In the middle of a drolly "edgy" look at John McCain, the New York Magazine poses an interesting query in the midst of what passes for a mix between netroots conspiracy theories and left-of-center establishment thought. Without agreeing with all its premises, here it is...in mildly profane terms:
That McCain's political resurrection owed as much to the weakness of the Republican field--not to mention blind shithouse luck--as to his talent and grit makes it no less remarkable. Yet for all the hosannas being sung to him these days, and for all the waves of fear and trembling rippling through the Democratic masses, the truth is that McCain is a candidate of pronounced and glaring weaknesses. A candidate whose capacity to raise enough money to beat back the tidal wave of Democratic moola is seriously in doubt. A candidate unwilling or unable to animate the GOP base. A candidate whose operation has never recovered from the turmoil of last summer, still skeletal and ragtag and technologically antediluvian. ("Fund-raising on the Web? You don't say. You can raise money through those tubes?") Whose cadre of confidantes contains so many lobbyists that the Straight Talk Express often has the vibe of a rolling K Street clubhouse. Whose awkward positioning issues-wise was captured brilliantly by Pat Buchanan: "The jobs are never coming back, the illegals are never going home, but we're going to have a lot more wars." A candidate one senior moment--or one balky teleprompter--away from being transformed from a grizzled warrior into Grandpa Simpson. A candidate, that is, who poses an existential question for Democrats: If you can't beat a guy like this in a year like this, with a vastly unpopular Republican war still ongoing and a Republican recession looming, what precisely is the point of you?
Something interesting for Democrats to sort out internally, if it comes to that.
Posted by Eric Earling at April 17, 2008 08:07 PM | Email ThisI was interesting to watch Obama fumbling and stammering, and to see both candidates say that they would overrule the Generals and bring troops home even if it destabilized Iraq. Common Americans will surely appreciate those sentiments. /sarcasm off
Posted by: Larry on April 17, 2008 08:50 PMNone of them look like they are anything but trouble when you pay attention to what they are saying rather than fearing their opponent.
I wonder if any of them will catch on to the problems with the federal reserve and fiat money before election time?
Posted by: Travis Pahl on April 17, 2008 09:04 PMMcCain's wars and Rossi's highways are perfect examples of why the Republican Party has now become the foremost party of big government--unlike in the 50's when I began to become aware of things and when Eisenhower ended the Korean War and argued for less military spending than Adlai Stevenson.
Neither McCain nor Rossi is insisting that any major gov't expenditures get cut, no; they just want to throw these huge new items into the pie. Since the Dems unwillingness to cut social programs is a known fact and is borderline popular with people anyway, McCain and Rossi are implicitly pushing for bigger government. This larger size will be achieved either through gov't borrowing or Democratic Party help in finding new revenue.
What we need is for more conservatives to dust off their cynicism about war as a means of solving problems and also get more cynical about the highway lobby, not to mention the prison lobbies and the various public works lobbies (State gov't is now cranking up the machinery to manufacture a "need" for a new 7 billion dollar dam somewhere, if Blackrock gets shot down don't worry, they'll have another idea for us soon).
This country desperately needs a conservative point of view. The willingness to casually turn our nation's back on the market is astonishing, as is perfectly evidenced by biofuels, cap & trade, CAFEs, national production targets on things, and attacks on "price-gouging," whatever that is. It's odd how unpopular the market is in this country that achieved so much--and so much liberalism--by relying on the market.
What we don't need though, are conservatives who think that we can change other countries for the better by invading them with hummers, tanks and choppers or that people who drive automobiles should be gifted by a Santa Claus government with 16 lane freeways going whereever they want to go that they don't have to pay for.
(I'd like to anticipate one rebuttal--(not that I'm particularly assuming people will be greatly interested in what I have to say)). A lot of people feel that most everyone drives and every business product has to be driven and this argument is used to rationalize the socialization of the cost of the highway infrastructure. It ignores the fact that the efficiency of use of roads in different products varies greatly from producer to producer and from product to product. By socializing the cost of driving trucks or cars, you remove the reward for the producer who uses roads more efficiently.)
Thanks all,
New Left Conservative #1
1.Some one has to get a grip on the economy and spending as we are too dependent not only on foreign oil, but foreign loans to keep our economy floating.
2. I have to give Senator Rossi points for having a plan, any plan. The problem seems to be the political process and how to get a decision, any decision in a timely fashion. I think the tunnel option is DOA in Seattle.
Your take on things is interesting.
Posted by: WVH on April 18, 2008 12:01 AMA dipshit.
Posted by: ERNurse on April 18, 2008 12:24 AMThe ever-so-polite and mild mannered Eric said "shithouse".
Rejoice, all, for Mr. Earling really is one of us.
Way to go, youngster.
Posted by: The Geezer on April 18, 2008 09:19 PM