Adrian Wooldridge, author of The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America, and Washington Bureau Chief of the moderate left British newsmagazine The Economist. has a splendid op-ed piece in today's New York Times (for paper readers, page A33 of the national edition) showing why John McCain, despite his compulsive need to play at maverick and pick fights with conservative leaders and interest groups -- is still the most electable choice this year for conservatives.
Despite his well-publicized tiffs with the right's establishment, Senator McCain, says Mr. Wooldridge ". . .has a solid record on the defining principles of the conservative movement -- traditional values, the free market, and national defense." Are there really bigger, more important issues than those ? Moreover, Mr. Wooldridge adds, McCain "is "far more solid on these core beliefs than Mr. Romney. . ."
The record bears Mr. Wooldridge out -- Senator McCain has an 82.3 percent lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union, a big conservative lobby. Senator McCain looks like a moderate to a lot of people. He trashes a lot of big conservative icons. But how much of a moderate -- a sell-0ut, to conservatives, is McCain really ?
As Mr. Wooldridge says:
. . .there are still good reasons Mr. McCain is worth the risks his candidacy would pose. His moderate image would serve him well in a genearl election. More important, Mr. McCain is more likely than any of his rivals to offer conservatives what they want: a vigorous pursuit of the fight against terroristm, the appointment of conservative judges, retrenchment and reform of government.
Suits me down to the ground, (although possibly not "independent" fans of McCain's quirkiness). Read the whole thing.
4 comments:
Did you see this post at Captains Quarters? http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/016672.php
"Let's pause a moment and let this sink into the consciousness. More than six years after 9/11, the Democrats still have no comprehensive national security or counterterrorism plan. They feel that such a discussion will "blindside" them "
Having a national security plan requires that security be a value. For the Left, the last thing that they want is that the American capitalist system, required to pay for its history of exploiting minorities, the third would and th poor -- have security.
The Democrats cannot have a national security plan because it would drive the lefty professors and the People's Republic of San Francisco crowd bonkers.
This makes me wonder if we're not overblowing the threat Democrats pose this year. Americans weren't willing to elect a Dem in '04 largely based on national security. Are they really going to be willing to do it in '08?
El Jefe
I made an overview of the campaign post, of course I linked one of your posts, why rewrite the good stuff?
I don’t see much in any of them [the democratic candidates] to vote for. As is often pointed the so-called Neo-conservatives are not actual conservatives. They rebelled from the main stream of the left because they saw those policies as morally and intellectually bankrupt. Though their ideas are much better than the main stream left they are not really conservative. Left Wing Lite so to speak. Most of what got President Bush in trouble in Iraq and domestically came from the baggage they brought with them. The thought of going from Left Wing Lite to the high calorie version does not seem exciting.
Post a Comment