Sen. Obama picking Sen. Biden as his running mate didn’t seriously rock the underlying structure of his campaign. Nobody has run around saying the pick was unacceptable or a serious detriment.
But the frontrunners for the veep spot on the GOP side all seem to have downsides that won’t do much to boost the GOP base’s spirits - especially leading into a convention where they will have to give airtime to one of the most unpopular presidents in American history.
* Romney: The religious right is suspicious of Mittens because he is a Mormon and has flip-flopped on abortion depending on the way the wind is blowing. Would bring 10 more homes to the GOP ticket. McCain seems to loathe him, but the GOP press loves him.
* Pawlenty: Mostly a snooze, and probably won’t rock the boat. But that won’t fire up anybody.
* Lieberman: Jewish, pro-choice.
* Ridge: Pro-choice.
* Kean: Pro-choice.
McCain needs an anti-choice pro-war Republican with supoort from the evangelicals and the corporate interests, but who is also popular with the party. Maybe McCain will embrace the “more of the same” mantle and just pick Bush to be his running mate.
There’s always the cross-dressing philanderer, Rudy 9-11.
The pro-choice thing won’t be a problem. The VP candidate will claim he was always pro-life and wingnuts will defend it to the hilt. Flip-flopping: IOKIYAR.
The wingnuts will defend it, but the religious cons will not support it. They may be wackjobs but I give them credit in that they really truly believe that a woman does not have a right to choose an abortion and it’s a core value of theirs. The religious right will already not be voting in anywhere near the numbers of ‘04, they are already suspicious of McCain on choice, and a pro-choice pick would be a mess. So I hope Sidekick (shout out to Bob Casey) goes with that.
The only person that could be trouble for Obama would be if McCain could somehow pull off Colin Powell. Reality says this won’t happen but I wouldn’t put it past him.
There’s always Huckaboner.
I think you analysis is probably correct. But there is a flip side. For every pissed off fundamentalist, there is a pro-choice republican (and Hillary democrat) or two who will now pull the lever for McCain.
It is actually your worst nightmare. McCain, who has always been more middle of the road with an even more middle of the road VEEP, against two senators who have been recognized as the two of the most liberal in the senate.
Although the election is close, Larry Sabato doesn’t think VP choice means much on election day.
Officially the position has very little power.
I have to confess to not knowing what IOKIYAR means. It’s probably blindingly obvious, but please help.
It’s OK If You’re A Republican
There’s always Huckaboner.
The right-wing HATES Huckabee with a firey passion because he frequently made horrendous and loathsome suggestions that perhaps we should help poor people once in a while and that maybe Mexicans shouldn’t just be ground up and burned for fuel.
Thank you, August. And it was blindingly obvious, wasn’t it? I’m pretty dense sometimes.
Good point abuut Huckabee, too.
IOKIYAR = “It’s ok if you’re a Republican”
two senators who have been recognized as the two of the most liberal in the senate.
Didn’t know that lie still had any tread left.
Choosing Powell is a non-starter. The thinks he brings to the table are either things McCain already has (military background, ability to work across party lines) or that Barack overshadows (exactly how many black voters are going to vote for Powell as Veep when they can vote for Obama to be HNIC? [Lean on Me Reference])
Jindal’s my boy, but you can’t pick him if you’re going to make the “Is he ready to lead?” argument front and center, which McCain has been doing for a couple of months now.
Of course, Obama rode to the nomination almost solely on his anti-war stance and then he goes and picks a guy who voted for it as his Veep, so you never know… (”Didn’t rock the underlying structure”, my a***!)
My guess would be a woman in order to further attempt to siphon off disaffected Hillary-ites. Hutchinson? Palin? Collins? Is Christine Todd-Whitman still alive?
thinks –> things. Spelling is for looserz.
I’m kind of hoping that McCain chooses Sarah Palin from Alaska.
I know what “HNIC” means and I didn’t see “Lean On Me.” Very classy. We need guys like you to keep the discourse elevated.
Well, he can’t have W, he and Bill Clinton are the only two naturally born US citizens who are constitutionally ineligible for the office.
