Andrew Sullivan complains about a supposed double standard among conservatives and the staff at the National Review in particular:

Ponnuru argues...that he and others at National Review have indeed opposed Bush's big government nanny-state tendencies....Fair enough - to a point. But try this counter-factual: If Al Gore, say, had, turned a surplus into years of mounting debt, if he'd added a huge new federal entitlement to Medicare, if he'd over-ridden the rights of states to set their own laws with regard, say, to education, if he'd put tariffs on steel, if he'd increased government spending faster than anyone since LBJ, if he'd said that government's job was to heal hurt wherever it exists, if he'd ramped up agricultural subsidies, poured money into the Labour and Education Departments, thrown public dollars at corporate America, spent gobs of money on helping individuals in bad marriages, used the Constitution as an instrument of social policy, given government the right to detain people without trial and subject them to torture, and on and on, I don't think National Review would have been content merely to nitpick. Do you? I think they would have mounted a ferocious attempt to remove the guy from office...I think that tells you a lot about where some conservative thinkers are really coming from.

I guess I fail to see the point. Obviously, they would work to remove a Democrat (and particularly Al Gore) had he followed those same policies. Because he would have no redeeming virtues.

Look, I would have loved to fire George Bush for all those things, but there was no way to do that without replacing him with someone who would almost certainly be even worse on almost all of those issues, and who was unserious about our defense as well. There were no conservatives on offer in this past election on domestic economic issues.

Does Andrew really believe that if the folks at The National Review aren't actively trying to remove Bush from office (to be replaced with...what, exactly?) that they cannot claim to be conservatives? Sorry, but makes no sense at all. To paraphrase Don Rumsfeld, you work with the president you have, not the one you wish you had.

Its funny that this is brought up when there was a whole segment about a similar position held by Bill Maher on his HBO show. I dunno but I think Bill has become the mouth peice of the Democrats, especially out on the west coast. His shows leading up to the election were really just a big election rally. I will say though Bill Maher at least had the gumption to allow a lot or right minded guests come on the show after the election to poke fun at himself and his arrogance.

I predict the beginning of liberal belly aching over Republican hypocrisy. Now even more so intensified by the evil bloggers and their mean spirited attempts to put what the media says against the iron.

I agree with Sullivan -- to a point. Without active conservative opposition, there will be no political pressure pushing Bush away from big government, nanny state policies. We can and should support Bush as the best alternative and still actively oppose those policies with which we disagree.

Greater conservative resistance would have helped prevent the creation all those wonderful new Federal agencies that came into existance under Nixon's administration, too.

Without active conservative opposition, there will be no political pressure pushing Bush away from big government, nanny state policies. We can and should support Bush as the best alternative and still actively oppose those policies with which we disagree.

I doubt if anyone at The National Review disagrees with that, and they do that. I still fail to see Andrew's point, which seems to be that they should have been campaigning against Bush last year, or should be leading the charge to impeach and remove him now, or...something. I really don't get it.

A lot of people that gave Bush their support were Christians, the moral part was why they supported him, I'm sure this deeply disturbs Sullivan.

Somehow, if 'supported homosexual marriage' was added to the list of Bush's (supposed) transgressions, I suspect that Andrew might find some way to 'forgive' Bush for his other failings...

I'm afraid the issue of gay marriage has colored Andrew Sullivan's thinking towards Bush on all other issues. Now I can't blame Sullivan for turning against Bush since policy on gays hits Sullivan so close to home. I 'm just as much a single issue kind of guy on gun policy and would turn against Bush too if he followed in his father's footsteps stabbing gun owners in the back.

When it comes to political purists, Bush can't win. His big government/spending policies offends the libertarians while his immigration policies offends the nationalists. But as presidents go, Bush is very much the lesser of the evils out there.

Sullivan?

Somebody still reads his whiny little rants?

Sombody needs to send Sullivan a bottle of "Get the F&*k over it and move on".

Redeeming virtues... Morals are relative, hence so are virtues. For Aristotle, pride was a virtue. For a Christian it is a sin.

A true libertarian would find gun ownership ok, a true authoritharian statist would find it repreensible. A true libertarian would find drug liberalization ok, a true authoritharian statist would find it repreensible.

Personally, I find liberal gun ownership repreensible. Because a gun owner can kill several people. While I find drug liberalization ok. A drug addict can only hurt himself. I draw the line when you start mucking up other people past a certain threshold. Because I follow the Golden Rule. Which is in itself problematic because it means different things to different people. So sue me.

For the Bible lovers among you, the Bible says you should let a broken man drown his sorrows with liquor. Interpret that as you will.

I'm not sure which book, chapter and verse you drew your paraphrase from, but I doubt if there was any recomendation to consume liquer. Liquer is a distilate, and if I understand my history of booze correctly distillation wasn't invented untill a few centuries later.