Go here for an interesting analysis of the Cindy Sheehan situation.
Also, this comment on the significance of the Valerie Plame scandal: "I think it's something that people will forget about when the next blonde girl runs away and gets eaten by a shark."
And now back to our regularly scheduled hiding in the dark from the miserable humidity outside.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Thanks for pointing out that post. That was good.
Good luck hiding from the humidity!
For a moment, I misread that as "hiding in the dark from the miserable 'humanity' outside" ... Then, sadly, I realised it was just as apt.
Joel: no, humidity was this weekend. Hiding from humanity was last weekend.
I think the Plame surmise is correct, unfortunately (it's already proven to be so).
This is terribly partisan and cynical of me, but I'm actually a bit saddened by the fact that Bush's poll numbers, the public's dissatisfaction with his handling of the war, and the Rove/ Plame scandal are all happening now, at the beginning of his second term, years before the next elections.
All of this will have blown over by November of next year, and especially by November of 2008, which is really too bad. But that's the fickle MSM and ADD general public for you.
Also, with a Republican-controlled House and Senate, the likelihood of a real scandal coming to light isn't very high. At least during Watergate, Dems controlled the legislative branch, which is why things got rolling againt Nixon. Not so in today's world.
:-(
Yep. I know there are a lot of people who are convinced that the Republicans are going down this time, but I remember the same feeling in 2002, and again in 2004. I have resolved to never underestimate the Republicans' ability to evade and change the subject ever again. If there's not another terror attack, it'll be gay marriage all over again, or abortions, or whatever the cultural battle du jour turns out to be.
In other words, don't count your chickenhawks before they're scratched. I'm hoping to get another post together talking about how the Dems should attack on Iraq and election reform - basically, on the former, I'd like to see the Dems attack from the *right* more often, and I think it's doable. Basically, they should point out that we started a war for no reason at all (the last non-oil rationale bit the dust this weekend), and not only did it cost lives and give al Qaeda a recruiting bonanza, but it hamstrung us in our dealings with "real threats" like Iran and North Korea, who are laughing at us behind our backs knowing we're pinned down and can't touch them. (Of course, we could *never* attack North Korea without sacrificing South Korea, but I'm not sure our target audience really cares...)
Oh, and thanks for the plug, Andy!
Thanks for the link, to me too! I guess that means I will have to get more regular.
You're both welcome!
Eli, I especially agreed with your conclusion that Mrs. Sheehan is a lose/lose situation for the White House. It would be one thing if she were merely deranged with grief, but she seems pretty reasonable. By brushing her off for fundraisers and little-league games, Bush comes off as shallow and unsympathetic. But they run a real risk in letting the two of them actually meet, as we know that Bush does not handle confrontation well at all. He does not like to be challenged. Yet the fact remains that he led us into this war without answering any of the fundamental questions that were raised before we got there. Someday he will be held accountable.
Post a Comment