You Must Read This.

Sorry about the dramatic title.

But, you know, drama inflation is rising rapidly when it comes to titling your diary entries around here.  I thought I would go with "understated, yet desperate."  Heh.

Anyway, I happened across this little gem at Glenn Greenwald's site, via Atrios.

Glenn's writing is always so good.

I don't know how he does it, even when he's mostly just quoting other people.

Anyway.

Glenn writes about opinion writer Rod Dreher, self-described "Conservative Christian" and, more recently (see comment below), "crunchy con," often rabid attack dog for the Bush Presidency over the years.

It looks like Rod might be having a change of heart.

Not just about the Surge, or about Bush, but about this whole Conservatism thing.

If you are interested in seeing what is going on in the mind of intelligent -- if highly ideological -- Conservatives right now, I recommend you check out the Greenwald posting and then head over and listen to the whole thing from Dreher's mouth.

I think that the landscape is changing now, very rapidly.

Very deep supporters of this presidency are starting to peel away.

In fact, I won't be surprised if Michelle Malkin comes back from Baghdad with a similar change of heart, though knowing how committed she has been to this mis-adventure, it might take her a bit of time to back down.

Wow.

•  Don't Tip Me

  Instead, bookmark Glenn's blog.

  by bink on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 08:45:44 AM PDT

  •  Iran

    Dreher talks about Carter failing in Iran ...  Apparently, he's not aware of the role that Bush I and James Baker played in making sure that Carter failed, in order to secure Reagan's election.

    Grr.

    by bink on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 08:49:04 AM PDT

    •  Iran, then and now.

      Dreher’s apparent turn-around is interesting, though I question how representative it actually is of conservative dissatisfaction with Bush.  I say that because Dreher is a political conservative who also claims to be a Christian.  By that I mean, he’s political conservatism was based on his political assessment of the world and certain political commitments (i.e. that the U.S. should be the leading superpower).  And that’s different from the religiously motivated political conservatives who will drink Bush’s kool-aid no matter the cost.  (That latter group is a harder nut to crack, IMHO).  

      What I think is most useful in Dreher’s account is the fact that a political conservative is recognizing what to many of us is obvious: namely, that the disaster Bush has created in Iraq has made our nation weaker, militarily, politically, etc.  It’s been difficult for some to recognize that because they’ve bought into the administration’s fraudulent construal of Iraq as a necessary front in the "War on Terror", and when you’ve bought into that, then the U.S. presence in Iraq and everything bolstering that presence (i.e. escalation) becomes non-negotiable.  That Dreher now sees the war in Iraq as unnecessary (to put it mildly) provides some ground for optimism.  Hopefully, enough other political conservatives will come around before an attack on Iran is initiated.  And if the groundwork for that attack is, in fact, Bush's escalation, then the time for conservatives to wake up is now.

      by machopicasso on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:42:33 AM PDT

      •  Some of them will never admit they

        were wrong because they've Gone Too Far.  They called us too many names, like Traitor, like Fascist.  How do you keep that up for 6 years and then not only admit you were wrong, but ask for forgiveness?  That last one's even harder than admitting you were wrong.  And now that our nation is in such dire straits because of their blind adoration of a fool, whether they're sorry or not is sort of beside the point anyway, isn't it?  

        by sherlyle on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 12:10:45 PM PDT

    •  I wasn't aware that Bush I was involved in that

      Eight US servicemen died in that biotched rescue - do you have a link to any info about Bush and Baker's involvement?  I'd like to read it...

      by AnotherMassachusettsLiberal on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 11:40:08 AM PDT

      •  Expert on this

        is Robert Parry of Consortium News:

        http://www.consortiumnews.com/...

        You can also run a search on Consortium News home page for its articles on

        Carter + Iran

        by Caneel on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 01:58:37 PM PDT

      •  Our new SecDef, too, apparently

        Democracy Now! talked with investigative journalist Bob Parry about Robert Gates' participation in contacts with the Iranians during the Carter/Reagan campaign to see to it that there was no "October Surprise" that would work against Reagan.  

        Parry says, "...we went back through that, the evidence built up that there had been these earlier contacts and that Bob Gates was one of the people involved in them."

        by eztempo on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 08:05:53 PM PDT

  •  I already have GG bookmarked so I get to tip you

    That said, Rod has been "off the reservation" for a long time.

