Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Wag the Blog: Segolene and Hillary

On Sunday, Socialist Party candidate Segolene Royal lost her bid to become the next president of France, losing in a runoff to conservative candidate Nicolas Sarkozy.

Segolene Royal
Segolene Royal lost to Nicolas Sarkozy 53-47 in France's runoff presidential election.

While most Americans followed the French election casually -- if at all -- there were those in the political world seeking to draw parallels between the candidacies of Royal and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.).

Both were/are seeking to become the first female president of their respective countries and were/are seen as the first woman with a real chance to break the presidential glass ceiling. Both have politically powerful and influential men in their lives-- former President Bill Clinton in Sen. Clinton's case and Socialist Party leader Francois Hollande in Royal's.

But there are differences, most importantly the fact that Royal ran a widely panned campaign -- committing a number of foreign policy gaffes that led critics to insist she wasn't up to the job. Say what you will of Clinton, but few people doubt her readiness to run a tight campaign ship and occupy the Oval Office.

For today's Wag the Blog question, we ask The Fix community whether there are lessons to be learned for Clinton in Royal's losing candidacy?

Have at it in the comments section below. The Fix will feature the best reader responses in a post later this week.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 8, 2007; 5:00 AM ET
Categories:  Wag The Blog  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Hagel Keeps Door Open For Indie Run
Next: John McCain's Inner Circle

Comments

I, actually, don't know what S. Royal really about is. But I doubt that there is another woman currently, who wanted or wants to become a leader of the developed country, having already proven inability to do it, as Hillary has. So, this comparison with essential probability makes Hillary looks better, but the majority of this country knows very well her real outlook, and doesn't want her again in the White House.

Posted by: aepelbaum | May 12, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Sego's (and also Bachelet's) advice to Ankleless Annie, "You don't have to marry the bum," seems to have lost its punch.

Posted by: Philip V. Riggio | May 9, 2007 9:21 PM | Report abuse

I agree with everything Radical Patriot just said. I'm adding my two cents.

The reason nobody votes in america is because most people are not represented. The Red Scare of the fifties threatened to lock up or kill anyone with a true leftist agenda. That is not democracy. If you say, " we are free but you can't think that." When does it stop. You have the modern day conservative movement that thinks they are right, their way of life should be mandated as "the american way."

The right would say. "America IS a free country. If you look/talk/act/do the same hobbies as me." That is not freedom. That is slavery

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 9, 2007 1:14 PM | Report abuse

The problem in comparing US voting to that in France is that in the French general election leading up to the runoff, nearly 85% of the voting populace voted. That means the candidate has to consider the voting populace as a whole.

The only significant comparison of Royal to Hillary is not that they are women. Both countries are quite ready to elect a woman. But not those women. Royal was not the right [woman] candidate for the presidency of France. Hillary is not the right [woman] candidate for the presidency of the US.

We in the US think it's a great turnout if we hit 50%. So what part of the 50% in America votes? Probably the blind partisans voting strictly for one party or the other, regardless of the candidates. How small a percentage of people are really trying to think through what the candidates are and what they represent for the country? But most of that 50% are voting with their genitals [by candidate's gender] or with their skin [by the candidate's race] or with their spleen [against which candidate they hate the most] rather than with their brains.

Stephen Cassidy is quite right that the candidate who should really be getting the scrutiny of voters and media alike is Bill Richardson.

Posted by: Radical Patriot | May 9, 2007 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Stephen, I think you are naive when you say that "Results, experience and leadership skills matter... ." If that were true, this country would have never re-elected G.W. Bush in 2004. Presidential elections are much more about identity politics and leadership imagry (as opposed to real leadership skills) than anything else. Sarkozy's "A France that wakes up early" is reminiscent of Ronald Reagan's "Morning in America." It feels right; the voters identify with it; and it projects the image of a leader (without really leading anything.)

Tying this into my original thesis: women don't want to be led by women. They don't identify with powerful women, ergo the vanished gender gap. Results and experience hardly enter into the equation at all

Posted by: Bob | May 9, 2007 9:14 AM | Report abuse

You are making a mistake focusing on gender in trying to find lessons for the U.S. That's simplist reasoning, the analysis needs to be deeper.

Some aspects of Western democracies are universal. Why does a voter support a candidate, whether in France or U.S.?

Results, experience and leadership skills matter to French and American voters. The lesson in the French Presidential elections of 2007 for both Republican and Democratic voters is that if they nominate a candidate without a record of accomplishment and no foreign policy experience they risk defeat in November 2008.

Here is what one person wrote on Daily Kos at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/6/2345/56445 immediately prior to the vote in France:

"So why is liberal France on the verge of voting for a right-wing candidate? Because the left nominated a largely inexperienced candidate who hasn't faced the kinds of challenges her opponent had to face while in office. More important, her opponent is perceived as having he ability to make the right decisions under tough circumstancs. Royal's experience on the other hand, pales in comparison.

So I suppose the prime lesson we can draw from the French election is the following:

We should nominate people who make tough decisions, but also make the right decisions. The only candidate I can think of in the current pack is Bill Richardson by virtue of his rich experience at the UN, the Department of Energy, as well as the Governorship of New Mexico. (Clark and Gore also meet this criteria, but they haven't declared...yet). Senators in this country are automatically rewarded with rock star status, eventhough their jobs basically entail sitting around Capitol Hill,attending receptions and fundraisers, as well as lining their pockets with special interest money. Is that leadership? Leadership means getting out there in the world and doing something and not worrying about what your pollster says."

Posted by: Stephen Cassidy | May 9, 2007 12:54 AM | Report abuse

I have mice, or as I prefer to call them, "Libs." This weekend, I am going to leave some bread crumbs all over the kitchen floor and leave the house, but what the mice don't know is that I am secretly recording them on microphones I have hidden in the floor. When the Libs are beginning to relax, I will press a special button on my headgear and my cat Gipper will be released from the cupboard, where I have been hiding him for two days. He will eat the Libs alive, and make a huge bloody mess. Listening over the microphones, I will touch myself repeatedly, saying "ZOOOOUUUK.... ZOOOOUUUK..." and imagining Bill Kristol disciplining me in front of Ann Coulter while she clutches a rolled-up and lubricated copy of the Wall Street Journal. She is preparing to insert it into.... well, you get the idea.

I hate Libs. Why? What else did you think I was implying?

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 8, 2007 9:41 PM | Report abuse

There are no lessons for me to learn. Or maybe there are. I don't know. I'm not really Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Hillary Clinton | May 8, 2007 7:29 PM | Report abuse

Royal lost the female vote. While Hillary may have Emily's list in her back pocket, she cannot count on winning the majority of female voters. A Clinton candidacy will cost the Democratic Party some portion of the gender-gap advantage that it has traditionally enjoyed. THAT is a very serious concern for the party, and an important lesson Democrats need to learn from the Royal defeat.

Posted by: Bob | May 8, 2007 7:09 PM | Report abuse

I can't help myself soemtimes lylepink. These people think this is a game. People are dying and starving everyday. This is not a game in any sense of the word. As they say. The truth will set us free

Posted by: RUFUS1133 | May 8, 2007 6:19 PM | Report abuse

:)

Posted by: RUFUS1133 | May 8, 2007 6:17 PM | Report abuse

rufus1133: Now U R getting the message.

Posted by: lylepink | May 8, 2007 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Reading is good. Watching Fox is bad :)

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 8, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Another one bites the dust. One more down. 999 more to go.

"Paul Wolfowitz came under renewed pressure to resign as World Bank president on Monday as a bank committee formally transmitted its findings that he was guilty of a conflict of interest in arranging for a pay raise and promotion in 2005 to Shaha Ali Riza, his companion"

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 8, 2007 4:57 PM | Report abuse

rufus1133: May I suggest a little less crack in your coffee. After a bit of reading it does get tiresome as to what point you are trying to get across. Less is better. a point would be good too.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 4:56 PM | Report abuse

rufus1133: May I suggest a little less in your comments. After a bit of reading it does get tiresome as to what point you are trying to get across. Less is better.

Posted by: lylepink | May 8, 2007 4:44 PM | Report abuse

That's true Dr. No. The comparision is ridiculous. It is just an attempt to discredit Hillary. Maybe that's why so many people are speaking off of topic.

Posted by: JKrish | May 8, 2007 4:43 PM | Report abuse

No offense, but this is a silly entry. Royal lost because she was perceived as inept and inexperienced, making gaffes while speaking, and supporting a policy so liberal that it couldnt't even appeal to the average Frenchman! Hillary, by contrast, is experienced (former First Lady and 2-term senator), extremely calculating, and has moderated her policy to win in conservative areas (see landslide in traditionally conservative upstate NY in last year's senate campaign). And people in France were ready to vote for a woman - just as they are, I think, here - but Royal was just a horrible candidate espousing the wrong views for the mainstream French. Even her anti-American rhetoric could not cloud her quixotic economic policies.

Posted by: dr. no | May 8, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Let me rephrase my above post.

Excellent post blank poster. "a rose by any other name". (Basically who cares about the name, we are all anonymous)

Just wanted to clarify. I didn't want to confuse the queenof zouk or razor by misspelling a word. Also Blank is not in the cave, these propogandists are. I know it's bright at first zouk/razor. Your eyes will adjust.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_cave

Posted by: RUFUS1133 | May 8, 2007 4:34 PM | Report abuse

Another similarity may be that even though they both started ahead in the polls, they both may be unelectable. Sego blundered where Hill won't but she may still win the nomination and have enough 'dislikes' in the polls to loose the election.The're enough conservative votes out there that don't forgive nor think... remember they elected and re-elected Bush ?
Pres. Johnson was realistic enough to forgo the nomination, not many politicians are so... not Hill,hubris wins...

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 4:32 PM | Report abuse

n 1945, the former Dutch manager of the Rotterdam bank resumed control only to discover that he was sitting on a huge pile of hidden Nazi assets. In 1947, the manager threatened to inform Dutch authorities, and was immediately fired by the Thyssens. The somewhat naive bank manager then fled to New York City where he intended to talk to Union Bank director Prescott Bush. As Gowen's Dutch source recalled, the manager intended "to reveal [to Prescott Bush] the truth about Baron Heinrich and the Rotterdam Bank, [in order that] some or all of the Thyssen interests in the Thyssen Group might be seized and confiscated as German enemy property. "The manager's body was found in New York two weeks later.

Similarly, in 1996 a Dutch journalist Eddy Roever went to London to interview the Baron, who was neighbors with Margaret Thatcher. Roever's body was discovered two days later.

Posted by: * | May 8, 2007 4:06 PM | Report abuse

For the next five years, the president of France will be Nicolas Sarkozy, a true conservative -- or, at least, as conservative as a French politician can realistically be. He speaks very little English, but has the courage to admit that there are things in England and America that France would do well to emulate.

Until now, that kind of courage would have been lethal for any French politician. He also dislikes, openly, the dominant political correctness and believes that gangsters, illegal immigrants, and arsonists are not basically nice people or "victims," but that they must be dealt with -- notions all certain to give "progressives" palpitations.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWVkNzBlOWQzOTRlM2UyZDQ0MGFlZjlhOTFkNWRmMWM=

Posted by: Sarkosky oui! | May 8, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

It was a matter of public record that the Bush holdings were seized by the US government after the Nazis overran Holland. In 1951, the Bush's reclaimed Union Bank from the US Alien Property Custodian, along with their "neutral" Dutch assets.

Don't want to talk about the truth, do you cowards? Don't you love the way they try to squirm, pretend the truth isn't true? The Bushes were nazi lovers, little brains. It's a fact.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

It was me, I was on the grassy knoll. I buried Hoffa on my potatoe farm in Idaho. The government had aliens in the Roswell New Mexico municipal jail, until I let them go. That thing you saw that looked like a parachute behind the twin towers on 9/11. That was me too. Im not just on the board of Exxon Mobil, I am Exxon Mobil. Elivis is still alive. He helped recount chads in Pensacola in 2000. I melted the snow cap on Mt Victoria with my blowtorch. I told Truman to drop an Abomb on the Japs, wait five days, and then do it again. I am the voice in Mark David Chapman's head that told him to shoot John Lennon. Just cut and paste this post, that is all the proof you need.

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

It was a matter of public record that the Bush holdings were seized by the US government after the Nazis overran Holland. In 1951, the Bush's reclaimed Union Bank from the US Alien Property Custodian, along with their "neutral" Dutch assets.

Don't want to talk about the truth, do you cowards? Don't you love the way they try to squirm, pretend the truth isn't true? The Bushes were nazi lovers, little brains. It's a fact.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Excellent posts balnk post.

"a rose by any other name". We should aLL fear the ignorant the most. Those that would hide in a cave yet tell you what is. Those who would only watch propoganda then try and tell you the "news"

I wanna add this from salon.com:

"Fascist America,


1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy

2. Create a gulag

Once you have got everyone scared, the next step is to create a prison system outside the rule of law (as Bush put it, he wanted the American detention centre at Guantánamo Bay to be situated in legal "outer space") - where torture takes place.

3.Develop a thug caste

4. Set up an internal surveillance system

5. Harass citizens' groups

6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release

7. Target key individuals

8. Control the press

Italy in the 1920s, Germany in the 30s, East Germany in the 50s, Czechoslovakia in the 60s, the Latin American dictatorships in the 70s, China in the 80s and 90s - all dictatorships and would-be dictators target newspapers and journalists. They threaten and harass them in more open societies that they are seeking to close, and they arrest them and worse in societies that have been closed already.

The Committee to Protect Journalists says arrests of US journalists are at an all-time high: Josh Wolf (no relation), a blogger in San Francisco, has been put in jail for a year for refusing to turn over video of an anti-war demonstration; Homeland Security brought a criminal complaint against reporter Greg Palast, claiming he threatened "critical infrastructure" when he and a TV producer were filming victims of Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana. Palast had written a bestseller critical of the Bush administration.

Other reporters and writers have been punished in other ways. Joseph C Wilson accused Bush, in a New York Times op-ed, of leading the country to war on the basis of a false charge that Saddam Hussein had acquired yellowcake uranium in Niger. His wife, Valerie Plame, was outed as a CIA spy - a form of retaliation that ended her career.

Prosecution and job loss are nothing, though, compared with how the US is treating journalists seeking to cover the conflict in Iraq in an unbiased way. The Committee to Protect Journalists has documented multiple accounts of the US military in Iraq firing upon or threatening to fire upon unembedded (meaning independent) reporters and camera operators from organisations ranging from al-Jazeera to the BBC. While westerners may question the accounts by al-Jazeera, they should pay attention to the accounts of reporters such as the BBC's Kate Adie. In some cases reporters have been wounded or killed, including ITN's Terry Lloyd in 2003. Both CBS and the Associated Press in Iraq had staff members seized by the US military and taken to violent prisons; the news organisations were unable to see the evidence against their staffers.

Over time in closing societies, real news is supplanted by fake news and false documents. Pinochet showed Chilean citizens falsified documents to back up his claim that terrorists had been about to attack the nation. The yellowcake charge, too, was based on forged papers.

You won't have a shutdown of news in modern America - it is not possible. But you can have, as Frank Rich and Sidney Blumenthal have pointed out, a steady stream of lies polluting the news well. What you already have is a White House directing a stream of false information that is so relentless that it is increasingly hard to sort out truth from untruth. In a fascist system, it's not the lies that count but the muddying. When citizens can't tell real news from fake, they give up their demands for accountability bit by bit.

