A good Slayer is a cautious Slayer.
Buffy: (to Giles) Is he evil?
Giles: Not in the strictest sense.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the people who believed Bush was “Nefarious and Evil” from before the start, ended up being correct. I give the screaming queers on Santa Monica Blvd during Halloween 2000 all the credit for doing the research on the Administration members, paying attention to their history, and doing their best to get the message out not to Vote for Bush because it would result in bad things for Americans. I dismissed them as fanatical goofballs, and they very well may be that, but they were more informed than I was at the time, and I give them credit for that.
Unfortunately, the biggest problem for Americans with this administration is that their PR department is just So Good. They are able to marginalize the majority of Americans who dissaprove of this president, and the president’s approval ratings have been below 50% since before the ‘04 election. His critics are successfuly labled as irrational “Bush Haters”, and that’s widely accepted as a reasonable response to legitimate criticisms.
Only now that Bush is in full Lame Duck form do prominent people come out with their criticism. I just watched Donald Trump label Bush the worst president in histroy on Greta Van Sustren last night. Thanks for waiting, Captain Obvious. Of course if he came forward before he would be lumped in with the majority of Americans as unstable, irrational Bush Haters. So it probably wouldn’t have mattered anyway.
It still amazes me, Brendan, that we could all be right from the start, and that proves how irrational we are. But by your definition of reason, you’re not allowed to be right until years upon years later when it’s far too late. That is a very, very strange conception of rationality.
“The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic–they “don’t want to do what’s right for America.” His ally Sen. Lindsey Graham has said, “We’re gonna tell the bigots to shut up.” On Fox last weekend he vowed to “push back.” Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff suggested opponents would prefer illegal immigrants be killed; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said those who oppose the bill want “mass deportation.” Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said those who oppose the bill are “anti-immigrant” and suggested they suffer from “rage” and “national chauvinism.”
Why would they speak so insultingly, with such hostility, of opponents who are concerned citizens? And often, though not exclusively, concerned conservatives?“
Funny how it was all fine when the administration was just doing it to the democrats.
Maybe, just maybe, Brendan is the one who is irrational. After all, we were right all along. The only thing that could explain this if you are a Bush supporter is that we are the ones who are “irrational.”
I do love when you call me a “Bush supporter,” Max, considering I voted for Gore in 2000, Kerry in 2004, and Democrat for Congress in both ‘02 and ‘06.
Anyway, Sean, I didn’t say that your being “right…proves how irrational [you] are.” I said that you’re not right. Or rather, that the people who claim Bush & co. are nefarious and evil and have bad movies are not right. The ones who were saying in 2002 that Bush & co. are incompetent and unwise and overly reliant on cronies — those people are right. Not the Daily Kos crowd. Not the Angry Left. Not the Bush=Hitler folks. Those people aren’t irrational because they’re right (which they aren’t), they’re irrational because they’re irrational. Their irrationality is self-evident, and is neither proven nor disproven by anything that’s been discussed here.
Frankly, your comment is sort of a weird non-sequitur. It’s utterly unresponsive to what I actually said. Truly, where did I say that any new information “proves how irrational” the Left is? That simply wasn’t an issue in my comment at all.
And another thing. If you guys are going to brag about being “right all along,” let me throw my hat into that particular ring. I have been saying SINCE 9/11 that the biggest reason I am so distressed by the irrationality of the Angry Left in this country — irrationality which echoes throughout the political debate beyond merely radical circles, because the Angry Left makes up a substantially significant portion of the Democratic base that even sane, rational politicians are forced to pander to it — the reason I’m so distressed is precisely because AMERICA NEEDS A RATIONAL LEFT as an ideological counterweight to the current administration!! The Angry Left’s disengagement with reality hinders the emergence of a rational, responsible opposition and thus TIGHTENS THE REPUBLICANS’ GRIP ON POWER!!
If the Left had been focused on the REAL sins and faults and missteps of this administration, instead of focusing on imaginary ones and scaring off Middle America in the process, maybe Bush wouldn’t still be president today. If you guys had actually been talking predominantly about competence and wisdom in 2004, instead of screaming about “BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED” and other such nonsense, Kerry might have won! But just enough Republicans and independents stayed on board the sinking ship in ‘04 precisely because they were scared of your radicalism, and so an incompetent (but not nefarious) administration was given a second term. And now you want to claim credit for being right all along? Gag me.
