Clinton in South Carolina
I was listening tonight to a C-Span broadcast of Bill Clinton’s stump speech for his wife in South Carolina. Here are my conclusions:
1. In her mid-twenties, right out of law school, Hillary’s philanthropy and social service were of such a magnitude that they almost immediately found their way into federal law. Indeed, much of our comprehensive legislation concerning children and the poor had their geneses through her twenty-something work. The audience is to believe that leaving Yale Law School and forgoing politics back in Illinois were moral decisions for which we all are forever in her debt. Like Bill, she has suffered for all of us.
2. There is really not much of a social safety network for anyone. We may be giving half our incomes over to federal, state, and local taxes, spending 70% of our budget on social programs, and at the apex of large government in our history, but none of this is adequate. Instead, veterans, children, the poor, and aged, all of them are simply being neglected—and only Hillary has the savvy to create enough new social programs to save those who need to be saved. Any social pathology is entirely due to collective indifference or government neglect. Since the individual through drunkenness, drug use, ignorance, evil, or selfishness is never responsible for the results of his pathology, it would be silly to ask of him to clean up his own mess.
3. Almost every anecdote is prefaced by “When I was Governor, Hillary…” or “When I was president, she…” By implicit assumption, if we vote for Hillary we are voting in name for a co-presidency, but in fact, for a third and fourth term for Bill.
4. The problem is not that Bill Clinton occasionally lies—he does. But instead, almost serially he exaggerates and fudges—and in ways beyond not inhaling or redefining “is”, or insisting oral sex is not sex. The result is a Forrest Gump like effect, that we are to believe he and Hillary were the font of every almost every liberal gift of the last quarter-century—Yale, then Arkansas being the Mecca of social change.
5. It would be cruel, but understandable to ask amid these long encomia on Hillary’s character, her talent, and her morality—prefaced by Bill’s commentary that he almost alone realized her singular gifts, why in the world, then, did he spend over thirty years trying to escape her in almost every way imaginable? Why if she walked on water, did he find company, carnality, conversation with Paula Jones or Gennifer Flowers, or feel the need to talk trash and more with Monica? In other words, he is asking the voter to take on a partnership, a political marriage if you will, that he, mutatis mutandis, never would or has. It reminds me of the last time I bought a Chevy S-10. The local Selma salesman went on at great length about its reliability, its power, and economy, its great price, and then I asked him whose small, like-sized Toyota Tacoma was parked nearby and was it for sale? No need to tell you to whom it belonged.
More on McCain
My private email, still deluged with angry letters, reflects the postings here that many will not vote for McCain—no matter what. Perhaps President Hillary will make their point that a quasi-conservative (80 or so in standard ratings) is not good enough and should equate to a lost election.
But all the candidates have problems. Huckabee’s populism and foreign policy experience reflect more Huey Long or William Jennings Bryan than the Republican mainstream. Romney crafted a career as a blue-stocking moderate to win in Massachusetts, a stance that was deliberately at odds with Reaganite social conservatism. Giuliani reflected those mushy attitudes about illegal immigration characteristic of the 1990s. Yet I would vote for any of the above in preference to Sen. Clinton, who, as we are beginning to see, is a mere surrogate for eight more years of Bill, who, in turn, is determined to wash away his earlier stains by a third and fourth chance at our collective expense.
I take McCain at his word that—once chastised on immigration—he will close the border. Ending illegal immigration, restoring fiscal sanity, cutting spending, and insisting on victory in the war are the essential issues, and on all he is far preferable to Hillary. There really is a difference between “suspension of disbelief” and “no substitute for victory.” That is why a number of conservatives have and will continue to hold their noses and endorse McCain.
Republicans, like it or not, have been given a great gift. Just three months ago Hillary was coronated in the media as our next President, as polls showed her winning against all comers. Then came her demonization of Obama and the entrance of pit-bull Bill—and the country was reminded of the Clinton viciousness and the entire fraud of modern liberal thinking.
Identity politics? Good except when your square white wife must win to get you back in power? Feminism? Women rule—except when they are surrogates for a male return to power at any cost? The policies of personal destruction? Terrible—unless you must engage in them to destroy the black candidate to save the black constituency. A liberal slanted media? Great—until liberals begin to see that Clintonites are embedded all over the networks and can’t quite be fair to Obama.
All this the Clintoni have exposed and the results are clear: a moderate-conservative nominee, at a time when a Republican President has a 35% approval rating, will still beat a left-wing Democrat. And yes, moderate Democrats, who watch this Clintonian ruthlessness, will be turned off and may well vote for a McCain in key states like Ohio, Michigan, Florida and elsewhere not because McCain is a liberal, but because they can disguise their embarrassment and disgust for Clinton by claiming they voted for a national hero.
