Two of my favorite local center-right bloggers – Jeff Kouba and Jay Reding – write posts I’d like to have written myself.
Obama, to his credit, does signal a break from the Clintonite school of politics which have corrupted American politics for years now. The “campaign war room” and the politics of personal destruction that marked the Clinton years hardly helped America’s politics. Getting rid of that would be a step in the right direction.
And Obama as “The New Carter”…
The problem with Obama is that he’s winning on some vague notion of “change”—while doing little to describe what direction he’d take the country. Obama would be a formidable challenge for the GOP, but ultimately he doesn’t have the executive experience needed to be a successful President. He also votes like a doctrinaire liberal, which undercuts his ability to reach across party lines. He would do better than Edwards, but in the end his appeal is largely skin deep.
Place your bets…:
The worst case scenario is an Edwards/Huckabee match, in which case I’ll say to hell with it and end up voting for Ron Paul just out of spite for such big government paternalists. Ideally, I’d like to see an Obama/Thompson contest—Obama’s idealism is a nice contrast to the general pessimism of the Democratic Party, and Fred Thompson has the strongest grasp of policy. An Obama/McCain race would also be interesting for much the same reason.
I’ll differ from Jay here: the worst case is an Obama/Hucker match; the media has carefully groomed Huckabee as America’s Second Choice against any Democrat, and the’ll call that marker in in spades. And I’m nowhere near ready to count Rudy out of this. But I agree; Thompson’s surge makes me want to hope “he’s just been pacing himself for the past six month”.
And then there’s McCain; as I noted a few weeks ago, he’s so close to being acceptable.
Cut Speech Rationing loose, JMac, and you could get yourself a supporter. Have your people call my people.
This is why I think McCain will now be the likely nominee, because Republican voters will still value a strong candidate on national defense. On the Democratic side, we’ve already seen they want an American defeat in Iraq, and so Obama is perfectly acceptable on that count.
However, let’s not assume history has ended just because the surge in Iraq has produced encouraging results. Think back just a year ago, at the end of 2006 Iraq was in danger of sliding into the abyss. This election was supposed to be all about Iraq. Now it’s gone from the headlines.
We can’t allow ourselves to be fatigued. Our enemies still plot and scheme. We must resolve, as Churchill said,
We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.
Yesterday was Dunkirk for conservatives – and supporting Mike Huckabee and Ray “26 out of 100” Cox and, really, any RINO (you hear me, CD3GOP?) is the march to the Dyle).
Will we have D-Day in October?
Stay tuned.
Great, Mitch,
You go ahead and support the McCain/Feingold ball-gag, the McCain/Kennedy amnesty bill, and the McCain/Clinton tax hike and meanwhile Obama’s welcoming the new Caliph to the Inauguration.
Old Maverick McCain will retire to Miramar with Kelly McGillis.
/jc
I don’t buy the continued “outrage” over McCain-Feingold. Conservatives were willing to put it aside in 2004 to reelect President Bush because we understood what was at stake and that was after Bush not only signed it into law, but signed it into law after saying he would veto it. More damning still he said when he signed it into law that he thought it was unconstitutional (whereas McCain at least had a good faith belief it wasn’t unconstitutional – something the SCOTUS agreed with him on) and expected the courts to “fix it” for him. IMO if you’re going to be mad at someone, you ought to be madder at the guy he did the opposite of what he said he would do, said that he thought it was wrong when he was doing it, but wanted someone else to clean up the mess.
But we forgave him for it because we realized that as bad as it was, Bush 43 was still light years better than the alternative. We forgave him for it because as imperfect as he is, Bush didn’t waiver on the War, while he didn’t discover his veto pen until we lost Congress, he was still calling for less spending than Kerry, and all of the cultural issue Bulls*** that dominates the primaries has been driven by the court usurpation of the democratic process.
Now fast forward to this November. We are still going to be a nation at War and we have a potential candidate who is if anything MORE hawkish than Bush (as evidenced by his calling for the “surge” months before Bush finally did it) and far better at communicating the stakes. We have someone who has a far better track record on spending than Bush and most Congressional Republicans by virtue of his opposition to Medicare Part D, the farm bills, earmark abuse, the pork-ridden energy and transportation bills, etc. And we have someone who for all of the whining about the Gang of 14, did more to get us Sam Alito and John Roberts on the Supreme Court than all of the empty posturing about the “nuclear option” ever did.
The fact of the matter is for all of the perennial whining about how McCain has “betrayed” or “poked his finger in the eye of the base,” on the issues that matter most he’s been a far better friend to conservatives than pretty much any of the candidates that have been on the ballot in 2002, 2004, or 2006. If anything McCain by embracing Bush’s tax cuts and coming around to an “enforcement first” policy on immigration reform – not to mention his tireless campaigning for GOP candidates – has made more than reasonable efforts to mend any fences that were supposedly broken.
