In "The Lindbergh Syndrome" I try to make the point that every Gilded Age needs a scapegoat. Previous scapegoats have included ex-Confderate sympathizers after the Civil War, anarchists, Reds, and immigrants after World War I, "Commies" after World War II, and "liberals" after the 1970s and the Iran Hostage Crisis.

Thus, "conservative" really means "not liberal." That's been enough until recently to feel part of the majority. Except now, as George Will suggests but doesn't quite say, this bastardized version of conservatism has nothing more going for it than a hatred of liberals.

Bush is clearly not a conservative. If he were, he'd pay attention to the exploding deficit, he'd veto pork-barrel bills (he's never vetoed anything), he'd avoid starting wars with non-enemies, and he'd encourage a tight-money policy at the Federal Reserve. He's done exactly the opposite. George Will has performed a public service by explaining what a conservative really is.

RLM Said "he's never vetoed anything"

Except he plans to veto the anti-torture amendment.

Imangine that

More trouble for DeLay

I also have to agree with you Brad - where the hell was Will last November? Part of the reason I voted for Kerry last November (which was my first national election) was in the hope that Kerry's win would give my party a big kick in the ass. The problem is that we cater too much to the Christian Right, who has about the same size makeup and ill-intentions as teacher unions for the Democrats. What happened to supply-side economics? I think the Fed is doing alright, even with Katrina they're still trying to get rates to where they should be to stop inflation, but Bush and Co. isn't responsible for Greenspan doing a good job. What the hell are we going to do when Bush replaces him? Another thing, RLM, you mention Bush getting into wars with non-enemies. Can you imagine what it would have been like if Dubya had been President during the 1980s at the end of the Cold War? We would all be dead.

George Will is a weathervane. During the Reagan years, he tacked rightward. When Clinton brought the Democrats back, George Will went leftward. He went rightward again with the Bush restoration, and now--after lifting a finger into the wind--George has suddenly remembered what makes a real Republican.

He's just another MSM whore. But he has sharp instincts. If he recognizes that it's time for him to abandon ship, it's all over for Bush.

Unirealist, that weathervane analysis could explain we he's writing about this now and not 12 months ago.

I have watched Mr. Wills each week for several years.

I have watched him struggle for balance during a time that tested us all.

I have seen him work with Stephanopolous and try to present a dialogue that was conservative ... and criticize this admin for not being conservative. He was sorely disappointed over and over again.

So, I must agree with Brad on this. George Will does deserve the award Brad gave him.

Even tho neither Brad nor I are conservatives.

I fear the new conservative movement killed the word "conservative" for good. For sure, the new conservative movement is based on pure lies and innuendo of the Nixon era, and not on anything conservative whatsoever.

You don't have any place in your party anymore George Will, it might be time to register independent and get out of the sinking ship.

Doug E.

I've had a thing about George Will for years, considering him one of the most overrated hacks in the business with an undeserved reputation for intellectualism that is actually an absurd pomposity. (No, that's not entirely fair. He did surprise me with insights now and then - rarely though.)

Nevertheless, I will go along with Brad in acknowledging Will's very good service in his Newsweek column and hope that he represents a real assertive reaction of true conservatives - a very good thing for the country.

Nittany Lion - True, but I think the "weathervane" aspect represents a consensus among somebody - true conservatives, let us hope.

But I think it most likely that the policies of the current administration have become so obviously incompetent and disastrous that elements of the Republican Party have necessarily responded for the purpose of self-survival.

Not impressed. Will and the "true" conservatives supported the pirates in charge long enough to steal elections and get their tax cuts and lie us into a war and gut social and infrastructure spending and set up secret police (the National Clandestine Service, among others). Now that their stupidity and greed is clearly destroying the nation, they distance themselves in words so as to avoid the blowback. They are every bit the problem that the looters they enable and benefit from are. Screw George Will. He helped ruin America, and now wants to be seen as "saving" it.

Also I do not think the republican party will be saved. Most conservatives have not come out and denounced what their party has always been for a long time, its been about total complete domination and racism.

The core of the republican party which produced Tom Delay, Barbara Bush, Newt Gingrich and especially Grover Norquist is extremely racist, rich, and self-serving.

