comment #1

christian says ...

poor hillary.

just when the republicans and the media had annointed her as the one...

comment #2

D.Z. says ...

I'm an Obama man myself, but that's just lazy editing. Incidentally, the candiates are now putting up MySpace pages.

comment #3

Nan says ...

This hurts Obama more than it hurts Senator Clinton.

Obama is a fraud. He is marketing himself as a Messiah, a different kind of politicians who will "change the tone in Washington"? Sounds familiar? Bush said the same thing in 2000 and he too was a fraud.

Obama has been pretending to be "above politics" while using his thugs to run a smear campaign against his opponents.

Obama is not going to be president.

comment #4

travis b says ...

I'm not sold on any of the candidates at this point, but do you have any proof of what you say, Nan?

comment #5

D.Z. says ...

Nan: Bush was always a fraud. Anyone who read about his days dodging the draft while snorting coke and drinking and driving would know that. But because he didn't get a blowjob from his intern, he had "principle".

comment #6

Mike Schaefer says ...

Sure seems to me like a Republican attempt to attack Hilary and blame Obama's supporters for the attack. Or else someone with no particular affiliation just trying to show how clever they are.

comment #7

jeffmcm says ...

I don't see how Obama could be considered liberal enough for you, D.Z. Why not Kucinich?

comment #8

rocco says ...

This comment is directed at party fidelity and has nothing to do with right-left politics...if you choose to interpret it that way, well then, that's just like, your opinion, man...

Amazing that Democrats are so quick to line up and trash someone who may eventually be their presidential nominee... Disparage, denigrate and tear down Hilary now, then when (if) she takes the nomination, stand there in lockstep with a straight face telling us how wonderful she is and how it is our civic duty to vote for her...gag.

Dems have the election on a silver platter, but it seems they just can't resist the petty acrimony and infighting that not only has undermined the party for a decade but will alienate or disgust swing-voters enough to keep the GOP in contention.

Say what you will about republicans, you don't see these kind of ugly shenanigans...they seem to have the sense to maintain an appearance of solidarity (even if that means supporting disagreeable positions).

R's have done nothing to warrant consideration for running the country '09-'12, yet the Barack and Hillary camps seem perfectly happy and willing to grant them legitimacy.

comment #9

SpinDozer says ...

Say what you will about republicans, you don't see these kind of ugly shenanigans...they seem to have the sense to maintain an appearance of solidarity (even if that means supporting disagreeable positions).

Free Clue: "Bush allies described McCain as “pro-abortion” and “the fag candidate” (because McCain was the only Republican presidential candidate to meet with the gay Republican men’s group, Log Cabin Republicans). One particularly offensive missive distributed via the Internet and to the press was from the Christian Fundamentalist Bob Jones University, where Bush had staked his Christian conservative claim one day after the NH Primary. A professor named Richard Hand wrote that McCain “chose to sire children without marriage,” among other hallucinations."

comment #10

rocco says ...

Oh boy...

...Spin, let me politely point out that you are presenting facts from eight years ago that bear no relevance to my point about the current state of affairs...

comment #11

travis b says ...

good point delbomber...but it may also be because the media seems so focused on the obama/clinton battle that it allows the republicans to seem united despite three candidates in the ring. already i've seen reports of giuliani's business ties with hugo chavez...i'm sure with time there will be more ugliness going on within the republican campaigns.

comment #12

SpinDozer says ...

Matter of time and percieved advantage as Travis has pointed out.

comment #13

rocco says ...

Travis...sounds reasonable...no doubt the republican candidates will have to look to separate from one another at some point and will wind up throwing a few eggs...of course by that time the dems will have overturned the whole damn hen house.

comment #14

RoyBatty says ...

delbomber - you might want to do a little reading about the 2000 Republican campaign in South Carolina with Bush operatives going all out against McCain before you make a fool of yourself. That happens to be the last time Republicans went head to head for the Presidency... and it was 7 years ago.

And I lost all respect for McCain when he didn't have the balls to call Bush on it.

As for this ad, I see it as a great comeback to the media and others who kept trying to shove Hillary down our throats.

comment #15

rocco says ...

Roy...AGAIN, I'm talking about the CURRENT facade of the republican party...you were saying something about someone making a fool of himself?

