« Ramesh Ponnuru on McCain's tax cut | Main | WSJ's geography lesson for conservatives »

November 09, 2008


Speaking of the opposition treating the President as a virtual enemy of the state, have you been living in America for the last five years? Notice anything?

Of course poll respondents who were asked to rate Obama's performance as President-elect are judging him even though he isn't President yet. Isn't that what they were asked to do? It is odd that 26% strongly disapprove of his performance, since he has said and done very little. Equally odd is the 42% who strongly approve. What exactly is it they strongly approve of?

The conservative hatred of Clinton was personal. We disapproved of his dishonesty more than his policies.

The liberal hatred of Bush began as personal, but it was so strong that it became political, too. Liberals hated everything he did, even policies that liberals normally support, such as NCLB, nation-building in Iraq, and expansion of Medicare. (I sometimes wonder if liberal hatred of Bush was stronger because he had stolen some of their issues.)

The conservative fear of Obama is his policies, not so much personal. Conservatives are worried that he'll make changes that they believe will be bad for American and the world. If they fight against many of his policies, as I hope they will, it will be because they believe they're mistakes.

Luckily for Obama, he'll have the media behind him. The media found it was amusing when Bush was called a chimp. They didn't mind too much when the Clinton's were called liars. However. anyone who says anything like that about Obama will be branded a racist. In fact, I suspect that any criticism at all of Obama will be branded as racist by some.

It seemed to me that McCain ran a remarkably nice campaign. He didn't focus on Wright, nor on Obama's relationship with Rezko. He took pains not to allow any mention on Obama's middle name. Yet, Brendan and other liberals blame Mcain for poisoning the well. It illustrates the adage that no good deed goes unpunished.

Without meaning to, Brendan has made an argument that Republicans should run the nastiest campaign possible. They're going to get blamed for being mean no matter what they do, so they might as well get the benefits of being mean.

That's some fascinatingly twisted logic, David. Nation-building might be something that many liberals embrace, but the way the US went into Iraq was so wrongheaded from the start that the end was so predictable, i called it the very day of the invasion, and i'm no foreign policy wonk. NCLB is also a mockery of liberal education policies. Maybe it's what "conservatives" think liberals actually want ("conservatives" because there was nothing actually conservative about Bush's presidency, except for the Jesus stuff).

A "remarkably nice campaign"... hilarious. You're calling it "remarkably nice" because McCain didn't pull out all the stops on the pipe organ of hate and spite? I guess that's part and parcel of the insanely and continually lowered standards over the last eight years.

rone, I don't agree the final end in Iraq was predictable 5 years ago. In fact, it's not even predictable today. Nobody knows whether the huge improvement over the last 15 months will continue, or whether things will fall apart.

You must admit that Bush has attempted to establish democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is quite a turnaround from 50 - 60 years ago when we supported friendly dictators. E.g., we helped to overturn an elected leader in Iran and substitute a dictator.

NCLB included a huge increase in federal funds to schools and an emphasis on improving the eduction of minorities. Both are liberal goals. BTW tests show that NCLB has had a measure of success, even though the teachers hate it.

I wasn't really talking about the "final end", but rather the current end we're experiencing. The insanely heightened expectations ("greeted as liberators") are merely a cherry on top of the failure cake.

I guess if you want to call what's happened an attempt, sure. A superficial and mismanaged attempt, but an attempt for certain.

"Tests" show a "measure of success" for NCLB? Got a link or three?

rone - See NCLB editorial in the Washington Post


Call me crazy, but that editorial says that while the NCLB framework is sound, the implementation has been suboptimal, which sounds a whole lot like what i said.

Oh, dear, David, it really is the case that parents want NCLB out of their children's schools, too, because it puts all of the emphasis on the middle to raise test scores because failure to move middle punishes the entire school. That means no education happens except test prep for the middle.

For those of us who believed invading Iraq was destined to be an unnecessary disaster, believe me, we wish we'd been listened to first. wrong second, and heeded when we advocated getting out as quickly as possible. Perhaps Iraqis can work out their differences, but right now the groups and leaders we've been paying not to attack us are currently on the lists to be arrested by the Maliki government. "Nation building" isn't a liberal good in and of itself if the nation is an enemy of the U.S., or if the reason for nation building was completely preventable and unnecessary.

Neither is legislation as convoluted and confusing as the prescription medicine benefit that was passed with utterly false numbers promulgated by the administration. I see conservatives routinely claiming that Bush wasn't a "real" conservative because everything he touched led to disaster or exhorbitant costs, as though Rush Limbaugh's garbage that all liberals want is bigger government, more taxes, and that liberals hate America.

Yes, for anyone who hates America, Bush is your man. But don't confuse the liberal agenda with the gobblety gook of the legislation of the last eight years. Neither was that convoluted immigration reform bill anything like what would have made sense for the country. Just because a piece of legislation is overly burdensome, convoluted, bureaucratic, and signed by Kennedy doesn't make it liberal.

If you steal your opponent's agenda and muck it up for a generation, that doesn't mean you've really done what they wanted. It just makes fixing it take much, much longer.

rone, here's the difference: You said NCLB wasn't working and needed fixing; WaPo said NCLB was working and needed fixing.

skeptical, I agree with you that prescription drug coverage in Medicare is overly burdensome, convoluted, and bureaucratic. What else is new? Most federal programs are overly burdensome, convoluted, and bureaucratic. IMHO if Bill Clinton had implemented the identical program, liberals would have cheered it.

By the way, in practice it's not overly complex. Signing up for drug coverage under Medicare and obtaining benefits is straightforward. Millinos of seniors have done so. There was some confusion at the beginning, but today we don't see news stories about frustrated seniors who are entitled to this coverage but have been unable to sign up for it.

The comments to this entry are closed.