Please purchase "Trump the Press" through Create Space.

The book is on Kindle. Order here.

Monday, January 25, 2016

Remember when National Review begged Obama to run?



Last week, the National Review went boldly where it had gone in the 1992 and 2012 presidential races by boldly attacking the Republican front-runner in a Very Special Edition, this time called "Against Trump."

Never let it be said that there is nothing too low for a conservative in Washington to do to get that pat on the head from a liberal. Who's a good boy? You are!

The call for conservative ideological purity is laughable, when one considers that National Review Editor Rich Lowry practically begged Barack Obama to run for the presidency on December 1, 2006:
The Rose Law Firm was Hillary Clinton’s firm back in Arkansas that was the focus of a little criminal activity and a lot of obsessive right-wing conspiracy-mongering. Halliburton is the former Dick Cheney energy firm that Democrats in Congress will spend the next two years investigating and that has been a swear word for Bush critics all along. Both entities represent, more than anything else, the putrid partisanship and malicious monomania that have characterized the 14, going on 16, years of the Clinton-Bush era.
After all this, who doesn’t hunger for a clean break? Thus the energy behind the possible presidential bid of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. He is the only presidential candidate from either party about whom there is a palpable excitement. And that is because everything about him says, “I’m not a Bush, I’m not a Clinton, and can we please talk about something else?”
It will be manifestly good for the country if it elects a president in 2008 who doesn’t elicit yowling hatred from the other side. Hillary Clinton probably will, and that’s a mark against her. Perhaps there’s an element of blackmail here, as if conservatives are saying, “Don’t nominate her, because we’ll hate her but good.”
But even on the left there’s a certain weariness with Clinton. A liberal friend of mine says when he mentions Hillary in the course of talking about 2008 to audiences, there’s always skeptical grumbling in the room. Some liberals don’t think she can win; others think she compromises too much. Hillary would have formidable assets in a 2008 race, but the timing could be against her. Maybe it’s too soon for another Clinton in presidential politics. On the Republican side, the most talented and accomplished Republican officeholder in the country, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, is sitting ’08 out precisely because of the baggage that currently attaches to his last name.
At the moment, nothing but sweetness and light attach to the last name Obama. Skeptics note that he is a creation of the media, as if this speaks badly of him. Most politicians would spend millions and go through every exertion to be so created by the media. The more serious, related objection is that Obama has no record of accomplishment during his two-year stint in the Senate. There’s a political trade-off here, though. By the time he does anything in the Senate, he will probably be thoroughly acclimated to the institution, making him just as unappealing as the dozen other senators who consider running for president every four years.
The genius of Obama is that he has a pure liberal voting record — a 100 percent rating from the liberal Americans for Democratic Action in 2005 — at the same time he appeals to independents and avoids seeming noxiously partisan. No doubt, some of this sheen will be lost the day he were to announce for president. But it also reflects something real. Obama is willing to say that Republicans are wrong, not evil — a very basic concession that nonetheless takes some bravery in the blog-besotted fever swamp that is much of the left right now. He has shown that he can speak the language of religious believers in a non-focus-group-tested, genuine way. And he has charisma, an invaluable asset that can’t be bought or faked.
Obama took his advice and entered the race two months later.

Way to go, Lowry. Way to go.

10 comments:

  1. They are conservative just like our "conservative" rinos in congress.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, in fairness, he wasn't asking him to run because he agreed with his positions.

    He, like many of the rest of America, had grown tired of the Bushes and Clintons.

    It's not Rich's fault that Obama has governed differently than he campaigned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's how I read the excerpt, too.

      Delete
    2. Actually, Obungler governed exactly like he campaigned, as an unabashed spread the wealth around, tax and spend liberal. Many "conservative" pundits like Peggy Noonan and Kathleen Parker fell for his BS and lost all credibility.

      Delete
  3. Inside-the-Beltway Conservatives owe their allegiance to the GOPe. They only need us outsiders when they want to sell us wine.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Barry's disinformatsia and Kremlin-level secrecy fooled him. Unfortunately, not ONLY him.

    ReplyDelete
  5. If you want to be a pundit, you should do a little research--all it took was a little to see thru this charlatan.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Obama is a Chicago/Cook County hack. Did they think he was the only virgin in that brothel?

    Apparently so.

    - Mikey NTH

    ReplyDelete
  7. But...but...they are our betters and know what's best for us! - Elric

    ReplyDelete
  8. A wolf in a sheepskin is still a wolf. A bro writer in a conservative isn't necessarily a conservative. They fired "the Derb" for speaking the truth, maybe it's truth they hate.

    ReplyDelete