In her thoughtful column today, Peggy Noonan offers words of wisdom for those campaigning to be the next Chief Executive, “Maybe the candidates would do themselves good by leaving the trail a few days and trying to sit quietly in a room, by themselves, with no distractions, and think about big things, such as who they are.”
Good advice not only for the candidates, but for all of us as well.
I joked a few times with my friends that anyone who wants to be President in 2008 should be automatically disqualified, considering the horrors that await this country during that time. That that person must have a personality disorder to want to manage the country while it faces these threats.
As far as I know Newt Gingrinch is the only person (and he’s not even running officially) that is talking about our serious threats.
Our political system seems designed to keep those capable of thinking creatively and big from achieving power. Mainly because innovative thinkers have an unfortunate tendency to have messy, eccentric personal lives. Newt Gingrich is a good example. Mark Sanford is another. A Republican who actually believes in limited government, what a concept! But he can’t win. Why? Because he was the weirdo who slept in his congressional office and drove around in a beat-up old Nissan. Also, he comes from a state that the elites have maligned and smeared even worse than Texas.
Of course, having a messy, chaotic personal life doesn’t make you a genius, although there are plenty around who think it does.
Unfortunately, the pressures of television and politics are geared toward promoting the blandest candidates that offend the least number of people. The floors of the primaries are littered with the corpses of people who tried to address challenges with innovative, out-of-the-box thinking, e.g. Steve Forbes.
Gingrich has stated publicly that he will not make a decision until September. Unless he declares now, most of the campaign money and support will be claimed by others. Perhaps he’s waiting to see how Romney fares and if Romney’s stats don’t improve, Gingrich will step in as the conservative hope. I suspect, however, that once Giuliani is in high gear, few could stop him and getting the conservatives to show up on election day will be his only challenge. This will depend upon framing the Democrat as thoroughly unacceptable (negative campaigning — something at which Rudy is, I suspect, a master) and mitigating conservative concerns about social issues by insisting his positions are reflected in mere municipal and state governance, i.e. not constitutional issues and thus not a federal template.
Some conservatives would rather consider themselves intellectually pure and lose an election than to vote for someone with whom they agree a mere 80%. One cannot convince a moron.
HardHobbit, purely for my clarity of understanding: Did you intend the implication in your last paragraph that a conservative who doesn’t vote for a semi-conservative whom you view as acceptable, is a moron?
I only agreed with Bush about 30%, but I held my stomach and voted for him anyway. Perhaps many Conservatives are like me, and this is why we are wary of the current crop of contenders. There is nothing “moronic,” about not willing to be fooled and used again.
Consider that one of the big Conservative reservations about Bush was that he was a fan of Big Government. Certainly, those fears were borne out by his profligate spending, his doubling of the education budget, and his massive new prescription drug entitlement.
Anyone who would not be wary of Giuliani’s pro-abortion and anti-Second Amendment history, McCain’s hostility to tax cuts and free speech and eagerness to cozy up to environmental extremists, and Romney’s tacking to the political winds after getting burned by Bush is more worthy of the label “Moron.”
Even here in Texas, nobody believed that Bush (as governor) was any more conservative than his father. In fact, I remember in 1997 when Houston’s conservative talk-radio hosts bashed then-Gov. Bush because he was “too liberal” when it came to state-mandated programs and funding. See? Nothing’s changed since then.
Somehow along the way, the national left demonized now-President Bush as this ogre of conservatism. From someone who’s followed his career since the Texas Rangers days, I can guarantee you that with GWB, what you see is what you get – a guy whose politics are practically the same as his dad’s. Both of them trended center-right while in office.
We probably won’t get a reincarnation of a Reagan conservative any time soon, which is why we (as the GOP) are trying our damndest to get as close as we can to that ideal. Just my $0.02 for what it’s worth.
Regards,
Peter H.
