ADDED:
She later issued an apology for the remark.Sorry, that's not called an apology. That's called bullshit.
"I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever," the former first lady said.
Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson defended the comments to The Post, "She was talking about the length of the race and using the '68 election as an example of how long the races in the past have gone -- she used her husband's race in the same vein."
पोस्ट्स
१४६ टिप्पण्या:
Ah, but does it make her a sociopath?
She plainly meant anything can happen.
Obama is likely to assassinate himself, if anything.
I think both should drop out.
"Why can't we all just get along" ?
said Rodney King.
This just in:
Tonya Harding joins the Clinton campaign and is placed in charge of "special projects".
"She was talking about the length of the race and using the '68 election as an example of how long the races in the past have gone -- she used her husband's race in the same vein."
What she was, in mining that vein, was busy sticking her foot so far into her mouth she didn't notice what an ass she was making of herself.
(Note: Sometimes mixing metaphors in a ridiculous fashion produces the precise effect desired.)
You can just see the wheels turning: "Yeah...if opponent gets assassinated...they have to turn to me!"
Yikes!
It's like she's running a protection racket.
"It'd be a shame if someone untoward were to happen in June. It's a scary world out there, Democrats. Hate to have something bad happen to your frontrunner. I'm just saying..."
I think both should drop out.
See, I told you all this election season has already dragged on too long. Look what it's doing to people! I mean--for goodness sake--I, reader_iam, am finding myself inclined to agree with rhhardin!
I'm tellin' ya, folks, hell is freezing over (is that why it's so darn chilly today, where I live)?
I was speculating about Hillary and the "A" word back on the 8th.
Right, reader_iam. How about just the one who can only predicate her "winning" at this point on the assassination of the other drops out?
Damn. Obama had better hire a food-taster now.
One of the context-sensitive ads that is coming up with the gmailed comments from this thread is:
"perfectmarathonskirt
Buh-bye chafing. Hello skirt! Run chafe-free ... ".
Hm.
i've been hoping that Mrs Clinton stays in until the very end strictly for the entertainment value it provides.
And she is living up to my expectations beautifully!
montana urban language: I'm currently exasperated by the whole spectacle that's unfolded, and using humor as a defense. I'm not making a serious suggestion, much less staking out a serious position, on what Obama and Clinton should do (except maybe take the weekend off, in the case of the latter).
Sorry, "legend," not language. OK, maybe I should take the weekend off.
That's called bullshit.
Probably horseshit. Bullshit is where you don't particularly care whether what you say is true or not.
I recommend Harry Frankfurt, On Bullshit, an essay that only irregularly is found on the internet.
Then there's chickenshit. So many animals! Like making petty corrections.
So Hillary is holding on "just in case" someone decides to shoots Obama? Reminds me of the Lww & Order episode where the KKK elders use the term "lone wolf" as code to distance themselves while encouraging direct action by their youth.
Very stupid gaffe by Hillary. I can almost hear the superdelegates shifting to Obama.
Damn. Obama had better hire a food-taster now.
Nah, he should merely brush up on coroner reports of passed [not past] Clinton associates: Apparent suicide. Gunshot wound to back of head
I'm an Obama backer, and just last week I wrote on another blog that I felt that by coming as close as she has, "Hillary has earned the right to be asked to be on the ticket."
This comment though causes me to re-assess that sentiment. After all, if she will say anything, then the obvious question is whether she would do anything.
The remark is very clearly directed towards her supporters, that there is still a path to her winning the nomination. It involves the death or incapacitation of her opponent.
And the old standby 'I'm sorry if anything I said offended someone' line that passes for an apology anymore leaves me apoplectic. It really means ('I know I have to say something, but I'm not really sorry.')
I've thought all along (at least since everyone knew that she wasn't going to be the nominee) that she was secretly waiting for something to happen.
When you think about Hillary, there are only two ways to think about her:
You know that she's capable of doing anything, no matter how horrible.
You know that she's capable of hoping for anything, no matter how horrible.
I tend to believe the latter. I hope that's as far as it goes.
John and Ken (KFI) say that this pretty much ends the Vice Presidential talks.
So, what's worse, Hillary raising the possibility of Obama's assassination, or Huckabee making a joke about somebody assassinating Obama? I say Huckabee was slightly worse, because he seemed to be implying that it would be funny if Obama were assassinated. But you could argue the other way. If you want to be chosen for VP, already talking about the possibility of the nominee-to-be getting assassinated is probably not a good method. So, maybe she doesn't want to be VP after all.
Here's the full apology:
“Earlier today I was discussing the Democratic primary history and in the course of that discussion mentioned the campaigns that both my husband and Senator Kennedy waged in California in June 1992 and 1968 and I was referencing those to make the point that we have had nomination primary contests that go into June. That’s a historic fact. The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy and I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation, and particularly for the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that, whatsoever. My view is that we have to look to the past and to our leaders who have inspired us and give us a lot to live up to, and I’m honored to hold Senator Kennedy’s seat in the United States Senate from the state of New York and have the highest regard for the entire Kennedy family.”
Jeez Ann:
Maybe that old TV commercial Hillary ran which was a take-off on the Sopranos was no take-off.
I say Huckabee was slightly worse
So you're saying that Hillary is a slightly better Dem VP candidate than Mike Huckabee? Kind of a low bar to clear.
Topic #1: The Obama and Clinton Campaigns Enter Into Formal Negotiations For Hillary To Have the VP Spot.
Topic #2: "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."
Them's some tough negotiations.
Regardless of her intention, the fact remains that Hillary Clinton, running against a black man, made the wretched mistake of, inadvertently or not, referencing an assassination in the late 1960s. And this is against the backdrop of the likelihood that, should such a ghastly, horrific thing happen the fall election, she would indeed be the likely nominee of her party, just as she would indeed become president if she were selected as veep if such a vile event happened afterward.
However you slice it, it was a wretched, incredibly stupid thing to say, at best, even assuming it was a mistake, for someone in Clinton's position. I honestly don't see any way around that.
Huckabee's fitness or unfitness is beside the point to Clinton's predicament. Her situation can be judged in and of itself.
(I have no use for Huckabee as a presidential or vice presidential candidate, to be clear. In fact, I was, and am, implacably opposed to him being in either role. I just think what he said is irrelevant.)
Oh, man, bad comment on her part. No good way out of this mess other than to say "I'm sorry for mentioning that" profusely and hope that people forget about it over the long weekend. But I think her chances for being VP may have just imploded.
With all due respect Chris, Huckabee doesn't have anything to do with what Hillary has done today.
I'm not easily offended..but I can honestly say that what happened today was offensive. Not what she said, mind you, but that she said it, the thought process behind it, and the overall disgusting display of desperation. I really despise her and her husband now, whereas before I thought they were just fools.
Stunning gaffe on Hillary's part, however...a little voice in my mind can't help but think, "But what if her comment was calculated to put an end to all of the current discussions about a unity ticket with her as VP to Obama?"
