If Hillary Clinton’s goal was to get some ink in saying that the Senate was like a plantation, then it was a really smart thing to say. If, on the other hand, she was trying to draw a remotely accurate metaphor, I don’t think that was the way to go.
Her representatives have tried to justify it by saying that the Senate is being run by the Bossman and opposing views are stifled. Yeah, okay, but that also describes any number of corporations. No one is in the Congress or Senate against their will, no one is being beaten, and no one is being hunted down if they leave. There’s just way too much baggage attached to the concept of plantations to try and pare it down to, “Our attempts to present our views are being stifled.” I mean, she could just as easily address the UJA and say the Senate is like a concentration camp, and it would be just as questionable.
If she’d wanted to be clever, she could have said, “I’m not saying the Senate is like, say, a plantation. Not at all. I mean, yes, Democrats are being given no more respect by Republicans than the Bossman gave his workers, and we have about as much input into the way things are being done. And it can be certainly stated that the Senate is giving little to no attention to the needs of its black constituents. But it’s definitely NOT like a plantation…yet.” That makes it slightly harded for critics to come back and say, “So you’re saying the Senate is like a plantation?!” to which she replies, “Uh, no, I said it isn’t like one. Are you reading impaired?”
Now the Mayor of New Orleans, on the other hand…what the hëll is up with THAT guy? I mean, geez, if the mayor of a mostly white city that had been wiped out by a tornado said it was punishment from God because they’d let blacks in, and this was a message that it should be exclusively a white city, the guy would be hung out to dry. So what’s this “New Orleans needs to be chocolate again.” Okay, yeah, he’s been under some stress, but holy crap. I have to think there’s plenty of black constituents who have–if nothing else–made plenty of money off white tourists who are saying, “Shut the hëll up!”
PAD
• 
It must be nice to have such an enormous opinion of yourself.
I didn’t make any overstatement. It’s just that war and foreign policy are the two issues that I am aware of your opinion on. If there are numerous domestic policy issues with which you disagree with Chimpy McFlightsuit, you haven’t listed them in this forum, so excuse me for not knowing them.
I should also say that I’m not in the habit of combing the archives of PAD’s site to find out of context quotes so that I can play, “gotcha” with people in order to feed my need to feel superior to other people, so if I missed your lengthy essays decrying Bush’s plan to privatize social security or the No Child Left Behind plan, well then, excuse me.
I guess if you aren’t blindly rabid you’re automatically a supporter.
Well, when it comes to Bush, there apparently is no middle ground. 🙂
Bush tore up the middle ground years ago with his “you’re either with us or with the terrorists” rhetoric. So you’re either a “Bush tush” as PAD called them or you’re a terrorist hating pinko traitor who “wants America to fail.”
Here we go, quote of the day:
“Obviously, when you’re looking at the issue of congressional reform, the first person you turn to in the United States Senate is X, and we’ve done so,” said Sen. Rick Santorum , R-Pa.
I’ll leave you guys to guess who X is (or you can find the quote yourself). It’ll make you laugh to see how much of an about-face the Republicans are taking in the wake of Abramoff’s guilty plea.
Found the quote. What a surprise: It’s John McCain.
He’ll of course go along because he sincerely wants to reform how things are done in Washington. Plus, it’s perfect timing for him to show what he can accomplish as he seeks to boost his presidential ambitions.
Of course, once the window dressing reforms are passed, they’ll go back to ignoring him and denigrating him as a “RINO.”
It must be nice to have such an enormous opinion of yourself.
It’s not that i have such a high opinion of myself it’s that I have such a low one of your argument. Though I can understand how you might confuse the two.
If there are numerous domestic policy issues with which you disagree with Chimpy McFlightsuit, you haven’t listed them in this forum, so excuse me for not knowing them.
You really have no idea what you’re talking about, do you?
…if I missed your lengthy essays decrying Bush’s plan to privatize social security or the No Child Left Behind plan, well then, excuse me.
But at least you admit you don’t know what you’re talking about. Which is something.
I wouldn’t know about your opinion of any of my arguments, since you spend most of your time attacking me personally instead of my arguments.
You really have no idea what you’re talking about, do you?
