McCain on Bill Clinton: “I don’t know where he gets his expertise”
posted at 12:15 pm on July 8, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
John McCain answered Bill Clinton’s assessment of the mental stability of POWs today on Fox News. He delivers what may be the classic rebuttal of his career, exposing Clinton’s lack of standing to even comment on such an issue:
McCain shrugs off the attack, answering that the Obama campaign can say whatever it wants about his military experience, but one has to wonder why the Democrats keep raising the issue. It only gives McCain an opportunity to speak about his war service, his love of country, and to remind voters that neither Bill Clinton nor Barack Obama served at all. They continually play to his strength while highlighting Obama’s weakness on military affairs.
And in this case, they get to highlight McCain’s sense of humor. Almost as good as the zinger is the gale of laughter that precedes it.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2] 3 »
And Hillary was under fire in Serbia and Bill Clinton as a young boy read about black church burnings in Arkansas (which never happened).
Hilts on July 8, 2008 at 1:42 PM
And also by “exposing” the office of President to potential blackmail by having multiple phone sex sessions on an unsecured line.
whitetop on July 8, 2008 at 1:43 PM
You must be grading on a curve.
Yeah. How’s that immigration enforcement coming along? If the US is still allowing Middle-East Muslims into the country then it’s crystal clear that we’re not remotely serious about this “war on terror” stuff. We are, and we’re not.
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Well seeing as you have argued that a list is an absolute statement of policy that you support, there are isolationists on that list. So by using your standards I caught you.
But to use my standards (which is quite a bit higher then yours), I caught you in half the lie, and when I have time I will support the other half…so for right now you can be comfortable that you are only a 1/2 liar on this post.
*
You are one of the few people I know that fights to be known as a partial liar. Congratulation’s.
right2bright on July 8, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Is that Bills excuse for his red faced, pointy finger attack on Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday?
ctmom on July 8, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Bush has bought into the Global Warming hysteria too. I am not a McCain fan (I supported Rudy then Romney in the primaries) but he would be a better POTUS (or at least not as damaging) as B. Hussein Obama. Bush rarely vetos anything. Btw just because the Left hates him does not make him a Conservative. You could ask LBJ and Richard Nixon that if they were alive.
Hilts on July 8, 2008 at 1:46 PM
OK - I cannot stand John McCain - but I give him a well done - but just barely.
I still think he’s a creep.
But I’ll pull the lever for this crud.
jake-the-goose on July 8, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Hey I refer to him regularly as The Cranky Old Bastard on these threads. I cannot stand his two girlfriends - Trent Lott and Miss Lindsey Graham. However he would be a far better choice then Obama.
Hilts on July 8, 2008 at 1:50 PM
It is indeed. Unfortunately for you, what “it is” is not whatever you feel like it being. America chosing not to get embroiled in another Mid-East war is not “isolationism”, ant more than our failure to invade Dafur is “isolationism”, or our falure to bomb
Myanmar is “isolationism”.
As I already explained to you, The opposite of America waging all these wars you think it should is not “isolationism”. It’s normal prudence, normal behavior, normal self-interest.
You made a big deal of being Catholic before. What’s the Pope’s position on your agenda?
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 1:50 PM
Yeah, really. The real Churchill here is Sen. Joe Lieberman, followed closely by Rudy Giuliani (who I admit isn’t exactly a conservative in the truest sense but a centrist with conservative governing tendencies on taxes, terror and gov’t accountability) and John McCain.
That said, this Stanley Baldwin wanna-be who flip-flops more than John Forbes Kerry I find just repugnant.
HotAirJosef on July 8, 2008 at 1:51 PM
Is it possible that the clueless GOP priamry voters (the dumbest voters in America) will if McCain loses in November give us Jeb Bush in 2012? The problem is that the GOP primary voters have this sense of orderly succession which gives us crap candidates like GHW Bush, GW Bush, Bob Dole, and now McCain (The Cranky Old Bastard).
Hilts on July 8, 2008 at 1:52 PM
The ad is drawing howls from leftists commenters at the WaPo and New York Times. I would say it hit the target pretty well. There’s all sorts of rabid-dog stuff about McCain being a war criminal and Vietnam being an illegal war. McCain just ripped that scab right off of the aging hippies who are all supporting Obama precisely because he brings them back to those great old days when utopia was at hand.
And we’re the ones who are living in the past?