They have never been true "conservatives" at all if you look in history.

So the very fact that conservatives are now noticing the racist, sick problem in the party is suspect, because it may be too late now.

The entire party may simply go off and die. There is far too many racist and idealogues in the republican party, they've always been there, just not as vocal as they are now.

Doug

By a show of hands. How many people think
Bushido has earned his own memorial gallows.
How many people does a rich man get to kill before he is subject to the law of the land or it kill one person go to jail, kill a thousand and be made president? WELL! I'm waiting!

RLM- Its time to change its name from GOP to the "Brownshirt Party" and perhaps someone else can energize a complete third party.

Doug E.

Unirealist said: He's just another MSM whore. But he has sharp instincts. If he recognizes that it's time for him to abandon ship, it's all over for Bush.

I totally agree with you Unirealist, great insight and well said. I sure wish it would be all over for Bush & Co. Excellent article by Will. Late, yes, but better late than never.

What scares me is how they (Bush and most of the administration) carry on like they are still under the radar. Does it bother anyone else besides me? He's still going ahead with plans to invade Iran and still approves whopping pork bills and still wants to veto the budget so he can torture his prisoners and still has that stupid smirk (now with a tic and twitch), etc. etc.... He looks and acts scared to death, but continues on! They reveal and discover crime at all levels everyday, but nothing is done. Two-thirds of us in this country are on to him/them, but there's no stopping any of them.

What is the MAGIC POLL NUMBER for something to change? 80% against? 90% against?

How the hell can telling a lie about a blow job be so quickly impeachable, yet ALL of the lies and offenses currently known about are not? Outrageous.

A Concerned Citizen #14

I agree 100% with your final paragraph.

Another perfect example: Bush Feared 'Looking Weak' on Iraq

"Far from not knowing that Hussein had let the U.N. inspectors in, Bush expressed fears in the Jan. 30, 2003, conversation that the inspectors would secure full cooperation from the Iraqi government – and that might frustrate his invasion plans. Bush was aware, too, that Blair believed that a second U.N. resolution was needed to authorize military action."

"One constant throughout this troubled chapter of American history seems to be that Bush puts above all other concerns his avoidance of “looking weak” or being proved wrong. But, arguably, the cause of helping Bush avoid accountability and making him look tough has cost the lives of nearly 2,000 U.S. soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis."

Hopefuly the next few weeks will see the beginning of the end of all this bullshit.

A "conservative" will always be phony if he/she acts as if Reagan is some kind of conservative icon. I'm waiting for a "true conservative" to give Reagan his honest due.

Doug - Don't entirely agree with you about conservatives in history. I just think they have always carried a flaw within them. The one we always come back to is Edmund Burke, the old progenitor - who had some great things to say about liberty and the necessity of organic community; but he, among others, was responsible for destroying the very culture he honored by supporting enclosure. In other words, his support of the wealth (and consequently the class of wealth) as a principle was a fatal flaw in political philosophy and made all the rest of it unattainable. He didn't account for the effects of class greed. That has always been the fatal flaw of "true conservatism". It's really a moral flaw and the foundation of the right's famous hypocrisy.

Nevertheless, as a matter of practical politics, I will conjoin with Will for a millisecond (from my own perspective) and see how the effect can be used.

Eric Moss #10

It is my turn to do a George Will on you. I expect that you are a liberal or close to it as I am. So I am going to fry you because you are as ignorant of the facts as moderate republicans have been of what George Wills has revealed.

Jimmy Carter started, by presidential order #12139, the nations first secret court (link here). I would put him in jail in a heart beat even tho I love him in many ways. No bullshit, in a heart beat.

It is time for lame attitudes like yours and the neoCons to go away. Wake up or you and your mindlessness will destroy this planet.

There must be accountability.

The true heros like Judge John Sirica need to be honored. Let me be a judge for one hour and I will honor republican Judge John Sirica by putting Jimmy Carter in jail. I would defer to a jury as to how long ... but his ass is going to jail for his traitorous activity.

We must be americans first. We must honor our forefathers and realize that power corrupts. It corrupts me. It corrupts you. And we must have the antidote. Which is a balance of powers, intellectual honesty, and a willingness to put our own mother or ourselves in jail for violating the sacred trusts of government.

