Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Being cowardly about being cowardly | Main | Wanted: Mario Ines Torres »

Thursday, September 27, 2007

An optimist?

The wise Bill Kristol reviews the most recent debate amongst the Democratic presidential contenders.

Here, judging from the debate, is what the 2008 Democratic nominee is likely to be for. Abroad: ensuring defeat in Iraq and permitting a nuclear Iran. At home: more illegal immigration, higher taxes, more government control of health care, and more aggressive prosecution of the war on smoking than of the war on terror. And this is only a bit of an exaggeration. Going into last night, I had no great expectations of the Democratic field. But the level of routine irresponsibility demonstrated throughout the debate was jaw-dropping. Bush may remain unpopular, and the Republican "brand" unattractive. But I believe the toughness of Giuliani, the sobriety of Thompson, the gravitas of McCain--any of these would be very difficult for the Democratic nominee to overcome.

I think there's fatigue with the Republican "brand". But the Democrats' foreign policy weakness has had a role in most of their presidential losses in memory. Bill Clinton's 1992 and 1996 wins were in the anomalous  interregnum between the Cold War and the War on Terror.

Watch for Hillary to continue to trend towards hawkishness.

Posted by Ezra Levant on September 27, 2007 | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference An optimist?:


What has been waaaaaay under-reported is this week's New Hampshire debate where the leading DemoRat candidates were all asked if they would pledge that US troops would be out of Iraq by 2013 - YES! 2013 - and none would accept that pledge. NONE!!!

The moonbats must be wondering why they are supporting these Rats.

Posted by: obc | 2007-09-28 9:04:18 AM

Also not being asked: Do Americans want to be ruled by only two families for 28 straight years?

The Clinton ploy is right out of the Southern governor playbook - like George Wallace and others, when term limits disallowed them from running again, they got their wives to run - and win - so they could remain in power longer. Juan Peron did the same thing in Argentina.

Posted by: obc | 2007-09-28 9:17:58 AM

Ezra -

Undoubtedly an accurate analytical conclusion which all Republican candidates will embrace.

Unfortunately Republican voters, historically willing to accept less than optimal candidates in order to avoid horrific Democrats, now realize that "lesser of evils" candidates-Parties produce and support everything they detest (e.g. illegal immigration, wasteful spending, more intrusive government), only NOW, they openly campaign for all of it.

Perhaps losing elections imparts gravitas or other benefits upon these guys.

The new "undecided" American citizen is wondering whether or not he will even vote.

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-09-28 9:55:27 AM

"...the toughness of Giuliani, the sobriety of Thompson, the gravitas of McCain" What about "the competence of Romney"?

Posted by: pete e | 2007-09-29 11:31:04 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.