Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Republicans Play Nice, Hit Clinton

The five Republicans gathered on stage tonight for the final Republican presidential debate largely avoided direct criticism of each other in the first half of the proceedings, choosing instead to return to an old hobbyhorse -- attacking Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.).

Although the campaigns of former governor Mitt Romney (Mass.) and Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) have been trading body blows for weeks, the two candidates seemed reluctant to get into a mud-throwing battle tonight.

Early on, Romney chided McCain for not originally voting for the Bush tax cuts. McCain refused to take the bait, instead pivoting to focus on his credentials in limiting pork barrel spending.

The two men were far less charitable about Clinton.

McCain repeatedly condemned Clinton for her views on the war in Iraq, insisting that following the plan she advocates for withdrawing troops from Iraq amounts to waving the "white flag of surrender" in the battle against terror. Romney one-upped McCain, deadpanning that the successes of late in Iraq were due to the work of the servicemen and women in the battle, not "General Hillary Clinton".

Attacking Clinton was all the rage in the Republican debates of the spring and summer but faded as the race between the New York senator and Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) heated up. Everything that was old is new again tonight, however.

In the second half of the debate, the candidates are allowed to ask each other questions -- a format that seems designed to create more fireworks ala the Democratic debate in South Carolina on Monday night. We'll be watching.

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 24, 2008; 9:50 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Economy Dominates Early Going
Next: Republican Debate Wrapup: Comity Reigns


I personally think, if all of Republican candidates put together may compare with Hillary Clinton, otherwise none of individual can be on a level of Hillary.

Posted by: kreisch | January 28, 2008 5:07 AM | Report abuse

I'm undecided, but found this great article called "The Convenience of Civility" on the BlogZine SAVAGE POLITICS.

It takes a great look at each of the GOP Candidates.

Here is an excerpt:
"Last night's MSNBC Republican Candidates Debate was an important one for the GOP Presidential Candidates because it was aired from Florida, an immense State from which many of these candidate's continued tenure depends upon. The expectations ran high, when you considered the latest Democratic Candidates Debate was headlined with personal attacks and other assorted political squabble that many claim overrode the serious discourse of issues. It had thus been expected of the Republicans to elevate their own profile by engaging in some fighting of their own, giving the Media Networks something interesting to talk about the next day. Unfortunately for them, from the very beginning of the debate, the mood was calm and composed, thanks in part to the absence of Fred Thompson from the race, a candidate known for his overwhelming boorishness but prone to aggressive attacks against his opponents. In fact, it was the utter civility and mature tone of the debate which truly stood out of the whole night, a fact attributed by many pundits to the Republican intention of distinguishing themselves from the opposing party's antics. This tranquility in the discussions allowed for a comprehensive debate on current political and economic problems affecting our Country. What did each candidate bring to the discussion which finally highlighted their individual personalities?..." Find the rest of the article at

Posted by: elsylee28 | January 25, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

These are just a few of the obvious reasons Romney is the most electable candidate for the Republican party.
1. We need his economic expertise and experience creating and holding jobs. He has real world experience dealing in today's global marketplace. Without a strong economy, nothing else works. Romney is or best hope to grow our economy. Many people consider Romney an economic genius.
2. Romney has a history of asking the right questions, listening intently, evaluating carefully and decisively LEADING. He brings new vision, efficiency, and energy to every endeavor
3. Romney has impeccable integrity and high standards. He is absolutely trustworthy.
4. Romney stands firmly in support of our constitution. He supports states rights and individual rights. He is committed to the preservation of our freedoms.
5. Romney is strong on education. While his was governor, Massachusetts students ranked #l in the nation in education. He will encourage innovation in technology and research and development to find answers to the energy crisis. Romney is an exceedingly intelligent man and proven problem solver!
6. Romney is committed to a strong national defense. He will protect our borders and keep our nation safe. He is also an excellent negotiator.
7. Romney will work to ensure our laws are enforced, our borders are secure, and illegal immigration is controlled.
8. Romney is a self-made man who owes no one favors. He will bring fresh voices and new ideas to the table. Romney will bring dignity and respect to the office of President.
9. Romney is a committed family man. He supports socially conservative values and walks the walk in his personal life.
10. Romney has strong grass roots support all across the west. He is an excellent strategist and a winner.

