He's unpopular, so Bush must really be a liberal, feminist, etc.

this is it exactly! (though non-leninist marxists have stronger arguments in their favor than non-bushist conservatives, but i digress.)

that, and the fact that in right-wing circles "liberal" is roughly equal to "douchebag" in normal everyday circles.

PRESIDENT BUSH IS A CONSERVATIVE politician, not a conservative ideologue. This explains why Bush sometimes does things that aren't conservative. He does so to survive and, if all goes well, to prosper politically. Or he does so because he actually favors some nonconservative policy or position. Conservative politicians are never ideologically pure.

aka, "Please ignore that hagiography I put out a few months ago."

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0385511841.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg
Liberal Fascism : The Totalitarian Temptation from Mussolini to Hillary Clinton (Hardcover)

right, and weren't there other bits not so long ago from these same folks celebrating how the guy had taken more of an "activist" presidency?

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/05/08/david-boaz/where-there-is-no-vision-the-people-perish/

"Republicans used to accuse Democrats of setting up a nanny state, one that would regulate every nook and cranny of our lives. They took control of Congress in 1994 by declaring that Democrats had given us “government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money.” After 10 years in power, however, the Republicans have seen the Democrats’ intrusiveness and raised them.

So from the Republicans we get federal money for churches; and congressional investigations into textbook pricing, the college football bowl system, the firing of Terrell Owens, video games, the television rating system, you name it; and huge new fines for indecency on television; and crackdowns on medical marijuana and steroids and ephedra; and federal intervention in the sad case of Terri Schiavo; and the No Child Left Behind Act; and federal subsidies for marriage; and (for less favored constituencies) a constitutional amendment to override the marriage laws of the 50 states."

http://www.thismodernworld.com/blog/Bush-Nixon3.jpg

http://www.thismodernworld.com/blog/Bush-Nixon4.jpg

The whole "Left/Right" thing is inane as it's setup so that the "Right" is everything and anything that is currently not desirable to the Left. This includes but is not limited to: free-market libertarianism, monarchism, fascism, Nazism and some other statist movements. It doesn't go left to right but starts with the left-wing in the center of it all (surprise!) and you automatically become "right" the further you get from the left (no matter the direction that you travel).

the same thing could be reveresed for the Right.

http://www.willisms.com/archives/presidentialapprovalgraph.gif

Nonetheless, the pattern is not uncommon. Partisan political blogs seem to shower attention on polls that show the most dramatic "good news" for their side, and tend to ignore polls showing possibly contradictory results.

which i agree with.

http://www.mysterypollster.com/photos/uncategorized/franklin_job_approval_05072006.jpg

And the post containing that midterm approval graph shown upthread

Well, that's the whole point of an ideology, really. It's sad but I would predict nothing less from any political group. I personally think the problem comes in that everyone thinks there's just two sides. (But there might arguably be just two sides. It probably just isn't "right/left" or "liberal/conservative" or whatever is being used)

Let's look at immigration briefly. The libertarian party's official position is to remove national borders and embrace illegal aliens 100%. Now libertarians are considered by many to be the epitome of "right-wing thinking." By not taking an agressive approach to securing our borders Bush is simultaneously causing discontent among the right-wing Republicans and going in the right-wing direction. He is could be accused of being both too liberal or too conservative on this issue. The problem is there is arguably no objectively "right-wing" position on this in the first place and so you're left with True Scotsman fallacies to decide too much of it. Bush's biggest problem is a general Republican problem, which is articulation.

What's the model for preserving or maximizing liberty?

In my practical experience, it usually means "I hate taxes, but not gays".

OK, I'm being somewhat faceteous, here, but I don't think the Republicans are the only ones with an articulation problem, and I don't think articulation is the primary problem of the current Republican party. In fact, I think articulation is way down on the list.

But I do agree that our current left/right thinking is flawed in many ways. And what the hell does "centrist" mean?

who is true scotsman? a blogger?

An army lt. colonel e-mails:

I just read on The Corner, discussion of The Drudge Report headline on the National Guard going to the border.

As the "details" have not been released, I can tell you what the details will be as this is taught in the military law phase of ROTC Cadet instruction.. This is Hurricane Katrina redux.

President Bush can not send National Guard Troops to the border for law enforcement. If the President federalizes the National Guard they no longer can perform law enforcement per the Posse Comitatus Act.
They would not be able to lawfully aprehend migrants under a Presidential mobilization.

National Guard Troops can only guard their respective States borders and apprehend migrants only when they are in their own respective State under the control of their respective Governor. This is an extremely small pool of soldiers in just four States. Also, the Guard is not a full time force. They are part time soldiers. An extended deployment on the border will cause many to transfer to the US Army Reserve.

Unfortunately, this is nothing but show.

my question is, how much of the Natl Guard units to be stationed are latino?

http://heathervescent.blogs.com/photos/gigsville2005/thunderdome.JPG

I guess we'll find who'll rules Bartertown then.

#
# In December 1981 additional laws were enacted clarifying permissible military assistance to civilian law enforcement agencies—including the Coast Guard—especially in combating drug smuggling into the United States. Posse Comitatus clarifications emphasize supportive and technical assistance (e.g., use of facilities, vessels, aircraft, intelligence, tech aid, surveillance) while generally prohibiting direct participation of Department of Defense personnel in law enforcement (e.g., search, seizure, and arrests). For example, Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachments (LEDETS) serve aboard Navy vessels and perform the actual boardings of interdicted suspect drug smuggling vessels and, if needed, arrest their crews.

Maybe.

Dude, David Usher is spooky.

xpost

-- kingfish doesn't live here anymore (jdsalmo...)

This, unfortunately, is a popular opinion. If you ever listen to AM talk radio, the people who call in make the right winger hosts sound reasonable. If someone started the You-Know-What-They-Oughta-Do- About-That?-Well-I'll-Tell-Ya Party they'd probably be our next President.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7710/90/1600/Neoconservatives2.jpg

and Dubya is now Clintonian, since he's apparently not bombing and torturing enough. Feel free to decode Wm.Kristol's comments about how the "red lines" re: foreign policy are now "pink" and "mauve."

oh yeah, and the cover of the latest ish:

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Images/Thumbnails/11-41.July17.Cover.small.jpg