Kinsolving's evolving Castro endorsement falsehood
SUMMARY: In a WorldNetDaily.com
"exclusive commentary," Les Kinsolving defended his false assertion
that Fidel Castro
"endorse[d]" a
potential presidential
ticket consisting of
Democratic candidates
Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama by pointing out that "endorse" can also mean
"[t]o give approval to; support; [and] sanction." In fact, while Castro described a potential
Clinton-Obama presidential ticket as "seemingly invincible," he also attributed to Clinton and Obama a pro-democratic view that
he called an "error" and wrote of them: "They are not making politics: they are
playing a game of cards on a Sunday afternoon."
In a September 5 "exclusive commentary," conservative radio host and WorldNetDaily.com White House correspondent Les Kinsolving defended his false assertion during an August 30 White House briefing that Cuban dictator Fidel Castro "endorse[d]" a potential presidential ticket consisting of Democratic candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. Kinsolving claimed that both MSNBC host Keith Olbermann and Media Matters for America made a "semantic mistake" in saying that Castro did not endorse Clinton and Obama because, according to Webster's New World Dictionary, "endorse" can also mean "[t]o give approval to; support; [and] sanction," in addition to meaning "to endorse a candidate." Kinsolving then asserted that Castro "surely did fulfill more than one of those dictionary definitions of the word 'endorse' since he undeniably 'gave approval to' and 'support' as well as 'sanction' " [emphasis in original].
As Media Matters has documented, Castro described a potential Clinton-Obama presidential ticket as "seemingly invincible" in an August 28 column in the Cuban newspaper Granma. But rather than "giv[ing] approval to," "support[ing]," or "sanction[ing]" Clinton and Obama, Castro attributed to Clinton and Obama a pro-democratic view that he called an "error," and he said of Clinton and Obama, "They are not making politics: they are playing a game of cards on a Sunday afternoon."
From the August 30 press briefing transcript:
Q: Okay. Reuters reports from Harvard that Fidel Castro has just described Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as "an apparently unbeatable ticket." But the Reuters report did not mention either of these two U.S. Senators repudiating this endorsement. And my question: Does the leader of the Republican Party believe that Clinton and Obama should repudiate this dictator's endorsement or not?
MR. SNOW: I think it is safe to say that Fidel Castro is not an expert on the workings of an active democracy.
In his "exclusive commentary," Kinsolving noted that on the September 4 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, Olbermann awarded him the "bronze" in his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment. During the segment, Olbermann said of Castro's column: "It was about as much of an endorsement, Les, as if you wrote that Castro would still be the Cuban dictator tomorrow. Only Castro apparently has readers." Kinsolving asserted that Olbermann had turned his statement "into a semantic argument" and claimed that he used "endorse" to connote "sanction" and "support," not to mean that he had endorsed Clinton or Obama as candidates. From the article:
In other words (of Olbermann on MSNBC), Castro's written statement that Senators Clinton and Obama are "an apparently unbeatable ticket" is no endorsement at all, no endorsement whatsoever, no endorsement in any way.
This, therefore, has been turned by Olbermann into a semantic argument.
How does "Webster's New World Dictionary" define the word "endorse"?
Several ways -- beginning with what is done on the back of a check -- then:
2. To write a note, title etc. on (a document);
3. To give approval to; support; sanction; to endorse a candidate.
In other words, there are six different definitions of the word "endorse" before the dictionary mentions any endorsement of a political candidate.
Fidel Castro -- as neither a Democrat, nor a Republican -- and surely not a U.S. citizen but a Cuban communist -- surely did fulfill more than one of those dictionary definitions of the word "endorse" since he undeniably "gave approval to" and "support" as well as "sanction."
I will surely not denounce Olbermann as being one of the World's Worst People for this spectacular blunder. I would merely suggest that his comedy writers need, seriously, to recruit either a semanticist -- or at least someone who is more familiar with the dictionary than Mr. Olbermann is.
Kinsolving: Here's a definition of "endorse" that in no way supports my position.
So true really.
Last I knew, Castro didn't get to vote in our elections, and what was the context of the article that he wrote? Was he just waxing nostalgic about what, or who he thought would be the next US President? It does sort of concern him, being that we have a bunch of "terrorists" stashed on his island, not to mention a bunch of Marines with lots of weapons and ships, and things like that parked on his island as well. And then the whole silly embargo thing.
