| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| ". . . this disaster talk leaves me cold . . ." |
| 2008-02-01 |
| Jonah Goldberg, author of Liberal Fascism, @ National Review's "The Corner" As most readers know, I've been pretty distracted by the book and haven't been participating much in the Corner of late. But I think I should just be on the record that I disagree with the tone, tenor and substance of much — though certainly not all — of the anti-McCain commentary around here. It's not that I object to a single post or comment — though there've been a few. It's that I disagree with the overwhelming impression that supporting McCain is some kind of lunacy. I have serious disagreements with McCain. I think it is entirely right to disagree with him on all sorts of issues and entirely legitimate to think he would be bad for the party, bad for conservatism or bad for the country to have him as the nominee or the next president. I agree with some of those sentiments, disagree with others. But this disaster talk leaves me cold. McCain wouldn't be my first pick. Then again, none of the candidates were really my first pick. But I think the notion that, variously, conservatism, the country or the party are doomed if he's the nominee or the president is pretty absurd. And I find such claims odd coming from some people who've insisted for a couple years now that the war on terror is the #1 overriding issue of this campaign. Some people who said as much, used that logic to support Rudy Giuliani. Maybe they were right that Giuliani would be a better wartime president than McCain. But, that's an argument that requires a pretty substantial leap of faith given Giuliani's very meager foreign policy experience (never mind that Giuliani is now endorsing McCain). Plus, given that Guliani is out of the race, it's all hypothetical anyway. I haven't heard anyone make a credible case that McCain wouldn't be a good commander-in-chief. So it's a bit hard to believe McCain would be a disaster given that he would be — at minimum — pretty good on the single most important issue facing the country. . . . Just as important: neither of the Dems is going to be any good on the GWOT. Obama believes in the ideal of negotiation, the idea that if we just sit down with Ahmenadjad and the Wahabbis and be sweet and nice and just listen in total sincerity, they'll respond in total sincerity and we can sing a couple choruses of "It's a Small World" and finally overcome our differences. He's sincere, well-intentioned, and dead-ass wrong on this point. The Clintons and their syncophants are ruthless, vicious, bloodthirsty, and uncompromising combatants--but only when fighting domestic political opponents. They showed Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich and Kathleen Willey and Paul Tsongas and Rush Limbaugh no mercy--but they were nowhere near this hard on the likes of Arafat or bin Laden. In fact, they avoided confrontation with the jihadis and the world's various thugocracies and tyrants whenever possible. Thanks to the Clinton policy of avoiding the fight, we got 9/11. If we have a Clintobama administration taking power a year from now, there will be another 9/11. It might not happen on their watch, but it will happen. One 9/11 is quite enough for one lifetime, thank you. If you are tempted to think, "well, after four years of Clintobama screwing up, people will be so fed up we'll get a real conservative/a third party movement/something better in 2012," and vote (or not-vote) for that result, I implore you, in the spirit of friendship, reconsider. Around the 'Burg here, we rightly condemned Reid and Pelosi and their ilk for rooting for American failure in Iraq, because they put the interests of their political party ahead of the interests of their country. Do not fall into their trap. It is not worth trading the lives of your fellow citizens, and the freedom of fifty million Iraqis and Afghans who are working alongside our troops, to pick up four senate seats and twenty house districts in the '10 midterms. |
| Posted by:Mike (a disappointed Fredhead) |
| #6 McCain is...type of "mushy centrist" party machine candidate. What party machine? |
| Posted by: Pappy 2008-02-01 23:55 |
| #5 And there's my point of disagreement. the WOT isn't the most important if we lose our sovereignty. That, is the crux of it. A Nation without borders soon isn't a nation. |
| Posted by: Grease Dark Lord of the Algonquins9226 2008-02-01 22:42 |
| #4 Perfect is an enemy of the the good. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2008-02-01 18:56 |
| #3 McCain is a Dole, Bush the Elder (on his own instead of Reagan's penubra), Ford, type of "mushy centrist" party machine candidate. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-02-01 18:16 |
| #2 The fact that Goldberg even has to make this argument means he's already lost. Just like in 2006, a big chunk of these voters aren't coming back until (perhaps) next time, for a better candidate and party. |
| Posted by: JSU 2008-02-01 13:21 |
| #1 And there's my point of disagreement. the WOT isnt the msot impoartant if we lose our soverignty. Open Borders obviate all the overseas work. So border security has to be first and foremost, as doe sustaining the republic as a untied one, not a balkanized one. And Mccain has bee completely wrong and stubbornly two faced about that very vital issue. Same goes with is entagling us in Global Warming to the detriment of the economy under UN guidance. So yes tthe GWOT is on the surface the top item - but without the support of border security its rapidly lost. So that is item #1. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-02-01 12:40 |