    He was excommunicated about a year ago, I recall, for a post I probably have somewhere in my email. It was noteworthy and spawned the "crunchy con" movement that allowed Rod to stay at NRO, but kind of have a big "time-out" in the backyard.

    Rod is apostate and will suffer for his lack of faith.

    FOX whipped all the others outlets during Bush's speech.

    The faithful will rally for the war.

    by kidneystones on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 08:49:28 AM PDT

    •  Thanks for Clarifying

      That he has been evolving in this direction.  I always wondered what "crunchy con" meant.

      by bink on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 08:56:33 AM PDT

      •  I read it because you told me to do so.

        Just feeling like a sheep this morning.  See, it worked!

        If you want to see a good example of neo-con followers, see the new movie "Charlotte's Web."  It's great. The sheep are simply so Republican.  

        It's a good movie.  

        by TomP on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:04:08 AM PDT

      •  I heard in interview

        with him, possibly on Fresh Air, with regard ot the Crunchy Con bit.  He's into natural foods, Birkenstocks, etc, but still holds to conservative political views.  So outwardly, one might mistake him for a liberal.

        by gizmo59 on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:05:00 AM PDT

        •  If he becomes a vegetarian, he'll be

          voting Democrat in no time.  

          by TomP on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:06:56 AM PDT

          •  A friend in Philly voted for Bush in 2000...

            ...and soon realized his mistake, when he found out about Bush's war on the environment.  He voted Kerry in 2004, and said his whole precinct went Democratic for the first time in awhile.

            by CoolOnion on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:52:25 AM PDT

            •  Dreher had to be a real dope

              to vote for Bush a second time. Had he not realized by 2004 that he'd been sold a pack of lies by this crowd? Had he forgotten that they promised to be out of Iraq in 3-6 months? Did he not remember the term "WMD"?

              by smintheus on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 10:35:45 AM PDT

              •  Greenwald linked to

                this piece about how many younger people who grew up under Reagan and Bush I were brainwashed by the media noise machine:

                http://www.mahablog.com/...

                I noticed this when I went back to college in the early '90s.  So many of the kids would spout nonsense about supply side economics, etc., and would be stunned when older students argued a different point of view--as if it never had occurred to them that there could be another side.

                What it reminds me of is John Dean's arguments that Republicans and the authoritarian personality.  

                Dreher woke up and realized he'd been lied to, and now he harkens back to the "hippies" and how they tried to warn him, so he starts wearing Berkenstocks and eating vegetarian food.

                How sad.  These people have no central beliefs and morals; they wait around for someone else to tell them what's right.

                by Boston Boomer on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 12:45:48 PM PDT

        •  re

          He sooo wants to get laid by a Hippie Chick...

          by cookiesandmilk on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:46:24 AM PDT

          •  Bloggers are the new Hippies! n/t

            by Asinus Asinum Fricat on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 11:21:45 AM PDT

        •  Mmmmmmm, Conservative Granola

          It's worth pointing out that wanting to stay healthy (natural foods) and comfortable (Birkenstocks) is not a factor in the whole progressive/conservative ideological spectrum (and certainly not on the liberal/totalitarian ideological spectrum), the factor is what sort of access you want others to have to such health and comfort.

          by figleef on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 10:01:33 AM PDT

          •  So maybe Rod didn't drink the Kool-aid

            but ate the granola?

            by gizmo59 on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 10:13:32 AM PDT

        •  The term "crunchy"

          refers, IIRC, to granola.  The Iraqatastrophe was not the first issue that crunchy cons had with the admin - the first issue was the environment.  Apparently it allowed some of them to see beyond their blinders.

          But I still cringe when I hear the term "hippie" applied to anyone after ~ 1970.

          by wozzle on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 10:26:41 AM PDT

      •  I wrote an LTTE to the Dallas Morning News...

        ...saying that when Rod Dreher finally came to his senses, he should write a sequel and call it "Crunchy Conned:  How religious, environmentally friendly folks got duped into voting for Bush."  But they never published it.

        by CoolOnion on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:49:26 AM PDT

  •  Bookmarked long ago...

    ...so I've gotta tip.  Sorry.

    by BalanceSeeker on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:31:13 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, me too

      And I recommended the diary.  And what are you going to do about it, huh?

      by TruthOfAngels on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:55:52 AM PDT

  •  I wish I had the mojo to say...

