From Neo-Con To Neo-Vic???

Alright, I'm always reluctant to even use the word neo-conservative because I think it's inappropriately and maliciously used as an anti-semitic smear by the Left. But if McCain shill Bill Kristol now wants to take his lecturing to conservatives on why we need neo-victorian John McCain as the Republican nominee to the New York Times, certainly he won't mind a little straight talk from the grass roots. And, by the way, Mr. Kristol, the hyphenation of words tends to be a liberal affectation. If you're going to propagate it from neo-conservative to neo-victorian, it may well be that your true spots are starting to show. And liberals aren't exactly positioned best to lecture conservatives on what they need.

In this he differs from his competitors. Mitt Romney is the very model of a modern venture capitalist. Mike Huckabee is the very model of a modern evangelical. Rudy Giuliani is the very model of a modern can-do executive. They are impressive modern men all. But John McCain is a not-so-modern type. One might call him a neo-Victorian — rigid, self-righteous and moralizing, but (or rather and) manly, courageous and principled.

Maybe a dose of this type of neo-Victorianism is what the 21st century needs. A fair number of Republican and independent voters seem to think so, if one can infer as much from their support of McCain at the polls. But, amazingly, a neo-Victorian straightforwardness might also turn out to be strategically smart.

It's worth noting that John McCain has recently started to highlight his support for Israel in his campaign rhetoric just as Commentary and The Weekly Standard have taken up his cause. And let us not forget that old Victorian classic from McCain - bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. That bit will not do McCain any favors with war weary moderates in the Fall, so your analysis of his viability with that group may be a tad short-sighted.

I think that it's terrific McCain claims to be such a good friend of Israel. I'm with him 100% on that, as are most mainstream conservatives. And if the neo-conservative movement sees John McCain as their guy - fine. But, on whole, that is a far different thing from making him right for conservatism as a movement. We are not one issue voters and this lecturing, some might say preaching, the McCain Gospel from neo-conservatives to the mainstream of the movement is beginning to become insulting.

We are not rubes, Mr. Kristol. How about you start injecting a little straight talk into your punditry, admit that you are supporting McCain because a veer to the Left for the Republican Party is fine with you, so long as Israel is first and foremost in American Middle-East foreign policy. Frankly, I pretty much agree on that. But all of the top contenders are solid friends of Israel and so am I. I imagine if Rudy, most likely a preferred choice to McCain for many conservatives, hadn't tanked, you'd still be betting on him. Have you re-deployed so quickly? I didn't think that was your style?

What is going on here is beginning to look no more noble than Evangelical voters who would insist that their potential nominee, Mike Huckabee, is what the Republican Party needs, despite his liberal world view, record and policies.

Mainstream conservatives know what they want and what the conservative movement and the Republican Party needs, clearly far better than does Bill Kristol. It's conservatism and McCain ain't it. If you wish to support him, fine. That's you're right. But the GOP is fractured enough and we don't need another component fracturing us by lecturing on something it quite clearly doesn't understand: conservatism. And if you are going to carry John McCain's water, it would be far better for everyone if you did it honestly, as opposed to using your position as a pundit within the conservative sphere to lecture us on what you either don't understand, or perhaps don't truly appreciate - and doing it in such a disingenuous manner.

Comments

[BobInStamford]

Umm, I don't think that the Iraq-cheerleader was really directing that op-ed to you non-rubes. You might note that it was written in the NY Times, not the WASHINGTON Times (which is run by Moonies and doesn't count to normal people anyway). Word is that there is a substantial Jewish segment that reads the non-Moonie Times and who the esteemed neo-conservative troop-supporter was going after.

Either way, no one (non-rubes that is) wants an angry 80 year-old man to be President.

Mission-Accomplished!!!

[Fred Beloit]

Michael Graham makes the case that McCain didn't really "win" in South Carolina.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWRjNGNiMzI2NGUyMzUwZjk4MDc1MWExYjBiYWIyYWE=

[Fred Beloit]

Say, Boob, stop screwing around here and get to work. I don't want you to get fired. I need you to pay for my sunshine time on the beach, fishing boat, retirement living costs, medicare and health care insurance when the Dems pass it and pass along the bill to you.

Drudge it out my bright and shining socialist soldier.

[Wahoo Willie Sez:]

Hey Fred....Boob probably is off since toady is a holiday. I imagine he's tyaking the day off grudgingly since it's about a black dude he never heard of, but off none the less. Wonder what he'll do. Probably go protest something. It's hard to keep up with these things when everyday is a day off I know but drones like boob look forward to thier holidays like we used to. Also be a little compassionate toward his generation. Retiring early will be impossible....hell, they'll think 65 is retiring early.....look at all the things they'll have to pay for with thier 50% fed taxes. Can you imagine paying 40 thousand or more for that BA and going to work for thirty five K this day and age?
It's just too much to contemplate today. A bit chilly but I think I'll go fishing instead of worrying about boob's condition.

