Fury of Rage
March 13th, 2012




I know a lot of people have soured on Jen Rubin, but still think she’s a great fit for the Post and when she’s writing about the legal stuff that’s in her wheelhouse, she’s awesome. That said, this post of hers is a little confusing.

So far as I can tell, she’s saying that (1) A brokered convention is an impossibility which cannot happen; and (2) People pursuing a brokered convention are playing a dangerous game and if they succeed the party will be torn asunder. Obviously, if (1), then not (2).

That’s the first bit of confusion. Then there’s the weirdness of the shift in tone about Romney. The argument in favor of his candidacy has gone from (1) He’s such a dominant force that we have to get behind him because he’s the only guy who can win;  to (2) He’s so weak that we have to shut this thing down fast, so that he doesn’t bleed anymore and still has a shot at winning in November. QED

But the real show-stopper is this passage:

Certainly, there is certainly an ilk in the party that would rather howl in the wilderness than win with a center-right candidate who would have to govern — that is, make some necessary compromises.

I think what’s she’s saying translates loosely as, “Of course we should not expect him to repeal Obamacare.” But then, I may be misreading her. It is hard to tell.

  1. Galley Wife March 13, 2012 at 10:17 pm

    You certainly might be.

    2. REPLY

  2. Joe Sixpack March 13, 2012 at 10:57 pm

    Not for nothing, but this election is turning into a sh1tshow.

    We have a big government Theocrat vs. a big government MilqueToast.

    3. REPLY

  3. Dr. Jonathan Crane March 14, 2012 at 2:08 am

    Certainly.

    4. REPLY

  4. Steve Sailer March 14, 2012 at 2:09 am

    There’s an ilk in the party …

    I like that.

    5. REPLY

  5. Jason O. March 14, 2012 at 9:27 am

    “People have soured on Jen Rubin.” Understatement is your specialty, JVL. I absolutely think Romney would repeal Obamacare by executive order thereby throwing it to the SCOTUS, if they haven’t already ruled on the indiv. mandate.

    (But then of course there’s Kaus’s typically smart notion that SCOTUS killing the indiv. mandate prior to the election helps POTUS by taking some of the wind out of the sails of his opposition, i.e., people psyched to vote him out due to PPACA)

    BTW, I’m not sure if your twitter aversion is a joke. If not, it’s my duty to inform you that there’s one recent addition that makes it unavoidable: @Kimsfirst

    6. REPLY

  6. TubbyLover69 March 14, 2012 at 1:46 pm

    The terrifying howl of the ilk in the wilderness …

COMMENT