The Corner on National Review Online: "1. The discussion so far has largely focused on electoral politics. I confess that I am pretty indifferent to Republican fortunes at this point. "
It's actually kind of a shame, since I actually agree, at least with the broard brush-strokes of her overall argument that one can be "conservative" without basing it on religion.
But the italicized section is just too stupid to go uncommented. What she's saying is that, whatever she thinks about Bush et al, she doesn't think it would be any better with, say, Russ Feingold and Chriss Dodd in charge.
Honest to God, would you people focus? This might actually be important.
3 comments:
I feel the same way.
If they don't care why should I? Oh that is right, I am supposd to care when and if the Republican majority behaves in a way the talking heads and certain more mouthy elements of the base think they should. Whenever ElPresidente Bush etc tow the line, then like magic I am supposed to care...but unless Bush and Co. does their bidding well screw the party.
I voted for Bush in spite of and not because of a lot of these people and if they do not care about Republican fortunes now why should I ever care about them? If they are just as happy to see Feingold running things and two years of impeachment hearings as they are to see Republicans win then all I can say is screw em.
The apparent strength of her touching faith in the power of reason is a bit diminished by the utter vacuity of the highlighted statement. It's a bit strange to see self proclaimed conservatives elevate velocity over direction while stressing the particular over the general. Her recent pieces on immigration reflect the same idiosyncracy. Puzzling.
Yes it is.
Post a Comment