The real contest is not who said the dumbest things; the contest should be who makes the most graceful apology. Obama does very well, but practice makes perfect. Hillary seems brittle and way too defensive. Huckabee on Meet the Press seemed contrite and sincere, but that might be part of his skill set as a preacher. I don't remember McCain, for all his age and senior moments, saying anything near as dumb as those three. But it is a long time until November.
Not sure what to put here.
When you think about Hillary, there are only two ways to think about her:
You know that she's capable of doing anything, no matter how horrible.
You know that she's capable of hoping for anything, no matter how horrible.
There's something about the Clintons that connects hidden primal pathways in the brain that triggers paranoid schizophrenic delusional thought processes. I wonder what it's like to go through life always so frightened and skittish from a mere sentence from a 60 yr old woman. But after reading foaming mouth auto-outrage comments at the fever swamps like HuffPo leaves me a bit fearful, I'll admit.
It seems to me that, at present, Hillary could use to be a bit more skittish about the sentences that come out of her mouth. It's not been a good week for her in that department, Garage Mahal.
That is one of the funniest gaffes I've heard in a while. Oops!
I spotted a typo. The quoted passage should be like this:
"She used her husband's race in the same vain."
43 U.S. Presidents, 17 assassination attempts, successful or otherwise, not including attempts on candidates.
Not very reassuring.
What is it about American politics that makes it so fucking dishonest?
Obama says something that sociologists and anyone who's been paying attention has known for _decades_: poor people vote for socially conservative candidates and often against their own economic interests. And then he has to do all sorts of verbal gymnastics for saying something that anyone with an IQ over 100 has known for years.
Clinton says something that people have been openly worrying about since 2007 (the A word). And people are acting like she's going Travis Bickle on Obama's ass.
Let's face facts. A lot of people (black and white) have been worried that some crazy racist asshole would try to take out Obama. Now, that might not be a good argument for her to continue her campaign (I think there are better reasons) but who reading this hasn't worried about it?
Let's drop the phony 'shocked!' postures.
For what it's worth: I think Clinton was dumb to say that, but not for the CW reason. Nowadays no public figure knows when they're being recorded and some candid remark will show up to haunt them.
Some people also think the A word is a good reason for Obama to pick Clinton as VP: assassination insurance. Picking a white male VP candidate is just asking for some crazy, racist asshole to try to make it into the history books. But a person crazy and evil enough to try that isn't going to want a Hillary presidency either.
Dan Quayle made for some good assassination insurance.
Sorry, but I do find it surprising she would make that kind of mistake or, if it wasn't a mistake, that she'd think it'd be a good idea.
"Everybody" is not running to be a candidate for the presidency, Michael. That's the distinction. I fail to see how making that distinction is dishonest. Failing to make it seems a little silly to me.
Garage, it's peculiar to see you reference HuffPo that way - not that I disagree, but I guess I'd ask you if you find that the way that many parts of the netroots have treated Clinton during this campaign has changed the way you see them? Those of us on the other side of the aisle have found them really quite beyond the pale - crude, crass, and given to rote talking points. That fire's previously been trained on Republicans, but now it has increasingly been aimed at Clinton supporters, and I guess I'm wondering if -- this isn't just aimed at GM, I guess it goes for anyone -- if that's changed your perception of some of these places.
Hillary: "Get me rewrite"
Rewrite: "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was running for the Democratic nomination in June when he was tragically assassinated."
What she was really thinking:
"Hey, as long as I don't drop out, when the hit goes down next month I'm golden"
You watch the video of appearance before that editorial board, and it's pretty clear--at least to me--that this was a gaffe. But--man!--imagine saying that to an editorial board, and while being videotaped no less. Yikes.
Arkancide has a way of just happening.
But Bobby Kennedy WAS assassinated. In June. It's factual history, you can even look it up. It's not Hillary's fault, and she's not saying she's hoping for it. She's saying "anything can happen because anything HAS happened ..." Are we really that sensitive anymore? Why is that an inappropriate thing to say?
And Martin Luther King was assassinated in April 1968. What would you think if she'd referenced that back in late March?
It's not "inappropriate" as much as it is revealing.
She didn't have to mention RFK, and if she did, she could have mentioned him and that particular race only in the sense that it was still an undecided race in June...plus, she's been mentioning her husband's ultimate victory not coming until June OVER and OVER and OVER again...but now suddenly today, she decided to throw in the Kennedy reference as well?
She wants it to happen. I can see it in her eyes. Trust me. If anything unfortunately happens to him now...uhh...prime suspect #1 is over there, in the pantsuit.
Simon
To answer your question, 100% definitely. I never thought Hillary would get any sort of fair coverage - and you always have CDS dead-enders like FLS that are compensating for something lacking in their lives - but I never thought it would turn into an amusement park little shop of horrors. There are virtually no liberal blogs I read anymore to gain any sort of insight or pleasure. At the same time it is liberating in a way, I don't have to defend people like Michael Moore and John Kerry anymore that I could never stand to begin with.
[Update]. Add Zachary Paul Sire to people I never liked and am no longer shackled to. "I can see it in her eyes! She's a killer!"
LOL.
So my turn Simon. Do you see the same screechy whiny liberals you always have, or is it different now in the amplitude?
For crying out loud, Hillary. After all the Kennedys have done for you too.
And Zach, given your outrage earlier at the mere suggestion Hillary would off Obama some people have, your 5:12 comment makes no sense:
"You know that she's capable of doing anything, no matter how horrible.
You know that she's capable of hoping for anything, no matter how horrible."
Cheers,
Victoria
oh good grief...the "see it in her eyes" comment was an attempt at humor. sorry. i don't think she's planning anything.
but i don't doubt that she would be totally relieved if something were to happen.
What a blunder. First she says something factually true. Unforgivable. Then she compounds the error by her statement being relevant to the topic at hand. Astonishing.
What a light weight. She has no chance, none.
Victoria,
I don't understand your comment. I don't know what you think I was outraged by? My point in my comment you cited is that I believe Hillary is capable of hoping for anything, no matter how horrible.
In all fairness, if you actually watch the video, it's obvious that she's just quickly using it as a historical reference point to remind everyone of what month previous campaigns have gone until - even though it's likely an empty point because they started later(?) - I'm trying to get through Sullivan's posts on this. But on the printed page, electronic or pulp version, it does look really bad. And it shows you that her thinking can be just as disorganized as that of any other candidate's, or as disorganized as that of a very, umm, specific candidate's - at least according to her hard-core supporters.
But hey, if I was running against the laws of statistics and probability - and arithmetic - maybe I'd get tripped up like that too.
Ah, Zach sorry if I got your comment wrong, but I was referring to this earlier one.
To Bob's comment you replied in the second paragraph here:
she's yearning for that Sirhan Sirhan moment.