    "Don't tip me."

    There is a giant among us.

    ;-)

    by TX Unmuzzled on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 10:41:40 AM PDT

•  This is definitely a serious, serious

  shifting of the winds and a definite sign of hope. Recommended.

  by niteskolar on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 08:46:19 AM PDT

  •  What I'm waiting for

    is the repudiation in its entirety of the "conservative" movement:

    • Reimplementing a highly progressive tax system
    • Ending the corporate ownership of government
    • Shrinking "supply side economics" to a size we can drown in the bathtub ;-)
    • Removing the influence of the hate-spewing wing of the fundamentalist Christian movement from government at all levels
    • Re-establishing strict environmental protection laws
    • Increasing regulation of almost all corporate activity
    • Demanding equality for all Americans on all values, including employment, marriage, and every other phase of life
    • Ending the outrageous income gap between worker and CEO
    • Beginning immediately to develop transportation systems that will eventually eliminate America's slavery to the automobile
    • Placing socialist values above capitalist greed
    • Making access to health care independent of wealth
    • Instilling in every citizen the value of conservation and the repudiation of excessive consumption
    • Ending forever the notion of American Empire

    There are signs if this happening, but our society has a long way to go.

    by blue in NC on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 10:09:22 AM PDT

•  When I heard Dreher's...

  ..commentary, one of the things that shocked me was that this guy is so YOUNG!  So young, so ignorant - and really too young for anyone to give much weight to his points of view...but some folks did, many Americans hold the same ideas as this wet-behind-the-ears writer who is just now starting to grow up.
   Maybe I'm just a crabby old lady (well, yes, I AM a crabby old lady) but it worries me that for so long the Conservatives have embraced the teaching of ignorant children.
   May they have the chance to live long enough to see the error of their ways.

  by drchelo on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 08:53:00 AM PDT

  •  Yes

    Read this response to Dreher, it makes sense out of what youre feeling here, about the youthful brainwashed conservative...

    http://www.mahablog.com/...

    by ablington on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:03:28 AM PDT

    •  excellent analysis of drehers essay.

      for the first time in 40 years this character has actually started to learn he has to THINK. what a loser. sorry, i don't feel good that these schmucks are now starting to realize how badly bush as fucked up. these people are so screwed up that it would take decades of therapy to even start to make inroads into the disasters that are their minds. don't trust some turncoat repub because he claims he as seen the light. these people are total sickos, who have been in denial of reality for decades.

      remember the bit about we create our own reality, that democrats are some kind of sub human aberration because we use logic and reason??? these people will find the next Hitler and support him, they don't understand that what has happened to the US is a direct result of their inability to think and reason. thats why we are fucked, 50 % of the US is INCAPABLE of using rational thinking skills to analyze a problem, etc. and come up with a real solution.

      by johnfire on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 12:00:27 PM PDT

  •  He really pissed me off

    when I heard him the other day on All Things Considered

    http://www.npr.org/...

    I couldn't help but shout, "Took you fucking long enough!" Voted for Bush twice. Chose to ignore voices of reason. Thanks a lot, asshole. You've been part of the problem - now REALLY start being part of the solution!

    by MaskedKat on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:29:53 AM PDT

    •  On the blog, he still defends his vote...

      ...because, he says, "...at least we got Roberts and Alito."  Grrrrr...he's so ignorant, and really one-note on the anti-choice point of view.  Bush could turn us into a police state, and Rod Dreher--sitting in his cell in Gitmo for not marching enough in lockstep to suit the regime--would still say, "At least he outlawed abortion."

      by CoolOnion on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:45:40 AM PDT

      •  re

        and he's too dumb to realize that Roberts is there for the Corporations, nothing else.

        Silly Rabbit.

        by cookiesandmilk on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:52:09 AM PDT

        •  I've tried to tell him--he's a bit slow.

          by CoolOnion on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:56:15 AM PDT

          •  Hmm, do you know him in a personal contact way?

            by murasaki on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 11:28:28 AM PDT

            •  Nope, just email him through the blog

              Reading his stuff, I just figured he needed some history lessons, so started emailing him.  Sometimes, he writes back, most times not.

              by CoolOnion on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 09:44:59 AM PDT

      •  i told you so

        dont trust turncoat repubs. the sickness that is there minds is the same, they are only pissed cause they lost this one instead of winning, they have NO CLUE that their whole thinking process is totally F'd up

        by johnfire on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 12:01:43 PM PDT

        •  I just wonder what he'll tell his kids someday

          I think Bush is enjoying his highest approval ratings right now.  Once he's out, the shit will hit the fan, and we'll find out how bad things really were, and how no one would say anything for fear of being fired or attacked by Rove's media spin machine.

