Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2007 > February > 22 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USOverscripted Hillary?
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Hollywood mogul David Geffen, who helped Bill Clinton raise $18 million before falling out with him over who the President did and didn’t pardon, is now supporting Barack Obama and trashing Hillary. “She is overproduced and overscripted,” he said. “She’s so advised by so many smart advisers who are covering every base. I think that America was better served when the candidates were chosen in smoke-filled rooms.”
I’m inclined these days to agree. As Newt Gingrich said last week, a year to get the nomination and a year to run is far too much. Stupid, as he put it. Georgia, meanwhile, is debating whether to move the presidential primary up to Feb. 5 next year to join other states in creating something close to a national primary. That could essentially give both parties a nominee by Valentine’s Day.
While I’ve never slept in the Lincoln Bedroom nor contributed to the Clintons, Hillary does not strike me as “overproduced and overscripted.” Her run to the candidate pack on the war in Iraq was probably necessary, since it’s unlikely the party’s base will permit otherwise. Bigger government and opposition to the war seems to be the ticket to success, for the nomination at least.
Does anybody care whether Georgia moves the primary date to Feb. 5? It’s a free, no-consequence vote, anyway. I am, however, beginning to agree with Geffen that less would be more and smoke-filled rooms have their place in the process.
Comments
By Mid-South Philosopher
February 22, 2007 08:37 AM | Link to this
Good morning, Jim,
Hillary doesn’t interest me, which means that she will probably win. Oh, well, it won’t be the first time my vote has been in the minority.
On another matter entirely:
I am ashamed of it but…
Yesterday (Wednesday, Feb.21), while suffering from my regular, late winter, upper respiratory infection and after I had pontificated on this blog, I retired back to bed and turned on the T.V. While not meaning to do so, I became entranced in the hearing in Judge Larry Seidlin’s probate court in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, which will determine who receives custody of the remains of Anna Nicole Smith (aka: Vickie Lynn Marshall), and, by extension, where this pitiable young woman will be buried.
The parade of principals in this case consisted of a rogue’s gallery of social parasites. It is clear that these folks were swarming like a hoard of helminthes to get their part of whatever is left of Anna Nicole…mainly the money!
First out was Anna Nicole’s mother, Virgie Arthur, a retired Texas police officer. Despite a quite effective Comedy Club type routine and a plunge into a grief-stricken moment at the mention of the death of her grandson, Daniel, Virgie was caught in a lie just after lunch and her credibility crashed in flames.
Then, Howard K. Stern, Anna Nicole’s (lawyer, manager, lover, lackey, gofer), testified. What a loser. His claim to fame was that he is living off money “borrowed” from his parents.
Oh, by the way, there is a better chance that I am the father of baby Danielynn than this clown. He is a piece of work.
By far, the “star” witness appears to have been Larry Birkhead. He seemed to be honest and forthright, but it was clear that he, too, was a “hanger on” to Anna Nicole during their relationship.
Throughout the proceedings, the conduct of the attorneys reminded the viewer of the universal truth that lowest class of professional has to be that of lawyers. This pack of piranhas went after their opponent’s witnesses and each other with a fury. They asked the same question at least three times and would have asked it again had the judge, who is something of a character himself, not intervened. There were, of course, no Perry Masons or Matlocks among them; neither was there very much class.
Based upon what I saw yesterday, if I were the judge, I would order Anna Nicole interred in the Bahamas next to her late son, Daniel. Further, if I had the authority, I would order ALL monies in her estates now existent or that will come into existence as a result of legal proceedings, held in trust for Danielynn…with the trustee being a bonded professional, non-family member…regardless of the child’s parentage. As to the actual custody of the child, I would send her to foster care.
Finally, as to the collection of parasites (principals and lawyers), I would fine each for giving me a pain in the posterior. A plague on all their houses!
By Writer's block
February 22, 2007 08:45 AM | Link to this
We’re gonna need a bigger blog.
By Van
February 22, 2007 08:53 AM | Link to this
I actually thought the high praise that David Geffen gave the Clinton’s lying abilities more telling.
“Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it’s troubling.””
Gee, how can we have trust in someone that can pull off what they did.
BTW, will the travel office folks be given notice or just plain out fired when President Rodham takes office.
By JoeD
February 22, 2007 09:00 AM | Link to this
Isn’t David Geffen one of those “Hollywood liberals” all you neocons like to bash all the time? Why pay attention to anything one of those people say? Oh, probably because what he says bolsters your opinion of Hillary and Bill. Hypocrites.
By Southern Democrat
February 22, 2007 09:04 AM | Link to this
Atlantic Monthly and NY Times have done fascinating pieces on Hillary lately (AM = Nov. ‘06 & NYT = last few weeks) which show the absolutely irrational response to her from both sides of the aisle: so many love her without knowing why and so many hate her without knowing why. She is a devout Christian, yet an ardent abortion supporter, she is incredibly thoughtful and methodical, yet overly deliberate, she is devoted to family, yet tolerates an adulterer, etc.
I have gone back and taken a look at Hillary’s speeches and writings leading up to the Iraq invasion, it is fascinating reading for those who question her stance (from the left). I think her views were exactly on point with what many moderates like myself were thinking.
As I have said before, I hope that the commenters on this blog will be able to discuss the candidates substantively and not indulge our knee jerk reactions regarding party or preconceived notions… but I think that Mr. Wooten is right, the length of the campaign leads to exhaustion of substance and reliance on sound bytes and catch phrases to keep Joe Q. Public engaged.
By jbmlaw
February 22, 2007 09:04 AM | Link to this
Good morning all. I’m not sure there is any qualitative difference between the train wreck that seized the imagination of Philosopher and the subject for today, except that the election season will be with us longer. (Aside to Philosopher, my younger son, the Ensign, is eternally grateful to ANS for dying, as that removed from the headlines the diapered Navy flight officer/astronaut, which was, at that time, a profound professional embarrassment for him. I told him that I was used to such, given my profession; we have the equivalent of diapered-, mace-bearing, long-distance-driving nuts all the time.)
On the virtues of the smoke-filled rooms: peculiar that the disappearance of such an anti-egalitarian Americanism has led directly to the radicalization of the parties. With smoke-filled rooms, we would not see the nomination of a McGovern, or a Reagan, or a Gore, or a Kerry. It seems to me that the influence of the party leaders may yet linger among the Republicans, thus “compassionate conservatives,” and moderates such as GHW Bush, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and John McCain still control. The Democrats have effectively extinguished the smoke-filled room, but their only successful candidates in the past 40 years were the two who presented themselves to America as “conservatives” and ran against their own party’s ideology.
Move the primary date? I suppose I’ll vote whenever I am told to do so. I actually prefer the primary date after the nominees are guaranteed, as that frees me to vote for the candidate whose ideology is closest to my own, rather than performing a calculated block and win vote. Over the years that has freed me to vote for presidential candidates named Crane, Keyes, DuPont – truly interesting people rather than the anointed.
By Curious Observer
February 22, 2007 09:07 AM | Link to this
I have no comment on Hillary, except to say that of all the Democratic candidates, she is the only one who could lose in 2008. Her negatives are so high that even Tom DeLay could give her a strong run. If the Democrats nominate her, they will be conceding the election.
I agree with Mid-South Philosopher that the collection of clowns in that courtroom, including the probate judge, makes everybody look bad.
More to the point, what kind of woman is so sexually indiscriminate as to give credence to the fatherhood claims of no fewer than five men, including a former bodyguard? And what kind of male companion talks about an “open relationship” because he wanted her to be happy? No one seems to be discussing the issue. Is it that it is considered impolite to point out the immorality of a now-dead person? Or is it that society accepts this kind of sexual behavior as normal? If it is the latter, we as a society are in more trouble than we imagined.
I’m disgusted by the entire Anna Nicole Smith issue. Aspects of it are even more disgusting than the talk of her rapidly decomposing body. We seem to have lost our moral compass.
By Van
February 22, 2007 09:09 AM | Link to this
JoeD,
Not really, my opinion of Bill and Hill have not changed since they started running for office. It appears that you on the left just can’t stand criticism.