She's a lot of things...I can't stand the woman...but that's taking it a bit far. Good grief.
Your 5:12 reply here suggests you were not so easily shocked that someone might think that, since such a scenario MIGHT happen, however much you hope it wouldn't happen.
(As do we all)
Cheers,
Victoria
I am not boiling over about this remark.
The lady has been blabbing her head off to reporters, voters and party pros nonstop for two or three years.
She's tired, desperate, depressed.
Ted Kennedy's brain tumor is in the news. Robert Kennedy's face is on the cover of Vanity Fair. She's got Kennedy on the brain.
In context, she was giving her listener, basically, a list of political events that happened in June. She never completes the thought. Obviously, as soon as RFK's name came out of her mouth, something stopped her -- her brain probably.
I think trying stone Hillary with this gaffe is a stretch. I think her comment about "white working class" voters was a far more substantive mistake, displaying an attitude that divides us all up into our demographic boxes and turns candidates into candy-dispensers to the various groups. And it of course had a tinge of racism.
This is just Joycean stream-of-consciousness, dream-talking. She doesn't want Obama to die, nor is she asking the party to keep her candidacy alive because she's predicting his demise. She just put her foot in it, that's all. We all do it from time to time, and we all talk alot less than candidates have to.
BTW, am I the only person who is not out watching the Indiana Jones IV movie tonight?
Having a cold sucks. :(
I think trying to stone Hillary with this gaffe is a stretch.
What I meant.
AJ Lynch said...
This just in:
Tonya Harding joins the Clinton campaign and is placed in charge of "special projects".
Actually her ex-husband Jeff Galooley (sp?) would be.
The Clinton's, especially Hillary should know better than to mention anything about assassinations when it comes to anything they do. Man, she literally lumped in 3 innuendos in that phrase alone. The first one was that Obama is the target, the second is what may happen if you mess with the Clintons, and the third is what would happen if assassination occurred if she was VP. Talk about revealing the plot. Hillary is a walking sociopathic spoiler. This must be making Little Miss Sullivan's head (don't know which one) explode.
Good heavens.
To borrow a phrase from Ann Richards, the woman was born with a silver foot in her mouth.
I think trying to stone Hillary with this gaffe is a stretch.
John, I agree.
But it has been an unusually gaffe-prone campaign on both sides (primarily via Obama though).
Hillary was just more overdue.
Cheers,
Victoria
Obama says something that sociologists and anyone who's been paying attention has known for _decades_: poor people vote for socially conservative candidates and often against their own economic interests.
First of all Obama didn't say anything about "their economic interests". Secondly, left-wing economic policies only favor the short-term interests of lower-income workers, while harming their long-term interests by making it harder for they and their children to permanently improve their standard of living.
Hillary's comment was not a slip of the tongue. The Clintons are the political equivalent of the Sopranos-----animalistic in their pursuit of power. They will say anything and, I fear, do anything to achieve their goal---supremacy. They will WIN AT ALL COSTS. Obama---and anyone/anything that stands in their way---BEWARE! Hillary is the enforcer. Bill is her cheerleader--he stands by and admires the results of her outsized ambition. Hillary's comment is atrocious.
BTW, FYI, and IMHO: The only way I want BHO to be brought down is through his election defeat at the ballot box.
I now feel that Hillary couldn't use the Manchurian Scenario if she tried.
Even if Rev. Jeremiah, Bill Ayers, and Farrakhan all pulled the trigger together on national TV while in front of the Lincoln Memorial, Hillary could no longer pull it off; Those three would be left along and Hillary would be pushed right in front of a firing squad for immediate rough justice.
My God, what did I just forecast? BTW, this in no way implies that I now endorse HRC or BHO!
OTOH: Hillary might now be done as a candidate!
Obama says something that sociologists and anyone who's been paying attention has known for _decades_: poor people vote for socially conservative candidates and often against their own economic interests. And then he has to do all sorts of verbal gymnastics for saying something that anyone with an IQ over 100 has known for years.
That's a convenient distortion of what Obama actually said. His idea was that rural and small-town voters (not poor people) "cling" to religion and rituals like hunting because of the erosion of jobs to overseas competitors has made them "bitter."
He said nothing about voting for social conservatives. Nor did he account for the fact that these people and their forebears also observed religion and went hunting when economic times were good.
Also, nice try with your appeal to "sociologists." All sociologists? Is there a scientific consensus that liberal policies are better for middle-class people? Where are the studies proving this?
You must be too young to remember to 70s. Conservatives took over the country beginning in '78 primarily because of economic issues. Social issues were out there, but they were secondary.
Democrats with a brain realize the economy drives votes more than anything else. That's why they are working so hard to sell the "we're in a recession" meme, and why they worked so hard to do the same in '92. They realize that if one party gets stuck with the blame for economic problems, the other one benefits.
garage mahal said...
"So my turn Simon. Do you see the same screechy whiny liberals you always have, or is it different now in the amplitude?"
You mean at HuffPo and the like? Well, I don't know that my perception of the leftosphere's changed, because from my perspective, they're not really doing anything different to engender such a change. They're just aiming at another target, concededly one who I don't agree with, but even so, the flames being hurled have nothing to do with substantive policy, so it's almost interchangeable.
That said, I will say that I've gained something of an insight into - perhaps some more sympathy for - those on the left whose reaction to Bush is that raw, visceral contempt. I've never experienced that kind of primal "feel like you have to shower any time you hear them speak" revulsion from everything about a politician before -- I don't have it towards Clinton, who I rather like, frankly (although I know some conservatives who do), but I find myself having that reaction to Obama. And I find myself getting a little screechy and whiny about him, periodically, which has made me a little less dismissive, a little less willing to roll my eyes and write it off to so-called "BDS."
"At the same time it is liberating in a way, I don't have to defend people like Michael Moore and John Kerry anymore that I could never stand to begin with."
I know exactly what you mean! lol. But, y'know, it isn't the case that you have to carry the can for everyone who happens to be on your side. There are several people on my side that I can't stand - I've never defended Jeff Sessions, for example, who I think is a ghastly little toad of a man. I don't like George Bush very much, I don't think he's run a good administration, and I don't propose to defend him (I gave up doing that when he nominated Harriet Myers - you're on your own after that, George). To link this up to what I was saying above in reply to your question, I'd also say that the election season hasn't changed, but has intensified, my queasiness towards some in what I suppose I'll have to call the rightosphere - that kind of intensely shrill chicken little-like disposition that seems to infect some of the smaller right-leaning blogs and a lot of their commenters (if HuffPo is the sewer of the internet, Free Republic is the storm drain) and identical reliance on rote talking points just drives me up the wall. Not that I necessarly disagree with them, it's just a question of style and tone. And now many of them are turning it against McCain, which drives me utterly batshit - I just don't understand what the hell is going on in some of these people's heads (sorry, rcocean).
Man, Olbermann is going to TOWN on this one.
He's not just ranting, or hectoring, he's now YELLING.