9. Dissent equals treason

Cast dissent as "treason" and criticism as "espionage'. Every closing society does this, just as it elaborates laws that increasingly criminalise certain kinds of speech and expand the definition of "spy" and "traitor". When Bill Keller, the publisher of the New York Times, ran the Lichtblau/Risen stories, Bush called the Times' leaking of classified information "disgraceful", while Republicans in Congress called for Keller to be charged with treason, and rightwing commentators and news outlets kept up the "treason" drumbeat. Some commentators, as Conason noted, reminded readers smugly that one penalty for violating the Espionage Act is execution.

10. Suspend the rule of law

The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 gave the president new powers over the national guard. This means that in a national emergency - which the president now has enhanced powers to declare - he can send Michigan's militia to enforce a state of emergency that he has declared in Oregon, over the objections of the state's governor and its citizens.

Peace to you all. You should fear the right these days. They KNOW they are marching to lies and propganda. Yet they still march


Posted by: rufus1133 | May 8, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

I read nazi books all day long. It is a subject i really do know something about. thank you bloggers for bringing up the subject. I will continue to educate you the rest of the day. and i don't have to go to Kos to get my ideas. I secretly always wished I was a nazi guard, the uniform, the slaves, the chicks, the control over everything....

ooops, I think I had an accident.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Bust the f****** hooligan heads Sarko.

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 3:58 PM | Report abuse

The sinister cooperation between prominent American businessmen and their counterparts in Hitler's Germany is an important episode whose details are still being revealed by historians. It instructs us about the terrible crimes that can be committed in the pursuit of profit by men (and they were all men) who regard themselves as a superior race and class. It implicates such famous names as Ford, Standard Oil, General Motors and Dupont.

According to archival and declassified material recently published, Prescott Bush Sr., the founder of the Bush political dynasty, had much to answer for during his earlier career on Wall Street. Picking up on an investigative story in the New Hampshire Gazette, last week the Associated Press reported on Prescott Sr.'s role in the Union Banking Corp., which served as a front for Thyssen's conglomerate.

Quite reasonably, the U.S. government suspected Union Banking of aiding the Nazis through Thyssen, who had helped to finance Hitler's rise and whose coal and steel holdings were integral to the German war machine. That suspicion led federal officials to seize Union Banking's assets in October 1942 under the Trading With the Enemy Act. While Prescott Sr. held only a single share of Union Banking stock, there were only seven in total -- and he also served as one of seven corporate directors whose apparent purpose was to help Thyssen conceal the bank's real ownership.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Paris - Youths fought police and burned cars in cities across France for a second night after Nicolas Sarkozy's presidential victory, prompting the leader of the defeated Socialists to appeal on Tuesday for calm. Some 500 youths shouting ''Sarko, fascist!'' went on a rampage in the Bastille district of eastern Paris on Monday night, burning 10 cars, looting two stores including a supermarket and smashing windows /snip/ More than 500 cars were set alight in cities and suburbs across the country

Posted by: the new lib chant | May 8, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

'The Bush family were very big supporters of eugenics (including Prescott, his partner Harriman and Pres. Bush I), were well-known to be anti-Semitic and that Hitler's hatred for and intention to kill the Jews was well-known long before he ever came to power. It also ignores that in 1930's America had a huge and very public Nazi movement, which hardly fits into the picture of America's wealthiest corporate bosses being ignorant of what they were supporting. To say you actively supported Hitler for a decade but didn't know he intended to kill millions of Jews, Poles, Russians, Gypsies is exactly the defense the Nazis used at Nuremberg. Does anybody really think Prescott Bush, Rockefeller, Ford etc. were clueless as to what Hitler was up to during the time they were actively funding and ideologically supporting him and his IG Farben concentration camp-slave labor factories?

As to the issue of the number of shares in Union Bank, yes, Prescott had only one share according to the 11/7/42 Congressional Record, but there were only seven shareholders total. It's not like he was one of thousands of shareholders.
See the Federal Register page here: http://www.mbpolitics.com/bush2000/Vesting.htm

Blaming GW Bush for Prescott's action would indeed be unfair if that was all there is to it. In reality, the entire three generation Bush political dynasty has countless connections to Nazis, fascism, eugenics, corporate crime, the CIA bringing thousands of former SS officials to the US, the pharmaceutical companies formerly known as IG Farben etc. Their family fortune - which is the basis for every Bush's political position today - all came directly from supporting the Nazis.'

The proof is in the National Archives and the Federal Register.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

JKrish: You point out that anyone can refer to a column, blog, e.t.c., that will back any arguement they wish to make, btw, I don't use them for that reason. Another thing that must be obvious is that anytime Hillary, my favorite, is mentioned is the "nut jobs", "wackos" are out in full force, for Hillary is going to be the next POTUS and they just cannot admit it to themselves when they know it is true. The word is "Denial".

Posted by: lylepink | May 8, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

The U.S. Senate gutted the latest attempt Monday to legalize prescription drug imports from Canada and other countries. Despite a lot of support for the plan from both Democrats and Republicans, senators ultimately decided to require that the Food and Drug Administration first certify the imports are safe and effective.

Still nothing new from the Dems. We govern like we ran -with spite and envy. After we have done nothing for the next two years, we will count on the press to spin us out of this.

Posted by: Trotsky | May 8, 2007 3:49 PM | Report abuse

I just can't stop talking about nazis. they are so cool, what with their contempt of equality, coercion of the press and centralized economic system. they are just like american democrats. now do you see why I love them so.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse

All conspiracy theories are true, because anything that tends to prove the conspiracy isn't true is just planted by the conspiracy to conceal its existence.

Bush Clinton Bush CLINTON. It is all starting to make sence now. I am a builderberger. My cover has been blown. Rufus1133 must be a secret agent.

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse


Samuel Prescott Bush was an early president of the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), which is has always been anti-worker, anti-consumer-rights, and ultra-conservative. Three past presidents of NAM helped Robert Welch form the John Birch Society, to uphold the tradition of Sam Bush -- Bush's Buckeye Steel employees worked seven days per week, 12 hours per day. It's not a far step for son Prescott Bush managing Auschwitz slave labor worked to death.


Prescott Sheldon Bush -- Best known for serving in the US armed forces in Arizona during WWI spent defacing Geronimo's grave and grave-robbing the skull for his germanic secret piracy club "Skull and Bones Society" headquartered at Yale, University. [22] [23] [24] What he is not famous for was his financier banker support of Adolph Hitler, the Nazi Storm Troopers, Auschwitz and death camps. In his quest to get rich Prescott Bush collaborated with the Nazis before war broke out and through the year after Pearl Harbor.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse

"|" President Roosevelt did not stop them fearing a scandal might lead to another stock market crash or lower U.S. morale.

Some corporate leaders threatened to withdraw their support if Roosevelt exposed them."

Add to the P. Bush A Hitler G Bush 60 year old conspiracy conspiracy FDR and Henry Ford.

Inquiring minds want to know what did Eleanor know and when did she know it. Is she part of the conspiracy too? Because we all know she is Hillary's hero. Are we going to have to add Hillary too? Bill? It just gets nuttier and nuttier.

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Who did nazi's hate? Homosexuals. Academics. 'Elites'. Unions...

The Depression is often cited as one of the causes of the takeover of Germany by the Nazis. Small merchants and professionals had become powerless. Large businesses were co-opted (largely, willingly). The German labor movement quickly was quickly suppressed and replaced with abominations (Nazi labor unions), their pre-Nazi leadership sent to concentration camps or murdered.

Who did Nazi's love? Bankers. Corporatists. Ceos.

Modern 'movement conservatism' has it roots in fascism.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Some vague unsupported statment about Bush's grandfather "ties" to nazis doesn't support any conclusion unless is also supports the conclusion that rufus1133's grandfather was a moron.

Now we not only have a conspiracy, we have an intergenerational 60 plus year old conspiracy. Talk about a fruit basket turnovern.

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

As German bombs fell on London and Nazi tanks rolled over U.S. troops, Sosthenes Behn, president and founder of the U.S. based ITT corporation. met with his German representative to discuss improving German communication systems. ITT was designing and building Nazi phone and radio systems as well as supplying crucial parts for German bombs. Our government knew all about this, for under presidential order, U.S. companies were licensed to trade with the Nazis. The choice of who would be licensed was odd, though: while Secretary of State Breckinridge Long gave the Ford Motor Company permission to make Nazi tanks, he simultaneously blocked aid to German-Jewish refugees because the U.S. wasn't supposed to be trading with the enemy.
Other U.S. companies trading with the Third Reich were General Motors, DuPont, Standard Oil of New Jersey, Davis Oil Co., and the Chase National Bank. President Roosevelt did not stop them fearing a scandal might lead to another stock market crash or lower U.S. morale.

Some corporate leaders threatened to withdraw their support if Roosevelt exposed them. Henry Ford was a good friend of Hitler's. His book The Internatonal Jew had inspired Hitler's Mein Kampf. The Fuehrer kept Ford's picture in his office, and Ford was one of only four foreigners to receive Germany's highest civilian award. As for Sosthenes Behn, at the end of the war, he received the highest civilian award for service to his country - the United States of America.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 3:36 PM | Report abuse

don't run a staggeringly incompetent campaign if you expect to win.


more like don't run as a socialist/liberal if you want to win.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 8, 2007 3:35 PM | Report abuse

That France is economically the "sick man of Europe" is hard to argue with, considering its 9-percent unemployment (25 percent among youths), enormous public debt, high taxation, and slow growth.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWVkNzBlOWQzOTRlM2UyZDQ0MGFlZjlhOTFkNWRmMWM=

While all that was essential for Sarkozy's victory, especially as his rival offered nothing but expensive platitudes and unaffordable promises, the cultural impact of the result deserves special notice.

The delusions exhibited by the French elite have been astonishing


The Socialists and Ségolène Royal have to deal with the most serious damage. She became the candidate because the rank and file of her party refused substantive change and believed that a new face and her gender would be sufficient.

Neither the new face, even surgically improved, nor her gender (40 percent of women voted against her) proved to be enough -- and her steadily moving Left in substance while making vague concessions to Bayrou managed both to alienate the radical fringes and to cool further the already lukewarm support of the traditional Socialist leadership -- a situation Hillary would do well to avoid repeating here with the left wing.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 8, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

The lesson for Sen. Clinton from the Royal campaign is the same as from the Kerry campaign in '04 and the Gore campaign in '00 -- don't run a staggeringly incompetent campaign if you expect to win.

Posted by: PJD | May 8, 2007 3:28 PM | Report abuse

OOTTT oooo razor back. To much truth. You don't want to start to talk about G W's nazi ties. You don't want to talk about teh Baath party and their ties to Nazi Germany either. Eithe ryou are dishonest or ignorant. Either way.

SHUT YOUR MOUTH IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT.

Follow JKrish's lead. If you know something to be true, say it. If you don't know or if you are lying, don't type. It hurts both you and your cause

Posted by: rufsu1133 | May 8, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

I never drew the conclusion between Royal and Clinton in my head, other than the fact there they are both women. Royal did not run a very efficient campaign, and even her supporters were less than enthused about her candidacy.

I don't think there are parallels to be drawn.

Posted by: Brendan | May 8, 2007 3:24 PM | Report abuse

"|" you just made my point, by accident of course.

Prescription drugs are "monopolistic" only in the sence that we have copyright/patent laws. If Merck (stock symbol MRK, its been on a roll) invents a drug, they have exclusive right to it for a period of years. We do this so that companies have an incentive to creat new things. It works very well.

Are you against patent laws?

The reason that drugs here are more expensive in than in Canada is because Canada sets the price at just above "marginal cost" which is the point at which a seller will refuse to sell because they lose money on each sale. "Marginal costs" include only variable costs, and do not include fixed costs. The largest fixed cost in the drug business is reasearch and development. The canadians know they can get away with it because the US market is so large that the drug companies will still invent new stuff, so they are in effect shifting forcing US comsumers to pay the Canadian share of research and develompent costs.

This is why is support reimportation. It will not lower US costs very much, but it will force Canadians to pay their fair share of research and development costs, because if a drug can be sold for more in the US than in Canada, the canadian shelves will be empty.

The canadian/european model uses savings from research and development to fund a universal health care system for basic care only.

Some liberals, zealous in their advocacy of science, support stem cell research and talk of curing cancer. Then they propose modifications to the health care system that would destroy patent law or otherwise kill the incentive to produce new drugs. Their understanding of economics is too limited for them to see how the issues relate. I just wish all of the "psudo science" rhetoric was also directed towards the lack of knowledge about economics and accounting.

For more detail on a very complex and tedious topic, google

"variable costs" "fixed costs" "prescription drugs"

or review information related to the US senate debate on Medicare Part D and reimportation of drugs from the last 2 weeks.

Another point is that if you look at the stock price of Merck, you will see that, contrary to your expectations, it has not done that well under the Bush administration. The last several months have been good, but the last several years have not. This is true of Pfizer too. Excessive profits are necessarily reflected in an excessive stock price, since stockholders OWN the company. The objective way to measure excessive profits is to look at a companies stock price.


Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 3:21 PM | Report abuse

The reason I don't constantly put "proof" or links here, it is because I only speak truth. I'll leave it to the right to lie and try and justify it with "proof".

If something is truly sinister the proof is burned or never written. Why would someone put down in black and white how thye break the law. Where are all those Karl Rove emails? I heard 75% of them are missing. Where's the proof

Posted by: JKrish | May 8, 2007 3:20 PM | Report abuse

"George Bush's problems were inherited from his namesake and maternal grandfather, George Herbert 'Bert' Walker, a native of St. Louis, who founded the banking and investment firm of G. H. Walker and Company in 1900. Later the company shifted from St. Louis to the prestigious address of 1 Wall Street. . . .

"Walker was one of Hitler's most powerful financial supporters in the United States. The relationship went all the way back to 1924, when Fritz Thyssen, the German industrialist, was financing Hitler's infant Nazi party. As mentioned in earlier chapters, there were American contributors as well.

"Some Americans were just bigots and made their connections to Germany through Allen Dulles's firm of Sullivan and Cromwell because they supported Fascism. The Dulles brothers, who were in it for profit more than ideology, arranged American investments in Nazi Germany in the 1930s to ensure that their clients did well out of the German economic recovery. . . .

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Just kidding. Before razor goes off. But the Baath party did have arangments to supply the axis with oil. Early Baath, when saddam was a kid

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 8, 2007 3:17 PM | Report abuse

What the Allied investigators never understood was that they were not asking Thyssen the right question. Thyssen did not need any foreign bank accounts because his family secretly owned an entire chain of banks. He did not have to transfer his Nazi assets at the end of World War II, all he had to do was transfer the ownership documents - stocks, bonds, deeds and trusts--from his bank in Berlin through his bank in Holland to his American friends in New York City: Prescott Bush and Herbert Walker. Thyssen's partners in crime were the father and father-in-law of a future President of the United States.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Bush ties to the nazis. Wow. How about the Iraq Baath party and the nazis. If the nazis would have won the war iraq would have supplied them with oil. The baath party had axis links, or better yet THEY WERE RELIGOUS FACSISTs. I gues why that's why the bush's used them to fight iran. Maybe that's why we gave so much support to iraq

This all seems to be connected soemhow :)

Posted by: rufsu1333 | May 8, 2007 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Though Sego didn't win and though her supporters behaved after her defeat like Michael Moore doing time on a fatty farm, she can hold her head high and still affirm to Hillary, -Il ne faut pas marier le cochon!

