More readers’ comments on the campaign

This thread is a continuation of readers’ comments in response to the Florida primary.

Dan M. writes

I think the MSM treatment of Romney is indicative of the fact that he really is not part of the insiders “club.” He is running for the sake of his own ambition, he is a man of faith, and they don’t yet know if he can be controlled. The “they” of which I speak is of course all the usual elites: CFR, Neocon cabal, Rockefeller wing, transnational corporatists, bankers, Bilderbergers, etc. The blinding speed with which the corporate media turned in lock step to embrace McCain since only yesterday speaks volumes. I don’t for a minute think Romney is any threat to them, and I’m sure they know they can work with him, it’s just that they’d rather not have to. McCain the “maverick” will do whatever he’s told. I’ve not seen any evidence that he’s ever done anything but what he’s told.

The really depressing and eye-opening thing about the “recent unpleasantness” in Florida, as Ann Coulter calls it, is that all this talk about a “conservative base” of the Republican party is now seen to be completely off base. The Repubs have a base of moderates. The confusion arises because many of these folks are still calling themselves conservatives. The whole electorate has shifted dramatically to the left since the Reagan years. Of course McCain got the lead from independents, liberals and Hispanics, but he did it with the “base” and a good chunk of self-styled conservatives voting for him too. We should come to grips with the fact that Florida “conservatives” and Repubs have not “gone insane,” not failed to do their homework, not forgotten something, or anything else like this that has been offered as an explanation. They’ve simply acted as what they are: moderates (according to a vastly leftward shifted scale).

I’m annoyed with myself for the fact that I’ve allowed myself to get caught up in all this and then subsequently depressed by the outcome: I know all this doesn’t matter; the same Washington establishment crowd with be running things no matter who is elected, and Romney would undoubtedly not stay unbought and would sell us out so fast it’ll make my head spin. But still, McCain is so vile… I suppose all this just reveals of me that I would rather have sugar-coated sophisticated lies than crude ones.

James S. writes:

Is it possible that Florida, being a unique state with unique demographics, might not mirror how it’s going to go in the rest of the country?

Rachael S. writes:

Romney should run as a third-party candidate, with Tom Tancredo as his VP (or Fred Thompson). We would probably lose to the Dems, but it would be clear how much the conservative vote effects an election.

If no conservatives run as a third-party, then either outcome of the election (McCain, Clinton, Obama) can be spun by the media as a sign that America has moved on from conservatism.

Terry Morris writes:

Have you been watching the debate? I saw the last thirty minutes or so and I have to say something good about Mike Huckabee, he seemed to be the most “together” candidate on the panel; the most at ease with himself. He exuded those qualities which you’ve been attributing to Romney over the last several weeks.

Romney did not impress me in defending himself against McCain’s attacks. McCain used the term “radical Islamic extremism” at least four or five times in the short span I watched the debate.

A. Gereth writes:

I share your revulsion for McCain but I was horrified to see you write:

“The way I’m feeling right now, if this enemy of the United States were nominated by the Republican party, I would vote for Hillary or Obama.”

“Or Obama”?? No, no, no, no! You have written at length—and brilliantly—about the need for America to have a dominant culture that maintains a white majority and is based on Judeo-Christian precepts if it is to survive as a traditionalist nation. I believe the signals we send tell us and others as much about ourselves as more substantive gestures. To elect a man who is part of a minority culture, only one of whose parents was born in America, who belongs to a church that is openly devoted to a culture other than that of America is to tell ourselves and the world that we do not value the culture that produced America and has sustained it for the last 230+ years.

Or more simply (but as I believe, equally indicative), consider this (incomplete) list: President Washington President Adams President Jefferson President Tyler President Taylor President Polk President Johnson President Cleveland President Roosevelt President Lincoln President Wilson President Kennedy President Eisenhower President Carter President Clinton President Obama

If you don’t see anything wrong with this (admittedly incomplete) list, could you please explain why not, in light of the beliefs you’ve expressed elsewhere? Again, I share your revulsion toward McCain but in a choice between him and Obama, I would choose a war veteran and a member of the dominant America culture over someone I consider to be an outsider, partly by heritage but also by choice, to the traditions of our American majority.

This is nothing personal against Obama, whom I consider to be a person of genuine warmth and charm. I do not believe, though, that his first loyalty is firmly and unalterably to the America you espouse. (Neither is McCain’s but at least he is not a member of an openly Afro-centric organization; he’s merely the usual pandering, cynical politico.) Additionally, because of Obama’s heritage, he would be a poor representative of the still-dominant white majority America on the world stage. (Indeed, I am sure that is one of his chief attractions for the many America haters on the left.)

In short, if pushed to extremes, Hillary over McCain, yes. But if the choice is between McCain and Obama (a worst-case scenario), I will vote for McCain. If you feel otherwise, could you please explain why?

As always, your thoughts are much appreciated. Luckily for me, while I invariably find them enlightening, I am not so blinded by their brilliance as to be unable to avail myself of them.

LA replies:

I appreciate your thoughts, which are worthwhile.

Listen, with the kind of emotional outpourings I’ve been hearing from people the last couple of days about McCain (some of which were so virulent I could not post them), what I said was pretty mild. I didn’t say I would vote for Obama. I said, the way I’m feeling now. Sometimes you just need to express the way you feel in this moment, while you also acknowledge that this is not the whole picture, not your final position.

