I tend to think not, but am ready to be proven wrong. There some rumblings here and here. Certainly the earlier you get to an incumbent the better, so if Republicans are interested in taking back that seat, I suggest they run a high quality candidate in 2006. Herseth may have as much trouble within her party as without, since there is still bad blood between her camp and the Daschle camp, and Herseth dang near ran as a pro-choice Republican in 2004. I would say we might as well have a real Republican instead of one who only sounds like one from time to time. Personally I think we could do much worse than Herseth, and also much better.
Did Herseth say oil was the reason for going to war in Iraq? Here's the quote (and here's the story):
Cleo Johnston of Huron asked if the Iraq involvement was related to oil production.
“I think it was a factor,” [Herseth] said, “but not the primary rationale in going after Saddam Hussein.”
That seems like a reasonable position to me, especially because I happen to share it. A war must be fought for the right intention (to right a wrong) but it does not have to be devoid of self-interest in order to be just. As Thomas Barnett argues:
Whenever I field that "blood-for-oil" question from audiences, I typically respond, "Hell, yes, it's all about oil. Thank God it's all about the oil. Because I can show you parts of the world where there isn't any oil, and there's plenty of people dying, and no one seems to care whatsoever."
Barnett also makes this point: A show of hands of all of those who don't use any petroleum dependent or petroleum based products? Yep, that's what I thought.
BTW, my employer does not endorse what I say, and I don't necessarily endorse all who quote me.
Recent Comments