I admit that part of me wanted a Democrat to win in 2008 – especially if it was Hillary Clinton – because that would force that party to “own” the War on Terror and, I thought, victory over Islamofascism is so crucial we need as much of our society participating in this battle as possible.
Well, I was wrong about Hillary and, I suppose, I’m glad I found out now.
By voting against the military appropriations bill for Iraq today, Hillary, even more than the other Democratic presidential aspirants who voted against it, showed herself to be venal and cowardly. Why more? Because she more than any of them, I strongly suspect, was motivated entirely by political pandering. Obama etc. on some level believe (absurd as it is) the pseudo-pacifist drivel promulgated by the neo-isolationist left. I doubt Hillary does for one minute. She was governed by fear in her vote and acting out of a slavish need to be elected. In these times, someone like that has no business in the Oval Office.
It seems to me that both parties are more and more at the mercy of their extremes.
The senator is betting the surge report from Petraeus will be negative and she will use it as cover. It’s an entirely political calculation. Our efforts in blood, treasure and tears there be dammed.
Her surge in the upcoming primaries is her supreme premiership.
I’m not surprised by the vote. Let’s not forget who is helping her with her homework.
… a Democrat to win in 2008 … because that would force that party to “own” the War on Terror
No more than the Democrats gaining control of Congress.
And the anti-war faction are largely in denial, they’re never going to come around because they’re psychologically unable to handle the reality of the threat. Hence the conspiracy theories, and BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) which is just an instance of the ferocious hatred they have of anyone who contradicts their fantasy. Sen. Joe Libermen is a target too, and the same will go for anyone who takes the war seriously.
Your old party is seriously ill, Roger. Either the sane take it back, or form a new party which, while it won’t have much chance of controlling Congress, could have a shot at the Presidency.
We’ll have to suffer through a multi-party political environment until we once again have two sane major parties, there’s now way around it. And the sooner we start, the sooner we’ll get through it.
If I had to chose a president from the current crop of Democratic front-runners, it would probably be Hillary. Surely it doesn’t surprise anyone that the Clintons are engaging in political triangulation? That they put politics over principle?
Roger, get a grip. Don’t make me lose faith in you. Since when has Hillary–or Bill for that matter– not been venal? Venal is her middle name. She’s never been motivated by anything but a desire for power. And her husband is even worse. You must be allowing yourself to be confused because she looks like a woman. Inside, she’s a well-oiled machine.
Don’t kid yourself: all the Democratic presidential candidates are scoundrels.
Have another cup of coffee.
You want the party that brought us Khomeni and who brought us the new dynamic of terror as not being state funded to gain power? When Democrats are in power they don’t gain appreciation for the situation they deny it acting as if whatever they believe is the truth. The main philosophy of the left is seen through and through the Democratic party…reality is whatever I believe reality to be.
That has ramifications when you are dealing with an existential threat. Perhaps your only bit of cover there Roger is that Republicans are slowly becoming no better.
Hillary and Bill – the Clintonistas – interested in acquiring power? Say it isn’t so!
Hillary would sell her mother to get power.
Everything else is in second place, including you, me and the USA. That alone is reason enough to hope she is not elected President and why she will never get my vote (and there are many other reasons).
That is not to say I am anything but largely underwhelmed by the Republicans.
I’d run, but few would vote for my small government (a sort of ruthless reduction approach to the size of government), strong military, lower taxes, balanced budget, personal responsibility, rule of law (including loser pays legal fees tort reform), major decline in redistributionist programs and so on platform. Too many want to be “entitled”.
Just think of what a flat tax would do. Many of my favorite people – lawyers, accountants and most of the staff of the IRS – could then figure out how to productively contribute to the economy.
My bet is that a dozen of us could find $100 billion or more of useless spending in a two week review of the budget.
Enough dreaming of a government that……….
I shuddered at this comment…
would force that party to “own” the War on Terror
…remembering the last time the Democrats “owned” the war on terror. I seem to remember that chapter concluding Sandy Berger destroying a set of mysterious, classified documents.
I shuddered at this comment…
would force that party to “own” the War on Terror
…remembering the last time the Democrats “owned” the war on terror. I seem to remember that chapter concluding with Sandy Berger’s destruction of a set of mysterious, classified documents.