Lately I’ve been curious about Republican’s take on the whole Obama/Clinton race and despite his smugness, I’ve actually heard Kristol make some great points. Yes we all know Kristol is one of the “monsters” who co-founded the PNAC and who can forget his erroneous Iraq War predictions. However to be fair, Kristol has defied the Republican line on a number of occasions with such op-ed pieces that criticized Rummy back in the day. Back in 2006, he was one of the few Republican pundits who actually predicted the success of the Democrats. When Bush nominated Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court, he opposed the nomination and said it reflected “cronyism” on the part of Bush.
So this morning I was reading Kristol’s Op-Ed column in the New York Times I was surprised by his dismal take on McCain’s chances against a Democratic candidate. As I neared the end, I got to thinking once again that I can’t believe this Kristol guy is making sense especially for being a neoconservative. However after reading his solution to “McCain’s Daunting Task” of choosing a powerful VP that included the likes of Joe Leiberman and General Patraeus, it all started to make sense. Isn’t Kristol a foreign policy advisor to McCain’s campaign (something that I think should be disclosed at the end of his column)? So knock the old man down and give him a hawkish VP choice to satisfy his war-hungry ambitions. Pretty tricky-dicky if you ask me and even with with his occasional bouts of sanity, I’ll be keeping a close on eye on the Kristol. Don’t ask me why – maybe it’s arrival of the Dark Knight this summer...
P.S. If anyone can explain why Kristol ended his op-ed with Danton’s injunction: “Il faut de l’audace, encore de l’audace, toujours de l’audace.” it would be greatly appreciated. I’m not a Neale scholar and my French is pretty bad, but hasn’t Obama already coined that whole "audacity" thing?
posted by rev24 