Castro is no friend of mine. I would like to smoke some Cubans though.
Ask yourself this:
What has Castro ever done to the US that has impacted you, me, and just about anyone else that lives in the US?
Sure there is a very loud and proud group of Cuban immigrants living in Florida who hate the guy, and frankly, they probably have a pretty good gripe with the guy and what he's done over the years, but those folks are a very small percentage of people in the country as a whole.
I ask, why is he no friend of yours? What has he tried to do to the country of the US in recent years (post missile crisis and even then that ended up being "disarmed")?
>>Sure there is a very loud and proud group of Cuban immigrants living in Florida who hate the guy, and frankly, they probably have a pretty good gripe
I believe that most of the angry Cubans are former plantation owners or the descendants of plantation owners. They are angry because Castro seized their plantations and redistributed the land. Castro is a dictator with a bad human rights record, but the Cuban immigrants have never acknowledged the massive injustice which they benefited from, and which caused most Cubans to live in utter poverty. Many of them want to return to their former way of life as plantation owners.
That might be true, might not be. I don't know for sure. But it sure does seem like a lot of the Cubans who are MOST angry at Fidel are the rich ones living in South Beach. Again, I could be wrong, but the ones that I've run into have been, well, extremely wealthy, and not work your way up from the bottom wealthy, but old money wealthy. So what you say does make some sense. I just don't know the truth behind it.
I'm not saying Castro is some benevolent dictator, he has done some horrible things. But if we used that as a benchmark as to who we, the United States, does business with in this world, we wouldn't have China, Russia, Vietnam, Cambodia, South Africa, etc. etc.. I mean, our own human rights record has been taking a hit lately over the last, oh, 6 years or so, due to torture, holding people prisoner incommunicado, and other sundry items that the US has done (trampling on the Constitution, and Geneva Conventions, you know, things like that). I'm pretty certain that we've killed off more innocent Iraqis and Afghanis than Castro ever did his own people.
Actually, Castro probably is somewhat of a benevolent dictator! Or at least he was very, very popular when he took over and remained so for years, and was able to give Cubans a standard of living much higher than any other country that size with that amount of wealth in that part of the world. But of course, there is no such thing as a completely benevolent dictator. I would not like to live in Cuba, true.
But I completely agree with your post. Our policy against Cuba is ludicrous, inconsistent, and counter-productive for exactly the reasons you point out.
Kinsolving's argument is hilarious. If I lament that it is inevitable that Castro will win any election in Cuba, I am not giving him approval, support, or sanction. So it is when Castro says Clinton and Obama are "seemingly invincible." Castro's statement clearly was a lament since he went on to criticize them for "demanding 'a democracic government in Cuba'" [scare quotes in original] and for wasting time by "playing a game of cards."
One Hundred Percent Correct. The Cuban-Americans of Miami who have spent fifty years bitching about Castro "enslaving" the island of Cuba wax poetic about the "good old days" when the island was enslaved by Batista and US Oil and Sugar Companies. These selfish idiots had no problem with Batista and his Capitalist enablers starving people to death in dungeons, denying them basic healthcare and education opportunities, as long as the Casinos and hotels stayed open. I say to hell with these losers in Miami- let them pine away for a Cuba that is thankfully no more. I just wish they would fade away in terms of political power so we could end this moronic, pointless embargo. We trade with China, we trade with Russia- and we treat Cuba like a pariah- it's beyond stupid and shortsighted.
What has Castro ever done to the US that has impacted you, me, and just about anyone else that lives in the US?
Ask a Canadian what some of their favorite vacation destinations are, and Cuba will be on the list. Canadians laugh at us when they find out US citizens can't travel there because of OUR government's laws.
Norotor, you might try a Miami public restroom. ;0)
You mean smoke Cuban *cigars!* Your post was really ambiguous, as smoking a human being can mean a lot of things.
Me, too, though--I would love some Cuban Cigars. My friends smuggled one home from a vacation in the Bahmas, but it was already a little dry, and I just left it in my defunct humidor, where it sits to this day. A shame, really, but I don't think it would have been very good in the condition it was delivered to me.
Again ... If you're commenting here, have you clicked on the link above and read what Castro actually said?
Castro did not endorse either candidate, he INSULTED them.
Castro referred to the probability of the Clinton-Obama ticket winningthe elections; not about who he liked best among all candidates. Being invincible has nothing to do with being good or bad.
