The Anchoress

[Vizzini has just cut the rope The Dread Pirate Roberts is climbing up]
Vizzini: HE DIDN’T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
— The Princess Bride

Keith Olbermann is increasingly reminding me of Vizzini the Sicilian in The Princess Bride, who declares every event he does not foresee as “inconceivable.”

In Olbermann’s case, he seems to be misusing (or misunderstanding) the meaning of the word “fascist.”

Shall we help him out with it?

It’s an easy one, sir. Last week, you apologized “without limit” (your words) to Mrs Clinton for one of your co-workers using the phrase “pimped out” in a manner insulting to the former First Family. You offered this seriously respectful apology because the Clintons made a fuss and Mrs. Clinton suggested she would no longer grace your network with her presence, and - oh boy - heaven help you all if she made it back into the White House.

I assume, anyway, that that was the reason for your very emphatic apology, since - when you yourself used the “pimping” analogy yourself about President Bush and General Petraeus - no apology was later offered by you, or your network, and it must be said, no apology was requested or thought necessary, possibly because your target respects your right to free speech.

That example is not perhaps so convincing to you; I will offer a second: Last night you called the President of the United States not only a “terrorist” and a “liar,” but a “fascist.” You said:

If you believe in the seamless mutuality of government and big business, come out and say it! There is a dictionary definition, one word that describes that toxic blend. You’re a fascist! Get them to print you a T-shirt with fascist on it!

A strong word to fling about. How daring and brave you are to direct it at President Bush - who is known for silencing dissent and demanding apologies for any imagined slight. You saw how he silenced Tim Robbins when that clever fellow wrote an essay and a play about the “chill wind” that blew against free speech in America, didn’t you? You must have noticed how your co-worker who recently called President Bush a “monkey” was made to grovel and endure a suspension from work, did you not?

Oh, wait…those things didn’t actually happen, you say? None of those dissenting viewpoints or insults resulted in arrest, imprisonment, silencing, firing…nothing?

But…but…President Bush is a terrorist and a fascist! Didn’t you see how he had all the Code Pink and Cindy Sheehan devotees dragged away from his ranch a few years ago? Don’t you remember those guys who celebrated the film imagining Bush’s assassination, or that other guy who wrote the novel where they imagine killing President Bush, didn’t they disappear or you know…never work again?

No? Oh. My bad.

You also said:

We will not fear the recognition of the manipulation of our yearning for safety. We will call it what it is: terrorism. We will not fear identifying the vulgar hypocrites in our government. We will name them. And we will not fear George W. Bush. Nor will we fear because George W. Bush wants us to fear.

How admirably brave of you! You must have really felt like you would be dragged off stage and “disappeared” after speaking “truth to power” like that!

After all - someone says something about the Clintons that they don’t like - for instance, Elizabeth Edwards says she is more joyful than Hillary Clinton, or Chris Matthews suggests Mrs. Clinton has benefited from her husband’s infidelities- and they are swiftly made to see the error of their ways, and to apologize and grovel. (Captain Ed says Matthews may soon be apologizing again, too.)

And if someone makes a movie the Clintons don’t like, why, they try to get the film shelved unseen.

You and your co-workers, on the other hand, routinely spit out words like “idiot,” “pimp,” “murderer,” “chimp,” “terrorist” and “fascist” toward the guy who has kept you safe for 7 years, knowing full well that the bastard Bush and has never in any way threatened your (or your colleagues) freedom of speech or livelihood, and has never demanded from you the apologies you so regularly offer to others. You say what you want without fear of reprisal from this president. There may be angry viewers or sponsors who demand apologies, but not President Bush. And yet he’s the one you like to call a “fascist.”

Inconceivable!

You keep using that word, fascist; I do not think it means what you think it means.

Related: The fascist is… whoever is trying to shut you up, shut you down, dis-employ you, silence you, cripple you or marginalize you for the crime of daring to fall out of step with the party and the conventional wisdom. Beware of them.

Heh. If Rush can say it, I can too, and it will sound prettier.

John Stephenson at STACLU has an open thread going and they’re watching the returns and speculating: could it be? Brokered convention?

The WaPo blog asked a similar question this morning.

Ahem.

I predicted the very real possibility of a brokered convention right after Florida, and was laughed at.

I suggested this was going to happen when Rush Limbaugh and the far right went nuts medieval on McCain after Florida.

Figured many (particularly in the South) would heed Rush and leave McCain, but that they wouldn’t rush to Romney if they had a choice. No matter how much they tell you they don’t mind that he’s a Mormon…that might not be quite the reality.

Elsewhere I have written:, I’m not much of a joiner, and I prefer not to get entangled in the mob. That doesn’t make me smart or in any way special - the truth is I am a social freakazoid - but it does make me observant.

Hence, when John Hawkins asked bloggers to name President Bush’s next SCOTUS pick, I alone pronounced: Harriet Miers.

