31 Comments

1. pastorius:

I agree with you on Hilary. I wouldn’t be so sure about Obama. Hilary seems to be a very vindictive person. It would seem to me that her first reaction if America were attacked while she were President would be, “Not on my watch.”

I believe she would react agressively, perhaps, more aggressivley than Bush.

Obama, on the other hand, strikes me as Jimmy Carter redux.

I don’t think we can afford that at this juncture of history.

Oct 1, 2007 - 4:07 am 2. melk:

In terms of US policy, I would agree. But media coverage will be FAR more favorable to Clinton or Obama than to any Republican. So a decision to stay in Iraq through 2013 will be presented as

1. An inevitable consequence of Bush and his disastrous presidency

and/or

2. A farsighted and prudent Presidential decision.

Oct 1, 2007 - 4:51 am 3. Mahon:

It is not so much the war where the election will make a difference, but the economy and the progressive engrossment of productive activity by the government. Even four years of Hillary with a Democratic Congress may move us significantly in the direction of higher taxes, nationalized health care, hyper-regulation of the economy, etc. Some of these moves will be irreversible. Those things plus judicial appointments are where 2008 really matters. Gore may have gone into Iraq, but he may also have put Larry Tribe on the Supreme Court.

Oct 1, 2007 - 7:30 am 4. Anthony (Los Angeles):

I agree with you about what a hypothetical President Gore would have done after 9-11. In fact, I read somewhere (I think in Ken Pollack’s “The Gathering Storm”) that Al was one of those arguing for war with Iraq within the Clinton Administration around 1998.

However, I can’t agree that the choice between a Republican and a Democrat means little. Forget The Long War for a moment: the differences in domestic and judicial philosophies are wide and likely to have a profound affect on the direction of the nation, especially as the next president will certainly make one and perhaps two SCOTUS appointments.

Oct 1, 2007 - 10:06 am 5. Buddy Larsen:

I second Mahon & Anthony –resoundingly.

Oct 1, 2007 - 10:44 am 6. KarenT:

I am also more concerned about domestic policy this election than foreign policy. Edwards is the guy who really gives me the creeps this time around. He carries the populism bit way too far. And his suggestion that there would be consequences for missing doctor visits gives me an idea how much of my life he would want bureaucrats to control. The Supreme Court is my main reason for avoid Democrats as a party.

While I agree that Gore would also probably be “knee deep” in the war on terror if he were president, I don’t know how he would have handled it. Dennis Prager was extremely worried about Gore becoming president because Gore’s writings suggested that he did not have a good understanding of the human capacity for evil. According to his writings, Gore seemed to think that the greatest dangers to humankind came from damage to the environment, incidental to our striving for the good life. This focus is consistent with the general preoccupation of today’s liberals with money and power.

Gore didn’t seem to be too concerned about the spread of totalitarianism or evil ideologies prior to 9/11. I don’t know if this would have led to vacillation in his opposition to islamofascism after 9/11.

Oct 1, 2007 - 10:48 am 7. Barry Dauphin:

Yeah, but if Gore were elected in 2000, would George W Bush be fat and screaming about global warming?

All kidding aside, I think I disagree with the notion that regarding Iraq, there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference among them. These fols will have to make lots of decisions and those decisions have an effect on history and not just vice versa. Perhaps a single occupant of the White House doesn’t make as much of a difference as some of the “Great Person” school of thought believe, but I don’t think the impersonal forces of history simply ground out differences among these people. I don’t think that Gore would have gone into Iraq, though he would have gone into Afghanistan. Had he gone into Iraq, I don’t think he could have survived the pull-out protests from various sectors, even if it would have come from different people.

Oct 1, 2007 - 12:50 pm 8. David Thomson:

Is Roger L Simon influenced by the philosophy of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel? The idea that the Democrats will eventually relentlessly respond to the threat of Islamic totalitarianism is peculiar to say the least. There is virtually no evidence whatsoever to indulge in this wishful thinking. On the contrary, the Democrats have constantly thrown up roadblocks to protect the American people. Polls clearly show that the Democratic Party elites are self-hating Americans who believe we are ultimately responsible for enraging the Muslim crazies. Hegel essentially argued, however, that none of this really mattered. The historical zeitgeist will simply compel individuals to comply with its will. Yes, that may well be it. Simon could be a subconscious follower of the infamous German determinist.

Oct 1, 2007 - 1:12 pm 9. Buddy Larsen:

David, I think it may depend on how much of the American left’s position is real vs posed.

