Shamelessly pilfered from the good folks at Swampland, here’s a splendid photo of Nicolas Sarkozy and George W Bush taken by Time’s Brooks Kraft. You suggestions for the most appropriate (or funniest or filthiest) caption please:
Although I’m rather suspicious of all the Obama-as-Messiah slavering one sees these days, it is true that in some policy areas he offers a better approach than Hillary Clinton. One obvious example is Cuba. Hillary, for reasons best known to herself but doubtless involving trimming and calculation and a determination to leave no opening any opponents – even the mad ones – could try and exploit, seems to think that current US policy towards the island is dandy. Actually I suspect that Clinton must know that the current US approach to Cuba – which involves cracking down even on family travel to the island to the extent that, as others
David Frum on Karen Hughes: My column for this weekend’s National Post will try to explain why Karen Hughes so signally failed as US Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy. Hint: It’s not because she is a shallow and ill-informed person with scant experience of the world outside America’s borders but dangerously unlimited confidence in her own abilities. Although of course that didn’t help. Mr Frum of course is a senior adviser to a Giuliani campaign which, thus far, does not seem overly concerned with matters as trifling – or as tricky – as public diplomacy. A message of strength is all very well and good – it may even
Words just about fail me. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on the latest Great Moment in Public Diplomacy: “Sports is a universal language… Everybody knows that if you can play baseball like Cal Ripken then you’re going to… have the world at your feet… So he’s going to go out and I’ll bet he’ll find people who want to be Cal Ripken in Pakistan and people who want to be Cal Ripken in Guatemala and people who want to be Cal Ripken in Europe… That’s the wonderful thing about sports: it really transcends culture and it transcends identity.” It’s obvious, isn’t it, that you would send a retired baseball star
Daniel Larison as already done yeoman work dismantling elements of David Gelernter’s appalling piece in The Weekly Standard. But more needs to be done and, that being the case, let’s have at it in this and a number of posts to follow. Gelertner’s piece, cheerily headlined “Defeat at Any Price” makes the case, natch, that Democrats and liberals in the United States want to see America defeated in Iraq. Of course, they’re devilishly clever and never actually come out and say this (Gelertner declines to buttress his case with any quotations from Messrs Clinton, Obama, Edwards et al that would support his claim that they believe “America would be better
Steve Chapman hears Joe Biden ask a decent question: At each of his four stops today, there was a moment when he got the attention of his audience. It came when he noted, ruefully, that he’s often mentioned as a possible secretary of state in a Democratic administration. “I have a rhetorical question for you,” he said in Algona. “Are you prepared to vote for anybody for president who isn’t capable of being secretary of state?” He went on: “If you’re not capable of being secretary of state, are you capable of being president in 2008?” Now obviously the Secretary of State is, in these post-Kissinger times, somewhat akin to
Ever wondered what happened to Rick Santorum after he lost his Senate race in Pennsylvania last year? Fret not, Michael Brendan Dougherty has done the yeoman work of listening to the appalling codswallop Mr Man on Dog is peddling these days. The whole thing is worth reading, but really Mr Santorum’s loony-tunes sing for themselves: For years, James Dobson, the Christian psychologist and popular radio talk-show host has been following Santorum’s efforts on behalf of socially conservative values. They both recently made Time’s list of the 25 most influential evangelicals, a true feat for a Catholic like Santorum. Like many evangelicals, Dobson’s interests now include foreign policy. In May, he
As so often I’m late to a brouhaha. The vexed question of the day is whether American Democrats should call themselves Progressives or Liberals. Well, the former has some advantages, not the least of which being that it would allow Adam Smith’s admirers to reclaim the liberal banner and wave it with ever-greater gusto. Still, it’s noticeable that the discussion has revolved around such trendy notions as labelling and framing. Where policy has got a look in it’s been in terms of the party’s domestic agenda. But Progressivism was scarcely silent on foreign policy either. Indeed, when I hear the term I’m reminded of Speak softly, but carry a big