« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
"Legendary" GOP Strategist Launches Hillary Namecalling Effort
A couple of days ago, a group called Citizens United Not Timid filed papers with the IRS as a "527" organization. Then we saw that Roger Stone had signed on as the group's "assistant treasurer." Uh oh.
Stone, regular TPM readers know, is a Republican operative who prides himself as something of an elder statesman of GOP dirty tricks. He went to work for Richard Nixon at age nineteen, making him the "youngest Watergate dirty trickster." He continues to idolize the man, even sporting a tattoo of Nixon's face between his shoulder blades. On his website, the StoneZone, he proudly touts Nixon's endorsement of him as "one of the very few excellent political professionals."
His career with the GOP took off from there, leading to spots with Ronald Reagan's campaigns, Bob Dole's presidential campaign, two of Sen. Arlen Specter's (R-PA) campaigns (Specter reportedly counts him as a friend), among others. James Baker tapped him to lead street protests in Florida to shut down the recount in 2000. Most recently, he was hired by New York Republicans for their battle with Gov. Elliot Spitzer (D), a gig that exploded when he was accused of making a threatening phone call to Spitzer's 83 year-old father (Stone denied it).
So what's Stone up to? Fortunately, he laid the whole scheme out to The Weekly Standard.
It's this simple: it's all about the group's acronym, which, used in conjunction with Hillary Clinton, is supposed to be irresistibly humorous. That is the beginning and the end of it. The group will not be running ads in any form and will not be making any robocalls. They'll be making T-shirts. That's it. You can buy them for $25 on their website:
In addition to this website being blast-emailed to hundreds of thousands of addresses that Stone and [another GOP operative] have accumulated over the years (working off over 170 different email lists of everyone from opinion-makers to political activists to industry associations), Stone is counting on T-shirt sales to further serve as "billboard education." He figures the whole thing will end up taking on a viral nature, thanks to the yuks factor...."The more people go to the site, the more people buy the T-shirts," Stone explains.... "The more people buy the T-shirts, the more people wear the T-shirts. The more people wear the T-shirts, the more people are educated. Consequently, our mission has been achieved." Though neither the word itself nor even the acronym is ever mentioned, "it's one-word education. That's our mission. No issues. No policy groups. No position papers. This is a simple committee with an unfortunate acronym...."
Presumably Stone learned this gimmick from working on Nixon's 1972 Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP).
Yes, that's it. That's the stroke of genius from the man whom Tucker Carlson insists on calling "legendary Republican strategist Roger Stone" every time he appears on his show (twice this month). The Standard explains that Stone is "trying to tap into deep-seated sentiments about Clinton that pundits and rival candidates can't articulate."
There is, nonetheless, a valuable lesson here. Stone walks the Standard's Matt Labash through how he set up his 527. All that's needed is a name. He chose Jeff "Noodles" Jones, a local bartender/DJ in Miami, to serve as the group's chairman. It doesn't matter that Noodles doesn't have much of a clue about anything -- in fact, that's the point. As long as he doesn't have a criminal record (a mistake Stone almost made when selecting a chairman), he's OK. Voila! Attack group. Stone explains:
"A 527 doesn't have a wife," Stone explains. "It doesn't have a brother-in-law who knows a lot about politics, or a union president who calls and doesn't like the color of the suit, or bimbo eruptions. It's the perfect candidate, because it has no personal characteristics."
No personal characteristics indeed. The group's IRS filings are studiedly anonymous, disclosing their purpose as “To educate the public about the importance of moral character and integtiry [sic] in those who hold public office.”
Labash writes that Stone wants Democrats to know that "if Hillary is the nominee, a hard 527 rain is going to fall." And already the anti-Hillary groups are getting themselves crossed up. No sooner had Stone filed his organization's papers than Citizens United, a group headed by David Bossie that's been attacking the Clintons for nearly twenty years and recently released Hillary: The Movie, sent a cease and desist letter to Stone, alleging infringement.
Comments (141)
Eric Ferguson wrote on January 23, 2008 4:06 PM:It's good to know not all Republicans are crooks.
Some are just a-holes.
LiberalTarian wrote on January 23, 2008 4:11 PM:Isn't this the same guy who is an infamous wife-swapping swinger???