[Fred Beloit]

Wahoo, I just love thinking of LOL, the Boob, worstcommenterever, and the other socialist mutts who rant here as out there or at home busting their butts to pay my bills. And the funny thing is, they not only want it this way, they actually want more of it. Hysterical.

[templar knight]

Hahaha....Fred, you and Willie are making me feel really good about my future retirement, as it could occur during the next Democratic hold on the Oval Office, if the Dems go ahead and grant me free lifetime medical care. Why not just take an early retirement and do nothing? I have the money, I just hated to pay for medical care. Now I can leave all the loose change to the little 'rubes', and with free medical care, hell they won't have to do anything either. Let the believers like Bob do all the 'work', as if he ever does a damn thing worthwhile. What do you do, Boob? Pollute children's minds with fascism would be my guess.

[CK MacLeod]

"How about you start injecting a little straight talk into your punditry, admit that you are supporting McCain because a veer to the Left for the Republican Party is fine with you, so long as Israel is first and foremost in American Middle-East foreign policy."

Have you lost your mind? I find it confounding that the above statement appears amidst denunsication of left wingers for their thinly veiled anti-Semitic/anti-Israel hatred of neo-cons. You follow it up with, "Frankly, I pretty much agree on that." Actually, it's solely your position, though I can't tell whether you're comfortable with it or not. I believe Kristol's, as elucidated in likely thousands of published pieces and media appearances since he was Dan Quayle's press secretary, is a lot more grown-up than that. Regardless of what really motivates the Jew Kristol, as garden variety anti-semites might put it, his op-ed was largely about electoral strategy, as seen from a peculiar cultural perspective that has little or nothing to do with Israel or even with foreign policy. It ends with a cautionary note regarding Romney's loose statements.

If you have any point to make beyond tiresome self-indulgence of your raging case of McCain Derangement Syndrome, you might want to try again.

[CK MacLeod]

"the hyphenation of words tends to be a liberal affectation."

and where does THAT come from? How are hyphens liberal? Does that mean that your statement about "Middle-East" policy is liberal?

This is your brain on MDS.

[Lala]

How great is it that we "rubes" will be the top beneficiaries of the coming Ponzi scheme.

[Eldon]

As a longterm reader of both National Review and The Weekly Standard, I couldn't agree with you more, there is something deeply wrong with where the WS is trying to take conservatism. I dropped my subscription as a simple way of letting the New York Times conservatives Brooks and Kristol to push their nonsense elsewhere.

The Reagan coalition is nowhere close to dead, Romney has picked up the mantle and is going to win with it.

[Brainster]

"We are not one issue voters...."

Uh, aren't you just indulging yourself in the classic lefty interpretation of neocons as "Jews who support Republicans who support Israel" there?

Get over your McCain Derangement Syndrome, it's twisting you into knots.

[Dan Riehl]

"Uh, aren't you just indulging yourself in the classic lefty interpretation"

Not at all. What's wrong with addressing a movement? Your suggestion of anti-semiticism is absurd. You can't deal with me identifying a movement that is from moderate to liberal but supports a strong advocacy of Israel for what it is? How liberal of you. And I'm not going to sit quietly when said movement attempts to turn the Republican party toward the left on other issues.

[LOL]

okay the word "neocon" is an anti-semitic smear? How exactly?

Podhoretz and Irving Kristol described themselves as neoconservatives a long time ago. So how the hell is calling them a neoconservative slanderous? Much less antisemitic?

You wingers do not live in the real world. You are trapped in the bubble-like echo chamber.

[rwilymz]

"You are trapped in the bubble-like echo chamber"

Tell me: did you get that high-pitched feedback whine when you typed that?

[templar knight]

Since "whining" is the signature emotive expression of the Left, rw, LOL is by definition a natural.

[gregdn]

"the hyphenation of words tends to be a liberal affectation."

Yeah, like "Islamo-Fascism"?

[templar knight]

Uh, Greg, that's Islamofascism. No hyphen. Get it

[Greg Neubeck]

In selecting your Presidential candidate, please reflect on the dire consequences of a docile retreat before a relatively small band of Islamic extremists; and, attempt to formulate your own opinion as to the most prudent course of action in the defense of our Nation. It might assist to consider the following scenario: the infiltration of a group of terrorists similar to the Atta cabal with a quantity of weaponized anthrax procured from a rogue state; the acquisition of a single crop-duster aircraft fitted with a dry-agent disseminator; and, the dispersal of that dangerous toxin over an American population center. The loss of American life would be catastrophic. -Or-, is it preferable to pre-empt such fanatics by destroying them on their home turf, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, before they secure the capacity to threaten our homeland? The latter is in fact a key element in current American strategy. Is it advisable to support any candidate who would reverse course and sacrifice the impressive gains against Islamofacists that young Americans have shed their precious blood to achieve? The fact that we have not experienced another 9/11 is not a by-chance occurrence. Further, it's critical to appreciate the pivotal role that our own border security plays in our "war against terrorism", keeping in mind that "Amnesty" is anathema to border security. A Nation without enforceable borders will not long survive as a Nation. Mitt Romney is exceedingly strong on each of these principles.

Greg Neubeck