V,
Have you heard the proverb about the frog and the boiling water? Put a frog into boiling water and it jumps out. Put a frog into cool water and turn up the heat — the result is a cooked frog.
Anyone who embraces the idea that furthering his political agenda demands a rejection of the good for the sake of the pure deserves his political oblivion. The left has known this for years, happily biding their time, voting for Democrats and setting up government programs that financially support and further their ad hoc agendas. Especially in a virtual two-party system, you will never agree with any candidate 100% on every issue unless you are that candidate. This is not difficult to understand.
My reference the 80% threshold was from a statement made by Reagan (I’m paraphrasing): Those who agree with us 80% of the time are our friends. What he meant is that the nature of politics demands that you vote for candidates that are at times less than appealing, sometimes for the simple purpose of defeating the opposing candidate. I too voted for Bush, but I don’t consider it a vote for Bush as much as a vote against Kerry.
And yet, there are those conservatives (and Libertarians — notice the capital ‘L’) who seem to think that when faced with a candidate who isn’t quite conservative (however that happens to be defined at the moment), it is better to sit out the election or vote for a candidate they know will never win. These people are smugly satisfied that they ‘sent a message’ while their government they helped elect veers ever leftward. As I stated in my original post, they would rather lose an election than vote for someone they disagree with some of the time. They would rather Hillary were elected rather than vote for Rudy because to vote for Rudy would be, to them, a tacit approval of every single one of his platform planks.
Politics is about strategy and strategy isn’t for morons.
#5, #6 – To me, Bush was a lesser evil than Kerry. That would be the only reason I voted for him. Both stand for intrusive, big government. Bush at least promised to be pro-America in foreign policy.
I am afraid Rudy will be essentially a repeat of Bush. Pro America yes, but also big-government, whether his excuse for it is issue X or Y. Someone mentioned McCain as willing to cave into the enviro-socialists. I think that will apply to Rudy also.
#7 – Thanks for the clarification, HardHobbit. So you seem to be saying that, if someone is a conservative or a libertarian (note small ‘l’, inclusive of the large), and they sit out the general election or don’t vote in it as you want, they are a moron.
I’m not passing a value judgment on that at this time; only noticing it. In fact, one part of me agrees. Another part notices the basic attitude, in itself, may not be a winning political strategy.
Peter,
Your posts are a delight and are common sense worth far more than $.02.
Glad to see you’re not part of the Borg.
Peter, so what are you saying? Is ideological purity – trying to get back to a Reagan conservative as close as possible – a good thing at this time? (Just asking for clarity)
I heard that Gingrich is following the example of Lincoln (I think). Gingrich knows that if he declares himself for office now that the press will never allow him to win. So what he’s going to do is go around the country speaking as he has been, very directly about the problems we face. If there is a groundswell from one end of the country to the other for him to run by Sept, then he will otherwise he wont.
Oh, Peter is in no danger of being part of the GayLeftBorg! LOL 🙂
Still pondering this “people who don’t vote like I want, or by my understanding of political strategy, are morons” thing.
I’m pondering it because it’s an attitude I’ve had before – and seen on this blog from both Right and Left, though I am not calling anyone out – yet I know something is wrong with it.
HardHobbit, this is not at all about you – only my pondering.
People are generally much smarter than political junkies give them credit for. “The people who didn’t vote our way are morons” is an attitude I would more often find among the political Left.
When people don’t vote my way, logically, the possibilities are:
(1) I’m wrong, because I don’t quite know what they know.
(2) I’m right, and others just don’t know what I know.
(3) I’m right, and others basically know what I know, but they weigh it differently due to having different values.
None of which involves them being morons. It would seem the best ways to persuade people, then, should be:
(1) Be open to persuasion myself – provided it is appropriate, truthful, rational, etc.
(2) Share what I know (that others might not know).
(3) Identify our value differences – simply accepting our differences for the short term, and advocating or promoting my values for the long term.
Just thinking out loud. Sorry if it’s off-topic.
I think one can only be used so many times before one is taken for granted, much like the Democrats and the black vote. When the Republican party believes it can take the conservative vote for granted, then it no longer feels the need to enact a conservative agenda. Republicans and Democrats care only about power, but conservatives and liberals care about policy and the direction of the country.
If the choice for conservatives is between a pro-abortion, big government, pro-illegal immigration, anti-second amendment Republican and a pro-abortion, big government, pro-illegal immigration, anti-second amendment Democrat… really, why even bother participating? Arguably, conservatives are better off with the Democrat president, since the Republicans in Congress have a better chance of thwarting her liberal agenda. (Remember how Bush and Tom DeLay lied, twisted arms, and threatened congressional Republicans into passing the prescription drug giveaway?)
Compromising on an issue or two to advance the agenda, that’s one thing. And if a candidate is overall on the side of the angels, OK. But when it gets to a candidate with a history of actively being on the wrong side of 80% of the issues… then, it’s time to rethink one’s support.
V, what if the Republican candidate is better on fighting the foreign part of the GWOT (at least) than the Democrat? What would you make of that situation?
Myself , I really dont care who someone votes for. I generally wouldn’t pass judgement on someone for voting for the Democrats. However, I get constantly barraged by Leftists because I dont vote for Democrats and dont ever see myself doing so in the near future. So after a while I drop to thier level and engage in the grammar school rhetoric… a place where every discussion with them tends to go.
15: That’s the only reason why I will not attack Bush, and instead defend him when I see him being maligned unfairly.
The war is all that matters.
That’s a tough question. If a Republican says he’ll fight terror, but put the government in charge of regulating political speech or outlaw guns… what’s one supposed to do with that? On the other hand, the Global War on Islamo-Fascism is probably going to be a multi-generational struggle. So four years doesn’t make that big of a difference. With the exception of Duncan Hunter (who was no chance), nobody on the GOP side seems all that visionary with regard to the GWOIF, anyway.
There’s also a theory that the Democrats will never support the GWOIF until they can be in charge of it. If that theory is correct, then it becomes a real question. I guess one could argue that living under secular Euro-socialism is preferable to living under sharia… and that’s the direction liberals of both parties are pushing us in. But it’s not a future I would want for my country.
#17, I won’t attack Bush, but I will criticize him when his policies warrant criticism, such as his fanatical opposition to border security.
Legitimate Bush criticism is when one says “I oppose Bush policy A, because it has the following negative consequences.”
Illegitimate Bush criticism takes the form, “Bushco/Dear Leader is a idiot and u r all idiots/racists for following his christofascist/neo-con oil agenda.”
V: Yeah i meant to say it the way you put it. Bush is a big disappointment to me. What’s distressing is that he’s one of the few who knows we’re at war.
I wish Newt was marketable because he’s said everything that I think is spot on.
From Tim Blair’s blog
The Truce is Over
Joe Lieberman website says the nonbinding resolution opposing the US presence in Iraq has created the potential for a Constitutional crisis. “The potential for a constitutional crisis here and now is real, with congressional interventions, presidential vetoes, and Supreme Court decisions. If there was ever a moment for nonpartisan cooperation to agree on a process that will respect both our personal opinions about this war and our nation’s interests over the long term, this is it.”
——————————————————————————–
Commentary
When people describes themselves as Anti-War; that they want to end the War, the unasked question is which one. During the 1960s America engaged in two wars. One overseas and the other at home. One may have ceased but the second has never ended. Nor will the “anti-War” crowd ever end it until they achieve final and unconditional victory.
