Voters Revolt by David Brooks
Conservative NY Times columnist David Brooks offers his analysis of how conservatism is redefining itself based on the Caucus and Primary activity so far. Brooks feels that Republican voters are rejecting the usual gurus of conservatism and forging a more moderate path. As a result, Republicans may be competitive this fall.
Here is a link to the article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/opinion/22brooks.html?th&emc=th
Here is a link to the article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/22/opinion/22brooks.html?th&emc=th
From a moderate conservative point of view, the David Brooks article is right down the middle of the plate.
Republicans are not stupid. Generally, they think for themselves and it is a mistake to believe they will follow any position like lemmings.
This blog advocates for any candidate Other Than Republican (OTR). The reasoning is that the current administration has shown bad behavior, therefore, like a child, they should be given a timeout. In my opinion, timeouts are supposed to be rehabilitating, with the purpose of achieving better behavior in the future. In fact, I think the call is more like throw the bums out. In that case, the more apt analogy is something like Tough Love rather than a timeout.
A year from now, the Bush Administration will be history. In selecting the new administration, the criteria should be what is best for the country. It seems superficial to me to suggest that a McCain, or Huckabee, or Romney, or Giuliani administration would be like the Bush Administration.
While mostly agreeing with what David Brooks is saying, here is why OTR does not make sense to me.
The Democrat candidates. Every new president inherits problems from the previous regime. On Jan 20, 2009, the new president won't be able to blame George Bush any more, but will have to shift from opposition to Commander-In-Chief. Gen Barry McCaffrey, among others, has analyzed the Middle East situation and concluded that the Middle East is critical and leaving prematurely would be a disaster. My president needs to understand that. I'm not getting that from Sen Clinton, Obama and Edwards.
Economic incentives. The Federal Reserve lowered it's prime lending rate by 3/4% today. The Washington types are talking about an incentive plan, maybe a tax rebate, to increase spending to stimulate the economy. More money in the economy stimulates it. So, if more money in the economy, like tax cuts, stimulates the economy, what will tax increases do? And then, Sen Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, how will you generate the well-paying jobs you talk about with a destimulated economy?
In my mind, there are two major democrat candidates. One carries much baggage and will tend to cause major continued devisiveness. The other seems sincere, gives a great speech, is inspirational, but is wet behind the ears. So, I can't vote for any democrat.
How about a third party candidate? Well, let's see about that. Remember that Fred Thompson seemed like the Second Coming for Republicans for a while, until we got to know him. Michael Bloomberg sounds good, but let's have a few dates before we propose marriage.
So, OTR does not sound right to me.
If we define the problem properly, we should focus less on the past and more on what is best for the country starting Jan 20, 2009.
Just my opinion.
Reply to this