A Final Note. Remember that Ronald Reagan signed the greatest amnesty bill in our history that helped to ensure the present 10-15 million illegal aliens, raised payroll taxes and upped gasoline taxes, sold arms secretly and illegally to the Contras, had a disastrous episode in Lebanon that cost 241 Marine lives, naively called for global nuclear disarmament, and far more unconservative accomplishments—and rightfully, despite all that, deserves the mantle of a great President. And more importantly, it is likely that the two moderates in the race, McCain and Giuliani, most often supported Reagan during his administration in practical ways.
A better tactic than sitting out the election would be to unite around the nominee, and then put his feet to the fire on key issues. If it is McCain, then demand he go on Limbaugh’s show for an hour, or speak before social conservatives, and take the heat.
We are watching something historic—the crumbling of the Clinton façade. Its disintegration does not mean Hillary won’t be President, only that she can now be beaten when just a few months ago that was deemed impossible. Strange to say: the election is in Republican hands.
Two New Journals.
Two left-of-center journals, Lapham’s Quartlery and World Affairs, have appeared and they are, yes, both excellent. Both have the usual anti-Bush subtexts. But there is a lot of balance. In the World Affairs launch issue there are good essays by Peter Collier and one by Christopher Hitchens, as well as contributions from Reuel Marc Gerecht and David Bell.
Louis Lapham’s final editor’s essays in Harper’s excoriating Bush were near hysterical and rambling. I’m sure he thought that I was as unhinged in support of the removal of Saddam and the need to replace him with a constitutional government as I did his blanket opposition.
But no matter—his quarterly is excellent, an original sort of publication devoted to military history in the broadest literary sense. The method is to take today’s controversies—Iraq, asymmetrical warfare, terrorism, preemption, etc.—and juxtapose current observations by military historians and essayists with those of the past, whether by Thucydides or George Orwell. The effect is to have a board of contributors, as it were, made up by the likes of Machiavelli and Eugene Sledge. The quarterly is lavishly produced and beautifully illustrated, a sort of literary version of Military Historical Quarterly. I would like to hear readers’ comments about the first issue.
Fox News
I am supposed to be on Fox News this Sunday at around 11 AM. I try to do a radio program every day or so, but usually avoid television. There are no studios in Fresno that will open a link, and the networks don’t like to send a van out to the farm. They’ve done so 5-6 times, but it seems a colossal waste of money to set up the living room for 2 hours and then do 3 minutes. The only time I can do it, then, is here at Stanford that has an excellent studio, and I am rarely here at the time they ask—except for this Sunday.
Rush, the Genius?
I note in passing that, contrary to elite opinion, I am mightily impressed by most in talk radio. A Hugh Hewitt or Dennis Prager is far brighter than most academics I met over the last thirty years, not to mention far better spoken. We also forget that Limbaugh is not just a pundit, but a gifted comedian. His impersonations and imitations are in the first rank of comedians. Note the recent writers’ strike shut down or emasculated lesser talents like Leno, Letterman, and Maher, but reminded us that Limbaugh daily, for three hours non-stop can do his own material. He had all the requisite talents—quick wit, well read, good memory, excellent delivery, and a comic sense.
The Left never saw that. They thought offering up antithetical shows would do the trick, not understanding that Rush succeeded wildly, not just because of his commentary, but because he really is a gifted entertainer, a sort of combination Jack Benny, Lenny Bruce, Don Rickles, and Rich Little all in one, with the insight of a Buckley or Novak. Really a gifted guy. If he bit his lip Clinton-style or socialized with the literati, or didn’t have to do ads, he would be considered by critics as the genius that he really is.
Digg This
del.icio.us
PJM Home
Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise to Western Power
Mexifornia : A State of a Becoming
Between War and Peace: Lessons from Afghanistan to Iraq
The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece (Paperback)
Wars of the Ancient Greeks (Smithsonian History of Warfare) (Paperback)
Who Killed Homer: The Demise of Classical Education and the Recovery of Greek Wisdom
Fields Without Dreams : Defending the Agrarian Ideal (Paperback)
The Soul of Battle: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, How Three Great Liberators Vanquished Tyranny
The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War (Paperback)
52 Comments
BLOC:About McCain, you said:
I for one, will not sit out the election.
If McCain becomes the Republican nominee, I will vote for him even as I vomit, and hope later to be able to hold his feet to the fire.
But Mr. McCain is a maverick, which means he does pretty much what he pleases, irrespective of ideology or public opinion (which is a mixed blessing). So I view him as unpredictable, and harbor doubts that he will allow himself to be held accountable. Keep in mind that he’s one tough cookie — he didn’t break when he was a POW, and he knows full well he can take whatever heat is brought upon him.