George HW Bush, however, isn’t. and he’s available. There’d be some demographic overlap, but still…
And, of course, there’s a bunch of other Twigs, starting with JEB.
JC
I don’t think a pro-choice Republican is going to make a difference, because VP’s don’t choose Supreme Court justices. On the flip side, fundies are going to see a pro-choice VP choice as a slap in the face.
Jindal is probably going to be a problem because he’s a little too brown for much of the base. He’s also very young and extreme right-wing.
dunno, an exorcist in a Republican White House might not be a bad thing.
Shorter answer to your headline, Oliver? No.
My vote’s for Zell Miller.
Caligula?
Bill Kristol and many other pundits are waiting for Colin Powell to endorse Barack Obama. Kristol has put it out there to expect Powell to speak at the DNC Convention, but Powell has said he would not attend the convention.
Obama has been courting Powell since Day One. Unofficially Colin Powell has been advising Obama and on several occasions praised Obama and said he has found joy in Obama success to become the Democratic nominee.
Mitt Rowney is the only VP candidate that makes sense IMO. After the GOP convention I expect Colin Powell to endorse Obama. I’m hoping that Powell will become the Secretary of Defense and get us out of Iraq.
I have met exactly one person for whom Sen. McCain was their first choice out of the GOP’s primary field. More than ever I’m convinced he sort of lucked his way through it - Huckabee split Romney’s southern support, Thompson contracted mono, Rudy was himself, etc. Much more so than Sen. Obama (who was the first choice of a hell of a lot of people), he needs to make a pragmatic electoral decision that gets the cons fired up. Not so they won’t vote for Barr, rather, so they don’t just stay home.
Romney, from where I’m standing. In the words of one conservative pundit (whose name has escaped me), he flip-flopped in the right direction on abortion so they will forgive him. And the homes attack will run out of steam; eventually it’s just going to look pretty petty, so I don’t see that as a concern.
Kristol has put it out there to expect Powell to speak at the DNC Convention, but Powell has said he would not attend the convention.
What?! Kristol’s wrong? Get the hell outta here!
I’m waiting for the day when someone asks Kristol the painfully obvious question: Why do we pay you again?
Choosing Powell is a non-starter.
Indeed. For openers, they would give up South Carolina. And McCain/Rove know damn well they can’t afford to lose South Carolina. I predict they’ll employ some other sort of “Strategy.”
but Powell has said he would not attend the convention.
He’s prob’ly busy still trying to wash the blood off his hands. But, unlike Kristol, McCain, et al, at least he’s trying. Credit where it’s due.
I’m kind of hoping that McCain chooses Sarah Palin from Alaska.
I’m practically begging for it, though I’m positive we won’t be as lucky. I’d love to watch the debate between a 35-year expert on foreign policy and the woman who entered public office, oh, let’s say last Wednesday, but Palin’s probably too busy peeling the “I’m the only Republican in Alaksa NOT under investigation right now” bumper sticker off her car to be McCain’s running mate.
Parthenon, I think you’re right about McCain’s support being a default. He didn’t even make my top three, and at one point I ranked him and Obama as about equal to get my support.
Romney’s already taken a stab at defusing the “houses” issue — he said he had exactly one house less than John Kerry.
He would also bring a couple things to the table that the other three on the national ticket lack — executive experience and success in the private sector both come to mind. Further, during much of his tenure as Massachusetts’ governor, he had to work with a Democratically-dominated legislature that held over 85% of each house — and still got some things done, and kept check on some typical Massachusetts Democratic idiocies. That says a hell of a lot about his ability to work with the “other side.”
Oh, well. My only consolation is that come January, there will be at least one and possibly two fewer incumbent Senators. That, I think, will be a good thing.
J.
I’d love to watch the debate between a 35-year expert on foreign policy and the woman who entered public office, oh, let’s say last Wednesday
Barack Obama isn’t a woman.
Oh I’m sorry, you were talking about Biden and Palin.
Yes, I’m sure Biden’s habit for being a condescending, overbearing, loudmouth boor will go over real well with a national audience.
