"Well, that's essentially a Leninist argument, that things have to get a lot worse before they'll get better, so in a sense it's slightly unnerving to have conservatives making that claim because it is essentially a revolutionary argument. You know, the great Lenin thing was that traditions had to get worse, you need to assist conditions to get worse, and then society will be ripe for revolution. So when people say they need to make...and in part it is a delusion because you say, we need to get Hillary or Obama in there, then they'll screw things up so much that in 2012 or 2016, people will turn to a real conservative. It never works like that, it never ever works like that, and what they would do is, unless they're Jimmy Carter, that's a different thing, but what's more likely to happen is that society would carry on, not quite badly enough to cause the total meltdown of the Democratic party."
Mark Steyn on the same topic with Hugh Hewitt just a day after:
"I agree with Rush Limbaugh, who had a terrific line. He said if the Democrats in the media get to choose our candidates, what’s wrong with Republicans choosing theirs? And that’s a very good point. You know, when Democrats and independents vote for John McCain, we’re told that this shows he has great crossover appeal, and reaches out to moderates. Well, you know, a lot of Republicans voted for Hillary. That shows she has great crossover appeal, too. I’m happy to complicate the Democratic primary process for as long as we can [...] I mean, right now, the great advantage to what Rush did by sabotaging the process, if you accept that view of it, the great advantage of it is that it ensures whoever is the nominee is a weaker nominee."
I'm disappointed. Surely Mark Steyn wouldn't bother pandering to little ol' me, right?
No comments:
Post a Comment