Truth is no longer relevant to most people in the United States. Image and propaganda rule. The New York Times is just another pamphlet of the left with a mission to sell their agenda.
The United States of 2008 is a torn country equally split between two very different views on society and government. The entitlement mentality has spread to the point that blacks are even threatening riot if Obama loses the election. The Republicans, for their part have done a discreditable job in their last eight years of rule. By any measure they should be thrown out of office. The problem is the offerings of Obama and Michelle are unappealing to nearly half the country.
As odd and improbable as it sounds, Sarah Palin finds herself in a pivotal historical position. It will begin or end tonight. I wish her luck.
September 03, 2008
McCain Pick is Paying Off Big Time
By Patrick Buchanan Real Clear Politics
The risk John McCain took last Friday is comparable to the 72-year-old ex-fighter pilot knocking back two shots and flying his F-16 under the Golden Gate Bridge.
McCain's choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to be his co-pilot was the biggest gamble in presidential history. As of now, it is paying off, big-time.
The sensational selection in Dayton, Ohio, stepped all over the big story from Denver -- Barack Obama's powerful address to 85,000 cheering folks in Mile High Stadium, and 35 million nationally, a speech that vaulted him from a 2-point deficit early in the week to an 8-point margin. Barack had never before reached 49 percent against McCain.
As the Democrats were being rudely stepped on, however, Palin ignited an explosion of enthusiasm among conservatives, Evangelicals, traditional Catholics, gun owners and Right to Lifers not seen in decades.
By passing over his friends Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge, and picking Palin, McCain has given himself a fighting chance of winning the White House that, before Friday morning, seemed to be slipping away. Indeed, the bristling reaction on the left testifies to Democratic fears that the choice of Palin could indeed be a game-changer in 2008.
Liberals howl that Palin has no experience, no qualifications to be president of the United States. But the lady has more executive experience than McCain, Joe Biden and Obama put together.
None of them has ever started or run a business as Palin did. None of them has run a giant state like Alaska, which is larger than California and Texas put together. And though Alaska is not populous, Gov. Palin has as many constituents as Nancy Pelosi or Biden.
She has no foreign policy experience, we are told. And though Alaska's neighbors are Canada and Russia, the point is valid. But from the day she takes office, Palin will get daily briefings and sit on the National Security Council with the president and secretaries of state, treasury and defense.
She will be up to speed in her first year.
And her experience as governor of Alaska, dealing with the oil industry and pipeline agreements with Canada, certainly compares favorably with that of Barack Obama, a community organizer who dealt in the mommy issues of food stamps and rent subsidies.
Where Obama has poodled along with the Daley Machine, Palin routed the Republican establishment, challenging and ousting a sitting GOP governor before defeating a former Democratic governor to become the first female and youngest governor in state history.
For his boldness in choosing Palin, McCain deserves enormous credit. He has made an extraordinary gesture to conservatives and the party base, offering his old antagonists a partner's share in his presidency. And his decision is likely to be rewarded with a massive and enthusiastic turnout for the McCain-Palin ticket. Rarely has this writer encountered such an outburst of enthusiasm on the right.
In choosing Palin, McCain may also have changed the course of history as much as Ike did with his choice of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan did with his choice of George H.W. Bush. For should this ticket win, Palin will eclipse every other Republican as heir apparent to the presidency and will have her own power base among Lifers, Evangelicals, gun folks and conservatives -- wholly independent of President McCain.
A traditional conservative on social issues, Palin has become, overnight, the most priceless political asset the movement has. Look for the neocons to move with all deliberate speed to take her into their camp by pressing upon her advisers and staff, and steering her into the AEI-Weekly Standard-War Party orbit.
Indeed, if McCain defeats Barack, 2012 could see women on both national tickets, and given McCain's age and the possibility he intends to serve a single term, women at the top of both -- Sarah vs. Hillary.
The arrival of Palin on the national scene, with her youth, charisma and vitality, probably also portends a changing of the guard in Washington.
With Republicans having zero chance of capturing either House, and but a slim chance of avoiding losses in both, a Vice President Palin, with her reputation as a rebel and reformer, would surely inspire similar revolts in the Republican caucuses.
As Thomas Jefferson said, from time to time, a little rebellion in the political world is as necessary as storms in the physical.
The Palin nomination could backfire, but it is hard to see how. She has passed her first test, her introduction to the nation, with wit and grace. And the Obama-Biden ticket, having already alienated millions of women with the disrespecting of Hillary, is unlikely to start attacking another woman whose sole offense is that she had just been given the chance to break the glass ceiling at the national level.
Her nomination, which will bring the Republican right home, also frees up McCain to appeal to moderates and liberals, which has long been his stock in trade.
With his selection of Sarah Palin, John McCain has not only shaken up this election, he may have helped shape the future of the United States -- and much for the better.
Palin or Putin, or Cheney, whom would you rather go hunting with?ReplyDelete
Maybe we'll have a contest in 2012 between Hillary and Mrs. Palin for President. That might be something to watch, the battle lines would be clearly drawn.
I think Palin will make a good impression. Listening to some of the speeches on the radio today, they all sound much the same, could be said in any year, even used over. (And in Biden's case had been). People are unlikely to listen too carefully to the words, more to the presence of the speaker. Her speech may have some possibilities to have more standout lines than normal though.
This is interesting, worrying--ReplyDelete
I would like to call your attention to an obscure event in Ukraine that has went completely under the radar. The ruling coalition of Pres. Yuschenko’s NUNS and Timoshenko’s BUT fell apart. It was preceded by BUT siding with pro-Russian block in the parliament to strip the president of the powers to set foreign policy and many others. Before crisis in Georgia, Timoshenko has met with Putin, she subsequently went on vacation and avoided making any statements about the conflict. Yuschenko accused her of treason by agreeing to advance Russian interest in Ukraine. West has just lost Ukraine, with the unlikely exception of imposition of martial law by the president. Despite overplaying its hand in Georgia, Russia’s gambit is paying off.
Bob no question that Ukraine will fall. A free Ukraine will fall because of German business interests. Moldovia will go quickly as well. Poland will stand.ReplyDelete
Ukraine is screwed because of gas and the Germans. This explains the Ukrainian dilemma:ReplyDelete
..."Ukrainian fears of a Crimean “independence uprising,” funded and encouraged by Russian political leaders and security forces, have been foremost on the minds of Kyiv since the Georgian war. However, a key difference between the Crimea and either South Ossetia or Abkhazia is that the only indigenous ethnic group in the Crimea is the Crimean Tartars who have remained fiercely loyal to Kyiv since the country gained independence.
