Wishful Thinking in politics
Or is it delusional? Here is a bit of political analysis from one of the writers on National Review Online. I am struck more and more at how out of touch, not to say totally delusional, some of the political commentary has gotten over there. There web editor was hoping Dick Cheney would run because he was the best candidate to win in the fall, others were waiting for Fred Thompson, a bit like waiting for Godot, and now they are all getting ready to commit seppuku at the prospect of McCain winning the nomination.
The author, Michael Graham, asks the question 'how to defeat Obama' and concludes it is not a problem.
He's got a glass jaw, and he will fall into the trap of identity politics.
In fact, he already has. The "could we beat Obama?" conversation is purely academic. It's over. The Clintons have defeated him already, because he is leaving South Carolina as "the black candidate."
He won't win another state.
Well, if you say so, though there is the matter of letting the primaries run their course. Just ask the Zogby folks.
Labels: predictions, presidential campaign
posted by Clemens @ 4:42 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
What do you mean by Zogby? I was shocked at how badly he called California, but aside from that I don't get your drift.
Nearly all of NRO's staffers have lost touch with reality. The only ones that come to mind as being still sane are Hanson, Ponnuru, and Goldberg. The low point, IMHO, came when K. Lopez wrote on the Corner after Florida something along these lines: "Huckabee: get out of the race now." As if she, a Romney supporter, has any business telling Huckabee what to do.
The way they crowed over Romney's victory in Michigan was even more bizarre, considering he won by embracing liberal positions. (Spend $20+ billion!) One has the impression that these people are influenced more by that corrupt bunch who tried to engineer a "permanent Republican majority" than by historical conservative ideas. Come to think of it, they did spill an enormous amount of ink trying to defend Tom Delay.
It's sad that Buckley's once-formidable journal has devolved into such a shallow group of hacks. The same bunch spent the election season of 2006 pooh-poohing the polls that showed Congressional Republicans were in for a rout. They've spent the entire primary campaign insisting that Romney was (a) sincere and (b) electable, even though he's neither. Their biggest proof that McCain is not electable is that "more than half the residents of (insert state here) voted against him." Of course, more than half voted against Romney, too, but that doesn't seem to matter in NRO land. I wonder that no one has remarked on (a) the huge gap between McCain's and Romney's gains in California, especially considering how much Romney spent there, and (b) the fact that nearly half of Massachusetts Republicans voted "against" Romney, even though he was their governor for 4 years and that's supposed to be his one big hit.
Of course, it was fun to see that McCain couldn't crack a majority in his home state, either.
I like this commentary on CNN today. Best remark: "[conservative radio hosts] have vowed to destroy McCain because he doesn't carry their water on every issue. Most issues? Yes. But they require their politicians to assume a fetal position, not to have a backbone and stand up to them when needed."
Jack - Zogby is taking a lot of heat for his wacky prediction on California. He points out however that he got a lot of the other ones right. This is not the first time I have heard criticism of his poll for being out of line with conventional wisdom and reality. Probably just my sense of humor. I like to think of it as puckish and ironic, but most people find it obtuse and opaque.
I agree with everything you say about National Review and then some. I have noticed that Buckley himself is treated with a growing disrespect and as utterly irrelevant by some conservatives. Too bad, he was one conservative intellectual I could respect. I met him once when I was 19 - he was in his prime as a speaker and very impressive. If it hadn't been for little things like the Vietnam War and Civil Rights I might have taken a very conservative turn. I think it is in my nature.
Post a Comment
<< Home