THE PRIMARIES
Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani made liberal statements and did liberal things in their pasts, but they were governing as political minorities. Taken in that context their accomplishments were extraordinary. What makes John McCain so repugnant is that he’s from Goldwater country and could have been a leading conservative spokesman instead of a toady for the New York Times. I have more reason to believe Mitt and Rudy would spend their time winning conservative issues instead of hammering out deals for liberal ones.
The Republicans that are jumping on the global warming bandwagon are reminiscent of the Democrats who supported the war in 2002. Both groups are afraid of being on the wrong side of a popular issue. The difference is that the press will never turn on the environmental effort no matter how ridiculous it becomes. It will simply drift away.
As far as the war, I think the debate moderators aren’t approaching the Democrats correctly. They keep allowing this canard that Bush lied about the war and they are victims of his treachery. Clinton and Edwards read the same intelligence as Bush and they were free to come to different conclusions. Florida Democrat Senator, Bob Graham voted against the war saying he didn’t think the case was strong enough.
It probably doesn’t make much difference to Democrats, because they don’t value having strong leadership, but what does it say for candidates so ready to find a consensus rather than follow their ideals? I do think it’s funny how they can’t decide if Bush is a dolt or if he’s the most politically devious politician in America. I guess it’s partly answered by those who understand the conflict and thus blame Cheney for everything war related and paint Bush as his Charlie McCarthy. The best way to lose to your opponent is to misunderestimate him.
Bill Clinton calls Obama’s opposition to the war a fairytale. What is the media’s obsession with Bill Clinton? Why do they allow him to redefine his own record according to whatever makes him look good at the time? You’d think their radar would be up for a guy who lied before a grand jury. Nixon spent his waning years writing books about foreign policy not spinning his own accomplishments. When is the first reporter going to ask Clinton straight out why would anyone believe him about anything?
If the Democrats nominate Hilary over Obama the decision will date back to the time in which Democrats rallied behind Clinton during the impeachment and thus cast their lot with personality over honesty. A Clinton impeachment should have resulted in President Gore and a much different decade, one more to their liking. If they continue to back the Clintons this time around they will be giving up a chance to support the best candidate they are likely to have for a generation.
“Some mistakes you never stop paying for.”- Roby Hobbes, The Natural
1 comment:
I would love to hear someone ask that question: "President Clinton, given your history of lying, why should anyone believe anything you say?" But you know he would fake-anger, deflect, and smooth talk his way out of it.
Bill Clinton's favorable rating is reportedly 83% among Democrats. Hillary wins.
Post a Comment