There are lots of great reasons not to vote for McCain (free speech, Global Warming, Immigration, etc.), but there are two compelling ones to vote for him: Clinton and Obama. The social issues are a wash between the 3 — but who would prosecute the GWOT best, which of the 3 would likely be the strongest supporter of Israel and who’s the least likely to appoint far, far left judges?
(Parenthetically, just today, Michelle Malkin pointed out that Juan Hernandez is McCain’s Hispanic outreach director. I’ve seen Dr. Hernandez on the O’Reilly show, Googled him and read some of his other interviews, and he’s about as far into Hispanic identity politics as it’s possible to get (including wide open borders). What’s that all about?)
Jan 25, 2008 - 10:10 pm Jeff:Dr. Hanson,
You asked for feeddback in your Two Journals section. My thoughts:
“Both have the usual anti-Bush subtexts.” Oh no Dr. Hanson, with Lapham, it IS the text. I guess if you want mere entertainment or buffoonery you’ll sacrifice your time, probably better spent, and look at Lapham’s Quartlery.
As for World Affairs, I agree with you. There is at least the appearance of balance for now. I am interested to see what Christopher Hitchens, with all of his Godless prose, has to say. He is a no-holds-barred writer. He can be, of course. He’s going to Hell anyway.
Jan 26, 2008 - 4:01 am Ivanhoe:Conservatives, and I count myself among the fiscally conservative, mind-your-own-business crowd, make a huge mistake if they decide to stay home instead of support McCain,assuming he becomes the nominee.
I spent years active in Democratic politics trying to drag my local political apparatus back to the center or even towards a rightward tilt on fiscal matters, to no avail. So I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer and perhaps should have wised up years earlier, but I feel I know the Democratic and independent mind, at least here in the Midwest. There is a huge swath of independents and fiscally conservative Democrats who would vote for McCain; many who would not consider voting for Bush, who seems much more interested in conservative social policies while holding fiscal policies which would make LBJ, blush with envy.
If we fast-forward a few months when the general public really starts paying attention to the presidential election, what does the world look like? Pakistan possibly heading into civil war?
Putin and company still saber rattling?, Africa continuing on a slow boil? China aggressively manuvering around the world in search of resources? When the public looks at who can be the best commander in chief, McCain is the clear choice over Obama or Clinton.
I was against the Iraq War from day one, mainly because I don’t think the entire middle east is worth the life of one American soldier, but on balance and capabilities would still vote for McCain over any of the Democrats, and I don’t think I am alone on that.
McCain is too cozy with the Parasite on the Potomac, but that’s where the game is and all the wishing in the world isn’t going to change that, not in one election anyway. But he can beat Hillary Clinton and it is doubtful any of the other contenders can.
Jan 26, 2008 - 5:50 am kirk:I agree that McCain is a much better alternative than Obama or Billary….and I think the facts about Reagan also make some of the “pure conservatives” problems with McCain seem less substantive.
Meanwhile, I also agree that Limbaugh is a brilliant entertainer. But I am also starting to doubt his intentions, as he rails about McCain. McCain can beat the Democrats. At least the polls say that. I am starting to think Limbaugh may want Hillary in the Whitehouse. He can have lots of fun with that, and his ratings will go up. Limbaugh was squarely behind Bush in 2000, and has been a solid supporter of the man who is truly behind the decline of the Republican party. I wonder how different things might be if McCain had won in 2000…
Jan 26, 2008 - 6:34 am Mark William Paules:It seems to me that the current alignment on the Democratic side affords Republicans an opportunity in this election. Identity politics can be a two-edged sword. A Democratic candidate can ill afford to alienate one part of the base in order to secure the nomination. Apparently the Clintons think they can take down Obama without repercussions later in the general election. If so, it only reveals their arrogance.
What if McCain were to pair up with a black conservative like Colin Powell? McCain’s age will eventually be an issue. Probably Powell doesn’t want the job, but there must be a qualified black conservative somewhere. J.C. Watts? The current state of affairs offers Republicans a chance to throw a wedge into the Democratic base. If the name of the game is identity politics, why not beat the Democrats at their own game?
Jan 26, 2008 - 7:13 am BLOC:Another reason to vote for McCain if the contest is with Obama: Robert Novak reports Obama, if elected president, would appoint John Edwards Attorney General.
If you think McCain is bad, guess again. (via PowerLine)
Jan 26, 2008 - 8:00 am Bowden Russell:I take McCain at his word that—once chastised on immigration—he will close the border. Ending illegal immigration, restoring fiscal sanity,…
Well therein lies the rub. You trust someone who has betrayed us, our cause, time and time again.
