Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditI never thought I'd see the day when career sexist Chris Matthews would apologize for his comments about Hillary Clinton.
In a nearly four minute mea culpa, Chris Matthews apologized for saying that Hillary Clinton only got to where she is because of sympathy over Bill's indiscretions.
Was it fair to imply that Hillary's whole career depended on being a victim of an unfaithful husband? No. And that's what it sounded like I was saying and it hurt people I'd like to think normally like what I say, in fact, normally like me....Saying that Senator Clinton got where she's got simply because her husband did what he did to her is just as callous, and I can see now, it comes across just as nasty, worse yet, just as dismissive.
I have to give Matthews some credit: I'm sure it wasn't easy for him to talk about this. But, of course, he may not have had much of a choice. Media Matters and feminist bloggers have been calling out Matthews on his sexism and encouraging readers to lodge complaints with MSNBC for some time. And the National Women's Political Caucus thinks it's no coincidence that his comments came almost immediately after they held a rally outside of NBC news in Washington DC to protest Matthews' long history of sexist remarks.
Executive Director Claire Giesen says that in her many years of participating in rallies, this by far was her favorite. "It was snowing, raining and sleeting, but we were having a great time shouting 'Hardball is one thing, Slimeball is another!'" Giesen says that she knows the rally was a success, and thinks it was the event that "topped off" all of the other recent action taken against Matthews.
Now, Matthews only addressed the most recent of his many remarks against women--and did so under considerable pressure. My co-blogger Ann says:
This would maybe work as an excuse if he'd made just one offensive comment. But what we clearly have here is a pattern. Which doesn't just indicate he failed to phrase something carefully, one time. It means when he's talking off the cuff, his sexist beliefs are completely unchecked.
But I'm an optimist, so I'm going to think of this as a win for women--and maybe, one day, for Matthews. Maybe. In the meantime, when Matthews says that he'll "try to be clearer, smarter, more obviously in support of the right of women -- of all people -- the full equality and respect for their ambitions," let's hold him to it.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Matthews is another highly paid, glib, loudmouth brawler, an info- entertainer, whose employers are sensitive to pressures that might translate into revenue loss. Good for the demonstrators & the many who filed complaints.
A Q remains: would HRC have secured the Dem senatorial nomination in a state where she had never lived, if she hadn't been married to the president? Her actual political jobs up to that point were nil; she'd been a corporate lawyer. Her claimed 35 years of experience, under examination, turn out to be 7 years as an effective senator. Long may she continue, as senator. We need a president less inclined to invade countries with which the US disagrees.
BTW: RFK, when he got the NYS Dem nomination in '64, a state where he hadn't lived for many years, had been a cabinet member, the AG under his brother JFK & LBJ. His claims to experience were authentic; his rejection of his brother's & LBJ's Indochina war too genuine, his death convenient.
Posted by Lit at 01/18/2008 @ 12:43pm
Jessica, Don't take your eye off the ball here. People like Matthews are going to be coming out of the woodwork with all types of messages until election time. If they can make themselves part of an issue, they get more attention which is what they are gambling on. That's how they make their living. Look at Rush Limbaugh. The guy's full of shit and yet there he is everyday on his radio show spewing nothing but crap out.
The thing to remember is that this is their way to also keep the real issues out of the news. That is why folks like this are in the media business in the first place. To distract the public from what is real news to the lowest common denominator. Look at the South Carolina negative campaigns for case in point. If they can't dig up legitimate information to bring someone down, then they'll manufacture stories to bring someone down. That's how George Bush beat McCain in the South Carolina primaries in 2000 via Karl Rove's lower than low tactics. Keep in mind I'm not a McCain fan, I just thought that what Rove did was crap and still do. These mudslingers are nothing but used car salesmen selling crap on the networks and nothing more.
Don't give these bastards the time of day.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/18/2008 @ 12:43pm
Chris Matthews is insignificant to me.
Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 01/18/2008 @ 12:56pm
What's the name of that female, supposedly feminist, progressive magazine editor and publisher that appears on "Hardball" all the time, with no apparent problem with ol' Chris and his usual comments and behavior (that go without apology)?
I'm stumped.
Posted by Mask at 01/18/2008 @ 1:00pm
MASK -- You don't believe in talking to the enemy? (And more seriously, be serious or at least funny: No fair reading of this post suggests that Matthews is evil incarnate and should be boycotted.)
Posted by Peter Rothberg at 01/18/2008 @ 1:17pm
one minute, thirty-three seconds of hell, or if you wish, the "best" of mr. matthews. [youtube.com]
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/18/2008 @ 1:24pm
i think jerry springer should moderate all political debate from now on.
THAT'S democracy in action.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/18/2008 @ 1:25pm
I don't always agree with Mathews, but this time he told the brutal and honest truth.
Posted by Len Mosse at 01/18/2008 @ 1:33pm
Criticize Hillary and you are a sexist.Criticize Obama and you are a racist.Criticize Romney then you are an anti Mormon bigot.Mention Rudy and the mafia in the same sentence then you are anti Italian.Criticize Huckabee and you hate Christians.Criticize McCain then you hate the elderly or veterans.Criticize Bush then you suffer from Bush derangement syndrome.
Posted by i'm nobody at 01/18/2008 @ 1:36pm
Wolfgang1, you nailed the bulls-eye.
Posted by FREIHEIT 01/18/2008 @ 12:52pm
Thanks. Hey, we do agree from time to time. : )
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/18/2008 @ 1:39pm
Everytime I have the misfortune to hear Matthews speak, which thankfully is few and far between, I find myself reaching for the mute button. I watched some of the Democratic debate round table and found his repetitious crowning of Hillary Clinton as the "varsity" candidate inane. His very existence offers a compelling argument against watching television because it does violence to one's intelligence.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/18/2008 @ 1:43pm
The rest of your post was typical partisan bias. Fine, but not a bulls-eye IMHO.
Posted by FREIHEIT 01/18/2008 @ 1:25pm
Hey, I've had to live with 6 years or so of nothing but typical skewed partisan crap on the news 24/7 on how Bush's war on terror is good for the United States. I've also been told how offshoring technology jobs is good for the American people and the United States. Give me some lattitude here.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/18/2008 @ 1:45pm
i'm surprised matthews hasn't changed the name of his show to "HARDBALLS"
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/18/2008 @ 2:03pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/18/2008 @ 2:03pm
Or perhaps, HARDHEAD.
Posted by srjenkins at 01/18/2008 @ 2:08pm
I appreciate what you offer, even when I don't agree. I really do.