Well then, why don’t you share your natural superiority and enlighten me?
I’m still waiting for all of those points where you disagree with our beloved emperor.
You’re still waiting? Gee, and I don’t even remember you asking…
And I thought it WAS your arguments I was disagreeing with. Not the same as you and not the same as “attacking” but apparently you see them as one and the same.
Now, as to my disagreements with Bush:
gay marriage, No Child Left Behind, the Medicaid Drug fiasco, the decision to dismantle the Iraqi army, the overrealiance on the WMD argument to justify the war, the fiscally insane overspending, the decision to let Europe handle the Iranian threat, the approval of Intelligent Design teaching, the Meirs nomination, signing a campaign finance bill that he himself thought was unconstitutional, stem cell research…
Just to name a few.
Doubtless this is insufficiant to anyone who seriously thinks we are about to enter a dark age of jackboot trampling oppression but there you are. Bush’s biggest advantage has always been the silliness of his opposition. Like Bill Clinton he seems to have the gift of making his enemies so froth mouthed mad that they bite themselves more often than not.
Doubtless this is insufficiant to anyone who seriously thinks we are about to enter a dark age of jackboot trampling oppression but there you are. Bush’s biggest advantage has always been the silliness of his opposition. Like Bill Clinton he seems to have the gift of making his enemies so froth mouthed mad that they bite themselves more often than not.
And you don’t see this as a personal attack? Also, the “lurching towards reality” comment was another one.
Well, at least you did finally list those disagreements. I guess that’s something. But just about every comment you make towards me contains at least one personal swipe. Before that pìššëd me off, but now I realize that’s just your way of compensating for some sort inadequacy in your personal life, so now I just laugh it all off.
I freely admit that I sometimes engage in a little hyperbole just for effect, but obviously, most of the sarcasm just sails straight over your head as you try to prove to yourself that you’re smarter than me.
Anyway, if you ever want to actually discuss the issues, I’m always here.
Well, at least you did finally list those disagreements
Yeah, “finally”. It still cracks me up that you never actually asked for them but you can say that with a straight face.
I freely admit that I sometimes engage in a little hyperbole just for effect, but obviously, most of the sarcasm just sails straight over your head as you try to prove to yourself that you’re smarter than me.
I think this is a case of pots and kettles but maybe we are just too much alike to get along consistantly.
Anyway, if you ever want to actually discuss the issues, I’m always here.
Ditto, though I would point out that it was my trying to actually discuss why we never seem to get the #3 or #4 Al Qeada guy that brought on the latest shoutfest.
Yeah, “finally”. It still cracks me up that you never actually asked for them but you can say that with a straight face.
I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that you needed an official request filed in triplicate. I just assumed that my stating I didn’t know of any points of disagreement between you and Ðûmbášš was enough of an invitation for you to give some examples. My bad. For future reference, is that form 720-AX or 720-AZ?
I think this is a case of pots and kettles but maybe we are just too much alike to get along consistantly.
Maybe you’re right there, but I generally don’t approach political discussions with the assumption that the person on the other side is stupid or unbalanced, which your posts often imply that you do. I don’t have the same need to tell people they should “lurch towards reality.” I save my insults for the politicians, because they’re the ones that deserve it.
Ditto, though I would point out that it was my trying to actually discuss why we never seem to get the #3 or #4 Al Qeada guy that brought on the latest shoutfest.
Please. This was barely a tiff.
True, that.
Here’s an amusing link as an olive branch:
http://70.102.129.65/core/vid/VillageVoice.wmv
Ok.
For the sake of peace, lets all start our posts with something we can all agree on.
I’ll start.
Oxygen is good.
Anyway, about the issue of Osama offering a truce…methinks that we have discussed just such an issue before. Way back when the IRA called for a truce, PAD posted a blog asking what America would do if Bin Laden did the same thing.
I guess we now have the answer.
Admittedly, I don’t really think we can fault the administration for turning him down out of hand.
Water is pretty ok too.
Hey am I misremembering or didn’t Osama once offer something tot he effect that any state that voted against Bush would be off limits in future attacks?
Toast is fun!