We know at his core his mocking derision against the American worker when he bloviates about how Americans won’t pick lettuce for $50 an hour, then flees when the audience members raise their hands when they say they would.
His contempt for the average American is obvious. He’s to his core an inside-the-beltway Senator who despite his rhetoric, has never once led a fillibuster against the fiscal irresponsibity that has plauged Washington. He talks a good game, but its all talk.
Its sad to say you’ve been taken in by his sudden “come to Jesus moment” on immigration. You’ve been duped by his sweet talk Dr. Hanson.
But He’ll be the nominee, and Clinton will be theirs, and she will win.
Then the Republican Party can rebuild itself from this disaster of the last 4 years of the Bush Administration.
Jan 26, 2008 - 8:56 am Davyd Bowen:I find myself, however tenuously, connected to Cecil Woodham-Smith’s
description of the Charge of the Light Brigade.
First hand experience of the many thousand years tradition of men waging war on horseback is unlikely to be still found in living memory.
But I once knew a man, my step-grandfather, born into the reign of Queen Victoria in 1898, who as a 15 year old boy ran away from his home in England and fought with pistol and sabre and bore the scars as his introduction to the First World War.
Such descriptions as he would allow led me to research others who had fought as he had and led me to Alexander Roberts Dunn whose actions at Balaclava earned him Canada’s first Victoria Cross.
Reading the description of his actions put me inside such an event and Woodham-Smith’s description of the wider action can but only engender in the reader an almost reverential appreciation for those called upon to wage war in such a fashion.
And for the boy who ran away to war.
Jan 26, 2008 - 10:02 am BLOC:A thought just occurred to me, one more worrisome than Edwards as AJ.
How about him as a Supreme Court justice?
Jan 26, 2008 - 10:48 am richard everett:Professor:
Jan 26, 2008 - 11:47 am James- The Historian:“I take McCain at his word that—once chastised on immigration—he will close the border.” Please, pull yourself together! As a previous commenter has already stated–Juan Hernandez. Nuf’ said.
As far as the rest of it goes, McCain-Feingold, Mccain- Kennedy, “didn’t vote for the tax cuts,” it goes on. To say it politely, he is pig-headed. I will not “hold my nose,” I just won’t vote for him if he is the nominee, And I am NOT a Republican, I am an Independent.
Thanks for this island of sanity in the midst of endless doctrine driven nonsense. Keep up the great work.
Jan 26, 2008 - 12:34 pm Anthony (Los Angeles):What if McCain were to pair up with a black conservative like Colin Powell?
Michael Steele would make a great choice, I think.
I have a lot of differences with McCain (I’m a Giulianista, myself.), but he is far, far preferable to the defeatists and Copperheads the (Social) Democrats are running. His choice of running-mate will be crucial since, at his age, I can’t see him as more than a one-term president.
Jan 26, 2008 - 1:48 pm Anthony (Los Angeles):A thought just occurred to me, one more worrisome than Edwards as AJ.
How about him as a Supreme Court justice?
Please! You’ll scare the children!
Jan 26, 2008 - 1:49 pm Jim Nelson:Compare John McCain to Gerry Coffey. Never heard of him? He hasn’t spent the last 35 years dining off the fact he was a POW, like John McCain has.
Capt. Coffey came to speak to the UCLA Navy ROTC unit, when I was a member many years back. I can only describe him as beatific. How a man could live through such things and radiate such tranquility and love I can’t imagine.
John McCain on the other hand, is an angry, bitter man. I don’t think his POW experience made him bitter and angry though, I think he has been that way since he was a teenager. I don’t think he wanted to go to the Naval Academy or be in the Navy but felt forced to by his family. He paid them back with his horrible performance there (being Anchorman is really nothing to be proud of.)
McCain is just a PO’d 17 year old boy telling everybody “you’re not the boss of me!” Not the sort of person who should be President.
Jan 26, 2008 - 8:06 pm Kevin McCann:Every moment in time has an infinite number of events unrecorded. I can not know that my focus is faulty. What beauty have I not seen?
Jan 27, 2008 - 7:13 am a Duoist:Just how many times in eight years is a conservative to watch Republican office-holders abandon key conservative values before deciding to simply stay home on Election Day and wait eight years for the revival?
This republic will survive eight more years of Clintonism; the Republican Party will not survive so long as its office-holders keep voting for big government.
Jan 27, 2008 - 7:15 am BLOC:Jim Nelson wrote:
richard everett, not a Republican but an independent, wrote:
However true all that might be — and I basically agree with both of you — so what?
