By telling an Iowa audience on Tuesday night that he had opposed the Iraq war “from the beginning,” Bill Clinton committed a double pratfall. Not only did he refocus attention on his wife’s most hazardous issue, Iraq, just as it was receding as the nation’s Topic A, but he also revived unhappy memories of the truth-dodging nadirs of the Clinton White House.Rich thinks Obama would be a more formidable match for the Republican candidate:
Whatever his caveats, Mr. Clinton did not explicitly oppose the Iraq war from the beginning. But Al Gore did unequivocally and loudly in a public speech before the beginning, as did an obscure Illinois state senator named Barack Obama. What if Mrs. Clinton had led an insurrection against the war authorization in the Senate? Might she have helped impede America’s rush into one of the greatest fiascos in our history?
[T]he Republicans have fallen into a trap by continuing to cling to the Hillary-is-inevitable trope. They have not allowed themselves to think the unthinkable — that they might need a Plan B to go up against a candidate who is not she. It’s far from clear that they would remotely know how to construct a Plan B to counter Mr. Obama...
Part of the Republicans’ difficulty in countering Mr. Obama, should they have to, is their own cynical racial politics. For the most part, race has been the dog that hasn’t barked in this campaign despite the (largely) white press’s endless fretting about whether the Illinois senator is too white for black voters and too black for white voters....
An Obama candidacy would force them to engage. Or try to. A matchup between Mr. Obama and Mr. Giuliani, who was forged in the racial crucible of New York’s police brutality nightmares of the 1990s, or between Mr. Obama and Mitt Romney, who was shaped by a religion that didn’t give blacks equal membership until 1978, would be less a clash of races than of centuries.
Oh, yeah, go after Romney because he professes a religion that had a defect that it eradicated 3 decades ago. That will be wonderfully effective and a stunning display of enlightenment. Don't we all want to see how much religious and racial discord the 2 parties can stir up and leverage in their lust for power?
Can someone please ask Obama how he likes Rich's vision?
***
Maureen Dowd's column is about Obama too. But she's not really promoting him. She's up to something else.
Posts
64 comments:
Dowd thinks Obama has big ears. Clean and acticulate is not enough.
Oh, yeah, go after Romney because he professes a religion that had a defect that it eradicated 3 decades ago.
In my opinion, until Mormons eradicate Mormonism, the essential defect remains.
(In fairness to Romney, his brand of mumbo-jumbo is not significantly more defective than that of the other candidates. Goofier, perhaps, and clearly established by a crass con artist, but not fundamentally more defective.)
Don't we all want to see how much religious and racial discord the 2 parties can stir up and leverage in their lust for power?
Don't forget sexism, Ann. It's a win-place-show trifecta you pundits picking this election cycle.
Now that's entertainment...American style!
(Don't worry, the God-fearing men will be elected soon to clean up this cultural mess your types have led us into.)
"Part of the Republicans’ difficulty in countering Mr. Obama, should they have to, is their own cynical racial politics. For the most part, race has been the dog that hasn’t barked in this campaign..."
I've read this three times and still don't know what the hell its supposed to mean. I need to get the Upper East Side Liberal Code book to decipher it.
What are the Republican's "cynical racial politics" and how does race "bark"?
I guess I shouldn't expect much from a NYT drama critic.
It's upper west side liberal rocean not upper east side. Get you zipcodes right.
Let the anointed have a ball smearing all who oppose Obama as racist. The backlash at the polls will be huge. Then they can claim their worst fears about us benighted ones have been confirmed. But guess what? So called high mindedness will have lost, big, and normal middling America will have escaped the glorious all men are brothers nightmare for four more.
"Oh, yeah, go after Romney because he professes a religion that had a defect that it eradicated 3 decades ago."
Yea, republicans would never use any kind of religion as a wedge issue.
Three decades ago was only 1978. Anyway, it is a mute point because Romney isn't going to be the candidate because he is absolutely the worst candidate and it has nothing to do with his religion. It's because he had completely different views on nearly all of the issues three years ago than he has today. Also, he has spent a crap load of money in Iowa and now he is losing to Huckebee.
I absolutely love Frank Rich.
I am demanding a bath tub vlog now.
Get the bubbles ready and get into that tub.
Lights, camera....action.
"It's upper west side liberal rocean not upper east side. Get you zipcodes right."
Why? Isn't there an upper east side? Isn't the Met Upper East and doesn't Woody Allen live there? And aren't all they who view Central Park Rich & Liberal?
