Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe problem for Hillary Clinton that arises from the incident in which a disturbed man invaded her Rochester, New Hampshire, campaign headquarters is not any kind of physical threat. Clinton is the most carefully-managed and thoroughly-secured presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan, who when he began to show the first signs of the dementia was placed in a sort of protective custody during the 1984 campaign. Clinton is is no greater danger now than she has been in since the start of her campaign; and neither, thankfully, were her New Hampshire supporters, who exited the headquarters without injury.
The problem for Clinton is a political one.
The incident in Rochester reminds prospective Democratic primary voters and caucus-goers that the front-runner for the party's presidential nomination is a celebrity candidate who attracts controversy, who is legitimately seen as divisive and who-- barring a major shift in tone and style -- will always campaign at a distance from the American people.
This is not entirely fair to Clinton. She has indeed been the victim of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" that she named after millionaire conservatives and their paid minions defining her as a cruel and conniving egomaniac who would stop at nothing to obtain power and position.
But there is nothing fair about American politics. And, while Clinton has made some progress when it comes to softening her image, she has not begun to transform herself so successfully as did the "ruthless" Bobby Kennedy in 1967 and 1968 -- or even the "boring" Al Gore in the period since he ceded the presidency to George Bush.
Hillary Clinton remains a charged figure who excites great passions. She is a highest-profile politician whose fame is both blessing and curse. The blessing is that, without offering much more than platitudes, she has been able to wink and nod her way to the top of most Democratic polls. The curse is that, if an desperate man in Rochester, New Hampshire, is looking for a campaign headquarters to invade, it's going to be Clinton's.
If a few other desperate men target the Clinton campaign in coming weeks -- or even a desperate woman as hyped up as the one who called the Democratic senator a "bitch" at a recent John McCain event -- the contender who so recently seemed inevitable will be in trouble.
It's won't be Clinton's fault, at least not wholly. But incidents of this kind will make Democrats, who think they have a good chance of winning the presidency in 2008, start asking: Why invite the volatility that goes with Hillary Clinton? Why not nominate someone -- a John Edwards, a Barack Obama, even a Bill Richardson -- who provokes a little less passion?
To deny that such thinking will go on in the heads not just of pundits but of grassroots Democrats would be absurd as the calculus that said John Kerry was the most electable Democrat of 2004.
The challenge for Clinton, then, is not to avoid the issue. She must confront it. She must turn her volatility to her advantage. She should take a risk that puts her outside the comfort zone of her own campaign -- and of contemporary politics. She should speak bluntly about the bitter partisanships, the crude tactics, the open hatreds that now characterize campaigning and that so undermine the ability of elected leaders to govern in a functional, let alone inspiring, manner.
The incident in Rochester was not a big deal. It was overplayed by the media. Clinton and her aides are safe, as safe as any serious presidential contenders and their hangers on. But the Friday's headquarters invasion got the attention it did for a reason. Everyone recognizes the emotions -- both positive and negative -- that Hillary Clinton inspires. And everyone suspects that they could boil over again, either physically or politically.
Clinton needs to address her perception and her reality as a remarkable political figure who has already made a great deal of history and could make a great deal more. She cannot do it with spin. The reliance on spin, on managed messages and manipulated moments, is a big part of what Americans -- even some of her supporters -- distrust about her.
Hillary Clinton needs to open up. She needs to speak frankly. She needs to acknowledge that, for better or worse, she inspires intense reactions. She needs to start talking about that intensity. And she needs to explain to the American people -- if she can -- how that intensity, as opposed to silly spin about "bringing us all together, is what this country needs after George Bush's sleepwalk across the minefield.
If Clinton does this, it will not matter what passions play out during the course of the coming campaign. She will be on her way to the Oval Office. If she fails to do so, Clinton will remain vulnerable to the incidents that are all but certain to unfold, and that vulnerability will beg questions that could well cost her the presidency.
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- 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
one
Posted by Will C. at 12/01/2007 @ 11:39pm
shouldn't pretend road flares are a bomb
Posted by Will C. at 12/01/2007 @ 11:39pm
because all that happens is we send you to jail for, you know... road flares
Posted by Will C. at 12/01/2007 @ 11:40pm
"vast right-wing conspiracy" that she named after millionaire conservatives and their paid minions defining her as a cruel and conniving egomaniac who would stop at nothing to obtain power and position.
well, there's a few on the left, too..............
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 12:14am
of course, ms. clinton is going to "open up".
it says so on page 342 of her script!
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 12:19am
Why not nominate someone who inspires far more passion for THE ISSUES ... someone not running as a personality ... Dennis Kucinich. His day, Saturday Dec.15th. And watch the tide turn.
Posted by sloper at 12/02/2007 @ 03:10am
Her campaign for president is entirely reminiscent of the campaign for governor of Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Posted by ZERO 12/02/2007 @ 11:32am
her campaign is entirely reminiscent of the "mini-wheats" commercial currently blasting from my t.v. set!
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 11:53am
Posted by RIO BRAVO 12/02/2007 @ 01:14am | ignore this person
not defending 50 foot queenie, but OF COURSE THERE WAS AND IS A GREAT RIGHT WING "CONSPIRACY".
and of course you right wingers ridicule those who recognize such!
lmao! just to name one among many, fascist buzillionaire richard mellon scaife had agents scouring the trailor parks all over arkansas for schnozillas in search of nose jobs and indebted bubbatroopers willing to say anything for some cold hard cash to git willy...and anyone else with an axe to grind, shaky moral foundation and similar like of the money to smear 50 foot queenie.
the "vast rightwing conspiracy" is nothing more nor less than a pack of ultra-rich, amoral fascists willing to throw plenty of cash to anyone willing to lie in order to smear the non-fascist enemy.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/02/2007 @ 1:38pm
Mr Nichols...are you nuts?
"If Clinton does this, it will not matter what passions play out during the course of the coming campaign. She will be on her way to the Oval Office. If she fails to do so, Clinton will..."
The opposing end of that theory is..."If she fails to do so, she will NOT be on her way to the Oval Office"!!!
And if you think that, you're crazy.
