Home › Blogs › Ironman's blog ›

George Will: Empty suit behind the bow tie

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 11/02/2008 - 07:02
in

This morning's George Will column has convinced me that this guy is like some beat-up pitcher who ought to be sent to the showers.

He tells us "All shall not be lost"  Why? http://townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2008/11/02/all_shall_not_be_lost

Because--in a banal rehash of antiseptic voting statistics that read like a rejected first draft of Michael Barone's Almanac of American Politics --we got our butt handed to us worse in 1964 and 1974. 

Jeez, maybe we won't see another Great Society or another Cambodian killing fields. And Mr. Will's column fails to answer a rather obvious question: why not?

I don't expect a honest commentator to blindly salute every dumb thing the party he is more closely aligned with does. I applaud the exposure of the corrupt and the correction of the misguided. But, hell, George Will is up in the press box rooting against his team for sport. 

If "All is not lost", well, elitist once-upon-a-time "conservative" journalists like George Will and Peggy Noonan are part of the reason it may well be "lost".

Will's last columm, a trite putdown of Sarah Palin's alleged inadequacies as a constitutional scholar, offered little insight to the voter except to see inside the mind of Will as someone eager to prove his own intellectual superiority.  You see, George Will is the "real conservative" while Govenor Palin is the "faux conservative"  http://townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2008/10/30/the_downfall_of_faux_conservatism

The reason I'm so ripped about this is at the same time former law professor Barack Obama was found to have endorsed a theory of constitutional jurisprudence radical in its very concept--the use of the courts to redistribute wealth.  Not a word of complaint from Mr. Will about something you'd think he'd care about. George Will would rather frag his own troops than critique the opposition.

No, Mr. Will, you are a faux intellectual, a man who cares deeply about the punctuality of trains but cares not where they are going.  I'm no man of the mind, but dammit, if I want to go to Grand Central I'm not getting on even the nicest and fastest train to New Haven.    But like the rest of your ilk, you'd rather go in the wrong direction in style.

George Will has proven himself to be shallow, petty and used up. He's an empty suit behind the bow tie. Once he brought his A-game to his columm, now he is a tired old knuckleballer trying to fool people with junk pitches.

So, go on with your writing. Maybe Moneyball needs a sequel.  Stick to baseball, George. Free agents switching teams are more commonly accepted in that sport.

 

0
Your rating: None

Comments

deleted

Submitted by johnson springs on Sun, 11/02/2008 - 09:11.

deleted

How far back does this go?

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 11/02/2008 - 09:49.

Your conviction that George Will is a fraud - does it predate him opiniong that Sarah Palin was a bad decision? And I'd be really interested in seeing you flesh out the assertin that she is the real conservative, not him.

I disagree with Will about

Submitted by John Howard on Sun, 11/02/2008 - 10:17.

I disagree with Will about Palin, and I was disappointed when he lost his nerve on Iraq, but he doesn't deserve to be called names.  It is particularly over the top to refer to him as "a man who cares deeply about the punctuality of trains but cares not where they are going."

Will is a sound conservative. His  trademarks -- taking the long view and faith in American exceptionalism -- have been on full display this election cycle.  He has faith that America will spit out Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, as it did Carter.  I'm not so sanguine, but  I'm hoping he's right and I'm wrong. 

Dumb micks like me don't do masochism

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 11/02/2008 - 10:34.

I lived through Carter. The problem with letting people get elected that induce vomiting four years later by the American people is that the reason for the vomiting is long term harm to the body politic.

I think had there been no Carter, the mullahs would not be running Iran today.  American exceptionalism can overcome many things, but some facts on the ground change and prove immutable over the long run.

Touching the burning stove ONCE is enough

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Sun, 11/02/2008 - 11:11.

Dittos on your sentiment. No to masochism and throw-in-towel conservatism. No to a rerun of carter years or a revival of the failures of 60s left-liberalism.

And for the record I fully expect Obama to be the worst and most damaging President in our lifetimes, perhaps in American history.

What we need is for the right-punditry to expose the many and manifest flaws in this Obama character and quit hand-wringing over the inevitability of America taking a turn for the worse, and instead explaining why it IS going to be wrong and what we can do to STOP it.

The American people are still in charge ... for now.

What could have been done to stop the Iranian Revolution?

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 11/02/2008 - 11:51.

I think had there been no Carter, the mullahs would not be running Iran today.

Can you expound on this? What could have been done to stop the Iranian Revolution?