The Gazeta.ru website reported on August 26 that Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov stated that the leaders of Abkhazia and South Ossetia had not indicated that they wanted to be integrated into Russia. “I do not think that this topic will be raised,” Lavrov was quoted as saying. Earlier that day western media reported that Georgian President Mikhael Saakashvili charged Russia with having “annexed South Ossetia and Abkhazia.”
How far Ukrainian President Yushchenko is willing to venture in his pro-Georgian policies remains a matter for speculation. His options are severely limited and the deadline for setting the new price for Russian gas is rapidly approaching. What many in Kyiv fear is that NATO will not grant Ukraine a Membership Action Plan in November and that meaningful security guarantees for Ukraine will not be signed anytime in the near future.
Faced with a nation split on the Georgian issue and NATO membership, and at the same time fearful of Russia’s ability to place a stranglehold on the country by doubling or tripling gas prices, the divided Ukrainian leadership once again appears isolated and threatened. How it will counter these centrifugal forces is anyone’s guess."
The same people who are delirious for Obama.ReplyDelete
Putin has made a calculation that the Russian population is too small to withstand the ultimate Chinese threat. There is little he can do to stop that internally. However he can reconstitute a reasonable facsimile of the Soviet Union. He can expand a power base that will buy additional time to stand up to the Chinese.ReplyDelete
Putin knows that their is no possible threat from the Europeans and the industrial barons in Germany.
I thought about putting up a post, but no matter what we post it devolves to the election but we will return to it later, probably when it blows up in our face.ReplyDelete
We are rapidly devolving back to spheres of influence. An internationalist like Obama will not get that. he thinks jabber and back slapping will work with Putin. Bush fell into that trap. McCain recognizes that the US sphere of influence is in the Americas and forward allies who will help contain China and Russia.
Hope you're wrong but imagine you're right. The Russians though might be hard pressed to put a lot of boots on the ground. Chechnya was a problem for them there for awhile, till they practically leveled it.ReplyDelete
Yeah, that's what I was going to say. Just like old times. Spheres of influence.
Look at this chart--Demographics of Ukraine
A Russian chart might be even worse.
There's around 48 million people in Ukraine, some of them Russian lovers, and Ukraine is fairly large.ReplyDelete
But if Russia can freeze them to death, coercion alone might well work.
Can we please stay on topic?ReplyDelete
If not, I'd suggest a move to a tip type site where actions can be performed on posters who are out of line,
re: The MediaReplyDelete
If that undercover thing sam posted is true, if it had been GOP doing it to the Dems, it would be WATERGATE 2 For sure.
Instead it will be buried, since not even the bloggers will swarm it as they did Dan Rather.
Divided we fall, and far too many are like the cited site, more concerned about their standing in the MSBlogosphere than anything.
The Medvedev Doctrine and American Strategy StratforReplyDelete
Second, the world should be multipolar. A single-pole world is unacceptable. Domination is something we cannot allow. We cannot accept a world order in which one country makes all the decisions...
Fourth, protecting the lives and dignity of our citizens, wherever they may be, is an unquestionable priority for our country. Our foreign policy decisions will be based on this need. We will also protect the interests of our business community abroad. It should be clear to all that we will respond to any aggressive acts committed against us.
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
That would, or at least could, include in Iran.ReplyDelete
"The measure of courage"ReplyDelete
The U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Agency's table provides a revealing measure of courage.
Should Russian belligerence continue, either over Georgia or in some other adventure, observers will have to question why the big countries in “Old Europe,” those with the least to lose, are also showing the least resolve.
" Teresita said...ReplyDelete
Rucker: I still expect some kind of October surprise out of this administration.
It's going to be a November surprise this time. A day or two after the election, either Israel, or the US, or Israel jointly with the US, will bomb the living bejeezus out of Iran."
A prediction I first made well over a year ago and was poo poohed by a number of you lead by your Field Marshall von Rat. Well, time is getting short so we'll all find out.
Now you can all return to ignoring and response. Human curiosity dictates you're reading the stuff, which is enough since I don't have to wade through all the sophistry many of you put out.
Additionally, I’ll bet it hurts like the dickens to get the “living bejeezus” bombed out of you. In this case it is condign punishment.
"Balbo the Bad, a homeless man, told investigators that Pravia fell asleep and he decided to rob him, so he punched the student in the face, stuffed a bag in his mouth and wrapped the television cord around his neck, then suffocated him, police said. He said he sold the laptop on the street after leaving the apartment, sold the cell phone in a store and couldn't remember what he did with the iPod, they said.ReplyDelete
Browne said police recovered the phone where it had been sold.
Balbo the Bad’s father, Bobal Desoto, said his son knocked on his door early Monday at about 1 a.m.
Bobal Desoto, who said he is not on good terms with his son, said Balbo the Bad gloated about he had just “killed a man.”
"Balbo the Bad claimed Pravia approached him in Union Square park around 6 a.m. Saturday looking for drugs and the two went to his apartment in the Chelsea neighborhood.ReplyDelete
After the slaying, Balbo the Bad stayed in the apartment to watch the gory horror film "Saw" before leaving before 11 a.m., police said.
Bobal Desoto said Balbo the Bad was smiling when he said he had killed someone.
The suspect’s father then said he went into his apartment and called 911. He said Balbo the Bad confessed to the murder to the police there.
To Habu's point. It is fairly well accepted that it is almost impossible to convincingly destroy Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Destroying the infrastructure does not guarantee that they will not have nuclear weapons. Europe will never do anything meaningful. Europe is incapable. To be effective, a military strike would have to be a long campaign and have regional and international blow-back. I find it hard to believe that an administration would do that in November at the end of its final term.ReplyDelete
It would drive a stake right through the heart of Mr Bush's legacy.ReplyDelete
Bobal: Palin or Putin, or Cheney, whom would you rather go hunting with?ReplyDelete
Palin, overnight, but Todd might get jealous.
Maybe we'll have a contest in 2012 between Hillary and Mrs. Palin for President.
Yeah, we would get to choose between a woman who pulled herself up to prominence by her own merits, and one who was married to a President so she was given a Senate seat in some random state outside of Arkansas.
You have no desire to camp out w/Hillary?ReplyDelete
Let's see this week...ReplyDelete
Egypt embraces Hezbollah...
Hezbollah attacks a lebanese army helicopter killing one
hezbollah now has 4x the rockets it had in 2006, has new bunkers built under the noses of UN 1701
Iran has announced a new sub, a new fighter plance (that flies 3000 miles)
Russia has announced it is completing the iranian nuke reactor
Nkor is rebuilding it's reactor...