By jm
February 22, 2007 09:19 AM | Link to this
van@8:53 - the travel office folks will probably be given the same amount of notice as the federal prosecutors that President Bush is firing.
By Jack
February 22, 2007 09:21 AM | Link to this
Van, by “those of you to the left” is anyone left of Benito Mussolini I would guess. Correct. Not sure about you really Van, but some of the others here seem to think a liberal is anyone not part of the far right wing of republican party. In that case I guess the majority of this country has somehow overnight become “liberal” based on the elections of 06. Never mind that political experts credit that rebellion to the real majority in this country. Moderates. But if one has to be a liberal to not be a part of the lunatic fringe of the republican party, I hope that there are lots and lots of them. If not, the wingnuts will finish destroying the republican party all by themselves. These people are the ones that handed the country back to the democrats. Their lunacy scares mainstream Americans to death.
By jbmlaw
February 22, 2007 09:22 AM | Link to this
Dear Southern @ 9:04, I would be dishonest if I did not acknowledge HilldeBeast’s collaborative skills, as proven repeatedly in her work in the Senate. Nevertheless, my unalterable opposition to Ms. Rodham is due to her actions in 1993-1994 in the field of health care. Anyone who would seriously propose socializing 15% of the economy is a threat to freedom.
I think there is also a valid issue of honesty and integrity, but that merely reinforces my inclination.
By jbmlaw
February 22, 2007 09:24 AM | Link to this
Dear jm @ 9:19, you do recall that the Clintons demanded resignation of all US Attorneys when they came to office in January 1993?
By melo
February 22, 2007 09:29 AM | Link to this
I think the only people who can stand criticism are the neocons, right. Ask Bob Woodward. Cheney dropped the f* bomb on him before cutting of the phone after he asked him about Valerie Plame. All politicians want praise singers, not cricism that potrays them as vulnerable and as disingenous. There is no reason why Hilary should ask Obama to apologize for a statement he did not make. Its not like Geffen asked Obama to sign a piece of paper when Obama got that donation, as a sign of allegiance for everything Geffen says and does.She is trifling.
And as for you Wooten, anything that negatively potrays on the Clintons is ‘good’ and a good subject for your blog. It does’nt matter its being directed by another hated liberal. What are you? A political prostitute.??
By abc
February 22, 2007 09:33 AM | Link to this
Man… the more Hillary gets talked up, the more I imagine the worst-case scenario of coming true — another Bush in the White House! In a Hillary-Jeb contest, he’d win!
Surely she’s not electable.
By Southern Democrat
February 22, 2007 09:34 AM | Link to this
Jbmlaw,
I suspected, of course, that any aversion you had to the Junior Senator from New York was grounded in fact and not simply due to the fact that she had a (D) after her name.
Something else you might find interesting: the current issue of Foreign Policy (available online) has a fascinating look at why foreign policy tends to be hawkish (grounded in psychology) and then a back and forth on the article b/w two young fp thinkers (one from the right and one from the left). Entry article here: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3660
By jm
February 22, 2007 09:35 AM | Link to this
jbmlaw@9:24 - yep. I used to work in D.C., it is pretty standard procedure to fire/ask for resignations throughout the executive branch during a change in administration (or after an election). More so, if the change is between the parties. I always considered it a tempest in a teapot but all everybody hears about is that “Hillary fired the travel office”.
Personally, I think everyone should have to live inside the D.C. beltway for at least a year to really understand how warped the federal government is.
By Jack
February 22, 2007 09:39 AM | Link to this
By melo What are you? A political prostitute.
Melo, the answer to that is obviously yes.
By Jim's a Cherry Picker
February 22, 2007 09:43 AM | Link to this
Van,
Oh, how I long for the days when the big political scandals involved lying about travel documents and blow jobs.
Strange how some today prefer to be lied to about war.
By melo
February 22, 2007 09:43 AM | Link to this
Nevertheless, my unalterable opposition to Ms. Rodham is due to her actions in 1993-1994 in the field of health care. Anyone who would seriously propose socializing 15% of the economy is a threat to freedom.
Would those be her same views today? If not, why would u not give her a chance. There are people on the right who have changed views, but u support them or give them a favorable view….the Mormon’s take on abortion..flip flop flip,The Newt,Bush…consistently wrong or changes mind when its beyond repair..Mccain. I wont even talk about Rudolh Guiliani..the liberal **pevert who likes abortion and likes young girls. Married a million times…same as Newt Gingirich. Those are what u call morals on the neo-con right. If Guilian and vice Prez Newt are elected, we are going to have Strip clubs on every street in ATLANTA.And Freak neak will be back. That will be good for tourism in the south.
By JoeD
February 22, 2007 09:46 AM | Link to this
Van, you seem to miss the point. I wasn’t complaining about the criticism, just the hypocrisy of the right joining hands and singing Kumbaya with a “Hollywood Liberal Elitist” when it suits their purposes. And no one was criticising me. I can take criticism very well, thank you. JBM, there has been 12 years of Republican rule when Clinton took office. It would have been shocking if he had not asked for all the US attorneys to resign, along with all the other Republican political appointees. Happens every time. Bush doing it midway through term 2 is the aberration here.
By melo
February 22, 2007 09:56 AM | Link to this
Jim’s a Cherry Picker, you are so right. They like to be lied when it involves thousands of human lives and gazillions of $ watsed. A lot of soldiers don’t even have their limps anymore and their lives are ruined and are on welfare. The neocons wont budge. But they fret about travel gate and Clinton’s consentual sex. Strange logic of these hypocrtical bible thumbers!!
By Van
February 22, 2007 10:02 AM | Link to this
Jack,
A leftie is easy to explain.
Anyone that thinks the federal government can create a solution for every social ill. Anyone that thinks the Constitution can be bent to create rights instead of people already having certain unalienable rights. Someone that is caught up in the feel good moment without thinking of the consequences. Someone who believe in political correctness and all the extremes of that. A congresscritter that thinks their own pocket is more important than the countries.
Personally, Rush Limbaugh is to the left of where I stand, but only slightly. I believe it is better to serve your country in the military than whine at “peace” marches. I believe that someones sexual preferences is best kept personal and not made a public spectacle. I believe that the congresscritters in DC should spend my money as if it where theirs, with the same eye toward getting the best bang for the buck. I do not believe that the federal government should make it easy for someone not to work. Those that can’t work should be cared for. I believe that every word in the Constitution and the various amendments mean what they say and say what they mean without hidden meanings. I believe in the sovereignty of this country and anyone here without proper papers should leave. I believe the 14th amendment does not confirm citizenship on illegals babies.
On a scale from -10 to +10, with -10 being a flaming liberal socialists and +10 being Attila the Hun(great general, almost another Genghis Khan), I would put myself at 8.5, where would you be pinko.
By jenny
February 22, 2007 10:03 AM | Link to this
HILARY CAN NOT GET MAD AND SHE KNOWS IT. GEFFIN TOLD NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH SO IF THE SHOE FITS HILLARY WEAR IT.
By Kenneth Paddick
February 22, 2007 10:10 AM | Link to this
Hey Wooten, you need to get scootin and find another hobby than your forever excoriating Democrats with your vitriol. You are a toy for Zigzag Miller and his ilk as well as anything Republican. What a mess you bozos have made of America. Let the good people of America who are mostly Democrats put truth and progress back in our government and lives. Forget Rash Lintball’s (Druggie Limbaugh) lies.
By jenny
February 22, 2007 10:10 AM | Link to this
HILLARY OVERSCRIPTED? HA ! HAS AS ANYONE EVER BEEN ABLE TO SCRIPT OT HANDLE HILLARY. I SERIOUSLY DOUBT IT. BILL HAS PROBABLY BEEN TRYING TO TELL HER WHAT TO DO FOR THIRTY YEARS. SHE HAS NOT LISTENED YET. HOW DID OBAMA GET DRUG INTO THIS MUD FEST. PLEASED TO SEE HE HAD NO RESPONSE. IS THIS THE WAY ITS GONNA BE FOR THE NEXT 18 MONTHS? YIKES
By jbmlaw
February 22, 2007 10:15 AM | Link to this
Dear Jack @ 9:21, I would respectfully observe that Mussolini was a socialist, and most of us conservatives are well to the right of Mussolini.
