TCS Daily


Conventional Wisdom Wrong Again... and Again and Again

By Alan W. Dowd - February 13, 2008 12:00 AM

If the 2008 primary season has taught us anything, it's that the conventional wisdom is not to be trusted.

Take, for example, the adage that money is the lifeblood of politics. Not this year. Just look at the Republican field, where Sen. John McCain has methodically marched to the front despite the serious financial woes that dogged him all the way up to the Florida primary.

It pays to recall that McCain was virtually out of money last July, with just $250,000 available. By comparison, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, who won precisely zero primaries, had raised $47 million by the end of 2007; former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who gracefully exited the race after Super Tuesday, $62.8 million; Sen. Hillary Clinton almost $91 million; Sen. Barack Obama $80 million.

But on the strength of Super Tuesday and the so-called Potomac Primary—and even after a less-than-stellar batch of weekend contests in Kansas, Louisiana and Washington state—McCain is the undisputed Republican frontrunner and will secure the nomination before his Democratic counterpart.

And that's not the only example of shoestring candidacies winning in the year of the "billion-dollar campaign." McCain's lone remaining primary rival, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, had raised just $9 million by the end of 2007, and was reportedly outspent 15 to one before the Iowa caucuses. Yet he won in Iowa, he won on Super Tuesday, and he's still winning.

Speaking of Iowa, after Huckabee and Obama stunned the nation by winning the Hawkeye state, the purveyors of conventional wisdom were of two minds: Some wrote off the Clinton campaign and prepared for the coronation of Obama. Others reminded us that Iowa winners usually fade way sometime around the New Hampshire primary.

Well, New Hampshire ensured that there would be no coronation, but more than a month after Iowa, Huckabee and Obama are still rolling. Both held their own on Super Tuesday and are promising to extend their improbable campaigns into March—and well beyond for Obama.

While on the subject of extended campaigns, the conventional wisdom once held that Americans would tire of 2008's endless campaign season, which actually began in early 2007. Clinton and Obama, for example, announced their candidacies in January 2007. The first debate was held in April 2007.

But there's little sign of campaign fatigue, at least not among the voters. In fact, there is a rising level of energy and interest, especially, as the press dutifully tells us, among Democrats.

Yet even as the media focus on, and swoon over, the Clinton-Obama duel as if it's the only race for the White House, there also is growing interest in the GOP race. As they vie for Ronald Reagan's mantle, Republicans are defining conservatism for a new generation—and generating some sparks along the way.

On this point, it pays to recall that just because a party seems splintered during the primaries, just because the eventual nominee will not have rolled through the primaries like a juggernaut, doesn't mean Election Day is a lost cause. Reagan, after all, had to fight for his nomination throughout 1980. And as George Will reminds us, Bill Clinton "lost to four different competitors: Tom Harkin, Bob Kerrey, Paul Tsongas and Jerry Brown" and lost seven of the first nine primaries/caucuses on his way to the nomination—and the White House—in 1992.

Speaking of Bill Clinton, with a strong assist from the ex-president, the purveyors of conventional wisdom once argued that the former president's wife was inevitable. A corollary to this piece of conventional wisdom held that Bill Clinton would be Hillary Clinton's not-so-secret weapon.

But more than a year after the candidate of inevitability officially began her bid for the presidency—and with more than half the primaries now behind us—Obama looks increasingly inevitable. And the former president has been exposed as a liability. Much of Obama's post-New Hampshire success appears to be a backlash against Bill Clinton and his win-at-all-costs stumping style, tinged as it was in South Carolina and elsewhere with race-charged rhetoric.

Win or lose, Clinton Inc. doesn't appear to be the life of the party anymore.

Finally, a year ago, six months ago, even 60 days ago, the conventional wisdom held that the Iraq War would be an albatross around the neck of any candidate who supported it, especially a candidate who supported President George W. Bush's risky surge strategy. In fact, the candidate most closely linked with the surge—and most un-nuanced, unequivocal, unconfused and unembarrassed about his position on the war—is John McCain, the man who is painstakingly wrapping up the GOP nomination.