Perhaps John Torres is right - Les Kinsolving may be too old to be taken seriously....
:-)
I do not know much about Kinsolving, but good for him to stand up to Olbermann. Other than Mark Levin no other media type counters the hate that comes out of MSNBC between 8-9 , they ignore it. Hate is bad on all sides and when haters on the left are allowed to get way with it , it is as bad as what happens at FOX. Les you may or may not have mean "endorse" but you have my respect.
What in Olberman's tirade was hateful? Because he used Les' own words against him and his entire argument is out of line? Calling someone out on their BS is not being hateful, it's telling truth to the issues in some cases.
Calling someone the "Worst Person in the World" is hateful.
Oh, please! He gives this award to a different person every night. That means there must be a worst person every day. Obviously, the award is tongue in cheek. Olberman exposes some awful, hypocritical behaviour of people in the media.
A person in China was called "worst person in the World" yesterday, he is in the media? A Republican Congressman was called WPITW, he is in the media?
What are you talking about? Both figures I assume are in the media (the media is covering them), or how else would Olberman know about them?
Don't look now....but the "Worst Person In the World" segment is what is known in the business as "satire".
And as Martin Mull once said, satire is wasted on the stupid.
Yes, and the facts have a Liberal bias.
Because liberals speak the truth, and conservatives lie.
So if Olbermann called his segment something other than the "Worst Person in the World" you'd have no problem with the guy? That is the "hate" you're talking about?
Calling someone the "Worst Person in the World" is hateful.
You have a very odd definition of "hate". And kind of a peculiar obsession with what you call hate, too.
You are so stuck on this its ludicrous. It is satirical. Most of the awards are given to people who make over the top rhetorical attacks on people. THAT is why he gave the award an over the top rhetorical name. Its just dumb to pretend he is actually saying these are the worst people in the world.
Congratulations, Sueeld, for earning the dumbest post of the day award.
You basically said that you don't know whether Kinsolving is right or not...but you are with him!
No I said I do not know much about him, but I am with him on his combating the hate of Olbermann. Thanks for putting words in my mouth though.
You said, "Les you may or may not have mean "endorse" but you have my respect."
This article is about whether Castro endorsed Clinton and Obama, and you are not even sure of what to conclude.
If you are not sure about the truthfulness of his assertion that Castro "endorsed" Clinton and Obama, why do you support this dubious claim being used against Olbermann?
What does having his respect have to do with agreeing or disagreeing with him?
I never heard of him , he is wrong if he meantt Castro is "endorsing" Hillary but my issue was with the later part of the thread in refrence to Olbermann.
As I said sunshine, keep puttting words in my mouth. You can do that with some people on here but I will not allow anyone to define me.
Truthseeker is right. Why would you applaud Kinglosver for standing up to Olberman if Kinglover is wrong? That's a foolish position to take.
Why is it foolish? Because I can look at things in 2 different ways? Everything for you is black and white? Or I should say Olbermann says he is the "Worst Person in the World" So it must be true. People like you are turning into sheep. Just like the Rushbots. Sad.
Rant much? I am turning into a Rushbot because I show the inconsistency of your logic?
For the record, I watched Olberman's tirade against Bush the other night, and like many of Olberman's special comments, it went on way too long, was melodramatic, and somewhat silly.
For the record, I had no problem with his tirade toward Bush. It is the hateful attacks toward other medi atypes which send a signal that it is ok to engage in hate and hurt our nation that I have issues with.
Hateful? Aren't you being a little melodramatic?People have already addressed this issue with you ---------> satire. I find it interesting that you get bent out of shape about KO's "hateful" rant, yet you seem to have no problem with some one that is either a liar or a journalistic hack.
Sueeld, I Hate to do this but I'm afraid I have to nominate you for WPITW (Weakest Poster In This Whole thread).
Go ahead and call me a hater as I've already admitted to it. Besides I'm "seemingly invincible" to criticism.
As I said sunshine, keep puttting words in my mouth. You can do that with some people on here but I will not allow anyone to define me.
I'm pretty sure you were just yesterday calling someone hateful for name-calling. Wanna retract your bit of condescension?
Looks to me like you are admitting "endorse" was not the correct word.
Lester, you may or may not be telling the truth, but then again, the message got out and some ppl are pleased.
I do think that, for credibility issues, some of the right-wing talking heads should take on Olbermann more directly...he assails them almost daily and they have little response.
