Peggy Noonan Realizes She Has Conned Herself--and Says That She Wouldn't Have Voted for Bush If She'd Known Who He Was

She looks at Bush fiscal policy and joins the Ancient, Occult, and Hermetic Order of the shrill, saying that if she'd known who George W. Bush really was she wouldn't have voted for him:

OpinionJournal - Peggy Noonan: Hey, Big Spender Should we have known that President Bush would bust the budget?: Thursday, March 16, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST: This week's column is a question, a brief one addressed with honest curiosity to Republicans. It is: When George W. Bush first came on the scene in 2000, did you understand him to be a liberal in terms of spending?

The question has been on my mind since the summer of 2005 when, at a gathering of conservatives, the question of Mr. Bush and big spending was raised.... Everyone murmured about... how the president "spends like a drunken sailor except the sailor spends his own money." And then someone, a smart young journalist, said, (I paraphrase), But we always knew what Bush was. He told us when he ran as a compassionate conservative. This left me rubbing my brow in confusion. Is that what Mr. Bush meant by compassionate conservatism?

That's not what I understood him to mean. If I'd thought he was a big-spending Rockefeller Republican.... I wouldn't have voted for him.... I didn't understand Mr. Bush's grand passion to be cutting spending.... But he did present himself as a conservative... conservatism is hostile, for reasons ranging from the abstract and philosophical to the concrete and practical, to high spending and high taxing....

How did this happen? In the years after 9/11 I looked at Mr. Bush's big budgets, and his expansion of entitlements, and assumed he was sacrificing fiscal prudence--interesting that that's the word people used to spoof his father--in order to build and maintain, however tenuously, a feeling of national unity. I assumed he wanted to lessen bipartisan tensions when America was wading into the new world of modern terrorism. I thought: This may be right and it may be wrong, but I understand it.... Mr. Bush will never have to run again, and he is in a position to come forward and make the case, even if only rhetorically, to slow and cut spending. He has not. And there's no sign he will....

Mr. President:

Did you ever hold conservative notions and assumptions on the issue of spending? If so, did you abandon them after the trauma of 9/11? For what reasons, exactly? Did you intend to revert to conservative thinking on spending at some point? Do you still? Were you always a liberal on spending? Were you, or are you, frankly baffled that conservatives assumed you were a conservative on spending? Did you feel they misunderstood you? Did you allow or encourage them to misunderstand you?

What are the implications for our country if spending levels continue to grow at their current pace?

What are the implications for the Republican party if it continues to cede one of the pillars on which it stood?

Did compassionate conservatism always mean big spending?

Now Peggy Noonan and the rest of the plastic Republican chattering teeth did not think back in 2000 that Bush's "compassionate conservatism" meant that he was a spender, they thought it meant that he was a liar--and that they were in on the con. The Bush budget strategy, they thought at the time, had four components:

1. Highball estimates of future budget surpluses in order to make it look like there's more room for tax cuts than there was.
2. Lowball the costs of the tax cuts by telling people that the AMT will be repealed when you calculate the magnitude of their tax cut and yet keeping the AMT in effect when calculating the revenue cost of the tax cut.
3. Call yourself a "compassionate conservative" to convince voters you don't want to make elderly emphysema patients front the money for their oxygen cylinders.
4. Then, when deficits reemerge, say: "Oh. What a surprise. We have to cut way back on federal services and programs after all."

That's the David Stockman quadrille. They thought Bush was lying to everybody else--that, as Andrew Sullivan liked to put it:

Some... get steamed because Bush has obscured this figure or claimed his tax cut will cost less than it actually will, or because he is using Medicare surplus money today that will be needed tomorrow and beyond.... [T]hey miss the deeper point... Bush has to obfuscate his real goals of reducing spending with the smoke screen of 'compassionate conservatism'.... B.S. is necessary for any vaguely successful retrenchment of government power in an insatiable entitlement state.... I just hope the smoke doesn't clear before the spenders get their hands on our wallets again.

Now they are surprised--and shrill--to learn that George W. Bush was lying to them too.

Comments

[dogfacegeorge]

"the rest of the plastic Republican chattering teeth"

Classic.