Christ, the entire comment related to current headlines and HILLARY as a candidate, yet in a fury to retort, this context was completely lost or ignored...

...sigh...

comment #16

RoyBatty says ...

Sorry, but nowhere in your post does it say "current." In fact, you mention "decade" and, let's see, if you subtract 2000 from 2007...

Considering the slime from the 2004 election, it will be interesting to see what the GOPers do to each other in the primaries trying to lump each other with either Clinton or Obama.

comment #17

rocco says ...

The whole comment is present-tense, save for one characteristic description of the democratic party...

...these distracting little side-arguments are wholly exasperating...

...please, feel free to insert whatever words you feel necessary to intepret my comment as being a discussion about current repub. pretenses, and the point holds true...

comment #18

SpinDozer says ...

"Christ, the entire comment related to current headlines and HILLARY as a candidate, yet in a fury to retort, this context was completely lost or ignored..."

D-Bomb, no one is 'in a fury to retort'. You posted to observe that the two current front-runners were creating a window of opportunity and that with the GOP "you don't see these kind of ugly shenanigans...they seem to have the sense to maintain an appearance of solidarity (even if that means supporting disagreeable positions)."

One could interpret that as present tense or (in light of the fact you post about the GOP's God-given superiority anytime the subject comes up) a statement of a permanent advantage. If you think about it though, the last time the white house was up for grabs, the democrats were not anywhere near as antagonistic to each other as the GOP and who ended up with the prize? True, the Democratic candidate cannot reasonably look to the GOP-supreme court to save their cookies, but hopefully you can comprehend the main point.

And tho this is not meant to hurt your feelings, GOP strategy against HC will probably involve type-casting her as a ruthless, power-hungry (what was it Beck the Asshole sed the other nite, oh yeah) Bitch which is not normally a desireable part (whether its true or not- 'nother story) and, I know this will shock the shit outta you, but the GOP may, in fact, be the originators of some of the seemier charges, Obama Hussein went to a Madrassa? Think about it, this is clearly a GOP narrative. Straight out of the Tricky Dick manual, very intelligent as it happens.
WASP democratic attacks will be more like Biden's... look how clean he is, and bright too (for a ...).

comment #19

christian says ...

delbomber, go hit the right wing blogs. they're filled with mcain smears. don't delude yourself. anymore.

comment #20

rocco says ...

Dozer...I'm not trying to turn this into another nasty little scratching session, but there you go trolling and spinning again...you ignore my comments in the 'Time' thread about disowning the Republican party as well as comments I've made in support of Al Gore (you can check in the little log you keep of all my comments)...when I make an objective and entirely emperical comment about dems, you spin it as GOP worshipping...

...I give up...I should know better than to expect thoughtful engagement akin to travis' response...

comment #21

rocco says ...

...blogs christian? blogs?? Corruption? CORRUPTION!?? Sorry, just had a 'Syriana' moment...

...this is about published or spoken comments from the camps or mouths of Obama and Hillary that at this early stage has their opponents, including McCain, sitting back and laughing their fucking asses off...I'm not talking about insignificant blogs or trifling debates such as this...

comment #22

rocco says ...

....sorry, meant to say "including Edwards"....not "including McCain"...

comment #23

travis b says ...

i think the interesting thing here is that this is going on so early in the campaign. this is the kind of advertisement that usually appears in the weeks before an election, not 10 1/2 months before one, which also could mean that it will be forgotten in a few weeks. and all this pointing fingers at the obama camp, how do we know it just wasn't individually done? i could make an ad right now, slap it on youtube consisting of some hastily sewn together clips and bam, new political ad. and, if we want to get really sinister, how do we know that the clinton camp didn't create it to make hillary look innocent in the face of the evil obama campaigners?

but really, in the end, this just adds more smoke and mirrors to an already shady process. and if people would just look beyond the ads (which are nothing more than propaganda) and do some real research, then maybe the right candidate would actually be chosen....

but that's just all wishful thinking on my part.

comment #24

D.Z. says ...

jeff: "I don't see how Obama could be considered liberal enough for you, D.Z. Why not Kucinich?"

Why bother with Kucinich, when I can vote for Nader?

comment #25

jeffmcm says ...

Why vote for Nader when I'm sure Gus Hall will be running? (except he's dead, I think).

comment #26

SpinDozer says ...

