PDA

View Full Version : Hillary Clinton starts campaigning



savafan
06-06-2005, 10:00 PM
Heaven help us.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/06/nyregion/06cnd-hillary.html?ei=5090&en=b58541f817436370&ex=1275710400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

By PATRICK D. HEALY

Senator Hillary Clinton castigated President Bush and Washington Republicans today as mad with power and bent on marginalizing Democrats during a speech to 1,000 supporters at her first major re-election fund-raiser, which netted about $250,000.

Mrs. Clinton, who is running for a second term in 2006 and is widely described as a possible Democratic nominee for the presidency in 2008, said that her party is hamstrung because Republicans dissemble and smear without shame and the news media has lost its investigatory zeal for exposing misdeeds.

Left unchallenged, especially if Democrats fail to pick up seats in next year's Congressional elections, she said, Republican leaders could ram through extremist conservative judges, wreck Social Security and make unacceptable concessions to China, Saudi Arabia and other nations that are needed to finance the United States budget deficit.

"There has never been an administration, I don't believe in our history, more intent upon consolidating and abusing power to further their own agenda," Mrs. Clinton told the audience at a "Women for Hillary" gathering in Midtown Manhattan this morning.

"I know it's frustrating for many of you; it's frustrating for me: Why can't the Democrats do more to stop them?" she continued to growing applause and cheers. "I can tell you this: It's very hard to stop people who have no shame about what they're doing. It is very hard to tell people that they are making decisions that will undermine our checks and balances and constitutional system of government who don't care. It is very hard to stop people who have never been acquainted with the truth."

Mrs. Clinton described Republican leaders as messianic in their beliefs, willing to manipulate facts and even "destroy" the Senate to gain political advantage over the Democratic minority. She also labeled the House of Representatives as "a dictatorship of the Republican leadership," where individual members are all but required to vote in lock-step with the majority's agenda.

Referring to Congress' Republican leadership, she said, "Some honestly believe they are motivated by the truth, they are motivated by a higher calling, they are motivated by, I guess, a direct line to the heavens."

Then, leavening the moment a bit, she referred to reports from the Clinton White House that she would try to channel with a favorite First Lady of the past. "Now, I talk to Eleanor Roosevelt all the time, and she has never said there is any reason to only have one point of view," she said. "But apparently they have a different direct line."

While Mrs. Clinton has sought opportunities in recent months to stake claims to the political center, emphasizing nuances on abortion and immigration that may appeal to some Republicans and conservatives, her speech today was a starkly partisan rallying cry to her troops at a time when at least four New York Republicans are preparing to challenge her in 2006. She did, however, have some kind words for some past Republican presidents - Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush - but only to praise their stabs at bipartisanship and to slight the current President Bush's posture by comparison.

"We can't ever, ever give in to the Republican agenda," she declared. "It isn't good for New York and it isn't good for America."

Abetting the Republicans, she said in some of her sharpest language, is a Washington press corps that has become a pale imitation of the Watergate-era reporters who are being celebrated this month amid the identification of the anonymous Washington Post source, Deep Throat.

"The press is missing in action, with all due respect," she said. "Where are the investigative reporters today? Why aren't they asking the hard questions? It's shocking when you see how easily they fold in the media today. They don't stand their ground. If they're criticized by the White House, they just fall apart.

"I mean, c'mon, toughen up, guys, it's only our Constitution and country at stake," she said. "Let's get some spine."

Suggesting some lines of reporting, she asserted that the Bush administration could not account for $9 billion in Coalition Authority spending in Iraq, and that the Food and Drug Administration had allowed religious and political bias to interfere with science-driven decision-making on reproductive drugs.

Mrs. Clinton said she wanted to "move back toward a progressive agenda that will lift up people." The other side, she argued, was pressing retrograde steps like the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown, a California Supreme Court Justice, for a federal appeals court seat. Many Democrats plan to vote against Judge Brown if her nomination comes to the Senate floor as expected this week, taking issue with an array of her court decisions and past remarks, like her once describing President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal as "the triumph of our own socialist revolution."

"If you read about her, try not to get upset - I had to read about her and it kept me upset for months," Mrs. Clinton said of Judge Brown. "This is a woman who truly sees the world in 19th century terms. You know, during the Clinton administration, we used to talk about building a bridge to the 21st century. This administration wants to build a bridge to the 19th century.

"They want to undo and turn the clock back on the progress of the 20th century, whether it's the right to organize, whether it's the right to be able to have a choice when it comes to the most private and intimate decisions that a woman has to make, whether it is to protect the environment."

A particularly "excruciating test" for the nation's political future, Mrs. Clinton predicted, could come this summer in a showdown over a nominee to the United States Supreme Court, if one or more current members retire.

President Bush "wants to nominate someone, I believe, who will be a confrontational nominee so that he can provide support to his far-right extremist base," Mrs. Clinton said. "And we have to stand as firmly as possible against that."

On a brighter note, she said, Democrats appear to have all but "stopped" President Bush's "scheme" to overhaul Social Security. But she decried his fiscal policies, particularly Republican-backed tax cuts, saying they were ballooning the deficit and ceding "fiscal sovereignty" to countries like China, which are harder to influence when they become "your banker."

LoganBuck
06-06-2005, 10:16 PM
Moving forward, is there any way to ban people named Clinton, Bush, Taft, and Kennedy from running for public office?

Reds/Flyers Fan
06-06-2005, 10:17 PM
Shouldn't we have at least a one-year ban on campaigning after a presidential election? I can't stomach this.

