In his syndicated column last week, National Review editor Richard Lowry, whose main job as a "conservative" political writer is to keep coming up with ways to make the latest conservative surrender to liberalism seem acceptable to conservatives, laid out a strategy by which McCain's possible choice of Joseph Lieberman as his vice presidential running mate could be made to seem acceptable to conservatives. Lowry's big idea: the one-term pledge.
(Ah, what a memory: Read my lips: No New Taxes) Having considered the whole NR crew:
National Review Online editor Kathryn Jean Lopez makes it plain from the start of her article on the same subject that she is totally opposed to the choice of Lieberman, who, she points out, not only supports abortion but voted against a ban on partial birth abortion. But what, in practical reality, does her stalwart opposition to Lieberman mean? She pointedly neglects to say that she would refuse to support such a ticket. Meaning that, notwithstanding her opposition to Lieberman, she would support him. Then there's mighty Jay Nordlinger of National Review. Wow! Nordlinger would "gulp" at voting for a Lieberman ticket. Meaning that he would gulp, and then vote for it. I'll bet that stern warning really has McCain shaking in his boots at the thought of picking Lieberman. Then there is the National Review editorial on the same subject that was published this morning. The editors start off by saying that if McCain picks Lieberman (or the amazingly overrated Tom Ridge), it would "shatter" the recent momentum he's built up among conservatives. And the upshot of that dire warning? "For vice president, [McCain] should make a choice that's conservative in both meanings of the word." Oh, yes, indeed he should. But if he doesn't, we know that NRO's editors will still be in his corner anyway
Personally, I hope that McCain chooses Lieberman. I want to see the establishment conservatives squirm and moan and groan, then sign on to the Partial Birth Abortion ticket, thus giving up the last tatter of their conservative credibility
From a VDARE.com point of view, what is notable about this NR discussion is the total lack of reference to nation-shattering immigration. On this subject, Lieberman is a disaster. Why does NR, which rallied to the anti-amnesty cause, not mention this? Answer: They don't care; the posturing last year was purely tactical.
The VDARE.com theory on Lieberman: GOP operatives actually believe America is controlled by the Jews. They think nominating him will bring in substantial donations (which they desperately need) and, much more importantly, sympathetic media coverage.
But as a comrade on the offensive, he has no peer.