"there you go trolling and spinning again...you ignore my comments in the 'Time' thread about disowning the Republican party as well as comments I've made in support of Al Gore (you can check in the little log you keep of all my comments)...when I make an objective and entirely emperical comment about dems, you spin it as GOP worshipping..."

Cry me a river, big man. I don't know about these other posts, where you weren't 100% bootlicker, don't really care. Your comment in this thread wasn't horrible, but you go into instant melt-down if anyone makes an observation that doesn't agree with your own. Look, 3-4 people have interpreted your words to be more than the 'present' tense. That tell you anything? Like maybe there was room for interpretation other than that you intended? You did make a somewhat objective & emperical comment about the democrats, however, other people have also made objective and emperical criticisms of your thesis and you have a hizzy. Is it all about you or could you address the thoughts of others in, as they say, a 'thoughtful engagement'?

Travis, money & the accelerated primary schedule have something to do with it, Tom Vilsack, who should have had a year to secure the delegates in his Home State (fer cryin out loud!) dropped out of the race already. It'll be interesting to see what, if anything happens after super tuesday.

comment #27

SpinDozer says ...

Supposed Democratic attack video sparks WingNut interest. From Media Matters:

Fox News obsesses over anonymous "1984" anti-Clinton attack ad, prompting smears from Coulter
Throughout the day on March 19, Fox News devoted several segments to an anonymously produced video posted on YouTube.com that attacked Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) by altering a famous Apple Computer advertisement. Fox News aired the video in its entirety at least five times and portions of the ad at various other times throughout the day.

The original Apple ad (which aired only once, during the 1984 Super Bowl, to promote the company's new Macintosh computer) was a takeoff on George Orwell's novel 1984, depicting a dystopian future in which a woman hurls a sledgehammer at a large television screen through which a "Big Brother"-like figure is speaking to the hypnotized masses. In the altered version posted on YouTube, the "Big Brother" figure is replaced by Clinton, and the woman hurling the sledgehammer sports a T-shirt bearing a campaign logo for Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and an Apple iPod. At the end of the video, viewers are directed to Obama's campaign website. Though Fox News noted that the source of the attack video is as yet unknown, that did not curb the network's enthusiasm for running it.

Beneath a screen shot from the video of Clinton as "Big Brother," Internet gossip Matt Drudge posted links to the video and a March 17 San Francisco Chronicle article about it on his website, the Drudge Report, on March 19.

On the March 19 edition of The Live Desk, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter called the video "amazingly powerful," and claimed: "I don't know how anyone can vote for a Democrat again after that." Coulter went on to claim that the video "distill[s]" Orwell's novel, and again attacked Democrats, saying: "I don't know how anyone can vote for a Democrat after reading Orwell's 1984."

From the March 19 edition of Fox News 'The Live Desk:

MARTHA MacCALLUM (host): All right, there you have it. It's very interesting. We put it up against the "1984" ad, the Apple ad. It is exactly -- it is the same ad with these video images laid over it. And neither side -- Barack Obama's not taking credit for it, he says we had nothing to do with this ad. Hillary Clinton says we don't know where it came from, obviously, either. What does this say about the power of, you know, people just creating their own campaign ads out there to get in the mix?

COULTER: That is an amazingly powerful ad. I don't know how anyone can vote for a Democrat again after that. Forget Hillary versus Obama. When I wrote High Crimes and Misdemeanors [Regnery, 1998], I got an email from a fan who said, "Great book, but you need to distill it down into a 60-second MTV, you know, video." And that's basically what this ad does for Orwell's 1984. I don't know how anyone can vote for a Democrat after reading Orwell's 1984.

comment #28

rocco says ...

deep breath...

...two people, not four, DJ Dozer...you and then one forty minutes after I clarified the time frame...our discussion ended fairly civilly at 5:50, and I thought I responded pretty calmly to the snide remarks that were made afterward...

My mistake was undermining my point by mentioning Republicans at all. It's like saying "Geronimo" to a trained doberman.

One shouldn't leap from my criticisms of democrats to support for republicans...that's a thoughtless recoil that leads to this ridiculous squabbling, which I of course encourage by responding...

...christian was making a point that there's just as much dischord amongst republican voters...it's a valid point, but I wasn't talking about the general public just yet, nor would I know what goes on at Repub. blogs, as I stopped frequenting them years ago after experiencing the same intolerance for opposing or centrist thought that I find here.

comment #29

jeffmcm says ...

