[Industrialblog,
May 5, 2006]
Jonah smacks down Greenwald
Glenn Greenwald's been beating a series of strawmen on his blog. Jonah Goldberg delivers a fine smack-down today.
Glenn Greenwald [Jonah Goldberg]
Every time I read this guy I become more convinced that he revs up his rage so he can make the leaps across his staggering ignorance. He writes:
Notwithstanding the fact that the Bush administration has violated every tenet of this strain of conservatism for the last five years, conservatives will not be permitted to distance themselves from this administration — as they are transparently and pitifully trying to do now that Bush's presidency is failed and is dying a rapid death (see e.g., this characteristically dishonest attempt by Jonah Goldberg to characterize the two failed Republican Presidents - Nixon and Bush - as "liberals" in order to imply that their failure is not a failure of conservatives; funny how we never heard any of that when The Commander had approval ratings in the 60s). With rare and noble exception, conservatives did not repudiate Bush until very recently. To the contrary, they have vigorously supported and claimed him (while he was popular), and he is their creation. They are and should be stuck with him.
Me: Glenn - If you don't know the answer to something, just ask. You look very silly trying to judge who is and is not a conservative when you don't even bother to read what conservatives say. I have criticized compassionate conservatism for at least five years and running. I believe National Review editorially opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the Medicare expansion, his immigration proposals and — hooboy — Harriet Mier's nomination just to name a few. Kate O'Beirne opposed in our pages Bush's Faith Based Initiative. Ramesh — who vexes ye mightily for continually taking you to the woodshed — has attacked "big government conservatism" more times than I can count, going back — as most of these positions do — to when Bush had high approval ratings. I believe my first criticism of compassionate conservatism came in 1998 . As early as 2001 , I was warning that "compassionate conservatism" was blurring the lines between Clintonism and conservatism. And so on. Anyone who has actually read my stuff in the last few years would know that my complaints are hardly new or related to Bush's poll numbers.
Oh, and just to be clear, I'm not repudiating Bush nor do I think his is a failed presidency — yet. I still support him on the war on terror (the only thing which informs your understanding of any issue, it seems). I still support his conservative proposals and accomplishments, applaud his judicial appointments, and I'd be willing to bet his numbers all go significanly upward well before the end of his presidency. I criticize him where criticism is due. And my column was hardly "dishonest" — a term you shamefully use whenever you disagree with something. In fact, you never tried to even explain why it was dishonest, as QandO notes.
Posted at 7:15 AM
I'm amazed when I hear otherwise rational people talk about the extreme right-wing bias of the media and how they ask Bush nothing but soft, Bush-boostering questions. It's possible that these people do in fact have a good memory and that they were just in la-la land the entire time. Maybe they're so deranged that they think that anything less than crying "get behind me satan!" is asking soft questions.
I'm really starting to wonder if Dr Sanity's diagnosis is correct. Are people like Greenwald just displacing their frustrations of an imperfect world to Bush? I mean, when otherwise sane people talk about the impending police state (always disregarding the big brotherishness of hate speech laws and policies), and the best that they can come up with is that the government might be finding out what library books you're checking out (note: these are In-Real-Life friends of mine, not straw men) — or possibly that some people who aren't in the government might harshly criticize you — it's really hard to come up with other explanations.