While his critics alternately say he's undependable, unpredictable and unelectable, McCain has been this war's—and this commander-in-chief's—most dependable and articulate ally in Congress. And because he stuck to his guns and took a huge political risk—reminding us that "presidents don't lose wars; political parties don't lose wars; nations lose wars"—voters have steadily rallied to his side. In fact, recent polls indicate he would beat Clinton, is in a statistical dead-heat with Obama, and would capture more Democratic voters than Obama would Republicans.

And as Karl Rove noted this week, citing new polling data, "McCain is doing better consolidating his base than are the Democrats." Indeed, the Democratic Party increasingly looks to be splintering along racial and gender lines, leaving fractures that may not easily heal.

So, if the current conventional wisdom says conservatives won't support the "maverick" McCain, maybe they will. Indeed, many of them already are.

And if the conventional wisdom says an electorate that has turned against the war won't vote for a candidate who refuses to do the same, maybe it will. Just ask Joe Lieberman (see 2006)—or George W. Bush (see 2004).

Categories:

206 Comments

Conventional lack of wisdom
I find it funny that I saw Obama coming in 2006 and I thought he might be a legit and strong contender. While he is far from "wrapping up" the nomination, winning eight straight primaries, several by major landslides, shows he is all of that.

I was also snookered on Rudy. I would not vote for him, but I thought he was going to be the top dog as the primaries started. I did see McCain making a strong showing and figured Thompson might have real appeal. I, personally, liked McCain best followed by Thompson and Romney. Here we are with only McCain left in the race and some guy I still don't know named Huckabee.

I'm pulling for McCain and Obama now, personally I think they will give the voters a real choice in November.

Party doesn't matter
What this primary proves to me is that the party does not matter.

With so many states allowing 'Independent' voters to vote in a primary, the results are skewed.

State party officials would be wise to change their primaries to restrict primary voting to party members only.

What 'real' choice?
All the voters will be given as a 'choice' is between the Democrat-lite (McCain) and Democrat-authentic (Obama).

For the rest of us who care for neither, we get to stay home.

For liberals and moderates, they get to choose just how bad a president the rest of us will get stuck with. (although I am hoping the Madrassa Kid is smarter than he acts)

Some choice.

Why even have primaries?
Why should the taxpayer foot the bill for what are in reality private organization events?

Get the government out of the primaries, and then the parties can more effectively regulate their own internal affairs. It won't be easy to coordinate but that is what caucuses are for. It won't be cheap but that is what membership dues are for.
(Wow! charging people membership dues to participate as a member in a party! What a concept!)

Right now, with the state governments running the shows, all kinds of actions in the name 'of the people' that weaken our parties occur. Like when judges step in and rule that primaries should be open, for example.
And since the states are paying the tab for the primaries, who can blame them for insisting on pulling the strings?

No Constitutional requirement for any party
I agree, all political party activity should NOT be state funded in any way.

Your prediction that the Democrats are splitting up is wishful thinking..
I'm a white woman eager to vote for a black man in November, and I know a whole lot more like me. But I'll happily cast a vote for our first woman president, if she wins the nomination. I'd like to see the whole demo. field reunited after November as a "Team of Rivals". In fact, I am so tickled with the choices we had that I didn't even vote between them in the primary - I voted for Ron Paul. He won't win, but I hope the nominees from both parties get the anti-war, anti-world-dominance, anti-politics-as-usual message.

If Clinton or Obama win
the conservatives will roar back as they did in '94 and expect Obama to be like Carter, a weak president. If it is Clinton, she may be able to hang in like Bill did since she will do anything to keep power, even listen to conservatives.

Reagan had the best anti-war policies of any president, peace through strength.

Not wishful thinking at all
First off, the author did not say that, he quoted Karl Rove woh said "it appears" there is a fracture.

In reality, a serious scenario is brewing in the democratic party. How they deal with it, should it occur, will decide if the party remains intact and relevant.