I try not to watch his speeches too often, but boy! It's sure risen to--topped even,--some of those I remember him aiming at Bush, for crying out loud.
We live in weird times.
vbspurs said...
"BTW, am I the only person who is not out watching the Indiana Jones IV movie tonight?"
No - we're not going to see it just yet. But we are going to go see Iron Man this weekend.
montana urban legend said...
"In all fairness, if you actually watch the video, it's obvious that she's just quickly using it as a historical reference point to remind everyone of what month previous campaigns have gone until...."
Exactly. Couldn't agree more.
RIA, Olbermann's job is in jeopardy. He's trying to smash his way out of a job (again):
May 19, 2008 -- IS Keith Olbermann, MSNBC's top-rated anchor, on the verge of yet another professional meltdown? His feuding with "Hardball" host Chris Matthews is nothing new. But now we're told notoriously odd Olbermann is lashing out at the rest of his network's talking heads. During West Virginia primary coverage the other night, Olbermann began pounding the table when lead White House reporter David Gregory didn't wrap his segment quickly enough to satisfy him. Olbermann recently encouraged management to oust the cable channel's lone conservative, Tucker Carlson, and it's also no secret among producers that Olbermann refuses to introduce Dan Abrams' show, which follows his own. Olbermann walked out of MSNBC years ago in a huff after also blowing up at ESPN, so TV insiders are curious if this recent behavior is a sign that history will repeat itself. MSNBC did not respond to our calls and e-mails seeking comment.
O'Reilly is the angry white man according to the Left. All the while ignoring the seething rage and envy of Olbermann all these years.
No - we're not going to see it just yet. But we are going to go see Iron Man this weekend.
I tried watching that but I walked out (not an indictment on the film. I'm not engaged by comics adaptations except Batman, Superman, and the Transformers).
Been told it's great though. :)
I have a need to watch a film on its opening weekend. If I don't, I tend not to go.
Like politics on Althouse, it's the shared excitement of the brand-new novelty of each post, or in this case movie, and the babbling of the crowds.
People get so hysterical when someone says what is both obvious and true.
People get so hysterical when someone says what is both obvious and true.
I thought she was bright.
What a dumb this to say.
I'll bet the Kennedys (most of them) are glad they didn't support her.
Stephanopoulos: "I want the truth!"
Hiliary: "You can't handle the truth!"
Stephanopoulos: "Did you order a Code Red? DID YOU ORDER A CODE RED?!"
Hiliary: "You're goddam right I did!"
In response to this and several comments in a similar vein: But Bobby Kennedy WAS assassinated. In June. It's factual history, you can even look it up. It's not Hillary's fault, and she's not saying she's hoping for it. She's saying "anything can happen because anything HAS happened ..." Are we really that sensitive anymore? Why is that an inappropriate thing to say?
She's not just saying 'anything can happen because anything has happened,' she is also justifying the fact that she's still in the race based on that statement and her examples. It's not simply evoking the possibility that Obama could be assassinated, which I do think is dumb and insensitive and more dumb, but it's also implying that she has considers that possibility to be a motivating factor in her ambition. "I stay at this job that I hate because I think my boss is nearing a heart attack and I might get promoted if he dies" -- it's the kind of thing people think and feel guilty about, but it's not the kind of thing you would stand up at a meeting and announce. Comprende?
Victoria,
That comment I made about not thinking Hillary would "take it that far" was in an earlier thread, before she said what she said this afternoon.
I'm not sure if I should feel schizophrenic (sociopathic?) for now reacting so differently....but the game changed dramatically when she said what said. But I just went with my gut reaction. I take my back my comment in the earlier thread! (Wait, can you do that?)
Typical Hillary; say stupid things, apologize, and move on. I am surprised she did not include her usual line- let's talk about the issues that are important yada yada yada. Maybe if she wouldhave cried when she apologized...
Nah, I cannot take anything she says seriously. She is too dishonest.
I think political apologies should never include the word offended.
Maybe her name should be Killary!
The McCain campaign also used the looming Memorial Day weekend, a traditional news black spot, to release his wife's 2006 tax return, which showed she made six million dollars.- breaking news
Making that kind of money by sitting on one's fat ass, made me forgive what Hillary said. The economic system rewards people who don't work for living and just stare in the mirror several times a day to see if a hair is out of place. This is why we want economic justice and an end to Bushshit & Reaganomics. Shame on the Right and the Left for allowing the sick greed game to continue. Cindy McCain in the White house is enough to make me wanna puke.
I was 9 years old and watching Bobby Kennedy giving a speech on TV shortly after which he was shot and killed. Nixon became president and the Vietnam war continued on. That's what I call evil resulting from evil. Happens all the time.
Eli Blake said...
I'm an Obama backer, and just last week I wrote on another blog that I felt that by coming as close as she has, "Hillary has earned the right to be asked to be on the ticket."
Though Eli reconsidered his stance later, it is worth remembering that Party contests have had many close runners who have traditionally not been "owed" the VP slot because they finished #2.
It is counterproductive if you campaign against a competing philosophy within your Party to then name your defeated rival as your heir apparant in most cases, despite cries some make about how forcing such ideological opponents in bed will "Bring Us All Together".
Probably a good thing that Carter did not run with Teddy, and Bush I did not make Buchanan his VP.
***********************
from vspurs post: Olbermann recently encouraged management to oust the cable channel's lone conservative, Tucker Carlson, and it's also no secret among producers that Olbermann refuses to introduce Dan Abrams' show, which follows his own.
Olbermann is a real genius, so convinced of his job security from his nutroots cult following he disses his GM, Abrams..His campaign to rid MSNBC of conservatives is laughable and plays right into the hands of Fox - and people at MSNBC that want a "tabloid" hour to boost ratings and a little more middle-ground commentary.....
Tucker is not the only conservative at MSNBC.
The morning show has Mika B, Willie Geist, Joe Scarboro (centrist Dems and Reps) -plus frequent guests like Buchanan and Barnicle.
David Gregory is trying to show he is not a screaming Leftie. Matthews IS - but tries hard to protest he isn't one. Abrams has lefty views, but over time, he has migrated to a willingness not to indulge in, or put up with PC crap.
Besides Olbemann, the only 100% unvarnished, unrepentenant Lefty is David Schuster.
"See, I told you all this election season has already dragged on too long. Look what it's doing to people! I mean--for goodness sake--I, reader_iam, am finding myself inclined to agree with rhhardin!"
Now, now reader,youse guys have a lot in common.
I mean you both like chicken.
Just not in "that" way.
Why is that an inappropriate thing to say?
Because coming from her, it sounds like she hopes it will happen again.
You could almost wonder, is she sending a coded message to the troops, like Osama bin Laden?
Thank you, Ann, for calling it what it is. [Still shaking head in disbelief.]
Alex Trebeck: Favorite movies for 300. What is Barack Obama’s favorite movie?
