Again, not defending oneself in this forum doesn't make sense. Using all of OJ's posts, I'd have done it for free.

All they had to was fly me in.

There are others in DC better than me. It's stupid not use the opportunity.

You may all now proceed to call me names.

Andrew Sullivan, Bruce Bartlett, and George Will don't dislike President Bush because he isn't conservative enough. Their anger has nothing to do with spending, with Katrina, or even with Iraq.

Sullivan called Bush "reckless" and "a socialist," and accused him of betraying "almost every principle conservatism has ever stood for."

...so naturally Andrew stood on principle and voted for John Kerry in 2004. Would have been nice if Milbank had managed to squeeze at least a sentence in about Andrew's protests dating back nearly two years to the administration's support of an anti-gay marriage amendment.

(As for Bartlett, he can vote for a Clinton -- if not the Clinton -- in 2008, if he thinks that will solve the nation's wild-spending ways.)

If the president didn't have enemies like these, it would be necessary to invent them.

The kerfuffle before this involved CATO favoring the purchase of Chevron by the Chinese-government owned CNOOC. According to the Wall Street Journal, Chevron had long experience at very-deep drilling for petroleum.

CATO said the Chevron sale should not be opposed or blocked because of our paranoia over the communist takeover of a technically-advanced company.

Weren't folks of this ilk bashing Reagan when he was president? I remember at least one National review article pontificating that Reagan wasn't conservative enough.

These so-called conservatives are prime example of living in a coccoon. They knew exactly what they were getting with Bush. Bush has run both his presidential campaigns on the themes that he has governed on. Apart from nation-building (which was forced upon him by events of 9-11 and its long-term implications), he has not reversed course on any of the issues that gives heart-burn to the establishment, inside-the-Beltway conservatives. He has always considered government to be the change agent towards responsible behavior. He ran away from these elitist conservatives by inventing his own brand. If these folks have a problem, they should run their own candidates, and see if they have any chance to make effect their preferences.

Uh, that last sentence should have read,"... any chance to put into effect their preferences."

Bruno, fear not, no name-calling is permitted here.

Bush is right to ignore them. There's that old adage not to get into a Pi$$ing contest with a skunk.

"Andrew Sullivan, Bruce Bartlett, and George Will don't dislike President Bush because he isn't conservative enough".

As opposed to Senator Kerry, who in 2004 Sullivan dubbed, "the right man - and the conservative choice - for a difficult and perilous time", in England's Sunday Times.

Andrew is a one issue guy - access to the anus is all that matters. Woe to any politician (or pundit) who tries to get in the way.

I don't understand Bartlett, although what David said is very true. Clinton had his lefty back-stabbers, too. Just like LBJ did. And Nixon, whooooo - he had a lifetime's worth in his time as President.

As for George Will - he has never liked the Bushes, but one would think he could hide it better. After all, the Bush presidents have a better pedigree than he does, no?

As I've said before, they hate him because GWB doesn't give a rat's tail what they think or say. These guys are professional pundits, and the ultimate target of punditry acts as if they are irrelevant to him.

Quite a sting to egos that size.

Bruno:

There's no percentage in giving your enemies air time.

thanks for telling me whose a conservative, dana.

conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan

Is Dana Milbank really this stupid?

Rhetorical question

or Boaz

"skunks", "enemies"

Scholars at the Cato institute have done 90% of the work on Bush's Social Security program. Great way to keep the party together.

And 90% of the criticism for any compromise.

If Bush has defensible positions, then he or his spokesmen should defend them. It's not necessary that he change the minds of Sullivan on buggery, but the process may convince other's of his correctness. Peevish silence doesn't accomplish much.

h:

Why waste valuable time at a freak show?

"Why waste valuable time at a freak show?"

To convince the larger public that your positions are correct and as a side benefit prove that those who oppose you are freaks. Bush (or his spokesmen) have unfortunately had an MO of going into hiding when criticism increases. This tends to put them into a hole that is difficult to get out of. I understand that Bush personally should not attempt a live debate, but that wasn't what was mentioned in the above article.

By the way Bruno, would you take over this argument.

Peevish silence doesn't accomplish much.

It sure did ok in 2002 & 2004, when we heard these exact same complaints in the Spring.

2004, Ohio, if they had flipped, its all she wrote.

2002, Still in the midst of demagoguery from 9/11.

h:

These guys aren't the larger public, they're narrow-minded fanatics. How are you going to talk Siullivan and Boaz out of buggery or explain to Bartlett that Reagan raised taxes, ran record deficits, imposed auto quotas and saved SS?

Maybe if W was seen around town carrying a leather-bound copy of Atlas Shrugged the size of Clinton's impeachment-era Bible . . . they would show him some love.

good one!

I've changed my mind. You're correct.

You've proven to me that there are some people who are virtually an impenetrable fortress against any logical rational argument. Thanks.

De nada. It's why we're here.