Sorry I'm just a rube from west of the Hudson.
"Al Gore did unequivocally and loudly [oppose the war] in a public speech before the beginning, as did an obscure Illinois state senator named Barack Obama."
And they were both wrong. There was no reason to suppose that the war wold necessarily come to the situation that it has, and to suggest otherwise is to concede that the administration didn't make mistakes in the handling of it, they were just defeated by the crushing weight of historical force. I don't believe that for an instant, and neither does any serious critic of the war.
Upper East Side is considered more conservative/republican. Yes Woody Allen lives there so does Rudy and Bloomberg as well as Norman Podhoretz. These are generally Wall Street/Rockefeller Republicans and neo conservatives not social conservatives (for the most part). I think the Upper East Side gives the most money of any zipcode in the US to republicans, there are also liberals living on the Upper East Side but is has a reputation for being more conservative.
The Upper West Side is extremely liberal. This is where Frank Rich lives as well as many of the more "creative and artistic" wealth.
Both neighborhoods are incredibly expensive. Two bedrooms generally start at around 5 million. Also the condo fees are generally enormous in these neighborhoods.
If you want a better understanding of the specific identities of New York neighborhoods look at the cover of the New Yorker magazine from I think December 2001. The cover is called New Yorkistan and it is a map of each neighborhood and how it would be named if it was in the middle east based of the population of the people living in that neighborhood.
Titusru:
Thanks for the info. I never knew Manhattan was segregated by Politics.
Where does Gulliani live? This should give us a clue as to his real political beliefs.
Rudy lives on the Upper East Side.
Simon wrote:
And they were both wrong. There was no reason to suppose that the war wold necessarily come to the situation that it has, and to suggest otherwise is to concede that the administration didn't make mistakes in the handling of it, they were just defeated by the crushing weight of historical force. I don't believe that for an instant, and neither does any serious critic of the war.
It appears they were right and, along with other war critics, had very good reason to believe that an invasion and occupation of Iraq would be a disaster.
One of the (many) reasons I believed the Iraq war would likely (not necessarily) go badly is that Team Bush had already exhibited thorough incompetence and there was no reason to believe that the Bush administration would show an out-of-character competence in managing the war.
So, Simon, this serious war critic finds nothing logical or compelling in your argument.
NYC is overwhelming liberal though. The Upper East Side is a small sliver of conservatism within the rest of the city.
There are liberals that live in the Upper East Side and conservatives that live on the Upper West Side but Upper East is the only real conservative neighborhood in the city.
Heck, Kathryn Lopez, who is a big social conservative and writes about gay marriage constantly lives in Chelsea which is where I live. Chelsea is overwhelming gay. It is where quite a few art galleries are. The New Yorker cover called it Gaymenistan.
he also revived unhappy memories of the truth-dodging nadirs of the Clinton White House
That's what I found interesting. Since when did Frank Rich and/or the NYT take official notice of Bill Clinton's lying ways?
With the mention of Algore above, I found it interesting that there are some still believing that he would be the best Democratic nominee. Seth Swirsky in a RCP article: Al Gore is the Democrats' Best Hope suggested that he was their best candidate. And many believe he was one of the few who were right in Iraq (but, then, he didn't have to put his political career on the line for such a vote).
Wow, what's K-Lo doing there? Running a mission of conversion? Spreading the light?
Yeah, snarky, but that woman really, really, really puts my teeth on edge. Always has. Always will.
Frank Rich: one of the greatest fiascos in our history
Ha. What an idiotic statement. Thanks for disqualifying any future analysis you might have.
Chelsea is overwhelming gay.
I often thought she played for the other team. No doubt the Hillary! influence.
I understand your intent in terms of wanting to degrade a New York liberal and I wanted you to use the correct term.
If you want to degrade some liberal in New York the correct term would be Upper West Side liberal-that would fit-that would be Frank Rich. Upper East Side Liberal would not fit because it is wrong and most consider the Upper East Side conservative. I hope that helps in the future. Just want to make sure you use it correctly.
Yes, hard to believe K Lo of National Review fame lives in the belly of the beast-Chelsea. I have had the unfortunate experience of seeing her on the street a couple of times. Talk about a fish out of water. The neighborhood is teaming with gays, supermodels, art people....and K Lo.
Also, a little history On The Waterfront was filmed in Chelsea. It used to be where quite a few longshoremen lived in the early 1900's. There may be some that live there now that have longshoremen uniforms or costumes but they are not real longshoremen.
