Not To Put The Cart Before The Horse, But ...
... it seems as though we have three nearly (not yet said "I'm not running in 2008) announced 2008 Democrat candidates for president. (HT: Hugh Hewitt)
Senator Hillary Clinton is the first on our list. Not only is it virtually a foregone conclusion that the former First Lady that she has her eye on the Oval Office. She's been facing a lot of heat on both sides. Obviously we on the starboard side of the ideological spectrum, and don't want to see her in that position, but many on the protside aren't happy with her, either. Even DailyKos can't stand her. But she gave a speech to the National Press Club regarding energy issues. With the consumer paying a higher price at the pump, energy issues will be a factor in the 2008 election, and she's jumping on the issue now.
Next up is Al Gore in New York Magazine. (Lord have mercy; this piece is NINE PAGES LONG. And it's a twisting tale with things such as this:
And yet tonight all of that seems a very long time ago. When the movie ends, the assembled panjandrums—from Democratic senators Harry Reid and Christopher Dodd to Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, and Queen Noor—emit a warm ovation; at the cocktail party afterward, they slap his back, congratulate him on his recent cameo on Saturday Night Live, sing hosannas to the New Gore. Suddenly, the former vice-president no longer seems an entirely tragic figure but a faintly heroic one. Suddenly, many Democrats are wondering if he will run again in 2008—and reaching the improbable, nay astonishing, conclusion that it might be a good idea.
And this:
But the Gore boomlet is also being driven by another force: the creeping sense of foreboding about the prospect of Hillary Clinton’s march to her party’s nomination. “Every conversation in Democratic politics right now has the same three sentences,” observes a senior party player. “One: ‘She is the presumptive front-runner.’ Two: ‘I don’t much like her, but I don’t want to cross her, for God’s sake!’ And three: ‘If she’s our nominee, we’re going to get killed.’ It’s like some Japanese epic film where everyone sees the disaster coming in the third reel but no one can figure out what to do about it.”
Well, at least the Left can see this coming. But again, like the aforementioned Japanese epic film, can they figure out what to do? I'm skeptical, to say the least, and I seriously don't think Gore is the answer. A final example:
Does he, like many Democrats, think the election was stolen?
Gore pauses a long time and stares into the middle distance. “There may come a time when I speak on that,” Gore says, “but it’s not now; I need more time to frame it carefully if I do.” Gore sighs. “In our system, there’s no intermediate step between a definitive Supreme Court decision and violent revolution.”
Later, I put the question of Gore’s views on the matter to David Boies, his lawyer in the Florida-recount battle. “He thought the court’s ruling was wrong and obviously political,” Boies says. So he considers the election stolen? “I think he does—and he’s right.”
OK, let's face it, Gore lives on "Fantasy Island," or he might room with "Howling Mad" Howie on Venus. I'm not going to go into the bloody case all over again. He was wrong then. He's still wrong now. And the law supports the president, not him. It never has. Get over it, already.
But our third candidate is perhaps the most hilarious one. Yes, everyone's favorite "French-American" is back in John Kerry. The Boston Globe has the piece called "John Kerry's Encore." I'm going to cite the part of this piece that matters most in 2008:
The man who cast a vote he now acknowledges was a mistake on the Iraq war resolution, and then spent two years awkwardly confronting the fallout as he ran for president, has finally come to a position where he seems comfortable.
Kerry's call for a near-withdrawal of US troops from Iraq by year's end has made headlines. Less noticed is that his new stand puts Kerry back where he first made his name during the Vietnam War: as a voice of the anti-war left.
Whereas Kerry's 2002 vote made him the object of suspicion among anti-war Democrats, who flocked to Howard Dean until that candidacy collapsed, Kerry's new stance places him to the left of the Democratic Party's other major putative presidential candidates. Certainly he has flanked New York Senator Hillary Clinton, widely considered the Democratic front-runner in 2008.
Kerry's proposal calls for a Dayton Accords-like conference, to include the various Iraqi factions, the League of Arab States, Iran, Syria, and the rest of Iraq's neighbors (among others), to try to forge a consensus on Iraq's future; a redeployment of US troops to support roles; and then a withdrawal of US combat troops by year's end.
The senator, who used the weekend announcement of Iraq's new government to highlight his plan again yesterday, says he's trying to offer the country an alternative -- one he will soon present as a Senate amendment to the defense budget.
OK. First off, this will never work. Syria and Iran in a Dayton Accords-like conference? He might think he's back among the 'Nam-era antiwar groups (dude, pass the pipe), but this is not his old protest buddies. They're even nuttier now than ever. And I'm glad to see that he is still simply wasting time in the Senate. He admits in the follwing paragraph that he knows his amendment will fail, but he hopes it raises the idea to the public's level.
Has he been living in a bubble? John Murtha's been shouting that mantra for over three months now. (I guess we skipped him on the last go 'round for a reason; pass me the pipe, man.) All kidding aside, John Kerry's a day late and a dollar short, and that's if he doesn't flip-flop from this "test" platform.
BUT, let's say this nation is nutty enough to put him in power. Let's say he manages to pulls all those Middle Eastern nations together for an accord. I'm sure we can all picture the Cox & Forkum Cartoon if this summit were to happen. The other nations would be licking their chops, simply waiting for the final day that US troops are in Iraq, and waiting to dine on the innocents left behind for dessert; that's after dispensing with the Iraqi military.
And no offense to those on the port side of the spectrum, if this is the best you have, then you're going to get killed in 2008 regardless of the quacks in a row you put up.