Personally, I think if Osama has any brains he would want to keep Bush in power. I mean, Bush doesn’t consider him a threat….hes looking in the wrong place….he can only kill those # 2 men (and oh how many there are.) Heck, at least Clinton came CLOSE to getting him.
Terrorist organizations don’t really have 1# 2# 3#’s and 4#’s. They are much less hierarchic than armies, which makes thtam more difficult to defeat. What they have is 1, than many loosly affiliated 2’s and 3’s, and then a lot of 4’s etc.
There are many reasons for Bin Laden’s proposal, here in Israel we have them all the time (proposals, not ceasefires). Here are some reasons:
1) It makes it seems as if has actual control of terrorist attacks around the world. Actually he controls only some of them. If terrorism continues after withdrawl, it will be some other organization, whose cause is completely understandable (he wil say to his audience) considering the US’s other actions around the world.
2) It creates a sense of equality and balance between him and the U.S. If the U.S. were to withdraw, than everytime they did something he did not like, he would claim that it broke the truce, and this would justify his attacks. If the US does not withdraw, this gives justification to his attacks, which is more tangible than his original objectives in 9/11.
3) He thinks that by making that proposal he will weaken the US by strengthening the opposition to the war. (I’m not saying I support the war, but this is how I think he thinks).
4) He wants to show that his war has realistic objectives. This is good because it means that he thinks that his public is buying his more farfetched objectives, and/or questioning the idea of an endless war.
5) Although Bush draws recruits to his cause, defeating Bush on the international political level will be a greater success.
6) The propsal makes him seem as a stateman as well as a warrior, but since he is offering a temporary truce, it does not seem as if he has given up his cause.
In any case, although in the future some offers coming from al-quaida should be considered seriously, this is probably not one of them. The Al-Quida situation is a little more difficult than the IRA’s because the IRA was located in a specific country with a specific political wing. It is more difficult to treat Al-Quida as a political faction than, say, the Baathist in Iraq.
I like eggs.
….hes looking in the wrong place
You know something I don’t? hey, there’s a 50 million dollar reward, you tell me where he is and we split it 50/50.
(And those who seem to imply that it is only a lack of desire that keeps us from finding him–don’t you think there are beaucoup mercenaries combing the sand for the chance to collect the biggest dead or alive paycheck in history? Nothing would make me happier than to have some greasy tattooed Rupert from survivor type pop up on TV holding Osama by his scrawney neck, bellowing “Wha’s mah 50 MILLION???” Wouldn’t that be great?)
(Except for those who are one of the truly demented 41% (at last count) who voted on dailykos that they despise Bush more than Bin Laden: http://www.dailykos.com/poll/1137742415_nANToluZ)
I like America.
You make excellent points Micha.
Actually, on a different topic…you are a lot closer to this issue than I am, and I would be really interested to hear your what you think will happen now that Sharon has been incapacitated.
AS for your most recent post…..I am not sure that Osama is trying to appear like a statesman. Certainly he remains incredibly popular in the Muslim world, not to mention the recruits that the War is driving to him or other similar groups. Personally, I would have expected him to come out fighting, and only when he was more on the ropes to go for diplomacy. Possibly he is getting worrried. Of course, you may be right, and he is trying to improve his image in the west.
Although he probably should have thought of that BEFORE 9/11. Or as Jon Stewart says:
Osama said he offered the truce because polls show the majority of Americans are against the war. Uhhh…thats the war in Iraq. Everybody here is still pretty much in favor of bombing the f*** out of YOU.
Bill, do you really think that we are gonna see Rupert with Osama? Because I think the guy has pretty good security. I mean, he has suicide bombers working for him. Kinda hard to fight that.
As for that 41%, hëll, there might be some few idiots who feel that way, but most of them are probably like 8th graders filling out one of those drug surveys so popular in school. You always say that you mainline heroin 5 times a week, even if you think “mainline” is what they call the part of Route 1 that runs through New England.
“Well, at least you did finally list those disagreements.”
You know…I recall Bill making plenty of critical comments regarding the current administration in the time I have been visiting the board. So “finally” seems rather unfair.