Dear Southern @ 9:34, hope to read this afternoon, thanks.
Dear Melo @ 9:43, actually I have greater tolerance for axe murderers than I do for those who willfully subvert freedom for the entire population. Next lifetime I will consider Hillary’s progress. (You are arguing that I should consider her because she has no principles? I know that is a valid argument among leftists, but few conservatives embrace such a view.)
By jbmlaw
February 22, 2007 10:18 AM | Link to this
Dear JoeD @ 9:46, you err – the mass firings of all US attorneys was unprecedented in our history.
By jenny
February 22, 2007 10:21 AM | Link to this
KENNETH, I totally agree with you lets put truth and progress back in our government and ourlives. Just don not vote for HRC
By time for the truth
February 22, 2007 10:24 AM | Link to this
The Hollywood far leftist smug elitist pooftah Geffen has admirably summed up the despicable venal amoral terpitude of the Arkansas rapist and its hypocritical hippo hipped, lard arsed, pathological liar leftist shrew of a wife.
Last night on O’Reilly a usually hateful die hard lefty trollop Tammy Bruce amazingly produced a bravura performance that astonishingly was wholly informed by that rarest of rare happenings, a leftist unerringly deploying crisp intellectual honesty. Ms Bruce incisively and factually skewered the Klintons for what they were and the poisonous pinko obsessive Bush haters for what they are, and this disbelieving cynical secular right winger was literally cheering her on.
It is an odious thing to have to once in a very rare blue moon praise a lefty. But Ms Bruce was - just this once - outstanding.
Even when I’m not posting the anal obsessive stalker stalks. Proving that even just the thought of yours truly mercilessly goads the leftist afterbirth into puking up their compulsive witless anal bollocks.
Happily it seems HiTllary’s repulsive campaign for president is decomposing faster than the dead, sadly now never off TV, whoralicious bottle blonde’s silicon implants down in FL.
If the likely already lurking cells of towel head terrorists want to do something for positive for ALL normal patriotic Americans, how’s about targeting one of the early worthless “fully loaded with cut and run lefties” demoNcrat presidential campaign debate. Watching them scurrying around like rats leaving a sinking ship would be superb cable news entertainment, and would be a marvellous salutory lesson in what NOT to noisily, treasonously and gutlessly campaign for!!
By abc
February 22, 2007 10:27 AM | Link to this
Van, it seems to me, by your own description, that your scale of -10 to +10, the scale must be measured in millimeters.
Anyone that thinks the federal government can create a solution for every social ill. What about trying to legislate against gay marriage? I don’t think that’s a liberal initiative.
Anyone that thinks the Constitution can be bent to create rights instead of people already having certain unalienable rights. As a statement, that doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, can you please elucidate?
Someone that is caught up in the feel good moment without thinking of the consequences. IMHO, the White House tried to create a “feel good moment” out of Iraq, and talk about not thinking of the consequences…
Someone who believe in political correctness and all the extremes of that. This is, to me, extremely descriptive of a neocon, not a moderate Democrat.
A congresscritter that thinks their own pocket is more important than the countries. No matter what party, show me an honest politician, and I’ll show you a case of mistaken identity.
By melo
February 22, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this
Dear Melo @ 9:43, actually I have greater tolerance for axe murderers than I do for those who willfully subvert freedom for the entire population.-JBMLAW This is interesting and rare insight into the workings of the little data base atop your neck!
Axe murdering is a wilful and a macabre subversion of somebody’s freedom….. for eternity. Electing somebody to office is for a limited time. U have a chance hopefully to reverse(4 years) that in your lifetime.
Are you human and do u have a brain… or you are a computer program thats programmed to respond to Wooten’s blog, however way u do it? I have alwasys wondered where you go after 3.30pm.
By Dave W.
February 22, 2007 10:41 AM | Link to this
So Van, are you saying that only right wingers fight our wars? That good republicans are the only ones that join our military in times of war? That good republicans are the only ones whose children beat the doors down down at the recruiting station? That all of those maimed and crippled soldiers coming home from Iraq are all the product of republican families? That all of the veterans that speak out against war are all democrats? Van, I am a graduate of USMA. Know what that is Van? Spent 21 years of my life honoring my oath to protect and defend the Constitution that you speak of. So Van, I guess that by all of the elements of your criteria, me and alot of other retired and current military officers and veterans must all be “pinkos”. Your country thanks you for your obvious wisdom in that regard. And Van, that Constitution that you speak so fondly of protects the right of everyone in this blog to speak their mind. As much as some of you here would change that. And Van, go back and read the 14th Amendment again. Anyone born in this country is given the right of citizenship in this great country. If it doesn’t than the whole country is full of non-citizens born to every immigrant that came here with nothing but a dream throughout our history. Want to be retroactive and get them out too Van? The constitution does not allow you to use selective prejudice to take that right away from those that are in your view, the wrong skin tone.
By JoeD
February 22, 2007 10:47 AM | Link to this
jbm, it may have been unprecedented that all of them were asked to resign, but it was not unexpected. There had been 12 years of Republican appointments. Each of the US attorneys was a Republican.Do you honestly think that any of them expected to maintain their positions with a new administration from a different political party coming into power? Bush did the same thing when he came to office. With Bush, the issue isn’t the firing, it’s who he replaced them with. I think the Constitution and 28 USC 541 clearly give the President the authority to removal US attorneys at the president’s discretion. Replacing them in midstream with politically motivated appointments is the unusual part. But he can do what he wants there under US law.
By JoeD
February 22, 2007 10:52 AM | Link to this
Dave W., please don’t ask Van to consider that all of his stereotypes might not be true. Not only are good republicans the ones that fight and support the war, but they apparently are the only ones that hold jobs, pay taxes, don’t cheat on their wives, uphold the sanctity of marriage, etc. If you ask him to consider the possibility that these loony notions might not be true, his brain explodes. He cannot fathom that there are “lefties” that love our country, have steady jobs, love our wives and kids, don’t do drugs, don’t live off mommy and daddy, serve our country in the military and government, etc. Please, for the sake of Van’s health and sanity, don’t ask him to change.
By jm
February 22, 2007 11:01 AM | Link to this
Mr. Wooten, regarding “smoke filled” rooms, it was probably in such rooms that the republican money folks initially decided to back then Gov. Bush for president (and prior to that for governor), allowing him to bypass federal matching funds. It is is similar “smoke filled” rooms that the squabble over whether to back Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama (one has too much baggage, the other not enough). With President, I mean Vice President Cheney not running, the republican money folks have yet to find that person to back. Though in the end, I believe it will be Senator McCain (provided he does not compromise himself too much to gain the nomination).
By time for the truth
February 22, 2007 11:04 AM | Link to this
Cheers for the unhinged hissy fit @ 10.41 Dave Wanker!! Tis indeed endlessly gratifying to observe my fellow conservative betters effortlessly goad marxist scum like you into puking bollocks to the point of bleating in vain about the constitution!! HA HA HA HA!!
Communist feckpigs like you shamelessly play the race card whilst glibly ignoring vile black racist vermin such as Sharptongue and Jackasson. At times I profoundly pontificate the necessity of the 14th Amendment and its tragic flaw in foolishly doting blacks with full citizenship!!
By JK
February 22, 2007 11:07 AM | Link to this
Does anybody care whether Georgia moves the primary date to Feb. 5?
As a registered Democrat, (although not a straight ticket voter), I resent that my choices in the primary have already been cut in half by the time it’s my turn to vote. In 2004, none of the candidates on my primary ballot were my first or even second choice. Why do people in Iowa have choices that I don’t? As such, I’m all in favor of re-working the primary system. Moving toward the British practice of no campaigning until six weeks before the election would also be a positive step, IMO, one that could be welcomed by Americans of ALL political affiliations! Give us TODAY’S news, for cryin’ out loud! The elections are next freaking year!