Publius II
... it seems as though we have three nearly (not yet said "I'm not running in 2008) announced 2008 Democrat candidates for president. (HT: Hugh Hewitt)
Senator Hillary Clinton is the first on our list. Not only is it virtually a foregone conclusion that the former First Lady that she has her eye on the Oval Office. She's been facing a lot of heat on both sides. Obviously we on the starboard side of the ideological spectrum, and don't want to see her in that position, but many on the protside aren't happy with her, either. Even DailyKos can't stand her. But she gave a speech to the National Press Club regarding energy issues. With the consumer paying a higher price at the pump, energy issues will be a factor in the 2008 election, and she's jumping on the issue now.
Next up is Al Gore in New York Magazine. (Lord have mercy; this piece is NINE PAGES LONG. And it's a twisting tale with things such as this:
And yet tonight all of that seems a very long time ago. When the movie ends, the assembled panjandrums—from Democratic senators Harry Reid and Christopher Dodd to Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, and Queen Noor—emit a warm ovation; at the cocktail party afterward, they slap his back, congratulate him on his recent cameo on Saturday Night Live, sing hosannas to the New Gore. Suddenly, the former vice-president no longer seems an entirely tragic figure but a faintly heroic one. Suddenly, many Democrats are wondering if he will run again in 2008—and reaching the improbable, nay astonishing, conclusion that it might be a good idea.
And this:
But the Gore boomlet is also being driven by another force: the creeping sense of foreboding about the prospect of Hillary Clinton’s march to her party’s nomination. “Every conversation in Democratic politics right now has the same three sentences,” observes a senior party player. “One: ‘She is the presumptive front-runner.’ Two: ‘I don’t much like her, but I don’t want to cross her, for God’s sake!’ And three: ‘If she’s our nominee, we’re going to get killed.’ It’s like some Japanese epic film where everyone sees the disaster coming in the third reel but no one can figure out what to do about it.”
Well, at least the Left can see this coming. But again, like the aforementioned Japanese epic film, can they figure out what to do? I'm skeptical, to say the least, and I seriously don't think Gore is the answer. A final example:
Does he, like many Democrats, think the election was stolen?
Gore pauses a long time and stares into the middle distance. “There may come a time when I speak on that,” Gore says, “but it’s not now; I need more time to frame it carefully if I do.” Gore sighs. “In our system, there’s no intermediate step between a definitive Supreme Court decision and violent revolution.”
Later, I put the question of Gore’s views on the matter to David Boies, his lawyer in the Florida-recount battle. “He thought the court’s ruling was wrong and obviously political,” Boies says. So he considers the election stolen? “I think he does—and he’s right.”
OK, let's face it, Gore lives on "Fantasy Island," or he might room with "Howling Mad" Howie on Venus. I'm not going to go into the bloody case all over again. He was wrong then. He's still wrong now. And the law supports the president, not him. It never has. Get over it, already.
But our third candidate is perhaps the most hilarious one. Yes, everyone's favorite "French-American" is back in John Kerry. The Boston Globe has the piece called "John Kerry's Encore." I'm going to cite the part of this piece that matters most in 2008:
The man who cast a vote he now acknowledges was a mistake on the Iraq war resolution, and then spent two years awkwardly confronting the fallout as he ran for president, has finally come to a position where he seems comfortable.
Kerry's call for a near-withdrawal of US troops from Iraq by year's end has made headlines. Less noticed is that his new stand puts Kerry back where he first made his name during the Vietnam War: as a voice of the anti-war left.
Whereas Kerry's 2002 vote made him the object of suspicion among anti-war Democrats, who flocked to Howard Dean until that candidacy collapsed, Kerry's new stance places him to the left of the Democratic Party's other major putative presidential candidates. Certainly he has flanked New York Senator Hillary Clinton, widely considered the Democratic front-runner in 2008.
Kerry's proposal calls for a Dayton Accords-like conference, to include the various Iraqi factions, the League of Arab States, Iran, Syria, and the rest of Iraq's neighbors (among others), to try to forge a consensus on Iraq's future; a redeployment of US troops to support roles; and then a withdrawal of US combat troops by year's end.
The senator, who used the weekend announcement of Iraq's new government to highlight his plan again yesterday, says he's trying to offer the country an alternative -- one he will soon present as a Senate amendment to the defense budget.
OK. First off, this will never work. Syria and Iran in a Dayton Accords-like conference? He might think he's back among the 'Nam-era antiwar groups (dude, pass the pipe), but this is not his old protest buddies. They're even nuttier now than ever. And I'm glad to see that he is still simply wasting time in the Senate. He admits in the follwing paragraph that he knows his amendment will fail, but he hopes it raises the idea to the public's level.
Has he been living in a bubble? John Murtha's been shouting that mantra for over three months now. (I guess we skipped him on the last go 'round for a reason; pass me the pipe, man.) All kidding aside, John Kerry's a day late and a dollar short, and that's if he doesn't flip-flop from this "test" platform.
BUT, let's say this nation is nutty enough to put him in power. Let's say he manages to pulls all those Middle Eastern nations together for an accord. I'm sure we can all picture the Cox & Forkum Cartoon if this summit were to happen. The other nations would be licking their chops, simply waiting for the final day that US troops are in Iraq, and waiting to dine on the innocents left behind for dessert; that's after dispensing with the Iraqi military.
And no offense to those on the port side of the spectrum, if this is the best you have, then you're going to get killed in 2008 regardless of the quacks in a row you put up.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 8:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home