          When Bush is wanted for war crimes, no-bid contract crimes, opening citizens' mail crimes & so forth, but we can't get him because he's escaped to Paraguay, Rod Dreher's kids are going to ask him, "Daddy, tell us again how come you voted for that guy--twice!"

          I wonder what he'll say then.

          by CoolOnion on Sun Jan 14, 2007 at 09:55:15 AM PDT

          •  yup

            thats what you would call a learning experience....

            that facts matter. some people have to learn this in harder ways than others.

            by johnfire on Mon Jan 15, 2007 at 01:18:11 AM PDT

  •  Someone else said it

    much better than I ever could: those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

    by sidnora on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:31:58 AM PDT

    •  re

      Santayana.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/...

      Best Quote EVAR!

      by cookiesandmilk on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:38:43 AM PDT

      •  Thanks!

        I mentioned this to the Lurking Husband the other night over dinner, and when I said I thought it was Santayana, he questioned me - he thinks it was one of the Founders.

        by sidnora on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 10:05:24 AM PDT

        •  FDR

          recycled it.

          by chriscol on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 12:26:15 PM PDT

    •  There's a good quote in the movie "Why we Fight"

      Chalmers Johnson says it, explaining his change of heart about the Iraq war.  He says something like, "When I get new information, I change my mind.  What do you do when you get new information?"

      And it's not original with him, he quoted someone else, but it's a good quote for our times.

      by CoolOnion on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 10:50:11 AM PDT

  •  re

    The takeaway from his post and the link he gives at the bottom is that their emotional maturity is arrested, due to events and IMO brain chemical makeup.

    Of course this has been discussed greatly in my favorite TV show EVAR!

    Arrested Development....

    by cookiesandmilk on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:40:13 AM PDT

    •  Maybe they should have

      ..dropped more acid?  Smoked more dope?  Maybe that is why their brains are so petrified....

      by drchelo on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:50:42 AM PDT

      •  re

        Nah... what we are seeing are the rements of a "car wreck" of their brains 30 years ago...

        by cookiesandmilk on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:53:44 AM PDT

  •  oh so true

    Some youngsters from the mormon church come by to try to recruit us.  They had little name tags on them stating they were 'elders'.  I just laughed to myself at the inanity.
    I'm not religious, said so, and asked them about Thessaonlonians regarding 'The Man of Lawlessness' they couldn't even find the passages in the bibles in their own hands despite my telling them where the passages were (2:2).  Unless their bibles had been edited but they were a little flustered.  I sent them kindly on their way.

    by FreeTradeIsYourEpitaph on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:45:18 AM PDT

  •  They're children, no matter what their age. Most

    of them anyway.

    by Terra Mystica on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 10:21:25 AM PDT

  •  They're children, no matter what their age. Most

    of them anyway.

    by Terra Mystica on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 10:21:25 AM PDT

  •  Close to Dreher's age...

    preceed him by month's but my political intellect was not awakened with "Carter's failed rescue", but rather California's Proposition 13:  my first encounter with the rabid lambs of the Right.

    Reagan was part and parcel and progeny of that assinine insistence that there are no good taxes, except those used for NationalSecurity^TM.  Since those dark days of the very late 70's through the 80's, I held Republicans and their conservative constituency in extreme skepticism, because they constantly sell Trojan Horses: "National Security" = wealth transfer; "tax relief" = wealth transfer; etc. But, I digress...

    It is always with open arms that I welcome the formerly-disillusioned conservatives.  One wishes it didn't take them so long, but self-actualization and the 40th birthday seem to be trendy...

    by decitect on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 10:33:35 AM PDT

    •  er... formerly-delusional

      obviously, they're becoming dis-illusioned by looking at the reality of following blindly the (Nixon-)Cheney-Rumsfeld wing of the party into another deep quagmire that damages US reputation.