LMAO!
rockmom on July 8, 2008 at 1:53 PM
These Democrats have no sense of irony. They send out John Kerry to accuse McCain of flip-flopping and Bill Clinton to question McCain’s mental stability.
They’re either incredibly stupid or they think we’re incredibly stupid.
infidel65 on July 8, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Strike Seven! You might want to try a different sport. Your obsession with my religion is interesting. The answer is comment 182 in the Iran thread from last night.
Excuse me, flense. I need to go pick up my food stamps, welfare check, Opus Dei card, and practice my secret Hanagah handshake. Later.
Limerick on July 8, 2008 at 1:55 PM
No, he has not.
And you’re running around here lecturing people on conservatism? Rudy was too left-wing to get nominated by the Dems, let alone us. He was like a parody of what conservatives mock in the left. Cross-dressing, gun banning, gay-loving, cousin marrying, ……
Never said the Bush was a solid conservative, only that he’s far better then McCain. I held my nose and put up with Bush. I’m not putting up with the GOP moving even further to the left, which is what McCain represents.
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Rudy was my mayor for 8 years. Whatever his faults were, a strong law & order candidate could never be a complete liberal. People call him a liberal because he is pro choice and supported gun control in NYC but he also was a tax cutter, a law & order man, a pillar of strength versus Islamofascism. Being a Republican mayor of my town (which politically can resemble Leningrad circa 1956 (ok I can exaggerate a little) where the NY Times editorials are considered as sacred as if they came directly from Mt. Sinai, means that you sometimes have to compromise or repress your true beliefs in order to get things done. A Kansas sort of conservative would never have a chance here.
Hilts on July 8, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Whoa, didn’t realize what time it was — gotta go too..
Rick on July 8, 2008 at 1:58 PM
I have no obsession with your religion. I find it odd that an observant Catholic is so blood-thirsty, that’s all.
Comments are not numbered. Was this some effort at humor?
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 1:59 PM
Apparently, it’s not going over well with the isolationists among us as well.
Rick on July 8, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Exactly. I hopefully never called him a liberal.
HotAirJosef on July 8, 2008 at 2:03 PM
Rudy never had to compromise or repress his true beliefs to get along in NYC. Whatever his liberal faults, and he had a ton of them, he was always a straight talker. I don’t think he was capable of repressing anything even if he wanted to.
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 2:04 PM
So vote for Bob Barr and your conscience is clear. By the way you are not a New Yorker, I am. I lived through pre Rudy (David Dinkins, Ed Koch, Abe Beame, John Lindsay and Robert Wagner)and then Rudy’s administration. If he was representative of a liberal then I (as well as fellow New Yorker Allah)could put up with liberalism. If he is a liberal then it is the mode of the late Henry (Scoop) Jackson. He cleaned the sewer of crime up, cut taxes, stood up to municipal unions as well, told the Saudis to shove their money. Btw go tell Al Sharpton and the New York Times that Rudy was a liberal. You will get laughed out of town. AS for “cross dressing” that was for a City Hall correspondents show that is put on every year. Funny that you feel the need to “drag” that up, you are incapable of criticizing his administration because you did not live here during 1994- 2002 when he was the best mayor we ever had.
Hilts on July 8, 2008 at 2:04 PM
That’s absurd. These guys are politicians, they all repress and hide a lot of their feelings otherwise they would not get re-elected. Do you really think that GW Bush thinks Islam is a religion of peace or does he have to say that bovine excrement because the State Department wants to suck Saudi Arabia’s you know what in order to get oil?
Hilts on July 8, 2008 at 2:08 PM
Now isn’t that interesting, the Cato institute also considers Sessions, and Sanford, as isolationists. That pretty much completes the list (Jindahl I left out, just so much time).
So we have your prime list as, Demint (isolationist), Sessions (isolationist), Coburn (isolationist), Sanford (isolationist)…do you see a pattern here?
I guess you are technically correct you never used the exact words…you just only listed people who are committed isolationists…gee, if I just list one liberal in a list of several you called me a liberal…so I guess if your complete list is isolationists, then that makes you a supporter of_______________you can fill in the blank.
*
Hey, look what I caught…
right2bright on July 8, 2008 at 2:11 PM
I am a New Yorker.
Yeah, I was there for Koch and Dinkens.
That’s what I keep telling you. You’re a liberal who thinks he’s a conservative.