Where it’s real, there’s your Red engaged in memetic warfare, but that’s a small number (faculties, and a few artists & journos). But mostly it’s a pose, based on BDS, utopianism, ahistoricism, antihistoricism, and plain old desire for cash from someone else’s wallet.

These poseurs would fight as soon as something bad enough or near enough breaks into their trance.

Think of falling off a skyscraper –everything’s fine til you hit the ground. If you do not comprehend that you’re gonna hit the ground, then, whoopee, you’re flying!

Oct 1, 2007 - 2:44 pm 10. Roger:

Well, David Thompson, that’s amusing. I’ve been called a lot of things, but an Hegelian? I can’t imagine anything that would put me to sleep faster than the Enzyklop‰die der philosophischen Wissenschaften… unless of course Schopenhauer.

But nice of you to think of me as so high-falutin’. I’m just an old fashioned pragmatist weary of all “isms” and political parties. I’m more interested in accomplishing things.

Oct 1, 2007 - 3:31 pm 11. David Thomson:

“These poseurs would fight as soon as something bad enough or near enough breaks into their trance.”

Nope, I don’t even slightly agree. The Democratic Party elites are pacifists to the core. At the most, they will lob a few bombs from a safe distance—like Clinton sometimes did. They are existentially committed to the doctrine that military action will end badly. Also, don’t ever underestimate their problem with race. Dark skinned people are supposedly victims of Western Imperialsim. We turned them into raging terrorists.

Democrats are obsessed with race. They get discombobulated whenever the subject comes up. Few Muslim nihilists are white skinned. This makes it almost impossible for Democrats to deal with terrorism. It is time for some bluntness: race +pacifism=Democratic Party impotence regarding the war on terror.

Oct 1, 2007 - 3:32 pm 12. David Thomson:

“Well, David Thompson, that’s amusing. I’ve been called a lot of things, but an Hegelian?”

John Maynard Keynes wryly remarked that many people unknowingly remain the slaves of defunct thinkers. Those who barely ever paid attention to the writings of Hegel are nonetheless often under his influence. You were in the past a committed radical socialist, if not an outright Communist. Thus, you were once upon a time a convinced adherent of Hegel. You perhaps, however, never added 2+2 and realized it totals 4. Individuals must make choices. There is no historical zeitgeist that will absolve them of this responsibility. The concept of the “wave of history” is a cruel fantasy.

Oct 1, 2007 - 3:53 pm 13. Buddy Larsen:

David –you may be right. Hope you aren’t, but you’re arguing from the freshest evidence. My evidence is older, alas.

Oct 1, 2007 - 3:57 pm 14. Roger:

Okay, David, cruel it is. But sometimes it strikes that we are creatures of our times and sometimes independent actors. Color me inconsistent on that. In fact, color me inconsistent on a lot of things. (Btw, I was never been a communist or anything close – perhaps a romantic socialist, but that’s about it.)

The other thing that strikes me is that if we are serious about winning the war on Islamofascism (not easy in my estimation) we have to co-opt the Dems into the struggle too. We didn’t win WWII as Republicans and Democrats. We won as Americans. Political parties change.

Oct 1, 2007 - 4:00 pm 15. Buddy Larsen:

Yeah, but if Gore were elected in 2000, would George W Bush be fat and screaming about global warming?

LOL –wot an image–

Oct 1, 2007 - 4:01 pm 16. reliapundit - the astute blogger:

david is 100000% right.

rog may not be hegelian; he is a victim of his own wishful thinking.

it reminds of lefties here in nyc who argue that mark green would’ve handled 9/11 as well as rudy.

HA!

david letterman – on his 1st show back from the 9/11 hiatus – called rudy “THE PERSONIFICATION OF COURAGE.”

and it made a huge difference – to dave and th entire city, nay country and world.

i voted for dinkins the first time, but for rudy’s reelection.

rudy SAVED the freakin city! dinkins did not. ruith messinger would not have done what rudy did – before 9/11 or on 9/11 or after.

PEOPLE MAKE A DIFFERENCE!

let’s look at the record: clinton’s and gore’s two terms: replete with inadequate responses top jihadoterror. right up to the cole.

it is NOT wishful thinking to argue that we would have gotten more of the same from president gore, or that we wouldn’t return to that combination of wimpy writ slaps and appeasement.