Posted by Mask at 12/02/2007 @ 1:45pm
Rio=I'd rather hear from war heroes like McCain,Kerry, etc. who were maligned by Bushco.Bushco doesn't like veterans since there aren't any in Bushco land.
Posted by i'm nobody at 12/02/2007 @ 2:19pm
This post is offensive. Some wacko's behavior is Hillary's fault?! I suppose it's Kennedy's "fault" that he got his brains blown out. Ridiculous. I know you can't stand Hillary's politics and that you hope she loses. But this is just stupid. Besides, according to recent news reports, it's also wrong. The guy wasn't looking to hurt Hillary; he was looking for her help.
http://www.newswatch50.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=cf687d7a-d59 d-404c-adcd-e1dd2e2f7247
Posted by kfry at 12/02/2007 @ 4:25pm
For some soothing sanity this election season click here:
John Edwards on the Charlie Rose show [charlierose.com].
Watch it and pass it on, please.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 12/02/2007 @ 6:26pm
I have no interest in the private life of any politician or celebrity. I long for the old days when a politician's private life was ignored by the press. I do not favor Senator Clinton because "Free Trade" came about in Bill Clinton's Administration, and She voted for the Iraq war. I regard "Free Trade" as economic treason to this country, even if it doesn't qualify legally as a crime. I will never vote for anyone who supports "Free Trade".
Posted by P. J. Casey at 12/02/2007 @ 7:11pm
Posted by P. J. CASEY 12/02/2007 @ 7:11pm
I regard "Free Trade" as economic treason to this country, even if it doesn't qualify legally as a crime. I will never vote for anyone who supports "Free Trade".
Free trade ought to be made a crime, even if it's not illegal. What this country really needs is another Smoot-Hawley tariff!
Posted by pontificus at 12/02/2007 @ 7:36pm
Posted by B_KOOL_66 12/02/2007 @ 6:26pm
Watch it and pass it on, please.
Yep, that John Edwards, he sherrrr is a man of the people! My only question is, did he ever actually CATCH that ambulance?
Posted by pontificus at 12/02/2007 @ 7:38pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/02/2007 @ 7:36pm
how about free, ethical, trade?
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 7:42pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/02/2007 @ 7:42pm
how about free, ethical, trade?
Ethical? Sure! How about pretty? Do you want pretty, too? How about warm and fuzzy trade? Who could be against that! Warm and fuzzy trade for everyone! All other kinds are illegal!
Posted by pontificus at 12/02/2007 @ 7:47pm
Personally, I'm a great advocate of warm and fuzzy trade. Only cold, heartless people can be against warm and fuzzy trade. Are you cold and heartless, or are you in favor of what I call warm and fuzzy trade?
Posted by pontificus at 12/02/2007 @ 7:51pm
I'm still wondering about your answer from the other thread, FROSTY. If a government takeover of healthcare increases efficiency and makes free health care a reality for millions, why should these wonderful things not be made to happen for every other industry? Food production? Car manufacture? Why shouldn't the government just take over everything? Like in the Cuba you think compares so favorably to the US? Speaking of which, considering the vast superiority you apparently believe that Cuba has over the US's health care system, I'm just wondering. Is swimming the Florida Strait a part of the National Health program in Cuba?
Posted by pontificus at 12/02/2007 @ 7:58pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/02/2007 @ 7:47pm
hey that's great!
i gave you the cheesiest, leftiest question (albeit valid) i could think of,
and you,
gave me the reactionariest, selfishest, icouldgiveafuckaboutbrownieoffinpoorlandest answer you could think of!
talk about free trade of ideas.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 8:01pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/02/2007 @ 8:01pm
i gave you the cheesiest, leftiest question (albeit valid) i could think of,
and you,
gave me the reactionariest, selfishest, icouldgiveafuckaboutbrownieoffinpoorlandest answer you could think of!
Well, if your question was valid, then so was mine! You're in favor of what you call 'ethical' trade, and so am I! Tell me, are you in favor of warm and fuzzy trade? I also have one I call 'cute little puppy dog' trade. Are you in favor of that, too?
Posted by pontificus at 12/02/2007 @ 8:10pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/02/2007 @ 7:58pm
wouldn't you like your health care costs to be 1/26* of what they currently are?
*even counting for "discrepancies".
you don't want to share for health care, don't pay.
i like sharing, and gladly help by paying my taxes.
i use very little in terms of costs (knocking on wood) to the system, and if some fat slob wants to eat his way to the hospital, i will help to help him because he is my brother.
i, do, however hope he learns before then, but if he doesn't, something in my heart (yeah, that thing) tells me that in the long run we will be better off by providing care with the logic of jesus rather than that of adam smith.
as to food distribution,
YOU already pay for that you food stamp enabler, you.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 8:17pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/02/2007 @ 8:10pm
"Ghost of the Future," he exclaimed, "I fear you more than any spectre I have seen. But as I know your purpose is to do me good, and as I hope to live to be another man from what I was, I am prepared to bear you company, and do it with a thankful heart. Will you not speak to me?"
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 8:19pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/02/2007 @ 8:17pm
wouldn't you like your health care costs to be 1/26* of what they currently are?
Who wouldn't? The question is, are you promising something you can't deliver? My common sense screams YES!
*even counting for "discrepancies". you don't want to share for health care, don't pay.
What, don't pay my taxes? I don't know about Canada, but you don't actually have a choice in the States my friend!
i like sharing, and gladly help by paying my taxes.
Making a virtue of necessity? I don't think your government could care less what your attitude about taxes is.
i use very little in terms of costs (knocking on wood) to the system, and if some fat slob wants to eat his way to the hospital, i will help to help him because he is my brother.
Well, that's very generous of you, but here in the States we have lots of busybodies who justify the fact that cigarette smokers, for example, cost everybody more in health care, and thus the government is justified in making their activities illegal. They haven't gotten around to fat people yet, but there's no reason in principle why they shouldn't, eventually, as long as the government is paying for peoples' health care.
And I see you're still avoiding the questions about government takeovers of private systems like health care. Of course you are, because you know it invalidates your arguments in favor or a government takeover of health care, which supports your Statist religion. Best for you to keep avoiding those uncomfortable questions!
