One of the difficulties of not having an Ivy League degree and sufficient facetime with intelligent, wealthy, powerful and connected people is that it's often very difficult to determine whom to take seriously. The other difficulty is not knowing what exactly to take seriously. Who's connected to whom and which of those people are actually thinking, responsible and in control of something worth noting? Such are the conundrums which bedevil those of us on the outside.
It doesn't take a genius to determine that our neocon friends in the White House have got eyes bigger than the American stomach. It's not that we have bitten off more in Iraq than we could chew, it just that George W. Bush was never quite capable of reading the menu and didn't come the the White House with enough cash in his pockets. OK enough with the analogies.
What I'm curious to figure out is how Republicans who jumped on the Bush bandwagon at the expense of John McCain must have felt on September 12, 2001 when it occured to them at long last that after the crash of the stock markets that they had backed the wrong man. Now in California, Republicans must be gnashing their teeth to think the Arnold S. is their best hope for victory.
But on the other hand, things may just not be that well-wrapped. Maybe these candidates are the people's choice and the party central committees aren't in as much control as we outsiders believe.
Perhaps only an ability to carry the rhetoric is what makes one electable. As few scandals as possible. Once a person arrives at a certain level of name recognition, other forces take over.
Hard to know if this is really important or connected, here on the outside.
Recent Comments