[Kate G]

Brad,
a great, great post. still, I think that along with whacking Peggy N. upside the head with her own stupidity and cupidity we have to give her credit here--she didn't once mention the Pope or magic dolphins. In fact, this read as basically coherent. Is this what happens when people join the order of the shrill?

Kate G.

[Casino Hermann Goering]

"...the David Stockman quadrille"...? Nahh, far too stately a step, for the eighties OR the oughties.

Think tap-dancing, think Bob Fosse with *hods* of Rand-brand ideological cocaine, think rhetorical hand quicker than the fiscal eye. Pay no attention to the deficit behind the curtain, because... yes... a 30" Gordon Gekko and SIX DOZEN Munchkins from AEI are here to dance your troubles away!!!

[Matt]

Oh, puleeze. Bush & Co. have no ideology or policy besides paying off the specific demographic groups that put them in office. Is Noonan claiming she didn't know that?

[Northern Observer]

Pufffttt.
Government programs financed by taxation hit diminishing returns in the 1970s.
Why should economic stimulus by tax cuts not find their own diminishing returns?
What is so threatning about the idea of "balance". Why are so many so invested in intellectual absolutism?

The Nooner and her kin are the idiots who made George Bush possible. And now they try to disown their evil bastard child "W" Bush.

I guess being a Republican means never having to take responsibility for anything.

[jim]

"If I'd thought he was a big-spending Rockefeller Republican.... I wouldn't have voted for him"

Yes, she would. Does anyone believe she would have voted for Gore? She's lying, again.

The reason we have to support Feingold's motion is it puts Republicans like this on the spot: do they keep trying to run away from an unpopular president or do they support him against censure?

[sglover]

I expect more from Pegster. I expect her to at least lip sync the current disinfo line, "They're tired. They've been working soooooo hard, for so long."

Anyway, when a lifetime camp follower like Noonan edges away from the barracks, you know the garrison is surrounded.

[ken melvin]

Oh dear.

[kharris]

Noonan's wiggle, just like that of other "conservatives" (objectively pretty meaningless for a few decades, at least), involves signaling which lie they favored. They can't stand to be associated with the utter failure of their guy, but shunning him involves saying what it was they wanted from him. That involves admitting a lie.

This is a democracy. How are we to honor the notion of government of, by and for the people when our leaders and their enablers --"B.S. is necessary.." -- think that any lie in service of their own goals is OK?

[derek]

For goodness' sake Peggy. Huge swollen military budgets? Evil Empires? Tax cuts and deficit spending? It's your hero Reagan all over again!

But seriously, is it actually true that Bush's non-defense spending has gone up a lot? I had the impression his miitary spending had gone up a lot, his revenue had fallen, and his non-defense budget hadn't shrunk enough to accommodate those two changes. Is that inaccurate?

[NinjaPlease]

The Bush Tax cuts were passed in 2001 and 2003. Dividend tax rate, anyone? Stock Option tax rate, anyone?

The war in Afghanistan was in 2001 and in Iraq in 2003.

I'm confused again, what was the spend like there's no tomarrow tipping point after 2003 for this woman?

Is she mad that money has been allocated for Katrina & Rita rebuilding? Is she mad that the democratization of the middle east has cost so much when it should have paid for itself with oil money that never materialized?

What was the last straw, I'd love to know?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Peggy Noonan tries to save the "conservative" brand by labeling Bush a "liberal." But conservatives must be defined by what they are and do, not by what they say and ostensibly aspire to be.

The two successful conservative presidents of the last thirty years bought their popularity with borrowed money. Cake for everyone, and no hard choices about how to pay for it.

[JRossi]

It is difficult to impossible to know what Bush thinks, but my working assumption is summarized by Matt's post. I think Bush is simply not up to the job of the presidency. He is incapable of developing an overall strategy to promote general good. Instead his MO is to ignore many important issues (meaningful health care reform)and to try to put out fires as they flare up, without thinking much about later consequences. He gets pushed one way or another by determined and deluded idealogues. And of course he panders to his base because that's easy and politically useful, at least in the short term.
He does not have an overall mental model of how the world of governing works, how one thing is connected to another. So he goes from one f***-up to the next. And we have him for almost 3 more years.