I would LOVE to see someone from right wing radio come on Olberman's show and try to debate him fair and square on his assertions, heck, make it a neutral site for that matter so nobody has the upper hand to "cut off the mic" so to speak. I'm willing to bet that Olberman could wipe the floor with those guys in a neutral debate scenario, mostly because he just seems a lot smarter, and better informed with you know, facts, than the right wing bloviators who repeat talking points day in, and day out.
I think that he would trouble the majority of the conservative talkers with his debating skills..especially the ones like Hannity who don't always sound like they completely believe what they're saying. Debating Rush would probably be a stalemate
Debating Rush would probably be a stalemate
More like a bloodbath. You don't recall when he hosted for Pat Sajaks a long time ago, and by the second commercial break, they had to remove the studio audience?
Rush is unable to face anyone with a different opinion than his, much less debate them.
I think that he would trouble the majority of the conservative talkers with his debating skills..especially the ones like Hannity who don't always sound like they completely believe what they're saying. Debating Rush would probably be a stalemate because
I think that he would trouble the majority of the conservative talkers with his debating skills..especially the ones like Hannity who don't always sound like they completely believe what they're saying. Debating Rush would probably be a stalemate because Rush
I think he would beat Rush down in a debate very easily. When, if ever, has Rush ever had someone worthy to oppose his viewpoint? Never. The man has never really been challenged, but that's his whole schtick, it is HIS show after all, and can basically do what he wants. I think confronted with someone who is smarter (Olberman, I think) he would shrivel up and blow away. I don't think Rush could hold his own at all against Olberman. Or, heck Franken for that matter. That might be the one to watch. Franken VS Rush Limbaugh. I'd pay money to see Franken make Rush cry.
I thought "Groundhog Day" was only a movie! :)
Actually, KO is too afraid to ask any real conservative to appear on his show.
I'm sure you'll be along never to post a link backing up that horsesh*t.
Don't hold your breath Marv.
According to YOU. Perhaps conservatives are too afraid to come on his show and be shown up. Then again considering your pattern of delusions and ludicrous baseless assertions I shouldnt have expected anything else.
I wish they would , because this hatefest opens up a new can of worms in 2009 if Hillary becomes President.
You don't really think the Flying Monkeys need an excuse, do you? If Hillary wins, the sh*tstorm will begin the day after the election.
Hasn't it already started? We have the umpteen books that have come out since Hillary said she was running for President that basically re-assert (with different words) all of the old arguments that she is "evil" from when Bill was President, and then re-hash more old stories, and talk about how she wants to change the US into a socialist nation, and all of that other BS that they've all been touting since she announced, and well, even before then.
Hillary is a favorite target for the right wingers, but they can't tell you WHY they hate her so much. I've asked people I work with why they hate her so much, and the best that they can come up with is that she's a "bi***". That's it. That's their entire argument against her.
Well, you have a point...it has already started. However, they have to divide their efforts between Hillary and Obama right now (they've written off Edwards). Just imagine how intense it will become if she's all they have to focus on.
How can they argue with the truth? Which is what Olberman points out? He doesn't make things up about the righties - he simply shines some light on their hateful words.
Exactly. The difference between Olbermann and his counterparts on the Right is that Olbermann doesn't lie for a living.
"Other than Mark Levin no other media type counters the hate that comes out of MSNBC between 8-9"
Other than Olbermann, no other media type counters the (real) right-wing hate that comes from... just about everywhere.
Really? So the ends justify the means?
Nice
Drama Queen
Drama Queen
That post is unfair to Drama Queens everywhere.
:-)
Keith Olberman is not hateful - he merely points out the hatred expressed by the dunderheads on the right. Mark Levin is the adult equivalent of that obnoxious kid we all knew in junior high - the loud-mouth who always came up with stupid nicknames for people. It's funny (and a bit pathetic) to hear Levin refer to Olberman as "Keith Overbite" - his choppers look fine to me.
Sueeld, your position continues to be aburd. For you hate is like someones deffinition of porn. He couldn't desribe it but he knew it when he saw it. He was ignorant as are you.
Please do not go into your usual attack the messanger mode. Ignorance can be cured.
You do not understand what hate is and how it is destroying our nation.
If you really believe that, you're preaching to the wrong crowd. Start with the professional liars like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, etc. They've raised hateful rhetoric to an art form.
And, trust me...being "nice" to them only makes it worse.