The NYT endorsed him for mayor. I’d think a Nwy Yawker like you would remember that.
And yet I don’t recall any other mayor doing the cross-dressing bit.
Eh. By the standards of NYC he was a good mayor. I’m just pointing out that be the standards of the national GOP, or even the standards of the national Democratic party, he was pretty far left.
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Now we know it is a good ad…
right2bright on July 8, 2008 at 2:13 PM
God, you’re a maroon.
Ok, I’ll play your silly little game. Where does Cato say that DeMint is an isolationist? You did not link to it.
BTW, you buddy “Lim” insists that DeMint is not an isolationist. You really need to set him straight on that.
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 2:18 PM
The mother, of all The Saint’s flip-flops occurred…
Goes to show you, a Republican maverick can be a Democrat’s pragmatist; even if he was right then and wrong now.
J_Gocht on July 8, 2008 at 2:20 PM
I’m no McCain fan but that was one of his more human moments in that clip. He should have slipped in a ‘Holiday Inn’ or cheap hotel line though; would have been a great needle on BJ Clinton.
Just to throw my 2 cents on this Rudy bit going back and forth; I could have voted for him, liberal as he was, for the differences I saw him make in New York. I could hold my nose that far..even Romney. McCain? Nope. Huckabee? I’d rather be hit in the head with a shovel than support Mike Huckabee on anything except him being launched into outer space in a trash can. That, I could support.
austinnelly on July 8, 2008 at 2:25 PM
That’s right they endorsed him that’s because Ruth Messenger his opponeent was to the left of Stalin and the Times would not even go that far. Even constant Giuliani critic the embittered Ed Koch endorsed him for reelection as did the NY Daily News (no friend of Rudy). Nice try but no cigar. You are obsessed with cross dressing.
Hilts on July 8, 2008 at 2:26 PM
austinnelly on July 8, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Huckabee, to say the least, lacks gravitas.
Hilts on July 8, 2008 at 2:27 PM
not2bright
I found what you were quoting from. Needless to say, you were, as usual, lying your ample butt off.
Here we go.
Sadly for you but to my considerable amusement, the quote you offered had to do with free trade, not with questions of military intervention in the Middle East.
What is more it does NOT say that DeMint is an “isolationist” even by the weird standard being used.
The way they are using the word that means that DeMint is the opposite of an isolationist, But you are too stupid to even take in what you read.
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 2:28 PM
I don’t get people who fail to understand that McCain won’t capture all of the conservative vote. Even McCain understands that. He’s not even going after it.
JiangxiDad on July 8, 2008 at 2:28 PM
C’mon Hilts. I’m usually with you. But there’s no right in NYC.
JiangxiDad on July 8, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Nice try but no cigar? How does his being endorsed by all those liberal people, and by NY’s Liberal party, show that he is NOT a liberal? That’s some not2bright style logic you have going there.
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 2:30 PM
I’m 38, and I remember the casualty roll calls at the end of the nightly news. It’s not THAT long ago.
otcconan on July 8, 2008 at 2:31 PM
This is getting tedious. Ed Koch hates Giuliani b/c Ed Koch is a jealous spiteful man (who by the way to his credit endorsed Bush in 2004)who resented the fact that Rudcy outshone him as mayor, instead of asking “How’m I doing?” as Koch used to do, Rudy would just go about doing his job, but even he (Koch) saw that Giuliani was the best man for the job in 1997. If you think that Ed Koch is a lefty (instead of a classic New Deal liberal) you probably think that Francisco Franco was one too.
Hilts on July 8, 2008 at 2:35 PM
I posted earlier that in NYC the political diversity resembles Leningrad circa 1956.
Hilts on July 8, 2008 at 2:37 PM
Give it up, no matter how logical he just decides not to understand…trust me, I have been through this with him. He has “flensered” you.
right2bright on July 8, 2008 at 2:47 PM
Thanks. I’ve come to that conclusion as well. I have had similar experiences arguing with the LaRouche people every Sunday morning outside of Central Park. I asked him earlier if he agreed with the premise of Buchanan’s new book and he did not respond which tells him he does. That’s enough for me.
Hilts on July 8, 2008 at 2:49 PM
Look on the Cato website, he is listed with the other cronies (sessions, coburn, sanford) as being in the isolationists square (as you know they have four squares to identify trade and political policies).