Redsfaithful
06-06-2005, 10:23 PM
She's campaigning for her Senate re-election.

Calm down people. And try reading the article before commenting.

savafan
06-06-2005, 10:29 PM
She's campaigning for her Senate re-election.

Calm down people. And try reading the article before commenting.

True, but I gotta believe from the context that this is clearly the start of something more.

Redsfaithful
06-06-2005, 10:33 PM
True, but I gotta believe from the context that this is clearly the start of something more.

What part of her speech did you have a problem with btw?

savafan
06-06-2005, 10:37 PM
What part of her speech did you have a problem with btw?

When she starts attacking the current presidential administration (which her husband works for btw) rather than outlining her plan for her next term in the Senate.

LoganBuck
06-06-2005, 10:39 PM
The part where she said "I am glad to be here tonight".

Seriously though, I would very much like to see the stauch division between the parties ended. The partisian, us against them approach is not working. Just alot of showmanship with little accomplishment.

Redsfaithful
06-06-2005, 10:48 PM
When she starts attacking the current presidential administration (which her husband works for btw) rather than outlining her plan for her next term in the Senate.

You don't feel that the President's policies effect New York?

Sava, seriously, this was a fund raising speech. Democrats aren't big fans of Bush. Don't you think a speech like this is going to make people more likely to open their checkbooks if they don't like what the President has done?

I've never heard someone articulate why they have pure visceral hatred of Hillary Clinton in a satisfactory manner, so I'm going to keep assuming it's because people can't handle strong women who have power.

LoganBuck
06-06-2005, 10:50 PM
Redsfaithful, I think it comes from her ability to both condescending and oblivious at the same time. And the fact that she looks like my old high school principal.

Falls City Beer
06-06-2005, 10:59 PM
You don't feel that the President's policies effect New York?

Sava, seriously, this was a fund raising speech. Democrats aren't big fans of Bush. Don't you think a speech like this is going to make people more likely to open their checkbooks if they don't like what the President has done?

I've never heard someone articulate why they have pure visceral hatred of Hillary Clinton in a satisfactory manner, so I'm going to keep assuming it's because people can't handle strong women who have power.

Because she's a hawk. Trust me, this bleeding heart pinko Frenchie lovin' prochoice supporting wacko knows a hawk in sheep's clothing. It's time to stop playing the centrist Bill Clinton goes bun's up to the right act.

It's time for some hardball.

Redsfaithful
06-06-2005, 11:07 PM
Redsfaithful, I think it comes from her ability to both condescending and oblivious at the same time. And the fact that she looks like my old high school principal.

What is she oblivious of exactly?

Reds/Flyers Fan
06-06-2005, 11:08 PM
I've never heard someone articulate why they have pure visceral hatred of Hillary Clinton in a satisfactory manner, so I'm going to keep assuming it's because people can't handle strong women who have power.

That's unfair. It's her politics and personality, not her gender, that offends.

Redsfaithful
06-06-2005, 11:08 PM
Because she's a hawk. Trust me, this bleeding heart pinko Frenchie lovin' prochoice supporting wacko knows a hawk in sheep's clothing. It's time to stop playing the centrist Bill Clinton goes bun's up to the right act.

It's time for some hardball.

Hopefully.

LoganBuck
06-06-2005, 11:23 PM
Redsfaithful, The fact that there are people that don't agree with her at all, or the fact that President Bush has the elected right to nominate whom he sees fit. I know she represents the people of New York, not the US as a whole.

Also she wanted the press to back off of her family while the Lewinsky scandal broke, but she wants them pressing the current administration, because it is polictically advantagous to her.

Furthermore the checks and balances she speaks of are undoubtably the fillibuster rules. They are not meant to be a means of checks and balances, as a way to make gridlock.

wally post
06-06-2005, 11:27 PM
yes - hopefully the democrats can get tough. It is important for ALL views to be heard and considered and not just blanket catch phrases. If catch phrases are all that people want to hear, then the current weaker party needs to get their act together to step up and be heard. ...and FallsCityBeer - SHE's A HAWK???? I haven't seen her do anything other than trying to help NY State. I don't see that.
There - I've done it - spoken about politics. Excuse me...

Redsfaithful
06-07-2005, 12:21 AM
The fact that there are people that don't agree with her at all

I'm fairly certain she's not oblivious of the fact that some people disagree with her.


or the fact that President Bush has the elected right to nominate whom he sees fit

No one has ever argued that. But there's a reason Congress has to okay his nominations. Not that this thread is about that.

LoganBuck
06-07-2005, 01:06 AM
o·bliv·i·ous (ə-blĭv'ē-əs)
adj.
Lacking all memory; forgetful.
Lacking conscious awareness; unmindful.
o·bliv'i·ous·ly adv.
o·bliv'i·ous·ness n.
USAGE NOTE Either of or to can be used with oblivious: The party appeared oblivious to (or of) the mounting pressures for political reform

My points come from the article in the first post. I guess I was getting at how she comes across as dismissive of the opposing point of view. An example: President Bush "wants to nominate someone, I believe, who will be a confrontational nominee so that he can provide support to his far-right extremist base," Mrs. Clinton said. "And we have to stand as firmly as possible against that."

Bush has been elected twice. And the second time by over 50%. His Extremist base, is more than fiery evangelists, and people who bomb abortion clinics. The term far right extremist is an attempt to pidgeon hole conservatives just as someone would say tree lugging bleeding heart liberal.

ochre
06-07-2005, 01:13 AM
What part of her speech did you have a problem with btw?
Was that campaigning? I thought it was her review of Episode III?