“I guess that’s something. But just about every comment you make towards me contains at least one personal swipe”
Um, actually, it seems like he makes a lot of general statements that you take as personal affronts. And plenty of times are related to comments that are clearly NOT aimed at you personally.
I enjoy the general discourse you both bring to the board, but seriously, you take offense to things that are clearly not personal slams from Bill. I am not saying he has not taken ANY swipes, but often, it seems those come after you take offense to items that were clearly not aimed at you personally.
Asian girls are rad.
Oh, I have no doubt that Osama has security up the wazoo. Anyone who tries to catch him will earn every penny of the 50 million (and have to spend a good chunk of it to go into hiding under a new name). And if he does get nailed it will probably be by a missle. But I’d love to see someone collect the bounty.
Thom, thanks for the kind words. In Den’s defense, I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve let my temper get the better of me and said some unkind words. It’s usually when I feel like I’ve been on the receiving end of them myself but that doesn’t entirely excuse them.
I think if we both just sort of stand back and cool ore jets for a bit it’ll be ok. Den does bring some good stuff to the board.
I agree. I would be disappointed to see either of you leave. I’ve been given plenty of good fodder for thought from both of you guys.
I regret my post a bit, because I don’t want to come off as being to hard on Den…I have no interest in fighting anyone on the board. I think Peter has assembled quite a collection of interesting people on this blog. 🙂
Yeah, this is a very interesting group…I like to hope that someday a bunch of us could meet at some con or something, go out for dinner and cheap høøkërš or whatever the kids want to do. We need to have a secret signal so we will know each other–maybe the Loyal Order of Woodchucks Hi Sign (what do you mean you don’t know the Loyal Order of Woodchucks Hi Sign? You wiggle your hand under your chin. My God, did NONE of you watch The Little Rascals???)
I don’t know, I think “Peter David dot Net Reader” T-Shirts would work. Of course, with “Peter David” in huge, eye-wrenching, comic style letters. 😛
Oh, you said a SECRET signal…
-Rex Hondo-
That’s easy: Everyone could wear a “PAD” button.
Oh sure and get hassled by members of Phi Alpha Delta or sympathies from fellow sufferers of peripheral artery disease.
Maybe we could use some kind of code. Walk up to random people and say “The sheep run North when the crow flies highest.” and if they don’t call for security we know we’ve found the right person.
Hey am I misremembering or didn’t Osama once offer something tot he effect that any state that voted against Bush would be off limits in future attacks?
I remember something vaguely about this. If memory serves me though, it was just a false internet meme that got spread around.
(Except for those who are one of the truly demented 41% (at last count) who voted on dailykos that they despise Bush more than Bin Laden: “>http://www.dailykos.com/poll/1137742415_nANToluZ)
I haven’t looked at the wording of the poll, but tweak the wording slightly and I’d be in that 41%. if the question was “fears Bush more than Bin Laden”, then count me in. Bin Laden’s a boogeyman; Bush is making policy decisions every day which are having a more direct impact on me. I don’t think that’s hyperbole, and I would certainly object to any characterization of myself as “truly demented.” (Well … in THIS context, anyway.)
TWL
But if Bin Laden is just a bogeyman doesn’t that mean you actually agree with Bush when he downplays his importance? Much of the criticism here has been that Bush is deliberately trying to minimize how critical it is to catch Bin Laden. I realize that you haven’t been one of those saying so but it’s another case of Bush Can’t Win–if he focuses on Bin Laden he’s creating bogeymen to keep us in fear; if he doesn’t then he’s excusing his own incompetence in allowing a dangerous killer to walk free.
I think you’re rewording of the poll is a major tweaking. While I would disagree with your position it’s a very defensible one.
Maybe we could use some kind of code. Walk up to random people and say “The sheep run North when the crow flies highest.” and if they don’t call for security we know we’ve found the right person.
I see no real problem with finding each other.
We will be the most rabid fans at PAD’s book signing table.
The real problem comes later, when this group is all together. I mean, seriously, can you imagine ANY of the people on this blog getting along for any length of time? I mean, you can say: “I like cheese” on here, and instantly get attacked by two or three people who are ovalactovegans. Not to mention the sometimes slightly-left-of-Lenin liberals (you know who you are Craig 🙂 )
I have a feeling that any such meeting would be soon broken up by a combination of local riot squads, rabid John Byrne fans, and the Department Of homeland Security.
