Slow news week at the Corner
With the need for imediate commentary on the latest breaking news of the day much diminished, the writers of National Review's group blog, The Corner, are feeling freed up to write on larger topics. With impressive results.
Stanley Kurtz turned in three gems in a row (start here and scroll up) sumarizing why he thinks a long term era of conservative leadship is likely, why that drives liberals to irrationality, why Iraq was the right choice at the right time, and why it's not enough to stop terrorism. I don't agree with it all, but it's his summation not mine, and it is still well written.
Some exerpts:
"Yeah, going into Iraq was the right thing. The real problem is that it was only the least we could do, and not nearly enough to take care of the problem. In the game of nuclear terror, I fear it's the rogue states who have the advantage. All they need is a bomb or two."
That's not fear mongering, that's vigilance.
"It's easy to criticize Europe's short-sighted refusal to scale back the welfare-state in preparation for the coming demographic tsunami. But we've failed too, thanks to the Democrats [refusing to compromise on Social Security reform.]"
Here's a point where I lay equal blame at the President's doorstep. I applauded his bold dicision to go foward in calling for reform, and thought (mistakenly, I guess) that he understood that long term stubberness was the only way to carry it through. 60 speeches in 60 days in 60 cities and then throwing your hands up was never gonna cut it!
"It's too late for Peter Beinart to restore the Democrats' "fighting faith." Instead of purging MoveOn.org, the Democrats are busy purging Joe Lieberman. I can't believe anyone thinks that reports of secret sniffing for nuclear bombs will do anything but help the president."
Stan calls this good news for Republicans. Maybe it is. But I don't think there's anyone who would call it good news for the country. The Democrats are a broken party, and that saddens me. It's as if the Dems are counting on future unchecked power grabs by the GOP (or trying to manufacture current ones) to win votes, instead of, you know, proposing any viable alternatives. That's not leadership, that's sulking.
Stanley Kurtz turned in three gems in a row (start here and scroll up) sumarizing why he thinks a long term era of conservative leadship is likely, why that drives liberals to irrationality, why Iraq was the right choice at the right time, and why it's not enough to stop terrorism. I don't agree with it all, but it's his summation not mine, and it is still well written.
Some exerpts:
"Yeah, going into Iraq was the right thing. The real problem is that it was only the least we could do, and not nearly enough to take care of the problem. In the game of nuclear terror, I fear it's the rogue states who have the advantage. All they need is a bomb or two."
That's not fear mongering, that's vigilance.
"It's easy to criticize Europe's short-sighted refusal to scale back the welfare-state in preparation for the coming demographic tsunami. But we've failed too, thanks to the Democrats [refusing to compromise on Social Security reform.]"
Here's a point where I lay equal blame at the President's doorstep. I applauded his bold dicision to go foward in calling for reform, and thought (mistakenly, I guess) that he understood that long term stubberness was the only way to carry it through. 60 speeches in 60 days in 60 cities and then throwing your hands up was never gonna cut it!
"It's too late for Peter Beinart to restore the Democrats' "fighting faith." Instead of purging MoveOn.org, the Democrats are busy purging Joe Lieberman. I can't believe anyone thinks that reports of secret sniffing for nuclear bombs will do anything but help the president."
Stan calls this good news for Republicans. Maybe it is. But I don't think there's anyone who would call it good news for the country. The Democrats are a broken party, and that saddens me. It's as if the Dems are counting on future unchecked power grabs by the GOP (or trying to manufacture current ones) to win votes, instead of, you know, proposing any viable alternatives. That's not leadership, that's sulking.