I recently told you Hillary would cry before New Hampshire.

Suggested that Bill Clinton would soon be too under the weather to campaign much. No timetable on that, although I did say “soon.” That might still happen.

And the other day I wrote:

While I am not a “dittohead” I have listened and found Rush to be funny, articulate and smart - I thought his payback to Harry Reid re the Senator’s letter to his network was brilliant. What I have heard lately has been bombastic and rather a lot about himself…which leads me to believe…

6)A brokered GOP Convention is already in the works and should surprise no one. The hard-right conservatives will try to get their own candidate onto the top of the ticket. Don’t know who they’ve got in mind for it, but these folks are not going to stand for McCain and Limbaugh is curiously silent on Romney…

As we all know, he had been curiously silent on Romney until there was, really, no one left to love except John McCain.

Hence, Mitt Romney has become “the boy who can do no wrong, for now.”

Watching the far right fall into fervent and shrill love with Mitt, I observed that there is a passionate, rigid determination behind some of this Mittmania that is entirely inappropriate to the relative newness of his support. Sort of like a whirlwind romance you get into on a cruise…because you’re alone and you want so badly to have a romance with someone.

And yeah, that all means something.

So, the other day I wrote:

Should a magically pristine “true” conservative (perhaps from the private sector or the military) suddenly appear from on high (or from behind Kingmaker Rush) and begin to woo the right and right-leaning moderates, they will desert Romney in an instant.

I will be VERY surprised if either of these two men - McCain or Romney - is at the top of the ticket when you go to vote in November. :::CLARIFICATION::: Or maybe what I more properly mean to say is that they may or may not top the ticket, but there may be a third party candidate. Bottom line: I’m saying everything is still fluid.:::END
[…]
A game is afoot - and masters are playing it. Right now everything bears watching; observation, not hyperventilation. Don’t let yourself get sucked into a news cycle and a strategy; you’ll be worn out by summer.

Taking all of this into consideration, and understanding there is a game in play, what I think will happen next, is…

…check back a little later.

WELCOME: Instapundit readers! While you’re here, please look around; today we’re also wondering - regardless who is at the top of the ticket, what about Heather Wilson for the Veep slot? and we’re already really struggling with no sugar in our coffee. Or in our oatmeal…

BUMPED TO TOP: I’ve had a lot of positive feedback on this piece and a request to bump it to top for today. Happy to comply!

“A life is either all spiritual or not spiritual at all. No man can serve two masters. Your life is shaped by the end you live for. You are made in the image of what you desire. “ - Thomas Merton

The other day I wondered if we were making our political parties and voices into idols.

Today I’m wondering how it can be that the “faith-based” party — full of people who presumably have prayer lives - is in such a sorry frenzy. “Frenzy” should not be a word that applies to believers. Nor should “fear.”

I had Rush Limbaugh on earlier in the week only long enough to hear some woman calling in and screeching gasping about how “scared” she was, how “fearful,” it all seemed to her that John McCain could possibly be the GOP nominee. And Rush seemed to enjoy her fear and to congratulate her on it.

Apparently fear of the McCain is the beginning of wisdom in these new scriptures, the Gospels of Rush, Hannity, Coulter and Levin.

What the hell is all this “fear” about? There’s no crying in baseball and there’s no hyperventilating fear in Christianity.

For crying out loud - THIS is how the “faith-based” party acts when it doesn’t like the choices set before it? Instead of getting quiet, prayerful and thoughtful, the “faith-based” party gets emotional, fretful and spiteful?

Instead of saying “Lord, what gives? What angels have you for us in this whirlwind,” and taking some time to wonder about it, you freak out and go sobbing to talk-radio saying, “save us! I believe, O help my unbelief!”

And the word cometh from on AM-high, and the word says, “all will be righted if you vote for Mitt Romney on Tuesday, even though he is not really pro-life, even though he was shaky on the surge!”

Okaaaayyyy.

Pope John Paul II preached “Do Not Be Afraid; look to Jesus.” Talk radio preaches “Be Afraid and Look to Us.”

Where are you supposed to be looking right now? Who are you supposed to be putting your faith in? Where are you supposed to be going for answers?

If Mitt Romney wins on Tuesday, apparently all will be well. Then, assuming he can beat the Democrat candidate, you only have to pray he won’t crumble on judges, taxes and Iraq - which is very likely.

And of course, if John McCain wins on Tuesday, there will sackcloth, ashes, weeping and gnashing of teeth, and oh, yeah, “I’m voting for Hillary!” Or, “I’m sitting the vote out,” which is the same thing, essentially.

But let me ask you:

When you have troops in harms way, and a worldwide terrorism movement just itching to see America replace a “strong-horse” president with a “weak horse”, how do you reconcile your support for the troops with a vote for a candidate who seems not to appreciate the seriousness of those issues?