So now you are back to an oops again.
right2bright on July 8, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Can’t agree with Buchanan, he is a true isolationist, that would blow his cover…
right2bright on July 8, 2008 at 2:52 PM
Nifty strawman you beat up there, but I did not call Koch a lefty.
Yes, you trying to pretend that Giuliani is not a liberal is getting tedious. The man is to the left of the average Democratic in the Congress, most of whom are not willing to admit that they support partial birth abortion or gun control or open borders.
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 2:53 PM
I asked you for a link. What, not smart enough to know how to post one? See that “link” icon right above where you enter text? Click it.
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 2:55 PM
You did not ask me that. You told me that you did not care. Are you asking me that now?
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Oh my god! You people are REALLY drinking the KoolAid! So McCain doesn’t really believe what he is now saying but will resort to conservative principles once elected???? And I just had a tooth pulled and will receive a quarter under my pillow tonight and after John McCain is elected fuzzy bunnies shall jump through the pink skies and all evil doers shall surrender through fear and democrats shall see the error of their ways and negotiate in “good faith” to “get things done” on behalf of the American People which will include a tax cut, smaller government and a larger and more powerful military which the democratic congress shall deem necessary in the “time of John McCain”… IDIOTS!!!
sabbott on July 8, 2008 at 2:58 PM
I’m sure glad that not2bright keeps insisting that she’s not a liberal. Because watching her sneer at the “cronies” Demint, Coburn, Sessions, and Sandford, I might get the idea that she dislikes conservatives.
Maybe a real conservative like Limerick or Hilts should take her aside and gently explain to her that’s trashing the good guys.
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Psst… lots of raving lunatic Ron Paulnuts around here on occasion. Just sayin.’
Gilda on July 8, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Sorry. Saw that–forgot. But then it’s difficult to argue that Koch, or Rudy, or Bloomberg are anything but variations of liberals.
Curious what makes you think Koch is not a lefty.
JiangxiDad on July 8, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Hilts voted for Koch and thinks of himself as a classic New Deal liberal. And he thinks that’s a term of approval.
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 3:03 PM
If you answer the Buchanan question, maybe you could give your opinion about what America’s interests are vis a vis the Middle-East, and Israel.
JiangxiDad on July 8, 2008 at 3:06 PM
So did I. I thought I was voting for a lefty.
JiangxiDad on July 8, 2008 at 3:07 PM
If somebody asks me a Buchanan question, there is a good chance that I’ll answer it.
Provided that they don’t preface the question by telling me that it’s not important.
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 3:10 PM
You blithering idiot was I supposed to vote for Beame (1977), Diane McGrath (1981) and Carol Bellamy (1985)?
Hilts on July 8, 2008 at 3:10 PM
He was a law & order man, he is for a strong national defense, for two reasons.
Hilts on July 8, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Yeah I’m getting that impression too.
Hilts on July 8, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Do you think that FDR was a lefty?
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 3:13 PM
I notice you have a habit of answering questions with questions.
You can vote for whoever you like. But lets not pretend that New Deal liberalism is something other than liberalism.
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 3:16 PM
No he was not a lefty. He was a patriot and a liberal and had I been around in those days I would have been for FDR while you would have been for Lindbergh. Being a liberal and a lefty are not always the same thing. His VP Henry Wallace was a lefty.
Hilts on July 8, 2008 at 3:20 PM
I didn’t go back to see how it was asked. I came in late, but I think people are trying to “out” you as something other than what you present yourself to be, a true conservative Republican..
I hope there’s no other agenda to your comments, as I’ve told you I find them very interesting and you very intelligent.
I think reaching your limit with how far left the Republicans have gone is perfectly logical, just as it’s logical that others haven’t yet reached their’s.
(btw, I think America’s interests include helping to support Israel’s existence, both for moral and strategic reasons. For a variety of reasons, Ron Paul was unacceptable to me.)
JiangxiDad on July 8, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Truly, I don’t know about the law and order. It seemed to me Koch did little to stem the tide of disorder that was sweeping over NYC. He brought some ethnic style and good people skills, but philosophically I didn’t see him as out of character with the prevailing liberalism of the city.
As for national defense, when Koch turned hawkish after 9-11, and started to make his break with democratic orthodoxy, I always wondered if the primary motivator for that was that Israel and Jews were particularly threatened by radical Islam, and he was simply one of those Jews who woke up–kinda like me.
