May 22, 2013 | 1 comment
May 22, 2013 | 2 comments
May 19, 2013 | 3 comments
May 19, 2013 | 1 comment
May 16, 2013 | 4 comments
I love National Review. But Andy McCarthy is right: NR’s endorsement of John McCain over J.D. Hayworth in the Arizona Republican primary was incomprehensible and indefensible. With the exception of parts of McCarthy’s disparagement of the surge in Iraq, I find myself in agreement with every word of McCarthy’s analysis. This is not to issue an endorsement of my own, but to question NR’s. Here is perhaps McCarthy’s key line: “Statesman or not, Hayworth would be with NR on political speech, immigration, interrogations, bailouts, cap-and-trade, tax cuts, keeping Guantanamo Bay open, and embryonic stem-cell research. Can the editors express long-term confidence about McCain on any of these issues, let alone all of them?”
I have been baffled ever since I read NR’s endorsement. I could add plenty of other criticisms of McCain that NR didn’t — starting with the fact that today’s bailout regime never could have gotten off the ground without McCain suspending his campaign, running around like a rabid chicken, ludicrously blaming the superb Chris Cox for everything, endorsing the bailout, and sounding like an absolute dolt in the debate with Obama, thus falling irretrievably behind The One and relegating this great nation to four years of truly frighteningly leftist Oval Office misrule.
What were my friends at NR thinking?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!!!!!
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?