      Just like Carter (who "healed" the country) and Clinton, it takes Democrats to clean up the conservative mess caused by their bleeding heart idealism of American authoritarianism.

      by decitect on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 10:43:19 AM PDT

    •  I'm but 2 years older than

      this moron Dreher, but I read some fucking books during all these years between when I was 15 and now. The guy needs to spend a few years in a library.

      Start with some Chomsky and look up the references. Heh.

      It's not that he's young, it's that he's so fucking painfully ignorant! Like he got his education from the boob tube and nothing else.

      by tiggers thotful spot on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 11:04:03 AM PDT

      •  cant read

        most cannot read well
        or think.

        by johnfire on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 12:03:06 PM PDT

  •  dechelo, I don't think they believe the ignorant

    children.  I think they promote their young hacks.  Read Blinded by the Right by Media Matter's David Brock.  Smile as you read of young Brock and Ann Coulter as they start making real money and hanging with the cool old people.

    by tribalecho on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 12:09:44 PM PDT

•  Those that are subject to cult teaching

  ... as in the neocon thinking of a takeover of the whole world "for democracy" ... will need to be deprogrammed.  Deprogrammed is another word for reprogrammed to another way of thinking.

  What we need in the media and in leadership positions are people who CAN THINK FOR THEMSELVES, have the ability to listen to all sides with both ears open and alert, way in the balance, etc.

  ALL those who were programmed into thinking Iraq was another "neat idea" have no place, NO PLACE, in leadership positions.  At least, IMHO.

  by Southern Mouth on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 08:54:30 AM PDT

  •  Think for themselves

    What we need in the media and in leadership positions are people who CAN THINK FOR THEMSELVES, have the ability to listen to all sides with both ears open and alert, way in the balance, etc.

    How could this man be complicit to cheerleading and blind faith for so long? I don't worship Carter, Clinton or Ted Kennedy?

    by niteskolar on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 08:57:02 AM PDT

    •  this man is ripe for the world's worst midlife

      crisis. I predict full-on hippie mode, with a ponytail.

      by ablington on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:04:32 AM PDT

      •  Or he might buy a convertible

        Corvette and ride around shirtless with a couple of gold chains.

        by niteskolar on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:05:41 AM PDT

        •  No he'll get an electric sportscar

          with a cupholder for his latte.

          by ablington on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:07:03 AM PDT

          •  personally i hope

            he gets drafted.

            that would be a useful experience for the schmuck.

            by johnfire on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 12:03:58 PM PDT

        •  Ewwwwww!

          No, please - even middle-aged hippies are easier to take than that!

          by sidnora on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:34:56 AM PDT

          •  That depends on

            whether or not he has a gym membership...and uses it!

            by gizmo59 on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:47:22 AM PDT

        •  I bought

          my first Japanese "crotch rocket" motorcycle at age 49 and adopted the screen name "midlife_crisis" on a motorcycle discussion forum ;-)

          Does that count?

          by blue in NC on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 10:13:17 AM PDT

          •  I bought a Harley

            at 44...had an other kid (surprise!) and sold the bike. That second kid...that was a mid life crisis

            by lucysdad on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 12:08:30 PM PDT

            •  lol!

              That is a midlife crisis!

              You got me beat. ;-)

              by blue in NC on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 12:16:08 PM PDT

          •  um, YES.

            by ablington on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 04:34:06 PM PDT

        •  So 80's. n/t

          by bablhous on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 12:02:49 PM PDT

      •  Won't be the worst...

        ...if he has a good bong and a good source of pot.

        I no longer have either, but I still have my ponytail.  And no mid-life crisis.

        by BalanceSeeker on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:36:32 AM PDT

        •  So it's not the politics...

          It's just that he has watched too many episodes of Weeds!

          I think that show is going to get my mom voting for the democratic party faster than the actual facts will!

          by Progressive Chick on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 10:05:19 AM PDT

        •  I've been wondering lately - why is it that as

          we age, using mind altering substances has so much less attraction to us?  Except for those with substance abuse problems, it seems to be pretty universal.  The only one I used was alcohol, but I remember some pretty good times with that.  Yet now, I have little desire, and on the rare occassion I do, I end up wondering why - it's just not that great.  Is the experience different as we age or is it just that we've experienced so much it doesn't seem so great by comparison.  Totally off topic here, I know, but your comment just hit home with my recent queries.

          by gustynpip on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 11:37:40 AM PDT

      •  Those people make the most rabid liberals!

