Will McCain Waste Palin or Will Right Wing Pundits Take Enough Pieces Out of the Barracuda in Their Rush to Do the Lefts Job!

DANIEL HENNINGER did a terrific article on how McCain should be proceeding and it is great as far as it goes. But in my mind the greater damage is being done by “friendly fire”. Right Wing pundits such as David Frum and the other “elite” of Washington who are as up in arms about Palin as the left. David may not scream as loud but sometimes the whispers are what everyone is listening to and because of Frum’s former position inside of the Bush administration his whisper tends to be listened to. If one wants to see where the real damage is being done to McCain one need not peruse the forums of Daily Kos. Just bop over to the National Review Corner where you can find at any one time at least 3 or 4 folks bemoaning Sarah’s “Lack of Experience”.

Henninger does a terrific job of destroying that argument but aside from Laura Ingram there are not that many voices who understand that all this “wonderful” experience has brought us to the near collapse of the United States financial system.

Here is Henningrer:

The problem isn’t standard political corruption. The problem is that the $2.8 trillion federal budget is a vast ocean of Beltway pilot fish feeding off scraps from the whale — lawyers, lobbyists, ex-Members of Congress. No one runs the Sea of Washington. It’s too big, too deep.

Barack Obama wants to dig a deeper hole. John McCain should ask the American people if they want this to go on, because it’s nonsense to vote for government to do “more” and then whine when it doesn’t work or degrades into sweetheart-deal hell.

And then Laura Ingram:

Brooks’s main argument against Palin is that she lacks the type of experience and historical understanding that led President Bush to a 26 percent approval rating in his final months in office. Yet the notion that the Bush Administration got into trouble because it didn’t have enough “experience” is absurd. George W. Bush was governor of Texas for six years. His father was president. His primary advisors on matters of foreign policy were Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and Colin Powell. In 2000, it could hardly have been possible to find a more experienced team to head up a GOP administration. Brooks’s notion that the Bush Administration was “the anti-establishment attitude put into executive practice” is simply ludicrous. Does anyone believe that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld count as “anti-establishment”?

Of course, we could also consider the Nixon Administration. Who had more experience than Richard Nixon? How’d that work out? What about George H.W. Bush? How did his administration do? What about Herbert Hoover — who had vast experience both in terms of dealing with foreign countries during World War I and in terms of dealing with the U.S. economy as secretary of Commerce? How did he do? The truth is that Brooks’s basic claim — that experienced leaders are necessarily better than inexperienced leaders — simply doesn’t hold water.

The question is who will win this race to destroy that which threatens the elite in Washington, the left or the right? Both have an interest in keeping Washington fat dumb and happy so that they can feed off the scraps.