The Speaker has chickened out after all. Good for the republic if not for the Republicans. With the GOP bench so shallow and his ego so wide, it must be breaking his heart not to be in the race. Probably thinks he can afford to wait four years, then run as the antiwar candidate against President Clinton.
So is that it?: Fred Thompson vs Hillary Clinton? Oy.
At least the Mike Huckabee-Bill Richardson vice presidential debate will be fun.
Although she has run an obsessively controlled campaign so far, there is still plenty of time for Sen. Clinton to stumble, especially if she is as close to lunacy as she appears in the clips The Daily Show pieced together last Tuesday of her wildly inappropriate cackling during her talk show marathon the weekend before. Apparently, her handlers think a laugh track will make her appear more human. Maybe it would have gone better if they hadn't given her that Chucky doll to practice with.
Ever the advocate of executive power, the junior senator from New York voted this week for the mischievous Lieberman-Kyle amendment -- the dybbuk from Connecticut must be feeling especially clever right now -- that Sen. Jim Webb characterized as "Cheney’s fondest pipe dream" and "a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action" against Iran (see, Debunking the Neocons' Iran War Measure by Gareth Porter, Huffington Post 2007-09-27).
Just for the record, Lieberman-Kyle passed by a disheartening 76-22 (go here for the roll call of dysfunction). Barack Obama conveniently was MIA on this tally, so he'll be off the hook no matter how it all turns out: he can criticize Clinton if things go badly in Iran; or knock Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, who voted no -- along with Richardson and John Edwards, who came out strongly against the resolution -- in the unlikely event that the contretemps somehow ends well for the United States. The very junior senator from Illinois has advocated missile attacks on Iran and Pakistan in the past, but since the idea of another preemptive war can't be sitting too well with his Hollywood funders, he's showing good sense in not dwelling on the issue now (he did release a post-facto statement saying he would have voted against the amendment had he troubled himself to be there).
Also, while we're on the subject, Sen. Diane Feinstein voted aye, too. Probably hopes another war will be good for topping off hubby's already bulging coffers. Those people who decry earmarks should reconsider: they are far less costly -- in lives, capital and national reputation -- than military action at privatizing tax dollars. (If you're in the mood, call Feinstein and Clinton and let them know how you feel about their enabling another war: Feinstein 202-224-3841 and Clinton 202-224-4451.)
The "movement" is particularly smug about the vote, thinking it's responsible for softening the language in the amendment, but textual subtleties won't stop Bush or his successor from using the legislation as authorization for another Mideast war.
But I digress.
About the Speaker, I am pleased to have been wrong:
by Sarah Wheaton (NYTimes, 2007- 09-29)Citizen activist. Love it.
Newt Gingrich has sent so many hints pointing in so many different directions that we’re dizzy trying to follow them all. But now, it appears, he’s made up his mind.
Rick Tyler, Mr. Gingrich’s spokesman, confirmed today that the former Republican House speaker has decided against a presidential run in 2008.
Mr. Gingrich was “presented with legal advice this morning,” said Mr. Tyler in a quick phone interview. “There was a choice presented.”
The choice was to remain chairman of his political action committee, American Solutions, or to allow advisers to move forward with an exploratory committee. But he could not, legally, do both, Mr. Tyler explained.
“So Mr. Gingrich made a choice to remain a citizen activist,” he said.
The rest of the story: The New York Times
No comments:
Post a Comment