Re C.U.N.T ... he oughta know, eh??
Man, the GOP going batshit insane over an HRC nomination would be a repeat of the Schiavo spectacle, but this time with wingnuts' heads exploding all over the country to be filmed.
I don't think Schiavo worked well for the GOP, and they are nuts if they think airing their vengeful and creepy persona to the public is going to win them votes.
Besides--who is he trying to kid? They are going to be all kinds of ugly whoever the Democratic nominee is. Look what they did to Kerry, a war hero and hamster saver!!
last exit wrote on January 23, 2008 4:15 PM:Obama may not know to fight Hillary toe to toe, but Roger Stone and his ilk do. Hillary's unfavorable rating in the latest Gallup Poll is 46%. Republicans and swing voters hate Hillary and will never vote for her. It's time for Democrats to consider Hillary's unelectability when casting their primary votes.
Michael A wrote on January 23, 2008 4:17 PM:Great, just great. I wonder how much the clinton campaign is paying this guy. Oh, brother.
Joel wrote on January 23, 2008 4:17 PM:"Wife-swapping swinger" ain't even the start of it. Anyone have a pic of Stone in his leather gear?
frankly0 wrote on January 23, 2008 4:18 PM:It's a good thing for Stone that women don't vote.
Oh, wait...
jbw wrote on January 23, 2008 4:18 PM:Gosh, do ya suppose this could backfire bigtime? Swiftboaters almost did the trick, but if I ever discovered any of my dittohead relatives wearing these t-shirts I would definitely never speak to them again for the rest of their lives.
ihateemo wrote on January 23, 2008 4:19 PM:I read the headline of this and immediately thought it was a parody.
"Name-calling effort"? "Citizen United Not Timid"?
Stone has beaten the parodists to the punch on this one.
SVH wrote on January 23, 2008 4:23 PM:This has 'Blowback' written all over it; this is 'n word' ugly.
Let's give these guys all the publicity they want. Hopefully the writer's strike will end just in time for The Daily Show to really make this an spectacular backfire.
Terry wrote on January 23, 2008 4:25 PM:I went to law school with guys like that.
Anyone who uses that word as a prejorative isn't going to vote for a woman president, anyway.
And probably not an African American, either.
I bet you could get into one of those tightly controlled Bush audiences wearing one.
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 4:27 PM:Well in just Obama's base they will make a fortune on these unless of course they find the term too flattering for her.
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 4:28 PM:The best part is, he can save the name for when Anne Coulter runs for President.
Gary wrote on January 23, 2008 4:29 PM:I don't say this lightly: the man is a dangerous lunatic.
Look at his face in that Nixon shot. He's batshit crazy.
alfredo wrote on January 23, 2008 4:32 PM:The nastier they get, the better she looks. I'm sure their mothers will be proud of them.
Erik wrote on January 23, 2008 4:32 PM:I'm particularly amused by the fact that their website appeals to those who agree with their "analysis" to buy a t-shirt. That's funny.
bob wrote on January 23, 2008 4:33 PM:Never mind the name, check out the logo! I just got over the disgusting jerks use of the word, then to look at the "stylized" vagina..... No f-en shame.
brianm0122 wrote on January 23, 2008 4:33 PM:Once this is tied to the republican party, there will not be a woman anywhere in this country that will pull the lever for an (R).
Not for President, not for congress, not for dogcatcher.
And if I see anyone wearing one in public, I will file a public obscenity charge.
It is just stupid. and sophomoric, and ridiculous. just their speed.
Leta wrote on January 23, 2008 4:38 PM:The "C" word - there is not one gal out there that doesn't feel that the "C" word is much worse the the "F" bomb.
Blowback - believe me it'll be so...bad and offensive to the 54+% of the voters (that'd be the girls) that they'd vote against the R just because of that.
Makes you feel real good about them "family values" folks. I've said for a longtime, that these people have spent decades setting up their infrastruction and corporations that steal from us, the goverment, for the benefit of them and only them. And if we thought for one minute that they were going to let all their hard work just go up in smoke in November...then we are living on another planet. They will do anything to win...to stay in power. It will not matter if it's Hillary or Obama - it's going to be brutal - the "C" or a drug dealer...whatever it takes guys...it's coming our way. And we better be prepared.