That’s why the outcome of the “Vietnam War” doesn’t refer to the resolution of foreign conflict forty years old but to a perceived — and permanent — domestic outcome in America. Just as the Civil War abolished slavery, “Vietnam” was regarded as having abolished American “imperialism” overseas forever. And even though this “outcome” was never the explicit war aim of the Peace Movement; nor even did they claim it a victory, it remained at least within a minority, the Legacy of the 1960s. The antipathy of the Left towards Ronald Reagan and George Bush cannot be rationally explained without appreciating that, in their eyes at least, the conservatives were embarked on a “rolling back” of the gains of history; that they were trying to undo the results of the Civil Rights Movement and the Legacy of Vietnam.
Iraq may be a cultural and physical world away from Vietnam, but the domestic landscape of that earlier conflict resemble what it is today. Lieberman correctly characterized the Democratic resolution as a footstomping yell of “no”.
Senator Lieberman argued that the non binding resolution, “proposes nothing. It contains no plan for victory or retreat… It is a strategy of “no,” while our soldiers are saying, “yes, sir” to their commanding officers as they go forward into battle.”
But it is a “no” to everything. A yell of outrage and pain that “their” world has been destroyed by George W. Bush. One might timidly point out that Osama Bin Laden and radical Islam might have had something to do with it, but that will be ruled out of order because the crime — and you have to understand the crime — could only have been committed domestically. By Republicans. By enemy Americans.
Senator Lieberman closed with a call for unity, “Whatever our differences here in this chamber, about this war, let us never forget the values of freedom and democracy that unite us and for which our troops have given and today give the last full measure of their devotion. Yes, we should vigorously debate and deliberate. That is not only our right, it is our responsibility. But at this difficult juncture, at this moment when a real battle, a critical battle is being waged in Baghdad, as we face a brutal enemy who attacked us on 9/11 and wants to do it again, let us not just shout at one another, but let us reach out to one another to find that measure of unity that can look beyond today’s disagreements and secure the nation’s future and the future of all who will follow us as Americans.”
Fat chance. The Peace Movement doesn’t want unity. It wants war. War until the world it is fighting for is unconditionally and irreversibly established. That a government for the masses, of the masses and by the masses, shall briefly flicker on the face of the earth.
ops, this came from The Belmont Club blog, not Tim BLair
Whew! So many comments. Let me get after them real quick:
“Is ideological purity – trying to get back to a Reagan conservative as close as possible – a good thing?”
Answer: Yes and no. Let me elaborate.
I can only speak for myself as I reflect back on the 20th century, especially the sociological realignments of 1932, 1964 and 1980. Ideological purity as a concept never really existed except for the election of Reagan in 1980. Up until that time, the GOP was pretty much “the garden party” in terms of elitists and wealthy voters. The election of Reagan began a rebuilding phase of the GOP following Watergate.
Contrast that to the evolutionary reversal of the Democrats, whose supremacy was all but guaranteed during FDR’s administrations. The 1932 election took the Democrat Party to new heights in terms of a true “big tent” movement. Depression, World War II, the Red scare and Korea pretty much gave the country a case of “Dem fatigue” to usher in the GOP.
The 1964 election further slid the Dems backwards as they embraced more socialist and leftist policies, bigger government and (as the 1970s grew closer) civil rights, Vietnam protestors et al. By the time Carter was elected in 1976, the Democrat Party was a bare shadow of what it was 42 years ago in terms of being a “big tent” and was increasingly limited to the far-left part of the political spectrum.
The landscape since 1980 (and especially 1984) can be attributed to the “Reagan revolution” in terms of party ID. The GOP underwent a sea-change from elitist garden-club party stalwarts to a younger, more diverse and challenging activists. It is this period of history that a lot of voters wish would reappear.
All that being said – yes, I would like to see a return to the ideas that made this country work. Things like less federal government in daily lives, less taxes, more military spending and a stronger embrace of values. However, there is no one person or candidate who can bring about all this change right now. I have to settle for the one who can secure our borders, protect our freedoms and fight the global WOT.
And I appreciate everyone letting me have my $0.02 thrown in.
Just out of curiosity – what is a Borg? Is that something like a Klingon from Star Trek? (I never got into that show, sorry.)