Posted by FREIHEIT 01/18/2008 @ 1:46pm
Likewise. It would be a boring world if everybody saw eye to eye on everything.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/18/2008 @ 2:16pm
i'm surprised matthews hasn't changed the name of his show to "HARDBALLS"
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/18/2008 @ 2:03pm
Excellent Frosty!!
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/18/2008 @ 2:17pm
i'm surprised matthews hasn't changed the name of his show to "HARDBALLS"
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/18/2008 @ 2:03pm
Excellent Frosty!!
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/18/2008 @ 2:18pm
to say something is 'sexist' is so truly vague these days.
anyone who doesn't ride the political correctness bandwagon these days is either one thing (racist) or another (sexist).
now, can we talk about the issues?
Posted by darladoon at 01/18/2008 @ 2:48pm
does anyone really care what one guy says?
and can we talk about media matters for a second here? this is a website which continues to grow off the tripe that idiotic right wingers spew each and every day.
and yet media matters wants these right wingers off the air? wouldn't that mean the end of media matters?
seems to me like the left wing blogosphere is feeding off the slime more than the right wing itself!
Posted by darladoon at 01/18/2008 @ 2:50pm
speaking of sexist: the nation's new on-line correspondent is really cute!
Posted by darladoon at 01/18/2008 @ 2:51pm
BTW: RFK, when he got the NYS Dem nomination in '64, a state where he hadn't lived for many years, had been a cabinet member, the AG under his brother JFK & LBJ. His claims to experience were authentic; his rejection of his brother's & LBJ's Indochina war too genuine, his death convenient.
Posted by LIT 01/18/2008 @ 12:43pm | ignore this person
bad example. RFK got that job because of his brother. it raised quite some opposition on the grounds of nepotism at the time.
Posted by mask2 at 01/18/2008 @ 3:24pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 01/18/2008 @ 1:43pm | ignore this person
he doesn't speak, he shouts.
Posted by mask2 at 01/18/2008 @ 3:26pm
if matthews had said that huckabee's career ascenion is due primarily to his wife, would that be 'sexist'? or is sexism only delivered to women?
and on another note, i must also add that i'm very impressed with the ACLU's decision to defend larry craig against calls for his removal from office. larry craig did what millions of straight men do every day, around the world: make obvious, even flagrant, passes at women.
what many on the left did was so incredibly homophobic, even sexist: they assumed that what larry craig was......wrong. sure, he's a hypocrite, but that doesn't mean he should lose his job. he has rights like the rest of us.
Posted by darladoon at 01/18/2008 @ 3:33pm
frank,
if matthews says that hillary's rise in politics is due to her husband's affairs, then it follows that we shouldn't really care what matthews says.
matthews made a claim without any evidence whatsoever. he's just talking, filling up air space, like any american sitting at the bar.
Posted by darladoon at 01/18/2008 @ 3:44pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/18/2008 @ 3:45pm | ignore this person
that woman is a saint. a saint I tell you. and you are right in defending her against all and sundry.
who says I have no sense of humor.
Posted by mask2 at 01/18/2008 @ 3:47pm
That's why Media Matters is so important but how many people actually log on to their site
so, the sheep who listen to media matters are better than the sheep who listen to matthews?
media matters would not exist without chris matthews.
hence, my point.
the left wing in america these days is so caught up in the foibles of the right, that if those foibles discontinue, there would be no raison d'etre on the left (at least on the internets).
now, can we get back to talking about why clinton is in favor of telecom immunity?
Posted by darladoon at 01/18/2008 @ 3:48pm
Media Matters is a vital entity to get the truth out from under all the spinmeisters on both sides. Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly do a tag team against MM everyday. What does that tell you?
it tells me that media matters depends on limbaugh and vice-versa.
cancel one out, the other goes too.
Posted by darladoon at 01/18/2008 @ 3:49pm
do i really want to spend my time discussing why chris matthews is a sexist?
can this ms. valenti tell us how america can avoid a recession?
Posted by darladoon at 01/18/2008 @ 3:50pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/18/2008 @ 3:34pm
Wow you are way too enamored. No one on this site has said that the reason Hillary is famous is because she was a victim. They are saying the reason she has any notoriety right now is because she was married to a president. Which has some validity. Would Bush be president if it wasn't for his daddy?
If the tables were turned and Bill was running after Hillary had already been president and someone made the comment that Bill was only famous because Hillary had been president would you be calling that comment sexist? I can answer that already. No. But everyone insists that any comment made about Hillary even though it might carry a grain of truth, is sexist. But tell me can you give me solid rock hard proof that Hillary had the political notoriety BEFORE Bills presidency to become a senator.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/18/2008 @ 3:54pm
can this ms. valenti tell us how america can avoid a recession?
Posted by DARLADOON 01/18/2008 @ 3:50pm | ignore this person
can you?
I believe that horse has already left the barn. huge finacial institutions are posting losses unheard of since the depression. some even since never.Citibank for instance. I believe we'll be lucky if it's a recession. throw in a panic and we'll have a depression.
there was a depression in the 1890s that was referred to as the great depression.
Posted by mask2 at 01/18/2008 @ 3:58pm
frank,
i am hearing better questions asked of the democrats than the republicans. not in the debates, however, you are correct on that.
Posted by darladoon at 01/18/2008 @ 3:58pm
if mrs. clinton is the victim of 'sexism', then it merely accidental. she happens to be a woman by chance. her chromosomes were formed not deliberately, but by chance.
Posted by darladoon at 01/18/2008 @ 4:03pm
Frank, jeeze, chill out. There are many thousands of resumes like Hillary's out there. We see hers because she was First Lady of the United States of America for 8 years. That's not a sexist statement.
Hillary is a big government collectivist who backed the invasion of Iraq. That's one of the real issues we should be discussing.
omg, freiheit i agree with you.
Posted by darladoon at 01/18/2008 @ 4:04pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/18/2008 @ 3:57pm
Actually I read a lot frank and you accusing me of not reading at all is the same thing you are accusing me of doing to her making accusations without merit so lets not be so hypocritical. But then again you support a candidate who is a hypocrite so I guess I can't expect much.
The point still stands no matter her resume. She had NO political experience before that. She was not a governor. A mayor nothing. She got into the NYS because New Yorkers knew he husband. I don't if you argue that's sexist because its not because if Bill had done the same thing I would make the same comment. It's funny too that New Yorkers don't like her either.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/18/2008 @ 4:06pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 01/18/2008 @ 4:06pm
Paris Hilton is why I stopped watching television.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/18/2008 @ 4:07pm
This is exactly what I mean. Hillary did not back any invasion of Iraq. You are just repeating the bullshit that you've heard others say. Read her floor speech the dauy of her vote. Read the transcript from lat weeks Meet the Press.
what you mean to say is that she supported the invasion ONLY on the condition that the inspectors would be permitted to finish their job of determining whethere there were WMD?
well, that's a load of nonsense. she should have known that there were no weapons to begin with. the europeans knew it. the germans and french knew it. the info was out there.
bush was determined to remove hussein immediately upon obtaining office, and even more so after 9.11.
she also supported afghanistan, another ill-advised war.
