Given that it’s been referenced so often by the anti-Bush crowd, this mini-rant by NRO’s George Conway is worth spending a few moments on. Writes Conway:
John Fund, after discussing how disgruntled the GOP base may be, has it exactly right: “Republicans have appeared to the world to be as unprincipled and rudderless as the politicians they campaigned against back in 1994. Unless they change course dramatically in the seven months between now and Election Day, they may well find themselves facing the same fate as the Democratic political dinosaurs of that year that they replaced.” I’m disgruntled, too, and I’m going to get it all of my chest this morning: I’ve never voted for a Democrat in a general election in my life, and I don’t expect to anytime soon, but it’s been impossible for me over the past couple of years to get enthused about the Republican party. I voted for President Bush twice, and contributed to his campaign twice, but held my nose when I did it the second time. I don’t consider myself a Republican any longer. Thanks to this Administration and the Republicans in Congress, the Republican Party today is the party of pork-barrel spending, Congressional corruption  and, I know folks on this web site don’t want to hear it, but deep down they know it’s true  foreign and military policy incompetence. Frankly, speaking of incompetence, I think this Administration is the most politically and substantively inept that the nation has had in over a quarter of a century. The good news about it, as far as I’m concerned, is that it’s almost over.
As many who support Bush on the war have noted time and again, the current Republican coalition is a loose alliance of those who have placed national security above other concerns, and simply believe the administration’s strategy for fighting Islamic terror and reforming the middle east is a better and more principled one than any of the options offered by his ideological opponents (which range from “immediate withdrawal” and “time-tables” to a return to realpolitik, a law-enforcement paradign, or, in some cases, isolationism).
But what Bush supporters are not is homogeneous. From Zell Miller Democrats to libertarians strong on national defense to Hannyesque GOP boosters to legal and social conservatives, today’s GOP voter often self-identifies as something other than a GOP party member.
For my part, I have a strong distaste for most of Congress—from Democratic obstructionism and opportunism to GOP-spinelessness and overspending (after years of presenting themselves as fiscally responsible, many GOP Congresscritters have shown themselves just as willing to bury their nose in the trough as Robert Byrd). And so I, like Conway, have no special place in my heart for the Republican Party, other than I prefer it to the Democratic Party, which has shown itself incapable of taking a principled position on just about anything other than “we stand against Bush.”
But as to the charge of incompetence, I disagree with the sweeping generalization made by Conway. Instead, where I think the administration has been incompetent has been in getting its message out—though in their defense, they have had to fight an unprecedentedly bitter and contrarian minority party and hostile press. Still, sad as it is to say, it is not enough, in this age of media immediacy and a breakdown in the contract between the news media and their consumers, to do principled things (as I believe both the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns were; ditto Bush’s refusal to deal with Arafat and the administration’s promotion of universal human liberty against the foreign policy realists who’d rather just continue the program of “containment” and dictator-propping that led to 911); today, you must also package that message in a way that is able to beat back the incessant attempts by opponents to undermine your policies. And the Bushies have been unable to do so in a way that has been sustainable.
As to Conways claims of corruption—that is an individual thing, and is as prolific on the left as it is on the right; and it is precisely the kind of generalization that he makes that ennables things like McCain-Feingold, when we already have laws available to punish corrupt politicians.
And finally, Conway’s claims of military and foreign policy incompetence on the part of this administration is just plain peculiar. At worst, the future is still undecided as a result of the Bush strategy to wreak havoc on the status quo in the Middle East. But the potential for affecting enormous positive change is great (a lot greater than many of us have been led to believe), but doing so requires the kind of will that UBL and his cronies have come right out and said Americans simply lack.
I don’t know enough about Conway to say whether or not his position on this adminstration’s foreign policy has changed (or whether he, like Buckley and George Will, was never much of an interventionalist in the first place); but I know enough about military history to know that the removal of two dictatorial regimes in the course of five years—and replacing them with fledgling democracies—is hardly what I’d call military incompetence.
And John Bolton appears to be doing quite well in his role as UN ambassador articulating the positions of the US without getting folded up into the soft clubblishness of the professional bureaucrat class.
Conway is, of course, entitled to his opinion. But simply by virtue of being a Bush voter who is now highly critical of the administration, he is no more necessarily correct in his assessments than is any other person who follows politics closely. So I find the rush to cite him as some sort of authority on Congressional corruption or this administrations “objective” incompetence rather unpersuasive: to those who hate Bush, he is simply useful for the week, as was Buckley before him (though in Buckley’s case, he was far more deft and tactful in expressing his criticisms, wrong as I found some of them).
But those who are citing Conway—and Newbold, Shinseki, etc—should keep in mind that the Bush-supporting coalition has never been monolithic in its ideological underpinnings, and so fragmentation, particularly at difficult moments and in fits of despair, is quite natural.
After all, this is not the coalition of Ms Clinton, who famously remarked, “you don’t have to fall in love, you just have to fall in line.”
Well, in his defense he always cracked up Carol Burnett and Harvey Korman.
Perfect, Jeff. That was perfect.
Every time I read something like what you just wrote Jeff, I yearn for the emergence of a true third party that would encompass the ideals of a libertarian/conservative party without the fruitcakes currently running the libertarian party.
The ideals of less government, more intellectual and personal freedoms but with the added addendum of with these freedoms come the personal responsibilities too.
Sigh.
Conway is just using NRO as a forum to get his wake-up message to the Republicans in Congress and the WH.
As with anyone who is disgusted with spending and pork, the alternative–voting for Democrats–is not going to happen. Why? The Democrats proudly state that they want even more spending and pork. Near every objection to Administration and Congressional spending proposals are met with the complaint that the spending proposal is not large enough.