Not promoting it would have been a start

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 11/02/2008 - 12:16.

from the Weekly Standard

In Carter's State Department, the Sandinistas were thought to be moderates and the Ayatollah Khomeini a saintlike figure surrounded by "moderate, progressive individuals" with a notable "concern for human rights." ........On November 4, 1979, a group of Khomeini's progressive moderates stormed the embassy in Tehran and held Americans hostage for the next fourteen months. The regime that replaced the disposed shah became a major backer of the fundamentalist terrorist movement.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/271qgfin.asp?pg=2

I was at Syracuse University during this period and observed many of the Iranian students then protesting the Shah and his despotic ways. The liberal political establishment agreed and decided for "human rights" reasons the Shah had to go. Sadly, the term "useful idiot" was all too applicable as the Islamacists simply played the "human rights" card to get the West to abandon a pro-western regime; and used the liberals in Iran and the US to advance the scheme. 

This episode framed my world view. Back then, George Will thought clearly too, calling top Carter arms control aide Paul Warnke ""engagingly childlike'--believing that if we disarmed, the Soviet Union would follow us."

Sadly, the 2008 version of George Will is childlike in a different fashion ---petulant and petty.

Carters forcing the return of Khoumeni

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Sun, 11/02/2008 - 14:37.

on the Iranian govt was a problem right there. Andy Young called Khoumeni a 'saint' was another problem.

We'll get more loons like that if Obama is elected.

Stupid administration officials saying and doing stupid things that will hurt us 30 years down the road.

Andrew Young

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 11/02/2008 - 15:05.

I don't think Young ever said that - I believe what he said is something to the effect that he would be regarded as some kind of saint by his sympathizers.

Well, I've given Will the benefit of the doubt for awhile

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 11/02/2008 - 10:30.

He's been of little use to Bush all along, but since there was no campaign going on , this fits into my theory of not cheerleading for stuff you don;t buy into.  Will also has had a burr in his saddle over McCain since the campaign finance bill was raised almost a decade ago; and on that one Will has been proven mostly right and McCain mostly wrong.

That said, it is readily apparent Will holds grudges worse and longer than an Irish peasant. The courts and the internet have gutted McCain-Feingold; yet Will beats the deceased equine for no good reason.  As for Palin bashing; well I presume Will would have preferred some deeper thinker on the ticket with McCain. Who in the realm of political reality would be sufficiently erudite for Will escapes me, though.  The "maverick" Lieberman? Romney?...I think he'd have dissed any of them.

This dates me, but I recall in 1990 Will did a columm making Illinois senate candidate Lynn Martin sound like the second coming of Margaret Thatcher. Now Martin was a pretty liberal GOP house member, and as it turned out, she got crushed almost as bad as Alan Keyes.  I forget whether Martin went to some "name" college; anyway, when Will went on his weekly "trash Sarah" binge this sorta made me wonder whether there was any intellectual consistency to the man, since I couldn't ascertain how she was so bad and Lynn Martin had been so good, unless the sole qualification for office is to have served a few terms in Washington..      

The bottom line is there are two trains on the platform going different directions. If you think the train going your direction can;t get there, stand aside and politely explain what sorta of train would get there. (I think Will is among the geezer Right pining for 'ol Ronnie to emerge from the grave) Will and his ilk seem bedazzled by the train going the wrong way. Intellectual rigor that is not.

Palin, martin and Will

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Sun, 11/02/2008 - 15:32.

Martin was a squishy pro-choice moderate Republican of the kind IL produced and used to run Illionois (Thompson, Edgar, etc). ... If Will liked her and not Palin, its a cultural furball Will is coughing up and nothing more; Martin was hardly the super-sharp leader. As you noted, Simon crushed her. Why? Because such country-clubbers could never win the downscale blue collar types who were/are conservative in inclinations but want Govt to relate to them. aka Joe the Plumber types. The same types who see a lot of appeal in Palin. Oh the irony.

 

Ironman -- I don't choose the

Submitted by John Howard on Sun, 11/02/2008 - 11:00.

Ironman -- I don't choose the masochism route, either.  Hoping for a conservative backlash against Obama strikes me as placing our future in our opponents' hands, a bad move in sports or politics.

Nevertheless, I propose we focus our energies on the Left instead of wasting them on our fellow travelers.

 

focus on the big picture

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Sun, 11/02/2008 - 15:02.