:)

Redsfaithful
06-07-2005, 01:32 AM
The term far right extremist is an attempt to pidgeon hole conservatives just as someone would say tree lugging bleeding heart liberal.

I'm sure you're just as comdemning when that happens?

I'm going to guess that you know very little of the judges that were held up by Democrats. Because they were all extremist. They were all a step above fascist in fact.

Just because you don't like the phrase "far right extremist" doesn't mean it's not an accurate description of the judges in question and of the people who those judges appeal to.

RedsBaron
06-07-2005, 07:19 AM
I'm going to guess that you know very little of the judges that were held up by Democrats. Because they were all extremist. They were all a step above fascist in fact.

Just because you don't like the phrase "far right extremist" doesn't mean it's not an accurate description of the judges in question and of the people who those judges appeal to.
Just because you don't like the judges doesn't make them "a step above fascist in fact."
This board is really something lately. Another poster, not RF, recently called Bill Frist a Nazi. Yet another poster was hailed for his "brilliant" post mocking Christians as "Bible thumpers" and essentially stating that anyone who voted for George W. Bush was an ignorant and worshipful follower of a personality cult.
Civil political discussion seems to be impossible here, and discussing the Reds on the baseball side is downright depressing.

LoganBuck
06-07-2005, 07:35 AM
I don't get how you can say that. From what I have read they are conservative and because they stick to their ideals they must be insensitive hate mongers. What proof can you offer to justify your position that they are "a step above fascist"?

savafan
06-07-2005, 09:34 AM
If a woman can't manager her own family, then she has no business wanting to govern.

The same goes for a man.

GAC
06-07-2005, 10:14 AM
You don't feel that the President's policies effect New York?

Tragically and sadly enough, Bin Laden's effected them more.



I've never heard someone articulate why they have pure visceral hatred of Hillary Clinton in a satisfactory manner

Speaking of visceral hatred, ever listen to yourself when talking about Bush?


so I'm going to keep assuming it's because people can't handle strong women who have power.

Wrong. It's not about her being female. It all about ideology.

Did you know that even Hollywood isn't too hot about Hillary running in 2008? They don't think she is electable. Hollywood mogul David Geffen, who was a generous supporter and pal of Bill Clinton when he was president, trashed Hillary's prospects back in February while at a speaking engagement in New York City.

I quote Geffen...

"She can't win, and she's an incredibly polarizing figure," the billionaire Democrat told his audience. "And ambition is just not a good enough reason."

I sincerely hope she gets the nomination myself (and then choses Howard Dean as her VP). ;)

GAC
06-07-2005, 10:18 AM
Civil political discussion seems to be impossible here, and discussing the Reds on the baseball side is downright depressing.

Can I have your permission (knowing you're a lawyer) to use that as my new signature? ;)

But arguing/discussing politics helps me to forget the woeful Reds.

RedsBaron
06-07-2005, 10:36 AM
Can I have your permission (knowing you're a lawyer) to use that as my new signature? ;)


Sure.
I still think Hillary is electable by the way. She certainly is polarizing, but then Reagan was, Bill Clinton was, George W. Bush is-and they were elected President. It won't be easy, but if she is nominated by the Democrats in 2008, she has a decent chance of being elected IMO.

Falls City Beer
06-07-2005, 10:38 AM
Sure.
I still think Hillary is electable by the way. She certainly is polarizing, but then Reagan was, Bill Clinton was, George W. Bush is-and they were elected President. It won't be easy, but if she is nominated by the Democrats in 2008, she has a decent chance of being elected IMO.

Putting Clinton and Reagan in the same breath with George W. Bush as polarizing figures is like saying a bull and a man are both male creatures. The comparisons stop right there.

RedFanAlways1966
06-07-2005, 10:40 AM
She's campaigning for her Senate re-election.

Calm down people. And try reading the article before commenting.

Campaigning for her run for Senate? No kidding. Did you read the whole article? I don't think you read any of it myself. B/c you make the above comments to members here and I see this at the very BEGINNING of the artcle...


Senator Hillary Clinton castigated President Bush and Washington Republicans today as mad with power and bent on marginalizing Democrats during a speech to 1,000 supporters at her first major re-election fund-raiser, which netted about $250,000.

With all due respect I think you should calm down. Perhaps Sen. Clinton thinks she is running against Pres. Bush and/or Washington Repubs for the Senate seat? Because she seems to mention his name and them in her campaign for that Senate seat in 2006. At least that is what the article told me when I read it.

RedsBaron
06-07-2005, 10:47 AM
Putting Clinton and Reagan in the same breath with George W. Bush as polarizing figures is like saying a bull and a man are both male creatures.
Not really. Reagan was essentially accused by his opponents of wanting to blow up the world and of being either a dunce or a cunning extremist. There were repeated calls for his impeachment by his opponents. As for Clinton, he was impeached by the House, though the Senate did not convict on any of the charges, and it is an article of faith by Clinton supporters that his opponents were motivated by a blind, unreasoning hatred.
George W. Bush is polarizing, but that hardly makes him unique-LBJ was polarizing, Nixon was polarizing in spades, Reagan was, Clinton was-----just about the only President in my lifetime who wasn't all that polarizing was Gerald Ford, about whom the consensus seemed to be that he was a nice guy over his head.

Falls City Beer
06-07-2005, 10:49 AM
Not really. Reagan was essentially accused by his opponents of wanting to blow up the world and of being either a dunce or a cunning extremist. There were repeated calls for his impeachment by his opponents. As for Clinton, he was impeached by the House, though the Senate did not convict on any of the charges, and it is an article of faith by Clinton supporters that his opponents were motivated by a blind, unreasoning hatred.
George W. Bush is polarizing, but that hardly makes him unique-LBJ was polarizing, Nixon was polarizing in spades, Reagan was, Clinton was-----just about the only President in my lifetime who wasn't all that polarizing was Gerald Ford, about whom the consensus seemed to be that he was a nice guy over his head.

LBJ was polarizing. You're right. But I was around for Reagan, and he is in no way as polarizing as Bush. Maybe it's because the Dems had more power in Congress at the time, I don't know, but his politics were FAR more centrist than Bush's. Particularly on the social issues.

Roy Tucker
06-07-2005, 10:54 AM
Golly. It's only 2005 and the rhetoric is starting to heat up already. I can't wait.

Hillary a polarizing candidate? Yowzer. Truer words were never spoken.

From a completely subjective and non-scientic view from the leafy burbs of SW Ohio, I can honestly say I know a lot of people that hate her. Not just dislike or disagree, *hate* in the true meaning of the word. Red in the face, voice shake, otherwise rational people get irrational kind of hate. I can't say that about other candidates. I'm not exeactly sure what part of her personality generates this.

westofyou
06-07-2005, 10:55 AM
I'm not exeactly sure what part of her personality generates this.

Personality?

I was thinking anatomy.

Falls City Beer
06-07-2005, 11:04 AM
Just because you don't like the judges doesn't make them "a step above fascist in fact."
This board is really something lately. Another poster, not RF, recently called Bill Frist a Nazi. Yet another poster was hailed for his "brilliant" post mocking Christians as "Bible thumpers" and essentially stating that anyone who voted for George W. Bush was an ignorant and worshipful follower of a personality cult.
Civil political discussion seems to be impossible here, and discussing the Reds on the baseball side is downright depressing.

You're twisting my words and the words of dsmith: I do NOT think all Christians are Bible-thumpers--and that's not what dsmith wrote. He was talking about the cult of personality that spouts this "moral" rhetoric based solely in fundamentalist Christian belief. Not everyone is Christian and not every Christian is fundamentalist. In fact, only a fraction are. Yet, Bush's administration and cronies are activist fundamentalist legislators treating this country as if everyone were fundamentalist.

And no, not everyone who voted for Bush is a wacko, fundamentalist Christian, only the ones who refuse to see Bush has done anything wrong. And there are a lot of those people who simply will not admit that Bush's presidency has had HUGE failings. They will not admit anything. That's pride and delusion.

Bill Frist and Tom Delay are the two furthest right legislators in my lifetime. Maybe it was extreme to call them Nazis, but I stand by the argument that I've never seen two more conservative politicians in my lifetime than those two. And all Nazism/fascism is is extreme conservatism. Just as communism is extreme liberalism.

Redsfaithful
06-07-2005, 12:16 PM
If a woman can't manager her own family, then she has no business wanting to govern.

The same goes for a man.

Ronald Reagan divorced his first wife. I guess you wouldn't have been voting for him eh?

Redsfaithful
06-07-2005, 12:22 PM
I don't get how you can say that. From what I have read they are conservative and because they stick to their ideals they must be insensitive hate mongers. What proof can you offer to justify your position that they are "a step above fascist"?

This is just about one of the judges, Priscilla Owens:

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=616769#1


n his videotaped statement for Justice Sunday, Senate Majority leader Bill Frist "singled out Judge Priscilla Owen, one of the blocked appeals court nominees, for praise in the telecast." Many believe that Frist's specific mention of Owen suggests "she may become the contested nominee at the focus of the looming showdown." For all the conservative talk against judicial activism, Frist and other conservatives should know that Owen has a long record of extremist decisions; her own hometown paper described her as "all too willing to bend the law to fit her views, rather than the reverse." In fact, in reference to one of Owen's dissents, then colleague and fellow Texas Supreme Court Justice Alberto Gonzales went so far as to describe the decision's proposed interpretation of the law as "an unconscionable act of judicial activism." Indeed, in critiquing her nomination, The Houston Chronicle took issue not with her being "too conservative" but with the fact that "she too often contorts rulings to conform to her particular conservative outlook." As the San Antonio Express stated, "The senate should not block a judicial nominee simply because he or she is more conservative or more liberal than the Senate's majority party.… But concerns about Owen go to the heart of what makes a good judge."

THE CORPORATE CONNECTION: There has been a good deal of coverage of Owen's anti-choice stance but her pro-business leanings may be as disturbing. In 2003, the Austin-American Statesman declared that Owen could "usually be counted upon in any important case that pitted an individual or group of individuals against business interests to side with business." Furthermore, she had a questionably ethical tendency to take "campaign contributions from law firms and corporations … and then, without recusing herself, [rule] in their favor when their cases came before her." Owen's rulings are considered so business-friendly and tainted that a member of the National Employment Lawyers Association once quipped, "In my more cynical moments, I suggest that, just as sports stadiums are now named after corporations, judicial seats are soon to follow. In that vein, I believe that Justice Owen could well fill the Exxon/Mobil or Wal-Mart seat on the Fifth Circuit."