Russia has swallowed a portion of Georgia and now threatens Ukraine
Russia threatens Moldovia
Hamas still holds a yooung man for 800 days and has now rebuilt it's anti-tank/aircraft rockets, has thousands of surface to surface rockets and mortars
iran just opened up another 3000 centafuges
yep i see a long range drone attack on Iran by israel, followed up by syria, hamas & hezbollah attacks on israel
Some moron calling Bennet acts like raising a Down's child is equivalent to raising a seriously autistic kid.ReplyDelete
...as tho the sibs can't do a lot to help dad.
Back on topic for a sec. Has anyone watched the bonehead Joe Scarborough on MSNBC? He gets more like Chris Matthews daily. not exactly my point.ReplyDelete
I mused on the idea of Joe Leiberman with McCain. Was I wrong. Had McCain picked him and based on his speech last night, Obama would be up twelve today.
Bennet gets a cool call afterward from some father or grandfather that describes the positive effect of a Downs on all the other relatives, esp sibs.ReplyDelete
Doug said: You have no desire to camp out w/Hillary?ReplyDelete
Not with thighs bigger than the moose we're hunting, and making more noise.
Bobal: There's around 48 million people in Ukraine, some of them Russian lovers, and Ukraine is fairly large. But if Russia can freeze them to death, coercion alone might well work.
Ukraine produces 30 percent of their own natural gas locally. That means they will have to ration it by letting some people go without. I figure they will start with the Russia lovers.
Bennet equates commitment of Downs parents with homeschoolers.ReplyDelete
I'll grant them the lead.
You're not an ankle man, er, woman, eh?ReplyDelete
More to love there.ReplyDelete
The systematic seek and destroy mission directed at Downs Syndrome unborn babies comes under the category of purity of species.ReplyDelete
-Undesirable traits need to be eliminated.
-The list of undesirable traits is subjective but should be relevant to current cultural imperatives, societal, communal harmony and current party thinking and doctrine.
-All media organisms of the state should be on board to support the harmony of purpose.
-Deviators and non-conformists must be observed, monitored and their actions brought to the attention of the appropriate committees established to enforce party control of such anti-social behavior.
WiO: hezbollah now has 4x the rockets it had in 2006, has new bunkers built under the noses of UN 1701ReplyDelete
Oh boy, how much did that cost Iran? Now they can kill 4 times the number of Jews they did in the 2006 war, or a grand total of 120. Except that Olmert won't be in charge this time, so Israel will finish it, and there won't be much left of Lebanon when its over.
Iran has announced a new sub, a new fighter plance (that flies 3000 miles)
WiO, it is far better to rely on your own nation's military intelligence than the announcements of the Iranian Propaganda Minister to determine the enemy's order of battle.
Russia has announced it is completing the iranian nuke reactor
Eliminate all deals involving the transfer of dollars ot Russia until they have lost the exact amount of hard currency they are gaining from building the Iran nuke plant.
"-Undesirable traits need to be eliminated."ReplyDelete
Not to include those that can be cured by botox, or hair plugs.
To be effective, a military strike would have to be a long campaign and have regional and international blow-backReplyDelete
Right, basically you'd have to make them say uncle and give you free movement to inspect anywhere in the country. Been a lot easier 4 or 5 years ago.
We certainly have the full spectrum on abortion this year, everything from voting for infanticide, to not even recognizing rape or incest as a legitimate reason.
I should look up the name but Palin belongs to a fundamentalist church. I don't see her getting many Hillary supporters; if those supporters care about Hill's issues, they couldn't vote for Palin.
It seems McCain really wanted Lieberman or Ridge, but was getting lots of flak from the right. Palin wasn't inspected very closely either, just one 70 some quiestion questionaire. Palin saves the base from drifting away, may win over the dumber of Hillary voters.
Ingraham will have Thompson, Voight, Frum, and Billy Kristol.ReplyDelete
If you had spent a little less time on your beloved Deere, Bobal, you coulda raised that boy right.ReplyDelete
"may win over the dumber of Hillary voters."ReplyDelete
Dumbest thing al-Bob ever wrote.
Palin is the Perfect Test to discern the the elite from the normal.ReplyDelete
Bill Bryson on punning in Shakespeare--ReplyDelete
In The History of King Henry IV, Part 1 the father of Hotspur learns of the tragic death of his young son and remarks that Hotspur is now Coldspur
hehehe--Hotspur's history having run from hot to cold.
The fact is McCain was low on fuel but decided he better hit the after-burners anyway. There is a brilliance to this move. The Republican Party was a spent wreck. There were no obvious next generation or motivation to change. It was dispirited chad.ReplyDelete
Palin has been thrust into a Joan-of-Arc position. Had Joan been killed the first day, we would never know of her.
She wasn't and we do.
So it will be with Palin. McCain has some major league stones in that flight suit.
I'd have Fred Thompson, if I could.ReplyDelete
Palin for Veep.
I've written some dumb things, you'll agree with that al-Doug.ReplyDelete
My two fav Shakespeare plays, Bob.ReplyDelete
Please lets not enter a pissing match on who has written some of the dumbest things.ReplyDelete
Fred Thompson on Ingraham:ReplyDelete
Don't miss it!
Everybody knows al-Bob's a dumbass, Deuce!ReplyDelete
Charlie (the ghost) Christ, will miss the Convention.ReplyDelete
Too White, even for Repubs.
Palin's church--Assembly of GodReplyDelete
PALIN'S CHURCH: Is there a church problem in Sarah Palin's past?
The senior pastor at the Assembly of God church in Wasilla, Alaska — who arrived in 1999, in a church that Palin left in 2002 — later warned that critics of President George W. Bush might be banished to hell and that people who voted for John Kerry might not gain entry to heaven, the Huffington Post reports.
And Palin, in a videotape that the Huffington Post is showcasing, told her former congregation in June to pray for a new oil pipeline — "I think God's will has to be done."
Jewish Voters May Be Wary Of Palin
Well, at least the pastor didn't say G-Damn America, only damned half the inhabitants of America to hell.
Politicians, as a practical matter, ought to join some sort of generic church, or a well known one like the Catholics, and mostly stay away from the subject. Too many inflammatory things get said, and inflammatory things get done.
If I were a politician, I'd join the Middle of the Road Generic Church of America, then basically never go. That's the safest bet.
A TIME-WARPED SEXIST ASSAULTReplyDelete
Posted: 4:15 am
September 3, 2008
HOLY hoop skirts: When did the clock tick back to 1958?
"When Joe Biden tragically lost his wife and infant daughter in a car wreck in 1972, not a single colleague, friend or competitor advised him to quit his newly won Senate seat to raise his two little surviving sons.
