Indecision '08

As anyone who reads this blog well knows, I don't much care for Mitt Romney, at least as he's presented himself to the American people in his campaign for President. Unfortunately, now that it's a two-man race, I'm being reminded of all the things I don't like about John McCain: His self-righteousness and stubbornness; his thin grasp of policy detail on a host of issues; his (related) tendency to filter policy debates through a Manichaean worldview, in which politics is the extension of war by other means; and his longstanding tendency to squander his reform-conservative tendencies on precisely the wrong domestic causes (campaign-finance reform, immigration, etc.). So for tonight, at least, I'm pulling for Romney - since the race will be more or less finished if he loses, and I'm not ready for it to be finished yet.

(And while I wallow in uncertainty, you might give Poulos' Romney endorsement a look.)

Comments

His self-righteousness and stubbornness; his thin grasp of policy detail on a host of issues; his (related) tendency to filter policy debates through a Manichaean worldview, in which politics is the extension of war by other means; and his longstanding tendency to squander his reform-conservative tendencies on precisely the wrong domestic causes...

That sounds like another prominent Republican, but I can't put my finger on it...on the tip of my tongue...

Posted by Max B. | January 29, 2008 5:23 PM

John McCain's policy in a nutshell:

Invade-the-World and Invite-the-World.

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 29, 2008 5:25 PM

Just out of curiosity, if you would not waste your honesty / reform efforts on campaign finance reform and immigration, what would you do with them? I had the indication that immigration was complex and important, so at least worth the reform effort. Perhaps you think all campaign finance reform is illegitimate control of speech, but I do not think it is a waste to try to rein in a bit the power of lobbyists / special interests - given what scandals have emerged in that realm, I don't see how you can seriously maintain that there was not a problem that needs / needed addressing.

Curious for your response - enjoy and appreciate your work greatly.

Posted by Vermando | January 29, 2008 5:34 PM

Campaign finance reform, actually, is kind of a waste (other than perhaps public financing), whether or not one believes it is permitted by the First Amendment. There's just no way to squeeze the money out of politics. It comes in one way if it doesn't come in another.

But Ross is totally wrong on immigration. Many conservatives have become very petulant on this issue. You can't deport those 12 million people. They are too important to economy and too rooted in this country. And if they are going to stay here, you need to legalize them, for all sorts of reasons.

The question is what, if anything, should be done to prevent another 12 million from coming. That's the "comprehensive" element of comprehensive immigration reform.

McCain may be right or wrong as to the incentives he creates on that side of the ledger. But too many conservatives either just want to bury the problem (so that they can cater to voters who don't care for foreigners) or are committed to wishful thinking about attrition and deportation.

It is thus to McCain's great credit that he actually is committed to doing something on this issue.

Posted by Dilan Esper | January 29, 2008 6:44 PM

I think Ross is right that it's healthy to have someone else in the race trying to out-conservative McCain so that he thinks twice before conceding too much to the Dems. My quibble is that the only thing that makes Romney-- not exactly a conviction candidate, himself-- qualified to cast stones is that he alone has the money to blow on these primaries. Still, it's a nice departure from the days when Romney was doing his best to out-liberal Teddy K here in MA...

Where I disagree with Ross is on the wisdom of McCain taking on the issue of campaign finance reform. According to The Economist, "the number of lobbyists on Capitol Hill has more than doubled since 2000, to around 35,000." This is freakin' scary, and Americans are right to be concerned about it. Maybe McCain-Feingold wasn't the best solution, but McCain at least tried to do something rather than pretending it isn't a problem.

Posted by MD | January 29, 2008 7:54 PM

His self-righteousness and stubbornness; his thin grasp of policy detail on a host of issues; his (related) tendency to filter policy debates through a Manichaean worldview, in which politics is the extension of war by other means; and his longstanding tendency to squander his reform-conservative tendencies on precisely the wrong domestic causes...
That sounds like another prominent Republican, but I can't put my finger on it...on the tip of my tongue...
Posted by Max B.

translation: A McCain candidacy means:

"4 more years! 4 more years! Go Dubya, Jr!"

Except he won't, because he is an automatic loser like the last old warhorse, Bob Dole. Who the Clintons carved up like a turkey. Especially since the McCain version, Bob Dole II, lacks Doles brains, long strong Congresssional leadership, and the trust and respect of both Parties. PLus McCain is older than Dole or Reagan, acts it, and has major health issues.

Posted by Chris Ford | January 29, 2008 8:22 PM

Chris Ford writes: "Especially since the McCain version, Bob Dole II, lacks Doles brains, long strong Congresssional leadership, and the trust and respect of both Parties. PLus McCain is older than Dole or Reagan, acts it, and has major health issues."

When Dole ran in 1996 he was running on fumes, and when Reagan ran in 1984 he was already sliding down the chute of senility. McCain isn't any more feeble than those guys were, but he won't be running against a lifeless Mondale.

McCain won tonight, Rudy's out and planing to endorse McCain tomorrow at the Reagan library, which makes me wonder if Nancy will be on hand to symbolically apply a lipstick ring to the (har-de-har-har) "maverick."

