Current Article

Talk About Bullshit

By Larry Johnson on October 27, 2007 at 12:51 PM in Current Affairs

At this juncture in the presidential race I would say I am a Clinton supporter. Nonetheless, you have to feel some empathy for John Edwards in the wake of today’s non-story in the New York Times. According to the Times:

A journalism professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is accusing aides of John Edwards, a former senator from North Carolina, of demanding that he remove from YouTube a student report critical of Mr. Edwards’s Democratic presidential campaign — and of threatening to block the university’s access to Mr. Edwards and the campaign headquarters near campus.

For starters–who gives a rat’s ass? I am not sure which is less newsworthy. The student report that Edward’s headquarters is in an affluent neighborhood or the reaction of the staff at the Edwards headquarters. Just because Edwards speaks out against poverty does not mean he must take a vow of poverty and live in a goddamn shack. If this is what passes for journalism education at the University of North Carolina then we can rest assured that Fox News will have an ample supply of mindless hacks to fill its newsroom in the future.

But it also is pathetic that Edward’s communications director wasted time calling the University and complaining about the student piece. Because someone who works for John Edwards is perceived as bullying a student we are now supposed to believe this somehow reflects on his competence to be President? Can you believe that we are even talking about stupid shit like this? I wonder why someone as classy as Edwards will subject himself to this kind of mindless nonsense.

taters

“For starters–who gives a rat’s ass? I am not sure which is less newsworthy.”

Amen Larry, FDR comes to mind. Although I still have a problem that Hugh Shelton was utilized by Edwards to smear Wes Clark in ’04. That’s just me. Then again “All’s fair in …”
http://deleted lester

mr johnson- are you hoping for war with iran? or just higher taxes?

Paul, not Clinton

http://www.food4humanity.org hoosierhoops

mr johnson- are you hoping for war with iran? or just higher taxes?

Paul, not Clinton

St. Paul..right?
The Hoopster would be very disappointed if anyone thinks ron paul brings anything to the table..

Ron England

Right on Larry!
J

Larry,

did you see the latest ‘bullshit’ stunt by conyers and crew?

the id’s of up to 150 doj whistleblowers have now been compromised by conyers and crew.

given the way that conyers tossed out ray mcgovern and others, i really wonder if the conyers latest screw up was a really a mistake or was it intentional.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004576.php
D’Oh: House Panel Screw-Up Reveals Whistleblower Email
Drewsky

Conyers screws up. Well, someone on his staff, anyway. A plant? How DID Cheney get on the mailing list?

Hillary under attack again. Doesn’t much matter what for. The bad guys are just warming up.

Edwards under attack, still. Some some stupid shit his staff did.

Obama making a gay/black issue fool of himself. For something his staff did.

I smell a rat.

What IS in Cheney’s man-sized safe, anwyay? (TM pending)

Do you Dodd-it? (TM pending) Yet? What more do you need?
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

It’s all part and parcel of a campaign to trivialize the Democratic presidential candidates, using nonsense stories such as Edwards’ haircut, Obama’s flag pin, etc.

It’s maddening when the media pay so much attention to this BS. As if there weren’t a war going on and more important issues to discuss.

Honest George

Maddening is right on. It would be less so if the names of the idiots that are behind these stories would be placed out in front every time they deal in this type of bs. The professor might be a bit more careful next time if he knew that his sorry butt was going to be held up for accountability.

tomdem55

Well THAT is a shock, folk wondering about inconsequtential stuff while a country is at war, must be voting season again, OH MY GOD Edwards got a haircut……..he must be the anti christ, and Hillary has boobs…..OMG and Obama has no lapel flag………fING rediculous what passes for conversation these days…….the
Look over there……….nothing to see here…
this is not the droid we are looking for crowd (read right wingers w/ no understanding of US history or world history) trying to distract us from ISSUES like
trillions lost in Iraq
monies borrowed for the war from CHINA
obscene corporate profits
decline in wages for working families
NO Farking health care for folk …..
Yes let us continue to worry about
haircuts and where one has his offices
sigh OH FOR 010-20-09

http://www.food4humanity.org hoosierhoops

Comment by tomdem55
i really like where you are going there…we get sidetracked from real issues..
But still..you have got to admit..the 400 dollar haircut..that was pretty funny…

( it’s always the haircut isn’t it?)

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ Leslie

Hoopster,
Regarding your spam filter question, I checked last night and tonight and you’re not there.

Try reposting your bad French with subtitles again, OK? I love bad French.
Fred C. Dobbs

>>> ( it’s always the haircut isn’t it?)

However, try being a Democrat who NEEDS a haircut, and the Slime-O-Matic will come up with a Photoshopped’d pic of you getting a big hug from Stalin…

Fred C. Dobbs

>>> I love bad French

D’accord!
Gypsy

Click here: Presidential Election of 2008 – Lawyers -Hillary Rodham Clinton -John Edwards – Rudolph W. Giuliani – Barack Obama

This is the most substantive description of the abilities of those Presidential Candidates who were lawyers. It is good to note the kinds of things they fought for and whether it was for political reasons or for a core principal. That is for each of you to add to the bodies of facts that we know about each candidate and weight it in favor of one or another. These are both Republican and Democratic candidates. I realize that the only reason this one seems at all good is that we seldom get real facts in an article. Instead we get the crap they put out to denigrate the Democrats in such a way to be able to make American’s who barely pay attention that they are bad people for all the wrong reasons.
I also think that we should all note that we seem to be moving into a Cold War Stance with Russia. Hopefully it won’t go that far but Putin is with Iran and we continue to taunt Iran against the advice of many serious people. We are becoming less safe in the world and more isolated. It hardly matters anymore how we got there but that we are there and it was a strategic blunder. Also the speculation in the oil markets due to the instability in the Middle East could drive the price of oil which benefits Russia and Iran and so we are basically feeding our enemies.
We have got to come to our senses in this country about what we really need in our next President. Anyone who knows history should realize that all Countries destroy themselves when the greed of the few overcomes the ability for the masses to pay the taxes. Empires seem to fall under the weight of their military expenditures and the rest of the world can be united against you in their own self interest. I think right now the world understands that America is not with George Bush, however if we don’t show a willingness to stop these people then I think it will become our problem with the world and we will surely be far less safe. We are no longer trusted in the world as honest brokers after we have been seen to not negotiate without putting our finger on the scale. The Valerie Plame story is a great example of that. This seems more like a resource grab by the Corporations so let me ask the question, Why are we paying for wars with our Soldiers and Treasure for the big corporations to get rich on, when they buy fake mail boxes in the Caymans to avoid paying taxes? I may be stupid but that seems like we the people are getting screwed royally?
Gypsy