By Redneck Convert
February 22, 2007 11:07 AM | Link to this
I’m with this Van guy. The 1st thing that comes to his mind is what he says. He don’t have to think. That is the kind of Thinking Right I like. Don’t like ‘em? Kick ‘em out of the country. We could do that to libruls and Those People and be rid of all our problems. Van is in line to be a Ornery Redneck up at Billy Bob’s. Heck, for all I know he’s a Real Redneck.
I’m worried about this Hillary. If she gets elected we are all in trouble. She would probly make things real easy for Those People and make judges of people that are libruls. All the doctors would be out begging for food after she passed a health care plan. Nobody would want to go to school to be a doctor. Those People would have their hand all over my billfold and the Mexicans would probly take my beer truck driving job if they are made citizens and allowed to get a driver license. I would be right back to hanging sheetrock and getting fired as soon as some Mexican was willing to work cheaper.
I’m glad Van is a 8.5, but I don’t need to know about his body. He should just stick to the politics. Or else make a porn movie.
By melo
February 22, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this
Last night on O’Reilly a usually….TFTT U were weatching the rapist pinko in CHIEF-BILL ORALLY. Whatever happened to the Sexual harasment suit?
Thrown under the bus and the WOMAN got PAID!! I am sure he raped u too, no wonder you all messed up in the head.
By Jim's a Cherry Picker
February 22, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this
JoeD & DaveW,
And to take it a step further, Van also doesn’t realize that some of us make pretty good money and like to have nice things.
It’s my guess that most of the regular conservatives here on this blog are the same kids that pulled the ol “I’m taking my ball and going home” routine in the pickup football game when things didn’t go their way. They see each event as isolated and black/white, and if it doesn’t go the way they think it should, the problem is everyone else’s fault and that’s where the blame is administered. There is no attempt to understand the problem or the variables that played into that problem.
And if that kid happened to be Dick Cheney, then next thing you know, your sister’s bike tires are flat, your bookbag has dog poo in it, and there’s a nasty rumor about your dad floating around his office.
By Carl
February 22, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this
By Jim Wooten | Thursday, February 22, 2007, 08:17 AM
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution I think that America was better served when the candidates were chosen in smoke-filled rooms.”
Jim, are you saying that we should be more like Mexico? That’s how they do it in the world’s “most perfect dictatorship”. What would your pal Chip think, Jim?
By jm
February 22, 2007 11:12 AM | Link to this
jbmlaw@9:24 - a followup. While I am not familiar with the specifics of the attorneys in 1993, it is fairly common practice for a good number of people “fired/asked to resign” to end up reapplying (and being rehired) for the same positions they held. While D.C. is a very partisan city, the realization exists that things still need to get done and you can’t afford to get rid of all the people who know how things work.
By time for the truth
February 22, 2007 11:13 AM | Link to this
see how easy it is folks … the anal obsessive stalker pukes up its puke again … after just one entertaining, incisive, fact filled post.
I GOT THE POWER!!
I GOT THE POWER!!
By time for the truth
February 22, 2007 11:18 AM | Link to this
see how easy it is folks … the anal obsessive stalker pukes up its puke again … after just one entertaining, incisive, fact filled post.
I LIKE GOLDEN SHOWERS!!
I LIKE GOLDEN SHOWERS!!
By DNC
February 22, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this
Keep up the good work “tme for the truth”! Everytime you open your mouth a democrat is born! You and your alias LuckoDull are more than welcome to be the DNC bloggers of the year. You run more people out of the republican party than King George ever could. We love you “time for the truth”! You are a shining example of what the american taliban represents. Keep talking so others will keep walking right over to the other side dumbazz!
By CJ
February 22, 2007 11:21 AM | Link to this
I’m not fond of Senator Clinton either. My wife demanded that I read her autobiography recently. I dutifully complied, but I hated it. Every word felt calculated.
I also agree that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for Mrs. Clinton to win against any Republican candidate who comes across as even remotely moderate and competent. Her negatives among independents are high, and I’d be surprised if that were to change over the course of the campaign.
On the other hand, despite her abrasive and seemingly false public demeanor, I think she’d be a much better President than any of the Republicans running since I agree with her (or she agrees with me) on most of the big issues. However, being right isn’t enough; a Democratic president should also have the ability to take advantage of the bully pulpit to persuade (it’s very bad when a Republican president has this skill). I haven’t seen that in her so far. So for me, she’s a last resort among the leading Democrats.
I’m with JK (11:07) on the primaries.
By getalife
February 22, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this
It is great for Americans to focus on the new President instead of the disaster that is w.
The nightmare is almost over and it is time to move on to repair the damage done to our country.
By JP
February 22, 2007 11:23 AM | Link to this
By Van
No time to argue all your points, however..
“A leftie is easy to explain….A congresscritter that thinks their own pocket is more important than the countries.”
So Tom DeLay, Bob Ney, etc. were Lefties?
By JP
February 22, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this
Stop the Iran War from happening
By Dr.Doom
February 22, 2007 11:44 AM | Link to this
If Bablack Osama wins the election, then the entire property value of the United States would plummet.
The markets would be following gold teeth instead of gold prices.
By time for the truth
February 22, 2007 11:45 AM | Link to this
I LIKE GOLDEN SHOWERS!!
I LIKE GOLDEN SHOWERS!!
Tut tut … I see the anal obsessive stalker is now disgustingly publicly discussing the filthy way its last foster muther used to feed it and wash it.
poor old melonhead cretinously talks of its fave liberal subject - homosexual rape … stay out of those pesky prison showers bubbaturd, you never know which kind of perverted queer: e.g. aborted foreskin, inbred rednekkk or rednekkks NAMBLA you’ll run into!!
By DNC
February 22, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this
Thank you Dr. Doom for teaming up with time for the truth, LuckoDull, and Buy Danish. Your good work here will ensure that a dem, whoever that may be will be the next president of this great nation. Thanks for doing your part. You represent the republican party well. And you create more democrats even better. Appreciate it scumbag!
By time for the truth
February 22, 2007 12:02 PM | Link to this
@ halfwitted demented pooftah DNC
cheers for the enormously entertaining witless bollocks bubbanutjob - most appreciated. happily folks on political blogs like this have invariably already made up their minds. Either they’re true, patriotic voters who do NOT continuously spit on their country/military, or they’re leftist cut and run pukes like you who do!!
By Writer's block
February 22, 2007 12:18 PM | Link to this
It were a smoke filled room what got Lincoln nominated for Prez. Never forgit that.
Hillary’s unelectable. Same Obama. Maybe Biden.
Cheney’s still calling the 1860 war between the states as , “sectarian violence”, not a civil war. The British pull out because things have improved in Iraq so much, they can just leave? Cheney thinks so. He had a friend who drove seven hours from Baghdad to Kirkuk and nobody bothered him. THe soldiers who patrol that route say that Shia Militias have won total control over the area and the brits dont dare venture out past their patrol zone near their bases. Cheney is still spinning for the industrial complex. or the Saudis? Who is cheney covering for? Making excuses, painting everything rosey. Blaming the democrats for the condition of the war effort. Is he just framing a scapegoat for the coming pull out?
How long have Bush/Cheney planned to pull out? Somebody will know that. When did Bush decide to pull out and what did he say after he decided that put the blame on the dems?
This damnable war. It’s not bush’s fault that there’s a 10K year old feud in the way of peace there, but it is his fault for spinning intel his way and for trying to show up his dad that he could take baghdad but 41 couldn’t. That could be all this war really is, a shakespearean father/son feud.
If that’s true, then we shouldn’t be there, which means that some unexpected catastrophe for mankind could happen, because those accidents always are the result of a series of shouldn’t be’s.
Hold on. Maybe we can still get out of this without destroying ourselves.
By jbmlaw
February 22, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this
Dear Melo @ 10:31, you almost swerved into my point, which frankly surprises me. I’ll bet if you rewrote that argument you would get it exactly. As to your serious inquiry, 3:30 IS a magic hour for us – that is when the country club commences happy hour,a nd of course Muffy and I have to be on time.
