Arianna Huffington: Personification of a Fever Swamper
That's about all I can say about her after reading
her mindless observations about Kerry's and Hillary's speeches. Here's a glimpse into her delusional political mind:
I'll admit, though, that I agree that Hillary's equivocating line was "the second coming of I voted for it before I voted against it."
Posted Thursday, June 15, 2006 2:01 AM
May 2006 Posts
No comments.
I arrived in Washington to speak at the Take Back America Conference fast on the heels of the wildly different takes on Iraq offered up in speeches by John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, which everyone at the Washington Hilton was still buzzing about. While getting ready to MC the Conference's gala awards dinner, I watched Kerry's speech on the web and found myself in tears. If he had given that speech in 2004, he'd be in the White House today. And the world would be a better and safer place.Apparently, Ms. Huffington believes that America would elect a pacifist during wartime. If she believes that, then she's more delusional than I originally thought. Frankly, I didn't think that was possible considering how delusional I already thought she was.
Then I watched Hillary's speech, which also made me cry, but for an entirely different reason. It was deja vu all over again. Are the consultants who helped steer Kerry over the '04 cliff now advising Hillary? Her language on Iraq was replete with the same kind of equivocation that cost Kerry the last election. "I do not think," she said, "it is a smart strategy for the president to continue with his open-ended commitment, which I think does not put enough pressure on the new Iraqi government, nor do I think it is smart strategy to set a date certain."It isn't that the same "consultants who helped steer Kerry over the '04 cliff" are "now advising Hillary". It's genetic for a Democrat to not take an unequivocal stand on difficult issues. Pat Caddell, a liberal I greatly respect, once told Chris Matthews, that today's progressives are "for anything that's inevitable", explaining that they'll be with you at the opening shot of a war but then won't be there when they encountered a rough patch.
Is that not the second coming of I voted for it before I voted against it?
I'll admit, though, that I agree that Hillary's equivocating line was "the second coming of I voted for it before I voted against it."
And will Democratic leaders ever learn that this kind of have-it-both-ways hedging on matters of war and security is electoral death? Voters have an instinctive aversion to it.The simple answer is an emphatic NO for the reasons I stated in that earlier paragraph. Rush said something awhile back that I'd always known: Part of being a liberal is to not be able to say what they really believe, whether it's tax policy or fighting the GWOT, because they know their ideas will get them laughed out of the marketplace of ideas.
Posted Thursday, June 15, 2006 2:01 AM
May 2006 Posts
No comments.