Comment by hoosierhoops | 2007-10-27 22:36:16

Comment by tomdem55
i really like where you are going there…we get sidetracked from real issues..
But still..you have got to admit..the 400 dollar haircut..that was pretty funny…

( it’s always the haircut isn’t it?)

You know I think maybe on the haircut that Edwards argument if the MSM would have covered it which I doubt, should have been well just because I am rich doesn’t mean I don’t value the labor of others. I ask my hairdresser to accomodate my schedule so I pay her what her time was worth. We have got to quit letting them control the debate.
Gypsy

corrected version

You know I think maybe on the haircut that Edwards got, his argument, if the MSM would have covered it which I doubt, should have been well just because I am rich doesn’t mean I don’t value the labor of others. I ask my hairdresser to accomodate my schedule so I pay her what her time was worth. We have got to quit letting them control the debate.

Sorry I should have edited better. I just get so tired of the crap the media puts out.
GSD

Maybe the mainstream media will offer up some tabloid style reporting on Mrs. Freddie Thompson.

I mean they have gone to the well for Edwards hair, Obama’s name and Hillary’s hoo-haw(Thanks for the visual Clifford May).

How about a Mrs. Freddie Thompson nip-slip?

http://www.tmz.com/2007/10/28/celebrity-nip-slips/

-GSD
http://deleted lester

hoopster- the government isn’t the solution, the government is the problem. if you want no war with iran and lower taxes vote for ron paul not hillary rodham clinton. if you want our budget, which is at 3 trillion a year now, to go even higher and the number of foreign entanglements to raise instead of lessen, support any of the other candidates.

mudkitty

The government is not the problem. The CURRENT Administration is the problem. Don’t confuse the Bush administration with our government, and don’t deliberately try to confuse others by conflating this current administration with the government – which libertarians/objectivists/Ayn Rand freaks try to get away with, all the time, but never succeed.

As for Hillary, her husband was the only President in recent history to balance the National Budget, so don’t bull shit about history, man. The economy has always been better under democrats, it’s just a simple fact. Anyone here can look it up. Some of us remember. Look, I’m not a Hillary promoter or even supporter, but you can bet good money that the deficit will go down, the poverty rolls will go down, the trade deficit will go down, unemployment will go down, education will improve, wages for the middle class will go up, taxes will be levied only on the super rich (who take full advantage of the government when it comes to enforcing contract laws anyway) the list of improvements to our economy under any democratic president could go on and on.

Ron Paul is a broken clock who’s right twice a day. All libertarians are.

Fred C. Dobbs

A Libertarian is a Republican who owns a bong.
http://www.food4humanity.org HoosierHoops

As for Hillary, her husband was the only President in recent history to balance the National Budget, so don’t bull shit about history, man. The economy has always been better under democrats, it’s just a simple fact. Anyone here can look it up. Some of us remember. Look, I’m not a Hillary promoter or even supporter, but you can bet good money that the deficit will go down, the poverty rolls will go down, the trade deficit will go down, unemployment will go down, education will improve, wages for the middle class will go up, taxes will be levied only on the super rich (who take full advantage of the government when it comes to enforcing contract laws anyway) the list of improvements to our economy under any democratic president could go on and on.

Couldn’t have said it better Mudkitty..

http://deleted lester

mudkitty- democrats are the broken clocks who are only right on one thing: the war. and the minute they got in to position to do anything about it they blew it. most of the democratic frotrunners can’t even pledge to bring the troops home by 2013. yeah the economy was awesome under jimmy carter. what planet are you from? Clinton said “the era of big government is over”. he was to reagan as bloomberg was to guliani. 80-2000 were great years because of what reagan started and clinton continued minus clintons interventionism and bombing of everything from sudan to kosovo.

“the super rich (who take full advantage of the government when it comes to enforcing contract laws anyway)”

who’s point are you trying to make? the evil corporations LOVE big government. they collude with them.

the best way for poverty to go down and trade deficits to do this and blah blah blah is for us to NOT spend 3 trillion dollars a year on a federal government we don’t need. democratic or republican presidents don’t make our economy. WE do. we lower deficits, WE do all the things you attribute to the government. it’s our money!!

mudkitty

Actually, the “one thing” the dems were wrong about was the authorization to use force – in other words the one thing the dems were wrong about was the war – you have it exactly ass backwards.

As for the smaller government bullshit…it’s just that. It isn’t a matter of smaller government, it’s a matter of the right sized government. It takes a lot of money to run this country. Or haven’t you figured that out yet?

Tell me, just how recently did you discover Ayn Rand? Cuz if you think that governments don’t “make economies” to use your inexact term, you are naive as all get out.

But the point, which you ignored, is that you can’t equate the Bush Administration with the U.S government. Two different things. And remember, Bush ran on the concept of “small government” and look what happened. Any time any pol talks about small government, prepare for war, and watch your wallets.

The 20th Century:

Republicans = bad economies
Democrats = good economies…after cleaning up Republican messes. Just go look it up.
mudkitty

Oh, yeah; it was the Gore Task Force that actually shrank the size of the Federal Government for the first time in nearly a century. Look it up. Don’t take my word for it. Of course, under repugs, the federal government ALWAYS expands, but it’s libertarian anti-tax freaks who ALWAYS end up voting republican, against their own interests (just like the evangelicals) because they buy into the lip service about smaller government. What a crock. Government needs to expand, and contract, in order to meet the needs of the people. It’s not an either/or, black and white. Either/ors are anti-intellectual.
Shirin

“…clintons interventionism and bombing of everything from sudan to kosovo.”

