First, go read David Schuler’s piece on “Jacksonians, Wilsonians, and Hamiltonians at war” over at the Glittering Eye. I’ve been meaning to do an in-depth post on it since last week but haven’t found the time, and now probably won’t. Alas. Alack.
Second, it appears that Tacitus has plunged through The Carter Horizon. Welcome to the other side, buddy.
Third, I’m doing a climbdown from my “disbar them” rant regarding the torture memoranda. I still think that the memoranda, as a rule, can be rebutted (on the Constitutional issues, not the statutory issues) by a half-drunk first year law student between bong hits. But, particularly with respect to the AG memoranda, that’s only a small part of the work. The rest — though, IMHO, poorly reasoned, morally suspect, and horrendously unwise — is not so bad that I’m willing to call for the lawyers’ heads on a pike. Post from fury, overreach, is the lesson here.
That’s it for me, probably for the week. Play nice.
And when it comes time for the hard tasks to which we are called, we will not shrink from them. We will see our mutilated countrymen, we will note the celebrating savages invoking their deity and their hatred, and we will let our Marines fulfill the calling to which God has summoned them.
And than I read the comments. Which makes me realize that I have more of a language problem than I realized. “Moderate conservative” seems to be like “compassionate conservative”, a saying with special meaning – being almost the opposite of what you think if you just translate the two words.
And please: can someone inform mr(s?) Temperance that he/she should get better informed about the Netherlands? Euthanasia mandate…????
Second, it appears that Tacitus has plunged through The Carter Horizon. Welcome to the other side, buddy.
Thanks for linking to that, Von: I don’t read Tacitus’s blog any more, and that was a post worth reading.
Further, it is interesting to see that basically well-meaning Republicans (into which group I include both Moe Lane and Tacitus) really have no alternative but hypocrisy. I’d been aware since Moe Lane endorsed Bush that Moe could only come up with a hypocritical reason for why he wouldn’t support Kerry – but it would appear (I need to read more well-meaning Republican blogs, obviously – any recs?) that this is simply a Republican escape clause, not something unique to Moe’s character. (Though Moe’s first comment responding to your post on Tac’s blog was genuinely funny – whether intentionally so or not.)
I guess that we’ll just see how November goes, huh?
Moe
PS: As per that bit re hypocrisy… my previous statement about you presenting that as an acronym was only in the form of a request. If you absolutely must bring it up on a regular basis, please do it in a manner that minimizes the use of my bandwidth.
Thanks in advance!
Thanks for the link, von.
Had to give up on that post when Tacitus referred to me (and, later, “the majority of Democrats”) as “nutcakes”.
Incidentally, Jesurgislac, perhaps you could use “inconsistent” or “ought to be feeling cognitive dissonance” instead of “shows hypocrisy” in referring to the host? The latter means “the practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.” I don’t think that’s applicable here – anyway, in my opinion you’re nearly bound by politeness to accept Moe’s contention that he’s professing his actual beliefs. You can argue his beliefs are internally inconsistent or incompatible with accepted evidence, but he has more access to his mental states than you do, so find a way to disagree with him without giving him the lie.
Further, it is interesting to see that basically well-meaning Republicans (into which group I include both Moe Lane and Tacitus) really have no alternative but hypocrisy.
Wait, wait, wait. Even if you believe Bush to be a silly nincompoop , you can still believe he’s better for the job than Kerry. You can also value him as a place-holder for certain beliefs that you may hold dear (for instance, if you’re primary political goal is to prevent abortions, you’d be a fool to vote for Kerry). There’s no hypocripsy here — by Moe or Tac.
Even if you believe Bush to be a silly nincompoop , you can still believe he’s better for the job than Kerry.
Yes you can, but I watched as during the primaries Bush supporters simply shuffled their talking points index cards with lists of weaknesses for Dean, Edwards, Gephardt, etc.,–ever prepared to knock down whoever needed knocking down at any given point in time–so the idea that this is a battle against the potential unsuitability of Kerry, per se, doesn’t hold water.
From what I can tell (this far left, that is), Republican’s support of Bush is founded on a desire to retain power (or the vision voiced by the one in power). It’s not a desperate fight to correct a growing wrong, the way it is for the Dems. It really wouldn’t matter if the Dems had nominated any other candidate, the fight for the Republicans would be the same, no? I mean honestly.
