The GOP's Looming Battle?!
That's the title of EJ Dionne's column today -- and it's a prime example of an intelligent man allowing his wishes to carry his analysis into the realm of the absurd.
Dionne points to four major presidential contenders -- McCain, Giuliani, Romney and Gingrich -- and argues that "each of their leading presidential candidates proposes important breaks with the Bush approach." As a result, Dionne opines, "a Republican Party known for ideological solidarity is on the cusp of a far more searching philosophical battle than are the Democrats." In contrast, he argues, "The Hillary talk is more about persona than ideology."
Talk about the wish being father to the thought! Hillary Clinton is feeling the heat from an ideological fringe that is wielding every bit as much influence in the Democratic Party as the much-maligned "Religious Right" has mustered in the Republican (and judging from opinions like this, it's not all about "persona"). At the same time, Republicans like me will be willing to support any of the four Republicans Dionne names -- because any of them will be infinitely superior to a Democrat who will be susceptible to pressure from the America-hating, cut-n-run brigades of the left.
Certainly, both parties have plenty of divisions. But what's fortunate for the Republicans and unfortunate for the Democrats is that the war on terror -- the #1 issue -- tends to unite the former and divide the latter. The evidence? The new cohesion on the right in the face of the Hamden decision and The New York Times' unconscionable decision to publish classified information about the SWIFT program, compared to the Democrats' division when it comes to the Connecticut Senate nomination race (which has focused primarily on Joe Lieberman's support for the war).
EJ Dionne may hope to see more Republican than Democratic disarray in the run-up to 2008, but wishing doesn't make it so.
Dionne points to four major presidential contenders -- McCain, Giuliani, Romney and Gingrich -- and argues that "each of their leading presidential candidates proposes important breaks with the Bush approach." As a result, Dionne opines, "a Republican Party known for ideological solidarity is on the cusp of a far more searching philosophical battle than are the Democrats." In contrast, he argues, "The Hillary talk is more about persona than ideology."
Talk about the wish being father to the thought! Hillary Clinton is feeling the heat from an ideological fringe that is wielding every bit as much influence in the Democratic Party as the much-maligned "Religious Right" has mustered in the Republican (and judging from opinions like this, it's not all about "persona"). At the same time, Republicans like me will be willing to support any of the four Republicans Dionne names -- because any of them will be infinitely superior to a Democrat who will be susceptible to pressure from the America-hating, cut-n-run brigades of the left.
Certainly, both parties have plenty of divisions. But what's fortunate for the Republicans and unfortunate for the Democrats is that the war on terror -- the #1 issue -- tends to unite the former and divide the latter. The evidence? The new cohesion on the right in the face of the Hamden decision and The New York Times' unconscionable decision to publish classified information about the SWIFT program, compared to the Democrats' division when it comes to the Connecticut Senate nomination race (which has focused primarily on Joe Lieberman's support for the war).
EJ Dionne may hope to see more Republican than Democratic disarray in the run-up to 2008, but wishing doesn't make it so.
posted by LadybugUSA at 9:26 AM
5 Comments:
Dear Ayatollah,
Your moral relativism is ridiculous. Are you aware that there are many reports of Duh-bya's and Laura's cocaine abuse from their Dallas days? Does it matter to you that Duh-bya's deadly boondoggle has singularly done more damage to our national security than anything you can concoct about Clinton?
I love it when you guys bring up "Filegate, Travelgate," et al. All of those so-called scandals were completely manufactured during one of the most shamelessly partisan eras in our history, the venom of which makes my present-day rantings about the current occupant seem like nothing.
Keep on with it. It's merely a sign of your desperation that you have to go back and rearrange the legacies of ex-presidents to make your current one seem partially competent.
Being part of the much-maligned "Religious Right", I don't feel like fringe, I feel like a broad sweeping generalization. Just trying to do as God would want me to do, amen.
But if those are the 4 we will get to choose from, I'm saddened...and I'd go with Romney, Gingrich, McCain, Giuliani in that order. Then if the race came down to Giuliani vs. Lieberman...I'd probably go with Lieberman...but we don't have to worry about that, do we?
Ayatollah, where did you get your blinders? Did they pass them out at one of the canned campaign rallies for Our Great Leader?
You are hilarious.
[Ted Kennedy has] also been a great senator for 40 years
He did bless us with the HMO act of 1973 and its ammendment in 1978.
And the last immigration compromise in 1986. About that, he said back in 1991 "We aimed at illegal aliens, but we hit law-abiding Americans."
I'm not sure what else he's done, but on those two points, I'm not feeling the Greatness.
Wrabkin said:
"Mr Ayatollah:
Just out of curiousity, exactly what percentage of the American populace do you advocate executing? Now that you're finding traitors everywhere, even in our former presidents, I'm sure that a good 40% of us should be killed.
I won't comment on the irony of a self-styled patriot who feels the country would be better if 100 million Americans were murdered by his ideological ilk.
Why is it you hate the American people, Ayatollah? And how many do you think should be allowed to live?"
I must have missed something. Where did anyone on this site recommend executing 100 million American citizens?
Is Ditto quoting polls again or something?
Post a Comment
<< Home