From Sudan to Kosovo? Clinton did more to harm Iraq than every other place put together. He bombed Iraq 1-3 times a week regularly, engaged in one major bombing campaign that killed, among others, one of Iraq’s foremost artists, and destroyed some of her works, and for eight long years he starved the people of Iraq of adequate nutrition, medical equipment and supplies, drugs, education, clean water, and on and on and on. In a very real way Clinton set Iraq up for what George Bush II brought to it in 2003 and beyond.

For that alone, Bill Clinton is a war criminal.

Chris Vosburg

Shirin writes: Clinton did more to harm Iraq than every other place put together.

With the possible exception of Iraq itself, by which I mean Saddam Hussein.

I’m way fed up with the constant lies concerning Clinton in this regard, Shirin. As I’ve pointed out before, you’ve carelessly conflated the bombing of civilian infrastructure by the Bush admins fore and aft with the military sorties engaged in by Clinton.

Look, I know it’s tough to accept that an Iraqi would fuck over his own country as badly as Saddam Hussein did.

We have much the same dilemma here–

Accept it. We do. And for God’s sake, stop lying.
Chris Vosburg

By way of reminder, here’s a repost of my response to your previous list of the same complaints. I’ll copy ‘n’ paste this as many times as needed, Shirin, and don’t think i won’t; I ain’t proud.

———————————————

Shirin writes: unless you can demonstrate that Bill Clinton did not:

…help in Iraq’s destruction by presiding over eight years of genocidal (not my word, but the word used by two U.N. Iraq Humanitarian Coordinators and WHO’s Iraq director) sanctions and import blockades…

Poppywash. Presiding over that destruction was, unsurprisingly enough, the President of Iraq, a fella named Saddam Hussein, and Bill Clinton did not institute that destruction, nor institute the sanctions, nor create the situation precipating the institution of the sanctions, which again, should rightfully be placed upon Saddam Hussein. You wanna complain about the institution of the sanctions, take it up with Boutros Boutros Ghali (gee!) of the UN. These are the cards Bill Clinton was dealt when he arrived in office.

More later on the blockades and the inflammatory use of the g-word.

Shirin again: … that all but destroyed what little George H.W. Bush’s bombs left of the electrical, water, sewage and communication infrastructure,

Baldercock. One of the chief complaints, from the humanitarian point of view, against the indiscriminate bombing of George H. W. Bush’s Gulf War in 1991 was that civilian infrastructure in Iraq was intentionally targeted. They went after dams and water treatment facilities, for Christ’s sake. This led, predictably, to unsafe water– when it could be found at all– and attendant outbreaks of the usual water-borne diseases, all of which took a devastating toll on the civilan population. This practice was renewed in the Iraq invasion of 2003 under George W. Bush.

So what’s missing here? Right, the intervening years of the Clinton Presidency. Clinton directed no bombing of civilian infrastructure, period.

Shirin again: cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children under five years, caused massive malnutrition and epidemics of preventable, treatable diseases,

Hogdash. Medicine and food were not embargoed under Clinton. Further, missing from the calculations of those sizing up the effects of the destruction were the after-effects of the use of biological weapons by Saddam Hussein upon the Kurds in ‘88 (which was incidentally, the primary site of the testing in the mid-nineties which produced the horrific extrapolations you describe) and the predictable attendant long-term illnesses and mangled births. Why they no take that into account? Why no you? Coming to that.

Shirin again: destroyed what was a very fine education system, robbed millions of Iraqi children of their education, destroyed a medical system that was considered the finest in the region and one of the finest anywhere, cost Iraq its once huge, vibrant, and highly educated middle class,

Clinton did that? Oh, stop it. Look, as I pointed out before, the institution of the sanctions predated Clinton, and were not his idea. Having inherited them, however, and aware of the fact that they represented inducement to get Saddam to comply with inspections– essentially the only lever, save bombing, he had to work with– he did everything he could to see those inspections through to the end, with a goal of certifying a WMD-free Iraq and lifting the sanctions. In this, ironically, he fought Saddam Hussein himself and his truculence and sheer bloody-mindedness regarding the inspections he’d agreed to as condition of the cease-fire. Man of the people, that Saddam.

And moreover, if your understanding of mid-nineties American politics is as good as your understanding of middle eastern politics– which I’m in awe of, incidentally, and like most here I think I’ve gleaned more and better insight from than any other source– you’ll recall that on top of that, he fought the hostility of his own congress, the republican “Gingrich revolution” who were conditioned to shout “wrong!” at any Clinton proposal and would have preferred simply bombing Iraq into the stone age (as long as it wasn’t Clinton suggesting it), a Defense Department repulsed by a President who distrusted the military and military solutions, and who came of age during and opposed to the Vietnam debacle, and the media, which had by this point been successfully bullied by the same republican opposition into writing the news to their liking.

Shirin again: and unless you can show that Bill Clinton did not drop bombs on Iraq on average once or twice a week…

The misleading math of division of sorties by days I’ll leave to you without further comment. What’s relevant is that what bombings were actually directed by Clinton, again, were part of an effort to make Saddam comply with inspections, a strategy he used with success to halt the balkan conflict. To refresh your memory, Serbs were, as part of an, uh, expansion program, perpetrating a genocide upon muslims and others in Bosnia. Clinton, seeing that they had most of what they were after teritory-wise already and the rest was just paramilitary slaughter for sport, saw a chance to nudge them to the negotiating table with a series of bombings. Dayton accords followed.

As I say, Clinton used a similar series of bombings to nudge Saddam back into compliance with the inspections. As a result of this and further threats, inspections resumed– briefly, I’m sad to note. And again, Clinton did not bomb civilian infrastructure, or for that matter, residential neighborhoods, a particularly horrific trademark of Presidential admins before and after.

