Posts
Baker notes that many pundits have already designated their scapegoat:
An intriguingly large part of the skirmishing already revolves around the person and politics of Sarah Palin. This is partly because she will presumably be a leading contender for the party's presidential nomination in 2012. But it is more that the Palin question goes to the heart of what Republicans are or should be. . . .This was one reason why, on Oct. 7, I identified McCain's wrongheaded stance on the financial crisis -- particularly his Sept. 24 announcement that he'd leave the campaign trail to push for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout -- as the cause of his defeat. The Republican elites want to hang the defeat on Palin so as to conceal their own role in this debacle.
It's hard to make a reasoned and fair judgment about the Alaska Governor because she has been the victim of one of the nastiest, most sustained and comprehensive slime-jobs ever performed by a hyper-partisan national and global media. . . .
There's an unshakeable view among the coastal elites that real wisdom is acquired only by circulating between the ivy-encrusted walls of scholarship and the Manhattan and Hollywood cocktail set.
Recall that in February, Christopher Buckley denounced those who opposed John McCain's nomination as "Torquemadas of the right." Now, cleverly seeking to distance himself from the disaster that those "Torquemadas" tried to prevent, Buckley has endorsed Obama. In doing so, however, Buckley does not retract his previous slurs against those who opposed McCain when it was still possible to prevent his nomination.
Likewise, Obama endorser "Cakewalk Ken" Adelman -- if McCain would make a lousy president, as Adelman now says, why wasn't he saying so in January and February? (BTW, does anyone remember Colin Powell criticizing John McCain during the GOP primaries?)
Why is that, when an explanation is sought for the failure of the McCain candidacy, nobody seeks out the opinion of those -- including Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin and Laura Ingraham -- who so vocally opposed McCain's nomination to begin with?
I identified McCain's wrongheaded stance on the financial crisis -- particularly his Sept. 24 announcement that he'd leave the campaign trail to push for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout -- as the cause of his defeat
ReplyDeleteShameless self-promotion:
http://dad29.blogspot.com/2008/10/mccainobama-whats-difference.html
neocons vs. isolationists, libertarians vs. social conservatives
ReplyDeleteNon-interventionism != isolationism.
Do not be surprised if neoconservatives end up feeling closer to an Obama presidency (as they often did to a Clinton presidency) if it seems internationally engaged, than to Republicans who think it's time to pull up the drawbridge.
Surprised? There was never a doubt in my mind that they would flee the GOP as soon as their systematic destruction of it was complete.
If and when the Democrats take the White House, you can bet your bottom dollar the neocons will have some kind of presence, whether it's in the form of a few mid-level bureaucrats placed in sensitive positions or in top spots close to President Hillary or Obama. They're already crawling all over the DLC, and they'll find their way into a Democratic White House via the interstices between pure politics and policy wonkery.
If the Republicans manage to overcome the odds, and McCain winds up in the White House, the neocons will be back – and with a vengeance.
Like vampires risen from the dead each night, these creatures who shun the light and feast on pain and suffering, are refreshed and ready to take wing again. What they seek is what makes them feel alive and energizes them to want more, and that is war. They are the War Party, and they are Democrats and Republicans. They are columnists and publishers and academics, as well as politicians and publicists. They don't have much of a mass base: they prefer to work in the shadows, manipulating rather than inspiring. By such Machiavellian means have they managed to stay viable, in spite of the disasters they have wrought through the years – giving them more scope for fresh disasters yet to be imagined.
The neocon parasites ruined the GOP. I'm delighted that they'll be returning to the Democrat Party where they belong. Good riddance.
And all the Obama suporters who want to believe their candidate is a peaceful non-interventionist are fooling themselves. He just wants to intervene everywhere but Iraq.
"The neocon parasites ruined the GOP. I'm delighted that they'll be returning to the Democrat Party where they belong. Good riddance. "
ReplyDeleteUmmm....what?
I'm thinking that the problem with Conservatives is a cohesive ideology. Your lack of consistency is symptomatic of your lack of clear thinking.
The hallmark of your rugged Conservatism is Iraq, which also happens to be the hallmark of NeoConservative ideology. It's a hoot watching you guys trying to seperate the two.
Young 4-eyes, I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse or not. In either case, you're making a damn fool of yourself.
ReplyDeleteDo some research, if you can, and get back to me when you've educated yourself on the differences between conservatism and neoconservatism, mmmm'kay?