France Flips While Congress Shifts

I found this interesting maybe you will too.

September 28, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Ahmadinejad at Columbia provided the entertainment, but Sarkozy at the U.N. provided the substance. On the largest possible stage -- the U.N. General Assembly -- President Nicolas Sarkozy put Iran on notice. His predecessor, Jacques Chirac, had said that France could live with an Iranian nuclear bomb. Sarkozy said that France cannot. He declared Iran's nuclear ambitions "an unacceptable risk to stability in the region and in the world."
His foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, had earlier said that the world faces two choices -- successful diplomacy to stop Iran's nuclear program or war. And Sarkozy himself has no great hopes for the Security Council, where China and Russia are blocking any effective action against Iran. He does hope to get the European Union to join the U.S. in imposing serious sanctions.
"Weakness and renunciation do not lead to peace," he warned. "They lead to war." This warning about appeasement was intended particularly for Germany, which for commercial reasons has been resisting U.S. pressure to support effective sanctions.
Sarkozy is no American lapdog. Like every Fifth Republic president, he begins with the notion of French exceptionalism. But whereas traditional Gaullism tended to define French grandeur as establishing a counterweight to American power, Sarkozy is not adverse to seeing French assertiveness exercised in conjunction with the United States. As Kouchner put it, "permanent anti-Americanism" is "a tradition we are working to overcome."
This French about-face creates a crucial shift in the balance of forces within Europe. The East Europeans are naturally pro-American for reasons of history (fresh memories of America's role in defeating their Soviet occupiers) and geography (physical proximity to a newly revived and aggressive Russia). Western Europe is intrinsically wary of American power and culturally anti-American by reflex. France's change from Chirac to Sarkozy, from Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin (who actively lobbied Third World countries to oppose America on Iraq) to Kouchner (who supported the U.S. invasion on humanitarian grounds) represents an enormous shift in Old Europe's relationship to the U.S.
Britain is a natural ally. Germany, given its history, is more follower than leader. France can define European policy, and Sarkozy intends to.
The French flip is only one part of the changing landscape that has given new life to Bush's Iran and Iraq policies in the waning months of his administration. The mood in Congress also has significantly shifted.
Just this week, the House overwhelmingly passed a resolution calling for very strong sanctions on Iran and urging the administration to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guards a terrorist entity. A similar measure passed the Senate Wednesday by 76-22, declaring that it is "a critical national interest of the United States" to prevent Iran from using Shiite militias inside Iraq to subvert the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad.
A few months ago, the question was: Will the Democratic Congress force a withdrawal from Iraq? Today the question in Congress is: What can be done to achieve success in Iraq -- most specifically, by countering Iran, which is intent on seeing us fail?
This change in mood and subject is entirely the result of changes on the ground. It takes time for reality to seep into a Washington debate. But after the Petraeus-Crocker testimony, the reality of the relative success of our new counterinsurgency strategy -- and the renewed possibility of ultimate success in Iraq -- became no longer deniable.
And that reality is reflected even in the rhetoric of Hillary Clinton, the most politically sophisticated of the Democratic presidential candidates. She does vote against war funding in order to alter the president's policy (and to appease the left), but that is as a senator. When asked what she would do as president, she carefully hedges. She says that it would depend on the situation on the ground at the time. For example, whether our alliance with the Sunni tribes will have succeeded in defeating al-Qaeda in Iraq. But when asked by ABC News if she would bring U.S. troops home by January 2013, she refused to "get into hypotheticals and make pledges."
Bush's presidency -- and foreign policy -- were pronounced dead on the morning after the 2006 election. Not so. France is going to join us in a last-ditch effort to find a nonmilitary solution to the Iranian issue. And on Iraq, the relative success of the surge has won President Bush the leeway to continue the Petraeus counterinsurgency strategy to the end of his term. Congress, and realistic Democrats, are finally beginning to think seriously about making that strategy succeed and planning for what comes after.

To All The Girls We've Loved Before ......... Or Just Shoot Me

This is only for those old enough to even know who these women are.?? I know who you are.
?
Time flies by too fast ! ! !
?
?
IN SPECIAL TRIBUTE TO ALL THE GIRLS? WE'VE LOVED BEFORE 2007
Ursula Andress is now 70
?
?
Julie Andrews is now 71
?
?
Ann-Margret is now 65
?
Carroll Baker is now 75
?
?
Brigette Bardot is now 72
?
?
?
Leslie Caron is now 75
?
?
Julie Christie is now 65
?
?
Joan Collins is now 73
?
?
Doris Day is now 82
?
?
Barbara Eden is now 72
?
?
Annette Funicello is now 64
?
?
Kathryn Grayson is now 84
?
?
Lena Horne is now 89
?
?
Deborah Kerr is now 95
?
?
Gina Lollobrigida is now 79
?
?
Sophia Loren is now 72
?
?
Rita Moreno is now 75
?
?
Julie Newmar is now 73
?
?
Kim Novak is now 73
?
?
Debra Padget is now 73
?
?
Patti Page is now 79
?
?
Jane Powell is now 77
?
?
Debbie Reynolds is now 74
?
?
Jane Russell is now 85
?
?
Jean Simmons is now 77
?
?
Elke Sommer is now 66
?
?
Kay Starr is now 84
?
?
Stella Stevens is now 69
?
?
Gale Storm is now 84
?
?
Jill St. John is now 66
?
?
Shirley Temple is now 78
?
?
Mamie Van Doren is now 75
?
?
Rachel Welch is now 67
?
?
Esther Williams is now 83
?
?
?
UNBELIEVEABLE, HOW IN THE WORLD DID WE ALL GET THIS OLD???

That's why we have Vice Presidents, succession laws, checks & balances. (My answer to below)

September 09, 2007

Is McCain Too Old To Be President?

By Steve Chapman

You often hear the complaint that modern political campaigns are too nasty, which is often true. But it's also often true that they are too polite. So we're fortunate when someone violates the prevailing etiquette, forcing candidates and voters to confront matters we'd rather not but should.

One of those moments came the other day when Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) visited a New Hampshire high school and took questions. One brave youngster asked him, as courteously as possible, if at 71, he might be too old for the job he's seeking. McCain scoffed, saying, "I work 24/7, I'm very active, I enjoy life," and bragging that he's always outcampaigned his opponents. He closed by joking, "Thanks for the question, you little jerk. You're drafted."

But the student raised an important question that many of his elders have been strangely unwilling to pursue. It may seem rude and even cruel to say that someone is simply too old to be entrusted with the presidency. But in McCain's case, by any sensible standard, it's also true.

If elected, he would be the oldest person ever to enter the office. Ronald Reagan was 69 when he was inaugurated, nearly 2 1/2 years younger than McCain will be on Jan. 20, 2009. If he served two full terms, McCain would leave the White House at the age of 80.

Yes, he appears to be an active man who doesn't tire easily. You don't get to the top of the political heap by working bankers' hours. But to claim that because he's energetic at 71, he will suffer no slowdown in the next five years is like saying that because he's still breathing, he won't ever stop. A car could run fine for 200,000 miles, but if you're driving across Death Valley in July, that vehicle might not be the best choice.

The only certainty in life is that age catches up with all of us eventually. In the case of a man McCain's age, the odds are it will happen sooner rather than later. Each additional year increases the likelihood of physical infirmity and mental deterioration, not to mention death. A report last year by the Mayo Clinic found that one out of every 11 people it studied between the ages of 70 and 79 had some cognitive impairment, often a precursor to Alzheimer's disease.

McCain thinks he's the exception to the normal rules of aging because he has a 95-year-old mother who, by his account, is still sharp. What he neglects to mention is that he's already outlived his father and grandfather.

In any case, he's endured more wear and tear than the normal AARP member. As a Navy pilot during the Vietnam War, he broke both arms and a leg in a crash after his plane was shot down. He spent 5 1/2 years being tortured, beaten and half-starved as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. He's had surgery twice for melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer. All of those misfortunes exact a toll that may offset his hardy genes.

In other lines of work, everyone accepts that there is such a thing as too old. Some major corporations force chief executives and directors to step down at age 65 or so. Airline pilots have a mandatory limit of 60, which the Federal Aviation Administration has decided to raise to 65. Law firms often put partners out to pasture once they reach the golden years.

In those jobs, a fixed age limit makes less sense than it does for the one McCain wants. If a lawyer can no longer handle the work, after all, the firm can promptly cashier him or her. But the voters may never know if a president is growing befuddled by routine tasks -- or if a president, wearied by age, has simply lost the energy needed to perform well. And even if such facts became known, the public may not be able to force his removal.

That's not a big deal for a senator, who can't do much without 50 other people. But for the person occupying the most consequential office on Earth, it's an alarming prospect. John McCain has done a lot of things for his country. He could do one more service by acknowledging that the presidency is a job for a younger person.

schapman@tribune.com

Some of our young Presidents have been jerks; some of our older Presidents have done very well.

Yes, Steve, it is true that (most likely) all of us die.

I surely would not want to disqualify American war heroes from the Presidency.

I personally favor a McCain-Lieberman ticket.

Third parties have done better than most pundits realize.

Abraham Lincoln was one such.



See previous post.

Watch for a 2008 Third Party Candidate

About Independent presidential candidates:

Experts always think they are most unusual.

They are not. In fact, one third (or fourth) party candidate actually won the Presidency. Who?

An acquisitive, upwardly-mobile corporate attorney from Illinois. His name? Abraham Lincoln.

He did well.

In 1992 a Texas billionaire named H. Ross Perot ran as an independent candidate. In the Spring of that year public opinion polls showed him leading incumbent President George Herbert Walker Bush and Governor William J. ("Bill") Clinton by about five points. Perot then went la-la; he claimed that conspirators planned to disrupt his daughter's wedding.

He quit the race.

Then he entered it again. Notwithstanding his nuttiness he still ended up with 19% of the popular vote (!!!)

I think an independent party candidacacy in 2008 --- could win.

Mayor Mike could put half a billion bucks on the table --- not chump change.

Perot's efforts made ballot access easy.

My own personal independent party ticket would pair John McCain and Joe Lieberman.

Americans are fed up with both political parties --- with good reason.

BTW:Newsweek ran a cover story on Mayor Mike and Governor Ah-nold S (please spell name) (R. CA.).

A super- billionaire, Warren Buffet, noted that the U.S. Constitution only says that a "natural born" citizen must be President --- but makes no mention of the Vice President.

The first order of business of a B-S ticket would be to propose a Constitutional amendment to change that. How could the Congress or the States defy the will of the people?
Sen. Joseph Lieberman --- already an independent


Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger --- just about an independent

Mayor Mike Bloomberg --- Does he have a party affiliation?

All Hail Moliere

The promo material for the French movie Moliere compares it to Shakespeare in Love.

Wrong.

It is better by far.

It has sub-titles which I normally abhor --- but this time it hardly matters.

Moliere, the great French playwright (and actor), learns the hard way that tragedy is not necessarily greater than comedy. In fact, sometimes comedy can express tragic sentiments better than tragedy. (Molière's real name was Jean-Baptiste Poquelin ..)

He learns too, that the broad brush of vaudeville and slapstick can express real truth.

The movie --- quite remarkably --- describes the master of bedroom farce --- by staging a bedroom farce.

All hail Molierre.