        I've worked on campaigns with people like him, and they're almost intolerable, once they figure out they've been lied to and throw their energy into a Democratic Party campaign!

        by CoolOnion on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:58:04 AM PDT

      •  growing weed

        owning lots of guns and voting libertarian.

        by Lisa on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 11:47:58 AM PDT

•  I read Greenwald

  and then Mahablog and listened to Dreher's commentary. Listen to it and wonder in amazement like Ringling Bros. or Copperfield. Where has he been for twenty five years?

  by niteskolar on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 08:55:20 AM PDT

•  Thanks, bink........

  that put a bounce in my step this morning!  Nothing quite like a conservative falling off the wagon and seeing the light.  Sober after years of drinking the KoolAid.  Yes, I know my analogy sounds backwards ;-)

  by Cronesense on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 08:56:20 AM PDT

  •  Maybe there is something to the myth

    of drinking yourself back sober. Or maybe it is the instantaneous sobering of an inebriated individual after slamming into another vehicle.

    by niteskolar on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 08:58:27 AM PDT

•  Jonah Goldberg

  ..really struggles for a riposte with this one. That he fails isn't suprising, nor is it that he doesn't address Dreher's crisis in a more substantive way.

  http://corner.nationalreview.com/...

  by Scarce on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 08:57:59 AM PDT

  •  I read that too.

    You'll actually have to go there to hear him 'cause I'm not going to type up his comments. I can't fault Rod for his frustration with the war, though I think he comes across as pretty anti-intellectual and unfair in his tirade — as if there was no good faith or no good arguments for the positions he once held and which lots of folks he respects still hold. I should also say that the comparison to Jimmy Carter is really quite weak. Simply because Carter's feckless foreign policy and Bush's over confident foreign policy elicited similar feelings in Rod doesn't mean that they can be glibly equated.

    Dreher doesn't equate them.  He says Bush is far worse than Carter.

    Indeed, even if the result of Bush's foreign policy has had the consequence of projecting an image of weakness around the globe as Rod asserts, that doesn't mean they are similar foreign policies. They do come from very different impulses, I think everyone can agree.

    Likewise, simply because Rod has the same feelings as hippies that doesn't mean the hippies were right then (or that Rod is right now). In short, there's a lot of talk about feelings.

    How Jonah distinguishes between "impulses" (which are legitimate to write about) and "feelings" (which are not) he doesn't say.

    by LithiumCola on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:26:08 AM PDT

    •  not to mention that

      the worst thing Goldberg can say about Bush's policies is that he's been over-confident?

      Over-confidence is the problem here?

      Not ignorance of Middle-east history and politics?

      Not craven partisan hiring policies for the provisional government?

      Not condemning dissenters as terrorist sympathizers?

      Not trashing several important Democratic principles in the name of fronting a Democratic world takeover?

      Not making tax=breaks permanent in a time of war?

      Not uniting his fellow citizens in a time of war by telling them to "keep shopping"

      FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      by AlyoshaKaramazov on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 02:43:05 PM PDT

  •  Nice.

    This is my favorite:

    simply because Rod has the same feelings as hippies that doesn't mean the hippies were right then (or that Rod is right now).

    Jackass. As Delaware Dem said, "We were Right.  We are Right.  We have always been Right."

    Then, of course, he has to beat up on that crazy-fringe-liberal NPR:

    Maybe NPR could stretch a little bit and find some conservatives to make a positive case for their beliefs that doesn't involve confirming liberal or Democratic arguments? Or is that too much to ask?

    Wouldn't it be nice if, in return for all the bullshit about the "liberal media," that we actually had that liberal media?! The NYT and NPR aren't it, as has been well illustrated these past few years.

    by akasha on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:38:56 AM PDT

    •  Yeah

      There have been plenty of NPR commentaters lately that have made me want to throw my radio across the room.  And David Brooks regularly dispoils the NYT op-ed page.  Conservatives really do not have a leg to stand on when they complain about the "liberal" bais in the media.  It's just been a rant that has worked for them for the past several decades, and they will continue until the electorate recognizes that they're full of shit.

      by gizmo59 on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:52:21 AM PDT

•  asdf

  From Dreher's commentary:

  I have got to teach my kids that they must never, ever take Presidents and Generals at their word - that their government will send them to kill and die for noble-sounding rot - that they have to question authority.

