If there could only be one columnist to represent conservatism, it would have to be George Will.

Here’s two reasons why:

Horrors of a ‘Crisis’
Candidate On A High Horse

With the very large number of comments on my recent column (and none of them favorable I might add…), I feel it is necessary for me to clarify an underlying premise on which it was based.Beware, as I said in my comment below the column, this idea is distinctly conservative: If the establishment of the tradition was understandable at the time, AND the tradition causes no harm now, then the tradition should not be gotten rid of.

Hopefully knowing that I was operating under that idea will clear up some confusion…

Dan

Here’s the column: http://media.www.dailyillini.com/media/storage/paper736/news/2008/04/11/OpinionColumns/In.God.Do.We.Really.Trust-3318799.shtml

And the comments: http://www.dailyillini.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticleComments&ustory_id=9da5a6a7-8272-4412-9909-33878e0c6d3c

Note: I will post future comments in the comments section, too.

Although I may be beating a dead horse for those of you that have read my columns the past two weeks, I couldn’t resist:

Krauthammer on Obama 

A chief underlying premise of my column “Obama could lose in November too,” is the idea that Obama will continue to campaign the same way he has been campaigning. Obviously, if Obama corrects the flaws I mentioned in my column, this will become a non-issue. However, here’s why I think he won’t:

Right now, Obama has been speaking to his primary audience about transcending partisanship. He hasn’t revealed how partisan his record is to that audience either. Instead, he refuses to talk policy and instead talks inspiration. If he decided to all of a sudden talk about his partisan policy stances in the general election… well if he did that, he would need to get a new campaign manager. This is because it’s backwards to hide partisan policies to a favorable primary audience and reveal them to a more moderate general election audience. Normally, politicians say even less partisan statements in the general election (except where they must) than when they have more appeal to primary voters (Hillary, who is more centrist than Obama is the opposite - she’ll say more in the general election).

Since Obama would be running the strangest campaign ever if he talked more about his partisanship during the general, I think he’ll continue to speak abstractly and avoid specifics. That is, of course, assuming he doesn’t pull a deadly flip-flop.

If he’s planning on doing that, it makes sense why he’s not talking about his record right now. But he can’t imagine his record won’t be dug up in a general election campaign, can he? He’s either running a horrible campaign, or he has a lack of substance.

There. Hopefully I didn’t rile up too many more Obamainiacs with that one.

Yes, he’s called for invasion of Syria and Iran. Yes, he’s controversial. Yeah, maybe calling some of his writings outageous (see Syria and Iran) would be an adequate assesment.

In spite of all this, I read columnist Charles Krauthammer consistently because some of his foreign policy writings can be the opposite of what I said above. Occasionally, he’s spot on.

In the link below, he’s not quite spot on - I personally believe he glorifies achievements in Iraq a little too much. But his line on Petraeus is great. And as an initial war critic but someone who now believes we need to stay in Iraq, I say the following: the last few paragraphs are indeed spot on in regards to a major hole in the arguments of current war critics. Whether, you’re for staying or against, I guaruntee the last paragraphs will make you think. Enough chat, if you want to read about Iraq, read this article!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/22/AR2007112201089.html?wpisrc=newsletter

David Brooks shows why McCain is possibly the best man in the presidential race this year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/opinion/13brooks.html?n=Top/Opinion/Editorials%20and%20Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Columnists/David%20Brooks 

If only everyone else would realize that what Brooks says about him is true. He supported the surge before Bush did because he thought it was the best strategy. Then once Bush adopted it, the media said McCain was following Bush and that McCain was some blind Bush follower. They got it wrong.

After years of calling for more troops, McCain’s voice was finally heard by Bush. Bush belatedly followed McCain and not the other way around. The media really screwed up on that story and hurt a great man’s image. In case you can’t tell, I’m still bitter about this mess-up.

So read Brooks’ column above to learn a little more about the man who, if the race was based on character, should be president. Actually, he should maybe be president if the race was based on policy, too. And if it was based on competance, he’d also have the race won. Heck, maybe this man should be president!! And that’s from a guy born in Arkansas when Clinton was governor - and yes that means I’m a Clintonite.

But now I’m a McCainiac, thank you very much.

I know it’s my third post today, but this article is unbelievable:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/opinion/12rubin.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

It’s shocking, but this article says there is only one World War I vet left. It’s kinda sad that people probably won’t take any more notice of Frank Buckles until he dies. Then the headlines will scream: Last WWI vet died today. Too bad we can’t give him more honor now while he’s alive to recieve it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/12/us/politics/12clinton.html?_r=2&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/H/Healy&loc=interstitialskip&oref=slogin

Shows Hillary in danger of appearing calculating (as if she doesn’t already), and it also shows tensions between candidates heating up a bit.

 But right now, to me anyway, it seems like all the candidates are trying to get the most attacks on each other without really attacking each other. Whenever policy differences do appear, neither candidates’ policies are fully fleshed out anyway.

The only two candidates with thourough and nuanced policies across the board are the old timers of Republican John McCain and Democrat Joe Biden. We’ll see if that changes in the last couple of months before the primaries.

I’m a moderate who has criticised Obama in some of my past columns, but his recent speech and the following article piqued my interest in his candidacy again. It’s a rather supportive column by conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan. Here it is:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama

It’s long. Enjoy.

Every political junkie that’s strapped for cash and hasn’t visited www.nytimes .com recently must read this!!

For a long time, the New York Times’ website has had its columns, archives, and some special features avaiable only to its “Select” members who had to pay a fee to see them.

Well, there’s good news for those of you who wanted to read the likes of Thomas Friedman and Daivd Brooks - all columns are now readable online for free! I don’t know when the update happened, but I just stumbled across this surprising fact very recently.

Whether you think they’re too liberal or spot-on in their views, there’s some seriously fantastic writers for that newspaper. Because of that, everyone who is interested in politics shouldn’t hesitate for one second to check it out.

Go to www.nytimes.com now! I’m serious!