Buzzzzz.
Alex Trebeck: John McCain
John McCain: What is Reds?
Alex Trebeck: No sorry.
Buzzzzz
Alex Trebeck: Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton: A shot in the Dark.
Alex Trebeck: In the form of a question.
Hillary Clinton: Is my only hope A Shot in the Dark?
Alex Trebeck: No. Disturbing, and too much information but no. The correct answer is Cleopatra Jones and the Temple of Gold. Next category, annoying presidential relatives for 100.
(Jeopardy, 2008)
I am by no means a Hillary fan, but I think most people are reading the headline and not watching the video.
Hillary was clearly saying that other candidates have continued campaigning into June, even when they had little or no chance of getting the nomination. Bobby Kennedy was far behind Hubert Humphrey in delegates, and had less of a chance of catching up than Hillary does now (remember, this was before superdelegates). Her point - which is pretty clear if you watch the video - is that Bobby was still campaigning for the California primary in June even though he was behind in the delegate count. It is very clear that she was not intimating that Obama could be assassinated - it was all about other candidates in the past continuing their campaigns past this point.
With that said, it was a pretty bad gaffe.
Titus opined,
I'll bet the Kennedys (most of them) are glad they didn't support her.
This has been an internecine fight between the Kennedy machine of the democrat party and the Clinton machine. Obama is the representative of the Kennedy machine. There's no way that they would support Hillary.
Drudge Report. May 23, 2008…Hillary Clinton attempted to make amends for her gaffe of mentioning Bobby Kennedy's assassination in reference to Barack Obama. As a gesture of goodwill she offered Senator Obama his choice of tickets to Ford's theatre or a steak dinner at Sparks Steakhouse…..Developing.....
Trumpit said...
"[Cindy McCain] made six million dollars ... by sitting on [her] fat ass"
I'd say that's an issue that might require some closer study.
Making that kind of money by sitting on one's fat ass, made me forgive what Hillary said. The economic system rewards people who don't work for living and just stare in the mirror several times a day to see if a hair is out of place. This is why we want economic justice and an end to Bushshit & Reaganomics. Shame on the Right and the Left for allowing the sick greed game to continue.
Jeez, nearly 50 years old and you still think this way?
There's nothing wrong with being a liberal; hell, I think I'm a liberal half the time. But Cindy McCain's money is like Ted Kennedy's -- the result of their ancestors' hard work, combined with the magic of compound interest. Knowing that your granddaughter will one day be able to "sit on her fat ass" and make six million dollars inspires people to create new businesses that benefit workers and consumers
Sure, it's gauche sometimes. Cindy's grandpa didn't make his pile inventing a cure for cancer. But what could you possibly replace the capitalist system with that would yield the results we have in the US -- a generally wealthy population by any reasonable historical standard?
John, these are trafficers in the politics of envy. Just compare their rhetoric vis-a-vis the oil companies with their erstwhile desire to raise the gas tax. Liberals aren't upset about high gas prices, they're just jealous someone other than the IRS is getting the loot.
amba said...
Why is that an inappropriate thing to say?
Because coming from her, it sounds like she hopes it will happen again.
Exactly. Anyone and everyone could have had the thought. And anyone could speak it out loud (though in most social circles it would be widely condemned).
But one person alone - the person who would have the most to gain if it really were to happen - must never EVER utter the thought. Inappropriate... a blunder... yes, but the real revelation was in her bullshit apology. Pure evil.
Samantha Powers said it and should have stood by it: Hillary Clinton is monster.
CDS dead-enders like FLS that are compensating for something lacking in their lives
Hey I was kidding about the hit. I just got a kick out of the second city skit r-i-a linked to.
Would putting the Clintons back in the White House be good for America? Put it this way: if the Clintons didn't make it back in the Oval Office, Hill's brother could never score any more cash for arranging Presidential pardons.
This is idiotic. There is no reason to believe that Hillary! was thinking about RFK's assassination, but rather, that he was still running in June.
I don't even think that it was a gaffe. Rather, it was a non-issue turned into one by the media in the tank for Obama.
I have never liked the woman, but for once in the last 16 years that she has been on the national stage, she is getting my sympathy. I didn't sympathize when her man was caught by the blue dress, and she stood by her man. But I do now.
"Would putting the Clintons back in the White House be good for America? Put it this way: if the Clintons didn't make it back in the Oval Office, Hill's brother could never score any more cash for arranging Presidential pardons."
You know, I don't like any of them......BUT, better the devil we know than the one we don't.
C'mon folks, it was an innocent remark. All Hillary meant is that to pull out now would be a premature extraction. Every campaign has its ups and its downs, its ins and its outs, and that's why she's going to stay in it till the climax. You go girl!
Making that kind of money by sitting on one's fat ass...
Hey I'm no fan of Cindy the C-word anymore than the next guy...
but if you're going to condemn someone for making money for doing nothing then you might as well start calling out the entire US Congress and Executive Branch.
John, these are trafficers in the politics of envy. Just compare their rhetoric vis-a-vis the oil companies with their erstwhile desire to raise the gas tax. Liberals aren't upset about high gas prices, they're just jealous someone other than the IRS is getting the loot. - Simple Simon
If I'm envious then you're a pimp and panderer for the rich, Simple. Your use of the word "trafficker" is a nice derogatory touch, Simple. But it only works on the lame; try harder, please.
Just compare "their rhetoric" as if we all think alike about every issue. "Jealous" "envious". Whatever you say, Simple. I think if I made that much money sitting on my skinny ass, something would be wrong about that as well. Work should be rewarded; others slaving to feed Cindy Crawford caviar and trafficking in blood diamonds in order to bejewel her in million dollar Harry Winston necklesses is vulgar, twisted, sick, obscene - just like you are, Simple. My values are different from your puerile values that reward idleness and opulence. Your values suck big time, Simple. Mack daddy pimp that you are!
Interesting. So a lot of the consensus seems to be that since she did not really mean it the way it was taken all should be forgiven. sorry, but when you have a president who makes statements like that one off the cuff and you consider that she could be on the cusp of meeting with our major enemies, the dangers a loose cannon like Hillary is make it far worse. I see the LLL dems going all ballistic over mispronunciations by Bush and yet here we have something that can and has been read as far worse is not something that is just a statement about history. Just does not wash IMNSHO at all.
sorry, but when you have a president who makes statements like that one off the cuff and you consider that she could be on the cusp of meeting with our major enemies, the dangers a loose cannon like Hillary is make it far worse.
Obama: "Not the man I thought I knew"
Hillary's gaffe is miniscule compared to Barack's lack of judgement. We don't have 20 years for him to figure out what kind of man Ahmadinejad is.
No argument on that one either. I think Barak would maybe be OK in a few years but I do not think he is anywhere near ready now at all. His policy arguments seem like vacuous statements of Panglossian proportions with no meat to them. Really see nothing there to support at all. He might be the best thing since sliced bread but the way he has presented himself does nothing to support that position. Gaffe after gaffe and idiotic remark after idiotic remark - and then blaming the staff each time. Not a good sign of an adult IMNSHO.