It is entirely possible, and even somewhat likely, that there will be no consensus winner going into the democratic primary. It also appears that Obama will go in with a noticable lead, but not enough delegates to "secure" a victory. This could mean the Democratic convention will be a wheeling and dealing affair where the votes of "uncommitted" super-delegates will be courted and will decide the final outcome. If Hillary is far enough behind, and with the Florida delegates invalidated by the Democratic Party, she may not be able to secure the nomination even if she woos the vast majority of those super delegates; but she may be able to keep Obama from getting the win as will. This will create a second round of smoozing and a re-vote with all best off; even committed delegates can now change their mind and vote the other way. With Obama winning the vast majority of the states, and a majority of voted delegates, should Clinton find a way to win this way the party will be irrevokably split. In that scenario, I see a lot of Obama voters either turning to the Republican candidate or staying home in November.

Of course there is still a chance Hillary will turn the tables, still not win the needed delegates herself and have the scenario reversed at convention. Either way, the party will fracture. And Rove could be right, if the race stays close, and there is no clear winner going into the convention, it could cause a major rift no matter what happens at the convention.

Don't get too tickled; the majority of Americans do not necessarily agree with your "anti-war, anti-workd-dominance" stance. considering the only political entity with a lower approval rating than President Bush is the present Democratic Controlled Congress, I would say that speaks to a lot of issues, and doesn't necessarily bode well for Democrats in this election cycle. Remember, if present polls are any indication, McCain will beat Hillary in a general election.

Hillary will get nomination
Not even God can prevent her highness from being nominated. The Clinton's will destroy anyone and anything in the way. Despite legions of documented corruption the Clinton's are still adored by the pandering masses. Sheep...

I predict that she gets the nod either in a brokered convention of the super delegates. I would be stunned, in fact, I would not even toss the thought this is all planned. Nothing is beyond these people.

Remember, to the left, better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven AND the end always justifies the means.

What a utterly vapid post
This is such psychobabble. I am eager to vote for a black man or woman? Why? What difference does race or gender matter? It is utterly feckless to even consider it.

I to would vote for a black or a woman, if the woman were another Margret Thatcher or the Black was a Ronald Reagan.

In other words, ideology and character matter. Race and gender are irrelevant. Am I missing something here?

anti-intelligence
So you think the best way to prevent war is to pay danegild?

I know that trying to reason with you is a lost cause, you are so far beyond reality that you can't see it any more.

Do you think that the best way to protect ourselves is to be the weakest kid on the block?

What world dominance? I don't see the US trying to dominate anyone, other than Al-Queda and the terrorists. Is that what bothers you, killing people who want to kill us?

As far as being anti-politics as usual, you are delusional. Hillary defines politics as usual, she and her husband perfected it. The only thing unusual about Obama is his skin color. His politics are rock solid, core Democratic party. More govt, more taxes, no freedom.

Obama voters
If Obama doesn't get the nomination several things could happen to his supporters.

The moderate supporters who are enticed by his "change" message: some might drift to the Republican party. McCain has been painted as a "maverick" by the media for so many years that he could be acceptable to a lot of these voters.
Of the rest, a good many might stay home, since trying to paint Hillary as an agent of "change" will be an impossible task.

The far left supporters who are enamored with his socialist policies: Some might vote green, especially if McKinney is on the ticket. Some might vote for Hillary, since she does talk the socialist talk. They are likely to be cautious though, she has a history of talking much more liberal than she votes. The rest will stay home, I can't see any from this group voting for McCain.

The anti-war supporters: Some might vote for Hillary, since her recent rhetoric has been anti-war. But most of them will remember her early support for the war. I suspect most of them will either vote green, or stay home. None of them will vote for McCain who has been amongst the most vocal supporters of the war since the beginning.

Next week is important
If Hillary loses in both Texas and Ohio, I don't see how even the Clinton attack machine could salvage this election. It's more likely that she would drop out, and then do what she can to undermine Obama, so that she can run against McCain in 2012, rather than waiting for 2016 when Obama is not running again.

The proof of identity politics
sharpo tries to discredit the authors point, but instead she reaffirms it. That is, to the Democrats identity politics are the most important thing. And this affinity for race or gender over qualifications is what is strangling the Democratic party.

