... George Bush is not and never has been a "true conservative". Politically relevant True Conservatives are rare as hens' teeth these days, because their party and media apparatus has been hijacked by Reactionary "Christian" Fascists.

As Fascists, these lying "conservatives" have but one plank in their platform: to do whatever is necessary to accrue and use raw power for personal advancement. Any action taken must serve one of two goals: The accrual of wealth to oneself or others in their "class", or acquisition of additional power.

This is their platform, their "ethos". The only "unethical" thing they could ever do is something which threatened to accomplish either a loss of power or a loss of wealth.

One of the first actions of this fascist class in furtherance of their agenda was the theft of the identity of "True Conservatives". This was no problem at all, because lying, cheating, stealing, murder, mayhem, and destruction of the constitution and/or the host country are all well within bounds if they serve their purpose.

By stealing their identity, and restricting the choices of true conservative to liberals or the neocons, they suppress the only true threat to their power that stands a chance in this country: the rise of a truly conservative alternative.

So, it is great that you are writing about this. Hopefully, a few more eyes open as a result. But if you are trying to shame those you expose, forget it. They would only be "shamed" if exposed for being honest, even when it does not serve their dual goals.

It is good that

There are few contributors here who aren't instructive in one way or another, but several of them produce lyrical soul food.

Here are only a few samples of writing by many commenters I could cite who think lucidly and write brilliantly. Their juxtaposition makes for a different experience than does reading them separated by more pedestrian prose:

What "Conservatives" are really lamenting is that the fiasco of the Bush "presidency" has revealed their venality and sociopathy. What we really should be concerned about is how such a wealthy and supposedly advanced society could sink to a level where its ruling class is an extended gang of criminal sociopaths. A corollary question is what bodes for the future of a country with such a ruling class. Rather than wring our hands, we need to unmitigatingly, unforgivingly raise these issues. If we can call these criminals what they are, we can avoid getting sucked into their arguments, avoid letting them control the discussion, and move on to the next question. For instance, survival of the human species.

Happy Jack

In complaining that Bush is not a "real" (or "true") conservative, the supposition is that he has gone beyond the preservation of the status quo in an attempt to create something new and radical. There is much to be said for this view as applied to his domestic policies. True conservatives don't attack the rule of law, as he has done, because they see the law as a crucial bulwark in the preservation of their privileges.

But Bush's foreign policy is conservatism as true as it gets, because it is built around the application of national power to advance the interests of the tiny power elite for whose benefit the Republican party, and much of the Democratic party, really operates.

These silent aristocrats are the real conservatives. All the true believers (whether in Jesus or a flat tax) are their suckers and stalking horses. But none of them -- members of the elite, or true believers -- possess a coherent ideology, or ever have. Their positions are reflections either of pure self-interest (in the case of the elite) or phobia and prejudice (in the case of the TBs).

notre druide

"He isn't accused of committing a crime, he is accused of lying about something that wasn't a crime to begin with. This is a partisan persecution!"

"Crime or not, we'll never know because he lied. Lying under oath is a crime in and of itself. It is an offense to the system and must be punished!"

You misstate [in the above] the argument. Perjury is lying about a material fact. It doesn't have to be about some underlying crime. As per FRE Rules 412-414, any of Clinton's other (alleged) sexual behaviour wasn't admissible in a civil trial, and in fact, as per FRE Rule 403, evidence otherwise admissible may be excluded if it may produce "unfair prejudice" ... or if it's just for the purposes of embarrassing the deponent. And in fact, Judge Wright excluded all the crapola the RW panty-sniffers were trying to dig out using the power of the judiciary (and FBI).

Libby lied about material facts of concern to the investigation of whether someone violated the IIPA (or other federal laws).

And you're echoing the RW "spin machine" talking point about there being no underlying crime (because supposedly Armitage also disclosed Plame's covert status. News flash fer ya: Just because someone else commits muder (sic) doesn't get you off the hook. There could have been more than one person potentially violating the IIPA.

On another note, "crime or not" from the second quote is inapplicable to Clinton's case, as neither his behaviour with Lewinsky nor his alleged behaviour with Jones constituted a crime. Jones's lawsuit was a civil suit.

Read and learn (and I don't mean Freeperville/Clownhall/WhirledNutzDaily). It would do you some good.

Cheers,

Arne Langsetmo

Politicallylongname

"The last thing America needs in 2008 is another incompetent President who cannot articulate a credible rationale for their positions."

-politicallyrunonsentence

That might be the only true line in your entire drama queen post.

Kitt

When commenters on this blog use terms like socialism, libertarianism, social democracy, anarchy, capitalism and the like, I try to take the time to understand precisely what they mean. Too many times, I have witnessed heated arguments between two or more people over the meaning of some word or idea, only to realize that they were using different terms to describe similar things, or similar terms to describe entirely different things. After a certain level of frustration is reached, even the nicest people can end up saying bad things about each other's mother.

I went to this link:

http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2007/05/86787.html

and found a fairly interesting discussion of Chomsky's political leanings in the context of anarchism, libertarian socialism and anarcho-syndicalism.

I have to mull this over.

This much I do think. The libertarianism of Lew Rockwell is not the libertarianism of Antiwar.com. No way. And the ideas of social democracy and libertarian socialism have a similar distance between them.

Anarchy as an individual act means one thing. Anarchy as a form of social organization means something entirely different.

And individualism as a synonym for libertarianism is much further away from libertarian socialism than libertarian socialism is from social democracy.

Michael Harold

KR