It's all looking good for the GOP to get that well-deserved ass-kicking in November.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 29, 2008 10:08 PM

MD writes: "According to The Economist, "the number of lobbyists on Capitol Hill has more than doubled since 2000, to around 35,000." This is freakin' scary, and Americans are right to be concerned about it. Maybe McCain-Feingold wasn't the best solution, but McCain at least tried to do something rather than pretending it isn't a problem."

We could also wonder if there's a reason Dumbya's ascendancy (and the GOP majority in the House and Senate) contributed to the doubling of the lobbyist infestation. And of course it had everything to do with it - the party of complete corporate whoredom was in power, and lobbyists became more powerful and directly influential than ever.

Republicans who would admit to this are rarer than unicorn shit.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 29, 2008 10:18 PM

McCain, born 1936. Obama, born 1961.
Obama's strategy is to run against the past, to make the contest about the future.
Obama could not have a better foil if he stays with his theme of generational change.
Letterman, Leno, etc., are hammering on McCain's age, and he may laugh along - what choice does he have? - but his age is a huge liability.

Posted by fougasseu | January 29, 2008 10:36 PM

Although I've been for McCain ever since I realized y'all were right about Thompson going nowhere, I'll agree there are some causes for concern. To some degree the ones presented here are better than most. (These conservative activists are acting like he's Olympia Snowe in a suit-and-tie, or a new Chaffee, but I don't think either view is justified)

Anyway he is kind of stubborn and self-righteous. In principle I did't really mind the reformist things you mention, but in practice the results have been somewhat disappointing. I do have concerns that this could be a problem in other areas. Meaning he'll do or say things that sound fine, in theory, but are not beneficial in reality. Others mention him being "another Bob Dole" and although I was happier to vote for Dole than most anyone, he was a loser candidate.

Still on the issues I care about McCain is as good or better than the others running. And unlike Dole he is not going to be running against a sitting President who presides over a good economy. I think any Republican was going to have trouble in 2008 because the party is not popular right-now. McCain at least, somewhat, transcends the unpopularity of the Party. Still it might not be enough, especially if the turnout of the base is depressed by his being the nominee. Which unfortunately many activists seem to almost say they would rather Republicans lose than win with McCain.

Posted by Thomas R | January 29, 2008 11:55 PM

Thomas R writes: "Others mention him being "another Bob Dole" and although I was happier to vote for Dole than most anyone, he was a loser candidate."

Dole and McCain had their virtues as candidates, but Dole's year was 1988, and McCain's was 1992. In each case they were beaten out by members of the totally useless Bush family.

It's hard to make a case for past-their-prime geezers taking over a job as demanding as the presidency. Reagan's last two years sure pointed that problem out.

Add in the fact that this country needs a Republican in the White House next year like it needs a catastrophic meteor strike, and I'd vote for a telephone pole over any of the GOP "contenders" if it had a (D) after it on the ballot.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 30, 2008 1:12 AM

Well people are dissatisfied with Republicans in general, but I don't see why that means any Democrat is automatically better. The Democratic Congress isn't exactly catching the world on fire. The Party's full of losers and loonies just like every party.

On age I don't think it's age itself with my view of McCain. Churchhill was 71 at the end of WWII and many elder leaders were quite competent or successful. It's more the concern this is like a consolation prize for previous runs. Age factors into it because if he were younger he could run again making this not a "last chance for the old man" deal. Still I'm thinking more that if the Party insiders didn't want him before they don't want him now. They'll grudgingly accept he's the nominee because they believe Republicans have no chance anyway. (And if necessary can assure that, I really doubt Rush or Romney or NRO is going to happily embrace him if he's the nominee)

Posted by Thomas R | January 30, 2008 7:52 AM

Do y'all think part of Rush Limbaugh is hoping Hillary Clinton wins this year? Doesn't Rush function better as an insurgent?

It has been kind of weird seeing Rush blame things on liberal Democrats the last eight years.

Posted by Thomas | January 30, 2008 10:44 AM

>

Exactly. And this is why I'm so intrigued. According to Florida's exit polls, people who disliked/disapproved of Bush the most, ended up voting for McCain. So, what is it that they're seeing in McCain that's so different?

Posted by kristi | January 30, 2008 11:16 AM

It took me until the last minute to warm up to Romney. He's been a lousy candidate to be sure, but now that we're faced with McCain, Mitt looks far better. His pandering on the campaign trail was egregious, but in comparison to über-hawk McCain, Mitt's flexibility on policy issues may ultimately be a good thing with regard to Iraq. Oh, and do we really need another painfully stubborn commander-in-chief?

Posted by ojc | January 30, 2008 11:30 AM

Oops. "Dole and McCain had their virtues as candidates, but Dole's year was 1988, and McCain's was 1992. In each case they were beaten out by members of the totally useless Bush family."

Should have been "2000" for McCain. The Bush family is still totally useless, no matter what year it is.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | January 30, 2008 11:51 AM

Yes, but he's a straight-talker!

Posted by big | February 3, 2008 4:02 PM