Let’s say we have an ongoing argument wherein I have been saying that McDonalds fries are the best ever, and you disagree and say they are horrible. Now let’s say MickeyDees comes out with curly fries, and after tasting them, I say these new fries are crap. Analogous to this present debate, would you then jump down my throat and say, “See, I was right all along!”?
Look, presidential administrations are not static. For too many of you, it has been and will always be 2002-2004 and the Iraq war. Amazingly, you somehow have no memory of the various complaints I and other Bush supporters have lobbed at the president — from immigration and healthcare, to tariffs, pork spending, and how the war(s) are being conducted. Peggy Noonan is not giving in to the Left here and saying you guys were right all along. We’re pissed off with Bush for other reasons, far more legitimate in our eyes than the loony, conspiratorial, misplaced rage you guys have exhibited the past few years. An outsider may feel free to draw the conclusion that the disillusionment on both sides is morally equivalent, but it’s idiotic for you guys to interpret Noonan’s comments as throwing up the white flag to you Bush haters.
As bad as Bush is and as much as he ticks me off, there’s not one single Democrat I’d entrust with this country’s leadership save possibly Joe Lieberman. Frankly, the reason Bush has probably become such an ass to us conservatives is because he’s had to deal most directly with your lunacy. Sometimes you can only take being painted as a devil for so long before you finally give up and start to be one.
Just one short comment: One can be right but not wise. That’s not to say I think Bush is right on all the issues — no president ever will be right on all the issues… until I am elected (ahem). It’s just to say that we conservatives are frustrated that, even where Bush has done right, his administration has often done it with less wisdom than we would have liked. That’s not comforting, but it’s far better than a Kerry or Gore who would have done far more wrong.
I will be forthcoming and state I am a conservative (borderline libertarian). I won’t suggest I can speak for all conservatives but I do know many like minded individuals never considered Bush a conservative. He has never governed from that ideology. After all, the first major legislative action he signed was Ted Kennedy’s “Education reform Bill”. And that has been followed by numerously costly policy decisions ie. Medicaid/Medicare reform. What his detractors on the left are missing is that Ms. Noonan has finally cut off her support for President Bush because of his total disregard, which borders on disdain, for conservatives. There are three principles that all true conservative believe: strict interpretation of the constitution, Ms. Meyers’nomination insulted this belief; the first and foremost responsibility of the government is national security, if Mr. Bush would fight the New York Times’constant undermining of our security and secure our borders, he would gain our support; and lastly, a smaller less intrusive government. One that promotes liberty, self-reliance, and protects individual freedom; not one that protects and promotes: group rights, nation building, and out of control entitlement spending. This immigration issue is the last straw because it ignores the “rule of law”, grows the government, and will ultimately cost this country trillions of dollars in entitlement spending (Check the Heritage Foudation for the numbers). In other words, President Bush we no longer believe you are competent because you govern as a Democrat.
P.S. With regard to being “better than the alternative,” it should noted that in two of the three cases where they defeated the alternative, said alternative was a Massachusetts liberal. Democrats should be sensing a pattern here.
June 1st, 2007 at 2:43:32 pm
Where the hell was Peggy Noonan in 2004 when this was obvious to most people with “maturity.”
June 1st, 2007 at 2:45:49 pm
[…] Brendan Loy […]
June 1st, 2007 at 2:46:34 pm
Regarding the Walter Cronkite comparison, it is ridiculous to compare a pay-for-play pundit like Peggy Noonan with Cronkite, even if she did write speeches for Reagan. A more apt comparison for the Right would be Rush Limbaugh (yes, he’s an idiot. But as far as the Radical Right in America, he is their “most trusted man in America.”)