Posted by: Philip V. Riggio | May 8, 2007 3:13 PM | Report abuse

You said it Razor. It must be truth. Everybody else in here is wrong. rAZOR AND ZOUK ARE RIGHT. bUSH IS GREAT. War in the middle east. Money and oil to all conservatives. Sorry for living.

Good luck and god bless

God will be your judge

Posted by: rufus1333 | May 8, 2007 3:12 PM | Report abuse

eorge Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.
The Guardian has obtained confirmation from files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Socialists like Hitler hated bankers? No. Only Jewish ones. He liked american bankers very much indeed, especially those like Preston Bush, who funded him.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 3:10 PM | Report abuse

JKRISH, I would accept what you say had Rick Santorum (or someone else) tried to get Bush to use military force so that he could retain his US Senate seat after he lost in 2006.

Do you really think Bush will try to stay in office beyond his term?

And by the way, a socialist is one who believes that the state should own or tightly control the implements of production. In Germany this was limited to critical industries needed to make war. Capitalits like bankers. Socialists like hitler hated bankers, particularly those of one ethnic group. Facism is not really a ideology of the right because it combines aspects of the right and the left. It is really a radicalized ideology of the center. Because it is contradictory(including elements of both the right and left), a charismatic demagogue is part of the equation, because that is usually what it takes to sell a contradictory ideology.

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 3:06 PM | Report abuse

'|", I am still waiting for your explanation as to why the Medicare Part D drug plan is a "subsidy" when the Congressional Budget Office says that the government could not negotiate prices that were any lower than market prices.''

market prices IN THE US which are higher than anywhere in the world because of monopolistic practices.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 2:59 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, here is how you discipline someone:

When JKrish says "I say facsism is facsism. Just because the Nazi's version of Facsism is differant form George Bush's, doesn't mean the right are not facsist's"

YOU(Blarg) should respond:

Dear JKrish, although you and I are both progressives and disagree with the Bush Administration on just about everything, we should limit our posts to well though out logical explanations. I am concerned that when you post something like you did, that some smarmy SOB like Razorback will come along and make us all out to be a bunch of idiots that substitute a red-faced bulging-eyed spittle-flying Bush/Hitler chant for rational thought. I don't like Razorback any more than you, but lets not give the bas**** the satisfaction of teeing off on your head. Go____ (name your candidate) 2008. Peace out. Yours truly, Blarg.

A gentle rhetorical spanking, not a literal one. That is what I mean by discipline.

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse


SEGOLENE WAS ALSO REJECTED COZ SHE ADVOCATED A SCANDNAVIAN / GERMANIC MODEL WHERE WOMEN HAVE 50% OF THE PARLIMANT'S SEATS.

THIS APPROACH WILL NEVER BE ACCEPTED IN FRANCE OR THE USA.

SHE DIDN'T EVEN GET 50% OF THE WOMEN VOTE :-))

Posted by: Mark | May 8, 2007 2:54 PM | Report abuse

I'm done with this site today. The rush/hannity/clones will never see what is until their avatars are off the air. Get with reality razor. The real world is so much grander than your cave existance

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 8, 2007 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Dems new plan - surrender in three months.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

As a French-US citizen residing in the US, Segolene demonstrated the followings:

Arrogance with her party colleagues, pandering to feminest base, control freak and ill prepared.

Senator Clinton is superior than Segolene however Bill problems and her ill fated health plan will make her loose.

Posted by: Mauricio | May 8, 2007 2:46 PM | Report abuse

The Nazi's calimed to be socialist, but they lied to their people. Once they took power their government was a fcsist right-wing governmetn. They lied. They claimed to be something they were not to abuse the power they were given. Sound familar?

Posted by: JKRISH | May 8, 2007 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Diagnose me please diagnose me J Leopold.

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 2:42 PM | Report abuse

"It was treated as a scandal in the media when Newt Gingrich received a large advance from a publisher while he was Speaker of the House. But it was no scandal when each of the Clintons received larger advances from publishers.

When Senator Harry Reid received a million dollars from a questionable real-estate deal involving property that he no longer owned, but whose owner had gotten favorable treatment from the government, that was apparently not even an appearance of impropriety as far as most of the media were concerned.


In the case of Bill Clinton, U.S. attorneys back in Arkansas had been investigating corruption in his administration as governor before he became president. Firing all of them covered the fact that he was getting rid of those who were investigating him.

But that was no scandal, as far as the media were concerned."

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmQ4M2JiYTA5ZDIzYzYxYjAxNWU4MTRhNGZiMWZkZWE=

Posted by: depends on the meaning of the word | May 8, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Razorback, how am I supposed to "discipline" anyone here? It's not like we're all hanging out in a computer lab somewhere. I could make dozens of posts insulting people I don't like, as you do, or I could do nothing. Those are my options.

According to the Grist article you keep citing, environmentalists didn't like Bush's plan. They think it didn't go far enough, and had major loopholes. Obama's plan covers multiple classes of vehicles, so it closes the biggest loophole. Obama's plan also calls for at least twice the increase in fuel efficiency that Bush's plan does. That's why environmentalists support Obama's plan but opposed Bush's. What's your problem with that?

Posted by: Blarg | May 8, 2007 2:39 PM | Report abuse

rufus1133, dont tell ANYONE about your proof, that way they will get rich off of it instead of you.

Sue Tenant, sue Gonzales, sue anyone that has fraudulantly submitted a false claim for government money, and you get to keep a percentage.

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Razor - lie down with dogs, watch out for fleas

It is not a fair fight. how can you get satisfaction from bullying imbeciles. Talking to them about econ is like arguing with your cat. how will you know if you've won?

I prefer to wait for the sensible Libs. I rather enjoy the tint of blue in my palor.

blarg is fair and honest althbough a little short of wit. colin and judge can be worthwhile to engage. there was some upper east side diplomat named juju who was always talking philosophy who was quite educated but hopelessly clueless on street sense.

Keep in mind the base case statistic is that 1/3 of these folks think the President knew about 911 a priori. that is what you are up against. Maybe if they watched fox they might get a life.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 8, 2007 2:36 PM | Report abuse

Ok leftist moonbats, did you all see how that works?

When referenced "the law" that rufus1133 can use to get rich, I actually gave the specific site of the law, so that anyone can look up the law for themselves.

Rather than a psuedo-science claim of what is or isnt illegal, I gave the specific law. Try that sometimes moonbats, because you might just find out that the law doesn't say what you think it does.

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 2:35 PM | Report abuse

You want proof razor? Start testifing. I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon. Don't worry. The truth is slowly getting out. Your cronies are sellouts. Eventually they are all going to spill the beans. Once Bush is out of power. Tenat, Goodling, Gonzales are just the beginning. If you want PROOF we need the right to START TELLING the truth. Without them telling the truth, the dems are goin gto have to pull some teeth. Or people are going to sell out bush. Either way you are going down:)

Posted by: RUFUS1133 | May 8, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Whoa, last I heard this was an issue specific forum not a therapy session where one exposes one insecurities, feelings of superiority, maturity issues, generalization regarding others or lack of civility toward differing opinions.

Posted by: J. Leopold | May 8, 2007 2:33 PM | Report abuse

rightwingnut logic:

The official name for the Nazi party was the National Socialist Workers Party.
The Nazis therefore were socialists.
Socialists are leftists.
The Nazis therefore were leftists.
Liberals are leftists.
Liberals therefore are Nazis.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | May 8, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Dave! - Unfortunately, it is the only difference. But I will allow you to post multiple citations somehow proving the contrary, all which I will disregard while incessantly calling you names and yammering and ad nausium about utter nonsense. That, apparently, is what you Bush leaguers, do when you wish to hijack a discussion tha becomes uncomfortable. And, if you spend ten minutes looking it up, you will discover that the anticedents for both movements are the same. Neoconservativism and Nazism are uncompfortably close in the totality of their beliefs.

Posted by: MikeB | May 8, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

rufus1133 says:

"News flash: when you sell your country out to line your pockets and those of your freinds that is called treason."

This is actually an improvement from Rufus, who has learned that the safest place to be is far away from any facts that can be refuted.

If what you say is true and you have PROOF, call the FBI. They need PROOF.

If you think that the FBI and the proscutors are all corrupt, here is the plan:

You can file a civil lawsuit under 31 U.S.C. Sections 3729-3733. Since you obviously have more than one instance of fraud, you need to file a separate suit on each one, in different districts. This way, eventually one of the cases will be assigned to a judge appointed by Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter. IF you have proof. You have to have proof Rufus.

The best thing about this plan is that YOU get to keep part of the money that was fraudulantly obtained. You can get rich enough to get a big tax cut if you can PROVE what you say. Rufus, when you get rich and famous, remember poor ole humble Razorback, who put you on the road to riches.

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

And then there is Blarg. He should actually be fun to debate with, but he gets so irritated at the way I smash the heads of those who arn't as smart as he is, who stay stupid things that he would never say, and it upsets him so that I tee off on the defenseless morons.

Blarg, I you will discipline the morons who say stupid things that you would never say, I wouldn't have to.

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

This coming from a man that thinks treason is a perfectly legal approch to governence. News flash: when you sell your country out to line your pockets and those of your freinds that is called treason. When you put lackies and cronies in positions of power so your treason will be covered up, I don;t know what's that's called. Let's call that the republican manta. Dittoheads. Clones Cronies. Sellouts

Posted by: rufs1133 | May 8, 2007 2:21 PM | Report abuse

KingofZouk, the reason I don't ignore them is because its so much fun to watch their posts change over the course of an afternoon.

They start out trying to list facts, but when fact after fact gets stuffed back down their nappy little heads, they quit putting facts in their posts. Its a laffer and I should be able to resist the temptation, but I cannot.

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Rufas - up your dosage

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 2:18 PM | Report abuse

rufus1133 you mindless little child if you look up the LAW on treason, then it will be perfectly obvious why these large groups that you say should fear being arrested for treason have no reason to worry.

You are, however, more of a legal scholar than MikeB, who actually said Condi would go straight to jail if she didn't show up at some congressional hearing. What a laffer that was.

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Your waiting? Who do you people think you are? Who are you? Why would I do anything for you. I'm helping you already just by posting truths for you.

To everyone else. this is his movement in a nutshell he asked me:

"rufus1133, I am still waiting for your explanation of the application of the law that forbids treasons."

That forbids treason? wow. I thought everyone knew TREASON was illegal and 100 years ago people were put down for TREASON

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 8, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Blarg, mostly because you just did. If you are right, why did environmentalists critize the plan?

"Enviros widely criticized the plan, arguing that it would incentivize automakers to produce heavier vehicles that could qualify for classes with looser efficiency restrictions."

http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2006/07/26/fuel-econ/

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

MikeB
"About the only thing that distinguishes American NeoConservativism from German Nazism is that the Nazi believed in a racial elite whereas the American belief in a social-aristocratic elite." Yeah, that's the only difference between the party of Lincoln and Nazi's.

Posted by: Dave! | May 8, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Razor - don't waste your breath on the following ninkompoops:
MikeB
drindl
JEP
ignorant coward aka |
Rufus

they will offer you nothing but grief. when confronted they retreat, just like their representatives. they have no knowledge whatsoever of economics or even simple math. they get their info from Kos, Huff, moveon, the nation, mediamatters, etc.

I ignore them and only engage rational Libs. the final resort of these dimwits is to call names and cite fictions. you will not see links to actual websites or facts. they will call all your links fake and call you a liar - the ultimate in projection. then if you reply, they will say you started it.

My advise - ignore cowards and moonbats.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 8, 2007 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Hello

I'm a French guy, now that the presidential election is over, I'm gonna have a look at yours.

Segolene Royal made so many mistakes during her campaign, it's actually a surprise she made it to the second round. Seriously, it looked like amateurism. Between the China justice system, the 35-hour-week, one day "it's bad", the following "it's good"...

I don't know much about Hillary but it looks like she knows better what she's doing.

Posted by: Julien | May 8, 2007 2:12 PM | Report abuse

"Obama supporters, I am still waiting for your explanation about why Oboma's position on CAFE mileage standards is so similar to that of Bush."

It's not.

The Grist article you quoted says that Obama's overall strategy for increasing CAFE standards is similar to the one Bush proposed in the spring. But it goes on to explain the difference between the two plans.

Obama's plan would increase efficiency by 4%, or about 1 MPG, per year. That applies to both cars and light trucks. Bush's plan applies only to light trucks, and it aims for a 2 MPG increase over 4 years. The plans both set standards by auto category, not for overall fleet, and that they both call for gradual increases. But Obama's plan is much farther-reaching than Bush's, and would have much greater effects.

Considering your constant use of mischaracterizations, insults, and outright lies, why should anyone respond to your questions?

Posted by: Blarg | May 8, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Pierre, an excellent and accurate comment!

Posted by: J. Leopold | May 8, 2007 2:09 PM | Report abuse

MikeB, I am going to pretend you don't exist as well, except for when you tell a lie, then you will see that I do in fact exist.

You cannot name a tax law because you dont know anything about tax laws. You run your mouth about things you know nothing about, and you cry like a baby when I have to correct you.

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 2:06 PM | Report abuse

Dave, I apologize for not including my name in my response above. Best regards

Posted by: J. Leopold | May 8, 2007 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Sure, Hillary and Segolene are both female candidates. Sure, they both came from a conservative family before they went to the left. Sure, they both have an enormous lack of charisma. Sure, they are both fond of triangulation. Still, there is a real difference between them. Hillary is seen as a cold but really competent candidate but Segolene has shown a huge lack of issue familiarity and leadership. The french people wanted clear answers but they only got smiles. So, there is an enormous difference between Hillary and Segolene. It is called talent.

Posted by: Pierre | May 8, 2007 2:05 PM | Report abuse

MikeB says:

"About the only thing that distinguishes American NeoConservativism from German Nazism is that the Nazi believed in a racial elite whereas the American belief in a social-aristocratic elite."

MikeB you ignorant liar, what about jury trials, what about independent judiciary, what about free speech, what about terms of office for elected officials, what about private sector ownership of critical industries, and on and on and on. Name a citizen deprived of life or property without due process? Name a citizen illegally incarcerated without due process?

You illogical psuedo-scientific moron, how could you say something so stupid and so easy to prove false?

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

JKrish,
Dave! quoted you and did not make any statement on what constitutes a Nazi. Dave!'s point was that your discussion on this subject was way off the topic of this blog. And if you are going to attempt to insult (especially someone's intelligence), the least you could do is spell the insult correctly - its ignoramuses.

Posted by: Dave! | May 8, 2007 2:03 PM | Report abuse

As for Razorback, you are a blithering idiot and no one with any common sense is going to react to nor answer any of your posts in the future. I, for one, am going to assume you have simply disappeared, a sort of irritant, like spring pollen, or a flea infestation, that is treated and no longer noticed.

Posted by: MikeB | May 8, 2007 2:00 PM | Report abuse

The wit and wisdom of John Edwards:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said Tuesday that he worked for a hedge fund to learn more about financial markets and their relationship to poverty in the United States.

Edwards won't disclose how much he got paid as a consultant to Fortress Investment Group, but said he did keep the money.

Edwards said it's legitimate to ask questions about whether there is a contradiction between campaigning against poverty while working for a hedge fund that is designed to make rich people richer.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8P0AUHO0&show_article=1

You have got to admit the man has unmitigated gall.

