Offering more “straight talk” on the Sunday before the Florida primary, John McCain made an arresting prediction: “It’s a tough war we’re in. It’s not going to be over right away. There’s going to be other wars. I’m sorry to tell you, there’s going to be other wars. We will never surrender but there will be other wars.” (source)
Read the whole thing. I hate Buchanan’s protectionism, but his piece still makes the case on other grounds.
You’d prefer a candidate who says that Iraq is the war to end all wars?
It used to be that conservatives understood the realist maxim, “if you want peace, prepare for war.”
And on the nuclear option on judges (which Buchanan talks about) — recall that, now, Dems control a majority of the Senate. If the GOP had eliminated the requirement of 60 votes to end a filibuster, then the Dems would enjoy the same prerogative. Maybe that’s OK for right now, with a GOP prez, but consider a Dem prez and a Dem Senate. Conservatives should praise McCain’s prescience when that occurs (not that they will).
You are totally convincing on the filibuster. Thanks.
Yeah, like the Democrats will respect what the Republicans did with the Gang of 14 if they get a similar opportunity.
Prescience nothing that was compromise.
But, as I’m neither Republican or Democrat it doesn’t matter to me.
Bret
Bret,
The Gang of 14 effectively preserved the filibuster. I can always be surprised, but I don’t think that the Dems will prove to be interested in getting rid of the filibuster.
I think, on balance, that it’s a good thing, since it requires supermajority support for the Senate to take any action. So only actions with higher-than-bare-majority support get taken.
To be sure, there is a cost: when “we” are in power, we need sixty votes for a Senate win. And, of course, the party that wants change the most is the party that tends to support majoritarian politics.
Back in the early 1900s, the liberals (progressives) had an ambitous legislative agenda. So they were against checks and balances. Over the last 28 years, the conservatives have had the most ambitous legilative agenda, so they’ve tended to oppose institutional checks and balances (the filibuster, use of the judicial veto etc.).
Support or opposition to checks and balances almost always pivots around whose ox is being gored.