Today’s Reading List - October 25, 2007
The Narrative MUST Live…
Sounds like Dr. Frankenstein discussing his creation, doesn't it? Says the AP:
Romney's standing is hardly secure.
At some point this just gets funny. Ramesh Ponnuru is holding the narrative in favor of his guy McCain too.
Romney’s Mormonism and flip-flopping are political liabilities both with Republican primary voters and with the electorate at large.
Ramesh - after the weekend Romney had, there may be reasons to oppose him, but his faith is not one of them. If it was going to hurt him, it was then.
Snarky politcal comment from Lowell: Ponnuru says McCain:
is solid on almost all of the important issues: the war, judges, entitlements, abortion, trade. . . Even on taxes, he has righted himself. He voted against the Bush tax cuts, but he has never voted to raise income taxes and, this spring, ruled out any such move in an interview with me.
(Emphasis added.) The words "lame defense" come to mind. McCain "solid" on judges? What? Has Ramesh ever heard of the Gang of 14? And the Bush tax cuts have been the key to our current amazing economy; McCain voted against them. That he pledges never to raise taxes doesn't do much to address that little problem.
Speaking of which…
The Mormon/flip-flop connection is becoming a bit of a code, you don't hear one without the other. But James Bopp points out in an op-ed that did not get picked up nearly enough places that there is difference between a flip-flop and a conversion, one is political expediency, the other principle.
Romney now says he was wrong about abortion in those years, that his position has "evolved and deepened" as governor, and that he is "firmly pro-life." As Jeff Jacoby of The Boston Globe put it: "Romney's very public migration rightward over the last few years is . . . intended not to hide his real views but to liberate them."
Actions speak louder than words and in this case Romney's actions are solid. "Flip-flop" may just be the words behind which anti-Mormon bias is hiding . . . .
Lowell interjects: Well, Dan Bartlett predicted that. I think what Bartlett said was stupid, but he may well be right. The phenomenon of "when they say 'flip-flop,' it really means 'Mormon" will probably continue through the primary season. I wonder, however: If Romney becomes the nominee, or even looks like he will, will people still vote their biases when it actually comes time to pull the lever in the voting booth?
As for Bopp's point about Romney's true views on life issues being "liberated," I think that's true. Of course, I am a Romney loyalist. But Bopp's idea deserves a lot more attention than it's getting.
Meanwhile…
The Dallas Morning News reports local concerns that small-minded Evangelicals may hurt the party's chances come next fall. You know, it is important to remember that a Democratic presidency is a whole lot worse than the current crop of Republicans. We do need to be smart about these things.
Lowell: Sigh.
Posted in Reading List | 2 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
Recently:
- Will Rudeness and Misunderstanding Rule Tonight?
- The Shoe Is On The Other Foot Now
- Things Get Complicated, And Yet . . .
- An Example of Inter-Religious Cooperation
- 2008: The Year of the “Biographical Candidate” and Religious Attacks
- Exploring the Line
- So Much for “Adieu”
- I Guess This Is Adieu . . . for Now
- Short and To-The-Point
- Since Lowell Brought It Up…
2 Responses to “Today’s Reading List - October 25, 2007”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
coltakashi on 25 Oct 2007 at 3:24 pm #
I didn’t see where Ramesh put McCain’s long-standing campaign to limit political speech through his campaign finance laws. If the justification for them is the inherent corruptibility of politicians, why give those corruptible people the power to control the political speech of all of the rest of us? It is clear that the Democrats like Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton would love to reinstitute the “Fairness Doctrine,” which is the prime example of hypocritical self-parody. How is it “fair” when you give government officials the power to judge the quality and slant of someone’s speech, and cut it off? The Fairness Doctrine is to Fairness as Separate But Equal was to Equality. The essential hypocrisy and lie of both slogans is the fact that they were used as excuses for government to take power away from citizens. The fact that limiting free speech and undermining the First Amendment is McCain’s most durable legacy is the reason I will not vote for him. He just doesn’t have a barometer that tells him when government is taking too much power away from the people.
hombre.de.steele on 26 Oct 2007 at 5:44 am #
How can Mr. Ponnuru say that Mr. McCain never voted for tax increases. To me, the logic holds that if there are viable tax cuts , and you vote againts them, you are in effect, voting for a tax increase. That is they way I see it! And the Gang of 14!!! We can never forget the damage that was accomplished by the piece of compromise!