According to Bruce Bartlett, that’s simply the prudent thing to do. After all, the Republicans barely won the last two elections under much more favorable conditions, and the chnce of the GOP being anywhere near united in 2008 is less than zero. None of the leading Democratic candidates is anywhere near as lame as Kerry. So to have some influence on political life, some conservative big money is already headed in Senator Clinton’s direction. Bartlett’s compromises his appeal to conservatives, though, with his suggestion that she couldn’t do much worse than the incumbent anyway.
It'll be a cold day in Hell before I'll take that advice. How stupid.
The polite term for Bartlett's advice would be "unilateral disarmament." The clearer term would be "sheer lunacy."
"Conservative big money" headed in Shrillary's direction? I think not. By definition, no one who contributes to this leftist is a conservative, no matter what such a person's background may be.
Barlett is correct that the Bush Presidency has been a disaster for conservatives, but his strategy is pure pragmatism. I agree that there aren't enough pure conservatives to win with, but that should mean try harder to make the case. Not throw your hands up in the air.
Barlett's book is a purist indictment of Bush, and now he is trying to play pragmatic centrist. What is he up to?
If I had to be governed by one of the Democrats I would want it to be Sen. Gravel. He at least has a populist streak that makes him not a complete cookie cutter liberal.
I'll ask again: In what sense is Bruce Bartlett a conservative? Anyone?
He represents the Chamber of Commerce wing of the GOP which has gotten just about all it desired over the past several years, but at the cost of making the party deeply unpopular. Now they are looking to jump ship to the Democrats. People like Tom Bernstein have already switched sides.
Feel free to delete this also. I'll post it again.
There's an argument to be made that nothing will revitalize and reunite the various factions of the GOP like a Hillary presidency, but that's an argument to make the day after Election Day to console ourselves in case she wins. It certainly doesn't amount to a reason for voting for her.
I not down with Hillary either. Whatever her merits as a candidate, I dread another eight years of Clinton bashing. Plus she's so pro-war, she might as well be Leiberman.
"I'll ask again: In what sense is Bruce Bartlett a conservative? Anyone? He represents the Chamber of Commerce wing of the GOP which has gotten just about all it desired over the past several years, but at the cost of making the party deeply unpopular."
John, that is exactly the sense in which he is a conservative. He is a CoC, WSJ style conservative. Pro-business, pro-immigration, anti-tax and anti-spend. He attacked Bush basically on the spending front. Also most of that crowd is moderate and pragmatic on foreign affairs. They are not dogmatic non-interventionists.
He is right on spending, and he serves a purpose, but he clearly needs to get out more. It is not the anti-immigration folks who are the "yahoos." It is the dogmatic pro-immigration folks who are out of touch.
"I agree that there aren't enough pure conservatives to win with, but that should mean try harder to make the case. Not throw your hands up in the air."
Couldn't have said it better myself.
If we take Bartlett's advice, then we are almost accepting the demise of the Republican party. By supporting a candidate such as Giuliani, the Republicans can at least be united under a president, of their own party, who stands a chance of winning in 2008. Not that his reasonable chance of success is why we should support him (or any other candidate, for that matter). If we unite under a candidate for 2008, regardless of whether or not he wins or loses, then our unification in the next election will be even more absolute, and thus we will not be killing off our own party.
Bartlett should stop giving political advice, if all he advises is "jumping on the bandwagon" of the winning party. It seems to me that that is not what it means to be an American.
You doomsdayers....Hillary could prove to be the 21st century's version of Jimmy Carter. Elected in a backlash vote, and suddenly, we're not better off than we were four years ago, paving the way for John Boehner (Dick Armey, anyone?) in 2012.
Of course, my third party (READ: Libertarian) vote might as well be a vote for Hilly, according to some folks here...
Lest we forget, the next POTUS will get two SC picks. If there ever was a realighnment, a Hillary (let alone Obama!) presidency could stop it dead once and for all.
13, 14, 16: Bartlett seems to be an uptown version of the single-issue zealots we've all encountered. He's not all that different from a gun nut who supports Hillary out of spite against Rudy. In Bartlett's case, it's not a single issue, but a single set of issues. If he can't see beyond his money-oriented mentality and recognize the importance of other issues, his voice doesn't deserve to be heard. Maybe the most effective way of dealing with him is a blackout on all conservative blogs. Some people aren't worth the attention. There's a difference between an important voice that is disastrously wrong and must be answered and a crazy uncle. My impression is that Bartlett, at least for now, can be viewed as a crazy uncle.
A crazy uncle by marriage. I'm not sure anyone who could endorse Hillary is of the same bloodline as good conservatives.
And yes, Shawn, your Libertarian vote might as well be for Hillary. The race is likely to be tight, and depending on the State, a vote for some Objectivist nutjob is simply a vote for the O'Hillary ticket.
The race is likely to be tight, and depending on the State, a vote for some Objectivist nutjob is simply a vote for the O'Hillary ticket.
Please indulge me, dain.
Let's assume, for the sake of simplicity, that there are 11 voters in my state.
Prior to my vote (the 11th) being counted, it seems that the 10 counted votes could break in a few different ways:
Now - why this is important: according to you and your ilk on this matter, that my vote for "O-n" is a vote for O'Hillary. If that's really the case -- then Hilly wins 6-5 in the first scenario (the only scenario in play). Not the case, however, as the two frontrunners are still deadlocked.
In all other scenarios, it seems that my vote for "O-n" would have the same effect on the outcome as if I had simply abstained.
Now, those of my voting proclivities taken en-masse might make a difference. But no more difference than if we stayed home entirely. My singular vote? It's only a vote for O'Hillary when I actually vote for O'Hillary. And that simply will not happen.
Hmm...I'm not surprised you gravitate to Objectivist nutjobs. Your logic is, well, quite exceptional. Maybe Frisk would like to waste time explaining this to you...I don't.