[sm]

I think he's not into putting out fires, but rather opportunisticly starting them for short term profit, while somebody else pays the price.

I also want to know who Noonan would have voted for.

[me]

kharris has it "They can't stand to be associated with the utter failure of their guy,"

Bush, though an idiot, cannot spend one dollar. Authorization comes from the Republican House and the Republican Senate Peggy.

[anne]

http://www.calvorn.com/gallery/photo.php?photo=5309&u=11498|25|...

Eastern Phoebe in Crabapple Tree
New York City--Central Park, Maintenance Field.

Yes; my sister tells me the Phoebes are returned to Central Park :)

[Ralph]

Fantastic post. I love the idea of Peggy squirming with discomfort because Bush has not been honest with her! I feel her pain... really I do. In a pleasant sort of tingly way.

[JBWoodford]

sm: "I also want to know who Noonan would have voted for."

Clearly if only she'd known she would have backed maverick(TM) John McCain. And now she--and countless other disappointed conservatives--have no way to atone for their ill-fated votes against a Real Republican(TM), unless he happens to run again.

[anne]

Forgive me for disagreeing about the having seen the light conservatives, but I am not generally impressed for they are almost entirely concerned with pressuring the President to smash and slash social benefit and social insurance programs and the fact that we are in the midst of a deceiving needless destroying draining demoralizing war or occupation of Iraq is as nothing. At least Francis Fukuyama has come to understand, though previously among the fiercest of war mongers, but the rest have other motives. There are many important problems for us to grapple with, but we are at war and there can be no grappling as long as that is not resolved.

[sm]

Some people say, and maybe even believe, that the essence of conservatism is to avoid high spending and high taxes.

But my empirical observation suggests that for at least some self-labelled conservatives, the essence is having more guns and bombs than anyone else, and using them without compunction whenever convenient. And that money spent this way, and the taxes necesary to collect that money, just don't count.

Why do so many seem to miss that? Is it dishonesty, or a huge blindspot?

What I don't get is when people who say they are libertarians become cheerleaders for huge military establishments, the antithesis of "small government."

[Gus]

"she didn't once mention the Pope or magic dolphins"
Or St. Ronnie Reagan.

[kharris]

me,

Bush can veto, but doesn't. He also has the bully pulpit, which has has used to campaign for tax cuts for the rich, an expensive and damaging war, expensive and not very helpful changes to Medicare, and on and on. The fiscal policy we have is very largely Bush's fiscal policy. The fact that the other kids were misbehaving doesn't mean Bush isn't responsible for his own actions.

[James]

Is Bush the Antichrist?

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/16/international/middleeast/16cnd-iraq.html?ex=1300165200&en=0670774542b1a935&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

March 16, 2006

Iraqi Parliament Convenes as U.S. Air Assault Begins
By EDWARD WONG

BAGHDAD, Iraq — The American military announced today that it had begun its largest air assault since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, while Iraqi legislators convened the long-awaited first session of the new Parliament in the capital, even in the absence of any agreement to form a full government....

[Thumb]

Shorter Noonan: Who could have guessed that handing the keys to the company to the drunken, ner-do-well son of the ex-CEO would lead to financial ruin?

[Monte Davis]

Re Stockman: I recall an analysis from the early or mid-90s (CBO? Rudman? Peterson? some taxpayers' advocacy group?) concluding that the 1981-1989 debt run-up would have been almost exactly the same if Congress had adopted all eight of Reagan's requests by acclamation. IOW, the partisan difference so often recalled as "conservative Reagan vs. tax-and-spend Democrats in Congress" was over the guns/butter mix, not over the revenue/spending imbalance.

I've lost the reference and have just spent a fruitless hour Googling -- can anyone help me track it down?

[Mike]

Monte, your facts are wrong. The debt would be even bigger if congress had accepted all of Reagan's budgets. Congress actully spent less than Reagan asked for.

[A Hermit]

Noonan seems to be stuck on the now dicredited definitions of liberal and conservative (ie liberal = lots of reckless spending, conservative = limited spending).

The distinction is actually more about where the money is spent, not how much is spent. Liberals spend tax money on programs for people, conservatives spend money on programs for corporations.

Guess which gets you more bang for your buck?

