Friday, December 19, 2003
Divided on the War? Not Really (washingtonpost.com): "You could see the public mood reflected in the statements of Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) a couple of weeks ago. One of the most popular Democrats in the country, and also one of the shrewdest, Clinton dismissed the antiwar argument: 'I think that Saddam Hussein was certainly a potential threat' who 'was seeking weapons of mass destruction, whether or not he actually had them.' Her husband, another popular Democrat, said the same last July. "
Hillary is certainly not going to be caught on the wrong side of the war issue. She and Bill always had the focus groups and the finger to the wind before they did anything. Makes you popular with some people, but not the mark of a real leader.
What was it Bill said the other day: something about not being able to do anything about terrorism because their was no opportunity when he was in office. Hmmmm. Translation: It wouldn't have been popular with his pacifist buddies. Heaven forbid that he should stand on principle and try to lead the country. But we are well rid of him.
I wouldn't worry about Hillary. She might run well in New York among the blase and the jaded. Could she carry a majority of electoral votes. I doubt it.
Hillary is certainly not going to be caught on the wrong side of the war issue. She and Bill always had the focus groups and the finger to the wind before they did anything. Makes you popular with some people, but not the mark of a real leader.
What was it Bill said the other day: something about not being able to do anything about terrorism because their was no opportunity when he was in office. Hmmmm. Translation: It wouldn't have been popular with his pacifist buddies. Heaven forbid that he should stand on principle and try to lead the country. But we are well rid of him.
I wouldn't worry about Hillary. She might run well in New York among the blase and the jaded. Could she carry a majority of electoral votes. I doubt it.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Thursday, December 18, 2003
There is only the quagmire of the democratic policital campaign.
Thomas Sowell: Quagmire seekers: "The capture of Saddam Hussein is good news to virtually everyone, except those who have been looking for a quagmire in Iraq from day one. Back when the war was just getting under way last spring, a dust storm that temporarily stopped the American troops advancing toward Baghdad was loudly proclaimed as a quagmire by some media deep thinkers."
Thomas Sowell: Quagmire seekers: "The capture of Saddam Hussein is good news to virtually everyone, except those who have been looking for a quagmire in Iraq from day one. Back when the war was just getting under way last spring, a dust storm that temporarily stopped the American troops advancing toward Baghdad was loudly proclaimed as a quagmire by some media deep thinkers."
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Albright's joke joins growing list of Bush theories - The Washington Times: Nation/Politics: "Madeleine Albright, the secretary of state in the Clinton administration, in a conversation with Morton Kondracke, executive editor of Roll Call and a Fox News Channel political analyst, suggested that Osama bin Laden has been captured by U.S. forces and will soon be produced to the public.
'Do you suppose,' she asked, 'that the Bush administration has Osama bin Laden hidden away somewhere and will bring him out before the election?' "
I think these people have really lost it. I guess if you don't have ideas and are reconciled to losing, then you must explain your own impotence by conspiracy and goofiness.
Rush is right. In power, they are dangerous. Out of power, they are just funny.
'Do you suppose,' she asked, 'that the Bush administration has Osama bin Laden hidden away somewhere and will bring him out before the election?' "
I think these people have really lost it. I guess if you don't have ideas and are reconciled to losing, then you must explain your own impotence by conspiracy and goofiness.
Rush is right. In power, they are dangerous. Out of power, they are just funny.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
From Newsmax.
"Gore's Liberal TV Network Blocked
In his most humiliating setback since his failed coup attempt
of 2000, Al Gore is seeing his dreams of creating yet another
left-wing media outlet fall like chads from the hands of a
ballot-twisting Florida Democrat recount activist.
Thank Barry Diller, who despite Gore's begging is refusing
to lift his veto over the sale of the News World
International cable network from Vivendi Universal
Entertainment, the New York Post reported this week.
Apparently the Democrats will have to be satisfied with
NPR, PBS, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN ...
More from NewsMax.com
"Gore's Liberal TV Network Blocked
In his most humiliating setback since his failed coup attempt
of 2000, Al Gore is seeing his dreams of creating yet another
left-wing media outlet fall like chads from the hands of a
ballot-twisting Florida Democrat recount activist.
Thank Barry Diller, who despite Gore's begging is refusing
to lift his veto over the sale of the News World
International cable network from Vivendi Universal
Entertainment, the New York Post reported this week.
Apparently the Democrats will have to be satisfied with
NPR, PBS, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN ...
More from NewsMax.com
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Monday, December 15, 2003
Is Slate admitting that Bush actually won in 2000? Isn't this departing from the Democratic conventional wisdom, that Bush stole the election by the justices that his daddy appointed to the Supreme Court?
But on the other hand, it seems that this poor liberal online rag that only survivies because of money infused by liberal moneybags is doing a bit of wishful thinking in the rest of the article, trying to say that the capture of the "Lion of Bagdad" in a rat hole will not help Bush politically?
The slurp you just heard is Dean going down the drain, with the libs with him.
Is Dean Toast? - Saddam's capture doesn't guarantee Bush's re-election. By William Saletan: "'Prosperity can be a tool in our hands used to build and better our country,' Bush argued in his speech to the Republican convention in August 2000. 'For eight years the Clinton-Gore administration has coasted through prosperity. … America has a strong economy and a surplus. We have the public resources … to strengthen Social Security and repair Medicare. But this administration, during eight years of increasing need, did nothing. They had their moment. They have not led. We will.'
That's how you beat a successful administration. You dissolve the successes into history and ask what the administration has accomplished with those successes. You move the goalpost."
But on the other hand, it seems that this poor liberal online rag that only survivies because of money infused by liberal moneybags is doing a bit of wishful thinking in the rest of the article, trying to say that the capture of the "Lion of Bagdad" in a rat hole will not help Bush politically?
The slurp you just heard is Dean going down the drain, with the libs with him.
Is Dean Toast? - Saddam's capture doesn't guarantee Bush's re-election. By William Saletan: "'Prosperity can be a tool in our hands used to build and better our country,' Bush argued in his speech to the Republican convention in August 2000. 'For eight years the Clinton-Gore administration has coasted through prosperity. … America has a strong economy and a surplus. We have the public resources … to strengthen Social Security and repair Medicare. But this administration, during eight years of increasing need, did nothing. They had their moment. They have not led. We will.'
That's how you beat a successful administration. You dissolve the successes into history and ask what the administration has accomplished with those successes. You move the goalpost."
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
