Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Speaking of "heads I win, tails you lose", Hugh Hewitt, a law professor and therefore a man who must understand logic, spent an hour last month taking on the disaffected wing of the Republican party and trying to persuade all sides that their only home in November is the Republican party.
The precipitating issue was the Senate immigration bill. When opposition among the party rank and file became too obvious to ignore, George Bush put his reputation on the line to go to bat for it and had harsh words for anti-immigration Republicans. Given that anti-immigration Republicans party outnumber the George Bush spanish speaking Republicans and anti-labor Republicans combined, this was a gutsy move.
There has since been a lot of talk of base voters just staying home in November to teach George Bush and the Republicans that the base should not be taken for granted.
Hugh is a Republican first and a conservative second, so he was arguing that this would be a mistake with no possible long term upside.
However, it was one argument that he kept repeating that convinced me Hugh has the self-delusion of a politician, or perhaps the low regard for voters' (and radio listeners') intelligence: He stated, "If you opposed Harriet Meiers' nomination, you must support the Republican's in the fall."
If I supported Harriet Meiers' nomination, who should I support in the fall? She was, after all, proposed by George Bush, and she was not his sixth choice after more qualified and more staunchly conservative nominees were rejected by the Senate.
Is there another party for Meiers' supporters -- maybe Arlen Specter is branching off -- or should we all just shut up and vote Republican because that is what Hugh is going to do? Or maybe the Democratic party is the home of the folks who neither supported nor opposed Harriet Meiers?
The precipitating issue was the Senate immigration bill. When opposition among the party rank and file became too obvious to ignore, George Bush put his reputation on the line to go to bat for it and had harsh words for anti-immigration Republicans. Given that anti-immigration Republicans party outnumber the George Bush spanish speaking Republicans and anti-labor Republicans combined, this was a gutsy move.
There has since been a lot of talk of base voters just staying home in November to teach George Bush and the Republicans that the base should not be taken for granted.
Hugh is a Republican first and a conservative second, so he was arguing that this would be a mistake with no possible long term upside.
However, it was one argument that he kept repeating that convinced me Hugh has the self-delusion of a politician, or perhaps the low regard for voters' (and radio listeners') intelligence: He stated, "If you opposed Harriet Meiers' nomination, you must support the Republican's in the fall."
If I supported Harriet Meiers' nomination, who should I support in the fall? She was, after all, proposed by George Bush, and she was not his sixth choice after more qualified and more staunchly conservative nominees were rejected by the Senate.
Is there another party for Meiers' supporters -- maybe Arlen Specter is branching off -- or should we all just shut up and vote Republican because that is what Hugh is going to do? Or maybe the Democratic party is the home of the folks who neither supported nor opposed Harriet Meiers?
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
James Taranto puts together an amusing overview of the day's events in Best of the Web. His major shortcoming is he writes like a talk radio host. I have never seen the Limbaugh letter, but I doubt it is less even-handed. It's as if Taranto sees his Best of the Web column as a Republican outreach opportunity. I think Tony Snow's being offered the White House Press Secretary position has only encouraged him.
Usually, he's not too harsh with the Democratic opposition, but that isn't to say he is fair. In Monday's edition, we get to see him pull the old "heads I win, tails you lose" trick in his treatment of two prominent Democrats and possible 2008 presidential contenders, John Kerry and Russ Feingold.
Here's the trick in two consecutive paragraphs:
So there you have it. Feingold is stubborn and lacks leadership potential because he won't change his mind. Kerry is a flip-flopper and lacks leadership potential because he said in 2004 that we should stay the course and two full years later introduced a bill that said we should pull out in one year.
So, stick to your guns for four years and you are stubborn. But changing your mind after three years is cutting-and-running. Taranto should be clear and explain at what point between three and four years it is OK for a leader to change his mind.
Taranto could have gotten away with this rhetorical trick, if he had simply not been so stubborn in his insistence to hammer Kerry daily for being a flip flopper, of if he had not been trying to have it both ways in the span of two paragraphs. I think perhaphs he lacks leadership potential.
Usually, he's not too harsh with the Democratic opposition, but that isn't to say he is fair. In Monday's edition, we get to see him pull the old "heads I win, tails you lose" trick in his treatment of two prominent Democrats and possible 2008 presidential contenders, John Kerry and Russ Feingold.
Here's the trick in two consecutive paragraphs:
If cutting and running is the way to beat terrorism in Iraq, why is staying and fighting the way to beat terrorism in Afghanistan? Maybe there's an answer, but so far as we know Feingold has not offered it. In his mind, it seems to be enough that he supported the liberation of Afghanistan but opposed the liberation of Iraq. Such a stubborn refusal to change direction is not real leadership.
*[footnote on a previous paragraph, which is mandatory in Best of the Web whenever John Kerry is mentioned] "I fear that in the run-up to the 2004 election, the administration is considering what is tantamount to a cut-and-run strategy. Their sudden embrace of accelerated Iraqification and American troop withdrawal dates, without adequate stability, is an invitation to failure. The hard work of rebuilding Iraq must not be dictated by the schedule of the next American election."--Dec. 3, 2003
So there you have it. Feingold is stubborn and lacks leadership potential because he won't change his mind. Kerry is a flip-flopper and lacks leadership potential because he said in 2004 that we should stay the course and two full years later introduced a bill that said we should pull out in one year.
So, stick to your guns for four years and you are stubborn. But changing your mind after three years is cutting-and-running. Taranto should be clear and explain at what point between three and four years it is OK for a leader to change his mind.
Taranto could have gotten away with this rhetorical trick, if he had simply not been so stubborn in his insistence to hammer Kerry daily for being a flip flopper, of if he had not been trying to have it both ways in the span of two paragraphs. I think perhaphs he lacks leadership potential.