Posted by: ALMANOJODO | January 25, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

The Republican oil machine was alive and well at last night's debate. Seems that all these old farts know how to do is mock Hillary just like those teenage jerks mocked that tiger at the zoo, right up until the tiger jumped the wall and tore them to shreds.
Boy, will those Republican liars regret their stupidity when they face that tiger up close and personal at the Presidential debates this year. It's one thing to throw stones at her while she's still in the cage so to speak, but once she emerges on the same stage, that old Republican fart, whoever it might be, had best run for cover.
In time, the rest of the nation will clearly see that often times, the best man for the job is a woman.

Posted by: Truthortradition | January 25, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse

and how does Colombia fit into the NAFTA tizzation of


they want to use that superhighway to expedite the importation of

cocaine, crack cocaine and other drug products into the United States more easily ?????

I understand that young men in Mexico are being trained for this right now....a standing army of drug troops...

think I am making it up???

Go to Mexico, check it out. Take your own bodyguards don't want to rely on the locals.

Posted by: tesla2 | January 25, 2008 9:57 AM | Report abuse

The Plan to Replace the Dollar With the 'Amero'
by Jerome R. Corsi

Posted: 05/22/2006 Print This

The idea to form the North American Union as a super-NAFTA knitting together Canada, the United States and Mexico into a super-regional political and economic entity was a key agreement resulting from the

March 2005 meeting held at Baylor University in Waco, Tex.,

between President Bush,
President Fox of MEHICO,
and CANADIAN Prime Minister Martin.

A joint statement published by the three presidents following their Baylor University summit announced the formation of an initial entity called,

"The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" (SPP).

The joint statement termed the SPP a "trilateral partnership" that was aimed at producing a North American security plan as well as providing free market movement of people, capital, and trade across the borders between the three NAFTA partners:

We will establish a common approach to security to protect North America from external threats, prevent and respond to threats within North America, and further streamline the secure and efficient movement of legitimate, low-risk traffic across our borders.

A working agenda was established:

We will establish working parties led by our ministers and secretaries that will consult with stakeholders in our respective countries. These working parties will respond to the priorities of our people and our businesses, and will set specific, measurable, and achievable goals.

and how about that superhighway going through the middle of the United States of America...between Canada and MEHICO...

no worries about _ILLEGALS_ from the bush administration,

he are one.

punters.... all you have is derision. One on dears, and you would belong to person or online.

Posted by: tesla2 | January 25, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

you call that an attack?

I would need tweezers to pick it up.

name calling is the entire wardrobe you wrap yourselves in...

why can't I get a sentence like that out of you poseurs? you don't read? haven't taken any writing courses... you borrow all of your writing material from rushing limp_bought and don't let'emtalk Bill Clueless O'Reilley?

with protectors of evil like you all, I shall have the keys to the kingdom by dawn of next week...

I get snappier comments from children that don't want to go to bed early.

Posted by: tesla2 | January 25, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

before you continue to attack tesla... try googling the word:


Posted by: neeuqelttil | January 25, 2008 2:51 AM | Report abuse

Hey anyone out there have any idea why the Bush supporters have such poor grammar and spelling?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | January 24, 2008 11:26 PM | Report abuse

"We may have to deal with Tesla2."

What do you think happened to Tesla1?

Posted by: bsimon | January 24, 2008 11:18 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe I'm saying this, but Tesla, no doubt posting from Mommy's basement, makes Rufus sound halfway intelligable.


Posted by: JD | January 24, 2008 11:11 PM | Report abuse

c'mon mark,

show me your brilliance...

oh, that was it? does your sister know you're posting from her computer?


Posted by: tesla2 | January 24, 2008 11:09 PM | Report abuse

oh, come on.

you guys couldn't work up a brain between you.

I have taken on 12 of you at a time. your best guns...and all you have is your standard

"appeal to emotion," B.S. stuff...

anyone "with a computer,"


and be busy for a couple of weeks tracing connections...

or find out that Condoleeezie Rice was sitting on a board of directors of CHEVRON when she was drafted to keep things copascetic with Big OIL and the elitist prigs currently in control of our ship of state....

wanna compare comments shunt, or should I refer to you as a paid patron.