Posted by darladoon at 01/18/2008 @ 4:07pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/18/2008 @ 4:09pm
So you're saying that if you make a bad choice you should stay behind that bad choice if it was proven it was a bad choice? It's not courage of convictions it stubborness. Bush made a bad choice and he is sticking behind that bad choice. Does that mean he has courage of convictions or is just an idiot?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/18/2008 @ 4:11pm
A woman mentions looks and no one takes her to task,but when a man did it all hell broke lose and all the raging hypocrites jumped all over him.Stop your sexist double standard and start promoting equality.
Posted by i'm nobody at 01/18/2008 @ 4:12pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 01/18/2008 @ 4:12pm | ignore this person
she acknowledged her sexism from the start. read it again.
Posted by mask2 at 01/18/2008 @ 4:14pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 01/18/2008 @ 4:12pm
I agree with you totally NOBODY I can't stand the double standard. I don't accuse everyone of being racist so why should I constantly be accused of being sexist?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/18/2008 @ 4:15pm
If you agree with that then you really disappoint me. What is it about the truth that's eludes you all so easily. Read her damn speech. Her vote WAS the correct one. Obama said he doesn't know how he would have voted if he were in the Senate at that time. I do know. He would have voted the same way that Hillary and John Edwards did. Edwards apologized which means he doesn't have the courage of his convictions. Hillary didn't and she's the one who gets the slings and arrows. Please people. Let's not take our eye off the ball. Dubya and Cheney and their neocon conspirators are the one's who are at fault. Are we going to let them get away with it? We've spent hours discussing the Bush administration's culpability and deception in taking us to war. And now it's Hillary's fault. Give me a break.
so are you suggesting that dubya and cheney would have taken us to war without the consent of the congress? meaning, if the house and senate did not grant permission to cheney and bush, then the latter would have invaded anyway?
cheney and dubya were enabled by clinton et al. there is simply no sugar coating her support for both wars. "courage of convictions" is the argument that bush offers for his stubborness.
the reason edwards apologized is because he DOES have courage.
Posted by darladoon at 01/18/2008 @ 4:18pm
is hillary is so anti-war, then what's with her votes for:
patriot act telecom immunity afghanistan iraq war on terror
??
her votes are precisely the same as lieberman's.
Posted by darladoon at 01/18/2008 @ 4:19pm
Posted by CCCOMFO1 01/18/2008 @ 4:06pm
I don't deny that Chris Matthews is an idiot. But I still argue that the only reason she has any notoriety is because she was First Lady. I've KNOWN people who have resumes like hers. Doesn't mean they could get a Senate seat nor could they run for president. There are plenty of people out there with resumes like hers why aren't they all president?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/18/2008 @ 4:20pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/18/2008 @ 4:17pm
My above post was direct at that.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/18/2008 @ 4:20pm
Posted by DARLADOON 01/18/2008 @ 4:19pm
She has even gone so far as to vote support to declaring Iran a terrorist nation which is just priming us for war with them. AWESOME!
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/18/2008 @ 4:22pm
Mask2-So it's ok to make such statements as long as you state in advance that they might be sexist or racist or whatever?
Posted by i'm nobody at 01/18/2008 @ 4:23pm
Posted by PETER ROTHBERG 01/18/2008 @ 1:17pm |
Come on, PETE....Ms vanden Heuvel "taking it to" Matthews when she goes on "Hardball" on his leering or misogynism...or merely offering the "Left's view of how Huckabee is using the Confed flag issue"?
Posted by Mask at 01/18/2008 @ 4:23pm
By the way its not courageous to stand by a wrong decision. It's courageous to admit you were wrong and apologize. Kinda like John Edwards did.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/18/2008 @ 4:26pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 01/18/2008 @ 4:23pm | ignore this person
it preempts being called sexist. if you have a problem with her post you are free to say so.
Posted by mask2 at 01/18/2008 @ 4:28pm
Mask2-I have no problems with people mentioning looks.I have a problem with the raging hypocrites and the double standard which we have seen here today..
Posted by i'm nobody at 01/18/2008 @ 4:30pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 01/18/2008 @ 4:30pm | ignore this person
you get all that from that one little post?
Posted by mask2 at 01/18/2008 @ 4:36pm
Yes. Read the resolution. Nobody gave Bush permission to pre-emptively, unilaterally attack a soverign. The resolution had conditions. So did Hillary's vote. Please don't make me go over all that old history
i am not in need of an education, frank. i am just trying to understand the discrepancy between clinton and, say, mccain or lott.
and, now you say that clinton was fully aware that her vote would have been ignored! so, she went ahead and voted anyway? WTF?
you fully admit that even if every member of congress voted against the resolution, bush would have gone to war anyway......
with the consent of the UN? an entity which bush despises?
Posted by darladoon at 01/18/2008 @ 4:41pm
clinton is a major supporter of many of president bush's most appalling policies, not the least of which is telecom immunity, warrentless wiretapping, and many of the more extreme provisions of the patriot act.
Posted by darladoon at 01/18/2008 @ 4:43pm
Mask2-Obviously,you did not read the board where a man mentioned looks.Read it and get back to me.
Posted by i'm nobody at 01/18/2008 @ 4:43pm
No he doesn't. The reason he apologized was because he is a politician and he made a calculated political decision. Notice how Hillary is weathering all the attacks while he gets off scott free. Damn Darla, I thought you were a whole lot smarter than that
oh, of course. edwards hasn't suffered a bit for that! i never recalled hearing innumerable comments about how 'gay' or 'weak' or 'effeminate' edwards is since he began his anti-war, pro-union crusade!
Posted by darladoon at 01/18/2008 @ 4:45pm
it is more than abundantly clear that frank is living in a woman-crush.....
Posted by darladoon at 01/18/2008 @ 4:45pm
Mask2-Obviously,you did not read the board where a man mentioned looks.Read it and get back to me.
Posted by I'M NOBODY 01/18/2008 @ 4:43pm | ignore this person
I did, and I participated, albeit under a different nom de plume.
Posted by mask2 at 01/18/2008 @ 4:48pm
can this ms. valenti tell us how america can avoid a recession?
Posted by DARLADOON 01/18/2008 @ 3:50pm
I don't know. I saw a pretty interesting conversation between Lou Dobbs and some corporate stooge representing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce electronics division or something like that. Dobbs kept asking about our ever expanding defecit, offshoring of technical jobs, and this guy kept saying Dobbs was taking a protectionist stance. What the hell do these people think the Chinese, Russian, Japanese, British, German, Korean etc. governments do?