GOLLY ROG’: it’s what the dems openly PROCLAIM there STILL all about. sheesh.

they want to give the terrorists MORE rights, and the NSA and CIA less power; they want to withdraw from iraq BY A DATE CERTAIN.

it’s BAD policy, and not what a GOP prez would do – not by a long shot.

it’s wishful thinking to ignore their record – going back to 1992, that 15 freakin years – and imagine that they’d SUDDENLY go against all they’ve stood for and SUDDENLY do the right thing.

it’s freakin’ absurd.

i’m old enough to remember what these dems did to our south vietnamese allies in 1975, after having done so well in the 1974 election. (the last combat troops left vietnam on 3/31/73 – two years before saigon fell; saigon fell because of the dems!)

if we let them win in 2008, then they will do the same thing. ABANDON IRAQ.

SHIT: it’s almost the same freakin cast of characters: teddy; kerry; conyers…

wo9shful thinking is no substitute for looking at a candidates record. WHAT THEY DID. HOW THEY VOTED.

gore and his dem comrades have told us who they are over and over again.

they are defeatists and appeasers – who’ve been a fifth column for the enemy.

HERE’S THE BOTTOM-LINE ROG’:

if joe lieberman can’t get renominated by today’s dems, what makes you have any confidence in them?

dick “gulag” durbin and harry “we’ve lost” reid anfd nacvy “fellate assad” pelosi are not worthy of your vote.

no dem will take them on.

not the way george gas.

not one dem candidate was for the surge.

TINKABBOUDIT.

that’s says everything about their judgement.

and you know what syas EVERYTHING abiout their lack of character!?

the fact that they all claim to have been misled by bush.

untrustworthy idiots.

step back from the brink, rog’…

don’t do it.

nothing is worth it.

not pandering for more page hits from dems.

not nostalgia for the party you called home for decades – like me!

acceot the truth: the dems acnnot be trust with national security r the defense of the free world.

segolene would NOT be doing today what SARKOZY is doing.

DITTO THE DEMS AND GOP CANDIDATES IN THE USA.

it makes a HUGE difference who we elect.

Oct 1, 2007 - 4:24 pm 17. David Thomson:

“We didn’t win WWII as Republicans and Democrats. We won as Americans. Political parties change.”

The American First movement was not comprised of mostly self-hating Americans. They did not perceive their own country as vile and an exploiter of the dark skinned peoples of the world. These individuals were also not even slightly pacifist. Once realizing war was inevitable—they were solidly on board. Today’s Democrats and the few Ron Paul style Republicans believe we are merely receiving well deserved blowback. The existential gulf between our present postmodernist citizens and the American Firsters is a hundred miles wide. What has changed since the betrayal of Vietnam? The Democrats have only gotten much worse. Bishop Thomas Becket is one of the very rare instances of somebody changing for the better once power was thrust on him. He does not any way represent the norm. This is why a movie staring Richard Burton and Peter O’Toole was made about him.

Roger L. Simon, in many respects, reminds me of the proverbial wife who is convinced that her drunken and abusive husband will eventually get his act together. Sigh, the rest of us usually just shake our head in frustration and disbelief.

Oct 1, 2007 - 4:58 pm 18. qrstuv:

David T.,

I think that Roger is wrong on this point, but I don’t feel the urge to call him anything. We’ve been reading his blog for a couple of years, and I highly doubt he’s going to vote for a Democrat at this point. If he wants to feel hopeful about the Democrats, I say, go ahead and be an optimist.

Oct 1, 2007 - 5:30 pm 19. reliapundit - the astute blogger:

Roger;

Please thinks about this:

Gore : Bush :: Lamont : Lieberman.

OR -

Gore : Bush :: Segolene/Schroeder :: Sarkozy/Merkel

There is a difference. One that effects goals and outcomes.

And remember, advice doesn’t come in boxes marked “good advice” and bad advice.”

A POTUS gets all kinds of advice and must choose.

Gore sold his pro-Gulf War vote for TV airtime.
He is no better than Kerry.

Neither are dependable friends of the US military and neither could be relied upon to do what must be done and stick with it when their own party and the public have had enough.

WW4 demands we have the best POTUS we can find.

And we must choose carefully.

Because it makes a difference.

All the Best!

(you’ll snap out oif it!)