At this point, McCain is my second choice because I really like Romney’s executive experience but he’s always been a close second even people were declaring him “dead.” If Romney doesn’t recover by Super Tuesday and McCain improves, he’ll be my first choice and I won’t be expecting him to come groveling because of a one-time bill that was signed into law four years by a guy I and others forgave who had a lot more problems with than McCain and none of his virtues.
Well sure, if Romney can turn around and decide to embrace Reagan, reject Ted Kennedy, and love the life agenda after years on the other side, then sure, McCain can turn around and embrace Bush’s tax cuts reject the Rumsfeld strategy he was on the other side on too. Just as long as the music stops on the right square, huh?
Nah, I’m sticking with steadfast Rudy.
Ready to turn the screws on the Islamo-fascists on day one.
/jc
Thorley,
Well put.
Slash,
Not well put.
Dang, Thorley. That was well stated. And I’m not even a McCain guy (though I think a lot of us will be by November, and you gave a great argument as to why).
Of course this doesn’t make someone a perfect Republican President, but I went to the state fair in 2004 when McCain made a visit to campaign for President Bush. He made a great speech (on nat’l security) and then walked around the grounds for a while. Just his presence there drove a few Democrats batty. Very childish.
Some kid in the crowd yelled “KILLER” to McCain. The little jr lefty wasn’t too bright (are any of them?). He was surrounded by a group veterans when he yelled it. One older gentlemen came very close to slugging the young Democat, but was restrained by the others.
Obama/Huck? Good grief…what’s the difference? They’e practically interchangable.
If that happened, the Constitution party would be very, very smart to pick up Fred Thompson, Ron Paul, or even Duncan Hunter. An Obama/Huck match might be just the opportunity a “third party” needs, because too many Americans would be very turned off by either mainstream choice. I’m not so sure your average thoughtful conservative or Republican would vote for Huck just because he is the GOP nom this time around, esp. if the Constitution Party had a “marquee name” like one of the above men.
I don’t always agree with everything that McCain says or does, and I am a FredHead through and through, but if my fairly liberal DFL sister who lives in Edina and would NEVER vote for Hillary, but would donate to and campaign for McCain (and asked me if all DFL’ers in St. Paul are as arrogant as they sounded during the 2006 elections, God love her!) can cross the ballot, I will support him if need be. I think there are many more DFL’ers here and Democrats in the US that would support him, and we may need to go with him if we want even a soft ‘R’ in office. I’d prefer a Thompson/McCain ticket, but will take Fred anyway we can get him, if McCain/Thompson comes to fruition. He will not suffer the fools in Washington, and will really piss them off and make them look foolish while doing so.
And John McCain kissed me on the cheek when he was at the State Fair that year…so maybe I am a little starstruck and more willing to forgive McCain/Feingold. Sheesh, chicks and politics!
Unless the Constitution party has some hidden warchest no one, including them, knows about, I can’t imagine Thompson, Ron Paul or Duncan Hunter moving in that direction. It wouldn’t make sense, and would split our vote even more and give us, heaven forbid, four years of the Washington version of Jesse Ventura, someone that won because less than 2/3 of the state DIDN’T vote for him.
“I think there are many more DFL’ers here and Democrats in the US that would support him,””
I have already admitted being in this group. I still have big issues with Hillary. Enough so that I could easily support a McCain candidacy, even Rudy. Huckabee, doubtful, Thompson or Romney, no so much.
Flash
I tend towards Fred, but excluding Huck most of the GOP guys wouldn’t be a disaster for the US. I’d like to believe that if McCain got in some of his “maverick” history would make it difficult for him to get some of his more outlandish ideas through the Senate. And Obama’s inexperienced enough that he’d have a tough time really causing trouble.
But I’d vote for Kucinich if it meant keeping Hillary out. Too much history, and too many insider stories from DC to view her as anything much different from what her most virulent detractors paint.
As to splitting the vote, it’s been over 30 years since a Democrat(ick) presidential candidate won a majority of the votes. They’ve perfected the art of keeping the doubters from splitting off, so a 3rd party would probably hurt the GOP more.
While Republicans have perfected the more rarefied art of stealing elections outright.
Nah, that be the Dems…Richard Daley, JFK, etc.
48 years ago – impressive! You guys and the history books!
“While Republicans have perfected the more rarefied art of stealing elections outright.”
You guys and your fairy tales!
Considering the clown continues to ascribe racist behavior to the South, we’re certainly permitted to ascribe outright election stealing to the Democrats since it’s occurred much more recently.
48 years ago – impressive! You guys and the history books!
Track record, AC…look into it.
Pingback: Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » Primary Symptoms