When principled conservatives whose first allegiance is to truth, honor and the Consitution finally accept that the war was a mishandled mistake, then there is no way back for this administration. ...Bush's approval ratings have a floor of about 35 percent -- Americans who, rather predictably, will support the President regardless of circumstances. So when Bush collects 38 percent approval, I figure that the 3 points above that base includes conservative Americans like my friends -- not people who see me as the enemy, but countrymen with different opinions.
And that 3 percent is far more important to the president's agenda than are his 35-percent base of Bush-cult believers. Because reasonable, credible citizens are persuasive...
And that 3 percent is far more important to the president's agenda than are his 35-percent base of Bush-cult believers. Because reasonable, credible citizens are persuasive...
13 comments:
Yes, of course, "Strategy Page" the place to get your facts, "for the thinking person".
Unbelievable.
Bruce (or Russ), what's the background behind "Strategy Page"? (what are your reasons for your evaluation of its credibility, and could you back these reasons up with links or other references?)
I'd never heard of the site before this.
(And Russ, am I correct in inferring that your comment above answers a previous question I asked you? (namely "Do you think that principled conservatives should be standing up and repudiating this administration? (which as David Brin points out is not conservative by any stretch of the imagination)", which I asked in response to your comment to my "men behind the curtain" curtain post)
i.e. that your answer is "No"?
(fyi in case you don't revisit after commenting here, I'll alert you to this q. via email)
I believe 'Strategy Page' is largely an outgrowth of work and writings by James Dunnagin. If you don't know who he is, the main thrust of his work has been to quantify military analysis as a sort of giant spread sheet problem, ie. an attempt to merge operations research to conflict I suppose. A lot of people have heard the name in reference to war gaming (both civilian and military) in the 1970s.
There's really not much in the way of political overtone here, or what passes for politics these days (Bush vs. antiBush).
If anything, any morale issue you might have with this kind of thing might stem from the Herman Kahn-esque approach. Human lives are viewed as currency to be spent to achieve a given aim.
Oops.
'Moral'.
Russ, in short, do you think that principled conservatives should be standing up and repudiating this administration?
yes/no [because...]
Please don't make me infer your answer from your comments, since I've been known to infer wrongly.
> "What the hell is a principled conservative? For that mater what is an unprincipled conservative? "
You're right Russ, I wasn't being specific enough.
Let's go back to Daniel's
"principled conservatives whose first allegiance is to truth, honor and the Constitution..."
I'll say that a principled person is someone who values, and acts based on, principles other than just self-interest. Some principles are "truth, honor and [adherence to] the Constitution". Another principle is loyalty - to family, to tribe, to party, to rulers, to religion, to country, to culture, to species.
Someone whose overriding principle is loyalty (to the Bush administration, for example) is principled, which my wording (in "do you think that principled conservatives should be standing up...") overlooks.
So, I should rephrase:
Do you think that conservatives whose first allegiance is to truth, honor and the Constitution (i.e., those not ruled by self-interest and for whom loyalty is not the overriding principle) should be standing up and repudiating this administration?
""principled conservatives whose first allegiance is to truth, honor and the Constitution...""
Oh, here's a good one.
A question for the blogger. What is the Constitutional right to the following?
. Privacy
. Abortion
. Paper money
. Interstate sales taxes
Russ, I don't have what it takes to engage on this one tonight. However I've got a trio of nice links, that I'll put up shortly.
And if a commenter with a pseudonym (or real name) were to ask a question, I'd likely respond.
I believe 4th for the first, 9th for the first and second; consult your local reference librarian or attorney for the others.
(or wiser yet, for all of them)
> Could you elaborate please?
no.
"consult your local reference librarian or attorney for the others.
(or wiser yet, for all of them)"
One question for you though, P.:
What are you for?
as in, "in favor of"?
no need to answer if you don't want to.
P, did you see the preview for the film "Thank you for smoking"?
There was a line in it that reminded me very much of you.
(To others, if any - we've had this same basic discussion many times offline. It's worth expanding into a post of its own, which I'll do shortly.)
Apropos - TomDispatch's A Cult of Presidential Power - The Unrestrained President and Jay Rosen's latest on Bush's moves to decertify the press.
From the former:
"if you can establish a presidential right to order torture (no matter how you manage to redefine it) as well as to hold captives under a category of warfare dredged up from the legal dustbin of history in prisons especially established to be beyond the reach of the law or the oversight of anyone but those under your command, you've established a presidential right to do just about anything imaginable.
...
...perhaps, the true genius of the American system as imagined by its founders [was] the understanding that any form of state power left unchecked in the hands of a single person or group of people was likely to degenerate into despotism (or worse), whatever the initial desires of the individuals involved."
Someone I know (who's since morphed into a different political beast entirely) once agreed - with sincerity - that "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty".
I don't know how to wake him up.
Post a Comment