Posted by pontificus at 12/02/2007 @ 8:27pm
"Business!" cried the Ghost [of Marley], wringing his hands again. "Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence were all my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!"
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 8:32pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/02/2007 @ 8:17pm
Yep, it's left to us poor scrooges to remind you folks their ain't no free lunch! We're so mean!
wouldn't you like your health care costs to be 1/26* of what they currently are?
Golly, you mean the guvvermint can lower my health care costs by 96 percent just by me signin up for dat dere socialized medicine! Sign me up there pardner!
Hey, I saw a brand new 500-series BMW the other day, do ya think the guvvermint can get me one for $2,000? I'm all over that! I done seen the light! Sign me up for dat Canadian thing ya got goin on there!
Posted by pontificus at 12/02/2007 @ 8:38pm
sorry frosty, but i guess i gotta agree with con-tard ponty...
no country in the world has better health care than us! statistics? pffft! who needs statistics!? not our con-tards!
we have plenty of money to burn up in stupid useless land wars in asia but health care? gee, what do you want? something in return for yer taxes?
look, we need drug companies to spend buzillions on advertising in this country so they can encourage hypochondriacs to pester their doctors into overprescribing dangerous, rushed through medications for made up ailments! oh yeah!
and gosh, if it werent for fo-profit insurance companies anf hmos with self paying buzillion dollar a year ceo's cutting people off from coverage cause they get sick - ther would be a helluva lot more than 50 million uninsured until they get really sick, i tell ya!
gee, frosty...when will you learn to listen to your con-tard superiors!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/02/2007 @ 9:02pm
Ah yes...universal health coverage...sounds so inviting!
John Edwards makes clear that he's handing over mandatory medical enforcement to them as soon as he is inaugurated.
Under the Edwards plan, when Americans file their income taxes, they would be required to submit a letter from an insurance provider confirming coverage for themselves and their dependents.If someone did not submit proof of coverage, the Internal Revenue Service would notify a newly established regional or state-based health-care agency (which Edwards has dubbed a Health Care Market[sic]).
Those regional agencies would then evaluate whether the uninsured individual was eligible for Medicare (which covers those over 65), Medicaid (which covers the indigent), or S-CHIP (the State Children's Health Insurance Program which targets the working poor).
If the individual was not eligible for either of those existing public programs, the regional-health care agency would enroll the individual into the lowest cost health-care plan available in that area. The lowest-cost option could be a new Medicare-like public option or a private insurance plan.
The newly covered individual would not only have access to health benefits but would also be responsible for making monthly payments with the help of a tax credit.
The exact size of the financial obligation would vary according to a person's income (lower-income Americans would receive larger tax credits).
If a person did not meet his or her monthly financial obligation for a set period of time (perhaps a year, perhaps longer) the Edwards plan would empower the federal government to garnish an individual's wages for purposes of collecting "back premiums with interest and collection costs."
Isn't that special?
Posted by pontificus at 12/02/2007 @ 9:05pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/02/2007 @ 8:38pm
actually,
those were the per capita health care costs of cuba and the u.s.
they seem to do o.k. by sharing.
and of course, i would like canada's health care costs to be lower, but it will take a few more generations before people change their eating habits sufficiently.
remember, the cost comparison was to cuba, not canada.
like i've said, we've got a good system that i hope will not fall prey to another round of rich dude enriching privatization.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 9:06pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 12/02/2007 @ 9:02pm
gee, frosty...when will you learn to listen to your con-tard superiors!
Yeah, IBBLE, and when I get to be an 'intellectual' like you folks, I'll learn how much more efficient everything would be if we just let the government run everything! Which would explain why socialism is such a success, and why Cuba is so wildly popular with Cubans!
Posted by pontificus at 12/02/2007 @ 9:09pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/02/2007 @ 9:06pm
those were the per capita health care costs of cuba and the u.s.
they seem to do o.k. by sharing.
ERR...FROSTY? You do know that Cuba is one large prison, do you not?
Posted by pontificus at 12/02/2007 @ 9:11pm
Oh, but the prisoners are well-cared for! Like livestock! Now I get it!
Posted by pontificus at 12/02/2007 @ 9:13pm
"And when Cindy Lou Who was in bed with her cup, he crupt to the chimney and stuffed the tree up."
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 9:13pm
"Why invite the volatility that goes with Hillary Clinton?" Of course some people may utter that question, but I think this assessment is WAY too focused on "what if's". I'll bet that because of thebreadth and depth, and length of Republican control/mismanagemnt - and the state this country is in as a result - Hillary supporters will cling MORE TIGHTLY to her as their choice for a presidently candidate.
This article was well thought through but manages to go astray, and if more silly-brained neobombers pepper the headlines, what happens will be quite different from the depiction I've just read.
Posted by torquemata at 12/02/2007 @ 9:15pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/02/2007 @ 9:13pm
Best you should stick to fairy tales, FROSTY, and leave the rest to the adults.
Posted by pontificus at 12/02/2007 @ 9:15pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/02/2007 @ 9:06pm
and of course, i would like canada's health care costs to be lower, but it will take a few more generations before people change their eating habits sufficiently.
Perhaps you might want to try a little coercion? After all, it's YOUR taxes that are paying for those FAT SLOBS! Doesn't that just PISS YOU OFF!?
Posted by pontificus at 12/02/2007 @ 9:18pm
ERR...FROSTY? You do know that Cuba is one large prison, do you not?
Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/02/2007 @ 9:11pm
i wish the cubans well. if i hear something as abysmal as a celine dion song, i can still recognize the quality of the drummer despite the nonsense surrounding it.
many things have many facets.
one more thing:
Prison population per 100,000 citizens:
USA 701
Cuba 297
http://www.csdp.org/research/r234.pdf
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 9:21pm
Doesn't that just PISS YOU OFF!?
Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/02/2007 @ 9:18pm
no.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 9:22pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/02/2007 @ 9:21pm
Prison population per 100,000 citizens:
USA 701
Cuba 297
Wrong.
Prison population per 100,000 citizens:
USA 701
Cuba 100,000
You're a prisoner if you can't leave. Or perhaps you would like to regale us as well with the wonders of the North Korean health care system?
