John Derbyshire is an idiot.
Isn't it just a wee bit too early to be conceding elections, since not a single primary has been held and we're, oh, 15 months away from the election?
What was that old quote? Oh, yes, here it is:
Hello?
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
NRO Idiocy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
As some of the folks at Ace said, Derb is not a conservative, but rather a curmudgeonly contrarian. But yes, let's run Ron Paul. I've always wanted to see an election here like Le Pen v. Chirac in France in '02. Maybe we'd even get 20 percent of the vote.
He's not conservative, true, but this sort of comment is still pretty idiotic to make no matter what wing you're in.
I'll take the other side here, somewhat. I think the article makes valid points. I don't agree with the overall conclusion. But I also don't disagree with the intent.
Anything can happen in politcs. That's mainly because it's such a seedy business. Clinton could get hit with a scandal that rocks her chances. The US could face first-hand terrorism again and the country rally around Bush and the GOP. You never know. These type of x-factors could happen and then anything is fair game.
But, all things being equal and status quo (which they usually are), I just don't see any way the GOP wins the 2008 election. Sure, you can't give up. But sometimes, just like in sports, you have to look at the odds and say you'd hate to be in the underdog's position. Every now and then a Bowling Green will beat a Ohio State. It's always possible. But I'd take OSU's chances any day of the week. Just like I would prefer the Democratic candidate chance of victory, given the tough coattails that the 2008 GOP candidate will inherit from Bush.
As to Paul, I love the guy's message. And he's one of the few genuine outsiders in the race. The idea of a real outsider taking control of either party would be fantastic. So, sure. I love Derb's fantasy. My personal preference would be for Newt Gingrich to fill such a role. And as much as I like Newt, I wouldn't give him much better odds than Paul. So why trash those who support Paul in such a role when I know we all like Newt and he'd fare no better while serving the same capacity?
Yes, we are supposed to "play to win the game" as Herm always reminds us. But winning a game is can sometimes be superceded by winning a championship. And there's nothing wrong with putting a greater emphasis on the latter. So I do think there's a valid analogy to 1964. Many have told me all about the way Goldwater was demonized. He had 0 chance of winning in 1964, especially after the pain from Kennedy's death. But yet the GOP did exactly the right thing looking to the future. And we then reaped the fruits of that move for 30+ years.
Tying it into the sports analogy....while not trying intentionally to lose, sometimes it's better to throw rookies into the game and let them learn how to play. There are some things you just can't learn from the bench. Remember the 1989 Dallas Cowboys? Troy Aikman sure did learn the hard way. But it was also the right way. Perhaps Jimmy Johnson would have a slight counter to Herm's mantra.
Perhaps it may be time to do this sort of thing again. Thing is, I don't know if Paul is the right person. His age is against him. And I don't think he's eloquent enough in his message. But I do admire him for trying to fill that role. Lord knows nobody else out there has the balls to try!
Post a Comment