I see that China tries to stack the deck in favor of their country by keeping the currency lower than it should be. Sure, they are screwing their own people, but at the same time are drawing work away from other countries because of a deflated cash system. Of course businessmen can make a buck by investing in Chinese sweat shops while thumbing their noses at the American worker, but in the end, when non of the Americans have jobs to where they can purchase these goods, they won't think it's such a sweet deal anymore.
I wish our idiots in charge would at least worry as much about American citizens as they do foreign investers who take our raw materials, ship them back to their countries, turn them into goods, and then ship them back to our country for sale. Something seems a little wrong with this picture. Just the shipping alone should make that not feasible. Our navy is protecting the very shipping lanes that make these folks all of their money. We, the American people, should get a cut of that profit directly since we own that navy, not George W Bush and his greasy slimy snake oil buddies.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/18/2008 @ 4:51pm
Bush would have gone to war under any circumstanses. He doesn't believe in the Separation of Powers of that Congress can tell him what to do about anything
so hillary knew this all along, and said nothing, and gave him everything he wanted under the resolution?
hmmmm, i really love this woman's principles.
when all is said and done, either you're with bush, or against him. hillary has been, for the most part, with him.
Posted by darladoon at 01/18/2008 @ 4:51pm
Something seems a little wrong with this picture. Just the shipping alone should make that not feasible. Our navy is protecting the very shipping lanes that make these folks all of their money. We, the American people, should get a cut of that profit directly since we own that navy, not George W Bush and his greasy slimy snake oil buddies
well, americans are as much to blame for this bush, as most americans buy the crap that china makes.
many americans are fat, lazy and uneducated. they don't care about how goods are manufactured, distributed and sold. they just want them cheap.
Posted by darladoon at 01/18/2008 @ 4:57pm
when all is said and done, either you're with bush, or against him. hillary has been, for the most part, with him.
Posted by DARLADOON 01/18/2008 @ 4:51pm
I agree. The big difference I see with between Hillary and W is that she might try to ease the burden on the working class and shift a heavier tax to the wealthy of this nation. So, internationally, I don't think you'd see too much of a change with Mrs. Clinton at the helm, but internally, she might make some positive changes. Really none of the candidates have actually said what they really plan to do and how the plan on implementing these changes they keep talking about. Edwards has come the closest by saying that he was going to try to take away corporate lobbyists from running the country. At least he sounds like he has a clue.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/18/2008 @ 5:02pm
Mask2-I have no respect for id trolls or people who use so many ids.If you were on that board then you already know what I'm talking about and so I'm not sure what your responses were supposed to mean or even if they were they were supposed to mean anything.
Posted by i'm nobody at 01/18/2008 @ 5:05pm
many americans are fat, lazy and uneducated. they don't care about how goods are manufactured, distributed and sold. they just want them cheap.
Posted by DARLADOON 01/18/2008 @ 4:57pm
True, and I'd go further to say that Americans are also still purchasing these crappy, huge, gas guzzling SUV's, trucks etc. I wonder if we are the only country in the world with those stupid commercials with some guy trying to sound tough talking about his tough truck and the tough job he and his tough truck do. Do guys really buy into this crap? I hope not. Having a big truck with a big engine that can pull a house from it's foundation doesn't make you a tough guy, it just makes you an idiot paying 80 dollars at the pump to fill your gas tank in a vehicle most guys use just to get to and from work.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 01/18/2008 @ 5:08pm
Dobbs? a foaming at the mouth racist and demagogue.
I saw him defend the guy who shot the burglars next door to death, because they were, wait for it ILLEGALS. I guess in his universe it's open season for these workers.
Posted by mask2 at 01/18/2008 @ 5:17pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 01/18/2008 @ 5:05pm | ignore this person
I'm sorry that vexes you.
Posted by mask2 at 01/18/2008 @ 5:18pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 01/18/2008 @ 5:24pm | ignore this person
that riff again? zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Posted by johannesrolf1 at 01/18/2008 @ 5:26pm
not Johannesrolf, but better.
Posted by johannesrolf1 at 01/18/2008 @ 5:59pm
do you really think that German would forget his password? you know how they are.
Posted by johannesrolf1 at 01/18/2008 @ 6:05pm
"To vote against all of America's efforts to fight terrorism would be irresponsible and political suicide. "
Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/18/2008 @ 4:45pm
Haha it's funny that in your argument you say Edwards apologized because we was watching out for his position as a politician. Then you say for Hillary to vote against a war she claims she knew was wrong would have been political suicide. So in fact by your argument wasn't she also being a politician?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/18/2008 @ 6:14pm
Gee, Jessica, would you have felt better if Mathews had gone all the way and offered the much more accurate appraisal that HRC is where she is because she's a woman, period? Get real! When Gloria Steinem characterizes HRC's proposals as progressive on the Op-Ed pages of the NY Times, you know that in the eyes of many Dems, all of HRC's reactionary moves since she went to the Senate, carpetbag in hand, will be forgiven, simply because, as Steinem put it on another occasion, "We are so ready." What a farce!
Posted by DP in TC at 01/18/2008 @ 6:24pm
At least I know Frank will be the only person happier than Rush Limbaugh if Hillary wins the Presidency.
Posted by FREIHEIT 01/18/2008 @ 4:53pm
Something he fails to see in his blind love of her and blind hatred of Limbaugh....Rush WANTS Hillary to win. It gives him 4-8 years of FRESH material and boosts his ratings, sagging from 8 years of trying to defend Bush and the GOP Congress.
Posted by Mask at 01/18/2008 @ 7:40pm
What is the Federal Reserve?
i would probably say it is a very secretive body of individuals who manage currency. that's all i really know.....
Posted by darladoon at 01/18/2008 @ 7:53pm
Rush WANTS Hillary to win. It gives him 4-8 years of FRESH material and boosts his ratings
precisely. same reason why media matters really needs a republican to win the presidency, otherwise nothing to talk about.
if obama or hillary wins the presidency, and begins to fulfill what media matters' staff members prefer to see happen in washington, then what will they talk about in their blog?
what will there be to criticize?
the only people they currently criticize are conservative pundits and politicians. they rarely, if ever, criticize democrats (who are not immunte to criticism) or progressives.
Posted by darladoon at 01/18/2008 @ 8:02pm
it would be far more helpful to the progressive "movement" if progressives began criticizing THEMSELVES rather than conservatives. trust me on that one!