Shirin again: and made Iraq ripe for the kill…

That’s a wicked and disingenuous thing to say, implying conspiracy with the Bush admin that followed his, which chose to conduct a war of aggression after making sure that the country had been disarmed. Would you care to modify or amplify this statement, !@#$%^&*() ?

[In a subsequent post I wrote:] I wanted to address the use of the word “genocide.”

If, as you say, you wish a rational discussion, then let’s start with a rational definition of this word. I’d suggest that delivered by the UN in 1948:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Clinton’s actions don’t meet this definition, and the ICC has heard and rejected complaints againt him on this score. George W Bush’s do, most definitely.

Your use of the word “genocide” in description of the actions of Bill Clinton devalues the word. If the actions of Bill Clinton are genocide, then what do we call the actions of George W Bush, or Adolph Hitler, or Saddam Hussein? Double-Plus-Genocide?

And here’s the part you’ll hate most: where I wonder out loud why you have put all of this bad juju onto poor Bill Clinton. I suspect a good deal of regional pride is involved, and I believe that Saddam Hussein is conspicuously absent from your shitlist of bad actors in the destruction of Iraq because you do not want to believe that an Iraqi leader would blow off the welfare of his citizenry all because of a pissing contest with the west. So where to look for a villain? Ah! Found one!

I note that most if not all of your requests for demonstrative proof require proof of a negative (prove he or she didn’t do it) and I think that’s significant, and so should you. Further, to close the logic trap that I walked you into, each of your statements about Hillary ascribe the deepest and darkest motives to what she has said. Deep? Dark? Motives? Ring a bell?

Nevertheless, I think I’ve demonstrated that you have a jones, as it’s called, for the Clintons. It’s your monkey and your back, and God knows, there are plenty of sites on the net which will provide you with the fifty-pound bags of Purina Monkey Chow needed to sustain it, and that’s your choice.

So it’s like this:

If you don’t respect yourself enough to deal with the monkey on your back, that’s your problem.

If you don’t respect the truth or the language, that’s my problem.

[lightning briefly bathes the scene, a thunderclap is heard]

I’ll be watching.

—————————————–

And I am, in fact, watching.

Thinker

Chris

Iraq I was connected to Iraq II by Clinton. Just because the media was ever so quiet about his despicable campaign against the Iraqi people in the name of some assault on Saddam Hussain, does not mean it did not happen.

Michael Parenti is one of many lefty humanitarian political commentators who have painstakingly recorded high deeds most foul. Clinton arguably was far worse than Bush in the material actions of the American campaign against the Iraqi people. Do an internet scrape & you will find plenty of oportunities to discover the truth.

As far as Shirin’s belief that Clinton prepared Iraq for a slam dunk. I would bet all my money on that.

Chris Vosburg

Thinker writes: Clinton arguably was far worse than Bush in the material actions of the American campaign against the Iraqi people.

Then present that argument, for God’s sake. Don’t just tell me to “go look on the internet,” where I already know there is a plethora of unfounded speculation, half-truths and bad-faith arguments about the doings of evil Clinton– refute the arguments I’ve made above.

Start, lazy Thinker, with an explication of how extraodinary rendition under Clinton was far worse. Then explain how damage to civilian infrastructure (water supplies, sewage, electricity, etc.) under Clinton was far worse. Move on to how Clinton’s patient efforts to bring Saddam into compliance with inspection programs was worse than Bush’s rejection of them altogether in favor of invading.

And then for a strong stomach-turning, fact-fucking finish, you can claim that Bush is the better and more humane leader because, after all, he succeeded where Clinton failed in getting the sanctions lifted.

Yogi-one

If this is what passes for journalism education at the University of North Carolina then we can rest assured that Fox News will have an ample supply of mindless hacks to fill its newsroom in the future.

I think Mr Murdoch is not worried about that. He has jobs for them at the WSJ.

Hillary supporter? That sounds realistic. It’s true that she may address poverty, regaining control of the debt and deficit, but she would need 8 years to really do that, considering where we are now, plus we would need a President in 2016 (and hopefuly 2020 too) that would keep things balanced once we got it back that way.

The things I DON’T like about either of the Clintons happens to be in the arena where we are having our worst problems, however: foreign policy. Hillary may lean left domestically, but she leans right internationally. I think this is why the GOP smear machine has been ~~leaving her alone~~ not going after her 100%.

The neocons, who are master’s at trade offs that further their agenda might be willing, given the difficulty of getting a GOP Pres, to tolerate Hillary because she will at least keep the imperialistic wars going, kowtow down to AIPAC, and many powerful corporate lobbies as well.

Also Hillary is another power-seeker. Please do not have any illusions at all about that. She can play hardball with the best, and her and Bill can be a ruthless political machine just on their own. Hillary’s a major political threat to the GOP, and she has proved she can survive and comeback strong from their primary tactic: the ad-hominem attack. She has made herself immune to the Monica issue, and the GOP knows there’s no mileage left in that. She’s even rebounded from her health-care PR disaster of the Bill years, and is back with a serious plan of her own that is a lot more sane (I said “more” sane… it has it’s problems, but that’s another discussion).

I see Hillary deciding she likes a lot of that executive privilege Darth put in place. She might give up on some high PR items, like conceding that Congress has the power to declare war, not the President, and restore habeas corpus and close the gulags in Guantanamo and other places only the CIA knows about. Those thing will get her a lot of polling points.

But when it comes to Presidential secrecy, or clearing the way for Darth and Rummy, and W to be tried at the Hague – I’m afraid she’s not going to be too forthcoming on those issues.

I think she’ll be plenty happy to let Darth, Inc. have its secrets for posterity as long as she gets to keep her secrets too.

