The Repudiation of Rove: Bush pushed conservatism past where the American people were willing to go

[DeepModem Mom]

WP: The Repudiation of Rove
By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, February 6, 2008; Page A19

....A more direct affront to the Republican strategy devised by Karl Rove -- to build support within the party's right-wing base and then try to win over just enough moderates to carry elections -- cannot be imagined. McCain's whole campaign is anti-Rovian. His core supporters are Republican moderates and Republican-inclined independents, and then he picks off enough conservatives to prevail....

With his preemptive war and seemingly permanent occupation in Iraq, and his attempt to privatize Social Security, George W. Bush pushed American conservatism past the point where the American people were willing to go -- pushed them, in fact, to the point where they recoiled at the conservative project. And with that, American conservatism shuddered to a halt. In the 2005-06 congressional session, Republicans still controlled both houses of Congress, yet they introduced no major legislation.

This exhaustion of conservatism has been apparent all along in the Republican presidential contest, where the chief point of agreement among the leading candidates has been to make permanent both the Bush tax cuts for the rich and our occupation of Iraq. The conservative agenda has been winnowed down to supporting what remains of Bushism. That's not only a losing formula for November, it also means that intellectually, conservatism is running on empty.

Huckabee's legions have their own cause -- a pious populism that doesn't have much sway in urban areas. But consider what animates conservatives' support for Mitt Romney. It's not that they have warmed to his shifting agenda or his elusive charisma. They simply hate John McCain, who threatens their cosmology by waging a campaign that does not put them at the center of the political universe. That, certainly, is what animates Rush Limbaugh and the right-wing talkocracy, who feel their power ebbing with each McCain success....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020502878.html?nav=most_emailed

[DCKit]

1. How does the word "conservative" apply to * in any way?

The basic premise of the article is flawed and inaccurate. If the author can't stomach the terms "Corporate Fascism", "Feudalism" or "Imperialism" he needs to create a new, Republican friendly (we all know how sensitive they are to any perceived criticism) word that accurately describes the true goals and actions of the maladministration, their minions and enablers.

Any derivation of "conserve" is off limits in any discussion involving the current, unelected occupant of the WH or KKKarl's role in helping determine and enact the policies that have very nearly brought the U.S. to ruin.

If anyone feels like taking this and expounding further (or not) then slinging it back at the WaPo, be my guest.

[Sherman A1]

2. Agreed

You hit the nail on the head... These guys are not conservatives, they are in my opinion simply.... thieves, looting our treasury, breaking our country's military, piling up debt, failing their "conservative base" (which I think more of as a bunch of whining nutjobs... ie: Rush) and in general being bad managers. They are many, many things, but conservative is simply not one of them.

[Joe Bacon]

3. the ONLY difference between Busheviks and Bolsheviks is one word.

Busheviks use the Word "GOD" the same way Bolsheviks used "MARX".

Both want INFLEXIBLE CONSERVATIVE bureaucracies to take total control of society.

For the Bolsheviks, it was the Communist Party. For the Busheviks, it's the churches!

[FreepFryer]

4. Practical Bushevism and Bolshevism are both little more than ideological gangsterism (n/t)