Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Hills are Alive!
Here it
is, folks: The
most anticlimactic political announcement since Bob Dole
announced he wouldn't run for president in 2000.
Hillary returns to Antarctica.
Whoops, sorry. Here it is:
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton jumped into the 2008 presidential race yesterday, immediately squaring off against Senator Barack Obama and the rest of the Democratic field in what is effectively the first Democratic primary, the competition for campaign donations.
“I’m in,” Mrs. Clinton said in an e-mail message to supporters early yesterday morning. “And I’m in to win.”
If you think that frontrunners are announcing their presidential bids earlier and earlier, you're right. Gov. George W. Bush didn't announce his exploratory committee until March of 1999; Gov. Bill Clinton entered the presidential race in October 1991. Another change: The lack of substance in announcements. Look at this passage from George Bush's 1999 announcement message.
I’ve described myself as a compassionate conservative, because I am convinced a conservative philosophy is a compassionate philosophy that frees individuals to achieve their highest potential. It is conservative to cut taxes and compassionate to give people more money to spend. It is conservative to insist upon local control of schools and high standards and results; it is compassionate to make sure every child learns to read and no one is left behind. It is conservative to reform the welfare system by insisting on work; it’s compassionate to free people from dependency on government. It is conservative to reform the juvenile justice code to insist on consequences for bad behavior; it is compassionate to recognize that discipline and love go hand in hand.
OK, we know this was the prelude to a presidency which has chiefly served to make Democrats feel less rotten about giving us Jimmy Carter. Still: Substance. Bush wanted to cut taxes, reform welfare, put kids in the slammer. He was a "conservative." Now, here's Hillary.
Let's talk about how to bring the right end to the war in Iraq and to restore respect for America around the world. How to make us energy independent and free of foreign oil. How to end the deficits that threaten Social Security and Medicare.And let's definitely talk about how every American can have quality affordable health care.
Yawn. No real conviction there, probably because when Hillary Clinton says "let's talk about health care," it's like George W. Bush saying "I want to hear everyone's plan for Iraq."
Maybe it should be refreshing that the Clinton II campaign isn't starting out with any substance. At its core, the campaign is about restoring the administration of 1997-2001, just like the Bush campaign (and presidency) was about restoring the most aggressive players of the 1981-1993 administrations. (I leave out the first Clinton term because I think the Albrights and Rubins are more likely to return to the White House than the Shalalas and Reichs). Its big ideas on taxes, health care and entitlements will be the big ideas the Clinton administration wanted to work on before its influence was snuffed out in the Lewinsky scandal.
(Hat tip to Jim Geraghty for transcribing the announcement message.)
|1.20.07 @ 2:11PM|#
Hmm... Rubin or somebody like him may be back if Clinton gets
elected?
At least the ominous thunderhead of the Hildebeast has a *tiny*
silver lining...
talboito|1.20.07 @ 2:44PM|#
Seems like the "big ideas" were those of the Reichs' rather than
the Rubins'.
The Rubinses were surely more lucrative for DNC coffers, and
popular in these sorts of haunts, but not so much "big".
|1.20.07 @ 3:06PM|#
"Let's talk about how to bring the right end to the war in Iraq
and to restore respect for America around the world. How to make us
energy independent and free of foreign oil. How to end the deficits
that threaten Social Security and Medicare."
I am certainly no Hillary fan, but I don't see how those three
things, (end the war, energy independence, and close the deficits)
can be considered without substance. Sure Hillary wants to look up
the collective ass of America, and massage our prostates a bit too
vigorously, but we all have our vices.
|1.20.07 @ 3:07PM|#
"Here it is, folks: The most anticlimactic political
announcement since Bob Dole announced he wouldn't run for president
in 2000."
Only to be topped in the anticlimactic department by Senator
Brownback announcing. Talk about timing.
Bill Richardson's announcing tomorrow.
Caesar|1.20.07 @ 3:37PM|#
If we have Bush followed by Clinton followed by Bush followed by
Clinton--that will mean two families have controlled the presidency
for twenty years.