I understand a lack of Democratic gut to take it back to the neocons on any controversial issue. Yes I do have knowledge of anger and its effect on our society. Like you I understand its corrosive effects. Walter Mitty won't cut it. Being shy about your principals and beliefs dosn't make it either, you just get walked over. I read Obermann's transcript and thought it was wonderful, talking to power. If there's some bad feelings, they're honest and controled.
Please do not go into your usual attack the messanger mode. Ignorance can be cured.
But not in the case of people like Sueeld, who have overdosed on the Kool-Aid.
What koolaid? Or did OReilly give you that line?
See? You've drunk so much of it, you don't know what it is.
The term "Kool-Aid" goes back to the Jonestown Mass Suicide in 1979. Long before Bill O'Reilly bacame a raving lunatic. Once again, you display your ignorance for all the world to see, Sueeld.
Sorry, WZ...we posted at the same time.
Just goes to show that great minds think alike....
:-)
WZ , I know about Jonestown, get off your high horse. Again engaging in personal attacks, I just assumed you were 12 and not around when Jones killed those people and Congressman Ryan , should I go on?
Once again, you prove you don't know what yoou're talking about. When the folks in Jonestown drank the Kool-Aid, I was 26 years old, the father of two, and six years out of tech school.
For the record, I was born in November of 1952, which makes me 54 today. I've been a registered Democrat since 1972, when I cast my first vote ever for George McGovern.
For the record, I was born in November of 1952, which makes me 54 today. I've been a registered Democrat since 1972, when I cast my first vote ever for George McGovern
Too bad you act like a 12 year old with your personal attacks and insults.
One thing I will agree with you was McGovern. Great man.
Asinine comments like yours deserve nothing more than insults.
That is your choice. Let the hate continue.
I don't hate you, Sueeld. I just feel sorry for you, going through life proving your ignorance.
The writing is weaker, but the style is definitely Tommy-esque.
Actually...the Koolaid metaphor originated with Rush Limbaugh, back when he assumed that Bill Clinton was going to lose. He said that the Democrats were "passing out the Koolaid". Back then it was a sick reference to the Jonestown mass suicide.
It has since evolved to suggest brainwashing in general. Just thought you'd like to know.
I never liked the Koolaid joke, those poor people were killed by that maniac and today we use it as it were a funny event.
Thank your fellow numbskulls on the right for perpetuating it.
And you are proving how ignorant you are , as I am not a "right winger". Just because I do not like hate from the left does not mean I am a "right winger" I am a registered Democratic voter planning to vote for Obama.
Then start acting like one.
I always thought it was a refferrence to the 60's electric koolaid. Sueeld dosn't seem that far gone to me. For an example, fictional but very good, of a character continuously controlling his anger, try Terry Prachett's The Night Watch. Sam Vimes faces down an angery mob armed with a cigar and a cup of cocco.
Sueeld, don't you find it ironic that not even Kinsolving accused Olbermann of hatred? The only thing Kinsolving used against Olberman was the claim that Keith was wrong about the semantics of the word "endorse".
Perhaps Sueeld should quit while he's behind....
Back to the original story...Like I've said before, this is a manufactured "outrage" intended for consumption by the GOP base. The people perpetuating it know that it's bullsh*t, but that never stopped them before.
The play-book some of these guys are working from, has some really old plays in it; stuff that worked a little, about fifty years ago; but now, those plays just demonstrate how behind the times, are those guys who are calling them.
Fidel Castro?
What year is it now, 1959?
Not long ago, the geniuses of the GOP were signalling their brilliant strategies for '08, on their broadcast arm Fox News Channel...
They were going to go after Sen. Clinton with both barrels!
No holds barred, take the gloves off, and Katy bar the door!
With a merciless aim at the Senator's two glaring weaknesses, they attacked her on those weaknesses that would bring her down quick!
1. She's a woman
2. She's the wife of former President Bill Clinton
They ripped into both of those weaknesses with the glee of a shark, let loose in a kiddie pool...
...her hair, her clothes, she's fickle, she's a bitch, she's a woman!
...she's a Clinton, you know, a CLINTON, she's married to Bill!
And those geniuses at the GOP and Fox, they ripped away at her for being a woman and being former President Clinton's wife!
And then the numbers started rolling in... the updates and the new revisions for their play-book, started rolling in...
It wasn't working very well.