[scottynx]

Yes Bush has been dissapointing to us conservatives. But like I said before, Roberts and Alito will be up on that bench for decades to come. No matter what, there's nothing you can do to change that(Short of the political assasinations like that of Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy or Pim Fortuyn , but I have more faith in modern American's than that). It's a small consolation for me, but I'll take it.

[The Liberal Avenger]

Clever post.

[cactus]

A person who damages another is legally liable for the damage they cause. I wonder how/if the Pegster plans to make up for the damage caused to the rest of us by her support for GW.

[pgl]

Noonan had an agenda - blame the increase in transfer payments. She was motivated to write this oped by the 3/14/2006 USAToday piece by Dennis Cauchon. A few comments over at Angrybear as to the numbers cited by Cauchon and by Noonan. IMHO - the increase in transfer payments is due to rising poverty and a weak labor market. OK, Noonan does briefly mention some liberal think tank person - but she can't make up her dizzy mind as to whether the think tanker's point ISs relevant EVEN THOUGH IT CLEARLY IS!

[Jennifer]

Scottynx

That comment you made was perfectly horrid; you should be completely ashamed. What is wrong with you? Show some decency and respect for you host, and for others.

[Matt]

Silly Noonan. Bush boosted spending after 9/11 to lessen bipartisan [sic] tensions? Oh no! He deliberately heightened the partisan divide around security issues. That is his greatest sin of all.

[ilsm]

The only thing that mitigated the saintly Ronald rage toward total fiscal irresponsibility was Graham-Rudman which required stated cuts if the deficit were a certain level.

It was eventually the congres in a stroke of sanity who stopped Reagan from perpetrating the currnet neocon insanity.

The congress, every incumbent must be tossed out!

[anne]

"I assumed he wanted to lessen bipartisan tensions when America was wading into the new world of modern terrorism."

What these radical-conservatives are fretting about has nothing at all to do with war, but only that the President has not been able to slash Social Security and Medicare and even supported an expansion of Medicare poorly as the Republican Congress managed the expansion. Notice that the radical-conservative word of art for Social Security and Medicare, which are social insurance programs that our grandparents and parents have supported as they have worked, the word of art is "entitlements." All that is wished is that the President would have managed to turn aside the New Deal.

[Ralph]

Didn't Peggy Noonan ever hear of Grover Norquist who famously said, "we want to shrink the Federal government (read: budget) to the stage where we can easily drown it in a bathtub"? Before the Jack Abramoff lobbying payoff scandals, very few people knew of Abramoff's close connection with Norquist,Ralph Reed, and Tom Delay. Between the four, they have most of the bases of the modern Republicans covered. It is fairly clear that Norquist's agenda has been fulfilled by the Bush tax cuts and spending in Iraq and the Defense budget ($450 bn). This will make it impossible to fund badly needed infrastructure and social spending even if the Democrats win in 2006 and 2008. Don't tell me Peggy Noonan was unaware of Norquist's agenda.

[scottynx]

Jennifer writes:
[That comment you made was perfectly horrid; you should be completely ashamed. What is wrong with you? Show some decency and respect for you host, and for others.]

You are correct. I apologize to all.

[Jennifer]

Scottynx

Thank you, for I have learned from you in the past. That was gracious of you, since I was surprised and reacted strongly.

[Cryptic Ned]

Why are we assuming the "starve the beast" plan isn't in effect?

Presumably as soon as a Democratic president takes office, the Republicans will say "God damn that's a big fat debt! I wish we could have done something about it, but unfortunately we were in a war until just after you were elected, at which point the war became unnecessary. If tax-and-spend Democrats don't cut spending to deal with this new debt problem, I think we know who we can blame."

In other words, the Democrats have to make the tough choices to deal with the debt, after the Republicans use their two contradictory philosophies to justify running up the debt. Just like Clinton.

[Rebecca Allen, RN, PhD]

I'm sorry, Brad, but you missed a HUGE whopper in Noonan's column, one that begs to be addressed: Bush engaged in big spending in order to foster bipartisan unity after 9/11?!! When have "Bush" and "bipartisan" ever been in the same sentence before?? This is inanity on a truly surreal level. But then, this is Peggy Noonan we're talking about.