Chris L. writes:

One thing getting overlooked in all of this is that the Democrats have their own McCain, Hillary Clinton. While she has a base, a large number of Democrats despise her and plead fervently that Obama will win the nomination. A good number of the people supporting her are ones, like conservatives who support McCain, are people who only care that their party wins and they see Hillary as the best one to win in the general election.

With the fact that many Democrats are at best uneasy with Hillary, a Hillary-McCain race results in an interesting situation. First, Hillary and McCain will have to import mud to supply their mud-slinging. It is going to be a nasty campaign and that will turn the “moderates” away from both of them. Second, just like many Republicans, a lot of Democrats are going to stay home or vote for the opposing party’s nominee rather than vote for their party’s candidate. I have already heard some statements to that effect from several Democrats I know. Also, with the beating Hillary has been applying to Obama and the view by many blacks that it is racist in nature, I have to believe that that will depress black turnout in the general election. Add that McCain is the least offensive Republican. The result of a Hillary-McCain contest, I believe, is historically low turn-out and large numbers of cross party lines voting as voters from each party try to foist the opposing party’s candidate on the country. McCain may win, but only because more Democrats voted for him than Republicans voted for Hillary.

Jack S. writes:

Some thought about recent developments:

I too am unhappy at the prospect of McCain as the nominee. Hillary is preferable to McCain but Obama would be worse. I have often thought in the last few years that the latter years of the Clinton Presidency were not so bad. Hamstrung by a Republican Congress and the impeachment process, Clinton did very little harm. At the time I was outraged by his farewell tour largess but that was nothing compared to what our current Imbecile-in-chief is doing. Print another $30 Billion for AIDS in Africa, what’s wrong with letting the herd be thinned out?

A President McCain would be Bush amplified as you put so well: “The main difference between Bush and McCain is that while Bush is morally smug in his love of Hispanics and distaste for Americans, McCain is actively nasty. His drive to make America r:acially correct, i.e., nonwhite and Hispanic, and thus prove his own superiority to the American people, is even fiercer than Bush’s.”

It is a sign of the moral rot of our nation that one who has been tortured or imprisoned by an enemy is made a hero by the media. In wiser days a hero was someone who killed great numbers of the enemy, like Patton, York, or Murphy, not someone humiliated by them. I have always found that the idea that McCain POW status gave him special rights to be a leader to absurd.

It is hard to understand how any thinking person could support this man, but that may be the answer. Most people don’t give these things much thought. I’m not even talking about the mindless cattle that are typical Democratic voters. But among normal Republican voters, if you don’t follow matters closely and are guided by media soundbites and keywords you see McCain: white haired elder statesman, “war hero,” “Conservative,” anti-abortion, supports the War and the troops. Contrast this to Romney with what some people see as his car salesman good looks and his fake good-nature, and false easy-going way. Add instinctive distrust of Mormons and rich businessmen waging vanity campaigns for public office and you have our current situation.

LA replies:

I don’t see how any reasonable person could see Romney’s campaign as a vanity campaign. A person would have to be blind not to see Romney’s intelligence and the thought that has gone into his positions. At the same time I agree with what another commenter said that Romney does not represent any real break from what we have now. But I repeat that there are differences: Romney doesn’t speak of “spreading democracy,” and he he’s not messianic about immigration. His support for immigration is always expressed in pragmatic not utopian terms: that there are talented people abroad whom we should admit into America. The absence of liberal fanaticism indicates that Romney is open to reason on these issues in a way that Bush is not.

Ray G. writes from Dearbornistan:

I’m afraid it doesn’t look good for us. The man who called the American people bigots and xenophobes seven months ago for having the nerve to oppose his and Ted Kennedy’s outrageous “no illegal alien left behind” act, now looks almost inevitable to become the standard bearer for the so called “conservative party.”

And with large numbers of American Latinos in California, Texas, Arizona, who will likely vote for anyone who hints at amnesty for their relatives who are illegal (and that’s a lot of so called “Hispanics”), we may lose not only an election but the broader, cultural demographic destiny of our country,

Richard B. writes:

This Mania for McCain is sickening. Didn’t they learn anything from Bob Dole? Old wounded Vets just don’t play well with the average American. They want youthful, vibrant leaders. I’ve also seen a lack of affection between McCain and his wife, so unlike the genuine love between Romney and his spouse. Wake-up people! McCain is bad news all around.

Mark S. writes:

Suppose McCain or Clinton get elected. Neither could be more eager for increased immigration and amnesty for current illegal immigrants than George W. Bush.

Either will have to ask Congress for the equivalent of last year’s amnesty bill. By staying alert and working hard we kept that bill from passing; we must prepare to do the same thing again—indeed, we must prepare to work even harder at it.

I haven’t sent any money to presidential candidates this year—I’m saving it all for next year’s battles.

Paul Henri writes:

I cannot figure out what anyone sees in the angry little man. I am incredulous that he survives politically despite an endorsement from the NYT. Traditional conservatives cannot stand him, so I cannot figure out why he is still in the race. Let me inform you about what conservatives think of him, not that you don’t already know:

Novak on McCain

Coulter on McCain’s Straight Talk

More Coulter on McCain’s Straight Talk

Michael Reagan on McCain

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 31, 2008 07:30 AM | Send