“The issues that have provided conservatives with victories in the past — particularly welfare and crime — have been rendered irrelevant by success,” Michael Gerson, the Bush speechwriter turned columnist, wrote last week. “The issues of the moment — income stagnation, climate disruption, massive demographic shifts and health care access — seem strange, unexplored land for many in the movement.”
In fact these “issues of the moment” have been with us for years now, decades in some instances, but until recently they were either ignored by conservatives or dismissed as the hobby-horses of alarmist liberals or entrenched “special interests.”
From the New York Times, on the future of Sarah Palin:
Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center, a conservative group, called it a “top order of business” to determine Ms. Palin’s future role. “Conservatives have been looking for leadership, and she has proven that she can electrify the grass roots like few people have in the last 20 years,” Mr. Bozell said. “No matter what she decides to do, there will be a small mother lode of financial support behind her.”
About Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein says:
“Each one of them represents a different constituency, and the constituencies are knocking heads at the present time. . . . There are women all over the country, and particularly in my state of California, who feel that she hasn’t been treated fairly. . . . They want her to stand tall.”
Um, huh? Maybe I missed something, but how does “[being] treated fairly” have anything at all to do with how good a candidate you are? (And what exactly does “stand tall” mean in this context?”) Leaving aside the allegations implicit in Feinstein’s statement that there has been unfair treatment and that it is because Clinton is a woman—the truth of either is irrelevant on this particular point—being treated unfairly by others, regardless of the reason, says nothing of one’s own qualities and characteristics as they pertain to the job of being President of the United States.
And since I’ve been writing so much about politics the last couple days, I want to say one more thing that’s on my mind.
Everywhere I look in the press, I see Democrat-friendly people complaining that the primary contest between Clinton and Obama is so divisive that Democrats will be unable to unite once one of them is finally nominated.
Okay, I’m sorry, but if you are partial to either Clinton or Obama (and, for my money, I’m highly partial to the latter) and you really think divisions between them or their respective supporters are so great that you could not in good conscience vote for the other one, then what exactly are you going to do come November? Vote for that lame excuse for a Republican, John McCain?
Pennsylvania’s Democratic legislators are very proud of themselves for reducing property taxes by offsetting them with slot machine revenue.
“Pennsylvania’s budget secretary this week certified that the state’s slot machine facilities have now produced enough revenue to begin reducing property taxes – more than $600 million for homeowners statewide.”
I do not understand why this is good news. Sure, it sounds good. After all, who doesn’t want their property taxes lowered? Unfortunately, that which sounds too good to be true, likely is.