Posted by: tesla2 | January 24, 2008 11:03 PM | Report abuse

I wouldn't worry about Blackwater too much longer .. it's only a matter of time before Erik Prince is giving BJs in prison and Wolfowitz & Feith & Abrahms are fighting extradition from Israel.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | January 24, 2008 11:02 PM | Report abuse

JD - I prefer that the audience be polite.
Mild applause, sure. But the live audience can take the lead and ruin the debate for the tv audience.

We may have to deal with Tesla2.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 24, 2008 11:02 PM | Report abuse

My friends, it is a bridge to nowhere, that is why I intend to stay there for another 100 years.

Posted by: a6mech | January 24, 2008 11:01 PM | Report abuse

JimD writes:
"More proof that the Mittster is incompetent in foreign policy."

Thanks for that. I need periodic reminders, lest I start thinking 'Maybe Mitt wouldn't be that bad.'

Posted by: bsimon | January 24, 2008 11:00 PM | Report abuse

tesla, great to see you've been discharged from the mental institution, and managed to get to a computer.

Can I recommend you apply for work as a precinct captain in Kucinich's campaign?

(What? He folded his tent? Well, there's always begging on street corners for spare change I suppose...)

Posted by: JD | January 24, 2008 10:57 PM | Report abuse

oh, so you're associated with Fancis and vinnie, and scootermondious and douglas feith


so you're like all cool with nominating the author of PNAC to be a part of the arms control discussion???

what's your position, jim?

Posted by: tesla2 | January 24, 2008 10:51 PM | Report abuse

hey jimbo, like that is a fabrication eh??? either you're incredibly stupid on on a stipend to fill the papers with endless droning about what a polarizer Hillary is...which is it?

...but since you brought up "the men in black," or Blackwater...

your tax dollars working for

bushCO und CRONERStag drug trafficking teams...

A Blackwater camp on the border may be a covert attempt to militarize the border without going through congressional oversight or public debate. A so-called "training camp" could probably also function as an operational base. Perhaps Blackwater will obtain government contracts to patrol the border, gradually edging out US agents and putting border security into the hands of a private army away from public scrutiny.

And Blackwater could run immigrant detention camps using the same methods they use in the Middle East. Even if this is not the plan, the Mexicans would have good reason to suspect this motivation.

The proposed training camp is located near international

drug supply routes

controlled by the Sinaloa Cartel.



who could have guessed??? not you little washingtonian punters


The remote, mountainous terrain is like Afghanistan, where Blackwater has years of experience running covert operations.

Six miles from the proposed Blackwater camp, northern Mexico has a serious problem with "Men in Black" who coincidentally look, dress, and act just like the Blackwater people. In Mexico, the Men in Black are kidnappers, corrupt police officers, fake federal agents, or Zetas, a narco-paramilitary group. Although Americans may still be swallowing the argument that Blackwater is a "military auxiliary" outfit, the Mexicans are not fooled about who the Men in Black are, what they do, and who they work for. That these same people are now camped out on the US border, or are somehow involved in border enforcement, will lack credibility in Mexico.

Posted by: tesla2 | January 24, 2008 10:48 PM | Report abuse

Jim, From what drindl has said in response to questions I have asked her, the kneejerk response in favor of all things Israel is pronounced among older American Jews - the ones Romney was pandering to, I suspect.

I did not think any of them hurt themselves, assuming you were inclined to agree with them. But I thought MDH shone again, especially with that inventive answer about the stimulus package. I do not want a man who thinks the Earth was created 6000 years ago to be Prez, but he impresses me almost every time out with his presence and spolitical skill.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 24, 2008 10:47 PM | Report abuse

Stick a fork in Rudy, he is overcooked, in other words, DONE.

Posted by: lylepink | January 24, 2008 10:47 PM | Report abuse

So Mitt is in favor of the assault weapons ban that did not pass Congress but he doesn't think new legislation is required.

That is almost like I was for it before I was against it.

Sure like the idea of anyone being able to get an AK-47.