Posted by darladoon at 01/18/2008 @ 8:03pm
This is exactly what I mean. Hillary did not back any invasion of Iraq. You are just repeating the bullshit that you've heard others say.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/18/2008 @ 4:04pm
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
How far do you have to go to "back an invasion"?
Posted by Sliver at 01/18/2008 @ 8:45pm
sliver, thanks for that post! and there's a lot more where that came from!
frank will probably respond with "she was given that information". "she couldn't have known".
Posted by darladoon at 01/18/2008 @ 8:50pm
Now that loudmouth hack Chris Matthews has surrendered his testicles at the alter of victimhood so that a small wedge group can feel somehow validated (He had his Larry Summers moment), let me say that I agreed with him on his original point.
Posted by Sliver at 01/18/2008 @ 8:51pm
precisely. same reason why media matters really needs a republican to win the presidency, otherwise nothing to talk about.---Posted by DARLADOON 01/18/2008 @ 8:02pm
Or Melanie Sloan and CREW. You think they really want to take after a Democratic Congress and risk giving ammo to the Republicans for 2010....or hurting some corrupt Democrat who's the "leading voice for health care reform"?
No way...CREW, Air America, Media Matters....fold their tents if we get (what USED to be called) "one party rule", under Democrats.
Posted by Mask at 01/18/2008 @ 8:53pm
No way...CREW, Air America, Media Matters....fold their tents if we get (what USED to be called) "one party rule", under Democrats.
Posted by MASK 01/18/2008 @ 8:53pm
If I were a RESE conspiracy nut, I would blame the record industry for these attacks against Democrats. Music always seems to be better when all those angry libs are out there pouring their hearts out while we're under Republican leadership.
Posted by Sliver at 01/18/2008 @ 8:59pm
sliver, thanks for that post! and there's a lot more where that came from!
Yes, Darla...lots of quotes. In fact, if I pasted the entire page and removed the names, you'd think it was Rove, Bush, Cheney, and Gingrich behind closed doors, instead of Kennedy, Clinton, Pelosi, Kerry, Albright, and even Chirac making public statements.
But somehow, it's still "Bush's war".
Posted by Sliver at 01/18/2008 @ 9:03pm
no, it's not Bush's war. it's Bush's disastrous war, and it will remain so for eternity.
Posted by johannesrolf1 at 01/18/2008 @ 10:38pm
That's because your a sexist idiot as well.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/18/2008 @ 10:57pm
No Frank. Actually, I'm a firm believer in treating others as you want to be treated, regardless of color or gender. I also realize that no matter how carefully you construct your sentences, there is always someone around with preconceived biases that are just looking to bitch that they have been offended. Often these people make their living in doing so.
Life would somehow be much more dull without them.
Posted by Sliver at 01/18/2008 @ 11:06pm
especially with her awesome resume?--Frankgrits
Frank--you are kidding aren't you---I mean the above statement was meant with tongue in cheek right????????? If you weren't kidding here is something for you to chew on: Mrs. Bret Favre has seen every game that Bret has played---and she has met with a tremendous amount of the other players in the NFL---she has even had long and comprehensive discussions with many of the head coaches in the NFL---but do you really want her starting this weekend against the Giants based on her experience? Now if she was 6'5" 230 with a rocket arm then maybe she should start---but Frank---she ain't.
Posted by Len Mosse at 01/18/2008 @ 11:06pm
You can take that to the bank.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/18/2008 @ 10:56pm
Timmmmmmmmmmmberrrrrrrrrrr.........snap, crackle, swish, pop....THUMP!
Posted by Happy at 01/18/2008 @ 11:54pm
doesn't obama have 11 years of congressional experience?
hillary has 8 years.
how can hillary say she is the more "experienced" candidate?
Posted by darladoon at 01/19/2008 @ 12:25am
"You can take that to the bank." Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/18/2008 @ 10:56pm
Folks, you of course know the bank, any one that sells subprime mortgages.
Posted by Lit at 01/19/2008 @ 03:46am
Either of these two win the WH we will be hit again by terrorists.
Posted by JOMAMMA 01/19/2008 @ 03:05am | ignore this person
That is a ridiculous thing to say. Please learn to elevate your dialogue. I do not go around and claim that if another Republican is elected we will be hit again, 9/11 was on GWB's watch.
Tell me Maasch: 1.) What would HRC or BO do, or not do, that would gaurantee a terrorist strike? No generalities please. 2.) What would any of the Republican Candidates do to differentiate themselves from HRC or BO? Again, specifics.
Posted by BizarroRio at 01/19/2008 @ 03:52am
Man-o-Man! What a pussy move by Matthews! He had to check his nuts at the door before this wimpy segment.
He doesn't want to become the next Don Imus, probably (Was "nappy headed hoes" really that bad?). For fear of offending anyone, you end up saying nothing. Screw that, bitches! And thank God for the internet.
Posted by Person at 01/19/2008 @ 09:51am
(Was "nappy headed hoes" really that bad?).
yes it was. it was racist, sexist and swinish. no wonder you are defending it, person
Posted by friehiet at 01/19/2008 @ 10:20am
Get over yourself, Friehiet! Nappy headed hoes was NOT that bad. I was embarrassed for the Rutgers women for the way they responded. Like jumping on a chair and cinching up their skirts at the sight of a mouse. Big f-ing deal! They should have acted like confident, strong women and either done nothing, or dismissed Imus as an imbecile. They disgraced themselves by acting like such delicate, fragile little girls. We should all be self-confident enough not to let words harm us. You let your actions speak for themselves. For instance, I might call you a new age, metro-sexual girly man. If I'm right and you have resolve, you'll be cool with it. If you're sensitive to being a girly man, you might object. If you're not a girly man, you'd probably say nothing because the accusation is clearly preposterous.
Do you get where I'm coming from, sweetheart?
Posted by Person at 01/19/2008 @ 10:54am
Either of these two win the WH we will be hit again by terrorists
could you be more specific?
Posted by darladoon at 01/19/2008 @ 11:08am
it is abundantly clear that jomamma has no idea what he is talking about. the "hard left" has been the only group to "ass chew" neoconservative foreign policy in the ME? try again.
"everything is changing over there.....and for the better"? really? bush said that the surge strategy would only succeed if there was political benchmarks met. out of 18 political benchmarks, only 1.5 have been met. no amount of security and troop levels will meet those benchmarks. ever.
but let's be really clear about something here: are you actually suggesting that, in order to prevent terrorist attacks on american soil (which, mind you, are extremely rare and relatively non-threatening: 3,000 americans dead, compared to 500,000 iraqis? i'll take the americans on this one), the united states must adopt a pre-emptive, aggressive foreign policy in a region where the vast majority of indigenous peoples detest us?
wouldn't that form of foreign policy only fuel more and more hatred?
wouldn't a better policy be to reduce our presence in the region? and find dependable sources of energy at home?