Dear jm @ 11:12, to offer a little perspective, while US Attorneys have always been appointed positions, until 1993 they regarded themselves as “above politics.” Eisenhower did not fire them in 1953, Nixon did not fire them in 1969, Carter did not fire them in 1977, Reagan did not fire them in 1981 (unless they also worked as air traffic controllers), and Bush did not fire them 2001. The Clintons were unique in their desire to put “their” people into the prosecutorial positions.
By Van
February 22, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this
JP,
Yep, Murtha, Kennedy, Clinton, Franks - a whole bunch of nut cases.
BTW, when was Delay convicted?
By jbmlaw
February 22, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this
Dear DNC @ 12:02, how dare you omit Van and me!
By time for the truth
February 22, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this
@ pooftah DNC
Its blindingly obvious that Dr. Doom is gleefully niggling you about the vaingloriously pathetic bollocks you proffer!! But then again expecting half-wit glib marxist pond scum to comprehend the wit and intellect of their conservative superiors is hopelessly futile.
My Kenyan chums who immigrated here LEGALLY as yours truly disclosed to me the known fact that blacks and AfriKans don’r consider the half-breed Obama Hussein a genuine black!! I gleefully bask in the irony of blacks not recognising a true negro american hero in Clarence Thomas who is actually dark as midnight and has never dishonestly spewed the racial spoils bollocks of the vile black sheeple community!!
By Van
February 22, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this
Dave W. Re: 10:41 AM
“So Van, are you saying that only right wingers fight our wars?”.
No, just folks that believe in their country. That might be a democrat or a republican. Usually, the folks that are conservative enlist(democrat or Republican) while the lefties b*** about war.
In 67 when I enlisted we had a wide group of folks from every point on the political spectrum. Most of us did not want to go to war, but were ready to do so if our country asked.
But I can understand where you are coming from, a true socialist lefty would rather someone else take their place on the front lines.
By Writer's block
February 22, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this
The brits are pulling out, yet Prince Harry is going in. Are they pulling out so he wont have to stay long?
By Jim's a Cherry Picker
February 22, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this
JP,
I’ll answer Van for ya (if that’s ok),
Van, Delay was convicted round about the time Clinton was.
By Writer's block
February 22, 2007 12:38 PM | Link to this
Vietnam was a great war for the liberals. It proved their case and continues to. There is not one member on the joint chiefs who now think that Vietnam was a just war. They all know it was fought for Ike’s nemisis. They all know.
The joint chiefs. They have great jobs. They also know that they enjoy their lives, and need to shut up about Iraq being a mistake.
Soon, when they retire, or move on, they will speak freely about how they feel and felt about Iraq. They all think it’s a big mistake, privately. They’re all worried that something bigger might ignite.
The war on terror. The war in IRaq.
Same? Our greatest military minds dont think so.
Vietnam. The war against communism.
Same? Our greatest military minds didn’t think so. The vietnamese had fought the chinese for a thousand years, and weren’t about to capitulate to them, like our intel supposed.
Domino theory 101: if your pizza dont come in a half hour it’s free.
By DNC
February 22, 2007 12:38 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw, let me apologize. I don’t include you because from time to time you do actually make some valid well thought out and well written blogs. And Van, his WWII comparisons tell me that he is an old guy that is still fighting the big one vicariously through the sacrifeces of today’s soldiers. He probably gets off his meds from time to time therefore his rather unique interpretation of the Constitution. He gets a pass most of the time. You jbmlaw are not the totally ignorant, ranting, foaming at he mouth, t-shirt taliban, represented by Dull, truth, BD, et all. I do think however that you should do your best to keep them in line. They are too stupid to understand that nobody wants to be associated with them or like them. I see you as more of the libertarian type. But if you are a republican it is critical that you help distant the party from those like the above mentioned lunatics. They are the reason 06 happens. They create democrats and push mainstream people away from the republican party.
By jm
February 22, 2007 12:40 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw@12:19 - some more recent perspective, the current round of attorneys who were fired/asked to resign can be replaced indefinately by the attorney general without having to go through senate confirmation. Without going into the merits (good or bad) behind President Clinton’s mass firing, at least the replacements had to go through (even if it was a rubber stamp) some sort of senate confirmation.
By steve-o
February 22, 2007 12:40 PM | Link to this
The brits are pulling out, yet Prince Harry is going in…
Speaking of brits pulling out, I wish TFTT’s dad did likewise when he bedded the cheap harlot who ended up birthing our favorite Brit troll 9 months after turning a cheap trick.
By JoeD
February 22, 2007 12:41 PM | Link to this
Van, every time you open your mouth you prove how closeminded you are.
By Dr.Doom
February 22, 2007 12:46 PM | Link to this
DNC,
Surely you are out of lipstick. I haven’t seen that much a*******kissing since Bin Laden told Clinton to kiss his a$$.
We don’t create dummycrats, you imbeciles were obviously created as a result of infant inbreeding.
By melo
February 22, 2007 12:50 PM | Link to this
3.30 PM is when the country club commences happy hour..JBMLAW
I always knew u were on some sort of welfare, hence the free and sudsidized beer u prefer. U can never miss a right wing redneck!
By @@
February 22, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this
Jim, I could never support Hillary Clinton.
Although I voted for Clinton the first time around, I came to realize that the Clinton duo are reluctant to back up the words they speak once their empty rhetoric has acquired the votes they sought.
POLITICS OF WELFARE REFORM
That ^^^ to me was an unforgiveable sin against the impoverished that the Clinton’s claimed to support.
Twice he vetoed it, while Republicans insisted it was the only way that the impoverished could be lifted up from the depths of their despair. The Republicans were right and the Clintons were wrong.
Political pandering on such a scale is one thing I will not tolerate.
BTW, John McCain now falls within the category of “political panderer…er…er…er.
By time for the truth
February 22, 2007 01:14 PM | Link to this
By time for the truth
February 22, 2007 12:29 PM | Link to this
@ pooftah DNC
Its blindingly obvious that Dr. Doom is gleefully niggling you about the vaingloriously pathetic bollocks you proffer!! But then again expecting half-wit glib marxist pond scum to comprehend the wit and intellect of their conservative superiors is hopelessly futile.
My Kenyan chums who immigrated here LEGALLY as yours truly disclosed to me the known fact that blacks and AfriKans don’r consider the half-breed Obama Hussein a genuine black!! I gleefully bask in the irony of blacks not recognising a true negro american hero in Clarence Thomas who is actually dark as midnight and has never dishonestly spewed the racial spoils bollocks of the vile black sheeple community!!
effortlessly manipulating scum like you is indeed my guiltless pleasure tinybollock brain!!
now go get back in the accidental bastard abortion bucket - your cut and run Bush hate slimfast afterbirth slurpie awaits!!
stevey wankpig
how amusing it is to note that your own deeply embarassed, extra chromosomed, dwarf daddy IMMEDIATELY went back to ONLY self abuse after you were almost but sadly not quite still born in that cowardly cut and run liberal leper colony in San Fran Sicko!!
By jm
February 22, 2007 01:23 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw@1:00 - of course you remember the tactics during the early 90’s, when republican senators preferred to stall the nominees in committees, using various prodcedural tactics, which they removed from the process once they got into the majority, where such tactics were no longer necessary (and which they themselves did not wish to be subject to).
Regarding Mr. Bolton’s nomination, President Bush should have turned over the documents requested by the Senate Committee (regardless of their merits) and called the democrat’s bluff. He instead chose to invoke executive privilege, giving the democrats an excuse. Actually, the death knell to Mr. Bolton’s nomination was dealt by Senator Voinovich (a republican) when he refused to support him.
On a side note, considering all the procedures that the seante has in place to prevent things from getting down, it is no wonder that the only bills that get passed are monolithic, pork ridden omnibus bills that nobody has time to read, let alone debate the merits of.
By Van
February 22, 2007 01:24 PM | Link to this
JoeD,
I’m close minded! Boy, if that isn’t funny, a hard core leftie saying I am close minded. What a moron, A truly ignorant leftie.
Your retorts are a fulfilling as all socialistic promises, nothing but warm methane emanating from your favorite orifice.
