Hillary v. McCain
I am always happy when my political predictions turn out to be wrong. My gravest errors usually result from the failure to heed Mencken's dictum that nobody every went broke underestimating the American people. In a very real sense, Hillary Clinton and John McCain, if they maintain their momentum, will be the least credible charlatans who have ever sought the White House or aspired to rule the world.
Some months back, I was naive enough to believe that Hillary's negatives--about half the population finds her unacceptable--and McCain's eccentricities would inspire the leaders of their respective parties to find a way of eliminating them. The Howard Dean treatment would work as well for Ms Clinton. But, as I observed when Obama entered the race, it was as if the Clintons had gone out looking for a candidate who would make Hilary look like the safer alternative. Indeed, I found myself breathing a sigh of relief as the Wicked Witch of the White House took the white vote away from him in South Carolina. Obama can bring all the white cousins out of Kansas he likes, but he cannot entirely erase the memory of the Barak and Oprah show.
In the case of McCain, the revival of his campaign is slightly more complicated, but only more slightly. Looking backward, one can see that each of his serious rivals was doomed. Rudy Giuliani was smart enough to know that his New York shtick could not play in Iowa or New Hampshire, but not smart enough to know that his New-Yorkness would cost him the nomination, first and most obviously in giving momentum to his rivals, and second by alienating many of the mainstream moderate Republicans who are the core of the GOP. If they want a pro-abortion liberal tough on defense and strong for Israel, they have McCain, a war veteran who has specialized in defense issues.
Romney and Huckabee divided the pseudo-conservative vote, and neither has a sufficiently broad appeal to win an election. Catholics and Evangelicals were suspicious of Romney the Mormon, and McCain's campaign made good use of his zig-zagging record on the issues. Too often Romney revealed himself for what he is: a spoiled rich kid who think the world owes him the White House. Bragging about his success in business should have been the last straw. If George Romney had been my father, I could have got richer simply investing in an across-the-board S&P portfolio. I am reminded of an old New Yorker cartoon from the early 1950's. Two men are sitting at their club, and one of them remarks: "There's young Smedley. He started with only $4 million, and now he's a rich man." In those days, a million was something.
Huckabee, by contrast, achieved some resonance with Evangelicals and with ordinary voters who do not necessarily think that the White House should be sold to the highest bidder. But Mike's experience and even his knowledge of the big issues is so limited that he could not do a convincing impression of a national statesman. Country club Republicans also had to be put off by his relentless references to his religious faith. I know I was. Clever and slick as he was--a true son of Hope--Huckabee simply failed to persuade voters that he was ready to defend the country or manage the economy. I know, in looking at my own response to these early contests, that I was happy to see Huckabee smack Romney and equally happy to see Romney smacked by McCain, a politician who does a better job of pretending to be a man.
When I saw some interviews with South Carolina voters who said the country "needs a leader," I figured the jig was up for everyone but Hillary and McCain. When the estimable and right-wing Stephen Tonsor told an interviewer some months back that he supported McCain, I think it must have been because professor Tonsor, now in his 80's, simply could not imagine a country governed by Republican Party children. Carter and Clinton were bearable because they were liberal Democrats, and Republicans could always say, "I told you so." George W. Bush is, to be sure, a perpetual callow youth, but he talked tough and talked conservative, and in America it does not matter if you walk on the wild side so long as you talk like a man. (Pop song references intentional.)
The outlook might change in February, and it is possible that Obama and, especially, Romney will stage rallies. But if Florida proves to be the deciding state, it will be a relief to get the kids out of the race, but in another it should be profoundly discouraging that after so much money and time we are facing the two of the most despicable human beings and corrupt politicians who have ever run for high office in the United States. But it is not. Elections are usually settled by answering the question, "Which candidate is the better liar." I should have known the answer to that one from the beginning. In the next few months it will be amusing to listen to all the conservatives telling us that we have to back McCain in order to keep Hillary out of the White House. I will be equally tempted to back Hillary Clinton in order to keep John McCain out of the White House. Whatever happens, I am happy to have been proved, once again, to have overestimated the American people.
Entries(RSS)
Another solution to the distressing current situation in America is to form our own countercultures. Two thousand years ago a marginalized counterculture formed, was legitimized about three centuries later, and became the basis of European culture for about one thousand years. I don't know whether current regime will be overthrown any time soon or some sort of remnant Western Civilization can be preserved or even grow again but living in despair is not the thing to do. On November 5, the USA will have a president-elect, almost certainly it will be one of three awful senators, and the regime will operate much the same as it has for eight years of George W. Bush. And our lives will go on irrespective of what clod is our master.