Barack Obama isn’t a woman.
Now who’s being naive?
Barack Obama isn’t a woman.
1996 wasn’t last Wednesday.
But you can go ahead and explain how Palin’s more qualified to be VP than Joe Biden now.
Romney’s already taken a stab at defusing the “houses” issue — he said he had exactly one house less than John Kerry.
Oooh, that’s substantive. Does he have any Purple Heart band-aids in one of his homes? Perhaps applied to his dog’s ass to keep him from shitting on the roof of his car?
He would also bring a couple things to the table that the other three on the national ticket lack — executive experience and success in the private sector both come to mind.
Yes, because after 7 years of a CEO President, look how well that has worked out for us. Success in the private sector by carving up companies and firing people just fills me with confidence for the future.
Well, for starters, Biden’s talked about his growing up the child of Welsh coal miners, so I think he might not meet the Constitutional requirement for the job, August…
J.
Yes, I’m sure Biden’s habit for being a condescending, overbearing, loudmouth boor will go over real well with a national audience.
And I’m sure Palin’s habit for criminally abusing the one statewide office she was ever elected to- a year ago- will be a kicker.
What a ticket, too- McCain/Palin- the torch has been passed to a new generation of ethics violations!
1996 wasn’t last Wednesday.
Yeah and despite that, Palin still has more executive experience than the actual nominee of the Democratic party who’s biggest claim to fame as a legislator is how many votes he’s missed both at the federal and state level.
But you can go ahead and explain how Palin’s more qualified to be VP than Joe Biden now.
I didn’t say she was.
Palin still has more executive experience than the actual nominee of the Democratic party who’s biggest claim to fame as a legislator is how many votes he’s missed both at the federal and state level.
McCain’s not a Democrat.
Tee-hee!
August, a SINGLE accusation about a SINGLE incident doesn’t make it a “habit.” Look up the word.
You might want to also look up “criminal” while you’re at it, as well as the technical definition of “prejudice.” Hint — it derives from “prematurely judging.”
And my namesake, Jay of no last name, understated it — Palin will bring more executive experience than the entire Democratic ticket COMBINED.
J.
Palin will bring more executive experience than the entire Democratic ticket COMBINED.
John McCain was the mayor or governor of where again?
Whenever you argue with Jay, pretty soon you’re not arguing the relative merits anymore. No, you’re arguing about whether or not he said what he said. Eventually, you’ll be called a liar, or a “dolt” or something.
And I’m sure Palin’s habit for criminally abusing the one statewide office she was ever elected to- a year ago- will be a kicker.
Right. So far the investigation into this has manifested nothing. The Democrat in charge of the investigation has said he is getting nothing but complete cooperation from Palin’s office. There’s no ‘there’ there.
But hey, if Democrats want to defend the trooper in question at the heart of this ’scandal’ that’s fine with me. A trooper that:
A. Was suspended in 2006 for threatening to kill the Governors father.
B. Tasered his 11 year old stepson.
C. Walked on a drunk driving beef when the trooper who pulled him over didn’t perform a breathalyzer test despite smelling alcohol on is breath and having to pull him over because the bartender where he was at called the cops to say he was drunk.
I’m sure the Democrats will get a TON of mileage out of that one.
How about Jeb?
The problem will be finding someone who doesn’t make McCain look too old and drab, they need someone to make McCain look positively energetic. In that case, I will have to go with Strom Thurmond as the ugly bridesmaid.
Given that McCain will be the oldest first term president and that he has some health issues, his pick for vice-president might need to carry more weight as a stand-in.
My guess would be a woman in order to further attempt to siphon off disaffected Hillary-ites. Hutchinson? Palin? Collins? Is Christine Todd-Whitman still alive?
Katharine Harris? Harriet Myers?
And Ferris, I respectful disagree. I believe that the potential evangelical base loss would overshadow any swing vote gains.
Wow, that’s pretty bad when a guy in a coma votes more than you do.
I would love Jeb on the ticket. “if you weren’t old enough in ‘04, here’s your chance to vote against a Bush”
Katharine Harris?
