Sunday, August 20, 2006
Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit talks about what he calls the sweet spot :
JOE GANDELMAN looks at Republican pundits deserting Bush, which does seem to be a phenomenon. Bush -- who, as I've said before, has always been politically weak, just stronger than Kerry or Gore -- is in the "sweet spot" on the war, fighting hard enough to anger the antiwar folks but not hard enough to please the prowar folks. This might argue that Bush is getting it right, but I suspect not. If you're going to fight a war, you should probably fight it full bore or not at all, raising the troubling possibility that both sets of critics are right simultaneously. But perhaps a nuanced approach is called for.
Harry Truman once said that we should have another Cabinet position for columnists because they think they run the damn country anyway.
The pundits might be unhappy with Bush, but I am unhappy with them. The conservatives know full well that Bush can not push any harder, he is not King. We are all waiting with baited breath to find out if the Democrats win the midterms because if they do the only people being hunted down for the next two years will be Bush administration officials.
Bush can't just invade Syria and Iran. He can not fight Israel's wars for them. He can not start killing Iraqis without giving a passing thought to how the newly elected government there will react, or if it will survive. The pundits can rail all they want but in truth they are reminding me of fair weather friends and sunshine patriots.
Glenn says we should either fight the war all the way or not at all. Well, what does that really mean? We were on the other side of a tug of war with the Soviet Union for decades, but we did not invade Russia. Does that mean we never really stood against communism? Should we go after North Korea without a thought to Seoul? Should we invade Iran with its population of 75 million? And if we do not do these things should we replace Lady Liberty's torch with a white flag? If Bush wanted to do these things could he get the Congressional support to follow through? This is not about nuance, it is about what is and is not politcally viable.
The pundits are bored, they are tired of the war and they want Bush to end it one way or the other so that they can move onto the next big thing. When it comes to political issues, whether it be immigration, war or judges it seems that people have two states of mind: hysteria and boredom. It is either all they can talk about or they are disillusioned and just tired of it all.
Meanwhile Bush has to be prepared to go to court over the Terrorist Surveillance Program. And where are the conservative pundits who are supposed to be so concerned about things like national security? Bitching and moaning and bitching and moaning. They may bitch and moan themselves right into a minority.
I hear that Giuliani is the number one pick so far for 2008. What makes these conservatives think he will be anymore to their liking than George W. Bush has been?
Posted by terrye at 4:55 PM