Comments on: On Burke and Bush

By: philosopher

philosopher — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:29:03 +0000

I didn’t find Riley’s post terribly useful, but I do agree with Doug that its point was to chastise Brooks & those of his ilk who were all too happy to ride the Movement Conservatism train while it was doing well for them, but want to get off of it scot-free now that it is turning into a train-wreck.

By: Doug

Doug — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:01:37 +0000

I think Doghouse’s point is that Brooks didn’t see fit to examine the conservative bona fides of the Bush administration’s policies, particularly with respect to Iraq, until Bush and his administration had shown themselves to be failures. Furthermore, Brooks does not seem to recognize any personal responsibility in the successful implementation of these bad policies.
I don’t know enough about Brooks to say whether this is an accurate critique or not. But, I think that’s the point.

By: Karl

Karl — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:25:59 +0000

His point is to show us how angry he is, throwing rocks at an imaginative, unrealistic caricature of the conservative movement, and also at a conservative who criticizes the conservative movement. If you were looking for an intellectual point in there, though, I don’t see it, either.

By: Zach Wendling

Zach Wendling — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 01:47:53 +0000

I’ve read the Riley piece twice, and I still can’t figure out what his point is.

By: DMD

DMD — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 00:30:56 +0000

Thanks for those.

By: Doug

Doug — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 00:22:53 +0000

I would also recommend commentary on the column by John Cole and Doghouse Riley. I also took a crack at it.