I’m just plain li’l ole me from Texas, calling it like I see it.
Regards,
Peter H.
The Borg is an alien race that was introduced in Star Trek: Next Generation.
They are based on the other side of the galaxy (which in Star Trek universe takes like 80 years to reach). There was a supernatiural alien who whisked the Enterprise to that area of space to teach them a lesson.
The Borg’s ships are giant cubes. The Borg are cybernetic.. part “human” part robot. They live as a technological collective and when they encounter new cultures, they invade it and turn those people into borg and the borg take whatever they can learn from that culture and assimiliate it into theirs, leaving nothing behind.
So militaristically, it’s very Islamic. Though I think the Klingons are the better analogy to the Arab culture.
The key part of the analogy is that the Borg insist on absolute conformity, and a complete absence of individual thought.
Also, I think the “ideologically pure” argument is a straw man. No one is insisting on an ideologically pure conservative candidate. The question is, how many conservative principles can you abandon and still be a legitimate conservative?
Peter: I’m was originally referring to the GayRightBorg. I appreciate your independence.
V: Some years ago here in Washington State’s 1st District, we had a young, successful and attractive congressman named Rick White. He had a bright political future except that he had the (perceived) misfortune of voting against a measure to begin the process of writing an amendment banning gay marriage. He (correctly) thought of this as a state issue and voted accordingly. He was also against an amendment banning abortion. These two issues were litmust tests to a particularly ignorant (moronic) group of conservatives in his district, led by a guy named Craswell (and these were the only issues of interest to them). Craswell got into the race as a 3rd-party candidate and now the Democrat and complete nutjob Jay Inslee is the representative, the margin of victory being nearly exactly the number of votes Craswell received. (The local media did their part — they ran front page news stories about Craswell, interviews of Craswell, interviews of Craswell’s supporters, pictures of meetings with campaigners in prayer with both hands raised in the Pentecostal salute, etc., because they understood that Craswell’s support came right out of White’s hide.) Although Craswell always maintained he could win the race during the campaign, he was later interviewed and asked if he felt any guilt about what he’d done. He said no, that this was the process, and that he was satisfied he had ‘sent a message’ to the GOP.
So no, purity is not a straw man. Purity is a fat, ignorant zealot who is a loser by intention. Purity, thy name is Moron.
#18 –
Just to offer a counter-arg: Jimmy Carter’s four years made a huge difference. We’re still struggling with his legacy, in fact. Picture President Hillary backing off in the Middle East to the point where a nuke goes off in or near Israel in her third year or so, before the Democrats finally wake up.
That’s interesting, and could be true. In fact, I believe Kos (himself) or similar may have said something much like, ‘We will fight the GWOT – after we regain power’. That’s pretty sickening, though. Such Democrats, if they exist, would essentially want to hold the country hostage to their tantrum. I could never vote for that.
#20 –
Hear, hear!!!
Uh… hear hear, again! But it looks like the current 3 GOP frontrunners will only give us the last one there.
#24 – #25 – “Borg” surfaces around here in the context of Michigan-Matt talking about the GLBT – GayLeftBorgTypes. 🙂
#26 –
HardHobbit, that’s interesting. What is that? Do you see it alot on another blog? Note that in this thread, myself, V the K, Vince, you and Peter are all disappointed Bush critics. (In fact, the 5 of us are agreeing on it so maybe that makes us a Borg!) And I’ve never even been a Republican in my life. I hope you don’t mean it as a reference to our good hosts, Bruce and Dan, also responsible Bush critics.
(p.s. To put in more ideological / policy terms: I’ve never even been a conservative in my life.)
I’m one of those Small Fed Govt, Low taxation, States Rights, libertarian-leaning Conservatives.
Right on!