James Carter –
(While I’m a little more optimistic than you about such a situation) – heh heh heh!
James,
About Sharon:
Polls seem to suggest that his party will win the elections even without him. But since Sharon has placed himself and his party in the center of Israeli politics after shifting from the right, I have no idea if he was planning on moving further left and pursuing peace negotiations, continuing with the centrist approach of partial unilateral withdrawls, or back to the right’s no withdrawl policy. It is also unknown if his successors will have the power he had to achieve things. His popularity was based on his can do image.
About Bin Laden:
I am no expert. I’m try to guess how he thinks by extrapolating from the experience with our local brand of terrorists.
Although Bin Laden is popular in the Muslim world for his attacks against the US, this does not mean that all of them are as committed as he is to the more far fetched objetive of rebuilding a Muslim Empire. So, to keep his popularity it might be necessary to present more tangible goals. It is also possible that his popularity has decreased. I’m not sure how well he is doing. In any case, he doesn’t have the Muslim world in his pocket.
I didn’t say that he is pursuing diplomacy per se. He is interested in appearing to be paying on the diplomatic field.
I also didn’t say that he was trying to improve his image in the west. Although, I suspect he would like the people in the west to think of him as a freedom fighter, or something like that. Terrorists usually do.
Bin Laden probably perceives the disagreements in the US about Iraq, as a sign of weakness and a proof of the success of the use of terrorism. (He thinks, not I). So its less about his popularity in the west as about the west giving in to some of his demands because of its (perceived) weakness.
Osama Bin Laden is not a boogyman, but he is not that important either. You really shoudn’t personalize this conflict. Getting him would be nice, but it will not be the end of the story.
How did a thread about Hilary Clinton turn into a discussion about Bin Laden?
How did a thread about Hilary Clinton turn into a discussion about Bin Laden?
Micha, by now you should know that these threads can take directions that can only be predicted with a working knowledge of chaos theory.
Actually, I think we’d get along GREAT. Seriously. First off, it would be a sorry convention indeed that left us with so little conversation fodder that we had to dredge up politics. Plus, it’s easier to smooth over differences in a conversation than it is in writing, where jokes may look like serious criticism and visa versa.
Also, anyone who misbehaves will have to face the endless torment of all the other members writing about his or her malfeasance.
I, for one, will be as gentle as a churchmouse.
But if Bin Laden is just a bogeyman doesn’t that mean you actually agree with Bush when he downplays his importance?
I wasn’t planning to get into that particular semantic question. You made a statement that needed addressing, I addressed it. I haven’t really got time to wade into the rest of this at the moment.
I think you’re rewording of the poll is a major tweaking.
As I said, I hadn’t looked at the actual poll itself, so I didn’t know how big or small a tweak it was going to be. Having since looked at it — yes, I think it’s a significantly different set of wording, but I also think “despise” is such a loaded and vague term that it’s hard to work with properly. (In other words — bad poll. Bad, bad poll.)
TWL
No argument there. Not that I go to Kos for good polls or much else, other than the same sort of thrill some probably get from a pørņ site. Seriously. And now that Kerry, the real Kerry, is posting there I’ll have to go more often, if only to see how he does at a place where the moderator once opined that, quote, “But what makes me angry was Kerry and his gang’s inability to take advantage of the situation. I may regret saying this later, but fûçk it — they should be lined up and shot. There’s no reason they should’ve lost to this joker. “I voted for the $87 billion, then I voted against it.” That wasn’t nuance. That was idiocy.”
Tough, tough crowd. But that’s where the money is and Kerry intends to run again, no doubt about it. Hëll, gotta give him some credit for sticking his head into the lion’s den.
I wasn’t planning to get into that particular semantic question. You made a statement that needed addressing, I addressed it.
Tim.
Tim, Tim, Tim, Tim, Tim.
How COULD you? You don’t want to go into semantics? Why, thats a violation of our most basic principles, the most basic code of the Peter-David-blog-posting-people! Semantics are responsible for 50% of the posts on the politcal threads, and 95% of those on the TV, Movie, and comic threads! Without semantics, we are nothing. Well, not NOTHING. Say rather, we are not what we are without semantics with semantics.
