Likelihood of Success

Ron Coleman’s pretty good blog

The pragmatic school

Posted by Ron Coleman on January 19, 2008

Victor David Hanson gets it right:

I think those who might prefer a McCain or Giuliani will be perfectly happy to vote for the ticket should a Romney or Thompson be the standard bearer. But from the recent rhetoric, it almost seems the inverse is not true. And if that is the case, then a President Clinton seems to me a sure thing—which of course may be the desire— in the fashion that 1964 purists thought their loss logically led to recovery in 1968 or 1976 had to transpire to get to the promised land of 1980. I would remind conservatives, however, that we are in a war, and that sitting out 2008 might mean allowing a candidate to win (pick any of the three Democrats) who has promised to withdraw all troops in 2009, regardless of the battlefield landscape (perhaps versus a McCain Presidency who surely won’t do that).

Obviously I’m the guy in the first sentence. Rudy is history, and while I absolutely share most of the reservations about McCain, I’m not going to oppose him just because the MSM can stand him. Not considering the alternatives. (H/T to Glenn.)

UPDATE:  Melissa Clouthier couldn’t agree less.


3 Responses to “The pragmatic school”

  1. Ara said

    Hanson gets it wrong: in 1964, the Republican nominee actually had, you know, “core values.” This time around, not so much.

    P.S. Check that: don’t you guys believe that McCain wants to crush the First Amendment at all costs?

  2. I don’t know about ’64, ‘ceptin’ what I read, Ara, but the point that does need to be made is that McCain actually has pretty damned good conservative bona fides. He’s been bad on a few issues, and one is McCain-Feingold, which I’ve always thought was the worst thing in the world

    But McCain-Feingold is not “McCain wants to crush the First Amendment at all costs.” It is, rather, “McCain wants to stay in office at all costs,” which pretty much makes him a politician. Shame on him for that legislation, but the point made here is still, I think, pretty valid, from a conservative point of view.

  3. Ara said

    Well, I supported his legislation and was surprised that Bush signed it and more surprised that the SCOTUS upheld it — but not surprised that he got crucified for it.

    Does he still support it? There is so much he stood up for in the past that he has jettisoned in order to get the nod this time around.

    Full disclosure: I voted for him in the 2000 open Republican primary. But I will never do that again, mostly because he is no longer the maverick who nearly switched parties after Bush got elected.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: