There was a piece a couple of days ago talking about how Drudge was putting some news stories on his site that were helpful for Ms. Clinton. I really didn’t think much of it at the time because, in truth, I think he just puts stuff on the site that he thinks is interesting. He definitely has a point of view but most of the stuff that appears on his site came from somewhere else first. But then I have been seeing the story about Argentina’s probable new president on the site for a couple of days running now.
Ordinarily no one except for the most wonkish of political wonks would care who was the president of Argentina because, well, it’s Argentina. But there is something in this story that could prove very helpful for Ms. Clinton’s presidential campaign; the presumptive president is the first lady of the current president. Yup, that’s right.
Hillary is suppose to have a couple of things stacked up against her, her gender and her last name, and this story is perfect for Ms. Clinton. Here’s this woman in another country who is going to become president right after her husband. And she was a senator too! I can hear the lefties right now: “Wow, see girls, if you work hard and do the right thing you can become president… in Argentina. But not in America where we still can’t stand a powerful woman.”
It is crucially important for Ms. Clinton’s presidential aspirations that she be seen as a woman. By framing her campaign in this light she will be able to sidestep many tough questions and get support from voters, mostly women, who just want to see a woman as president. She knows that not many people will vote against her just because she’s a woman but if she builds up that strawman she can make it seem like anyone who votes against her is a sexist pig. At least that is what she is aiming for and Drudge is helping.
Don’t get me wrong, in no way am I mad at Drudge if he is airing these stories for Ms. Clinton’s benefit, he has a job to do. He will continue to show pictures of Ms. Clinton in a witches hat and stuff like that. Remember, his job is to be interesting and that is all he’s doing.
The front running, um, witch needs all the help she can get because she has, according to leftists, given Bush basically the same discretion to start a war with Iran that he had to start the war with Iraq. What all of this is is Ms. Clinton being practical. She believes that she has the nomination wrapped up and is focusing on the general election. Clinton doesn’t want to be seen as a [start hushed voice] woman [end hushed voice] who is soft and weak. She’s going to cast herself as this kick-ass candidate all in the hope that more men will vote for her. I could be crazy but I just don’t think this or any other strategy she tries is going to work.
The republicans are still going to have to do a lot of work to beat her in the general elections though. If it were up to me they would be running to the right because, even in Britain, voters respond to conservative candidates. Most people want to live in a country where the government protects them, provides a basic security net for the poor, and makes sure that the laws are enforced. We are a center-right nation. The democrats are running campaigns that would have to significantly raise taxes in order to pay for all their different programs and they are against the War on Terror as it is currently being prosecuted. This message is going to prove rather difficult to turn into electoral victory if the republican candidate endorses a sensibly conservative plan.
Back to the real world, well, not so “real” if we’re talking about liberals. The specific lib I’m talking about now is one Philip Stephens who wrote Bush heads for miscalculation on Iran for The Financial Times. The article is the normal thing you would expect coming from a “give peace a chance” type of fellow. “We don’t know enough about Iran. China has a nuke and they haven’t blown us up yet. Kissinger wouldn’t attack Iran. Neocons just want to blow stuff up.” More whining from the left is how I read the whole article.
George W. Bush warns that Iran’s nuclear ambitions threaten world war three. Vice-president Dick Cheney speaks of “serious consequences” unless Tehran falls into line. Joe Lieberman, the independent Democrat, says we are already fighting world war four against Islamist radicalism. As someone in the Hollywood movie said, it is time for the rest of us to be afraid, very afraid.
Afraid, though, of what? Of Tehran’s nuclear programme? Or of the possibility that Mr Bush, in the darkening twilight of his presidency, is preparing to launch a preventative military strike. The answer is both.
The big story, you might think, should be the menace to regional and global security posed by Iran’s development of the technology that would give it nuclear weapons. This, after all, is not a nice regime. You do not have to be an apologist for Washington to note that Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, the Iranian president, has spoken of wiping Israel from the face of the globe. Nor to notice Tehran’s unapologetic sponsorship of terrorism. The regime’s human rights record is the wrong side of appalling.
Yet the White House once again seems hell-bent on being outwitted in the court of global opinion; and, maybe, on making a strategic miscalculation that could make the war in Iraq look like a sideshow.
Leftists want people to think that as long as we don’t start a war there never will be any wars. The problem with that thinking is that there are always going to be wars no matter what we do. And, as the author points out later in his article, using China as an example of what should be done with a country that wants to develop nuclear weapons technology (let ‘em do it) is foolish. Just because nothing has happened between us and China yet doesn’t mean nothing will ever happen. The chances are that at sometime in the future we will be forced into a war with China (remember how we went to war with China over the Koren peninsula in 1950?) and there’s a chance they will be using their silver bullets on us. Do we really want the same situation developing with Iran?
