Comments on: Kristol’s 2008 predictions.

By: A Patriot Acting

A Patriot Acting — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 13:32:43 +0000

In 1985 as chief of staff to then Vice President Dan Quayle William Kristol was dubbed, “Quayle’s brain” by The New Republic.
-nuff said

By: Sabyen91

Sabyen91 — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 01:22:00 +0000

“Comment by shellyT â€” March 1, 2008 @ 10:52 pm

thanks for that dollop of brilliance. your concern is noted.

Comment by Lefty Patriot â€” March 1, 2008 @ 10:56 pm”

I see what you did there :)

By: Sabyen91

Sabyen91 — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 01:20:51 +0000

“Clarke is a Clintonite. Bill Richardson would be the best choice by far.

Comment by georgia â€” March 1, 2008 @ 9:08 pm”

Despite not giving out his endorsement Richardson has long been a Clintonite as well. It is not a reason to dismiss anybody as a VP choice.

By: Sabyen91

Sabyen91 — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 01:16:31 +0000

“I say that Obama have Wesley Clark as his running mate. That would go a long way to filling the â€œwar hawkâ€ void on his resume. On the other hand, I would rather he have Kucinich and really start a Department of Peace.

Comment by bilbobaggins â€” March 1, 2008 @ 6:09 pm”

I am on board with that. Not to mention that in addition to Obama’s apparant strength in the Plaines states, Wes Clark would solidify that strength and you will see several purplish states in 2004 turn blue.

By: dictatortot

dictatortot — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 18:44:39 +0000

If we suffer another major attack, or if the insurgencies in Iraq and/or Afghanistan re-surge (which is likely as spring breaks in Afghanistan,) Kristol may be right. I wonder if he’s “hopeful?”

http://newsprism.wordpress.com

By: glenjo

glenjo — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 17:19:18 +0000

Someone should remind little Billy that the ability to actually WIN the war is more important that starting a bunch and proceeding to lose them all. We need to elect someone that can FIX this BLOODY mess, not make it worst.

Republicans strong on defense is a myth.

Republicans even able to govern after they are put in charge is a myth.

A bunch of dumb a$$ Repubs are running this country into the ground.

By: RUCerious

RUCerious — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 17:12:10 +0000

Kill Bristol ~ All wrong, all the time.

By: marlow

marlow — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 17:11:39 +0000

Nothing wrong with fascism. Hitler only gave it a bad name.
Comment by Frank M â€” February 2, 2008 @ 12:48 pm

By: Marie

Marie — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 16:53:28 +0000

It would be wise for Clintonites to not badmouth Obama as they praise Hillary. For instance, Wesley Clark has held his fire against Obama – and he may get a seat in the Obama cabinet, if not the vice presidency. In fact, I can see nearly every Democratic primary candidate having a high place in the Obama White House or Cabinet.
We still haven’t heard who Edwards will swing toward, nor has Biden spoken. Note that Dodd and Richardson have come out for Obama, and I think Kucinich did also.
When this cycle is over, however, all Democrats better line up behind which ever is the candidate — united we stand, divided we fall. Leave the divisions to the repugs who battle between biblethumpers, warmongers and heartless elitists.

By: bilbobaggins

bilbobaggins — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 16:37:08 +0000

Thatâ€™s true, but they didnâ€™t end the war, did they? In fact, this has dragged on so long that even CNN is getting sick of it.
I donâ€™t see it ending with either a Obillary at the helm either. To say nothing of McBush.
Comment by shellyT

You know, I’m getting really sick and tired of people blaming the Democrats for not ending the Occupation of Iraq. I don’t think they have done all that they could do, but if they had not been obstructed by the Republicans and vetoed by Bush, we would be out of there by now. The fact is they don’t have enough of a majority to make it happen.

Beware of concerned trolls. The new RNC strategy.

By: bilbobaggins

bilbobaggins — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 16:33:51 +0000

I say that Obama have Wesley Clark as his running mate. -bilbobaggins
Clarke is a Clintonite. Bill Richardson would be the best choice by far.
Comment by georgia

I know, I was just looking for someone with military experience. Just because Clark supported Clinton doesn’t mean that Obama can’t have him as a VP. Clark is not badmouthing Obama so he is not burning his bridges.

By: GL2814

GL2814 — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 15:55:26 +0000

Herr Kristol. Talking out his a** yet again!

