Due to travel plans, I'll be unable to watch the president's state of the union address. But many political-junky readers, I'm sure, will be glued to their television sets. Fill me in, by grading the style and substance, on how the president's speech went.

2 to 1 he utters "...The state of our nation is good" withing the first two minutes. Mentions Corretta Scott King's bravery ; talks about an immigrant hispanic family who are now millionares and talks about how democracy is so meaningful to the brillian but under estimated Iraqui people. This is going to be painful.

Right about CSK. Looks like another wake under the Rotunda and days of pandering speeches.

The president also mentioned the U.S. is "addicted to oil" and must use technology to seek alternative sources. I don't know about you but after seeing some recent footage of Disney World the U.S. has a bigger addiction...HOT POCKETS!!!

Our whole economy with his help runs on oil. Instead of scolding the people he has been elected to help and who he represents by telling them that they are addicted to oil, he should be coming up with solutions and a plan of how he intends to help the people and economy deal with the energy crisis.

Sometimes, I can't believe I voted for this guy.

Even scumbag Clinton did what needed to be done to relieve the pressure of high oil prices.

Ummm...have I stumbled into some liberal Bush-bashing board? I was looking for the Flynn Files.

I found it unusual that he kept using the word "isolationism" to describe critics of the war because liberal Democrats are surely not isolationist. Besides his predicatbly asine comments on Iraq he made asine comments on why immigration is essential for our economy and why our economic future is still bright, even though it's being outsourced to foreign countries.

Isn't it interesting that President Bush wants to end America's "additiction to oil," but shows absolutely no interest in ending our addiction to immigration. Immigration is a much more serious threat to our nation's future and national security, but encouraging our dependence on it seems to be the Bush strategy.

I think Bush should have kept it much shorter: I'm trying to wreck this country, but there's all I can do in eight years.

Eric, I think he was channeling FDR.

Isolationism is bad, mmmmmkay?

I think Gary is right. There is nothing like a SOTU speech to get people to reflect on their differences. I think George Bush was out there leading with his chin and thinking big picture.Ultimately it is "we the people" allowing most of those clowns to be there. Can anybody believe that we are in the fix we are in today with oil; after living through the seventies???

We're in this fix precisely due to Bush and his big business oil company buddies who've been given carte blanche to gouge the American people.

I don’t think criticism is Bush bashing. Even if you marginally support the guy it has to be admitted that after six years into his reign, he hasn’t been an overwhelming success.

His initial handling of the terrorist threat was good. So were tax cuts. And although it remains to be seen how his two, seemingly most excellent, Supreme Court appointments turn out, they were both good choices (especially after the Harriet Miers fiasco).

But sometimes he acts like he’s not getting it. He talks about ending partisan politics while the Partisan’s are kicking his keister and trying to derail him and his administration. The remark about Clinton and he being George I’s boomer sons….give me a break and a barf bag.

And he almost sounded Gore or Kerryesque when talking about us having to wean ourselves of oil. What’s next for him? Save the whales.

Some truly disturbing and stupid comments coming from the guy that I HAD to vote for. Twice!

No, disagreement with Bush isn't Bush-bashing, but what I was referring to is that fact that none of you has had a single good thing to say about Bush, his address, or his administration in this thread. Instead, this thread reads like the usual content of a MoveOn.org message board. I find this very strange for a site that is supposedly a conservative's blog site. It causes me to question whether any of you are conservatives or not. Granted, Dan's stance is non-committal to either the left or the right and, as his followers, I expect that at least some of you agree with that stance, but the overwhelming tone of the comments in this thread is pro-leftist. You people sound like leftwing Democrats, not conservatives.

Gary,

It's not a question of us not being conservative. It's a question of Bush not being conservative or not being conservative enough. He demonstrates few "conservative" tendencies and having an 'R' next to his name doesn't mean that he is a 'C'.

Now, if this were a MoveOn.org deal, I think you'd get much more of radical slant than what you're reading here.

"Dan's stance is non-committal to either the left or the right..." - Gary

Um, what? You think Daniel J. Flynn (of "Why the Left Hates America") might be a leftist? Pardon me, do you know what "left" means in politics?

And in addition, not liking W for (1) his national building (NB we have now been fighting in Iraq longer than we fought Germany in WWII), 2) his enormous increase in governement spending at home, and 3) his refusal to enforce immigration laws, makes someone NOT a conservative? I'm prone to think the exact opposite.

Seriously, no mentally healthy person could know what these words mean and still say them.

"Um, what? You think Daniel J. Flynn (of "Why the Left Hates America") might be a leftist? Pardon me, do you know what "left" means in politics?"