While all the good little democrats in the House are in lock step with Madam Pelosivich, and the republicans all taking different approaches to the war, this lump of dung has the nerve to call me close minded.
While this President has worked with leader from both sides of the aisle and Clinton would rather shut the government down instead of compromise, this pimple on my posterior calls me close minded.
Fortunately for you, our Constitution and Bill of rights says you are allowed to say anything you want, no matter how inane, within what most folks call reasonable (can’t yell fire in a crowned theater).
By Jim Wooten
February 22, 2007 01:24 PM | Link to this
rarringt, the answer to the question you posed is no. But this answer makes sense only to you and me and a few others because you included the offensive language you questioned in the post I’m addressing.
By rarringt
February 22, 2007 01:29 PM | Link to this
Ah, well, on to today’s topic.
The elections will never be condensed to a short period in these times because, as we know, the presidency is a largely purchased office.
Folks like Obama and Edwards and (in 2000) McCain are critical because they breathe life into the electoral process and force the frontrunners to become more agressive. Those who come out of their shells (Bush and Clinton) win. Those who don’t make movies about global warming.
Is Hillary electable? Sure. Most folks here are looking at the election from a “red state” perspective. For example, jbmlaw effectively said Hillary lost him with the universal heath care push back in 1993. The truth is jbmlaw would likely have never voted for Hillary under any circumstances.
Same goes for most of the right wingers on this blog, who are far right of the moderate center (even if they are loathe to admit it).
The truth is, three of the “big 5” states that matter most in national elections (CA, NY and IL) will go dem. Of the other two, TX will vote for the GOP, and FL will be, once again, the tossup state that calls the shots. And FL is full of seniors, latinos, and middle class white folks who have felt largely ignored by this administration.
I don’t know how much influence Jeb will have on a state (and nation) currently experiencing “Bush fatigue,” but I do know that at this point, two years before the election, it’s anybody’s race.
By Jim's a Cherry Picker
February 22, 2007 01:29 PM | Link to this
Hi Jim,
As homework, can you give the class the assignment of watching the Frontline series on news?
I know how conservatives hate real reporting in general and pbs in particular, but I’d love to hear your take on this particular series.
By Dr.Doom
February 22, 2007 01:30 PM | Link to this
Jim Wooten,
What language?
By JoeD
February 22, 2007 01:41 PM | Link to this
Republicans taking different approaches to the war? President working with leaders on both sides of the aisle? What world are you living in? Surely you do not beleive that this president has worked with the other side of the aisle. He only does it now, grudgingly, because he has to. By the way, very intellectual response. And you think what I say is inane. Grow up.
By rarringt
February 22, 2007 01:52 PM | Link to this
Andy,
I guess this is the part where you enjoy having “tweaked me” (your words) into a response on an issue of race.
As an African-American, I don’t sense a whole lot of concern in our community about Obama being “black enough.” As you well know, it’s not a function of melanin content. “Blackness,” for lack of a better word, is about being able to relate to various common threads in our culture, having an understanding of our accomplishments and challenges, and exemplifying a willingness to work to leave things better than the way we found them.
It’s not meant to be some obtuse, mysterious thing. Obama, and the vast majority of other people of color, fit well into that description, thus taking the question (as far as we are concerned) off the table.
Besides, as a practical matter Obama’s not a stupid man, and won’t fall into that same “where do his real priorities lie” trap WASPs tried to set for a Catholic JFK.
The real question, of course, is how white america feels about his ethnicity, and to what extent that will affect the choices of moderate america. I think they’ll like what they see. The dems have a very strong field this election, and there’s a sense of, given current affairs, this election is the most critical in the last 3 or 4 presidential cycles.
By JK
February 22, 2007 02:09 PM | Link to this
I’m not even going to pretend I’ve decided whom to vote for a year or more from now. But if I scratch someone off my list, it won’t be because of ethnicity or gender! That being said, I wish Wesley Clark would run again. As a straight-talking General who’s not afraid of the truth, he has, IMO, the potential to actually BE a “uniter.” Of course, Van would still hate him. Isn’t there some “rightie” around here that can give him a hug? {;->
By jbmlaw
February 22, 2007 02:35 PM | Link to this
Dear JK @ 2:09, I regret that I cannot affirm Mr. Clark, but not due to ideology – he’s really not so bad - but I sense he is not completely stable, just a notch this side of Howard Dean, Ross Perot, and John McCain. Otherwise I have to parrot your dissatisfaction with all candidates in sight. For me, Mr. Newt is the best of the list, and he has a lot of baggage. Prosecutor Rudy was as bad as Elliot Spitzer, with the political “flip-flops” I suspect Mitt Romney may be “brainwashed” (little joke for the other geezers out there), Joe Lieberman is in the wrong party. Condi Rice is my favorite non-candidate, but her status is unlikely to change.
By time for the truth
February 22, 2007 02:38 PM | Link to this
rarrington me old pompous mucker … how’s it hanging bruther?
I see you nauseatingly used that pathetic empty micky mouse AfriKan-AmeriKan term again … what the hell is one of these things anyway matey? I’ve never seen one anywhere!! I’ve seen loads of blacks here on the fruited plain and negroes of course (in older pre 1960’s newsreel footage etc) and occasionally even some coloured folks.
BTW I happen to think that Osama Obama as the DUI killer Kennedy hilariously called him is quite a stupid man … with NO actual political achievments other than beating a black religious nutter carpet bagger in a very one sided senate race. He endlessly peddles witless obtuse cut and run liberal platitudes (very minor apologies for the slightly ironic redundancy there). He belongs to a church with black separatist attitudes and he’s a vile far leftist appeaser who panders to cowardly anti-American scum like Soros to desperately get money for his campaign.
His ONLY real ‘gimmick’ is his being half black. Funny how he rarely ever if ever talks about being half white aint it bubba? A distinct bigoted/ashamed complex perhaps?
anyway, long time no banter, hope you had a very merry kwanza and all that bollocks mate.
cheers for now
a proud secular right winger
By time for the truth
February 22, 2007 02:42 PM | Link to this
I sure do wish the towel head terrorists would bomb the whoralicious anna nicole where’s the smelly old body gonna go for burial trial and take this execrable sh!te off the air … its even worse telly than a freaking NBA game!!
By JP
February 22, 2007 02:51 PM | Link to this
JK, I’m with you—I’m on board with Clark if he decides to run. Otherwise, I’m undecided.
By rarringt
February 22, 2007 03:05 PM | Link to this
Andy,
Total words in your post: 220 Total derogatory words : 53 (about 25%)
The interesting thing, of course, is that your percentage is a bit lower than usual (I suppose I should take that as a complement).
If you’ll notice, few ever talk about Obama’s “white” side, because what those who obsess over race see is a black man (with a black wife and black daughters), and tend to leave it at that. His Scottish heritage is nice and all, but people only see what they want.
For example, you see him going to a black church and proclaim that as separatist. I imagine, then, that whites and other folks are equally as racist when they go to service on Sunday?
When I lived in Chicago, I visited the same church. Never saw any armed guards keeping the teeming masses of white folks who wanted to attend out of the sanctuary. Remember, black churches were started because blacks and others weren’t welcome in white churces (at least back then). As a result, they tend to be highly inclusive. If you respect the church and the community, then you’re welcome to come.
Seeing that we’re harping on color, I’ve noticed most of your “arguments” against Obama are red herrings. Ok, bad joke. But so is the argument that he lacks experience (from an ardent Bush supporter). As far as his “platitudes,” have you actually read his book on policy (required for all candidates)?
If you have, please cite the passage that says “down with all whites” or something along those lines that enables you or anyone else for that matter to reasonably fixate on what his parents looked like?
Anyway, I think we should read what all the candidates have written and listen closely to what they all have to say before making a kneejerk decision based on partisanship.
That would be the “Thinking” part of Thinking Right.