Posted by: JokeoftheDay | May 8, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

JKrish - Actually the Nazi version of facism is more closely related to the Bush version than you might relatize. Both the National Social Party and NeoConservativism have their basis in the French Jacobites with thier philosopical basis in the writing of Federick Nietzsche, Leo Strauss and other cultural and racial elitists. About the only thing that distinguishes American NeoConservativism from German Nazism is that the Nazi believed in a racial elite whereas the American belief in a social-aristocratic elite. The British have long inflicted this sort of nonsense upon humanity with their "blue-bloods", their House Of Lords, their military General Staff and associated inbred morons.

Posted by: MikeB | May 8, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

"|", I am still waiting for your explanation as to why the Medicare Part D drug plan is a "subsidy" when the Congressional Budget Office says that the government could not negotiate prices that were any lower than market prices.

MikeB, I am still waiting for your list of tax laws that you say act as incentives for companies to ship jobs overseas and your listing of a a member of congress or candidate for president who has proposed to eliminate those tax laws.

J Leopold, I am still waiting for your explantion of discrimation in the context of selective enforcement.

rufus1133, I am still waiting for your explanation of the application of the law that forbids treasons.

Obama supporters, I am still waiting for your explanation about why Oboma's position on CAFE mileage standards is so similar to that of Bush.

Blarg, (who at least attempts factual logical debate) what would you consider an ideal electric generation mix (percentage coal, nuclear, natural gas, alternative) and how much more expensive would your ideal mix be as compared with what we have now.

Edwards supporters, I am still waiting for your explanation of why your candidate chooses "health care markets" over price controls for health care the same way that Bush did for prescription drug coverage.

Yes I am uncivil, and yes I call names, largely in response to others, but I also debate the facts in a way that others on here do not. When I am asked serious questions, I answer them and provide sources.

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 1:55 PM | Report abuse

By that point, it is not facsism unless said govt. equals the Nazi's. Dave! and Zouk claim that the Nazi's are facsist. Fascism cannot exist without a swastika to them I guess. What a bunch of ignoramouses

Posted by: JKrish | May 8, 2007 1:50 PM | Report abuse

gOOD IDEA BLANK POSTER. sHOLD i CALL THE fcc? What should I tell them? Please do your job. Ok, so it's my, or a responsible citizens, responsibility to police the airwarves. To the judge point. Who am I to call. Isn't the Bush administration placing political cronies in all judicial positions. Isn't the Attorney General of the US a personal Attorney now. It is not my job to police the airwaves. It is not my job to go after Bill O, HANNITY AND RUSH. That is the FCC's job. I have a job already. If the FCC or judges or lawyers are political cronies, they will not do their job.

Another rationazation to why people aren't responsibile for their own actions .The right think if no one is looking or if no one is caught, there is not a crime.

Posted by: RUFUS1133 | May 8, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

An American in Paris,
"I believe that Hillary is a much more capable and exciting candidate." Capable yes. Exciting i don't know about. But Ségo is definitely the hotter of the two.

Posted by: Dave! | May 8, 2007 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Sarkozy's first 100 days plans - One would make overtime pay tax-free to encourage people to work more. Another would put in place tougher sentencing for repeat offenders, and a third would toughen the criteria for immigrants trying to bring their families to France.

Geez, why didn't Republicans think of these things? Maybe they could run with these issues for 2008? It was a winning ticket in socialist France.

Posted by: Dave! | May 8, 2007 1:42 PM | Report abuse

JKrish says:

"I say facsism is facsism. Just because the Nazi's version of Facsism is differant form George Bush's, doesn't mean the right are not facsist's"

The intellectual equivilant of JKrish's statement is: "That is not a bubble gum machine. That is an orangutang. Just because it is a bubble gum machine in your world doesn't mean it isn't an orangutan in mine."

That would get you and "F" from every freshman logic or philosophy professer in America.

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Dave, I believe that the inept policies of current government in France had a lot more to do with the high unemployment than socialism for if socialism was the dominant issue, unemployment could have been zero since in a totally socialist society the government is the employer which is not what the French model is. Capitalism and small businesses are still dominant features of the French system combined with socialism features regarding healthcare and other populist preferences.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Ségolène Royal and Hillary Clinton can only be compared in the sense that they are both women who had/have the best chance of being the first female president of their respective countries. Besides that, I wouldn't insult Hillary through any further comparison. The thing that disappointed me most of all was Ségo's perceived lack of passion in her public speaking. This was a huge liability in the face of Nicolas Sarkozy's extraordinary oratory skills. I believe that Hillary is a much more capable and exciting candidate.

Posted by: An American in Paris | May 8, 2007 1:38 PM | Report abuse

JKrish
"Just because the Nazi's version of Facsism is differant form George Bush's, doesn't mean the right are not facsist's"
You gotta love it. A blog topic devoted to two women in search of their country's highest office, and amazingly somehow some lib always moves the conversation to Nazi's and Bush. How bout the discussion on the sore losers rioting for two days in France. From the AP - "The leader of France's defeated Socialists appealed for calm Tuesday after a second night of post-election violence left cars burned and store windows smashed." Burning cars and smashing windows - that is looking out for and helping the working man. Go socialists!

Posted by: Dave! | May 8, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse

rufus1133:

"This is not a game. If you have nothing to add to the debate, leave the debate."

This was after a rant about treason, after which I replied that rufus1133 should define treason if he wanted to discuss it. Apparently he did not want to discuss it, he just bounced on to the next rant.

RUFUS1133, who might or might not be the same person then goes on the next illogical moonbat rant. As previously explaned, treason is defined by the law, and therefore can have a different meaning in different countries. Facism is a political ideology, it means the same thing everywhere.

The firing of Imus relates to a contract between individuals. (MSNBC and Imus). The employers of those other persons are free to do what they please with respect to the persons they contract with, within some limits which are defined by law. If you have evidence that Imus was improperly fired, send it to Imus. If you have evidence that Rush shouldnt be on the radio, send it to the radio station. If you dont have evidence, try shutting up.

Since the patriot act for the most part did little other than apply some law that ALREADY EXISTED and was applied to mobsters and drug dealers and extended its application to terrorists, I have no problem with the patriot act. Some minor things around the edges of the patriot act are being litigated.

Again, "psuedo-science" from a moonbat. The law is precisely defined. Its all in writing. If you think something in the law violates the Constitution, you can sue. Instead of ranting about rights, tell it to a judge, and see how far you get.

If you would actually look up the meaning of treason as defined in the law, and you think someone has committed an act of treason, what you should do is call the FBI. They have the authority to investigate. Try THINKING rather than ranting.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Sure, Democrats can learn from the comparison. Segolene is a human being. Ms. Clinton is a lethal opportunist and power-craver who belongs in jail. Democrats should observe that the best way to elect a Republican President is to nominate Hillary Clinton. Which sex is a marginal considertion; personal character is not.

Posted by: john | May 8, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

I say facsism is facsism. Just because the Nazi's version of Facsism is differant form George Bush's, doesn't mean the right are not facsist's

Posted by: JKrish | May 8, 2007 1:21 PM | Report abuse

J. Leopold,
I think you're right that the 47% she garnered does support the fact that socialism is not dead and that her gender was not an overwhelming issue. I still think its fascinating since socialism is the CAUSE of high unemployment and, to some extent, globalization problems in France. But i guess despite all the French workers guarateed vacation, they don't spend that time thinking about that.

Posted by: Dave! | May 8, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

yOU TELL ME rAZOR.

"Can something be facism in one country and not in another? "

How about treason. Can you have treason in one country and not another? To that point, what about Don Imus? Should Imus be fired and Rush/Hannity/O'Reilly/Coulter still be on the air.

You ask if fascism can be in one country but not another. It is in the PERSEPTION. The problem is, the conservative movement cannot see what it has become. Doublethink and Newspeack cloads you from seeing what is right in your face. If a democrat tried to take your rights, the patriot act, you would be up in arms. Look at what. REALITY IS NOT NOT WHA TIS IN RUSH' HEAD.


Posted by: RUFUS1133 | May 8, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

J. Leopold says high unemployment was an issue in the French election. When I said that the other day, MikeB said that unemployment in France was at a 50 year low. Comic relief.

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

JKrish says:

"That is " I don't like. I'm going to destroy you economically." That could be considered fascism in other countries"

Facism? In other countries? Can something be facism in one country and not in another?

An economic boycott is facist? The Montomgery bus boycott started when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat is facism? The students that staged a sit in at the lunch counter in Greensboro North Carolina were facists?

Simple locig escapes the mooonbats. Define facist, then apply it to EVERYONE who meets the definition. Simple logic, one would think.

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

High unemployment, globalization and racial tensions regarding the Muslim immigrants were first and foremost in the minds of the French electorate.

Mrs Royal had little substance or new ideas to offer to counter those concerns and could not get the majority to elect her.

Socialism is not dead in France but the electorate believed that her opponent was better suited to address their current concerns and since 47% voted for Mrs Royal, gender was not the prime determinant.

Posted by: J. Leopold | May 8, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

MikeB gets a gold medal. He wrote a post that is more than 3 sentences long that didn't contain a single material misreprestentation of fact. That is a new record for MikeB. Although there was some dubious overstated opinion in the post, there were no whoppers for me to correct. Congratulations, MikeB.

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 1:10 PM | Report abuse

that's correct MikeB. " We can and will disagree." That goes against the right's principles. Bill O'Reilly didn't like France's position on Iraq, so he call for his slaves to boycott them, FOR FOUR YEARS. That is not civil disagreeing. That is " I don't like. I'm going to destroy you economically." That could be considered fascism in other countries

Posted by: JKrish | May 8, 2007 1:09 PM | Report abuse

SF,

If the Embarcadero needed this so much and it will help really only SF residents (and the state some), why didn't the citizens of SF pay for it? Why ask the Federal governement in the first place to pay for it? Why should this Virginian have to? Fix up your own place.

Posted by: Dave! | May 8, 2007 1:07 PM | Report abuse

KOZ posted "Sarkozy used his first post-victory speech to send a message...We are on your side. Our separation during the debate over the liberation of Iraq was a tragedy..."

Where do you come up with this stuff? Sarkozy never said anything even remotedly like that. What he said was, friends can disagree, even strongly, about policies. He wanted a reproachment with the U.S. without supporting the Bush-Cheney fiasco in Iraq. Don't you people know that we look these things up? It rather like this creepy Fundimentalist on television last weekend who claimed that Eve/women was literally made from Adam's rib and offered as "proof" the "fact" that women had an extra rib! Well, they don't and I find it beyond belief that there is a mob of ignorant Fundimentalists running around loose who buy this sort of nonsense and are allowed to vote...or even breed. This explains why we got Bush and Cheney; it even gives these fools a false feeling of superiority.

Posted by: MikeB | May 8, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Stop stirring up crap then razor. don't come on here attacking people, all day, and expect people to not get angry. This is not a game. I know you are probably sitting at your computer giggling like a elementary kid. This is not a game. If you have nothing to add to the debate, leave the debate. If you don't want to talk about "what is" leave. Go to a safe place like drudge.com or rush. You might come to realize that everyone there sounds EXACTLY the same though. What fun is that? Clones, dittoheads, facsists

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 8, 2007 1:03 PM | Report abuse

MikeB said:

Razorback, No. I'm the MikeB that called you a piece of inbred white trash, a thoughtless clod, a moron, a right wing parrot, and a meandering puffed up container of hot air, taking up valuable space on an already overcrowded planet, a worthless chunk of protoplasm, a junior college dropout...


Then "|" said:

thank you mike b for saving the rest of us the trouble.

Posted by: | May 8, 2007 11:32 AM

Then "|" said:

Why do those on the right always talk like small children? 'moonbats', 'bad guys' 'Libs' -- is it just that their intellectual level was frozen at about 5 years old? seems like it... they really possess no adult behavior at all, just simple-minded memes, kindergarten insults, tantrums and whining.

Posted by: | May 8, 2007 12:50 PM

HYPOCRITES HYPOCRITES

And then you have J. Leopold who said I lacked civility and posted about topics other than the main topic, but uttered nary a peep when others committed the same offense.

Discrimination, disparate impact, selective prosecution. Nothing is more than a punch line to these left wing moonbats. They are incabable of taking a logical principle, and applying it uniformly to various circumstances. Intellectual light weight hypocrites.

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

As Jim Hoagland points out, Royal's big mistake was to stake her campaign on being the first women President. This distracted from being able to modernize her party. This is a mistake that Hillary will not make.

Posted by: Michigan Mike | May 8, 2007 12:57 PM | Report abuse

It's all about me me me me. daddy issues. Somebody put up money for me to go to a shrink. I need to work out my daddy issues :)

that's it. I've exploded my brain with this analysis. All I will be able to post for the rest of the day will be trivial nonsense. most of you will not be able to tell this from my regular posts, but there is a difference.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Royal had no business winning an election in a country the size of Frace. She was not ready for primetime. Her candidacy was a trick. Setting her up to fail. It was a false choice. The more choices the better. The less choices the worse. Less choice=monopoly

Posted by: JKrish | May 8, 2007 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Why do I always talk like small children? 'moonbats', 'bad guys' 'Libs' -- is it just that my intellectual level was frozen at about 5 years old? seems like it... I really possess no adult behavior at all, just simple-minded memes, kindergarten insults, tantrums and whining.

But I will continue to try to project this on to anyone else who dares think a thought.

Love,
ignorant coward

PS, I need to go find some of my "original' thougths at
Kos and huff so I'll cut and paste and be right back. I love this blog.

Posted by: irony | May 8, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

As far as I know charges of corruption have never been levelled at Segolene Royal or "the man in her life".

Posted by: R Bingham | May 8, 2007 12:52 PM | Report abuse

The right ARE children. It's all about me me me me. daddy issues. Somebody put up money for zouk and razor to go to a shrink. They need to work out their daddy issues :)

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 12:52 PM | Report abuse

I wish I was 'psuedo-stupid' instead of completely stupid.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Why do those on the right always talk like small children? 'moonbats', 'bad guys' 'Libs' -- is it just that their intellectual level was frozen at about 5 years old? seems like it... they really possess no adult behavior at all, just simple-minded memes, kindergarten insults, tantrums and whining.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Despite the fact that many democrats are running scared from the term "Socialist" (as well they should be), Royal (the socialist) and Clinton (the democrat) share more than just being both women. Is Hilary as left as Royal? Don't know. She can't campaign that way or she would not be taken seriously in this country at this time in our history. Would she like to be? That is a more difficult question to answer. Remember "It Takes a Village"? That says the future is not family but the larger village of teachers, pediatricians and social workers (very communal). She talks about raising children as less of a parental task than a social one. She works to nationalize heathcare and education. The Clintons did not start out centrist - they wound up there after failed attempts (Hillarycare / gays in the military) at governing too left. More appropriately, Bill wound up there. However, just because they changed tactics to the incremental approach does not mean that their goals or beliefs are different. They want government programs to solve the "big" social issues - healthcare, education, poverty, etc. If elected, would she govern centrist? Hard to say given that the pendulum is swinging slightly left in this country. She might figure this is her opportunity. Being the politically shrewed people they are, the Clintons might find that they can triagulate more to the left these days. I found it fascinating that the French elected someone "pro-American" and "capitalist" over a socialist. Maybe Royal was just not up to the task. Maybe the French have discovered that socialism is not all its cracked up to be. Maybe the US still needs that lesson and i have every confidence that Hillary would provide us that.

Posted by: Dave! | May 8, 2007 12:48 PM | Report abuse

I'm also here to jeer at you and make kindergarten insults.

I guess my low IQ and inability to form coherent original thoughts is the reason I doesn't have a job.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Move to cuba Rufas, you will be happy there - in prison. and you get the best free health care in the world. Your agenda is now on display for all to see. Keep talking.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 8, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse


'how many of you rabid liberal moonbats on this site believe Bush knew about 911 before it happened and did nothing about it?'

