#1: "It's not just the outrageous speaking fees that Wall Street bankers paid to Mrs. Clinton, helping make her a multimillionaire... Wall Street needs reins, all right. But Mrs. Clinton's plan is tying it up with a pretty little ribbon and asking us to believe it's a lasso. Feel the Bern."
#2: "Looking forward to Bernie's Op-Ed tomorrow."
And from Larry Eisenberg (recently featured in a NYT article "Meet Some of Our Top Commenters," as the 95-year-old poet of the comments):
Boy, Bernie has had some effect!Side issue: Who's the "best" of the Republican candidates who is "laden with rue"? Is it a play on words? Rue ≈ Rubio? Oh, but then there's Cruz and Trump. Maybe it's not world-play at all, maybe it's...
The Hillary course to correct,
Wish I could believe
In the cloth she would weave,
When Wall street would strongly object.
The Repub opposition's a blight
Portends a real nightmarish night,
The best of that crew
Is laden with rue,
Hillary would be Bernie lite.
"Rue" is "Sorrow, distress; penitence, repentance; regret." Says the OED, dropping a quote from Frank McCourt's "Angela's Ashes": "She keeps telling us we're still dirty and if she has to come out to scrub us we'll rue the day. Another rue. I scrub myself harder."
Posts
29 comments:
Perhaps the author thinks "rue" is a synonym for money (or for some form of corrupt payment)?
In any case, Hillary's base knows she's thoroughly corrupt, and few believe reform is even a possibility. But, come election day they'll vote for her anyway. The only question is, will her negatives result in significatnly reduced turnout (and, what sort of "my opponent is the devil!" scare might mitigate that?
She meant "How I'd reign in Wall Street."
You can't spell Hillary without LIAR.
Some moderates may be consoling themselves by agreeing with leftists that Hillary is just pandering and will not really do anything to upset the boat. But what they may be ignoring is that Hillary isn't really in this for any ideology (true sociopaths have no ideology at all) but rather to help her friends game the system. So while we won't see a Warren-esque attempt to overhaul high finance, we are likely to see some damaging regulatory actions that can easily screw up the system worse than it is. Remember, the ACA wasn't the far reaching dream that the leftists wanted, but it did an excellent job making the health care system more expensive, unwieldy and inefficient.
My best hope is that when Hillary wins she'll face enough opposition in Congress that we can at least count on gridlock for four years. If the Dems somehow won back Congress while Hillary is in office we're screwed.
They'll come around.
Is there any disqualifying factor for a Democrat? Any issue that they can lose support over?
The constant "The Republicans are hella scary" is bafflingly successful given the party's inability to manage a fart in decades.
"nightmarish night." Prog poetry is about as good as Prog policy.
@Brando: "Hillary isn't really in this for any ideology." Correct. It's the feature of the disclosed emails that has not received much comment. There's no evidence she believed anything or wanted to achieve anything or had any worldview or strategy at all, beyond maintaining her own political viability.
Common Rue is a perfectly fine herbaceous border. Wear gloves when you work with it, however.
The idea that Hillary!!, having taken (as part of the Clinton Money-Grabbing Machine) millions and millions from Wall Street Bank will suddenly turn on them and rein them in is laughable. Is there anything in Hillary!!'s history that suggests this kind of about-face is even plausible?
Now, consider that she (that is, The Clinton Money-Grabbing Machine) has also taken millions upon millions from Foreign Governments. What are the odds that she will do an about-face on them?
She doesn't realize that it's her husband's policies of forcing banks to lend to those that couldn't afford the mortgages that was the genesis of the financial problems in 2007. She believes in nothing.
NYTimes? Does that still exist?
The Lefty voters will make a roux of all of Hillary's contradictions and falsities and convince themselves it's a delicious condiment. Trust me, they ain't going to rue the roux.
Curious George said...
They'll come around.
Yes. When the powers that be decide it's time to get serious it will be like the Bern never existed.
Having lost all our liberal commenters, we are now reduced to trolling other web site's commenters. It's a sad state of affairs that a once vibrant commenting community has become a monoculture.
Democrats are willing to forgive their major candidates almost anything, including topics which they would scourge the a candidate on the right for over and over again.
"The idea that Hillary!!, having taken (as part of the Clinton Money-Grabbing Machine) millions and millions from Wall Street Bank will suddenly turn on them and rein them in is laughable. Is there anything in Hillary!!'s history that suggests this kind of about-face is even plausible?"