I see someone has a reading comprehension problem, here. I said "Dan's stance is non-committal to EITHER the left or the right..." (emphasis added, since it didn't seem to sink in the first time). Dan's other book, "Intellectual Morons," plus most of his commentary here on this site, shows a viewpoint that is NOT decidedly conservative, nor leftist. As for knowing the difference, maybe you should read MY blog and learn something: www.garyrea.com. I think I also recognize a middle of the road position when I see it, having been there, myself.

Granted that some of Bush's agenda is not strictly conservative. I, myself, am critical of several aspects of it, especially his foot dragging on the border situation and his apparent desire to appease Vincente Fox. But, there has never been a Republican president in our nation's history whose every action as President was perfectly aligned with conservative philosophy. Being the president is a job that entails a tremendous amount of compromise. Our democratic republic has built-in checks and balances that ensure that neither side gets their way all the time. A large part of Bush's ability to get items from the conservative agenda accomplished depends upon what Congress does. If the conservatives in Congress think Bush's proposals are not aligned with conservative values, they'll oppose them. That's why Samuel Alito, not Harriet Myers, was confirmed yesterday. That's, to an extent, why Bush's Social Security package didn't pass. The Republicans have the majority in Congress and could have gotten it through despite the Democrats - if they wanted to. Personally, I thought the concept was conservative enough, as it would leave citizens in control of their own money, instead of perpetuating the bankrupt socialist welfare scheme that FDR started. My only gripe with it was in ensuring that people's retirement savings wouldn't be wiped out by downturns in the stock market. Unfortunately, there was no way to ensure this any more than one can be ensured their other, private investments won't tank.

As for the war, no one was promised it would be over with any sooner and, as of two years ago, it became glaringly apparent it would take longer than expected. This isn't Bush's fault, but the fault of our Clintonized military and intelligence community, who didn't have a clue that there might be an insurgency and that it might be fueled and maintained by outside forces (Iran, Al Qaeda, et al). It is sophomoric nonsense to lay the blame at the commander in chief's feet, as he has nothing to do with the daily operation of the military and the intelligence community. Ever heard of delegation of authority? To blame Bush personally for everything that goes wrong in Iraq is as stupid and naive as to blame him for hurricane Katrina or 9/11. The fact is, this war will be over when it's over - whether that's one more year or five. To whine and snivel about it certainly doesn't sound like a conservative position to me. It sounds like the leftists who want us to pull out now.

I liked his tougher stance on Iran. I thought bringing up the line-item veto was very timely and unexpected.

Gary: First you say that Dan is "noncommital to either left or right." Given Dan's books, that's like saying that Osama bin Laden is non-commital on being pro-US. Now you add that Dan isn't a conservative, and then you say he's middle of the road.

Then you go on to say that CLINTON is to blame for how badly the Iraq War has gone.

Look. You are clearly a Republican who leans conservative. I'm not sure what Dan thinks about all these issues, but it's clear from what you've said that YOU are rather middle of the road about immigration, social security, iraq, etc. As far as I'm concerned, the more the merrier; call your self a con if you want. But for you to go around saying that dissenters from W's agenda are not conservatives (you've implied this about all the posters above), they are middle of the road (and you imply they have some leftist leanings), well, it's absurd.

What would you think of someone who said the pope wasn't a real Catholic because he didn't believe in sola scriptura? Well, some statements say more about the person speaking than the person spoken about.

"I thought bringing up the line-item veto was very timely and unexpected."

The Supreme Court has already ruled, in the late 90's I believe, that a line item veto is unconstitutional. Therefore, the only way for the President to get one would be a constitutional amendment (which, incidentally, even if it were to pass, would take several years to do so).

Is Mr. Flynn a leftist? I think we would all agree that he isn't.

However! (in my best McLaughlin impression)

Let's take a look at his positions:

• Leans towards an isolationism being embraced, in part, by the left (see Harry Reid's calls for increased export controls/presidential authority to limit trade on our major trading partners) (see also leftist proposals in the House to cease ALL trade with China).

• Sides with his Diminutive Domestic Parter (DDP) that sanctions and penalites should be assesed against compaines that offshore from the US. I continue to regard this as advocacy of bigger government/increased oversight over the free market.

• Is against the war in Iraq for some of the same reasons as the left.

• And I know for a fact that he frequently attends rallies sponsored by MoveOn.org. (claims to be reporting on their activities)

So are Dan, or his DDP, leftists? Probably not, but we ought to keep our eyes on 'em.

Dan,the cool parts included...
Cindy Sheehan was invited as a guest of a California democrat but was kicked out and arrested because of the anti war t-shirt she was wearing.
Also in terms of the audience Hillary got a lot of camera time which included a p***ed off shaking of the head and an unpleased smirk after the ".. two of my Daddy's favorite people pres.Clinton and I..." comment.
There were also one or two 'British house of commons' moments when the Dems jeered/cheered.