Call it holding your nose, and voting for the lesser of two evils, but that’s often the case in politics–and has been for a long time.
The mini-rant by Conway is a childish tantrum. Politics is hard work–if he doesn’t like it, he should find another occupation.
Who is George Conway and why does he have a blog at NRO?
The national GOP is corrupt and incompetent. The evidence is pretty overwhelming.
On the domestic front, they’ve tethering up to the wingnuts of the religious right. That Terry Schiavo business is a case in point.
In foreign policy front, lemming-like, they continue to follow the advice of Neocon ideologues located at the Weekly Standard, despite positive evidence that the Iraq war/occupation is a disaster.
Eleanor Clift was right in calling the congressional GOP a circular firing squad.
The GOP: Wingnuts, crazies and Neocons. All headed up by a reality-challenged president.
I wonder how Conway, Newbold, et al like their new-found fellow travelers. It’s gotta be a little tough receiving love letters and adoring glances from the charming lads and lasses at kos and du.
I find it amusing, though, that people who normally would view anything emitted by National Review with the intellectual equivalent of tightly pinched nostrils all of a sudden have this Conway guy up on their shoulders, confetti streaming. Well, as I’ve noted a few times before, some people who would normally be hurling human feces at guys like Eric Shinseki give him the hero’s welcome when he says something in line with their cause. Probably I’ve done the same thing myself once or twice, with the same result credibility-wise. Hopefully I’m older and wiser now; I’m certainly half of that.
Never heard of Conway before a couple of days ago, myself. All of a sudden he’s my ideological hero? Please.
TW: human feces.
If you (as I do) have a problem with the Pork Eating GOP, who the hell are you going to vote for, the Pork Eating Dems? Best try to rein in the GOP.
If you (as I do) think the GOP has caved on illegal immigration, how can you adopt the Dems policy? Best to try to get some sensible legislation out of a GOP controlled Congress.
If you believe that there is a “culture of corruption” in the GOP, what was/is going on with the Dems? Crooked Pols need to be weeded out regardless of party. And why would any reasonable person tar every GOP pol because of Cunningham’s sins, or Delay’s alleged mis deeds?
If you supported Afghanistan and Iraq military campaigns, can you honestly say that we need to cut our losses and get out? That is the “strategy” on the other side of the aisle.
I’m not a Republican (or a Democrat) but I can’t conceive of any reason that I would vote for a Democrat for other than a local office. I’m certainly disappointed enough in the present Congress and administration to consider it, but what are the alternatives?
Can someone else tell us exactly what other administration would be MORE competent at fighting a war? The Democrats would have us bomb Iraq for years on end, with our ground troops in bunkers, but gosh golly gee wilikers, we’d have a fuck-load more of them!
Critics of our competence are sometimes parroting our chest-thumping infantry heroes such as Hackworth and Peters and many others who know that war is killing and killing cannot be euphemized. Do it already, drop the multi-billion dollar fighters, get another division or two and turn the goddamn streets red. That’s war. It’s hell, but speed saves more lives than cautious, cringing advances which churn marrow into the mud.
But unlike our critics, they also urge us to fight, somewhere, somehow, and often with our blood redoubly doubled, pounding through our ears, in a manner that would shock our ‘gentler’, callous citizen Strategos.
Any student of war knows that Patton’s quick advances, his shocking boldness preserved the lives of his men. His ferociousness, his dogged pursuit, his sanguine, unapologetic warmongering saved lives. Ike’s methodical advance burned Men like materiale. Compare Patton’s war (and Alexandros Megas’ and Scipio Africanus’ and Caesar’s and Gustavus Adolphus’ and Napolean’s and Wellington’s and Washington’s and Winfield Scott’s and the rest of the Great Captains) to Verdun and the hopeless trenches of the Great War, where millions died in machine gun reaping rows.
Safety in war is like closing up in a street fight; you will get beaten, you will be broken.
And so these same critics lift the parts of those patriots such as Hack that accord with their own views: we need more troops, we need more armor, we need more whatever, and less of the rest. They often ignore the other proscriptions such as overwhelming force, indefatigable assaults on strongholds, evisceration of supply lines, interrogation tactics that would put a little hair on your palms. They ignore history.
This war’s critics on the civilian side, tend to be ignorant at best shine, opportunistic at a lower pall. Besides our frustrated warrior class, this war’s critics on the military side tend to be careerist bureaucrats, the exact opposite of the bold military leaders that win wars. These got lost on their way to State department, or are mid-stride to a lobbyist position, or thought that the military was a place to get rich, and not to die. Oops.
History is constant. It is unforgiving. The critics are wrong and these particular and recent argumentations from authority only shows how desperate, how foolish, their cases are.
Hmmm.
All true except for one small thing:
The future ramifications of unchecked illegal immigration of people who believe that they have a separate and pre-existing *right* to American sovereign territory is ultimately more dangerous than even the GWOT, Iraq, Iran or China.
America is a nation of approximately 300 million people, possibly including the 10-20 million illegals, while Mexico is a nation of 100 million. However the population of Central & South America, including Mexico, is around 500 million.
The ability for these countries to export their poor to America is greater than our ability to assimilate them in any appreciable fashion. How many unassimilated illegal immigrants does it take to effect a revolution?
A Reconquista?
There is already a pan-Hispanic ideology appearing that is acting to unite the self-interests of these illegal aliens, c.f. the massive protests. So it’s not dealing with the illegals of just one country. So while we’ve all been concentrating on Mexico, because that’s the largest single demographic of the illegal population that doesn’t mean that it will stay that way as it’s very possible that the influx of Mexican nationals will top out while illegals from Central and South America will increase and find common cause with Mexican illegals already here.