Oh and to John Kerry - hope you learned something in '04 big guy - when you didn't hit back and hit back hard on the swiftboaters...you proved their very point...that you were a liar and coward and didn't earn your medals. That's what Bubba thought - so if you're advising Obama on how to handle swiftboaters, I sure as hell hope you learned something for the absolute mess you made of your campaign. If not, say a prayer of Obama.
Moe wrote on January 23, 2008 4:39 PM:Is it just me or does the picture above very much represent a bikini?
Briony wrote on January 23, 2008 4:40 PM:Wow, it's almost as if the GOP WANTS the Clintons to be the nominee. Nothing like a little sympathy to gin up some support.
Anonymous, Too wrote on January 23, 2008 4:40 PM:If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, I fear this is only the beginning...
bob wrote on January 23, 2008 4:42 PM:Yes Moe, actually, its a c----. It is not a figment of your imagination, it is there for the f-en illiterate GOP Base, family-values voters.
May he burn in hell next to his hero Nixon.
kyleXY wrote on January 23, 2008 4:43 PM:Like this doesn't have backfire written all over it.
Good to see TPM is front paging quality journalism!!!
mroom wrote on January 23, 2008 4:44 PM:It is encouraging (& entertaining) to see that the infighting is there...one Clinton hating group suing another Clinton hating group.
GSD wrote on January 23, 2008 4:44 PM:Moe, that would the visual representation of the C-word.
You catch on quick.
-GSD
seanh wrote on January 23, 2008 4:45 PM:No better way to mobilize woman voters than hardly-veiled misogyny. Do these people honestly believe this won't harm their own cause? There's no way this sort of message will play well with the general public.
bob wrote on January 23, 2008 4:46 PM:OK He has Guilianni on his website, Let's finmd out if Rudy supports this nonsense.
He has a Law firm "sponsoring" his real website, let's see if they like the politics they are "sponsoring".
Time to email bomb both Rudy and the law firm with links to both sites and ask their opinion of the sites they are "affiliated with.
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 4:46 PM:Can you spell b-a-c-k-f-i-r-e boys and girls?
Good.
Now spell "GOP dumb bastard."
That means a dork who will hand the election to HRC as millions of women voters get highly pissed and who could blame them?
This writer grew up in Italian, Irish, Jewish neighborhoods in NJ where men who talked like this about other men's wives, daughters, sweethearts got their legs broken.
Michael A wrote on January 23, 2008 4:46 PM:xxx
Next thing this bozo will be jumping up and down chanting "iron my shirt." The repubs are so desperate to have clinton as the dem nominee they are doing anything to gin up support for her. Pathetic.
JimS wrote on January 23, 2008 4:49 PM:This is right up TPMs alley - a chance to slime Hillary in favor of the Preacher and say "Hey it's not us."
Fred wrote on January 23, 2008 4:50 PM:You guys are worse than Huffington POst and I thought that was as biased as it got. I guess like Markos and Arianna your just old Republicans hiding out in Progressive clothing.
How will evangelicals feel about the use of this word, even to describe Hillary Clinton?
Kevin wrote on January 23, 2008 4:50 PM:So...
If you all are really sick of the Clintons, why taking any chances?
It's possible Obama and Edwards are as bad and the filth is just lying somewhere in the gutter waiting for someone to show to the people of America.
Plus, who knows? They are saying things the people like to hear but when the Republicans get going in the summer, will the nominee (Obama or Edwards) get suckered in to shifting his platform or making a weak platform like Kerry did?
Kerry's helping run Obama's campaign now.
Vote and donate to Kucinich. It's the only way to vote clean this November.
Decatur Dem wrote on January 23, 2008 4:50 PM:Remember how fast national Democrats backed away from MoveOn's
DKB wrote on January 23, 2008 4:50 PM:"Petraeus/Betry Us" ad? I'm sure Republican poobahs will disavow this brainstorm, right?
Hello? Anyone?
Aren't Republicans those people who always accuse lefties of resorting to name-calling?
danger wrote on January 23, 2008 4:51 PM:What a cunt this guy is.
At least I'm trying to get actual models for the Hillary shirt I'm making, rather than photoshopping it on the girl with the biggest rack I can find on a google image search.