Who will it be?
Not the presidential contender, of course. The guy they pick for Vice President. I'm thinking it will probably come down to Joe Lieberman, Mike Huckabee or Lindsey Graham.

Huck's too obvious. I think they'll pass him over. You can't have two divas on the stage, and Mike's fatally charismatic. Especially when you compare him to the Stiff-in-Chief.

Lieberman's well positioned. Every time you see McCain on camera, Lieberman is just behind his left shoulder. And it would be a lot of people's idea of a master stroke to sign him on.

But I think in the end the traditional wisdom will prevail. In service both to the South and to the Center, my money would be on South Carolina's own Lindsey Graham.

Race and Genger trumps all
"In other words, ideology and character matter. Race and gender are irrelevant. Am I missing something here?"

Yeah, a grasp on political reality in America.

Note: that is not meant as an insult to you, but as a sad commentary on our society.

Hmmmm, interesting point
Had not thought of that one. Since McCain is in his 70's might be a valid point.

Lindal
I heard the new Gov of LA is being considered. A 1st gen immigrant and a staunch conservative.

A wise choice in my mind but I think he is to new and inexperienced. Huckabee is a dork. Lieberman is not going to run for VP with McCain.

In a nutshell, they all suck this time around.

The man's point of view
"... ideology and character matter. Race and gender are irrelevant. Am I missing something here?"

I think you are, actually. By dismissing her opinion as "vapid" and "psychobabble" you call attention to the bubble from which you see the world. There are also women and minorities out there. In fact together they enjoy an absolute majority over white males.

And this is a very guy-centric web site. We rarely see any woman post a comment on these pages. And even more rare, I suspect, is any person of color.

Anyway, what she is registering is a protest vote against the world white, male militarists have created. From her words, she would never vote for a Margaret Thatcher, a Jeanne Kirkpatrick or a Madeleine Albright. Thos are just more pseudo-male militarists, out to enforce the status quo.

I'm thinking she may not have much to choose from, between Clinton and Obama. Neither one is going to overturn the established order. But I'm reading that she would just once like this country to diverge a bit from the trajectory it's always been on.

You, by contrast, are happy with it. And wish it would go even further in that direction. So disagree with her. But don't disparage and belittle her. That's such a "guy" thing to do.

Hahahaha
Oh brother Roy, if she can't stand the heat don't post. My wife is a woman and she is not on some get even bent. You liberals always see people as groups. I don't, sorry.

Comparing Madeleine Albright to Thatcher or Kirkpatrick is insulting.

The Undemocratic Democratic Party
Basically, it all comes down to the various fissures that have been long dormant in the Party (gender vs race) that have been exposed and the undemocratic nature of the super-delegate system (which the Republicans don't have any equivalent to in their party rules).

Pauled covers the super delegate issue pretty much. If you're a dedicated Obama supporter and see Hillary 'steal' the election with un-elected super-delegates (basically about 400 folks who get to vote however they want, they weren't elected in the primaries), chances are you are going to be real pissed about that. Ditto for the reverse if you're a Hillary supporter. The super-delegates are not a very democratic institution. Think of them as the Party's own, in-house House of Lords, to borrow the British metaphor. Hence, if they call the shots, it will look more like some smoke-room wheeling and dealing went on and not the primary voter's will.

And there is the Hispanic quotient. They are voting in droves for Hillary? Why? A lot of commentary on anti-black racism being more of the cause than any love they have for Hillary is going on right now. If Obama secures the nomination, that means all those Hispanic voters are not necessarily a given come November.

But, we shall see.

He'd be a smart choice
Bobby Jindal would be such a good move I don't know that the movers and shakers in the R camp could see their way clear to hiring him on. He'd be a good antidote for McCain's Unwinnability Quotient-- people who wouldn't touch him with a ten foot pole. Bobby's everything McCain isn't. Especially because he's likable. But also being brown and smart doesn't hurt.

If Joe Lieberman isn't hoping for the spot, what's he doing there in every photo? He's got the best seat in the house, every time.