Did any of you listen to the audiotapes on the Idaho Statesmen from the five different men who said they had sex with Larry Craig?
One of them actually said that Larry Craig felched him. Wow, he is really sick.
Was she singing "Hungry Life a Wolf" and carrying a Romney for President poster?
Titus is exactly right. New York City as a whole is overwhelmingly extremely liberal. However, there are pockets of conservatism in the outer boroughs. Bay Ridge, Besonhurst and Borough Park are quite conservative although the demographics are changing. Parts of Queens such as Rego Park and Corona are also somewhat conservative, with the caveat that a great deal of the population can't vote so the old school people have a disportionate voice in regards to their numbers. The Chinese neighborhoods such as parts of Sunset Park and Flushing Queens are socially conservative although they are normally represented by extremely left wing politicians who specialize in customer services. Staten Island is very conservative but I am sure that Titus doesn't consider that part of New York City. Titus is 100% correct when he calls Frank Rich a “Upper West Side Liberal.” What goes on in the outer boroughs doesn’t count. We are not part of the “City.”
Telling us that On The Waterfront was shot in Chelsea is about as accurate as telling us that Chelsea is overwhelmingly gay.
On The Waterfront: Hoboken
Chelsea: primarily heterosexual yuppies.
Wow,even Frank Rich takes note of Bill Cinton being careless with the truth.
Will Rich write a book and call it "The Truth When It Is Convenient"?
FWIW - I see Cyrus is back but where is LUCY?
Rich - An Obama candidacy would force them to engage. Or try to. A matchup between Mr. Obama and Mr. Giuliani, who was forged in the racial crucible of New York’s police brutality nightmares of the 1990s,
I think it is great that there is still one Lefty at the NY Times that bemoans the transformation of NYC into a livable place under Rudy and Bratton. Who mourns the loss of criminal diversity and multicultural felons. Who characterises the era when violent crime fell 60% and whole neighborhoods were safe again as "the police brutality nightmares of the 90s".
I guess Franch Rich was safe in the theater district and in his ivory tower home and place of employment. Rich is exhibit one of why NYC people who drop the Times who do so saying the Times is totally out of tune with the average resident.
or between Mr. Obama and Mitt Romney, who was shaped by a religion that didn’t give blacks equal membership until 1978, would be less a clash of races than of centuries.
NY Times rules on religion:
1. Judaism and Islam may never be bashed. Exceptions are right-wing Zionists as opposed to good ACLU Jews, and certain hardcore Islamist Fundies - who of course must be defended by saying they are the exception to 99.99% of Muslims who are peaceful, wonderful people who defend liberal, progressive thinking.
2. Catholics may no be bashed except as historically ignorant, bloodthirsty people who oppressed noble brown people, but who have mostly reformed their savage Judenhass, bigoted and stupid past - except for abortion.
3. Scientology, Mormonism are NYTimes-defined ignorant cults that can be freely bashed.
4. Even though they have a racist past, and many are stupid and inbred, Southern Baptists and Evangelicals should be accepted by NYTimes readers. Basically as children in need of more education to rise to the moral level of Jews, Muslims, Mainstream Protestants, and pro-choice Catholics.
"One of them actually said that Larry Craig felched him. Wow, he is really sick"
Titusru:
What does this mean? But please avoid giving us too much information.
I'm afraid it's not possible to explain felching without giving too much information.
Ricpic, you are correct On The Waterfront was filmed in Hoboken but it is considered to be reflective of Chelsea at that time. The Chelsea Docks/Piers-which are now a gay crusing area.
Chelsea is the largest gay neighborhood in NYC-is that better Ripic? It has a large number of gay bars, businesses etc. It is changing though like many gay neighborhoods as the gays come in and clean them up and then the prices go up and then the gays move out to find another hood that is cheaper. I think Althouse posted a link to a similar story in the Castro in San Francisco or what has happened in the South End in Boston.
Ripic, don't be so snippy. Give me a big teddy bear hug.
Felching is when one man performs anal sex on another (bareback) and when he completes the act he eats or sucks out his own sperm deposit from the bottoms ass.
I feel like a teacher today.
Cyrus, your own comment concedes the point without realizing it. You "believed the Iraq war would likely (not necessarily) go badly"; Obama and Gore argued that it would necessarily prove a failure. That claim was wrong then, is wrong now, and cannot be proven by reference to what has subsequently happened. It was never certain, nor even probable, that Iraq would reach the state it had; we got into this mess because the administration ran the war in an incompetent fashion.