Rather, he was sworn into office from the injured boys' bedside, and took to commuting an hour and a half each way from Delaware to Washington. And when Biden's second wife gave birth to a daughter, no one thought to ask him to step aside and stay home.
They all do it. John Kennedy did it; so did Barack Obama: Men run for office and serve in elected positions while creating small children without ever being patronized as "super dads" or "multi-taskers."
Nor are they penalized, ridiculed or dismissed for ignoring their kids. They're good dads.
If Sarah Palin, tapped as John McCain's running mate, were a man, it's unlikely we'd even be having this conversation. (A man, or a Democrat.)
Palin is a mother five times over. She also hunts, fishes, coaches hockey, has a day job as the governor of the state of Alaska - and is known to commute home from the state capital of Anchorage daily during session. Just like Biden.
And, until at least four months ago, Palin also had the ability to bear a child, which we've just learned is a talent she shares with her 17-year-old daughter.
But women on the left, who fought long and hard for the ability to raise children simultaneously with election cash, are in spasms. (Some have simply kept silent. Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton - where are you?)
The same lefty media that studiously ignored the adolescence of Chelsea Clinton can't wait to dig into Bristol Palin.
The Diary section of Daily Kos Web site had a curious way to make Palin's daughter into a campaign issue: "Considering Palin was chosen solely for her religious right family values cred, Bristol's shotgun marriage and pregnancy are very fair game. They are the direct result of this lunatic abstinence-only garbage, and should be highlighted as such."
The stupendously sexist New York Times printed a front-page article noting that some unnamed women argue over "whether there are enough hours in the day for her to take on the vice presidency, and whether she is right to try."
Which left the field weirdly clear for Phyllis Schlafly, who helped defeat the Equal Right Amendment - and also ran for Congress while raising six children - to tell the Times, "People who don't have children, or who have only one or two, are kind of overwhelmed at the notion of five children."
The only question we should be asking is: Can Sarah Palin do the job?"
It's all a bunch of hypocracy by the left. Palin announced that if she is the Vice-President, her husband will become a full time stay at home dad.ReplyDelete
Then I heard some lefty women were criticizing that, saying men don't make as good stay at home parents.
With some groups, you just can't win.
WiO: hezbollah now has 4x the rockets it had in 2006, has new bunkers built under the noses of UN 1701
Oh boy, how much did that cost Iran? Now they can kill 4 times the number of Jews they did in the 2006 war, or a grand total of 120.
I dont disagree that iran/syria/hezbollah are waging a war from 1940... my point was they BELIEVE in their strength (and russia loves the cash)
T:Except that Olmert won't be in charge this time, so Israel will finish it, and there won't be much left of Lebanon when its over.
correct, however add in the destruction of gaza, damascus and many parts of iran INCLUDING her oil REFINING abilities...
I also see the destruction of large expensive EURO funded assets in Iran as a quiet payback for their unwillingness to support NON-violent means of controlling iran
ME:Iran has announced a new sub, a new fighter plance (that flies 3000 miles)
T: WiO, it is far better to rely on your own nation's military intelligence than the announcements of the Iranian Propaganda Minister to determine the enemy's order of battle.
As the world says now it's perception not reality..
Hezbollah won in 2006
Iraq threatened to BURN israel
Iran now threatens to start ww3 if attacked...
Take them at their word.... DO not allow ceasefires (when they beg for them) bomb them into submission or complete destruction..
I find a terrorist that needs to work everyday to find food and water has little time for jihad...
me: Russia has announced it is completing the iranian nuke reactor
t: Eliminate all deals involving the transfer of dollars ot Russia until they have lost the exact amount of hard currency they are gaining from building the Iran nuke plant.
Russia is a whore, it has played the persians and arabs for decades, selling them useless weapons and white elephants only to sit back and watch them be destroyed only to sell the same nitwits more of the same on the next cycle..
Palin's got Boulton's VoteReplyDelete
There's an astounding 3000+ word plays and puns scattered throughout Shakespeare's work, I read.ReplyDelete
Knew there was a lot.
This is an interesting woman. The Alaska Delegation hates her. She really did stick it to the Good Ol Boys, and Big Oil Companies in Alaska. Those two groups had a real sweetheart deal worked out on the nat gas pipeline; Sarah stepped in and ripped it apart, and put it together again much to the benefit of the Alaskan people.ReplyDelete
The Barracuda is know as theReplyDelete
BALLBUSTER by AK Natives.
The Barracuda is knowReplyDelete
Whoever ends up running the show is going to have a lot to deal with--ReplyDelete
The Medvedev Doctrine and American Strategy
September 2, 2008
By George Friedman
The United States has been fighting a war in the Islamic world since 2001. Its main theaters of operation are in Afghanistan and Iraq, but its politico-military focus spreads throughout the Islamic world, from Mindanao to Morocco. The situation on Aug. 7, 2008, was as follows:
The war in Iraq was moving toward an acceptable but not optimal solution. The government in Baghdad was not pro-American, but neither was it an Iranian puppet, and that was the best that could be hoped for. The United States anticipated pulling out troops, but not in a disorderly fashion.
The war in Afghanistan was deteriorating for the United States and NATO forces. The Taliban was increasingly effective, and large areas of the country were falling to its control. Force in Afghanistan was insufficient, and any troops withdrawn from Iraq would have to be deployed to Afghanistan to stabilize the situation. Political conditions in neighboring Pakistan were deteriorating, and that deterioration inevitably affected Afghanistan.
The United States had been locked in a confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program, demanding that Tehran halt enrichment of uranium or face U.S. action. The United States had assembled a group of six countries (the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany) that agreed with the U.S. goal, was engaged in negotiations with Iran, and had agreed at some point to impose sanctions on Iran if Tehran failed to comply. The United States was also leaking stories about impending air attacks on Iran by Israel or the United States if Tehran didn’t abandon its enrichment program. The United States had the implicit agreement of the group of six not to sell arms to Tehran, creating a real sense of isolation in Iran.
Related Special Topic Page
The Russian Resurgence
In short, the United States remained heavily committed to a region stretching from Iraq to Pakistan, with main force committed to Iraq and Afghanistan, and the possibility of commitments to Pakistan (and above all to Iran) on the table. U.S. ground forces were stretched to the limit, and U.S. airpower, naval and land-based forces had to stand by for the possibility of an air campaign in Iran — regardless of whether the U.S. planned an attack, since the credibility of a bluff depended on the availability of force.
