Well, I’ve never tried to please everyone with this blog but the torrent of abuse and mockery yesterday because of my criticisms of the SOTU caused me a little grief. According to many Republicans, I’m selling out to the “hard left.” According to some Democrats, I’ve finally seen the light, ha, ha, ha. How about applying principles to changing events and circumstances? It says something about what has happened to the Republican party that supporting fiscal responsibility is now the position of the “hard left.” And it says something about some Democrats that you either have to hate this president or love him unconditionally. Why can’t a grown-up have a complicated position? I’m a fiscal conservative, social/cultural liberal and foreign policy hawk. Neither party provides a comfortable home for people like me. I supported Clinton in 1992, backed Dole on moral grounds in 96 and opposed impeachment. I backed Bush (narrowly) in 2000. The war made my support for Bush stronger than I ever expected. I still admire his courage during that terrible time and respect his tenacity against terror. This time, I’m leaning toward Bush for those reasons but appalled by his fiscal recklessness, worried by his coziness with the religious far right, and concerned that he has no forward strategy in the war. I’m equally concerned about the obvious irresponsibility of the Democrats on national security (and spending) at a time of great peril. But at least they’re not going to bait gays and nominate judges like Frank Pickering. So I’m stuck, and trying to figure things out as I go along. Hence my attempt to look at the Democratic candidates as possible presidents and subject my support for Bush to further scrutiny. Why is that such a crime? Isn’t part of what’s wrong with our politics that this kind of weighing of options has become so taboo? (CORRECTION: That should be Charles Pickering, not Frank. My bad.)
DON’T COUNT DEAN OUT: In money terms, he’s still far ahead of his rivals. Sure, his crazed non-concession speech surely hurt him. But there’s a long way to go. With Kerry surging, Clark fading and Edwards gearing up for South Carolina, it’s a three way race. Why not a Kerry-Edwards ticket? Makes a lot of sense to me.
I’M NOT ALONE: Among other weenie lefties attacking president Bush on spending are a large swathe of conservative Republicans. Here’s what Bush has achieved:
An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll this month found that Democrats had nearly caught up with Republicans on the question of which party does a better job of controlling government spending. The poll found that 33 percent of respondents said Republicans did a better job, with Democrats at 31 percent.
The voters aren’t dumb. Karl Rove, alas, didn’t even begin to see this coming. It’s hard to put the mess better than this sardonic sound-bite.
WHERE THE WIND IS BLOWING: Matt Welch pans the SOTU and hammers Taranto for calling opposition to the PATRIOT Act the “al Qaeda cheering section.” Glenn shares my feelings about Bush’s domestic drift right now, but is unenthusiastic about the Dems as well. (Personally, I think the best argument for a Democratic president is that divided government tends to do less harm than when the legislative and executive branches are controlled by the same party.) Is the blogosphere turning against Bush? A little, I’d say. The president is in a lot more trouble than he seems to think. His cocky partisanship Tuesday night was unnerving.
DEAN IN A KAFFIYEH: The irrepressible Allahpundit has the last word.
ISLAMIC ADULTERY: Yes, you can even get an ayatollah’s blessing for it, if you call it a “temporary” or “pleasure” marriage. Riverbend blog is worried about creeping Islamism in Iraq. She should be. Oh, and want to know what Ayatollah Sistani really thinks? He has his own webpage!
The Dish 