At the end of the day

Whistlin' Dixie with South Carolina conservatives in mind, the Huckster flapped the Confederate flag. An "independent group" sponsored a "flag issue" radio ad that smacked McCain and poured a heaping helping of praise on how Huckabee "understands the value of heritage." On Huck's values, Joe Conason at Salon wrote about his religious extremism and his ties to it. His face was sharp as a butcher’s cleaver... Look away!

None of the above -- 19% of SC GOP voters are undecided. Is that big? No, it's "HUGE."

What's a GOP code word for heartless bastard? In, SC, Fred Thompson dissed Bush's global AIDS initiative because "Christ didn’t tell us to go to the government and pass a bill to get some of these social problems dealt with. He told us to do it... ...we need to keep firmly in mind the role of the government, and the role of us as individuals and as Christians on the other.” Countering Fred's criticism, Bush's former speechifier Michael Gerson said of Fred, "he clearly is playing to isolationist sentiments." TP offers more, um, insight.

Mr. and Mrs. Obama took a swipe at Hillary's voting record. When it comes to taking a stand on an issue, you're either fer it or agin it. Oh, wait...

Picking up from Manifesto Joe, the Bush-league economic stimulus plan refrains that one-hit wonder -- Tax cuts, baby! Via Sam Boyd at Campaign for America's Future, the CBO applauds the Democratic solution.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) "ain't buying" WH spokesman Tony Fratto's kooky denial, "We have no reason to believe that any e-mail at all are missing." Oh? Emptywheel explained why Tony should have kept his piehole shut and today connected a few dots to the Plame investigation. Way to go, Fratto! Fred Fielding must luv u.

The No. 3 U.S. diplomat -- R. Nicholas Burns -- will leave the State Department in March for personal reasons. Uh huh. He'll remain involved "as a special envoy on India." U.S. Ambassador to Moscow William J. Burns will replace Burns. The two are not related. Tomorrow's WaPo.

Bob Somerby aptly covered the truncated, bogus apology from Tweety. Transcript at Media Matters. Corpus Juris posted the video .

First, Lee Siegel called us blogofascists. Now he whines that we're Stalinists (h/t Avedon).

Passive-Aggressive: In today's NYT column, David Brooks compared presidential frontrunners, Democratic to GOP -- "...a daughter of the feminist movement, a beneficiary of the civil rights movement and a self-styled proletarian. These are powerful Democratic categories" vs. "a pastor, a businessman and a war hero. These are the three most evocative Republican leadership models." Is Bobo aware of his unconscious cognition? Doorknobs say maybe, maybe not.

[That's all...no more after the jump.]

There's more: "At the end of the day" >>

The Problem With Conservatives

Did anyone else read that opinion piece by David Brooks in the NYT today (Friday)? I thought it was pretty good. It’s not really anything new, per se, and I know that articles on how the current trend of mainstream conservatism in the United States is betraying conservative roots are about a dime a dozen. However, rarely do these pieces really delve into where the roots of conservatism lay short of digging up the corpse of Ronald Reagan or diving into some quasi-anarchist-libertarian tirade.

I’ve never really considered myself a conservative, in any sense of the word. I like Locke and Rousseau when it comes to the classical liberal-conservative schism, and I like New Deal Welfare Liberalism over Herbert Hoover stand-offish neo-liberalism (i.e. “small government” Reagan/Thatcher rugged individualism). However, I think there’s an important role to play for classically conservative (and hell, maybe even neo-liberal) factions when it comes to developing public policy. As much as I prefer progressivism as a general rule, the restraint offered by Burke and Oakeshott do, I think, provide a framework for maintaining a “steady ship of state” and “strong social fabric.” While Burke is a little too elitist (and generally undemocratic) for me, and Oakeshott defends the status quo, I think, to a fault, it is important to remember that if something “ain’t broke” one shouldn’t try to fix it.

The problem with Republicans, though, according to Brooks and, as he points out, Andrew Sullivan, George Will, and William F. Buckley, is that they have forgotten what it means to be a conservative. Instead of focusing on steadying the nation (and indeed, touting the idea of an American nation), they have adopted revolutionary methods to effect change, no matter the possible negative externalities. It’s too bad, really, because when one half of the political culture goes bat shit, it bodes poorly for the entire polity. But, I suppose, that’s what happens when the Republican leadership refuses to challenge the neoconservative factions lead by Bill Kristol, and that nut job Norman Podhoretz.

I think, though, that one of Brooks’ more significant points is when he points to the creedalization of conservatism in America:

When conservatism came to America, it became creedal. Free market conservatives
built a creed around freedom and capitalism. Religious conservatives built a
creed around their conception of a transcendent order. Neoconservatives and
others built a creed around the words of Lincoln and the founders.

The problem with creeds, though, is that they are non-negotiable. Conservatives have made every point of policy these days a part of their most basic political philosophies; they’ve elevated these policy positions to a religious status. It’s no longer a matter of debating the most efficient income tax rate to promote responsible public budgeting while giving the middle-class room to grow. Tax policy has become a commandment: thou shall not progressively tax, for it is the flat tax which pleases Steve Forbes. Everything is a fight to the death; everything is about undercutting substantive fairness. Nothing about the modern conservative movement touts incremental change – start wars to (ostensibly) promote democracy, or trade, or to open new markets, over turn 50 years of racial integration policy in one fell swoop, and deport 12 million human beings who are integrated into our communities, society, and economy.

While I empathize with Andrew Sullivan in this regard, that’s what happens when one fails to balance principles and convictions with political success and party identification. We progressives, though, would do well to remember that as we select our nominee for 2008.

(Hat Tip: Tzepish)

Note: I had some problems posting this the first time. The time stamp reflects the updated version.

There's more: "The Problem With Conservatives" >>

Americans Get It, They Are Still Not Amused By Libby Commutation

Earlier I shared some fresh poll numbers showing that 54% of Americans want the Congress to impeach Dick Cheney.

That American Research Group poll contains some other startling numbers. We will try to share them in bite sized chunks over the next couple of days.

We all know the White House's commutation of Scooter Libby was immediately unpopular. As RJ Eskow elaborates, since then the White House and their lackeys among the mainstream pundits class have been desperately trying to turn American opinion on the topic. So far the efforts of the White House and the mainstream media have not met with much success.

Question:
Do you approve or disapprove of President George W. Bush commuting the 30-month prison sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby while leaving intact Mr. Libby's conviction for perjury and obstruction of justice in the CIA leak case?

Among All Adults 31% approve of the commutation, 64% disapprove and only 5% are undecided. The numbers among likely voters are 26%, 69%, and 5%. Among Democrats (38% of the sample) 13% approve, 76% disapprove and 11% are undecided. Among Republicans (29%)the numbers are 50%,47% and 3% and among Independents (33%) the numbers are 19%, 80% and 1%.

The poll is based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of adults nationwide July 3-5, 2007. The theoretical margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points, 95% of the time. Of the total sample, 933 interviews were completed among registered voters.

Now you might argue that the disapproval numbers include a bunch of folks who really think the President should pardon Libby.

Not so fast. The same poll shows that 84% of those polled oppose a full pardon of Scooter "the skater" Libby. That number includes 70% of Republicans, 82% of Democrats and a very surprising 97% of independents.

It is beginning to look like, despite the best efforts of Joe Klein, David Brooks, Richard Cohen and the rest of the professional pundit class, George Bush has had his Rubicon moment.

By the way the Eskow post is about the best discussion of the pundit class's really bizarre response to the commutation I have read so far.

There's more: "Americans Get It, They Are Still Not Amused By Libby Commutation" >>