Astute (and always gentle) readers have noted what our SWNIDish grammar might reveal about our political preferences of the moment. And we believe that our own consciousness is not so far removed from many who register their opinions in these times as to be entirely idiosyncratic. So we express our mind as a means of grasping the minds of others, even if they be by definition lesser minds. Further, it is our mission to inform others what to think. So to that end, we reveal what we think.
To wit: our enthusiasm for Mayor Giuliani as cooled somewhat. We are ready to date other candidates.
We still believe that the most successful American political executive of the last 25 years, excluding the beatified Ronald Reagan, deserves a shot at the office. We are less ardent about this for three reasons.
One, as we noted previously, is that the management of the Iraq War is now hardly an issue at all. Only a fool would mess up what's happening on the ground at the moment. We'll say more about fools below, but we don't think that most of the frontrunners are fools. So Rudy's ability as a problem-solver and crisis manager are not as significant as they once were.
The second, which we confess now, is that we are disappointed at the Giuliani campaign so far. We concede the possible electoral utility of his waiting for the big states, a strategy that Mrs. Clinton now assumes by default. But his waiting without initiative is not inspiring our confidence in Rudy's readiness for national leadership. By now we expected some bold policy proposals on health care, social security, taxes and education, maybe even abortion. But if he's got them, he's keeping them hidden. He's leaving us worried that he will do something like kiss his wife in public again and call that a bold move.
The third is that we are ready to forgive, at least conditionally, the prodigal John McCain. Having recently made a firm confession of faith in lower taxes, implicitly repenting of his opposition to the glorious Bush tax cuts, he has addressed our most pressing concern about him. Further, because no one, himself included, talks about his awful campaign finance reform law, we're ready to consider McCain-Feingold a regrettable mistake on the way to being forgotten. We are therefore ready to trot McCain out as the Republican who can appeal to people who don't subscribe to Focus on the Family publications, i.e. the one who can keep the White House in the hands of those who won't sell us down the road to serfdom quite so quickly.
McCain can certainly manage the remainder of the war: the credit he's currently claiming for changing the strategy is perhaps deserved more than any other credit currently being claimed by candidates. More importantly, he's the only candidate talking a lick of sense about immigration. The other Rs are dedicated to seeing who can promise to build the biggest wall and send the most illegals back the quickest. The Ds are trying to avoid any commitments, knowing that anything they say will get them in trouble with someone. McCain knows that we need workers and so we need immigrants, and he's willing to say it.
So on that score we say that McCain has the policies, while Rudy has the abilities.
Of the other Rs, we say the following:
Concerning Romney, he's Michael Dukakis only Republican. See Peggy Noonan's latest for an explanation. The man can't win a national election.
Concerning Huckabee, we've said a little before. But Huckabee has recently achieved something genuinely indicative of significance: George Will devoted a column to insulting him. We can add nothing to the diatribe from the dean of conservative columnists. "Histrionic humility, "curdled populism," "a compound of Uriah Heep, Elmer Gantry and Richard Nixon" . . . who can match such exalted phrases of loathsomeness . . . and aptness?
9 comments:
A bit of clarification please on the Romney/Dukakis comment. I didn't understand it, nor did I find an explanation in the Noonan column on why he can't win a national election.
Otherwise, thanks for the insights.
Dukakis lost in 1988 because he came across as an incredibly ueber-wonkish, emotionally detached management consultant. It killed his candidacy to appear even less in touch with "average Americans" than George H. W. Bush.
Mitt's strengths are the reverse of Bush's weaknesses, which is a major plus: he speaks english real good. Two, he wouldn't be guilty of embarrassing appointments like Mike Brown, and Harriet Miers, and I can't imagine him ever saying (as Bush did, upon first hearing about Petraus' strategy) "why after 2 yrs am I only hearing about this now?"
From the editors at National Review:
Romney is an intelligent, articulate, and accomplished former businessman and governor. At a time when voters yearn for competence and have soured on Washington because too often the Bush administration has not demonstrated it, Romney offers proven executive skill. He has demonstrated it in everything he has done in his professional life, and his tightly organized, disciplined campaign is no exception. He himself has shown impressive focus and energy.
And of Ron Paul? I gather that your Tory-ish principles lead to not take him seriously as a candidate, but this might be a mistake. Or, in SWINDish speak, you might need to "cool" your enthusiasm for such an opinion at a later date.
BUT, he did beat Giuliani in the first primary, he is more popular than Hilary and all other R's amongst internet communities (therefore young voters) and he is bound to run as an independent anyway which will force R's to deal with him and his voter base anyway.
kmepm
Just for the record, Mrs. SWNID has never been a Guiliani fan. She's happy with McCain!
In dissent of the notion that Romney is today's Dukakis and cannot win a national campaign, I offer the following:
-Romney, though an intellectual with respect to policy, has considerably more personality than Dukakis, is considerably less robotic, and does far better in debates. He could be expected to display some humanity and offer a decent answer to a what-if-your-wife-were-raped-and-murdered question.
-GWB was twice elected with less ability than Romney to articulate what he would do and, more importantly, why.
-Al Gore and John Kerry were nearly elected, and Romney is much better at the "candidate thing" than either of them.
-Romney would be opposed by one of two beatable opponents: a woman half the country hates, or a man who has very little real experience and ardently opposes aggressive engagement in the war against Jihadism (two characteristics which likely will be pounded by whoever is the GOP nominee).
-Romney's view on immigration, while admittedly impractical and more extreme than McCain or SWNID would prefer, is the view of the vast majority of Americans, who shouted down Congress' attempt to pass comprehensive "reform."
I could go on, but enough for now.
Ah, the Mrs. SWNID distances herself from the Mr. SWNID. Haven't we seen this already this primary, a la Clinton?
To Leather Wii and Brian D (tasty rhyme, yes?):
When will Romney win a state that doesn't have a plurality of Mormons (cf. Wyoming)?
When will Ron Paul break out of single digits?
We'd be happy with Romney as President, as long as he doesn't actually follow up with action on his outrageous anti-immigration rhetoric. We are much less confident than LW on his electability, based on current performance. His dollars-to-votes ratio is disturbing.
We are definitely not attracted to the isolationist, Ayn-Randish libertarianism of Ron Paul, something we share with the majority of conservatives, Americans, and humans globally. We also aren't into extremes of veganism, UFOlogy, or Kennedy-assassination-conspiracy theories, other ideologies that flourish on the internet.
I just can't get excited about any of the candidates. I could live with McCain because I don't think he would mess things up too badly an seems to be a competent person overall. I can't stand Romney or Huckabee. Ron Paul is a joke. Thompson has run a disappointing campaign. But I am one of those that thinks we do need to do something about all those illegals besides amnesty. I don't think we are doing enough to "discourage" companies from hiring them. If we had real penalties and enforced them, no wall would be needed.
Post a Comment