Hugh Hewitt is a "mainstream" conservative pundit and has been a big backer of Mitt from the beginning. He has been very out front on how Romney's Mormonism ought not to be a factor. He wrote a book called A Mormon in the White House or something like that.
Is Norquist's Muslim apologist status any more of a problem than the mindless Muslim hatred and paranoia among the "just bomb them all" crowd? I have sometimes wondered how he gets along now with the blood lusting bomb all the Muslims majority faction of the "mainstream" inside the Beltway "conservative" establishment circles he runs in. Surely having a bunch of associates who want to kill all his clients can't be good for business.
Is it possible that "paleoconservatives" are more "paleo" than "conservative"? That is something that has bothered me about the "Chronicles" website and the magazine when I used to but it.
Most commentary is so dark -- bitterly filled with smug "end of civilization" rhetoric and describing America as a riot of relentless blacks, devious Jews, and conniving politicians -- that the website should be renamed "Grumpy Old Men."
By comparison, the apolcalyptic Pat Buchanan is a ray of sunshine.
No wonder "paleoconservatism" is so unpopular and out of step with the country. It is foolish to look back fondly on a mythical past full of wise leaders untainted by self-interest.
Even our understanding of the ancient world is twisted by our projection onto it of virtues it probably never had. Roman Senators were just a conniving as Senators today.
For instance, is it true that the "neocons" wield some kind of secret power over
American foreign polity? Who is in charge of American foreign policy today? Is Condileeza Rice a "neocon"?
Is Isreal manipulating a foreign policy that pressures Israel to make endless suicidal concessions to the murderous so-called Palestinians?
I like the Chronicles website and the magazine, but on such issues, it begins to sound like a collection of Ron Paul cranks. He apparently sees America as just Switzerland writ large (with 10,000 nukes).
The biggest problem with Norquist is that he is an absolutist on laissez-faire free enterprise with no feelings for family, culture or religion. These sorts of "conservatives" are about as deracinated as any left-winger. Norquist's love of his ideology is all encompassing, the essence of his being.
The problem with the internet is commentators seem unable to stay on topic, avoid insults, or engage in strawman arguments.
As for the lesser of two evils. The difference in 'evil' between McCain and Hillary is so small as to be immaterial. Even Limbaugh (surely Dr. Fleming has heard of Him!) is undecided whether he could bring himself to vote for McCain.
IMcCain v Hillary would be a replay of Dole v Clinton, Bush v Gore, or Ford v Carter. No reason to vote for either candidate.
So you will vote for a manifestly immoral and incompetent candidate, Mr. Moses? When you have the alternative of not voting for any such person? You will voluntarily give her your vote, knowing that she openly supports abortion whereas McCain at least has a chance of nominating someone anti-abortion (not saying that I'd vote for him, just that if you would vote, why Hillary). I think that you can go to the polls and vote for no one, meaning that you can register your contempt in protest against the candidates, instead of registering your contempt for the country by voting for Clinton.
"Here’s maybe where the generational gap shows through."
I am all of 25.
He apparently sees America as just Switzerland writ large (with 10,000 nukes).
Actually, Ron Paul thinks America should be more like Switzerland, at least with respect to authentic federalism.
Dr. Flemming,
Do you believe that democracy can survive in any form? It seems to me that democracy is always oriented toward change, rather than stability. For example, we have a limited republic such as ours was in the days before Lincoln, and politicians begin running for their local office. How do they convince the people to vote for him, unless he pledges to do something different? So if one is running for congress, is it not the case that in order to win votes he must promise newer and better things ad absurdam in true Homer Simpson like fashion? Look at the transformation even from the 20's to FDR, and how politicians had sold people on the nanny state, though in nascent form. Only a decade later, Eisenhower couldn't get rid of social programs because he knew it would be the end of his career. Thus the society moves further and further away from its founding principles and descends into a plutocracy, such as we have now thanks to McCain/Feingold. Therefore, can we say that democracy/republicanism as we know it is an inherently unstable form of government?
I voted early ( Illinois, Chicago) for Ron Paul. He is not perfect and will not win but at least he is someone whose aim is to stop a cancerous growth!
Alas, we will continue to grow, until nature in some fashion will stop us.
#61 Mr. Candido:
[i]It seems to me that democracy is always oriented toward change, rather than stability. For example, we have a limited republic such as ours was in the days before Lincoln, and politicians begin running for their local office.[/i]
I think Dr. Wilson might have something to say about what politicking for Federal office was like before the 1860s?
