Yeah, That Will Win Me Over…
Former President George H. W. Bush is the latest to join the ranks of McCain supporters who apparently believe that the best way to woo McCain critics is by ridiculing and dismissing them.
Ex-President Bush says attacks on McCain unfair | Reuters
“You know, if you’ve been around the track you hear these criticisms and I think they are grossly unfair. He’s got a … sound conservative record but he’s not above reaching out to the other side,” he said.“So I hear these criticisms and Barbara knows I get a little bit annoyed about them frankly,” he said, calling them “absurd.”
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, the only way you can eagerly accept Johnny Mac’s “sound conservative record” is to ignore the past ten years. His stances on the First Amendment, the sovereignty of the United States, the rule of law, regulations to serve the Church of Global Warming, the right of each individual to keep what they earn whether they are rich or poor, and defending our soldiers against slander are manifestly not conservative and I consider it “absurd” to say that they are.
It’s also “grossly unfair” that Bush the Elder and those like him have little interest in actually engaging folks like me on the issues and hashing them out. It’s a shame that they’ve taken the tactics of the whiny left to heart. These days it’s tough to know when I’m listening to a McCain backer or one of the Clintonistas.
I remember when, not so long ago, there was a difference in how the left and right discussed their candidates. These days, that difference seem a lot less different.
UPDATE: Let me say that having George H.W. Bush is not exactly a feather in Johnny Mac’s cap. Bush is the President, you’ll remember, who broke his own “read my lips” pledge, and raised taxes that absolutely crushed the real estate market and drove us hard into a recession. He’s also the President who listened to the realists and left Saddam Hussein in Baghdad, then left the freedom-minded Iraqis completely alone to be slaughtered by a vengeful Hussein. His decision to keep Hussein “contained” also caused the Saudis to practically beg us to stay in their country. Our staying there was a major reason Osama bin laden launched his war against us. He’s never going to be among the most loved nor respected Republicans who ever occupied the Oval Office. Indeed, his term in office was not a particularly good one.
So, no. Bush the First’s endorsement doesn’t hold any water with me at all.
No related posts.
Category: The 2008 Horse Race
George HW was never a master of words. But he's following a Republican tradition. I've always been impressed that the Republican party has nearly always put up the strongest candidate they had for the presidency. And they've usually got behind him early. Now you might think Ford would be an exception, but I'd disagree. It's not that Reagan wasn't ready, it's that America really wasn't ready for Reagan. Had Reagan won that nomination, he probably would have lost in the general election. And there would have been no "Reagan Revolution." I'd even defend the Nixon nomination against Kennedy. Nixon damn near won that election. I really can't think of a time when the Republicans put up a bad candidate. Hoover in '32 maybe? But he was president, so what can you do?
The Democrats, on the other hand are masters of choosing bad candidates. McGovern? Dukakis? Mondale? Humphrey? Kerry? Let's get real, you haven't seen a bad candidate until you've been a Democrat. You should feel lucky to have a candidate that might actually win. In the current environment, McCain really is the best choice for winning.
Okay, I'm willing to grant that Dole was a bad candidate, but Newt was going through marital issues and there really wasn't anyone else at the time.
"It’s also “grossly unfair” that Bush the Elder and those like him have little interest in actually engaging folks like me on the issues and hashing them out."
They can't engage us & hash it out…because they will lose. McCain's positions are not defend-able and have not been conservative. All they are basically doing is taking over the word "conservative". Just as the socialists started calling their policies "liberal" not long ago. (Even many dictionary definitions for the word "liberalism" still maintain a definition that sounds more like a description of most conservatives I know. And so it goes with the concept of "conservatism". A socialist is taking it over….calling his socialist policies conservative.
So, really – we the real conservatives (or the real liberals depending on how far you want to go back) will just have to come up with a new name I guess. Something to distinguish ourselves from the new "conservatives". Any ideas?