Mark’s Case For Hill
It isn’t exactly Coulter’s, but not far off. A gloomy Steyn:
In a less apocalyptic sense, a spell out of power can do a party good if you get the timing right. If memory serves, John O’Sullivan used to argue the British Tories would have done better to lose to Neil Kinnock in 1992 and be out of power for four or five years, rather than to lose to Tony Blair in 1997 and be out of power for 15. (If my recollection is mistaken, I’m sure John will correct me.)
Right now, the two-party system seems to have decayed into a one-and-a-half-party system, with McCain largely in agreement with the Dems on immigration, pharmaceutical companies, global warming and much else. A President McCain will get media bouquets for his bipartisanship in supporting the Democrat domestic agenda. Against that, he is admired in these parts for his stand on the war.
But if this is, as many argue, a “long war”, then in a two-party system, don’t the Democrats at some point have to take joint ownership of it? Parties don’t wage wars, nations do. One could make the case that the war, rather than being the sole overwhelming reason for electing McCain, is actually a compelling reason, given their convergence on domestic issues, why you might as well stick Hill in there. I don’t think Mrs Clinton will be so eager to lose the thing once it’s on her watch.
Anyway, just a glum thought. I’m now going to sleep in hopes that, when I wake up, it will all be a bad dream and Calvin Coolidge will be ahead in the primaries.
We may get to find out. She may own it, but I don’t have any confidence she’ll prove any more effective or interested in being seriously engaged in foreign policy than her husband was in another period when people thought the forces of history had ceased to matter and foreign threats had ceased to exist. If the very real and widespread war in which we’ve been engaged for the last three decades is important to you, I wouldn’t suggest it’s time to resign yourself to a refreshing period of Democratic rule or give in to despair just yet. It remains a GOP race with no good choices. Good luck figuring out who you like better and who, at the end of the day, you think you can trust.
CNN: Dole likes “mainstream” McCain, wacks Limbaugh
Weekly Standard: GOP needs McCain Democrats to win. Yeah, but Steyn, Coulter and others will tell you that’s a loss.
Buchanan on McCain, “The Great Betrayal.” He’s going to be a war president. Works for me, even if Pat doesn’t like it. And he’s going to give away the farm in all other areas. Troubling … unless you believe Romney’s convictions have any strength, or that he can win.
RCP’s poll roundup is making McCain look like a foregone conclusion, if you believe polls.
Crook, Financial Times: It’s all about electability. On both sides.
What the primary voters of each party appear to want most is to see their side win. And so, despite the evident polarisation of US political debate, each party has been drawn to candidates capable of speaking to, and gathering support from, the centre. Why else Mr Obama’s strong showing? Why else the McCain surge? As a corollary, differences over policy have been downgraded and questions of character and electability have moved up.
You might ask, what is so surprising about this – or, for that matter, so admirable? Of course, both parties want to win, you might say; of course, both parties will court independents. And, while it may be inevitable, isn’t it nonetheless a pity if superficial considerations of electability are crowding out careful examination of policy?
Think again. Hunger for victory is not something you take for granted in politics. Parties lose elections all the time through complacency, or because they invest more energy in their own internal quarrels than in appealing to voters at large. Given this administration’s record, the Democrats could have been forgiven for thinking that the presidency was theirs regardless of their candidate, or that the only debate that mattered was the one they were having with each other. Similarly, much of the Republican base is blinded by loathing of the irreligious left; to many of that ilk, staying ideologically pure matters more than winning. Again, given President George W. Bush’s unpopularity, the Republicans might have settled for losing this time, and turned against each other.
Instead, both primary electorates are thinking less about ideology and more about winning. Mr Obama has disappointed many Democratic activists with his bipartisan overtures: what the hard core wants in 2009 is not outreach but revenge. (It cuts no ice that Mr Obama’s voting record in the Senate last year was the most liberal bar none, according to National Journal.) Talk-radio conservatives, meanwhile, are apoplectic about Mr McCain’s recent success; to them, his cross-over appeal is serial treason.
Topics: pols
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 1:58 am on Tuesday, February 5, 2008
11 Responses to “Mark’s Case For Hill”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:21 am
“I don’t think Mrs Clinton will be so eager to lose the thing once it’s on her watch.”
That may be so, but it’s not a chance I want to take.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:04 am
He’s not my top choice either, but here are reasons to vote for McCain:
-strongly supported surge
-may not be hot for tax cuts, but vetoes on big spending bills can be sexy too
-likely will appoint moderates on the court as opposed to a bunch of ACLU types who will outlaw the military and intelligence gethering techniques and all other forms of law enforcement starting with the 2nd amendment
-has character flaws, but served his nation admirably
-is not married to an impeached president
February 5th, 2008 at 9:10 am
“Right now, the two-party system seems to have decayed into a one-and-a-half-party system, with McCain largely in agreement with the Dems on immigration, pharmaceutical companies, global warming and much else.”
Yeah, he’s a big old liberal. Always has been.
But, he’s not nearly as bad as commissar Clinton.
It’s always a choice between the lesser of two evils.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:25 am
“It’s always a choice between the lesser of two evils.”
It’s just that, this time, that lesser is lesser that I would like.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:54 am
I wish I could vote for the Theoretically Ideal Conservative, but Theo isn’t going to be on the ballot.
I can live with either Romney or McCain because, whatever else may be wrong with them, they get the One Big Thing right. They understand that we’re at war and losing would be a bad thing.
Obama is idealistic, well-intentioned, and hopelessly naive on the war, and all things being equal I’d prefer to avoid all the casualties we’d incur while he learns on the job.
The Clintons are first and foremost about satisfying their own personal lusts. I don’t want another USS Cole and another Khobar Towers and whatever else we’d get while Bill is fiddling with the interns and Hillary and Carville are demonizing the opposition.
February 5th, 2008 at 10:37 am
[...] Jules Crittenden also has some thoughtful stuff up. [...]
February 5th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Civic Duty, accomplished. As I posted elsewhere…Thank you brave military, you have made my “civic duty”, my “civic duty”.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
It’s not about the death of conservatism or the (temporary or otherwise) decline in conservatism.
It’s about the fact that the Jabba The Hutt government envisioned by today’s liberals is absolutely what the fashioners of the Constitution were intent on protecting against.
The mission creep of government would (unabashedly) become a déluge under Hillary or Obama.
There is no “right” or permission for said absolute co-optation by elected federal employees.
A President doesn’t have powers in areas like “requiring” a citizen to purchase health insurance or declaring a moratorium on interest payments.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
In some ways, it’s always been the biggest crap shoot in the world. Back in 2000, when I voted for Al Gore, I thought I was doing the right thing. If you had told me then how it all would actually turn out, I’d have laughed at you.
This year, it looks like my choice is going to be McCain or Romney, whichever wins the Republlican nomination, because the Democrats have completely, totally, and without question, gone off the rails. So, even though my choice this time around might possibly be a bad one again (but I don’t think so), it’s at least as easy to make as it ever was.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
“It’s just that, this time, that lesser is lesser that I would like.”
I hear that. I didn’t vote for Bush in 2000, because he’s way too liberal. I voted for some third party guy as a protest vote…but I’d still rather have a way too liberal guy like Bush in there than a stone cold socialist like Gore.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:18 am
Here’s my candidate: http://www.cthulhu.org/index.html
Cthulhu for President. Quality and authenticity. As the website says, why vote for the lesser evil?