Does anyone else have a strange feeling that this is the first stop
on the road to third-worldom in our politics?
|1.20.07 @ 3:42PM|#
This "energy independence" sounds good emotionally, but is
economically speaking a disaster.
Imagine if we sought "energy indpendence" at the county level. In
other words, the people living in say Middlesex county could only
consume energy produced with natural resources pulled out of the
ground within Middlesex county.
In some counties, gasoline would be cheaper than rainwater. In
other counties, wood would be more precious than gold and people
would be dying of exposure. Needless to say, the difficulty in
getting energy would kill heavy industry, and our standards of
living would plummet to levels that make the early 19th century
appear positively luxurious.
There is a term for this, it's called "autarky", and it leads
to war and poverty wherever it is tried.
It's a crappy idea, and will add to human misery rather than
alleviating it.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.20.07 @ 4:02PM|#
Monica Blewinski had little if anything to do with the collapse of Hillary Care. It was the relentless tactical nuke throwing efforts of Citizens for a Sound Economy that did the heavy lifting to defeat Her Majesty's health proposal.
thoreau|1.20.07 @ 4:07PM|#
I refuse to believe that in a country of 300 million people we
need to have 4 consecutive Presidents from 2 opposing
families.
I am going to predict that if Hillary is the Democratic nominee
then she will lose the popular vote. John Quincy Adams (son of John
Adams) lost the popular vote, Benjamin Harrison (grandson of
William Henry Harrison) lost the popular vote, and George W. Bush
(son of a better man than himself) lost the popular vote.
For some reason, every time a member of a Presidential family tries
this monarchical succession crap a majority of the American people
say "Oh hell no!" and then the Electoral College says "Too bad,
you're getting royalty anyway." Yeah, FDR won the popular vote, but
it was a much more distant relationship.
So I predict that if Hillary wins the electoral vote she will lose
the popular vote.
|1.20.07 @ 4:19PM|#
Please, no more wives or sons in office. Please. The electoral nepotism hasn't been this disgusting since Lurleen Wallace became Governor of Alabama. I'd rather see just about anyone else become President rather than another Clinton (or another Bush.)
thoreau|1.20.07 @ 4:22PM|#
How about a compromise? No more Presidential relatives, but we only select from among candidates treated at the Betty Ford clinic?
|1.20.07 @ 4:25PM|#
"I don't see how those three things, (end the war, energy
independence, and close the deficits) can be considered without
substance."
Probably because of the way she phrases it. All she says is that
she wants to "talk" about these things. "Let's talk, let's chat..."
she says about how to bring the war in Iraq to a good end. No, no
actual substance there.
|1.20.07 @ 4:26PM|#
"How about a compromise? No more Presidential relatives, but we
only select from among candidates treated at the Betty Ford
clinic?"
Better -- let's randomly select someone from the Agana, Guam
telephone directory. Guam doesn't get enough respect as it is.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.20.07 @ 4:27PM|#
and George W. Bush (son of a better man than himself) lost
the popular vote.
But, Tee, GWB won the popular vote in 2004 62 million to 59
million.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.20.07 @ 4:35PM|#
Everybody thinks Dana sold the libertarians out but that's small potatoes when you realize that Hillary was once a Goldwater Girl.
|1.20.07 @ 4:37PM|#
"Probably because of the way she phrases it."
Maybe so. I don't like her in any case.
This thread is odd; almost like poetry. Believe me, I have no
poetry in me. Weird.
I never thought of the dynasty aspect of the Bushes and Clintons.
It is scary though, two families holding the reigns of power in
America for twenty years when W finishes his final term, and for 28
years if Hillary does two terms. It seems unthinkable and yet the
20 years is ordained.
Some new blood would be best, I think. Somebody like Clinton, a
brash outsider who likes a good blowjob.
|1.20.07 @ 4:39PM|#
The worst part about these early announcements is that not only
are campaigns then longer, but because information is so voluminous
and society so much faster these days, they feel like an
eternity.