How many unassimilated yet newly minted *citizens* does it take to completely replace the current political dynamics? President Bush was elected President on the basis of 60 million or so votes. If the pace of illegal immigration accelerates after this next amnesty, indeed I expect it is already accelerating as people seek to come in under the line for any future Congressional agreement, then we could see a 2-3 million coming in every single year. Or more.
And that’s on a national election that involves the entire electorate. In state, county or local elections the effects could be even more pronounced with entire regions coming under sway of unassimilated citizens.
Just because you call someone a citizen and give them some papers doesn’t actually *make* them into citizens who feel loyalty to this nation.
What would we do if say California was a clear majority of illegal aliens who suddenly become new citizens with voting rights? What if they vote to secede from the Union? Colorado? New Mexico? Arizona? Texas? Nevada? Idaho? Ohio? New Jersey?
Farfetched? Prove to me that it’s impossible and that it could never happen. Prove to me that a massive influx of unassimilated illegals suddenly made into citizens without having gone through the entire assimilation process won’t also bring severe political instability along.
…
Summary: Do we really want to fight Civil War II?
Frankly I find this to be a lot more dangerous than any damn GWOT. The only reason we’re fucking around with the GWOT in the first place is because we’re still too nice to bomb the fuckers with incendiaries a la Tokyo.
Somebody already tried that “secede from the union” stuff already. It didn’t work.
Anyway, the illegals won’t have the guns, so its a moot point.
Remember: Who has the guns?
Well, I’m certainly with Bush until the end on the War on Terror, because he has shown at least one thing—a willingness to fight. I look at the Democratic party and all I see is a bunch on Monday morning quarterbacks who are all insisting, as loudly as they can, that they would have spared Saddam given even a scintilla of doubt. That’s hardly reassuring when looking at nebulous, “best guess” scenarios featuring shadowy terrorist groups and an American human intelligence infrastructure that was gutted by some of these selfsame Democrats after the perceived excesses of the Vietnam war. If we’re going to make an error of judgment, I’m for making that error of judgment on the side that says we’re better off without monsters like Saddam.
I may get frustrated with Bush from time to time, and want to slap the marbles out of his mouth, but if my choices are Bush or surrender, then I’ll take Bush. And frankly, he’d have to screw up a hell of a lot worse than anything he has done to date in order for me to look at a Democrat. Bush has spent, basically, a brigade of troops in the four and half years since 9/11, freed 50 million people, and kept America safe (so far). The pricetag may seem high to you and to me, but he could have done a hell of a lot worse, simply by doing nothing.
Government is not now, and never will be, a model of competence and efficiency. Thieves in Congress, child molestors at DHS, and political hacks at FEMA—tell me, did any Republican out there really think the Federal Government would do otherwise? Until the skies part and Jesus himself hands King Arthur a golden sceptre of justice, government will always be incompetent.
That is its nature, which is why the founders decided to give us so little of it. Would it be better under the Democrats? I see no evidence of that—and as much as the Democrats like to talk about the culture of corruption, nothing the Republicans have done has so far matched the House Bank scandal, the House Post Office scandal, or gift-taking excesses of Dan Rostenkowski.
We expected better of the Republicans. Shame on us. But I’m not going to pillory the Republican party over their failures, real or perceived, when they are the only game in town when it comes to killing terrorists, because to paraphrase Lombardi, killing terrorists isn’t everything, it’s the only thing.
I was just discussing this point this morning. and maybe i’m off, but it seems to me we’ve bent over backwards to prevent civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan and part of the cost of that is that it’s going to require us to be there longer.
which leads to something else i’ve been meaning to ask…. I’m hearing more complaints about how long it’s taking the Iraqi government to get it’s act together, would those of you who have experience with the culture there say that this might be due to “how things are done” over there? i mean, it’s my understanding that nothing happens quickly when negotiations are involved.
Vercingetorix:
That last post from you is why I read blogs. Well written and spot on food-for-thought.
People have a tendency to forget how long it took us to come up with a workable Constitution and subsequent National Government. Ten amendments before the ink was dry. Of course we didn’t have a history of sectarian violence then either with people getting bumped off because of their political affiliations.
I think it is literally fucking amazing, a feat never before accomplished, that they have a working constitution in such a short period of time. Think of it: from a despotic, totalitarian, 30 year old government to a constitutionally elected representative government in three years! Complete with all the political infighting and jockeying for position you would expect from a, basically, tri-party government.
And to think that there are people here in this country that think Iraq is in worse shape than it was with Saddam in charge. What a fucking joke.
About a hundred years. Sounds like the GWOT is a long range plan.
Hmmmm.
1.
Yeah in 1865, with a war fought with muskets and we still lost almost 1,000,000 men dead or wounded.
How would you like to fight Civil War II in every single neighborhood in America all at the same time using semi-auto and automatic weapons with no clear delination of either set of combatants.
2.
Frankly I really don’t like bitchslapping people on this blog so I’ll just point out that this is a really silly statement.
No offense but there’s a LOT of illegals crossing the border that are better armed than you or I. And I’ll point out that it’s probably a LOT easier to acquire AK-47s and other fully automatic weapons south of the border than in the US. Primarily because of all the drug cartels and local insurgent and terrorist groups. As an example, FARC in Columbia. Or how about everybody’s friend and joy, Hugo Chavez.
Anybody think it would take Hugo more than 15 seconds to financially support an armed insurgency against America by illegals? Are you wondering, as am I, why Hugo is buying 100,000 AKs from Russia when the Army in Venezuala isn’t nearly that large.
3.
c.f. above.
When you consider the list of countries that are helping to sew the seeds of violent Islamism, this number might end up being prophetic. Add to those the places where tyrants gladly point outside of the country for the reasons people have it so badly and it starts to look grim indeed.