When you claim to be “pro-life” and you know that 3-4 Supreme Court Justices will be named by the next president, how do you reconcile your commitment to life with voting for a candidate who will (if a Dem) appoint judges who will uphold Roe v Wade, or (if Romney) very like fold for the Democrats on their wishes, since his “pro-life” commitment is as new as…oh, as John McCain’s commitment to tax cuts!

When you claim to be a patriot, how can you reconcile the second coming of Sandy Berger into your White House?

Last night, I watched Paddy Chayefsky’s brilliant film, Network, and I felt like William Holden, watching a mob-mentality jump to their windows and scream, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore,” because they’re been roused by the authoritative voice of “someone on tv,” and shaking his head.

He was shaking his head because he knew that there was a great illusion at work.

And to a point I am shaking my head for the same reason - although I only suspect the illusion. Mostly I’m shaking my head because there is so much noise - so many breathless pronouncements serving up fear and loathing - that reality is being skewed; it is being replaced by the sort of intellectual dishonesty that says “John McCain is the same as Hillary Clinton.”

Humbug. And we Christians should think about that.

What is your prayer these days, is it, “Jesus I trust in you,” or is it “Lord, I’m so scared, please make it all go the way I think it should?”

They’re both prayers. I won’t gainsay yours, whatever it is - but remember that the best prayers are the ones that are positive, not negatives, because there are no negatives in Christ.

Here’s my prayer:

“Jesus, I trust in you. Our nation is overrun with noise, chatter and misdirection. It is not easy to discern the servants from the would-be masters, to know who wishes to serve the nation and who wishes to merely acquire power. Help us to see the way with clear eyes and an open mind. Help us to cultivate silence so that we might hear your voice. Grant us peace within the tumult of the world and the chatter of its princes. Grace us with the wisdom necessary to pierce through the confusion of this age, and the frantic exhortations of the world, to see your will. Keep us always mindful of your promise to touch us and guide us with “peace beyond all understanding.” Help us to be faithful and unafraid in a fearsome time. Amen.

And I always ask Mary, the Mother of the Christ, to pray for us, too. And St. Michael. And Cardinal John O’ Connor. And Pope John Paul II. And Ronald Reagan. Because you know - the Communion of Saints; that great cloud of witnesses - they’ll join our prayers with their own.

You don’t have to do any of that, of course, but to me it seems like a better way. No hand-wringing…just hand-clasping and a humble heart.

Let me be very clear, so I don’t get 1000 emails again: This is not about McCain. This is not about Romney. It’s about how we come to our decisions. It goes hand-in-hand with my post from yesterday, where I asked if our political parties had become our idols. And it’s about our souls.

Neo-neocon has a very good piece up - it’s sure to upset those on the far-right whose eyes are currently bugging out as they grab people by the shoulders and scream into their faces, “vote for Romney! He’s not John McCain! Vote for Romney to save the country!”

Romney, Neo notes, is far from a “perfect” conservative but he is become the salvation of the conservatives, endorsed by all the purest purists on the right; and he’s not John McCain, which is all that matters. To a portion of the right, if Mitt Romney is not crowned on Super Tuesday, then the White House immediately goes to Hillary or Obama, and that - according to the pro-life, pro-war right - is the better thing.

Neo has quotes which were left over at Ed Morrissey’s place in this thread - they mirror a lot of what I’ve seen all over the “right” blogosphere:

McCain is no different than Hillary other than the (R) after his name. I too will likely vote for Hillary because if someone is going to create a Nanny state with government programs and destroy the economy - I WANT it to be a democrat.

[and]

If America is to go to hell in a hand basket , at least let it be under the watch of a Democrat. With Hillary we’d manage to get the House and Senate back. Remember: It took four years of Carter to give us a Reagan. (It was worth it)

Writes Neo:

Let that sink in:

Carter was worth it, to get to Reagan. This not only supposes that Reagan could not have been elected but for the Carter years…it also supposes that whatever Reagan did was important enough that it canceled out the damage done by Carter.

This ignores Carter’s disastrous Iran policy, to take just one example. It can be argued that Carter’s incompetence was instrumental in creating the present-day threat from Iran, which has been a worldwide state sponsor of terrorism for many years.

Quite right. We are today, right now, even at this very moment, still paying for four years of Jimmy Carter - and we’re paying for those years with the lives of our young - and he left office in 1980, remember.

Neo calls fanaticism on the “true conservatives” who will demonstrate their “trueness” by voting for the pro-abortion, anti-troop candidates unless their boy (the recently pro-life, unknown-for-troops Savior Romney) is the GOP nominee.

I’m going to say it one more time, for all you hate-mailers: I am no fan of John McCain. Faced with a choice to vote for him or Romney on Tuesday, I frankly want neither. But there is a reason why this is the contest before us - everything happens for a reason and “all things work together for good to those who love God.” If this is the hand we must play, then let it be played and with clear eyes - not eyes clouded with rage, anger, suspicion, malice or spite. And certainly do not cast your vote in fear, not if you belong to the Lord.