Witness the 2006 congressional election cycle, which felt like this
ceaseless, intense barrage of... stuff. For months upon
end.
Speaking as a libertarian, I find the whole phenomenon disturbing
because it has an effect that runs counter to my ideals: It
magnifies the perceived importance of government. It sends a kind
of subliminal signal that the role of president is a Really Huge
Big Deal, thus lending even more power to an institution that's got
far too much of it already.
When elections take on the vibe of annointing omnipotent kings, we
shouldn't be surprised when we're treated like subjects.
Caesar|1.20.07 @ 4:42PM|#
Wayne-,
"Some new blood would be best, I think. Somebody like Clinton, a
brash outsider who likes a good blowjob."
I was hoping Mark Warner would fill that role (minus the blow job,
of course), but unfortunatley he decided against running.
Barak Obama doesn't stand a chance agaisnt Hillary. Once she and
the Clintonistas are done with attacking him, his public image will
be so tarnished he will no longer have a future in presidential
politics.
|1.20.07 @ 5:13PM|#
Let's force all the declared candidates to take the Civil
Service Examination, just for fun.
The one with the best score gets a job at the post office. The
worst score has to run for president while being heckled
mercilessly by high school Civics teachers.
lovecat|1.20.07 @ 5:24PM|#
Ron Paul could never beat Obama, but possibly he would have a chance against Hillary. If Hillary gets elected, maybe the States west of the Mississippi could try secession? Let's have a libertarian country out West, and the statist Clintocracy of the East can go to hell in a handbasket. The Eastern conference teams in the NBA are lousey anyway, we can live without them too.
Sir Disgrace|1.20.07 @ 5:45PM|#
I refuse to believe that in a country of 300 million people
we need to have 4 consecutive Presidents from 2 opposing
families.
This calls to mind Milton Friedman's recent comment that the
country is moving from a quasi-rural society to an aristocratic
one.
Chris Johnston|1.20.07 @ 6:10PM|#
Here's how her announcement can be considered without substance:
She didn't say anything!
"Let's talk about" means absolutely nothing. It is meaningless
drivel designed to make people think she has ideas about those
things that might be of value.
|1.20.07 @ 6:24PM|#
wayne-
I am certainly no Hillary fan, but I don't see how those three
things, (end the war, energy independence, and close the deficits)
can be considered without substance.
The "issues" are not 'without substance',(actually, I tend to agree
with those positions on all three), but her "methods" are truly
objectionable...
Hillary's solutions to these "substantial" problems are:
1)(ending the war)--surrender
2)(energy independence)--never mentioned
3)(close the deficits)--more taxes
I simply disagree with her 'answers'...
|1.20.07 @ 6:46PM|#
From a libertarian perspective, what does it all matter? Hillary, Barak, Jane, Dick, or Harry, Republican or Democrat--none of them is going to take any real step toward Libertopia. All of them will continue policies that will grow the state--some more, some less--and regulate, regulate, regulate. What's the point? So the libertarian faithful can demonstrate in convoluted posts that they've mastered libertarian dogma (but few of its broader implications) by expressing endless outrage at all the elected officials (and those who elect them) because the neither elected nor the electors know or care about precious libertarian princples? Oh my, we're so unfree! Oh, woe is us! Isn't life too short? I know I'm thinking of moving on. You guys don't like trolls (read infidels) anyway.
Caesar|1.20.07 @ 6:53PM|#
Edward-
My expectations are so low after the last six years, at this point
I just want someone halfway competent regardless of their
ideology.
Wait, that came off sounding like Michael Dukakis, nevermind.
|1.20.07 @ 7:37PM|#
How to end the deficits that threaten Social Security and
Medicare.And let's definitely talk about how every American can
have quality affordable health care.
Whopping tax increases, coming your way. Or sky-high deficits. Take
your choice. Oh, and don't forget to throw in a sideways stock
market and stagnant growth, as those taxes drag down the
economy.
Let's talk about how . . . to restore respect for America
around the world.
