Replies

I wasn't really saying the Republicans need to nominate candidates with top degrees to appeal to educated voters; I was saying they need to use rhetoric that appeals to educated voters. Reagan and Gingrich (while still looked down upon by true elitists) appealed to educated voters because they make intellectually defensible policy arguments rooted in a coherent conservative philosophy. Contrast this with McCain and Bush, who seem to have little guiding philosophy and thus say or done things that are anything but conservative (and very hard to defend intellectually) on a regular basis.

McCain's recourse to earmarks when asked how he can cut the budget last night demonstrates this: it's a worthy goal, but he missed a great opportunity to make a broader conservative argument for cutting government. And if my party's leading candidate can't make that argument, how can I as a conservative say I'm voting for the Republicans because I believe in smaller government?

Similarly, back in 2004 Bush was asked about the minimum wage. Instead of using the opportunity to explain conservative opposition to the minimum wage--explain how it actually hurts many of its intended beneficiaries--he basically said he supports an increase, just not as big as the increase John Kerry supports. And I'm supposed to tell people they should vote for the Republicans because the Republicans believe in the free market?

Fair enough -- although I have heard from various pundits that Bush, one-on-one, is infinitely more articulate than the Bush of televised speeches.

Maybe because one-on-one he can gauge the individual's intellect and target his response to that level, whereas the mass of TV watchers would get lost trying to keep up with concepts familiar to a Harvard MBA.

The Bush family SUCKS at getting their message out, or at sending surrogates out on their behalf.

McCain is too RINO for me to enthusiastically support him -- gang of 14 (though he gained points for articulating "elections have consequences); McCain-Feingold; Shamnesty, to name three.

If he is sincere about appointing strict constructionists, that would go a long way with me. And I'm not sure where he stands on the 2nd amendment.

I'm mainly voting to position Palin for 2012, as well as preventing a troika of the ROP (Reid, Obama, Pelosi).

And yes, I'm aware of the pun about ROP.

Incidentally, I haven't read Niebuhr. Brooks is indicting *himself* rather than anyone else by telling the story about Obama.

From what I have gathered from commentators, Niebuhr's work can be characterized as "Socialism and Christianity are very similar, especially socialism."

*IF* this is true, would any honest conservative really get a tingle down his leg hearing someone expounding upon *that*?

Cheers!