So, I don’t much like McCain; I see nothing in Romney that tells me he is going to be reliable for as much as a week in the Oval Office. If these are my only two choices - or, really, our only FOUR choices - I have a lot of praying yet to do. I am genuinely torn.

Rachel Lucas is writing that she is disgusted with the far-right. Me? I’m just remembering something St. Paul wrote - that all that he hated, he had become.

All I know is this: I’m already missing George W. Bush.

Dr. Sanity is on a similar page.

Fred Barnes says, Grow Up, Conservatives. I’m sure that will not be received well.

The Wall Street Journal has an editorial up entitled McCain’s Apostacies.

Think about that for a minute. His differences with his party are not differences, they’re “apostacies.” He is, for some, a heretic who has departed too sharply away from the dogmas and sacraments of The Church of Conservatism.

And he’s the pro-life guy!

I’ve been thinking for a while that the hyperpartisanship on both sides was beginning to resemble the Protestant/Catholic sectarian troubles in Northern Ireland. Hate and malice are being extended by both sides to those “others” over there. The “other side.”

Nothing else matters but that they don’t believe the same things “we” believe (whoever “we” are, Conservative or Liberal). Because they don’t believe the same things “we” believe, they are bad, undesirable people and we shun them and will not have them in our midst.

It’s downright unAmerican, if you ask me. And the tenacity with which both sides cling to their beliefs makes one wonder if the political extremes are not misplacing their faith - putting it not in God, but in “the party” and “the movement.”

I did something I almost never do, recently, and spent a little time exchanging ideas within the thread of another blog. Within that exchange, someone wrote:

I just don’t see what [George W]Bush has done for the movement or the party.

That stopped me in my tracks. All this time I thought the president - any president - was expected to serve the interests of the whole nation and all its citizenry. Apparently not; apparently the president is supposed to serve “the party” and “the movement” and if he does not do that - he is a poor and despised president.

That “movement or the party” remark recalled the histories of fascism and communism and their ugly progeny - totalitarianism; all of those “isms” began with the notion that “loyalty to the party” trumped everything else - new ideas, tactics, statesmanship, economics, social unrest - whatever the question, loyalty to the party - the growth and sustainment of “the movement” was the answer.

That’s all bad history. It is history we want to remember, but not repeat. But here we are, the mightiest and most democratic nation in the world, and the extremists within both ideologies have deemed fealty to the “ism” - whichever ism it is - to be the defining characteristic of a desirable candidate.

Someone else wrote:

Well here’s the thing - conservatives are conservatives because they believe conservatism is what’s best FOR AMERICA.

That’s quite true and un-objectionable. But of course, liberals are liberals because they believe liberalism is what’s best for America, and centrists are centrists for the same reason.

It just seems to me that within those little ideological spheres which are full of ideas, a president must be permitted to listen to ideas and debate them and perhaps even to choose portions of ideas from each position, left, right and center, in order to formulate policies which are best FOR AMERICA, and which address the concerns of all the country, not just “the party,” and which serve the whole citizenry, not just “the base.” The best recipes call for more than one ingredient. The best policies do, too.

If we are determined to shut out whole blocks of people because their thoughts are not ours, their ideas are not ours, their beliefs are not ours, then we’re doing democracy wrong - we’re turning it into something else. And I don’t think the “something else” is necessarily a good thing.

Thomas More, the patron saint of politicians, was a good and trusted adviser to King Henry VIII, but his faith and conscience took precedence over that fealty. When Rome refused Henry a divorce, Henry broke away and formed the Church of England. More could not go where Henry went, saying at his arrest, “I am the King’s good servant, but God’s first.”

I am by no means comparing President Bush to St. Thomas More, but it does seem to me that part of his problems within his own party stem from a similar attitude: He is the party’s good servant, but America’s first. And America’s good servant, but God’s even before that.

Those priorities seem like good ones to me, and perhaps in a healthy society, they would be appreciated. But we’re not healthy right now - I doubt anyone would truly suggest we are - and in this society, sadly, the precedence of “the parties” and “the movements” over everything else is disconcerting. People who six months ago declared they would “crawl over broken glass” to prevent a particular presidency now declare they’d prefer to see that presidency over the “impure” alternative, and that seems oddly disoriented.

How can an undesirable candidate suddenly become an acceptable, good faith alternative? I know there is a school of thought that says, “well, that will teach others and they’ll be more loyal to the party, next time.”

But that’s being too clever by half, isn’t it? One of President Bush’s errors was in thinking he could sign a campaign finance reform into law and count on the Supreme Court to find it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court did not meet his expectations.

Signing off on this election while counting on people to “do the right thing” in the next one seems to me equally hazardous and just as likely to disappoint. And it feels a little bit like putting one’s ideology before all else, and trusting in it, alone.

