Tuesday, July 25, 2006

Just slightly behind the curve, as they say.


May 5, 2006: The incomparable Glenn Greenwald recognizes the coming talking point:

Conservatives try to distance themselves from "Bush the liberal"

Yesterday, I referenced an article in National Review by Jonah Goldberg in which Goldberg argued that the two most glaring examples of failed Republican presidents -- Richard Nixon and George Bush -- weren't conservatives at all, but were actually liberals. I characterized this claim as "dishonest" because, as I pointed out, virtually no conservatives were claiming that Bush was a "liberal" when his popularity ratings were in the 60s and he was perceived as some sort of heroic, beloved political figure. It is only now that his approval ratings are reaching historically low levels, and it is becoming unavoidably apparent that his presidency is dying and failed, that conservatives are seeking to claim that Bush's failure is not a failure of conservatism because -- as it turns out -- Bush was really a liberal all along. Alas, Bush's failure is simply the latest instance of the failure of liberalism.

July 26, 2006: It takes Adam Daifallah only a couple of months to clue in:

Conservative circles here in Washington have been abuzz with William F. Buckley's admission to CBS News that he doesn't believe George W. Bush is a "conservative."

Coming soon: Adam is shocked to learn that something's up in Lebanon and, by God, he's going to find out what it is.

4 comments:

thwap said...

Typically gutless right-wing bullshit.

Of course bush II is a "conservative."

That is, if you're using what traditionally passes for "conservatism" nowadays.

As near as I can figure, what "conservative" now means is huge deficits, an enormous police-state, and mountains of corruption as public assets and the public good are sacrificed to private sector puppet masters.

That certainly isn't "liberalism."

Yes, 10th-rate hack Goldberg is casting about for scapegoats for the failure of his hero.

Grog said...

Intriguing - I would have measured success/failure on the basis of policy and its effectiveness in advancing the nation.

Apparently, the US measures purely on presidential popularity.

- of course, on the policy front, GWB doesn't stack up so well even compared to Nixon.

Scotian said...

While I agree GWB is not a real conservative as defined in the American political context this was also visible from the outset of his Presidency, yet that didn't stop the conservative movement from declaring him their totem and proof of the wisdom of conservatism. So they are stuck with him representing them now, although you have got to love the loyalty being demonstrated here. Embrace them when they are up and useful to you and kick them when they are down and instead of helping you hurts you.

And they say conservatives don't eat their own...HA!

Simon said...

I don't blame anyone for trying to disown Dear Leader, but trying to pawn him off on progressives by attaching a "liberal" tag on his smirking mug? I don't think so...