Some of the Kennedy's are supporting her. RFK Jr. was quoted in the Washington Post that he thought she meant how late some of the previous contests have gone.
Watching the video I don't think her intent was equating what happened to RFK could happen to Obama. I think she was just using examples of how long races went.
She should not of mentioned it though.
The media are going crazy though.
I am leaving for Fire Island tomorrow. Look out beach I am ready for my close up.
Cindy McCain in the White house is enough to make me wanna puke.
I was 9 years old and watching Bobby Kennedy giving a speech on TV shortly after which he was shot and killed.
Right, because Robert Kennedy came up from thea mean streets of Southie, and couldn't rub two cents together in his pocket.
Trumpit, I can always tell when someone quote's you.
It's always a little sad hate-filled rant.
Cheers,
Victoria
You are correct, Virginia. Anyone who mentions RFK and Cindy McBush in the same breath is deserving of "a little sad hate-filled rant."
Please accept my sincere apology.
I think she was just using examples of how long races went.
Sure. And moreover, I think most people know that, so where's the beef?
The beef is she's made two horrible gaffes.
1- She's conjured up the idea people have that something catastrophic might happen to Obama, and she might be behind it if VP.
2- She's chosen the worst possible timing, with RFK's brother battling his life against cancer
She could've reached back for JFK, who also fought deep into May. He too was assassinated, but much later.
But no. She had to go with the guy who was offed DURING the race.
She had to be a Boomer about it.
Cheers,
Victoria
But Hillary said the same thing a while back, so it's no slip of the tongue. Why on earth would she bring this up as if had any relevance to campaign strategy? I have nothing against her except her politics and her marriage, but could amba possibly be right, even in some sick subconscious way?
Time Mag Interviews Hillary
Wow - All of you need to get a life. There is an media driven issue - it is BULLSHIT to act like this is even offensive.
She obviously sees herself as the Bobby Kennedy in the race, campaigning until the bitter end even though people think she has lost the race. That is similar to Bobby Kennedy.
She clarified her remarks afterwards too.
Yawn.
What a bogus issue.
This is not the most number of comments on an AA posting but it's becoming typical of her blog. For whatever reason, AA's blog has a goodly large number of commenters, many of whom have ongoing conversations. LGF, or as we sometimes call it LFG, has a much larger number of comments per posting, on average, but AA's are remarkable regardless, many of which comments are even pertinent to the posting subject!
Perhaps one reason is the most recent photo of AA on her home page or perhaps it's her use of a fish-eye camera lens!
Here's what people are saying she should have said.
"We all remember that Bobby Kennedy campaigned until June".
And the same people that are going to the fainting beds now because of her remark, how would they have acted to the above statement.
They would have said stuff like "Hilary compares herself to Bobby - Forgets that Bobby was offed in June. Ha ha - huge gaffe by Hillary".
Like I said - a bullshit media generated controversy. Would love to tape record all of the critics on this thread for an entire year and they cherry pick the most offensive statements and play them over and over and over. It was no different with Jeremiah Wright.
People are human - and sometimes they speak, or don't get their point across clearly. Shocker.
The bottom line is that this was not a remark that served to further her campaign or push any delegates to her side.
It was a remark, a word, assassinated, that spoke directly to her inner psyche. It proves that these are the sorts of things (assassination) that she thinks she might have to fall back on. Why say that word, in this context, if it wasn't swirling around in your desperate little head?
I don't think so Zachary. She doesn't need to stay in the race in case Obama is assassinated.
She could just as easily quit the race and endorse Obama. If Obama gets assassinated, they would still hand the nomination to her.
Staying in the race has nothing to do with it.
Funny.
Althouse and all the other blogs pounced on the Hillary/RFK news within minutes after it broke. But Andrew Sullivan took over an hour to post about it.
His excuse that prefaced his initial post about it?
I was on the stairmaster when the news came through...
Sorry...I'm having drinks and thought that was funny.
plus frequent guests like Buchanan and Barnicle.
Ol' Dusky and Crusty.
Some of you don't correctly remember the "bitter" comments.
1) BHO was talking to folks who were going to campaign for him.
2) BHO's comments weren't for "rural voters." In fact the specifications are rather particular. According to BHO the people he was talking about demonstrated all of the following characteristics:
--can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives
--some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest
--the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them
--they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
3) the bitter folks who match all of BHO's description above cling to one of the following aspects:
--guns
--OR religion
--OR antipathy to people who aren't like them
--OR anti-immigrant sentiment
--OR anti-trade sentiment
Those are the facts.
Moving to my opinion:
1) these comments were unwise.
2) I'm open to the idea that BHO was sloppy in his language because he attempted to create a dumbed down explanation of voting characteristics in the communities described above. In other words, he got too cute by thinking that the quickest way to communicate to these San Fran types was to use simplistic concepts, because at the time BHO was focused on getting these folks rallied. At the time he didn't realize his words would be taken as his credo on rural folks. I'm sure that he could have given a more accurate explanation to the San Fran folks since over the years of his political life he's met with plenty of rural folks.
3) A lot of rural folks aren't into this victimology. I would like it if we had a rule where only folks who match all of BHO's description above can claim to be offended by these comments. The idea of city folks whining about the so called insult to rural folks is hilarious, but it's not surprising: urban and suburban people are thin skinned babies (stereotyping is fun.)
4) I'm not giving HRC the benefit of the doubt. She's a liar about SCHIP, Tuzla, FMLA, being "instrumental" to peace in Ireland. She's been on the sidelines in the Senate (never mind sloganeering: Doer, Resultser, Fighter, Changemaker, Solutionser.) She's used un-credited (and unknown to the investigator) evidence to attack a 12 year old rape victim in order to help a 41 year old rapist. She's got a record of attacking women that have been harassed (and claimed rape in one situation) by her husband. Her two biggest political challenges have been health care reform and the current campaign, both of which have shown that she's a knee capper without results.
Last year I assumed I'd vote for her. Not too long ago I would have given her the benefit of the doubt. But, now it's obvious that she knows what most folks know: she needs BHO to have a disaster for her to win. I don't think that she's been counting on an assassin. Rather, she's been participating in political (not physical) fratricide. This is why she's been implying that hard working whites will never vote for BHO, and she's been indicating that sexists are trying to unfairly steal her nomination, and WJC has (again) claimed reverse racism, just in case any white folks didn't understand that the affirmative action candidate was taking the nomination from the more deserving, hard working, white HRC. No, I'm not giving her the benefit of the doubt.
Why say that word, in this context, if it wasn't swirling around in your desperate little head?
Just to say that there is only one entity with more egg on their face today, than Hillary Clinton.
The media.
The way the media have covered this entire campaign has verged on the satirical.