By JK
February 22, 2007 03:27 PM | Link to this
rarringt, whoa whoa whoa whoa…. Are you suggesting that we might actually listen to the candidates themselves, watch the debates and speeches, and read & research for ourselves before making a decision at election time? sitting down, grasping head Wait, wait… Let’s be clear… Are you saying that what Hillary actually has to SAY, her answers on issues, and her actual voting record might be more important to hear than what O’Reilly, Hannity, and the sharp-as-nails FOX news morning team have to say ABOUT her? reeling backwards, rolling on floor WAIT! Are you saying we should pay attention this time, listen and learn with an open mind BEFORE making a decision? And, you know, give up the “Tell me what to think, Mr. Wooten!” mentality? Holy brainwaves in motion, Batman! I think that’s an EXCELLENT idea!
By time for the truth
February 22, 2007 03:37 PM | Link to this
@ rarrington
sheeeeiit brutha…I thought we was tight!!
Aimlessly wasting your time and needlessly counting the words that I gracefully employ in my superior prose proves the ease at which I wind up you lefties.
I could care less really if you ever attended Osama Obama’s racist black church. What happened many years ago is irrelevant to current events. But black sheeple are endlessly goaded by race hustlers like Sharptongue who sow the sullen seeds of victimhood. Your intellectual dishonesty becomes blindingly obvious as you refuse to recongnise the fact that the half-breed Osama shamefully ignores his white ancestry. Osama’s bigotry clearly gets a pass by dishonest leftist scum whilst noble negroes like Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice are perpetually crucified by the marxist drive by media!!
By Van
February 22, 2007 03:41 PM | Link to this
JoeD,
Bush has over the last 6 years showed that he can work with folks from both sides of the aisle, one example is working with Ted Kennedy on NLCB.
If one was to look at the candidates running for the republican nomination, you would find a wide diverse group of folks with many differencing with the President.
As to you being inane, I have nothing to do with that, you have proven it several times over. But, then again, that might be the wrong word, insipid might be a better fit.
By rarringt
February 22, 2007 04:01 PM | Link to this
Total words of superior prose: 127
Total derogatory words: 43 (33%)
Your percentage is going up. Who’s winding who, Andy? :^)
It’s unfortunate you are unmoved by facts, however inconvenient. “Many years ago” was actually 2005, but whatever.
I’ve met him socially. Don’t think he’s ashamed of anything, much less his heritage. He doesn’t run up and down the street proclaiming his white heritage any more than he does his black background. But let’s face it, this is all academic.
Even if he did jump through whatever hoops you can come up with, he’d still never be good enough for you. Because you, like so many, made up your mind long before you ever heard of Obama.
Now who’s being intellectually dishonest?
As far as Condi and Clarence, I think you like them not so much because of their accomplishments or wisdom, but because they back and support your partisan worldview. Probably wasn’t such an unreasonable perspective to have - in 2002.
Now, to have any shot of being taken seriously, you have to think like a true individual. Condi’s best achievement, short of her administrative politiking, will likely be her ability to dust off the 94 Accord with Pyongyang and tweak the Chinese into action. That’s truly a big deal. We’ll have to see how the next two years go to see how she fits into the pantheon of diplomats.
As far as Clarence Thomas, as an intellectual, I’m disappointed. He seems to only be given the admin. cases (sort of a showing of no confidence in handling the more substantive matters). Further, he is, 17 years into his appointment, still the least-qualified member of that bench in terms of pre and post appointment accomplishments. In short, he ain’t no Thurgood (who I thought was a great lawyer, but an average justice at best). Or Burger or Warren or…you get my point.
I guess this is the part where you signal that you’re fresh out of legitimate arguments by calling me an arrogant, pompous, leftist intellectual (with nary a trace of irony, to be sure).
By JoeD
February 22, 2007 04:02 PM | Link to this
Van, your lack of self-awareness is striking. I’m moving on to discuss subjects of interest, and you can continue to wallow in your close-minded stereotypes. Enjoy Rush, Sean and Bill, oh, and Ann too.
By jbmlaw
February 22, 2007 04:02 PM | Link to this
Reminder to all, Tom Sowell’s essay on Osama Obama will publish tomorrow morning. It is a hoot.
By rarringt
February 22, 2007 04:08 PM | Link to this
Van,
That’s about the ONLY example of bipartisanship (and one you’ve used constantly, I might add).
Read the paper on any given day. That mess you see located between Jordan and Iran is due to shortsighted partisanship, and not looking at things from varied perspectives.
The same applies with the domestic agenda. If true bipartisanship existed, the 2006 elections would not have turned out as they did.
But I’m sure you didn’t view that as a referendum on Bush, but rather 460 very provincial races that was only tangentially related to White House policy.
You’ve mentioned the Constitution and the Bill of Rights today, which is as good a place as any to start. The point of the First Amendment is to allow for a diversity of viewpoints. To suppress them is to get…well, the mess that we’re collectively in.
Inconvenient truths hurt sometimes, but they’re still truths.
By Van
February 22, 2007 04:09 PM | Link to this
JoeD,
Thanks, I will.
By jbmlaw
February 22, 2007 04:11 PM | Link to this
I think they broke the embargo on Dr. Sowell’s essay, here is the link: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2007/02/23/pricelesspoliticspart_iii
Rarringt, you really think Thurgood was even an “average” justice? He was the worst writer ever, other than JP Stevens. Clarence can at least put together a simple logical argument, and put it into decipherable writing. I realize that combination of skills carries little value with our brothers on the left, but I still respect that capacity.
By jbmlaw
February 22, 2007 04:13 PM | Link to this
Dear Rarringt, actually the 2004 referendum on Bush was pretty decisive. 2006 was something less than a rebuke of the president, because of gay Congressmen in Florida, crooked Congressmen in California and Ohio, and a large number of squishy moderate Republicans, almost all of whom lost. The conservatives almost all won.
By jbmlaw
February 22, 2007 04:17 PM | Link to this
Dear rarringt, “still the least-qualified member of that bench in terms of pre and post appointment accomplishments.” Are you talking about intellectual powerhouse Stephen Breyer or esteemed jurist David “takings clause” Souter?
By time for the truth
February 22, 2007 04:19 PM | Link to this
rarrington
NOTHING in my post was derogatory, just fair/factual comment mixed with a spot of lightish banter. Cheers for the almost witty patronising banter though bubba.
The black separatist ‘theme’ of the church has been discussed by a number of folks in the non liberal pandering media (even on PMSNBC) and of course Fox News. Its NOT my saying its separatist of course that makes it so. But the content/attitude to whites and the rest of us Americans innately infused in the various “black power” type bollocks (racially charged beliefs/programmes) that informs the bruthas and sistas that attend rallies there. Surely if Osama Obama cared about white folks he’d make much more of an effort to actually talk to us ordinary average white folks rather than the lick spittle grovelling to the Hollywood vermin he’s been doing recently. Being anti-war will get him only so far. As the grasping regal mega-rich lefty trial lawyer Edwards who purports to speak for the proles, and who couldn’t even hold his “home” state in the 04 election amusingly found out last time.
As usual you proffer intellectual dishonest bollocks in a lame ‘defence’. Clearly Osama and his chums aint gonna say explicitly down with white folks … that’s utterly disingenuous as you damn well know - but very predicktable. Nor would whites want to attend such a place as his black church, where they clearly aren’t welcome. Funny how virtually all of America is still religiously racially segregated. Being proudly secular I dont buy into any of that superstitious bollocks of course. And unlike inbred rednekkk I aint anti-black - just anti-liberal race baiting blacks and anti-hippety hop thugs etc.
Do tell me ALL OF THE klever, original far left cliches that Osama has puked up thus far. As I see it, he’s been adopted by the pandering left to stand against HiTllary Rotten Klinton who is so smarmy and narcissistic it cant/wont admit any mistakes in its vote(s) which were quite explicitly pro-war back in 02/03 etc. Osama needs Soros money … surely patriotic Americans would be botherted a lot by those who take cynical campaign money from such obsessive America haters. Soros is a giant moron who made his money from foreign currency speculation (which true believing lefties should despise him for) with NO legitimate coherent world view other than he hates Bush and the GOP. Soros is a far left smear merchant.
