Comments on: In The Aftermath http://larison.org/2008/01/20/in-the-aftermath/ n. the principle of good order "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Thu, 24 May 2012 01:49:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Daniel Larison http://larison.org/2008/01/20/in-the-aftermath/#comment-8652 Mon, 21 Jan 2008 05:13:59 +0000 http://larison.org/2008/01/20/in-the-aftermath/#comment-8652 Not at all. My point was that if Republicans wanted to stop McCain, this was their chance, and the Romney and Thompson voters here made it impossible to do that. I would prefer a Romney nomination to McCain's, if I were forced to choose between them, but both seem on balance worse to me than Huckabee. Again, this isn't saying much. Here's how I would rank them and why: McCain is worst because he is deeply wrong on many things (apparently out of conviction), Romney is a fraud on just about everything and seems to have no convictions and Huckabee is a fraud on fewer things and right on some things (apparently out of conviction). Those in S.C. who wanted Romney to win have ensured that his long-term chances are poorer because they made it possible for another establishment-connected candidate to emerge as a real rival. McCain and Romney derive the bulk of their support from many of the same kinds of voters, so as long as McCain remains competitive Romney is that much more worse off. Thus, to adapt an earlier phrase, a vote for Romney in S.C. was a vote for McCain, which is directly contrary to the interests and goals of Romney voters. Not at all. My point was that if Republicans wanted to stop McCain, this was their chance, and the Romney and Thompson voters here made it impossible to do that. I would prefer a Romney nomination to McCain’s, if I were forced to choose between them, but both seem on balance worse to me than Huckabee. Again, this isn’t saying much.

Here’s how I would rank them and why: McCain is worst because he is deeply wrong on many things (apparently out of conviction), Romney is a fraud on just about everything and seems to have no convictions and Huckabee is a fraud on fewer things and right on some things (apparently out of conviction). Those in S.C. who wanted Romney to win have ensured that his long-term chances are poorer because they made it possible for another establishment-connected candidate to emerge as a real rival. McCain and Romney derive the bulk of their support from many of the same kinds of voters, so as long as McCain remains competitive Romney is that much more worse off. Thus, to adapt an earlier phrase, a vote for Romney in S.C. was a vote for McCain, which is directly contrary to the interests and goals of Romney voters.

]]> by: bsebse http://larison.org/2008/01/20/in-the-aftermath/#comment-8647 Sun, 20 Jan 2008 11:37:22 +0000 http://larison.org/2008/01/20/in-the-aftermath/#comment-8647 So, this is better than Romney? So, this is better than Romney?

]]>