I am no “McCainiac.” At this point I have no idea who I will be voting for in November, particularly since there is ugliness in every campaign. I’m merely offering food for thought.
***

Eloquent Jonah Goldberg:

…this disaster talk leaves me cold. McCain wouldn’t be my first pick. Then again, none of the candidates were really my first pick. But I think the notion that, variously, conservatism, the country or the party are doomed if he’s the nominee or the president is pretty absurd.
[…]
I think both the GOP and the conservative movement could benefit from a slightly more adversarial relationship. George W. Bush moved the party leftward and/or damaged the image of the GOP in many respects precisely because he was given the benefit of the doubt by conservatives who saw him as “one of us.” It’s not obvious to me that having a more transactional relationship with a Republican president would be altogether bad for the country, the party or the conservative movement.

Sister Toldjah has more thoughts.

Palm Tree Pundit has a quote for you.

Jay Stephenson surveys the mood - and confusion - on the right.

Beth minces no words.

As I said in the comments section:

Once upon a time I might have agreed with the statement that the left is all about “feelings and emotions” while the right was about thinking and issues. I’m not entirely sure I would, anymore. Both left and right are doing their share of emoting.

Related: The Nation Needs a Time-Out

A little trip down memory lane on this election day:

Watch him - in a foreign and hostile land - go rescue the Secret Service agent who was being detained and kept from protecting him. See him shoot his cuffs, afterwards, and greet his host.

I don’t care what anyone says - Bush is one cool customer; This guy is due some serious appreciation, even if you feel “betrayed” by him. Name the president who got it all right, all the time. This is a repost from May 22, 2006:

THE ESSENTIAL PRESIDENT BUSH

A much-esteemed, long-neglected friend sent an email this morning, which was delightful to recieve. At one point he mentioned this post from yesterday and wrote:

I think (President Bush) has lost his bearings. but then, so did Moses from time to time, it’s quite understandable.

That made me wonder a little - has President Bush lost his bearings, or have we? Is it President Bush who has broken faith with “his base” or have they?

When I read my friend’s line, I thought of a line from Pride and Prejudice, in which Elizabeth Bennett says in new appreciation of Mr. Darcy,

“In essentials, I believe, he is very much what he ever was.”

Perhaps I am a dim bulb, but President Bush has never surprised me, and that is probably why I have never felt let down or “betrayed” by him. He is, in essentials, precisely who he has ever been. He did not surprise me when he managed, in August of 2001, to find a morally workable solution in the matter of Embryonic Stem Cells. He did not surprise me when, a month later, he stood on a pile of rubble and lifted a broken city from its knees. When my FDNY friends told me of the enormous consolation and strength he brought to his meetings with grieving families, I was not surprised. When the World Series opened in New York City and the President was invited to throw the first pitch, there was no surprise in his throwing (while wearing body armor) a perfect strike.

He did not surprise me when he spoke eloquently from the National Cathedral, or again before the Joint Houses of Congress, when he laid out the Bush Doctrine. He did not surprise me when he did it again at West Point, or when he went visionary at Whitehall (Lauri points out the video can be found at this link. It’s worth watching!)

There were no surprises in President Bush’s invasion of Afghanistan to battle AlQaeda. There were no surprises when he went after an Iraq which everyone - even Bill Clinton - believed had WMD, an Iraq that had tried to assassinate an American President, an Iraq whose NYC consul did not lower its flag to half-mast after 9/11.

Actually, there was one surprise. He did surprise me by going back to the UN, and back to the UN, in that mythical “rush to war” we heard so much about. But then again, the effort in Iraq was never as “unilateral” as it had been painted.

President Bush did not surprise me when, faced with the scorn of “the world community” and those ever-ready A.N.S.W.E.R. marches which sprang up condemning him and Tony Blair, he stood firm. A lesser man, a mere politician, would have folded under such enormous pressure. I was not surprised when Bush did not. (Aside - it’s funny how they just can’t get a good-sized crowd together for those protests these days, innit? Everything about Iraq was “wrong” and everything about Iraq is “failure and quagmire” and yet, somehow, we all breathe a sigh of relief that the job is done, that Saddam is out of power and that Iraq, save a very small piece of troubled land, is - in remarkably short order (and despite the wild pronouncements of John Murtha) - tasting its first morsels of democracy and liberty, and showing promise.)

It never surprised me that Yassar Arafat, formerly the “most welcomed” foreign “Head of State” in the Clinton White House was not welcomed - ever - to the Bush White House.

I wasn’t surprised by the, not one, but two tax cuts he got passed through congress, or the roaring economy - and jobs - those tax cuts created. I wasn’t surprised when he killed the unending farce that is the Kyoto treaty (remember, the thing Al Gore and the Senate unanimously voted down under Clinton?), or when he killed U.S. involvement in the International Criminal Court, or when he told the UN they risked becoming irrelevent, or when he told the Congress and the world, “America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country.” Not surprising.