I could believe she'd stab her old allies in the back--what I don't believe is that she would do this when she knows she can still get something out of them.
"The constant "The Republicans are hella scary" is bafflingly successful given the party's inability to manage a fart in decades."
It's worked for a long time, and will work again next year. What else can they run on? Their "hope and change" of 2008 shriveled once Obama's policies ran into reality. No one believes anything Hillary is promising (and if they were stupid enough to believe it, they surely must realize the GOP isn't likely to lose both houses of Congress, so anything she tries to do is DOA. Except warmaking, she can do that. And the illegal stuff). So the last arrow in the quiver is the idea of GOP domination of government, with tent revivalist science-skeptics who want to force women back into the Victorian age, hold down black people, loot the Treasury for their Koch financiers and bomb everyone everywhere. Without that, there's no motivation for the Democrats.
Hillary! will reign in Wall Street just about as well as she reigned in pervie rapey sexual harasser husband Bill.
I believe every one of Ms. Clinton's campaign promises.... except for those that would slow down her efforts at filling the family coffers, stop adding to her personal power or fail to advance liberal positions.
"Hillary! will reign in Wall Street just about as well as she reigned in pervie rapey sexual harasser husband Bill."
Perhaps Hillary could respond with "why doesn't someone give me credit for the women my husband didn't rape yet?" After all, it's pretty unfair that we're only focusing on the rapings and sexual harassment Bill did accomplish.
"Having lost all our liberal commenters, we are now reduced to trolling other web site's commenters. It's a sad state of affairs that a once vibrant commenting community has become a monoculture."
So you're saying liberals can't endure in open debate? Not surprising.
It's worked for a long time, and will work again next year. What else can they run on? Their "hope and change" of 2008 shriveled once Obama's policies ran into reality. No one believes anything Hillary is promising (and if they were stupid enough to believe it, they surely must realize the GOP isn't likely to lose both houses of Congress, so anything she tries to do is DOA. Except warmaking, she can do that. And the illegal stuff). So the last arrow in the quiver is the idea of GOP domination of government, with tent revivalist science-skeptics who want to force women back into the Victorian age, hold down black people, loot the Treasury for their Koch financiers and bomb everyone everywhere. Without that, there's no motivation for the Democrats.
I still hope Cruz wins because, damn, he is willing to attack that War on Women meme head-on. Including noting that the meme is bullshit peddled by an ABC anchor.
"I still hope Cruz wins because, damn, he is willing to attack that War on Women meme head-on. Including noting that the meme is bullshit peddled by an ABC anchor."
Whoever gets nominated needs to push back on that, harshly--and the rest of their allies in media and politics need to pipe in to the point that the "war on women" argument gets completely ridiculed and stale. The very concept that "not making someone else pay for something I want" is "taking away my rights" needs to be called for what it is.
The fact that the left has been able to muddle that argument with any success shows that the area the right needs to improve on the most is in building its media.
Depending on your definition of liberal, I consider myself a liberal commenter......
It's been said that an honest politician is one who stays bought.
Perhaps they're hoping or expecting that Hillary! will be a less than honest pol?
ARM: "Having lost all our liberal commenters"
Can't lose what you never had. We've had liberal trolls like you, not commenters.
Although there was one, long ago when I first got here (the Valenti/Marcotte mess). I don't remember his name, but he used logic and reason and wasn't always wrong.
Rip on Clinton then vote for her. Actions appear consequence-free when a paid troll has tenure and a govt pension.
AReasonableMan,
Having lost all our liberal commenters, we are now reduced to trolling other web site's commenters. It's a sad state of affairs that a once vibrant commenting community has become a monoculture.
How did that happen, I wonder? I don't recall chasing off garage mahal or eyethink2. Or you, for that matter, who are the living refutation of your own "monoculture" comment.
In the period before Pearl Harbor, the Left strongly opposed American involvement in the war, pushing for the US to support a 'cruel neutrality' that would benefit Hitler. Once Hitler turned on Stalin, overnight their support for neutrality evaporated, and they were rabid advocates for American entry into the war to defeat Hitler. It was as if the prior pieties of pacifism (say that three times fast!) had never existed....
When Hillary gets the nomination, suddenly the Left will discover that those terrible Republicans are the REAL threat, and fall into line....
Post a Comment