Oct 1, 2007 - 5:59 pm 20. dryfuss:

We all better open our minds to change or we will continue to loose our independence for open debate. WWII was fought and won because of joint fear of loosing our freedom. I think Roger has stimulated many of you that might never have voiced in writing on a blog site. I am one of those people who love a good debate and in my younger college years did so. Presenting facts and attitudes, whether possitive or negaticve is such an emotional hi. Concerning the next President of our country, he or she will have all of you watching and if the complete body in Washington doesn’t politically
come together and stop dictating what others have a right to think
and say we will never regain why we are the most “LIBERAL” COUNTRY
on this planet. Once we take this away and start preventing the
freedom of speech and thought, we will send a fear as was sent
throughout Europe for centuries. To call someone without knowing
a former communist or refer to him as a proverbial wife rather than
a proverbial man that promises to quit smoking or drinking, is also unjust to anyone who is an “INDEPENDENT THINKER ” and a
stimulous to all of us to start getting involved politically.

Oct 1, 2007 - 6:38 pm 21. Buddy Larsen:

Two tangential things leap out at someone watching the current Ken Burns special on PBS: the ‘greatest generation’ folks were great at cooperating, and also great at not “lettin’ it all hang out”.

Then my gen came along and made a fetish of that sort of honesty, which has now evolved into a style of discourse across any sort of differing opinion that is almost guaranteed to go HOT before anyone can even begin to remember what was the basic virtue of compromise anyway. My guess is “necessity” is what makes compromise a virtue.

So, we on the right ought to be trying to think of a way to maintain the basic structure while finding some way to disarm the lefties before they utterly trash the joint.

How to be “disarming” –they used to teach it –charm school, and Dale Carnegie courses.

Oct 1, 2007 - 9:17 pm 22. Barry Dauphin:

I think that in WWII most people sensed an existential fear that only half or less sense now. The greatest generation pulled together in extraordinary times, but not all times are extraordinary, and extraordinary folks can struggle when life returns to “normal”.

Quite frankly many of them left a part of themselves elsewhere and were not “here” all the way. The reasons for the next gen rebellion weren’t all bad, nor were they all good. The boomer generation has its virtues, but too many think that having virtues means having no vice. We should wish that the times really were better, although they are not so horrible considering they potential dangers. Although the events of history have a certain force, not every occupant of the White House will do the same thing. And it makes a difference who sits in there.

Oct 1, 2007 - 10:15 pm 23. David Thomson:

It may behoove Roger L. Simon to find out what Mickey Kaus is trying to say about him:

“P.P.S.: My biggest problem with Hollywood is the dominance of emotional old-style liberals. My second biggest problem with Hollywood is that the opposition to these liberals tends to be equally passionate people, like Breitbart or Roger Simon, who see themselves as warriors in a generational battle against radical Islam that to my mind will be won most efficiently–or defused, which is the same thing–if prosecuted coolly and calmly, with appropriate attention to “blowback.” Conservatives in Hollywood are an oppressed minority; Centrist Dems in Hollywood are a nonexistent minority. (OK, I know one.) … 5:39 P.M.”

Oct. 1, 2007 Slate.com

Is Kaus subtly hinting that Simon is something of a war monger? His remarks are confusing. Kaus has some explaining to do.

Oct 2, 2007 - 8:47 am 24. Always right:

Agree with DT. Lots of things changed since the WWII era, the following generations have different internal fortitude now. Most damaging is the softening (feminizing) the whole population for how many years now? Theyíve (myself included) been drilled since birth that negotiation and making compromises are the keys to everything. Training in rational thinking and logical deduction is deemphasized, ìto search your inner feelingsî is the replacement.

So what happens in an unexpected crisis? There is no sign that most on the left would eventually wake up. The only sign I saw is that they will bide their time when majority view is unfavorable to their agenda (i.e. immediately post-9/11).

To indulge in wishful thinking that dems in charge would have responded similarly as what really happened is the same foolishness (”romanticism”) as negotiating peace with hamas or al qaeda.

Oct 2, 2007 - 9:30 am 25. AlanC:

I basically agree with reliapundit on the topic. But, the thread I find interesting is the one about individuals making a difference.

The idea that Hegelian determinism is correct baffles me. In every human activity that we see, we see that the “who” is important.

Sports provides a simple example that makes this point. Last year the SD Chargers went 14-2, this year the same players are already 1-3. Did the change in coaches make a difference?

Bum Phillips summed it up when speaking of Don Shula…..”He can take hisn’ and beat yourn’; or he can take yourn’ and beat hisn’.”

People matter. Events, beyond a president’s immediate control, drive questions that have to be answered, but, people decide on the answers and their choices matter.

“Two roads diverged in a yellow wood…..”

