Too much clarity?
The staff “conservatives” at the Washington Post are throwing the kitchen sink at the Ted Cruz wing of the Republican Party again on the Post editoral page on Tuesday. In his columm, former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson dismisses conservatives (like Cruz) who favor so-called “apocalyptic showdowns” with Obama on his executive-power trips.
Gerson concluded by talking 2016: “Those who judge a Bush-Clinton race to be a tired retread or disturbingly dynastic should consider the more novel and dynamic alternatives. A Warren-Cruz race would be less of an electoral choice than a national trauma. It’s been said that too much clarity darkens.”
“Too much clarity darkens”? What kind of baloney is that? (It’s apparently taken from Blaise Pascal’s Pensees.) One can look at Dole, McCain, and Romney, and say “Too much moderation loses.”
The Post also reprinted from Jennifer Rubin’s badly named “Right Turn” blog, as they tend to do when she attacks “far-right” talk radio hosts:
The Beltway right-wing groups that cheered the shutdown found out that its ideal candidates were cranks, but worse than that, losers. Their wipeouts in Senate and House races, followed by the failure to dislodge the budget process for the remainder of the fiscal year, should convince all but the hermetically sealed far right that the country does not see the world the way they do. Talk radio hosts talk, but do not reflect popular opinion. Political purists denigrate squishy moderates, but do not sway voters. As many of us suspected, the actual Republican Party (not the one imagined by Heritage Action or the Senate Conservatives Fund) is far more sane, internationalist and open to compromise than the mainstream and conservative media would have you believe.