It will be Jane Fonda
McCain will have to balance the Hanoi Hilton ticket, after all. :)

Huckabee brings a lot more bad baggage to the table that will keep him from consideration, too. For one, the whole Fair Tax thing is anathema to established DC beltway politicians -- esp one like McCain.

Two, I can just see the debate question now: "So, tell us about the Garden of Eden, Governor."

Still, stranger things have happened.

Speculation Blues
Your assessment seems reasonable, overall, especially as far as garnering the South is concerned -- Graham could possibly secure that vote. However, I'm of the mindset that with regard to "capturing" the votes of the more traditionally conservative wing of the party, the Veep nominee will have to be a non-McCain type; McCain has already riled the ire of conservative Republicans, and his moderate stances will earn him support from the ever-important middle voting bloc which typically sways the electoral vote. Therefore, it would be near suicidal for McCain to choose a running mate who would rankle the conservatives even MORE (bringing down further wrath from Limbaugh and his talk radio ilk) -- that, in my mind, rules out Huckabee and Graham, who've both been heavily criticized by the more staunchly conservative talking heads. In that regard Lieberman is out as well -- he may be an ally on the matter of the Middle East, but his domestic policy preferences are far from acceptible to most conservatives.

In the end, who knows? My advice (worth zero, of course) would be for McCain to choose a VP whom the indignantly chaffed Limbaugh types would embrace. I've heard the names Evan Baye and possibly Duncan Hunter floated to balance out the conservative bona fides for the 2008 ticket....

Ooops ...
I didn't mean Evan Baye -- there was another congressman from the Midwest (whose name obviously escapes me at the moment) to whom I've heard reference as a possible VP candidate; when I retrieve that information I'll post it.

Interesting
I don't mean that you can only understand sharpo's comment as coming from some get-even libber. That's neither interesting nor surprising. And I'm certain your wife isn't that way at all. But there are a lot of us who do feel just that way- that the same old crowd has got us to where we are today, and we'd like to go somewhere else.

"You liberals always see people as groups. I don't, sorry."

So stipulated.

"Comparing Madeleine Albright to Thatcher or Kirkpatrick is insulting."

This is the comment that really does interest me. True, she served in a Democratic administration. But the woman's just as much a card carrying fascist as either of the others. She was the one who thought the deaths of a half million Iraqi children under our sanctions regime was a price she was willing to pay.

So what is it that separates her from the other female authoritarians you admire?

Correction
The individual I had in mind was congressman Mike Pence, not Senator Baye....

(Confusion due to early morning muddleheadedness.)

age
Hillary's no spring chicken either. 2016 is a long time away for her.

Good point
You make a lot of sense. It might just be Duncan Hunter. And by the same token, people here in NC are hopeful that our own good ole boy Richard Burr will get the shot. That one puts the R back into Right Thinking Republican.

protest
roy,

the only one here who's demonstrating what a strange and remote bubble that they view the world from, is you.

The fact that you defend any and all attacks on the "white male" establishment, regardless of whether the attacks have merit, says much about your world view.

The fact that you defend someone who bases their vote solely on the race and or gender of a candidate, says much about your world view.

And none of it good.

Thatcher and Kirkpatrick
Authoritarians? Really...

So lets see, sanctions kill children, so lets not impose penalties on a state that threatens it's neighbors and world oil supplies.

Yet, Bush takes him out and Iraqi children suffer.

Sort of problematic isn't it?

As to the same old crowd, hey I am on board about that.

I am not a Conservative in the sense we should preserve the status quo. I am all about radical change. However, my idea of change and yours are likely divergent. I would like to see a slow dismantling of the size of government, fiscal restraints and a large turnover in our politicians to refresh the memory who they serve.

traditional roy, ignorant as ever
Thatcher and Kirkpatric, fascist?

Maybe in the make believe world that you live in.

It wasn't Thatcher that made the people of Iraq suffer. It was their dictator that did that.

The fact that you are so eager to absolve Hussein of any guilt over his crimes, moreover, try so desperately hard to shift the blame onto others, is one of the few constants of your world view.

blame
In roy's world, white male Europeans are responsible for every evil in the world.