BTW, whatever time the jury sentenced Jimmy Carter to, I as judge who sentenced him would do the same time with him.

I mean it with every fibre of my being!

arry #16.... Wow, what a profound analysis you hint at! I've not thought of it that way, that the very core of conservatism is founded on a flaw. Do you have a source for that, or have you developed it elsewhere? I'd like to hear more.

Alright, lets define what a true "conservative" and a true "liberal" is.

"Conservative" - Favoring traditional views and values. Tending to be cautious about rapid change.

"Liberal" - Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others.

In the 1980's, Republicans branded Democrats as liberals, and started a trend that caused Republicans to view "liberal" with a negative connotation. So a true liberal and true conservative no longer has any meaning in a political context anymore. Remember that many years ago the Red States were in the northeast, midwest, and west coast, and the Republican party was made up of liberals and moderates. These words have now come to represent political groups, not give meaning to political ideologies.

I know this really doesn't add anything to the conversation. Just trying to show that all that "liberal" and "conservative" does is to make the lives of political scientists harder.

Arry: There may well be a flaw in both ideologies (conservative and liberal) because the facts you show are all too clear to what we have allowed to happen.

Doug E.

I suspect there are a lot of Northern Republicans, and maybe some Westerners too, who don't fit in the Bush version of the Republican party.

Those moderate Northern Republicans should consider holding their nose and voting Democratic. Yes, yes, I know there are some significant differences. But, if you have a moderate to conservative candidate like a Bill Clinton and you aren't terribly upset by the Blacks and women who've moved up in the world, then what's the difference between a conservative Democrat and a moderate Republican? Carter deregulated trucking, telecommunications and airlines. Clinton balanced the budget. How small does government have to be before a Republican is satisfied? How big does the military have to be before he's satisfied?

I'm certain there are some liberals and wild-eyed environmentalists who scare the bejezus out of all Republicans, but if a particular candidate isn't so far out, then why not consider a Democratic candidate? It's certainly got to be better than Bush & Co (and I include the current Congress in that too).

I actually believe there is room in the Democratic party for some moderate Republicans. They might feel more comfortable voting for a congressman or senator than for a presidential candidate. But, the Democrats have tried to find candidates who can be elected anywhere in the nation. Carter is from Georgia, Clinton is from Arkansas, Gore from Tennessee, Dukakis and Kerry are from Massachussets. Did Carter and Clinton do so horrible compared to Reagan and the Bush two? Who ran up the deficits? Who took us to war illegally?

I can't see so many Northerners getting upset about the Civil Rights movement after all these years. Maybe the Dems will have to tone down the affirmative action legislation and focus on enforcement for individual cases. Dems have put good people on the Supreme Court. Can the Republicans say as much?

If secular government is preferable then don't look to Bush.

If balanced budgets is preferable then don't look to Bush.

If small government is preferable then don't look to Bush.

If lawful behavior is preferable then definately don't look to Bush.

Vote Democratic --- it's a good choice.

Thank you George. It's about time. I have always considered Mr. Will to be very intelligent and an honest human being. But why has it taken him so long to see that huge wart on his nose?

MarkH #21,

That's why I voted for Kerry. As for Clinton being a moderate to conservative Democrat - that's crap. Moderate to liberal Democrat more like it. Had I been old enough, I still would have voted for him though.

I could be a conservative Democrat and not care about it. My hope is that my party changes to reflect the base - which reflects my views closely. The primary in 2008 will have a lot to say about whether it can or not.

Let me pose this to you all - which party is best for me? I have a firm belief that the government does not exist to solve everyone's problems, but should give everyone the opportunity to succeed. I think that welfare policy deters people from making something of their lives, and causes generations of poor people to expect to be taken care of. But I also think that education policy favors surburbia and doesn't give the poor a chance to get out of the cycle of poverty. I think that environmental policy is more important than the economy, and we're heading in the wrong direction right now. I'm pro-life (but can't justify abortion being illegal), anti-death penalty, pro-gay marriage. I think that universal health care is a bad idea in this country at this point in time. I'm more supply-side than Keysian. Deficits are bad for our economy, and our government is way too big. Part of that problem is excess military spending. I believe in more free trade. I think that our country doesn't follow international law, and that international law should be far more important in our foreign policy. The war in Afghanistan is justified but the War in Iraq violates international law and was wrong to start. I think that Marijuana should be legalized. You do not have the right to bear any arms you want - gun control is important. Illegal immigration is a terrible problem right now, we should do a better job protecting our borders. As our population ages, Social Security will be in big trouble, and privatizing a small portion of it can help to fix it. I think the federal government assumed control of too many policies that are states rights. These are just some problems I have. My basic value is that as an American, I should have every opportunity to make something of my life, but if I blow it, I should expect to receive someone's hard earned money to make my life easier. The American dream is become successful by working hard and becoming educated.