Why do I suspect this has more to do with getting back in the good
graces of the kleptocracy at the UN than anything else?
|1.20.07 @ 7:49PM|#
Just to be clear, when you write "whopping tax increases" and "a
sideways stock market and stagnant growth" you're referring to
taxes at the levels they were at during the longest peacetime
economic expansion in American history, right?
The people who got the economy so wrong in the 1990s need to be
called on it, just like the people who got Iraq so wrong in the
00s.
|1.20.07 @ 8:04PM|#
You know, outside of new york, new jersey, Massachusetts, rhode
island and Connecticut, the east aint that statist.
At least southern statism isn't the same as northern statism.
But hey, look at Virginia, best place to do business. Fuck yeah
bitches.
Warren|1.20.07 @ 8:10PM|#
Hillery will be the nominee. Nothing else matters next to her
Rolodex.
Until about four years ago I would have said (and often did) that
she was unelectable. Now who knows. The Anti-Republican as a Bush
protest will be pretty strong. Nominally the Veep is a shoe-in for
the nod after a two termer. But this time around the Dick hasn't
even raised his head.
Anybody but the bitch sounds pretty good till you start looking at
who that 'anybody' could be. I'll be putting my X next to the LP
candidate again. But the best of all possible worlds might be
President Giuliani.
|1.20.07 @ 8:24PM|#
If we have Bush followed by Clinton followed by Bush
followed by Clinton--that will mean two families have controlled
the presidency for twenty years.
Throw in Jeb and George P. -- the first Hispanic president -- and
the Bushes can total upwards of 28 years just in the Bush family
alone.
Bhh|1.20.07 @ 9:14PM|#
Lessee:
Hillary Clinton 2008-2016
Jeb Bush 2016-2024
Chelsea Clinton 2024-2032
George P. Bush 2032-2040
Raul Clinton-Bush 2040-2048
At which point I'll be nearing 80 and not care any more.
|1.20.07 @ 10:07PM|#
Not to be pedantic, but in order for "Raul Clinton-Bush" to be President so soon he'd have to have been born last year or earlier. Or one of his relatives could change the Constitution on a whim (which at the rate we're going...)
|1.20.07 @ 10:42PM|#
joe,
Thanks in part to Dubya and his Medicare drug plan, and in part to
demographics, I think it's likely that keeping SS and Medicare
solvent, and funded to the extent Hillary wants, will require taxes
to be higher than they were in the 90s. At least, that's the
charitable interpretation of RC Dean's post.
grylliade|1.21.07 @ 12:28AM|#
Just to be clear, when you write "whopping tax increases"
and "a sideways stock market and stagnant growth" you're referring
to taxes at the levels they were at during the longest peacetime
economic expansion in American history, right?
There's always the possibility that the expansion would have been
longer, or the economy would have expanded more, if taxes had been
lower. I'm not 100 % sure of that, but I'm damn sure that the
expansion had almost nothing to do with government policy, and
would have happened unless the administration were
completely incompetent (say, LBJ or GWB levels). Taxes in
the US are almost always low compared to other nations; that
doesn't mean that they aren't too high, or that lowering them won't
bring any benefit.
Robert|1.21.07 @ 12:29AM|#
"Let's talk about" means absolutely nothing.
No, in her case it means, "You listen to me and I'll pretend to
listen to you." As in her listening tour.
|1.21.07 @ 12:42AM|#
But...but..but I thought she had no intention of running for
president! Isn't that what she has been saying for all these years?
She wouldn't have lied, would she? What...a Clinton tell a lie?
Naw, no way!
"Anybody but the BITCH" What a great campaign slogan for someone! I
love it! ;-)
|1.21.07 @ 2:20AM|#
What Im wondering is where did she find that background shrub
with all the pretty flowers and green leaves this time of year
....and up North. Here in Kansas Ive got 10-12 inches of snow...and
no shrubs with flowers....
