Mother Jones: Backing Away From Bush

[seafan]

Backing Away From Bush

By Todd Gitlin
October 8, 2007

That tinkle you hear these days is the sound of scales falling from the eyes of right-wing Washington pundits as they are oh-so-dismayed to discover that somehow, while they weren't watching, the country fell into the hands of a systematically lawless, reckless, corrupt, and authoritarian circle of false conservatives. But to keep their aplomb, they have to pretend that they weren't wearing blinders in the first place. What these leading spokesmen (and they are men, for the most part) of the conservative movement are not so eager to notice is that the power circle in question is one that, not so long ago, they celebrated as a triumphant expression of conservative ideas and values. The euphemistic way to put this is that we are well into the season of conservative distancing. The buck stops nowhere.

You can appreciate the conservative dilemma. They have to wash their hands of the Bush catastrophe without taking any responsibility for it. They have to try salvaging the notion of a vital, intelligent conservatism that was somehow, behind their backs, hijacked, sabotaged, and betrayed by an errant leader—the Bush who, unaccountably, squandered the luminous promise of Bush.

But Bush was not an accidental leader of the Republicans. He was, and remains, their quintessence—their true representative, their embodiment. His partisans celebrated him precisely as that. In his contempt for reason, his wild foreign policy, his militarism, his love of plutocrats, and his disdain for democratic values and civil rights and liberties, he personifies most of the conservative movement. He was what they wanted. And they couldn't believe their good fortune when he showed up to carry their standard. Even if he embarrassed them on occasion, they celebrated his shortcomings as a refreshing change from Bill Clinton.

No wonder his erstwhile cheerleaders are not willing to face their embarrassment. They are not particularly interested in asking: Did he change between the time they heralded him as a conservative hero and the time they threw up their hands deploring his errors? Was his stupendous malfeasance a sign, perhaps, that they missed something essential in his nature way back in the glory days when they welcomed him unquestioningly into their hearts? Does this not tell us all we need to know about their acuity?

.....

David Brooks Before

"The core threat to democracy is not in the White House, it's the haters themselves." —New York Times, 9/30/2003

.....

David Brooks After

"Sometimes I'd come away from off-the-record conversations and background briefings feeling my intelligence had been insulted, because even in private, officials would ignore realities that were on newspaper front pages." —New York Times, 12/4/2005

.....

William F. Buckley, Jr., Before

"George W. Bush is on a great roll. His speech on Thursday combined everything needed at this near-decisive moment. He gave our allies, Congress, and the public exactly that—what was needed. And he engaged in a venture in diplomatic craft that will make its way into the textbooks of the future, in all the languages spoken at the U.N. Security Council." —National Review Online, 2/7/2003

William F. Buckley, Jr., After

"President Bush's mistake was in going to war." —National Review Online, 10/1/2004

.....

George Will Before

"Critics…say Bush is a modest man with much to be modest about, and that he lacks complexity. But modesty is a political virtue and is especially desirable in the next president, who will replace the egomaniacal vulgarian ." —Washington Post, 11/5/00

"Bush's conservatism is more modest, which means more truly conservative, than Reagan's, because it is subdued by a more severe sense of possibilities: It is hard to imagine Bush ever voicing, as Reagan frequently did, Tom Paine's thought, 'We have it in our power to begin the world over again.'… Bush's foreign policy is still embryonic, but already suggests conservative realism about the limited sway of power over events…. Bush practiced the essential conservative virtue, prudence, in selecting two advisers—Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld—long on the sort of experience that produces prudence." —Washington Post, 4/30/01

George Will After

"This administration cannot be trusted to govern if it cannot be counted on to think and, having thought, to have second thoughts. Thinking is not the reiteration of bromides…." —Washington Post, 5/5/04

.....

These people will forever be damned to hell for their gleeful participation in the gratuitous murder and pillage by their sainted George W. Bush.

[MadMaddie]

1. They are the Good Germans....make no mistake History will

judge them..just as history has judged the Good Germans..

[Annces]

2. Thanks for posting n/t

[bonito]

3. Kick

[bvar22]

4. The thing that REALLY bothers me...

is that our Media still serves these people up as "Experts" or "Pundits". They still appear daily on Talking Head Shows (especially Sun. mornings) spouting their opinions as if they carried weight. They still occupy columns in our newspapers touting their own wisdom and foresight.

*NONE of these assholes have been called on their complete LACK of judgment!

*NONE have been FIRED by their sponsors because of their IDIOCY!

ALL these Conservative pundits have earned NOTHING but ridicule and scorn. They should be laughed out of every public appearance with finger pointing and fart noises.
THEY have the BLOOD of several HUNDRED THOUSAND innocents on their hands.

AFAIK, Jon Stewart is the ONLY national show that has questioned the collective judgment of these idiots. It was a pleasure to watch Jon deconstruct Bill Crystol.
(Paraphrase): "Why should anyone listen to you? Dude, you got it ALL wrong!"

[guitar man]

9. hey, I'm with you

I make great fart noises, I spent much of 3rd grade in the principal's office over fart noises. :evilgrin:

[porkrind]

5. Could George Will be more of a tool?

I don't think so. Why is this guy even on the air? He has zero relevance. If you seriously think about anything he's saying and seperate it from the ivy-league delivery, you would think he's as stupid as, say, Ronald Reagan. Same with William Buckley, who might be slightly smarter.

If you want to see a side-by-side comparison with a true intellectual, go to YouTube and watch the classic debate between Buckley and a young Noam Chomsky. Chomsky takes him apart. It's painful (and funny) to watch.

The sad thing is that people like William Kristol, George Will, William Buckley, etc. pass as serious intellectuals on the right. I guess if you're standing next to Sean Hannity, you must be the smart one in the crowd.

[mwb970]

6. I rarely read Will's columns in the paper.

They all have the same theme: Republicans good, Democrats bad. It's the same theme used in every column by Charles Krauthammer and the emetic Jonah Goldberg, so I don't read them either. Why bother? I know what they are going to say.

[eppur_se_muova]

8. "The emetic ..." LOL! nt

[guitar man]

10. lol @ "emetic"

Frankly, they all give me the runs :evilfrown:

But you've hit the nail on the head as far as them saying the same thing over and over. This RW mantra thing may have been a brilliant playbook when it was written, but it is limited, worn out and isn't playing so well anymore.

[OregonBlue]

7. Before the war and during the early years, CSPAN had someone from AEI on every week if not every day

Haven't seem much of them in a while have we?