The Lesser of Two Weevils
First, I suppose I ought to explain the irony of the analogy I propose: Weevils, of the insect family Curculionidae, include approximately 40,000 species (Encyclopædia Britannica), but the most common association relates to those species which typically feed on grain.
Biblically, stored grain was literally the lifeblood of society, and anything which threatened it – drought, blight, war, or spoilage (from varied causes, often insectoid) threatened all, as any deficit produced repercussions which not only affected human consumption thereof, but that of livestock, and ultimately the overall economic vitality of society.
As I write this, things are looking pretty bleak for conservative voters. Even Bill Clinton would have been a superior choice to his wife or Barack Obama (one of whom will almost certainly secure the Democrat nomination), since Bill was no ideologue. True, he was a womanizer and a pathological narcissist, but he knew who his public was; one of the chief complaints about him (when he was President) was that he continually “stuck his finger in the air” to see which way the political wind was blowing – which might indeed have kept the nation from moving farther left than it did during his administration.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are dedicated far left ideologues. Hillary’s supporters know this, but Obama’s (as I have indicated earlier) are soaking up his charisma and Jack Kennedy-like rhetoric; most have no idea who he is.
Far left ideologues are akin to weevils. Without doubt, a great many politicians at large are as well, but those on the far left have honed gormandizing the collective stores of our nation to a fine art.
Still, it’s not Clinton and Obama to whom I refer in the title. It is whomever of the two wins the Democrat nomination and Republican John McCain (should he be the Republican candidate) who will be the lesser of two weevils.
At this juncture, it appears that former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, the only serious threat to a McCain nomination, will likely only succeed if McCain suffers a fatal embolism sometime within the next few months – not that I hope for such a thing. Romney doesn’t trip my trigger either, but (bearing in mind that one can never tell what a candidate will actually do once in office) he appears to possess the business acumen, fiscal responsibility and concern for national security that McCain lacks.
From Obama argues he’s best Democratic option for beating McCain, Associated Press, February 2, 2008:
“It is time for new leadership that understands the way to win a debate with John McCain or any Republican who is nominated is not by nominating someone who agreed with him on voting for the war in Iraq,”
- Barack Obama
[A debate with Obama over the war] “will be the difference between victory and surrender.”
- John McCain
Oh really? How then will McCain appeal to voters who link our southern border issues with the War on Terror and his abysmal performance in that area as a senator from a border state?
The worst part is that Obama may be right and wrong at the same time. Depending on who you ask, Americans are split as to whether Bush should have gone into Iraq. Having remained there as long as we have is the issue of greater contention; the case against both has been fueled entirely by the media and the far left.
The argument has been made ad nauseum that George W. Bush has spent more money than any president in history, an argument that, taken at face value, negates Republican claims that Democrats are the “tax and spend” party. Independent voters (and even some Republicans) equate what Bush has done with what they’re likely to get out of another Republican administration.
The problem with this unfortunate variable is that it’s relative. Within the context of such disputes, one can spin actual dollars spent in almost any direction factoring in inflation, the cost of living, the War on Terror – a precedent that would likely have challenged any president as regards policy and public relations, and something Bush’s enemies claim is nonexistent. Certainly, spending gobs of taxpayer dollars to fight something that doesn’t exist is the height of fiscal irresponsibility.
I recently heard a discussion (on a talk radio program) addressing the “read it and believe, hear it and believe” syndrome. Most Americans are not viscerally aware of the political leanings of the mass media, so the worst reported about Bush stuck.
Another phenomenon that has bred uncertainty amongst American voters – and conservatives in particular – is Bush’s tendency toward globalism. Those among us who share concern over these issues find no comfort at the prospect of a McCain presidency.
Swing voters are more likely to go with a charismatic Democrat (Obama) or one with political muscle (Clinton) than a noncommittal, uncharismatic candidate whose party is currently in the doghouse. McCain – who now has the temerity to bill himself as “A Real Conservative” – cannot galvanize his base; to conservatives who know his record, he’s just another liberal weevil.
So Obama might indeed be able to beat McCain, but it won’t be over Iraq, it will be due to voters’ general dissatisfaction with and mistrust of the GOP.
| More from Erik Rush
Stumble It!
February 7th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Sometime before we invaded Iraq it was reported that Sadam had just won 99% of the Iraqi vote (it was an election year). I would mention this to my university coleagues with a faux incredulous expression. Of course, they, being left-wing university stupents [yes, stuPents] to the man, didn’t get it. They weren’t even aware there was an “election.”
So here we are in the U.S., after having “freed” Iraq, with the winning empty skirt about to receive 100% of the vote, because they’re all the same: carbonated water, L-alpha-aspartyl methyl ester, and FD&C Caramel No.3. God! how I pray for rain. The tree really needs watering.