Posted by darladoon at 01/19/2008 @ 12:05pm
jomamma, you probably better off voting for clinton than any of the republican field. she's a hawk AND she has center-right economic policies.
Posted by darladoon at 01/19/2008 @ 12:31pm
Posted by PERSON 01/19/2008 @ 10:54am | ignore this person
got masculinity issues? you flaming queen?
Posted by friehiet at 01/19/2008 @ 12:51pm
Posted by FREIHEIT 01/18/2008 @ 5:00pm | ignore this person
one of your best posts. keep it up.
Posted by friehiet at 01/19/2008 @ 12:52pm
Posted by I'M NOBODY 01/18/2008 @ 5:05pm | ignore this person
I don't have your respect? say it ain't so. I am crushed.
Posted by friehiet at 01/19/2008 @ 12:53pm
Jomama-We've been hit by terrorists regardless of which party was in office and the worst attack came under a Republican POTUS.
Posted by i'm nobody at 01/19/2008 @ 1:07pm
jomama-Bush responded to 9/11 by attacking a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and has done nothing to hinder AQ.In fact,their numbers have grown under Bush as has their power.Sorry,but I did not make your case for you.You were unable to show that terrorists fear Republicans and were unable to show that terrorists won't attack with a Republican in office.
Posted by i'm nobody at 01/19/2008 @ 1:28pm
(Was "nappy headed hoes" really that bad?).
yes it was. it was racist, sexist and swinish. no wonder you are defending it, person
Posted by FRIEHIET 01/19/2008 @ 10:20am | ignore this person
And...
got masculinity issues? you flaming queen?
Posted by FRIEHIET 01/19/2008 @ 12:51pm | ignore this person
hyp·o·crite: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings -- hypocrite adjective
You need to work through this Friehiet. You're out of sync with your core.
Posted by Person at 01/19/2008 @ 1:33pm
jomama-9/11 happened on 9/11 and not 4/11.It was 9 months into the Bush presidency and not 4 months.
Posted by i'm nobody at 01/19/2008 @ 1:40pm
and I feel that there is a more likelyhood that either Hillary or Obama will be challenged with an attack than would a Repub
you "feel" this is true, but you have no evidence whatsoever. until you have evidence, i'm not listening to you.
and besides, how is invading and occupying two countries reducing the possibility of domestic attacks?
.as the there is not enough bad news comng out of there, in fact the opposite seems to be the case, and they do not want to remind every one of their stance at this point and do not want to be constanlty hit on the head by the Repubs for their "we already lost"...slogans in the last year...
it might take a wee bit more thought to understand that things in iraq, on the political front (the only front which will prevent more violence and instability in the long term), there has been almost no progress whatsoever. if there is no progress, then the united states will remain in iraq until there is. what does this mean? more billions in tax dollars gone. forever. more american and iraqi lives lost. more hatred of US foreign policy. more losses all around.
by increasing troop levels in iraq (the so-called "surge"), the united states has merely forestalled the inevitable: that at some point, iraqis will have to take over their country. at this point, only 1.5 of the 18 benchmarks have been met.
do you understand this? can you at least concede that the invasion of iraq was an unprecedented disaster that has cost us trillions of dollars, thousands of lives, tens of thousands wounded, many more scarred for life? and that the surge is bush's last attempt to salvage the minimum out of this disaster, that being less lives lost at the current moment.
but ultimately, according to the president's own goals going into iraq, he has failed so miserably. no democracy. no cheap oil. no regional stability. nothing.
the president fucked up. the american people lost. the iraqis? jomamma, can you even comprehend how stupid your claim is that life is "better" now for ordinary iraqis?
Posted by darladoon at 01/19/2008 @ 1:45pm
She has communistic tendancys with her " I am gonna take those profits and give them to..." montras
anyone who believes that clinton has communist tendencies has no business talking about politics with me. that is simply unbelievably retarded.
when she says she'll rescind some of the bush tax cuts, we're still talking about returning to tax leves lower than the previous republican administrations. the bush tax cuts are the most extreme, disproportionate and downright EVIL in history. even warren buffet is taxed at a lower rate than his secretary.
and for the record, obama is pretty much the same as hillary, right down to the tax cuts.
on the war? he is right, though.
Posted by darladoon at 01/19/2008 @ 1:49pm
life in iraq has gone back to what it was like in 2004. how good was life in iraq in 2004?
when people say that the surge is working, what they really mean is:
life has returned to what it was like in 2004-2005. in other words, unstable, frightening, hopeless.
Posted by darladoon at 01/19/2008 @ 1:51pm
Cold here in Houston too! Low 30s' warming to 40 now. Is the Upper Midwest the "Sexist Hell" that Jessica had in mind....heheheh!
B-r-r utal: Upper Midwest Locked In Deep Freeze
Air Temperature May Hit 25 Below Overnight In Northwest Wisconsin; 14 Below in Minnesota, Minus 3 In Chicago
CHICAGO (CBS) ― Bitter, dangerous cold has settled across the Chicago area and its neighbors in the Upper Midwest, making just walking a block a miserable experience.
A wind chill advisory is in effect for all of northern Illinois and most of Indiana, as well as the entire states of Wisconsin and Minnesota and most of Michigan.
The forecast high for the day in Chicago is a mere 7 degrees, with an overnight low of 3 below zero. But with northwest winds at 20 to 25 mph, the wind chills will make it feel as if it were 20 to 25 below.....
Posted by Happy at 01/19/2008 @ 1:53pm
Posted by JOMAMMA 01/19/2008 @ 1:23pm | ignore this person
use your fingers to count. Bush was in office for nearly NINE months when the country was attacked.
Posted by friehiet at 01/19/2008 @ 2:58pm
Posted by HAPPY 01/19/2008 @ 1:53pm | ignore this person
you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
Posted by friehiet at 01/19/2008 @ 3:07pm
life in iraq has gone back to what it was like in 2004.
this is a lie. 2007 was the deadliest year in Iraq for Iraqis AND US troops. millions of Iraqis have fled the country, and nothing of lasting value has been accomplished.
sometimes deadly wars end with the status quo ante, like Korea. in Iraq that would mean a Sunni strongman would again be in charge.
no one talks of freedom and democracy in Iraq anymore. small wonder it was just a slogan, after the BIG lie of WMD was exposed.
the present "gov't" of Iraq cannot safely leave the green zone. it is a puppet of the US. same evidently in Afghanistan. anyone remember the name of the ruler of Afghanistan the soviets installed as their puppet?
Posted by friehiet at 01/19/2008 @ 3:24pm
the bush tax cuts are the most extreme, disproportionate and downright EVIL in history.