You have to salute Ann Coulter: the woman has huge balls. I personally don't know how anyone can vote for a Republican if they've ever read 1984.

comment #30

lesterg says ...

Mike Schaefer: "Sure seems to me like a Republican attempt to attack Hilary and blame Obama's supporters for the attack. Or else someone with no particular affiliation just trying to show how clever they are"

Agreed, the fact that the rightie press has been harping on it only makes it more suspicious.

comment #31

rocco says ...

jeff...if your point was in reference to the Bush Admin.'s disregard or disdain for some basic civil rights, well, then, I can see your point, although it's a bit exagerated...the true spirit of conservatism is diametrically opposed to such totalitarian policy, unfortunately conservatism is a dying philosophy amongst (R)'s.

On the other hand, too often the term "republican" is used as a slur to identify anyone who doesn't share liberal views...you seem like too smart a guy from your other comments, but for kiddies reading at home, I just want to point out that one can't attach all ills of man to the republicans...ugh, here I am again, in the spirit of objectivity, defending republicans...

...'1984' was a vehement rejection of totalitarianism--as it manifested itself as far-left socialism in places like communist USSR--and a warning to democratic states to avoid the pitfalls of some of its seductive elements...and, of course, communism happens to fall on the left side of the spectrum; this is not meant to impugn democrats or liberals, merely to disassociate conservatives...although you didn't say conservatives, so what the hell am I rambling about...

...well that was a refreshing little jog back to high school social studies ;-)

comment #32

christian says ...

the right wing talking point is to pit obama versus clinton and watch the media sparks fly.

any human in the world could have posted that hillary '84 video but the FOX meme wil be, "when did obama plant attack ad?"

as if he needs to.

repeat after me righties: liberals don't like hillary. she voted for the warm refused to acknowledge her mistake, triangulates on a weekly basis, voted to make flag burning illegal, helped attack kerry with his "botched joke" etc etc etc.

it's only the republicans who dream masochistly at night of another clinton coming back so their party apparatus can do what it does best: smear and destroy.

comment #33

jeffmcm says ...

I know.

comment #34

christian says ...

i mean, "voted for the war" not the "warm" which is another story.

comment #35

SpinDozer says ...

'deep breath...

...two people, not four, DJ Dozer...'

2 people made observations about your post which caused you to respond saying that you were only talking about the current campaign. 2 more posted to say your theory about the GOP not being acrimonious was probably not all that relevant and either subject to change in tactics over time (Travis B...which, incidentally, was my point providing a historical example) or already irrelevant (Christian) due to evidence from right wing blogs. That would be the 3 to 4 I was refering to...but enuff of that, disagree, I don't care. Point is that the candidates (and remember, there is no solid evidence that any particular attack is from Hillary or Obama at this point and could well be GOP) go negative when they percieve it as advantageous. They can certainly be wrong, if you watch the doc 'So Goes The Nation', you can see Paul Begala insist the unwillingness of Kerry to 'alienate the voters' (due to belief that polls said voters don't like negative ads) was a failed strategy. And as previously said, going negative in the primary didn't keep Bush out of the white house, & IMO, his negative was the kind of thing that should have alienated the independents in totality.

You are quite right that true conservatives are a dying breed, but you should stop blaming liberals or people with liberal views for using republican to slur. The republicans have been radicalized since Bush Sr's defeat...read What's The Matter With Kansas, the radicals have taken over the GOP, its a self-inflicted wound. That's why McCain has kissed Falwell's tush, gotta get the extremists out on election day or its over.

comment #36

christian says ...

after BEDTIME FOR GONZO i would say it's over.

comment #37

rocco says ...

You are quite right that true conservatives are a dying breed, but you should stop blaming liberals or people with liberal views for using republican to slur. The republicans have been radicalized since Bush Sr's defeat...read What's The Matter With Kansas, the radicals have taken over the GOP, its a self-inflicted wound. That's why McCain has kissed Falwell's tush, gotta get the extremists out on election day or its over

Very well said. I knew you had it in you...

comment #38

D.Z. says ...

Spin: "The republicans have been radicalized since Bush Sr's defeat..."

Actually, they've been loons even before that.