Or are you suggesting that instead of having US policy directed by McCain, it is preferable to place our future in the hands of the Clintons, with all their character pathology, or in the hands of an Obama, who argues for withdrawal from Iraq even as he advocates invading nuclear Pakistan, and might appoint John Edwards Attorney General (and, who knows, perhaps even to the Supreme Court) in exchange for delegates?
Because that’s exactly what you’re saying if McCain is the nominee and you don’t vote for him.
The perfect shouldn’t kill the good, and the good shouldn’t kill the lesser of two evils.
Jan 27, 2008 - 7:49 am STEVE BROWN:VICTOR,
I am sorry, but I read this too late to catch you on Fox today, Sunday, 1-27.
I am vastly impressed by by our thinking and writing, but as a conservative talk show host of 17 years here in Omaha, I must call your comment on Rush (”or didn’t have to do ads”) either anti-business, or flat-out LIBERAL!
4 times each hour, 3 hours a day, through all of my years, I too, have PROUDLY “had to do ads”) for companies whose owners I knew well, or whose services I used myself,
…who contributed honorably to the economics and sense of community here.
To decry that a talented, trusted, fantastically successful fellow like Rush, whose work aired right after mine everyday since 1989, when we were one of the earliest stations to add him, (and enjoyed a 2 day visit from him to celebrate)
…is to say the least, a departure from the foundation of good media.
The last time I checked, the commercial support of shows like his, mine and hundreds of others, makes conservative talk radio, POSSIBLE!
Please re-think your quick comment, and take note of the abyss of only LIBERAL GIBBERISH that’s available on NON commercial,
“Public” radio.
Thank you.
Jan 27, 2008 - 1:10 pm STEVE BROWN:Steve Brown
Omaha
CORRECTING FIRST LINE OF ITEM SENT A FEW MINUTES AGO, SUNDAY, JAN. 27:
“I am vastly impressed by your thinking and writing”…..
Thanks!
Steve Brown
Jan 27, 2008 - 1:17 pm Nonsense Detector:Omaha
“McCain is just a PO’d 17 year old boy telling everybody “you’re not the boss of me!” Not the sort of person who should be President.”
Thank you, Dr. Freud. And you know Mr. McCain personally?
Jan 27, 2008 - 1:30 pm Bob:I take McCain at his word that—once chastised on immigration—he will close the border.
Jan 27, 2008 - 1:58 pm STEVE BROWN:Any candidate who has the rabid Mexican-nationalist Juan Hernandez involved in his campaign has not been chastized and is only saying he’ll close the border as a political ploy (and a particularly transparent one at that).
CORRECTING SECOND LINE OF PREVIOUS SUBMISSION:
“I am vastly impressed by your thinking and writing,..”
SORRY…..THANKS!
STEVE BROWN
Jan 27, 2008 - 2:46 pm Publius:OMAHA
Instead of comparing McCain to the other candidates, compare him to President Bush. Then you start to see that the vitriol directed at McCain for his policies has been entirely inordinate when compared to conservative criticism of the President. Why doesn’t he get the same heat?
Bush Policies:
No Child Left Behind
Prescription Drug Benefit
Signed McCain/Feingold
Creation of a new federal super-department - Homeland Security
Federal Spending out of control
Nominated Harriet Mires for Supreme Court
Now getting on the Global Warming bandwagon
Led and would have signed an amnesty bill for illegal immigrants
And I am sure the informed could list a good deal more.
McCain is as conservative as the President, more so on federal spending. Why such excessive loathing for MCCain?
And most of what thet complain about is what McCain has done since 2001. Well, why did they hate him in 2000 too?
It really is about personality. And it’s killing Conservative credibility, and the Republican party.
Jan 27, 2008 - 2:51 pm Jim Rockford:Dr. Hanson –
McCain on MTP has said he’d pass his Amnesty Bill. He has not changed on Open Borders and Amnesty. A vote for McCain is a vote for Open Borders, Amnesty, and turning the US into Mexico.
McCain is also a liberal on all aspects of the War on Terror save open defeat in Iraq: he wants to close Gitmo, try AQ as criminals, issue Miranda warnings on the Battlefield, and conduct a PC campaign instead of War.
McCain will follow his first love, the Press, to the exclusion of all else. He is also prone to rages and dislikes ordinary people.
Gov. Romney may not excite you, but unlike McCain he is solid on all aspects of the WoT, including Iraq (McCain shamelessly lies about his record which tells you something about McCain). He is also best-placed to argue for job creation and wage growth against Hillary’s statist programs for the economy.
Jan 27, 2008 - 2:57 pm Bowden Russell:Bob,
Thanks for bringing this up again. I would like Dr. Hanson to explain to us why we should take the Senator’s word on is apparent change of heart when he’s now hired the dual-nationalist Juan Hernandez to help run his campaign?
