Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on WARNING: Don't Read William Kristol Over Breakfast

1

I'm gonna have to go with Joseph McCarthy's reanimated corpse, Bob.

Posted by Mr. Poe | March 10, 2008 8:00 AM
2

Mc Cains smart choice is a woman for VP.

Condi Rice says no and means it - she is ready to go back to Stanford.

Senator Kay Bailey-Hutchinson of Texas says no - but is the best choice. And I would bet they are working her.

As Mc Cains right wing support builds, Senator Kay might get more interested.

Watch for a woman. Rove is not stupid, the question is who?

Posted by George | March 10, 2008 8:04 AM
3

"...the most impressive conservative in American public life, Clarence Thomas"


"The bigger the lie, the more they believe" - Bunk Moreland, The Wire

Posted by laterite | March 10, 2008 8:13 AM
4

You know it's going to be Lieberman. Two old white hawkish senators--the perfect Republican ticket.

Posted by Michigan Matt (soon to be Baltimatt) | March 10, 2008 8:19 AM
5

McCain is going to run a shadow campaign based on sexism or racism, as need be. Putting a woman or African American on the ticket will weaken what is going to be one of the pillars of his entire campaign. He will pick a white male.

Where that white male's politics lands in the spectrum from A to B is anybody's guess.

Posted by elenchos | March 10, 2008 8:23 AM
6

Mr Poe, if you go with McCarthy's reanimated corpse then the Dems have no choice but to reanimate FDR and have him run again. At least he is a Democrat who can win elections by real life landslides.

Posted by Andrew | March 10, 2008 8:29 AM
7

This choice is actually the biggest thing to pay attention to in the remainder of the "race", since whoever McCain picks will likely be President him/herself within a couple of years of his election, tops...

Posted by Just Sayin | March 10, 2008 8:34 AM
8

Not Larry Craig, but I'll bet anyone $20 that Dirk Kempthorne's name comes up.

Posted by gillsans | March 10, 2008 8:49 AM
9

Well since we're not letting logistical problems get in the way, I'm going to mow the lawn.

Posted by Mr. Poe | March 10, 2008 8:57 AM
10

You've got it all wrong. Picking Clarence Thomas would be the greatest choice ever. I DEMAND that McCain choose Clarence Thomas.

First of all: everybody hates him. Women, African Americans, liberals, moderates. Hillary could stab Barack in the eye on CNN and Democrats would still be united behind the nominee. There's no way McCain could clear 40% with Thomas tied around his neck.

Second: He'd have to resign from the Supreme Court. There's no way the person who gets appointed could be any worse, and if the Democrats play their cards right, they could hold out for someone who's almost reasonable. (Kennedy, not Scalia.) Or, even better, they could refuse to confirm anyone, and President Hilrack O'Clinton would get to replace him with a *gasp* actual moderate.

Thank you, Bill Kristol, for making my day so much brighter.

Posted by Drew | March 10, 2008 9:02 AM
11

Rumsfeld! Oh Donnie, how we have missed you!

Drew, I agree. How fucking amazing would Thomas be? That would be the biggest joke ever.

Posted by Etteloc | March 10, 2008 9:05 AM
12

you know he read that back to himself & laughed & laughed.

o please, mr. mccain, don't throw the dems in that clarence thomas briar patch!

Posted by max solomon | March 10, 2008 9:30 AM
13

This proves only that Kristol is an imbecile, which we already knew. No, Lieberman and Thomas will not even make the short list as potential VP candidates.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | March 10, 2008 9:36 AM
14

Dream ticket:

McCain and Powell v. Obama and Clinton.

Posted by Michael J Swassing | March 10, 2008 9:36 AM
15

But you don't have a law---

Oh, that lawn.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | March 10, 2008 9:48 AM
16

Yeah, this makes no sense. Thomas (and the other Justices) would NEVER give up their seats to run for public office. And Leiberman and military officials bring nothing to the ticket. McCain might be old, but he's not senile. He is probably considering a governor who can help him with his economic message. But, really, who cares?

Posted by Tony | March 10, 2008 10:00 AM
17

For unconventionality, how about this guy Chalabi?

I know, I know, you think there's a constitutional problem, but that's only if they win ... and that's not going to be a problem.

Posted by RonK, Seattle | March 10, 2008 10:12 AM
18

I thought Bill Kristol was great in City Slickers. Is he over the Yankees and doing political commentary now?

Posted by Smade | March 10, 2008 10:22 AM
19

Has Kristol EVER been correct?