[Jennifer]

Well, presumably La Nooner follows GOP political campaigns and the like, so it's hard to figure how she missed the following from the Dec. 13 1999 GOP candidates' debate in Des Moines, wherein Bush in so many words pretty much promised to completely fuck the budget and deficit spend like there was no tomorrow. A cursory look at his numbers - just a glance - shows that it doesn't add up:

BROKAW. I'm surprised that we've gotten to this point in the debate and we haven't talked at all about Social Security or some of the tax cuts. You said, as the front-runner, you do have an obligation not to just throw numbers around. You talked about a $483 billion tax cut, about an enormous amount of money for military readiness and for increasing pay in the military. The Congressional Budget Office says that just is not going to add up downstream. Five years out you're going to eat up all the surpluses just with your tax cut. Are you willing to say tonight that if it gets to that point you don't want to be in the position that your father was where he had to raise taxes when he promised he wouldn't?

BUSH. It's not going to get to that point. We took a very conservative approach. We took all the Social Security money and left it for one thing: Social Security. We took the budget additions that I think are important, particularly strengthen the military, and put that in the budget. And we had $100 billion left over -- 100 billion unspent money. It's important to cut the taxes, Tom. Otherwise government's going to spend it. And it's important to cut the taxes to keep the economy growing. And when we cut the taxes, it's important to remember, there's a lot of folks who are struggling on what I call the outskirts of poverty. I mentioned it to John in the question that the single mom with kids, which, by the way, in my judgment, is the toughest job in America. It's important for the Republicans to hear their call too. It's important that we make the tax code fair. We hear people at the bottom of the economic ladder as well as the top. And so my plan says if you're a mom making $22,000 a year and you're headed to the middle class, we're going to tear down the toll booth so you can get to the middle class.

No, this is a responsible plan. The only way -- the only way to get rid of the so-called surpluses in the short term is to put Al Gore or Bill Bradley as president of the United States and they'll spend it all.

Can you spot the funny math here? It fairly leaps off the page, doesn't it. I picked it up immediately. But then again, someone who believes in magic dolphins probably isn't much with numbers.

[cherry flavored]

Noonan's brain has been shaken loose from wagging her head in disbelief that's why she can't fathom that the rethug congress is part of the problem.
The next thing we will hear from them that this is a grand plan to over spend. When the dems come in to clean up after them they don't have enough money to implement any of their grand plans like universal health care.

[DrBB]

In the years after 9/11 I looked at Mr. Bush's big budgets, and his expansion of entitlements, and assumed he was sacrificing fiscal prudence...in order to build and maintain, however tenuously, a feeling of national unity.

Well maybe it's a different version of the same "in on the con" idea, but surely this statement is conscious, deliberate b.s., right? I mean, I know the pose is rhetorically useful--that Bush is the Great Uniter, going out of his way to try to reduce partisan rancor etc etc etc. But it cannot conceivably be the case that Noodnik really believes this, right?

I mean, objectively speaking, by just about any measure W is one of the most divisive presidents in our history. If nothing else, his historical legacy will surely be The Great Squanderer, the guy who took overwhelmingly favorable world opinion and turned it to overwhelmingly unfavorable in just a few short years.Not to mention the way he's polarized people in this country.

Surely she can't actually believe her own words here. So this is yet another instance of "in on the con" rhetoric itself, right? If you're a member of the Republican audience she's assuming, you know that she knows you know this is bullshit--just part of the game Sully's pretending he's in on. Everyone else is supposed to believe it, but we insiders are supposed to re-interpret it so it comes out right. Right?

[bob mcmanus]

"All that is wished is that the President would have managed to turn aside the New Deal." ...Anne

It ain't over til it's over. I am awful glad y'all are all confident and complacent, but so were a lot of women in the 80s about abortion. Will take forty years, but they will essentially end choice in most of America.

And I look at the budget, accept that Republicans will not raise taxes and Democrats will not accept a depression, and the New Deal will be gone for most of America in the next generation.

[Phoenician in a time of Romans]

Dear Peggy,

You were told he was lying back in 2000 - http://www.dailyhowler.com/h021102_1.shtml. Don't start whining to us now after helping elect him twice, you stupid cow.