Judge them by their actions Dr. Hanson, not their words.
Jan 27, 2008 - 3:03 pm vb:Steve Brown, I read the point about the ads very differently. I think VDH was saying that Rush’s oh so intellectual critics are the ones who would find earning money distasteful. Our blog host is no snob.
Jan 27, 2008 - 3:12 pm OmegaPaladin:I also don’t get the whole idea of rebuilding through loss. Did the loss in 2006 help us at all? Come on here.
McCain has enough strikes against him to mean that people should campaign against him in the primary. However, all of this seems a bit like what the democrats did with Lieberman.
Jan 27, 2008 - 4:28 pm Bill Bradley:That is precisely what McCain did NOT say today on Meet The Press.
The best thing the Democrats have going is the right wing ideologues.
>Jim Rockford :
Jan 27, 2008 - 4:47 pm DECIUS:Dr. Hanson –
McCain on MTP has said he’d pass his Amnesty Bill. He has not changed on Open Borders and Amnesty. A vote for McCain is a vote for Open Borders, Amnesty, and turning the US into Mexico.
The social and economic conservatives are splitting their votes between Huckabee and Romney thus making a McVain victory possible.
Jan 27, 2008 - 5:46 pm Tolbert:Much is made of McVain’s lifetime conservative rating of 82%,but not much is said about his rating for the last seven years. McCain-Finegold,immigration,taxes,ect. What is one to make of a man that you have no idea what side of an issue he will come down on tomorrow. I shall vote for him if he receives the nomination, but only because of the alternative.
No, No, thrice again, No!
This is the best that we can do? Present a mediocre candidate and say at least he’s not Hillary?
John McCain would be at best a one-term President, one who has shown nothing but contempt for any that dare question his judgement.
The only way I would vote for McCain was if he signed an oath in his own blood that he would shut down the border within a year or resign his office on Jan 1st.
Jan 27, 2008 - 6:42 pm Mr Ed:“I take McCain at his word that—once chastised on immigration—he will close the border. Ending illegal immigration, restoring fiscal sanity, cutting spending, and insisting on victory in the war are the essential issues, and on all he is far preferable to Hillary.”
Well thank you Mr Hanson for being willing to hang your future and mine on the whims and ego of this years Sophies choice candidate. Firgive me for saying so, but I will not tale McCain at his “word”, his word being no more than a political deathbed confession. Assuming McCain does get elected, there will be no difference between him and Bush on immigration except that maybe McCain will be even worse. Interesting isn’t it, how an open borders Liberal republican suddenly becomes the candidate of choice for the media and elite representing pundits?
Yup, you conservative “purists” who believe that your candidate should represent YOU by actually believing their own rhetoric instead of smarmily sculpting their message to fool you once again are the real fools. Don’t you know that if you don’t support at least ONE of the open borders candidates - preferably the most tried-and-true open borders candidate McCain - then Hillary will win!
So what? I for one am sick to death of the manuevering of the media, politicians and talking head pundits to make sure the will of the American people is once again thwarted. While the issue of illegals is carefully manicured out of the debate ONCE AGAIN the elites are busy framing the political side of the debate to make sure you, the typical voter, cast your vote based on their latest trumped up scare tactics and not your own desires.
Why vote for a Liberal Lite? Why is all of the endless discussion in the media, all media, about McCain and how to make sure that HE, the open borders no free speech guy, is the only “real” choice”? I have wondered for years how and why we keep getting these non conservative conservatives to represent us. You need look no further than the media and punditocracy to see the current effort in full swing. It is perhaps more revealing to note the attack of the vapors the punditocracy had over Rush’s comments that, in effect, he will not be played again and the elites can go screw themselves.
I will not vote for another Democrat who happen to have a Republican tag by his name. Period. McCain isn’t just a poison pill, he is political death.
Jan 28, 2008 - 4:38 am Carl Withrow:Instead of encouraging conservatives to abandon their posts in hopes of winning one battle, would it not be better to send a message to the powers that be in the GOP saying, “Don’t even think of going there because we, the people will not be a party to the destruction of everything our country stands for?”
William Jefferson Clinton better illustrates the perils of nominating John McCain than anything in recent history. Clinton’s candidacy, a time when American citizens chose a man that had bad mouthed our nation on foreign soil during a period of war and was known to be an abusive womanizer, marked the end of the traditional Democrat Party.
I will not participate in the political heresy of John McCain as the GOP candidate for President because there is no doubt that choice would mark the end of the Republican Party.