And that will be bad for America, because the truths about the Bush years, from which important lessons can be gained for all Americans, will be lost….and possibly destined to be repeated.

mudkitty

Well that’s what history does: repeat itself.
PrchrLady

Very well said. I doubt that any one candidate can or even could possess all the skills and talents necessary to turn things around again over night. I just feel so screwed, no matter which way we turn, we get dumped on… I pray for the tide to turn in the favor of the people. God help us all…

Tap Duncan

Hey Larry, Great post. What get’s me the most is exactly what you point out… so, because John Edwards is trying to do something about poverty, he should live in a hovel? That’s ludicrous. He is using his wealth to help those less fortunate. For those too young to remember, there once was a man named Percy Ross who tried to do the same with a newspaper column. By giving money to those in need. If I remember correctly, he was a Rethuglican, but also felt for those not as fortunate as he, while all the time understanding why they weren’t/couldn’t be as fortunate. The right will villify anyone any way they can, so FUCK FOX news and their crappola. It’s no longer journalism in this country, it’s opinionism. Hang Tough friend, Tap
ybnormal

The other day, when I was first reading this post, I looked up over the top of the computer to see on CNN, a brief panel discussion with some guest pundits, along with the caption, “Clinton vs Obama”. It’s as if, more than a year to go to the election, and still before the first primary, no one else matters. And not to pick on CNN, everybody does it.

I really have to wonder if the public is really as disinterested as MSM thinks they are about the less money raising candidates. There’s a ‘follow the bright shiny object’ aspect to it. Maybe also partly a matter of reporting on the biggest money raisers who will most likely spend the most on advertising with the media who’s doing the reporting.

What is surprising is how much following as oppposed to leading is done by the smaller media outlets. They may report somewhat more on the contenders with less money, but much of the time, they allow MSM to more or less define the perspective on campaign reporting.

Not being a career reporter or news outlet owner myself, who knows, maybe that’s the best that can be expected.
John

The reason I am interested in John Edwards is that he is the only candidate who has actually “drawn blood” (in the courtroom) from corporate America…and thus has some sense of what any person in government is up against.
Hillary is ok…but I suspect she will just be like any victim of domestic violence and be afraid to walk out the corporate door. She’s really only taken abuse, never really hit back hard.
She and Bill were never more than 1980′s yuppies who gave the country Republican lite after 12 years of Regean/Bush darkness.
It is amusing to fantasize about a Hitlery presidency where she actually is the avenging, bitch demoness the wingnuts think she is and who uses the unitary executive to inflict payback on everyone who ever slighted her or Big Bad Bill.
Neocons in dogcages in Gitmo…yeah…but I expect karma will have a slower working out.
lester

mudkitty- shirin is right. clinton was war mongering globalist shit the same as bush. that he didn’t get us stuck in any quagmires is too his credit but he certainly laid the groundwork for iraq. yuo say small government is stupid, but then youpoint out that gore and clinton adhered to small government principles, especially in terms of balancing the budget. wasn’t that stupid of them?

john edwards is marxist. didn’t ben franklin say those who would trade freedom for security deserve niether. that goes double for the economy. and I’ve never even read Ayn Rand.

Delia

Edwards is marxist???? I’m sorry, that just makes no sense at all. If you’re going to make accusations like that, please back them up.

mudkitty

Talk about bullshit…

So Lester, if you’ve never read Ayn Rand, where do you get your “free” market/small government bullshit from, then?

taters

OK, I’ve said this before but it seems rather appropo…

Reasons To Vote For Ron PaulDo we really need a FAA?

If I wanna get shit-faced and drive a car, isn’t that my business? I mean as long as I don’t hurt anyone, right?

Why do we have mining regulations? They know what they’re getting into.

States and local municipalities should decide if they want public education.

Why should I have to be insured to drive?

If a 12 year old kid can put in 60 hours a week at a steel mill, why shouldn’t a company be able to hire him or her? Too many regulations is what’s hurting the spirt of entrepeneurship in America!

It should be legal to get a Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle off the internet, w/armor piercing capabilities, without a background check or proof of ID.
We have too many laws on the books as is. And if terrorists and the military have rocket launchers – well hell, shouldn’t I be able to get me one?

WHY SHOULDN’T FIRST COUSINS BE ABLE TO MARRY? Where in the constitution does it say anything about that? I challenge you.
If you, like me, want government off your back – vote Ron Paul!!

http://www.food4humanity.org HoosierHoops

A Libertarian is a Republican who owns a bong.

Jezus Fred.. I think you’ve just come up with a bumper sticker..
mudkitty

Hey Taters…the market will take care of it…

LMAO.

Thinker

Taters I assume you were being facetious. I do rather like what Ron Paul says. It is refreshing. Sorry Larry, nothing that comes out of Clinton’s mouth endears me to her. In fact the more I hear her voice the more I shudder about what is to come.

If there is a suspicion that Bush is inflexible, draconian and bias, then that is just a taste of what you are about to see with Clinton. Clinton will focus on moral impropriety. The sort of stuff you are taking about, Taters. She will be about completely removing choice in society’s interest.

But I digress…..back to the topic. Students critical of rich philantropists. It’s funny but the backgrounds of those critical of those critical of social excess at the expense of the poor are rarely checked. This is a shame, because it tends to be the offsping of stinking rich members of society who are the most critical of those [with clout] who speak out against social divide and, more importantly, raising the bar at the bottom.

I agree with pretty much everything you say, Larry. Pandering to snotty nosed college boys not fond of Jesus’ suggestions conflicting on their way of life actually gives their waffle some implied credibility.

By way of protest I will ignor the young man and hope he goes away.
Taters

Thinker,
Yes I was being facetious. I don’t know if you’re familiar with hate groups in the USA such as Storm Front but Paul gets a lot of support there. Those who have contempt of government can not govern. It’s rather simple.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/ron-paul-one-388512.html

Delia

I used to go look at stormfront sometimes when I wanted to scare myself silly.

Delia

Some of that got left off. I wrote: I used to go look at stormfront sometimes when I wanted to scare myself silly. Then the Bushies took over.

