Rich Lowry marvels at the political astuteness of Kate O’Beirne:
Pundit Credit Where It’s Due
Someone who called the Rudy thing from the beginning—that he wasn’t a good fit for the GOP and wouldn’t win the nomination—was my colleague Kate O’Beirne.
She was hardly the only one, as every political observer with even half a functioning brain knew that he was a horrible, no-good, very-bad candidate. The only question was if the party elite could cram him down the Republican base’s throats long enough to let him take another pre-arranged dive for Hillary. As it turned out, he was so hapless that they couldn’t. Which is actually somewhat of a a comforting thought to take into the next eight years of rule by humorless lesbian blackskirts.
And you still wonder why I prefer to spend my time in Azeroth…. Meanwhile, the Englishman in New York goes medieval on the Manhattan conservatives:
You already have a genuinely conservative candidate on offer. He’s just not slick enough for you. What, he has positions you don’t agree with? More than the other guys? Actually, I have heard very little complaining about Paul’s positions. What I have mostly heard is (a) He’s funny looking, (b) He can’t win, and (c) He has a lot of icky supporters.
The answer to (a) is to put aside the New York Times “Style” section for five minutes and think. The answer to (b) is, that if conservatism is going to lose big in 2008 anyway (newsflash: it is), it should at least make a stand, to inspire future generations. The answer to (c) is, get in there and swell the ranks of non-icky Paul supporters — there are plenty of us — to drown out the nutsos.
I’m probably considered one of the nutsos, (in fact, now that I think about it, I KNOW I am), but hey, the more the merrier. And as it is written: Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from insanity.