I was taken aback by the tone of the initial piece. Ms. Rubin's columns have the guise of objective analysis, but are clearly wishful thinking for a viable Republican candidate.
Why would "Phil Gramm advice" be a good thing for anyone?
Why would preserving the "famed Reagan coalition" (or corpo-cons, theo-cons and neo-cons) be a good thing? So that the gross inequality of the last 30 years can be perpetuated and increased? So that we can start more reckless wars?
I do think Ms. Rubin is correct that McCain would be the strongest GOP candidate, however.
But, as a Democrat, I am heartened by the comments, and hoping that the venom displayed in them will be enough to stop McCain.
I was taken aback by the tone of the initial piece. Ms. Rubin's columns have the guise of objective analysis, but are clearly wishful thinking for a viable Republican candidate.
Why would "Phil Gramm advice" be a good thing for anyone?
Why would preserving the "famed Reagan coalition" (or corpo-cons, theo-cons and neo-cons) be a good thing? So that the gross inequality of the last 30 years can be perpetuated and increased? So that we can start more reckless wars?
I do think Ms. Rubin is correct that McCain would be the strongest GOP candidate, however.
But, as a Democrat, I am heartened by the comments, and hoping that the venom displayed in them will be enough to stop McCain.
Upper West