The Huffington Post has an interesting post about why conservatives can't seem to govern very well.

It's not that we elect people like George W. Bush, or that the Republicans became overzealous at the prospect of controlling all three branches of government. But it's the ideology of conservatism that says that government is bad and should be eliminated. Conservatives don't believe in government, so is it any wonder why they don't govern very well?

It's a good piece that deserves a read, but I would argue that this all-government-is-bad ideology is a product of a modern conservative movement that shares little with traditional conservatism. It's a radical sub-movement from within conservatism that has taken control and seeks to overturn a century of progress.

There is nothing truly conservative about these radicals who take their lead from people like Grover Norquist and James Dobson. These people have no interest in working with the other side -- which is the majority of Americans -- but seek to impose their views no matter what.

It's not my father's conservatism.

Glenn Greenwald makes an excellent point: on the whole Ann Coulter "faggot" episode. While some conservatives are denouncing what she said, they are only doing it because it hurts the movement's image.

Conservatives love Ann. She is their rock star. She loves to say outrageous things, which gets her more press coverage and sells more books. That hard-core base of the movement can't get enough of her.

But to win an election, you have to attract more than the base. So Republicans want to hide Auntie Ann in the closet until after the 2008 elections. But Crazy Ann just can't stay in that closet. As I heard one commentator say last night, she needs publicity like a tapeworm needs a large intestine.

If Coulter wasn't such a rock star, it would be easy to hide her extreme views. But the TV cameras love her, so the rest of us are treated to her lunacy, forcing Republicans to kinda, sorta denounce her without angering the conservatives who love her.

If Democrats were smart, they would hang Ann Coulter around the neck of every Republican candidate in 2008.

The American Conservative says vote Democrat:

It should surprise few readers that we think a vote that is seen--in America and the world at large--as a decisive "No" vote on the Bush presidency is the best outcome. We need not dwell on George W. Bush's failed effort to jam a poorly disguised amnesty for illegal aliens through Congress or the assaults on the Constitution carried out under the pretext of fighting terrorism or his administration's endorsement of torture. Faced on Sept. 11, 2001 with a great challenge, President Bush made little effort to understand who had attacked us and why--thus ignoring the prerequisite for crafting an effective response. He seemingly did not want to find out, and he had staffed his national-security team with people who either did not want to know or were committed to a prefabricated answer.

As a consequence, he rushed America into a war against Iraq, a war we are now losing and cannot win, one that has done far more to strengthen Islamist terrorists than anything they could possibly have done for themselves. Bush's decision to seize Iraq will almost surely leave behind a broken state divided into warring ethnic enclaves, with hundreds of thousands killed and maimed and thousands more thirsting for revenge against the country that crossed the ocean to attack them. The invasion failed at every level: if securing Israel was part of the administration's calculation--as the record suggests it was for several of his top aides--the result is also clear: the strengthening of Iran's hand in the Persian Gulf, with a reach up to Israel's northern border, and the elimination of the most powerful Arab state that might stem Iranian regional hegemony.

The war will continue as long as Bush is in office, for no other reason than the feckless president can't face the embarrassment of admitting defeat. The chain of events is not complete: Bush, having learned little from his mistakes, may yet seek to embroil America in new wars against Iran and Syria.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

• Delicious
• Digg
• Reddit
• Newsvine
• Google
• Technorati

Here is a teaser from my latest column in the Nevada Appeal:

Have you heard the tale of the frog that carries the scorpion across the river? The scorpion promises to not sting the frog if he will give him a ride. But halfway across, the scorpion stings the frog.

"Why did you sting me?" said the frog. "Now we will both drown!"

"I couldn't help it," replied the scorpion. "It's my nature."

I was reminded of this story while reading a column by E.J. Dionne Jr. in the Washington Post, questioning if the modern conservative movement is dead. Dionne contends that fiscal irresponsibility at home and military adventurism in Iraq has severely weakened the conservative movement, perhaps to the point of self-destruction.

And the more I read, the more I thought about that scorpion.