Where we could conceivably part – (and not that it’s a big deal; only info): I happen to also support drug legalization and some abortion rights as “small government”, and gay marriage since the early to mid 1990s. Yup, it’s true. ‘Night. 😉
support drug legalization
– I’m not convinced that legalization will make things better for the users.
and some abortion rights as “small government”
– I believe it should be up to the States to decide and the Fed govt having no involvement whatsoever.
, and gay marriage since the early to mid 1990s. Yup, it’s true. ‘Night
– Again. State issue for me.
The post that follows this one and the contrast between the two are hilarious.
32: Your comment has no context.
Let’s do it slowly then. This post–“Peggy: Candidates Should take [sic] Time to Think About [sic] Big Things”–is followed by another post–“US Must Withdraw Now!!!” Given that this “Peggy” post asks people to sit quietly in a room and think about big things is followed by a histrionic “Withdraw Now!!!” post, there is quite a contrast. That contrast–especially the competing sentiments between them–is very, very funny. The context is the blog itself: I referred to this post and the one after it. Then I was paying attention to the contrast between the sequential posts. When one reads the first, and then reads the second, one is no longer sure which sentiment to attend to. It was funny, but now all this explaining has worn me out.
ok.. when I read your first statement I thought you were replying to a comment. got it now.
Oh, I see now, Vince. You thought I was following along in the comments and commenting on your comment. I simply commented immediately on the post. Sorry for the confusion. I was just laughing at the thought of Peggy Noonan chastising GayPatriot and making him sit in the corner.
I don’t know if anybody has said it before, but I think all the candidates should take a year off to reflect. Seriously, everybody’s going to be sick and tired of them come Caucus time.
That’s exactly the point. It’s not that the GOP front runners are 80% conservative and we’re quibbling over purity. It’s a matter that they all have histories of being more often center-left than conservative, and when they try to cast themselves as conservatives now, it’s just not convincing. It’s like watching Andy Dick try to play Jack Bauer.
The washington press corp should take a break too
Look how unhinged I made these folks over at this link
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/16/tammy-duckworths-husband-called-to-iraq
I for one agree – everyone (the MSM, the candidates, the electorate) should just take a time out, grab a chill pill and wait until the primaries and caucuses of 2008.
Unfortunately, we live in an Internet age and in a culture that expects instant gratification. We’re not living for today, we’re living for tomorrow. And that bothers me.
Like I said before, I will make my own decision in due time without any influence by the Drive-By Media. It is up to us as individuals to measure our own priorities, not have them dictated by someone else.
And more of my $0.02 here:
I consider myself a Federalist – a belief in a strong central government to protect me, but with the caveats listed in the 9th and 10th Amendments regarding the rights of the states and the people thereof.
I’m also a strict constructionist when it comes to the Constitution. There is such a thing as enumerated powers, after all. The Ninth Amendment has been misinterpreted to the point that the SCOTUS can practically rule on anything given the “penumbra” interpretation. This “ruling from the bench” mentality needs to cease and desist.
Regards,
Peter H.
I think the 17th Amendment needs to be repealed.
#31 –
‘Morning Vince,
I believe I stand with the late Milton Friedman in making the following argument. My words / spin / additions, of course.
All property owners – which in America is everybody, since even the poorest own their persons/lives – seek protection services. Owners of property outside the law, seek and create protection services that are outside the law. A.k.a. organized crime. Criminalization of drugs is in fact a major driver of the “demand” for organized crime or criminal gangs.
So, is drug criminalization really necessary? Is it accomplishing anything? No. I mean, not unless you secretly assume people are “morons” (a propos of earlier discussion, hah hah) where every little behavioral choice must be legislated by Mama Hillary. In fact, criminalization invests much drug use with that faux aura of “rebellion” beloved of moronic lefties.
I don’t claim organized crime would vanish if drugs were de-criminalized, but it would take a step down, over time. This was seen with the repeal of Prohibition, which moved the entire alcohol industry out of “mob boss” terrority and back into “legitimate business”.