JiangxiDad on July 8, 2008 at 3:26 PM
You use lefty and liberal as separate terms, as if one is good and one isn’t.
How do you define yourself politically?
JiangxiDad on July 8, 2008 at 3:28 PM
Great question, Ed. Conspiracy is not my favorite thing, but I continue to wonder what the Clenis’s goal is. It seems entirely possible to me that he would sabotage Obambi in favor of having Hillary run against an incumbent McCain in 2012.
Jaibones on July 8, 2008 at 3:28 PM
Wrong. He was a lefty.
Lot’s of patriots and liberals are also lefties.
Your problem comes from living in NYC, where the right end of the political spectrum is made up of the FDR Democrats. It skews your perspective of the national political scene. Most places are not nearly as far left as NYC and in most of the country the FDR Dems are the left.
Perhaps. I assume you mean that you’d have been clamoring for war and I’d have been trying to avoid it. If you want to brag about that, knock yourself out.
Can you put into words what you mean by “lefty” vs “liberal”? And what does “conservative” mean to you?
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 3:32 PM
Let me take a crack at that one, Dad? My brother, whose views reside left of center on most issues, once corrected me on my use of the term “laughably liberal”. He pointed out, quite rightly, that our political spectrum in this country is all in shades of liberalism, from left to right.
“Liberal Democracy” being the broadest description of western government in general, I usual refer to the far left as leftists. Those are the ones that I feel are truly opposed to our system of government, and would favor something altogether different.
Jaibones on July 8, 2008 at 3:32 PM
I can but I choose not to.
Hilts on July 8, 2008 at 3:37 PM
You’re an asshole.
Hilts on July 8, 2008 at 3:38 PM
I’ve noticed that. Tough for them to do, since they are for the most part 911 Republicans.
Thanks. But what you see is what you get.
I think so too. But unlike you (I suspect) I don’t see that as an absolute. Israel is not Kansas, and an attack on it is not an attack on us.
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Right of center. Pro choice, anti amnesty, strong on defense,
tax cutting, anti affirmative action, non multicultural. Should I go on? Name the issue.
Hilts on July 8, 2008 at 3:40 PM
And you’re a New York liberal. Same difference, I guess.
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 3:42 PM
Why do I doubt the truth of this?
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 3:43 PM
Fair enough, if everyone defines terms upfront. I’m not against classical liberalism (I think). I’m against the form we have since FDR.
As I’ve learned here, there are all kinds of self-called “conservatives.” I suppose the same is true on the other side.
JiangxiDad on July 8, 2008 at 3:44 PM
That’s the poli-sci answer, and a decent one from the poli-sci outlook. We’re all some variant of liberalism once you consider that Locke and Burke can be regarded as liberals.
But it’s not very useful in describing todays political world.
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 3:46 PM
I think modern American liberalism is defined by central control, unaccountable power. While conservatism is defined by the opposite - government of the people, by the people, for the people.
You can see this in the different ways they look at the courts and judicial power.
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 3:50 PM
flenser:
You are obsessed, you really are. It is not even possible to talk to you. I used to really respect you, now you have become some weird little Paulbot {osr something} with a chip on his shoulder.
As for immigration enforcement, it is improving. I realize that is not good enough for you…but nothing is.
And Bush has bought into the Global warming claims to some extent, but he is not a zealot.
Terrye on July 8, 2008 at 3:50 PM
No thanks. Wasn’t trying to pin you down as much as try to see how just how varied McCain’s support is, Republican support is, HA readership is.
Flenser said you are a NY liberal. I think it’s fair to say you are a NY conservative. Over the past decade, I’ve moved right of that.
JiangxiDad on July 8, 2008 at 3:50 PM
My ultra liberal department where I work (West Village - Hudson Street) would die laughing at that term (me being a NY Liberal) but to a Buchananite ideologue like he is I guess I am. I do not like McCain but I fear Obama and will not throw away my vote (which will be an absentee ballot as I will be in Eastern Europe on election day). I also want to see Keith Olbermann have a heart attack. Even though NY is in th tank for the Messiah I will be heard.
Hilts on July 8, 2008 at 3:57 PM
Either you had a funny way of showing it, or these words are untrue. Since I’ve long noted your willingness to say whatever you thought expedient I’m going for the latter.
I’m sure it’s very difficult for people who can only talk in the langauge of emotional manipulation. If you could only drop the Jewish mother nonsense and engage in a discussion of ideas I think you’d find me easy to talk with.
