A Fixer-Upper
May 31, 2007
Reckless Endangerment (or, Is Pragmatism Satanic?)
May 31, 2007
I’ve been a little disturbed by some of the remarks I’ve seen on various conservative blogs railing against the alleged anti-conservatism of GOP Presidential candidates Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Mitt Romney. Some of the folks on these sites have even gone so far as to threaten not to vote for the Republican ticket in the next election if a member of the "Rudy McRomney" trio becomes the GOP nominee.
I cannot for the life of me comprehend the mentality behind refusing to vote for a GOP nominee just because he’s allegedly not conservative enough. In particular, I cannot understand the argument that there’s no real difference between "Rudy McRomney" and Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Giuliani has received the most criticism for supposedly being a Democrat in Republican clothing. I admit that Giuliani is not my ideal GOP candidate, largely because he seems to be contemptuous of social conservatives, particularly pro-lifers. However, if he’s on the ballot in November 2008, he has my vote, because I have no confidence whatsoever in the Democrat Party’s ability to lead the War on Terror.
Anti-"Rudy McRomney" conservatives have argued that, if a "non-conservative" becomes the GOP nominee, it will destroy the social right, denying conservative Christians a voice in American politics. However, if conservative Christians decide to stay home, allowing Clinton to win, how the hell will that advance the cause of the social right?
Four, possibly eight, years of Clinton will make American society more secular, not less. Did the 1990s result in more traditionalism in this country?
There is a fatal illogic in this anti-"Rudy McRomney" mentality, a bizarre stubbornness that could result in a further erosion of the social right’s power. There is no perfect GOP candidate; even Ronald Reagan gave us two "moderate" Supreme Court Justices and official amnesty for illegal immigrants.
Since when is pragmatism a bad thing from a social-conservative standpoint? Since when has the social right been able to advance its political objectives when it’s out of power?
Are McCain, Giuliani and Romney flawless? No! No one is. However, social conservatives who plan to sit home if one of these men becomes the GOP nominee are, in essence, planning to put the country in jeopardy.
The overzealous attacks on these candidates by certain members of the party "base" are too much to take. Reading the anti-"Rudy McRomney" remarks in the conservative blogosphere, one is forced to conclude that certain members of the social right won’t be happy unless Jesus himself returns and announces the formation of an exploratory committee. These guys need to ask themselves: if Hillary ends up in the Oval Office as a result of their stubbornness, will there be any salvation for the country?
Meet The New Boss
May 30, 2007
Bad Moon Rising
May 30, 2007
The New Yorker, the Washington Times, RedState.com, the Washington Post and the New York Times on Republican disunity.
Farewell Game
May 29, 2007
WLBJ
May 29, 2007
Weekend Box Office: Booty Call
May 28, 2007
The Life Of Reilly
May 28, 2007
Veteran actor Charles Nelson Reilly passes away at 76.
In God We Tru$t
May 28, 2007
The Key Word Is Survival
May 28, 2007
Flip-Flopper
May 28, 2007
Good Fella
May 27, 2007
May You Live In Interesting Times
May 27, 2007
Can anyone deny that, despite the way he is currently perceived, George W. Bush will be regarded by objective historians as a more influential and accomplished President than his predecessor, Bill Clinton?
Six years after he left office, it’s still hard to discern anything significant about Clinton’s legacy. The Clinton Administration was defined by what it could not accomplish (i.e., the establishment of universal health care) and what it was unwilling to accomplish (i.e., an active assault on terrorism in the wake of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing). Clinton did have a few victories of note–NAFTA, the 1996 welfare-reform effort, the placement of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer on the US Supreme Court–but failures such as the 1993 Somalia fiasco and the 1998 Lewinsky scandal have outweighed Clinton’s successes in the national consciousness.
Some would certainly argue that the Iraq War will damage Bush’s legacy in the same way Clinton’s scandals injured his. Of course, the counter-argument is that, if Iraq does indeed become a fully-functioning democracy, Bush’s controversial decision to remove Saddam Hussein will be regarded as an act of absolute genius. Even if history does not validate the Iraq War, Bush will still have to be regarded as a Commander-in-Chief who did significant damage to the infrastructure of Middle Eastern terrorism, a reformer of a federal judiciary widely viewed as having strayed from Constitutional parameters, and a racial progressive who led the most diverse Cabinet in United States history.
Regardless of one’s personal opinion of Bush, it’s hard to deny that he was the catalyst for a reinvigoration of American politics. Staunch supporters and outraged opponents surged into the arena of ideas during his tenure, trading insights and insults on talk radio and in the blogosphere. He re-energized both the left and the right: "progressives" were able to raise millions by proclaiming Bush the ultimate villain, and social conservatives who spent most of the 1990s at odds with the GOP returned to the party in force, convinced that the Bush Administration would protect traditional values.
Bush had an impact upon American politics that Clinton could only wish for. While Clinton was a galvanizing figure in his own right, he could never summon the people’s passion in favor of or against his efforts the way Bush can. The 43rd President has made politics fascinating again: he has encouraged unprecedented numbers of Americans to pay close attention to what goes on in Washington, D.C. The Clinton Administration was, at bottom, entertainment; the Bush Administration is, in so many ways, far more serious.
Every President silently hopes to influence the course of history. Clinton couldn’t achieve this goal. Bush unquestionably has.
UPDATE: Bill O’Reilly on Bush.