THE ENRON AND HALLIBURTON CASES: Two notable past corporate-friendly cases ruled on by Owen involve very publicly known corporations – Halliburton and Enron – both of which had donated to Owen's judicial campaign. In the case of Sanchez v. Halliburton, a Halliburton field worker "won a $2.6 million verdict after the jury found that a company supervisor had framed him to test positive for cocaine." After an appeals court ruling overturned the verdict, Sanchez tried to bring the case to the Texas Supreme Court. In the months during which the case was before the Court, Halliburton made its only campaign donations to Texas Supreme Court justices that year, giving thousands of dollars to three justices: Priscilla Owen, Nathan Hect, and Alberto Gonzales. Result: the court declined to hear the case and the ruling overturning Sanchez's case stood. In Enron Corp. v. Spring Independent School District, Owen "authored the opinion for a unanimous court [decision] that … saved Enron $225,000 and resulted in lost revenue for the school district."

WILLIE SEARCY: Priscilla Owen had a "reputation for slowness in handling her caseload." There were times she got so behind that court clerks tell of "other justices [ordering] opinions to be taken from her chambers." In the case of Willie Searcy, Owen stands accused of contributing to his death with her dalliance. After a defective seat belt left the teenaged Searcy paralyzed, a jury awarded his family millions of dollars in damages. Attorneys on both sides of the case asked for an expedited ruling but the family especially needed the money as they did not have the funds "to provide the medical care he needed." The case languished for years. When Owen finally got around to writing the opinion, she took issue with a question that was not even raised, "left the family with nothing and ordered a new trial."(When the court issued its ruling, it included an "odd" addendum paragraph that somewhat apologized for the delay.) Searcy died while awaiting the Owen-ordered new trial. The family attorney declared, "There's no question, absolutely no question, that the delay contributed to causing Willie's death. We could have saved his life if we'd had the funds to do it."

THE FAKE FRENZY OVER STATES OF EMERGENCY: For all the talk of the "vacancy crisis" on our federal benches, it was as far back as 1999 that the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts declared the 5th Circuit Court to be in a state of emergency. Back then, conservatives in the Senate were not showing this same commitment to filling seats. Time and time again, they blocked "highly-capable, moderate nominees" nominated by President Clinton. If Clinton's nominees had been confirmed, the circuit would have been significantly more balanced between Democratic and Republican appointees than it now stands to be if Justice Owen is confirmed.

FRIENDS IN HIGH PLACES: The nonpartisan watchdog group Texans for Public Justice spoke of Owen's nomination as Karl Rove's "favor to the right wing because she is the darling of the right wing." Rove's friendship with Owen dates back years. In 1994, Rove received hundreds of thousands of dollars for his work as a consultant on Owen's judicial campaign.

I agree that a step above fascist was probably too inflammatory. But for a party that is constantly whining about activist judges it's incredibly hypocritical to be embracing Owens.

If you click the link above there are links to primary sources on most of the above facts btw, just to preempt the "American Progress Action" is teh liberal!!!!11!!! that I'm sure is coming.

Falls City Beer
06-07-2005, 12:47 PM
If a woman can't manager her own family, then she has no business wanting to govern.

The same goes for a man.

What, so as citizens, we're like the "kids" of the President? That thinking died with Locke's "Two Treatises on Government."

dsmith421
06-07-2005, 01:41 PM
Just because you don't like the judges doesn't make them "a step above fascist in fact."
This board is really something lately. Another poster, not RF, recently called Bill Frist a Nazi. Yet another poster was hailed for his "brilliant" post mocking Christians as "Bible thumpers" and essentially stating that anyone who voted for George W. Bush was an ignorant and worshipful follower of a personality cult.
Civil political discussion seems to be impossible here, and discussing the Reds on the baseball side is downright depressing.

The personality cult idea was a hypothesis, to be accepted or rejected. I think it's an interesting idea, based on some people I've talked to it made sense. I'm not trying to lump everyone in, I meant it to be thought-provoking. My apologies if you took it as an insult.

I don't consider "bible-thumping" to be a slur against all Christians. I grew up in a very Catholic family and went to very Catholic schools where I saw literally thousands of honest, God-fearing, Christian people who felt no need to try to convert everyone they spoke to, and did not feel any need to quote chapter and verse to condemn to hell anyone they didn't agree with. I think those people are doing a much better imitation of Christ than, say, James Dobson.

I think generally I'm more than willing to have a good-faith conversation on virtually any issue if I think the other person is entering it with an open mind, even if they totally disagree with me. It just doesn't happen very often on the Internet.

(edited to correct a sentence fragment)

Rojo
06-07-2005, 03:18 PM
"Fascist" and "Socialist" are much abused words. Owens and Brown are certainly reactionary but not fascist. I have used the f-word to describe the Bush Administration in general because of its convergence of state and corporate interests. But that doesn't make them fascists any more than Social Security makes FDR a communist.

GAC
06-07-2005, 04:55 PM
Ronald Reagan divorced his first wife. I guess you wouldn't have been voting for him eh?

He divorced her. He didn't cheat on her with every skirt that came his way (especially while occupying the WH).

I still laugh at Hillary when, during the interview prior to the '92 election, and when her and Bill were asked about his indescretions, she said "I'm not sitting here like some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette."

But the fact of the matter is - SHE WAS! Hillary basically "looked the other way" at her husband's constant indescretions for the political capital she saw in her hubby. To Hillary - If it benefits your career, you should stay with a partner who has been habitually unfaithful--for decades. That the sanctity of your marriage means nothing and getting ahead in your career trumps any personal pride or sense of self-worth.

