April 2, 2012 | 12 comments
March 31, 2012 | 8 comments
February 22, 2012 | 7 comments
January 12, 2012 | 8 comments
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
So in the wake of the two front-running Republican candidates leaving the base underwhelmed due to unapologetic deviance on some core base-type issues — Obamacare and illegal immigration high among them — there is much clucking in certain quarters about how this dissatisfaction creates just the opening New Jersey governor Chris Christie needs to let a draft effort succeed.
But Christie is not only an avowed proponent of man-made global warming theory — he’s listened to a small group of activists with PhDs, but whose activism happens to extend to generic left-wing political activism — but has also vowed no new coal plants. These are key concerns to the conservative base.
No. A fever borne of two front runners having non-conservative positions on key issues is not cured with a third.
Game this out. Christie wouldn’t even have to come out at a debate and say if you don’t believe in ‘doing something’ on global warming, or with the scientists I’ve chosen to speak to, then you don’t have a brain. He just needs to keep saying it’s incontrovertible. In the end, there’s not a material difference between the two, and that would be his end.
Best case scenario for a Christie candidacy would include running from ‘incontrovertible’ and adopting the clumsy Romney Shuffle of muttering about a state response to a state issue, hoping interest in his views it goes away. Post-cap-n-trade, Solyndra, “necessarily skyrocket,” et al. In this economy. Mmm.
Who knows, it’s not inconceivable that someone might even take enough briefing on the matter in preparation for the general election to be able to point out that not even the ‘global treaty’ Kyoto would, according to any computer model on which the agenda is premised, have a climatic impact. All pain, no gain. More squandering, more costly, futile gestures from politicians. In that event, well, game over. Leaving Republicans still searching. But at least we’d also free up Mr. Hunstman’s podium as a co-benefit of tackling head-on his ‘edgy’ issue.
Of Obamacare, global warming panic, and yet one more tuition subsidy for children of illegal immigrant parents, With the past three years in the rearview mirror I’d guess the latter would be the least fatal to an otherwise strong candidate. If only he could lay it out without insulting.
There may be a call for someone else, but if so it is someone without a history of stridency or even activism on an issue and position dear to the other party’s base. Occasional impurity is to be expected, and the fact that we all are not running shows we all understand that and accept it. But not to the level of advocacy for the other team’s brass rings. The longing is for a principled conservative who can credibly explain his odd wayward stance drawing on his conservative principles, not insults about those who disagree with is conclusion.
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?
H/T to National Review Online