By: Keith

Keith — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 10:21:23 +0000

In the 1968 campaign, Nixon said he had a secret plan to end the Vietnam War. (He couldn’t tell us because then the enemy would hear the secret.) Later, Haldeman’s diary said that Nixon was working in 1968 and 1972 AGAINST the peace terms we finally agreed on. He said Nixon felt that peace would be harmful in both his campaigns. Nixon could have saved half the lives lost in that war—but that would have been bad for him politically—according to Nixon. Haldeman was the closest Nixon had to a friend.

That was a withdrawal based on a timeline—-which seems to be so outrageously wrong today.

By: fletc3her

fletc3her — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 08:00:55 +0000

Good. The Democrats should win a national security election hands down. No question.

It was after all the Republicans who were in power when the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil was perpetrated. It was the Republicans who failed to protect our country from that attack. It was the Republicans who failed to capture or kill those responsible for this attack. It was the Republicans who got a significant portion of our military tied up in a quagmire half a world away, leaving our country’s defenses woefully understaffed.

I think it’s time to give the Democrats a shot at it.

By: JosephW

JosephW — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 07:22:26 +0000

Actually, didn’t Nixon win election in 1968 on a “law and order” campaign, rather than focusing on the Vietnam War?
Humphrey (the Democratic candidate) campaigned against the war but Nixon really didn’t base his campaign on the war one way or the other.
Before that was the Korean “War”, but Eisenhower (the former GENERAL) actively campaigned AGAINST the war, most notably with his pledge that, if he won, he would go to Korea to see if he could END THE WAR.
Before that, of course, was WWII, and it’s not so much that the “more hawkish” candidate won, as much as the “don’t change horses in mid-stream” philosophy which led to FDR’s winning a fourth term (that war, incidentally, only officially involved US forces for 1365 days–some 450 days LESS than the current “war” in Iraq, and nearly 1000 days LESS than the official “war” on terror).
The ONLY OTHER TIME when a Presidential election was held during a WAR (not counting the 2004 election, which had far more to do with getting religious conservatives to the polls to vote for measures which would prohibit same-sex marriage than any “hawkish” attitudes) was in 1864, and while McClellan was officially the candidate of the more “dovish” party, he personally supported the war effort against the party’s platform.
The 1812 election (which took place just months after the formal declaration of war) was Madison (the incumbent) running against DeWitt Clinton (of New York). The funny thing is that Clinton ran as anti-war in the Northeast but ran as war supporter in the Southern and Western sections of the country.
Naturally, Kristol isn’t right very often. If only he’d pay someone more than $5/week to check his facts………

By: TexasDemocrat

TexasDemocrat — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 05:28:49 +0000

Kristol will be proven wrong again, as usual…unless the GOP can figure
a way to rig the electronic voting machines.

By: delafield

delafield — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 04:11:39 +0000

Comment by shellyT â€” March 1, 2008 @ 10:52 pm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Shelly, American politicians don’t control America, these people do…..

Wednesday, October 3, 2001

– An acrimonious argument erupted during the Israeli cabinet weekly session last week between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his foreign Minister Shimon Peres during which Sharon reportedly yelled at Peres, saying “don’t worry about American pressure, we control America.”

According the Israeli Hebrew radio Kol Yisrael Wednesday, Peres warned Sharon that refusing to heed incessant American requests for a cease-fire with the Palestinians would endanger Israeli interests and turn the US against us.

At this point, a furious Sharon reportedly turned toward Peres, saying “every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don’t worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.”

By: missmolly

missmolly — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 04:07:39 +0000

I haven’t read through this whole thread, so somebody else may have pointed this out.

2006 isn’t the only example of a year when the hawks lost the election. Kristol has also forgotten about 1968, when Americans were weary of Vietnam. Humphrey’s association with the war doomed him, enabling Nixon to get elected. And Nixon wasn’t running on a “bomb the hell out of them” platform.

Hawks don’t get elected when “we’re at war” if the citizens are war-weary and believe the war was wrong to begin with. This spin ain’t even gonna get off the ground.

By: Lefty Patriot

Lefty Patriot — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 03:56:12 +0000

Comment by shellyT â€” March 1, 2008 @ 10:52 pm

thanks for that dollop of brilliance. your concern is noted.

By: shellyT

shellyT — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 03:52:54 +0000

Perhaps Kristol forgot about the outcome of the 2006 midterm elections, in which Iraq war critics overwhelming swept the congressional races”

That’s true, but they didn’t end the war, did they? In fact, this has dragged on so long that even CNN is getting sick of it.

I don’t see it ending with either a Obillary at the helm either. To say nothing of McBush.