Posted by DARLADOON 01/19/2008 @ 1:49pm | ignore this personI
The income tax itself is downright EVIL. It is an abomination that we pay it at all. It adds insult to injury that it punishes achievement (of all the screwed up ideas! Punish achievement? What are we thinking?!), and that it's routinely used for social engineering. The whole topic makes me sick, and the "rationale" behind the progressive tax makes me want to puke. You want a truly fair and just tax? One that is blind to race, ethnicity, gender, and social class? Tax consumption. Don't be a douche bag and tax production. We want production. Production is a good thing.
Posted by Person at 01/19/2008 @ 5:30pm
But I know I'd be better off trying to explain this to my cat, rather than the bunch of radical space cadets in this forum.
Posted by Person at 01/19/2008 @ 5:34pm
That sexist lake is very large and took a long time to freeze over.
Posted by The Heretik at 01/19/2008 @ 7:43pm
this is a lie. 2007 was the deadliest year in Iraq for Iraqis AND US troops. millions of Iraqis have fled the country, and nothing of lasting value has been accomplished
yes, but the level of violence at the current moment has returned to 2004-2005 levels.
yes, 2007 was the deadliest, but levels dropped sharply after the Glorious Surge began.
Posted by darladoon at 01/19/2008 @ 11:32pm
and freiheit, since when are you anti-war?
Posted by darladoon at 01/19/2008 @ 11:33pm
Posted by PERSON 01/19/2008 @ 10:54am
post a picture of yourself so we can find appropriate insults based on your looks.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/19/2008 @ 11:52pm
The forecast high for the day in Chicago is a mere 7 degrees, with an overnight low of 3 below zero. But with northwest winds at 20 to 25 mph, the wind chills will make it feel as if it were 20 to 25 below.....
Posted by HAPPY 01/19/2008 @ 1:53pm
yeah,
it's as if it were JANUARY.
how strange.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/19/2008 @ 11:55pm
Posted by FRIEHIET 01/19/2008 @ 3:24pm
c'mon BIGHONDOMASK2BRANNIGANJAKEMCQSTER.
basta.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/19/2008 @ 11:57pm
as if it were JANUARY.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/19/2008 @ 11:55pm
Just looked it up, and you're almost right-on-the-Frosty-Nose......Brrrrrrr...these AVERAGE Jan/Feb temperatures are lower than most of the 8,000~10,000 ft. snow playgrounds we visit! Made my evening......Feels Great to be a Southern Man, even at 40 degrees!
Climate for Chicago, Illinois
Average Temperature for Chicago, Illinois
Month Low High
Jan 14.3°F 29.6°F
Feb 19.2°F 34.7
Posted by Happy at 01/20/2008 @ 12:19am
Posted by HAPPY 01/20/2008 @ 12:19am
you know,
we used to be able to go to lake erie and walk for practically ever on the ice...............
now, it's a big pool of slush for a few metres and then open water.
we're gonna strap on the skates tomorrow though and hit the frozen marshes.
gonna be smoooooooooth.
i bet foxnews has already had their "does this cold spell disprove global warming?" reports.
you can say anything on fox if you make it a question.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/20/2008 @ 12:28am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/19/2008 @ 11:52pm | ignore this person
I look just like your dad.
Posted by Person at 01/20/2008 @ 08:24am
I look just like your dad.
Posted by PERSON 01/20/2008 @ 08:24am
well, lucky you!
too bad you lack any of his character.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/20/2008 @ 09:31am
i bet foxnews has already had their "does this cold spell disprove global warming?" reports.
you can say anything on fox if you make it a question
my favorite line is from the simpsons: "now it appears that democrats want to abort space missions!"
Posted by darladoon at 01/20/2008 @ 1:02pm
This conspiracy is much simpler: invetors looking to make a return on their capital
economic incentives, alone, cannot explain all phenomena. there are subconscious, sexual, psychic motivations as well.
Lots and lots of people are sloppy with language. Replace "communist" with "collectivist" and Jommama is absolutely right. I describe her as arrogant/lacking humility to consider how often authoritarians impose change they think will save the world, but end up making things ten times worse because of the unintended consequenses
clinton's broader economic strategies are not that far removed from her husband's, who presided over the longest continual stretch of economic prosperity in at least a generation. these strategies were far more conservative than the last democrat in office: jimmy carter. so far, in fact, that carter should be considered the true "collectivist", and not hillary.
hillary is a technocrat. she supports free trade and open markets as much as anyone. prove to me otherwise (and DON"T say that increased regulations and oversight are "collectivist").
So, using "communist" and "collectivist" interchangably is sloppy, but forgivable
it's not forgivable if it's repeated endlessly throughout the right wing echo chamber that is the DC punditry. communism and "collectivism" (whatever that is) are not, in any way, related.
how can a technocrat be a "collectivist"? how can someone who represents a barely perceptible ideological shift from bill clinton, himself the most conservative democrat in a generation, be in any way associated with, say, fidel castro?
marybretbard, you remind me of those bland female pundits on cavuto?
Posted by darladoon at 01/20/2008 @ 3:37pm
but end up making things ten times worse because of the unintended consequenses
can you get any worse than the unintended consequences of neoconservative ideology? if not, then explain to me how life is better now than it was in 1999? serious.
and i'm not fan of bill clinton, just so you know.
Posted by darladoon at 01/20/2008 @ 3:39pm
mary,
you've been so brainwashed by foxnews' style economics, by the disaster that is the bush era of egregiously disproportionate tax cuts, that you seem to have forgotten what true conservativism is.
you call yourself a conservative, and yet you seem to embrace bush's economic policies.
if you don't embrace bush's policies, then clinton should seem a more efficient alternative. because, as i've said, she's as conservative as her husband. she is no social democrat. she is for free market solutions to social problems.
Posted by darladoon at 01/20/2008 @ 3:42pm
mary, it is abundantly clear that the entire democratic field is comprised of technocrats. they are wealthy, well-educated, well-connected figures with powerful ties to corporations and even more powerful ties to think tanks of all political spectrums. if elected, they will hire advisors without ideologically predetermined positions.
the republicans clearly have an ideological problem: all of the candidates support a number of policies with serious potential for unintended consequences. take gay marriage or medical marijuana: how is opposing these issues going to spur the economy?
Posted by darladoon at 01/20/2008 @ 4:24pm
isn't classical liberalism really just the precursor to modern democratic politics? open markets, open borders, free exchange of ideas?
how would democrats realistically strangle the economy, if their last president presided over the greatest stretch of prosperity in a generation?
