Notes From D. R.

Weekend Box Office: Green Acres

Shrek the Third has the best opening weekend ever for an animated film.

Jam Of The Year

The GOP has no chance of winning the 2008 Presidential election if a majority of voters truly believe that the Iraq War is immoral.

Even if former Senator Fred Thompson becomes the Republican nominee, the party will have a tremendously difficult time securing victory a year and a half from now. If the war were not as unpopular as it is, the chances of a GOP victory would be better than average, thanks to presumptive Democrat nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton's high negatives. However, if voter unease with the war escalates, the next casualty will be Republican control of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

The 2006 midterm election results were worrisome enough. Considering that the GOP is the only major party with a legitimate desire to confront worldwide terrorism, the electorate's decision to take power away from the party was a truly troubling sign of deepening voter contempt for the war.

An even more troubling sign for the GOP is the electorate's apparent lack of outrage towards House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who have tried to play games with war funding. Yes, the Democrat-controlled Congress' approval rating is almost as bad as the President's, but there seems to be little additional evidence that the public is disgusted by the machinations of Pelosi and Reid. One doesn't hear Pelosi and Reid being forcefully condemned by talk-radio callers, or see both Democrats being eviscerated in the conservative blogosphere. The criticism of Pelosi and Reid seems refined, almost genteel.

Could it be that the American people aren't really that worked up by Pelosi and Reid's bizarre efforts? Could it be that many Americans think Pelosi and Reid aren't anti-war enough?

If the 2008 election is indeed a referendum on the wisdom and appropriateness of the Iraq War, then the GOP doesn't have much reason to be hopeful. The United States cannot reasonably withdraw from Iraq: after all, if the country once again becomes the official territory of terror, we'll have to go back to destroy the new extremist regime in charge. However, if anti-war sentiment doesn't fade, the electorate could fall for a Clinton promise to end the war with America's honor and dignity (supposedly) preserved.

In 2008, the GOP will have to go into a political war with the army it has: an electorate seemingly more susceptible to left-wing cut-and-run arguments, an outgoing President who unfortunately failed to make a compelling rhetorical case for staying the course to the American people, a conservative media that wasted too much time questioning the credentials of various Republican Presidential contenders instead of placing proper focus on the need for the party to remain unified. The GOP has had tough times before (the mid-1970s and the early-1990s in particular), but the situation has never been as grim as it seems to be now. If "defeat and retreat" is indeed the electorate's wish, then we could see Clinton beneath a banner saying "Mission Accomplished."

Tag Team Partners

George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton deliver a joint commencement address to the graduates of the University of New Hampshire.

Reality Bites

Conservatives are outraged by an immigration amnesty proposal embraced by the White House and the US Senate. Again, one can't be surprised by the White House's support of this proposal, because President Bush is not a "movement conservative." One also must confront the reality that no one in Washington accepts the conservative argument that mass deportation is the best way to deal with the problem of illegal immigration.

More from John Hawkins, Michelle Malkin, Rich Lowry, Hugh Hewitt and Power Line.

UPDATE: More from Robert Bluey, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times and the Washington Post.

SECOND UPDATE: More from the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, Human Events, Washington Post and New York Times.

Hungry Like The Wolf

World Bank chairman Paul Wolfowitz announces his resignation. More from Booker Rising, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and the New York Times.

Profiles In Courage?

The US Senate doesn't know what the hell to do about Iraq, does it? More from the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, New York Times and Power Line.

UPDATE: More from the Weekly Standard, New York Times, Washington Times and Washington Post.

Mr. Perfect

What's so bad about "Rudy McRomney," anyway?

The Republican Party base has been complaining for months about the supposed pseudo-conservatism of GOP Presidential frontrunners Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney, but even the reddest of red-staters would have to admit that these men are far more qualified to occupy the White House than any of the current Democrat contenders. 

No, I'm not terribly interested in finding a "true Reagan conservative" to represent the GOP next year--because I'm convinced such an endeavor is futile. I'm just interesting in keeping the White House in the hands of the only party serious about fighting terrorism.

Granted, I've never understood what the big deal is about McCain. I like Romney, but I'm troubled by the harshly negative reaction he's received from the conservative blogosphere, and fearful about how that reaction could affect his campaign. I'm disturbed by Giuliani's continued dismissal of Republicans who sincerely view abortion the same way human rights activists view the situation in Darfur. 

However, the whining and moaning from the base about Giuliani, McCain and Romney is a little ridiculous. On the most important issue of our time--the war to conquer extremist Islam--all three men are more than suitable for the task.

Does anyone believe that Giuliani, McCain and Romney would not hesitate to continue an aggressive fight against terrorism? Does anyone question their resolve to confront those who seek to slaughter in the name of religion? 

If Fred Thompson decides not to run, and "Rudy McRomney" becomes the nominee, the base will have only two options: sit home on Election Day and allow Hillary Clinton to seize the White House, or turn out in large numbers to support the GOP nominee even if he's not Reagan enough for their tastes. Why would conservatives abandon the GOP in 2008, when the base strongly supported the party in 2000 and 2004 despite the absence of a "Reagan conservative" on the Presidential ballot?