Would anyone think this was maybe a canned deal done perhaps months
ago...or at least on the same studio they did the Moon landings
on....
|1.21.07 @ 9:23AM|#
Just think about how much money her brother can make selling pardons in a Hillary administration. Since I have a thousand dollars on it, I'm praying some of her rivals take off the gloves and remind the country how dirty Hillary's hands are.
|1.21.07 @ 10:46AM|#
There's no such thing as a bad tax cut, but a lot of people
point to tax cuts as the prime driver of the economy while totally
ignoring the vast Keynesian spending binge this government has been
on for the past several years.
--------
"President Giuliani" you say: why not just repeal the 22nd
Amendment and keep George W Peron around for a few more terms?
Jennifer|1.21.07 @ 11:26AM|#
No matter how venal and corrupt the Republicans get, the
Democrats will always find a way to lose in spite of
that.
Goddammit.
|1.21.07 @ 11:46AM|#
Anybody but the BITCH
I don't get the whole bitch thing with regards to Hillary. You'll
have to do better than that to make your case against her.
|1.21.07 @ 12:24PM|#
Just to be clear, when you write "whopping tax increases"
and "a sideways stock market and stagnant growth" you're referring
to taxes at the levels they were at during the longest peacetime
economic expansion in American history, right?
No, I'm talking about the increases in taxes that will be necessary
under a "pay-as-you-go" system (you know, the one the Dems are
setting up) to fund the program expansions she is promising.
|1.21.07 @ 12:50PM|#
Let's see.. Rich white lady from the south runs against a black
self-made man for the democratic nomination?
The democratic primaries are going to be a bloodbath. I can't wait
to hear Sharpton tell Carville to "shut the fuck up, you
cracker!"
-jcr
|1.21.07 @ 12:52PM|#
Iraq will be the deciding factor among the Democratic candidates in 2008, and Hillary was flat wrong on the subject. More and more it looks like it will be Al Gore's election to lose, please see http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2006/12/why-al-gore-will-vanquish-hillary.html
The Wine Commonsewer|1.21.07 @ 1:07PM|#
James, good point, but it isn't going to happen. Hillary's
ethics make Nixon look like, well, a good Quaker. The thing is that
nobody really cares. The majority of the chattering classes and the
voting populace are only concerned about ethics & integrity as
it applies to Republicans.
Oh sure, conservatives have tried to adopt some of the smear
tactics of the left in the last couple of decades but it just
doesn't work. The Swiftboat controversy was never anything more
than a fly in the ointment for John Kerry.
Contrast that with the uproar of the election in Fla, which I might
add, GWB won by some three million popular votes nationwide. Or the
GWB lied about Iraq mantra, which is absurd on it's face.
Or, if he lied, he was merely perpetuating the lies of the last two
administrations and every player in them. It's like speculating
over whether Israel has nukes (of course they do, everybody KNOWS
that), it was just an accepted given for two decades that Sodom
Whose-sane had WMD.
|1.21.07 @ 1:30PM|#
The Democrats will be in a tough position if it comes down to
Clinton vs. Obama. As the proud party of the victimized peoples of
America, who will they favor as "the victim", the black male or the
white female?
Also, does she have any good black jokes? We know she knows at
least one Indian joke.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/6/220449.shtml
|1.21.07 @ 1:36PM|#
After watching McCain on MTP this morning, I'm leaning towards agreeing with minorripper. A democrataic candidate who voted for the war, no matter how much they repent, will be open to charges from the left of being wrong on Iraq, and from the right of putting the troops in harm's way and then refusing to follow through. That puts Hillary and Edwards on the wrong side, and Gore and Obama on the right.
|1.21.07 @ 1:40PM|#
grylliade,
It is just barely arguable that "There's always the possibility
that the expansion would have been longer, or the economy would
have expanded more, if taxes had been lower." As it was, the
expansion was so hot for so long that the Fed felt the need to cool
it off.