No.

So why bother reading him in the first place?

Do what I do with the WSJ editorial page - don't read it.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 10, 2008 10:51 AM
20

Why the fuck did he call Joe Lieberman a Democrat? (or principled, for that matter?) He's an "Independent Democrat" or a "Connecticut Democract for Joe Leiberman" or some such nonsense. He couldn't run as a Democrat due to his getting pwned by the netroots. Surely asshat Bill Kristol knows that.

There's no way in hell McCain is picking a white male for VP, unless the GOP is planning to buckle down and ride out the Blue Wave(tm) with it's traditional, no brown people, no vaginas approach. Now that I think about it, that might actually work.

Posted by w7ngman | March 10, 2008 11:07 AM
21

Thomas is the strong, silent type that conservatives all cream their jeans over.

Posted by Matthew | March 10, 2008 11:43 AM
22

I doubt it will work - right now most Dems are spotted 20 points over Reds.

And that's before they use their overwhelming fundraising advantage of 3:1 to 5:1 to crush the Red Bushies ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 10, 2008 11:43 AM
23

Thomas has always seemed like a nebbish to me. I really don't get the "appeal" nor the push in the conservative media to portray him as some golden boy. Well, I guess we know about the "golden" part.

Posted by laterite | March 10, 2008 11:51 AM
24

Whoever becomes McCain's running mate, Dan will presumably attack as evil, stupid, or otherwise sub-human. Dan, can you name a potential McCain running mate about whom you would say "I might not agree with him, but he is a good, smart guy and I respect him."? If not, your predictible posturing does little to convince.

Posted by David Wright | March 10, 2008 11:51 AM
25

Dan… what I want to know is how do you keep those rock hard chiseled abs and that fine tight ass on a diet of cheese omelets for breakfast?...

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | March 10, 2008 12:03 PM
26

@20 - Brown Vagina = Condi Rice. That would go along way toward neutralizing the novelty of both Obama’s (debatable) brownness and Clintons (debatable) Vaginainess and give people who want to vote for either of those qualities an opportunity to do so without actually risking putting them in direct control.

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | March 10, 2008 12:36 PM
27

26, but is there anyone in the country that still can't see she's an incompetent has-been? I don't see her gaining any traction for a VP nod without another war with the Soviets.

Seriously, has she done ANYTHING worthwhile as Sec. State? Maybe people DON'T know she's an incompetent has-been. The lack of reporting on her lack of doing anything certainly isn't helping.

Posted by w7ngman | March 10, 2008 1:17 PM
28

@27 – I wasn’t speaking to (or implying) competence; just brownness and vaginainess. I don’t see Obama or Clinton bringing anything competitive to the table in regard to competence. Just brownness and vaginainess. To fight them with competence would be like bringing a knife to a gun fight. This is America (incase you haven’t noticed) it’s all about identity politics here…

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | March 10, 2008 1:27 PM
29

I guess everyone knows this and maybe I do too, but I'm not 100%, is Thomas the guy who allegedly sexually harrassed Anita Hill? Whatever happened to her anyway?

Just because Obama appears to be lighter-skinned and Clinton appears to be somewhat masculine and may or may not be homosexual does not mean he is any less a racial and/or ethnic minority and that Clinton is any less of a woman. I'm not saying these things are bad or good--they just are. This is primarily directed at 28, 26.

But I actually now see your point and would say I agree in part. (I just wished you had said it differently.) I don't know if either Obama or Clinton are competent enough and/or ready to run the country. However, I don't completely know how I feel about another four years of a Republican in the White House (my feelings so far though aren't good). Actually, I think it matters as much as VP to see who they would appoint to the Cabinet, et al. I kind of get the feeling we'll be doing this whole song and dance in another four years anyway.

And below are my attempts at PC-ness:
[Just because Obama appears to be lighter-skinned (I shouldn't really speak on this since I'm not a minority racially or ethnically) and Clinton may or may not be homosexual (so far the best way to know is self-report) does not mean he is any less a minority/[of a different race/ethnicity than the perceived majority of U.S. citizens/voters/population--pick one] and that Clinton is any less of a woman because she may be homosexual or has a certain personality type not usually associated with stereotypical normal femininity in the U.S.]

Posted by feom | March 10, 2008 3:11 PM
30

Thomas is stupid, but Lieberman would be a brilliant choice. He'd take all those blue-collar votes away from Clinton or Obama. I think they're going to do it.

Posted by Fnarf | March 10, 2008 5:35 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).