Wednesday, April 21, 2010

An interesting point for discussion.

Jonah Goldberg, in the Chronicle:

Many conservatives muted their objections (to GWB -- ed.), in part because they liked the man personally or approved of his stances on tax cuts, judges, abortion and the war on terror (we can see a similar dynamic with so many anti-war liberals who still support Obama).
Conservatives didn't necessarily bite their tongues (remember the Harriet Miers and immigration fiascoes), but they did prioritize supporting Bush — often in the face of far nastier attacks than Obama has received — over ideological purity. Besides, where were conservatives supposed to go? Into the arms of John Kerry?
I read this and thought of all those back during the last campaign for president who were supporting RINOs of various stripes. They were all saying, albeit in different words, "this guy agrees with 80 percent of the conservative platform; don't throw him away for the other 20 percent." Yeah, well, the devil's in that other 20 percent, as we see Goldberg point out here. No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, amnesty, and the list goes on. And as has been mentioned before, there was the GOP standard-bearer's abysmal record on the First Amendment, which should have shown that he wasn't fit to be elected to public office PERIOD, let alone the highest office in the land. Maybe ideological purity doesn't win elections, but when the guys on the blue team implement the same 20 percent of the strategies the red team player would have implemented (and DID implement), it really makes the folks supporting the red team look foolish. I hope to hell small-government advocates won't get fooled again, but the fact that anyone who suggests Mitt Romney is a good contender for 2012 doesn't get laughed out of the room is not an encouraging sign.