  I'm less than 10 years older than Dreher, was never a hippie, and yet somehow I learned this lesson anyhow, just from observing Watergate as an adolescent.

  While I'm glad there is yet another conservative who has come to his senses, I just have to wonder, what the hell took him so long?

  As for Michelle Malkin, I'm not holding my breath.

  by gizmo59 on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:00:43 AM PDT

  •  I am younger than Dreher

    and I remember the Iran contra affair and I realized that there was no such thing as infallibility regardless of party or ideal. How is he writing and being read by tens of thousands or more?

    by niteskolar on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:11:12 AM PDT

    •  Of course

      Scandals involving the overreach of presidential power are a recurring phenomenon, though their magnitude can vary.  (The current one I'd rate as industrial strength.)  I guess the pertinent point is how bad do things have to get before you start paying attention?

      by gizmo59 on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:16:23 AM PDT

    •  perhaps because...

      ..his "audience" was bought FOR him..

      by drchelo on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:25:27 AM PDT

    •  I'm younger than Dreher too.

      And I didn't a Viet Nam to teach me not to trust leaders.  Or that they might send soldiers to die for "noble sounding rot" as he puts it.

      I'm sorry that he managed to go 40 years thinking he was supposed to trust leaders he never even met,  or that Republican leaders never lie.

      I don't even know what to say to someone who managed to do that, no matter what change of heart they had after another Viet Nam.

      by LithiumCola on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:29:30 AM PDT

      •  Swallowing the whole republican idealogy--

        How did he not get the
        sub rosa text about greed and further impowerment of corporate dominion?

        by murasaki on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 11:57:23 AM PDT

  •  Watergate

    was a turning point for me as well.  As an adolescent, I had conservative bent that got bent the other way when Nixon screwed the nation.  I always wondered how anyone who was alive at the time and paying attention at all could vote Republican, ever again.

    As for Malkin... fugedaboutit.  She's a media whore, not a 'columnist' per se.  Her gig is based entirely upon being a woman of obvious immigrant extraction who bashes immigrants and other non-whites that don't kowtow to the Bush kleptocracy. That is the only thing that makes her useful. Were she to change her "opinions" of BushCO, we would probably never hear from her again, thus it will never happen.

    by Mad Kossack on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:55:35 AM PDT

  •  Yes.

    If he had read his history, he could have learned to mistrust the President as Commander-in-Chief, merely by looking at LBJ.

    by AlyoshaKaramazov on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 02:45:48 PM PDT

•  Thanks for pointing this out.

  Nice way to begin a rainy New York afternoon. I would like to point out that equaly safisfying was the link GG provided to a wonderful piece by Barbara O'Brien entitled Betrayal. Also worth a read. Thanks again

  by Bouwerie Boy on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:02:53 AM PDT

•  I found a definition of Malkin

  I subscribe to "A Word a Day" and got this in my email.

  "That's a great deal to make one word mean," Alice said in a thoughtful tone.
  "When I make a word do a lot of work like that," said Humpty Dumpty, "I always pay it extra."

  Alice and Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass might as well have been talking about this week's set of words. While these
  words do not have as many meanings as the word "set" (the Oxford English Dictionary devotes 26 pages to it), each of this week's hard-working words has many unrelated meanings. And they are not bland, like the word set.

  With these words, one could say, we get our money's worth.

  malkin (MO-kin, MAL-kin) noun

    1. An untidy woman; a slattern.

    2. A scarecrow or a grotesque effigy.

    3. A mop made of a bundle or rags fastened to a stick.

    4. A cat.

    5. A hare.

  [From Middle English Malkyn (little Molly), diminutive of
  the name Maud or Molly/Mary.]

  A related word is grimalkin, referring to an old female cat
  or an ill-tempered old woman.

  -Anu Garg (garg wordsmith.org)

  by Tuba Les on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:05:53 AM PDT

  •  Hey, hey, HEY!!!