Posted by pontificus at 12/02/2007 @ 9:26pm
It could be, perhaps, that his shoes were too tight.
Or maybe his head wasn't screwed on just right.
But I think that the best reason of all
May have been that his heart was two sizes too small.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 9:26pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/02/2007 @ 9:26pm
like i said,
i wish the cuban people the best.
but they do seem to be healthy.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 9:28pm
FROSTY, are you really so clueless as to NOT know that Cubans are enslaved to their government?
Posted by pontificus at 12/02/2007 @ 9:28pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/02/2007 @ 9:26pm
May have been that his heart was two sizes too small.
FROSTY, you are fortunate indeed to have the government of Canada to take care of you.
Posted by pontificus at 12/02/2007 @ 9:29pm
Sally: [dictating her letter to Santa Claus] "Dear Santa Claus, How have you been? Did you have a nice summer? How is your wife? I have been extra good this year, so I have a long list of presents that I want."
Charlie Brown: Oh, brother!
Sally: "Please note the size and color of each item, and send as many as possible. If it seems too complicated, make it easy on yourself: just send money. How about tens and twenties?"
Charlie Brown: TENS AND TWENTIES? Oh! Even my baby sister!
Sally: All I want is what I have coming to me. All I want is my fair share.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 9:34pm
FROSTY, you are fortunate indeed to have the government of Canada to take care of you.
Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/02/2007 @ 9:29pm
we take care of each other.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 9:35pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/02/2007 @ 9:28pm
i wish the cuban people the best.
I'm sure that comforts those who are drowning or being eaten by sharks in the Straits of Florida. FROSTY wishes me the best!
but they do seem to be healthy.
That's called wise asset management.
Posted by pontificus at 12/02/2007 @ 9:38pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/02/2007 @ 9:38pm
well mr. ponti,
how have you helped the cubans?
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 9:41pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/02/2007 @ 9:41pm
how have you helped the cubans?
By voting for Republicans, and battling the forces of ignorance, most of it willful, on these boards.
Posted by pontificus at 12/02/2007 @ 9:43pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/02/2007 @ 9:43pm
good luck.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 9:43pm
The Cuban people are as enslaved as American blacks were 150 years ago, FROSTY. Curious that you have so little sympathy for them. They have no underground railway to rescue them, just a few rickety rafts, and damn little sympathy from our 'compassionate' left.
Posted by pontificus at 12/02/2007 @ 10:06pm
First, there are a few too many adjectives in this piece that would normally be used as part of some positive statement or compliment.
Is Clinton "remarkable"? Only in the sense that people make remarks about her. Her "record" is not remarkable nor are her opinions, policies, or accomplishments.
As far as inspiring "passion." If disgust, apathy, or plain old eye-rolling can be considered indicators of passion well then maybe it's an appropriate term.
There is nothing more threadbare than the vast right-wing conspiracy nonsense. Clinton is no more a target of a vast right-wing conspiracy than any other Democrat. To refer to any opposition as part of some conspiracy is just childish.
Posted by auspeed at 12/02/2007 @ 10:07pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/02/2007 @ 10:06pm
i have met many cubans,
in regards to their current politics,
some were pro,
some were against,
many were ambivalent.
i've never lived there.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 11:01pm
There is nothing more threadbare than the vast right-wing conspiracy nonsense. Clinton is no more a target of a vast right-wing conspiracy than any other Democrat. To refer to any opposition as part of some conspiracy is just childish.
Posted by AUSPEED 12/02/2007 @ 10:07pm
i was with you til that part. but there is a great semi-concious right wing conspiracy and it has been well documented.
its called the repugnant party in general and includes a vile and often fractious alliance between satano-aynrando-pluto-fascist mammonists like murdoch, scaife and company and christo-cromwellian-fundyvangelisto-fascist luddites like just about any rightwing bordeline tardo intelluhjint duhsine fundamentalist or evangelical charismatic church.
they barely tolerate each other at times but the christo-fascists are too dumb to realize they are aligned with the satano-fascists and the satano-aynrandos dont give a shit as long as they win...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/02/2007 @ 11:04pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/02/2007 @ 11:01pm
pontard may have known a few miami style "cubans", descendants of many who supported brutal cuban dictatorship as long as it was rightwing and helped them exploit their own serfs...
brutal dictators are just fine with fascist contards as long as said brutal dictators kiss gringo ass and keep the profits flowing for big daddy uncle ceo...ie as long as they are fascists, fine...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/02/2007 @ 11:08pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 12/02/2007 @ 11:08pm
well, you guys had a revolution, too.
people don't do that unless things really, really suck.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/02/2007 @ 11:12pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 12/02/2007 @ 11:04pm
i was with you til that part. but there is a great semi-concious right wing conspiracy and it has been well documented.
Yeah, plus there's the conspiracy of the laws of economics and human nature against the principles of socialism.
Posted by pontificus at 12/02/2007 @ 11:29pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/02/2007 @ 11:12pm |
oh it was abominable for the vast majority of cubans under batista!
american mobsters were using the place as a safe haven playground, american citizens used it as a giant whorehouse, and the average cuban schmuk died in abject poverty in his/her 30's or 40's. batista crushed dissent while the parents/grandparents of the miami cubanos got rich and couldn't care less what brutalities their man, batista, committed on the cuban schmuks...
MOST cubans have it better than before, materially, even with the embargo...and to assert that cuba ever had "liberty" before castro is a hypocritical baldfaced self serving lie.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/02/2007 @ 11:33pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/02/2007 @ 11:29pm
what's socialism? anything other than aynrandian satanism?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/02/2007 @ 11:35pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 12/02/2007 @ 11:33pm
PONTI'S DREAM:
LA HABANA, 2012.
TRUMP BORDELLO II OPENS TO LUXURIOUS GLORY.
"Let Freedom Ring! Declares Cuban Administrator Mel Martinez."
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/03/2007 @ 12:01am
Presenting Hilary as a victim is a bit of a stretch, John. Vast right wing conspiracy or no, the woman is capable of giving as good as she gets. And your sugestion that she denounce the hate in contemporary politics is a joke, right? I mean, this is The Nation, one of the most vitriolic and hateful voices on the left.