Now she tries to present herself as a victim thorugh all of what went down.

But my reasoning for disliking (not hating) Hillary is simply from her ideological stances. The woman does have ideological "baggage" (not just her husband)- from Whitewater to Travelgate to Hillarycare. And that, in a majority of the general public's eyes, is what makes her non-electable IMO. She has her base; but IMO, it's simply not enough to get her elected in a general election. No matter how much she tries to "transform" heself over the next few years. I personally don't think the public is gonna believe her, knowing the stances she has taken over the last couple of decades, and now, all of a sudden, see her as a centrist. She has never been center on anything.

And seeing your far leftist ideology RF (which you yourself readily admit), why wouldn't her moving to the center bother you? Wouldn't that be compromising her (your) core principles? Or is it simply as you stated several months ago on a thread, when discussing what the Dems need to do to win in '08, when you basically stated that the Dems need to do whatever is necessary to win the WH, including giving the appearance of moving to the center?

From the PATRIOT Act to the Iraq War Resolution, Hillary voted with the Bush Administration. Doesn't that bother you RF?

wally post
06-07-2005, 05:56 PM
"when her and Bill were asked about his indescretions, she said "I'm not sitting here like some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette."
But the fact of the matter is - SHE WAS! Hillary basically "looked the other way" at her husband's constant indescretions for the political capital she saw in her hubby. To Hillary - If it benefits your career, you should stay with a partner who has been habitually unfaithful--for decades. That the sanctity of your marriage means nothing and getting ahead in your career trumps any personal pride or sense of self-worth.

Now she tries to present herself as a victim thorugh all of what went down."

It is my experience that people who say something such as this (above) - perhaps they themselves have not had a marriage that lasted successfully for a long time and have not experienced the depth that such a relationship takes on after years and years of intimacy. I've been with my wife for 25 years. If she or I had one, or even a series of infidelity, we would still be there for each other - at least as BEST FRIENDS. Yeah, the one cheated on would be VERY ticked! But the public "face" might not necessarily change. We can easily have a good little spat and then go out publicly to one of her events or mine and not shed any of the dissagreement in public. Perhaps Hillary stood with him publicly for the country's sake. Now, our country is not effected by her reaction to her ex-husband. I'll never truly know about, and I don't care about any of our leader's personal lives. I sincerely wish everyone luck with the sanctity of their own marriage and I don't judge what's beyond my reach. But it seems to me that people in power ALL get a little crazy with their personal "habits". In my opinion, anybody who believes that most of our our past presidents didn't do exactly what Clinton did is naive. I mean, even clergy in the churches have a hard time with this stuff.

Matt700wlw
06-07-2005, 09:51 PM
I thought the thread read "Hillary Clinton starts complaining"....

TeamCasey
06-08-2005, 08:22 AM
If a woman can't manager her own family, then she has no business wanting to govern.

The same goes for a man.

I dislike Hillary. I dislike her presence in New York. If I was still there, I wouldn't have voted for her. I think she's a carbetbagger and a fraud.

Her husband is a pig who made a mockery of this nation. That is NOT her fault.

(although staying with him gives her another negative score on the TeamCaseyometer.)

RedFanAlways1966
06-08-2005, 08:27 AM
Her husband is a pig who made a mockery of this nation. That is NOT her fault.

(although staying with him gives her another negative score on the TeamCaseyometer.)

United we stand, divided we fall.

I am convinced that the Clinton's feel their political future(s) depend on this statement. Why? I am not sure in today's modern society. Although I think we have only had 1 president who went through a divorce (Pres. Reagan).

TeamCasey
06-08-2005, 09:02 AM
I'd love to see a woman president someday. Hillary Clinton is not her.

RedsBaron
06-08-2005, 09:32 AM
Ronald Reagan divorced his first wife. I guess you wouldn't have been voting for him eh?
For what it is worth, I believe that Jane Wyman filed for divorce from Ronald Reagan, rather than Reagan initially seeking the divorce. She alleged mental cruelty.
I don't believe that being divorced should disqualify someone from political office. For that matter, while I neither supported Bill Clinton politically nor plan to support any attempt by Hillary Clinton for national office, my opposition to them is not based upon their marital difficulties.
Incidentally, I believe that it is to Jane Wyman's credit that she always refused to discuss her divorce publicly. I have no idea of what her politics are, left-of-center, right-of-center, or center-center, but she apparently decided the reasons for the divorce were nobody's business but she and Ron's. I can imagine that Reagan's political opponents wanted her to publicly say something to harm his political career, but she remained silent.
In his autobiography, "An American Life," Ronald Reagan merely wrote: "Our marriage produced two wonderful children, Maureen and Michael, but it didn't work out, and in 1948 we were divorced."

Roy Tucker
06-08-2005, 10:47 AM
I dislike Hillary. I dislike her presence in New York. If I was still there, I wouldn't have voted for her. I think she's a carbetbagger and a fraud.

Her husband is a pig who made a mockery of this nation. That is NOT her fault.

(although staying with him gives her another negative score on the TeamCaseyometer.)
Don't hold back TC, tell us how you really feel.

Redsfaithful
06-08-2005, 02:22 PM
For what it is worth, I believe that Jane Wyman filed for divorce from Ronald Reagan, rather than Reagan initially seeking the divorce. She alleged mental cruelty.