From http://www.thismodernworld.com/ in response to that TIME Reagan article: The conservative movement of Ronald Reagan was never about fiscal discipline or shrinking the size of the government, but to make sure all that money went to the “right” people. You’d think the fact that the Reagan presidency didn’t actually accomplish the things his acolytes insist he did would be worthy of more than a footnote. The more damning part about the article is the insistence that the actions of Bush and the rest of the GOP leadership over the last six years have somehow been at odds with what the Gipper would have done (WWRD?).

George Bush isn’t some conservative poseur, he’s the proverbial student that’s become the master. On just about every level, George Bush has improved upon Reagan. Bush has presided over political patronage that reaches every level of the government (and even into the realm of war profiteering). The Administration has had deficits that not only dwarf the gargantuan debt of their spiritual leader, but serve as a tribute to their spendthrift leader (”Reagan proved that deficits don’t matter….this is our due.”) And as the ultimate act of one-upsmanship, not only has the President pissed away every penny that comes into the treasury and buried the country under a mountain of red ink, but Bush was able to do so while continuing to cut taxes for the super rich. Beat that, Bonzo!

comment #39

SpinDozer says ...

"Actually, they've been loons even before that."

I am not a Republican fan, but this admininstration along with the Gingrich/Delay-led congress, has taken every reprehensible policy and multiplied it many times. It may not be revolutionary, but the scale of corruption and incompetance is truly awesome, look at the self-perpetuating machines that have been set-up, K-street, destruction of gov't capabilities combined with the rise of contractored services defies belief. It truly does not seem possible that anyone could have accomplished this after Vietnam & Watergate not to mention the New Deal.

comment #40

rocco says ...

...ahh, Reagan...so predictable. Hey, let's rail on Clinton while we're at it.

Yawn.

comment #41

SpinDozer says ...

'...ahh, Reagan...so predictable. Hey, let's rail on Clinton while we're at it.

Yawn.'

Do you have a point?

comment #42

rocco says ...

...it was aimed at Zelter's inane menion of Ronny, relax...

...Reagan has no place in this discussion, and in typical irrelevant fashion, he's brought into any discussion re: american politics to the right of the spectrum...

...your last (TWO!) point(s) were very well stated (even w/ your blanket statement implying any policy enacted by Republicans is inherently reprehensible)...

..i'm not going to discuss Reagan, because lefties have a complex about him perhaps as much as, if not more than, the complex righties have about Clinton, with both sides appearing utterly ignorant given the success of the two men...but would I name either of them godfather to my children?

Bush is NOT a conservative in the classic sense of the word...that's not even challengeable...unfortunately, colloquially, he's redefining the word with his extreme religious and social zeitgeist...HelterZelter would have--amazingly--had a good point going if not for the tired Reagan bashing.

comment #43

SpinDozer says ...

'...implying any policy enacted by Republicans is inherently reprehensible'

Nope, not 'any' policy. Bush/Gingrich/Delay took the reprehensible policies and made them much worse.

Frankly, your comparison of Clinton & Reagan is unwarranted. The GOP'rs hatred of Clinton is pretty much unrelated to actual policy, he didn't really challenge them on policy. They hated him for his ability to remain popular. IMO, Reagan's reputation greatly exceeds actual accomplishments AND the continuation and amplification of some of his policies by Bush & gang will come to be regarded by most historically inclined people as disasterous. Compared to most of today's crop of right wingers, he was charming and, on a personal level, a decent guy. I do not Hate him, but many of his policies were not in the best interest of the country and he legitimized the hatred of Government for a whole generation of extremists>elected Bush jr.

comment #44

christian says ...

i remember reagan's reaction to student protests:

bring in the guard and smoke 'em out. with gunfire.

plus he dismantled a great education system and released thousands of mental patients into the streets of cali, creating a
sub-culture of the sad la street population that you can see today.

oh, and he sold weapons to iranians.

tough to forget all that.

what were we talking about?

comment #45

christian says ...

btw, look at the front pages. it's nixon all over!

comment #46

SpinDozer says ...

look at the front pages. it's nixon all over!

Only moreso...

Heard an interview with Andrew Cockburn, Nixon called Rumsfeld/Cheney the "Haters". Rummy asked Bush Pere for an important diplomatic assignment, Bush sez, 'will never happen'.

comment #47

rocco says ...