Posted by redikop3 at 12/03/2007 @ 12:04am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/03/2007 @ 12:01am |
hee hee...habana was where gringos went to get away with all sorts of wickedness...just 90 miles off florida too!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/03/2007 @ 12:06am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/03/2007 @ 12:01am
I understand sexual tourism is quite the booming industry in Cuba, FROSTY. Of course, it's mostly Canadians and Europeans.
Posted by pontificus at 12/03/2007 @ 12:17am
One of the things that continually surprises me about these message boards is how no-one seems too happy about the precipitous decline in violence in Iraq which has followed the President's 'surge' strategy in the summer. I mean, it's almost as if people here aren't happy about the success of the surge!
Posted by pontificus at 12/03/2007 @ 12:26am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/03/2007 @ 12:01am
PONTI'S DREAM:
LA HABANA, 2012.
TRUMP BORDELLO II OPENS TO LUXURIOUS GLORY.
"Let Freedom Ring! Declares Cuban Administrator Mel Martinez."
What's the matter FROSTY? You Canadians afraid of competition? Is this why you have such familiarity with Cubans, and praise their overall level of health? Hmmmm?
SEX TOURISM AND CHILD PROSTITUTION IN CUBA
Arch Kielly, LtCol, USAF, Retired.
VIRGINIA, August 17, 2002
Communist Cuba is attempting to right its economic problems by permitting the sexual trade of its children for badly needed monetary resources. A generation of young people may have been invested to make Cuba's tourism more appealing to foreign tourists looking for more than beautiful beaches and soft trade breezes. Fidel Castro maintains his grip on the Cuban people as long as Cuba is able to produce funds to keep his regime afloat. Take away tourism dollars and Castro may self destruct and free a generation of Cuba's children from sexual exploitation.
Tourism is Cuba's most important moneymaker, generating almost $2 billion last year. In Spain alone, twenty flights leave for Havana every week, carrying to the Caribbean island a yearly total of some 200,000 single male tourists, all in search of cut-price sex. (Tunku Varadarajan, "Time-bomb that Flies in From Havana," The Times, July 10, 1996. Lexis-Nexis document.) Most tourists come from Canada, Spain and Italy. Tourism has recently replaced sugar as the single most important export in the economy. Much of this tourism, however, centers on travel for sex. Foreign tour companies use code words such as "Cuba Amor" to advertise package tours. At least one Spanish travel company offers a catalogue of Cuban women who would serve as companions during a tourist's stay. (Adams, p. 1A). By 1995 the Italian travel magazine Viaggiare recognized Cuba as the "paradise of sexual tourism," awarding it five stars for its "general erotic level." According to the magazine, Cuba beat out such competitors as Brazil and Thailand. (Adams, p. 1A; Dalia Acosta, Culture Tourism: Cuba Brushes up its Tourist Image, Interpress Service, Sept. 19, 1997. Lexis-Nexis).
Posted by pontificus at 12/03/2007 @ 12:33am
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 12/03/2007 @ 12:06am
¿C uándo expresa más firmemente un pueblo sus deseos que cuando se alza en armas para conseguirlos? [bdigital.bnjm.cu]
Madrid, 15 de febrero de 1873
José Martí
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/03/2007 @ 12:34am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/03/2007 @ 12:33am
hey dude,
there's idiots everywhere.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/03/2007 @ 12:36am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/03/2007 @ 12:26am |
well, happy for whats left of iraq...not happy for the buzillions of dollars already wasted, the thousands of lives lost, millions of lives shattered...all because of the willful incompetant self serving lies and stupidity of our fascist randian overmen, the neocons...
but sure i'm happy hell is cooling off a few degrees. doesn't absolve your evil mammonist heroes of the titanic wickedness they have wrought nor you con-tards for enabling such, though.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/03/2007 @ 12:40am
More documentation of perhaps why FROSTY finds Cuba and its people so alluring:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/develop/2003/0326cuba.htm
A different kind of foreign aid
In speaking with men who seek "jineteras," their motivation appears clear. Feelings of being uninhibited and the ability to do many things that are not tolerated at home encourage men to enjoy the sense of exoticism that includes relations with women from different a race.
Paying for sex in Cuba is inexpensive and many say that there is less risk of arrest and fines than in their home countries. The men that frequent the tourist bars, clubs and restaurants (which are tailored for tourists, not Cubans) are from all over the world, including Germany, Canada, Spain, Italy and the U.S., despite travel restrictions. One American man said he believed he was assisting Cuban women by paying them for sexual favors on a regular basis.
Posted by pontificus at 12/03/2007 @ 12:47am
but sure i'm happy hell is cooling off a few degrees. doesn't absolve your evil mammonist heroes of the titanic wickedness they have wrought nor you con-tards for enabling such, though.
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 12/03/2007 @ 12:40am |
i understand that morally challenged con-tards assume their opponants revel in evil if it supports their politics, because the con-tards evil and incapable of empathetic thought, impute their own amoral partisanship (as well as their pride, vanity, greed, lust, rage, gluttony, and sloth) onto their opponants. such is the nature of sociopathic evil an inability to empathize and imputation of personally held iniquity onto others...or a denigration of decency and compassion as weakness at which to chortle and of which to take advantage.
thus contard barbs about liberal's compassion...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/03/2007 @ 12:50am
Isn't it amazing what you can find by googling 'Cuba sex tourism'? You can find out all kinds of things, like people in Cuba are starving. But hey, FROSTY wishes you well! And thinks you've got a great health care system, something we all should emulate!
In Cuba, one would find that many of the "jineteras" are young and most are of African descent. Some are medical students, some used to be professors or doctors. A few continue to hold professional positions during the day and work as prostitutes in the hotels and bars at night. One thing most have in common is that they are well educated and multi-lingual.
While others call them "jiniteras", they call themselves "Cuban girlfriends" for foreigners and their job duties range from accompanying lonely businessmen on tours of Cuba to escorting them to dinner and then often back to their hotels. Generally, one of the only times a Cuban woman is let into a "tourist" hotel is when she is accompanying a foreign man.
