Wednesday, February 06, 2008

The Die Is Still Cast   [Victor Davis Hanson]

Andrew, please read carefully what I actually wrote. I was not "summing up the opposition to Senator McCain as that he "was not a real war hero, questioning his conduct during capture, commenting on his marital situation, and suggesting he was unhinged and identical to Ted Kennedy, Hillary (fill in the blanks)." 

What I wrote was this: "But so far today I have gotten the usual daily spam e-mail from various fringe and self-acclaimed conservative groups and personages - variously alleging that McCain was not a real war hero, questioning his conduct during capture, commenting on his marital situation, and suggesting he was unhinged and identical to Ted Kennedy, Hillary (fill in the blanks)." Note again the operative words "fringe" and "self-acclaimed". But that being said, I think it was in the Corner itself, where the number of planes lost under McCain was a topic of debate.

I just reported various groups' ratings like ADA, ACLU, ACU, without trying to contextualize them. Second, my point about McCain's illegal immigration ad today puts him on the public record for closing the border first. Perhaps he has to confirm that ad nauseam to regain credibility on that issue, but his recorded voice was pretty clear. Third, I stand by my point that the rhetoric has reached such a level that a number of people have made it very difficult for themselves to vote for McCain, given what they have already said.

Again, as an observer, I think it is valid that to state that while those criticizing the anti-McCainites can sound condescending, the anti-McCainites, at least as represented by blogs, cable news, and talk radio, are by far the angrier — perhaps because those Republicans who prefer McCain would be happy to vote for Romney, but the inverse may not be true.

This, as Andrew points out, may have something to do with McCain's past temperament; it must, since the same anger has not quite been shown Bush or Giuliani or Romney (or Reagan no less) for their past liberal transgressions, from massive spending, to pro-abortion, to sanctuary cities for illegals. As well as negative chemistry, timing also played a role: no one thought Giuliani would implode so quickly, or that McCain would recover so dramatically, or that Romney would only in the 11th hour finally give good speeches and make good ads, or that  the conservative Thompson would fizzle, or that conservatives would have no natural candidate among so many who ran.

Again, on  judges, I think McCain would be far better than Obama or Clinton, maybe not as good as Bush's two, but perhaps better than two of Reagan's three.

On taxes I think not raising them is not as good as cutting them, but far better than raising them—as Obama and Clinton have already promised with income, estate and payroll taxes.

To sum up: given the Democratic advantages, it will be very hard to beat them. Bill Clinton's blunders and Obama charisma have given the Republicans a small window of opportunity. But if enough believe that on judicial appointments, taxes, illegal immigration, the war, federal spending, and social issues like abortion, there is essentially no difference between McCain and Obama/Clinton, or not enough to nullify their worries about his disposition, and therefore stay home, then the candidate will lose and there will be only more acrimony over whom gets blamed-and we can expect a second 8-year Clinton regnum.

I was offering a diagnosis and a prognosis, mostly post facto since I think most, unfortunately, sound like they already have made up their minds.

02/06 12:40 AMShare