If my record of consistently backing losers in 2008 continues, the next president will be…

At every stage of this miserable presidential election year, the candidate I favored lost. First I supported Tom Tancredo (yes, of course, that was just quixotic), and he dropped out early. Then, after he adopted a good immigration position, I sort of, kind of supported the tall, deep-voiced, slow-talking fellow from Tennessee and the American Enterprise Institute, Fred Thompson, who never made much of an impression and went nowhere, as I knew he would even during the Thompson boomlet in early 2007. I supported Romney, strongly, as by the far the best candidate and as the only alternative to the totally unacceptable McCain, and Romney—seen as too odd, plastic, and perfect by too many Republicans—was defeated (though if the Republicans had closed primaries, as of course they should have, Romney would right now be the presumptive nominee) . Of the remaining three candidates at that point, my preferences were Hillary first, Obama second, and McCain last. I became a champion of Hillary, as the most “normal” seeming American and least unacceptable candidate in the race. She was defeated, leaving Obama and McCain.

Of course I don’t want Obama to be president. To use a phrase from Richard Nixon’s resignation speech, every instinct in my body rebels at the thought of Jeremiah Wright’s acolyte in the White House. But my rational part tells me that an Obama presidency, as ruinous as it will be, will energize conservatism, and thus in the long run and maybe even the short run be better for the country, while a McCain presidency will kill conservatism and thus be disastrous for the country. Indeed, given conservatives’ tendency to fall down at the feet of a Republican president, America under a left-leaning McCain could very likely go more left than America under a leftist Obama who will be opposed by conservatives. So my official preference is for Obama.

But now my “preferred” candidate is losing ground. In July a Zogby poll showed Obama leading McCain 46 to 36. Today, Zogby shows McCain leading Obama 42 to 41. I suppose it’s Obama’s superficiality, lies, constant shifts of position, staggering narcissism, and palpable lack of identification with America, that is turning people off on him, while McCain, notwithstanding the fact that he is a sub-mediocrity, seems relatively normal, dependable, and American. In any case, in keeping with the whole miserable pattern of this election year, there’s an increasing possibility that the person who’s been my least favorite choice all along, the candidate of the neocons, will win.

* * *

However, I’ve been too hard on myself. I’ve also had my victories in 2008. The one candidate whom I wanted to lose more than any other (at least, prior to the emergence of McCain) was Giuliani. And this website, going back even before the start of the 2008 campaigning, was the most consistent and vociferous anti-Giuliani publication in the U.S., repeatedly insisting on his total inappropriateness as a GOP nominee or president. (See in particular my debate with Giuliani supporter Andrew McCarthy about Giuliani’s suitability for the presidency.) VFR kept up this theme even as the entire neocon establishment were worshipping Giuliani and speaking with total assurance of his inevitability—a prediction based solely on polls and on his popularity among social conservatives nation-wide who were as yet unfamiliar with his political record and personal history. Having been annointed by the neocons as far back as 2006 or even 2005 as the assured nominee, he ended up winning a grand total of one delegate, the biggest bust in the history of presidential politics. The neocons were dead wrong to support him, and dead wrong in predicting his victory.

- end of initial entry -

Tim W. writes:

Here’s an interesting statistic. Not counting the Reconstruction Era, only two blacks have ever been elected governor. Douglas Wilder by a paper thin margin in Virginia (after he had led in the polls by a large margin) and current governor Deval Patrick of very liberal Massachusetts (New York’s black governor came to power by Spitzer’s resignation). Only three blacks have been elected to the U.S. Senate. Edward Brooke, a liberal Republican was elected in Massachusetts in 1966 and re-elected in 1972. The other two were somewhat odd elections in Illinois. In 1992, Carole Moseley-Braun defeated Republican Rich Williamson when he abandoned his opposition to abortion, gay rights, and affirmative action in mid-campaign after being “advised” to do this by the media. In 1998 Moseley-Braun was voted out of office after one term, losing to Republican Pete Fitzgerald in a generally good year for the Democrats. Fitzgerald retired after one term and Obama won the seat in 2004. However, his opponent was the somewhat erratic Alan Keyes, himself a black man.

The bottom line is that voters have elevated very few blacks to the high elected positions of governor or U.S. senator. In the past forty years, you can count them literally on the fingers of one hand, despite high levels of black success in district or city elections where the black vote is concentrated. Will voters elevate a black with little experience, ties to an anti-white church, and an Islamic name and family heritage to the highest office in the land? Something tells me they won’t, despite McCain’s total lack of appeal.

Alan Roebuck writes:

Tim W. makes a good case, but let’s not forget that Obama stands for just about everything that America “officially” stands for (under the rule of liberalism): minority success, leftism masked with happy talk, the empowerment of foolishly idealistic youth, unconditional negotiations with foreign enemies, being young and handsome, etc. If I had to bet money, I’d put my money on Obama.

Jon W. writes:

I also agree that Tim W. makes a good case, but on the other hand, what kept most blacks from being competitive candidates in senatorial and gubernatorial races is the fact that most are utterly incapable of appealing to whites. They don’t need to do so in order to be elected to federal and state positions where they can be elected with no white support at all. However, Obama DOES appeal to whites (at least some whites) and therefore is past that initial hurdle. Further, most blacks are kept out of competitive upper-level positions in the primary races, and not in the general elections.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 06, 2008 06:10 AM | Send