Skip to main content

View Diary: PNAC Co-Founder Endorses Dems in '08 (221 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Thanks for the Evidence He Wants Hillary Now (0+ / 0-)

    Glad to know you didn't make a leap unsupported by your evidence.

    The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

    by Dana Houle on Mon May 29, 2006 at 01:33:59 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Lead unsupported by the evidence? (3+ / 0-)

      what's the evidence?  

      The guy just wrote a column saying, "Could the United States be better off with a Democrat in the White House in 2009? Here are a couple of reasons the answer might be yes, even if you're not a Democrat."  

      and then he said, "The country could benefit from a similar passing of the baton in the 2008 presidential election...The Democrats, like the Republicans, could nominate a candidate no sensible person would entrust with American foreign policy...But eventually America's post-Sept. 11 foreign policy will probably be better if both parties have a shot at shaping it."

      In what world must you live in, DH, where that doesn't amount to an endorsement of the Democratic frontrunner, Hillary Rodham Clinton?  She obviously is NOT a candidate that Kagan hesitates to entrust with our foreign policy, and if Dennis Kucinich were the front-runner, or if Russ Feingold were the front-runner, Kagan never would have written this article.  

      •  Sure, Because All Other Dems Are Trusted (0+ / 0-)

        That's why Kerry won, because the American electorate trusted him with foreign policy.

        Whatever.  You also see only what you want to see, and you only want to see things that support a grand conspiracy.  This is yet another example.

        The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

        by Dana Houle on Mon May 29, 2006 at 07:32:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  WTF are you talking about? (3+ / 0-)

          I said Kagan trusts Hillary, not that the electorate does or will or doesn't.  

          Kagan not only trusts Hillary, but he trusts all the likely alternatives to Hillary.  Otherwise, he wouldn't be willing to see a lot of his buddies and his past employers and mentors, get thrown out of their positions with a Dem win in 2008.  

          That's the whole point.  He puts controlling the consensus for "forward-leaning" military deployment (and the budget that necessarily goes with that [cart/horse chicken/egg] in the Democratic Party above his alleged ties to party, to friend, to mentor, to any other specific policy.  He doesn't care about anything else because the likely winners of the Dem primary are all acceptable to him and will not change Bush's policies in any spectacular way.  As he said, they may be better at diplomacy and better negotiators, he doesn't care either way, really.  

          That's the point DH.  What does that tell you?  It's only a conspiracy if you're not paying attention.  But, seriously, do you consider it typical of conspiracists to write about their beliefs in the Washington Post?  Because I am only working with what the man wrote, not some conspiracy.  

          They don't want fascism, they want [cart/horse chicken/egg] global hegemony and they are locked in to benefit financially from it from A to Z.  Party-schmarty.   A Hillary is as good as a Jeb to a blind Kagan.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site