Do you remember how much time was spent on Obama reputedly "shunning" Hillary's handshake at the State of the Union?
How many repeats of that exact moment do you recall?
How about the one where Obama allegedly, but maybe really truly deep down in his heart, gave Hillary "the finger"?
Fox, CNN, MSNBC, NYT -- not one failed to cover these lapsus linguae.
AN Wilson, that Young Fogey, said the internet killed conversation.
No, it didn't. It's just one big kaffeeklatsch and everyone's invited.
Cheers,
Victoria
I would like it if we had a rule where only folks who match all of BHO's description above can claim to be offended by these comments.
Heh. You must be one of those enlightened folk who routinely use bigoted stereotypes like "redneck" but then mask the word "nigger", completely ignorant of the double-standard.
My values are different from your puerile values that reward idleness and opulence.
But it's their money. Their idleness isn't being rewarded. They are idle (and how many wealthy people are really "idle?") because they or their family created that wealth via some kind of industriousness. Their success and hard work is what is being rewarded. It's not costing you or me anything because it's not our money. We didn't earn it, and other than the portion that goes for taxes, we have no claim on it.
I mean, what are you proposing? A 100 percent inheritance tax? You'd be very disappointed in the outcome of such a policy. Tax avoidance would become the nation's biggest industry. Other countries would revise their banking laws to take advantage of the outflow of American capital. Business owners would liquidate thriving businesses as they approached retirement, laying off employees, disrupting the business model of vendors; investment decisions would be warped such that ROI would become a lower priority, meaning less money available for economic growth.
Of course, the government of your dreams might decide to take a tough stance against tax avoidance. Great. We'd develop a high-tech totalitarian government where there is no such thing as privacy because somewhere, someone might be making a buck and not turning over Uncle's share.
It's okay with me if you hate wealthy people. But trying to eliminate them would end up hurting everyone. It would make our society poorer and in many ways unrecognizable. We'd become North Korea.
John Stodder,
You're thinking about wealth is totally wrong in my opinion. The Walton family fortune is about $100,000,000,000 the last time I checked around one year ago. If they got a 5% return on their money then they made about $5,000,000,000 SITTING ON THEIR FAT ASSES!! That can not stand. Please shut the fuck up, so I don't have to scream at you anymore. If I discuss the matter any further, I will end up resorting to more invective. Do I have to wrestle you to the ground, hogtie you and gag and tape your mouth shut? Virginia wouldn't approve of my rowdy, rough & tumble behavior. So I can't go that route.
Fen,
I don't use either word. But, I do work construction, hence my neck is sometimes (during our sunny months) red. A lot of so called "hard working" folks have red necks.
PS: I have heard BHO use the second of those words. I heard it on wingnut radio (I think it was Lars or Hue, but I listen to so many I can't recall who's show it was.) These were excerpts of BHO reading his book (audio version) where he was speaking the words credited to one of his childhood friends.
The media.
Yawn. Also, as if what you do, and I do, and everyone else here does, ain't.
(Most important, what's with the "they're so OTHER, aren't they? yet still I rely on them for so much of the guts of what I link to!"'tude?
How something-like "so five years ago"--and that's arguably being extremely generous. Maybe even excessively.)
Isn't it, yet, time to let go of reflexively applying that theme/meme? To stand on one's own, native legs OR not be so blithely dismissive of the "prosthetics" so relied upon in order to "run with it"?
Sheesh. I tend to leave this issue alone; for the vast majority of the time, I let the pronouncements thereof alone, no matter what, where or who (because, really, why bother, right?). But every once in a while it gets to be too much to keep trying to never say anything about it.
And then I do.
If they got a 5% return on their money then they made about $5,000,000,000 SITTING ON THEIR FAT ASSES!! That can not stand.
Why not?
Who cares?
If I'm a blue collar guy who fixes boat engines, I hope the spend some of that money on big yachts.
If I'm a waitress in their favorite restaurant, I hope they order the most expensive thing on the menu so I can get a big tip.
If I'm running an AIDS hospice, I hope they agree to my request for a grant.
It's not like the government would have this money if it hadn't been accumulated by the Waltons. They didn't steal it from you. They created it. None of it would be yours if they didn't make it in the first place.
Your best shot at getting the piece of their enormous pie is that they'll spend some of the dough on a value-added service or product you provide. So quit whining and figure out some way to get rich people to voluntarily give you their money.
The way the media have covered this entire campaign has verged on the satirical.
Yeah--and you and I and all of us, bloggers and commenters, are part of it. For goodness' sake--who's kidding whom?
For those in the blogosphere who insist in being all Sandra Dee about media, I have only
this to say.
I think most people are reading the headline and not watching the video. [...] It is very clear that she was not intimating that Obama could be assassinated - it was all about other candidates in the past continuing their campaigns past this point.
or
This is idiotic. There is no reason to believe that Hillary! was thinking about RFK's assassination, but rather, that he was still running in June.
I'm sorry, but I watched the video. Twice just to be sure after reading these comments. And I disagree. There's 'no reason' to believe she was thinking about his assassination? Could you please go back and read the quote that headlines this blog post and then say that again for me. The sentence in which she refers to Kennedy is categorically and, in fact, solely, referring to his execution. And it's obviously the first thing that springs to anyone's mind when Bobby Kennedy is mentioned. I bet most Americans wouldn't even be able to recall the details of that primary other than the fact that he was killed. I think that implying that she would hire someone to off Obama is taking things a little far, but I mos def think that a morbid hope for the unthinkable is implicit in her comment.
Execution = assassination. It's late.
Trumpit said: "Please shut the fuck up, so I don't have to scream at you anymore. If I discuss the matter any further, I will end up resorting to more invective. Do I have to wrestle you to the ground, hogtie you and gag and tape your mouth shut?"
I fart in your general direction.
Also from this morning's Drudge Report:
EXCUSE FOR NOT QUITTING: HEY, RFK GOT SHOT IN JUNE!
Hillary says purpose was historical instances of candidates staying in race until late in primaries... BUT in 1968 -- Dem Race was only 3 months along!
New Hampshire, first in nation, wasn't until March 12. Kennedy didn't even get into running until March 16. By June 4, 1968, date of California primary, there had only been 13 primaries... Kennedy was killed on June 5...
The Clinton haters are going to have a party.
Vince Foster, Ron Brown and now Obambi?
I have only recently begun to like Hillary.
I wish she would just lose the liberal, feminist crybaby crap and just be the 100% gangster we know she is.
"This here's Miss Hillary Clinton. I'm Bill Clinton. We rob banks".
Anyone who really believes that she was justifying her remaining in the race because someone might kill Obama is an idiot. Just sayin'.
The condition of my supersaturation has produced a crystallization that doesn't allow for this to have any further affect whatever. It's all just more of the same inert matter suspended in solution. She could whip out a weapon and wildly threaten his life with her own hands and that wouldn't have any affect either, nor would her explanations. This.