June 1st, 2007 at 3:18:14 pm
Angrier, the Democratic base in 2004 was convinced (and still is, and has been since 2000, actually) that the Bush Administration is nefarious, not merely incompetent. It’s a little disingenuous, therefore, for the Left to now claim, “We told you so!” when in fact the conclusion that the majority of Americans, Peggy Noonan included, are reluctantly coming around to (they’re incompetent and unwise) is quite different from the radical and ridiculous conclusion that the Left has been pushing all along (they’re nefarious and evil).
June 1st, 2007 at 3:33:27 pm
Nnnnoonan! NNnnnnnnoonan!
June 1st, 2007 at 3:37:29 pm
Brendan,
Why can’t someone think they are both “incompetent and unwise” and “nefarious and evil”? Such a person could then be saying “I told you so” about the former, and still try to convince people of the latter.
I’m being a bit coy though. I what you mean… you mean nefarious and evil in the “evil genius” kind of way. That is indeed incompatible with the notion that they are incompetant and unwise. But this brings me to my second objection. Who are these “Democratic base” and “Left” that hold these contradictory views of the administration? Seriously, I want names.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:39:01 pm
Eh… that should read “I know what you mean.”
June 1st, 2007 at 3:48:29 pm
Brendan-
Well, you obviously know what I was thinking in 2001 when I went to Bush’s inauguration. Or in October 2001 when I cheered - along with other restaurant patrons - when Bush launched strikes on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Or when I reluctantly supported the invasion of Iraq based on Colin Powell’s testimony.
However, what Noonan figured out today should have been obvious to most people by the 2004 election.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:50:32 pm
Angrier,
And if the Democrats had actually nominated a competent, electable candidate in 2004, then George Bush would be in Crawford right now.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:51:47 pm
Its also entirely possible to believe that certain elements (Bush) are incompetent and unwise and are being influenced by the well maybe nefarious and evil is a bit strong, but lets say corrupt and unscrupulous elements (Cheney, Gonzales, etc). It’s remincient of Grant’s presidency actually.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:53:35 pm
ps. I’m not really challenging you to find me names. For one thing, it’s not worth your time. For another, if you decided it was worth your time I’m sure you could find me some names. I concede that.
What I’m saying is that the number of people who hold those contradictory views is too small to describe them as “the democratic Base” or “the Left.” I for one consider myself a member of the first group, and also of the second depending upon how you define “Left.” And I don’t think Bush is nefarious or evil.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:10:49 pm
No doubt Kerry sucked. But I think if Kerry ran against Bush today he would win.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:23:13 pm
It’s a slight tangent, but I want to say how odd I feel to even write the words “Bush is not evil.” Of course he’s not evil. I’m one of those people who doesn’t think the word has much meaning. Of course, there are evil deeds, and there are people for whom the sum total of their deeds defines them as having led an evil life. But there are no mustache twirrling villians, and I don’t believe in evil as existing above and beyond the actions of men.
On a DVD commentary for Firefly, Joss Whedon recalled hearing an interview with the actor William Dafoe, in which Dafoe was asked whether he liked playing heros or villians better. His answer was, “ain’t no difference, everybody thinks they’re righteous.” I think this is basically true, and it’s good thing to remember when evaluating people, including polititians.
——–
Buffy: (about Wesley) New Watcher?
Giles: New Watcher.
Wesley: Wesley Wyndam-Pryce. It’s very nice to meet you.
Buffy: (to Giles) Is he evil?
Wesley: Evil?
Buffy: The last one was evil.
Wesley: Oh, yes. Gwendolyn Post. We all heard. No. Mr. Giles has checked my credentials rather thoroughly and phoned the Council, but I’m glad to see you’re on the ball as well. A good Slayer is a cautious Slayer.
Buffy: (to Giles) Is he evil?
Giles: Not in the strictest sense.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:21:42 pm
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the people who believed Bush was “Nefarious and Evil” from before the start, ended up being correct. I give the screaming queers on Santa Monica Blvd during Halloween 2000 all the credit for doing the research on the Administration members, paying attention to their history, and doing their best to get the message out not to Vote for Bush because it would result in bad things for Americans. I dismissed them as fanatical goofballs, and they very well may be that, but they were more informed than I was at the time, and I give them credit for that.