I wasn’t surprised at all to watch him - in a foreign and hostile land - go rescue the Secret Service agent who was being detained and kept from protecting him. Or to see him shoot his cuffs, afterwards, and greet his host with a smile.

I was never surprised that he tried to “change the tone” or tried reaching across the aisle to invite onesuch as Ted Kennedy to help draft education reform, something none of his predecessors dared touch. Just as they never dared to try to reform social security or our energy policies. The feckless ones in Congress wouldn’t get the jobs done, unfortunately, but he is a president who at least tried to get something going on those “dangerous” issues. His senior prescription plan was unsurprising and it is helping lots of people.

I was not at all to surprised to see President Bush forego the “trembling lip photo-op” moment in which most world-leaders indulged after the Christmas Tsunami of 2004 in order to get real work done, to bring immediate help to that area by co-ordinating our own military (particularly our Naval support) with Australia and Japan. Stupid, stingy American.

I was surprised, actually, to see him dance with free Georgians. I didn’t think he danced.

Let me tell you what has surprised me about George W. Bush. I have been surprised by his ability to keep from attacking-in-kind the “public servants” in Washington who - for five years - have not been able to speak of the American President with the respect he is due, by virtue of both his office and his humanity, because they are entralled with hate and owned by opportunism. I have been surprised that he has kept his committment to “changing the tone” even when it has long been clear that the only way the tone in Washington will ever change is if everyone named Bush or Clinton or Kennedy is cleared out and “career politicians” are shown the door and - it must be said - every university “School of Journalism” is converted to a daisy garden, maaaan. We are stardust. We are golden.

I wasn’t surprised when President Bush thought that New Orleans had dodged a bullet after Hurricane Katrina, and therefore let down his guard. After all, we all thought NOLA had done so. I wasn’t surprised that he had - similarly to his actions the year before, re Hurricane Charlie - asked the Democrat Governor of Louisiana (and the Mayor) to order evacuations and suggested to her that she put the issue under Fed control to speed up processes (she did not, btw for a long while). But I was surprised that, when the press “picked and choosed” their stories while launching an unprecedented, emotion-charged, often completely inaccurate (10,000 bodies!) attack on the President - the rising waters were all his fault and he was suddenly “the uncaring racist attempting genocide by indifference” - the President did not fight back against the sea of made-up news and boilerplate, fantastic charges against him.

I was surprised, and what surprised me was the sense I had that Bush’s heart was broken. That he had done everything he could to keep faith with the nation, and that he could not believe that in a time of such terrible need, all some people could think of was, “how do we use this politically, how do we break Bush with this?” It can’t have helped that some of the hysteria was coming from the right as well as the left. Things changed after that, didn’t they? The press and the left doubled up their attacks, the far-right went very smug, and President Bush never has seemed to have regrouped his spirit.

A month later, I wasn’t surprised (although some - mostly the hard-right “I’m a Conservative before I’m anything and he’d better serve me” types - clearly were) when he nominated Harriett Miers to the SCOTUS. In fact, I’d predicted it. Up until that moment, every person President Bush had nominated to pretty much any position had won accolades from the beamish far-right, but Miers did not. She wasn’t one of their guys or gals. She wasn’t Luttig, she wasn’t Rogers-Brown. Harriet Miers? Damn that Bush! The denouncements came fast and furious and suddenly “the base” with which George W. Bush had not broken faith…broke faith with him. Suddenly they were as willing to call him a moron and an idiot as any KozKid.

Imagine that. Imagine being the guy who has given his base one splendid nominee after another, in all manner of posts, make a nomination he thinks appropriate only to find that “base” coming out with both guns, defaming his nominee and directing all manner of insult at himself. President Bush is nothing if not loyal; his loyalty is often his downfall. When he asked for a little trust (which he had surely earned) a little loyalty and a little faith, from “the base,” he got kicked in the groin, over and over again, for daring to think differently, for falling out of lockstep with his policy-wonk “betters.”

That had to be bitter, for him. At that point Bush, unchanged in essentials, might have wondered if his conservative “base” had become a bit over-confident and loose-hipped, so cock-sure of their majority (not that congress used it) so certain of their own brilliance that they were beginning to believe they didn’t need him; that he wasn’t conservative enough, after all, and that the next president was going to be the solid, “uncompassionate” conservative they’d really wanted all along.

The president who had delivered one gift after another to his base asked them to trust him, and his base sneered.

Then of course, the DPW debacle was launched and once again the far-right, his “base” went beserk, again, for very dubious reasons. Buster was the one who pointed out to me, then, that in this matter President Bush was being entirely consistent with who he had always been and that his defense of the sale was not unsound, nor unprecedented. The right didn’t care! They stomped their feet and went DU again. Even Rush Limbaugh couldn’t control them. The left, on the other hand, which should have supported the president - they would have had he been anyone else - simply exploited what they could of it.

