George Conway: Perfect Example of a Crybaby Republican

Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Kellyanne Conway is the better half of the NRO blog “Reconcilable Difference.” Her husband George has lately been making of fool of himself. He actually had the gall to a few days ago to idiotically say that the Bush administration is "the most incompetent Administration in 25 years.”

Kellyanne’s husband is legitimately “smarting at everything from our outrageous and unchanged tax liability to the passage of campaign finance reform and new entitlements that might make FDR blush.” Mr. Conway indeed has every right to be upset with some of President Bush’s outrageous economic decisions and refusal to block McCain-Feingold. However, George is supposed to be an adult. He is not permitted to allow his emotions to get the better of him. Staying home on election day and letting Democrats win is utterly ridiculous. The damage they could do to the war effort and the economy could doom America for the rest of the century. Some people need to drop the proverbial chill pill. The stakes are too high. There are other ways to send a message to Washington D.C. without severely harming the nation.


MeaninglessHotAir said...

Some people would prefer to go down in flames for the sake of loyalty to their "principles" than to actually have a positive effect on the world. Fundamentally, such people are religious, not politic. Politics necessarily involves making compromises because people genuinely don't agree. It will never, repeat never, occur that the perfect President is elected, perfect from anyone's point of view, but particularly the conservatives. They simply aren't a majority and never will be again so far as I can see. They have no hope at all of getting any of their ideas in place unless they make some compromises. When they become too complacent to compromise, they'll lose big time and spend another 16 years in the wilderness. Good luck with that.

brylun said...

Would you rather have Al Gore, John Kerry or Hillary? How about HoWeird Dean?

Rick Ballard said...

I am suspect concerning someone who uses '25 years' as if it were such a long time. Ever since Reagan, huh? What depth.

Bush will definitely lose this November. There is no doubt about it. I doubt that he will receive a single vote. OTOH, the Reps will retain both houses and in two years some other fool will waste their time trying to gain a majority.

CF said...

Some people think it is evidence of their moral superiority that they are wildly unrealistic about politics and the political process. Fine. Then get outof the pundit business and get into theology or something.

Knucklehead said...

Politics has been described as the art of the possible (too lazy to look up the precise quote and attribution). Democracy is the political system under which you almost never get anything more than a tiny sliver of what you want but at least you have the potential of influencing the direction or even the process.

Making sausage... the worst political system ever devised except for all the others... You can't always get what you want but if you try, sometimes, you get what you need.

Knucklehead said...

BTW, yet another charge of incompetence and ineptitude. I've yet to see, in any of these charges, any description of what the pundit leveling the charge is comparing or contrasting with.

What, specifically, is inept and incompetent about this administration's foreign and military policy? What was so wonderful about the military and foreign policies of the administrations of the past 25 years which covers... Bush II (5+) Clinton (8), Bush I (4), and Reagan (8)?

What were the alternatives to Bush II? Al Bore and John Kerry. Damn GWB, and the Republican Party, for ineptitude and incompetence until one is blue in the face and you still have a man infinitely more capable and competent than either Al Gore or John Kerry could ever dream of being and the political party that put forth the superior candidate in the previous two elections.

Now compile a list of each party's candidates and the administrations they've managed to get elected...

Now tell me you're going to vote for a Democrat or, worse yet, stay home and suck your thumb while one of their candidates gets elected.

Knucklehead said...

Eegads! "Al Bore" was Freudian slip.

terrye said...

The thing I find the most interesting is that I am an Indpendent and former Democrat and I have been more loyal to George Bush than some of these loud mouth conservative pols. In fact I voted for Bush in spite of and not because of some of these people.

These guys can complain about Bush spending money but where the hell were all of them when he tried to reform the most costly of social programs, Social Security? They were out of town visiting a sick aunt. The cowards.

Something like two thirds of the people who recieve service from the health care company I work for are dependent on medicare or medicaid. Only about a third are private pay or insurance. I have never met anyone who turned down the help for themselves or their family members when they needed it. That is the problem with guys like Conway, they are under the mistaken impression that most Americans are livid when the government helps them out. Not so. And the new drug program was intended to make sure the old lady can buy her insulin because if she does not and her sugar bottoms out it is going to be medicare paying the hospital bills.

Most people do not want to mow down illegals at the border and let God sort them out or whatever. Most people do not want to live in the 19th century.

Most people do not want another 9/11 and will give Bush an edge on foreign policy as long as we do not have one.

BTW, Bush has spent less money and taxed less in terms of percentage of GDP than Reagan. He has never looked the other way when hundreds of Marines were killed in their beds and at it was Reagan who came up with the amnesty for illegal immigrants in '86. I think some people have forgotten what Reagan was like. He was far more pragmatic and a good deal less ideological than conservatives today seem to think he was.

But going after Bush will not help people like this, because Democrats are not going to support a traitor Republican and neither are most Republicans.

Alan said...

I guess my anger at the GOP is a bit different than most. I don't hate George Bush, nor do I share George Conway's feelings that the Administration is totally incompetent when it comes to foreign policy. It's incompetent in getting its message across. But so are the friggin' pundits who seem to guide the party toward its idiocy.

Back when Reagan got into office the Washington Whispers section of U.S. News & WR had one high ranking Reagan official telling a Jerry Falwell type that the GOP was not their party. Well it is now. We can thank National Review and Rush Limbaugh, et al for that. Pretty much every GOP candidate in office today has run on a "pro-life" agenda. It's no friggin' wonder we have a big government GOP. You need a big government to push their agenda.

And that is where I lose it with the GOP. I think many, like myself, had sympathized with the pro-life idea. But never wanted it written in law. What the GOP and Jeb Bush did during the Shiavo mess scared the shit out of me. That's not what I've been voting for.

The only thing keeping me registered as a Republican is the War on Terror. Well that and voting against Randal Terry in my local state primary here in NE FL.

We need some sanity brought back into the GOP on social end. And the current crop of pundits aren't going to get that done.