The situation in this region actually was improving, but the United States had to remain committed there. It was therefore no accident that the Russians invaded Georgia on Aug. 8 following a Georgian attack on South Ossetia. Forgetting the details of who did what to whom, the United States had created a massive window of opportunity for the Russians: For the foreseeable future, the United States had no significant forces to spare to deploy elsewhere in the world, nor the ability to sustain them in extended combat. Moreover, the United States was relying on Russian cooperation both against Iran and potentially in Afghanistan, where Moscow’s influence with some factions remains substantial. The United States needed the Russians and couldn’t block the Russians. Therefore, the Russians inevitably chose this moment to strike.
On Sunday, Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev in effect ran up the Jolly Roger. Whatever the United States thought it was dealing with in Russia, Medvedev made the Russian position very clear. He stated Russian foreign policy in five succinct points, which we can think of as the Medvedev Doctrine (and which we see fit to quote here):
First, Russia recognizes the primacy of the fundamental principles of international law, which define the relations between civilized peoples. We will build our relations with other countries within the framework of these principles and this concept of international law.
Second, the world should be multipolar. A single-pole world is unacceptable. Domination is something we cannot allow. We cannot accept a world order in which one country makes all the decisions, even as serious and influential a country as the United States of America. Such a world is unstable and threatened by conflict.
Third, Russia does not want confrontation with any other country. Russia has no intention of isolating itself. We will develop friendly relations with Europe, the United States, and other countries, as much as is possible.
Fourth, protecting the lives and dignity of our citizens, wherever they may be, is an unquestionable priority for our country. Our foreign policy decisions will be based on this need. We will also protect the interests of our business community abroad. It should be clear to all that we will respond to any aggressive acts committed against us.
Finally, fifth, as is the case of other countries, there are regions in which Russia has privileged interests. These regions are home to countries with which we share special historical relations and are bound together as friends and good neighbors. We will pay particular attention to our work in these regions and build friendly ties with these countries, our close neighbors.
Medvedev concluded, “These are the principles I will follow in carrying out our foreign policy. As for the future, it depends not only on us but also on our friends and partners in the international community. They have a choice.”
The second point in this doctrine states that Russia does not accept the primacy of the United States in the international system. According to the third point, while Russia wants good relations with the United States and Europe, this depends on their behavior toward Russia and not just on Russia’s behavior. The fourth point states that Russia will protect the interests of Russians wherever they are — even if they live in the Baltic states or in Georgia, for example. This provides a doctrinal basis for intervention in such countries if Russia finds it necessary.
The fifth point is the critical one: “As is the case of other countries, there are regions in which Russia has privileged interests.” In other words, the Russians have special interests in the former Soviet Union and in friendly relations with these states. Intrusions by others into these regions that undermine pro-Russian regimes will be regarded as a threat to Russia’s “special interests.”
Thus, the Georgian conflict was not an isolated event — rather, Medvedev is saying that Russia is engaged in a general redefinition of the regional and global system. Locally, it would not be correct to say that Russia is trying to resurrect the Soviet Union or the Russian empire. It would be correct to say that Russia is creating a new structure of relations in the geography of its predecessors, with a new institutional structure with Moscow at its center. Globally, the Russians want to use this new regional power — and substantial Russian nuclear assets — to be part of a global system in which the United States loses its primacy.
These are ambitious goals, to say the least. But the Russians believe that the United States is off balance in the Islamic world and that there is an opportunity here, if they move quickly, to create a new reality before the United States is ready to respond. Europe has neither the military weight nor the will to actively resist Russia. Moreover, the Europeans are heavily dependent on Russian natural gas supplies over the coming years, and Russia can survive without selling it to them far better than the Europeans can survive without buying it. The Europeans are not a substantial factor in the equation, nor are they likely to become substantial.
This leaves the United States in an extremely difficult strategic position. The United States opposed the Soviet Union after 1945 not only for ideological reasons but also for geopolitical ones. If the Soviet Union had broken out of its encirclement and dominated all of Europe, the total economic power at its disposal, coupled with its population, would have allowed the Soviets to construct a navy that could challenge U.S. maritime hegemony and put the continental United States in jeopardy. It was U.S. policy during World Wars I and II and the Cold War to act militarily to prevent any power from dominating the Eurasian landmass. For the United States, this was the most important task throughout the 20th century.
The U.S.-jihadist war was waged in a strategic framework that assumed that the question of hegemony over Eurasia was closed. Germany’s defeat in World War II and the Soviet Union’s defeat in the Cold War meant that there was no claimant to Eurasia, and the United States was free to focus on what appeared to be the current priority — the defeat of radical Islamism. It appeared that the main threat to this strategy was the patience of the American public, not an attempt to resurrect a major Eurasian power.
The United States now faces a massive strategic dilemma, and it has limited military options against the Russians. It could choose a naval option, in which it would block the four Russian maritime outlets, the Sea of Japan and the Black, Baltic and Barents seas. The United States has ample military force with which to do this and could potentially do so without allied cooperation, which it would lack. It is extremely unlikely that the NATO council would unanimously support a blockade of Russia, which would be an act of war.
But while a blockade like this would certainly hurt the Russians, Russia is ultimately a land power. It is also capable of shipping and importing through third parties, meaning it could potentially acquire and ship key goods through European or Turkish ports (or Iranian ports, for that matter). The blockade option is thus more attractive on first glance than on deeper analysis.
More important, any overt U.S. action against Russia would result in counteractions. During the Cold War, the Soviets attacked American global interest not by sending Soviet troops, but by supporting regimes and factions with weapons and economic aid. Vietnam was the classic example: The Russians tied down 500,000 U.S. troops without placing major Russian forces at risk. Throughout the world, the Soviets implemented programs of subversion and aid to friendly regimes, forcing the United States either to accept pro-Soviet regimes, as with Cuba, or fight them at disproportionate cost.
In the present situation, the Russian response would strike at the heart of American strategy in the Islamic world. In the long run, the Russians have little interest in strengthening the Islamic world — but for the moment, they have substantial interest in maintaining American imbalance and sapping U.S. forces. The Russians have a long history of supporting Middle Eastern regimes with weapons shipments, and it is no accident that the first world leader they met with after invading Georgia was Syrian President Bashar al Assad. This was a clear signal that if the U.S. responded aggressively to Russia’s actions in Georgia, Moscow would ship a range of weapons to Syria — and far worse, to Iran. Indeed, Russia could conceivably send weapons to factions in Iraq that do not support the current regime, as well as to groups like Hezbollah. Moscow also could encourage the Iranians to withdraw their support for the Iraqi government and plunge Iraq back into conflict. Finally, Russia could ship weapons to the Taliban and work to further destabilize Pakistan.
At the moment, the United States faces the strategic problem that the Russians have options while the United States does not. Not only does the U.S. commitment of ground forces in the Islamic world leave the United States without strategic reserve, but the political arrangements under which these troops operate make them highly vulnerable to Russian manipulation — with few satisfactory U.S. counters.