These morons should stay out of fashion. If they were slightly more cultured and didn't wear the same blazer-collared shirt combo every time, and maybe unbuttoned their top buttons, they wouldn't be this douchey in the first place.
Ethan wrote on January 23, 2008 4:52 PM:Real classy.
This guy *defines* schmuck.
danger wrote on January 23, 2008 4:53 PM:And secondly, nobody has the attention span to actually read all of that on a T-shirt in public. It's not witty, it's not funny, it's too wordy, and just plain sucks.
Michael wrote on January 23, 2008 4:55 PM:Hey, I kinda like the logo. If our Preznit is gonna be a C---, she might as well be a star...
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 4:55 PM:ww.nndb.com/people/844/000047703/
Here is the stone pics and the sex story information on Stone.
I vaguely remember something about his wife and facials....
LOL!!!!
Mark F wrote on January 23, 2008 4:56 PM:I'm supporting one of the other Democratic candidates, but if Hillary gets the nomination I WILL NOT vote for her. Period. I see no difference between her and any other careerist C.U.N.T. who wants to run the country instead of leading it. If Hillary gets the nomination, it just won't matter to me who ends up in the White House.
Orwell's Intuition wrote on January 23, 2008 4:57 PM:First impression, whoever designed that logo is a total idiot. It looks like the hind end of an elephant, and guess where the little star is? Jeez.
danger wrote on January 23, 2008 5:00 PM:Orwell's Intuition wrote on January 23, 2008 4:57 PM:
First impression, whoever designed that logo is a total idiot. It looks like the hind end of an elephant, and guess where the little star is? Jeez.
Nick wrote on January 23, 2008 5:03 PM:Hey, gotta respect the Larry Craig republicans for being so modest!
Hey Rog -- no fat chicks, huh? Is this a joke I mean, Roger Stone, the "cocksman," and his bimbo wife, still being written of?
litigatormom wrote on January 23, 2008 5:04 PM:Nothing like using the C word and depicting a woman's nether regions on a t-shirt to really express the superior morality and godliness of the Republican Party. It might even turn off the wingnuts.
And if Obama thinks that this guy, or others like him, aren't going to be making N word t-shirts if he gets the nomination, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
These people are just scum. They have to be called out as such. The Goopers won't stop him, I just hope they enjoy becoming the party of tired old white men.
cb wrote on January 23, 2008 5:04 PM:I wish Obama only HAD some Republican dipshit who was willing to do this for him. The blowback is going to be huge if this gets much play.
kmblue wrote on January 23, 2008 5:08 PM:This will get Hillary votes. Remember New Hampshire.
litigatormom wrote on January 23, 2008 5:10 PM:Give him all the publicity he wants, and weep when you see the vote totals.
Dear Mark F at 4:56pm:
Leaving aside the silliness of the notion that even your least favorite Dem candidate is worse than any of the GOP horrors, your use of the C word in your own post demonstrates that you are in the same league as Mr. Stone.
If I were your mom I'd wash your mouth out with soap.
BBpd wrote on January 23, 2008 5:11 PM:Nice hair Rog.
At least Dems know that whoever wins the nomination, they'll score a lot of sympathy points just for becoming the target of latent (and not-so-latent) right-wing misogyny or racism.
We always win when wingnuts stop hiding their natural predilections.
TexModDem wrote on January 23, 2008 5:19 PM:Why jump on Roger Stone.
His plan is little worse than the name-calling smear campaign being waged against Clinton by Obama supporters.
"Hitlery"
"Goldwater Girl"
"GOP-lite"
And those are just the printable ones!
In fact, I'm quite sure some Obama supporter will soon have a rap song out that uses this misogynistic term to promote Obama and appeal to the Hillary Haters all at the same time.
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 5:26 PM:Geez, why could someone like Stone be doing this? Other than the obvious reason that he actually thinks Hillary is a c..., could there be another reason in mind? Could it also be a way to energize dems to "get back" at scum like Stone by voting for Hillary? Heck, even enough to nominate her?
Now why do you think a Republican would want to run against Hillary? Gee, I wonder why.
goldberry wrote on January 23, 2008 5:30 PM:Gosh, I didn't know Stone was a Hillary supporter. That's great! It will be the best thing to happen to her since Tweety Matthews said she was elected senator because the voters were sorry for her.