I'm surprised to see you so gung-ho to defend the administration, which is the practical upshot of your comment. If you claim the outcome was inevitable from the first shot fired, you've conceded far too much ground: you admit that nothing the administration did wrong matters that much because there was nothing it could have done differently to avert the course of events.
I guess a straight man could be into felching too though so I don't want to say it is just a gay thing.
AJ Lynch-
Please do not speak that name.
...there was nothing it could have done differently to avert the course of events.
Well, of course there was -- not invade at all.
Titus, if you could delete your 2nd-to-last comment and repost it without the description of that "sexual act", I'm sure countless other readers would be grateful they had been spared.
Now I have to find some disinfectant for my neurons. How I wish I could un-read that definition. Sometimes ignorance is bliss.
I'm a swing voter, and I would never vote for Obama. IMO he is so incredibly conflicted and weak that he can't even decide to hold his hand over his heart during the National Anthem--at a campaign event! How is he going to face up to our enemies? Does he even admit we have any?
Oh, right, he's going to bomb Pakistan. Ack. He should go back to academia. Hillary at least understands the ugliness of the world and knows that her job would be to face it so we don't have to.
Simon,
I'm afraid you've misread and/or misunderstood my post. You also seem to have a misunderstanding about the position of Obama and Gore relative to the likelihood of failure in Iraq. Let me see if I can clarify these points for you.
First, you claim this:
Obama and Gore argued that [the Iraq war] would necessarily prove a failure.
Except that neither has made such a claim. Your understanding of this is simply wrong. In fact, in Al Gore's Iraq speech (Sept 23, 2002), Gore said this:
We also need to look at the relationship between our national goal of regime change in Iraq and our goal of victory in the war against terror. In the case of Iraq, it would be more difficult for the United States to succeed alone, but still possible.
This contradicts your claim that Gore and Obama argued that the Iraq war would necessarily prove a failure. And because you are incorrect in asserting that they claimed the war effort would necessarily fail (i.e., your premise is wrong), your argument falls apart.
You then claim this:
That claim was wrong then, is wrong now, and cannot be proven by reference to what has subsequently happened. It was never certain, nor even probable, that Iraq would reach the state it had; we got into this mess because the administration ran the war in an incompetent fashion.
Your claim that "we got into this mess because the administration ran the war in an incompetent fashion" cannot be proven. While I certainly agree that the incompetence of the administration has contributed to the current "mess" in Iraq, I suspect Iraq would be a "mess" even without the management incompetence of Team Bush.
Finally, you write this:
I'm surprised to see you so gung-ho to defend the administration, which is the practical upshot of your comment. If you claim the outcome was inevitable from the first shot fired, you've conceded far too much ground: you admit that nothing the administration did wrong matters that much because there was nothing it could have done differently to avert the course of events.
You've clearly misread my previous post. I've not in any way defended the administration. In fact, I can't see how you could read a defense of the administration into anything I've written.
Perhaps your misunderstanding of my point rests with the fact that you don't understand my use of the word "likely." When I use the word "likely," I don't mean "inevitable." "Likely" is an adjective that refers to probability; "inevitable" is an adjective that requires a single, determined result. "Likely" and "inevitable" are not synonyms. Read again what I wrote:
One of the (many) reasons I believed the Iraq war would likely (not necessarily) go badly is that Team Bush had already exhibited thorough incompetence and there was no reason to believe that the Bush administration would show an out-of-character competence in managing the war...
I am not defending the administration nor am I claiming that failure in Iraq was "inevitable." I'm surprised that wasn't clear to you upon first reading.
Again, as a war critic, I find nothing logical or compelling in the argument you present. Your misrepresentation of the opinion of Gore and Obama forms the faulty premise of your first claim, and your misreading/misunderstanding of my previous post forms the basis for your faulty second premise. As both premises are wrong, the arguments based on those premises have no merit.
If Obama wins the nomination, I look for Bobby Jindal to be the surprise republican VP.
Al Gore can't run!
It'll take away his time as a voice actor on "Futurama":
"Finally, I get to save the Earth with deadly laser blasts instead of deadly slide shows!"
I look for Bobby Jindal to be the surprise republican VP.
That would fit his pattern of hopping from position to position. Jindal had just run for and won re-election to the US House before he declared for the governor's race. He knew he'd be running for governor. If he had any integrity, he would have stepped aside and let someone who could serve run for the House. Now we get to pay for another election. Thanks, Bobby!