The U.S. government is trying to think through how it can maintain its commitment in the Islamic world and resist the Russian reassertion of hegemony in the former Soviet Union. If the United States could very rapidly win its wars in the region, this would be possible. But the Russians are in a position to prolong these wars, and even without such agitation, the American ability to close off the conflicts is severely limited. The United States could massively increase the size of its army and make deployments into the Baltics, Ukraine and Central Asia to thwart Russian plans, but it would take years to build up these forces and the active cooperation of Europe to deploy them. Logistically, European support would be essential — but the Europeans in general, and the Germans in particular, have no appetite for this war. Expanding the U.S. Army is necessary, but it does not affect the current strategic reality.
This logistical issue might be manageable, but the real heart of this problem is not merely the deployment of U.S. forces in the Islamic world — it is the Russians’ ability to use weapons sales and covert means to deteriorate conditions dramatically. With active Russian hostility added to the current reality, the strategic situation in the Islamic world could rapidly spin out of control.
The United States is therefore trapped by its commitment to the Islamic world. It does not have sufficient forces to block Russian hegemony in the former Soviet Union, and if it tries to block the Russians with naval or air forces, it faces a dangerous riposte from the Russians in the Islamic world. If it does nothing, it creates a strategic threat that potentially towers over the threat in the Islamic world.
The United States now has to make a fundamental strategic decision. If it remains committed to its current strategy, it cannot respond to the Russians. If it does not respond to the Russians for five or 10 years, the world will look very much like it did from 1945 to 1992. There will be another Cold War at the very least, with a peer power much poorer than the United States but prepared to devote huge amounts of money to national defense.
There are four broad U.S. options:
Attempt to make a settlement with Iran that would guarantee the neutral stability of Iraq and permit the rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces there. Iran is the key here. The Iranians might also mistrust a re-emergent Russia, and while Tehran might be tempted to work with the Russians against the Americans, Iran might consider an arrangement with the United States — particularly if the United States refocuses its attentions elsewhere. On the upside, this would free the U.S. from Iraq. On the downside, the Iranians might not want —or honor — such a deal.
Enter into negotiations with the Russians, granting them the sphere of influence they want in the former Soviet Union in return for guarantees not to project Russian power into Europe proper. The Russians will be busy consolidating their position for years, giving the U.S. time to re-energize NATO. On the upside, this would free the United States to continue its war in the Islamic world. On the downside, it would create a framework for the re-emergence of a powerful Russian empire that would be as difficult to contain as the Soviet Union.
Refuse to engage the Russians and leave the problem to the Europeans. On the upside, this would allow the United States to continue war in the Islamic world and force the Europeans to act. On the downside, the Europeans are too divided, dependent on Russia and dispirited to resist the Russians. This strategy could speed up Russia’s re-emergence.
Rapidly disengage from Iraq, leaving a residual force there and in Afghanistan. The upside is that this creates a reserve force to reinforce the Baltics and Ukraine that might restrain Russia in the former Soviet Union. The downside is that it would create chaos in the Islamic world, threatening regimes that have sided with the United States and potentially reviving effective intercontinental terrorism. The trade-off is between a hegemonic threat from Eurasia and instability and a terror threat from the Islamic world.
We are pointing to very stark strategic choices. Continuing the war in the Islamic world has a much higher cost now than it did when it began, and Russia potentially poses a far greater threat to the United States than the Islamic world does. What might have been a rational policy in 2001 or 2003 has now turned into a very dangerous enterprise, because a hostile major power now has the option of making the U.S. position in the Middle East enormously more difficult.
If a U.S. settlement with Iran is impossible, and a diplomatic solution with the Russians that would keep them from taking a hegemonic position in the former Soviet Union cannot be reached, then the United States must consider rapidly abandoning its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and redeploying its forces to block Russian expansion. The threat posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War was far graver than the threat posed now by the fragmented Islamic world. In the end, the nations there will cancel each other out, and militant organizations will be something the United States simply has to deal with. This is not an ideal solution by any means, but the clock appears to have run out on the American war in the Islamic world.
We do not expect the United States to take this option. It is difficult to abandon a conflict that has gone on this long when it is not yet crystal clear that the Russians will actually be a threat later. (It is far easier for an analyst to make such suggestions than it is for a president to act on them.) Instead, the United States will attempt to bridge the Russian situation with gestures and half measures.
Nevertheless, American national strategy is in crisis. The United States has insufficient power to cope with two threats and must choose between the two. Continuing the current strategy means choosing to deal with the Islamic threat rather than the Russian one, and that is reasonable only if the Islamic threat represents a greater danger to American interests than the Russian threat does. It is difficult to see how the chaos of the Islamic world will cohere to form a global threat. But it is not difficult to imagine a Russia guided by the Medvedev Doctrine rapidly becoming a global threat and a direct danger to American interests.
We expect no immediate change in American strategic deployments — and we expect this to be regretted later. However, given U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney’s trip to the Caucasus region, now would be the time to see some movement in U.S. foreign policy. If Cheney isn’t going to be talking to the Russians, he needs to be talking to the Iranians. Otherwise, he will be writing checks in the region that the U.S. is in no position to cash.
Dick Morris thinks Obama is going to win. But then he thought Hillary was going to win against Obama most of the way, so he bats the same average as I do--0%.ReplyDelete
George Friedman, you say, aye bob?ReplyDelete
He makes the point we touched on a day or two ago. The need to prioritize the escalation points. whit mentioned NorK, Friedman mentions Europe, wi"o" stays fixated upon Iran.
Prioritize them after Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan
Those three being a prioritization of targets, already committed to.
"All of you here need some Adult Supervision!" Sarah PalinReplyDelete
Seems she changed a lot in Alaska.
They Even Had A 'Corrupt Bastards Club' With CBC On Their Caps
Maybe she could handle Putin.
handle Putin like she did her kids?ReplyDelete
"All of you here need some Adult Supervision!" Sarah Palin
Bobal: The senior pastor at the Assembly of God church in Wasilla, Alaska — who arrived in 1999, in a church that Palin left in 2002 — later warned that critics of President George W. Bush might be banished to hell and that people who voted for John Kerry might not gain entry to heaven, the Huffington Post reports.ReplyDelete
So Palin was there for three years, and after she left this guy said that, but Obama was in his church for 17 years, but while he was there, his guy said God Damn America. We can go after Palin for her choice of Pastor, but Obama is off limits.