“First, go read David Schuler’s piece on ‘Jacksonians, Wilsonians, and Hamiltonians at war’ over at the Glittering Eye.”
Respectfully, do I have to? I’ve been reading about the topic since I was at least twelve. I’m kinda tired of it, some couple of hundred books later. (No disrespect intended to Daveid Schuler; I’d just like a little more specificity as to what there is new to say about this rather exhausted topic.)
It’s not a desperate fight to correct a growing wrong, the way it is for the Dems.
Because, you know, the Dems don’t want to retain (or achieve) power for its own sake.
Right-o.
It really wouldn’t matter if the Dems had nominated any other candidate, the fight for the Republicans would be the same, no?
No. But then, you never were going to nominate our man Joe.
So that was it? Lieberman? Why on earth would you have ever voted for Lieberman for President, Tacitus? You already have him in GWB.
Even if you believe Bush to be a silly nincompoop , you can still believe he’s better for the job than Kerry.
Except that Tacitus doesn’t (from what I read) even believe that Bush would be better for the job than Kerry: he only appears to believe that at least Bush would be a Republican nincompoop. To claim that this is anything but putting partisan politics above the welfare of the country would be hypocrisy.
You can also value him as a place-holder for certain beliefs that you may hold dear (for instance, if you’re primary political goal is to prevent abortions, you’d be a fool to vote for Kerry). There’s no hypocripsy here — by Moe or Tac.
Moe’s hypocrisy is that he claims he can’t support Kerry because a single vote by Kerry against Bush’s $87B for Iraq “proved” that Kerry was out to exploit the Iraqi people financially, and Moe claimed he was unable to support that: which is pure hypocrisy, because (as Moe must be aware) Bush & Co have explicitly financially exploited the Iraqi people.
I concede Moe may have a burning desire to prevent same-sex marriages or to make all abortions illegal, and supporting Bush on those grounds would not be hypocritical. But so far, the only reason Moe’s given for supporting Bush and not Kerry is pure hypocrisy.
I got to step in here Jes.
You’re doing Moe a grave disservice and it’s really not fair.
Speculating on why Moe would vote for Bush over Kerry borders on mindreading and we try to discourage that, but implying (against everything you must have read on this site) that he is against gay marriage or thumping the podium against abortion suggests you’re just trying to pick a fight.
Please try again. And this time, if you would, drop the “hypocrisy” umbrella…it’s not a useful (or, ultimately, even interesting) charge.
I second Edward’s words.
The “hypocrisy” nonsense is about as apt as the “bigotry” nonsense….it’s just a word that’s been seized, and will be pursued unto death.
Why on earth would you have ever voted for Lieberman for President, Tacitus? You already have him in GWB.
I’ll never understand the venom that Lieberman comes in for from so many Democrats. Do I really need to lay out the differences between him and the President? Or between him and the average Republican? It’s stuff like this put utterly puts the lie to any pretension of a Dem big tent, really.
To claim that this is anything but putting partisan politics above the welfare of the country would be hypocrisy.
I guess if you don’t think there are principles attendant to particular parties, you might have a legitimate gripe. But there are. I’ve said that I think Bush has the right goals, married to terrible execution; I furthermore think he’ll by and large nominate judges I agree with. These are substantive differences from Kerry, and hardly represent mere holding of power for its own sake — a thing I’ve spoken against many times in the past.
It’s stuff like this put utterly puts the lie….
Ah, half-done editing: abandoned, returned-to, and published unchecked.
I’ll never understand the venom that Lieberman comes in for from so many Democrats. Do I really need to lay out the differences between him and the President? Or between him and the average Republican? It’s stuff like this put utterly puts the lie to any pretension of a Dem big tent, really.
I’ve quoted Anarch in this before, but actually never tire of repeating it:
“The Party Of Inclusion” is not a suicide pact.
But you’re right. If the race were between Lieberman and Bush, I’d vote for Lieberman. But I doubt many other people would, including swing voters. As another Constant Reader (Grommit) noted: “The man is enthusiasm repellant, if you ask me.”
But you’re also right about venomous responses to him. It’s visceral. He makes me want to bite through steel.
Gromit’s a good man. A master animator. Owns a good dog. Let me stay at his house and hijack his network connection. Built a lightsaber. His wife introduced me to my wife and was our Maid of Honor.
Having established the bedrock of respect that I have for Gromit and his very enviable life’s work, I must ask:
WTF? Enthusiasm repellent?
