I Read Kathleen Parker So You Don

“Still, a well-placed MOAB smack in the Sunni Triangle … but then, we are not animals. A reel of Rambo will have to do.*”

Kathleen Parker

13 Comments so far

  1. Ben (unregistered) on December 14th, 2005 @ 4:27 pm


    I agree that Hillary would alienate the majority of her already thinning base by turning pro-life. But hey, since I dread the thought of President Hillary Clinton, I say go for it!

    One thing I would like to point out is, if Roe v Wade were overturned, abortion would not be illegal. It would simply return to the individual states

  2. Ben2 (unregistered) on December 14th, 2005 @ 5:16 pm


    Meanwhile, she is loathed by those on the right, for a variety of reasons: she happens to be married to Bill, she forgave him and stayed with him throughout MonicaGate, she tried unsuccessfully to create a health care plan for all Americans (wildly overstepping the boundaries of her duties as First Lady, from the perspective of her opponents), she had something to do with Vince Foster

  3. Seth Anderson (unregistered) on December 14th, 2005 @ 10:35 pm

    Kathleen Parker is a joke of a columnist. Any advice from her should be considered as ‘reverse psychology’ at best, utter ridiculous at worst.

  4. nikkos (unregistered) on December 15th, 2005 @ 10:20 am

    Original Ben-

    Not sure whom the Democrats or the GOP will field for 08. My friends in the south are excited about Mark Warner, currently Gov. of Virginia. Obama? Can’t win on his own due to lack of experience and, I’m sad to say, because he is a black man. Lieberman, yeah, his stance on the Iraq War alone is enough for him to raise the ire of many a Democrat. Plus, he’s pissed off a loit of Democrats for seeming disloyalty to the party and other Dems. Hillary, beyond her obvious perception issues, troubles me becuase I am not convinced she has the experience- she’s only been an elected official for what, 2 years now? Frankly,I’d like to see American politics move beyond the brand name dynasties- American political royalty is a bad, bad idea.

    On the GOP side, I’m hearing a lot more lately about Mitt Romney, Gov. of Massachusetts. However, his electoral liability is that he’s a Mormon. It’s not clear how the evangelical wing of the GOP would react to a Mormon candidate, much less the business wing, not to mention centrist voters. Check out “The Corner” on National Review online- it’s one big hard-on for Romney these days.

    Whether he likes it or not, ol’ Jeb Bush may be conscripted into service.

    Cheney? Ha! Good one. Even most Republicans wouldn’t vote for Cheney. Publicly, tey would say, it’s because of his heart operations, age, health, etc. but the real reason is that they fear Cheney too. The guy’s just creepy.

    Giuliani is problematic for several reasons, from the perspective of GOP voters:
    – he was once a Democrat
    – his policies are perceived as fairly liberal- i.e., he is pro-choice
    – he’s been divorced twice and married thrice, which doesn’t fit the family values playbook

    Of course, McCain has his own issues with the GOP:
    – he’s perceived as a “maverick” by a party that values loyalty above all
    – currently, he’s attempting to pass legislation that will ban some of the Bush administration’s favorite interogation “techniques” which can’t be winning him many friends right now

    I see the big issue for any GOP candidate will be: do you run away from Bush and his policies, or do you embrace them? It’s a sticky wicket to be sure. It’s hard to see how a GOP candidate can run a campaign which speaks of continuity with Bush’s policies- since the public has soured on many of those policies. But it’s almost as hard to imagine the GOP fronting a candidate that would break from the Bush mold- you can’t run as a reform candidate if you’re the incumbent.

    When you think about it, the big, sad picture is that neither party has much to offer the American people in terms of real, galvanizing leaders.

  5. Ben (unregistered) on December 15th, 2005 @ 11:02 am

    I don

  6. nikkos (unregistered) on December 15th, 2005 @ 11:20 am

    Yes, 08 is a long ways off, politically speaking. The mid-term Congressional races of 06 will be a good barometer for how the 08 race will be fought.

    I don’t think the problem is the size of the government. The problem is policy. Having a larger or smaller government would do nothing to resolve the problems in Iraq, or domestic issues like health care, taxes or immigration. The so-called mudslinging is the result of passionately held beliefs on both sides of the aisle coming into conflict.