Newt Gingrich on O'Reilly last night said there are two possible outcomes. The news media campaign will be effective and Palin becomes a non-player - regardless of whether she remains on the ticket, or Palin's performance - and the response of the American people insofar that it can be gaged outside of formal media avenues - will overwhelm the criticsm.ReplyDelete
Not exactly one of his more profound observations but interesting. It means the next two weeks will turn on the substance of one person whose name was little known until a few days ago. Not policy. Not Putin. Not Marxism. Not Iran.
Neither right nor wrong, just is. The McCain people should be throwing all their weight and big guns behind their VP selection to give her every possible advantage rather than complaining about the unfairness of a world that is soi-distant the concept.
Gringrich was making an either-or statement. There will be no more muddling through. Anything. A paradigm for future response patterns. The ambiguity of muddling no longer being adequate, let alone serious.
Which feeds directly into a point made several times by Wretchard and others - the need to impose clarity of context, purpose, and objectives into foreign policy. Alexis over at BC described the failure of Democrats to "own" the Iraq War - due to their histrionics and due to Bush administration running an internal end game, the divisions within the Washington bureaucracy weakening the ability of this country to mount and defend an effective campaign that said we represent these principles. If another entity does A, we will respond with X, then Y, then Z. No questions asked. No extenuating circumstances. No apologies. No website flame wars.
I remember when Truman was derided for being that funny little man in the pork-pie hat. About as far from elite east-coast ivy-league as you could get. I have no problem with the substance of this candidate as I know her so far. I have a major problem with the professional political staff in State, Defense, and CIA who have a tendency to go their own way out of whatever motivation fits the circumstances - spite, revenge, or some misguided sense of patriotism. Without them - the institutional bedrock of Washington, Sarah Palin could be god, mom, and your therapist all rolled into one happy little Alaskan mooseball, and it wouldn't make any difference.
Right on Slade. I sense a comeback for"Right on."ReplyDelete
Or is it time to acknowledge the faith of our fathers and realize the true enemy to liberty is an authoratative Russia. One which is aligned with and sponsor to the radical islamists.ReplyDelete
If the sponsor was removed, the rising islamists would be back in the D League. A police and intel challenge, few worries.
Hezzbollah becoming the State of Lebanon, joining the process, as the Rand Corp tells US is the most likely way forward. Not the defeat of HB on the battlefield.
Which makes some sense, as Egypt, Syria and lebanon were all defeated, but still pose an existential risk to the victor of the battles. Especially if they return to being antagonistic.
The Rand Corp findings also proving correct in Iraq. The terrorists not defeated, but brought into the process.
The locals now controling Anbar, again. The 1920 Brigades and the like now hold sway, renamed and packaged, to be sure there was a rebranding of the their local product, for US consumers.
Brought into the process.
Bought into the process, both.ReplyDelete
If we really want to stop the NorKs and the Iranians from further advancements in the nuclear arms field there must be a sea change in thinking.ReplyDelete
It is assumed that nuclear weapons provide a free pass to the holder. That behind a nuclear response a rouge State can do as it pleases, with little regard to a major military response.
Want to cripple the dreams of the Islamist expansionists, put the fear of the US into the Mullahs and stop the Russians in their tracks?
Takeout the Pakistani nuclear weapons and delivery systems.
Smash the infrastructure in Warizistan and the other "jihadist" tribal areas.
Would a President McCain abandon the efforts in Iraq and Afhanistan, to engage Russia in Georgia and the Ukraine?ReplyDelete
Or would he allow Russia to grow to an even greater, nuclear armed, threat to world peace & prosperity.
Maverick has never called US all Afghanis, to my knowledge, but ...
"We are all Georgians, now"
DR: Takeout the Pakistani nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Smash the infrastructure in Warizistan and the other "jihadist" tribal areas.ReplyDelete
We can get one of the three targets you list. We can take out their delivery systems by hitting their airfields and missile sites. But we can't take out any warheads, and there's no "infrastructure" in the tribal areas to hit. In response, Pakistan will disperse their warheads to the four winds of the world of Islam, to be placed on train cars and cargo containers for dozens of nuclear suicide attacks with plausible deniability.
Attack the Pakistani nukes and there is no attempt to shut the Strait of Hormuz, no spike in ship insurance rates.ReplyDelete
The mullahs would get the message, loud and clear. Pootie would be taken aback.
For what it's worth, my under-30 daughter (who does vote) has switched her preference from Obama to McCain. She just can't stand in Sarah's way.ReplyDelete
Give it about a week, folks. This, I think, is a game-changer.
Brought into the process.ReplyDelete
The China policy of Nixon. Open the doors to economic opportunity and increased standard of living as a means of reducing pressure for implementing military aggression.
That's one school of thought. The human option for violence being so easily tamed.
So the venue changes.
It could work.
I have no clue. It's breathing space.
Puts a hell of a burden on capitalist market enterprise.
As for the rest of it, Rat raises good questions. The chess board is too complicated for me. I expect my government to exercise responsibility and deal with it in a manner that best preserves the ideals and security of this nation. I will vote accordingly.
There are bridges, passes and roadcuts throughout the Tribal areas. There are fuel storage facilities, warehouses, entire cities, towns, hamlets and villages, Ms T.ReplyDelete
Burn 'em all.
The US can hit both the launch capacity of the Pakis, the airfields and missles. It can also strike the warheads in their storage facilities.
It could do both, at the same time.
And you're right 2164th. This is a quite a Jeeze Louise Moment on the Levee of Life and Such.ReplyDelete
DR: The US can hit both the launch capacity of the Pakis, the airfields and missles. It can also strike the warheads in their storage facilities.ReplyDelete
That's brilliant, DR. Why didn't we think of that in the Cold War? Do you think the US or Israel also have buildings in the desert somewhere marked "Nuclear Warhead Storage Facility" ? Those are the family jewels, my friend. For sixty years they have been shuttled around randomly with dummy warheads to prevent the temptation of a first strike. Their real locations are deep underground.
Ash said--"Tut, tsk, tut."ReplyDelete
A lot of expectations being raised, for this speech, tonight.ReplyDelete
Hope she hits a long ball
Wonder if it'll match Obama's 35 million?
My wife is all excited, more than by the Olympics. Anticpates watching the speech. On that Kerry vid, of a day or two, when asked how Mrs Palin would impact the women's vote, he immediately and often equated women to Hillery supporters.
Whom my wife never was amongst.
Pakistan is not the US, we funded the construction of their storage sites, Ms T.ReplyDelete
We watched as they were built, we could hit them all.
It is Pakistan, after all. Not Iran. Not Russia. But far and away from anything of value, Pakistan.
Where the terrorists roam, sponsored by the Pakistani State, through the ISI.
casus belli, basta
Hit enough of the sites, destroy the delivery systems, the Paki will sue for peace.ReplyDelete
Or they'll do what?