Fatigue perhaps?
If a person is constantly bombarded with negative propaganda for 5 years, it probably will have an effect. It definitely wears on my resistance.
Where has the other Dem talking points gone? Education? Jobs? Economy?
Education – scores are continuing to rise across the board. The largest improvements are being made in the minorities. College enrollment is at record levels. BECAUSE OF THE NO DAMN CHILD LEFT BEHIND!
Jobs – 4.75% unemployment. Many economists believed it near impossible to drop below 5%. BECAUSE HALIBURTON EMPLOYEED ALL OF THEM!
Economy – We are in the best financial shape in the past 6 years. BECAUSE THE CHIMPEROR GAVE THE RICH ALL OF THE TAX CUTS!
The Iraq war has consumed everyone and occupied the spot light too much. I’m tired of hearing about. Afghanistan is a success, and Iraq is on the way to becoming one.
But, but, but, but, the massive amounts of spending on the federal level! #1 Both wars and their budgets were voted on and approved (overwhelming I might add) by both isles of the House and Senate. #2 Katrina is the largest domestic natural disaster in U.S. History. It’s nature. We can’t control it. Get the fuck over it.
I’m tired of this “what have you done for me lately†attitude. I want for people to just be honest and judge an administration for it’s entire legacy, and not just the part that people will remember.
I find myself meandering over to NRO less and less anymore. It’s as though they’ve come down with a group case of the vapors or something over there.
I have more than just a “strong distaste” for Congress. It seems that once our “representatives” get inside that Beltway, they lose all sense of what it means to “represent”. And yet we voters, in our infinite wisdom, contine to send essentially the same group of mountebanks back to Washington over and over and over. And then we blather on about term limits and other “fixes” to the resulting problem of an ensconced power structure as though we don’t already have the appropriate “fix” firmly within our grasp. Feh. One of the truest truisms ever is that we get the government we deserve. In spades.
That is an oft repeated criticism of this administration. I always wonder, and frequently ask, what the critics would have them do differently considering that they’re dealing with an unprecedentedly bitter and contrarian minority party and hostile press. It’s a serious question. Share your tactics, critics. I have admired this president and his administration for being so relentlessly on message. What should he/they be doing to see that the message reaches the right ears? How do they overcome, or at least side-step, that hostile press whose only agenda seemingly is to tear them down and lift the bitter and contrarian minority party up? What aren’t they doing that they should be doing?
Well, you certainly are entitled to your opinion, Mr. Conway, whomever you are. Just as I’m entitled to my opinion that your opinion isn’t worth much.
I try to do that natesnake, but I will be the first to admit that it is difficult. To me it is a “no brainer” that the government can cut spending and the red ink pen resides at the WH. Bush has never vetoed a bill, including that hateful McCain_Feingold Campaign Spending Reform piece of shit.
I agree that the economy is humming, but part of that hum you hear is a direct result of the guns of war. I don’t regret or begrudge one dime that has been spent on Afghanistan or Iraq – the best value for my Government Dollar in my lifetime.
Illegal immigration is an issue that Bush can do something about, yet really contributes to the existing situation rather than confronting it and correcting it.
The handling of the GWOT and the Bush foreign policy get bonus points from me, which basically negates the minuses up above. I’m just not happy with the overall “domestic” program, some of which overlaps to the national security part.
That being said, I don’t see a lot of alternatives; the Dems surely haven’t given me one. Bottom line: Bush gets enthusiastic support from me on Foreign Policy and lukewarm support for domestic policies.
RLS, that’s why I like hanging around here. A spade is a spade. Honesty prevails. Not every decision made by the Administration and Republicans will be right. We weight the positive against the negative and give an informed judgement.
And the pie.
I stay for the pie.
Civil war between hispanic immigrants (who is it they are going to fight against again?) and I guess Oregon residents?
I am really concerned about this prospect. Especially since Chavez is going to arm the latinos. In fact, I’m so worried that I walked next door and asked my neighbor when he got his Chavez funded AKs. He got it from UPS just last week. Would’ve been sooner but even with all that oil money, Hugo still won’t pay for express delivery.
Hope Fred won’t mind if I paraphrase his comment. This is why I read blogs. For a good hearty belly laugh.
The whole incompetence thing and the administration’s failed messaging are linked. In fact, they’re almost two sides of the same coin. You can see a complete mini-representation of the phenomenon in any White House press briefing: Scott comes out with a few canned phrases and proceeds to “answer” every question with them. How does that make him look? Incompetent, that’s how.
The left has had a field day with this administration precisely because of the knowledge vaccuum it leaves in it’s wake. With so many blanks left unfilled, it’s all the administration’s opponents can do to fill them fast enough. By ineptly explaining why it does what it does it gives the appearance of arbitrariness in it’s actions.
T/W: ideas. Where are they?
:peter
Knowledge vacuum. That about sums it up.
I agree with you on the war, Jeff, but that’s the only disagreement I have with Conway on this. For hawkish libertarian types like me there are really only two good things about George Bush’s presidency.
1. He’s not Gore or Kerry.
2. He’ll be gone soon.
Well, she turned me into a newt!
Wow! I would never have figured actoid (“curiously lame”) as a Gingrich fan. Strange bedfellows, indeed.
I hear you, but…BUT, #2 could get you a #1.
In other words, we could do worse in 2008.
“In other words, we could do worse in 2008.”
Unless someone emerges from the shadows, we most definitely WILL do worse in 2008. The Dims will most certainly nominate another Moonbat; and none of the leading Republicans other than Rice excites anyone with their policy or personality, and I doubt that Rice will get the nod from the GOP [though she might get the VEEP slot] because they see her as not yet electable.
