Well, the news from today’s trip to the Apple Store is a mixed bag. I got to work with my favorite Mac Genius, the Skeet Ulrich lookalike Mike (he’s the guy at left in the photo), and he was patient, friendly and helpful as always. Unfortunately, actual solutions to my PowerBook’s problems remain elusive, and nobody’s offering me a new computer yet. Details after the jump.
HH: Would you accept a place on a Giuliani, a Romney or a Thompson ticket if offered to you?
JL: No, I think I got that bug out of my system. But…the national bug, I mean. It’s nice of you to ask, and I don’t think any one of them in their right mind would ask me, but my wife will appreciate that you asked.
HH: Is that an unequivocal no, Senator?
JL: Yeah, that’s unequivocal. Actually, my wife probably would not appreciate that.
Of course, Hewitt only asked about “a Giuliani, a Romney or a Thompson ticket” — in other words, a Republican ticket. He didn’t ask about an independent McCain-Lieberman ticket, which would be the most obvious possibility, IMHO. (Though, as I mentioned previously, such a ticket presumably couldn’t win in the current political climate vis a vis Iraq, and would just serve to throw the election to the Democrats.)
P.S. Speaking of Lieberman… Sean Paul Kelley at The Agnoist thinks Lieberman’s “Sense of the Senate” resolution (PDF here) wagging the Senate’s collective finger at Iran — approved by a vote of 97-0 — opens the door for an Authorization of the Use of Military Force down the road. The amendment, as characterized by Kelley, basically says (not in so many words), “It is the sense of the senate that Iran is participating in acts of war against the United States.” Which seems to lend itself rather nicely to a rather powerful pro-war argument down the road: “How could you not support military action against a country committing acts of war against the United States?” (Hat tip: My Left Nutmeg.)
Personally, I doubt this vote will have any real effect on later debates. If going “on record” in such a way had the kind of rhetorical power envisioned by Kelley, nobody would be able to gripe about “Bush’s” rejection of the Kyoto Accords (which were rejected in principle on a 95-0 “Sense of the Senate” vote in 1997), nor about “Bush’s” decision to pursue regime change in Iraq (a policy explicitly endorsed in 1998 by a vote of 360-38 in the House and by unanimous consent in the Senate). Yet nobody seems to feel shamed by those votes, so I doubt they’ll feel shamed by this one. If war in Iran comes up for a vote, Democratic senators aren’t going to feel obligated to authorize it just because they voted for this unanimously approved legislative nullity.
Still, it’s an interesting development nonetheless. The storm clouds continue to gather, I fear.