While we can return for Round 2,3,4,5...
Until they do negotiate a settlement.
Force Pakistan to disarm those nukes.ReplyDelete
Perhaps the threat, spoken of softly, over tea, would be enough.
If that tea were sweet, enough.
Pakistan is the chief proliferator of pirated nuclear technolgy. Pakistan funded the Taliban and by extension the aQ elements in Afghanistan. Afghanistan consider to be "strategic depth" by the Paki Generals and the ISI.
Trainng grounds for Kashmere cannon fodder.
We seem to have different targets. Such a number of targets to choose from.ReplyDelete
Iran, Pakistan, Warisistan. Ash wants to attack Palinistan.
Slade says it's too complicated. I agree with that too.
How do we know where all those Palistani nukes are? I was sort of for that too, but nobody seemed to agree.
The whole jig saw puzzle is complicated enough, with so many of Rummy's unknows, any action might end up running off the canvas in a direction unknown. Maybe to our advantage too.
We know what Hotspur would do. Which changed him into Coldspur. On the other hand....
Pakistan is the chief proliferator of pirated nuclear technolgy.
That's the outlook I got from a book I read about Pakistan. Whole place is a thick gang of mutual conspirators. Dr. Khan, they knew what he was up to.
Thinking about Palin, she might really help in the south, where McCain probably wins anyway. Can she help in Colorado, New Mexico, Ohio, Virginia, Michigan, states where help is needed?
That's a heck of a nice looking purple head scarf.ReplyDelete
Whom my wife never was amongst.ReplyDelete
That's exactly right. Much more excitement to this candidate. The story the media is missing. And the insight that is lacking when trotting out the theme that "women vote as a block" for "one of their own."
Woe be to that mentality.
Surprise has its moments.
He's always been a sharp dresser.ReplyDelete
Criminal looters fire at National Guardsmen in Louisianna, protesters assault convention delegates in St. Paul.ReplyDelete
Bobal: Iran, Pakistan, Warisistan. Ash wants to attack Palinistan.ReplyDelete
Specifically, the breakout region of Sarahstan.
Here's a Russian newspaper whose editorial staff hasn't had their families taken hostage yet.
Aug. 8 stands out as a fateful day for Russia. It marks Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's greatest strategic blunder. In one blow, he wiped out half a trillion dollars of stock market value, stalled all domestic reforms and isolated Russia from the outside world.
Russia's attack on its small democratic neighbor was bad enough, but its recognition of two conquered protectorates as independent states has been supported only by Hamas, Belarus, Venezuela and Cuba. Putin is turning Russia into a rogue state.
That would be *GQ* material.ReplyDelete
This adds a little depth to the biography of Mrs Palin.ReplyDelete
A Negotiator Without Preconditions
By James P. Lucier
Published 9/3/2008 12:08:20 AM
Would you trust Sarah Palin to negotiate with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions?
Well, why not?
It's a very good story.
Hopes she hits a long ball.
Is James P. Lucifer related to Bobal DeSoto?ReplyDelete
We Need A Good LaughReplyDelete
Advice? By Thursday night rambunctious will be fine, and a relief. Great political parties must show compassion, but they don't want to wilt with the weight of it.
And: Wit, wit, wit. Humor. "A maid laughing is half taken," said a randy old Elizabethan poet. A voter laughing is half yours, and just received a line he can repeat next weekend over a beer at the barbecue or online at Starbucks. Here is a fact of American politics: If you make us laugh we spread your line for free.
Footnote to the "complicated chess board"ReplyDelete
Which is not to say I didn't once play chess. What I expect from my government is cooperation, communication, debate, and performance. What we've seen since the Iraq policy is not enough of the above which means we need leaders who can make the system work as well as the analysts and intelligence to support rational and defensible policy. There are many Grand Masters but the coordinated output is too often semi-incoherent.
Bush and his team had leadership failures in the managerial sense. Someone said he functioned as a Chairman of the Board when he should have performed as CEO.
To back off from the details is a simple acknowledgment that the experts must be properly utilized.
Instead of running loose like a little Banana Republic in Washington.
He was filling arenas, just like Obama, but no one thought Steve Martin to be annoitted.ReplyDelete
Though he filled the arenas more often, along with booking a higher average admission price than Obama charged in Denver.
Then he totally walked away from that part of his career, while at the top.
Then replicated his success in movies.
Elite Lettin it All Hang OutReplyDelete
Steve Martin was a gymnast in high school (college?). Balance is everything.ReplyDelete
America is a huge and lonely country.ReplyDelete
Peggy Noonan just can't help herself.
But that last paragraph about the Final Point is a righteous kicker of insight.
RASMUSSEN POLL: Hillary Clinton 52%, Sarah Palin 41% in Presidential Match-up...ReplyDelete
If it really worked out that way, we all deserve to die anyhoo.
Land of 10,000 LoonsReplyDelete
Left has catered lunch, throws bags of cement on delegate buses, other poncing business.
Steve Martin worked all through school @ Disneyland and Knott's Berry Farm.ReplyDelete
...and practiced for millions of hours in front of a mirror.
Listening to a repeat of Thompson's speech--ReplyDelete
"They're not going to take any water from your side of the bucket, just from the other side of the bucket."
"The tax increases won't hurt you. If you don't have a businees, work for a business, or buy your food, clothes and fuel from a business."
and on Congress--
"This last Congress has been an historic Congress. It has done less and has lower ratings than any Congress in history."
Loud laughter ripples through convention hall.
Yesterday Roger Simon sounded like an aged fag having an Orgasm on Miller as he slobbered all over his prediction that Sarah was as good as gone, already.ReplyDelete
Media demanding paternity tests of downs child!ReplyDelete
Why doesn't the damned media demand Obama allow them to question and inspect the Hawaiian Birth Certificate records and personnel, and the hospital records of the hospitals (two) where is said to have been born?ReplyDelete
Mr. Downs had a child?ReplyDelete
I'm gonna say a silent prayer for Palin tonight. Not that I really think she needs it.ReplyDelete
I hope something totally untoward doesn't happen tonight, like her tripping on those high heel shoes, for instance. Which has got me worried for some odd reason.
America is a huge and lonely country.ReplyDelete
It may be a huge country, but if you can share a sleeping bag it sure ain't lonely.
I propose a fistfight between the Palin Men Vs the Biden/Obama MetrosReplyDelete
酒店經紀 酒店打工 酒店工作 酒店上班 酒店兼差 酒店兼職 打工兼差 打工兼職 酒店應徵 禮服店 酒店 經紀 打工 兼差 台北酒店 兼職ReplyDelete