bobbyw24
02-09-2010, 05:58 AM
Palin Misreads Pat
Posted on February 8th, 2010 by Daniel McCarthy
What to make of Sarah Palin’s remarks yesterday on “Fox News Sunday”? Here she is sharing her wisdom about what it might take for Obama to get re-elected:
Say he played, and I got this from Buchanan, reading one of his columns the other day. Say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran, or decided to really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do. But that changes the dynamics in what we can assume is going to happen between now and three years. Because I think if the election were today, I do not think Obama would be re-elected.
… if he decided to toughen up and do all that he can to secure our nation and our allies. I think people would perhaps shift their thinking a little bit and decide, well, maybe he’s tougher than we think he is today. And there wouldn’t be as much passion to make sure that he doesn’t serve another four years –
She’s read Pat Buchanan’s column on Obama playing the war card, which is great — she’s cribbing her commentary from the best. But when she adds her own spin, it’s to hope that Obama would “do whatever he could do to support Israel” — meaning what exactly? In the context, it sounds like she thinks starting more wars in the Middle East, or taking measures that are likely to lead to more wars, is good for Israel and therefore ought to be American policy. I don’t think for her “do whatever he could do to support Israel” means hosting talks at Camp David.
Palin wants to be, simultaneously, Pitchfork Sarah and Bill Kristol’s very own Eliza Doolittle. But she’s much more the latter than the former. There’s no room for doubt here: Sarah Palin means war.
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2010/02/08/palin-misreads-pat/
Posted on February 8th, 2010 by Daniel McCarthy
What to make of Sarah Palin’s remarks yesterday on “Fox News Sunday”? Here she is sharing her wisdom about what it might take for Obama to get re-elected:
Say he played, and I got this from Buchanan, reading one of his columns the other day. Say he played the war card. Say he decided to declare war on Iran, or decided to really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel, which I would like him to do. But that changes the dynamics in what we can assume is going to happen between now and three years. Because I think if the election were today, I do not think Obama would be re-elected.
… if he decided to toughen up and do all that he can to secure our nation and our allies. I think people would perhaps shift their thinking a little bit and decide, well, maybe he’s tougher than we think he is today. And there wouldn’t be as much passion to make sure that he doesn’t serve another four years –
She’s read Pat Buchanan’s column on Obama playing the war card, which is great — she’s cribbing her commentary from the best. But when she adds her own spin, it’s to hope that Obama would “do whatever he could do to support Israel” — meaning what exactly? In the context, it sounds like she thinks starting more wars in the Middle East, or taking measures that are likely to lead to more wars, is good for Israel and therefore ought to be American policy. I don’t think for her “do whatever he could do to support Israel” means hosting talks at Camp David.
Palin wants to be, simultaneously, Pitchfork Sarah and Bill Kristol’s very own Eliza Doolittle. But she’s much more the latter than the former. There’s no room for doubt here: Sarah Palin means war.
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2010/02/08/palin-misreads-pat/