I am not a gun control nut, but where do you draw the line? Should citizens be allowed to own RPGs, Stinger missiles, heavy artillery? If you answer no to that you do agree on some level of gun control is necessary - we are just arguing about where to draw the line.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 24, 2008 10:45 PM | Report abuse


those neocon republic scamming artists...

they have everyone's best interests at heart but their own...


they bleed for george w. went so far as to give

New Orleans 10 photo ops with him and non compete conning tracts to his friends

while katrina victims rotted along the banks of the river...

....maybe george bush doesn't like black


what's trent Lott doing now? snuggling up to Gannon, and Karl rove

a bacon sandwich?

Posted by: tesla2 | January 24, 2008 10:42 PM | Report abuse

I personally didn't like the rule that Brian Williams instituted: no clapping until the end.

Sometimes you can get a feel for how an audience is responding based on the intensity of reaction; MSNBC neutered that sensor tonight.

Posted by: JD | January 24, 2008 10:42 PM | Report abuse


Watch out the black helicopters will be coming for you.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 24, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

Mitt is trying to be the Bill Clinton of the GOP - as far as always trying to tell any group anywhere what they want to hear.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 24, 2008 10:39 PM | Report abuse


I am a Canadian, not a "Can American Mexican"

April 16, 2007

CNN's Lou Dobbs reveals illegal
political-military-industrial elite agenda to destroy Canada, the U.S., and Mexico
by Traci Lawson

CNN's Lou Dobbs reports that newspapers and other media in Canada are referring to, as innocent on-going consultations to combat "terrorism" and promote "co-operation" among U.S., Canadian, and Mexican political elites, are actually not so innocent. Talks that are being officially labeled as "Security and Prosperity Partnership" (SPP), are really aimed at destroying the independent sovereignty of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, under the cover provided by the "War on Terror".

Elites who are linked to a industrial-military complex, are seeking to further consolidate a "North American Union" that is to be run by them. The apparent clandestine nature of these "negotiations" in itself, CNN's Lou Dobbs further reports, reveals that their sought "North American Union" (NAU) will not be in the quality-of-living related interests of Canadians, Americans, or Mexicans. The NAU is a fascistic attempt to replace the democratic foundation of constitutions in Canada and the U.S., with what Mr. Dobbs reports as a "shadow government" of elites.

The SPP was not spawned with public involvement, but by the institutional convergence of Big Business-oriented economic policies associated with North American Free Trade (NAFTA), continentalist military elite interests associated with the U.S. headquarters based North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), and the political cover of initiated "War on Terrorism" legislation.

Former Prime Minister John Turner had led
opponents against NAFTA in 1988. He charged that this Agreement which was championed by then Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, would eventually lead to the destruction of Canada, under auspices of a U.S.-based elitist political-military-industrial complex.

Then Prime Minister Mulroney, who is now
a principal advisor to the current Stephen Harper Conservative minority government, had denied this claim, saying that NAFTA would protect Canada's independence, and only lead to "prosperity". As it turns out, the "prosperity" in the form of the SPP would be for elites, and not for the general public which has experienced a significant undermining in quality-of-living indices.

Indeed, Canada has been slipping from its former no. 1 position in quality off-living, as a result of worsening oppressive poverty in Canada.

Worsening poverty in the U.S. has also continued, as the rich become richer in that country.

The U.S. has the worse gap between rich and poor of any country in the world, and the NAU agenda would further concentrate political economic power into a un-democratic fascistic elite complex.