    Speaking of immigration, it’s hard to see how the issue can be addressed without increasing the size of the government- in the form of a more robust Border Patrol, etc. Besides, Bush’s recent immigration proposal was met with real skepticism and opposition even from members of the GOP.

    While immigration may be an issue for Repulican voters, I don’t believe it will be one for Democratic voters. Not that it is not important, but it’s not the kind of issue that whips Democrats into a frenzy. So much of the immigration debate sounds to liberal ears like xenophobia bordering on racism- code words as “law and order” was before it. Immigration is a divisive issue, though, which is a good indication that the GOP will run on it- they love divisive issues.

    Immigration issues always come to the fore when people are worried about the economy- and in spite of some recent postives, many Americans still feel the economy is weak. Part of the reason is that the recent positive numbers cited higher productivity levels- which is great of you’re a boss or business owner, but not so great if you’re a worker, because essentially you are doing more (higher productivity) for the same amount of money, which, adjusted for inflation and higher cost of living (gasoline and heating costs, for example), is actually less money in real dollars.

    The tax issue will also be problemtaic for both parties- how can Republicans continue to sell tax cuts when they have run up the largest deficit ever? This puts Democrats in the position of arguing for more taxes simply to repair the damage done by Bush. Of course, running on a platform of raising taxes is hardly a popular strategy.

  7. Ben (unregistered) on December 15th, 2005 @ 1:27 pm

    Well, I guess that would be one of our main disagreements then. I am a big proponent of our founding fathers vision, which is limited government. I see the way our country is sliding towards socialism, and it doesn

  8. nikkos (unregistered) on December 15th, 2005 @ 1:42 pm

    “I forgot to mention, that whomever the Republicans nominate in

  9. Ben (unregistered) on December 15th, 2005 @ 3:03 pm

    Sure. One of the reasons is especially pertinent if Hillary gets the nod, which I assume (at this point) that she will. Helping to get female and black voters. If Shrillary is the candidate, I believe having Rice will be essential to corralling the women and a black candidate would help get some more black voters. It is dumbfounding why so many blacks vote Democrat, considering the Dems various policies that hurt blacks, but I suppose that would be a different thread.

    Rice would make a good VP for several reasons, IMO. She:

    – is STRONG (battled her way up through 1950

  10. nikkos (unregistered) on December 15th, 2005 @ 3:29 pm

    Yes, those pesky women must be “corraled.” Soon, they might even expect to be treated as equals. I mean, we already allow them to get jobs outside the home. What next? Comfortable shoes?

    Which Democratic policies specifically, in your opionion, harm blacks in America? And, how do these policies hurt them?

    If you are not already familiar with him, you should check out Steve Gilliard at The News Blog: stevegilliard.blogospot.com. He is often asked this very question- “why don’t more black Americans vote Republican?”

    Whom are the “leftist race pimps” you refer to? And for that matter, what is leftist race pimpery and how can I identify it when I see it?

    You say:
    “I think a strong enough woman could handle the role as President, but I don

  11. Ben (unregistered) on December 15th, 2005 @ 3:51 pm

    Affirmative action hurts blacks. Welfare hurts blacks. Not privatizing Social Security hurts blacks.

    A few examples of race pimps would be demagogues such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who always paint blacks as victims, act like slavery still takes place in the United States, call for reparations, cry racism at every turn. Those types of people are holding many blacks back because they constantly look to excuse poor behavior instead of confronting it.

    If you are not already familiar with them, Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, Walter Williams and Star Parker speak very well and often about the issue.

    No, you imply that I don

  12. nikkos (unregistered) on December 15th, 2005 @ 4:01 pm

    Here’s an article that addresses the issue:
    “How black conservatives hurt their cause”


  13. Ben (unregistered) on December 15th, 2005 @ 4:17 pm

    That article is full of holes. Reading it makes one wonder if Mr. Thindwa is being serious.

    I’ve answered many questions in this post. Care to comment on any of my points, such as Lieberman, immigration and Condoleeza Rice.

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.