I don't think he knows anything that goes on whatsoever. He has a very limited mind.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 12:45 PM | Report abuse

'psudo-scientific' from one who would know. cons shoudn't lecture on pseudo-scxience...give me a break.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Treason was a term used in the world's history. It means:

In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor. Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour."

That is exactly what the Bush administration did. If you watch or read any news source but Fox you can decypher that. How was treason handled 100 years ago

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 8, 2007 12:43 PM | Report abuse

ignorant coward, the moon bats do not want us to leave, they are too attached to our contribution to the tax base.

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

'Maybe we could start a country that falls for all our lies and lets us run amok with thier money. I think our time is up here in america.'

I think you're right, zouk. We don't believe in your lies anymore. I guess you should move.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 12:42 PM | Report abuse

'since I have nothing of substance to offer this debate'

The 'kouk' admits he has has nothing to offer. i suggest you ignore him. He's also here to jeer at you and make kindergarten insults.

I guess his low IQ and inability to form coherent original thoughts is the reason he doesn't have a job.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

SF, why make us pay for it then? she must have learned this trick from Dirty Harry, the master of rezoning.

Posted by: free ride | May 8, 2007 12:39 PM | Report abuse

If the left can get the right to quit the sabatoge maybe WE can build something, zouk. Maybe Russia's communisim may have succeded if they wern't getting sold out by their own people, and had to fight capitailism. MAybe Cuba could build something if America didn't HINDER them. You can't sabotage then say, Look this why they failed." The right has been doing that across the globe for over 120 years. Look at Bolten being appointed to the un. A guy that hates the un is the ambassator to the un. That doesn't make sense. You don't put people in governmetn that hate the government.

Divide and conquer is the right's goal. Fear/hate intolerance are heir tools

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 8, 2007 12:39 PM | Report abuse

If I'm not mistaken, Royal did not win among female voters the way she needed to. One of the biggest barriers to success in America for female politicians is the bias they face not only among men, but among other women.

Perhaps Hillary needs to do more work to shore up women in order to win.

Posted by: Chris DeRose | May 8, 2007 12:38 PM | Report abuse

rufus1133,

Name a person who has been charged or convicted with treason in the last 10 years.

Second, if you can do that, then name another person who has committed a similar offense yet has not been charged with treason.

If you do those 2 things, you will see how ignorant it is to always be posting about how people are going to be charged with treason.

This is typical leftist ignorance. They lecture about science, psuedo-science, rationality and evidence, then they post something ignorant like that.

Treason has a very specific meaning. It is defined in the United States Code. There is a very specific standard in the law for charging, convicting and sentencing someone for treason. To yack off about treason without understanding its specific meaning and definition is at best, psudo-scientific.

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

I second the first response, Mark in Austin's, "No!"

Posted by: Nor'Easter | May 8, 2007 12:36 PM | Report abuse

since I have nothing of substance to offer this debate, I will fixate on zouk? How did he figure out all our cheap tricks and rhetoric? Is the internet really revealing our liberal idiocy? Where can I hide from the truth?

I am so happy here with my fellow nutjobs. Maybe we could start a country that falls for all our lies and lets us run amok with thier money. I think our time is up here in america.

Posted by: ignorant coward | May 8, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

'Pelosi got House members to authorize $25 million to improve the Embarcadero port area, clearing the way for cruise-ship-dock development and other improvements to aid the neighborhood's comeback.'

Good for Pelosi. That neighborhood has needed help for years and has the potential to become an economic powerhouse. This is what a good representative does and we love her.

Posted by: SF | May 8, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Sarkozy used his first post-victory speech to send a message to the Americans: We are on your side. Our separation during the debate over the liberation of Iraq was a tragedy.


It is clear that socialism and surrender is on the wane. bush won two elections, Merkel won, Sarkozy won. the empty ideas and talk of the left has finally emerged from the coccoon the press has harbored them in. Now that the Internet allows the truth to blossom, the tired, old leftist ideas from the 60s are clear failures and the worlwide voters know it.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 8, 2007 12:30 PM | Report abuse

i dunno; hillary kind of scares me. from the cheap seats up here north of the border, she appears to be phoney as hell, with a platform designed by feedback from focus groups.
obama, on the other hand, looks pretty good. he's either got a really believable schtick, or he's a real person with a well developed mind of his own.

Posted by: peter sutherland | May 8, 2007 12:30 PM | Report abuse

From all evidence, Razorback and other users of the term moon bat appear to have an intense desire to control the dialog and impose a set of various views on contributors that are unrelated to the main topic of this forum. As such we may might chose to ignore their unrelated ideology laced ranting until their focus his brought back to the topic of Segolene and Hillary.

Posted by: J. Leopold | May 8, 2007 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Zouk has to sabatoge the conversation. We can't have people on here talking truths. If so a random person, who only watches fox, would come in here and it would screw up their whole world persprective. He just trying to give the right something they know. Don' hate zouk. Show pity on him. Try and help him. His movement is done for at least ten years. So him so sympathy :)

Posted by: rufs1133 | May 8, 2007 12:29 PM | Report abuse

Knew about it? Hell, Cheney planned it and told Bush about it because Bush was too stoopid to plan it.

Posted by: LeftistMoonBat | May 8, 2007 12:28 PM | Report abuse

ever notice how queen of kooks comes on here every day, at exactly the same time, then stays all day, posting every five minutes?

is queen a paid troll or a welfare queen? why isn't she in iraq, fighting the war she so fervently believes in?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 12:26 PM | Report abuse

You better HOPE your right zouk. If your movement is wrong, their are going to be a lot people charged with treason in the next 2 years. Real treason. 1754 treason. You better pray your not dylusional. If the right is so sure, why don't you watch "real" news? Why do you hide in your caves? Why won't anyone talk, if thye have the moral high ground? Why all the secrecy? Why the failing to testify and pleeding the fifth. What are you scared of if you know your movement is not lying?

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 8, 2007 12:25 PM | Report abuse


'33% Believe Troop Surge Will Work'

and that's at the top end --it will only continue to decline -- thanks for the proof, queen of kooks, that you are in the delusional one-third.

you ever notice the way the cons attack your arguments? by personal ridicule, because that's all they've got.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 12:25 PM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi used her clout to get lawmakers to back a San Francisco redevelopment project near her multimillion-dollar rental properties, disclosure documents reveal. Pelosi got House members to authorize $25 million to improve the Embarcadero port area, clearing the way for cruise-ship-dock development and other improvements to aid the neighborhood's comeback.

Posted by: rots from the head | May 8, 2007 12:23 PM | Report abuse


'I thought leftist feminist types were against discrimination.'

the cons come from the factory complete with stereotypical talking points.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 12:21 PM | Report abuse

speaking of delusional crackpots, get this:

"Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure."

RELATED ARTICLES
52% Oppose Veto of Iraq Funding Bill (half, not more)

40% Favor Military Action to Prevent Iran Nuclear Capability (almost half ready to do it again)

Poll: 57% Say War With Iran Likely

33% Believe Troop Surge Will Work

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/22_believe_bush_knew_about_9_11_attacks_in_advance

how many of you rabid liberal moonbats on this site believe Bush knew about 911 before it happened and did nothing about it?

Are Democrats in general really that stupid and conspiracy minded? I know a few on this site are but really, 1/3? I guess if you fall for the VRWC you will fall for most anything. Your connection to reality is slipping away.

Posted by: kingofzouk | May 8, 2007 12:14 PM | Report abuse

I'll admit, I know very little about the french candidates. I just know their "labels". Of course when givin the choice I between a Bush freindly candidate and a socialist, I have to root against the Bush candidate. OOOHH yeah. Bill O'Reilly lifted his year old "boycott of france" last night when royal lost. I jsut France is a freind again. What a facsist.

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 8, 2007 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Hillary and Segolene have little in common. Hillary is a careful campaigner and is very controlled. Segolene is far more emotional and silly. Segolene is a great example for Hillary in what not to do. But Hillary already knew not to make those mistakes. Hillary has more in common with Angela Merkel of Germany.

Posted by: Southern Girl | May 8, 2007 12:08 PM | Report abuse

That's not tension between energy independence and environmentalism. It's tension between coal interests and environmentalism. You're equating energy independence with coal. The two are related, but not the same.

Posted by: Blarg | May 8, 2007 12:06 PM | Report abuse

J. Leopold says:

"Razorback, what does your supposed reality have to do with the topic under discussion?"

J. Leopold, did you miss the vast number of posts that are off of topic? Isn't it discriminatory to single someone out for an "offense" without mentioning the fact that others have committed the same offense?

I thought leftist feminist types were against discrimination.

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 12:02 PM | Report abuse

BLARG says:

There does not need to be any tension between energy independence and environmentalism.

Todays Washington Post says:

"Senator Obama right now is balancing two tensions," said Cathy Duvall, national political director of the Sierra Club. "First off, he is a senator from Illinois, whose job it is to represent . . . one of the biggest coal-producing states in the country. On the other hand, he's also a presidential candidate and needs to demonstrate the leadership needed to move our entire country in the direction to tackle tough questions like energy independence and global warming."

And OBAMA links coal and energy indpenendence in the same Washington Post article"

"But Obama's speech was also noteworthy for what he left out: any mention of his support for coal-to-liquids technology that has incensed environmentalists, and any mention of energy "independence" that oil experts say is unrealistic.

Yesterday, Obama talked about coal in general terms. "We'll . . . need to find a way to use coal -- America's most abundant fossil fuel -- without adding harmful greenhouse gases to the environment," he said."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/07/AR2007050701771.html

Razorback, the national political director of the Sierra Club, and Obama all that there is tension between energy independence and environmentalism. think. BLARG disagrees and is out of the mainstream.

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 11:58 AM | Report abuse

'You liberal moonbats are so out of touch with reality' -- hilarous... from today's representative of the failed, delusional, crackpot 28 percenters.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 11:57 AM | Report abuse

rufus1133 - Labelling Sarkozy a "conservative" is an invention of the British and American press. A better description would be "French Nationalist" and "pragmatist". He is not wedded to the sort of drivel spouted by our right wing nor to the few true conservatives in Europe, who are generally considered embarrassing fools and hidden from public display (something else we ought to emulate the European).

Posted by: MikeB | May 8, 2007 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Mitty just needs to explain why he was pro-choice when running for office in Massachusetts and is now pro-life running for the Repub nomination.

It's just a bit too convenient, Mittster.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | May 8, 2007 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Romney this weekend:

"It seems that Europe leads Americans in this way of thinking," Romney told the crowd of more than 5,000. "In France, for instance, I'm told that marriage is now frequently contracted in seven-year terms where either party may move on when their term is up. How shallow and how different from the Europe of the past."

And how gullible and provincial from presidential candidates of the past. But didn't Romney go to France for his mission? Think some sweet gamin spun this whole "seven year hitch" fable as an elaborate practical joke? Getting us back for, I dunno, Jerry Lewis? And they say the French have no sense of humor...
Via The Plank, where they note that the whole seven-year-contract with option to renew is, in fact, a plot point in a novel by fellow Mormon Orson Scott Card.*

UPDATE: I have spoken to an actual former citizen of France, who tells me that he has no idea what Mitt is referring to here. "It's the former length of the presidential term," he guessed, "and there's a thing like a civil union..." That lasts seven years? "No."

I'd also like to note how truly bizarre it is that the WP printed this quote completely uncritically and without comment, as if seven-year marriages in France were something we all had heard of and accepted as true.

*UPDATE: Card's book with the seven-year marriage contracts? It's called "The Memory of Earth," and it is a fictionalization of the Book of Mormon set in outer space. Of course, Romney could believe the French are aliens. And, yes, Romney laid down this thunderous helping of nuttitude at Regent's University, Monica Goodling's alma mater. {Also the alma mater of most of the current Justice Department. Note: Pat Robertson runs it.

Posted by: where is the fact checking, stenos? | May 8, 2007 11:50 AM | Report abuse

That was almost completely incoherent. But I saw my name in there, so I feel I must respond. (I also saw Razorback's own name in there repeatedly; either he likes to refer to himself in the third person, or he's quoting someone talking about himself; it's hard to say.)

There does not need to be any tension between energy independence and environmentalism. I'm in favor of both, and I'm not alone on that. Any realistic plan for energy independence will focus strongly on energy conservation; the easiest way to use less foreign energy is to use less energy in general. And alternative fuels can also go a long way towards reducing our oil imports.

Both environmentalists and advocates of energy independence are in favor of conservation and alternative fuels. The two groups differ in their opinion of coal. But that doesn't mean that they can't cooperate. Razorback is violently opposed to both energy independence and alternative fuels, since neither fit into his extremely limited worldview, so he pretends the two groups are enemies.

Posted by: Blarg | May 8, 2007 11:46 AM | Report abuse

I agree both are getting compared because of their gender. That does a disservice to botha nd is un-fair. Hilary is pretty middle of the road, compared to the other democratic potus hopefuls. Royal was not a real candidate. Her husband was the Socalist party leader. He threw his wife out here because he knew she would lose. This is for political for. The right is using fear to spread their message. Fear and $$$$. Canada, France, Austrailia, the EU. Where can I hide from their WORLD DOMINATION?

The only thing the right hates more than a woman is a socalist

Posted by: rufus1133 | May 8, 2007 11:45 AM | Report abuse

In nearly every group of five woman you will find two that will vote for Hillary no matter what- two that won't vote for her no matter what- and one that is undecided and can be convinced either way.

If Hillary can convince that woman to vote for her than she will win. If she can get 3/5 or the woman's vote, which is 54% of the total vote she will be the next President. I think she is running this election to prove not that she is the best woman but the best candidate and that is how she will win over that other woman.

This will be a close election no matter who the candidates are. We are a divided country. But I believe that any Democrat who comes out of the primary as the winner, will win in November of 2008 if the Democratic party stays united.

Hillary could with the support of woman actually win bigger than any other candidate when it comes down to it. I have heard more Republican moderate women tell me that they are thankful that our elections are secret. They think it's about time and they think Hillary has the smarts and ability to make a great President. They see her breaking the glass ceiling for the highest office in the world as making a difference for them, their daughters and granddaughters and woman around the world.

We say that people vote their self interest. They do and this appears to be in their self interest. One woman recently said to me about Hillary, "She's got b-lls" and she meant it as a compliment.

Posted by: peter | May 8, 2007 11:45 AM | Report abuse

'NEW YORK (AP) -- When it comes to abortion, Mitt Romney has conceded a change of heart while trying to minimize criticism by noting that some of his rivals have also flip-flopped on issues.

On Monday night, Romney offered another defense, saying he is being unduly criticized for shifting from supporting abortion rights to opposing them.'

oh, boohoo, mitty can't take the heat when he gets called a flipflopper. what a baby.

Posted by: mitty the crybaby | May 8, 2007 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Razorback, what does your supposed reality have to do with the topic under discussion?

Posted by: J. Leopold | May 8, 2007 11:44 AM | Report abuse

'FRESNO, California (AP) -- A college student opened fire in an apartment near the campus of California State University, Fresno, killing one person and wounding two others, police said Tuesday.'

We clearly need more guns for students, don't you think?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 11:42 AM | Report abuse

MikeB are you the same idiot that said if Condi didn't answer the congressional subpeona, that she would go straight to jail? She isn't in jail is she you moron.