What is inarguable is that every single conservative who made a
prediction about the effects of the Clinton/Democrat economic
policy got it completely wrong. I don't remember any Republicans
saying "this will lead to a sustained, robust period of growth that
will set records, but not be quite as sustained or robust as it
might have been." Instead, we were told about breadlines and
skyrocketing unemployment, a "sideways stock market" and spiraling
crime rates.
|1.21.07 @ 1:55PM|#
"It is just barely arguable that "There's always the possibility
that the expansion would have been longer, or the economy would
have expanded more, if taxes had been lower." As it was, the
expansion was so hot for so long that the Fed felt the need to cool
it off."
The "expansion" was the direct result of the Fed creating truck
loads of money, i.e. it was the direct result of monetary
inflation. It has been sustained under Bush in the same manner. The
tax cuts played a minor role. Asset prices reflected inflation and
that is all. By the way, inflation is a very, very bad thing.
|1.21.07 @ 2:00PM|#
Funny, I thought the expansion was the direct result of the
entreprenuerial innovation of the American ecnonomy. I guess I just
don't have your faith in the government's ability to deliber
prosperity, wayne.
By the way, inflation was very low during the Longest Peacetime
Economic Expansion in American History.
|1.21.07 @ 2:08PM|#
"By the way, inflation was very low during the Longest Peacetime
Economic Expansion in American History."
Joe, you are drinking the Kool Aid. Monetary inflation exploded in
about 1990. I am not blaming Clinton, I am blaming the fed. You
misunderstand me if you think I believe the government can deliver
economic prosperity.
|1.21.07 @ 2:28PM|#
It is just barely arguable that "There's always the
possibility that the expansion would have been longer, or the
economy would have expanded more, if taxes had been lower." As it
was, the expansion was so hot for so long that the Fed felt the
need to cool it off.
Every time I think I can always find a way to disagree with you,
joe, you pop my balloon with something that is inarguable. From the
little I remember from my economics classes in college, huge
surpluses in tax revenue are just as bad as huge deficits, and with
Clinton unable to raise taxes again with a Republican Congress,
Greenspan had to step in to cool off the economy.
|1.21.07 @ 3:14PM|#
I feel like I should hate her, but don't. I'll be rooting for her in the primaries over the socialist and the trial lawyer. And if she goes up against McCain, maybe in the general election too.
|1.21.07 @ 3:41PM|#
Despite what she may or may not have done in office, the fact is
that Hillary will never win because she is not tall.
The first female president will have to be like 6.6" or
something.
ukiddingme?|1.21.07 @ 3:57PM|#
Are there REALLY still Clintonista's out defending "the longest
peacetime expansion" in something other than the Presidential
penis???
Does NO ONE remember WHICH YEARS the actual mega-billion-$
accounting frauds TOOK PLACE (as opposed to which administration
CLEANED UP THE MESS)? Or looking at the even-bigger-and-badder
picture of the overall "dot-com bubble," is it just a COINCIDENCE
that this BIGGEST ECONOMIC FRAUD IN HUMAN HISTORY occurred during
"the most ethical administration" of all time? Did NO ONE ELSE READ
the articles highlighting the quarter-by-quarter, ever-increasing
OVERstatement...BY THE FEDERAL GOV'T...of U.S. total corporate
profits, as the 90's came to a close, and ("coincidentally" of
course) culminating in the biggest statistical lie (3rd qtr 2000)
coming out right before the "legacy" election?
Now, if one wants to credit "gov't policy" how about we go back to
the Investment Tax Credit that kicked the high-tech revolution into
high gear (on a SUSTAINABLE not a BUBBLE basis)? Or if Reagan isn't
far enough back for ya (or being a Clintonista you can't give
credit where credit is DUE), how about DARPA creating the Internet?
(In the 70s; sorry, Mr. Gore missed out on everything except the
"taking credit" part - very Clintonesque!) Or the Apollo program
creating semi-conductors etc. (in the 60s)?
Alas, actual information and RATIONAL analysis of cause-and-effect
has never mattered to those on the Dark Side, and this is already
much to long for a blog reposte, so I'll leave it at that...
|1.21.07 @ 7:14PM|#
Until about four years ago I would have said (and often did)
that she was unelectable. Now who knows.
