GEORGE WILL: Dishonesty From the Clintons & McCain...
(Real Clear Politics) - Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery, the Clintons should bask in the glow of John McCain's Clintonian gloss on this fact: Ten months ago Romney said that President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki should discuss, privately, "a series of timetables and milestones." That unremarkable thought was twisted by McCain, whose distortions are notably clumsy, as when Romney said, accurately, that he alone among the candidates has had extensive experience in private-sector business. That truth was subjected to McCain's sophistry, and he charged that Romney had said "you haven't had a real job" if you had a military career. If, this autumn, voters must choose between Clinton and McCain, they will face, at least stylistically, an echo, not a choice...
...Obama is running against two Clintons -- or one and a fraction of one, given how much she has been diminished by her overbearing spouse. Romney is marginally better off running against a Clinton impersonator.
...Obama is running against two Clintons -- or one and a fraction of one, given how much she has been diminished by her overbearing spouse. Romney is marginally better off running against a Clinton impersonator.
posted by BP News Bureau | 12:36 PM
3 Comments:
From National Review Online:
For those who don't comprehend why many conservatives are so hostile to John McCain, I'd call their attention to how The Wall Street Journal quoted him today, in response to Mitt Romney touting his business credentials:
"I did not manage, I led ... And I didn't manage for profit, I led for patriotism."
McCain can certainly sound fiscally conservative when he wants to, but this is a revealing quote. At his core, McCain just doesn't display much of an affinity for free-market capitalism. He thinks government service is far more noble, more socially beneficial, than serving one's fellow man through creating economic value in the marketplace. He's wrong, importantly wrong, and it's that kind of sentiment, coupled with his record, that makes a good chunk of the GOP coalition nervous and distrustful.
(By the way, McCain's new campaign tactic of contrasting leadership and management is another sign of his lack of connection to today's business world. If you keep up with the literature and trends, you know that making rigid distinctions between the two is so 1980s.)
From National Review Online:
John Hood is right. When McCain says — "I didn't manage for profit, I led for patriotism," the fact is that McCain didn't have to manage for profit, either. His father-in-law managed for profit, became very wealthy, and McCain and his wife have benefited from his father-in-law managing for profit. How can it be said that McCain can unite his party and conservatives for the November election when he talks like this?
From National Review Online:
It seems that opposing McCain's candidacy or positions is typically characterized as a mark of dishonor or with leftist rhetoric. Since managing for profit is now demeaned, I should note that Cindy Lou Hensley McCain — chair of Hensley & Company, which was founded by John McCain's father-in-law— is one of the largest Anheuser-Busch distributors in the nation. I would encourage Senator McCain to cut it out. You'd think he'd know that the tanks, jeeps, fighters, bombers, weapons, uniforms, bullets, armor, rations, and all the rest are produced by the private sector — for profit. These industries are also committed to supporting our troops and winning the war. And they employ a lot of patriotic people.
Post a Comment
<< Home