    No maligning putties on Kos!

    by MaskedKat on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:32:49 AM PDT

    •  I'm trying to get the phrase "fat cat" abolished

      My fat cat resents being associated with lobbyists, republicans, and insurance industry scum.

      by CoolOnion on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 10:01:27 AM PDT

      •  re

        What about the phrase "Fat Rabbit"?

        http://www.tobeasian.com/...

        by cookiesandmilk on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 10:02:32 AM PDT

        •  Good God!

          I like this comment:

          That rabbit looks about big enough to eat 8 people instead of the other way around.

           lol!

          by CoolOnion on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 10:09:41 AM PDT

        •  Ever heard of 'Rabbit Starvation'?

          When my daughter (a buuny lover) and I were discussing our nutition options should this whole shebang fall apart, I suggested getting some breeder rabbits - we currently have 'fixed' pet rabbits - to hedge against future protein needs, she pointed out that we cannot rely solely on them because of this.

          Rabbit starvation

          From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

          Jump to: navigation, search

          Rabbit starvation is the form of acute malnutrition caused by excess consumption of rabbit meat (and possibly other lean meats) coupled with a lack of other sources of nutrients. Symptoms include diarrhea, headache, lassitude, a vague discomfort and hunger that can only be satisfied by consumption of fat or carbohydrate.

          Possible mechanisms for rabbit starvation:

          Lack of fats in the diet.
          Rabbit being comparatively low in some amino acids that human beings cannot synthesize themselves.
          The rate at which amino acids can be converted to glucose is not fast enough to meet the energy requirements of an active person. After the bodies fat reservers are depleted, basic life processes can not be sustained.

          The ammonia released during the process of converting amino acids into glucose (gluconeogenesis) can not be cleared by conversion to urea quickly enough. The buildup of ammonia poisons the person.

          They (and we) will need to plan for other, additional options. I'm thinking chickens and ducks.

          by bablhous on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 12:23:14 PM PDT

•  Glenn is always a must-read. n/t

  by BalanceSeeker on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:23:44 AM PDT

•  You must post some of this; it's music to my ears

  But almost four years later, I see that I was the fool.

  In Iraq, this Republican President for whom I voted twice has shamed our country with weakness and incompetence, and the consequences of his failure will be far, far worse than anything Carter did.

  The fraud, the mendacity, the utter haplessness of our government's conduct of the Iraq war have been shattering to me.

  And this:

  As I sat in my office last night watching President Bush deliver his big speech, I seethed over the waste, the folly, the stupidity of this war.

  I had a heretical thought for a conservative - that I have got to teach my kids that they must never, ever take Presidents and Generals at their word - that their government will send them to kill and die for noble-sounding rot - that they have to question authority.

  On the walk to the parking garage, it hit me. Hadn't the hippies tried to tell my generation that? Why had we scorned them so blithely?

  I sense a change going on, a turning point so to speak and it gives me hope!  

  This posting just gave me a shot of joy mixed with that hope; maybe we can take down the most criminal administration this countries ever seen yet.

  by CTLiberal on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:25:15 AM PDT

•  After the Haggard scandal

  Someone posted a graph showing that the +/- % voting for Republicans among "conservative Christians" or somesuch demographic dropped from around 20 to around 0. Now there's a political, media, and social climate where it seems as if they might be more willing to express views contrary to their traditional rhetoric.

  I'm not saying these people are going to be voting for us any time soon, but perhaps they'll be staying home in even greater numbers, or more importantly not giving money to Republicans (they'd already sent in their checks by October of last year for that cycle).

  If they split off a Sam Brownback wing from the party, I wouldn't be too saddened either.

  by canoeist on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:26:42 AM PDT

•  to dreher

  and all conservatives with "a change of heart"

  from positively 4th street:
  You got a lotta nerve
  To say you got a helping hand to lend
  You just want to be on
  The side that's winning
  -bob dylan
  

  by etorrey on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:32:50 AM PDT

•  In addition to teaching his children well...

  Dreher should spend the rest of his days teaching others of his own ilk so that they see what he now sees. He and owes it to the rest of us for being so stupid to start with.

  by Ticonderoga on Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:33:26 AM PDT

•  About Malkin

  "I won't be surprised if Michelle Malkin comes back from Baghdad with a similar change of heart, though knowing how committed she has been to this mis-adventure, it might take her a bit of time to back down."

  Maybe not yet, but fightin' Michelle Malkin would definitely experience a change of heart