Thinker

Will check it out Taters, thanks

http://deleted lester

hey taters- michael medved did that same guilt by association bs in a column the other day. i know, who knew he wrote columns. anyway, just letting you know that the neo con / leftist alliance you are forging is going strong. expect a cxheck from rupert any day now.

mudkitty- believe it or not, there is an entire AREA of study called economics. it’s been around for a long long time. adam smiths “welath of Nations” and Ludwig Von Mises “human action” are more my style and both pre date any rand.

This is why we can never trust the democrats to get us out of iraq. Their war is against capitalism, not interventionism.

mudkitty

To say that the Democratic Party is against Capitalism, is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read.
Taters

Lester can you answer why he has so much support from those groups? Has he disavowed their support?

mudkitty

Lester…am I “forging an alliance” between leftists and neo-cons, from my guest-room/computer room? If you think that, you are off your rocker, totally and entirely.

And clearly you don’t know that Rand is a knock off off the very school of economics that you refer to. “Splains everything.” Yes, Lester – I am familiar with economics…I suggest you familiarize yourself with Naomi Klein, and others.

You are young, aren’t you?

And just referencing Medved, gives you away. Why are you here? Medved is one of the biggest fools on planet earth, next to Hewitt, although it is a big pond.

Why are you here Lester?

mudkitty

The sound of Lester Googleing furiously. Maybe even Wicking…

lester

why am I here? you’re a liberal, like joe lieberman and Hillary clinton and all the other democrats who supported iraq and are now getting ready to bomb iran . why are YOU here? naomi klein isn’t an economist. neither is ayn rand.

taters- because he’s anti state.

mudkitty

Naomi Klein is an author who writes about economics, and the whole Chicago school of economics was inspired by Rand.

As for me, I don’t support Hillary nor Leiberman, nor the war in Iraq. So bzzzzz, wrong again, unsurprisingly.

I’m here because I like to read Mr. Johnson.

Now why are you here, Lester? Or will you just go on avoiding the questions and the points?
taters

Lester,
This liberal never supported the invasion of Iraq. And neither did my two senators, Levin & Stabenow. So your assumption is wrong there.
It was two retired four star generals who convinced me more than anyone that Iraq wasn’t a threat to the US, (Contrary to the neocons and this WH) with their congresional testimony in the fall of 2002. Tony Zinni and Wes Clark. Zinni in the senate and Clark to the house. There was also the late senator from MN – Paul Wellstone. And another – the senior senator from MA., Ted Kennedy. They both also stated that it was Zinni & Clark’s testimony which was a primary factor to cast nay on Iraq.

There are people that I respect very much that support Ron Paul. Like Karen Kwiatkowski, a great American – who has taken more than her fair share of slings and arrows from many – including freepers and the like. There are some things I’ve read by Dr. Paul that I liked. And quite a few things that I haven’t.
As far as you regarding me being a neocon, you’re free to think what you choose. I consider myself a FDR/JFK Democrat. I also liked Ike and Jerry Ford. Nobody was more eloquent than Ford in his defense of Affirmative Action. I was opposed to NAFTA.
And on your same flawed logic – you could also call me a Nazi because Hitler loved German Shepherds and so do I.

Why don’t you simply address the issue – why hasn’t Ron Paul denounced the supremacists? Is it money? Is that where his uptick of funds came from – people who refer to David Duke as Dr. Duke?
Why is rhetoric that the UN is going to take over the US, including our armed forces – guns will be taken away from legal gun owners, Canada , Mexico and the US, like the European Union – will become one – you know the whole New World Order spiel – being spouted by him? You have enough sense to know what crowd that appeals to.
David Duke is saying register as a Republican and vote for Paul – why no comment from Paul or his camp?
And I sure didn’t need to read Medved to come to what I’ve found to be disturbing.
I assume I’ll get an answer once you get your talking points.

Respectfully,

Robert M Murray

lester

An Open Letter to Rep. Ron Paul
Posted by: Michael Medved at 6:30 PM
Dear Congressman Paul:

Your Presidential campaign has drawn the enthusiastic support of an imposing collection of Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 “Truthers” and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists.

Do you welcome- or repudiate – the support of such factions?

More specifically, your columns have been featured for several years in the American Free Press –a publication of the nation’s leading Holocaust Denier and anti-Semitic agitator, Willis Carto. His book club even recommends works that glorify the Nazi SS, and glowingly describe the “comforts and amenities” provided for inmates of Auschwitz.

Have your columns appeared in the American Free Press with your knowledge and approval?

As a Presidential candidate, will you now disassociate yourself, clearly and publicly, from the poisonous propaganda promoted in such publications?

As a guest on my syndicated radio show, you answered my questions directly and fearlessly.

Will you now answer these pressing questions, and eliminate all associations between your campaign and some of the most loathsome fringe groups in American society?

Along with my listeners (and many of your own supporters), I eagerly await your response.

Respectfully, Michael Medved

and taters, the newest neo con

how about try another line of questioning. or better yet, take 10 minutes to learn the “broken windows fallacy” of economics and see where we are coming from
lester

mudkitty- pat buchanan, ron paul, and , obviously, antiwar.com, as well as other right wing and libertarian people and groups, were opposed to the war from the start. That can’t fairly be said about most of your party. and they aren’t doing a very good job of stopping the rush to war with iran, quite the contrary.

I read this blog because it deals with the government misinformation in perpetuating these conflicts.

I’m not intersted in some canadian persons assesment of capitalism. I’m intersted in capitalism itself. you are just another pro government huckster like Bush, except you want welfare instead of warfare. no thanks. not interested.
Thinker

You are clearly a fan of death, Lester.

Let us hope karma rewards you expediently. But in the meantime you would do better to read more throughly to avoid poor conclusions and rhetoric. Your lack of attention is something you appear to have in common with your beloved leader.