Or course we don’t. That’s why the military is developing a massive, 30,000 lb ordinance that can penetrate deep into bunkers. Fortunately for my sanity this article from the (UK) Times was written by someone who doesn’t fall for liberal mushy-headedness:
Now the US thinks it has the intelligence and the military capacity to undermine the Iranian threat seriously, and the costs of doing so may not be as high as once seemed.
Of all the silly arguments that pass as conventional wisdom in this debate is the claim that the US would be crazy to start a war with Iran. It’s a silly argument because America is already at war with Iran. Every day US soldiers in Iraq are attacked by Iranian-financed paramilitaries, with Iranian-produced weapons in pursuit of Iranian political objectives. Iran is manipulating the Iraqi Government in ways that undercut the steady progress the US is making in Iraq.
The only real question about the next phase in this war is whether an escalation by the US, in a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, would further American – and Western – objectives, or impede them. The evidence is increasingly suggesting that the costs of not acting are equal to or larger than the costs of acting.
Military action is not inevitable; yesterday the US again emphasised the diplomatic option with a strengthening of economic sanctions. And it’s still possible that someone will prevail on the Iranians to ditch their menacing and destructive aims. But it is starting to look as though, with not much more than a year left in his term, President Bush has decided, as he surveys the unedifying global territory of ideological and state-backed terror, that he needs to clean house.
And a 30,000lb MOP might be just the job.
As long as we’re talking about articles written by Brits or at least for British newspapers let’s take a look at this one about what our human race(s) will be in a long time from now. First a picture though.
In the year 3000:
These humans will be between 6ft and 7ft tall and they will live up to 120 years.
“Physical features will be driven by indicators of health, youth and fertility that men and women have evolved to look for in potential mates,” says the report, which suggests that advances in cosmetic surgery and other body modifying techniques will effectively homogenise our appearance.
Men will have symmetrical facial features, deeper voices and bigger penises, according to Curry in a report commissioned for men’s satellite TV channel Bravo.
Women will all have glossy hair, smooth hairless skin, large eyes and pert breasts, according to Curry.
Racial differences will be a thing of the past as interbreeding produces a single coffee-coloured skin tone.
The future for our descendants isn’t all long life, perfect bodies and chiselled features, however.
Well at least my great to the 20th powered grandkids are going to be pretty. That’s something to live for. But seriously, who has this job? Who would want this job? If any of these sci-fi weirdos (I’m kinda one) were any good at predicting the future they would be working on Wall Street making $100 million a year instead of working as some anonymous “scientist.” Besides stealing liberally from HG Wells’ Time Machine to make his predictions this stuff is just plain unimportant because we’re all going to die in ten years when global warming causes our world to become the cosmic encore to Mars’ dusty atmosphere.
Now that I’m sick of the British we’re going to go onto something that is vitally important to every American: baseball. Boston leads in the World Series two games to none and looks unstoppable. The Rockies are a great team and would have been a much better if it weren’t for the huge gap between the NLCS and the World Series. I’m sure they would have steamrolled my Angels if they had met in the playoffs but the Red Sox are a different story. For example their manager, Terry Francona, actually has a DH. This has lead to an interesting situation where he has to choose which of his three sluggers (David Ortiz the normal DH, Kevin Youkilis a Gold Glove caliber first baseman, or Mike Lowell who has the best fielding percentage of any third baseman ever) to sit. It’s almost like Sophie’s Choice.
In the end he chose to sit Youkilis and play Ortiz at first base even though he very rarely plays there. It is the right choice though because Ortiz is the heart of this team and gets on base during October more often then the other team is able to keep him off. This guy is awesome (and flashy, everyone has their flaws) and needs to be in the game whenever he can be.
Another baseball player who is awesome is A-Rod and the Angels need to get him if the Yankees let him leave. A-Rod has ten days after the World Series finishes to decide if he wants to opt out of his contract or not. If he opts out the Yankees will opt out of A-Rod. He’s making near $25 million a year right now and it might take $30 million a year to get him on our team. That’s a lot of money even for a guy who hit 54 home runs, 156 RBIs, batted 314 and will probably win his third MVP award this year. I think that he is seriously on our radar because our management has come out saying that we are going to focus on getting outside talent with an emphasis on slugging. Boy I hope so.
BigT’s Linkapalooza:
Bill has been running around naked in a hotel.
Bugs get sex change.
“Hope” for Huckabee.
Huckabee has the right values.
The field is fine with Krauthammer.
This piece about torture is torturous to read.
BigT
Tell Your Friends! Bookmark Me!
Take Me To Your Homepage!