And now, the Great Big Immigration Imbroglio of ‘06 has turned “the base” quite vicious. President Bush is no longer simply a moron or an idiot to his base, he is a bad man. He is a bad American. He is a bad president. Everything he does now, is wrong. As yesterday’s WSJ pointed out, Bush is closer to the deified Ronald Reagan on this issue than anyone on the right wants to admit. And they’d never do to Reagan what they are doing to Bush. Let’s look at a few Reagan quotes on the nature of those “far-right” conservatives, mmkay?

‘When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn’t like it.

‘Compromise was a dirty word to them and they wouldn’t face the fact that we couldn’t get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don’t get it all, some said, don’t take anything.

‘I’d learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: ‘I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.’

‘If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that’s what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.’

Mr. Reagan, I salute you. I did not vote for you. Twice. I came too late to appreciation of you. But sir, some of us have been saying the same thing to “the base” for a few weeks now. They’re still not listening. They won’t, I imagine, until they absolutely must. And perhaps it will take a staggering defeat for that to happen.

President Bush’s immigration policies have not changed materially since he was Governor of Texas. You folks knew that when you elected him, twice. He has not changed, cannot change, because his policies arise not from his poll numbers but from his convictions and his conscience. You used to love that about him. Can everything, everything that needs to be done BE done, and all as you would have it done, in the real world, a world of bitter partisanship and a corrupted press?

Some say that the GOP should consider “losing in ‘06 to win in ‘08.” Some conservatives say that they’re going to not vote - to sit out an election or vote for a third party candidate to “teach the GOP a lesson.”

The far-right gwwwwarks like a cracker-obsessed parrot: Bush has abandoned the base, he’s abandoned the base, he’s abandoned the base.

Ever stop to think maybe the president feels his base has abandoned him, that uncontent with 75%, they’ve simply moved beyond reason? Ever stop to think that while you’re calling the president every despicable name in the book and demanding his fealty or you’ll “teach him a lesson,” that perhaps there is a lesson you need to learn? That a good man, disinterested in merely laughing or crying for the camera for 8 years and looking to do a difficult job in the face of unprecedented hate, unprecedent speed of communication, unprecedented global instability, unprecedented backstabbing from within his own CIA, deserves some loyalty and the benefit of a doubt as he tries to bring you the 75% you so callously spit back at him as insufficient?

We do not know everything we think we know. Nothing is static; everything is in flux, and it is very likely that more is at work here, on many levels, than any of us can dream. There are things seen and unseen. Think about it.

Here is a question, and I’ll be writing on it some more during the week, but start thinking about it, now: HOW DO YOU RECEIVE A GOOD?

How you receive a good has a lot to do with whether any more “good” comes your way. The Conservatives got a “good” in 2000 and 2004; they’re receiving it very badly, indeed. I think the throwing-under-the-bus-of-George-W-Bush by “the base” is one of the most shameful things I have ever witnessed in all my years of watching politics, from both sides of the political spectrum. How do you receive a good?

President Bush has never surprised me. He is, in essentials, the man he ever was. It does not surprise me that he is a Christian man living a creed before he is a President, that he is a President before he is a Conservative. It seems to me precisely the right order of things.

You don’t have to agree with everything President Bush does; I don’t. But he deserves a lot better than he’s getting from his own side. He deserves, dare I say it, a spirit of compromise and workability, as opposed to the hard-line demand for a “perfect” solution (one which will never pass congress) to a problem no one else in government has even dared to address.

You “base” have received a great good. You’ve forgotten it. Continue to do so at your - at all our - great peril.

Related: Attn GOP, Meet the Woodshed
Did Bush Kill the GOP?
Thompson, Reagan and Goldilocks Republicans
Bush, Betrayal & the Nation’s Soul
Harriet, Bring the Cannoli
Cowboys, Wormwood, Big Pictures
Newsweek’s Glimpse of Bush W/ War Families

WELCOME: Pajamas Media Readers! While you’re here, please look around. I am inviting an answer (100 words or less) to the question What’s Wrong With the World?. Tonight we’re also talking about the Florida primary and the likelihood of a brokered convention, the good economic news you’re not seeing covered, my impressions of Nancy Pelosi’s wandering mind at the SOTU address, and there is always time for opera.

In Michigan yesterday, Hillary “won” by having her opponents basically thrown off the ballot (a move Barack Obama - it must be said - had used to his advantage earlier in his career).

Seems to me Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are “of a piece” in their willingness to do anything, no matter how underhanded, to get what they want. It would not surprise me at all to see a Hillary/Obama ticket being talked up down the road, and my that would be interesting to watch. Can you imagine these two campaigning together and hiding spring-loaded stiletto’s up their sleeves? Everytime they put their arms around each other the threat of violence would be palpable.

Make no mistake - Mrs. Clinton intends to sit those ill-gotten Michigan delegates, if she can get away with it. And of course, she will. Mrs. Clinton gets away with anything she wants. It’s astonishing to me.