[DOR]

When did tax cuts for the rich and a spending blow-out for the military become “liberal in terms of spending”? Irresponsible, yes; liberal, no.

The Republican’ts stand for fiscal prudence? Not according to their post-WWII record!

Dubious was lying? What a surprise; were his lips moving?

(Com)Passionate Con(servative).

Thumb nailed it in his comment above.
.

[toxicfodderman]

Nice spin Peggo-Bush is really a Liberal,has been all along.You should have worked Bill&Hill in somewhere though.How utterly predictable that these awful people who have been wrong,wrong,wrong,wrong on everything,everything,everything are beginning to jump ship in rodent like droves.
Scuttle off little Peggo...

[Dird]

Yes, It's important for the Republicans to hear their call too. It's important that we make the tax code fair. We hear people at the bottom of the economic ladder as well as the top.

[christofay]

Hey, glover:

"Anyway, when a lifetime camp follower like Noonan edges away from the barracks, you know the garrison is surrounded."

Excellent summation

[christofay]

Scottlynx:

You must have just come back from an expetition to the Antartic as "political assasinations" rumors against non-pliant supreme court justices have been in the news lately. The latest idea in the RNC/right wing media machine is "justices, if they don't decide the way we want, kill 'em." With a right wing Prez and a congress controlled basically by the right wing, the last thread upholding the rule of law are a few judges trying to work the law. They have to go!

[christofay]

Scottlynx,

Earth to self-labeled conservative, terrorism in the U. S. is a right wing thing. I am counting the klan as a terrorist organization here. Otherwise check your list of Americans assassinated since WW2, where are the republicans?

[H. Stevens]

Why are the Republicans just now finding out that Bush is totally inept? For Heaven's sake, his image was completely transformed from a substance abuser (alcohol and cocaine) AND , a man who was responsible for bankrupting (was it 2 or 3 businesses?)companies into a fearless, born-again leader??? HE HAS NOW BANKRUPTED AMERICA! What did they expect? Daddy and Babs can't save him from this horrid adventure, can they? It's so damn ridiculous, it's nauseating.

[Carolyn Kay]

One day they may even discover what we knew in 2000, that George Bush is a spoiled, overprivileged, shallow, arrogant, lying, hypocritical, petty, vindictive, opportunistic, influence peddling, wartime deserting, sociopathic, sadistic, warmongering, tinhorn dictator.

Well maybe we didn't know in 2000 about the warmongering, but we caught on more quickly than they did!

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

[Eric Jaffa]

Can you add a link for the Andrew Sullivan quote?

[Abby]

WTF is wrong with this country! Bush, who was a well-known spoilt brat with a clear record of failure in all he ever attempted (see Carolyn Kay above), was elected President of the USA - the Most Powerful Man in the World.

Once he became President, Republicans expect him to be .............WTF did they expect him to be? Competent?

How do I put it so that even Republicans can understand? …….Bush is a man who was proven incapable of driving a simple go-cart on a deserted and open country field. You cannot expect him to win the Daytona 500 simply by giving him Dale Earnhardt’s car to drive. The most you can expect in this situation is that Bush will cause a major crash killing a few of his fellow competitors and some spectators before his own car hits a wall somewhere and stalls.

[Beavis]

I just cannot believe these people. Noonan stopped writing to go out and campaign for this asshole, and now she thinks she can just step away and say "not me, he lied to me." All of her comments have been pointed out since before Bush stole the 2000 election. I have been screaming since I first heard the term "compassionate conservatism" that it was a front for radical social conservatism (faith based skimming and anti-abortion) and NO FINANCIAL CONSERVATISM AT ALL!
We cannot let the rats run from the sinking ship! We must hold all of the republican dittoheads, especially someone like Noonan who campaigned for Bush, accountable for the economic distruction of the country.
Unbeleivable!

[Abby]

Charles Butler: The USA never was and can never be a Christian Nation. I cannot remember if there ever was a time when we "turned the other cheek" or did "not kill" when we wanted something that did not belong to us. That is true from the genocide of the native Indians to steal their lands to the present day when we are busy killing Iraqis who had nothing to do with 9/11 and never posed a threat to our national security simply to insure ourselves against the fast approaching oil famine.