Jan 28, 2008 - 6:48 am Fred Beloit:“I take McCain at his word that—once chastised on immigration—he will close the border. Ending illegal immigration,…” VDH
Alas, this is a mistaken view. He says if he were POTUS and the McCain/Kennedy Bill on immigration came before him he would sign it. The evidence is here, a brief but clearly audible “Yeah”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLWRW4GoGHY
Jan 28, 2008 - 7:14 am Fred Beloit:Kausfiles on the subject of the claim of a McCain change of mind on immigration. He calls you, Dr. Hansen, a McCain “cheap date” for falling for McCain’s rejection of his former beliefs. I wouldn’t take it personally. Kause tries always to be a stylist.
http://www.slate.com/id/2182933/#drmexicofirst
Jan 28, 2008 - 7:35 am Oldsmoblogger:I am a fusionist Lockean, and with that preface here are my problems with McCain:
McCain-Feingold
McCain-Kennedy (and McCain’s relationship with Juan Hernandez, and his relationship with the Reform Institute)
He’s a squish on the Second Amendment (it’s easy to puff and whoop about signing a national concealed-carry bill when he knows Congress will never send him one). His commitment to the right to keep and bear arms might last as long as the third New York Times editorial castigating him for caving in to the “conservative gun lobby,” but I wouldn’t bet on it.
The only reasons for supporting him are:
He’ll prosecute the war, perhaps more effectively than the current administration
John Paul Stevens
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
David Souter
Stephen Breyer
…but the last four are as much hoping against hope as anything. I’m not sure a Lindsey Graham on the Court would be much better.
Jan 28, 2008 - 8:10 am Donna:I’d be interested to get your reaction to Thomas Sowell’s latest column about McCain, his age and “loose canon” qualities. I’m sure you respect his opinions. He is specifically concerned about the energy required for the job and whether a man in his 70’s is a problem. Let us know how you would respond to the following:
“This is no time to get squeamish or politically correct, when talking about whoever is to carry the load of the free world on his shoulders in the White House.
Quite aside from age, there is all too much evidence already that John McCain is not the kind of man who has given in-depth thought to many of the serious issues on which he shoots from the hip, which some people equate with “straight talk.”
The media have dubbed him a “maverick,” which is another way of spinning the fact that he is headstrong and unreliable.
Senator McCain’s teaming up with Senator Ted Kennedy on immigration, and with equally left-wing Senator Russ Feingold to violate the First Amendment in the name of “campaign finance reform,” are classic examples of a loose cannon.
Senator McCain is not a bad man. He has some admirable qualities. But there are plenty of good people who would be dangerous in a job for which they are not suited.”
Jan 28, 2008 - 9:06 am Kent G. Budge:“It would be cruel, but understandable to ask amid these long encomia on Hillary’s character, her talent, and her morality…”
I don’t think that’s how you spell “coprography.”
Jan 28, 2008 - 9:14 am Scott:“I take McCain at his word that—once chastised on immigration—he will close the border.”
Allow me to to be the 4th or even 5th to bring up Juan Hernandez. The bottom line is; Can McCain be trusted on illegal immigration? His employment of a guy like Hernandez strongly suggests that he cannot.
All we GOP’ers can do now is hope for a Romney nomination as Guiliani is about done.
Jan 28, 2008 - 9:42 am Jerry:The GOP candidate winning is not the end goal; I support the GOP to the extent they advance those conservative causes I deem important. VDH, I’ve read your excellent books and you of all people should recognize that thinking people are well advised to find lessons from history. McCain would be analagous to Bloomberg on the national level. Did Bloomberg’s victory advance conservative principles in NYC? Did it build the NYC GOP stronger to fight for those pinciples another day? Negative to both; whatever core that Rudy built up in the arena of fighting crime and corruption in NYC is long since squandered for intrusive nanny-statism. A movement can suffer being undermined in a localized area, but shall we risk that our principles be rendered irrelevant to the political party that we’ve tasked to advance those very principles? Suffering 4 years of Billary is nothing compared to restructuring from square 1 after McCain sacrifices conservatism for a kind editorial from the NYT.
Jan 28, 2008 - 10:16 am BMoon:Please. A McCain candidacy would not “mark the end of the Republican Party.” He fits solidly along the historic lines of a Lincoln or T. Roosevelt - no nonsense pragmatists, even progressives, who will negotiate and even equivocate on national issues but will not waver an inch when it comes to our national integrity and safety. A man just for the times we are in, I’d say.
Jan 28, 2008 - 11:35 am Gabriel:I can’t agree with Dr. Hanson on his choice of McCain, who has always been more concerned with his press, than his party.
You can usually judge a man by the company he keeps, and McCain’s company is all open borders and pro-amnesty:
Look at his choice of “Hispanic outreach” director, a dual citizen Mexico first la Raza champion who has continually pushed for open borders policies.
