Thursday, February 07, 2008

Reagarding the choices we face in this presidential election

"A Clinton or Obama victory would put all levers of power into the same hands. What would Democratic -party bosses do with that? How about statehood for Washington, D.C., which would provide two new Democratic votes in the Senate? How about appointing judges who regard the Constitution as clay, and using immigration policy to expand the Left’s electoral margins? These and other creative maneuvers could create an anti-conservative majority that would last a generation or more.

Most worrisome of all: Americans today are engaged in a conflict as serious as any we have ever fought. Romney and McCain get that. Perhaps Hillary Clinton does, too, though you wouldn’t know it from anything she’s said recently. But does Barack Obama? Or does he think it’s all a big misunderstanding, one that can be resolved through talk, appeasement, global anti-poverty programs and a sincere effort to make ourselves inoffensive to those sworn to destroy us?

Thinking hard about such questions over the months ahead would be not just alright; it would be commendable — and conservative."

Cliff May, at NRO


  1. John McCain knows what is at stake. Today, McCain said:

    "Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will withdraw our forces from Iraq based on an arbitrary timetable designed for the sake of political expediency, and which recklessly ignores the profound human calamity and dire threats to our security that would ensue.

    "I intend to win the war, and trust in the proven judgment of our commanders there and the courage and selflessness of the Americans they have the honor to command. I share the grief over the terrible losses we have suffered in its prosecution. There is no other candidate for this office who appreciates more than I do just how awful war is. But I know that the costs in lives and treasure we would incur should we fail in Iraq will be far greater than the heartbreaking losses we have suffered to date. And I will not allow that to happen."

  2. I think that history has shown that candidates will say what is necessary to get them elected and then do perhaps something totally different once elected. Is it because they are dishonest? For the most part their change is brought about by external conditions/circumstances. If one remembers correctly George Bush campagined on a totally different agenda than the one that he has operated under. His original agenda was detered by circumstances, 9/11.
    So to try to say that any of the three , Hillary, Obama or McCain will certainly do thus and such would require the insight of a psychic or a crystal ball. None of the three other than Obama have differed greatly on what they would do in Iraq.. Obama has gone farthest with promises of American withdrawal, but in practice domestic politics and strategic necessity mean he couldn't walk away from Iraq in circumstances that would lead to internal Iraqi collapse and/or Iranian hegemony in the region.

    What each will do depends very much on what they face with the external events and circumstances. None gives cause for alarm, except, to an extent, Obama, given his manifest overconfidence in his own genius.