Friendly tips: (1) The Bible frowns of idol worship. (2) The idol you worship has a false facade and Feet of Clay.

[mattfagan]

Dear Charles Butler,

I am SO SICK of you Christians claiming this is a "Christian" nation! Last time I checked, our Constitution had ABSOLUTELY NO REFERENCES to God or a specific religion, except to say religion has no place in our government. If you want a government ruled by religion, move to Iran.

[Denise]

50 million people knew in 2000 and 2004 that Bush was an incompetent fraud, frat boy, lazy and callous, born with a silver spoon in his mouth, born on third base and he thinks he hit a triple.

Years later all of that is true, and I won't bore you with enumerating the disasters he has brought upon our nation, but I think that the irony that the "true conservatives" are now throwing him under the bus is incredible.

Our nation has suffered and we will continue to suffer as long as this dangerously incompetent fraud remains in office.

I am frightened to think of what disasters lie ahead and how incompetently he will handle them.

He cares not about an exit strategy for Iraq as he will hand the mess over the Democrats who will be elected to clean up the most incompetent and corrupt GOP in our nation's history.

[Abby]

Boanerges: Since you profess to love the truth and since you almost hit the nail on the head by alluding that the same people own both the political parties, let us examine the truth in a non-partisan manner, shall we?

Kerry: “Actually I did vote for the 187 billion...before I voted against it”. Have you ever asked yourself this question: Why did the same thing come up for a vote twice?

You should know that Kerry did not vote “yes” and then changed his vote to “no” at the same reading of the Bill. Kerry voted “yes” when it was first presented to the Senate. The Bill was later changed by the Republicans and reintroduced to the Senate and Kerry voted “no” on the second passage. Pursue your quest of the truth that you profess to love so much and find out what changes the Republicans made after the first passage of the Bill and you will discover why Kerry voted “no” the second time it was presented. Hint: He was not “flip-flopping”, he voted “no” in his effort to ensure the troops did not get screwed.

I have to agree with you about the fact that both Parties are owned by the same interests which is the reason both Parties have identical foreign policies – a constant state of war where wars are fought for corporate profit. The people of Palestine must be denied their own State and the argument must be framed as “Israel’s right to exist” ignoring the fact that Israel does exist while the State of Palestine does not exist. All this because America needs a “friendly” base in the heart of the oil-rich Middle East. Besides. America does not want to soil its hands and Israel helps us sell our weapons (our biggest export) to the despot nations of the world including to “terrorists” who we call “freedom fighters” when they buy our exports. Bush’s recent trip to India and Pakistan was for a similar reason. While we were busy in Afghanistan and Iraq, India and Pakistan were repairing their relations with each other and had become friendlier than we would like them to be. Friendly neighbors do not arm themselves to the teeth and beyond and that is bad news for our military industry. Bush was there to make unequal deals with both countries to inflame the wounds that looked like they were healing. Our usual deals there favor Pakistan over India because dictators are easier to negotiate with and India is the bigger power. With Iran looming large on the horizon, the US may need India’s help against China so this time; the deal favors India over Pakistan. That policy never changes irrespective of which Party is in the White House. No, neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party is anti-war. Most moral and thinking people are anti-war because (a) war proves nothing beyond who is stronger – which is stupid because everybody will concede that America is the strongest so why are we so insecure as to have it proved to ourselves all the time? And (b) Innocent men, women and children, not adversaries, are the only ones who pay the highest price. War is a barbaric practice that remains as an unfortunate option of last resort only when every other conceivable option has failed and a fight or die situation cannot be avoided.

When it comes to policy within the country, the Party differences are genuine and very visible. I am a Democrat simply because that Party takes better care of Americans than the Republican Party. From better education for our children (which you say you like but never support) to better benefits for our veterans (yes, only Democrats support our troops – Republicans don’t) to better welfare for our elderly and the underprivileged (an idea you are taught to hate as simply wasteful).

It is a no-brainer as to why the very rich and the mega-corporations would be Republicans but why are you a Republican? Keep God out of your answer because, irrespective of what Fox News says, there are good Christians on both sides. In a country where 95% of the population claims to be Christians, it would be impossible to divide the country into two equal groups with Christians on one side and seculars on the other. I have always been fascinated by people who would vote against their own best interests and the best interests of their children rather than have two adults do what they will in the privacy of their homes or by people who think right-to-life must be confined exclusively to fetuses and only to Terri Schiavo but to absolutely nobody else.

