Posted on 06/06/2007 10:28:33 PM PDT by goldstategop
Watching the Democratic presidential debate this week on CNN, I was reminded of the famous line spoken by Obi-Wan Kenobi in "Star Wars" when he approached the Mos Eisley Spaceport with young Luke Skywalker and two droids.
"You won't ever find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy," he said.
There they were: Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich and Bill Richardson – clueless, shameless, principle-less, truthless.
The contest within this hive of scum and villainy is of modest interest to Americans only because the current occupant of the White House has done almost nothing right in eight years – including the way he has waged the war in Iraq.
So all eight of the jokers in this deck focused their attacks on a man the winner of this race will not face – George W. Bush. He is an easy target. Yet, none one of them actually came close to a bull's-eye, because their ideas are worse even than Bush policies.
"This is George Bush's war," said Clinton.
She wasn't talking about her challenge of the president. She was referring to the war on the al-Qaida terrorist network currently being conducted half-heartedly in Iraq.
She and Obama both recently voted to cut off all funds to American troops in that conflict.
But that treacherous act was condemned by Edwards, not because it would mean waving a white flag to the foreign enemy who hit America Sept. 11, 2001, in the most devastating attack on our soil in the history of our country. His beef is that they did not announce their surrender position soon enough.
"Senator Clinton and Senator Obama did not say anything about how they were going to vote until they appeared on the floor of the Senate and voted," he said. "They were among the last people to vote."
Obama had an interesting retort.
"It is not easy to vote for cutting off funding, because the fact is there are troops on the ground," he said.
No one asked why it wouldn't be easy if it were truly the right thing to do.
Then the lunatic fringe of this cartel of utter madness and moral depravity had their say.
"This war belongs to the Democratic Party because the Democrats were put in charge by the people in the last election with the thought that they were going to end the war," said Kucinich.
Gravel suggested anyone who had voted to authorize the conflict in the first place – as did Edwards and Clinton – should be disqualified from being president.
It occurred to me that all eight of these rejects should be disqualified from holding American passports.
Clinton criticized Edwards for saying the war on terror is nothing but a bumper sticker.
"I have seen firsthand the terrible damage that can be inflicted on our country," she said.
But Americans haven't seen anything yet if one of these clowns is elected president.
The good news is I'm not at all sure any of them will. In fact, I'm not even sure any of them will be the Democratic Party nominee.
It is my considered opinion that just as we are likely to see Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich enter the race for the Republican nomination in the coming weeks, it is also likely we will witness a surprise announcement from the Democratic candidate who won the popular vote in 2000.
Al Gore has been biding his time. Having persuaded a significant percentage of Americans the greatest threat they face is from an imaginary problem, I expect him to sweep into the race by calling for a major shift of priorities – from fighting Islamo-fascists who have killed thousands of Americans to combating catastrophic, man-made climate change.
When Gore enters the race, Obi-Wan Kenobi's prophecy will have been proven wrong. We will have found a hive of scum and villainy more wretched than Mos Eisley Spaceport. Indeed, we will have found one even more wretched than the one we witnessed on CNN this week.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Oh please, is this now becoming the new Republican mantra?
Yes, you're correct, oh wise one, on judges, the reaction of 9-11, taxes, abortion, the economy, Bush has done almost nothing right.
If Gore wins the White House, we’ll see environmental catastrophe. Most likely by nuclear terrorism. But that’s man-made, enough for him to work with.
In all honesty, I think his legacy depends on whether amnesty goes through. If it does, none of that you cited will matter in the longterm as the impact of the millions legitmized here, and the millions more that follow their lead, will take us somewhere nothing he did can out weigh.
If he’s saved from himself...he’ll be remembered most for judges. And he’ll get favorable reviews for that. The war will be dependent on the undetermined outcome. Unless you are Hoover or FDR you rarely get nods to economic policy in legacy writeups.
Oddly enough, for a man a lot of us are extremely angry at right now, he still has the potential to be remembered fondly. And it all rides on the defeat of a bill he’s pushing.