Ooh, yes please!
To both elaborate on what I said before AND back up my namesake “Jay,” doing something exactly once does NOT make it a “habit.” Habit, by definition, is repeated and patterned. Like Joe Biden, when challenged, just blustering and making up bullshit. Or Obama trying to take both sides of an issue. Or McCain using that incredibly annoying “my friends” phrase.
THOSE are habits, folks.
J.
Zombie Reagan!!! lol. I’m still hoping McCain has the courage to pick Sarah Palin! If he actually loses sexists, they will probably be so close minded and bigoted they won’t vote for a black man either! Let them stay home! The women Palin would bring would be more than enough to beat Obama!!
Jay:
Nice try at deflecting the substance of the charges. Palin admitted she was wrong, you nitwit!! So while not a firing offense, what she did was unethical. Then again, Republicans and ethics don’t really go together.
Nice try at deflecting the substance of the charges.
Substance? It has as much substance as a fart in a windstorm.
So while not a firing offense, what she did was unethical.
Oh now its ‘unethical’? Your boy August was calling it “criminal.”
Your triumphant nonsense aside, as I said, this was about nothing. So if McCain goes with Palin, and the Democrats want to drag it out, fine by me. Like I said, they’ll look great defending a trooper that tasers 11 year olds and threatens to kill family members of the Governor.
Please. I would welcome it.
I didn’t say she was.
Except when you did.
he had exactly one house less than John Kerry.
And we all know how no one brought up how many houses Kerry had (though, granted, Kerry could have probably given an answer to that question).
People loved mocking and making hay over Kerry’s houses. I don’t see why the electorate should make an exception for McCain, here. You certainly didn’t have any objection to the mockery of Kerry, so I fail to see the point in trying to insulate McCain from such ridicule… unless McCain is particularly delicate subjecting him to such ridicule would be much more psychologically harmful to him. I mean, I wouldn’t want to damage his psyche, but I suspect he can deal with putting up with the same stuff that Kerry put up with.
You certainly didn’t have any objection to the mockery of Kerry, so I fail to see the point in trying to insulate McCain from such ridicule
‘Cuz it’s not fa-ha-ha-ir! *sniff sniff*
I’m thinking it could be Romney, which I thought was a real long-shot a month ago. There just aren’t any good options at all for McCain, as OW points out.
And this would make me very happy. The playbook against him is already written — it’s the same one McCain used against him in the primary.
Simple: Run actual clips of Romney as governor of MA claiming his strong support for a woman’s right to choose. Then, sit back and watch the _Republican_ whisper-campaign begin regarding his Mormonism, his magical underwear, etc.
And Biden would destroy him in the veep debate, just as icing on the cake.
Whole thing writers itself, really. It was never the majority of Dems who cared strongly about Mormonism (sure, it struck many, like me, as a quasi-cult), it was hardcore wingers who think Mormonism is just a shade to the right of Militant Islam.
McCain should tap George Allen. He’s not that busy.
McCain/Macaca08!
Kay Bailey Hutchinson?
Kiss the ardent Hillary supporters Buh-bye…..
“Kiss the ardent Hillary supporters Buh-bye”
Gotta love Republican fantasies.
Chuck freakin’ Norris.
McCain/ Walker 2008.
‘Nuff said.
I can’t believe no one has mentioned the obvious, and correct, answer. McCain will nominate Lieberman, to prove how different he is from W. At this point, David Broder’s ejaculation will be visible from space and may cause some flooding on the streets of DC. Other pundits will follow, while most Americans will shrug. It may seem mavericky to some, but it’s the classic, cynical Rovian move of shoring up McCain’s base, if you remembr that McCain’s base is really the idiotic DC punditry.
Thanks for the “choice” , Mr . Hobson!
Of course “an anti-choice [sic] pro-war [sic] Republican with supoort from the evangelicals and the corporate interests” will , ipso facto, be “popular with the party”.
Also, by the way , I am convinced that my pro-choice (meaning the “ability to choose” anything at all) credentials are as good as anybody’s .
There is only one choice to debate : Should a woman be permitted to terminate any pregnancy, at any time, at her whim ?