Forget whether you agree with my stances or not. I think it's clear I'm a more of an independant thinker, which sort of defaults me as a moderate. I find that most people my age follow this general philosophy - fiscal conservative, social liberal. But what party is best for me? I guess this gets to the heart of the matter with Will's article. If someone has these political stances, should they stick it out with the Repubs or abandon the party?

Oops, couple corrections. I think we follow almost all international law almost all the time, just not as much as I would like. And I think that if I blow my chance at being successful, it's not up to the successful to spend their hard earned money to take care of me.

Nittany Lion- I'll be honest.

I really would have to say the independent party is probably best for you.

Not because of anything wrong but, at their core, both parties have completely compromised leadership.

The republican party is led by war-mongerers, and as you've seen very crude, brown-shirts.

The democratic party is led by pro-war people, who are just not as pro-war as the other guy. As in the DLC and all their Hillary Clintons.

The independent party is led by no-one, except maybe the progressives or members like Lyndon LaRouche. Come to think of it LaRouche is the most radical fringe of the independent party there is.

And if you register with that, you can choose whoever reflects you and no longer feel "obligated" or any such nonsense. NO loyalty.

For it is my view that until the democratic party kicks this perverted face to the curb, it will not be the people's party it was supposed to be based on.

And republicans aren't going to change. So it really may be time for a real new movement party to emerge, but not yet, so that's why I say register independent. (** I know too many people now who hold this affiliation and are glad to not be anyone's groveler or encourage anyone's war**)

Doug

Eric Moss #10 - absolutely correct!!!

Copncerned Citizen #14 - Yes, they are getting away with it so far, aren't they? Who's going to stop them? They are dictators who don't care what people think or polls say, because, it doesn't stop them from doing whatever they want! They are blind drunk with power!!! And they can "win" every fixed election that takes place! Sorry, but I am totally "pissed off" with the whole bunch of them. The world will not be a better place in my lifetime because of THEM...destroyers of humanity and the world!

Nittany - From the post above, I'd say if you had to chose a party, that clearly you ought to call yourself a Democrat. At least if you truly believe in the things you've mentioned.

So what have you been smoking for so many years that you actually think you're a "Conservative" or a "Republican"? I don't know, but perhaps the answer lies in one of your earlier comments in this thread. You defined Conservative and Liberal as...

"Conservative" - Favoring traditional views and values. Tending to be cautious about rapid change.

"Liberal" - Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others.

While I can generally accept your definition of "Liberal" (though I'd expected you to mis-define it), your "Conservative" definition is certainly off the mark. At least in regards to anything that resembles "Conservatism" as recognizable in the United States today. I think your definition is nothing more than a faint remnant of what Conservatism *might* have once been. And even of that, I'm not sure.

Come to the light side, Nittany...

Please read Bluebear2's #2 above. The link re: Tom Delay contains some exciting news.

Documents that they thought had been protected are out there for the world to read about this evening! Where money went, to whom, and other truths. All right there to be seen, read, and enjoyed, (or not)! It is on michaelmoore.com as well.

Hey Brad,

Careful, NL and others might start thinking that you are a "Democrat" and I don't recollect that you are. Am I right or wrong?

I just discovered that as a former Democrat, I can't rightfully call myself an "Independent", at least with a capital "I", as I don't go along with all of the Independent Party beliefs. Guess I've been filling out those recent questionaires about my views on Bushco under false pretenses. I meant "independent", not "Independent"! Can't remember that they had a "no affiliation" box, though. Maybe it really is time for a new "party"? [Hope we can have one after Fitz's gj speaks, however--;>) ].

