Medved’s “hysteria” at Romney’s victory—why?

Sam B. writes:

Are you acquainted with the Michael Medved talk show? He’s an ex-lefty convert to “conservatism” (or rather establishment Republicanism) after his ’70s conversion from ’60s madness. And never gotten over it, and preens about how “conservative” he is, when he is more of a Kool-Aid drinker of Bush and the GOP. Thus, no surprise that he was hysterically affected by “McKennedy’s” loss to Romney today. He almost had a stroke when he heard the news, and today he interviewed a McCain hagiographer.

He is at bottom an unreconstructed liberal who, because of his disillusionment with the New Left, “rebounded” to find a new sweetheart, the GOP, like so many rejected lovers. He’s been for open borders for a long time, and only now disclaims he ever was, yet many callers, who don’t have his education (Yale), but who have native wisdom, plain-speaking working and mid-class (non academic) persons, have seen through his persiflage. The only thing he’s okay on is on the Israeli-Palestinian/Islamic situation. But then, like me, he’s Jewish. I wonder if he’d be on the right side of that if he weren’t Jewish. He attempts to emulate Dennis Prager, except, he ain’t no Dennis P. No matter your view of the latter, he has a depth on many areas that many talk show hosts don’t come within a mile of—especially Michael M.

I will vote for Romney in the California primary, and for him in November. If someone like Thompson had the “fire in the belly” I’d prefer him. But he’s so lethargic. He’s beginning to pick up, but may be too late.

LA replies:

Can you expand on Medved’s reaction to Romney’s victory? What did he say about it? Why did it bother him so much? Why does he see Romney as so unsuitable?

Sam B. replies:

He is bothered by Romney’s victory because he is completely committed to McCain, even though he pays lip service to the mantra, “We have ro support whoever is nominated.” And maybe inadvertantly he is telling the truth because he is primarilly a Republican who supports the GOP establishment no holds barred, as opposed to traditional conservatism. Supports Bush in every manner and way, no apologies even for GW’s more egregious positions (open borders) which he has supported, though he dances ariound it now that he sees how the base feels about that issue. He ridicules those who fear the Amero-union, and called Tom Tancredo, Tom “Tancrazy”. He can be nasty, and has a very imperious way about him that annoys to no end.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 17, 2008 02:01 AM | Send