According to George Packer, Ken "Cakewalk" Adelman is the latest Obamacon. Aside from my paleo complaints about neocons playing both sides and trying to rehabilitate their reputations at the expense of the rest of the right's, something else jumps out from Adelman's endorsement: the usual Obamacon failure to make a substantive or detailed, policy-based argument for Barack Obama. In his e-mail to Packer, Adelman wrote:
Why [am I voting for Obama], since my views align a lot more with McCain's than with Obama's? And since I truly dread the notion of a Democratic president, Democratic House, and hugely Democratic Senate?
Primarily for two reasons, those of temperament and of judgment.
David Freddoso also sounds off on one of my regular themes: the unchecked Democratic supermajority in Washington if Republicans lose both the White House and their ability to filibuster in the Senate. If that comes to pass, conservatives will need to rely on unreliable House Democrats representing reddish congressional districts.
Libertarian Party candidates have cost Republicans several Senate seats in close races over the past decade, most recently Stan "Blue Man" Jones helping to retire Montana Sen. Conrad Burns in 2006. This time, a Constitution Party candidate might make the difference in Oregon GOP Sen. Gordon Smith's tough re-election race.
Let me put this another way: Imagine I went around writing op-eds making the pro-choice case for John McCain. I could point out that Republican presidents have repeatedly failed to overturn Roe v. Wade on the rare occasions they have seriously tried. I could note that McCain in 1999 and perhaps at other times expressed concern about back-alley abortions and the consequences of overturning Roe in either the near or long term. I could argue on the basis of such isolated examples and his support for both expanded taxpayer funding of embryonic stem-cell research and federally funded fetal tissue research that, despite a long voting record and campaign promises to the contrary, he would actually increase access to legal abortion once in office. And heck, McCain has long supported legal abortion in cases of rape, incest, and when the mother's life is at stake.
Do you think anyone would take me seriously? Should they? If so, I would like to hear from the editors who are interested in these op-eds. Perhaps they might be in the market for a bridge I have to sell them, too.
Doug Kmiec is at it again, trying to make the pro-life case for Barack Obama. To make this argument, he has to stack the deck heavily in Obama's favor. Because he judges John McCain unlikely to succeed at overturning Roe v. Wade -- an assesment I share -- a vote for McCain isn't necessarily pro-life. But a vote for Obama, who opposes extending legal protection to unborn children in most if not all cases, is permissible because he believes abortion is "a tragic situation" that should occur less frequently. There are plenty of well meaning people who hold the position that abortion is regrettable but should be permissible, a necessary evil. But that position is not pro-life.