Originally, these elites sought to take-over Canada, the United States, and Mexico, along with the Caribbean, Latin America, and South America, under the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA). However, well organized pro-democratic
opposition in parts of Latin America, and South America, led by Venezuela's Hugo Chavez stopped the FTAA. As a result, in the absence of local democratic opposition as a result of a coordinated effort to maintain public ignorance, elites in Canada, the U.S., and Mexico, have sought to continue to purse the "conquest of North America" as a consolation prize. Latin and South American leaders who were presented with the FTAA sell-out of democracy, rejected it. However, in Canada, elites saw fit to sell out Canada, similarly as elites in the United States have sought to sell out without any Congressional scrutiny, American national public interests. You see, these elites over the years have had enough of having to "share money that could as they see it, be exclusively going to support various elites purposes, instead of being "wasted" in such areas as universal public healthcare in Canada; environmental regulations; holding democratic elections; social policy areas from welfare, to education, to unemployment insurance; and other "budgetary inconveniences" associated with democracy. Frankly, they have had enough of what they see as certain "weak minded" politicians in the House of Commons in Ottawa, and in Congress in Washington D.C., who are holding up "true progress" in behalf of a New World Order where "only the fittest survive". As far as these elites are concerned, "thankfully", the "War on Terrorism" has provided a "great opportunity" in which the diverse public in Canada, the United States, and Mexico, will, on seeing "acts of terrorism" will be "forced" into the NAU to "vanquish the terrorist enemy". In Canada, the handful of elites who have succeeded in acquiring ownership to Canada's mass-media, and who are linked to the Stephen Harper government, and political elites from other political parties, have seen fit to put a "media block-out".

Posted by: tesla2 | January 24, 2008 10:39 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Romney could buy the West Bank and fire everyone. Hey, it worked at everything he did at Bain, right?

Anyone else as sick as I am of hearing crap about "appeasement?"

Getting almost as old as "on the ground" and "in harm's way."

Posted by: chrisfox8 | January 24, 2008 10:38 PM | Report abuse

"Ron Paul is like the Jester in a Shakespearean Play, who gets to speak truth to power...."

Posted by: Trumbull | January 24, 2008 10:38 PM | Report abuse

Mitt will pander shamelessly to any group on any issue. He has adopted an even more strident neo-conservative tone on the Middle East than that ridiculous posturer Hizzoner (of the temper tantrum about Arafat fame).

Sometimes diplomacy requires that we negotiate with people who do not measure up to our moral standards. Anyone who really thinks that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not central to unrest in the Middle East is totally unqualified to set US foreign policy. Even if some groups use it as a pretext, resolving that conflict in a manner that provides Palestinian self-determination and a secure Israel would go along way towards tamping down tension in the Middle East.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 24, 2008 10:38 PM | Report abuse

"In a speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition of Florida this morning, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney compared individuals who consider the Israeli-Palestinian conflict central to the challenges in the Middle East to appeasers of Hitler in the 1930s"

More proof that the Mittster is incompetent in foreign policy.

Posted by: jimd52 | January 24, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Sorry donttreadonme but while "small government" played well in 1979 it's now almost 30 years later.

We don't want "small government," and we've learned that people who rant about "my money" in public policy discussions turn out to be selfish redneck sociopaths if you give them the reins.

No, we would rather have *competent* government, because we expect government to do its job. We don't want to lose any more cities to hurricanes or be poisoned by food from the grocery store, nor do we want government to facilitate the loss of our jobs to foreigners to the tune of some puerile scold about "Econ 101."

Nice try though.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | January 24, 2008 10:26 PM | Report abuse

Mitt slapped Hillary in a way that was so ON THE MONEY--the only person who ever did it better was....oh yeah...ME!

I wrote 'Hillaryous,' as one of 12 that tell The Left what we think of them. I'm a retired Police Captain--current Deputy Sheriff, and I back up my political ideas with 12 original tunes @

Posted by: Truscott1 | January 24, 2008 10:24 PM | Report abuse

I have to say it. Ron Paul sounded very reasonable tonight. No yelling, just calm honest small government opinion. Kudos Mr. Paul.

Posted by: donttreadonme | January 24, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

GOP debate could be crucial for candidates

Who Won the MSNBC Republican Debate in Florida?


Posted by: PollM | January 24, 2008 10:17 PM | Report abuse

cel1ery: not watching the R debates, but Huckabee projects authenticity in a way that completely surprised me. No I don't want anyone with so dim a grasp of science anywhere near any kind of policy power, but there is nothing to hate about the guy. When he claims compassion for the unborn I actually believe him while I think the rest of the pack just want more consumers to sell crap to.

Huckabee is awesomely comfortable in front of crowds, and he seems completely genuine. He'd be an awful president but probably a friend you could count on.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | January 24, 2008 10:13 PM | Report abuse

General Hillary Rodham Clinton announced today that she has agreed to accede to the wishes of John McCain and will accept the voluntary assignments of Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Huckabee to Iraq effective immediately following the GOP debate.