For what it's worth that strengthens my point. Apparently Reagan wasn't doing his job as a husband if his wife was filing for divorce and alleging mental cruelty.

But I could care less about Reagan's personal life (which was apparently interesting - look at his screwed up kids). Just like I could care less about Hillary's personal, romantic life. Or Clinton's. Or GW's.

It has nothing to do with how anyone governs.

RosieRed
06-08-2005, 02:31 PM
I have a lot of respect for Hilary Clinton. Probably not a popular view in these parts (or in this thread), but it's true all the same. She's been through a lot in her political career and in her personal life. I think it's pretty admirable that she's gotten to where she has, considering how her life and her decisions and her politics have been dragged through the mud more times than one can count.

I've seen her speak in person four times: once in Athens, back in the late '90s, when she was campaigning for a congressman (Strickland); again in Athens the next year when she was the commencement speaker; and twice in upstate New York (Ithaca) when she was running for Senate. I thought both her speeches in Ithaca were great. She seemed right on target with her wishes for the state of New York, IMO. I voted for her for Senate; even had her campaign sign up in my yard.

Were she to be the Dems' nominee in 2008, I'd vote for her. I don't know that I'd agree with her on everything, but if she's the Democratic option, well ... chances are I'm not voting for a Republican, and that would leave her. That said, I don't think she'll be the nominee.

registerthis
06-08-2005, 02:35 PM
Personally, if we're talking Democratic nominees, I'd love to see Wesley Clarke get another shot. He woul dhave been my first choice last year (behind Dennis Kucinich who, honestly, would have a better chance winning Playmate o fthe Year than the Presidency.)

Hillary, I can't profess to be a huge fan--though i certainly don't dislike her nearly as much as others on this thread seem to. And I think IF she got the nomnation, she'd be a difficult candidate to beat.

RedsBaron
06-08-2005, 04:22 PM
For what it's worth that strengthens my point. Apparently Reagan wasn't doing his job as a husband if his wife was filing for divorce and alleging mental cruelty.
In the days before no-fault divorce, "Mental cruelty" was a "catch all" phrase often used in a divorce petition. More often than not it meant little more than irreconciliable differences or just " I want out."
I wouldn't say that having his wife file a divorce petition alleging "mental cruelty" meant that Ronald Reagn "wasn't doing his job." Since neither Reagan nor Wyman ever publicly discussed why they divorced, the reasons for the divorce are speculation, and usually neither spouse is absolutely without blame when a marriage ends.
While it just speculation on my part, I've always assumed the opposite career paths Reagan and Wyman were taking in the late 1940s didn't help their marriage, though that doesn't justify the divorce; Wyman was at her peak, winning an Oscar, while Reagan was well past his peak, and was more involved in his union and political activities.

Sweetstop
06-08-2005, 04:35 PM
RB, I read somewhere that Jane Wyman was just plain bored with RR. Seriously. So your speculation about her peak and his union activities, etc. is probably accurate.

Mutaman
06-08-2005, 04:53 PM
Blah, blah, blah. I will vote for Senator Clinton (again), if for no other reason than the big oil crowd and the reactionaries hate her so much. When your enemy attacks you, it's a sign of honor. But besides that, I'm very satisfied with the job she's done as my senator the last six years. Lots of hard work, and very little showboating. She'll win in a landslide.

Falls City Beer
06-08-2005, 05:21 PM
Blah, blah, blah. I will vote for Senator Clinton (again), if for no other reason than the big oil crowd and the reactionaries hate her so much. When your enemy attacks you, it's a sign of honor. But besides that, I'm very satisfied with the job she's done as my senator the last six years. Lots of hard work, and very little showboating. She'll win in a landslide.

I used to really admire Sen. Clinton. Honestly. And I'm as liberal as the day is long. But she is awfully cozy with hawks like Lieberman and Biden, two men that would have classified themselves as moderate to centrist Republicans 15 years ago. Heck, Hillary's less liberal than Kerry, but you sure as heck wouldn't know it from the way Republicans talk about her.

TeamCasey
06-08-2005, 07:28 PM
Don't hold back TC, tell us how you really feel.

:devil:

Sweetstop
06-08-2005, 08:12 PM
I'd like to see a woman president in my lifetime. Female sensibilities might be just what are needed at this point, and we could do worse than Hillary Rodham Clinton. I hope those Republicans who constantly snipe at her realize that she comes from a Republican family and, if memory serves me correctly from reading her autobiography, she voted Republican (Goldwater, I think) her first time. Plus, for those who care, she's a Christian...has attended the Methodist Church all her life.

I'm not sure why she's so polarizing. Perhaps her strong, somewhat strident personality. And as for her staying w/ her philandering husband, that's her business. Please! She struggled w/ the decision to do so, but I think it boiled down to the fact that she has just always loved the man and decided to forgive him. She could have taken care of herself politically.

Although a bit too hawkish for me, I would definitely vote for her.

RedsBaron
06-09-2005, 12:59 PM
RB, I read somewhere that Jane Wyman was just plain bored with RR. Seriously. So your speculation about her peak and his union activities, etc. is probably accurate.
I can remember how Nancy Reagan was mocked for her "adoring" look when she watched Ronald Reagan give speeches. I have a hard time imagining Jane Wyman ever looking on that way as Ron gave a speech.
It is all speculation, but Wyman being bored with RR, and the two drifting apart, seems reasonable to me.

Rojo
06-09-2005, 01:24 PM
I'm not sure why she's so polarizing. Perhaps her strong, somewhat strident personality.

I'll tell you why she's so polarizing -- because there's a cottage industry devoted to demonizing her.

Jaycint
06-09-2005, 01:57 PM
3 and a half years until November of 2008, boy this is gonna be a fun ride on this side of the board. :)

Sweetstop
06-09-2005, 03:04 PM
I'll tell you why she's so polarizing -- because there's a cottage industry devoted to demonizing her.

Ain't that the truth, and devotees to the cause are looking forward to going back to three shifts a day I'm sure. Her senate campaign in New York will be a cakewalk compared to a possible presidential bid, and heaven help her if she would happen to win.

RedFanAlways1966
06-09-2005, 04:05 PM
I'll tell you why she's so polarizing -- because there's a cottage industry devoted to demonizing her.

I've read tales from people who have worked for her in Little Rock and at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And they seem to think she is a demon and claim that she talks like a sailor. They also claim that she treats the hired help like 2nd-class citizens.

Just what I have read.

Rojo
06-09-2005, 04:13 PM
I've read tales from people who have worked for her in Little Rock and at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And they seem to think she is a demon and claim that she talks like a sailor. They also claim that she treats the hired help like 2nd-class citizens.

Just what I have read.

I see you've sampled their wares.

RedFanAlways1966
06-09-2005, 04:45 PM
I see you've sampled their wares.

Yep... just like all the wares you guys gave me before November 2004. Does the shoe fit?

:)

registerthis
06-09-2005, 04:45 PM
I've read tales from people who have worked for her in Little Rock and at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And they seem to think she is a demon and claim that she talks like a sailor. They also claim that she treats the hired help like 2nd-class citizens.

Just what I have read.
Since we're on the topic of reading things... (http://www.mikehersh.com/Tom_DeLays_Ethics_Violations.shtml)

RedFanAlways1966
06-09-2005, 04:49 PM
Since we're on the topic of reading things... (http://www.mikehersh.com/Tom_DeLays_Ethics_Violations.shtml)

I'll see if I can find the accounts from the two Arkansas state troopers who wrote a piece called "Living With The Clintons". They served as Gov. Bill Clinton's bodyguards IIRC. All these things are hearsay of course.

Personally... DeLay gets on my nerves. Think he would have learned a thing or two from Newt when he went from the top-of-the-game to out-of-office.

registerthis
06-09-2005, 04:52 PM
Personally... DeLay gets on my nerves. Think he would have learned a thing or two from Newt when he went from the top-of-the-game to out-of-office.
I know there are Republicans who think that DeLay is getting to be more of a liability than an asset to the Party, and some Dems would like for him to stay on longer. It wouldn't surprise me to see him go the way of Newt soon.

Rojo
06-10-2005, 12:53 PM
Yep... just like all the wares you guys gave me before November 2004. Does the shoe fit?

Huh?

Mutaman
06-10-2005, 02:36 PM
I've read tales from people who claim that most of those in the current administration are stupid, lack courage, and care only about oil and getting re-elected. I've also read tales that those who vote for them aren't too bright either. of course this is only hearsay.

RedFanAlways1966
06-10-2005, 02:58 PM
I've also read tales that those who vote for them aren't too bright either. of course this is only hearsay.

And elitist attitudes like that did not seem to do anyone any favors.,,, at the polls. Or so the final vote showed. That too may be hearsay. :)

Mutaman
06-10-2005, 06:25 PM
And elitist attitudes like that did not seem to do anyone any favors.,,, at the polls. Or so the final vote showed. That too may be hearsay. :)

Hold on. I didn't say it was my attitude. I'm just telling you what I read. I would never say that people who support an admistration that invades a country that poses no threat to the USA, are stupid. I would never say that people who support an admistration that cuts taxes in time of war are stupid. I would never say that people who support an admistration that injects itself into local state matters, like the Schivo case are stupid. Not me. I'm just telling you that I've read others who have said this.

registerthis
06-13-2005, 09:19 AM
Hold on. I didn't say it was my attitude. I'm just telling you what I read. I would never say that people who support an admistration that invades a country that poses no threat to the USA, are stupid. I would never say that people who support an admistration that cuts taxes in time of war are stupid. I would never say that people who support an admistration that injects itself into local state matters, like the Schivo case are stupid. Not me. I'm just telling you that I've read others who have said this.
A quote this morning in the Washington Post:

"George Bush could kill a sheep on the White House lawn and set it on fire, and my mother would just say "Don't you know, the President is just trying to help. Why do you hate America?"

:D

RedsBaron
06-13-2005, 09:42 AM
I believe that the Washington Post was the newspaper that pronounced a few years ago that religious conservatives were essentially stupid and "easy to command."
While people are engaging in calling others stupid while pretending not to do, I will say this: If someone believes the way to political success is to go around calling other people stupid, especially when that someone could actually use the votes of some of the people that have just been insulted, that seems pretty stupid to me.

registerthis
06-13-2005, 09:55 AM
I believe that the Washington Post was the newspaper that pronounced a few years ago that religious conservatives were essentially stupid and "easy to command."
First of all, the quote I provided came from a biography of liberal talk show radio host Stephanie Miller, not by any reporter for the Post.

Secondly, the quote which you refer to was written in 1993 by reporter Michael Weisskopf in an article concerning the fervent following of Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell.

RBA
06-13-2005, 10:44 AM
Another quote that I heard a few years ago, "Stupid is as stupid does"