Unfortunately, the biggest problem for Americans with this administration is that their PR department is just So Good. They are able to marginalize the majority of Americans who dissaprove of this president, and the president’s approval ratings have been below 50% since before the ‘04 election. His critics are successfuly labled as irrational “Bush Haters”, and that’s widely accepted as a reasonable response to legitimate criticisms.
Only now that Bush is in full Lame Duck form do prominent people come out with their criticism. I just watched Donald Trump label Bush the worst president in histroy on Greta Van Sustren last night. Thanks for waiting, Captain Obvious. Of course if he came forward before he would be lumped in with the majority of Americans as unstable, irrational Bush Haters. So it probably wouldn’t have mattered anyway.
June 1st, 2007 at 6:01:39 pm
It still amazes me, Brendan, that we could all be right from the start, and that proves how irrational we are. But by your definition of reason, you’re not allowed to be right until years upon years later when it’s far too late. That is a very, very strange conception of rationality.
June 1st, 2007 at 6:07:41 pm
“The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic–they “don’t want to do what’s right for America.” His ally Sen. Lindsey Graham has said, “We’re gonna tell the bigots to shut up.” On Fox last weekend he vowed to “push back.” Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff suggested opponents would prefer illegal immigrants be killed; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said those who oppose the bill want “mass deportation.” Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said those who oppose the bill are “anti-immigrant” and suggested they suffer from “rage” and “national chauvinism.”
Why would they speak so insultingly, with such hostility, of opponents who are concerned citizens? And often, though not exclusively, concerned conservatives?“
Funny how it was all fine when the administration was just doing it to the democrats.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:14:34 pm
Sean-
Maybe, just maybe, Brendan is the one who is irrational. After all, we were right all along. The only thing that could explain this if you are a Bush supporter is that we are the ones who are “irrational.”
June 1st, 2007 at 7:37:47 pm
I do love when you call me a “Bush supporter,” Max, considering I voted for Gore in 2000, Kerry in 2004, and Democrat for Congress in both ‘02 and ‘06.
Anyway, Sean, I didn’t say that your being “right…proves how irrational [you] are.” I said that you’re not right. Or rather, that the people who claim Bush & co. are nefarious and evil and have bad movies are not right. The ones who were saying in 2002 that Bush & co. are incompetent and unwise and overly reliant on cronies — those people are right. Not the Daily Kos crowd. Not the Angry Left. Not the Bush=Hitler folks. Those people aren’t irrational because they’re right (which they aren’t), they’re irrational because they’re irrational. Their irrationality is self-evident, and is neither proven nor disproven by anything that’s been discussed here.
Frankly, your comment is sort of a weird non-sequitur. It’s utterly unresponsive to what I actually said. Truly, where did I say that any new information “proves how irrational” the Left is? That simply wasn’t an issue in my comment at all.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:46:27 pm
And another thing. If you guys are going to brag about being “right all along,” let me throw my hat into that particular ring. I have been saying SINCE 9/11 that the biggest reason I am so distressed by the irrationality of the Angry Left in this country — irrationality which echoes throughout the political debate beyond merely radical circles, because the Angry Left makes up a substantially significant portion of the Democratic base that even sane, rational politicians are forced to pander to it — the reason I’m so distressed is precisely because AMERICA NEEDS A RATIONAL LEFT as an ideological counterweight to the current administration!! The Angry Left’s disengagement with reality hinders the emergence of a rational, responsible opposition and thus TIGHTENS THE REPUBLICANS’ GRIP ON POWER!!
If the Left had been focused on the REAL sins and faults and missteps of this administration, instead of focusing on imaginary ones and scaring off Middle America in the process, maybe Bush wouldn’t still be president today. If you guys had actually been talking predominantly about competence and wisdom in 2004, instead of screaming about “BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED” and other such nonsense, Kerry might have won! But just enough Republicans and independents stayed on board the sinking ship in ‘04 precisely because they were scared of your radicalism, and so an incompetent (but not nefarious) administration was given a second term. And now you want to claim credit for being right all along? Gag me.
June 1st, 2007 at 9:34:05 pm
The mindless idiocy of you guys is truly amazing.
