"The Conservative Epiphany" (Krugman, NYT sub req)

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/03/10/opinion/10krugman.html?hp

Bruce Bartlett, the author of "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy," is an angry man. At a recent book forum at the Cato Institute, he declared that the Bush administration is "unconscionable," "irresponsible," "vindictive" and "inept."

It's no wonder, then, that one commentator wrote of Mr. Bartlett that "if he were a cartoon character, he would probably look like Donald Duck during one of his famous tirades, with steam pouring out of his ears."

Oh, wait. That's not what somebody wrote about Mr. Bartlett. It's what Mr. Bartlett wrote about me in September 2003, when I was saying pretty much what he's saying now.

Human nature being what it is, I don't expect Mr. Bartlett to acknowledge his about-face. Nor do I expect any expressions of remorse from Andrew Sullivan, the conservative Time.com blogger who also spoke at the Cato forum. Mr. Sullivan used to specialize in denouncing the patriotism and character of anyone who dared to criticize President Bush, whom he lionized. Now he himself has become a critic, not just of Mr. Bush's policies, but of his personal qualities, too.

Never mind; better late than never. We should welcome the recent epiphanies by conservative commentators who have finally realized that the Bush administration isn't trustworthy. But we should guard against a conventional wisdom that seems to be taking hold in some quarters, which says there's something praiseworthy about having initially been taken in by Mr. Bush's deceptions, even though the administration's mendacity was obvious from the beginning.

According to this view, if you're a former Bush supporter who now says, as Mr. Bartlett did at the Cato event, that "the administration lies about budget numbers," you're a brave truth-teller. But if you've been saying that since the early days of the Bush administration, you were unpleasantly shrill.

. . . more

have 'some' validity BUT these men need to face the fact that they propped up Chimpy when he was doing his damage. They made excuses for him and lied about his motives. They got us to where we are today so I say 'screw you dumb asses, this is YOUR FAULT'.

That's what the U.S. gov't called folks who were against the fascists in Spain, before WW II officially broke out and were fighting Nazis.

I guess anyone who saw through Bush during the '00 campaign will be labeled the same way.

in your post :

Bruce Bartlett, the author of "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy," is an angry man. At a recent book forum at the Cato Institute, he declared that the Bush administration is "unconscionable," "irresponsible," "vindictive" and "inept."

I would call anyone who supported this administration unconscionable, irresponsible and inept. And given that they are now turning on their former prince of darkness, I can call them vindictive as well.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Sorry - I don't trust 'em. Yes they elicit a bit of glee when I hear them whine and moan about what a jerk dubya is but that does not buy my forgiveness. For pities sake they lionized the guy for years. The country is on the verge of economic, political and environmental ruin and I place a large part of it squarely at their feet.

Bartlett has simply realized what a lot of Americans saw years ago - dubya is not fit to run the country. He along with millions of others (who may or may not have changed their minds) are RESPONSIBLE for what has happened.

Stabbing * in the back does not change that. Never trust a conservative - especially one that has turned on their hero's.

:mad: :mad: :spank: :spank: :grr: :grr:

he is the best; I love him