"Gary: First you say that Dan is "noncommital to either left or right." Given Dan's books, that's like saying that Osama bin Laden is non-commital on being pro-US. Now you add that Dan isn't a conservative, and then you say he's middle of the road."

You really DO have a reading comprehension problem. First of all, the key word was "non-committal," a term you don't seem to know the meaning of. It means Dan is neither rightwing or leftwing. His position is a centrist position and this ie evident in his book, "Intellectual Morons" which attacks the wrong-headed thinging of BOTH sides, not just the left. Thsi is why Dan has recently taken an interest in pragmatism, which eschews left and right wing politics in favor of facts and what can be derived from facts. If you go back through some of Dan's posts here, you'll find positions expressed that are not necessarily conservative as often as you find those that are opposed to the left.

"Then you go on to say that CLINTON is to blame for how badly the Iraq War has gone."

That is NOT what I said at all. I said that the problems we've encountered in Iraq are not entirely the fault of Bush and that many of the problems we're having stem from the Clinton's administration's infusion of political correctness into our military and the intelligence community. That's why neither is able to function as it should. Any president's ability to wage war is only as good as the army he has at his disposal. After eight years of politically correct bureaucracy that has dumbed down our military and our intelligence gathering capabilities, our efforts are hampered by this. No president presides over a government that is entirely of his own making. He inherits whatever his predecessors have left to him and then does what he can with it or changes it. It is almost impossible to undue the damage done by the Clinton regime, however.

"Look. You are clearly a Republican who leans conservative. I'm not sure what Dan thinks about all these issues, but it's clear from what you've said that YOU are rather middle of the road about immigration, social security, iraq, etc."

Where in hell did you get THAT?!! I'm so far to the RIGHT of Dan it makes him look like Ted Kennedy. Has Dan been defending our war effort? No. He has routinely criticized and suggested we shouldn't even be there. My position is that, if we're there to win this war, then let's act like it and send in MORE troops, not withdraw them. If Iraqi conscripts can't or won't fight to our standrads, then let's put more troops in there and get the job done. We could be done with this already if we were truely committed to it, but our government is so infected with P.C. crap that we taking one step forward and two steps backward on everything we're doing.

How in the world is replacing Socialist Security with a PRIVATE alternative "middle of the road?" This is what conservatives and libertarians, alike have been pushing for thirty years. The left won't have any part of it, though, so nothing is ever accomplished. Didn't you hear the leftists APPLAUDING last night, when Bush said his Social Security initiative had been defeated? Bush's idea, flawed even as it is, relies not on continuing taxation (which is all Socialist Security is; it's a tax on current income, which is then redistributed), but on private control over one's own money. If that's not a conservative objective, then tell me what is?

As for immigration, I'm so far to the right of Bush I make him look like Vincente Fox. My position is the put the National Guard on the borders (both of them), build the fence, and say hell no to any "guest worker" program, which is nothing but amnesty. That is NOT a "middle of the road" position.

I'll tell you what else isn't "middle of the road," and that's my assertion that we need to finally and ultimately expose the leftists in congress and in our government for what and who they truly are - then get rid of them. Harry Reid is a damned traitor who boasted of having "killed" the Patriot Act - the law that allows our military, intelligence community and police to function together so that we can win the war on terrorism. You probably think that's a bad thing, don't you? Your position is probably that the Patriot Act is against conservative principles, right? Well, consider this: the essence of conservatism is the preservation of Western civilization and its values, to put it as broadly as possible. That means taking whatever actions are necessary to ensure the survival of Western civilization. It means winning the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. It means defeating the current global movement toward communism and socialism that is being ignored by the media and by our leaders. If you don't think so, tell me why conservatives exposed communist spies in our government fifty years ago and why liberals tried to pretend (and still do) that they didn't exist and that they, themelves, were "anti-communist" when everythijng they said and did suggested the opposite?

"As far as I'm concerned, the more the merrier; call your self a con if you want. But for you to go around saying that dissenters from W's agenda are not conservatives (you've implied this about all the posters above), they are middle of the road (and you imply they have some leftist leanings), well, it's absurd."

The president has said as much, himself: "you're either with us or you're against us." You certainly don't sound like you're with him. You don't sound like any conservative I've ever met, either. You come off sounding like a leftist.

"What would you think of someone who said the pope wasn't a real Catholic because he didn't believe in sola scriptura? Well, some statements say more about the person speaking than the person spoken about."

I believe you should think about that, yourself, having just said, in so many words, that you don't consider Bush to be a conservative.

Gary, et. al.,

Here is the conservative position on the SOTU Address.

They should not be given orally in the presence of Congress. Lets return to the tradition begun by Jefferson in 1802 and lasting until (Bush's earlier incarnation) Woodrow Wilson took office in 1913. That tradition was of giving the constitutionally required "from time to time" report to Congress on the Executive Branch's take on the state of the nation in the form of a letter to be read into the record by a senator.

No t.v. cameras, excepting the presence of CSPAN recording all congressional business. No response from the other party. No endless punditry. No insane fits of sophomoric applause (George Will noted that last years 53 minute SOTUA was interrupted with applause 66 times).

I call for this return to tradition to honor the conservative principle of protecting our Republic from demagoguery.

I call for this return to tradition in the name of the conservative principle that laws should rule, not men (including imperial presidents like Wilson and Bush), that protecting room for reasoned debate and reflective statescraft is critical to the survival of our regime as a free and just one.

I call for this return to Jeffersonian tradition because it is in keeping with the conservative principle that the nanny-presidency is a symptom of the deeper illness that infects our Republic, of dependence on the Leviathan state to direct our lives.

I call for this return to nineteenth century tradition because the very platform of the contemporary SOTUA has a radical impact on controlling the actions of Congress over the course of the year by putting artificial restraints on debates over public policy and false boundaries on the acceptable actions that Congress can take in servive of the common good. Therefore the modern SOTUA is a danger to the constitutionally mandated superiority of the Legislative branch and furthers the transformation of the Presidency into an elected Ceasarate.

I call for this return to tradition for the pragmatic reason that President Bush's SOTUA last night expressed not one recognizably conservative principle beyond controlling discretionary spending (with the striking exception that he somehow doesn't think that military spending is included in that category).

I call for this return to a conservative tradition because it is in the best interests of this great nation of ours and can serve to protect our liberty for generations to come.

Thank you, good night, and God bless America!

"Here is the conservative position on the SOTU Address."

As stated by which conservatives, exactly?

"They should not be given orally in the presence of Congress. Lets return to the tradition begun by Jefferson in 1802 and lasting until (Bush's earlier incarnation) Woodrow Wilson took office in 1913. That tradition was of giving the constitutionally required "from time to time" report to Congress on the Executive Branch's take on the state of the nation in the form of a letter to be read into the record by a senator."

First of all, in what sense is Bush anything like Woodrow Wilson, who was an isolationist and a champion of a one-world government?

Secondly, while a letter is obviously cheaper and less time consuming, it doesn't explain to the people what their government and the chief executive are up to. Arguably, neither does the current mode of address, which is always scripted by someone else. Note that Fox News had a copy of the speech before it was given and planned all their camera motions and graphics inserts to coincide with every key point. It is a bit much, I agree. Still, I would rather have the president make an annual public accounting for his administration than to have it all conducted out of the public's sight, whether it's entered into public record or not. Just my preference.

"No t.v. cameras, excepting the presence of CSPAN recording all congressional business. No response from the other party. No endless punditry. No insane fits of sophomoric applause (George Will noted that last years 53 minute SOTUA was interrupted with applause 66 times)."

I could certainly have done without the "Democratic response," myself. This was supposed to be the "State of the Union" and, last time I checked, the left still wants to replace the Union with something resembling the democratic socialist countries of western Europe. F**k their inane "response." As far as I'm concerned, they don't deserve air time to attempt to defuse, attack and twist everything the Presdient just said. About that applause; it was identical this time: 66 times, though, as I recall, Fox said it was 61. In any case, we could have easily done without the leftist's roar of applause over the fact that Bush's Social Security package was defeated.

"I call for this return to tradition to honor the conservative principle of protecting our Republic from demagoguery."

So, are you calling the President of the United States a demagogue? You'd rather he remain cloistered in the Oval Office and never address the public about what he's doing on their behalf?

"I call for this return to tradition in the name of the conservative principle that laws should rule, not men (including imperial presidents like Wilson and Bush), that protecting room for reasoned debate and reflective statescraft is critical to the survival of our regime as a free and just one."

Okay, now I see where you're coming from. You're not a conservative, but a leftist who thinks he's a conservative. Your very use of the word "imperial" proves this. No one but a leftist would accuse George W. Bush of being an imperialist. If there is any doubt of this, there are millions of quotes from the left to prove it. I can't think of a single conservative who has ever said such a thing, however. As I said before, the essence of conservatism is the preservation of the status quo; the protection of the existing order; the continuance and furtherance of Western Civilization. Isolationism destroys that order by not allowing America to defend itself or to act in the defense of liberty in the world. What we are doing in Iraq is not creating an empire, but establishing what we hope to be a peaceful democratic republic of free people, like ourselves. We're doing this because, to paraphrase President Bush, liberty and democracy ensure a stable order in the world. The lack of it, or its opposite, leads to oppression and chaos. One has only to look at the communist regimes of the world, or at the islamofacist regimes of the Middle East to see this.