Is anyone planning to vote for Kerry really able to complain about that?
Is anyone planning to vote for Kerry really able to complain about that?
Ah, but Kerry doesn’t bite the hand that feeds him seemingly for the pleasure of doing so. Joe pontificates just to hear his own voice (or his audience snore…not sure which).
Grommit’s an animator and Mrs. Grommit introduced you to Tacita? Small world, the blogosphere.
Joe pontificates just to hear his own voice….
Grr. This is John Kerry.
Ah well. I get you, but it does strike me as mildly amusing.
Kerry needs a bit of personality botox, it’s true, but compared to Joe, he’s a virtual Steve Martin if you ask me.
I’ve said that I think Bush has the right goals, married to terrible execution; I furthermore think he’ll by and large nominate judges I agree with.
Tacitus —
I’m sympathetic to many of the traditional goals of the Republican party — strong defense, limited government, and free trade. I also wouldn’t mind a few more Republican-appointed judges on the bench (though I’d prefer them to fall closer to Souter than Scalia). But I wouldn’t be so blithe that Bush has “the right goals”. He’s a reluctant free-trader at best, and he has expanded the government at an alarming rate. Worse, his economic policy is that of maximal short term gain, at the expense of the long term.*
I say this not to convince you that there’s no reason to vote for Bush. The alternative, after all, looks little better. But, assuming we judge Bush by the Republican policy yardstick, it’s not credible to claim that Bush’s faults are limited only to the “execution” of otherwise worthy policies. Sometimes, it has been the policies themselves that are at fault.
von
*Indeed, enjoy the extra services and tax cuts of the Bush era. Ten, twenty, thirty years down the line — when you and I are putting our kids through college and looking toward retirement — it will reverse. Drastically.
How about he has the putative right goals more often than Kerry does? That would fit.
Von, I would like a few more Democratic appointed judges (but I prefer that they be closer to White than Souter).
Von, on Bush and the expansion of government, what do you want to cut (non DoD programs and departments) or consolidated.
Von, on Bush and the expansion of government, what do you want to cut (non DoD programs and departments) or consolidated.
Ooo, ooo…I have one. Can we start with The Center for Faith-Based & Community Initiatives?
One thing, you will have to explain to me is this utter dislike for Joe, but the strong fettish for McCain. I don’t understand it.
No fettish for McCain. Just agree with those who think a unity ticket was worth considering. McCain, as a strong pro-defense voice would add depth and perspective the nation could use during the war on terror and send a message to the world (and especially the terrorists) that we’re serious about fighting them, united, as one nation.
I have no problems reducing social spending but that wasn’t what you had in mind was it.
Edward, how you must struggle living in a community where emergency room service is provided by St V’s and Claire’s, not to mention the role that Catholic Charities plays in the city of New York. I feel your pain.
Agree the Dems lack a strong pro-defense voice, except for Joe (and a very few others).
Actually, as a Brit, could someone explain that to me, too – Timmy’s question. I’ve no difficulty liking people from our three main political parties, but I don’t think British politics, on the whole, at present, is as partisan as yours (and yes, people have got to stop saying “Ooh, but what if Kerry asked McCain…” Lord knows McCain’s made it clear enough that’s Not Going To Happen).
How about he has the putative right goals more often than Kerry does? That would fit.
That’s caveated enough for me.
Von, I would like a few more Democratic appointed judges (but I prefer that they be closer to White than Souter).
Actually, though Souter’s and White had different approaches (and live in, and are influenced by, their respective eras*), they’re pretty close to one another politically.
Von, on Bush and the expansion of government, what do you want to cut (non DoD programs and departments) or consolidated.
The small fish: (a) toe the line on infrastructure — some projects are necessary but, by and large, it’s pork. (b) Eliminate the ATF, and combine its function with the FBI’s (yeah, I know I sound like a wingnut, but I got non-wingnutty reasons). (c) I dither back and forth on the Department of Education: on one hand, education is a local matter; on the other, the way education is usually set up (based upon property taxes), there’s room for vast inequities if it’s left as a local matter. (I’m sure there’s more, but I’m a bit distracted at the moment.)
The big fish: Turn Social Security into an investment vehicle, rather than an entitlement.
von
*Which mostly explains the difference between the two on gay rights.
What TF is a “fettish”? A fish with armor from Star Wars?