Notes From D.R. | Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene

William F. Buckley argues that the war in Iraq is sapping energy from the Republican Party.

UPDATE: Dennis Prager on the war.

Is George W. Bush more like Bill Clinton than any of us would care to admit?

No, Bush hasn’t had his way with any interns or ignored the threat of Islamofascism, but Bush and Clinton are alike in that their political opponents regard them as being devoid of any redeeming value. Talk to your average Republican and you’ll hear Clinton condemned as the worst piece of crap ever to shuck and jive his way into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue; talk to your average Democrat and you’ll hear Bush castigated as a dopey, drunk, Bible-thumping frat boy who scammed his way into the White House.

Clinton and Bush are both symbols of the extreme partisanship that has gripped our country over the past fifteen years. Those who consider themselves Bush boosters will never understand the mentality of those who cherish Clinton, and vice versa.

Why are both men so despised by their political opposites? Mostly, it has to do with the way both men are perceived. Republicans see Clinton as the embodiment of let-it-all-hang-out, no-moral-standards-of-any-kind Left. Even Republicans who don’t consider themselves particularly religious feel that there should be some lines of demarcation clarifying what is, and what is not, acceptable behavior; they view Clinton as the man who led the effort to obliterate those lines.

Likewise, Democrats view Bush as the symbol of all that they despise about the Right: the perceived love of wealth, the perceived desire to create a "United States of Jesus," the perceived contempt for intellectual pursuit. The Left had its issues with Ronald Reagan, but they could only go so far in their condemnation of the 40th President: they couldn’t accuse him of being inarticulate or attack him for having been born of prestige. (Sure, they labeled him a racist, a hater of the poor and a homophobe, but they’ll do that to any Republican.) However, "Dubya" pushes all of the Left’s buttons: how can they have even token respect for a cowboy Christian from a clan with cash?

The Left often accuses Bush of being stubborn, of refusing to listen to alternative viewpoints, of narrow-minded, my-way-or-the-highway pseudo-thinking. Of course, the exact same thing can be said about Clinton. While he did borrow a few issues from the Right, Clinton aggressively pursued the liberal political agenda, launching an ultimately botched effort to establish universal health care and nominating staunch "progressives" Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer to the US Supreme Court. Clinton rode a centrist image to victory in 1992, but he made no secret of his loyalty to liberalism. It’s hard to fault Bush for being an "ideologue" when his predecessor was just the same.

Bush and Clinton are also loathed by their political opposites because of the belief that neither man really "deserved" to be President. Conservatives never really came to terms with Clinton’s 1992 victory: according to the Right, Clinton didn’t really win the election so much as George H. W. Bush lost it. Conservatives have always viewed, and will always view, Clinton as The Man Who Got Lucky; there’s no way he could have ever beaten Ronald Reagan or Richard Nixon. The Right has never deviated from its belief that were it not for Ross Perot and the perception that Bush 41 was indifferent to the concerns of those affected by the early-1990s recession, Clinton would have remained in Arkansas for the rest of his life.

The Left similarly regards Bush as a man who should have never made it out of Texas (or his mother’s womb, for that matter). Liberals have never gotten over the 2000 election controversy–and they never will get over it, either. Remember the early days of the blogosphere, when “progressives” would refer to Bush as the "pResident?" The Left’s contempt for Bush stems from its inability to accept the outcome of Bush v. Gore, and its refusal to even consider the argument that the controversy had to end for the good of the nation. (Their hatred for Bush also stems from their decision to ignore the fact that if Gore had won his home state of Tennessee, he would have had the Electoral College win locked up before the Florida fracas.) Bush will always be just a thief to the Left, even if that argument is bereft of heft.

"Bubba" and "Dubya" aren’t that much different. Conservatives will always hate the former because they feel he screwed the Constitution; liberals will always loathe the latter because they feel he screwed the country. Their legacies will inspire endless debate–but who can question their ability to inspire hate?

Baseball star Josh Hancock passes away at 29.

Disturbia tops the charts for a third "smash" week. More from Leonard Klady.

Disturbia tops the charts for a third "smash" week. More from Leonard Klady.

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow gets back to work.

Does conservatism have the blues?

I can’t recall the Right being this dispirited the last time there was an election without a Republican incumbent. Back in 1999-2000, the Right had a few misgivings about the true extent of George W. Bush’s conservatism, but the movement was reasonably confident about his chances for success (Rush Limbaugh famously predicted in October 2000 that Bush would defeat Al Gore as decisively as Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter twenty years earlier).

Now, depression has apparently overtaken the Right. The confidence and optimism conservatives had in 1999-2000 seems to have completely evaporated. The Right appears to be as pessimistic now as the left was for most of the 1980s.

So what happened? Where did the positive vibes go?

It appears that the GOP is still suffering from the after-effects of the 2006 Congressional election. The electorate’s decision to reject the GOP shocked the conscience of the Right; most conservatives figured that the media-manufactured controversy over certain Congressional scandals would be overshadowed by the electorate’s recognition that, of the two major parties, the Republican party remains the only one seriously committed to reducing the terrorist threat. Since voters were willing to give the GOP a thumbs-down in ’06 (despite the party’s War on Terror credentials), conservatives must now confront the unpleasant possibility that the electorate could once again say no to Republicans in 2008.

The fact that the GOP lost control of Congress in the first place is yet more proof of Paul Weyrich’s famous 1999 observation that, contrary to what some folks on the Right believe, the United States is not a fundamentally conservative country. If the electorate had fully accepted the premise that the Republicans are better at combating terror than the Democrats, the GOP would have retained the House and Senate last November. Weyrich’s view of the country’s fundamental lack of commitment to conservative principles not only explains 2006, it also possibly explains other recent election results.

If the country were truly fundamentally conservative, Bush would not have felt it necessary to bill himself as a “compassionate conservative” in 1999-2000. (Remember when he chided Congressional Republicans for allegedly trying to “balance the budget on the backs of the poor?”) If the country were truly fundamentally conservative, the 2000 election would have indeed unfolded the way Limbaugh predicted it would. In addition, John Kerry would not have come within three million votes of defeating Bush in 2004, and Bill Clinton would not have been elected in 1992.

A few weeks ago, a discussion about the upcoming election on FreeRepublic.com featured an interesting comment: one fellow argued that Reagan’s two Presidential wins had nothing to do with his conservatism and everything to do with the electorate’s contempt for Carter in 1980 and the voters’ inability to buy Walter Mondale as “Presidential material” in 1984. Considering the results of subsequent Presidential elections, there may be a grain of truth to this argument. (Even George H. W. Bush’s 1988 defeat of Michael Dukakis cannot be cited as proof that the United States is fundamentally conservative; after all, at one point in the race, Dukakis was ahead of Bush by seventeen points, something that never would have happened if the populace had been truly committed to the Right’s vision.)

Conservatives aren’t wrong to be a bit nervous as we head into 2008. It was easier to be confident about Bush’s chances for success in 2000; at that time, there was a clear sense that the American public was disgusted with the sleaziness of the Clinton White House, and would accept Bush’s argument that a change was necessary. Now, the Right has to be concerned, because a public not fully committed to the principles of conservatism is susceptible to being swayed by empty images and feel-good rhetoric—a strategy that worked for the Democrats in ’92, and a strategy they will not hesitate to renew.

Former MPAA head Jack Valenti passes away at 85. More from the New York Times and David Poland.

Is America invested in America’s defeat?

UPDATE: More from Booker Rising, the Washington Times and Jeff Jacoby.

Yeah, I’ll admit it: I’m one of the few people in the United States who actually liked the XFL.

When World Wrestling Entertainment CEO Vincent K. McMahon announced the formation of the league in February 2000, I actually thought he had a better-than-average chance for success. McMahon had turned his primary business into a multimillion-dollar sports and entertainment entity comparable to the NHL, NBA and NFL–and was just a year away from putting his prime competitor, World Championship Wrestling, out of business. While McMahon’s World Bodybuilding Federation was an early-1990s failure, I figured he’d learned from his mistakes, and that NBC (which actually co-owned the XFL) would help McMahon shape the new league into a second profitable entity.

The XFL debuted with much fanfare in early-February 2001, with unusual camera angles and players who wore nicknames on their jerseys (who could ever forget Rod "He Hate Me" Smart?) Unfortunately, by the middle of the month it became obvious that the league wouldn’t last. One Saturday-night game went into double-overtime, forcing a nearly one-hour delay of a highly anticipated episode of Saturday Night Live featuring Jennifer Lopez. The presence of Jesse Ventura as a broadcaster annoyed the sports press, which viewed the league as a bizarre wrestling/football hybrid. McMahon’s attempts to appeal to a wrestling audience by having The Rock and The Undertaker appear in pre-taped segments to promote the league were also met with derision. In addition, many of the football games were far below NFL quality in terms of athleticism.

After the XFL’s championship game in April 2001, NBC announced that it would not air a second season, essentially dooming the league. McMahon planned to continue running games on UPN and Spike TV, but he soon realized that those plans weren’t feasible, and officially pulled the plug on the league in May. Both McMahon and the NBC were said to have lost millions of dollars on the project.

The XFL’s legacy isn’t entirely negative; several former players (most notably Tommy Maddox) eventually became central figures in the 2000s NFL. However, the XFL is still regarded today as "McMahon’s folly." If someone else had co-promoted the XFL, would the league have received nearly as much negative attention?

If the quality of play had been just as poor under another owner as it was under McMahon, the XFL still would have received criticism. However, some of the scorn directed towards the league clearly stemmed from sportswriters’ loathing of McMahon, who was always viewed by the Fourth Estate as a carnival barker who got lucky. An XFL featuring high-quality play–and not associated with McMahon in any capacity–would have received a fairer trial in the court of media opinion.

What would have happened if McMahon’s XFL had actually succeeded? Would the sports press have given him grudging praise, or simply labeled him a sleazy media maven with an excess supply of Irish luck? It’s a question whose answer we’ll never know–because when he asked "Are you ready for some football?", plenty of folks said "No!"

Sen. John McCain makes another bid for the GOP Presidential nomination. More from Power Line, the Washington Post and the New York Times.

Operation "Cut-and-Run" is in effect. More from the Washington Post, Sen. Joe Lieberman, the New York Times, the Weekly Standard, Michelle Malkin and Human Events.

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

Black New York Democrats can’t decide whether to back Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. See, this is something black Republicans never have to worry about.

President Bush is outraged by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s efforts to force a premature end to the war in Iraq. More from the Washington Post, New York Times and Michelle Malkin.

UPDATE: More from the Washington Times and the New York Times.

Will Colorado be the next state to ban public-sector racial quotas?