Perhaps his choice of Jerrold Perenchio, a man who has donated more to Democrats, and has opposed Californias Prop 227 and 187, both of which would have cut benefits to illegal aliens.
Lets not forget that major open borders RINO’s like Mel Martinez are backing McCain as well.
And a final nail in his “conservative” coffin, should be his NYTimes endorsement. McCain will be a more of a disaster for the GOP, than Bush ever was. You want to regulate the party to the wilderness, by all means vote for McCain.
Jan 28, 2008 - 11:36 am Dave Begley -Omaha:The Clintons are finished. The torch has been passed today by the Kennedys to Obama.
I saw it coming when “The New Yorker” ran a piece which basically gave Northeast liberals permission to vote for Obama and not for the Clintons. Hillary’s biggest achievement in the Senate? According to “The New Yorker” it is keeping Fort Drum open. No joke.
When Greg Craig, your classmate from Yale Law and lead impeachment defense lawyer, comes out for Obama then you know Hillary is finished.
Jan 28, 2008 - 11:56 am Catherine:I take McCain at his word, too! He will not pour water up a terrorist’s nose for 30 seconds to save our country! Nuf said!
Jan 28, 2008 - 12:07 pm Bowden Russell:Pat Buchanan hits the nail on the head w/r/t the entire issue on why Republicans shouldn’t even bother voting if their choice is McCain and Hillary.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24666
Jan 28, 2008 - 11:40 pm Jeremy:there are so many people in this world like Bill and Hillary. They lie about their achievements so they can get more recognition. It spirals out of control until they are running for office or getting government appointments by those in power. They are never called out by the masses and certainly not by those in power who fear losing their own status. The sad thing is that people like Bill and Hillary do this without shame and stupid people who vote for them have become brainwashed to believe that they can save them. I know so many people like this. It is not unique to these two, but it still amazes me that they continue to be voted into leadership positions.
Jan 29, 2008 - 7:01 am RE:McCain worked very hard to earn conservative enmity.
What’ far worse than his horrible position on amnesty was the way he tried to ram his bill through congress without debate. Then, when exposed he lashed out at those he was trying to hoodwink.
Most uncool. Very undemocratic. Very unethical - And a good revelation about how this guy operates
Jan 29, 2008 - 2:33 pm William Bruni:VDH:
Thank you for the gracious comments regarding Rush. I have always thought of him as special.
Jan 30, 2008 - 7:18 am J. E. Dyer:My problem with McCain on national security and the GWOT is that he is not proactive, visionary, or large-minded — all of which qualities are necessary to confront emerging threats and circumstances.
McCain has had the war in Iraq to support, but it is Bush’s war, and I see no evidence that McCain would have approached the GWOT in the preemptive, visionary spirit of Bush. Rather than having his own strategy, he would react to the enemy. He would do what most presidents would do: prioritize home security measures that impose on our own way of life, and make gestures abroad. Such gestures might or might not get us in trouble, but they would assuredly do little to enhance our long-term security, or stability and progress around the globe.
Moreover, McCain’s unstatesmanlike attack-dog stance against Rumsfeld was always troubling to me. Taking every opportunity to publicly attack someone appointed by your party’s chief executive is the opposite of leadership. It is NOT mature or leaderly to let your personal antipathies hijack your professional responsibilities. Situations are seldom ideal for any of us; I prefer a president who can deal with that.
I think McCain would stay a course set by someone else, in terms of something like not leaving our soldiers in Iraq to be evacuated from the roof of our embassy. I don’t anticipate from him anything like strategy that transcends politics — something that, with all their faults, we got from Bush II, Reagan, Nixon, and even (to some extent) Bush I.
Jan 30, 2008 - 1:19 pm Alb:I do not understand the value of ideological purity to the extreme that I would sit out an election rather than vote for a candidate who meets even a small percentage of my goals over someone who meets none.
To my mind, that is a forumla for political extinction.
Jan 30, 2008 - 1:34 pm Mike:“the entire fraud of modern liberal thinking”
Sounds like a good title for a new work (hint hint)
Jan 31, 2008 - 6:20 am Michael K:I was reading Paul Cartledge’s book on Thermopylae where he discussed the genius of Themistocles’s distribution or non-distribution of gains from the silver mines. Instead of giving each citizen a rebate he used the money for a massive defense program. Wouldn’t our leaders do more for our economy and defense by spending tax dollars on a “Manhattan Project” leap towards energy alternatives instead of a HD TV in every living room?
I take Dr Hanson seriously. If he is willing to give McCain a second look I will too. I will never consider Hillary.
Jan 31, 2008 - 8:13 am Brian H:The more I look at the current GOP candidates, the more I appreciate Bush.
Jan 31, 2008 - 10:39 am