Although John McCain’s loss was not as numerically stunning as the 1964 defeat of Barry Goldwater, who won 16 fewer states and 122 fewer electoral votes than McCain seems to have won as of this writing, Tuesday’s trouncing was more dispiriting for conservatives. Goldwater’s loss was constructive; it invigorated his party by reorienting it ideologically. McCain’s loss was sterile, containing no seeds of intellectual rebirth.Thanks to Commentary magazine.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Did McCain's defeat mean anything?
George Will, getting it exactly right:
5 comments:
You are welcome to post at this blog. You are asked, however, to refrain from the following:
1. Name-calling;
2. Questioning the motives or integrity of people you have never met just because you disagree with them;
3. Using obscenities or other expressions not appropriate or necessary to civilized discussion;
4. Taking disagreement personally;
5. Demeaning or insulting remarks.
The host will attempt to abide by the same rules and only asks that you not provide him with the temptation to do so in return by violating them.
Failure to comply with these rules can result (depending solely on the arbitrary and inscrutable will of the host) in the deletion of offending posts and suspension of posting privileges. Such measures are more likely if you post anonymously.
John who?
ReplyDeleteAin't that the truth.
ReplyDeleteMcCain-Feingold. Snort.
ReplyDeleteGW (via MC):McCain’s loss was sterile, containing no seeds of intellectual rebirth.
ReplyDeleteIs this surprising, given that most of the GOP considers "intellectual" a dirty word?
jah
> Is this surprising, given that most of the GOP considers "intellectual" a dirty word?
ReplyDeleteThe good news is that Democrats love and appreciate intellectuals.
The bad news is that they are all named "Marx" and "Chomsky".