Spin...I'm not going to debate Reagan here because his name had no business being mentioned and we have become completely distracted from the original discussion...score one for Helter...

...frankly anything you or I say will do little to dent Reagan's armor-clad legacy...a lot of very smart people have digested a lot of information in both adoration and hatred of his administration, and nothing new is left to be added by the DZ's or christians of the world, or even his apologists, for that matter...but please, try to avoid arguments that rely on clairvoyance like "the continuation and amplification of some of his policies...will come to be regarded by most historically inclined people as disasterous"...it's debate 101 and the hitch in your swing is coming back after batting 1.000 all day...

...and christian, I hate to point out (lest it seem like I'm engaging in a debate), but you can't discuss events as governor in regards to presidential legacy...it's just not kosher.

comment #48

christian says ...

"you can't discuss events as governor in regards to presidential legacy...it's just not kosher."

maybe i didn't get the same book on kosher you did.

a man's past leads to his future and reagan's california legacy was expanded across the country, inc. the firing of qualified pilots, thereby making our skies less safe; the paranoid jingoism; contempt for the environment, etc. plus he was a movie actor. and as the repubs tell us, what the fuck do actors know?

and the history of bush was writ across texas: cronyism, incompetence, cruelty...but the media didn't look.

and now look what we got!

comment #49

rocco says ...

christian, stop...I'm not defending Reagan, I'm pointing out a flaw in your argument...difference...if you want to argue the man's legacy as president with any credibility, don't bring up shit outside the parameters of that condition...

...and it was air-traffic controllers, not pilots...Planes are falling out of the sky!! Air travel is no longer available to the masses!!!...this comment was so funny I had to call a few people over for a chuckle, some of them bigger Reagan-haters than yourself...that sounds like the type of misinformed paranoid argument my 12 year old nephew would bring...hilarious...

...sorry for getting on you, but man that was funny...

comment #50

SpinDozer says ...

'Spin...I'm not going to debate Reagan here because his name had no business being mentioned'

Within the context of previous Republicans are 'Loons', and Reagan being a previous Republican, I thought it relevant to say whatever degree one may think Reagan looney, Bush is much worse.

...frankly anything you or I say will do little "to dent Reagan's armor-clad legacy...a lot of very smart people have digested a lot of information in both adoration and hatred of his administration, and nothing new is left to be added..."

Your knowledge of History, of how it is written, and how it changes over time is a teensey weensey bit flawed.

but please, try to avoid arguments that rely on clairvoyance like "the continuation and amplification of some of his policies...will come to be regarded by most historically inclined people as disasterous"...

The 'IMO' at the beginning of my statement means 'In My Opinion', so not a statement of Fact per se, but a belief that Reagan's reputation is at its apex and has nowhere to go but down is indeed what I expect to happen and that is as far from this particular thread as I wish to get, disagree, but do it some other time.

comment #51

rocco says ...

IMO is unnecessary pretext, although it does soften the ostentiousness of such a statement...everything said here is opinion...it's been twenty years since Reagan, there's no need to look forward...blame Reagan circumstantially for something thirty years later, yet cling to the belief that Clinton ushered in the gilded age in which we live? Mularky...it's simply inconsistent...it would be like blaming FDR for the failings of social security today...

...I'm not taking sides, I'm simply challenging you all to be consistent...

comment #52

SpinDozer says ...

"it's been twenty years since Reagan, there's no need to look forward...blame Reagan circumstantially for something thirty years later"

Do you honestly think that Walter Reed could have happened without the 'privitization' schemes cooked up in Reagan's admin?

"yet cling to the belief that Clinton ushered in the gilded age in which we live?"

This is your fantasy straw man running around in your head, no one here has said Clinton was a great Pres. Sometimes I think the MOVEON people are somewhat Personality cultish, nothing of course like the avg FOXnews viewer, but still ridiculous, then you hear that more money was spent on Whitewater investigations than on 9/11 and you have to wonder if maybe the criticisms of Bubba from the right are just a wee bit over the top.

it would be like blaming FDR for the failings of social security today...

If FDR was responsible for the "failings" of SS today then, yes, he should be criticized. The Fact is he's not.

comment #53

rocco says ...

ah, yes, now we are getting down to ideology...long live free enterprise...

...otherwise, we're on the same page...