Posted on 02/04/2008 10:53:49 AM PST by TinaJeannes
The prospect of John McCain as the likely Republican presidential nominee has produced a squall of anger on the right. Normally reserved columnists and usually ebullient talk-radio hosts vie to express their disgust with McCain, and their disdain for the Republicans who are about to nominate him. The conservative movement as a whole appears disgruntled and dyspeptic.
Now I have nothing against a certain amount of disgruntlement and dyspepsia. The ways of the world, and the decisions of our fellow Americans, occasionally warrant such a reaction.
But American politics tends to be unkind to movements that dwell in anger and relish their unhappiness. In the era from Franklin D. Roosevelt to John F. Kennedy, liberals tended to be happy warriors — and that helped their cause. The original civil rights movement succeeded in part because it worked hard to transcend a justifiable bitterness. Liberalism faltered when it became endlessly aggrieved and visibly churlish.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
A horribly over written screed. Krystol is a relative smart man. He should focus more on substance than style.
Let’s see, they focus on their feelings, we focus on the facts.
If they’re pissed off it’s because they didn’t get their latest entitlement bill passed.
If we’re pissed off it’s because they tried.
Another “understanding your fellow conservative” (tm) moment from the guys who don’t have a clue.
Another neo-con President. Lord help us! Well, it will be similar to the Bush years. Hopefully we can railroad McCain on the S. Ct. picks and immigration as well. I voted Huckabee in Florida to keep his campaign (and the hope of a contested convention alive). A few favorite son candidates in a few states would sure help the prospects of a contested convention. Get some guts conservatives . . .
Is this article by William Krystol (sp?) or William Bristol?
“But I’d say this to them: When the primaries are over, if McCain has won the day, don’t sulk and don’t sit it out. Don’t pretend there’s no difference between a candidate who’s committed to winning in Iraq and a Democratic nominee who embraces defeat. Don’t tell us that it doesn’t matter if the next president voted to confirm John Roberts and Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court, or opposed them. Don’t close your eyes to the difference between pro-life and pro-choice, or between resistance to big government and the embrace of it.
And don’t treat 2008 as a throwaway election. If a Democrat wins the presidency, he or she will almost certainly have a Democratic Congress to work with. That Congress will not impede a course of dishonorable retreat abroad. It won’t balk at liberal Supreme Court nominees at home. It won’t save the economy from tax hikes.
If, by contrast, McCain wins the presidency — and all the polls suggest he’d be the best G.O.P. bet to do so — he’ll be able to shape a strong American foreign policy, nominate sound justices and fight for parts of the conservative domestic agenda.
One might add a special reason that conservatives — and the nation — owe John McCain at least a respectful hearing. Only a year ago, we were headed toward defeat in Iraq”
McCain has shown nothing but contempt for the conservative base, and craves DC flattery. Those 2 flaws wil make for very wicked leadership. The base owes him nothing but the contempt he has sown.
If this country has no option but to flounder in the abyss of liberal theology, there is no sense in having a RINO at the helm to have the blame assigned to Republicans.
Shut up and get with the party line.
I agree with everything he wrote in his op ed. When I see some of those talk show hosts on tv. It makes me cringe the venom that comes from their mouthes.
They do look like they are having temper tantrums.
Cutting off their nose to spite their face.
Big turn off for people who might want to join our party because they agree with republicans on more issues then they do dems.
I can not believe they would rather see a dem in office who is not in the least conservative and allow that person to pick federal judges who will possibly let more rapists and murderers free !
McCain is not worth my vote and he will not get my vote.
William Krystol Sorry there was typo on new york times header. and i didnt catch it as i copied it
so are u going to vote for hillary or obama ? :)
that’s because real conservatives don’t want a flaming liberal heading up their party....capiche tina?
I’m with you. I don’t really understand what the shooting is about since we don’t have a straightline conservative left in the race (haven’t since Hunter dropped). Pick your poison but quit whining about it . . . that’s what I say. Want an untrustworthy guy that you know will go back on some of the conservative stuff he’s saying now — and whose record is abysmal — pick Romney. Want a guy that is conservative on spending and the war, but not on immigration or taxes, pick McCain. Want a guy that raised taxes, but has a good record otherwise and is trustworthy on social issues and gun rights, pick Huckabee. But it isn’t like we can pretend with these guys that there is a conservative left in the race.
Nope. I am voting state and locals and leaving the POTUS blank or maybe I will write in someone.
I refuse to vote for the author of the CIR bill who had the gall to call people who do not like open borders and amnesty foul names.
By the way welcome to FR. Are you a new McCain shill?
flaming liberal? are you insinuating mccain is gay? :)
But there is nothing in his history in Congress that suggests he would do so!
You haven't even seen "churlished" yet little boy.
I supported Mccain back in 2000 also. And yes I am new to this forum. still haven’t figured out how to use that ping yet *L* and thanks for the welcome
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.