Soccer Dad

Campaign consultant kang speaks

Commander Kang - "...only a fool fights in a burning house."

Jonah Goldberg writes:

It's that I disagree with the overwhelming impression that supporting McCain is some kind of lunacy. I have serious disagreements with McCain. I think it is entirely right to disagree with him on all sorts of issues and entirely legitimate to think he would be bad for the party, bad for conservatism or bad for the country to have him as the nominee or the next president. I agree with some of those sentiments, disagree with others.

But this disaster talk leaves me cold. McCain wouldn't be my first pick. Then again, none of the candidates were really my first pick. But I think the notion that, variously, conservatism, the country or the party are doomed if he's the nominee or the president is pretty absurd.

And he gets to the heart of the issue with this:

And I find such claims odd coming from some people who've insisted for a couple years now that the war on terror is the #1 overriding issue of this campaign. Some people who said as much, used that logic to support Rudy Giuliani. Maybe they were right that Giuliani would be a better wartime president than McCain. But, that's an argument that requires a pretty substantial leap of faith given Giuliani's very meager foreign policy experience (never mind that Giuliani is now endorsing McCain). I haven't heard anyone make a credible case that McCain wouldn't be a good commander-in-chief. So it's a bit hard to believe McCain would be a disaster given that he would be — at minimum — pretty good on the single most important issue facing the country.

Well I think that he's underselling Giuliani here, but he's correct about the "...single most important issue facing this country."

(via memeorandum)

Victor Davis Hanson argues that the ideological purity that many demand of McCain just wasn't there in the rose colored past.

Reagan, and Bush I and II all adjusted to that unfortunate reality. A Democrat did not appoint Souter, O’Connor, or Kennedy, nor raise payroll and gas taxes in the 1980s, nor sign amnesty and de facto open-border legislation in 1986, nor, later, increase federal spending well past the rate of inflation, or offer amnesty again in 2007. Tax cuts were great, but without caps on spending they were unfairly slurred as revenue reducers once deficits soared. Recent Republican congressional scandals mirror-imaged some of the Clinton-era roguery.

Reagan’s pragmatism on taxes, amnesty, new federal programs and government expansion, was continued by both Bush I and II. In that regard, McCain seems a continuum, not an abject disconnect.

And he hits the nail on the head with this:

His problem is mostly temperament — when he strayed he was blunt about what he was doing and sometimes gratuitously offended his base in a way that neither Reagan nor the Bushes dared. That is a legitimate concern of tactical aptitude, but not one so much of ideology.

(again via memeorandum)

That's an important point. It's not that he isn't all conservative. It's that the issues which he's differed from the conservative base he's made a point of publicizing his differences.

Here's a guy with a lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 82.3. Even acknowledging that in recent years he has voted less conservatively he is still a far cry from either potential Democratic nominee. And if you look at his advisers these are all people with solid Republican if not conservative credentials. With a legal mind like Ted Olson's (and others) joining him from the Giuliani campaign, it's clear that he's won over some serious conservative intellectual firepower. This isn't just window dressing.

Maybe McCain isn't an ideal choice. But he's certainly not a bad choice. And he doesn't come close to being a disaster.

Maybe Ann Coulter should consult with Commander Kang.

A similar point about Ann Coulter is made here, but with considerably less restraint.

john mccain, politics.

Posted by SoccerDad at February 3, 2008 05:48 AM | TrackBack