McCain vs Clinton?

Hello again. It was a good week away, three days of which spent teaching skiing to Texans and all of which spent far away from news. I only had to hit a couple links before the latest disaster waiting to befall the Democratic party came to light.

John McCain, despite his defense of Bush's failed policies, will beat Hillary Clinton in 2008.

McCain comes across as a man of principle even in his defense of the stupidest President since, well, perhaps ever. Hillary comes across as a poll-chasing vote monger, waving whichever way the wind blows. McCain is demonstratedly a moderate within his party. Who knows where Hillary is this week. McCain will win that challenge.

We should run John Murtha instead. Then it's a battle of principle vs. principle, of veteran vs. veteran, of integrity vs, well, McCain isn't perfect.

Either would be a far better choice than our current would-be emperor. In a way I'm reminded of Rome, of valliant emperors following Neros, of men of good character trying to repair what the weak minded and immoral have frittered away. Today on NPR I heard of Britain's attempt at Guantanamo around three hundred thirty years ago. After the Puritans revolted against the British government (yes, they weren't the turkey-eating, good-natured, back-to-basics religious men and women our history books portray, rather anarchist rebels against Britain's monarchy), they were deported to an island out of crown jurisdiction. The resulting uproar resulted in impeachment of the then-equivalent of Prime Minister and enactment of a law that Habeas Corpus was a right not limited by location. It is an almost spooky parallel that should teach us that if expediency causes us to violate our principles, we don't have principles. Maybe we will choose right over easy.

It will require a change in power in Washington for us to once again choose right over easy.