MikeB, are you saying that you did not post this:

"Free Trade" is an illusion, a con game being played by corporations interested short term gains and to hell with the future of this country. Obama is one of "them"! Edwards, Hagel, and a few others are not. I will not be voting for some inbred twit, a member of the political chattering class, who will so readily sell this country down the river. Obama and Clinon are neocons, free traders, and no friend of people interested in salvaging thw wreckage of the Bush-Cheney years.

Posted by: MikeB | May 7, 2007 11:49 PM "

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 11:41 AM | Report abuse

The lesson: It takes more than just being a woman to win.

Posted by: DQuixote1 | May 8, 2007 11:39 AM | Report abuse

The men, some of whom were related to each other, had been doing surveillance and planning "for a while," and they trained in the Poconos Mountains in northeastern Pennsylvania, according to the federal law enforcement source.

They played paintball, a law enforcement source said.

While authorities are glad to have arrested them, the individuals are "hardly hard core terrorists," one law enforcement source said.

Another source said that while the allegations are "troubling," they are "not the type that made the hair on the back of your neck stand up."

Fort Dix was used in 1999 to house ethnic Albanian refugees from Kosovo, according to the Defense Department Web site.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 11:39 AM | Report abuse

"The 'some people say' has been a republican construction since Reagan, a way to set up a straw man argument. Reagan's was the folksy, 'some of them fellers,' --Bush goes for 'now, some might say,' and then proceeds to say something that actually no one is saying. Notice this rhetorical trick -- a lot of TV pundits use it too.

And it's pointless. Hillary and Royal have nothing in common except their women.

So why not compare Sargozy, or whatever his name is, to Rudy or McCain, and ask what they can learn from him? Actually that might be a much better question."

Good comment as usual, drindl. My bet: we won't see this Blog get Wagged.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 8, 2007 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Obama the Green Liberal meets Razorback reality.

Obama announced a CAFE bill which provides that increased fuel standards have to be "cost effective". The "Cost effective" is in response the Razorback concern about instances when the cost of making a particular model of a car more efficient exceeds the fuel savings gained by the increase efficiency.

Obama has previously proposed a program that environmental wackos compared to the Bush program.

"If this sounds familiar, that's because it's essentially the same strategy the Bush administration took when updating standards for light trucks this spring. Detroit loved the plan -- particularly since the Bushies set low efficiency standards within each weight class.
Enviros widely criticized the plan, arguing that it would incentivize automakers to produce heavier vehicles that could qualify for classes with looser efficiency restrictions."

http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2006/07/26/fuel-econ/

Obama also doesn't know what to do about coal. Coal meets energy independence objectives, but at a huge environmental cost. Razorback has addressed this in numerous previous posts. I think I even recall BLARG trying to pretend that this tension doesn't exist.

"But Obama's speech was also noteworthy for what he left out: any mention of his support for coal-to-liquids technology that has incensed environmentalists, and any mention of energy "independence" that oil experts say is unrealistic.

Yesterday, Obama talked about coal in general terms. "We'll . . . need to find a way to use coal -- America's most abundant fossil fuel -- without adding harmful greenhouse gases to the environment," he said.

Like many lawmakers, Obama has been tripping over the line between energy security and climate security. Earlier this year, he joined with another coal-state lawmaker, Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), to sponsor a measure that would promote plants that turn coal into liquid fuel that could be used in cars and trucks. This would reduce U.S. dependence on imports of foreign petroleum -- and help Obama's state, where coal reserves are said to contain more energy than the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.

But for those worried about climate change, coal-to-liquids is a red flag. In addition to whatever environmental damage is caused by mining the coal, the coal-to-liquids process would produce nearly twice as much carbon dioxide as petroleum-based fuels, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council, which says it would be "clearly at odds with our need to reduce global warming emissions."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/07/AR2007050701771.html

You liberal moonbats are so out of touch with reality that you put Obama, Razorback and Bush on the same page, while you hold down the leftist extreme.

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Go take a look at the exit polls in France as to *WHY* people voted for Sarkozy. He won the blue collar labor and women's votes becasue he promised, and "they" believed, to curtail immigration, especially illegal immigration. He also advocates ending outsourcing and guest worker programs that cost French citizens their jobs - http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070507/D8OVPUNO0.html

There is a lesson here for our own political chattering class, but since they are mostly "C" students it is doubtful they will "get it".

Posted by: MikeB | May 8, 2007 11:36 AM | Report abuse

'usa has been run in a much more competent manner than france since jimmy carter.'

LOL -- tell it to our iraq war dead. tell it to 1/4 of population that doesn't get health care. tell it to katrina victims. tell it to the record number of homeowners who will lose everything this year. tell it to chinese and japanese bankers who own us.

competent? hilarious.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 11:35 AM | Report abuse

thank you mike b for saving the rest of us the trouble.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 11:32 AM | Report abuse

B, says:
Guess since the queen's leaving, you are having a slow news day.

"let's compare hillary to a defeated french socialist."

let's not.

A most astute observation yet I suspect that in the months ahead pundits will embed in their columns a host of negative terms such as mannish and others gender related put downs to describe Mrs Clinton as they usually do for female candidates to deflect from the important issues our selection should be based upon.

Rarely, of course, do we see terms such as effeminate or other feminine traits to describe male candidates.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 11:32 AM | Report abuse

I think in winning the presidency by a 54-46 vote where 84% of the electorate participated, Sarkozy has taken the tiger by the tail. This is a divided country more or less. As he tries to position France to accomodate globalization, social tensions which are already volatile, will worsen. Americans have an "early to bed early to rise" and entreprenurial culture but the effects of globalization have been brutal on our society. We work harder and longer hours but our standard of living falls and we are losing pension and retirement benefits. The old paid summer vacation has gone the way of the Edsel.

The French on the other hand have always had a more bon vivant culture. I think Sarkozy will remembered as the Gorbachev of France, where globalization is his glasnost and peristroika. As peristroika restructured the Soviet Union out of existance, I predict that globalization of the French economy will result in the fall of the fifth Republic. Will we see President Royal as the first president of the sixth Republic in a few short years?

Posted by: John S | May 8, 2007 11:30 AM | Report abuse

Razorback, No. I'm the MikeB that called you a piece of inbred white trash, a thoughtless clod, a moron, a right wing parrot, and a meandering puffed up container of hot air, taking up valuable space on an already overcrowded planet, a worthless chunk of protoplasm, a junior college dropout...

Posted by: MikeB | May 8, 2007 11:26 AM | Report abuse

This is my first blog entry here. Is there always this much off the topic comment and talking point insertion?

To the point, there probably is very little correlation to be drawn.

Posted by: HLM | May 8, 2007 11:17 AM | Report abuse

This is a test no need for alarm ...

Posted by: perfide | May 8, 2007 11:17 AM | Report abuse

'Sarkozy has previously spoken out against the war in Iraq'

he won't be a poodle like blair, the french undoubtedly like that.

and remember that fully 47% percent of the electorate voted for royal -- almost half. so i seriously doubt france is dying to see american style so-called 'free markets' [foreign corporations writing laws] being enacted.

their people seem to be a little better at seeing through the propaganda.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 11:16 AM | Report abuse

i think the average american has done all he/she can to maintain political correctness in all walks of life.
an aggressive media and judiciary has helped this along.
i doubt now if the average american will countenance a female president in these troubled times--just like the french didn't. competence had very little to do with it--past french presidents evoke a number of adjectives but even the most liberal criteria would not apply "competent" to any of the past french presidents in the last 20 years.
this is the essential similarity between the two.
the difference? usa has been run in a much more competent manner than france since jimmy carter.that's about 20 years's difference. hilary clinton thus has a much tougher job than sego had.
hilary has tough acts to follow.sego didn't.

Posted by: ghoomnewala | May 8, 2007 11:15 AM | Report abuse

I see we have Razorback here today representing the "great 28" (Bush's approval rating).

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | May 8, 2007 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Ryo, you bring forth some excellent observations and I would add that anyone assuming that females will vote as a block for a female is ludicrous as women will make their choice based on the issues they deem relevant to our country.

Posted by: J. Leopold | May 8, 2007 11:03 AM | Report abuse

This is a popular comparison with Republicans because Royal lost. They would like to believe Clinton would face the same fate.

Unfortunately for them the only similarity between the two is that they are both women. After that, they live in very different parts of the political spectrum.

Posted by: Daniel K | May 8, 2007 11:03 AM | Report abuse

PARIS (AP) - Nicolas Sarkozy won the women's vote and fared well among blue-collar workers, even though his rival for the French presidency was a woman and a Socialist.

It was one of the surprising subplots in Sarkozy's resounding election victory over Segolene Royal - and shows his vision of pro-market reforms and scaling back immigration appeals to a wide audience.

PRO-MARKET, thats the ticket.

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Guess since the queen's leaving, you are having a slow news day.

"let's compare hillary to a defeated french socialist."

let's not.

Posted by: b | May 8, 2007 10:58 AM | Report abuse

It wasn't CC that started the conversation on this topic. It was Hillary:

"There was a time when advisers to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) looked abroad for proof that women can get elected to a top leadership role in the modern world: Margaret Thatcher, the former British prime minister; Angela Merkel, the German chancellor; and Michelle Bachelet, the president of Chile."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/07/AR2007050701677_pf.html

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 10:51 AM | Report abuse

While other commenters are right to note the vast differences between the French campaigns/candidates and our own, there is one piece of data that proves ineresting: Despite being the first female candidate with a real shot, Royal did NOT get most of the women's vote. Conventional wisdom might suggest that women are likely to vote strongly in favor of a female candidate, but the French result seems to show otherwise. Hillary's camp is undoubtedly relying on a large turnout of female voters in her favor, but what if many of the female voters actually end up voting for Obama or others? Perhaps conventional wisdom is wrong, and women won't necessarily vote in droves for Hillary. That prospect may be the most interesting aspect of the French election result.

Posted by: Ryo | May 8, 2007 10:50 AM | Report abuse

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00151

A good place to check out roll calls on votes.

As the Associated Press reports, "In a triumph for the pharmaceutical industry, the Senate killed a drive to allow consumers to buy prescription drugs from abroad at a significant savings from domestic prices." The legislation to allow imports of FDA-approved medicines from other industrialized nations (a practice used by other industrialized nations themselves) was sponsored by North Dakota Sen. Byron Dorgan (D) and has long been supported by the vast majority of the American public in opinion polls. Yet right there on the floor of the U.S. Senate yesterday afternoon, 49 senators voted through a poison pill amendment, invalidating Dorgan's legislation and protecting drug industry profiteering. The sheer disregard for the truth and for consistency when it came to both the policy and politics of this vote was, in a word, stunning.'

Check the roll call and nail any dem senator you find who helped kill this. We have to weed the corpocrats from our government -- we have to stop letting foreign national corporations run the lives of US citizens.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Razorback says:
you might have omitted the comparisons that male pundits made of Clinton and Blair.

Whatever comparisons were made of Blair to Clinton had no relevance to the US presidential election and surely did not influence our cousins' electoral choices.

This article does and in my opinion US issues are important not the gender of the candidate. Leadership, character and honesty are not a function of gender and those should be the measures whether the candidate is a male or a female.

While I do not have a preference toward any candidate at this time, my choice will not be based on gender but on the measures I identified above and I submit that pundits should consider doing same.

Posted by: J. Leopold | May 8, 2007 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Why is this author obsessed with some failed politicians' ovaries? Is there some evidence that politicians with ovaries are going to take us out of this diversity-globalization-multi-stupid-illegal-immigrant-homofile-feminized -statist-security-rather-than-liberty state of affairs?

There are more important things to analyze but, I'm sure, most media big heads won't see anything outside their little make-believe universe.

Posted by: Aragorn | May 8, 2007 10:43 AM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON -- The second-ranking Republican in the U.S. Senate, Sen. Trent Lott, said Monday that President George W. Bush's new strategy in Iraq has only a few months before his fellow Republicans will need to see results.
Lott's comment put a fine point on what Senate Republican stalwarts have been discussing quietly for weeks. It also echoed remarks made during the weekend by House of Representatives Minority Leader John Boehner.

"I do think this fall we have to see some significant changes on the ground, in Baghdad and other surrounding areas," Lott told reporters. Fall, or autumn, is roughly the last three months of the year.

Posted by: Rs want to cut and run | May 8, 2007 10:41 AM | Report abuse

MikeB says: "But we not only allow it, we encourage this by providing tax incentives."

Would you please name the tax incentives? If these tax incentives exist, would you please name a single member of the Democratically controlled Congress, or a single Democratic presidential candidate that has proposed eliminating them?

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 10:40 AM | Report abuse

MikeB are you the same MikeB that called Obama "an imbred twit".

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 10:37 AM | Report abuse

'Why didn't these 6 terrorist suspects get shipped to Guantanimo, since we all know that Bush jails people illegally.'

good question -- answer: bush only treats muslims like subhumans.

also, there is no oil in albania.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 10:35 AM | Report abuse

A majority of Americans believe Bush is not politically courageous: 60 percent vs. 35 percent. And two out of three Americans (67 percent) believe his recent actions in Iraq show he is 'stubborn and unwilling to admit his mistakes,' compared to 29 percent who say Bush's actions demonstrate that he is 'willing to take political risks to do what's right.'"

2 -1, cons, 2 -1.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Who cares if Hillary runs a tight campaign or not. The issue is "is she best for this country". That, I frankly do not know. She has too many close ties to corporations and has consistantly been a free trade advocate. Free trade is an empty promise, sold to the American people, that has cost them jobs. It is an an excuse, used by those same corporations to outsource jobs and technology for sort term gain at the cost of this country's future. She, and the other free traders, want to grant some sort of legalized work status to the 20 million or so illegals in this country and that will cost people more jobs and will result in more wage and benefit concession for those that want to keep theirs. Is she willing to jettison this? I don't know, but I hope so.

Razorback and those like him that mindlessly advocate free trade, with all of its evils, have done more harm to this country than all of the other enemies of this country throughout history. If theirs is not treason, than I do not know what is. Even allowing an Intel to construct the largest and most technologically advanced wafer manufacturing plant in China, an enemy state, is insane. But we not only allow it, we encourage this by providing tax incentives. Indian guest workers recently sold plans for the B1 and B2 bombers, the palns and technology for our stealth fighters and bombers to Russia. Other Indian guest workers stole plans for Los Alamos nuclear labs and sold them to Iran. Boeing shipped off circuit boards for our cruise missile guidance system. A California defense contractor is under investigation for providing CHina the guidance system for our ICBM missiles. ITT sold to CHina the plans, the basic technology, and field ready examples of our latest night vision systems. The list goes on and on and on and is sickening. No one claiming to love this country can possibly be a free trader or support globalization any longer. That there are still people who do so, in the face of overwhelming evidence, is proof of the stupidity and evil of people proclaiming their "patriotism", waving their made in China WalMart flags like the silly twits they are.

Posted by: MikeB | May 8, 2007 10:31 AM | Report abuse

The latest cover of U.S. News (the soberest of the newsweeklies) features a picture of the president and the headline: 'Bush's Last Stand . . . IS HE RESOLUTE OR DELUSIONAL?'

Kenneth T. Walsh, the author of the cover story, starts off by describing President Bush's increasingly frequent habit of comparing himself to Lincoln and Truman.

Then Walsh quotes presidential historian Robert Dallek's assessment of the current president: "He may come across to some people as a man of principle, but a great majority see him as stubborn and unyielding. . . . And everything he touches turns to dust."

