Monday, November 10, 2008

Did McCain's defeat mean anything?

George Will, getting it exactly right:
Although John McCain’s loss was not as numerically stunning as the 1964 defeat of Barry Goldwater, who won 16 fewer states and 122 fewer electoral votes than McCain seems to have won as of this writing, Tuesday’s trouncing was more dispiriting for conservatives. Goldwater’s loss was constructive; it invigorated his party by reorienting it ideologically. McCain’s loss was sterile, containing no seeds of intellectual rebirth.
Thanks to Commentary magazine.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

John who?

Martin Cothran said...

Ain't that the truth.

Anonymous said...

McCain-Feingold. Snort.

Anonymous said...

GW (via MC):McCain’s loss was sterile, containing no seeds of intellectual rebirth.

Is this surprising, given that most of the GOP considers "intellectual" a dirty word?

jah

Lee said...

> Is this surprising, given that most of the GOP considers "intellectual" a dirty word?

The good news is that Democrats love and appreciate intellectuals.

The bad news is that they are all named "Marx" and "Chomsky".