"I call for this return to Jeffersonian tradition because it is in keeping with the conservative principle that the nanny-presidency is a symptom of the deeper illness that infects our Republic, of dependence on the Leviathan state to direct our lives."

Now you've made it very clear where you stand. You must be a libertarian anarchist. I know your kind well, having been one, myself once. So, your solution is to do away with the state altogether, then. And replace it with what? Some imagined uptopia in which everyone is free to do their own thing and no one has to worry about anything anymore?

"I call for this return to nineteenth century tradition because the very platform of the contemporary SOTUA has a radical impact on controlling the actions of Congress over the course of the year by putting artificial restraints on debates over public policy and false boundaries on the acceptable actions that Congress can take in servive of the common good."

Really? And how does the President's making a single speech once a year do all that? Last time I checked, the Democrats in congress were doing whatever they felt like doing (no matter how assinine and self-defeating it is).

"Therefore the modern SOTUA is a danger to the constitutionally mandated superiority of the Legislative branch and furthers the transformation of the Presidency into an elected Ceasarate."

Not at all. First of all, no one branch, including the legislative, is "superior" to any other. Each is endowed with powers that keep the other two branches in check so that NONE of the branches may become superior, in the first place. The whole idea is to keep competing factions from gaining control over the government, not to make one more powerful than the rest.

"I call for this return to tradition for the pragmatic reason that President Bush's SOTUA last night expressed not one recognizably conservative principle beyond controlling discretionary spending (with the striking exception that he somehow doesn't think that military spending is included in that category)."

Oh, really? So, you would argue that defending our own nation against those who have openly expressed a desire to destroy us is not a conservative principle? Amazing! The very essence of conservatism, as I have said twice now, is the preservation of Western Civilization and its values. That would include the use of military force to protect the United States and its allies (who are part of that Western Civilization).

"I call for this return to a conservative tradition because it is in the best interests of this great nation of ours and can serve to protect our liberty for generations to come."

Preventing the president from giving an annually mandated address to congress is going to protect our liberty? How so? Such an address poses no threat to our liberties whatsoever. I'm just as free the day after the State of the Union Address I was the day before it.

I would have loved to have heard Bush make an honest statement about Iraq using Saddam Hussein's trial as an example of how that country will operate once our troops and influence are gone. Has there ever been a more discombobulated, chaotic soap opera?

Constitution and free elections aside, these people have no sense of civilized order and no amount of money or dead soldiers will change that.

First of all, in what sense is Bush anything like Woodrow Wilson, who was an isolationist and a champion of a one-world government?

Come again?

Hi Gary. About this thread, I do know two things to be fact: Flynn is not liberal and Bush is not conservative. Everything else mentioned in this thread may be up for grabs but this is true.

Also, Gary, since when is being pro war a conservative position. War is the antithesis of conservativism as it conserves nothing and squanders our nations most precious comodity-life.

I am w/ Obi Juan Gare, I didn't read any further in your post after you claimed Wilson was an isolationist (how that even works with your claim that Wilson wanted one world governance is beyond me).

But since I read your earlier posts I would just suggest one thought for your consideration, their is a difference between being on the political "right" and being conservative, as their is a difference between being somewhere on the political "left" and being a liberal. Pinning someone down as one or another brand of political thinker can be done in one of two ways (any others anyone can think of I would be interested to hear): 1) by examining their stated principles which provide the reason (or rationalization) for their specific policy suggestions. 2) or by taking a general tally of positions they take on a wide variety of issues, categorically calling those stances in themselves "liberal," "conservative," "libertarian," etc., and then adding up which side the person tends to stand on the most.

Using either method, Bush is not a conservative.

I always just ask myself WWBD? (What Would [Edmund] Burke Do?)

Oh, and Gary - what are you smoking and where can I buy some? The way things are going in the White House and the Legislative Branch, I would find it comforting to be as out of touch with reality as you are.

G.

Ali G.,

C'mon my brother, you are from the islands and you can't find anything good to smoke? What's up with that?

Gary,

I caved in and read through your response to my conservative arguments why the SOTUA in its current form should be absolutely rejected by conservatives. You mostly misrepresent what I wrote and worry yourself over pegging me down ideologically. So I will just offer up this quote from a "senior adviser to Bush" as reported by Ron Suskind in the NYT in Oct., 2004:

"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

By the way, this quote reminds me of the final speech that the character John Doe gives in the brilliant movie Seven (the similarity is frightening I suppose). I admit that it is a fascinating idea but it simply isn't conservative. Anyway, the point of the quote is that I didn't call the U.S. an empire first, they did. In fact this has been a key tenet of neoconservative thinking since the end of the Cold War, it is at the heart of the "lone superpower" view of the world that they have. And Bush's SOTUA was replete with imperialistic rhetoric and ambitions.