For Truth wrote on January 23, 2008 5:30 PM:Way to go, Stone! Nice GOTV effort for the women.
LOVE it!
Well, Mr. Stone --
While I'm explaining the meaning of your t-shirt to my children, I'll also add that it's the brain-child of the:
pdiddy wrote on January 23, 2008 5:30 PM:family-values,
personal-responsibility,compassionate-Conservative
He's going to educate us about "moral character"?
Mark F wrote on January 23, 2008 5:31 PM:The question is why does the media (Carlson is only the worst example) accord this person the credibility of reporting what he says or does? This guy is obviously pathological. The streets are full of sickos like him, but most don't get to expound in the papers.
litigatormom:
"Leaving aside the silliness of the notion that even your least favorite Dem candidate is worse than any of the GOP horrors, your use of the C word in your own post demonstrates that you are in the same league as Mr. Stone."
Let's get something straight: I thought Bill Clinton was a lousy president. Not nearly as lousy as our current moron-in-chief, but pretty damn lousy. And Hillary is just plain worthless. I would RATHER have a Republican in office than Hillary because it might drive voters to finally abandon their stupid fear of stepping outside the Big Government status quo and elect a real leader with some real ideas.
As for my use of the "C" word, how do you know I'm not from the U.K.?
Doctor Jay wrote on January 23, 2008 5:31 PM:I can't help thinking that this is Roger Stone's effort to make some cash off of the Hillary haters. And by doing it as a 527, he avoids a bunch of legal trouble, and doesn't have to pay taxes on what he brings in from the shirt sales.
And of course, he gets plenty of free publicity from The Weekly Standard.
For Truth wrote on January 23, 2008 5:32 PM:Well, Mr. Stone ---
While I'm explaining the meaning of your oh-so-clever t-shirt to my children, I'll be sure and give credit to the:
family-values,
compassionate-Conservative,
faith-based,
personal-responsiblity
party -- the Republicans.
Keep up the enviable work; gosh, your mom must be so proud 'cause I'm sure her number one lesson to you was "The ends justify the means."
Qwerty wrote on January 23, 2008 5:33 PM:Look carefully at their logo. It's a woman's crotch.
Erik wrote on January 23, 2008 5:36 PM:This is disgusting. If anything, though, I think it might help hilary versus Obama. And versus the republicans, I think it is already pretty set in stone who would vote for who.
Bat Guano wrote on January 23, 2008 5:37 PM:CLASSY!
Almost as classy as a Clinton supporter insinuating that an Obama supporter is going to come up with a misogynistic rap ('cause that's what those people love, right?) about Clinton.
It's all disgusting. If Clinton doesn't lose the nomination due to people getting sickened by the dirt-flinging scumbags (by that I mainly mean the Clinton-supporting ones) and her over-zealous husband, then tactics like C.U.N.T.'s will cause a massive backlash among women voters when the big election comes.
For Truth wrote on January 23, 2008 5:38 PM:whoops -- double-clicked on "tab" or some other mistake and sent the unfinished posting at 5:30 p.m. -- The completed one is at 5:32 p.m.
Max Thrax wrote on January 23, 2008 5:38 PM:I'm sorry for the error.
Yup this is the guy who was trolling for anonymous sex w/ his wife while writing 'family values' speeches for Dole amongst others. Typical GOP.
Brat wrote on January 23, 2008 5:40 PM:This invites MAJOR blow-back. The remaining women in the GOP will be pissed.
The 'c' word for all women is analogous to the 'n' for African Americans.
Road kill, these guys are going to be road kill.
And hey Roger, do you kiss your mom with that mouth of yours?
Bupalos wrote on January 23, 2008 5:45 PM:>>>>>This will get Hillary votes. Remember New Hampshire.
Give him all the publicity he wants, and weep when you see the vote totals.>>>>>
Well duh. This is "iron my shirt" dumb, which is to say, it isn't dumb at all. It will help accomplish exactly what the republicans want, which is a Hillary nomination.
Mark F wrote on January 23, 2008 5:46 PM:Brat:
"This invites MAJOR blow-back. The remaining women in the GOP will be pissed."