Another thing these women have in common is their choice of prostitution as a profession is out of necessity. None of them appear to work to support drug habits or college education; they work to survive and ensure their families' survival.
"Jineterismo" as a profession has arisen largely due to the fact that it takes approximately $100 a month to live comfortably in Havana today, but government salaries in pesos are worth, at most, a fifth of that. In Cuba, a prostitute can earn in a week the equivalent of a doctor's annual salary paid by the state in pesos. Outside of the tourism industry, where workers make tips in dollars, all jobs are paid in pesos and salaries come from the Cuban government since the government runs all industries. Government salaries for professionals, such as professors and engineers, paid in pesos total close to $10 a month. Many establishments will not even accept their own national currency because of its minimal value, welcoming only U.S. dollars and making it impossible for those who do not work in the tourism industry to obtain dollars to buy goods.
Basic necessities are rationed and available at affordable prices; however, the ration amounts generally last just two weeks. People are forced to pay exorbitant free-market dollar prices to survive the rest of the month. Food rations have become the norm since Cuba does not produce enough food to feed the nation and importing food is complex due to costs and the embargo.
Another problem is that centralized planning has led to difficulties in agriculture and food distribution. With food rations being cut to malnutrition levels, the average family can live only if it somehow obtains dollars. This makes prostitution all the more appealing for women who are trying to support themselves or their families. Though prostitution does not appear to be an option for men, they are also abandoning their professional positions and choosing to work in the tourism industry as bar tenders, parking valets, bellhops and waiters in hopes of making dollars. Dollars are the means of survival in Cuba, where one in eleven people holds a university degree and there are more doctors and teachers per capita than almost any where else in the world.
Posted by pontificus at 12/03/2007 @ 12:51am
and a merry christmas to contards frosties and all! nite...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/03/2007 @ 12:52am
So FROSTY, which part of Cuba is it that you think we should emulate? The prostitution? The poverty? The whorehouses? The 'free' health care offered to people who are so hungry they have to sell themselves to eat?
Posted by pontificus at 12/03/2007 @ 01:00am
Funny, with the guvvermint running everything in Cuba, FROSTY, just the way you folks want them to, you'd think with all the 'efficiency increases' obtained by doing away with 'greedy, for profit' systems, they'd all be rich! What happened, do ya think?
Posted by pontificus at 12/03/2007 @ 01:05am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 12/03/2007 @ 12:51am
all i ever did was point out that the cubans can provide good health care for their people with little money.
i'm perplexed as to why you want to prove that i'm some sort of frosty john preying upon the victims of geo-political lunacy.
there seems to be much violence in your soul.
read this:
freed iraqis!
"Desperate Iraqi Refugees Turn to Sex Trade in Syria"
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/world/middleeast/29syria.html?ex=13381 77600&en=8caf56b484d2ebb9&ei=5124&partner=digg&exprod=digg
freed commies
"In Europe, Albania, the Republic of Moldova, Romania and Ukraine have been identified as important source countries of trafficked victims."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4532617.stm
all the way to korea
The Pentagon wants to know if military patrols stood by when troops socialized with women coerced into prostitution.
http://tinyurl.com/26kwru
see. people can be assholes just about anywhere.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/03/2007 @ 01:19am
nite ponti
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/03/2007 @ 01:20am
No. The problem with the hostage incident was that we were reminded of how many trumped up crises we had to withstand as a country under Bill. This incident was over-dramatized and taken for all the juice it could muster. The media really over-did itself on this one. They then had to tell us that this would be a good indication of how she would handle a real crisis as POTUS. Give me a break.
This, in turn, reminds us of the trumped up crises under GW, and how many of us are ready for something else.
Posted by nameme at 12/03/2007 @ 01:41am
It is stupid to use the hostage incident against Hillary showing her to be a polarizing figure. What happened on Friday could happen anyplace. And we do not know if the man was even anti-Hillary. However it was Obama who got Secret Service protection earlier than any other candidate in history because of all the death threats he received. And it was CBS News that had to cuto off his comments line about Obama because of all the hate filled comments they received. Obama is the most hated candidate although Americans would express their hatred of Obama to pollsters.
Posted by Reba Shiman at 12/03/2007 @ 01:48am
I don't think you are viewing this correctly, I find it an AMAZING STATEMENT THAT EVEN THE MENTALLY ILL know where to turn to for help with health care! HILLARY CLINTON! If they had of left her alone 10 years ago we would not be in this crisis today! EAT IT RIGHT WING! WE WANT UNIVERSAL HELATHCARE THIS TIME AROUND!WE WILL NOT FAIL THIS TIME! MRS. PRESIDENT IN 2008!
Posted by J.C. at 12/03/2007 @ 01:56am
Hillary Clinton needs to open up. She needs to speak frankly. She needs to acknowledge that, for better or worse, she inspires intense reactions. She needs to start talking about that intensity. And she needs to explain to the American people -- if she can -- how that intensity, as opposed to silly spin about "bringing us all together, is what this country needs after George Bush's sleepwalk across the minefield.
If Clinton does this, it will not matter what passions play out during the course of the coming campaign. She will be on her way to the Oval Office. If she fails to do so, Clinton will remain vulnerable to the incidents that are all but certain to unfold, and that vulnerability will beg questions that could well cost her the presidency.
Opposed to others, I do esentially agree with you Mr.Nichols but want to get into some specifics.
Ms. Clinton is I believe, esentially an introverted person. She is not spontaneous, she is afraid that being so will make expose her and make clear some kind of vulnerability. She wants to look stronger than what probably she really is. So that basically won't change in her.
Another thing somehow related but esentially independent, is her political calculations. She wants to get the nomination, and in the presidential elections she is counting basically with the whole Dem votes but she is showing herself esentially as centrist to get the independent votes as well. She wants to somehow repeat her husband's recipe of "right-wing-to-moderate Democrat" to win the Presidency. That's her calculations and I think she is wrong and she ought to change to a "non-perfect" statement of what she can and can not do, specially what issues is she definitely for without trying to "study it".