Moreover, some of the top property and 2nd Amendment violations today are committed in the name of the War on Drugs. It’s a left-liberal’s wet dream. They get to cheat and “rebel”, at the same time they vastly expand government power.
So my support of legalization is about making things better for the body politic. For the record, I say all this as a NON-user.
I agree. I’m against judicially-imposed abortion and judicially-imposed gay marriage. I had meant that I support the idea – and was writing letters to persuade for it way before the GayLeftBorg thought it was cool.
#26
Let’s get back to that. HardHobbit, what would you mean by that? Is there a more conservative gay blog out there? 🙂
Calarato: You definately have valid points. I think drugs is one of those issues where there really is no good thing about them in the aggregate.
About the gay marriage and abortion, I didnt mean to come off as if I was opposing what you had said, I was just providing info as to my pov.
im hungry
#14:
Arguably, conservatives are better off with the Democrat president, since the Republicans in Congress have a better chance of thwarting her liberal agenda.
Is this predicated on a Republican congress and if so, what is the size of the majority? The current House Republicans cannot thwart much of anything. You also fail to take into account the importance of committees. I would argue that a true agenda is fought and won (or lost) in committee; thus, it’s crucial to vote for Republicans not because all of them are conservative, but because the GOP is the more conservative party. While you might bemoan that your Republican representative is not as conservative as you might like, his/her electoral win will likely help ensure that a conservative from another district may be appointed committee chairman (or ranking member, depending upon the makeup of congress). Or if you prefer, Arlen Specter may be an SOB, but he’s our SOB.
Regarding the election for President, there is another consideration: coattails. A high level of momentum into the election and a high turnout on election day will not only help elect a Republican President, but will help elect a Republican congress. We can bitch about how disappointed we were when the GOP controlled the executive and legislative branches, but do you honestly think a Kerry administration wouldn’t have brought us back to having our agenda (and I’m using the term advisedly) hashed out on talk radio?
Another consideration is the Supreme Court. Painful as it may be, let’s theorize that Hillary is President. How many of the justices do you think would suddenly retire? If abortion-on-demand is one of your issues, it would be a very long time before any changes to the law were made or if any new precedents were established.
So no, I completely disagree that conservatives are better off with a Democrat President. Once again, electoral success is based upon strategy.
This is useless. I’m writing to a brick wall.
HardHobbit, that’s idiotic and unseemly.
I think it’s obvious that if one’s objective is to advance Republican power, one looks at the equation a certain way. If one’s objective is to advance a Conservative agenda, one may not necessarily look at it that way.
GW Bush is actually a brilliant case study into what happens with a president who is judicially conservative, but executively liberal. His SCOTUS picks have been nothing less than spectacular, and his lesser court picks have been impressive. On foreign policy, results are somewhat mixed. Fighting Islamic fascism at the source, appointing John Bolton to the UN, and pulling out of ABM — Good. Cozying up with Hamas, repeating the Clinton deal with the Norks, letting Mookie al-Sadr continue breathing my air — not so much. On domestic policy, completely wretched.
As I see it, it’s unrealistic to expect a candidate to be perfect, but you don’t want the party to start taking you for granted either. The challenge is in deciding what you will not compromise on … strict constructionist judges, tax cuts, strong national defense, illegal immigration. Sometimes, even there, you have to compromise, since Bush, Giuliani, Romney, and McCain all seem to want to make sure the maximum possible amount of illegal immigration occurs.
Maybe taking a breather is the best thing to do. Wake me up when September (2008) ends.
I am sorry. #46 “reads” with more charge than I meant, or more than you would have heard in my voice (in person). Please let me cancel and re-phrase.
HardHobbit, sorry but considering what a good guy V is, that closing potshot is not appropriate.
I will say that Bush ’43 is a BIG improvement on his dad in terms of SCOTUS picks. Three words: Justice David Souter. ‘Nuff said.
Regards,
Peter H.
#49 — And I would add Jeb Bush would probably be an improvement on 41 or 43.