Jonah Goldberg: Inherit the Wind. What if it takes a Democrat? (Maybe a Democrat should win)

National Review ^ | Feb. 16, 2007 | Jonah Goldberg

[FairOpinion]

This wisp of a notion is simply this: Maybe a Democrat should win in 2008.

Personally, I don’t believe in this poltergeist, at least not yet. But every now and then, I must confess, I do shiver from its touch.

The idea goes something like this: If you believe that the war on terror is real — really real — then you think it is inevitable that more and bloodier conflicts with radical Islam are on the way, regardless of who is in the White House. If the clash of civilizations is afoot, then the issues separating Democrats and Republicans are as pressing as whether the captain of the Titanic is going to have fish or chicken for dinner. There’s a showdown coming. Period. Full stop. My task isn’t to convince you that this view is correct (though I basically believe it is), but merely that it is honestly and firmly held by many on the right and by a comparative handful on the left.

[higgmeister]

Jim Gilmore served as a U.S. Army counter-intelligence agent in Germany during the Vietnam era.

OMG! Bader Meinhof! Bump for more electoral points!

[Jim Robinson]

"What if some unacceptable to you wins the GOP primary and none of that party splitting, that you foresee, happens; that just about EVERY CONSERVATIVE leader, organization, pundit, and all of the losing candidates get behind him and supports the GOP ticket? Then what?"

Doesn't matter. If Rudolph Giuliani wins the nomination, doesn't matter what you and I may do or not do personally. Some minority percentage of the conservative vote will NEVER actually vote FOR a baby killer or FOR a known gun grabber. You may think this minority percentage will be insignificant, and you may never ever understand the reasoning, but it is real. And it is there. And the numbers will be enough to make the difference in the close states. Just like in 1992 and 1996, and demonstrated again as recently as last November, the Democrats will waltz in.

[nopardons]

Does that go for Romney as well? I know that you don't like him either.

What I DO know and understand is, that a Dem presidency will destroy ANY chance of ANY Conservative gains in the future. It will also be ruinous for not only this nation, but the world and that is no exaggeration nor hyperbole.

There have always been people who don't like whomever their party's candidate is and have stayed home, voted fringe, and even voted for the candidate of the party they detest.

I am not proselytizing for any particular candidate right now; all I was asking you, was about a hypothetical "what if". I hope you realized that.

Some percentage of Indies and yes, even disaffected Dems, WILL vote for the GOP candidate, IF it's one who appeals to them. That IS, after all, how Reagan won. And it was Reagan's talk about how he was not only the member of a union, but the president of that union, as well as his high praise for FDR, that won over Dem support. Naturally, Regan changed his stump speech, when talking to GOP/Conservative audiences.

The GOP needs a candidate with the ability to woo and win over as many voters as is humanly possible. We can NOT allow a Dem to win the '08 election!

[jla]

You just hate it when people voice an opinion different, and often wiser, than your own. And you've anger management issues. But I'm sure I'm not the first to tell you that.

[jla]

And it was Reagan's talk about how he was not only the member of a union, but the president of that union, as well as his high praise for FDR, that won over Dem support.

No, it was not.

[InfraRed]

I don't know, but it's not Giuliani, McCain or Romney.

How about Senator Inhofe?

Personally, I would love to see an Inhofe/Hunter ticket, and I can't imagine many Republican voters having a problem with either candidate.

If you or anyone else feels the same way, please send Senator Inhofe the message:
http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm

Anybody that needs to know Senator Inhofe better can start here:
http://inhofe.senate.gov/

And here are his voting record and stance on the issues:
http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/James_Inhofe.htm

[Jim Robinson]

I don't know about Romney. I've read that he's flip flopped on important life issues for political purposes. That creates a lack of trust. Also I believe that his religion may be a stumbling block for some. That may be unfair but it's a factor that must be considered.

