I see that both Hillary and BO have now called on President Bush to boycott the opening ceremony of the Olympics. I guess they can't spare the time from their campaigns to go there, and would have to pay the going price, or get some lobbyist to pony up for them, so they don't want the President to go either. Whether or not the President chooses to go is his business, not the business of Hillary or BO.
No other senators have called on the President to boycott. I wonder why not? Could it be that only Democratic Senators who happen to be vying for any headline of any sort while they are still locked in a primary battle see this as a battle cry with any valence whatsoever. Look for them to run out the battle cry for Armenian independence next week, and make a ceremonial visit to the Little Bighorn the following one, while stocking up on Absolut Vodka in a play for the Hispanic vote.
So far the White House has dismissed Hillary and BO beautifully, deeming it to be merely a Presidential scheduling issue. For the Repulicans, it certainly isn't much of a campaign issue. There was not much the United States could do when a substantially less formidable Communist China took over Tibet and sent the Dalai Lama scampering with little more than a simple little orange dress to his name. To give him credit, that worthy has made a good living from his status as whatever it is that he is. However, despite his best efforts, and the protestations of Hillary, BO, or many another bleeding heart, there is still nothing much we can do about China's handling of the Tibet issue. Boycotting the opening ceremony would insult the Chinese, of course, but I suppose that the television contracts have long been signed, the coverage will be there, and the people here will mostly be watching what probably will be a magnificent show. If Hillary and BO don't watch any of it, I'd be surprised. On the other hand, they will be busy trying to flip superdelegates, which may prove difficult at that particular time, because the superdelegates will probably be busy eating, drinking and merrily watching the opening ceremonies on really big-screen TV's just like most people around the world will be.
The decision by President Bush to attend or not attend the Olympic Opening Ceremonies is an important one. Fortunately, he is not running for re-election, so he gets to make the decision under circumstances quite different from Hillary's or BO's. His decision is unlikely to have any particular impact on the campaign one way or the other, so he doesn't have to decide before the Pennsylvania primary election, either, not that the Tibet issue is likely to be a big one anywhere but Haverford.
There is actually something to be said for not insulting China over an issue as non-momentous as Tibet, regardless of what the Dalai Lama might say. We do a lot of business with China. We have strategic interests to consider. Do we want to risk worsening Taiwan's situation by some theatrical gesture in favor of Tibet's situation? Do we want to annoy the Chinese, who have sometimes been helpful in trying to get a lid on North Korea and may be needed in that situation in the future?
Hillary speaks of her foreign policy expertise. Yeah, right, she played dress-up in India. BO has played dress up in Africa and he went to madrasa in Indonesia, and possibly he has eaten in a Chinese restaurant or two, but he's no expert on foreign policy by a long shot either. George W. Bush has quite an edge over BO and Hillary in foreign policy, and he has a highly educated and competent Secretary of State to advise him. Fortunately for Hillary and BO, the President is not a cruel man. If he were, he could make a mockery of Hillary and BO's stupid call for him to do as they are telling him in this instance, or for that matter in just about any instance.
No other senators have called on the President to boycott. I wonder why not? Could it be that only Democratic Senators who happen to be vying for any headline of any sort while they are still locked in a primary battle see this as a battle cry with any valence whatsoever. Look for them to run out the battle cry for Armenian independence next week, and make a ceremonial visit to the Little Bighorn the following one, while stocking up on Absolut Vodka in a play for the Hispanic vote.
So far the White House has dismissed Hillary and BO beautifully, deeming it to be merely a Presidential scheduling issue. For the Repulicans, it certainly isn't much of a campaign issue. There was not much the United States could do when a substantially less formidable Communist China took over Tibet and sent the Dalai Lama scampering with little more than a simple little orange dress to his name. To give him credit, that worthy has made a good living from his status as whatever it is that he is. However, despite his best efforts, and the protestations of Hillary, BO, or many another bleeding heart, there is still nothing much we can do about China's handling of the Tibet issue. Boycotting the opening ceremony would insult the Chinese, of course, but I suppose that the television contracts have long been signed, the coverage will be there, and the people here will mostly be watching what probably will be a magnificent show. If Hillary and BO don't watch any of it, I'd be surprised. On the other hand, they will be busy trying to flip superdelegates, which may prove difficult at that particular time, because the superdelegates will probably be busy eating, drinking and merrily watching the opening ceremonies on really big-screen TV's just like most people around the world will be.
The decision by President Bush to attend or not attend the Olympic Opening Ceremonies is an important one. Fortunately, he is not running for re-election, so he gets to make the decision under circumstances quite different from Hillary's or BO's. His decision is unlikely to have any particular impact on the campaign one way or the other, so he doesn't have to decide before the Pennsylvania primary election, either, not that the Tibet issue is likely to be a big one anywhere but Haverford.
There is actually something to be said for not insulting China over an issue as non-momentous as Tibet, regardless of what the Dalai Lama might say. We do a lot of business with China. We have strategic interests to consider. Do we want to risk worsening Taiwan's situation by some theatrical gesture in favor of Tibet's situation? Do we want to annoy the Chinese, who have sometimes been helpful in trying to get a lid on North Korea and may be needed in that situation in the future?
Hillary speaks of her foreign policy expertise. Yeah, right, she played dress-up in India. BO has played dress up in Africa and he went to madrasa in Indonesia, and possibly he has eaten in a Chinese restaurant or two, but he's no expert on foreign policy by a long shot either. George W. Bush has quite an edge over BO and Hillary in foreign policy, and he has a highly educated and competent Secretary of State to advise him. Fortunately for Hillary and BO, the President is not a cruel man. If he were, he could make a mockery of Hillary and BO's stupid call for him to do as they are telling him in this instance, or for that matter in just about any instance.
No comments:
Post a Comment