VG

Oh, and one other item I didn't mean to allow Nittany to get away with. He (or she?) said:

As for Clinton being a moderate to conservative Democrat - that's crap. Moderate to liberal Democrat more like it.

To that I'll simply say: Bullshit.

Again, it must be due to the same stuff you're smoking that's been making you think you're a Republican for so many years.

Wonder who these guys vote for?

here

Here is why I have such problems with Repugs..

Morality (theirs) says pot is bad and their courts have decided that Feds, because it's controlled (for some unknown reasons, but I"ve heard tell that Hemp was conflicting with Cotton way back when), can prosecute doctors because "there are no studies that show pot has any benificial effects".. yet, they won't let those studies take place.

Yet, at the SAME time they are making sure "people can't relax", they are " killing us for profits "

nice crazy world these Pugs live in..

This has probably been said before. I don't have the patience to read all of the replies tonight. I'm pissed.

I'm pissed that, now that Bush is heading quickly toward lame duck status-- well, much worse than lame duck status-- Will suddenly has seen the light.

After five years of riding the wave of the Bush Cabal, what Will is really trying to do is to get out in front of the next GOP movement by criticizing the criminals. Alas. George Will has the gall to criticize the criminals! Now that Bush is slipping into the grave, Will is now willing to point out the worts on Bush's bare feet.

After five years of pushing the GOP agenda. After five years. This is what marks Will's career. I remember Will getting similar criticism as a gutless chameleon several years ago, when an earlier GOP leadership was heading for the gutter.

When the going's good for the GOP, Will is right there as champion of the latest version of conservatism. But watch out when a crisis hits. Fast George, finger always to the breeze, won't be denied the role of harbinger. There's no way that he'll be buried with the bodies.

# 16 - Unirealist --- I'm afraid I can't give you a source other than yours truly. I've read libraries of history and so on think about these things all the time. There are probably others working along the same lines.

Honestly, I did give up my old life a number of years ago and ensconced myself out in the country with the purpose of working out these lines of thought in a series of volumes. But 1.) I have a serious problem following one thing without going off on a tangent and my insights tend to be Mozartian rather than Beethovian 2.) Silly or not, I felt uncomfortably egotistic and isolated when writing, and, most importantly, 3.) an acute political and social crisis developed that we can code name "Dubya", and I felt that I had to don my armor and get out into the battle - which I did. For the last, few years I have been primarily a ground fighter in the thick of things and, I hope, inspiring others to do the same.

As I mentioned a long time ago on BB, I think we are up against a wall. We are bunched up there, milling around, getting angrier and angrier; and the wall consists largely of charged terms of reference that have blocked our way. We need to chip away at that wall, maybe even sledgehammer it with all the tools of thought, moral life, and growing unity of purpose. (Or possibly we should think of these as steps on a ladder - whatever...be my guest.)

At any rate, I am convinced we have to make ourselves into a generation. All ages - I'm not talking about year of birth - I'm saying we have to discover our errors in thinking and gather up strands of life and intelligence and be the generation that creates the frames of reference - ways of seeing the world - that can sustain us into the future because the tangled mess most of us are stuck in is deadly. We have to be in this together, discover things together - maybe that's one of the reasons I felt uncomfortable sitting there trying to develop a tome.

Doug - #20 --- True. Though I think we have to define what we're talking about. Personally, I see generally see conservatism and liberalism as different branches on the same tree. What is important to realize, IMO, is that --- I'm not sure how to put this...a major error of thinking is that people think they are explaining something when they actually are describing it, and it has created huge problems. Classical liberalism - Adam Smith -...he was brilliantly describing a very successful wealth creation system that undoubtedly created a sense of awe in those who observed it. But it wasn't human nature - it wasn't an explanation of anything; it was a description. Yet it was taken as an explanation, built up as a virtually unshakable frame of reference, and became part of the solid wall we are up against. Liberalism, conservatism - I suggest we seek a more direct route to reality.

I'm going far beyond what I intended. The comments of Unirealist and Doug struck chords in my current intellectual interests. I'll put on my armor and get back to the front lines!

"Conservative" might have a different connotation regarding NATIONAL POLITICS than regarding an individual's character.