How large is the Christian pro life & liberty segment within the conservative coalition? What percentage of them absolutely will not FOR a baby killer under any circumstances? Or a gun grabber? How many may pray to God for forgiveness and pull the lever anyway (lesser of two evils theory), but not actively support the campaign or ask others to do likewise? How will this lack of enthusiasm and support affect the outcome? Can we afford to take the risk? Was the lack of enthusiasm and support in the Republican debacle of 2006 a harbinger of worse to come? If you attempt to woo liberals by running a liberal do you lose more than you gain? If your liberal candidate is on the wrong side of the hottest issue facing the nation next to the war (illegal immigration) how many votes do you give up? What is the opportunity cost in terms of the vote that could've been pulled in? Why not run a full blooded conservative rather than a candidate who is as bad as the dems on critical conservative issues and avoid all these downside problems? Do we not have faith in our own principles, values and convictions?

[Jim Robinson]

Inhofe would be great!

[chasio649]

Do we not have faith in our own principles, values and convictions?

---

Now that's the question!

[jla]

Do we not have faith in our own principles, values and convictions?

Hear, hear.

Mia...Post #207 for your perusal.

[EternalVigilance]

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

[tkathy]

Is there any end to the moronic conservative talk show hosts and conservative pundits trashing republicans???

Do they ever even mention defeating democrats? Or put forth a compelling case for social conservativeness? A case that has WIDE appeal?

[stefan10]

because of my work i know a lot of americans and i think if president Bush can not fix the iraq problem the republican party will not win the next election and it doesn´t matter who is the democratic candidate or the republican candidate.

From a campaigning point of view it would perhaps be better for the republican party and the new republican candidate if the troops leave iraq or at least start to leave before the election campaign starts because if there is no change in iraq and the troops are still there when the campaign starts it will be a disaster for the republican party.

That´s at least the impression i have from talking to americans from the left to the right. In the end the republican party needs other topics to dominate the election campaign.

[goldstategop]

Perhaps we should allow them to do what they want so they are forced to wake up from their silly diversions about global warming and trans-fats. There's nothing like the reality of American Decline driving home to the Democrats the untenability of their positions. Which were adopted solely out of political calculation in the first place.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[ekwd]

The morons at NR played this game in 76 and 92 too. I agree that conservatism needs to re-evaluate who its leaders are going to be and that includes all the pundits who told their audiences not to vote Republican any more.

[savedbygrace]

There is one given in the theory, an unspoken given, that I reject.

It is that all the Dimocrat candidates really love this country and when put to the test of a real terrorist attack vs appeasement politics, will chose to fight and destroy the real enemy.

I am convinced that any of them would chose appeasement politics instead.

[politicalwit]

Some minority percentage of the conservative vote will NEVER actually vote FOR a baby killer or FOR a known gun grabber.

You got it big guy.

[Enduring Freedom]

goldberg is one of those wimp conservatives that need to educate each voter to earn their vote

democrats don't give a damn about teaching or even misleading voters - they seek power at all cost

a battlefield general doesn't need to teach each soldier the nuances of justification for killing the enemy

to save our republic our gop leaders need to get the votes even if they resort to cheap marketing gimmicks, ridicule, humor, fear tactics, free donuts

get it done, gop, or we're done

[Mia T]

But what happens when a President Clinton or Obama has a 9/11 -- or worse -- on her or his watch? Or is faced by the prospect of an Iraq run by terrorists? I'd like to hope that president would rise to the occasion, out of conviction or political self-interest.

Jonah Goldberg

 

Hey Jonah! 'Whispering' signals poltroonery, not circumspection.

Well, at least no one can say you are totally nuts.
In deference to clinton deux...
you did throw in "out of... political self-interest."

You may not have noticed: We may yet not survive the first clinton...
(who, you apparently did fail to notice, did have his own 9/11--same building, same terrorists, even same timing relative to the assumption of office... the first attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor.... Not to mention all the acts of war against America that followed....)

When clinton refused to "rise to the occasion out of conviction or political self-interest," bin Laden even tried explicitly declaring war on us. Numerous times. Starting in the mid-90s.

And even then clinton refused to act.

He was too cowardly and self-serving, focused on his poll numbers and his legacy and the Nobel instead of the presidency and the people and the country.

He was too dumb to realize that confronting terrorism was in fact his ticket to the Nobel.

He was even too dumb to understand that the choice was not his, that when terrorists declare war on you and commit acts of war against you, you are, perforce, at war. Either you fight or you surrender.

clinton surrendered.

And now you want to put the clintons back in power?

Some will invoke here the operant definition of insanity.

And not without cause.

[NYpeanut]

Do you have a list of possibles?