Of course, the GOP could pull a rabbit out of the hat and nominate Liebermann. How about that? A republican ticket headed by a Jew with a black woman as VP? The left would have a brain hemmorage trying to figure out how to tell their base NOT to vote for a ticket so composed.
While Mr. Liebermann is much too liberal for me on most issues, at least I know he won’t pussy out when confronted by a threat to the safety and security of the US.
In fact, if I was chairman of the RNC, I would have already put in a call to the Senator, letting him know that the GOP will happily endorse and finance his re-election bid.
Charlie, how about Newt Gingrich? Actus likes him and he knows his way around the beltway. And Rice could be the V.P.
The ticket is attractive to conservatives, intellectuals, minorities, and women.
People would have a hard time uttering the “President is dumb” thing. That guy is a genius.
Gratzi, Fred
“Let us suppose I am a member of Congress. Let us also suppose that I am an idiot. But I repeat myself.”
— Mark Twain
SB: analysis
psycho
psssst, verc, try “grazie” i mean, if you’re attempting Italican.
Good post Jeff, and excellent way to have an (in my opinion) impt conversation.
For those wondering who George Conway is. He is a partner in arguably the most powerful law firm in the world, Wachtel Lipton. From there in the 90s, George masterminded many of Bill Clinton’s legal worries, including much of the Paula Jones travail. (The NYT did a sort of expose on all this in the late 90s, and apparently some of George’s partners were not too happy with him, Democrats like Bernie Nussbaum.) George is a wealthy and powerful, behind-the-scenes GOP strategist. I would assume his blog at NRO is a reward for his service to the GOP and his efforts to destroy Bill Clinton.
If you go to his blog at NRO here: http://conways.nationalreview.com/
…his wife has a follow-up to his remarks of yesterday. She hasn’t been as hostile to Bush as hubby George, and apparently talked him out of a protest vote for the Libertarian Party in ‘04, but just barely. She reprints many of the emails they received in response to George’s post, which she says run 4-1 favorable. It is interesting reading.
Hmmmm.
1.
Well I do aim to please.
*shrug* so all 20 million illegals are going to pack up and go home without a whimper? Even if we don’t round them up and ship them out and just force employers to fire them all, they’re going to meekly take that and do nothing about it?
And if we don’t force them out in some way and accomodate them, then isn’t that simply appeasement? If a nation does something out of fear of the consequences, then who really is in control?
And if only 1% of the 20 million decide that “hell no I won’t go”, then doesn’t that amount to 200,000 armed insurrectionists? And that’s just 1%.
2.
No I’m sure you’re not. But I’m probably sure that you consider the idea of having 5 million malcontent muslims in France to be an idiotic idea. Yet the possibility of having 20 million malcontent illegal aliens in America is just dandy.
3.
Then *you* explain why Chavez bought 100,000 Russian automatic military assault rifles.
4.
Is your neighbor an illegal alien facing the prospect of losing him job, home and lifestyle and being forced back to his home country?
5.
He is a cheap bastard isn’t he?
6.
I’m sure he’ll forgive you.
7.
Funny enough that’s why I read replies to my comments.
Natesnake, c’mon. As Carl will no doubt remind us shortly, everyone here is a slavishly devoted cheerleader..or something.
It’s a nice idea, but it’d also gaurantee Democratic control of the government for the next century or so. Indeed, as a conservative libertarian, I yearn for the emergence of a true third party that would espouse the ideals of far left moonbat party to syphon precious votes away from the Democrats.
Heh, I did a Google search on this Conway guy because I hadn’t heard of him before, and the first non-National Review entry that came up was National Review’s new blog—A vile case study in GOP filth-peddling by Glenn Greenwald:
Let’s all make sure we’re not complicit in permitting the amnesic and manipulated media to parade Conway around as a Paragon of Civility and Dignity!
I for one will stand proudly at Glenn’s side and heed his call to denounce anyone who tries to misrepresent the underhanded political doubletalk of this vile partisan muckraker as anything that decent folk should pay attention to.
Once I stop laughing at the irony, that is.
I commented about the Conway rant over at Glenn’s blog at about the same time I did so here. He just ended a week in editor-imposed prison finishing his book, and hasn’t been bloggng much at all, and had to fly back home.
But I emailed him about Conway’s stuff, and hope he has some public comment. It is true that George Conway stirred up nasty sh*t for Bill clinton, whom Conway despised. But of course, the issue isn’t whether he is a paragon of Niceness and Civility; it is that he really hates George Bush, nearly as much as he seems to have despised Bill Clinton.
I would not want George Conway focused on me in any negative way; he appears to be quite ruthless. But that doesn’t mean his political judgments are wrong.
And oh, Glenn apparently will ally with almost anyone who sees the dangers of George Bush, including Daily Kos. But he also just published in American Conservative magazine, according to his latest post. I can’t see him loving everything Pat Buchanan believes, but there you are.
What Tman said:
Yup, and, not so coincidentally, the resident student sitepest proves the point. In reverse. Daily. Which is probably one big point against opportunistic immigration, but that’s another topic…
Which leads us to carlgossborg:
Damn straight carlgossborg, so stop there and be done with it. No, carl, stop! CARL!
Yeah, that’s gotta be it.
Anyway, the short answer is that authoritarianism comes from special interest corrupting the whoring legislative process while a lazy populace sits on its hands until it’s all gone too far. Unless the republic has collapsed by then.
Constitutionality? Ha.
In this, there’s no difference between the parties except that if one won’t drop it’s drawers for your collective votes, the other will. Without a real patriotic rage across millions, libertarianism doesn’t stand a chance. That political rage is, of course, revolution.