So, now, in Nevada, Bill Clinton, former president - whose minions are firmly entrenched in all media as journalists, talk-show hosts, filmmakers and non-stop panel guests - tries to (incredibly) paint Barack Obama as the establishment candidate (Bill has never lacked for pure chutzpah) and says:

“I know how hard it is going to be to provide health care to every American. … to fix our schools or reduce poverty. I know because I fought these fights,” the former civil rights lawyer said.

If this team was so brilliant the first time up, how come this “former civil rights lawyer” and his wife did nothing to “fix” schools beyond throwing money at them and rejecting vouchers - real choice for poor people trapped in bad schools - out-of-hand? How come they did nothing about Social Security, Senior Prescription Plans or, um, smacking down AlQaeda when they were attacking our interests every 18 months or so?

Sorry, got sidetracked. Anyway, while he’s painting himself and his wife as the “insurgents” (he uses that word) in the race against “establishment” candidate Obama, his wife is going to get away with doing the most reprehensible thing a “public servant” can do; she is going to simply not allow some votes that are not meant for her. Yes, she’s apparently going to get away with disenfranchising voters.

Of course, Mrs. Clinton is not actually doing this - her supporters are. But she’s going along with it, isn’t she? Her husband says he “supports” this move. But Mrs. Clinton is not (winkwink) doing this.

And she’s not going to break her pledge about campaigning in Florida, too.

She’s an unstoppable little Sherman tank, is our Hillary. And she is lucky that the late-night-show writers are still on strike…and that the press is so selective about what it reports.

Fer instance, did you know that Louisiana has sworn in as Governor the 36-year-old son of Indian immigrants who happens to be a Republican and a Catholic?

I mean, for heaven’s sake, Gov. Bobby Jindal has hit the ground running, and the press…well, they’re trying to ignore him, but if they must report on him, you’ll note, they don’t mention is party affiliation.

And if they must report on Mrs. Clinton, apparently, they don’t mention the voters her “anti-establishment supporters” are working to suppress.

WELCOME: Ed Morrissey readers! Thanks, Cap’n for the link! While you’re here, please look around. We’re also talking about freedom of speech in Canada (and here) and we’re remembering a moment.

Deacon Greg links to an interesting story about a priest who is fighting for smoker’s rights.

I suspect we have found here one Catholic whom Christopher Hitchens might appreciate.

As each customer walked into Mort’s Cigar Bar in Old Town on Monday night, the Rev. H Setter quickly opened a wooden box and held out a Chateau Real cigar.

“Are you here for the rally?” he’d asked each patron, dampened from the rain.

If the answer was “yes,” he’d hand out a free cigar.

The priest at All Saints Catholic Church, Setter held to his promise to advocate for smokers’ rights by holding a rally at Mort’s. He plans to be there next Monday, too.
[…]
Setter, who realizes some may see him as an unlikely advocate for such a cause, is against banning smoking for two reasons.

“No. 1, tobacco products in the United States are legal, and business owners should have the right to make decisions about whether they’re smoke-free or smoker-friendly” without government regulation, Setter said as cigar smoke filled the bar.

Second, he believes a ban on smoking would effectively kill a charity dinner he’s sponsored for 11 years. Father H’s Annual Benefit Cigar Dinner has raised more than $150,000 for local charities since 1997, according to Setter’s Web site, HolySmoke.com.

A while back I wrote:

I am perfectly able to decide for myself whether or not I wish to bring my money to a smoking establishment or not…a business can simply place a nicely lettered sign at the door indicating whether smoking is or is not permitted inside. If they are polite, they can offer to make suitable recommendations to other businesses that cater to what they do not. But they needn’t even be polite about it, if they don’t want to be.

and here:

A right-thinking [Mayor Bloomberg] would allow “smoking establishments” to announce clearly that they cater to smokers, and are willing to make suitable recommendations to non-smokers, who can then go sip their white wines elsewhere and leave Christopher Hitchens to his gin and tonic in peace.

I think I’ve since learned that Hitchens is a scotch drinker, and that shouldn’t surprise me; my experience with gin drinkers is that they’re a bit meaner than scotch tipplers.

I’m a non-smoker, but I understand what it is to relax over a drink with a cigarette, and I think a fella ought to be able to go smoke a cigar with like-minded fellas if that’s what they want, without local, state or federal governments chasing them down.

The scolds of the world want to take away everything fun - cartoons that go boom, playgrounds with see-saws, hot fudge sundaes and a smoke. All in the name of helping you to “live longer.” I’m surprised no one has decided that homeowners should not be able to own propane tanks and barbecues…or kitchen stoves…because someone might get hurt.

Life is too short, even if you live to be a hundred, and I’m not sure I want to live to 100. 80 would be great. 75 would be fine, too…but a little freedom to relax and unwind has to be part of the bargain.