We should all be aware by now that the people have no say in how they will be governed so all this is purly acedemic and I ask simply because I would like to understand more.

[lloyd667]

The problem is that the Administration and conservatives had different ideas about what the tax cuts meant. The latter thought they were starving the beast, and would thus be followed by spending cuts. But the former thought they were to buy the election (it worked!), and viewed spending in exactly the same way.

Noonan is still kidding herself if she thinks that the administration spent more because it is "compassionate". It spent more, and taxed less, to gain and hold power.

It is an old trick.

[Scroop Moth]

In order to drown government in the bathtub, conservatives plan to make it flaccid and big, not small, which is why they like deficits. Conservatives know that really cutting spending could result in resistance to tax cuts as people feel the lack of services and demand effective, well-fiinanced programs. Cutting spending could therefore backfire, by forcing a new, healthy relationship between taxing and spending. Under Bush budgets, on the other hand, long-term debt saps the ability of government to convert taxes into services. Rather than achieving a healthy equilibrium, government becomes big and bankrupt. There will be no soft landing. Government will soffocate. Grover Norquist and Bush are achieving their radical revolution. Noonan fiscal conservatives are a smokescreen.

[mark o'keefe]

it's midnight in america.

[quartz]

Chops to 'me'. Peggy may say that Bush is bad, bad "liberal" who fooled those fine upstanding "conservative" Republicans, but it was Republicans in Congress who handed Bush everyhting he ever asked for and more, and it was conservative Republican commentators who have cheered and defended him every step of the way, and who attacked people like Krugman, when he pointed out the budget madness and lies. They all bear responsibility and can't shuck that off by saying they were fooled by a lyin' closet liberal. We are talking serious codependent enablers here.

[Mark Votruba]

I'm not sure why the current hand-wringing by the "chattering teeth" brigade is all that surprising? This is exactly what "phase two" of starve-the-beast is supposed to look like. Panting over fiscal discipline has to come from the outside so the GOP leadership looks relatively moderate when they eek out whatever spending cuts they can muster from "non-defense, discretionary spending" (read: poor folk programs). And -- surprise, surprise -- that ain't much. Phase three: entitlements.

[Tabb King-Cahn]

Thisi s a great posting -- what crazy people these conservatives really are.

[camus]

Neocon Intellectuals, whose “expert” advice created all the Conservative/Liberal polarization, the failed fiscal policies that increase our national debt, lowered the standard of living of the Middle class and led us in a failing war, are now in typical “intellectual fashion” trying to distance themselves from the mess they created to protect their public image and credibility.

None, of course, accept any self-responsibility for the current results of the programs they created or helped create. The Neocon architects of the war, Perle and others are now claiming that “others” are responsible for the failures.

Conservative columnists, Ms. Noonan, Sullivan, and others are tripping over each other claiming they were “conned,” fearful that the readership of their columns may suffer major hits as the Middle Class starts to note the lies and hypocritical propaganda, they were responsible for.

Intellectuals never known for being “warriors” for their causes, usually take the cowardly retreat approach when the weaknesses of their advocacies become evident.

[Easter Lemming]

I thought this was a little like the New York Times turning on Bush when they looked at the numbers and realized the tax cuts they were getting - those making $80,000 to $500,000 a year - were a pittance to what the really wealthy were getting. How sad when you realize that you were played too.

[Maynard Handley]

Shorter Peggy Noonan:
I, like many other Republicans, are morons who vote based on a Pavlovian response to certain keywords rather than on actually using such small intelligence as we may have.

[RKKA]

The thing that motivated Noonan, Will, Kristol, Bartlett, and others of their Rethuglican ilk to support the Smirking Chimp is that they hate Libruls more than they love America.

And nothing has changed about that. Its just that the Smirking Chimp has become an anchor around their necks. That's all.

They will deserve our trust when they repudiate the legacy of Ronald Reagan, whose recklessness in foreign and fiscal policy was every bit as great as that which they now complain about in the Smirking Chimp.

And not one nanosecond before.