I aint fixated on wot his parents looked like … but he dont appeal to all that many blacks so far, do he? … seems his snotty elitist background don’t resonate too well with the more impoverished bruthas and sistas. Maybe if he ate Moonpies and drank RC Cola once a week on a live webcast he’d be able to better chill down with the folks.
By time for tjhe truth
February 22, 2007 04:24 PM | Link to this
By time for the truth
February 22, 2007 03:37 PM | Link to this
@ rarrington
sheeeeiit brutha…I thought we was tight!!
Aimlessly wasting your time and needlessly counting the words that I gracefully employ in my superior prose proves the ease at which I wind up you lefties.
I could care less really if you ever attended Osama Obama’s racist black church. What happened many years ago is irrelevant to current events. But black sheeple are endlessly goaded by race hustlers like Sharptongue who sow the sullen seeds of victimhood. Your intellectual dishonesty becomes blindingly obvious as you refuse to recongnise the fact that the half-breed Osama shamefully ignores his white ancestry. Osama’s bigotry clearly gets a pass by dishonest leftist scum whilst noble negroes like Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice are perpetually crucified by the marxist drive by media!!
and the anal obsessive child molesting stalker pukes forth again!!
keep wasting your drab wretched worthless life away bubbaturd!!
I GOT THE POWER!! (to goad you)
i GOT THE POWER!! (to goad you)
By JoeD
February 22, 2007 04:26 PM | Link to this
Sadly, I’m sure you will, Van.
By rarringt
February 22, 2007 04:26 PM | Link to this
There he is, my old friend and sparring partner jbmlaw.
Marshall’s writing was fine, though I wouldn’t put him on par with a Scalia or O’Connor (who turned obtuseness into an art form). His thinking was clear and well reasoned, which found it’s way into his opinions. As his mind was failing him during the last year or so, they didn’t assign him any opinions of consequence, as you know.
This is especially compared to Thomas who seldom if ever writes more than a cursory opinion on anything more than admin. cases. You and I both know he’ll do a silent concurrence before actually picking up a pen. There’s a reason for that.
Regarding the “referendum,” Bush won in 2000 and 2004 by some of the slimmest margins (as a percentage of eligible voters) in history. He misread 2004 as a “mandate,” which resulted in the 2006 debacle.
I agree that GOP shenanigans contributed in large fashion to the election. The “squishy” districts you’re citing are those with large groups of mad moderates, who were tired of what had been going on.
Hardcore conservative (and liberal) bastions are, as a general rule, safe in any election.
But you know that already. You just hate to have to admit it….
By steve-o
February 22, 2007 04:26 PM | Link to this
Maybe if he ate Moonpies and drank RC Cola once a week on a live webcast he’d be able to better chill down with the folks.
…a little racist aren’t we, TFTT??
By time for the truth
February 22, 2007 04:37 PM | Link to this
@ the nutter steve
DUH??!!
“racist”. HA HA HA …huge I hate lefties smirk
I was merely humbly attempting to suggest how Osama Obama can cultivate a more caring, less snotty kommon touch bubbaturd. A bucket of wings and a giant sprite from Church’s Chicken would work just as well.
By getalife
February 22, 2007 04:37 PM | Link to this
Jim should be pimping the wingnut candidate but why bother?
Losers.
By time for the truth
February 22, 2007 04:41 PM | Link to this
jesus h christ rarrington…how DISHONEST you is!!
Marshall was an affirmative action appointee shamelessly adept at peddling for the racial spoils crowd as clearly evidenced in the Brown case. Thurnogood is a shining example for lazy blacks whom are endlessly dependent on racial spoils and programmes, which quite frankly is the same vile group to which Osama Obama belongs!!
It’s freaking HILARIOUS to hear the infinite bleating spewed by Bush bashing leftist vermin whom are disheartened by the political success of Bush. The whiny bollocks you proffer betrays your facade of supposed intelligence!!
How’s that for old time banter?
By rarringt
February 22, 2007 04:41 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw,
I think I mentioned he wasn’t an elite justice, but far from the worst. None of his opinions were poorly reasoned, or contrary to what was then or now considered to be a fair position.
I eagerly await an example to contradict that last sentence.
As far as career accomplishments, without Thurgood (and by extension Charles Hamilton Houston and his progeny), you can’t have a society with Condi. Or Clarence. Or Ruth or Sandra (which I’m sure you’d be fine with). Or Al Gonzalez, or Janice Rogers Brown, or Leah Sears, or…you get my point.
Besides, you and I both know, partisan feelings aside, that Thomas is not up to snuff. Consider: would you feel the same way about his peerless intellect if he represented the far left wing of the bench?
Thought so.
By steve-o
February 22, 2007 04:43 PM | Link to this
I was merely humbly attempting to suggest how Osama Obama can cultivate a more caring, less snotty kommon touch bubbaturd. A bucket of wings and a giant sprite from Church’s Chicken would work just as well.
OK I was wrong. TFTT is a disingenuous racist.
By time for the truth
February 22, 2007 04:49 PM | Link to this
Ok I was wrong … the nutter steve is a deranged sniovelling pillock!!
there’s nowt “racist” about either food choice I suggested turdbrain … I suggest you go choke on a large smelly german sausage (gedditt??)
By jm
February 22, 2007 04:50 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw@4:11 - Pretty standard Sowell column, maybe Krugman will make the opposite point in the coming weeks. The joy of economics, basically pure theory.
You might enjoy this one from Tony Blankley One Card Monte
By steve-o
February 22, 2007 04:51 PM | Link to this
TFTT is still a disingenuous racist.
By rarringt
February 22, 2007 04:52 PM | Link to this
Andy,
Hmm…. You call Marshall an affirmative action appointee, yet marvel at Thomas’ intellect.
With a straight face.
I guess I’m supposed to be “tweaked” again (or perhaps “niggled,” to use a word that only appears when you’re posting about race) now that you pulled Brown out of your bag-o-tricks.
You’re really a lot more fun to debate when you make legit arguments. Regardless, it takes a lot more than that to get me to bite. Try again.
By time for the truth
February 22, 2007 04:58 PM | Link to this
the nutter steve is still a snivelling wanker!!
By steve-o
February 22, 2007 05:12 PM | Link to this
TFTT will always be a disingenous racist.
By Van
February 22, 2007 05:30 PM | Link to this
rarringt,
Explain to me then how a dummy like Bush got the tax cuts through, did he fool the Congress? What about the War on Terror? How did he get a resolution authorizing him to go after terrorism? That resolution was not just about Iraq, it was about the Global War on Terror.
The NCLB act that the left will not admit was basically Teddy boys idea.
Did it take a bipartisan approach to drop the unemployment rate from 6.2% to the mid 4%? or was Bush too brilliant and did it himself.
Was Sarbanes Oxley not a product of people working across the aisle?
By rarringt
February 22, 2007 05:36 PM | Link to this
Whoops, that’s mom calling me in (I can’t stay out after dark).
I had fun in the sandbox today. Catch y’all next time. But not too often. After all, Spring is upon us….
By Markus
February 22, 2007 05:47 PM | Link to this
Van, you forgot federalizing airport security with Tom Daschle after 9/11, the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, countless towel-throwins on SC nominees, and a host of other things. Notice how leftists will always say when a Conservative brings up Kennedy’s NCLB that it’s “always brought up” yet they don’t acknowledge that as reaching across the isle? It was never enough for the Party Of The Permanently Miserable, as nothing will ever be enough for them even as they’re back in power in Congress.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: the Republicans never acted like they had power, and the Dems never acted like they were out of power.
And these jackasses on the left call Bush a dictator. Laughable.
By Markus
February 22, 2007 05:58 PM | Link to this
WARNING: For the remainding time that this blog is open I will be wanking myself openly. Safety eyewear and raincoat are highly recommended as captialized, bolded words as well as bullshiite HTTP links will be posted at high speeds.
By Markus
February 22, 2007 06:06 PM | Link to this
Heh. Hehehe. HAHAHAHA! Our pathetic miserable resident multiple ID liboRAT jackass ID jacker! Typical liberal sewer RAT can’t handle the truth when it’s rammed up it’s throat (think about that, RAT).