Finally, I have never equated pacifism with the Democratic Party. Are you suggesting that there is a plank in the platform of the Democratic Party with which I am unfamiliar , to wit, that they are now “anti - war”?
As for a veep choice , there is a strong, black woman with impeccable foreign affairs credentials, who, although not anti - abortion , would never take an “abortion at any time , for any reason , on demand” stance , which could mollify a sufficient number of anti- abortion voters.
She could gather not a few Afro - American votes, and quite a few successful educated “working professional” women’s votes …
Her last name is Rice , and she is not working for the Obam campaign …
Jindal is probably going to be a problem because he’s a little too brown for much of the base.
Right. He won 54% of the vote in a four way race and is the first non-white to serve as Governor in Louisiana since Reconstruction.
EL gets the “Stupid Comment of The Day” award.
Should a woman be permitted to terminate any pregnancy, at any time, at her whim ?
So what you’re saying is that you support abortion at random?
Her last name is Rice , and she is not working for the Obam campaign …
Forcing a woman to do something against their will. That’s Frankie for ya.
Kay Bailey Hutchinson?
Kiss the ardent Hillary supporters Buh-bye…..
I’m not following the “logic” here, duh…Kiss the ardent Hillary supporters buh-bye because Ms. Hutchinson’s positions on the issues are so much like Ms. Clinton’s? Because Ms. Clinton’s supporters will vote for McCain because there’s a blonde (well, maybe) haired woman on the ticket? Because Clinton supporters will vote for any non Penis-American?
I think I’m beginning to understand why Republicans lose the women’s vote year after year.
Condi freaking Rice? “Impeccable foreign policy credentials”??!!?
Are you talking about the “Russia expert” who was a deer in the headlights when Russia invaded Georgia? The worst f*cking SecState in the last 50 years? THAT Condi Rice?
Oh my God, Frank! Are you all right?
The worst f*cking SecState in the last 50 years?
That’s a good left wing talking point. Of course, when you ask people WHY she’s supposedly the worst Sec. of State in the last 50 years, all I’ve ever gotten in response is, “Well….because she is!!”
So Bruce, pray tell. Why? Can you explain?
would never take an “abortion at any time , for any reason , on demand” stance ,
Who does that? Seriously, who has ever advocated that?
Oh my God, Frank! Are you all right?
You and I both know Frankie hasn’t been “all right” for quite some time now.
“McCain needs an anti-choice pro-war Republican with suport from the evangelicals and the corporate interests, but who is also popular with the party.”
If someone exists that fits that description, McCain would not be the republican nominee. McCain won by default. All other republican “front runners” had things about them that one of the three parts* of modern rethugs absolutely hated.
*big buisness, evangelicals, & in-bread rednecks.
Jay, must I?
OK. Iran is much more powerful and dangerous now. North Korea HAS nukes now. Russia is resurgent now. China is taking over Africa and its mineral wealth with “soft power” that the US is not even bothering to compete with. NO progress has been made in Palestine-Israel relations. Lebanon is slowly being taken over by Hizbollah, our mortal enemy since 1983.
I could go all day, dude.
Now Jay, “pray tell”: Why isn’t she ?
Bruce Henry beat me to it. Not only is Rice incompetent, she’s pretty much disappeared for the last two years. Not that I blame here — I’d be pretty ashamed as well.
Iraq? Disaster. A disaster with no clear exit strategy.
Iran? Now a major player alongisde Israel and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East, much more powerful than they were in 1999. They have a new Shia-aligned ally to their west as well, called Iraq, as Adamenijad and al-Maliki are very close friends (sorry, not in the mood to be a good speller today).
North Korea? Has gone nuclear under Rice’s watch.
Russia? Where to begin? Russia has pretty much decided to thumb its nose at the US and will defend its future incursions with a simple statement: “Well, you invaded Iraq, so we get to invade whomever we want as well.”
Those are just for starters. But please, I could use a few laughs this morning. Someone please explain why the woman who was head of the NSA on the morning of America’s worst domestic security lapse ever was then promoted to Sec. of State in the first place, and then allowed to remain in office given such a horrid, dismal track record?