He will bend reality past the breaking point to justify this belief.

The Hispanic vote... and superdelegates
No great wonder why Hilary's got the Hispanic vote. She has a great position on immigration:

http://www.senate.gov/~clinton/issues/immigration/

Obama's okay, but a little more judgmental:

http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060405-immigration_ref/

All the Republicans are more in the "clamp 'em in chains and send 'em all back" camp. And in fact a lot of conservative Hispanics feel pretty much that way. But you have to be careful how you say things like that.

There are two factions in the Hispanic community-- those who have made it going by the books and those who identify more with the tired and hungry, yearning for our shores. So whichever way you cut it, that vote will be split. And, a few will even vote Republican.

Now to the superdelegates-- an angle I'll confess I haven't been paying a bit of attention to. Here's the best capsule comment I can find on this curious custom:

"The 1972 Democratic National Convention produced George McGovern as the Democratic presidential nominee. Although he won the nomination by a wide margin, he lost the presidency in a landslide to Richard Nixon, winning only one state and 37.5 percent of the popular vote. Because of this, the Democratic Party instituted super delegates as a safeguard to guarantee party control over the nomination process. Political experts say this system was put in place so the party could avoid a mistake by voters in nominating a candidate."

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/politics/15065561/detail.html

All I can say is that if the voters choose Obama resoundingly, as they seem to be doing, and the Party decides to run Hilary instead, it would be a remarkable and spectacular instance of political suicide.

Are they smart enough to figure this out all by themselves? I don't know... but I'm guessing they possibly are.

The Easter Bunny
My, you do go back... you're still reacting to a slight from back in 1967. I guess that's where the term "reactionary" comes from. :)

In any case, Hanoi Jane has retracted her position, heaping ashes on her head and wearing sack cloth year before last when she was pumping her movie on the Today Show. Sad to see an old radical do something like that.

You're right about Huckabee though. People would forgive him the fundamentalist thing, since he comes across as being so normal and all on TV. But the Fair Tax? That kind of thing brands him as a wack job in the public eye. The American people just aren't ready for that yet.

I'd love to see the Garden of Eden question come up in a debate. Back when I was in ninth grade there was a guy who still believed in Santa and the Easter Bunny. We'd gather around him and put the question to him. And the boy would stick to his guns, and just say "Yup. But I don't want to talk about it."

In retrospect, you really have to admire a guy like that.

Threatening the neighbors
I'd still like to hear what distinguishes Albright from Thatcher and Kirkpatrick. To me they're all three demonstrably birds of a feather.

Not at all surprised you agree with her. When it comes to cornering Middle East oil, as opposed to the lives of a mere half million unimportant children, I was confident which side we'd find you on.

"So lets see, sanctions kill children, so lets not impose penalties on a state that threatens it's neighbors and world oil supplies."

Saddam threatened his neighbors twice. When he was getting ready to attack Iran we abetted him by offering (and then giving) both logistical support from our satellite intel and weapons systems. In fact without our helicopters and chemical and biological supplies he never could have waged his Anfal against the Iraqi Kurds.

The other time, of course, he asked us for a commitment. And our envoy told him that any beef between him and Kuwait was strictly up to him-- we weren't involved in it.

Yup. back when he was our client, Saddam did indeed threaten the neighbors. Too bad our sanctions weren't designed to punish him. They only punished the Iraqi people.

Iran
So I suppose Iran is just a nice friendly nation also?

Difference, how about the fact Albright was a appeaser while Thatcher and Kirkpatrick took a hard line against the Soviets and other aggressors.

Yeah, I agree we do dumb things sometimes, but life is about making mistakes and learning from them.

Cornering Mid East oil? When did we do that? You also might consider, if the worlds oil supply was radically disrupted, how many people might die from that?

Seems like you blame us for everything. I guess Hussain has no culpability. Viva Che?

Sad but true, dbt3481;
the guilt-riddled stupidity of the hollow stuffing-headed ones thickens like a coastal shelf.

But just remember this: Dullo says that what is a glaring fact is "just wishful thinking". Facts are such pernicious things for those who are totally manipulated by words, whose reality is just "words, words, words".