That's not the strategy here. This is standard oppo crap. They WANT Hillary to get the nomination. This is an effort to get women Democrats outraged so they'll get behind Hillary. The Republicans have planned their strategy to beat Hillary for almost two decades. She has NO chance of becoming president.
Sally wrote on January 23, 2008 5:48 PM:I'm sure all those Dimocrats who went after MoveOn for the Patreus bit will now be as adamant about going after this slime.
Oh, Senator Kerry, Senator Kerry, Teresa, anyone home.
Dick Tuck wrote on January 23, 2008 5:50 PM:Is Stone still pimping his wife in swinger newsletters? Maybe he'd have better luck putting an ad in the Weekly Standard--you know some of those neocons are way kinky.
Mark F wrote on January 23, 2008 5:52 PM:Sally: Save your stand-up routine for the trailer park. The playground-level attacks really don't work on "Dimocrats".
Bupalos wrote on January 23, 2008 5:56 PM:Sorry, but this is so obviously over ham-fisted, and so obviously helps Hillary, that I have to say I can't take anyone who takes it seriously seriously. Unless they are pretending to take it seriously. Then I'll pretend to take them seriously.
That logo? Come on. You are being played for dopes. The tards want Hillary. What don't you get?
Can you stop and think about it for a minute?
No, on the other hand, just get on with your pitiful knee-jerk identity politics they are baiting you to.
Why do wrote on January 23, 2008 5:56 PM:all of these Party Mobsters look so creepy?
ChrisO wrote on January 23, 2008 5:58 PM:I mean just look at Frank Luntz.
There is something deeply disturbing going on with these GOPsters.
Have you people ever heard of Occam's razor? Generally, the most obvious explanation is the correct one. It amazes me how many Obama supporters are so quick to assume that any smear against Hillary, no matter how vile, is the work of her campaign in an attempt to win sympathy votes. Perhaps it would be helpful if someone could point to a single instance where her campaign has been found to be using such a tactic. Do you really think the campaign is going to invest time in promoting vile smears as some kind of strategic move?
And can we pleas stop pointing to these ridculous stunts as some kind of proof that Hillary will inspire some unbeatable resistance from the Republicans? I'm sure the Roger Stones of the world will have no problem switching gears to a Barack Hussein Obama, secret Muslim, sworn in on a Koran tactic. It's ridiculous to let these guys have any impact on the Democratic Party's nominating process.
The PIttsburgh Kid wrote on January 23, 2008 6:02 PM:David St. Hubbins once said that it's such a fine line between stupid and clever. Perhaps they should try again.
harmfulguy wrote on January 23, 2008 6:02 PM:If these guys have to Unite to protect themselves from scary "girl parts", they sound pretty damn Timid to me. But then, maybe I'm not old enough to remember when Republicans had anything to offer other than fear.
Roberta wrote on January 23, 2008 6:03 PM:I wouldn't underestimate this guy, even with this ham-handed T-shirt scheme.
Check out this Village Voice article:
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0420,barrett,53586,6.html
The Sex Scandal That Put Bush in the White House
How GOP operative Roger Stone destroyed the Reform Party in the 2000 presidential campaign
May 18th, 2004
This guy has fooled some not-so-dumb people. He could probably lie about anything, as long as it gave him the charge he seems to get from his machinations.
TexModDem wrote on January 23, 2008 6:04 PM:Mark F: ". . . and elect a real leader with real ideas . . ."
Who would that be?
When has Obama actually led anything or anyone?
And how about some real actions, instead of just ideas, real or otherwise (in Obama's case, otherwise)?
Yeah, how about some real action on Obama's part to pass consensus legislation to end the war in Iraq instead of blathering on about how we need such legislation and he's just the one to bring it.
Well, bring it already!
He's had two years, how much longer does he need?
LOL.
JimBob wrote on January 23, 2008 6:07 PM:Stone isn't into politics, he's just looking for a place to give vent to his essential nastiness. Like a serial killer who joins the Army so he can kill without consequence.
TexModDem wrote on January 23, 2008 6:08 PM:ChrisO: "It amazes me how many Obama supporters are so quick to assume that any smear against Hillary, no matter how vile, is the work of her campaign in an attempt to win sympathy votes."
There is nothing amazing about the conclusions of people living in a Peter Pan world.