An interesting thread when both sides agree, even if the moonbat side doesn’t realize why.
6Gun sings my song:
I can’t tell you how very strange it has been to be up in arms over Bush’s Yoo theories of Executive power, e.g., the Padilla matter, and most especially the brazen violation of FISA and warrantless spying on U.S. persons, and finding that most of those sharing and receptive to my outrage are leftists. Please believe that I fully know, if this were a liberal Democrat Prez doing such things, there would be, at least, a diminution of their concern.
But I do not care if right-wingers hate me, and if I have to work with a lot of leftists, in order to oppose this literally imperial power grab of the Bush Administration. Think about it folks: Bush is a huge spender, and regards federalism as a quaint relic from another time. He panders to religious populists and commits travesties like the Schiavo thing. So why all this trust that he is legit on his claims of Executive power? Why not break ranks with the authoritarian right on that issue as well?
I simply cannot fathom libertarian-leaning people thinking this warrantless spying is just fine. It may violate the 4th Am (the SCOTUS has not ruled on that yet, in the national security context—it is a 50/50 proposition how they would hold on that wrt the 4th Am.) But with the exception of a few former liberal lawyers from liberal DoJ’s like Carter’s (even liberal Presidents want to expand Executive power), mostly only right-wing Bush shills see any merit at all in Bush’s legal defenses. And I swear to you, there just is zero chance the SCOTUS—including Antonin Scalia—would uphold this nonsense.
Indeed, it has been very weird to be citing Scalia’s “anti-Bush” Opinions to lefties on this warrantless spying issue and their attendant view that Alito is doom on that matter—they are WRONG to have hissy fits about the Alito nomination, unless Roe v. Wade is their Holy Grail and only concern. If Alito is “Scalito,” Bush’s monarch theories of his power would go down unanimously. But so many of them have been screaming that the right members of the Court would rule for Bush, Alito must be stopped because he’d crown Bush king & etc ad nauseam— and that is freakin’ NOT TRUE.
It is just their mindless animus causing them to say that. Scalia and Thomas are frequently better on civil liberties and limiting govt than the liberal members of the court, and that is simply a fact, no matter what the left wants to howl about.
But then many on the right think that what I know Scalia et al. would rule in this warrantless spying matter is a left-wing, anti-Bush position, and that almost makes me nuts. The ignorant left doesn’t realize Scalia is their best friend on this issue, and the ignorant right doesn’t know it isn’t a left issue, unless Antonin and Clarence are now moonbats..
Very, very frustrating.
Well then, Conway lost my respect before he ever had it.
Why is this an issue? Certainly why he hates George Bush may be interesting, but that he hates George Bush?
The guy is a nutcase.
Maybee writes:
No, I think both are interesting. When a powerful GOP operative issues a rant like that, this signals something. Especially when an organ like NRO hosts it. They through out the anti-neocon, anti-Bush paleo-cons like Sobran and Buchanan, but are letting Conway speak his fierce anti-Bush rhetoric.
Why?
Wrong thread Mona, and I’m not even close to singing your song. I’m a realist and while I despise big, corrupt government, I despise terrorism and the loss of Western values more.
But I suspect you knew that.
Just to be very clear, Mona, this is what comes from bad, “bipartisan” socialized government, a government less intent on preserving constitutional freedom and independence and more intent on social conformity, soft paternalism, subjective law, and overtly buying and selling special legislation.
This nightmare and a thousand more like it:
Welcome to the Socialist States of America. Is this the song you’re singing?
“it is that he really hates George Bush, nearly as much as he seems to have despised Bill Clinton.”
When Mona appeals to authority, she sure picks some doozies. Do you defer to hate experts when you feel a burning need to do some hating?
Attacks on leaders do not require explanation, they’re a consistent feature of all human societies, and often enough, the better the leader, the more stringent the attacks. Read Plutarch’s Lives where every one of the most capable statesmen in ancient Greece alternate between being hugely polular and getting run out of town on a rail. It’s human nature.
What can be interesting is the content of the attacks. This, however, doesn’t seem to interest you nearly as much as the latest popularity contest.
I think they are too unsure of their message, only recently having discovered multiculti PC-ness and its possibilities for exploitation. They are ashamed of their Churchillian tendencies, as opposed to the great middle swath of the electorate who have long since abandoned cuddling “the Other” and wish mightily for a government that feels the same.
Rich Lowry/National Review threw out Ann Coulter as well, in Oct 2001, but not for attacking Bush.
Maybe NR pays attention to what people say and how they say it, not just who they criticize.
Auf Englisch, bitte?
That’s a really big…assumption you’ve got there, Mona.
I’ve heard Karl Rove is just a few GOP Effort Points away from being awarded a blog at NRO. The want of it is making him desperate.
Mona, then I assume that your posting slot at Glenn Greenwald’s site is a reward for your service to the Democrats and your efforts to destroy George Bush (presumably via the same sleazy and dishonest tactics that Conway’s been accused of)?
Hmmm.
Yep. He’s also a nutcase with oil money, a hatred of America, friendship with Castro, alliance with Brazil & Iran on nuclear weapon development and is currently funding regional terrorists and insurgency groups.
To effect an insurrection you need:
1.
20 million illegal aliens as of right now. With the proposed amnesty playing in the media we can expect the current 1-2 million new illegals per year to probably double to 2-4 million per year. Most of whom are hispanic, probably Mexican, largely poor and uneducated.
Many of them have already bought into the idea that they’re not illegally in America because they *own* America and we’re sitting on their land. This approach is the first step taken in an insurrection because the driving ploy is often “land redistribution”, i.e. soak the rich and spread the wealth. This same technique has been used in almost every single insurgency out there with the notable exception of Iraq which seems less about land than about power.