Criteria for a conservative, politically:

1) Favors less government spending, not more
2) Favors minimum regulations on business
3) Believes in states' rights
4) Believes in laissez-faire capitalism, fervently
5) Likes low taxes
6) Isolationistic toward foreign entanglements

Bush is a conservative regarding 2, 4, and 5. He decidedly is not with 1 and 6, and he was "elected" in 2000 because the State of Florida wasn't allowed to conduct a recount by the Supreme Court...if the states-rights principle had prevailed, Al Gore would have been properly inaugurated as president.

"Conservative," in the year 2005, means nothing more or less than "I hate liberals," meaning the 1980 image of a liberal: tolerant of welfare cheaters, tolerant of violent criminals, tax and spend Congress, in the pocket of special interests.

Of these, only the last one still applies to liberals...
more accurately, it applies to liberal Democrats on Capitol Hill.

Go ahead and give sWill his... whatever your giving him.

I'll stay with my opinion of him and say hes still a "Hack"

So many have been criticizing the MSM for being soft on the administration.

Newsweek is the MSM. George Will has written a piece in the MSM that is, to say the least, critical of not only the administration, but also critical of the corrupt politicians like DeLay. The MSM article is not soft on the wrongs of the administration nor of corrupt congressmen like DeLay.

This is a good trend that will continue under certain conditions.

For this there can only be favorable recognition for the effort.

Like Brad has done. Who cares what color of socks Will's grandmother wears?

Again, good work Brad.

I have noticed a change in MSM reporting since Katrina and the DeLay indictment. Articles in major newspapers, networks and magazines are now appearing daily to criticize the BCFOL. The blog underground has set the stage but we still need the MSM to complete the fall of the empire. I absolutely love the way the MSM is now attacking the BCFOL at the White House briefings.

However, I am still waiting for another shoe to fall. Will it be bird flu or economic depression? Hope not.

The MSM whores are nipping at Bush's heels now that Rove is about to be indicted and their MSM corporate bosses are afraid of his phone calls. But don't forgive the MSM whores who sold us out, or their bosses. And don't ever forget.

Nelson Rockefeller (Rep.) was governor of NY in the 1960's. A whole different party then. The Dems and Reps still shared a few common values, for example the idea that the USA should be a meritocracy. Not anymore. (You're doing a great job, Brownie!"

arry, the distinction between explanation and description is good, also the need for new frames of reference. Have you posted or sited any of your material? I'll try to follow up with an e-mail.

...their MSM corporate bosses AREN'T afraid of his phone calls...

wow,

this blog item rocks brad! Nice to know you don't have a problem with real conservatism. George Will is still pretty lame anyways. Real conservatism is, in my opinion, like libertarianism. limited gov't, and maximizing civil liberties. I don't see why anyone wouldn't want that.

George Will, so articulate, so knowledgeable, so well reasoned. Yes, there is no excuse for him taking so long to turn away from such a destructive Administration. He probably viewed himself as some long stand loyal Republican and I'm sure he was also aware that was the view that he was being paird to represent. So, for way too long he turned a blind eye to it all and in so doing he did become a real part of the destruction of our country. I suppose Mr. Will is also much aware that all big media is now owned and controlled by the same big corporate special interests that are in bed with the cons.
I am glad that he, however belatedly, now reveals some integrity and hopefully he will be permitted to hold his course on ABC and This Week.
I find some very enlightened views on this blog. I would ask that some of you would drop in on the blog radioinsidescoop.com and share some of your thoughts there as well. I would love to cut and paste several of the posts I view here. If any of you do visit please be aware that Sundays are open to all thoughts and subjects. Most other days are topic orientated.

Hacked909 #43

You are not correct on your facts. Will is on record for criticizing this admin for years.

It is not wrong to belong to the republican party nor to support it if you are a member. Same with democrats, Independents, Constitutional Party, Green Party, and the rest.

But america comes first.

George Will turned into a Neo-Con shill.
IOKIYAR. It's OK if your republican.
He is a very smart guy who just caused depression in me and other liberals.
I will never forgive him.

The American "Eagle" needs a right and left wing to fly.
Smart people like G. Will have crippled America by supporting Bushco. for 5 years.