By the way, I'm not just burned with Jindal on that issue. I wish there were a statute preventing anyone from running for another office within two years of having won another office. I'm sick of professional politicians.
Beth,
The way the cases are going for Jefferson, you may be paying for yet another election.
"Chelsea is the largest gay neighborhood in NYC-is that better Ripic? It has a large number of gay bars, businesses etc. It is changing though like many gay neighborhoods as the gays come in and clean them up and then the prices go up and then the gays move out to find another hood that is cheaper."
Interesting, makes it sound like Gays are involved in "ethnic Cleansing". Or maybe Urban pioneers, fighting off Indians, settling the Urban wilderness, making it safe for rich, fat, Yuppies.
dick, that is, weirdly enough, why Jefferson actually took the majority of conservative, white Republican votes from the suburbs. Yep.
Here in liberal, and black majority, New Orleans, his opponent won the majority vote (including mine). But his district encompasses a neighboring, more conservative and white parish, and they voted him back in overwhelmingly. There are a couple of reasons, among them the prospect that they'd get another ring at the bell in a year or so to elect a candidate they liked better than the woman who ran against him this time. I abhore that tactic, as it did nothing but make our region look stupid, craven, and accepting of criminality in our elected officials. Can you tell I'm still pissed off about it?
Hey, this just up: Karl Rove advises Sen. Obama to "stop acting like a vitamin-deficient Adlai Stevenson" in a memo advising him that he must beat Hillary in Iowa.
Beth:
With all due respect, your claim sounds like one of those urban myths. Are you saying Jefferson would not have won the election without these white Republican voters?
If you can point me to a website,I'd like to do that math myself.
The right on the other hand generally seeks to limit the role of the Court in politics, and return political issues to the ballot box.
And that, along with a patriotic commitment to protect US citizens from all predators, foreign and domestic - is conservatism's biggest strength.
The Left wants a Lifetime Aristocracy of lawyers in robes running this country like the Sanhedrin once ran Israel with claims that Law is sacred,unchangable, obscure and only they can properly interprete it and order society about accordingly.
Beth - "Jindal cost us money for an election!"
Given everyone recognizes what a disaster Blanco and her huge NOLA vote giving her the margin of victory over who now is thought to be the guy they should have elected in 2003, was, consider getting Jindal as Gov an investment Louisiana needed. Just as tossing Jefferson and a few more parasites like him out of shrunken NOLA will be.
And the way odd year gubenatorial elections go, a sitting Rep WILL ALWAYS "deprive voters" of their last year if they run and are elected, even if they have served many continuous past years as a Rep, where presumable Beth got her money's worth.
As far as rip-offs go, that barely approaches Senators running to President - where Hillary and Obama have pretty much been absent from the Senate since 2007 started.
Beth - it did nothing but make our region look stupid, craven, and accepting of criminality in our elected officials. Can you tell I'm still pissed off about it?
The rest of the country is not surprised when NOLA votes for Nagin, Jefferson, etc. Because the voters there ARE stupid, craven, and accepting of criminality. (And widespread corruption)
What's up with going easy on Nagin?
Also, for the record, I will now, as I did at the time (in what were, as it happens, among my very first comments on this blog way back when) question the performance of the Times-Picayune, and how well it served its readership, its constituencies, and rigorous journalistic principles during the period of time immediately surrounding Katrina's assault. (Not to mention that it missed, if not dropped, the ball, in the lead-up.) And how honestly rigorous it was in assessing itself in that regard, later.
Lots of blame and failure to go around.
Trivia
Having transported (I was a teamster not a longshoreman), back when I was a starving student, liquor from both the Chelsea piers (Old Smuggler) & the Hoboken ones (Jameson's), I will affirm that On The Waterfront was filmed in Hoboken & I will aver that in no way was that movie meant to be "reflective of Chelsea at that time", other than, um, on reflection, both were on the waterfront. I don’t know why Irish whiskey came in thru Hoboken & Scotch whisky thru Chelsea. I also don’t know why whisky/whiskey is spelled differently. Since the '60's, containerization has changed these waterfronts into "cotendas" for what you guys want to argue about.
Edith Wharton was quite dismissive of Chelsea in the late 1800s; I don't remember her writing about Hoboken.
More trivia:
It seems to me that, in addition to “Limousine Liberal”, the preferred derisive term for NYC Liberals is "Upper West Side Liberals" regardless of where they actually lurk.
