George W. Bush: RINO
By Mona
Ya know, it was just too amusing that none of the GOP preznit candidates would so much as utter the word “Bush” during ye recent debate, and it is pretty funny that the name “Reagan” was instead invoked 20 times. But for even more entertaining evidence of the angst-ridden but deluded world the modern right lives in, is this post at the previously and zealously pro-Bush blog, the neolibertarian* Cold Fury; that site now announces W is a Republican in Name Only. So they’re liking Fred Thompson, who stands in manly, fight-the-IslamoFascistHilterNazis “contrast to RINO George’s ‘religion of peace’ blah-blah-woof-woof.’…”
.
And, apparently having gotten the RNC’s memo, Cold Fury ebulliently declares that during lo these many years of ardent Bush worship, what the right (and neolibertarians) has really been longing for (all the while apparently pretending to champion Bush, rant about Bush Derangement Sydnrome & etc) — and what Fred’s pending victory is about to deliver — is Reagan Redux:
For years now a lot of people have devoutly wished for another Reagan Revolution. Methinks we’re about to witness it….
Cloud cuckoo-land. The electorate despises Republicans — you really must internalize that, folks.
.
* They proudly display this on their sidebar:
Comment by Karen —
May 6, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
Well, they can’t really use Goldwater anymore, can they? What with him liking gays and all.
This is going to be interesting. I’ve been following the thread at H & R debating whether libertarians are right-wing or left-wing. [Full disclosure, I can't really call myself libertarian, although I find many of the thinkers who use the name very interesting, and I recognize that government coercion is the bluntest of instruments. My problems are directed more toward specific issues.] Anyway, those who would classify themselves as right-wing seem to be winning right now, which I find very surprising. It has always appeared to me that the definining belief of most conservatives is a passionate desire for order and hierarchy, and pretty much any hierarchy will do in a pinch. Conservatives will espouse particular philosophies that coincided with the Hayekian or Millsian (as in John Stuart) position, such as on taxes, but I don’t think they do so from a position that state coercion is a last resort. It’s more that state coercion has been employed often since the Civil War against traditional hierarchies, so therefore it should be curtailed.
Comment by Wild Pegasus —
May 6, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
Libertarianism is neither left-wing nor right-wing, in modern parlance. In classic political parlance, we’re a party of the extreme left. Unlike the socialist left that developed in the 19th century, though, our answer to the power of the state is not to conquer it and administer it, but to abolish it.
Much of right-wing libertarianism can be accurately described as “dope-smoking Republicans”, or, in Kevin Carson’s words, “It’s different when bosses do it.”
- Josh
Comment by Mona —
May 6, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
Well, I do not want to abolish the state; I am not an anarcho-capitalist. I am a thorough-going Hayekian, and he, as do I, recognized the value of the common law deposit we received from the Brits, and how it stabilizes society. I welcome that law and the public courts that enforce it.
But in my strong opinion, most (not quite all) who go by the label “neo-libertarian” are Republicans, and that is so even if they don’t vote Republican. Their instinct is to support GOP foreign and domestic security policies no matter how bloody, misguided, state-expanding, morally reprehensible and violative of core civil and constitutional liberties.
In other words, they are LINOs.
Comment by SomeOtherDude —
May 6, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
Neolibertarians are Right-Wing State-ists.
Comment by Lawrence Krubner —
May 6, 2007 @ 8:07 pm
“In other words, they are LINOs.”
I like that coinage a lot.
Comment by Al Maviva —
May 6, 2007 @ 8:56 pm
Pretty big words, Mona, for somebody who has apparently never read CF other than to cherry pick an article.
If you knew anything about the bloggers at CF (who could best be characterized as minarchist) your comments would be laughable. You apparently don’t know anything about us, but are wiling to insult us just the same. That is just lame. You really couldn’t find anybody better to pick a fight with, or even come up with something substantive about CF to gripe about? I’ll have to remember the next election cycle that urging the readership of a conservative/libertarian blog to vote dem as a means of counterbalancing Republican abuses (as I did last fall) makes me a Republican/Bush toady in the eyes of Real Libertarians. Guess I should have advocated that everybody vote for the guy with the blue face.
Instead of picking on CF, why don’t you hit up some Libertarian Party meetups and see who you can go excommunicate there for lack of Philosophical Purity? I understand that’s what the LP does, in lieu of winning elections, building coalitions, or changing people’s minds on the issues.
It feels nice being insulted and reduced to a crappy little cypher by somebody who doesn’t know you, doesn’t it?
Comment by Mona —
May 6, 2007 @ 9:07 pm
Al, I know you and your blog rather well. Glenn Greenwald tore you apart when your initial, inane defense of Bush’s violation of the FISA statute turned out to be, well, stoopid, and totally wrong.
I commented at CF several times, either under my name Mona, or as “Hypatia.” At Balloon Juice I’ve also read your comments. IOW, Al, you are no cypher to me.
Your blog is a Bush-worshipping site, or was, until it was not kewl to be that; suddenly it is All Reagan, All the Time.
And Al, I am not now, and never have been, a member of the LP. Usually I have voted Republican. That ended in ‘06 with Bush et al.
You may wish to ponder why for so many of us ‘tarians that has come to be the case. But if you urged voting Dem in the midterms, please do provide a link to said urgings. Really, I’d like to see every link to your discussion of the midterms.
Comment by Al Maviva —
May 7, 2007 @ 6:00 am
Oh, you’re the Greenwald(s) toadying Mona.
Okay.
Well, as long at Greenwald(s) army of hate-email spamming buddies are the arbiters of what is truly libertarian or conservative, I guess I’m cool with your complete knowledge of who I am, what I believe, and why. I’m no cypher to you, after all. Man, there’s no form of uplifting political discourse, like hate email and vicious, profane blog comments.
I don’t have the time to dig out every stupid post I’ve made or some other CF poster has made slamming the Republicans, or in my case also talking about why we should vote Dem in 2006, but even with 2 minutes rooting in my archives, it’s pretty clear that you
really haven’t been reading CF.
BTW, do you know that Greenwald(s) is a constitutional scholar, has published a book, and has been quoted on the Senate floor? As opposed to me. I’m just a blogger who has never done anything in his life.
Good Day!
Comment by Davebo —
May 7, 2007 @ 10:45 am
Darn Al, you’re co bloggers seem to have stripped all those posts from your Oct. 2006 archive.
I’d sue if I were you.
Comment by Barry —
May 7, 2007 @ 8:59 pm
Al, did you think that you had credibility, or something?
Comment by Al Maviva —
May 7, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
You didn’t even do the reading, did you?
I admire your nerve. It takes lots of it to call somebody a liar when all you would have to do is follow the links to contradictory facts.
Comment by Jim Henley —
May 7, 2007 @ 9:31 pm
Al, I notice that over on CF you’re wondering darkly about “manipulation of my comment.” Actually, your second and third comments registered false positives for spam in Akismet. I freed the second hours ago – also the dupe of it you posted. (I deleted the dupe after marking it as “Not Spam.”) The third comment I just freed a few minutes ago.
Comment by Mona —
May 7, 2007 @ 9:41 pm
Al’s problem — among many — is that he thinks Hayek and libertarianism are in the same camp as Kirk. Big negatori there, Al.
But in any event, I’ve established that he was an idiot for assuming I knew nothing about him or his blog, which was his original accusation.
Comment by Barry —
May 8, 2007 @ 6:52 am
Al, don’t worry, a bit of typical right-wing ‘creative writing’ will solve your problems.
For example ‘after the Evul Lieberalislamotraitorian Clinton was elected, Al Qaida killed thousands of Americans in a terrorist attack. President [insert name of democratic president elected in '08 here] then pulled Our Brave American Fighting Troops out of Iraq, and lost the war’.
Comment by Barry —
May 8, 2007 @ 6:55 am
Sh*t, it worked for supply-side economics. Reagan ran up trillions in debt; Bush I and Clinton brought the deficit down (despite the cries from the GOP that we’d have economic disaster, instead).
Then, just as things are almost fixed, in comes your God-King, Bush II, who proposes Supply Side II – Voodoo Doo Doo.
And enough people bought it to get it implemented, with predictable results.
Which at least half of Americans didn’t associate with the policies that caused it.
So Al, just run Jeb in 2016, who can steal all of his lines from George. He’ll probably win.
Comment by Lawrence Krubner —
May 8, 2007 @ 9:56 pm
“Instead of picking on CF, why don’t you hit up some Libertarian Party meetups and see who you can go excommunicate there for lack of Philosophical Purity?”
So weird. This happened to Mona before, in reaction to a post she put up on Inactivist. She spelled out certain beliefs that just shouldn’t be considered libertarian, and some other dude, on his own blog, started ranting about censorship and how Mona was trying to excommunicate him from the libertarians.
I can’t quite get my mind around this reaction. I mean, what the hell? Mona says “If you believe in publicly worshiping Bush no matter what he does, you should not be considered a libertarian” and then a bunch of other people start going “Why are you trying to excommunicate us! You don’t have the power to excommunicate us! You can’t do this, Mona!”
I mean, damn, people. She doesn’t have the power to censor you or excommunicate you. She simply has the power to say she doesn’t think you’re a real libertarian if you believe certain things. And that’s her right, to say what she believes. So why the crazy reaction?