Semi-Daily Journal

It's my believe that the admittedly dwindling band of real conservatives is in the same place today that real liberals were in in July, 1967: they know (as real liberals knew then) that LBJ was leading the country down a disastrous path, but they were unsure whether they should challenge him or not.

No honest conservative can possibly be happy, overall, with the Bush Administration. The wake-up call for Sullivan was the Santorum affair - he's been much saner ever since.

I suspect that we will see a challenge to Bush from the right, just as Gene McCarthy finally said if no one else is going to say the emperor has no clothes, i will.

Sullivan's remaining reason for supporting Bush is the war, which isn't going very well either. But since 9/11 there's been a powerful swing of mood in this country in favor of war as such. This may keep Sullivan and a lot of others on board, even if the Dems don't challenge Bush on military policy (which remains quite possible). Many of those who pass over to the pro-war side seem to abandon their critical faculties at the point, so that the choice is thought to be between pacifism and surrender on one hand, and war right now on the other.

He's being challenged from the right already. The guy's name is Howard Dean. Dean's go-forward policy on Iraq is the same as the President and he's a fiscal conservative. Take out the gay stuff and the fact he's not a Southerner, and it's like Howard Dean is the guy George Bush was in 2000.

I think we are in a cycle of deflation. These guys make a lot of sense.

http://www.comstockfunds.com/index.cfm?act=Newsletter.cfm&category=Market%20Commentary&newsletterid=1007&menugroup=Home&aol=1

He's being challenged from the right already. The guy's name is Howard Dean. Dean's go-forward policy on Iraq is the same as the President and he's a fiscal conservative. Take out the gay stuff and the fact he's not a Southerner, and it's like Howard Dean is the guy George Bush was in 2000.

I think we are in a cycle of deflation. These guys make a lot of sense.

http://www.comstockfunds.com/index.cfm?act=Newsletter.cfm&category=Market%20Commentary&newsletterid=1007&menugroup=Home&aol=1

I would venture to suggest most conservative economists and many liberal economists agree with Mr. Sullivan both on the trade issue and on the fiscal policy issue. So why can't we get the conservative politicians on board? And better still, why are the liberal politicians so timid to suggest what seems so obvious to economists?

I would venture to suggest most conservative economists and many liberal economists agree with Mr. Sullivan both on the trade issue and on the fiscal policy issue. So why can't we get the conservative politicians on board? And better still, why are the liberal politicians so timid to suggest what seems so obvious to economists?

"But since 9/11 there's been a powerful swing of mood in this country in favor of war as such."

I'm not so sure. Certainly the desire to punish the Taliban by attacking Afghanistan was favored by most, including myself. When that went well enough, it may not be surprising in hindsight that Iraq was subsequently targeted by the Bush administration. In the case of Afghanistan though, we had the certainty of knowing that we were attacking a government that was undeniably aiding those responsible for 9/11. The case for attacking Iraq was far murkier, but Bush was able to sway both Congress and public opinion by declaring Iraq under Saddam Hussein an imminent threat. There's been a lot of ex post facto rationalization about how liberation was a sufficient reason to go to war, but that's just so much hot air. Both Bush and Tony Blair harped on alledged WMDs for months and the issue of the effectiveness of the U.N. inspections was critical as far as the decision to go to war was concerned. That's because Bush thought he had to persuade the American people that there was a danger being posed that made war necessary.

I don't think Americans favor war as much as think they must support the military once it has been committed to action. The issue of the alledged WMDs has legs now because if the case made before the war is shown to be unfounded it means the natural support for our troops has been taken advantage of. This is not a small thing to Americans of any political persuasion, including those who protested against the war before it commenced.

If one wants a real chuckle, read Lawrence Kudlow's latest @ www.nationalreview.com. He says the economy is stilll weak because you can't expect a tax month old tax cut to have had its full effect yet. Is he confusing months with years or did he miss the entire 2001 tax cut?

If one wants a real chuckle, read Lawrence Kudlow's latest @ www.nationalreview.com. He says the economy is stilll weak because you can't expect a tax month old tax cut to have had its full effect yet. Is he confusing months with years or did he miss the entire 2001 tax cut?

I think the continued support for war is very curious. Elites who accept the neo-conservative and neo-liberal thinking often argue that the means of getting to war with Saddam were irrelevent because the end, a free, Saddamless Iraq is such a desirable goal.

As for the continued popular support for war, there are many who don't pay attention to current events and continue to belive that Iraq was an imposing threat that had weapons of mass destruction. When confronted with evidence to the contrary, they can easily dismiss it as liberal propaganda espoused by radical media and urban/college elites to bring down the president.

And some cynical conservatives who don't see Bush's war as any different from clinton's foreign policy efforts. A surprising number of Bush supporters I've spoken to have conceded that the war was all about oil. But they see that as a good thing because lower oil prices will benefit the U.S. economy.

It's sad, but the American public has never been good at judging the foreign policy-making of their leaders.

I like this Fruedian slip:

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/03_07_06_corner-archive.asp#010695

"Rather than bush for broad multilateral trade liberalization through the WTO..."

One thing worth mentioning, the Senate tends to have very little turnover, with incumbants being the rule rather than the exception. Skip over to any Republican Senator's web site, and you'll find a great deal of pride regarding their supposed fiscal responsibility throughout the 90's.

I can only imagine that many of them are either torturing rationalization to the extreme, or are feeling somewhat humiliated by the current state of affairs. (The third possibility is that they don't really believe anything to begin with, so no harm no foul. I'm not cynical enough to think that all senators are in this category.)

Saam:
Republicans have no ideology, they are simply in the business of transferring cash to their clients. Their policy reasons for most of what they want to do are pathetically weak. That's the way parties work in lots of the corrupt developing world. I'd venture to say that is more of the normal modus apparandi for parties.

The fiscal problem is as much in revenue as in spending.

Tax revenue has fallen for three straight years, a streak not seen since the Depression. Through June, tax collection is below the amount of taxes collected in the same period in 1999, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

"I consider this an amazing phenomenon," said CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin.

And the wealthy are getting tax rebates on top of this plus they have all those earnings write offs from the stock price drops. Instead of addressing the problems this administration is spinning and hoping they go away.

Hal McClure writes: "I would venture to suggest most conservative economists and many liberal economists agree with Mr. Sullivan both on the trade issue and on the fiscal policy issue. So why can't we get the conservative politicians on board?"

They've got a bubble mentality. Plus, it would hurt their contributions.

Sullivan wrote that? Now that's just plain kooky.
David W., check out how many Americans think Saddam is in whole or in part responsible for 9/11. A lot. Osamasaddam is deadly and polymorphous, and he wears towels.

"Conservative" economists who are being wined and dined by the Administration and think tanks and much of the press are not conservative but radical, truly radical.