(Aside from her incompetence, she’d never get the veep nod. Republicans would have too many questions about her personal life, specifically the fact that she isn’t married.)
Jay? Since 2:29pm? Hello?
North Korea HAS nukes now.
Oh brother. Does the left never get tired of whipping out this myth? Of course, we know that the ‘deal’ President Clinton and Jimmy Carter struck with North Korea was in the vein of Chamberlain. They snookered hundreds of millions of dollars from the Clinton administration in return for promising not to develop nuclear weapons. A promise they promptly broke and why not? We never insisted on any kind of program that would verify they were in compliance. In short, it was a failure. It was only when Rice stepped in and urged sanctions against NK that real progress was made. Just a couple of months ago NK finally turned over the documents they were supposed to and we watched as a 60-foot-tall cooling tower at its main reactor complex in Yongbyon North Korea was destroyed. NK has threatened to start up their nuke program again, but it’s foot stamping. They’re not going to get de-listed as a state sponsored terrorist state until they allow officials in to verify their nuclear program — something the Clinton administration failed to do.
Iran is much more powerful and dangerous now.
In what way? And how does that reflect on Secretary Rice? The United States doesn’t even hold formal diplomatic relations with Iran.
NO progress has been made in Palestine-Israel relations.
Total nonsense. Unfortunately for Rice and Colin Powell before her, they both had to clean up the absolute mess left by Madeline Albright. Rice has had difficulties in large part because she is not favoring either side and getting them to bend is extremely difficult. It was Rice however, who persuaded the Israelis to withdraw from settlements in Gaza and the West Bank in 2005.
Lebanon is slowly being taken over by Hizbollah
Right. Syria pulled all of their troops out in 2005 after a 30 year presence. Hezbollah attempted to wage war with Israel in 2006 and found out very quickly how stupid that was. They now have a democratically elected President in Michel Suleiman and will have a democratically elected government that will include Hezbollah, but the notion that it is being “taken over” by them is absurd.
Iraq is a military operation and as such, Rice doesn’t have much to do with what is going on there.
Sorry Bruce, but you fall way short. Secretary Rice has done pretty well in her role as Sec. of State. Your accusation that she’s the worst in 50 years, doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.
Republicans would have too many questions about her personal life, specifically the fact that she isn’t married.)
It’s funny how left wingers would say such things, but it only appears to be the left that’s interested in whether or not Rice is a lesbian.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=YFY&q=liberals rice lesbian&btnG=Search
“Hezbollah attempted to wage war with Israel in 2006 and found out very quickly how stupid that was”
Huh? Most people, including Israelis, consider themselves to have been defeated by Hezbollah in that war. Not that there weren’t losses on both sides, but Israeili military leaders were shamed by the fact that they performed so poorly against the insurgents. Further, when Israel was bombing civilian buildings in Lebanon, there were mass anti-American and anti-Israeli protest marches in, of all places, Baghdad and Tehran. I’m certainly sympathetic to the plight of the Lebanese, but you’d have to be an idiot to think that Israel’s actions didn’t firm up a huge amount of pro-Iranian, anti-American/Israeli sentiment. And it pleased Syria to no end.
It’s obviously impossible to tell exactly what’s going on in the DPRK, but even if they aren’t nuclear, they’re certainly a lot closer than they used to be. Thanks Condi.
And another, huh? Condi had nothing to do with the dismal state Iraq is in? Here’s another clue sparky — her job was to make progress in getting the Iraqi government to stand on its own. Today? At best Iraq will be a strong ally of the Iranians for decades to come. This will be the true measure of her legacy as a diplomat — a Middle East that is more chaotic and hence, more dangerous to American interests, than ever before (not to mention gas prices, which are probably an even bigger deal to most Americans than any long-term stability in Iraq). In simpler terms, the Rice/Bush II foreign policy has done two things Iran could never have accomplished in its wildest dreams — destroy their enemies to the east (Taliban) and to the west (Saddam, Baathist/Suuni dictatorship). Granted, the Taliban and Saddam were bad guys, but adults understand that the world is a complicated place. When you start knocking over certain chess pieces, other ones come to greater power. (And the Taliban is coming back with a vengeance in Afghanistan anyways, since we’ve pretty much botched that war to hell as well.)
And your reading comprehension is weak as usual. Most Dems don’t really care about Condi’s personal life, but do care about the fact that she’s been pathetic as both the head of the NSA and as SoS. Like Romney’s Mormonism, for example, it’s hardcore Republican bigots, not Dems, who’d raise way too many red flags for a Condi veep-slot to work. So let me ask you this — if she’s been so brilliant as SoS, why hasn’t she been taken seriously as a veep for McCain? Again, it’s the racists and homophobes in the Republican party, not the Dems, who make her selection an impossibility.
Oh, and I didn’t even get around to mentioning Pakistan. Yeah, things aren’t going so hot there either.
Fact is, the Bush II regime has been the worst practicioner of American foreign policy since perhaps. . . . Well, no. Ever. They’re children pretending to be adults. They have hurt our country immensely, and only some of that damage will ever be fully undone.
What Jaim said.
Plus, in true Jay fashion, I freaking KNEW you’d say that Rice is no worse than Albright.
See, in Jay’s world, as long as you are SECOND WORST, that means you’re good.
Huh? Most people, including Israelis, consider themselves to have been defeated by Hezbollah in that war.
Are you talking about the same thing I am? And who are “most people”? You and Bruce? Please.
but you’d have to be an idiot to think that Israel’s actions didn’t firm up a huge amount of pro-Iranian, anti-American/Israeli sentiment. And it pleased Syria to no end.
Yeah, and stirring up anti-American/Israeli sentiment is so difficult. Of course, Israel’s actions have nothing to do with Secretary Rice. You ignored what I wrote about that.
It’s obviously impossible to tell exactly what’s going on in the DPRK, but even if they aren’t nuclear, they’re certainly a lot closer than they used to be. Thanks Condi.
Oh. Now it’s “impossible to tell.” In your prior comment you said they had gone nuclear. And no Jaim, they are not “a lot closer than they used to be.” They were continuing to do it right under the nose of the Clinton administration despite his and Carter’s Chamberlain-like deal. It was only because of Secretary Rice that sanctions were imposed on NK and that we actually have in place the enforcement of the new agreements.
And another, huh? Condi had nothing to do with the dismal state Iraq is in?
Well, there’s no point in responding to anything else you said when you make a completely false statement that Iraq is in a “dismal state.” Try and keep up with the news ace, and then come back and discuss the issue.
a Middle East that is more chaotic
Once again, your grasp of the obvious is pretty stunning. The Middle East is far more stable than it was 5-6 years ago. Get educated dude.
Most Dems don’t really care about Condi’s personal life,
Then why are Democrats and liberals the only ones talking about it?
Like Romney’s Mormonism, for example, it’s hardcore Republican bigots, not Dems, who’d raise way too many red flags for a Condi veep-slot to work.
Horseshit. You see, the problem is, people such as yourself and many other liberals like you are the ones that adhere to identity politics. Enlightened Liberal earlier said that Bobby Jindal couldn’t work as a VP choice because “he’s too brown” and I had to remind the un-enlightened one the Jindal was elected in a state (Louisiana) that hadn’t elected a non-white to the Governors mansion since Reconstruction with 54% of the vote in a four way race. It’s the ideas that matter.
So let me ask you this — if she’s been so brilliant as SoS, why hasn’t she been taken seriously as a veep for McCain?
Uhh….because she said back in March or April that she didn’t want to run for office and said she was going to go back to Stanford.
Again, only the ‘tolerant’ left has any interest in whether or not Rice is a lesbian. Why?
Plus, in true Jay fashion, I freaking KNEW you’d say that Rice is no worse than Albright.
Actually, that’s not what I said at all. Madeline Albright was a lousy Secretary of State. Rice has been far superior. It’s not even close.