The American People figure a woman is OK in matters of National Policy (can they be any worse than most of the men on that stage?)... women Senators and women Representatives and women Governors: it seems there are enough of them, to conclude that women in politics are OK with the American People.
As for President Bill Clinton?
The man had extraordinary popularity, with the American People and world-wide, even when he was still in Office...
...and with each and every day of an administration of George W. Bush, Mr. Clinton grows more fond with, and more well-thought of, and more competent, and with more integrity with those American People, each and every day of George W. Bush...
So much so as to say, that the American People presently long for the days of William Jefferson Clinton as their President.
The geniuses at the GOP and Fox, they got the memo; a little late, but they got it... they took a break from trying to bash the Senator from New York for being a woman, and for being Mrs. Clinton.
They updated their old play-book, just a little.
But only a little.
Fidel Castro?
You think the American People hate Fidel Castro?
Why?
What the frig year do you think this is anyway, 1959?
I only just now saw, on the MMFA front page, a picture of the guy who's trying to smear somebody as being an FOF (Friend Of Fidel's):
He look's like he's 80 years old; if he's only seventy, then he looks old for his age.
No wonder he figures he can sink a Democrat's ship, by hurling the rock CASTRO at it...
I guess he's one of those guys living in a long ago past, when he was young; back when television was black and white (back when television was good!), and when kids didn't mouth off to their elders (especially on television!).
And oh yeah, back when Fidel Castro was some kind of demon.
Those were the days, the good old days.
"And I'm still mighty ticked off about that Bay of Pigs thing, you know!
I mean, you just wait, the game isn't over until the beard has been brought to his knees!
We're gonna saddle up again, and do it right this time!
We're gonna get Cuba back you know!
And we aint gonna let any "Castro lovers" stop us either, you know...
We're turning back the clock, to better days, when Fidel was the devil, and Goldwater was our hero...
And television was black and white, and not a one of Ozzie and Harriet's kids talked back to them: Not One!
Those were the days, I'll tell ya..."
Don't forget one of their favorite plays of all time. One word will tell you all you need to know.
Chappaquidick.
Anytime Ted Kennedy starts saying something, they roll that one out and start trying to beat him over the head with it, again, and again, and again. Of course, they don't answer to what he's saying, just Chappaquidick.
The other thing that gets me is this. The other day, I'm listening to a local talk radio show. They have this arsehat on who goes on FoxNews all of the time, and considers himself some sort of expert on economy and being a small business owner. He states categorically that if a democrat is elected President, the economy is going to get flushed down the toilet, and we'll lose jobs left and right. Now, what does he think has been happening since January of 2001? Apparently, he forgot that the last time a democrat was President, we had unprecedented levels of prosperity in this country, the national budget was balanced, we had a large surplus in the national coffers, and we were at peace as a nation, and enjoyed great popularity around the world. Those were such "bad" times, I can't imagine why anyone would want to go back to something like that. And Hillary, even though she's not my favorite, did have a pretty good vantage point of that whole business when it was going on, and if she is elected President, let's just say she'll have one of the best advisors on her side from day one, her husband, who spent 8 years in the same office, and did a pretty decent job of it after all. Not to mention, she'll probably get some help from George HW Bush, as he and Bill C seem to be pretty chummy these days. Sort of like the son that GHW never had, or wished that he had.
Could it be that the deep pocket GOP sugardaddies are a little worried about things like National Healthcare because it will end the gravy train for some of them? They might have to squeak by with only 3 summer homes instead of 5.
Tough times ahead, indeed.
"...and if she is elected President, let's just say she'll have one of the best advisors on her side from day one, her husband, who spent 8 years in the same office, and did a pretty decent job of it after all."
To say that our next president should be chosen by us, on the basis of "merit", is an understatement.
A "merit-based" choice, as opposed to someone we'd choose for other reasons, such as "because they share our Values, and our Faith, and our Homophobia and Xenophobia and other Phobias"...
Or "because they look like a male model in a Sears catalogue"...
Or "because they're Charismatic, and Electric, and have the Audacity of Hope"...
Screw all that stupid dreamy jug-headed noise this time... it's all about the Department of Defense, and tearing that department away from the corrupt influence of the Defense Contractors who have hijacked it from us...
It's all about fixing a critically short and 'broken' U.S. Army...
It's all about a Department of Justice that has been privatized into something like a Texas-GOP 'mafia'...