Oct 2, 2007 - 9:58 am 26. Roger:

I’ve always liked this quote from William Morris:

“Men fight and lose the battle, and the thing they fought for comes about in spite of their defeat, and when it comes out not to be what they mean, other men have to fight for what they meant under another name.”

Oct 2, 2007 - 10:08 am 27. Barry Dauphin:

Surely it matters who sits in the White House (and elsewhere) or why vote? One of my concerns as the Hillary train chugs along is the penchant the Clintons have for promoting appearances over underlying actions. They care deeply about how things look, and less about what’s happening.

Although Rummy is on the outs these days, he had a useful observation of his conversation with Clinton officials when WJC was president. He indicated that they expressed concern upon concern about how it would look to the allies if we did such and such an act, but they expressed no overt interest in whether they were actually making the US safer. Appearances counted more than anything else.

Oct 2, 2007 - 6:37 pm 28. Buddy Larsen:

JFK said “perception is reality”. I wish he’d added, “…but so is reality.”

Oct 2, 2007 - 8:00 pm 29. Paul:

The difference between now and the WW2 era is the widely disseminated Gramscian influence, or cultural Marxism, that has become mainstream and convinced a sizable portion of the nation that America, capitalism, and even Western Civilization, are the true causes of all the world’s ills.

An illuminating example can be found in comparing Hollywood’s stance between then and now. Clark Gable vs. George Clooney sums it up nicely.

The only thing that stopped socialism from conquering the world in the 20th century was America’s might and her contrasting example of life between the two systems. A Hillary victory will put the country in an irreversible slide towards a socialist state, with the attendant iron clad control over the flow of information and the politically correct revision of history. Already our schools, media, and entertainment industry are fully onboard with the Gramscian message and gnawing away at the foundation of America’s original political structure. Every year more brainwashed young people are added to the electorate. On our present course we are doomed.

The Iraq war, and even the war against Islamofacism, are not the ultimate issues. The survival of the American system of individual rights and a check on government power vs. the concentration of power in the hands of elite socialist deciders, who can never match the vast repositories of wisdom found in our evolved culture and in free markets and consequently will inevitably lead us to a totalitarian dystopia, is the real battle.

We are certainly powerful enough to win any global conflict, but not if our own citizens are brainwashed into despising America and traditional American values. We’ve lost the schools so how long before the majority of the electorate reaches the tipping point of no return?

To believe that it won’t matter if Hillary wins is the absolute pinnacle of naive folly.

Oct 3, 2007 - 9:48 am 30. Buddy Larsen:

Amen, Paul. Just a few minutes ago I half-watched on CNBC a debate between a ban-smoking lobbyist and a small-biz defender who happens to also be economics editor of the WSJ. The ban-smoker’s defense of his need to roll-back another freedom was mainly that the other guy works for “right-wing ideologue Rupert Murdoch”.

Pros/cons of individual liberty aside, it was striking just how these totalitarians actually see the world. This guy’s reference to Murdoch was sneering, grinning, full of hatred and contempt. I think if it was legal–and he’d make it so if he could–he’d hang you for sparking up a Marlboro.

Under President Hillary, these birds will be everywhere, rampant, full of energy, coming after everybody hard.

The effect will be an invigorated Gramscian “long march through the culture” –which posits the final revolution as not a violent French Revolution-ish event at all, but rather a slow envelopment, which in the final phase requires a strong clique of “closers” at the top, who will become enabled whenever the masses have been sufficiently demoralized from the bottom up.

This demoralization effort went full-bore after the 2000 election–it’s been infecting the nation as “BDS”. Currently the active local front is the Rush Limbaugh attack.

Put Hillary in the White House, and BDS will soon be a fond memory, because a redux Clinton means the previous Clinton scandal saturnalia will have been “approved” –and that you ain’t seen nuthin yet.

Oct 3, 2007 - 12:52 pm 31. Paul:

That’s right Buddy. What was before merely criminal scandal will become a full blown power grab…the control of information through the fairness doctrine and the silencing of dissenting viewpoints, the control of civilization’s lifeblood, energy, through the global warming carbon hoax, the control of our bodies through government healthcare, and the control of history and culture through government sanctioned politically corrected school curricula.

That’s why I’m horrified whenever I hear someone who is a non-moonbat suggest Hillary might be acceptable. Even if her foreign policy was muscular, and I am skeptical, her domestic agenda will drive a stake through the heart of America.

Oct 4, 2007 - 9:03 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: