I complete agree with Larison on the question of Palin for 2012. But really, what is the GOP goal here? As much as there is some kind of overall goal they are shooting for, the presidency is *not* it. They know they have no chance to upset Obama in 2012 when he is in full campaign mode.
So their overall goal remains consistent: To soil the water of politics in order to present themselves as the only real alternative to those currently in power, starting with Congress. And toward that, Palin is a logical choice. If you have no chance of actually winning, why not run Palin up there to "speak truth to power" and tell America that "real Americans" are unhappy with the way things are being done? It is a win-win for the GOP--the media will happily (and freely) report everything Palin says and does with high definition coverage of "real Americans" trying to "take back" their country.
The GOP isn't about policy, governance, or leadership. It is about publicity.
Your pal,
Fred
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Thursday, May 27, 2010
DADT vote
Andrew:
I just wanted to point out one sentence from that NYT article on the committee vote for DADT:
"[Republicans] also questioned if the military leaders who would have to make the final decision would be able to resist pressure from the White House to lift the repeal. "
Sounds like someone keeps forgetting that Obama is the Commander in Chief.
Your pal,
Fred
I just wanted to point out one sentence from that NYT article on the committee vote for DADT:
"[Republicans] also questioned if the military leaders who would have to make the final decision would be able to resist pressure from the White House to lift the repeal. "
Sounds like someone keeps forgetting that Obama is the Commander in Chief.
Your pal,
Fred
Monday, March 15, 2010
On Glenn Beck
Andrew,
While I understand the point you are trying to make with regard to Beck (essentially, making a distinction between religious mandates and a welfare state), you are making a distinction Beck himself is not making.
One can argue whether a "socialist state" is the best way to deliver on the promise and mandate of social justice for the religious (of whatever persuasion). But one cannot argue that such a mandate is just cause for leaving a particular church.
Beck's ham-fistedness wasn't that he was talking about politics and wanted to ensure the religious were a part of his Rand-like vision. It was that he tried to separate the religious from their own beliefs.
Your pal,
Fred
While I understand the point you are trying to make with regard to Beck (essentially, making a distinction between religious mandates and a welfare state), you are making a distinction Beck himself is not making.
One can argue whether a "socialist state" is the best way to deliver on the promise and mandate of social justice for the religious (of whatever persuasion). But one cannot argue that such a mandate is just cause for leaving a particular church.
Beck's ham-fistedness wasn't that he was talking about politics and wanted to ensure the religious were a part of his Rand-like vision. It was that he tried to separate the religious from their own beliefs.
Your pal,
Fred
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)