Let’s say we have an ongoing argument wherein I have been saying that McDonalds fries are the best ever, and you disagree and say they are horrible. Now let’s say MickeyDees comes out with curly fries, and after tasting them, I say these new fries are crap. Analogous to this present debate, would you then jump down my throat and say, “See, I was right all along!”?
Look, presidential administrations are not static. For too many of you, it has been and will always be 2002-2004 and the Iraq war. Amazingly, you somehow have no memory of the various complaints I and other Bush supporters have lobbed at the president — from immigration and healthcare, to tariffs, pork spending, and how the war(s) are being conducted. Peggy Noonan is not giving in to the Left here and saying you guys were right all along. We’re pissed off with Bush for other reasons, far more legitimate in our eyes than the loony, conspiratorial, misplaced rage you guys have exhibited the past few years. An outsider may feel free to draw the conclusion that the disillusionment on both sides is morally equivalent, but it’s idiotic for you guys to interpret Noonan’s comments as throwing up the white flag to you Bush haters.
As bad as Bush is and as much as he ticks me off, there’s not one single Democrat I’d entrust with this country’s leadership save possibly Joe Lieberman. Frankly, the reason Bush has probably become such an ass to us conservatives is because he’s had to deal most directly with your lunacy. Sometimes you can only take being painted as a devil for so long before you finally give up and start to be one.
June 1st, 2007 at 9:41:52 pm
Just one short comment: One can be right but not wise. That’s not to say I think Bush is right on all the issues — no president ever will be right on all the issues… until I am elected (ahem). It’s just to say that we conservatives are frustrated that, even where Bush has done right, his administration has often done it with less wisdom than we would have liked. That’s not comforting, but it’s far better than a Kerry or Gore who would have done far more wrong.
June 1st, 2007 at 9:54:45 pm
I will be forthcoming and state I am a conservative (borderline libertarian). I won’t suggest I can speak for all conservatives but I do know many like minded individuals never considered Bush a conservative. He has never governed from that ideology. After all, the first major legislative action he signed was Ted Kennedy’s “Education reform Bill”. And that has been followed by numerously costly policy decisions ie. Medicaid/Medicare reform. What his detractors on the left are missing is that Ms. Noonan has finally cut off her support for President Bush because of his total disregard, which borders on disdain, for conservatives. There are three principles that all true conservative believe: strict interpretation of the constitution, Ms. Meyers’nomination insulted this belief; the first and foremost responsibility of the government is national security, if Mr. Bush would fight the New York Times’constant undermining of our security and secure our borders, he would gain our support; and lastly, a smaller less intrusive government. One that promotes liberty, self-reliance, and protects individual freedom; not one that protects and promotes: group rights, nation building, and out of control entitlement spending. This immigration issue is the last straw because it ignores the “rule of law”, grows the government, and will ultimately cost this country trillions of dollars in entitlement spending (Check the Heritage Foudation for the numbers). In other words, President Bush we no longer believe you are competent because you govern as a Democrat.
June 1st, 2007 at 11:25:58 pm
Or rather, that the people who claim Bush & co. are nefarious and evil and have bad movies are not right.
Look i’ve been saying all along that Bush has a copy of any number of Rob Schneider movies, and this just proves it!!
June 1st, 2007 at 11:43:54 pm
LOL!
That should say “motives,” of course… I’m a dumbass. Heh.
June 2nd, 2007 at 2:51:17 am
1) Neither President Bush has been a conservative.
2) Pretty much the best thing going for both President Bushs was that they were better than the alternative.
June 2nd, 2007 at 3:05:08 am
President Bushs
I believe the proper term is “Presidents Bush.” :)
June 2nd, 2007 at 3:06:22 am
P.S. With regard to being “better than the alternative,” it should noted that in two of the three cases where they defeated the alternative, said alternative was a Massachusetts liberal. Democrats should be sensing a pattern here.
June 2nd, 2007 at 9:51:25 am
Thanks, DC. I have also often thought that one of Bush’s biggest problems was his failure to fight the New York Times.
June 5th, 2007 at 6:21:25 pm
Peggy Noonan’s column vindicates my BDS.