Monday, February 4, 2008

Kristol: "Dyspepsia on the Right"

Straight talk from Bill Kristol to conservatives. Excerpt:

This is an important moment for the conservative movement. Not because conservatives have some sort of obligation to fall in behind John McCain. They don’t. Those conservatives who can’t abide McCain are free to rally around Mitt Romney. And if McCain does prevail for the nomination, conservatives are free to sit out the election.

But I’d say this to them: When the primaries are over, if McCain has won the day, don’t sulk and don’t sit it out. Don’t pretend there’s no difference between a candidate who’s committed to winning in Iraq and a Democratic nominee who embraces defeat. Don’t tell us that it doesn’t matter if the next president voted to confirm John Roberts and Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court, or opposed them. Don’t close your eyes to the difference between pro-life and pro-choice, or between resistance to big government and the embrace of it.

And don’t treat 2008 as a throwaway election. If a Democrat wins the presidency, he or she will almost certainly have a Democratic Congress to work with. That Congress will not impede a course of dishonorable retreat abroad. It won’t balk at liberal Supreme Court nominees at home. It won’t save the economy from tax hikes.

I posted the above so you'd maybe read the whole thing without scoffing, throwing up or whatever it is you people do when I post nice things about McCain. But here's my favorite part:

One might add a special reason that conservatives — and the nation — owe John McCain at least a respectful hearing. Only a year ago, we were headed toward defeat in Iraq. Without McCain’s public advocacy and private lobbying, President Bush might not have reversed strategy and announced the surge of troops in January 2007. Without McCain’s vigorous leadership, support for the surge in Congress would not have been sustained in the first few months of 2007. So: No McCain, no surge. No surge, failure in Iraq, a terrible setback for America — and, as it happens, no chance for a G.O.P. victory in 2008.

Uh, yeah.

15 comments:

  1. The thing about Kristol is that he is an Israel-Firster. This wouldn't be so bad if he were an Israeli, but since he is an American (at least by birth), it presents problems.

    I don't think Kristol cares much about social issues like abortion at all; I think when he mentions things like abortion, it is just to make nice with Christian conservatives, since he knows it's a big issue for them. Nor is he worked up in the least about illegal immigration-- at least not when the immigrants are illegally entering the U.S.A. He'd feel quite differently, I suspect, if one were talking about illegal immigrants entering Israel.

    Kristol likes McCain because McCain wants to attack all of Israel's enemies. I think that's bascially what it boils down to. To me, this isn't much of an endorsement. Not, of course, that I'm a fan of any other candidate, other than Ron Paul.

    ReplyDelete
  2. But I’d say this to them: When the primaries are over, if McCain has won the day, don’t sulk and don’t sit it out.

    I will sulk, and seeing as how the Dems can pretty much rely on California to go their way in the general election, I'll also "sit out" to the extent that I won't vote for McCain. I'd rather vote for a dead B-list comedian/actor.

    Don’t pretend there’s no difference between a candidate who’s committed to winning in Iraq and a Democratic nominee who embraces defeat.


    For me, this is about the only thing McCain has going for him.

    Don’t tell us that it doesn’t matter if the next president voted to confirm John Roberts and Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court, or opposed them.

    It doesn't really matter with regard to McCain since he also voted to confirm Ruth Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

    Don’t close your eyes to the difference between pro-life and pro-choice, or between resistance to big government and the embrace of it.

    For me, the pro-life voting record McCain possesses has been severely tainted by his active attempt to suppress the free speech rights of pro-life advocates. This attempt by McCain also calls into question whether he, as President, really would nominate judges like Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ginsburg was confirmed by a vote of 96 to 3. Breyer was confirmed 87 to 9.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thank you, Mark. Remember that when the "nuclear option" was being bandied about we all kept hearing "Article 2, Section 2!Advice and consent of the Senate! Advice and consent of the Senate!" from the guardians of the Republic like Hugh Hewitt. If that's the role of the Senate, then I don't think your political bent can be discerned from a "Yea" vote.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Roger, WRTL-PAC broke the law. McCain-Feingold might be wrong, but it is the law. WRTL-PAC screwed up, I'm sure they're great people, but they screwed up. And for God's sake, they went after Russ Feingold! That guy was on the phone to McCain faster than you can say "Oy, vey!"