If democracy is merely the government of the untutored masses who are governed by their appetites, then the connection would be there. But it's not clear to me that this is always so. (Though perhaps someone who knows something about Switzerland can say how things have changed there in the last century or so.)
Cthulhu for President in 2008--for those who are tired of voting for the lesser of two evils! (And yes, the first campaign appearance will be on FAUX News; most likely O'R'lyeh as host...
I am always reminded when i wonder how folks like yourself TJF can muster the strength or the interest to write about this stuff - well, it's your living. How does it feel when one's living is for all intents and purposes as in your case, below you?
My commiseration(s).
The Cartoon wins in America as always: American Cartoon. Its peaks such as yourself and some others not withstanding. The Japanese noticed this (as I always had) and pointed it out to me when i worked for them... they said: we have MANY at a plateau near the peaks as do the Jews ... but american christians have only a few at the peaks... and so MANY in the valley. ...
Then one day after i had introduced a product into the american market for them (sadly) and very successfully they more or less (more) renegged on their commission amount to me for that effort of mine of 3 years. Intstead they brought over to america more japanese to take over the account.
I was young. they were laughing. they said Z'san there is only one of you and 160 million japanese - what do you say to that?
being a good poker player and with nothing to lose (humor) i said needless to say you're outnumbered. ... ain't that america? little pink houses for you and me? sometimes. how does it feel to be without a home... like a complete unknown (many americans in their own country must asking themselves-today) like a rolling stone... -?-
_____________
Lord, but the postings on this site are stupid! Aren't at least some of you embarrassed?
I glance at it only because I am a long-standing subscriber to CHRONICLES, have attended several John Randolph Club meetings, and am somewhat interested in what the "paleo" masses are thinking.
The poor quality of the reasoning here is just incredible (see my posts 25 and 26, which actually say something constructive, as well as try to remind people of the real stakes, which are not trivial, in this election). I've also never seen such a bunch of worthless defeatists (I wholeheartedly concur in the comment about "Grumpy Old Men".)
Whites comprise over 60% of the US population (albeit falling rapidly, precisely because of this smug pessimism coupled with confusion about the real issues and their relative importance, as well as cowardice in facing them - again, see my post 26), yet we act as though we are the defeated subjects of alien conquerors, that nothing can be done to halt America's decline, that unseen puppeteers control everyone's 'strings' (the old JBS b-------), that we should just retreat to our little Christian catacombs, where we can preserve Western Civ by forcing our children to learn Latin, and engaging in lots of jesuitical arguing over the most ridiculously unimportant, unknowable, and therefore unresolvable theological arcana ...
ENOUGH!!
seriously i gotta take leon's word for it - cause I prefer the catacombs - the fetal position - the end (or new beginning) of it all - 'whatever' ...
ok, ok - must we muster again - leon (if you say so)
STAKE OUR FUTURE ON A HELL OF A PAST ... ok - why not?
just when i was getting ready to go to sleep again... zzzzz... leon - you better be right - dog!
hope springs eternal...
BOING -
wizard? !
There is NO ESCAPE from the competition of life, part of which includes the hard burdens of political choice. Those who abstain from this eternal competition are extinguished. The world is governed by only one law: eat or be eaten. That is the iron Law of Life.
In this time of the Occident's death throes, EVERY issue and candidate must be 'vetted' in terms of whether they advance or retard the genetic interests of whites as a race. Frequently, we must indeed choose between the lesser of two evils. Fleming's ostensible rebuttal of this proposition is simply nonsensical: my vote for any particular candidate is not some grand metaphysical statement - and in this temporal realm, which Fleming himself would surely agree is 'fallen', is any choice between regular mortal men ever NOT one between evils? Christ is unlikely to be on the 2008 ballot, as far as I can tell ...
With the exception of Ron Paul, none of the candidates is very good. But the notion that Romney is not significantly better than McCain is idiotic. McCain is the worst Republican I know of in national life on the immigration invasion, legal as well as illegal; he is by far the most militant warmonger (why can't he fling some of his psycho-militancy at Mexico, that premier enemy of America?!); he is a leader in the sneaky movement in Congress to ban non-registered, private firearms sales (despite his "lifetime NRA memership"); McCain-Feingold has been a disaster for the GOP, fundamentally working to the advantage of unions/Democrats; he is a big backer of more public education funding; and he is possibly even dumber (and so more manipulable by the neocons) than GWB.
