First we learned that our government's harsh interrogation methods often had less to do with terrorism than with establishing a case for invading a country that had not attacked us. Now it turns out that government surveillance, which was broader than previously known, often had little to do with terrorism, either. Yet the people who have defended these programs still call themselves "conservatives," while those who were rightly suspicious about these expansions of government power are somehow not conservative. Confusing.

Comments

[Jeffrey Sykes]

They are called neo-conservatives and used to be liberals before they were coopted into the GOP to offset the shifting demographics of the 60s and 70s.

They are still a source of contention in the GOP. Consult the American Conservative.

What do you think about how the same people who went nuts over W. spending $600+ billion on the War in Iraq because it was deficit spending now advocating for multiple trillion dollar deficit financed programs under the new administration?

Now that's confusing.

[Ed Cone]

Deficit spending for a war of choice, with the deficits exacerbated by irresponsible tax policy, strikes me as a different issue than deficit spending to offset a huge recession and promote the general welfare.

To analogize, if you asked me what I thought of you taking out a mortgage for a first home or a car loan to facilitate necessary transportation, I'd say that if you were prudent in your choices, those strike me as reasonable debts to incur. But if you were just running up credit card debt to finance a lavish lifestyle, I'd advise against it.

That said, the current deficits are not sustainable, and, while I support some of the spending undertaken and under discussion, I would welcome the return of more-balanced budgets.

[John Robinson]

We had a longer version on Howard's remark on Tuesday in Washington Watch.