2.
20 million illegal aliens with no effective system of determining whether or not a specific individual is an illegal or a citizen without extensive checking of documentation. And even then there could easily be supporters within the hispanic citizen community which would make it even more difficult to deal with.
3.
Mexico or Canada would work, though Canada is less likely becuase of the Conservative government. However Mexico could be a very likely safe zone because it acts as one already with regards to Mexican rapists and murders who regularly flee across the border to escape prosecution here in America. Something that Pancho Villa did quite often not all that long ago.
4.
Hugo Chavez for one. Muslims that want to strike at America indirectly for another. The various drug cartels because if America is concentrating on dealing with domestic struggles then we’re going to pretty much slack off on policing the drug trade.
5.
Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, the leftists political parties of Mexico, Brazil. There are a number of Central & South American countries that are leaning very much towards the left and towards Castro. And if there’s anyone out there who thinks that Castro wouldn’t just love to stick it to us Americans just one last time before he died, then you’re smoking something other than a cigar. And again. Hugo Chavez bought 100,000 Russian AKs for an army that isn’t all that big.
Then there’s the supply conduit; it already exists and has been operating efficiently for decades in the drug and human smuggling trade. This would be sufficient to funnel weapons and money into the country along with cadre and experienced professionals.
6.
One comes easily to mind; that they’re not illegal, American citizens are because we ‘stole’ their land. That they need to stand up for their rights. As in “vote tomorrow”. A demand for political power, not asking for it. And when it’s denied? It’ll be cast as a betrayal. And if the gringos won’t give in, then it’s time to teach them a lesson and take back what belongs to “us”.
The protests we’ve seen will definitely turn very ugly as they’ll become the 21st Century’s version of the Watt’s riots.
7.
Pacho Villa comes to mind as he’s a national hero of Mexico. And his singular claim to fame is that he robbed and murdered a number of Americans along the border for years. And yes, he’s still considered a national figure in Mexico.
Isn’t that grand.
…
Is it farfetched? Sure. I’m not someone that could possibly be described as an optimist. But I don’t see how the GOP/Congress could possibly implement a guest worker program that wouldn’t ultimately offend conservatives. I also think such a program has the possibility of offending illegal aliens too, which frankly sounds utterly absurd on it’s face.
If there’s an amnesty then conservatives and *LIBERALS* are going to go nuts. If there isn’t an amnesty, particularly after the fairly muscular showing in these protests, then I don’t see what else the illegals could possibly do *except* show up to vote in Nov 2006. Now that would really cause a serious fucking problem.
On top of all this the citizenship requirements for voting don’t generally apply to local, i.e. non-state and non-national, elections. And possibly not even state elections if the state constitution allows it. In which case it would be possible for illegals to participate in state elections legally and Congressional elections illegally, but who would actually catch them?
Hmmm.
Here’s something amusing.
I work with a number of uber-liberals. So liberal that they completely astonish me every time a new subject comes up.
So what astonished me was that one of them, a recent naturalized American citizen from Canada, is actually taking time off to join an ANTI-ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION rally!
Frankly this subject cuts across all ideologies and political parties as I had never expected, in my life, to find myself being to the *left* of this guy. I’m as hard-line Right as they come on just about every subject but the passion in his views really just surprised me beyond measure.
And IMHO it’s this passion that’s the flame. The results of bad or indifferent decisions on this subject will have ramifications for generations to come. And it’s this potential impact, along with the revolutionary conduit of information that is the internet, that will both allow the processing and distribution of these facts and the ability to cast them as fuel for the flame.
Now perhaps the GOP believes that the hispanic vote will come to be the most important demographic. But I find that questionable as racial politics are less and less likely to become the driving force in American politics while ideologies can cross all racial boundries. So while the hispanic vote might increase, but so is the possibility of conservatism amongst hispanics.
In any case it’s clear that Congress has the potential to suffer greatly should it implement the wrong choices. And also Congress has the potential to suffer greatly should it not choose at all.
Ooh. Alliance with brazil. They also know he’s a nutcase.
Hmmmm.
The nice thing about you actus is that you never change.
But what the hell. Who really gives a rat’s ass about Brazil’s nuclear weapons program?
Yeah that’s the ticket.
Let’s just ignore the fuckers and they won’t amount to much. What the hell the IAEA is watching them and they wouldn’t fucking just sell the goddamn technology and centrifuges to either Iran or Hugo Chavez. Both of whom hate America, have oil money and are crazy-ass fuckers to boot. It’s not like Chavez or Iran would pay a boatload of money for fully developed technology and equipment to produce weapons grade uranium and the bombs themselves.
And Hugo Chavez with nuclear weapons and looking to make a regional hegemony yeah that’s a real fucking laugh that is.
Sand or ass.
You get to choose actus which one you’d prefer to stick your head in.
You know who’s really excited about it? who controls it? the right wing nutcases in the military. The same that put Lula in jail.
And why would brazil give chavez nuclear weapons?
Hmmm.
Oh I don’t know. Common cause? Money? Cuban and leftist influences? The massive debts that Brazil, and other South American countries, owe to the West including America? Because Brazil depends heavily on oil from Venezuela and can’t afford to piss off Chavez?
Some links:
American Thinker
Petroleum World
But what the fuck. Who cares right?
Victor Davis Hanson
Yeah that’s the ticket! Hugo fucking Chavez with homegrown nuclear weapons, regional hegemony ambitions and social unrest and a potential for significant amounts of domestic unrest over the issue of illegal immigrants.
sw: if you don’t give a shit, it’s just an average day.
They’re paying pennies on the dollar there. If they want to hurt the west, just default rather than nuking. Of all people, the brazilian military (responsible for starting the debt) knows that chavez is a nutcase without a common cause. Its them that runs the nuke program.