It is vital to the fate of the Republic that McCain be stopped. If nominated, we should root for Clinton (but vote rightist third-party). Better that the great amnesty sell-out of white America (as Peter Brimelow says, "of what used to be called America") should occur under the Democrats - if we are ever to turn the GOP into a rightist party, which in turn must be our long-term political goal (assuming no viable third party arises) if America is to be saved.
_____________________________________
Really quick: Caper, I owe you an apology for my miscalculation vis-à-vis our age difference, which is practically nonexistant. And maybe I'm the brain-fried cynic here.
If voting for Clinton would be "registering contempt" for my country, then as far as I'm concerned, so would voting for McCain, and perhaps then the only palpable choice is not to vote. On most significant issues he is just as bad as she is. Yes, she is more manifestly pro-abortion, but I see no reason to believe that, given the current cultural climate, overturning Roe vs. Wade would get rid of abortion in any but a few heartland states, and that it may well return there in a few years due to demographic and cultural revolution. If Republicans had ever wanted to overturn Roe vs. Wade, it would be done by now. They have had plenty of chances to check the judicial tyrrany that is FDR's legacy, and they have preferred to keep it "on the table" to curry conservatives' votes.
It is manifest that the present political system has by and large failed conservatism on generating any beneficial long-term cultural change or even a slowing of its destruction (just look at how far we've come since the "conservative revolution" of 1980). I don't know what your experiences have been, but I joined College Republicans as a militant enthusiast in early 2004 and by November I was so disaffected I didn't even vote for Bush (a narrow escape of which I am now quite proud). I don't hate America, but I do hate what it has become and I have a great deal of contempt for the political process, which deserves to be treated like the two-ring circus it is.
@Mr. Holler: the fallacy in your argument, quite apart from your enthusiasm for white nationalism, is assuming that the G.O.P. is redeemable. Vote against McCain if you must, but do not think for one minute they will learn their lesson. They didn't learn in 1992, they didn't learn in 2006, and they will not learn now.
Bernie at 45. "I have never voted Republican in a presidential election." My hat is doffed to you, Sir. I thought I was pretty smart, but I confess humbly that I was fooled into it twice---in 1964 and 1980. I hope for forgiveness.
Both Dr. Wilson and I well remember 1980, and I recall several occasions on which I/we discussed some of the issues with movement-conservative friends. I well recall telling an ex-military friend of ours that I was reluctant to vote for a divorced actor, who had spent his adult life pretending to be people he was not. I was told this was unfair, and I did vote for Reagan. We were all pretty quickly disabused when our good friend M.E. Bradford was slandered by the conservatives--not just self-described neocons--and Reagan caved in on his nomination and virtually every issue that had induced me to vote for him. Live and learn: He accomplished liittle and no Republican since has done nearly as much. McCain, at his best, is not worth, "a bucket of warm spit."
What are the prospects for democracy? The US has never been a democracy and the framers wanted to avoid the mistakes made by Athens. They failed. The direct rule of the people cannot work, because someone or some group will always hold the power of leading armies and framing and executing laws. The aspect of democracy that does work is the right of people within their communities to limit the exercise of government power by appealing to tradition, custom, law, and their own ability to rule themselves. When Athenian democracy actually functioned, it was led almost exclusively by the highest aristocrats--Miltiades, Cimon, Pericles. The government apparatus was infinitessimal, and much of the work of government today was carried out be family, kin groups, religious associations, and neighborhoods. A good parallel would be Virginia from 1790 to 1860. As countries grow, however, they invite an exponential growth of central power. The alternative was some form of the federalism our ancestors enjoyed, but the federala principle was abandoned by 1865.
As for the tedious and, as usual, irrelevant introduction of race into the discussion, I have observed over the years that it is always the mark of the Untermensch to imagine himself someone else's superior on the basis not of any merit--in this case we are not talking but someone who is successful, powerful, articulate, or even well-read--but on the basis of an abstraction. Hitler advanced the great white race, therefore we should support Hitler, even if, suppose, we happen to be Catholics stuck in a camp to die. Let's all support John McCain, because he willl kill the fuzzy-muzzies, even though it will do far more damage to us--killing our young men, miltarizing our already militarized state, creating a network of deadly enemies around the world. Wonderful.
I don't know why we are plagued by some of these people. If they do not like the conversation, why don't they go elsewhere or at least shut up? They are like the Ron Paul supporters shouting outside the coffee shop where Chelsea was speaking to her mother's supporters. What is wrong with the American character that we think we have to picket and protest whenever someone is saying something we don't like? It is a sign of puerility.
