I don’t believe we’ve had the pleasure to meet, Mr.
Friedersdorf, and I’m sure you’re a wonderful fellow, but I’m
frustrated by your
assertion that we can tell which of the two Democratic
candidates would be the worse president. You cite their stated
positions on foreign policy and health care but need I remind you,
they’re Democrats? What they promise during the campaign
and what they deliver after the election are two entirely separate
matters. Or perhaps you don’t remember the “middle class tax cut”
that was the key economic promise of Bill Clinton’s 1992
campaign.
Hillary says she wants mandated socialized health care and Obama
says he wants socialized health care without mandates, but once
such a proposal goes through the congressional meat-grinder, who
knows what it might contain? And are we to accept at face value
Hillary’s protestation that she wouldn’t meet with foreign
radicals, even though her husband
hosted Yasser Arafat at the White House?
Policy-wise, either Democrat would be a disaster, and it’s
impossible to guess — based purely on their biographies, political
histories, and rhetoric — which would be worse. Thus, Limbaugh’s
“Operation Chaos” idea: Stir up such a primary fight that, even
if the Democrats are able to get their candidate elected in
November, their party will suffer long-term damage in the process.
A damaged Democratic Party would be less likely to hold the White
House for two terms, or withstand a midterm backlash in 2010.
Given the
dismal course of John McCain’s campaign, Limbaugh’s strategy
seems the best available option, which is not the same as saying
it’s a good option.