Note: after WW II, the Upper West Side began a slow decline which was not reversed until the mid '60s. No self-respecting UWS Liberal wanted to live in the UWS until Lincoln Center was built by Robert Moses. A few years ago I went on a tour down Memory Lane of the UWS, you know, one of those NYC tours listed in the NYT every Sunday. Two couples had just moved from L.I. to a UWS co-op & were shocked to hear the guide describe the shabby, crime-ridden, unclean pre-1965 state of their new-found heaven, even to the point of arguing vehemently with him, tho he’s well-known & does a lot of these tours. Earlier, I had told these worthies that I no longer lived in NYC. So when I defended the guide from my personal experience, they attacked me as an auslander. Which I was even living in Inwood, the Uppa, Uppa West Side.
For what it's worth, economic Liberalism always held sway in my native land.
For what it's worth, also, Frank Rich was never & will never be a cotenda. Same for MoDo.
Felching is when -
Abomination.
After reading that filth, I'm inclined to convert to Wahhabi Islam.
Fen someone asked what felching is.
I told them what it was.
Now you learned something new.
Learning new things is always a good thing.
Gay are urban pioneers. They generally go into a neighborhood others wouldn't, clean it up, the prices go up, they can't afford them anymore, and the yuppies take over.
It s a tough life being a gay.
Modo doesn't live in NYC, she lives in DC.
titus wrote:
Fen someone asked what felching is. I told them what it was. Now you learned something new. Learning new things is always a good thing.
Titus, Fen is a very fragile creature. He tries desperately hard to avoid being exposed to learning new things. I think you may have inadvertently wounded him.
The only thing remotely interesting Frank Rich will ever write is the line, "As of today, I resign." It will not be newsworthy, however.
In my opinion, until Mormons eradicate Mormonism, the essential defect remains.
When Mormons start demanding beheadings for those who defile Mormonism, I'll agree with that statement.
Hoosier wrote:
When Mormons start demanding beheadings for those who defile Mormonism, I'll agree with that statement.
You must not be aware of the history of Mormon violence. I recommend "Under the Banner of Heaven" by Jon Krakauer to anyone who wants to know more about Mormonism.
I fail to see Pinky's moral equivalence. Mormons did scattered killings 150-160 years ago, involving under 600 non-Mormon settlers and Indians - most of which were condemned by LDS church authorities at the time or later.
Islamic violence is current, extensive in the 10 million + dead in just the 20th Century. And done without apology.
The Lefty love of conflating present day butchery with long past butcheries does no one any good.
At best it is an argument for inaction, when any justice and desire to protect citizens calls for action. "How can you support Israelis putting a suicide bomb designer on trial when they bombed the KIng David Hotel 62 years ago and killed Christ almost 2000 years before that??"
Titusur said...
"Fen someone asked what felching is. I told them what it was."
And the description of it seemed to bear a spooky resemblance to the comments section at several lefty blogs...
Titusur
Who said MoDo lived in NYC (or Hoboken, for that matter)?
She's an "Inside The [D.C.] Beltway" Liberal, with a schoolgirl mind & turns of phrase befitting a columnist for the HS newspaper. (No feminist screeds, please. Bill Clinton is still doing HS hijinx, for instance on the male side. It's a form of Adult Infantilism, if I may make full use of my psych learning from TV psychobabble-ists.)
Her form of repeating Mobyisms consists of writing things like “say ... you know that George Bush drove an ex-girlfriend to Neiman’s to buy Jimmy Choo shoes, which he called ‘Jimmy Woo' ..."
Randy
“The only thing remotely interesting Frank Rich will ever write is the line, ‘As of today, I resign.’ It will not be newsworthy, however.”
Alas, if he resigns from the prestigious “World’s Most Expert Person About All Things Good & Evil” chair at the NYT, he will be allowed to express his expertise forever as a Senior Commentator for NPR or one of the MSM channels.
Cedarford
Good comment & analogy, even tho you are still obsessed with the Joos!
Cyrus Pinkerton: Fen is a very fragile creature. He tries desperately hard to avoid being exposed to learning new things.
More dishonesty and ad hom from you.
I've never been adverse to learning new things, thats what led me to switch from liberalism to conservatism. Whats your excuse for stagnating in irrational idealism and illogic?
What I learned from titus:
1) No peversion is beneath homosexuals.
2) My analogy to "wound sex" a few months back was closer to the mark than I thought.
See Cyrus, your real complaint is not that I refuse to be exposed to new ideas, you simply don't like my judgement re such an "idea".
Sorry I threatened your intelligence so much that you were forced to lash out with ad hom. Perhaps you should consider your own advice.
Post a Comment