I have the idea that a Hillary President would finally be the end of the Republicans. It would be so obvious that nobody even pretends to speak for the interests of white males who founded and built this country. Real leaders would have to come forth.
# 20 Could that be translated as "Everbody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries."
"The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says that Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them."
"Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e.,intermarry, with all those non-whites."
"What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?"
"How long would it take anyone to realize that I'm not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?"
"And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kindof psycho black man wouldn't object to this?"
"But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews."
"They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white." ??
"The world is governed by only one law: eat or be eaten. That is the iron Law of Life."
Gee, I didn't realize we had Darwinists reading Chronicles.
I dont think Hillary would be less of a war monger than McCain or Bush, since Bill wasn't. He just picked relatively smaller fights, though they arguably weren't less destructive geopolitically. Bosnia and Kosovo come to mind.
I largely agree with Mr Moses, though I will never vote for Billary, since my hatred for that two headed creature goes back to the late 1970's and was inherited from both of my parents.
Even though Caper has a good point in wishing to delay the inevitable (I also have some of the same concerns he has expressed), I think the important point is timing. The collapse must come soon enough but not too soon. I think a Hillary Presidency would be best, since the timing likely needs to speed up a bit, though I would rather it didn't. Having said all that, I cant say at what point the edifice must crumble. That's up to God, or at least to the angels who watch over fools, drunkards, and the United States.
I am more concerned with what ruler will come after Hillary or McCain. Perhaps another worthless idiot of a 'president' or two, but then what? Who will come out on top after all the turmoil? We may vainly hope for a Franco or a Pinochet, but we may get a Stalin with a different ideology, or no ideology at all. A Putin is vainly to be hoped for as well.
Long term food storage and personal and home defence may not be just a survivalist nutcase obsession anymore.
lemon @ #73
"The first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory" (Kundera).
Come on Pch (#20) -- give us a little more. Your Icelandic entices but does not yield, except for the saga excerpt concerning, I believe, Ragnarök (the final battle).
Well, this was an Easter-egg like surprise for Dr. Peters. When he wrote in a little depth on the Niebelungenlied, written in Old High German, I figured the chances were high he could understand some Old Norse. I seem to be right.
Now I did not wish to dominate the comments any further with it (two were right to complain), but since you (Jim) so kindly asked, here is my translation in English.
It is on topic in the sense that it reflects the end-times sentiments expressed with the sorry choice of Hillary v. McCain. It may also be apt since elsewhere on ChroniclesMagazine.org is proposed a discussion on Beowulf (Old English).
By the way, it was pretty tough matching the Norse alliteration, but I like it.
Great tidings are thereof to tell and many. The first is the winter that cometh called the sea-monster's winter. Then will snow drive out from all sides. Frosts will be bitter and winds biting. None will enjoy the sun. That winter will come as three together with no summer between. But before then will three other winters go by whiles over all the world are great wars. Then doth brother slay brother for ambition’s sake and none showeth honor to father or son in manslaughter or mongrelizing. As told in Wandaspae (the Wand-Bearer's Prophecy):
Brethren will beat each other
and in bane lose each other,
Kinsfolk will
kindred quench.
Hard for heroes,
whoredom much,
Spear-time, sword-time,
shields cleave.
Wind-time, Wary-time,
ere the world stoppeth.
Shoot. That comes from Gylfaginning § 51, in the Prose Edda.
Yes, it looks like we're going to get 9 months of Fear mongering as Republicans tell us the world will end if Hillary is elected.
We survived Jimmy Carter, and Ford would not have been any better. We elected Bush I, who we were told, would not raise taxes or nominate liberals to the SCOTUS. We nominated Dole, because he was electable. We elected Bush II because Gore would have run massive deficits and increased spending. Now, its elect a moderate Republican who pals around with Ted Kennedy and Joe Lieberman or the darkness will descend.
McCain himself, has stated he respects and likes Hillary. He seems less concerned about a Hillary win than most Republicans.
Dr. Fleming,
For all the generosity of your wit, I am always amazed by the morons, reactionaries and racists attracted to post on your site. Underestimate the American people all you want, but, if history is any judge (as you, a fine historian, surely know), they generally do OK.
Separately, I'm surprised you and Senator McCain aren't the best of friends. You both share a temperamental disdain for anyone who disagrees with you.
John McCain won (notice the past tense) because he deserved to (this explains why: http://www.gorighty.com), despite his many shortcomings. True conservatives will all ultimately get behind him.