Posted by darladoon at 01/20/2008 @ 4:26pm
Yeah, the rich earn about 17% of income and pay 34% of income taxes, but that seems about right to me.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/20/2008 @ 2:15pm | ignore this person
This post didn't make a damn lick of sense. Were you trying to make a point or just rattle aimlessly? If the latter, then bravo!
So after all the prattling, you end up with "It seems about right to me"? Dear God in Heaven!
And what was the ridiculous comparison between our rich and poor verses those of other countries? You lost me. So...is it better to be rich in American and poor in Cuba, or better to be poor in America than rich in Denmark...? I'm lost, but please don't try to find me.
Posted by Person at 01/20/2008 @ 5:17pm
can you get any worse than the unintended consequences of neoconservative ideology? if not, then explain to me how life is better now than it was in 1999? serious.
Posted by DARLADOON 01/20/2008 @ 3:39pm | ignore this person
Of what is neoconservatism an unintended consequence? It's my understanding that neoconservatism formed in rebellion to modern liberalism. It's as far right as liberalism is far left. So neoconservatism is the unintended consequence of socialistic liberals? I'm cool with that.
What's better now? The internet keeps getting better. We have Hummers. We have lots of new drugs. I think I heard the abortion rate's down. The "Lost" T.V. show...I could go on.
Posted by Person at 01/20/2008 @ 5:35pm
how would democrats realistically strangle the economy, if their last president presided over the greatest stretch of prosperity in a generation?
Posted by DARLADOON 01/20/2008 @ 4:26pm | ignore this person
How would they do it, you ask? The life blood of liberals is hating--despising so called "Big Business." Wal-Mart, McDonald's, Exxon-Mobile, Haliburton, "Big Pharma," "Big Agro," so called "Big" fucking anything, except of course for Big Government. Raising taxes, nationalizing health care, clogging business with regulation after regulation (a.k.a "Big Auto"), are just a few of the creative ways liberals can choke the economy.
Bill Clinton was a lucky man with the economy. What about our good 'ol buddy Jimmy Carter? What a shit pile he was on the economy!
Posted by Person at 01/20/2008 @ 5:45pm
that is simply unbelievably retarded.
Posted by DARLADOON 01/19/2008 @ 1:49pm
extra-super-duper-simply-unbelievably-dumbdumbly retarded.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/20/2008 @ 7:47pm
Romney has his trust fund, Obama has Michelle.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/20/2008 @ 1:37pm
and................
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/20/2008 @ 7:47pm
Yes, our poor have more stuff than Cuba's poor,
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/20/2008 @ 2:15pm
but they die younger...............
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/20/2008 @ 7:52pm
I think the myth of the idylic past was destroyed on 9/11 with the towers.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/20/2008 @ 3:52pm
maybe for those who never read.............
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/20/2008 @ 7:53pm
to consider how often authoritarians impose change they think will save the world, but end up making things ten times worse because of the unintended consequenses.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/20/2008 @ 2:04pm
hmmmmmmmm,
what does THAT remind me of?
what did george bush say when his father asked him about his plans for iraq?
it's in the bag, dad!
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/20/2008 @ 7:59pm
Posted by PERSON 01/20/2008 @ 5:35pm
The internet keeps getting better.
'specially if you're rupert murdoch
We have Hummers.
and trillion dollar deficits to fuel them with
We have lots of new drugs.
you could use a 'script for RFS*
I think I heard the abortion rate's down.
one person** too late!
The "Lost" T.V. show...
eek!
I could go on.
obviously
*regressive fingertip syndrome
**sorry dude(ette). too easy to resist. abortion, while necessary, sure is icky. glad you're here.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/20/2008 @ 8:07pm
What about our good 'ol buddy Jimmy Carter? What a shit pile he was on the economy!
Posted by PERSON 01/20/2008 @ 5:45pm
but he sure was right about putting on a sweater.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/20/2008 @ 8:08pm
but he sure was right about putting on a sweater.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/20/2008 @ 8:08pm | ignore this person
true that
Posted by Person at 01/20/2008 @ 8:11pm
How would they do it, you ask? The life blood of liberals is hating--despising so called "Big Business." Wal-Mart, McDonald's, Exxon-Mobile, Haliburton, "Big Pharma," "Big Agro," so called "Big" fucking anything, except of course for Big Government. Raising taxes, nationalizing health care, clogging business with regulation after regulation (a.k.a "Big Auto"), are just a few of the creative ways liberals can choke the economy.
this is outrageously false. democrats "hate" big business? can you cite any concrete examples of the democratic party stifling legitimate, law-abiding corporations?
Posted by darladoon at 01/20/2008 @ 8:35pm
so, is person suggesting that big corporate lobbyists don't give money to democrats?!
is this "person" even worthy of our attention?
Posted by darladoon at 01/20/2008 @ 8:37pm
can you cite any concrete examples of the democratic party stifling legitimate, law-abiding corporations?
Posted by DARLADOON 01/20/2008 @ 8:35pm | ignore this person
1) Anti-smoking legislation
Posted by Person at 01/20/2008 @ 9:26pm
If that was an apology, I'm the bastard love child of Phyllis Schlafly and Ann "thrax" Coulter.
Posted by Jelperman at 01/20/2008 @ 9:43pm
1) Anti-smoking legislation
but the scientific consensus on this is overwhelming: anti-smoking legislation is a concerted, broad-based effort to protect employees from second-hand smoke. second-hand smoke is, according to the government's own scientists, harmful. and in some cases, very harmful.
your example is, therefore, weak.
Posted by darladoon at 01/20/2008 @ 10:02pm
1) Anti-smoking legislation
Posted by PERSON 01/20/2008 @ 9:26pm
really, really, really, really, really bad example.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/20/2008 @ 10:31pm
I'm probably the only one here who read Chris Mathews' book.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/21/2008 @ 1:53pm
quick!
hit the UNsubmit button!
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/21/2008 @ 1:56pm
Why, should I be ashamed for reading unapproved material?
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 01/21/2008 @ 1:59pm
well, perhaps a little wallace stevens, instead...........
for example.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/21/2008 @ 2:11pm
your example is, therefore, weak.
Posted by DARLADOON 01/20/2008 @ 10:02pm | ignore this person
really, really, really, really, really bad example.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/20/2008 @ 10:31pm | ignore this person
I'd say it's a fabulous example. Darladoon asked what law abiding, legit business is being targeted and I gave her one. It's your hangup over smoking, but cigarettes are perfectly legal. And they'll continue to be legal until the end of time because they're also an outstanding source of revenue for the government.
Posted by Person at 01/21/2008 @ 10:04pm
Posted by PERSON 01/21/2008 @ 10:04pm
sure.
slavery was a law abiding, legit business that was targeted, too.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/22/2008 @ 09:44am