But that’s where the money is and Kerry intends to run again, no doubt about it.
Should Kerry run again? I would say no. He just isn’t presidential material. too dry, to smart sounding, and just not….president-y.
What we really need in a canidate is more of a popular canidate. NOT Hillary, she has too much fallout from Clinton Homme Perhaps someone like Barak Obama, or a so-called “new democrat.”
In my own personal preference, I say we let Jimmy Carter run again. I mean, the mans MAIN fault was that he micro-managed. Other than that, he is a briliant, and GOOD man. Compared to a man who couldn’t give a crap unless you are rich, and is dumber than a drunk sack of hammers (hammered hammers?) and has the ethics of Khan (Genghis or Noonien Singh, whichever) that looks really good.
Plus he is a one time canidate, meaning that he doesn’t have to worry about election, and can get stuff DONE! How much do I want him to run? I have taken to wearing “Carter for President” buttons around. The wired loks alone make it worth it.
DANG IT!!
That SHOULD be “wierd looks” not “wired loks” and “Brilliant” not “Brilant”
Curse my lack of noticing till it is too late.
Only the weeniest of weenies bìŧçhëš about spelling. But you can nip all hurtful words in the bud by using Firefox, which can have a spell check tacked right on to it. You can tell when I’m using it by the presence or lack of bonehead mistakes.
SHOULD Kerry run? Hëll no! If he couldn’t win in 2004 he has ZERO chance in 2008. His “I’m not Bush” platform will not resonate all that much considering that his opponent will not be Bush.
There are some safer choices than Hillary out there but she can raise more money in a weekend than they will ever hope to raise. And Bill can double that number. Money isn’t everything but she also has name recognition and a solid core of Black and feminist voters–not a bad thing to have when running in the Democratic primaries.
The only thing that will stop her is the fear that she is unelectable–and that’s what made the Democrats shoot down Dean and put up Kerry, to their eternal regret.
(I haven’t forgotten Wesley Clark but unless he has seriously changed his style, it won’t happen. He would make a hëll of a VP candidate for Hillary though, shield her against the erroneous idea that she would be soft on defense).
Not to mention the sometimes slightly-left-of-Lenin liberals (you know who you are Craig 🙂 )
*shrug* Like Bill said, I’d think we’d get along fine.
Sometimes, some of us push a little too hard with our views, but I don’t think any of us are too far to the left or right to be considered off our rockers.
And for the great majority of the time, the conversations here are enjoyable and intelligent.
On another forum I visit (which is there mostly for sports, but has an Off Topic forum), it’s much more rabid on both sides.
There are a couple of self-proclaimed liberals who are literally saying “Bush sucks” with every post they make, while you’ve got self-proclaimed conservatives who agree with spying on Americans, and the torture & killing innocent civilians in the Middle East.
In the end, most of them have views on issues that fall in both camps; only one guy claimed to be a complete right-wing nutjob (he calls all liberals ‘commie pinkos’ and says Pakistan is a terrorist state).
I’m sorry I missed this one. SNL has gotten a bit funnier lately.
SNL TOOK UP GAFFES [Tim Graham]
The first skit on Saturday Night Live last night was a fake “Anderson Cooper 360” satirizing Ray Nagin (by Finesse Mitchell), Jesse Jackson (by Darrell Hammond) , and Hillary Clinton (by Amy Poehler). Cooper was played by a guy who seems a lot like Ben Stiller. It was not politically correct. “Jackson” was saying we need more flavors on the national “dessert cart,” not just chocolate or vanilla, but some “caramel” to represent Latinos and “custard” to represent the Asians. “And the dessert cart….rolls on,” he sermonized.
Color me biased, but the funniest part was the Hillary “plantation” discussion. “I was pandering,” the ersatz senator explained. She would have used other evil metaphors for other constituencies. To a Latino audience, she claimed, she would have said Congress operated “like a landscaping business.” For gays, Congress was like “a figure skating coach.” For whites, Congress is a “mismanaged hedge fund.”