Fuck you, George Will.

Nittany,

If your list of interests is accurate then I'd have to say you are truly Independent. And, in that case, your only real option is to independently evaluate each candidate on your ballots. That takes more work than any party-ticket voting, but it should produce better results for you.

In the past I've been a Dem and have supported the party in general. I then supported Ross Perot on the Reform Party ticket. Then I went back to Dems to support Jerry Brown, Al Gore and then Howard Dean, really anti-Bush. Now I feel alienated by a party leadership which isn't fighting Bush the way I'd like. So, in that sense I can identify with you. It's a sad feeling to not be part of a larger group who have strong feelings in common. Many who read this blog feel similarly alienated (we share a common feeling of not being a natural fit for a group, so we are a group --- odd huh?), regardless of our particular political beliefs. Some are progressive, some independent, some just pissed-off.

I suggest consideration of each candidate on their own merits and disregard party labels for now.

There ought to be 6 or 7 good candidates out there.

BTW, I know of no Dem who thinks Clinton is in any way Liberal. We must have an entirely different definition of Liberal (than Nittany has).

Yeah Clinton isn't a liberal. Good way to put it and I would say Kerry is but for some reason he's not really progressive....You hit it home with your analysis Arry.

What we need are TRUTH-TELLERS who tell the truth all the time or as much as they can, and clean up this disaster so it never happens again.

Doug

Now simmer down son, progressive or not all your base are belong to Karl Rove.

TRUTH TELLERS??? YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!

# 40 - Unirealist --- Always feel free to email me if you want.

I tried to start a blog once, but I couldn't figure out how my philosophical/political stuff would work in it. Somehow, it was too diffuse. In a way, it might be best to scatter seeds of insight - if insights they are - to encourage thinking in useful ways; ways maybe some people haven't thought of before. That's what I've been trying to do.

It is embarrassing to discuss it, but getting it all together into a coherent form at the same time that new ideas and aspects occur (really all the time, like a flood) - each of which should be evaluated - is and has been a terrible struggle and one that I haven't come close to winning. (If I could just turn off the faucet of associative ideas and consolidate I would be in heaven for awhile, but it doesn't happen. I think the handle is broken! Seems to me T.E. Lawrence said something like this regarding his own mind, and boy did it hit home with me when I read it.)

But we must discuss these things. What I said about getting through or over the wall is very real and, I believe, the essential problem of our time. I won't give up trying to find the essential elements and to form some kind of structure of thought and vision, and will be happy to entertain the ideas of others of how best to go about it - that is, how we should go about it. It's a voyage of discovery and it contains the life, joy, and purpose that go with discovery.

It's always welcome when someone comes into the light. Better late than never. More will probably be coming on board with the truth, we just came on board sooner! Given this revelation of information, I'm curious how GW and others will handle bush when he invades Iran (OIL)?? It's so clear why repugs rigged the election - they had alot at stake! They couldn't leave it to chance with a fair election, so.... Okay George Will, you have seen the light, you have taken your head out of the sand, what are you going to do now??

Arry, please rethink not having your own blog. I know I for one would check it often! I suggest you go see the vandal about his returning that handle he stole.

Best wishes from Prague, Bob

for rigged erections we have only allegations never proven in court but the deluded accept them as fact. You could convince yourselves of anything.

Sorry. I got carried away. I just feel someone as smart as George Will has the brains to know that he has enabled the immoral war in Irag.
Brad: I think your Intellectually Honest Conservative Award is a great idea.

Doug's Dad#54 - You think after lying to America to get into a war where many thousands of innocents have been killed, murdered, which is clear, whether or not it has been proven in court...that a small thing like hacking into a very hackable vote counting machine isn't likely? Do you think someone stood around with a video camera if it happened? At least there were cameras at Abu Garib...Proven in court doesn't count with me any more...Why does George the Fuck Bush want his "friend" Harriet on the Supreme Court? He's scared shitless and wants to make sure he gets a pardon if he gets indicted and found guilty for one of the many crimes he's committed. Fuck Bushco. Life imprisonment is too good for them. Drawn and quartered is more like it.

Hi, Colleenmilitarymom - You have nothing to apologize for --- murder is murder, whether the culprit is a poor, uneducated, sick fool or George W. Bush. And those who have covered up and looked the other way while the dead bodies piled up and the lives and futures of millions of good, decent innocent people have been decimated are JUST as guilty, and are accomplices to these crimes. If you are sorry, then I'll say it: Fuck George Will. He has an OBLIGATION to start admitting the truth and doing all he can to stop all the destruction unleashed by Bushco and the Republican party. And they will NEVER EVER be able to make things right again...for no one can bring back the DEAD! The minimum and maximum required is that they repair and repay whatever they can. They are all an utter and ever-lasting disgrace.

Thanks, Peggy. From the bottom of my heart.

Doug's Dad:

You are a true moron. Do you think we even need hard evidence?!?? Ohio's staff has already been charged with the crime of tampering with the vote count.

We don't need anymore god damn evidence, the election was stolen PERIOD. They lied about everything else, and they lied about this last election.

George Will can go screw himself until he admits the entire party are liars, traitors, and scounderals. And he either DENOUNCES them and admits it, or he is a battered wife and a bullshit enabler.

Doug E.

I don't have time to consolidate 6 months of data, but if you are truly interested in learning about the 2004 election, check out black box voting and Conyers websites for starters. Also check out the Diebold letter. There is more, so much more. Hey, if it's not on CNN it must not be true!!!

#53 - Czaragorn - Thanks. Much appreciated!

Doug's Dad #54

You mentioned "rigged erections". The only erections we have talked about here are those of Rove which were inspired by jeffie gannon.

BTW it is obvious you are a troll and are not really Doug's Dad.

Mad Dog is the name you have gone by heretofore, so why not stay in the closet and rig erections without bothering our blog?

Anyone know jeffie "rigged erection" gannon's website so this troll can "get off" our blog and get on over to the gay ho thingy site?

DD#54 - You're still talking about Bill and Monica?

Thank you Doug E. and DREDD. You are able to say much in few words. Send them back to Rush and Fox. They are no longer capable of rational thoughts.

From the Newsweek article:

"The indictments of DeLay—although certainly political in terms of the prosecutor's motive and probably unjust as a matter of law—..."

"Although certainly political" ?
"Probably unjust as a matter of law" ?

Am I the only person that found this blatant "thought plant" to be offensive?

I used to consider George Will as being an objective level-headed journalist with a head full of indisputable facts.... until I really paid close attention to his "facts" and the structure of the arguments he presented to make his position sound credible.

Unlike Rush Limbaugh... who actually sounds dumb... George Will presents an intelligent persona - he always uses words that are rarely used... words that his audience likes to pretend they understand (to give the impression that they, too, are "intellectuals")... but really don't. In the real world... the use of such words reveals a personal need to feel superior... while the presentation is - more often than not - a "snow job". I have personal experience in this technique as I used to use it all the time. Then I grew up. It's all about communication... not manipulation

As it turns out... I was not the only one taken in by his intelligent rhetoric...

Excerpt from http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1156

"The Hypocrisy of George Will
"Pundit's double standards, ethical lapses seldom noted."

"As one of the most prominent conservative commentators in recent decades, Will has a reputation for being brainy, sober and well-researched. Among the noisy current crop of talk radio-nurtured pundits, he gives the impression of being a more reasonable, thoughtful and soft-spoken conservative. But Lazarus' point about Will's filibuster contradiction underlines the general mismatch between Will's reputation for intellectual rigor and integrity, and the reality that his work is too often intellectually inconsistent, ethically questionable and ideologically drive"

It's a sobering article and I urge every George Will fan to read it.

Frankly... I think he's a snot... and I'd like to poke his eyes out.

#65 - Vitocaputo --- My view entirely. It has driven me nuts for years to see this guy being taken seriously as an intellectual and a writer. Sitting there with a thesaurus and picking words to impress does not a writer or intellectual make. (The thing is to use the right words.)

He's a phony.

By the way, practically every denizen of the Beltway can't think in terms other than everything being part of a political "game". Positioning, you know. This way of thinking to the exclusion of acting on principles is known as decadence and we are deep in it. (Well, not us. We are bringing some principles back into the process.)

But I'll take anyone's help, even that of phonies.