It's interesting that the New York Times chose today to endorse the two candidates who conservatives most dislike as their endorsees for the Democrat and Republican nominations.

First the Democrat -- not so much because of Hillary Clinton's qualifications but rather because they don't think Obama is "ready"

The potential upside of a great Obama presidency is enticing, but this country faces huge problems, and will no doubt be facing more that we canÂ’t foresee. The next president needs to start immediately on challenges that will require concrete solutions, resolve, and the ability to make government work. Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president.

But then they go on to talk about how Hillary Clinton, part of a power couple that breeds and thrives on negativity, needs to change to project a more positive tone -- the very thing that Obama has done all along. I guess they expect the leopardess to change her spots. Not that such a thing will happen, given that the Clintons are the two most divisive political figures of my lifetime, and the architects of the divisive politics that have dominated the last decade and a half. In the mean time, Barack Obama, the real uniter, is expected to step to the back of the bus.

And then there is the nominee for the GOP -- the conservative party is encouraged to nominate the least conservative candidate, and the one most likely to take positions amenable to the Democrats. But I especially love this opening.

We have strong disagreements with all the Republicans running for president. The leading candidates have no plan for getting American troops out of Iraq. They are too wedded to discredited economic theories and unwilling even now to break with the legacy of President Bush. We disagree with them strongly on what makes a good Supreme Court justice.

In other words, we are against everything it means to be a Republican, but we still feel that Republicans should give a damn what we think. It is followed by this.

Still, there is a choice to be made, and it is an easy one. Senator John McCain of Arizona is the only Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe. With a record of working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field.

We have shuddered at Mr. McCainÂ’s occasional, tactical pander to the right because he has demonstrated that he has the character to stand on principle. He was an early advocate for battling global warming and risked his presidential bid to uphold fundamental American values in the immigration debate. A genuine war hero among Republicans who proclaim their zeal to be commander in chief, Mr. McCain argues passionately that a countryÂ’s treatment of prisoners in the worst of times says a great deal about its character.

In other words, the Republicans should nominate John McCain because of all the positions he holds that are out of step with the GOP and in step with the eventual Democrat platform. Conservatives should embrace the candidate that the New York Times sees as most likely to implement the policies that are anathema to conservatism.

In other words, the New York Times would see us choose between a bad choice and an echo.

More At Captain's Quarters, Michelle Malkin, Cao's Blog, Soccer Dad, Pat Dollard

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, A Newt One- The Truth Surge, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Nuke Gingrich, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Wolf Pangloss, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 676 words, total size 6 kb.