"I would have loved to have heard Bush make an honest statement about Iraq using Saddam Hussein's trial as an example of how that country will operate once our troops and influence are gone. Has there ever been a more discombobulated, chaotic soap opera?"

Now, there's a point we can agree on, asdf. I had hoped the Cirque du Sadaam would improve once Judge Asleep-at-the-wheel was replaced, but it seems the whole "trial" has been rigged to be a mockery of justice. Haven't these people watched any American TV lawyers before? Oh, wait; maybe that's the whole problem right there.

"Constitution and free elections aside, these people have no sense of civilized order and no amount of money or dead soldiers will change that."

I hope you're wrong, of course, but it does seem that way. And what can we really expect from a culture in which lying, subterfuge and back-stabbing are the norm? At some point, though, we'll cut them loose to fend for themsleves and hopefully, they'll have learned how to run thier own country by then. Meanwhile, there is the bigger threat of Iran...

Obi Juan, my question was directed at Brian. He equated Bush with Woodrow Wilson, who are about as similar as apples and oranges. Bush is conducting a global war on terrorism; Wilson was an isolationist who tried to avoid being dragged into WWI. Bush supports independent democracies (as anyone calling himself a conservative should); Wilson envisioned a world government in the League of Nations. Wilson also established a centralized banking system.

Wayne, I didn't say Dan was a liberal. I simply don't believe he's what most would call a conservative. His views are more often libertarian than they are conservative. And then there was the day, a week or two ago, when he tried to equate our use of high tech remote sensing weaponry with the Islamofascist's use of IEDS, etc. I called him on that and asked him to explain his apparent moral equivalence and he never responded. Where Bush's conservatism is concerned, I don't doubt at all that he's a conservative. Like I said, we don't have a government in which the president gets to do only as he wants to. He has to compromise to get anything done at all. A lot of the time, he has to do things that are against his own principles in order to maintain order and to get what he wants. Nixon enacted wage and price controls, with disasterous effect. No one challenged his conservatism. Ford is one of the most unmemorable presidents because he basically did nothing and allowed the same bloated welfare state of the Kennedy-Johnson years to go on unchecked (as Nixon did, before him). Ronald Reagan, elected on a platform of tax cuts, only cut the rate of proposed INCREASE in taxes, which is not an actual tax cut at all. Again, no one questioned the Gipper's conservatism. If I'm to believe that George W. Bush isn't a conservative, then I'm afraid I'd have to insist that every Republican president since Barry Goldwater hasn't been a conservative, either.

"Also, Gary, since when is being pro war a conservative position. War is the antithesis of conservativism as it conserves nothing and squanders our nations most precious comodity-life."

I didn't say any such thing. I said defending our country and our allies is a conservative value. It is the heart of conservatism to protect the existing civilization from destruction. That has everything to do with preserving life. Harry Truman allowed Mao Tse-Tung to overthrow Chiang Kai-Shek and murder millions of Chinese. FDR and Truman both allowed Stalin to do the same in Eastern Europe. Would you have George Bush do the same in the Middle East? Wars aren't fought to destroy lives, they're fought to prevent lives from being destroyed by aggressors. In this case, the aggressors are the Islamofascist @ssholes who would turn Iraq into another Taliban breeding ground from which to launch terrorist attacks on Europe and the United States. The view you're taking is identical to that of the most rabid members of Code Pink, the Communist Party of America or the Democratic Party. That is NOT conservatism.

Brian, Wilson spent 1914, 1915, 1916, and the beginning of 1917 trying to keep America out of the War in Europe. He offered to be a mediator, but neither the Allies nor the Central Powers took his requests seriously. Republicans, led by Theodore Roosevelt, strongly criticized Wilson’s refusal to build up the Army in anticipation of the threat of war. Wilson won the support of the US peace element by arguing that an army buildup would provoke war. He vigorously protested Germany’s use of submarines as illegal, causing his Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan to resign, in protest, in 1915. Wilson was able to narrowly win reelection in 1916 by picking up many votes that had gone to Roosevelt or Eugene V. Debs in 1912. His supporters praised him for avoiding war with Germany or Mexico, while maintaining a firm national policy.

When Germany resumed unrestricted submarine warfare and made a clumsy attempt to get Mexico on its side in the Zimmermann Telegram, Wilson took America into the Great War as a “war to end all wars."

As for Wilson's one-world views, consider this quote from Wilson in 1907:

"Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the law of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed against him must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused."

