Friday's links and comments
Former Virginia Governor James Gilmore fall in that category of presidential candidate that when people are asked about his campaign the answers range from "He's running?" to "Who's he?" Recognizing how far he is behind the other candidates, Gilmore has come out swinging.
In his video, Mr. Gilmore lays out what he regards as the shortcomings of what the press often describes as the top three contenders on the Republican side.Gilmore is right, but I doubt his efforts will gain him much traction. This is coming at the start of the 34th annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) this weekend. All of the various Republican candidates, except Sen. McCain, will address the conference. The candidate's reception from the conference attendees could breathe life into a campaign or end it.
"John McCain has fought conservatives time after time, even invoking the rhetoric of class warfare to oppose the Bush tax cuts," he says in the ad.
"Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney both repeatedly opposed core conservative values to win elections in New York and Massachusetts," says Mr. Gilmore.
Speaking of CPAC, Ed of Captain's Quarters is live blogging the speeches.
A state senator in Mississippi provided an example for Sen. Joe Lieberman to consider.
Longtime Democratic Coast Sen. Tommy Gollott switched parties and vowed allegiance to Republican Gov. Haley Barbour on Thursday, temporarily throwing the balance of power in the Mississippi Senate to the GOP for the first time since Reconstruction.In all seriousness, I do not expect Lieberman to switch parties. For one thing, other than understanding the need to win the war Lieberman is in agreement with the majority of his parties positions. More importantly, politically Lieberman's current status a potential power shifter gives him leverage. If he carries through on the switch he loses that leverage.
Victor Davis Hanson is always worth reading. His latest column looks at the current opinions regarding Iraq and wonders how our country reached this point.
It’s make it or break it in Iraq in 2007. Or so we are told, as America nears four years of costly efforts in Iraq. But how did we get to this situation, to this fury over a war once supported by 70 percent of the public and a majority of Congress, but now orphaned by both?
How did a serious country, one that endured Antietam, sent a million doughboys to Europe in a mere year, survived Pearl Harbor, Monte Cassino, Anzio, the Bulge, Tarawa, Iwo and Okinawa, the Yalu, Choisun, Hue and Tet, come to the conclusion — between the news alerts about Britney Spears’ shaved head and fights over Anna Nicole Smith’s remains — that Iraq, in the words of historically minded Democratic senators, was the “worst” and the “greatest” “blunder,” “disaster,” and “catastrophe” in our “entire” history?
In Time magazine William Kristol has an article titled "Why Republicans Are Smiling." Not sure I agree with all his reasoning, but it is good to hear something besides the doom and gloom which followed the 2006 elections.
This article, "Cuomo Urges Gingrich To Enter Race," is funny even though the article doesn't include the punch line. The information missing in this story is how Cuomo is encouraging Gingrich to take on Giuliani even though Giuliani crossed party lines to endorse Democrat Cuomo in the 1994 governors race against Republican George Pataki.