Saturday, August 12, 2006
McCain-Lieberman '08???
Michael Barone imagines a (Republican) McCain-Leiberman presidential run in 2008 (link via Instapundit)
Instant gratification: I would vote for these guys in a heartbeat as by far the best-available candidates in an era that distinctly lacks great statesmen (or women) here or elsewhere in the world.
Blah-blah: Who else is the GOP going to nominate, Dick Cheney? Don Rumsfeld? Cheney is a great VP and a solid backstop for W, but can you imagine him campaigning against, say, blow-dried and Botoxed John Edwards? I used to think Rumsfeld was the greatest thing since sliced bread, but after the last couple years I've come to see him as a modern version of Bob McNamara--a sharp manager but suffering from the tunnel vision that afflicts a lot of sharp managers. He can't see that his plan only took him so far, and a president has to be able to step outside himself and adjust to changing situations.
But either of those guys would be way better than anyone in the Democratic camp. Both Edwards and Barack Obama are media darlings without much in the way of political accomplishments, Al Gore has spent the last five years whoring himself out to the tinfoil-hat left, and Ned Lamont is a richboi protest candidate whose neo-Stalinist backers will guarantee him political death in Connecticut, let alone the rest of the country. None of those people have a thought in their head besides that they should be in charge because they think they're smarter than everyone else. The one and only Dem that I might actually vote for (and I did, for governor of VA) is Mark Warner. Unfortunately he's also exactly the kind of practical centrist that the Micheal Moore pitchfork brigade is promising to run out of the party. Yes, there's another year for the world to turn, but the Dems' world has been turning backwards for the last 6 years in a row now. I'm not holding my breath.
So... McCain-Lieberman '08!!!
Instant gratification: I would vote for these guys in a heartbeat as by far the best-available candidates in an era that distinctly lacks great statesmen (or women) here or elsewhere in the world.
Blah-blah: Who else is the GOP going to nominate, Dick Cheney? Don Rumsfeld? Cheney is a great VP and a solid backstop for W, but can you imagine him campaigning against, say, blow-dried and Botoxed John Edwards? I used to think Rumsfeld was the greatest thing since sliced bread, but after the last couple years I've come to see him as a modern version of Bob McNamara--a sharp manager but suffering from the tunnel vision that afflicts a lot of sharp managers. He can't see that his plan only took him so far, and a president has to be able to step outside himself and adjust to changing situations.
But either of those guys would be way better than anyone in the Democratic camp. Both Edwards and Barack Obama are media darlings without much in the way of political accomplishments, Al Gore has spent the last five years whoring himself out to the tinfoil-hat left, and Ned Lamont is a richboi protest candidate whose neo-Stalinist backers will guarantee him political death in Connecticut, let alone the rest of the country. None of those people have a thought in their head besides that they should be in charge because they think they're smarter than everyone else. The one and only Dem that I might actually vote for (and I did, for governor of VA) is Mark Warner. Unfortunately he's also exactly the kind of practical centrist that the Micheal Moore pitchfork brigade is promising to run out of the party. Yes, there's another year for the world to turn, but the Dems' world has been turning backwards for the last 6 years in a row now. I'm not holding my breath.
So... McCain-Lieberman '08!!!
# posted by Stacy McMahon @ 6:38 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
I'm sorry but I simply will not accept anything that Arianna Huffington has to say on any subject whatsoever. If she said it was raining I'd look the window for myself.
IMO the Liberty incident comes under the same mental category as the JFK shooting, where you just really want there to be more of an explanation than "it was one crazy guy" or "they thought it was a different ship". I think that mainly because in all the c-o-n-spiracy theories I've never heard any guesses as to the motive. It's pretty much "well so much damage was done, there must have been some sinister reason" when in reality that's just the power of modern airstrikes. It's lucky it wasn't worse. Americans are no more immune than anyone else from becoming collateral damage when they're hanging around in a war zone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
Post a Comment
IMO the Liberty incident comes under the same mental category as the JFK shooting, where you just really want there to be more of an explanation than "it was one crazy guy" or "they thought it was a different ship". I think that mainly because in all the c-o-n-spiracy theories I've never heard any guesses as to the motive. It's pretty much "well so much damage was done, there must have been some sinister reason" when in reality that's just the power of modern airstrikes. It's lucky it wasn't worse. Americans are no more immune than anyone else from becoming collateral damage when they're hanging around in a war zone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
<< Home