That is basically what leftists all around the world are trying to impose right now. The World Court is attempting to gain enough recognition to hold U.S. citizens to be subject to the laws of other nations. This is happening right now.

The League of Nations, which was Wilson's baby, was meant to be the seat of a global government.

Wilson passed the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 in order to prevent widespread dissent during time of war. This contrasts sharply with Bush who, even as his war powers are being challenged, has publicly said that everyone has the right to dissent. Isn't it interesting how a Democratic president can do such things, or even inter thousands of Japanese-Americans, as FDR did during WWII, but, if Bush wants the NSA to eavesdrops on Al Qaeda, all of a sudden this is some sort of moral outrage?

Brian, using your own recommended methods for gauging one's political affiliation, I could say that none of you here are conservatives. You may think you are, but the views expressed in this thread have run the gamut from libertarianism to to far left liberalism. There is a consistent anti-war viewpoint running through most the posts here. I submit that very few, if any, conservatives are against the war in Iraq or the war on terror.

Gary, you consistently seem to judge conservatism by one criterion: being pro-war.

I find that so silly as to not require more comment.

"Gary, you consistently seem to judge conservatism by one criterion: being pro-war."

If that's all you got from what I've said, you really do have a reading comprehension problem. You apparently don't seem to understand that few, if any conservatives advocate the abandonment of national defense, which is what you seem to be suggesting should be the criteria, instead. If conservatives all turned their back on the war in Iraq en mass, they'd be doing exactly what the left has done. I don't know if you're aware of this or not, but the left believes in the exact opposite of what conservatives believe. This may be news to you, since you seem to think there is nothing inconsistent with being conservative and being anti-war. But, the fact is, the vast majority of conservatives support the war in Iraq. This is undeniable. You, on the other hand, would probably feel more at home among the likes of Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore and Medea Benjamin.

Gary: Being against this war is not the same as advocating an abandonment of national defense. Overstatement, maybe? After all, I don't think that Iraq posed a threat to our national defense. But your most recent post only confirmed what I said: you have one criterion for being a conservative, the war, and people who oppose it resemble Cindy Sheehan in your eyes.

Actually, I have many criteria for being a conservative and one of them is being pro-defense. That you don't see the war in Iraq as a defensive war shows exactly where you stand: you are a leftist. Pure a simple. The war in Iraq is only the first (and has become the central) battleground in the wider war on terrorism. If you don't yet get this, you never will. If we pull out of Iraq, we will only be allowing our enemy to take over Iraq and establish yet another base for their global operations. These are people committed to destroying Western civilization. To give them any advantage is to enable them to create havoc all over the world.

Your attitude that we have to wait until someone attacks us to be justified in taking military action is the same attitude the left has. Do you deny that? If not, then you'd have to agree that, in sharing the left's viewpoint, you are complicit in their scheming to disarm America and to disrupt America's ability to defend itself from future terrorist attacks. This is what the left seeks, as its own goals have been, for 86 years, to overthrow America, also. This is why the left is allied with the Islamofascists who want to kills us all.

On what grounds do you justify your anti-war stance? I have a 15 year old neice who has a more mature understanding of geopolitics than you do. How old are you, by the way? I'm guessing you're either a Gen-X or Gen-Y. You certainly don't seem to have much perspective on world events.

I don't really care about labels too much, but if there is a poster here who is emphatically not a conservative it is Gary. "Whatever" was right when he said that Gary's conservatism was simply being pro-war. Of course conservatism and war can never really be reconciled because they are totally opposing principles. Consevatives seek to uphold the rule of law, individual rights, property rights, the importance of national sovereignty, and weak and innefectual central government. War is aligned with everything conservatives oppose. First and foremost war promotes a storng central government, encourages high taxes and/or large goverment borrowing, kills innocents, destroys property, families, and innocents. It's war -- much more so than liberalism -- that is the engine of government expansion. Saying you favor less government, but also favor war, is like saying education while you're throwing books in a fire.

So it's those who favor war who should have the burdern of proof placed on them. Since war is a clear and obvious deviation from all conservative principles, those who favor war should have their conservatism questioned.

It should be no suprise that the Neocons who surround President Bush refer to themselves as hard-Wilsonians and hold liberals like FDR in high esteem, while the man responsible for introducing the word conservative into the modern political vernacular, Russell Kirk, is all but forgotten. Kirk, after all, must also be a "liberal" because he was against the first Gulf War i.e. oil can war #1.

You used to make thoughtful arguments of substance, Eric. Now all you do is make paranoid rants about neocon conspiracies.

What happened?

