Kristol and Temper Tantrums

It’s been a while since I have quoted the NY Times. But it finally did away with its insidious pay-per-view schema that kept the columnists from public view and Bill Kristol recently signed onboard.

Today Kristol wrote:

This is an important moment for the conservative movement. Not because conservatives have some sort of obligation to fall in behind John McCain. They don’t. Those conservatives who can’t abide McCain are free to rally around Mitt Romney. And if McCain does prevail for the nomination, conservatives are free to sit out the election.

But I’d say this to them: When the primaries are over, if McCain has won the day, don’t sulk and don’t sit it out. Don’t pretend there’s no difference between a candidate who’s committed to winning in Iraq and a Democratic nominee who embraces defeat. Don’t tell us that it doesn’t matter if the next president voted to confirm John Roberts and Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court, or opposed them. Don’t close your eyes to the difference between pro-life and pro-choice, or between resistance to big government and the embrace of it.

And don’t treat 2008 as a throwaway election. If a Democrat wins the presidency, he or she will almost certainly have a Democratic Congress to work with. That Congress will not impede a course of dishonorable retreat abroad. It won’t balk at liberal Supreme Court nominees at home. It won’t save the economy from tax hikes.

If, by contrast, McCain wins the presidency — and all the polls suggest he’d be the best G.O.P. bet to do so — he’ll be able to shape a strong American foreign policy, nominate sound justices and fight for parts of the conservative domestic agenda.

In other words, don’t vote for McCain, vote against the evil Democrats.

Sorry, but that line isn’t going to cut it this time around. If the GOP wants me with them, it will need to nominate a candidate whom I can support. Running out someone they call a Republican doesn’t work. What if Ron Paul would somehow magically win the nomination? Because he is a Republican we are supposed to support him? Hardly.

McCain’s issues are too numerous.

One might add a special reason that conservatives — and the nation — owe John McCain at least a respectful hearing. Only a year ago, we were headed toward defeat in Iraq. Without McCain’s public advocacy and private lobbying, President Bush might not have reversed strategy and announced the surge of troops in January 2007. Without McCain’s vigorous leadership, support for the surge in Congress would not have been sustained in the first few months of 2007. So: No McCain, no surge. No surge, failure in Iraq, a terrible setback for America — and, as it happens, no chance for a G.O.P. victory in 2008.

Huh? Because he is right on one issue I am supposed to vote for him? If I could find one issue Clinton or Obama were correct on, would that justify voting for them?

This sense of rewarding what is right is what educators see all the time. The “bad” child is bribed with tangible rewards if he is “good” for a short period of time. Meanwhile the “always good” children are never acknowledged.

Put out a good candidate that I can support and I’ll vote for him. Put out a liberal and call him a conservative, I’ll look elsewhere to place my vote.

I am surprised at Kristol’s stance on this one.

Some conservatives can close their eyes to all this. They can choose to stand aside from history while having a temper tantrum. But they should consider that the American people might then choose not to invite them back into a position of responsibility for quite a while to come.

I don’t want any part of a party that abandons its core principles.

A reader of Michelle Malkin’s created the image/bumper sticker above.  It sums up the issue for conservatives very well.

Also blogged on this date . . .

Tags: , , , , ,

Post a Comment

By submitting a comment here you grant ladow.net a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution.