comment #1

christian says ...

You wanted Howard Dean to do something and he did. He told Democrats to stop helping Republicans.

"because the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Then start quoting Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh as well.

comment #2

MikeSchaeferSF says ...

OK, swell, Noonan is right about something for the First. Time. Ever.

Woo Hoo.

The diff is that she's writing this as a gleeful GOP shill, not as a disinterested party, or even a Dem who has suddenly awakened to the reality of what HRC really is.

comment #3

MilkMan says ...

Let me preface my comment by saying, explicitly, that I am not a Republican, or Right Wing. I am far, far left, almost Radical. I'm one of those people who didn't see why anything Pastor Wright said was offensive. I would like it if Obabma were to become our next president. But he won't. John McCain is going to be our next President. It's in the bad. Don't you understand where you are? You're in the United States of America, baby. The majority of this country will not vote for a Black Man with a Muslim name. Hasn't happened yet, and it won't happen in six months. Call me a defeatist, negative, cynical, they all apply.

comment #4

MilkMan says ...

I meant to say "it's in the bag."

comment #5

deadre says ...

milkman, my instincts whisper to me that you might be correct. if true, it will be a sad lesson that we'll all have to face, just when we thought we might be able to move forward. very sad.

i hope you're wrong but your feelings are entirely understandable.

comment #6

Mgmax says ...

Speaking of the Wall Street Journal editorial page, this does an excellent job of taking down one of the most blatantly untrue claims against Bush-- the one about his supposed unilateral, world-alienating foreign policy:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120666168987070241.html

comment #7

gruver1 says ...

Wells to Milkman: I think you really meant to say "She's on the rag"...right?

comment #8

T. S. Idiot says ...

On TV Noonan manages to have both a smug, self-satisfied expression and a glazed one suggesting heavy medication.

comment #9

MrClever says ...

I disagree with the opinion that McCain will win. I believe Obama will win. Liberal Republicans lose elections, because conservative voters will stay home. George H W Bush was an exception, though. And once it was clear he was a liberal Republican: gone. Yeah, President Obama. I'll be surprised if it's not him.

comment #10

Mgmax says ...

The only thing I know is that anyone's opinion in March of what's sure to happen in November is no better than a wild-ass guess.

comment #11

JohnCope says ...

Mgmax is right, though I also fear the worst.

comment #12

Josh Massey says ...

When have conservative voters ever stayed home? I mean, do you really those die-hard conservatives will stay home when the Democrat nominee is Hillary Clinton or a black guy named "Obama?" The Democrats really picked the wrong year to branch out. A "liberal" Republican is the perfect candidate for the right.

President McCain. Get used to it. (I'm trying.)

comment #13

gansibele says ...

Peggy Noonan praised by a liberal type. Why not Limbaugh next?

Christ. I like Obama but I'm starting to despise Obamatons.

Milkman, I've been saying that for months. But I don't believe a woman could win either. On the other hand, what would be a good year to "branch out"? 2012? You either do it or not and it would be shameful not to do it becase of the yahoo vote. To me it's worth four years of McCain.

(Jeff, after that "on the rag" joke, don't even bother denying your mysoginy.)

comment #14

D.Z. says ...

Man, Mgmax must really love Murdoch-style propaganda.

"Of course, the U.S. had never ratified Kyoto, and the Clinton Administration had refused even to submit it for a vote. In 1997, the Senate voted 95-0 not to endorse any climate change pact that didn't include China, India and other developing countries, as Kyoto didn't."

They seem to forget that the Senate had a Republican majority at the time.

"But in fact, in 2002 President Bush bucked the advice of his more hawkish advisers and agreed to take Tony Blair's advice and seek another U.N. Resolution -- was it the 16th or 17th? -- against Saddam Hussein. Resolution 1441 passed 15-0. True, the Administration failed to obtain a second resolution, not least because the French reneged on private assurances that it would agree to a second resolution if America obtained the first. But who was being unilateral there?"

You do realize the resolutions were essentially green lights for war, right?

"As it was, the "coalition of the willing" that liberated Iraq included, besides the U.S. contingent, some 60,000 troops from 39 countries, who have operated under a U.N. resolution blessing their presence."

Too bad none of the coalition consisted of the U.N. Security Council members...

"On North Korea, the Administration adhered strictly to the six party formula. Oddly, the same critics who decry "unilateralism" would prefer that the U.S. negotiate with Pyongyang directly -- which is to say, unilaterally -- and do without the help currently being offered by Tokyo, Beijing, Seoul and Moscow."

Not the same fucking thing. The idea of negotiating directly is due to our agreement with them, not because we want to ignore help.

"As for Iran, following revelations in 2002 that Iran had secretly pursued an illegal nuclear program for 15 years,"

Um, no, it's not illegal. Under current rules, they can enrich uranium for energy use.

"Mr. Bush agreed to hand over the diplomacy to Germany, Britain and France, the so-called E3. Their efforts failed."

If their efforts failed, then why does Iran not have a weapons program in place?

"Next the Administration succeeded in turning the matter over to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has been seeking answers about Tehran's nuclear file for five years. The IAEA's questions have yet to be fully answered."

Um, actually they were answered. See above.

"For the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Administration arranged the so-called "road map," which is overseen by the "Quartet" of the U.S., Russia, the U.N., and the European Union."

Seven years too late.

"In Lebanon, the Administration worked closely with none other than France's Jacques Chirac to force the withdrawal of Syrian troops in 2005."

Then he bombed Syria and Lebanon.

"With Russia, Mr. Bush welcomed its bid to join the World Trade Organization and has rebuffed suggestions -- including from Mr. McCain in his speech Wednesday -- that it be expelled from the G-8."

"On Darfur, the Administration has repeatedly deferred to the African Union and a pair of U.N. Secretary-Generals. Even after gathering evidence of secret Sudanese bombing runs in Darfur last year, Mr. Bush bowed to a special plea by the U.N.'s Ban Ki-moon to give diplomacy more time. The killings have continued."

That's because he's too busy illegally occupying Iraq to do anything about Darfur.

"On global warming, the Administration has sought a compact with Australia, India and China to develop more carbon-neutral technologies."

That's because they're the worst emitters of CO2, and don't want to respect the standards of the rest of the world.

comment #15

D.Z. says ...

Josh: I doubt there are any conservatives left willing to vote Republican if it means less jobs and more dead family members.

comment #16

christian says ...

Yes Jeff, after that "on the rag" witticism (worthy of chubby am talk radio hosts) you clearly don't have anything of substance to add to the political dialogue. A lot of Obama supporters are becoming the lie to his supposed cause of hope and unity.

And when you start repeating GOP talking points ala Noonan, you're helping them win. They know exactly how to play you.

comment #17

Walter Sobchak says ...

I love watching drama-queen liberals when they get their undies in a bundle. I really do. It's almost as much fun as watching University of Kansas cheerleaders sob uncontrollably on national television when their Jayhawks once again lose to a lower-ranked team.

"Don't quote Peggy Noonan, Jeffrey! She's one of THEM!"

comment #18

Chris Willman says ...

"Peggy Noonan praised by a liberal type. Why not Limbaugh next?"

Because they're different people, dopey. Noonan is smart, sensitive, funny, a great observer, and often willing to look at things from beyond party or partisan lines... if hardly always right. I have known her slightly in the past, so consider me biased, but I know plenty of fellow Democrats who pass her columns around when she really gets something. I have never known a Democrat to pass along a Limbaugh zinger. But if us versus them is all that matters, I guess these distinctions are meaningless. Sure, Noonan, Hannity, they're all the same.

comment #19

gansibele says ...

Willman tops Jeff in his Noonan stiletto-licking. I don't know who said they are the same (although using your logic they must be because I also know plenty Democrats who listen to Rush "to laugh at what he says". Mmmmm).

If you are too dazzled by the smart, sensitive (ha!) and funny (double ha!) verbiage that you don't realize there's a dangerous agenda being passed along, then all your bias doesn't excuse being so, um, what's a good word for people easily duped? I'm gonna go with dopey.

comment #20

K. Bowen says ...

"I love watching drama-queen liberals when they get their undies in a bundle. I really do. It's almost as much fun as watching University of Kansas cheerleaders sob uncontrollably on national television when their Jayhawks once again lose to a lower-ranked team."

Or like watching English soccer fans when they invariably exit the World Cup on penalty kicks.

No. Nothing is that fun.

comment #21

Mgmax says ...

"They seem to forget that the Senate had a Republican majority at the time."

95-0, DZ. Every Democrat included. You can;t wriggle out of that.

"You do realize the resolutions were essentially green lights for war, right?"