(FYI, Reagan was white. I know that what you really meant to say was "Colin Powell". Hahaha)

How about this ticket: McCain/Rice?

You mean, the Beanie Baby is really Susan Sontag in disguise?
She's not really dead!

Interesting misdirection
"So I suppose Iran is just a nice friendly nation also?"

Iran had the temerity to defy us-- after we had gone to the trouble of installing an odious dictator to rule over them. The Shah was soundly hated.

All the more reason, then, to cynically engineer a war that probably killed two million young men-- for absolutely no reason other than to sow discord in the Middle East.

See, here's the difference between us. Khomeini's your stick-figure enemy. And you want to stick it to him. But the real life Khomeini never felt a thing. He wasn't on the front lines.

The guys who got hurt were ordinary draft-age Iranians and Iraqis. They had no politics... but that didn't matter.

Albright was an appeaser? I know that's just about the worst curse in your vocabulary, so she must have done something... but what was it? Who did she appease, and how? I'm still missing your heartfelt point.

You are displaying, if I may point to it for a moment, what I think of as a zero sum mentality. If I say anything that makes the US look even slightly bad, that means I side with Saddam and all he stands for. You literally have no way of understanding anyone other than by imagining which of the two and only two sides they must be on.

Do I support Good? No? Oh, then. I must be supporting Evil. Anything other than uncritical, unquestioning support of wherever our Commander leads us is evidence of Evil Thinking.

Good god. What a military mind. Anyway, tell me more about Madeleine and her appeasing ways.

talk about ignorant misdirection
Do you honestly believe that the entire problem with Iran is because they had "the temerity to defy us". Please tell me that you aren't that incredibly ignorant.

The shaw was not as hated as you wish to believe. Regardless, he was less hated than the current leadership.

You honestly believe that the Iran/Iraq war was engineered by the US. Are you actually stupid enough to believe that absent US manipulation, these countries would be best of friends?

Fantasy Land
Roy:

I could give a rats a** about Iran. Yeah, the Shah was a horrible dictator imposing those western values and trying to bring his nation out of the 6th century. At least Carter saw the light and put a real man in charge.

I don't see us attacking Germany because they refuse to help us in Afganistan. Iran is well know as a abuser of rights, they held US hostages in our Embassy, a overt act of war and in clear violation of international law. They continuously threaten Israel, created by the same UN that now berates them, and they are developing nuclear weapons and delivery systems all the while promising to vaporize the west.

Yet, like Albright, you blame us. Unquestioning support, when?

I am especially impressed with the tough stand Albright took with North Korea. She was appointed because of her gender. The Clintons did not appoint anyone because they were qualified or the best. It was always political expediency.

But hey, I am sure that is Bush's fault also?

Colin Powell?
No what I wanted to say is that if a black politician of Reagan's stature and ideological stance arose I would vote for him.

Colin Powell is not that man.

I would not right her off yet.
The Clinton's are the ultimate ruling class. She reminds me of Olivia, Augustus' wife in the TV series, I Claudius. As they said, Augustus ruled Rome but Olivia ruled Augustus.

You don't understand
The only reason why Iran did any of those awful things is because the US forced them to. If the US was peaceful, nobody else in the world would ever do anything bad.

Well,
we'll just have to disagree on that one (not whether or not Powell is a black Reagan, to which I am indifferent). I would have voted for Powell in a moment.

Oh--Hillary the C is finished, too. She's simply too much of a beeyotch, and Dumbama can manipulate people's levels of enthusiasm in ways she can only fantasize about (that's the ONLY thing he can do, as he is all style void of any substance).

Write not right
Geesh, I have had the flu. Pardon the ignorant looking post...

I'm not willing to take that bet
I will never under-estimate how far the Clinton's will go. But, if she looses Texas and Ohio, especially if the losses are by wade margins, it's probably over for her.

Oh Happy Day
Imad Mugniyah is finally killed in a most fitting manner. As Patton said "... make the other guy die for his cause."

Dead on
That is very accurate in the way it splits out.

TCS Daily Archives