Posted by: rdklingus | January 24, 2008 10:12 PM | Report abuse

Too bad McCain can't articulate any vision for our foreign policy other than some Hitler Youth BS about "victory"; sounds like the stuff of parades three or five generations ago, but I bet McC couldn't even begin to describe what form "victory" would take in the Iraq Money-Laundering Operation.

What would that mean? Peace suddenly breaks out? The insurgents surrender and turn over their guns? The man is as delusional as the day he declared Baghdad a safe place to take a stroll .. with a hundred military guards.

What. A. Joke.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | January 24, 2008 10:07 PM | Report abuse

Wanna know my personal definition of what makes a blogger?

If someone is so odious a person that the people he or she interacts with completely shun them, that is a blogger.

You don't have to be accepted in normal society to have a blog.

Posted by: steveboyington | January 24, 2008 10:05 PM | Report abuse

Gov. Huckabee has been pleasantly impressive tonight!

Posted by: cel1ery | January 24, 2008 10:04 PM | Report abuse

Whoever wrote that SavagePolitics crap (Michael S? That grimacing bearded goofball?) needs to go back to elementary school and start over with English.

Lesson One: you don't get to determine for yourself what a proper noun is.

As for the evils of socialism (note the absent leading capital), maybe the jackazz should tour "state socialist" Vietnam and see what it's really like under such a system. Hint: the middle class is growing, unlike here where it's under attack.

I'll take a "state socialist" economy over a free-market toilet any day.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | January 24, 2008 9:57 PM | Report abuse

Awesome article to help us analyze the political fiasco at the BlogZine SAVAGE POLITICS.

"The Boom Generation and their Pathetic Spawn" at

Here is an excerpt:

"Although lately it has been in vogue to criticize the Baby Boomer Generation for their role in mudding the political discourse in this Country, it has to be admitted that their generational offspring are even worse. The last couple of days has seen an increase in the discussion of generational conflicts and its effect upon the history of politics in the United States, engaging the Media in the affirmation that Senator Obama represents a "new generation", no longer "stuck" in the fight of the 1960's, always missing the fact that Barack Obama IS a border-line Baby Boomer himself (born 1961) and is only using this rhetoric for his convenience. Obviously, the fact that his principal speech writer (Jon Favreau -not the actor-) is himself a member of the 13th Generation (Generation X) is an important influence in the message that the Obama Campaign is reverberating throughout their advocacy for the White House. Contextually, in the last couple of days we have also been inundated with discussions regarding the supposed improper campaigning in which ex-President Bill Clinton has been engaging in, all in support of his wife Hillary Clinton, and to the detriment of the Obama Campaign. Claims of unjust favour and unfair practices have been pouring from those affiliated with Obama's camp, creating a bad taste in the "mouth" of many voters. How did our recent generations develop this drastic apprehension towards competition, strength and power?

American Baby Boomers experienced many changing events within their sociological habitat which can rapidly be utilized to explain this phenomenon. After all, their epoch gave birth to the Civil Rights Movement, the development of actionable Woman Rights advances, as well as other assorted international military conflicts which increased the strain upon their social fabric. State-Socialism (incorrectly still called Communism) was a competing ideological alternative to the Third World, which greatly increased the economic and Geo-Political stress laid upon them by their parent's interests, most of whom came from the famous Silent Generation, a group still bearing the wounds of the Second World War. And it was in this historic trauma, World War II, that all of this fear mongering and collective faintness was truly born. Firmly based upon comprehensive (some innocent others malicious) exaggerations of the true ideological cause of the horrors inflicted upon the world throughout its engagement and aftermath, the Era's financiers gladly took advantage of such dread and took aim at traditional Western Values, which were slowly beginning, for good or bad, to assume the blame for the incitement of the War and all the other social ills which prevailed at the time. And even though most of these problems were squarely founded upon the after-shocks of the Industrial Revolution, values such as Strength and Power were vilified within social and individual contexts..."

Get the rest of the article at

Posted by: elsylee28 | January 24, 2008 9:51 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company