You’re going to hear quite a bit from the left over ‘the death of conservatism’ over the next few weeks. But they’ve got it wrong. I say, what we’ve got is the death of compromised conservatism as espoused by George W Bush, his father, GHW Bush, and by more recently, John McCain.
This morning, we see a post from Helen Valois at Renew America, who calls this ‘conservative conservatism’. I can quibble with the name she chooses, but not her meaning…
What is conservative conservatism? It is a commitment to playing a good defense (or rather — except for the one, brief, shining moment of Governor Palin’s acceptance speech — a pretty flawed defense) when your opponents have gone decisively on
The Wall Street Journal states the bloody obvious:
According to recent Gallup polls, the president’s average approval rating is below 30% — down from his 90% approval in the wake of 9/11. Mr. Bush has endured relentless attacks from the left while facing abandonment from the right.
This is the price Mr. Bush is paying for trying to work with both Democrats and Republicans. During his 2004 victory speech, the president reached out to voters who supported his opponent, John Kerry, and said, “Today, I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do
Ah, it’s back to one of my favorite pastimes…blogging for the Conservative Reader. Since my last installment, several interesting things have happened:
For whatever reason, Senator Clinton refuses to concede the nomination. Either she and Bill cannot conceive of the fact that reasonable people would not choose them to be their standard-bearer, or somehow, some way, she’s convinced that Senator Obama will self-destruct. Newsflash for Hillary: If Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Obama’s complete inability to state categorically how he’s going to “restore hope” to America hasn’t derailed the Obama train, nothing will. Besides, the Clintons, despite their personal drama, are boring.
Second, Kimberly Strassel has a great op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal. I could give the synopsis here, but I’d rather you read …
Limbaugh likes to say on his radio program, that he IS balance for the liberal press. And in many ways, he’s quite right. So an interesting angle on this shows up today in an article by John Harris and Jim Vandiehei at The Politico:
My, oh my, but weren’t those fellows from ABC News rude to Barack Obama at this week’s presidential debate.
Nothing but petty, process-oriented questions, asked in a prosecutorial tone, about the Democratic front-runner’s personal associations and his electability. Where was the substance? Where was the balance?
Where indeed. Hillary Rodham Clinton and her aides have been complaining for months about imbalance in news coverage. For the most part, the reaction to her from the political-media commentariat has been: Stop whining.
Filed Under: POTUS, TAXES
I’ve been subscribing to Fortune magazine for about 15 years now, and in the last couple of years I’ve given serious thought to letting my subscription go for something more substantive and/or right-leaning, as I’ve watched the editorial staff at Fortune take their publication further and further left. And then, just when I begin to think it’s a total waste of precious time and money, an issue strikes at the heart of all I hold dear and I think, “At last, someone in the mainstream media gets it”.
This is a serious time for America. The next POTUS, regardless of who it is, has to make some serious decisions, not just about taxes, Social Security and Medicare, but Iraq, foreign policy in general and, oh …
I’ve said it a number of times here in the past: the real power is in the US Congress. Presidents can negotiate with foreign leaders, take military action (to an extent), and manage the administration as approved (more or less) by Congress. And then a little here and there with Presidential Executive Orders. And of course, the President can submit legislation and veto bills (it’s rather insignificant to mention the power to sign bills into law, but it is there). But the President cannot get the legislation to his/her desk without Congress passing the bills.
And the President cannot stop Congress from creating earmarks. I take a story from BitsBlog in toto:
WASHINGTON - FOX- The Senate rejected calls from both parties’ presidential candidates to take