Why does she reflect such strong emotions? First on Reps, I think they can not forgive her "insult" of challenging the esentially Rep Congress to pass her 'personal' Health Care initiative; in a word they look her as arrogant and dismissive. They are esentially wrong, she is not that. Moreover, looking how Ms. Kerry was also criticized - challengine her independent thinking! -I have no doubt that Reps are really sexist in how they view very narrowly a woman's leadership and originality. I don't think she can do very much on those at one.
But with Indeps and Dems -some posting here- she looks also like a Queen, arrogant and distant, and she MUST change this with a much more humble and personal message. I do NOT hold any particular strong feeling positive or negative about her. I would prefer another Dem candidate not because of her personality but because she is too centrist and some strong changes needed may not be finalized in her presidency (specially the involvement in Iraq, more freedom, less military expenses, etc) because she will be going on heavy feet.
H Clinton is at crossroads. As for today, she is backed by a first majority of Dems and if she wins the Dem nomination she will be the one Dem that will be the less electable (at least out of the three leaders) putting in peril the basic objective that a Dem be elected President and she will be held responsible for that. I would plead that she will reflect on this very grave situation, personal ambitions aside and design a ticket of "Dem unity" like for example Gore for president and she for veep. I know this is so difficult because politicians are really ambitious, but it is for the sake of a greater good which is the well being of the country.
Posted by Frank42 at 12/03/2007 @ 02:28am
Matthew Blake TheNation.com 28 November 2007
Quote after quote from Bill Clinton before and after the war attests to the fact that he supported the invasion of Iraq. On May 19, 2003, Clinton declared, "I supported the president when he asked for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."
Now Clinton is trying to square the circle. "Advisers to Mr. Clinton said yesterday that he did oppose the war, but it would have been inappropriate at the time for him, a former president, to oppose- in a direct, full-throated manner- the sitting president's military decision," the New York Times reported today.
That statement seems rather, well, Clintonian. At the onset of the war, Clinton repeatedly alleged that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs and needed to be taken out. A March 27, 2003 Iowa City Press-Citizen article reported that speaking before the University of Iowa, "Clinton, who voiced his support for the troops fighting in Iraq, said it made sense after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to become more concerned about Saddam Hussein's potential for producing and distributing weapons of mass destruction."
"It is...illogical to believe that [Iraq's weapons] stocks would not get into the wrong hands," Clinton said just days after the war began. "It's easier to deal with the production and spread of this stuff than deal with the aftermath."
Clinton also downplayed the potential costs of waging war. On September 3, 2002, a month before Hillary authorized the war, he told CNN: "I don't think it will be a big military problem if we do it."
That statement begs the question: Instead of opposing the war, did Clinton actually urge his wife to vote in favor of it?
What we do know is that even after the war turned sour, Clinton remained supportive of the Bush Administration's war policy. When the Administration inserted deceitful language about Iraq's connection to uranium in Niger into the State of the Union Address, Clinton responded: "Everybody makes mistakes when they are president."
'Don't criticize what you can't understand.' - Robert Allen Zimmerman (Bob Dylan) 'Paredon!' - Ernesto 'El Carnifero' Guevara............................ ..................................... .. 'Lan Astaslem' - T-shirt, protestor at WTC rally
Posted by HonestLiberal at 12/03/2007 @ 09:29am
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 12/03/2007 @ 09:07am | ignore
and denying that what communism replaced (in cuba) was evil...whats that?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/03/2007 @ 11:45am
and well well well..looks like the con-tard fascists' favorite latino boogy-man (after castro, of course), hugo chavez, is accepting the democratic defeat of his reforms...
well, contards will have til his term ends in 2012 to continue demonizing him and his awful, horrible, non satano-aynrando socialism...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/03/2007 @ 11:50am
Ponti-There was an article on here stating how good the lowering of violence in Iraq is for the people in Iraq.You guys need to do informed propaganda rather than just making things up as you go along.Of course,you don't care about the people in Iraq and just want Bush to look good,but if you'd get informed you'll discover that the surge has little to do with the lessening of violence.It appears that Al Sadr is primarily responsible for that.Don't worry.You guys will get the conservative Islamic state in Iraq that you want..
Posted by i'm nobody at 12/03/2007 @ 11:56am
Ponti-Why do you believe that replacing oppressive Saddam with oppressive Sharia law to be such a good thing?You guys are replacing oppression with oppression and calling that victory,but the terrorist call that victory,also.Why are you guys all on the same page?
Posted by i'm nobody at 12/03/2007 @ 12:02pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 12/03/2007 @ 11:50am
IBB, want to make a side bet about Chavez actually leaving power in 2012?
Posted by Mask at 12/03/2007 @ 12:31pm
Principles, people.
1. Be Right
2. Stand up for what's right
3. Let the chips fall where they may
Republicans are WRONG on Iraq, WRONG on supporting the troops, WRONG on jacking up hard-working Americans taxes with AMT, Alternative Minimum Tax, set to HIT Americans earning under 300k a year. That means all you suckers with 100k salaries who thought the big-boys gave a damn about you. I am sorry to bring you unwelcome news, 100k a year earners, but guess what: you're middle class - SORRY.
Republicans are WRONG on the AMT Tax - don't give an inch Democrats, fight hard, have faith in your principles. Be right, fight for what's right, don't ever retreat, have faith and have the victory - every time.