    If McCain's finance reform is such a suppression of free speech then why isn't Romney KILLING him with it? I don't buy it. It's a dumb, deck-chair-on-the-Titanic-rearrangement law.

    For me, this [winning in Iraq] is about the only thing McCain has going for him.

    OK, but to me that's like saying that being Superbowl MVP is all that Eli Manning has going for him. Beyond being a national defense issue, the war is one of the biggest "values" issues and one directly touching the economy.

    ReplyDelete
  7. WRTL-PAC screwed up, I'm sure they're great people, but they screwed up.

    Huh? I am not sure how you can say this Pauli. Wisconsin Right to Life won at the Supreme Court. I'd say that's pretty big vindication that they didn't screw up.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well, I didn't know the outcome, I just heard over and over callers to radio shows saying that McCain went after a prolife PAC in Wisconsin. I assume they were all frogmarched into the street and publicly lashed the way it was discussed. If they were found not guilty of wrongdoing it only makes the whole thing more laughable to me.

    Next...

    Oh, yeah, McCain drinks too much coffee.... McCain used the F-word....

    ReplyDelete
  9. Kristol is talking simple commonsense here, and I agree with him.

    So many conservatives these days remind me of a bratty kid who sulks because he got "just" a pony when he wanted a unicorn instead.

    Next...

    Oh, yeah, McCain drinks too much coffee.... McCain used the F-word....


    Oh, and McCain has a bad temper. Well, so do I, for that matter.

    ReplyDelete
  10. His bad temper, yeah...

    Laura Ingraham just mentioned that McCain had been divorced and Romney was with his first wife. Funnily, she didn't point out that the saintly Reagan had been divorced and remarried or that Carter and Dukakis hadn't been.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Actually, Pauli, it's not that WRTL wasn't found to be guilty of anything, but that McCain-Feingold was ruled unconstitutional as it was applied by the FEC.

    That McCain would expressly attach his name to an amicus brief to the SCOTUS in defense of this unconstitutional application says volumes to me about how he reads the Constitution and views the right to free speech.

    And my point about McCain voting to confirm Breyer and Ginsburg was simply to illustrate that his voting to confirm Roberts and Alito says nothing about the type of judges McCain would nominate as President. Given the above noted amicus brief, McCain's suggestion that Alito was "too conservative" and the Gang of 14 stuff, I'm inclined to believe that McCain would nominate judges in the mold of Justice John Paul Stevens.

    ReplyDelete
  12. McCain has egregiously lied about Romney, most recently last night when he said Romney "attacked a war hero", Bob Dole. McCain is a phony. so everytime someone says something critical about a war hero we can expect McCain trots out something cheap and dishonest like that? and similarly, i suppose, we shouldn't criticize McCain for the same reason? That is a great example of conservative fascism a la McCain. I would like to think that term "conservative fascism" remains oxymoronic. It won't if the GOP nominates McCain, even if he does get some things right. That might do more to hurt conservatism than even Hillary Clinton, which is why i can see Ann Coulter's point about supporting hillary over mccain. at least the tenets of conservatism would remain intact.

    I also happen to think McCain is not that bright, and a stooge. because he was a hero 40 years ago doesn't mean he is still one today. people aren't like that, unfortunately.

    ReplyDelete
  13. my point about McCain voting to confirm Breyer and Ginsburg was simply to illustrate that his voting to confirm Roberts and Alito says nothing about the type of judges McCain would nominate as President.

    And Kristol's point was that both Obama and Clinton voted against Roberts and Alito:

    Alito
    Confirmed: 58 to 42; Obama and Clinton vote no
    Cloture agreed to: 72 to 25; Obama and Clinton both vote no

    Roberts
    Confirmed: 78 to 22; Obama Clinton vote no
    No cloture vote

    Perhaps McCain's votes don't tell you much Obama and Clinton's sure do.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mark, where is your blog? Wanna blog here?

    ReplyDelete
  15. No blog of my own. I'd love to blog here.

    ReplyDelete