I can certainly appreciate the base's frustration with the party's lack of fidelity to Reagan principles; I understand the concern about the party possibly reverting to its "country-club," "go-along-to-get-along" past. However, with the stakes being as high as they are, to abandon the party in 2008 is to, in essence, abandon the country.

UPDATE: More from Donald Lambro.

The Comeback Kid?

Fred Barnes on President Bush and the fate of the Republican Party.

UPDATE: More from RedState.com.

A True Princess

Actress Yolanda King, the daughter of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., passes away at 52.

And To The Republic(an) For Which It Stands...

You know, they really need to stop doing these debates so damn early... More from Robert Bluey, Fred Barnes, Michael Graham, Michelle Malkin, Power Line, the Washington Post, Hugh Hewitt, John Gizzi, Jed Babbin, Ericka Andersen, National Review Online and the New York Times.

From The Pulpit

Jerry Falwell, a controversial, politically influential religious leader, passes away at 73. More from The American Spectator.

UPDATE: Boston Phoenix reporter David Bernstein says Falwell ultimately failed to stop the social problems he frequently condemned. Of course, Falwell could not have stopped those problems, since such problems could only have been stopped (or prevented from beginning in the first place) if the country were fundamentally conservative--and as Paul Weyrich noted years ago, the country simply isn't.

Blues Beach

Is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi seriously planning to target talk radio hosts sympathetic to the Republican Party?

Too Big To Ignore

Is Iran getting closer to developing a nuke? And if so, how will the United States respond?

Law And Order

The Washington Post notes that the major GOP Presidential candidates are moving to the right on the issue of illegal immigration. 

The Struggle Continues

New developments in the War on Terror.

UPDATE: More from the Boston Globe.

High Praise

Religious conservatives say they'll support Sen. Fred Thompson if he decides to run for President.

The New Age Outlaw?

Is President Bush the loneliest man in the world?

It's fairly obvious at this point that neither conservatives nor liberals want anything to do with the man. The "progressive" grudge against Bush is well-known and well-documented, but what does one make of the conservative dispute with Dubya?

When Bush announced his bid for the Presidency eight years ago, no one was under any illusion that he was a "right-winger." Bush was always, at best, a moderate-conservative--and the right had no problem with that, since he possessed the political skills necessary to conquer Al Gore and the Democrat establishment behind the then-Vice President.

Over the past six years, I've been befuddled by the fierce criticism Bush has occasionally received from conservatives, when the right knew full well Bush was never firmly committed to conservative ideology. Remember the right's criticism over the No Child Left Behind Act? Rush Limbaugh repeatedly condemned Bush for "letting Ted Kennedy write the education bill"--as though Bush had ever been against a Kennedy-style increase in the federal government's control of American education.

Few of Bush's actions are terribly surprising if you keep in mind that he's not one hundred percent conservative. His lack of interest in limiting the size and scope of government, his refusal to close the borders, even his proposed nomination of Harriet Miers to the US Supreme Court all make "sense" when viewed within this context.

Bush certainly wasn't "Reagan-esque" as a candidate--so why would anybody on the right have expected him to be "Reagan-esque" as a President? He did emulate Reagan when it came to three important issues (tax reduction, the federal judiciary and national security), but his failure to follow the Reagan model in all respects should come as no surprise.

Perhaps some of Bush's conservative critics believe that the party should have nominated a true heir to the Reagan legacy in 2000--but was there any electable Reagan conservative in contention back then? Then-Presidential contenders Gary Bauer and Alan Keyes had impeccable conservative credentials, but would they have even been competitive, much less successful, in a general election against the Gore Machine?

I fear that when Bush leaves office, some of the most heated attacks upon his record will actually come from the right. While certain attacks will be deserved--Bush merits all the heat he'll get from conservatives for failing to firmly and articulately make the case for achieving victory in the Iraq War--other attacks will be less defensible.

Bush offered himself to conservatives as a man who, while not fully on board with the Reagan-conservative vision, was nevertheless committed to restoring dignity to a White House literally stained by Bill Clinton and reversing some of the left-wing excesses of Clinton's administration. Conservatives purchased Bush "as is." They knew he was not a "movement conservative," but understood that stopping Gore from winning the 2000 election was more important than electing Reagan II.

Before certain conservatives attack Bush for his non-foreign policy failures, they should remember that the whole idea was to prevent the country from suffering further social and economic erosion under a potential Gore Presidency. I'm not thrilled with some of Bush's missteps and oversights either, but one cannot forget that the alternative would have been far, far worse.

Bush-bashing is already the mother's milk of the left; how sad it would be if the right decided it would be appropriate to seek the same nourishment! The left never beats on its representatives (unless those representatives are "apostates" such as Joe Lieberman); why should the right? Don't conservatives realize how ridiculous they'll look to non-partisans if they start going around declaring Bush an awful President? Do they think people will forget the right's support of the man in 2000?

Bush deserves more respect than he's likely to get from the right. While he was never a "member of the club," he fought hard to reduce taxes, effectively defended the country from a second terrorist attack, and placed two legal scholars on the High Court. No, he wasn't Reagan, and he never promised to be. However, his conservative accomplishments cannot be ignored.

I hope conservatives think twice before jumping on the train of anti-Bush disdain. They understood who he was going in. They should defend him on the day he heads out.