George W Bush Lovers, your opinion neede d.

“A summer of conservative discontent
George Will


July 24, 2003


WASHINGTON -- This is the summer of conservatives' discontent. Conservatism has been disoriented by events in the last several weeks. Cumulatively, foreign and domestic developments constitute an identity crisis of conservatism, which is being recast -- and perhaps rendered incoherent.

George W. Bush may be the most conservative person to serve as president since Calvin Coolidge. Yet his presidency is coinciding with, and is in some instances initiating or ratifying, developments disconcerting to four factions within conservatism.

The faction that focuses on foreign policy has four core principles: Preserve U.S. sovereignty and freedom of action by marginalizing the United Nations. Reserve military interventions for reasons of U.S. national security, not altruism. Avoid peacekeeping operations that compromise the military's war-fighting proficiencies. Beware of the political hubris inherent in the intensely unconservative project of ``nation-building.''

Today a conservative administration is close to asserting that whatever the facts turn out to be regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the enforcement of U.N. resolutions was a sufficient reason for war. If so, war was waged to strengthen the United Nations as author and enforcer of international norms of behavior. The administration also intimates that ending a tyranny was a sufficient justification for war. Foreign policy conservatism has become colored by triumphalism and crusading zeal. That may be one reason why consideration is being given to a quite optional intervention -- regime change, actually -- in Liberia.

The conservative faction that focuses on low taxes as the key to economic dynamism and individual opportunity has had two good years. But this faction must be unsettled by signs that the president's refusal to veto last year's abominable farm bill (in fact, he has vetoed nothing) was not an aberration. The tax cutting seems unrelated to any thoughtful notion of what the government should and should not do.


Howard Dean, who will say anything while pandering to his party's activists, says the Bush administration aims to ``dismantle" Medicare. Actually, the administration is eager to approve the largest expansion of the welfare state since the Great Society 40 years ago.


A prescription drug entitlement is not inherently unconservative, unless the welfare state itself is -- and it isn't. If the pharmacological revolution that has occurred since Medicare was enacted in 1965 had occurred by then, some such entitlement would have been included. But the administration probably will approve an entitlement of unknowable cost ($400 billion over 10 years is today's guess, which is probably low), without reform of Medicare.


The conservative faction that focuses on constitutionalism and democratic due process winced when the president seemed to approve of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's opinion affirming the constitutionality of racial preferences for diversity in higher education -- and perhaps in many other spheres of life. The concept of group rights -- of government complicity in allocating wealth and opportunity on the basis of skin pigmentation -- now has a conservative president's imprimatur.


Finally, this summer the faction called ``social conservatives'' has been essentially read out of America's political conversation. Their agenda has been stigmatized as morally wrong and constitutionally dubious by the Supreme Court, seven of whose nine members are Republican appointees. Justice Anthony Kennedy -- like O'Connor, a Reagan appointee -- wrote the opinion striking down a Texas law criminalizing consensual adult homosexual acts. Kennedy asserted, in effect, that laws intended to strengthen a majority's moral principles -- laws of a sort America has never been without -- are constitutionally suspect.


The president is rightly reluctant to endorse a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a heterosexual institution: constitutionalizing social policy is generally unwise. But the administration's principal objective may be to avoid fights about cultural questions. Two weeks ago the administration reaffirmed the irrational and unfair implementation standards of the Title IX ban on sex discrimination in college athletics. Those standards are now immortal, having received a conservative administration's approval.


What blow will befall conservatives next? Watch the Supreme Court, the composition of which matters more than does the composition of Congress.


Justice David Souter, nominated by the first President Bush, quickly became a reliable member of the Supreme Court's liberal bloc. Alberto Gonzales, the White House counsel who came with this President Bush from Texas, may be chosen to fill the next court vacancy. The likelihood of a vacancy during this presidency has given rise to a grim joke among conservatives:


How do you say ``Souter'' in Spanish? ``Gonzales.''”

“To me, it sounds a little like progress has infected even the far right, and there are and the conservative ideology is hurting for it.”

“I think it is one man's opinion and can not speak for all conservatives.”

“strengthen the United Nations as author and enforcer of international norms of behavior

I'm not a GW Bush "lover", but the above assertion is not what I call progress. The rest of the issues Mr. Will addresses are not real high on my list of things to worry about.

Now let me ask a question: If, as Mr. Will infers, President Bush has contributed to the...liberalization, I guess, of conservatism, why is he considered such a bad guy by liberals?”

“Because you assume "liberal" to be an all-encompassing ideology for people who don't like George Bush. It's the effect of the sounding chambers like Rush Limbaugh on the media. Anyone who is not a republican = liberal. Anyone who disagrees with Bush = liberal.

The article above is pointing out that the Bush administration and policies are not even consistent in its espoused principles. My point in posting it was to point out that there are some conservatives who have a problem with the current administration's practices as well.”

“No, I assume liberal = gay.”

“Phagrus we don't care!”

“as in happy?”

“You do seem obsessed with homosexuality fudgepacker.”

“Go easy on packy; he's got some masculinity issues.”

“Ever notice they're always together? (Packy and UU)Hmmmmmmm....”

“Just look UpUrs!”

“Sorry to disapoint you aero but I don't swing that way! I see Tree your having a wonderful day.”

“Hey Urs, what's funnier? They constant "troll" feeding or them thinking we are one in the same?”

“You two make a cute couple!”

“As for conservatives' penchant for accepting inequality, he said, one contemporary example is liberals' general endorsement of extending rights and liberties to disadvantaged minorities such as gays and lesbians, compared to conservatives' opposing position

"No, I assume liberal = gay."
ThePackMan
09:18:08 AM
07/25/03

"Phagrus we don't care!"
UpUrs
09:21:40 AM
07/25/03


Sorry to disapoint you aero but I don't swing that way! I see Tree your having a wonderful day."
UpUrs
09:36:13 AM
07/25/03”

“Phag still hung up some bs logic. Do you have any of your own thoughts?”

“Yes, and since I need to state things in black and white so you can understand them:

You suck.”

“Phag now thats not nice!”

“George Bush "Lover". What is his interns name?”

“UpUrs?”

“lmao @ Ynami”

“"No, I assume liberal = gay."
ThePackMan
09:18:08 AM
07/25/03

Again, what are your thoughts about the Log Cabin Republicans? Ever hear of them? Have a clue?”

“I think Phagdrus is once again letting is wishes and desires overflow into the board.”