Thanks for months of amusement!
Matt, if what makes someone fit to be President of the United States is being a warmonger then McCain is surely the man.
Look around you Matt. 3+ trillion dollar budgets. A falling dollar. Bogged down in an unnecessary and unjust war. Babies still getting slaughtered. We are not "doing alright."
print more money - send mCcain and his ilk to More wars... (i'm partying ... [armed to the teeth] WAITING for mCcain and his ilk. - )
come get me whores. (they won't - me and mine pay them.) - the whores.
scum - ain't THAT america ... i got the ledgers to prove it...
pardon me - it's not most americans... but they 'rule' you. sorry.
even if you don't 'know' it.
want me to get rid of them? why not - it's FUN...
_______________________________
"For all the generosity of your wit, I am always amazed by the morons, reactionaries and racists attracted to post on your site."
As irritating as they may be, I would have a drink with such a "moron," "reactionary" or "racist" over a neocon shill, any day.
"Underestimate the American people all you want, but, if history is any judge (as you, a fine historian, surely know), they generally do OK."
Dr. Phillips has pre-empted me, but for the naysayers who insist that this is just one trough in the up and down cycle, I would like to add this: the fact that Peter, Paul and Andrew can learn how to dance does not mean that Mark can, especially if Mark has a broken leg. In other words, because previous hard times were easily rebounded is not, by itself, a reason to suggest this will be the same thing.
In the first place, I don't think there has ever been a time when Americans were so ill-informed of what is going on around them or what it means. If in the past Americans were somewhat naïve and ignorant of foreign affairs, today they are criminally stupid regarding the lessons even of their own history.
Look beyond the idiots at the Fed who insist that a "healthy" economy is one that is ever-expanding on paper and there are many reasons to believe that this country's economic position has been so precarious, i.e., to the point where the entire tissue of its capitalist engine has been rotted out and our prosperity is nothing more than rust with paint on it, and that this structure is vulnerable to collapse under only moderate pressure.
The idea that John McCain will do anything to stop or even slow this decline as opposed to Hillary Clinton is laughable. He has consistently supported the destruction of the U.S. industrial complex and the importation of endless amounts of legal and illegal slave labor to compete with American workers. "Real conservatives" owe him nothing but contempt.
Moses: Well said.
I just watched (from 2002) Milosovics's eloquent defense--he had a heart attack rather the way Ben M'hidi hanged himself as I recall--Clinton (and his female's hands are blood stained) perhaps in Bill's case someone told me more than Bush II. I suggested to a fellow leftist that Hillary might do better teaching intelligent design to second graders only to be met with shock. Then again I read Nataniel West's parody of the Anima Christi to some high school students who kept muttering "Heath Heath" uner their breath.
Where can one obtain a copy of "Poison Pen"?
It may be that the neo-con moment is past but I do not see any Robert Taft's on the Right or Tony Benn's on the left (his children are for Hillary--it must torment as Milton was tormented),
I plan to vote for Taft or Benn but Obama did not support the war--perhaps that gives him some cache--nah!
George W Bush "Talked tough an talked conservative" Wait um um--Robert Taft talked conservative and Bush doesn't sound like him to me. I believe Dr. Fleming meant "MORON"
I was searching the Chronicles website, hoping to find an article by Dr. Trifkovic about Bin Laden and John McCain's support for the KLA, when I came across Dr. Fleming's article; I was struck by his mention of Stephen Tonsor supporting McCain. I had the great honor of taking two courses from Professor Tonsor, who truly is estimable. Despite his tremendous kindness I was always intimidated by him. He had a stocky build and an enormous head, as if his body were solely designed to support his brain, which was easily the most perfectly functioning I encountered during my years in Ann Arbor (excluding, perhaps, my brief backstage encounter with the Romanian genius Sergiu Celibidache). An interview with Prof. Tonsor is availabe on GOPnation, and it evinces no signs of senescence. He says of McCain: "He has many characteristics that I admire greatly. I like McCain for his history and for what he’s done. He’s an admirable man and I agree with the stances he takes."
I take the opinioins of my intellectual -- and moral -- superiors seriously. Yet Tonsor's statements about a man I have regarded for years as a truculent ignoramus leave me perplexed. Even more so considering that McCain is the neo-conservatives' favorite candidate, while Tonsor was the paleo who fired the opening salvos against the neocons many years ago. So thank you, Dr. Fleming, for referring to McCain as as one of the most despicable human beings who has ever run for high office: you have restored my faith in my own judgment.