I think it's important for us all to know where Gary is coming from. Gary thinks -- if I can use that word -- that Platonism is solipsism (it isn't), that John Locke was a Rationalist (he wasn't), that Woodrow Wilson was an isolationist (he wasn't), and that George Bush is a conservative (he isn't.) I think I know where Gary is coming from...the Twilight Zone.

Ben,

I got bored being rational and right all the time. So now I'm trying to be paranoid and right. Maybe I'll get better results.

I may be screwing up the demographic here Gary, as I am so far to the left of anyone here it's not even funny. To describe myself in one phrase: liberal-hating green-authoritarian (Catholic) progressive. If I have a political party anywhere on this planet it's probably Germany's Green Party and my political hero is definitely Joschka Fischer and the 68ers, with the exception of Daniel Cohn-Bendit, who's an idiot.

That having been said, I grew up reading National Review from the age of 10, and the first book I ever read after the Hardy Boys and Narnia was Conscience of a Conservative. [It was given to me as a gift by my grandfather after he heard how I turned down $10 in exchange for passing out Jimmy Carter leaflets at the age of 9, because I was, as I put it at the time, "for Reagan."] This gift was followed by a slew of NR archives and the collected works of Bill Buckley, and so I've read just about everything ever written by M. Stanton Evans, and everything Buckley ever wrote. My high school social studies term paper was written on the book McCarthy and His Enemies.

So, Gary, although I'm not a conservative, not by a long shot (except perahps tempermentally), I wonder if you would know what a conservative was if one walked up an bit you on the arse (filter-owned!).

Conservatism in this country has a very specific meaning, one carefully crafted by Buckley et al., between the years 1953 and 1989. Granted, some things changed when the USSR collapsed, and some other things changed on September 11 (or at least, we became aware of some things that we hadn't been aware of before), but I doubt that the definition of conservative has changed - that would be not at all conservative.

Conservatism is still a "no" program, as Buckley once put it, and while innovations such as a flat tax may still be considered as conservative, other innovations (such as the lust for world empire, or fundamentally changing the rules of when and why one goes to war) are not. Running up the budget deficit is not conservative - unless it comes from principled supply-side economics, which in the Bushies case it does not. Increasing the size of government is not. Consistently failing to find a pragmatic solution to our border problems is not. Protectionist tariffs are not. The NSA spying is not. Guantanamo is certainly not.

Above all, conservatism should not be about defending the Republican president in office, or his policies, but rather protecting the Republic, and our democratic institutions.

This, as I have argued before, should translate into conservatives working for, among other things, fundamental election reform, and especially reform in the way elections are carried out.

This means a strong legislative which takes responsibility for its actions and checks the President when he deserves to be checked, just as much as it means a President who does not consistently keep things from the Congress or seek to arrogate more powers to himself than are really necessary under the current state of affairs.

True, Bush has done better than Reagan ever could with the appointment of Roberts as Chief Justice, and he has certainly picked - with Alito - someone who appears to have all the right conservative credentials (though his thinking is narrower than that of Roberts). But other than that, I don't think he's really done much that could be described as conservative. Sure, breaking down the barriers between church and state makes those on the religious right who describe themselves as "conservative" happy, but it's not really conservative, and not at all Jeffersonian, as Brian would say.

What happened to making snappy concise statements. You guys need your own blog (you write more than Dan).

You know what would bring back faith in GW?

If he pulled the troops out of Iraq and put them along the border of Mexico.

He won't but his successor better be talking that way or we are in deep doo-doo.

For all of you out there, Flynn is more of a moderate conservative than we would like to think. All you liberal bashers would like to think he is extreme and all you neoconservative radicals would like to think he is completely unbiased. Well, we see that, as i said before, he is a conservative, yet hes very close to the borderline. He does criticize republican radical ideas as well as Demorcratic radical ideals. Daniel Flynn is an intellectual to the best of his ability, and as he states in Intellectual Morons, the intellectual loses his right to think when he becomes a joiner. Daniel Flynn has not become a joiner to the best of my ability. And I know what all of you are going to say... that he is the director of accuracy for america and therefore he has a conservative ideology. Well sorry to dissapoint you, being conservative does not mean having an ideology. And he is only a moderate.Think.

Bring back the draft!

This must be bizzare for Dan. I've never had a group of 10-20 people discuss their opinion of me (at least, not to my face). Does it make one defensive? Or contribute to some wierd flavor of narcissim? I hope I never find out, actually....

Makes me think of the time Thornton Mellon got Kurt Vonnegut to write his paper (on Vonnegut) for him. His teacher, of course, said later that whoever wrote the paper didn't know the first thing about Kurt Vonnegut.

I wonder if a similar reaction would ensue if Dan were to anonymously write a paper on himself. We'd all probably sit here and debate whether the author knew what the hell he was talking about.