Farah’s not a favorite of mine, but I do agree that I wouldn’t be at all shocked to find Gore the nominee. aside from Obama I don’t think the Dems are enemored of their field anymore then we’ve been. And Obama is a lightweight. If it ends up a Thompson/Gore battle it wouldn’t shock me.
No--it just feels that way now.
Reagan signed such a bill into law, and no one ever talks about it.
I think he'll be remembered for his reaction to 9-11 no matter what--the outcome won't be known in our lifetimes, but his bringing the war to the islamists is one of the greatest leadership moments in US Presidential history. And economic policy and conditions are frequently mentioned in writeups of the legacies of Nixon, Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton.
I’ve heard it brought up repeatedly. And not just on talk radio or online. Further Reagan’s bill in the sum total legitimized 3 million all said and done. This one probably is upwards of 30 million. In a country of 300 million that is an impact that will be felt far more deeply then the previous amnesty.
I would disagree on your assessment this is a temporary reaction. The numbers are more extreme this time around.
Sorry, but no.
I don’t care what dusty history books say. People will not care about tax cuts made now in 50 years. They will only care about tax cuts made in their own time. Washington, Lincoln, Jackson, Truman, Kennedy, etc..are not remembered for economics. Bush will not be the exception to the rule.
he will be remembered for the bullhorn. But like I stated, that will be tied to the outcome of the war on terror. the two are not mutually exclusive and I will refrain from passing early judgement on that at this time.
Well, sure--NOW. When Reagan died, for example, it was never mentioned that I heard. And it was never mentioned after he left office until now.
The numbers don't tell us much about the reaction. I think your perception of what the American people believe about illegal immigration is way off, unfortunately--it's going to motivate the Republican base, but it's not a winning issue, as much as I would like it to be.
You can't have it both ways--what "dusty history books" say or what people say fifty years later amounts to the same thing--what is recorded and discussed LATER.
You're misrepresenting what I wrote--I never said people will talk about tax cuts in the future, but how the economy was at that time. Washington and Lincoln and Jackson aren't remembered for economics--I never claimed they were. What I said was that the economic status at the time of SOME presidents--those I named--WAS.
Please don't misrepresent what I wrote to make a point. Disagree, fine, but with what I wrote, not what you want me to have written to fit your point, ok?
the truth is that Viper’s nest can’t pull it off. They strike as arrogant, dishonest, opportunistic, and pandering political prostitutes.. the whole lot.
If it’s a Thompson/Gore race, then Thompson needs to hammer on the bogus global warming scam hard and fast. “An Inconvenient Truth” needs to be exposed for the propaganda hit piece that it really is...a modern day “Reefer Madness”.
A Thompson/Gore race would be a big disappointment. It would show that the McLuanites have won and only propaganda remains.
I think you nailed the doom facing the Socialists in the next election. You can't run against a man who isn't in the race, and there's no gaurantee his policies will still be in place by the time of the election. There's not even a gaurantee he will still be in office with the rats controlling congress and the senate (although I doubt they will impeach him because he serves such a good contrast to their projected "surrender policy".)
The the whole dynamic of the election can change in 18 months. They'll need to be able to focus and debate seriously in many different arenas and intellectually, I don't think they can cut it.
Reagan signed such a bill into law, and no one ever talks about it.
**********************************
True enough ,, but thats a case of “fool me once...” and Reagan knew how to handle his domestic enemies , the democrats ,, Bush rolls over for them , he willingly signs bills he acknowledges are in direct opposition to the first ammendment, his handling of the whole Plame investigation and his unwillingness to spring Libby really p*ss me off ... the tax cuts and such can be reversed in a moment if any Dem wins in 08 ,, the costs of 20million+ (soon to be 60Million+) illegals , medicareD , the federalizing of the school systems through “no child” ,, these will be open festering wounds for decades at least ,, I don’t know if we can survive much more of this creep towards Socialism...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.