By odd coincidence, a huge photo of Robert Kennedy's hands appears in today's NY Times. They are God-like and French-cuffed and are descending to touch the masses
(Cornell Capa obit.)
Politics ain't beanbag.
All the vapors and couch fainting is especially humorous coming from the gaggle of leftwing dopes who call Conservatives Nazi's and murderers on a regular basis. I'm surprised none of them have blamed Karl Rove for this.
Go Hillary!
dtl, and others who think this was a slip of the tongue, she has said it before, twice.
It's purposeful, I just cannot figure out why...reminds me of that Kliban cartoon with a psychiatrist sitting in a chair next to his patient, and writing in his pad "just plain nuts."
Perhaps she intentionally meant to invoke the specter of assassination. I'm in full agreement as to what she would be willing to do or say in the unscrupulous pursuit of her own self-righteous egomania. Or perhaps she's just got a one-track mind, or a mind only capable of finding a few and limited number of historical examples with which to make a (erroneous) point about the length of presidential campaigns. And, then again, perhaps those two possibilities merge.
In any event, should anyone feel they've come up short on the sorts of historical reference points for which she claims to have been searching, or should anyone feel they've come up short on articulating just how irresponsible, craven or any combination of the two she was in both making the remark and then avoiding responsibility for it and the full extent of what it implies, this should do the trick.
For the record, I am extremely happy that Mrs. McCain released her tax form, because her husband benefits from her income as well, and this removes a source of speculation and doubt. I certainly do not begrudge her her income, from whatever sources.
Former Law Student,
When John McBush further destroys the U.S. economy, and the value of your house tanks some more, and your spending power is reduced by 50% and you are laid off from your job, and your pension fund dries up, etc. etc. Then maybe you will begrudge her $6,000,000 annual paycheck for no work, just a teensy bit. Until then, when McBush's economic policies come to fruition, you're just incoherently unintelligent.
For the record.
Trumpit's not just envious, he's a die-hard red! Perceived effort (rather than risk of tangibles) must be tied to reward. We're all only entitled to what we personally produce.
He would make slaves of us all. Someone--let's call them The Party--would determine how much our labor was worth and pay us "fairly". The Party would use the rest for noble purposes, after paying themselves of course. (And what greater value could one provide than working for The Party?)
FLS argues that we should spread the graft around. Something to be said for that, I guess, though DBQ worries about the effects of unknown devils.
Garage is freed from the shackles of former associates. This is why I've never been much of a team player.
Seems like the only folks not transformed by this election are the candidates.
Well, whatever Hil(l)ary meant, I think we can all agree that Trumpit is looking forward to our economic destruction.
Then, then! we'll see who has the last laugh!
she made six million dollars.- breaking news.
She paid $1.7 million in taxes. In other words, she did more to support the government programs you lefties lust for, this year alone, than you personally will do in your entire life.
Making that kind of money by sitting on one's fat ass
It is called "investing". It is the reason you have a job -- because people lend out their money instead of stuffing it into a mattress.
Comments here really have gone of topic.
The money redistribution stuff is too much for me. But, it's equally mindless for the wingnuts here to make claims that we must not return progressivity (approximating the situation of a decade ago) to our tax structure.
These wingnut beliefs are based on zealotry rather than data. Please, don't ramble on about Reagan tax cuts without noting the great increase in the regressive payroll taxes which were conveniently counted as revenue. And, please no silly revenue evaluations of the capital gains tax cuts and rises that deceptively exclude the extended time periods that surrounded the cuts/rises.
I know that many wingnuts openly suggest that they want to continue to reduce the federal government's revenue because they assume that the inevitable (see Reagan/Bush) ballooning of the debt will at some point result in a cataclysmic financial disaster such that the government will need to reduce spending because the US will be financially destroyed. How many of you who parrot these wingnut talking points are in on this foolish, and profoundly anti-American plan? And, how many of you are suckers?
For the record, I'm not big fan of taxes. And, yes I do get the big picture idea that our annual deficits are theoretically manageable as a percentage of GDP. But, the continued deficits keep adding to the debt and the percentage of the budget dedicated to interest crowds out other priorities. And, one can easily expect a time when the government can't borrow at the extremely low rates that are currently available. This means that the debt service can (will?) quickly skyrocket even if the amount of debt wasn't being greatly expanded by GOP economics.
And, the budget doesn't have tons (as a percentage) of discretionary non-military spending that can be cut. And, the GOP doesn't have any substantial and specific spending cut proposals, because nobody is going to throw old or helpless people on the street. Certainly it would be inhumane to do this, and these populations also vote for their own interests, but it's also true that there are powerful corporate interests that live on this government spending. This is, for one example, why insurance companies love the SCHIP expansion that was vetoed by Bush. In fact the private sector is hugely dependent on maintaining and increasing the government spending on military and social programs.
I wish wingnuts were better informed of reality: We will always have a social net, and we should have such (if you are unpersuaded by the moral argument, you can consider the sustainability of a functioning society.) Also, corporations aren't looking out for you. But, government is looking out for you, precisely because you have a voice there.
Likewise, the left needs to know that some will fail, and some will (and should) be extraordinarily successful. Our progress is dependent on the fear of failure and the reward of success, attempting to eliminate either is disastrous.
Just an observation, 1jpb: Posting a long comment makes a certain demand of the reader, and some of us--a great many of us, I think--will stop reading when we see "wingnut", "parroting talking points" and, oh, "Amerika", and other similar things, even if we don't think you're addressing us with your insults. (A conservative commenter was taken to task the other day for using "Amerika" ironically, just for example.)
So I only read enough of your post to see that you feel that the current tax system--where the upper half pays all the taxes, and the top 1% pays more than the bottom 90% put together--is somehow not progressive, or not enough.
If you had something to say beyond that, I don't know, because I stopped reading.
Sorry about the "k." That was not on purpose. And, actually I'm not even aware of how that could be an insult (except for the way Wright used more "k"s, which would not in a million years be something I would do.)
For the record, I'm a wingnut (ironically, I've campaigned for McCain in the past, but now I've got my Republicans for Obama sticker on one of my five cars), who has a Chemical Engineering BS, is a former certified programer, former VP in a bank, who now works construction (by choice), and has seen plenty of the higher tax bracket.
Don't read what I wrote, I don't care, and I'm arrogant enough to believe that it's your loss (although I'm not so out of touch to miss that my arrogance is a flaw.) But, thanks for your comment, I'm truly embarrassed about the "k." That was not intentional, especially if it is some kind of left wing bigotry.
1jpb,
Oh, no, you didn't do the dreaded "Amerika", sorry to imply otherwise. Someone else did, however ironically, and people just tuned him out.
For myself, I'm crazy enough to believe there should be exactly one tax, per capita. Everybody pays the same, and we always know exactly how much the gov't is taking.
So, yeah, not a receptive audience. :-)
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा