Here's a clue for you: about five people have already agreed with ME since your last post.
Kristol basically is a pot stirrer.
Nobody here put any credence in anything he says.
Yeah, Kristol never got over backing the wrong horse (McLame) in 1999. He's been Johnny Anti-Bush One-Note Kristol since then.
In 2000 and 2004 according to Krystol, Bush lost every presidential debate (and would get beat in each election). Every speech Bush ever gives is a dud with Kristol as a Fox reviewer.
This guy is soooo beltway, he couldn't find a city in Texas with a map.
That's the only way to make money as a "commentator."
A few of us remaining oldtimers that haven't died, wandered off, or been banned, remember when Maureen Dowd was making fun of Bill Clinton's antics. She was far more playful and funny about it, but she spanked him a little. Now she feels free to stir the pot with an industrial-sized egg beater.
I'm just using her as an example. Even among conservative columnists, the temptation is to be against something than for something. The news and publicity comes with being against something, and that's especially true in today's environment when GET BUSH on something is the only media game in town.
Nobody here put any credence in anything he says.
Wow with your vast intellect and those of a few others on this thread, the world has no need for pundits like Kristol.
I never suggested he is right about everything, but most other conservative writers have agreed with his current viewpoint on the nomination.