A possible reason why it took so long for some conservatives to become disenchanted with Bush

The first comment to Drezner's "Greetings, disenchanted conservatives" was made by Josh Yelon, and I think it is right (as in correct):

Funny, these are the same guys who idolized him for the first five years of his presidency. What changed, all of a sudden? Certainly not Bush, he is still acting the same way he has his entire career.

What's changed is that after five years of presidency, the elections are finally over. It is now safe to criticise Bush, because such criticism can't possibly matter any more - it can't affect his reelection chances.

Forgive me if I don't perceive this as responsible conservatism. Responsibility would have been criticising him before it's too late to do anything about his weaknesses. Responsibility would have been getting Mike Brown out of there before Katrina hit. Responsibility would have been getting Rumsfeld out of there before Iraq was a total loss. What we're seeing now isn't just too little, too late --- it's *intentionally* too little, too late. The criticism was intentionally postponed until it no longer mattered.

And here is a related comment from a poster named Jasper:

The fact is that most conservatives (except the Buchanan types) fell into line easily pre-war. Post-war, for a long time, many conservatives kept (and keep) on saying that things were just hunky-dory in iraq and the fault was that of the evil media in focusing on the half a dozen car bombs a week. Finally, when the problems became too much to paper over, some have tried to cover their butts by complaining a little about the administration (although most of their ink seems to be spent criticizing the evil liberals over Iraq).

With notable exceptions such as Chuck Hagel, there has [been] little genuine open minded criticism from conservatives over Iraq policy (not just specific points).

While Dan (a nominal conservative who voted for Kerry) has been far more critical of the administration on Iraq, the fact is that many right-wing bloggers (including Instapundit) spend most of their time blaming the media.

Pat Buchanan, whose conservative credentials are well established, has been critical of Bush on some matters, and some conservative or right-leaning bloggers--such as Drezner and Andrew Sullivan--have been raising concerns and complaints about the Bush administration since before the election, but anyone who wants to dispute the comments above is pretty much wrong.

And this brings me back to matters I have raised previously. The first comes from the previous post: WHAT THE HELL TOOK YOU SO LONG TO BECOME DISENCHANTED? The second matter comes from Next part of the extended rant: Bush is like a deer in headlights, specifically a comment by Bill Maher about Bush just sitting there when he was informed of the 9-11 attack: "[I]f you defend a President for sitting there for even one second after he is told America is under attack, you are loyal to a person more than you are to the truth, to a principle, or to your country."

And together these two matters bring me to a huge complaint I have about Bush and everyone who has so steadfastly supported and defended him. See, Maher was on the right track, but he did not go far enough. The GOP has not been about loyalty to a person. Before I proceed, I must say I will be painting with a very broad brush. My comments--and they are going to be harsh--do not apply to every Republican, but they are widely applicable, especially here in Texas.

Bush and the Republican party are all about getting and keeping power. Policy is at best secondary. Other consequences are not important. It started with Newt Gingrich and Lee Atwater, and Bush, Cheney, Rove, DeLay, etc. have taken the cause to great extremes. And before anybody starts whining about Clinton and how he disgraced the office, please compare lying under oath about an extra-marital affair to getting us in a war on false pretenses, completely screwing up the post-war effort, spending close to $200 billion on that war with no end in sight, failing to really provide for Homeland Security, almost 2000 military deaths in Iraq, and on and on and on. So much of what the Bush administration and the GOP-controlled Congress have done is so full of abject stupidity and hypocrisy I do not see any explanation other than "we have the power and we are going to make sure we keep it."

Anybody think I'm crazy? Well, explain to me why under this Republican regime the deficit is setting new records every day. Explain to me why Bush and the Republican Congress have increased the federal bureaucracy and made it more complicated and inefficient (through the Homeland Security Act). Explain to me why under Bush and the Republican Congress the federal government now has more power, which is to say explain why power has become more centralized in the federal government. Explain to me why Bush has appointed and/or hired so many people who have no relevant experience at the least and are incompetent at worst. And PLEASE explain to me why the Republican Party has allowed all this to happen. You can't blame it on the Democrats because they are not in power. There are many other similar questions, but I will not ask them now because any hardcore Bush supporter trying to answer these questions likely needs to take a break for the headache to diminish.

And by the way, if you want to dispute this, do not even say things like "you are just politicizing this" or "we can't criticize the President during a war," etc. Either talk substance or don't talk at all.

And it's not as if the Democrats have been much better. The same kind of issues were at play during the election, but the scope was limited to the Democratic party itself. That's why we ended up with John Kerry as the nominee. I kid you not when I say that Kerry was the last candidate I wanted to get the nomination. However, the DNC and "the powers that were" deemed before the race even started that Kerry would win. I posted a detailed rant on this subject on February 7, 2004, at the Clark Community Network, and I have also addressed it on this blog. And, regarding policies such as the Iraq War, the USA PATRIOT Act, the Homeland Security Act, etc., many Democrats decided to just go with the flow instead of speaking out in order to cover their own sorry asses and keep their positions of power.

Getting back to qualifiying my "broad brush"...My criticism does not apply to people just because they voted for Bush in 2004. Although I could never have voted for Bush under any circumstances, I can understand why some saw him as the lesser of two evils. After all, that's why I voted for Kerry. I will never agree that Bush was the lesser of two evils, but I can understand why many Republicans looked at Kerry and decided they could not vote for him. My criticism does apply, however, to anyone who blindly supports and defends Bush--and there are plenty of people who fall into that category.

And now that the wheels of the Bush Bus are showing signs that maybe no amount of spin will take away their wobble, we start seeing "disenchanted conservatives" starting to bail on Bush. I have no patience for these people for two reasons: first, for not criticizing and questioning Bush when it might have made a difference just so they could get in on the power; and second, for finally starting to criticize Bush just to avoid being caught in what they perceive as Bush's possible downfall.