It all depends on who the Republicans put up against her.
Either way the end results won't be good. Politics today is a game
of one-up-manship. Politicians have to do things to "distinguish"
themselves (translation: do something even more stupid than any
predecessor had dreamed was ever possible).
Somehow I increasingly feel like this is the only thing that will
matter from now on. The in-practice differences between the Dems
and Reps is so small that I no longer understand why they call
themselves different teams.
|1.21.07 @ 7:26PM|#
Whopping tax increases, coming your way. Or sky-high
deficits. Take your choice.
So, so different than the present.
F**k, almost makes me want Obama.
At least wars won't be assured.
|1.21.07 @ 7:37PM|#
The owner of the neocon nexus; Fox and "The Weekly Standard",
Rupert Murdoch, has held two fundraisers for war hawk Hillary. She
has come off of her pro-war position only in recent weeks so that
she may curry favor with the rank and file of her party.
This says that Hillary is just another slimy politician. And it
gives yet more evidence that the neocons aren't real conservatives
in any manner. Their main goal is to continue to use the use US
military for what they consider to be beneficial for the Israeli
state. This includes an upcoming attack on Iran,
unless perhaps the American people apply extraordinary pressure to
forestall it.
|1.21.07 @ 7:40PM|#
On the upside, she might be too busy campaigning to get any
substantial legislation harm done. Then again, maybe
the whole point of starting this early is to find cover and provide
plausible deniability from any backlash of the ineffectual democrat
controlled congress.
"Oh, how horrible, I wish I was in DC to fix that."
|1.21.07 @ 7:45PM|#
With regard to the neocons not caring about the limited
government values of conservatism, but caring instead about serving
their ambitions in the Mid-east; note this quote from Bill Kristol,
editor of "The Weekly Standard' and for years an advocate of regime
change in Iraq and the " remaking of the mid-East" for the good of
the Israeli government:
"If you read the last few issues of The Weekly
Standard, it has as much or more in common with the liberal hawks
than with traditional conservatives." Kristol
continued, "If we have to make common cause with the
more hawkish liberals and fight the conservatives, that is fine
with me, too."
biologist|1.21.07 @ 9:28PM|#
Jon Stewart got it right when he was last excoriating Kriston on The Daily Show: "Neoconservativism is just liberalism...with old guys!"
|1.21.07 @ 10:11PM|#
Their main goal is to continue to use the use US military
for what they consider to be beneficial for the Israeli
state.
Why yes...of course! The Jews. Why didn't I think of that?
|1.21.07 @ 10:18PM|#
Ooh! I just thought of the perfect Campaign Theme Song for
Hillary:
Elton John's The Bitch Is Back
|1.21.07 @ 10:46PM|#
With respect to Hillary's early support for the Iraq invasion, I
doubt that will matter to most voters. People will be more
interested in what the candidate says he or she plans to do upon
taking office.
I think the big question for candidates regarding Iraq positions in
the next election will be something like: "Will your Iraq policy
include bringing the troops home sometime before 2010?". And if the
answer is no, you lose 20 points automatically before you even get
to say anything else. Other aspects of candidates' Iraq proposals
will, I predict, be less important to voters.
|1.21.07 @ 10:50PM|#
Of course, if the surge is an overwhelming success and the
situation in Iraq greatly improves, public opinion could be
significantly different.
If I were a betting man though, I wouldn't put any money on that
prospect.
|1.21.07 @ 11:29PM|#
I'm not voting for a candidate who is closely related to anyone
who has ever lived in the White House. Or has already been there.
Ever. This country is simply too big and diverse to keep doing
repeat business. Ditto Jeb Bush and David Eisenhower--they ain't
gettin' my vote, either. Can we libertarians, lefties, and righties
just agree on this one point? No reruns or do-overs? Please? Can't
we all just move along?
Conveniently, there are no Pauls on the list of presidents, so I
can vote for my favorite Congressman.
|1.22.07 @ 12:48AM|#
Why yes...of course! The Jews. Why didn't I think of
that?