Posted by conshame at 12/03/2007 @ 12:40pm
Posted by MASK 12/03/2007 @ 12:31pm
you know...he appears to have won fair and square every election he has run for personally, and has admitted defeat for his proposals in this one...
for all the right wing vitriol and dopey conventional wisdom, much of it a lame, watered down, parroting of right wing vitriol, his "left wing oppression and atrocities" are remarkably...tame and boring...
i suspect he will attempt to put some of the "reforms" to a vote again, prior to 2012, probably including the one that "eliminates term limits on the presidency", an accurate, unbiased description as opposed to the msm's exciting and sensational "make himself president for life" headline...lol...
but for possibly the first time in his political career he screwed up, and perhaps this setback will deflate his admittedly gigantic ego. he simply put too much on line too fast. now he can go back and suggest reforms for referenda in smaller, saner, chunks.
but consider the fact that according to alarmist con-tards it was an absolute certitude that this referendum would pass by hook or crook and today we would be witnessing "fidel chavez" in all his stalinist glory...which is exactly what they would have loved...the fascists soooo NEED a big red boogyman to justify their evil fascist expansionist dreams!
i think this partly explains their consistant demonization of chavez despite reality that never lives up to said demonizing.
who knows what will happen in 2012? perhaps the referendom will have passed by then and hugo will be re-elected...or the referendum will have passed and he won't be re-elected, or no referendum, no hugo...or as contards have eagerly and thus far wrongly predicted time and again, perhaps don hugo WILL go all fidel...
but based on past realities, i would not bet on it...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/03/2007 @ 1:06pm
but for real democratic change to occur in latin america, including some form of economic justice and the formation of a viable middle class, the viciously undemocratic latin aristocracy must be opposed by such as chavez, those willing to scare the shit out of them and take the highly charged, highly emotional rhetorical and struggle to a scary level...
if indeed chavez does not "go all fidel", his example of a high scarey political game of chicken is probably the model for bringing real reform and progress to latin america. to oppose the vicious, greedy latino aristocracy who ever contemplates right wing coup when they lose at the ballot box, one must threaten, and threaten seriously, to "go all fidel"...
hopefully at some point in the future after enough progressive reforms and the formation of a strong middle class such high political theatrics will become a thing of the past. but such a bright future will require hugos...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/03/2007 @ 1:16pm
Congratulations, Pontificus. Such potency and persuasiveness you evoke in your argumentation by the call to attention of Cuba's inimitable deficiencies making possible the unique and rare practice of prostitution. Yes, the sign of people selling themselves for money is surely the gate keeping signal of a failed society. How sad for Cuba that they are global hegemons in this field.
If you wish to make an issue of the Cuban situation, I suggest a more contextual and regional analysis of those countries surrounding Cuba and how they compare with your icon of failure and misery. This would be an occasion for you to demonstrate the superiority of your ideological claims since those neighboring countries have been almost exclusively under the influence of conservative American polices for the past decade and a half, post-Soviet Union. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have pursued and implemented the so-called free market neo-liberal economics throughout the region, with governments sympathetic and amenable to the project, so the results should certainly demonstrate the conclusiveness of your "natural laws of economics."
But, what do we find when comparing the Human Development Index -a statistical comparative of national data measuring three major indicators: life expectance, educational attainment, and per capita GDP- for these nations? Oh, Pontificus, you poor boy, your bluster and rhetoric falls thin and sickly at this point: the rankings of Central American nations show that Cuba doesn't look to be any worse than those places cultivated in the Petri dish of American laissez-faire. In fact, the only country ranked ahead of Cuba is Costa Rica, at number 48. Those American experiments where we destroyed the evil commies in the late 1980s, Guatemala (118); El Salvador (103); Honduras (115); Nicaragua (106); Grenada (82); Haiti (146); Panama (62)--all rank below Cuba, which is measured at 51 in global rankings. No one makes the claim that Cuba is the utopian ideal, as you allege and infer, but to simply pretend that life expectancy rates of 75.9 years, Cuban medical achievements, and adult literacy rates of 97 percent are not remarkable in a region mired in poverty, violence, and suffering would be, well, partisan right-wing ignorance. You hacks dogmatically spew your theological-like rage and hatred against a tiny island nation because it resists surrendering itself to be plundered and exploited by rapacious American businesses (look at Cuba's neighbors, make your comparative argument if your can, feel free to demonstrate that it's strictly Cubans pouring over our southern borders, you moron), but ignore the neighboring territories, such as Guatemala and El Salvador, who rather than oppressing dissent by prison term, engaged in genocidal violence and assassination of those opposed to their authoritarian regimes. And you wonder why you right-wingers can not be taken seriously.
Posted by Oustbush at 12/03/2007 @ 1:31pm
Hillary is betting on that if she campaigns as a milquetoast candidate she'll land the presidency. The "See honey, she's just like us" approach. Not satisfied with one term, she'll spend it as a milquetoast president in preparation for winning a second term and we'll wake up in 2012 knowing that the devastation wrought by Bush on this country has been merely prolonged for four more years.
Posted by felicity at 12/03/2007 @ 1:38pm
Conservative Authoritarians, get RIGHT about Iraq - THEN comment on Venezuela. You got no credibility. You are WRONG about Iraq. Who is supposed to believe you about Venezuela?
Conservative Authoritarians are WRONG about Bush - to this day - and they want to be given another chance to be wrong about another authoritarian nominee and make America learn the hard lesson NOT TO TRUST ANYTHING THEY SAY.
Conservatives are standing by on the AMT Tax. The AMT Tax about to jack up Americans taxes.
CONSERVATIVES ARE WRONG ABOUT RAISING AMERICANS TAXES. CONSERVATIVES ARE WRONG ON THE AMT TAX.
Posted by conshame at 12/03/2007 @ 2:00pm
Middle class Americans, Americans earning 60k a year, Americans earning 100k a year, Americans earning 160k a year, about to get hit THIS YEAR with thousands of dollars in increased taxes.
Americans didn't get a tax cut at all from the Republicans - Are YOUR TAXES LOWER? Now Americans are abouit to get the biggest tax hike of their lives: the AMT Tax - all because of the Republican Party.
Posted by conshame at 12/03/2007 @ 2:04pm
Posted by OUSTBUSH 12/03/2007 @ 1:31pm
hey you forgot my alma mater, méxico coming in at 52.
great post.
i got tired of banging my head against the wall last night, so i went to bed.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/03/2007 @ 2:05pm
hey you forgot my alma mater, méxico coming in at 52.
great post.
i got tired of banging my head against the wall last night, so i went to bed.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 12/03/2007 @ 2:05pm | ignore this person
Thanks. Yeah, it's fun anticipating the assembly of excuses/justifications they deliver in place of failed policies, predictions, and proclamations. NAFTA has worked so well for Mexico, I'm sure the American towns situated along the border will be most vociferous in pursuing follow-up legislation.
Posted by Oustbush at 12/03/2007 @ 2:17pm