Yes, and so did every country that voted for them, 15-0. (Sense a pattern yet?) But enough of this, your post is so full of special pleading and question-begging it doesn't deserve the time spent to rebut it. The original article stands just fine.

comment #22

Josh Massey says ...

"They seem to forget that the Senate had a Republican majority at the time."

The Republicans had 95 in the Senate? That was quite the majority!

(Oooh, quoting and responding to D.Z.! This is fun!)

comment #23

Mgmax says ...

"Josh: I doubt there are any conservatives left willing to vote Republican if it means less jobs and more dead family members"

But there's always the secret satanic baby-eating part. That's what keeps the base loyal.

comment #24

Mgmax says ...

As long as we're praising rightwing stylists, Mark Steyn has the definitive line on Hillary's attempt to succeed Bill: "You can't put Margaret Dumont in the Groucho role."

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/clinton-hillary-obama-2007270-bill-edmund

comment #25

The Bandsaw Vigilante says ...

Mo Dowd's reposting of that "GI Joe" guy's "Hillary-killed-50-Bosnian-guerrillas-and then-took-down-a-suicide-bomber" anecdote was sorta echoed last night on Bill Maher, with his "Call of Duty 5: Hillary in Sarajevo" bit.

(Over game footage of a soldier RPGing a tank:)

"COVER ME, CHELSEA!!"

comment #26

Richardson says ...

" "because the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Then start quoting Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh as well. "

Christian says something ill-informed -- shocking!

Hannity and Limbaugh are both working hard against Obama and have said they'd rather McCain runs against Hillary. Limbaugh encourages Republicans to cross party lines where legal and vote Hillary so that the primary will take longer so that both campaigns will short circuit before they're even running against McCain.

I know you don't worry about facts when you've got a chance to talk smack 'bout Obama, but your comment makes less sense than D.Z.'s, and that takes effort.

comment #27

christian says ...

If you believe Limbaugh and Hannity and Noonan who talk via Rove etc, then you're the one working the ill-informed side of the street. Noonan is a GOP shill who worshipped Bush's manliness. Your lack of knowledge about her agenda shows you're blinded by the rightie talking points.

I didn't smack talk Obama, I smacked talk his petulant arrogant acolytes like you. Now go find some Dick Morris to bolster your theories. And please, vote McCain if Obama doesn't get the nom.
We don't want a woman "on the rag" in the WH, yes?

comment #28

Mgmax says ...

The last man nearly ruined this place
He didn't know what to do with it
If you think this country's bad off now
Just wait till I get through with it

comment #29

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: "95-0, DZ. Every Democrat included. You can;t wriggle out of that."

Sure I can. The Republicans would have killed the bill anyway, and the Dems probably agreed so they could get that last minimum wage bill passed.

"Yes, and so did every country that voted for them, 15-0. (Sense a pattern yet?)"

No, I don't, since they only voted for the first one, and that was for defensive measures, not offensive measures. Now stop re-writing history again, Rambo.

"But there's always the secret satanic baby-eating part. That's what keeps the base loyal."

I thought they like bombing babies, because it improves their aim.

Josh: "The Republicans had 95 in the Senate? That was quite the majority!"

They had enough of a majority that the Dems couldn't vote for it and win, unless they wanted to filibuster it.

comment #30

MrClever says ...

"When have conservative voters ever stayed home? I mean, do you really those die-hard conservatives will stay home when the Democrat nominee is Hillary Clinton or a black guy named "Obama?" "

They stay home when they don't have a conservative to vote for. People are more motivated to vote "for" someone rather than "against" someone else. Obama is someone Democrats can vote "for." McCain is someone comparatively few conservatives can for "for." There will be "anti-s" voting against Obama, but not enough. This is why professional Republicans are nakedly salivating at the prospect of running McCain versus Clinton: the pro-McCain + anti-Clinton group will outweigh the pro-Clinton + anti-McCain group.

comment #31

Mgmax says ...

Good analysis, Mr. Clever, of the situation... two months ago.

comment #32

MrClever says ...

"Good analysis, Mr. Clever, of the situation... two months ago."

What's changed? People are the same then as they are now, and will be when the general is held.

And what's with the rudeness of your comment? How was that called for?

comment #33

Rob says ...

Once again, it's pretty hilarious that Jeff's "guaranteed blue state sensibility" somehow allows linking to Peggy Noonan.