Nevertheless, I propose we focus our energies on the Left instead of wasting them on our fellow travelers.

Good call. We have friends & leaders, we have enemies & their leaders, and we have bumps on a log. The first we help, the next we oppose, the last we ignore.

focus on the big picture.

Opponents, not enemies.

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sun, 11/02/2008 - 15:08.

Surely this election proves that the Coulteresque-rhetoric - "treason", "enemies", "anti-American" has run it course.

Amen, NextRightNando

Submitted by Snowden on Sun, 11/02/2008 - 16:12.

I think one thing we need to do as we begin moving forward is to avoid the eat-your-own hysteria of the Left. We can demand greater ideological purity from our own side, but drumming people out of the movement should be a rarely-used tactic.

I know both sides of the aisle have used hysterical language, but, in no small part due to the Coulters and Savages of our camp, the Right gets most of the blame for "dragging down debate". We need to have earnestness, we need to be unwavering in our convictions on the rightness of our ideas, but we don't subscribe to the same Leftish worldview that suggests our opponents are malicious or treasonous. (although we can all agree that they're sure as hell misguided).

We'd be best served on the Right to self-prune our own rhetoric rather than let it devolve to Olbermannish bitching.

I think this thread's been pretty civil

Submitted by Ironman on Sun, 11/02/2008 - 19:44.

Hell, I wasn't even going to post this if Will had made even the same sort of argument this morning for McCain/Palin he made for Edwin Edwards against David Duke ("Vote for the crook.It's important") Instead I get some elitist nonsense to the effect we've been crushed worse before. Spare me the consolation.

Frankly, by calling McCain and especially Palin a "faux conservative" it seems the starchy patrician Will is the one going for the performance art approach of Ann Coulter, not mellow ole moi.  Apparently George Will would rather have Obama as President than McCain. Someone who believes that assumes the risk people will deem them the real "faux conservative", not McCain or Palin. 

Re: I think this thread's been pretty civil

Submitted by gs on Sun, 11/02/2008 - 22:30.

I thought Will, Noonan, etc were conveying their real beliefs.  Call me naive, but I didn't realize they are actually saying what will help their books sell or what will get them jobs, invitations, grants, panel appearances,...

Nevertheless, Will spoke for me when I was aghast at McCain's erratic behavior during the onset of the financial crisis.  I acknowledge Obama's strong negatives, but what restrains me from returning to the McCain camp is the doubt whether someone with his volatile temperament should command the nation's armed forces including nukes.  While I salute McCain's wartime record, his heroism is not sufficient cause for selection as commander-in-chief.

Hmm.  Why is it okay for

Submitted by T D Williams on Mon, 11/03/2008 - 02:19.

Hmm.  Why is it okay for George Will to criticize conservative candidates, but not for Ironman to criticize George Will?  Why is one virtuous for saying what he really believes and the other not so cool for hitting on a fellow conservative?

Actually, it is always helpful to critique policy and position.  That's how we refine conservative ideas.  Unfortunately, Will has no time to critique Obama policies, but lots of time for McCain's temperament and carelessness.

And this Will column continues the lack of policy and position scrutiny.  Will's position is that conservatives shouldn't be concerned because we've seen worse times.  Though, as Ironman points out, a couple of million people lost their lives because of poor policy decisions of the Johnson administration, and the country still carries the baggage of Great Society programs that have never made a real dent in the problems they were supposed to solve.  But, not to worry.  Conservatives gained the presidency 16 years later and congress a few decades after that.

It's as though the goal of conservatives is to gain political power rather than to implement conservative policies.  What Will never mentions is that the victory of a conservative president never resulted in reduced government or government spending.  Reagan won the Cold War, and is one of the great presidents in doing that.  He instituted tax reductions.  But, smaller government, a core conservative principle (which Gov. Palin constantly refers to), was beyond Reagan's reach because of the decades of government expansion under liberal presidents and congresses.

While we wait out the Obama administration for the conservative chance at political victory, we can cement nationalization of the banks and add lots of other sectors.  We can end secret ballot in union organizing.  We can spread the wealth around and stomp on small business expansion.  We can expand public funding of abortions to include partial birth abortions and maybe even after birth abortions.  And if Will thinks public financing of elections is done, apparently he doesn't know that Sen. Obama just thinks the present system is broken.  Wait until Pres. Obama has a chance to really fix it. 

But, for Will all of this is uninteresting because it will be so cool when conservatives next get their shot hopefully in a decade or so.