Many members of the IDF were either fired or demoted after the debacle versus Hizbollah. This is fact, Jay, those things you can’t seem to deal with. I’m not in the mood to play link-fu with you today, but you should feel free to do some research on the subject yourself. Israel killed more men than Hizbollah did, but in the end they were made to look bad, foolish, and incompetent by poorly-trainted insurgents. Hizbollah got major positive air-play despite (perhaps because of) their casualties, and the cause of Lebanese democracy was set back about a decade as the pro-Syrian hard-liners cemented their control over the progressives.
As for the DPRK, they were demonstrably not nuclear under Clinton. Under Bush II, they either have become so or are very close. I haven’t been there myself, nor have you, but odds are they’ve been happy to keep the wool pulled over Bush’s eyes for the past eight years and pretty much do what they wanted to.
As for Condi, Jindal, etc., I asked you a simple question — why were those two names not considered “top tier” possibilities? It’s because they wouldn’t play with the Republican base. Are all Republicans racists and bigots? No. Would the selection of a black, un-married woman or an Indian man work out with the Republican racists and bigots who are a vocal majority of their base? Absolutely not. Again, this is a fact, and I realize you have a hard times with those.
Oh, but it’s always fun making you squirm and wet your pants, scooter. TTFN.
Many members of the IDF were either fired or demoted after the debacle versus Hizbollah. This is fact, Jay, those things you can’t seem to deal with.
Look, I’m going to give you a little education and then I am going to sleep. You’re confusing political victories and strategic victories. Yes, Hezbollah gained politically. But what you’re missing is that Israel made concrete strategic and diplomatic gains in its decades-long quest to pacify its northern border while Hezbollah’s freedom to fight Israelis abroad was severely limited. In addition, Hezbollah knows after what happened, that another armed conflict against Israel would spell their destruction because the Israeli military wouldn’t make the same mistakes again.
As for the DPRK, they were demonstrably not nuclear under Clinton
You keep telling yourself that sweetheart. Do a little research.
It’s because they wouldn’t play with the Republican base. Are all Republicans racists and bigots? No. Would the selection of a black, un-married woman or an Indian man work out with the Republican racists and bigots who are a vocal majority of their base?
Again. Explain Jindal’s election in Louisiana. Please. Explain it.
Break from identity politics.
Jay writes: “Yes, Hezbollah gained politically”
And since Hizbollah is a terrorist/insurgent group, not a nation-state level military organization, it means they won. Period. What did you expect them to do, roll into Jerusalem and take over the city? Honestly Jay, you’re just kind of dumb and way out of your league when trying to talk about these things.
“Israel made concrete strategic and diplomatic gains in its decades-long quest to pacify its northern border”
Funny, Israelis would disagree with you, given the public backlash against both their military and political leaders, the demotions, the sackings, etc. Oh, and given the fact that Hizbollah wasn’t stopped from launching rockets with relative impunity. It was a political failure, as you admit, but also a concrete military one, as you know but won’t admit. Simple question: Did Israel stop the Katyushas? Answer: No.
“Hezbollah knows after what happened, that another armed conflict against Israel would spell their destruction”
Hizbollah is actually doing better than ever. They embarrassed the IDF, they shamed the political leadership of Israel, and they continue to roll in the cash sent overseas from Iran but more significantly places like Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
As for the DPRK, I’ve shown I’m a lot better on the facts than you sugar-plum. But it’s cute when you try and play tough Conservative Foreign Policy He-Man (TM). The DPRK has no fear of a Bush-led US. I really can’t name one country in the world that does, to be honest. He’s turned us and our military into a global laughing-stock.
As for Jindal, he won in LA, so good for him (the state is a lot redder after Bush let New Orleans drown, which undoubtedly helped him). He’s a promising young politician, and one who has little future on the national stage in the party of Thurmond and Helms. I wish him well. Honestly, I do. My point wasn’t that a woman or person of color can’t win as a Republican on a state level, but that they’ll never pass the inherent bigotry of much of the Republican base when it comes to a national election. Simple as that. Just ask Mitt Romney, who’s campaign was sunk by a Republican whisper-campaign about his religion, not a Democratic one.