I did see through Mr Blair when others didn’t, and for exactly the same reason that I see through Mr Cameron. That is, I am interested in politics as such, not as a branch of show business or of the gossip industry. ~Peter Hitchens
My view of the Republican presidential field this time around is much the same. My low opinions of Romney, Giuliani and McCain, among others, come from considering what their policies would actually be rather than focusing on the dreadful question of “electability.” In a sane world, the merits of a candidate’s policies and his “electability” would be closely related. In any case, after two terms of Bush we should understand exactly what a campaign based on “leadership” and “electability” gets you: disastrous policies and actually fairly poor leadership.
I did see through Mr. Bush the first time round and did recognise early on that he was obviously not conservative and his policies were generally going to be poor ones. At the time, I assumed his worst policies would be his domestic policies, which would have been the case had he not overachieved in foreign policy incompetence as well. Admittedly, I was sucked in by the deception or confusion of Bush on foreign policy and thought that “humble” foreign policy was a better bet than anything Gore might cook up. A year after Kosovo, it was hard not to look at things this way. On that, I should have known better, and I should certainly have known better than to buy even a little bit into whatever Condi Rice was selling at the time. Even so, my 2000 Buchanan vote seems smarter and smarter every day. Will a third party get my vote this time? Almost certainly, unless GOP primary voters show some good sense and select Ron Paul. You might think after the last eight years these voters would not be duped with the same old “leadership” and “electability” cons that got them into their present predicament, but you would be wrong.