It's about the CIA, and Iraq... always Iraq!
These are crushing responsibilities for our next President, and you can bet that he/she will be fought tooth and nail all the way, in their efforts to right those departments and agencies.
It's going to take more than Values and Faith and Hope to get the job done (to even survive trying!)...
It's going to take Experience.
That's the "merit": Experience.
That's what we need from our next President, as much Experience of the operations and problems of the DOD, and the DOJ, and the Joint Chiefs, and the U.S. Army, and the CIA...
...and Iraq, always Iraq!
My choice of the person with the most Merit in these matters, is Gen. Wesley Clark.
But if he were to give up the First Chair in this class (he's one of those First Chair Soldiers, you know), and sit in the Second, that'd be OK too with me... if he gave up that First Chair to someone he could work with, a lady even, that'd be fine with me... as long as he's on the ticket, at the top or as the VP, either way.
And if Gen. Clark weren't on the ticket, then he'd have to be the Secretary of the Department of Defense, because that's how much the DOD and the U.S. Army and Iraq need fixing:
It's going to take the Merit of Experience.
Our next President needs as much Experience, with the functions and problems of our Federal Government, as we can find; most notably, Experience with working with the Joint Chiefs...
If you want our Sons and Daughters brought Home alive from Iraq, then we need a President who can work with the Joint Chiefs, to do it.
We need Mr. and Mrs. Clinton as our next Presidents, and General Wesley Clark as our next Vice President.
It's that serious... it's going to take that kind of Experience.
So once again MMFA is completely rattled by 80-year-old media dinosaur Kinsolver's pronouncements on current events.
As an aside, I checked out the ratings for Olbermann's rant-fest ("Countdown") and it turns out that on the dates in August when Michelle Malkin guest hosted for Bill O, The FACTOR still kicked KO's butt!
Imagine that - ranter KO kicked and humiliated by MM!!!!
I can only say how sssssswwwwwwwwwwweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeettttttttt is is!
August is the month that people watch TV the least - they're either doing things outdoors or away on vacation. So that proves nothing.
What is it with all these keyboard machos? "kick butt" etc as if these words mean anything. (Bush just used this phrase)
I've noticed that many people who have been in actual combat would not think of using these phrases.
I find it sad that so many people would watch O'Reilly. Hopefully some of them are looking for satire material.
MMFA wets themselves because an 80-year-old dinosaur spouts some opinion they don't like.
Imagine if Tucker Carlson said "boo" to MMFA...man oh man, they would soil their pants cry like little babies.
Is the Viagra not working tonight? Is that why you're here trying in vain to prove your a man?
Time to give up pretending you are a real man and come on out of the closet. Your worthless and pathetic posts are embarassing. You are bone ignorant and completely incapable of either higher brain function OR making a cogent argument. Give up and go play with the other special children.
The "special children" won't play with John Torres - they find his remarks inane and beneath them....
:-)
KO pointed out that Countdown beat O'Reilly in the money demo two weeks ago.
I think it's impressive that a relative newcomer like Olbermann can make so much ground on an entrenched program beloved by so many 80 year old toothless bigoted hawks.
Oh, let us know when O'Reilly gets a gig doing Monday Night Football.
Once again you make a meaningless and 100% content free post. Congratulations you are completely worthless
Completely rattled? Hardly.
Malkin had higher ratings than Olbermann? Next you are going to have to explain the significance of American Idol having more viewers than Masterpiece Theater.
Mr. Kinsolving spoke at the school I teach on a few occasions, and it didn't take long for even our 14 to 15 year olds to realize that he was, to put it kindly, desperately in need of attention. They pretty much laughed at the fervency of his "schtick." Hard to believe he has any kind of audience that takes him seriously.
Heck, Castro might ultimately favor Hillary over another Repugnant malefactor. Any creature of sapience would certainly do so, with Earth in the balance.
This is just more of the same tired old GOP tactic of associating Democrats with widely unpopular figures. You know how it goes already: "Clinton/Obama sounds just like Bin Laden, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, etc...". It's a one-size-fits-all rhetorical device, meaning you don't have to make any intellectual effort to frame an argument. The sole purpose is to make those who already agree with you think, "You know what, they DO sound like Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, etc.". This stuff is strictly for Coulter fans.
Commentator quite weird is old Lester
All the White House Press secs he does pester
His odd little drama
Links Fidel to Obama
So the guilt for his lie will now fester.