Reply to Reply
Starting with the war. Of course war entails risks and mistakes and all sorts of things can go wrong. But my beef with the war is not that we went to Iraq, it's what we've done there since we took over. While I can point to many positive things that are happening there, certainly many more than get reported, I can't point to one that the Bush Administration is particularly responsible for. The positive stories are about the resiliance of the Iraqis or that some US military unit or another has helped bridge some cultural divide. That's great, and Sistani coming out in favor of the draft Consitution is helpful as well. But everything that has gone wrong there, and it's a lot, seems in my mind to be the fault of the planning for the occupation, or lack thereof. The insurgency seemed to take us by surprise, and then we did little to stop it in it's infancy. We seemed to either be running in place or simply standing still, and this was not just another mistake, it was one of the biggest mistakes we could have made. And that comes from the top. So, yes, we should suck it up and stop the insurgecy, I'm saying that poor leadership from the White House have led us to this tipping point. That's what's pissed me off.
As for Religious Conservatives, their support of Isreal is perhaps their only saving grace, and it is not enough for me to be comfortable with them. When they want to start banning books and teaching creationism in the schools, because ID is just creationism with junk science attached, I'm going to have to say it's time for them to go. You write that evolution is "an unarguable cornerstone of modern science". Well, the theocons, as it were, don't believe in it, and don't want it taught. That's their ultimate goal, and in some areas of the country, not just the south, they're working actively towards that goal. Am I going to embrace the junk science that fuels the environmentalist movement? Of course not. Science should not be political, for the most part, save for some ethical debates. Laurie David and RFK Jr. are just as hypocritical and self-serving as Falwell and Pat Robertson. I reject both. But I think a smart, Republican foreign policy can exist as you describe it without any theocon involvement, and for me, if I am to stay with the GOP, or at least vote for them on a National level, the Religious Right must go. It's that simple.
I also have much less hope in the power of blogging. Currently, blogs are riding high, but longterm, the signs are there that blogs are going to become just another partisan force. The Kos Kids want nothing less than the total takeover of the Democratic Party, which, if achieved, would make them a party organ, more or less. Powerline and Hugh Hewitt have become apologists for the mistakes of the administration. Hewitt's current hackery is especially dismaying. Powerline let their Time thing go to their heads, but Hugh, while still smart and funny, is no longer a Republican blogger. He's Republican PR.
If a good GOP candidate comes along, I'll support him or her. And you won't see me pulling the Dem lever any time soon. And I'll be actively involved in the 2008 GOP presidential primary. But if whoever I choose to support loses simply because he failed to pander to, say the theocons or if he's just a party hack who feels it's his term, like John Kerry was for the Dems, then the GOP can get bent. I'll go found my own third party if I have to at that point. That's all I have to say on it.