"'We're seeing the very early demise of an administration,' says a former White House adviser to Bush's father, George H. W. Bush, with considerable sadness. 'It usually happens six months before a president leaves office in a second term, but in this case it's happening now.'"

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 10:30 AM | Report abuse

WHATEVER THE future holds, the United States has not "lost" and cannot "lose" Iraq. It was never ours in the first place. And however history will judge the war, some key U.S. goals have been accomplished: Saddam Hussein has been ousted, tried and executed; Iraqis have held three elections, adopted a constitution and established a rudimentary democracy.

But what now? After four years of war, more than $350 billion spent and 3,363 U.S. soldiers killed and 24,310 wounded, it seems increasingly obvious that an Iraqi political settlement cannot be achieved in the shadow of an indefinite foreign occupation. The U.S. military presence -- opposed by more than three-quarters of Iraqis -- inflames terrorism and delays what should be the primary and most pressing goal: meaningful reconciliation among the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.

This newspaper reluctantly endorsed the U.S. troop surge as the last, best hope for stabilizing conditions so that the elected Iraqi government could assume full responsibility for its affairs. But we also warned that the troops should not be used to referee a civil war. That, regrettably, is what has happened.

The mire deepens against a backdrop of domestic U.S. politics in which support for the ill-defined mission wanes by the week. Better to begin planning a careful, strategic withdrawal from Iraq now, based on the strategies laid out by the Iraq Study Group, than allow for the 2008 campaign season to create a precipitous pullout.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 10:28 AM | Report abuse

In what has turned out to be the most memorable moment of Thursday's Republican presidential debate -- "Is there anybody on the stage that does not believe in evolution?" -- an interesting discussion has emerged about the right, science, and modernity.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, one of three Republican candidates who rejects modern biology, was disappointed he couldn't elaborate on the point during the debate. He told reporters yesterday that he isn't opposed to evolution in the classrooms; he just doesn't believe it. "If you want to believe that you and your family came from apes, I'll accept that.... I believe there was a creative process."

Obviously, phrases such as "came from apes," as opposed to "share a common ancestor," reflect a disturbing ignorance about basic science, but Huckabee added an even more provocative point.

The former Arkansas governor said about the evolution question: "I'm not sure what in the world that has to do with being president of the United States."

At first blush, this might sound vaguely compelling. The president isn't going to write science curricula for public schools. He or she doesn't have to know much about science at all.

But I'd argue that it nevertheless matters. In fact, it matters quite a bit. For an educated adult in the 21st century, who wants to be the leader of the free world, to reject modern biology, reflects a certain lack of intellectual seriousness. It speaks to how earnestly a man or woman takes evidence and reason, which in turn tells the nation quite a bit about how this person would make decisions in the Oval Office.

For Huckabee (and Brownback and Tancredo) to reject biology is to announce that scientific consensus has no meaning to them; they prefer dogma and pseudo-science.

We've had quite a bit of this the past six years; we don't need more of it.

Indeed, I've been amazed at times at how the current president processes information. Confronted with evidence of global warming, Bush rejects it. Confronted with evidence that Iraq had no WMD, he denies it. Confronted with evidence of steroids in baseball, he doesn't believe it. Confronted with evidence of evolution, he discounts it. As Kevin Drum wrote a while back, "It's like listening to a small child. He doesn't want to believe it, so it isn't true."

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 10:27 AM | Report abuse

J. Leopold:

Is this better:

Perhaps I might suggest that, due to exhaustion from having to work more for less pay, that when you opined that the male of the species, damned Neanderthals that they are, dared to compare 2 female politicians although they do not compare male politicians, that you might have omitted the comparisons that male pundits made of Clinton and Blair.

Is that better?

Yes, you are probably right that I could be more civil. After being called a Hitler, a tool of oppressive corporate greed, a torturer or innocents and other things hundreds and hundreds of times in various forums, some civility has escaped me.

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 10:22 AM | Report abuse

'voting to let china take over the free world' -- that's what you cons did when you elected bushboy. now china and japan's central bank literally owns us.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 10:20 AM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON - Jobseekers had a harder time finding work last month as the economy cooled and wary employers added the fewest positions in two and a half years. The jobless rate edged up to 4.5 percent.

ADVERTISEMENT

The fresh employment picture provided by the Labor Department on Friday showed that payrolls grew by just 88,000 as job losses spread beyond the struggling manufacturing and construction sectors and into retailing and financial services. Workers' paychecks also grew more slowly.

Given the housing slump, rising energy prices and sluggish overall economic activity, "businesses are cautious and reluctant to hire," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 10:18 AM | Report abuse

CAMARILLO, Calif. (AP) -- Gasoline prices have surged to a record nationwide average of $3.07 per gallon, nearly 20 cents higher than two weeks earlier, oil industry analyst Trilby Lundberg said Sunday. The previous record was $3.03 per gallon on Aug. 11, 2006.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 10:17 AM | Report abuse

my suspicion in that Royal should have agrred to give the third party candidate who decided to remain neutral at the 11th hour, the ambassadorship he probably wanted in exchange for throwing his support her way.

Politics and sausage........It's all in the process.

Hillary already has the art of the 'quid pro quo' down, so I don't think the situations are at all similar, except that the Obama folks are real different than the Hillary folks.

Hill or Barack are going to have to side with whichever one comes out as the primo candidate. I don't know if a Hill/Barack or Barack/Hill ticket will do it. It will mobilize what's left of Dubya's troops around some moderate Trojan Horse in a grey suit like Thompson or Hagel.

Then we get 8 years of warmed over Reagan.....and an end to constitutional government as we know it.

Posted by: chi town hustler | May 8, 2007 10:10 AM | Report abuse

Razorback says:

Study this issue rather than spout off with feminist ideological garbage that just isnt true.

You might do well to deal with your own issues rather than denigrate another individual's opinion as garbage. Adding a dose of civility to your comments might make your opinions more credible.

Posted by: J. Leopold | May 8, 2007 10:10 AM | Report abuse

2 questions for our liberal legal scholars to ponder:

1. If the Iraq was is "illegal", why did Hillary just file a bill to revoke the authorization to go to war?

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/04/america/congress.php

2. Why didn't these 6 terrorist suspects get shipped to Guantanimo, since we all know that Bush jails people illegally.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18549005/

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 10:06 AM | Report abuse

Andy R, the only reason she wasn't qualified is that she got 47% of the vote.

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 10:02 AM | Report abuse

It seems that Hillary is much more capable of running this country than Segolene was capable of running France. She did not have a clear program, nor a thorough understanding of most of the issues that France is facing today.
She was just not up to the job and French people saw it (Fortunately)

Posted by: Francois | May 8, 2007 10:01 AM | Report abuse

J.Leopold says:

"But since a female is involved it is now relevant to pundits? This paternal Neanderthal reasoning is deceiving and hypocritical."

That is a false statement. Remember how often Tony Blair was compared to Bill Clinton?

Study this issue rather than spout off with feminist ideological garbage that just isnt true.

http://www.stat.ucla.edu/~cochran/PDF/CorrelatesOverObesityLesBiWomen.pdf

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 9:55 AM | Report abuse

I think if there is a lesson to be learned from Royal it is that if you are a woman candidate and are trying to become the first female president then you have to be the obvious choice for the job. People can't ask "if" you are qualified they have to "know" you are.
I think it is obvious that Royal was not qualified. Senator Clinton on the other hand has shown that she very much is qualified (although I don't personally think she is the best choice).

Also to become the first female president Clinton will have to run a flawless campaign. People aren't looking for a reason not to vote for Hillary they are looking for an excuse, and one gaffe by HRC will give them that.

Posted by: Andy R | May 8, 2007 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Good point, Blarg. Didn't even think of that. Then again, for the past 5 years I've been making due with absentees, so that doesn't cross my mind.

Posted by: Uff Da | May 8, 2007 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Note that the French elections are held on a Sunday. Most people don't work Sundays, and can easily get to the polls. American elections are held during the week; you need to take time off from work, or go very early or very late when the polls are more crowded. Moving election day, or making it a federal holiday, would cause a significant increase in voter participation.

Posted by: Blarg | May 8, 2007 9:49 AM | Report abuse

Great thanks to those reponsible for fixing the comment feature! It accepts punctuation, and we can write, "rock," again. Nice job!

Posted by: katakaha | May 8, 2007 9:48 AM | Report abuse

One has to wonder as to what is the motivation for making this comparison between a French politician and an American one since the internal politics of each country leading to the selection cannot be compared.

Do we compare US male candidates to foreign ones as a base for choosing the President? Who would care?

But since a female is involved it is now relevant to pundits? This paternal Neanderthal reasoning is deceiving and hypocritical. Let's stick to the issues not the candidate's gender.

Posted by: J.Leopold | May 8, 2007 9:47 AM | Report abuse

I flack for no one. I support the prescription drug importation bill that failed yesterday. "Big Pharma" was opposed to that. I oppose the subsidies Obama wants to give you US car makers. The C of C probably supports that.

I was gone for a week because I had to spend more time working so I could get even more of the Bush tax cuts.

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 9:46 AM | Report abuse

No. Royal ran as a weepy welfare state mother of all the people. She came off as flaky, silly even. Hillary Clinton has the opposite image. Image-wise, though not in ideology of course, she is more Margaret Thatcher than Sergolene Royal. I don't think that many doubt that H. Clinton would be willing to put the hurt on you if necessary.

Posted by: katakaha | May 8, 2007 9:45 AM | Report abuse

windserf: "A more interesting question is how could America create a vital political structure to produce anything close to the 84% voter participation France had in its two election cycles."

The way I see it, the way to fight voter apathy would be to empower Third Party candidates, particularly in the rationale of voters (many of whom assume not voting for one of the Big Two means a thrown-away vote).

We all know someone who sometimes/often/always doesn't vote because they dont have a candidate to vote for, and I think that's the biggest drawback to our two-party system. I mean, we could REQUIRE voting, like some nations do... but could anyone really see that being a good thing in a country that already proves by and large that it doesnt really give a poo about even presidential elections?

Posted by: Uff Da | May 8, 2007 9:43 AM | Report abuse

I see C of C poster boy is back. Are you taking queen of kook's shift today? how much they pay you to fllack, razorboy?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 9:41 AM | Report abuse

4 out of 4 ignorant cons fall for every laughable claim foreign national corporations make, while happily shelling out their taxpayer money to fund them. what incredible dupes.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 9:39 AM | Report abuse

"|" says: "Medicare Part D is run entirely by subsidizing Big Pharma to provide drugs at a 19% higher cost than Medicare."

All you have to do to bust a liberal is get them into a debate about facts.

On April 17, 2007, The CONGRESSIONAL budget office (CBO) said:

CBO estimates that modifying the noninterference provision would have a negligible effect on federal spending because we anticipate that under the bill the Secretary would lack the leverage to negotiate prices accross the broad range of covered Part D drugs that are more favorable than those obtained by PDP's under current law."

The report says that the way to reduce the cost is to have a formulary, which is a list of drugs covered, and provide that there are some drugs that are not paid for even if precribed by a doctor.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/80xx/doc8006/s3.pdf

The Congressional Budget Office of the Democratically controlled Congress says that government negotiations for prices cannot beat the prices that result from market competition.

Also note that John Edwards health care plan proposes regional markets that are similar to regional markets in the BUSH Medicare Part D Plan.

"Creating regional "Health Care Markets" to let every American share the bargaining power to purchase an affordable, high-quality health plan, increase choices among insurance plans, and cut costs for businesses offering insurance."

"bargaining power", not price controls.

http://johnedwards.com/about/issues/health-care/

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 9:39 AM | Report abuse

Ms. Clinton already knew the key lesson for a woman running for a leadership position before the French campaign; Ms. Royal should have known a woman running from the "left" will face stereotyping and sniping that no man would face. I believe Ms. Clinton is truly moderate on the issues, but is also carefully consistent in maintaining her image of "strength". She will be the next President.

A more interesting question is how could America create a vital political structure to produce anything close to the 84% voter participation France had in its two election cycles. Ours would be a better nation if we would engage as seriously as the French did in this election.

Posted by: windserf (elan melamid) | May 8, 2007 9:31 AM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Lawmakers divided over whether to keep U.S. troops in Iraq are finding common ground on at least one topic: They are furious that Iraqi politicians are considering a lengthy break this summer.

"If they go off on vacation for two months while our troops fight -- that would be the outrage of outrages," said Rep. Chris Shays, R-Connecticut.

The Iraq parliament's recess, starting this July, would likely come without Baghdad politicians reaching agreements considered key to easing sectarian tensions. Examples include regulating distribution of the country's oil wealth and reversing measures that have excluded many Sunnis from jobs and government positions because of Baath party membership.

Talk of the adjournment comes amid a heated debate in Congress on the pullout of U.S. troops in Iraq.

Posted by: iraqis learn from bush | May 8, 2007 9:29 AM | Report abuse

oops... except 'they're' women.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 9:27 AM | Report abuse

Hillary appeals to leftists? Since when? She's one of the most conservative Democrats in the race. And most leftists aren't Democrats anyway.

Posted by: Blarg | May 8, 2007 9:26 AM | Report abuse

The 'some people say' has been a republican construction since Reagan, a way to set up a straw man argument. Reagan's was the folksy, 'some of them fellers,' --Bush goes for 'now, some might say,' and then proceeds to say something that actually no one is saying. Notice this rhetorical trick -- a lot of TV pundits use it too.

And it's pointless. Hillary and Royal have nothing in common except their women.

So why not compare Sargozy, or whatever his name is, to Rudy or McCain, and ask what they can learn from him? Actually that might be a much better question.

Posted by: drindl | May 8, 2007 9:26 AM | Report abuse

ever talk to anyone who's had to work for her? they won't ever do it again unless they're yes men/women. that's not the way to lead. vote for hillary is like voting to let china take over the free world

Posted by: hillary's a loser | May 8, 2007 9:24 AM | Report abuse

The lesson from France is that socialism is such a failure that even the socialists arn't socialists.

Hillary already knows this lesson. She didn't learn it last Sunday.

This is why she yaks about losing jobs to overseas competitors, but will not ban imports. She yaks about minimum wage, but then only wants to raise it to what the market pays anyway.

The rhetoric appeals to leftist moonbats, but in reality, Hillary and Sego know better. This is why Sego calls herself a socialist, even though she isn't one.

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 9:22 AM | Report abuse

Medicare Part D is run entirely by subsidizing Big Pharma to provide drugs at a 19% higher cost than Medicare. Private insurance carriers charge more than Medicare to provide medical services because they make a great deal of profit. There is no competition because they are allowed to set prices at any level they want, and by law, the government isn't allowed to disagree with them. They charge US citizens approixmately 4 times what citizens of other countries pay for the same drugs.

It's just one more way cons use taxpayer money to enrich corporate contributors. It's all very obvious except to the simple-minded and gullible, and corporate cheerleaders with their hands in the cookie jar, like our winger trolls here.

And of course depleting the Medicare trust fund even faster than before is important, because above all, wingers hate anything that helps the poor or disadvantaged, because they hate the poor and disadvantaged -- it really is that simple.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Chris, who are these people who are drawing comparisons between Hillary Clinton and Segolene Royal? I don't know who they are. Is this just another example of the media's "some people say" scenarios when the "some people" who are saying are really just the media trying to stir up controversy for ratings and/or sales? Don't think that readers are so dumb as to not see how this all works.

Posted by: WTF | May 8, 2007 9:21 AM | Report abuse

As your article states " Hillary is able to occupy the office of President", so am I. That is not the same as leading the country.