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 3:58 PM
Funny story - the ultra liberal Jewish people I knew in New York had a high opinion of Buchanan.
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 4:01 PM
LOL
JiangxiDad on July 8, 2008 at 4:02 PM
That’s what I keep telling people! It’s usually me here alone sticking up for Bush.
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 4:03 PM
Yes, but everyone knows they’re anti-semitic :)
JiangxiDad on July 8, 2008 at 4:08 PM
But of course! For your amusement, here’s a brief compilation of flenser’s greatest hits from just one page on just one thread yesterday.
Easy to talk with, indeed.
Gilda on July 8, 2008 at 4:09 PM
Speaking of Jewish mothers ……
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 4:10 PM
I’m sure a lot of it was his criticism of Bush over Iraq. But I wonder if some of it was not his talk about demography. Buchanans focus on ethnicity mirrors their own.
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 4:13 PM
flenser:
I did respect you. If you had stopped trying to pick fights with everyone you might have noticed it.
And Bush is not a zealot on global warming, and neither is McCain for that matter. In fact at the G8 Bush called for cutting emissions in half by 2050. McCain’s approach is far less intrusive than Obama’s, as if you cared.
You are just pissed that you can’t get what you want. It is childish and beneath you. Or should be.
Terrye on July 8, 2008 at 4:13 PM
Rapier wit, I call it :)
JiangxiDad on July 8, 2008 at 4:14 PM
Shhhhhhhst! McCain’s a M-a-v-e-r-i-c-k! From a conservative POT (poin-of-view) MAVERICK means F U conservatives Not just an FU but a double dog double down FU to all you conservative pricks everywhere who will all eventually “swalluw” what I’m selling…
sabbott on July 8, 2008 at 4:15 PM
That’s because the ultra liberals love Buchanan to be on cable as he fits the stereotype of what a right winger is supposed to be like. Also Buchanan hates Israel, is anti war, hates the Bush family - all things they can agree upon. It is no wonder that Buchanan has found a home on PMSNBC.
His unreadable magazine the misnamed “The American Conservative” reads a whole lot like the neo-Stalinist “The Nation.” Yeah Buchanan can walk into any Starbucks n the Upper West Side and have some ultra lib Village Voice reader buy him a double latte frappuccino.
Hilts on July 8, 2008 at 4:15 PM
IMO,that was a red herring Terrye, a feint. Bush called for global emissions cuts for all nations. That was the diplomatic way of saying “up yours” to the developing world’s large polluters. We won’t cut back our economy or development while you continue on your merry path. This was no change from the previous G8 statement, and leaves it up to each nation to determine its own goals. It’s all window dressing, no substance. Bush snookered them.
What did McCain say? I missed that. I hope you’re not referring to cap and trade.
As for Obama, I don’t know what he said, but it’s not worth discussing.
JiangxiDad on July 8, 2008 at 4:19 PM
As if you had the faintest clue what either man has proposed.
You’ve been trotting out that line to every single person you meet with a different opinion to yours on blogs all across the intersphere for several years now.
Has anyone yet responded with “Ok, mom, I’m sorry, I’ll be good from now on”?
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 4:19 PM
I’m confused here. Are Jews who like Buchanan and hate Israel anti-Semites?
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 4:23 PM
I’m with you on Buchanan. I feel vaguely threatened by him, but not in a physical way. And then he laughs often. Makes him oddly palatable.
JiangxiDad on July 8, 2008 at 4:24 PM
I was just telling a jewish joke–how one sect/group hates the other.
JiangxiDad on July 8, 2008 at 4:27 PM
And the stench fills the air, right on cue!
Gilda on July 8, 2008 at 4:33 PM
The thing that makes Buchanan so dangerous is that he is actually rather an affable guy. However he is no historian.
Hilts on July 8, 2008 at 4:34 PM
I reallyu prefer to ignore you but this one last time - yes. Think Norman Finkelstein and the staff of Haaretz.
Hilts on July 8, 2008 at 4:35 PM
LOL
JiangxiDad on July 8, 2008 at 4:36 PM
I was making the same joke.
flenser on July 8, 2008 at 4:38 PM
JiangxiDad on July 8, 2008 at 4:36 PM
Noam Chomsky.
Hilts on July 8, 2008 at 4:39 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2] 3 »