The Israeli government and its necon supporters are not "The
Jews".
|1.22.07 @ 1:00AM|#
By the way... what's so bad about being a bitch? In and of itself. Just wondering.
|1.22.07 @ 1:08AM|#
note this quote from Bill Kristol, editor of "The Weekly
Standard' and for years an advocate of regime change in Iraq and
the " remaking of the mid-East" for the good of the Israeli
government (emphasis added)
Ok. Can someone please explain to me how the Israeli government
benefited from the US invasion of Iraq? I know Saddam was no fan of
Israel but the people who end up in charge of Iraq are not donating
to AIPAC any time soon either.
|1.22.07 @ 2:27AM|#
Janie,
You didn't ask what's so bad about being a politician who's a
bitch. You asked what's so bad about being a bitch.
I would happily accept more abrasive personalities in politicians
if I could get less control over our lives in return.
|1.22.07 @ 2:36AM|#
Look, I can't divorce her so I've been encouraging her to run in the hope that some crazy redneck will shoot her before she takes his guns away, turns his wife and daughters into lesbians and burns down his church. Is that so wrong?
|1.22.07 @ 2:53AM|#
BG,
The old Iraq had weapons aimed at Israel. Now, the Shia led new
government could indeed wind up doing the same. But that's in the
long run, and not for the very long run, if at all, if the necons
have their way and US troops are left ibn Iraq for the long run.
Also, the necon's deign calls for America to spill its blood and
gold against other enemies of Israel. Such as
Iran
Note that in A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the
Realm, a plan for Israel for Prime Minister Netanyahu's new
government written by a group headed by Richard Perle in 1996 which
included Kristol and Robert Kagan and other prominent neocons, we
find:
Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with
Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back
Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power
in Iraq, an important Israeli strategic objective in its own
right.
Baghdad was depicted as the lynch pin in the undermining of both
Iran and Syria for the good of the Israeli State. After A Clean
Break the neocons started a campaign to put forth those goals
laid for the Israeli government as something America must do in its
own interest. Fabrication and exaggeration of Saddam's WMD capacity
were part of this campaign.
"Only ground forces can remove Saddam and his regime from
power and open the way for a new post-Saddam Iraq." PNAC
founder Kristol wrote in a 1997 report. Kristol's Weekly Standard
magazine is owned by News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch, who also
owns the Fox News
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/011604Leopold/011604leopold.html
In 1998, a group of neos including Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle,
Kristol and four others who wound up on the Bush team wrote a
letter to Clinton urging him to take out Saddam. And about
Wolfowitz; incredibly, right after 9/11, he argued that Afghanistan
be put on the back burner and Iraq be attacked instead! It was
Wolfowitz' Pentagon Office of Special Plans, OSP, that cooked up
many of the WMD and "terrorist connection" fabrications used to
justify the war.
|1.22.07 @ 3:16AM|#
Okay, so why don't we just vote for the Isrealis next time? It'll save a lot of hassel, having all these middle men and women and all.
thoreau|1.22.07 @ 8:22AM|#
Baghdad was depicted as the lynch pin in the undermining of
both Iran and Syria for the good of the Israeli State.
I thought the neocons were evil geniuses who manipulated George
Bush, for reasons that had something to do with ideology and oil.
If they thought that empowering the Shia majority would
weaken Iran and its Syrian ally, um, well, maybe they were
merely evil, but not "evil geniuses."
|1.22.07 @ 8:43AM|#
Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush and clinton? God help us! The end times are here!
|1.22.07 @ 11:07AM|#
Interesting that the leaves are green on the trees outside her windows. Are the leaves still on the trees in Washington?
|1.22.07 @ 2:47PM|#
Here in the Denver area, and in most of Colorado, it's been way unseasonably cold and snowy for a while now. Makes me long to soak up some LA ambience. Although they've had some unseasonably cold weather as well.
|1.22.07 @ 6:17PM|#
joe, I'll keep that in mind as I scrape ice off my car for the 20th day in a row. That tape has been kicking around since October.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245