Patterico's Pontifications

12/15/2007

Bleccch

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:40 pm



Will President Hillary mean Justice Bill?

21 Responses to “Bleccch”

  1. Great. Thanks for that link. Now I have to wash my eyes with kerosene.

    Steverino (af57bc) — 12/15/2007 @ 12:43 pm

  2. Please ID the 51 votes he has.
    If nothing else, the Senate is infamous for payback.

    Another Drew (a28ef4) — 12/15/2007 @ 12:53 pm

  3. She’d never do it. But Democratic Republican President Mike Huckabee might.

    Christoph (92b8f7) — 12/15/2007 @ 1:12 pm

  4. That would be funny if there were any accuracy behind the joke. Fact is, though, that Huckabee’s USSC nominations aren’t what Republicans are worried about.

    Patterico (570c5d) — 12/15/2007 @ 1:18 pm

  5. I agree, Patterico. Huckabee concerns me greatly especially on foreign policy where I believe he believes Jesus of Nazareth’s teachings are meant for foreign policy decisions.

    It’s TOTALLY funny. He believes America should be nicer to other countries, including Iran.

    He’s such a fool. I participated in the web chat and BlogTalk Radio interview where he was being interviewed by Ed Morrissey. I wanted Ed to ask Huckabee whether he could approve the release and use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances. He said he’d try to, but never asked this question.

    When Governor of an American state, he granted clemency (like a pardon or forgiveness) to over 700 criminals. Many went on to commit other crimes. Why did he do this? That’s what Jesus would have done.

    And this man… may well win an election and be in charge of American nuclear forces. Which would leave you vulnerable to Iran. And also to Russia’s power-mad leader, Vladimir Putin.

    You need a strong man and instead the party you support looks likely to elect a man who believes Jesus of Nazareth’s teachings were meant to apply to countries. Yes, that’s funny. I mean, don’t you think that’s funny?

    You need a leader who isn’t so controlled by his faith he couldn’t order the use of nuclear weapons, including in a major strike role, taking out Russian strategic industrial and military assets, plus their offensive nuclear capability.

    Is Mike Huckabee such a man? I don’t think so. Yet the Republicans — the strong on defense party — seem to want this man to be their leader. A lot of Republicans are disgusted and if he wins your nomination, they will vote for a third party candidate or a Democrat instead of this man.

    When you had the weak President, Jimmy Carter, in office, the Russians had the foolish blowhard, Leonid Breshnev, in power. He was selfish and he cared more about his own skin than anything else. Which is good.

    Now they have Putin. Hard as nails KGB, rules like a Czar, willing to kill his political opponents for power, physically fit and self-disciplined. And against Vladimir Putin you would put in power a weak man who follows Jesus’ teachings when applied to countries? I couldn’t imagine such a thing. But apparently, that’s what Republicans plan on doing… many of them.

    Why would you put up such a weak foolish man against Putin? I have no idea. I just don’t understand it. You must maintain the capability and willingness for war if there is to be peace and security.

    Russia has massive oil revenue and their power mad, cult-like leader Putin, with his pro-Putin youth movements, intends on replenishing their forces. Fine. But you need someone willing, at least, to use force if necessary to contain them. But Mike Huckabee is a fanatic Jesus-believing Baptist minister. Not a President.

    But, by God, he’s leading the Republican primary and he just might become President.

    So it’s in the foreign policy sense I refer to hims as a Democrat. And since he’s from Arkansas, who knows? Maybe he’ll give Willy Jeff a go of it on the Supreme Court bench.

    I’m kidding because Mike Huckabee is a decent man personally in many respects and is pro-life, something I admire.

    Christoph (92b8f7) — 12/15/2007 @ 1:31 pm

  6. Careful, Christoph. You’re starting to sound like a Bircher.

    Another Drew (a28ef4) — 12/15/2007 @ 1:39 pm

  7. Unless he were being placed into something that was clearly a “swing-vote” seat (e.g., replacing Kennedy, not Ginsburg or Stevens or Souter or Breyer), Bill Clinton could never, ever be content having merely one vote in nine.

    Beldar (8e82bf) — 12/15/2007 @ 1:52 pm

  8. Beldar, but on the plus side, I bet you Bill Clinton would choose come pretty hot law clerks.

    Christoph (92b8f7) — 12/15/2007 @ 1:59 pm

  9. Bill Clinton is as deviant from the social norm as Ted Bundy (but smarter and luckier). Nobody can predict what he will do.

    I am thinking kindlier of The Gang of Fourteen and their derailment of the nuclear option, however.

    nk (6061ba) — 12/15/2007 @ 2:06 pm

  10. ….come pretty hot law clerks.

    Typo? I think not!

    Old Coot (2f9910) — 12/15/2007 @ 2:07 pm

  11. Bill Clinton’s ideal role – for him and for Hillary – is as a roving Ambassador. Not only is he well-suited for travel and meeting people (not to mention “roving”), but this role would let Hillary send him away from the White House and let him deal with thorny domestic and international problems.

    Can’t you just see Bill in New Orleans after Katrina or in Bali at the climate change conference? Compared to that, working as a Supreme Court Justice would be torture for Bill Clinton.

    DRJ (09f144) — 12/15/2007 @ 2:18 pm

  12. I would like to think that Jonathan Adler has been tipping into the eggnog a little too much… this simply can’t happen.

    Dana (14c62d) — 12/15/2007 @ 2:29 pm

  13. Beldar, but on the plus side, I bet you Bill Clinton would choose come pretty hot law clerks.

    Don’t make me enter Monica Lewinsky into evidence.

    Pablo (99243e) — 12/15/2007 @ 2:32 pm

  14. I should have said Doug Kmiec who originally posted the thought in WSJ…but Adler, too, for spreading the shudder-inspiring possibility to the masses….

    Dana (14c62d) — 12/15/2007 @ 2:32 pm

  15. The arrogance of the Clintons knows no bounds. . . except that HRC knows that nominating WJC to the Court would dredge up stories about why law license was suspended and I think a lot of Hillary supporters would be turned off by the overt nepotism aspect of it.

    On the other hand, wouldn’t it be funny if she did nominate him and all those Democrat senators like Feinstein, Feingold, Lieberman, et al. who were sooooo upset at the way WJC lied to them during the Lewinsky scandal got their payback by voting against him?

    JVW (477e5a) — 12/15/2007 @ 3:25 pm

  16. whats goin on out there in la la land, are you guys not aware that hillarys campaign has imploded and the clintonistas are engaged in a back stabbing contest as i post this? its over folks, hilly is out like a light, click.

    james conrad (7cd809) — 12/15/2007 @ 3:29 pm

  17. Shhhh, James, if you give voice to your deepest wishes you end up jinxing them. We’re pulling for the same outcome, but you never assume the vampire is dead until the final credits roll and the house lights go back on.

    JVW (477e5a) — 12/15/2007 @ 3:49 pm

  18. What Pablo said. There’s hot, and then there’s not.

    Xrlq (b65a72) — 12/15/2007 @ 4:10 pm

  19. DRJ (in post #11) nails it.

    David Ehrenstein (5f9866) — 12/15/2007 @ 4:55 pm

  20. the pubic hair goes under your chin, not on your coke can.

    asssistant devil's advocate (6ad681) — 12/15/2007 @ 8:57 pm

  21. #17 lol, shhhhhhhhhhh, mums the word. thing is though, hillary has never been a people type person the way bubba is. for all his faults bill is/was a great politician who has the knack of charming birds out of trees, according to jesse helms.

    james conrad (7cd809) — 12/16/2007 @ 12:52 am


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0760 secs.