— Andy Stern

Like the 1944 pop standard says, President George W. Bush has hurt the most all those he professed to love the most — from the conservative ideologues and born-again Christians to the free-market enthusiasts, energy producers and red state political class. Perhaps no politician in recent memory has done more damage to his political base.

The most obvious recent equivalent, Richard Nixon, did cause harm to the conservative cause, but that damage was short-lived. It reflected his deviousness more than his policies. Similarly, Bill Clinton’s many personality flaws weakened the Democrats’ hold on the White House, but inflicted no permanent harm to liberalism.

In contrast, the Katrina-scale disaster that has been the Bush presidency may leave his ideological backers in the wilderness for years to come. Over the past eight years, Bush has done more to undermine conservatism than all of the country’s college faculties, elite media and Hollywood studios put together.

The late Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater — whose memory remains far more cherished than that of either President Bush — nurtured the modern brand of conservatism. Nixon employed some of these tenets, but they flourished most fully under Ronald Reagan.

Conservatism’s core values rested on notions of a strong national defense and free market economics. Bush has punctured these ideas in a way that transcends the effects of historically anomalous scandals such as Watergate or Clinton’s extramarital affairs. Bush has not only dinged the conservative car, he has totaled it.

*
I would be interested to know how many previously registered Republicans fled the party under the tenure of Bush the Second. You can add my name to that list. But I’m actually grateful. His disastrous presidency jolted me out of my partisan comfort zone and freed me from blind allegiance to a failing ideology.

“All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side … The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.”    — George Orwell

Says Sullivan, “M.J. Rosenberg applies this quote to Gaza, but it also reminds one of events in the US these last eight years.”

(Reuters) - Former U.S.-installed Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi has denounced the policies of President George W. Bush as an “utter failure” that gave rise to the sectarian venom that ravaged his country.

… “Yes, Bush’s policies failed utterly,” said Allawi, describing the U.S. administration that once backed him. “Utter failure. Failure of U.S. domestic and foreign policy, including fighting terrorism and economic policy.”

“His insistence on names like ‘democracy’ and ‘open elections’, without giving attention to political stability, was a big mistake. It cast shadows on Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Egypt, and I believe this will be remembered in history as President Bush’s policy,” he said.

… as a new president, Bush was like Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee whom critics said lacked knowledge about foreign affairs. When Bush first came into office, he was surrounded by experienced advisers like Vice President Dick Cheney and Powell, who Wilkerson said ended up playing damage control for the president.

To which Spencer Ackerman asks…

Is comparing Bush to Sarah Palin more insulting to Bush or to Palin?

Matt Yglesias answers…

I’m going to say “more insulting to Palin.” Palin’s something of a laughingstock, but Bush is a villain. I mean, he wrecked the world economy, he led to millions of Iraqis being forced to flee their homes, he’s a total disaster and a disgrace. Palin gave bad answers in TV interviews. There’s no real comparison.

“When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it.”

~ Henry Ford

I was an officer that ran interrogator teams in the Marine Corps from 2001-2004.

Reuel Marc Gerecht uses the biggest fallacy in all of the torture debate–the ticking time-bomb fallacy. He assumes that an ideologically driven terrorist like [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed] or Abu Zubaydah would answer the questions truthfully even under torture when all he had to do was withstand for 4 days to let 9/11 happen.  This is absurd.

They would withstand because they are so close to the “finish line.”

Even more likely though, assuming that KSM was captured on 7 September, would be to give us thousands of leads (which he did anyways when he was captured) with a little truth at the core and we would go ragged chasing them all down while the terrorists boarded the planes without a problem.

Bottom line, the ticking time-bomb scenario is just not a justification for torture of an ideologically motivated person who has immense incentive to withstand and disseminate false information. Finally, there are other methods that could “break” KSM in the above scenario like the shock of capture and some thoughtful, sophisticated tricks that are certainly not torture and in the Army manual.

Just ponder the uproar if, in any other country, the political parties joined together and issued a report documenting that the country’s President and highest aides were directly responsible for war crimes and widespread detainee abuse and death.  Compare the inevitable reaction to such an event if it happened in another country to what happens in the U.S. when such an event occurs — a virtual media blackout, ongoing fixations by political journalists with petty scandals, and an undisturbed consensus that, no matter what else is true, high-level American political figures (as opposed to powerless low-level functionaries) must never be held accountable for their crimes.

… the whole experience has given me an insight into the mindset of the gun-toting, bible-[thumping], nationalistic bit of the United States. Here are my conclusions.

1) There is an unbelievable amount of anger and hatred out there - directed at everything from the UN to big business to Barack Obama. These people can read, but they cannot think.

2) The “End of Days” crowd is very strong. I would say that about a third of the e-mails I got referred me to the Book of Revelations - in which, apparently, it is all foretold. In an idle moment, I e-mailed one of my correspondents back and said that I have never read Revelations, since I am an athiest. Big mistake.

3) There are a lot of people who believe not only that global warming is a hoax - but that it is actually a conspiracy. The fact that the most influential reports on climate change have been produced by an intergovernmental panel (IPCC) - sponsored by the UN - fuels this theory. The idea is that the UN is perpetuating a climate-change hoax, to provide an excuse to impose a world government on America. I’m all part of it apparently.

4) I can see what Obama means by referring to “bitter” people clinging to guns and religion. And clinging is the word. Several people informed me that I would only remove their guns “from my cold, dead hands.”

*
And the comments on his blog post simply go to prove his point.

As much as it might be fun to have the exposure that Drudge brings, I’m actually glad I’ve never been “Drudged.” I’ve read the comment sections of some blog posts and articles that have been featured on the Drudge Report. It simply boggles the mind at the staggering animus and empty-headed, lowbrow invective displayed.

At least the “bitter” comments are more manageable here because I have a much smaller audience, which proportionally adds up to far fewer idiots to ignore.

It’s not the opposing viewpoint that is objectionable but the way in which it’s conveyed in such intensely vile, yet stunningly illiterate ways. It certainly was on full display for all to see during this most recent presidential campaign. “Bitter” has morphed into seething hatred that is insidious, poisonness and contagious. It’s a dangerous place for anyone to find themselves in the middle of — whether as the person infected or the person affected by this growing cancer.

United we stand, divided we fall. There is room for honest and even passionate disagreement and dissent in a healthy democracy. But bitter partisanship that prejudically despises and condemns ideological “enemies” — perceived or otherwise — creates an increasingly unbridgeable chasm that can destroy a society and a nation. Unless we learn to lay aside the prejudices and animosity toward our partisan foes, the enemy that will destroy our nation is not from outside, but within; we are our own worst enemy.

I sincerely hope that in this period of economic crisis and continuing political strife around the world that we as a nation can once again come together and work together to address and hopefully solve this nation’s challenges. United we stand, divided we fall.