1. Bill Kristol’s NYT column is very good in explaining what a bad year this is likely to be for Republicans--more like 2006 than 2004. He rightly cites the Democratic victory in Hastert’s district as evidence.
2. So, Bill contends, McCain has no choice to be audacious. As Machiavelli says, maybe the future belongs to the impetuous. This is clearly advice that doesn’t go against Mac’s grain.
3. Bill suggests that Mac embrace a sort of Sam’s Club domestic policy--following the example set by Huck. He shouldn’t mind alienating Wall Street Republicans as a result. If Mac can do this with conviction or "authenticity," maybe he should.
4. Another audacious Kristol idea is selection of Lieberman or one of the general-heroes of the surge as VP. I have to dissent strongly on this, obviously: The election is going to turn on issues surrounding anxiety intensified by the tanking economy. A double-warrior ticket would be audacious like Pickett’s charge.
5. The great dignity volume produced by the Bioethics Council is now available at bioethics.gov. You can either request a copy or download it.
Addendum: Here is the Bill Kristol op -ed.
Peter -
Apropos your last observation (as true as any of the others), let me call your D.C.-based readers' attention to an event that will focus on the new volume "Human Dignity and Bioethics" - which I'll be involved with at Georgetown.
I'll be joining Tom Beauchamp and Alisa Carse, also of Georgetown University. This event is being held at Georgetown on Tuesday, March 18 from 10:30 a.m. until noon in The Riggs Library, 3rd floor, the Healy Building, Georgetown University, 37th and O streets, NW.
The volume is first rate, with essays by Leon Kass, Daniel Dennett, Martha Nussbaum, Robert George, Patricia Churchland, and many more, including, of course, Peter Lawler himself.
The event is free and open to the public.
I have a question about the term "Sam's Club Republicans." Isn't what's attractive about Sam's Club the low prices? And doesn't that suggest that these Republicans would be most likely to support public policies that maintained low prices--i.e., free trade and continued immigration? Yet my understanding is that so-caled "Sam's Club Republicans" are opposed to both. I'm not trying to make an argument about the policies, mind you; I'm just wondering why these voters are being characterized in such a fashion.
If Mac can do this with conviction or "authenticity," maybe he should.
He can't, and every (well, almost every) Huck supporter or just plain conservative knows it. Why don't you good folks move on to the REAL questions of the day, like what will it take to reform the GOP or create a real conservative party?
Kristol asks McCain to consider Clarence Thomas as his VP. What would this say about the place of the Court in the election?
This is clearly advice that doesn’t go against Mac’s grain.
I have to dissent strongly on this, obviously: The election is going to turn on issues surrounding anxiety intensified by the tanking economy.
A couple of adverbs does not create an argument. Neither of these things is "clear" or "obvious," which is after all why you had to inform us.
doesn't that suggest that these Republicans would be most likely to support public policies that maintained low prices--i.e., free trade and continued immigration?
I'd like to think that some basic understanding of economics was a prerequisite to being a member of Ashbrook, but clearly, I'd be wrong.
Free trade and continued immigration are what's hurting "Sams Club Republicans". The term signifes people in lower income brackets, not people who are cheapskates.
By the by, would anyone care to speculate on why tenured professors, whose own jobs are totally immune from any market forces, tend to be such avid proponents of a "free market in labor" for other people? I'm afraid the most likely answers are all rather cynical.
But I hereby invite John Moser to resign his position and join Sams Club Republicans out in the real world. An exciting career in roofing, Java programming, or welding awaits you. Or are those jobs only good enough for your inferiors?
Neither of these things is "clear" or "obvious"
If you don't think that it's clear and obvious that McCain delights in going against the (conservative) grain, then you need to pay closer attention to politics.
So it's lower income brackets that define "Sam's Club Republicans"? Does that mean I should cancel my membership? My point is that voters shouldn't be called "Sam's Club Republicans" if they favor policies that would essentially destroy Sam's Club. Why not call them "lower income Republicans"? Or would that sound elitist?
I'd like to think that some basic understanding of economics was a prerequisite to being a member of Ashbrook, but clearly, I'd be wrong.
And if your definition of "basic understanding of economics" is opposing free trade, then apparently it's not a prerequisite to becoming an economist, either.
1. True.
2. True, except that McCain seems to be audacious only against fellow Republicans.
3. True.
4. Kristol is wrong; Lawler is right.