Senator Clinton is very well known, so is Paris Hilton. Name recognition is important for fame. Ms.Royal was\is far more Socialist than Sen. Clinton and I was surprised that she did not win in France but Ms. Royal was a victim of reality in today's world of competitive economic facts. Socialism/Communism does not work..the biggest experiment of that disgraced theory failed of its'own weight after the loss of hundreds of millions of lives.. Stalin proved what no capitalist could... there is no free lunch..

Posted by: roneida | May 8, 2007 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Study: 3 in 4 ignorant libs think it is a subsidy when government buys drugs from companies to give to kids without health care.

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 9:15 AM | Report abuse

'The inspector general who uncovered cases of waste, fraud and abuse in the U.S.-led reconstruction effort in Iraq is under investigation by a presidential panel, according to the White House.'

whaddyawant to bet he gets fired, hmmm? that's what happens to you if you do your job in this administration. if you fail, you get a medal of honor. ask george tenet.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 9:15 AM | Report abuse

I was goint to comment, but then realized that would give credence to the misinformation that `people are talking about this...`

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 9:14 AM | Report abuse

Study: 1 In 4 US Kids Go Without Health Care

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin said all there is to say about this topic.

Posted by: Blarg | May 8, 2007 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Billions in subsidies to "Big Pharma"?

Try naming one, other than the stem cell research subsidies supported by libs.

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 9:10 AM | Report abuse

'President Bush is at odds with the American public and a restive congressional majority over the Iraq war, and even some Republicans talk about imposing new requirements that could trigger a troop withdrawal.

In a speech about Iraq yesterday morning at the Willard Hotel, the president mentioned Osama bin Laden's group -- 27 times. "For America, the decision we face in Iraq is not whether we ought to take sides in a civil war, it's whether we stay in the fight against the same international terrorist network that attacked us on 9/11," Bush told a group of construction contractors.

Never mind all that talk about sectarian strife and civil war in Iraq. "The primary reason for the high level of violence is this: Al-Qaeda has ratcheted up its campaign of high-profile attacks," Bush claimed.

The man who four years ago admitted "no evidence" of an Iraqi role in the Sept. 11 attacks now finds 'solid evidence' of a role in Iraq by the Sept. 11 hijackers.'

The lying scumbag is at it again... and sure enough, his core supporters are dumb and chickensh*t enough to believe in the boogeyman, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. It's too bad the cretins are determined to drag the whole country down the toilet with them.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 9:09 AM | Report abuse

Politically speaking, Clinton is to the right of Sarkozy, let alone Royal (an American-style Republican Party does not really exist in France, and in any event its candidate would have been eliminated before the runoff, ala Le Pen). Indeed, roughly speaking, Sarkozy versus Royal is more equivalent to something like Edwards versus Kucinich.

So, no, there are no real implications, despite the rather unsurprising fact that two people running for major offices in two countries both happen to be part of the same 50% or so of the human race (meaning they are both women).

Posted by: DTM | May 8, 2007 8:59 AM | Report abuse

Under Bush, corporate conservatives were put in charge of economic policy -- top-end tax cuts, Wall Street trade policies, deregulation and privatization, crony corporate staffing and subsidies, open assault on labor unions, rollback of consumer and environmental protections.

The results were stagnant wages, a corporate crime wave, Gilded Age inequality, the worst trade deficits in the annals of time, billions squandered in subsidies to Big Oil and Big Pharma -- and an economy now dependent on the goodwill of Chinese and Japanese central bankers.

But Bush was only following in the footsteps of the Gipper, who first peddled the same noxious policy cocktail -- and got the same results, even including the corporate plunder culminating in the savings and loan rip off.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 8:59 AM | Report abuse

A Simple Posit:

Anyone truly qualified to offer insightful observations about the French presidential campaign, is by definition smart enough to know they will have minimal bearing on an American election two years away.

ERGO, anyone who tries, doesn't know what they're talking about.

Posted by: howlless | May 8, 2007 8:58 AM | Report abuse

A sex-change operation, perhaps?

Posted by: Sudarshan | May 8, 2007 8:58 AM | Report abuse

First I've heard anyone anywhere draw a parallel between these two. Who in the political world, other than you, is seeking to "draw parallels between the candidacies of Royal and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton"?

I hate this "surely, you've all heard" sort of reporting. If YOU want to draw a parallel, by all means give it a shot. But, like I said, you're the first to do so that I'm aware of. What parallels of any substance do you find here?

Posted by: Pooleside | May 8, 2007 8:58 AM | Report abuse

Over the last six years, with Bush in the White House, then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay ramrodding the Republican Congress and Karl Rove focused on mobilizing the Republican base, conservatives have largely had their way. Bush pursued the core ideas of each strand of "movement conservatism" largely to catastrophic effect. In each case, he was largely implementing what Reagan had previously championed.

The neocons got the Iraq war they plotted for, and produced the worst foreign policy debacle in U.S. history. Their toxic mix of militarist unilateralism, scorn for allies and the United Nations, dismissal of international law and embrace of an imperial presidency above the law was Reagan's opening act. In his first term, Reagan scorned detente, arms control, the UN and global accords. Reagan also fecklessly exposed U.S. troops in the Middle East -- Lebanon -- and had the intervention literally blow up in his face. He just had the good sense to cut and run, and then pick on a target easier to deal with -- hapless Grenada in the Caribbean.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 8:58 AM | Report abuse

But the Gipper can't save them. Each of Bush's signature failures -- the war in Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, Enron and the corporate scandals, failed tax and trade policies, the attempt to privatize Social Security, the posturing around Terri Schiavo and stem cells -- can be traced back not simply to the conservative ideology and ideologues that sired them -- but to the basic concepts that Reagan championed. The Gipper can't lead Republican candidates out of the wilderness because, to paraphrase, his conservatism is the problem, not the solution.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 8:57 AM | Report abuse

Private insurance carriers charge more than Medicare to provide medical services because, duh, they're a middleman and they have to make a profit. But private carriers, by movement conservative definition, must be better than any government program, so we have to find a way to get them involved. How? By paying them 19% more! So they can provide poorer service! And rip off vulnerable elderly patients! And deplete the Medicare trust fund even faster than before! Your Republican Congress at work.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 8:55 AM | Report abuse

What you're all missing is beauty. Having Royal as our president would be worthwhile simply because of her looks....and after four children. Such a presences, such eyes,wears a skirt. Even Nancy can't hold a candle to Segolene...for president...of the U.S.A.

Posted by: Steve Newark | May 8, 2007 8:54 AM | Report abuse

In the months after September 11, President Bush declared victory over the man he once pledged to capture "dead or alive" and began turning his focus to Iraq:

I am deeply concerned about Iraq. ... I truly am not that concerned about [bin Laden]. ... We shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. [President Bush, 3/13/02]

The results have been predictable: As the U.S. has been mired in an Iraqi civil war, bin Laden has slipped away from the crosshairs and is using his freedom to help al Qaeda resurge all over the Middle East. U.S. News reports this week that "bin Laden already has a safe haven in Pakistan -- and may be stronger than ever" as al Qaeda "retains the ability to organize complex, mass-casualty attacks and inspire others." Bin Laden is behind much of this resurgence:

The broader movement inspired by al Qaeda has only grown bigger, largely because of the group's powerful propaganda machine. Bin Laden and Zawahiri have been able to fill in the gaps between their megaplots with a rising stream of smaller-scale, homegrown attacks.

Now, well over five years after 9/11, some administration officials are conceding they may have been too hasty in declaring victory over bin Laden:

Privately, U.S. officials concede that they had overestimated the damage they had inflicted on al Qaeda's network. The captures of successive operational commanders, including 9/11 planner Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, amounted only to temporary setbacks; they were replaced with disturbing ease. "We understand better how al Qaeda is withstanding the offensive that was launched against it in 2001 and later," says a senior U.S. government official.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 8:53 AM | Report abuse

'Administration admits it was wrong to smear Pelosi.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "met Syria's foreign minister Thursday in the first high-level talks between the two countries in years."

Where are the winger smear artists, to call Condi treasonous? Where are you, folks?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 8:52 AM | Report abuse

What happens when you give too much whiskey to a union thug?

MikeB says:

"Free Trade" is an illusion, a con game being played by corporations interested short term gains and to hell with the future of this country. Obama is one of "them"! Edwards, Hagel, and a few others are not. I will not be voting for some inbred twit, a member of the political chattering class, who will so readily sell this country down the river. Obama and Clinon are neocons, free traders, and no friend of people interested in salvaging thw wreckage of the Bush-Cheney years.

Posted by: MikeB | May 7, 2007 11:49 PM

"Some imbred twit". Is that a reference to Obama? The wreckage of the Bush Cheney years because of "free trade". On free trade, call it the Reagan Bush Clinton Bush years. Usually MikeB just lies. Now he has fallen completely off his rocker.

Posted by: Razorback | May 8, 2007 8:49 AM | Report abuse

Well Hillary is by far the best democratic candidate and that was very clear during the debate. I think that she has the maturity to handle things if she would be elected. She has to move away from the extreme left however which i think she will. Guiliani is ofcourse the best candidate and the one that will change this country for the better.

Posted by: Andy | May 8, 2007 8:49 AM | Report abuse

most societies hate women, or at least heavily prescribe what roles they will be accepted in. only a pointedly hyper manly type like thatcher can posibly succeed. people like to bow before masculine power. feminine power? It even sounds ridiculous.

Posted by: robbie | May 8, 2007 8:48 AM | Report abuse

'Federal authorities have arrested six New Jersey men for allegedly plotting a terrorist attack against the Fort Dix military base, senior FBI officials have confirmed.'

they were albanians! time to take the fight to albania!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 8:47 AM | Report abuse

The only thing to compare is that both are women. Hillary, IMO, is very strong, and the chance that she will be the next POTUS is gaining as the campaign continues. Polls this early mean little, but she has maintained a nationwide lead since the start.

Posted by: lylepink | May 8, 2007 8:47 AM | Report abuse

"...those in the political world seeking to draw parallels..."

Like YOU, Mr. "Wag the Blog?"

Cute.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 8:46 AM | Report abuse

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Congress has approved more than $609 billion for the wars, a figure likely to stand as lawmakers rework their latest spending bill in response to a Bush veto. Requests for $145 billion more await congressional action and would raise the cost in inflation-adjusted dollars beyond the cost of the wars in Korea and Vietnam.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 8:42 AM | Report abuse

It is very hard to draw any parallels yet, but there are some lessons that Hillary might take in account if she would win the Democratic nomination. Segolene Royal suffered hugely from critique from within her own party. Keeping the ranks closed and the noses pointed in the same direction after the nominating process is very important to Hillary. Furthermore, Royal faced in Sarkozy a formidable opponent and it remains unclear who the Republican candidate will be, whether a strong conservative will challenge her or that the eventual candidate is too harmed by the tough Republican primaries.

My guess is that the French did not so much reject Royal because she is a woman, but rather because they believe she is not ready for the job and her opponent would make a stronger president.

Posted by: Diederik | May 8, 2007 8:39 AM | Report abuse

First - there was a Bush - we went to war and TAXES went up.

Then - there was a Clinton - he was impeached.

Then - there was another Bush - we went to war and who know where the money will come from.

Then - do we really want another second hand? or, do we need to start afresh?

Posted by: woodman | May 8, 2007 8:39 AM | Report abuse

The Wall Street Journal tops its world-wide newsbox with a report by Save the Children that puts Iraq in the lowest spot of a child-survival ranking. In 2005, one in eight Iraqi children died before age 5 of disease or violence, which marks a 150 percent increase since 1990. USA Today leads with the Air Force's top combat commander expressing concern that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are taking a potentially dangerous toll on their planes. The commander says that besides being older than ever, the fleet of warplanes is also wearing out quickly.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 8:39 AM | Report abuse

Don't run as a Socialist?

The other caution is the old pre-election day chesnut about the number of syllables in your name. Both SR and HRC have five. Obviously the kiss of death! Maybe HRC should change her first name to "Hill-ree" and sidestep this obvious curse.

In other words, I agree with Mark in Austin.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 8, 2007 8:39 AM | Report abuse

I tend to doubt it. If we were talking about a comparison between the fortunes of big-time female candidates in the US and Britain, then the comparison might be more fruitful. The US and Britain have often paralleled each other politically. The same cannot really be said of the US and France. What's more, the two countries are at very different places in terms of what the respective electorates seem to care about the most.

The French election was mainly decided on domestic issues and was not a referendum on France's relationship with the US or even France's standing in the EU or the wider global community. Royal lost primarily because she didn't really offer anything new on the domestic front, while a majority of French voters sensed that serious change was needed in domestic policy.

This is not at all the dynamic in the US. The 2008 election will be primarily about foreign policy generally, and Iraq in particular. If Hillary loses, it will not be because of her stance on domestic issues. Rather, it will be because she was unable to walk the tightrope of satisfying the liberal base without scaring everyone else. On this, it could be argued that there are some similarities between Hillary and Royal, but I think it's a bit superficial. Royal never attempted to move beyond her core constituency in her campaign, while Hillary has clearly tried to stake out some middle ground in various areas, which is why she's in trouble with the far left.

Inevitably, it will be suggested that Royal's defeat was mainly about gender, and that the lesson for Hillary is that there are people who won't vote for her because she's a woman. This is probably true to a point, but I don't think it's a decisive lesson. Royal lost not because she's a woman, but because she was on the wrong side of a big wave of opinion in France that felt that change/reform was needed and she was unable to persuade them otherwise. Hillary's fate will likewise be determined by how well she diagnoses the mood of the electorate and how well she positions herself accordingly. But this is not unique to Hillary or Royal; it's the decisive thing to all politicians.

Posted by: vajent | May 8, 2007 8:38 AM | Report abuse

One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. Hillary is a hawk and like Bill is very much a centrist.

' The Washington Post leads with a look at how September is shaping up to be a critical month for the Iraq war, as congressional leaders of both parties are pushing it as a deadline for evidence that the new efforts are showing results.'

Posted by: Anonymous | May 8, 2007 8:38 AM | Report abuse

There is no lesson. The French electorate and current political situation there are very very different. Ms. Royal often times had ideas that made her sound clueless and spoke of many things that there was no way to pay for. She represented the past in France not the future. In addition, acting as if the French Socialist party and the American Democratic party are the same thing is not accurate. The fact that people are even bringing up the comparison between the two candidates because they are women is somewhat demeaning to both of them. We can also discuss Angela Merkel in Germany. A country with a larger economy and less of a dependence on the state. Oh that would make too much sense so why do it. It also might make Hillary look good and no one would want to do that.

Posted by: CBC | May 8, 2007 8:35 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, there is a lesson for Hillary. Don't run. You won't win.

Posted by: Me | May 8, 2007 8:01 AM | Report abuse

President Zapatero is called in Spain "the gafe" (Jinx) He travelled to Paris and supported Segolene.

You may see Schroeder bid, see Kerry bid, and Royal.

Dont let Zapatero touch Hillary before the election day!

Posted by: Prevostmazp | May 8, 2007 7:48 AM | Report abuse

Of course there are lessons to be learned. Hillary cant pander to the left like Royal. Elections are decided in the middle...or at least what is seen as the middle. To anyone that disagrees,just google the "median voter theory."

Second, Hil can't flip out during a debate like Royal did. While it was hilarious, especially if you speak French, it definitely hurt Royal's credibility.

Posted by: Shutup Mark | May 8, 2007 7:38 AM | Report abuse

No.

Posted by: Mark in Austin | May 8, 2007 7:32 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company