I am beginning to feel I jumped the gun, by ignoring the young man critical of philanthropy. It appears there are others far more deserving of ignorance. I pray this place will eventually provide you enough wisdom to consider the prospect of a universe outside your little bubble. Though considering your output over the last couple of years, you seem intent to go for the rope. Go back to the start.
lester

no idea what you’re talking about. my beloved leader?
justsomeone

In case everyone that’s jumping in on lester hasn’t noticed the US economy is in starting to flounder. lester has given me a few good laughs along the way & completely opened my mind to how diverse the U.S. Shia mindset is. He breaks alot of cliches. I thought this blog was suppose to be about national security anyway…Taters says, “I was opposed to NAFTA” but seems to be backing Mrs. NAFTA for pres…yeah go ahead keep voting Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton…& tell yourself you’re voting for change. Lester seems freaked about impending tax increases, Come on, we pay 35% income tax, plus sales tax + property tax, that’s getting close to 50% & all some politician has to say is “It’s for the children” & youall want to pay more. lester just wants to keep some of his $$$$$$ & cause he seems to identify as an Iranian-American he’s proably concerned about his family & friends in Iran. Give the guy a break. He’s anti-war & low tax, is that really so bad?
http://deleted lester

justsomeone- actually, I’m not iranian or a shia. I happen to post at a shia website but I’ve never even so much as opened a quran. i don’t post there much these days as i have been learning more about economics and am kind of all set with foreign policy for now. but it was an invaluable resource for sure way over any columnists or even books I read.

“all some politician has to say is “It’s for the children” & youall want to pay more”

that’s the thing. If it’s so important why don’t they cut something? You are trying to tell me there’s NOTHING in our 3 TRILLION dollar budget we can do without? besides, government will probably just ladle big helpings of behaviour modifying pills down their throats. to make them “healthy”.
taters

justsomeone,
Unlike Dr. Paul, I’m not a fan of Milton Friedman. Nor Reaganomics, which I believe GHWB paid a price for.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul352.html

Kinda partial to Warren Buffet, though. Or Gene Sperling & Peter Orszag.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gene-sperling/a-progrowth-progressive-_b_10637.html

http://www.brookings.edu/testimony/2005/0426saving_orszag.aspx

I’ve been to England since the Iron Lady had her way. I happen to like Medicare and Social Security. And I believe labor laws are necessary. There is no coincidence that mining deaths have gone up since mining regulations have gone down. I strongly believe that regulatory agencies are necessary. I have no yearning to return to the Gilded Age. I happen to like the idea of a middle class. If you, like Grover Norquist believe that any social gains since Teddy Roosevelt are socialist, then call me a socialist.
I’ve addressed my own political views
on this thread more than I have since I’ve been coming to NQ.
And yes, I come here for issues of security and I appreciate the heck out of LJ. And my fellow NQ’ers. And it’s definitely one of my favorite sites. And I don’t believe Lester is a bad egg because we may disagree and despite what you may think – I think it’s good that he feels enthusiastic about his candidate of choice. I felt the same way about Wes Clark when he was in the mix. And I don’t think I was hard on Lester, nor do I consider myself more enlightened than him as the ‘possessor of the truth’…
lester

I’m not against union mines or employees having collective bargaining. doctors have the medical association, dentists all those guys have what are essentially unions. I dn’t think they have helped keep manufacturing in this country do you? quite the contrary

as far as medicare and ss,again that’s not “the government”. that’s our money. and the lions share of our taxes goes to wars and beaurocratic bullshit, not that stuff.
taters

Lestr,
You make an excellent point here.

that’s the thing. If it’s so important why don’t they cut something? You are trying to tell me there’s NOTHING in our 3 TRILLION dollar budget we can do without?
Pingback: zyban
timbshoe

Ugg Boots,also called Ug or Ugg boots,are nowadays one of the most popular boots.They existed already in 1930′s and became popular in 1960′s when Australian surfers found out,that they can warm their feet after coming out from cold water.They have everything you need-comfort and warmth.You will never be cold in those boots because 100% sheepskin will warm you even in the coldest days.The natural thermal properties of sheepskin make possible that Ugg Boots will warm you in the winter but in the summer your feet will not be wet.It is true that Ugg is shorter from ugly,but if you know even little bit about fashion you will know that Ugg boots are not ugly.We can see famous people like Pamela Anderson or Kate Hudson wearing Ugg Boots.
Nowadays we have new improved Ugg boots for sale.You can get them for anybody.We have women boots,children boots,slippers and casuals.

Our UGG Australia Boots are all authentic.Their properties and features as below:

*In cold temperatures,the fleece works as an insulating layer of warmth and keeps the warmth of body heat inside of the boot.
*In the heat,the wool fibers keep the air circulating; thus keeping your fee dry and pulling the perspiration away from your skin.Sheepskin also contains lanolin,which moisturizes your feet when worn barefoot.
*ugg boots have reinforced toes,which are double stitched and extra durable heels.
*feature a natural,thick fleece on a removable in-sole for arch support.
*The sole is usually durable in most terrain,lightweight and provides traction as well.-http://www.timbshoe.com
timbshoe

We have been exporter of UGG Australia Boots for many years,our product are all authentic.Welcome to buy any boots of them in our website,we charge the shipping fee.
We just take 7 days to deliver the products to your door.
As everyone knows,UGG Australia Boots in australia, and many other countries as well, ugg boots also ug or uggs are a style of footwear that has been used generically for well over a hundred years.Everywhere you go now you find that the ugg boot has become the latest fashion trend.

Our UGG Australia Boots are all with top quality:

*100% authentic sheepskin for unrivalled comfort
*flexible molded EVA outsole
*Insole features a genuine sheepskin sockliner that naturally wicks away moisture and keeps feet dry
*Wool blend knit uppers with suede heel guards
*Approximate Shaft Height (Uncuffed): 14.5″
*By UGG Australia;Imported.-http://www.nikediy.com/
timbshoe

The original ugg boots is not a brand name but an age old sheepskin boots generic term for this style of australian-made sheepskin boot. in Aussie slang, the ug name is short for “ugly.” in terms of comfort, however, the ug boot is a thing of beauty.Ugg boots are a popular brand of boot for women,and children.just as the chairman of australian ugg said, australian ugg is a good choice. once wearing it, you will be reluctant to take it off and be fascinated by its originality, reliability and extremely luxurious comfort. this is the art brought by boots. ugg boots make young beautiful girls and handsome boys very confident.addugg.com

Our website have many fashion styels of UGG Boots for women and children.