Ed;
Even assuming you are right about Hugo Chavez arming any number of illegal aliens in the US [a problematical proposition in itself], exactly who is going to train this “Army” to fight? Or are you suggesting that they will just be this large amorphous guerrilla warfare militia?
If they are untrained, they might as well go ahead and shoot themselves. The outcome is no less certain, and much quicker that way.
Charlie – what if a cadre is in place? Granted, there’s no evidence of this (well, that I know of, although the Black Helicopter crowd were on fire with speculation about this a few years back) but how hard would it be to include a few people with sufficient training and proficiency among the eleven million or so that crossed over? How many of those that made the crossing are veterans of one or another of the various military or police forces of their respective country, and thus are talent waiting to be tapped? Think of the potential for linking up with some of the more violent home-grown crazies that we’ve got – not to mention the havoc that a rank amateur willing to do a kamikazi run could accomplish.
I’m skeptical, too, but what Ed suggests is a possibility that I hope the Feds have considered as well.
Hmmmm.
@ Charlie
1.
Why is it a “problematical proposition”? The Chinese weapons manufacturer Norinco got into trouble for getting caught shipping in a shipping container full of fully automatic Chinese AKs. And that’s the one we caught, how many more were shipped in that we didn’t catch?
Then there are tunnels underneath the borders, human and drug smugglers. Frankly it must be a lot easier to smuggle in machine parts, which are what rifles and pistols really are, rather than drugs.
Or they could just *steal* them from US military bases since many of these bases use contractors who them employ illegals.
As for the “training”. There are an unknown number of illegal aliens serving in the US military. So they could easily get both combat infantry training, combat experience in Iraq and experience in training inexperienced soldiers. In addition there’s no filter on the border that prevents experienced professional soldiers, either mercenary or enlisted in a formal military, from entering the country. Or how about the tens of thousands of muslims that are either currently serving or have served in European militaries?
Or how about Turkish soldiers who have an excellent reputation as light infantry?
There have also been any number of secret training bases bought and built by various groups including militias and Islamists so why not Reconquistas? Purchase some land in an out of the way place, import weapons from China or Mexico, hire Russian ex-Spetsnaz troopers to visit America on a tourist visa to act as a cadre.
Let’s face facts here. It’s not difficult to find land to buy in remote places. It’s not difficult to find experienced and highly qualified military infantry trainers to act as a cadre.
2.
No what I’m suggesting is that the political landscape requires someone to lose, and lose very very big. Either the illegals lose or the anti-illegals lose. Either way someone is going to be really pissed off. If the anti-illegals lose then you can expect the election in Nov 2006 to be very bloody as people are replaced in Congress. You can also expect that these issues will then be revisited in January as the new Congress will then enact much tougher laws.
So either way the illegals are going to lose. I fully expect that the same process and dynamics that generated the protests will also act to generate more protests that will then lead to riots and violence. And that’s how I see this starting out, as pockets of violence inititated by determined rabble-rousers looking to forment unrest.
The problem is that this would probably work and result in two inescapable conclusions. The first is that the illegals will believe that they are being oppressed and the other is that American citizens will feel fear of these illegals and want them the fuck out and right *now*.
I could easily see this cascade into violent responses on both sides with escalations. So the first steps, as in any insurrection, will be amorphous but the following steps won’t be. At some point organization will follow.
3.
And I suggest you don’t make such assumptions.
…
I fully admit that my point of view is an extreme one. But I’d rather be wrong than right in this case so I’m pointing out the worst case scenario. One where violence cascades around the country causing both illegals, and their supporters, and Americans to engage in violence both out of fear and a feeling of oppression by the other.
And I can easily see Hugo Chavez sticking his nose into this. I can also see Brazil being involved since one of the largest non-Mexican groups of illegals are from Brazil.
I hope they’re spending a lot of time on it, instead of tearing families apart with deportations.
Ugh. This thread is already kinda long for me to be posting, but I feel compelled because…
the current Republican coalition is a loose alliance of those who have placed national security above other concerns
Wrong. Have you seen Fahrenheit 9/11? Did you read UBL’s pre-election standup routine where he gave Bush credit for making 9/11 possible?
Here I quote Osama bin Laden, October 30, 2004:
Wow dude. Wow. Wow. You voted a terrorist sympathizer back into office.
Hi, my sites: :
free music = LIMEWIRE = FREE MUSIC DOWNLOADS
http://idisk.mac.com/fmp3musicdownloads/Public/index.html FREE MUSIC DOWNLOADS :: http://www.empireunion.org/limewire.htm free limewire :: http://www.fixgrout.com/cgi/musicpage35.html music downloads
[url=http://idisk.mac.com/fmp3musicdownloads/Public/index.html]free music download[/url] .. [url=http://www.empireunion.org/limewire.htm]LIMEWIRE[/url] .. [url=http://www.fixgrout.com/cgi/musicpage35.html]legal music downloads[/url]0f8f40fbf6c3cdd2aa7e52afa9d91923
Hi boys! :
free mp3 downloads = LIMEWIRE = free music downloads
http://idisk.mac.com/fmp3musicdownloads/Public/index.html mp3 music downloads :: http://www.empireunion.org/limewire.htm LIMEWIRE :: http://www.fixgrout.com/cgi/musicpage35.html free music download
[url=http://idisk.mac.com/fmp3musicdownloads/Public/index.html]music download[/url] .. [url=http://www.empireunion.org/limewire.htm]LIMEWIRE[/url] .. [url=http://www.fixgrout.com/cgi/musicpage35.html]FREE MUSIC DOWNLOADS[/url]011a2b4657669817ddc3fb7447f865be