In the end, most of them have views on issues that fall in both camps; only one guy claimed to be a complete right-wing nutjob (he calls all liberals ‘commie pinkos’ and says Pakistan is a terrorist state).
Well, I happen to believe that selling nuclear secrets to North Korea and Iran does make Pakistan a terrorist state, so call me a right-wing nutjob. 🙂
On another front, I think the 2008 election is going to be a tough one because both parties have a real dearth of quality candidates on the national scene.
On the Democratic side, Hillary is too polarizing. Kerry is, well, Kerry. So is Gore. Obama is one that everyone seems to love, but he’s probably still too young for 2008 and he said he’s not running anyway. Wesley Clark needs better media consultants (Hint: gag Michael Moore before he endorses you again!). Leiberman is now more popular in the Bush camp then McCain, which is killing his chances in his own party. Dean has effectively killed his chances by being the party firebrand.
On the GOP side, McCain is the one everyone touts, but he has the same weaknesses he did in 2000: temper and a maverick reputation that makes party insiders nervous. The other one people push is Rice, but she’s already said she’s not going to run, plus, I think when push comes to shoeve, being black and a woman is still too much of a liability for a candidate in some parts of the country. Frist and DeLay have ethical issues. Santorum is, to be blunt, a dìçk. Some people want to draft Jeb Bush, but even republicans are starting to get sick of the name Bush.
Who else?
Well, I happen to believe that selling nuclear secrets to North Korea and Iran does make Pakistan a terrorist state, so call me a right-wing nutjob. 🙂
The point being that Pakistan is supposed to be one of our great allies in the war against terror.
Yet, some conservatives would just as soon bomb the crap out of Pakistan as well.
Which isn’t a sentiment I really disagree with, but it’s just another Bush Administration irony that we’re allying ourselves with terrorists.
The key word, Craig, is “supposed”. They are “suppposed” to be our great ally in fighting terrorism, but their actions indicate otherwise.
If I were going to bet on a ticket, for the Democrats it would be Evan Bayh and Mark Warner, and for the Republicans, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani.
If H. Clinton, Kerry, Gore or Dean are in the mix, I predict the Democrats will be crushed. Clark, surprisingly (to me, at least), has a weak public presence, and would drag down a Democratic ticket. Obama is way to young and inexperienced for 2008, and he knows it (which is why he bowed out).
Powell limped out of the political spotlight, and I don’t think he can recover. Rice might have been a good VP candidate in 2008, but she has too much pre-war baggage to get her over the hump, and, like Obama, I think she knows it. And I agree Jeb Bush would be a ticket liability.
The key word, Craig, is “supposed”. They are “suppposed” to be our great ally in fighting terrorism, but their actions indicate otherwise.
Yeah, well, our government is “supposed” to be fighting terrorism too, but we all see how that’s gone *cough*Iraq*cough*.
So, I’m not going to hold it against the Pakistanis. 🙂
The US (and Europe also) had and still has relationships and alliances with countries who were non democratic, oppressive, and tolerated or supported terrorism.
Packistan is just one such country.
Romney is an interesting case. Being Mormon is a liability among two diverse groups–those who think Christians are too conservative and conservative Christians.
A sizable percentage of conservative Christians see Mormons as members of a cult. I don’t know if Romney can break through that wall.
Potentially then, a Romney/Gulliani ticket would be one hëll of a gamble–Romney scaring moderates and fundamentalists and Gulliani annoying the arch conservatives. personally, I could easily get behind a ticket like that but I don’t know how the primary voters will react.
McCain seems to drive some republicans into a tizzy–they give the same kind of crazy “I’d rather vote for Hillary and the reanimated corpse of Lenin than vote for McCain!” response that I usually have to go to Dailykos to find. Don’t understand it much myself but it’s there. Still, every decent poll I’ve seen has him leading the pack, such as it is.
Packistan is just one such country.
That doesn’t mean we have to like it.
And besides, I think that Pakistan’s actions in recent years have been so counter to our interests in the region, that some may question whether we are actually getting enough of a benefit out of this to justify this alliance. I put them up there with Saudi Arabia and France in the “with friends like these” category.