The Maverick Conservative

Scott McClellan's book illustrates the problem that both President Bush and the Republicans have.  I consider the book unimportant (no new factual information, but merely putting a leftist "spin" on old infomration for purposes of making a buck in an election year).   Yes, the leftist media ORGASM over an unimportant book IS sort of amusing.

But I don't feel like defending President Bush anymore (as I don't much fell like defending Republicans in general).  See yesterday's entry, for example, on the utter filure of President Bush to take ANY action--even the most basic action, like suspending purchases for teh strategic oil reserve until Congress forced him to as of July 1--to address gasoline prices that are potentially undermining the economy (not to mention Republican chances in the fall elections). 

There is no "loyalty" to President Bush and the Republicans anymore because they non't deserve any loyalty.  Scott McClellan is well aware, or was informed, that defending the Bush Administration was not going to make him any money.  And President Bush was so busy catering to Democrats and the "new tone" all of these years, thet he (rightly) gets no real credit for being a "man of principle".  Is there anything about President Bush that really inspires much loyalty?  I don't see it.  As a minor league McCain, President Bush was certainly willing to throw conservatives under the bus when it suited his purposes.  I have previously expressed my real despair over the "tunnel vision" that President Bush has shown over his entire Presidency.

Even on Iraq, where it is MCCAIN who has turned out to be right--giving credit where credit is due, President Bush gave the SAME speech for YEARS, and then got rid of Rumsfeld at exactly the wrong time--the DAY after Bush had ensured a disastrous Republican defeat in 2006.

Nope.  I just don't much feel like defending these people.  It is absurd to suggest that Bush "propaganda" got us into Iraq.  For that matter, I have SHOWN in this blog that the minatream media puts out more outrageous PROPAGANDA every day, including pro-terrorist propaganda, than the Bush Administration ever thought of putting out.  In fact, they are using McClellan's book as an excuse for further outrageous propaganda. 

So what.  No one is really interested in defending President Bush or the Republicans anymore.  We (conservatives) do it more as a matter of principle, and reflexive desire to expose leftist idiocy, rather than out of any sense of "loyalty" to President Bush or the Republicans. 

Here is my rather weak "dfefense" posted under the AOL story asking "Who do you believe?"--referring, I think, to whether you believe the Bush Administration people out there attacking Scott McClellan (more that they EVER, for example, directly attacked Joe Wilson) or whether you believe Scott McClellan.  Talk about an UNINTERESTING question!  Anyway, here is my response to that 'question":

As to AOL's stupid question (I really can't believe anyone is still dumb enough to reply to these unscientific, meaningless AOL "polls"--heck, you would be doing the country a service to refuse to cooperate with SCIENTIFIC polls), I don't exactly believe either of them because it is ALL opinion.

McClellan has produced NO new FACTUAL information.  He has just produced his OPINIONS, based on information we already knew, which I consider of no value.  Those opinions are such big "news" ONLY because of two things:

1.  The leftist media wants to get Obama elected and just "get" President Bush.
2.  The "traitor" factor, where we are always fascinated by people who "turn on" their former bosses, friends, or associates, even though that hardly is a validation of the character of such turncoats.   Did Benedict Arnold really validate the British positon by betraying the American rebels?

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this