We provide many advantages as below:
*free shipping
*hidden costs
*professional customers service
*secure processing,plus
*we dont hassle you on returns.if you dont like what youve received, simply return it!

UGG Boots must be you best choice!-http://www.addugg.com/
timbshoe

When heard of winter, cold may come in your mind at once.if you are ready for the coming of winter,you should never be afraid of it.it is not difficult for us that if you protect your feet well,you will fell warm and comfortable.so you should get several shoes help you spend the cold winter.UGG Boots can be done.for many individuals,ugg boots provide the perfect insulation and comfort for the winter months.ugg boots are both warm and comfortable.these two factors are extremely important,no matter what amount of time you are going to be spending out in the weather.ugg boots are made out of a material that is water resistant, meaning that no water,and no cold air,can get into your boots.they will keep in the warmth of your feet,because of their outer shell and their inner linings. once you slip your feet into a pair of these boots,they will be warm and toasty until it is time to take them off.you will be able to take advantage of the great warmth that ugg boots offer.e-uggs.com

Welcome to buy UGG Boots in our website,we offer the UGG Australia boots are with top quality:
*features genuine twin-face sheepskin for refreshing comfort
*feature a soft foam insole covered with genuine sheepskin
*have a molded EVA light and flexible outsole designed for amazing comfort with every step.
*you can enjoy free shipping worldwide in our website.
*1 week delivery to your door
*sometimes you can get a special discount from our company by email
Our customers are always satisfied with such kind of UGG Boots and our high service!-http://www.footwearmbt.com/
timbshoe

Legend has it that “ugg” is short for “ugly” – so, “ugg boots” apparently meant “ugly boots.” For decades, “ugg” was generic term used for sheepskin boots made in Australia.The word was so commonplace that it was found in Australian dictionaries, and ugg boots were also known as “ug” or “ugh” boots. But in the United States, when people refer to “UGG boots,” they’re usually talking about the boots made by Deckers Outdoor Corporation, the parent company of “UGG Australia.”So if you’re traveling the world and talking about footwear, it’s good to know that when the term “ugg boot” is used, it could be referring to an Australian-made sheepskin boot, or a popular brand name boot.
We sell authentic UGG Boots in our website for many year.We offer the best service and favourable price.People all aound the world buy our products do not pay for the shipping,we charge it!

Our UGG Boots have the advantages below:
      * 100% authentic sheepskin for unrivalled comfort
      * genuine twin-face sheepskin for refreshing comfort
      * have a molded EVA light and flexible outsole designed for amazing comfort with every step.
      *You can wear them up or style them folded down

Welcome to buy UGG Boots in our website,we offer the UGG Australia boots are all
with top quality!site:mbt4sale.com
timbshoe

what’s the main point of the boots?the answer is to keep your feet warm.If you by one pair of boots put them on,especially in winter,you’ll feel very tenderness and comfortable.they can make your feet warm.and youll find its really fashionable.you can tie-in each kind of clothes with them and still looks beautifull.

The ugg boots will definitely make you noticeable in a fashion-conscious crowd,and more importantly,is the fact that these boots are indeed quite comfortable to wear. these boots have been popular with swimmers and surfers since the 1970s and are regularly worn by surfers in california.the design of the boot with its sheepskin results in considerable thermostatic benefits.
We sell real UGG Australia Boots in our website.You must be satisfied with our UGG Boots when you receive your order.The UGG Boots you get will have these advatages:
      *100% authentic sheepskin for unrivalled comfort
      *a durable molded rubber outsole.
      *The wrap around lace feature adds a fashionable touch with wooden beads at the end
      *A removable and replaceable sheepskin insole gives extra comfort and warmth.
      *Insole is made of sheepskin,latex. site:shoeuggs.com
timbshoe

Sheepskin and ugg boots are a casual type of boot. Ugg boots are exceptionally warm and are great for cold weather (up to -30 degrees Fahrenheit)If you are looking for warmth while trudging around the house or the city, a sheepskin or ugg boot will be ideal.For girls and women, ugg boots look fantastic with tight-legged jeans tucked into them, or with short skirts paired with opaque tights or bare legs. For guys, ugg boots work great with jeans, and give a very casual, or rugged look, depending on the jeans or the shirt you wear with your ugg boots.site：uggsmax.com

Do you have a pair of UGG Boots?If not,you must will buy a piar in our website.As we offer the best sevice and favourable price.what’s more,we charge the shipping fee.So,you just need to pay the fee of boots,and will receive our UGG boots in one week.It is very easy to have your own UGG Boots.Come on!

Our UGG Boots are all with top quality:
      *features genuine twin-face sheepskin
      *our signature UGG woven label
      *feature a soft foam insole covered with genuine sheepskin
      *have a molded EVA light and flexible outsole designed for refreshing comfort with
every step.site:ugghappy.com
timbshoe

Everywhere you go now you find that the ugg boot has become the latest fashion new arrival cheap trend. now days it seems that you can not walk pass any window display of any shoe or fashion clothing store with seeing a pair of these trendy boots in them. it does not matter where ever you are in the world you will find ugg boots. these boots are both hot and trendy and certainly do not need to be worn in cold weather only. many people have found, that one pair of ugg boots is not enough.

We have been seller of UGG Boots for many years.Our customers are satisfied with our products as we offer the real UGG Australia Boots:
       *100% authentic sheepskin for unrivalled comfort
       *soft genuine sheepskin heel padding
       *cushioning insole,flexible fabric-trimmed midsole.
       *Lightweight molded EVA traction outsole
       *Free shipping
       *One week to your door
       *If you dont like what youve received, simply return it! site:uggmax.com