Centerpiece-without-a-table, Nader-lite, Ganja Guy, Kumbayah Whiner, Obameister.
Remember, he's the one whose skills are consensus-building and whose appeal is entirely centered around his stand on Iraq, but he can't get a single piece of war-ending legislation through the Senate, much less the Congress, despite the fact that his whole campaign is built around this alleged ability.
Mark F wrote on January 23, 2008 6:09 PM:ChrisO:
"And can we pleas stop pointing to these ridculous stunts as some kind of proof that Hillary will inspire some unbeatable resistance from the Republicans? I'm sure the Roger Stones of the world will have no problem switching gears to a Barack Hussein Obama, secret Muslim, sworn in on a Koran tactic."
Hillary is a wedge issue unto herself. If Obama gets the nomination, some Republicans will vote against him and some will vote for him. Many will just stay home. If Hillary gets the nomination, every Republican in the country--even the ones who would have otherwise stayed home--will show up to vote against her. Don't kid yourself. Hillary doesn't have the slightest chance of becoming president.
If either Edwards or Obama get the nomination, I will vote for them. If Hillary gets the nomination, I will stay home.
2w wrote on January 23, 2008 6:09 PM:Dear Mark F--
It may not matter to you who gets in the White House, but it'll matter to the other 300 million Americans. Think Supreme Court. How long would a 50-something Justice sworn in by the next Republican administration last on the court? Maybe 30-40 years?
All this bs talk reminds me of those folks who said there was no difference between the Republican and Democratic parties in 2000. My husband was one of them. It took him about a month into GWB's reign for him to come around.
Suppport the parties nominee in November or piss and moan the rest of your life about how the laws currently on the books are getting tossed aside in the name of states rights or some other winger meme.
Or maybe you have no dog in that fight. Maybe you are independently wealthy and can afford to leave the country when the rest of us will be stuck here deep in crap.
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 6:21 PM:LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This one ran away with comments, maybe he will make some money with the shirt...
But blaming Obama????
LOL............
I though the Freepers were drinking koolaid from time to time, but you folks got a huge pink pitcher running around TPM tonight.
And remember Koolaid is 'fortified' with Vitamin C!
Mark F wrote on January 23, 2008 6:25 PM:2w:
See, here's the problem: it matters deeply to me who gets into the White House. I deeply DON'T want Hillary there. I will vote against her or not vote at all if she gets the nomination. If one of the others gets the nomination, I will vote for them. There's only one exception: if Huckabee gets the nomination, I will vote against him no matter who is the Democratic nominee.
I hate Hillary Clinton almost as much as I hate George W. Bush. The thought of having her as president for four years makes me physically ill.
voxpopgirl wrote on January 23, 2008 6:29 PM:Briony wrote:
Wow, it's almost as if the GOP WANTS the Clintons to be the nominee. Nothing like a little sympathy to gin up some support.
Exactly my first thought.
Mark F wrote on January 23, 2008 6:33 PM:By the way, 2w, the Constitution doesn't fix the size of the Supreme Court at any particular number, and Congress has the power to increase or decrease this number as it sees fit. In the past, the number has been changed in order to limit the power of the president to nominate justices (see Andrew Johnson for an example). It can also be changed in order to shift the balance of power.
There's still hope.
Mark F wrote on January 23, 2008 6:44 PM:"Wow, it's almost as if the GOP WANTS the Clintons to be the nominee."
That's a telling and somewhat terrifying statement. I'm afraid that's what many of Hillary's supporters actually believe: that THE CLINTONS will somehow get the nomination. That Hillary's candidacy serves as a sort of a proxy for a third term by Bill. That's just utter nonsense. Not only is Bill campaigning as if HE'S the candidate, he's allowing Hillary to running on his resume'. Keep in mind that Hillary has 7 years of experience in public office. In other words, she's actually been accountable to voters for LESS time than Barack Obama. (And Obama has been in office longer than Bill was when he was elected president.) So much for the "experience" argument.
Being First Lady does not count as political experience.
Powkat wrote on January 23, 2008 6:50 PM:Wow - every woman I know hates that word more than any other. And these guys are going to put it on t-shirts? In reference to a candidate for president? I don't know what to say, really.
Remember the old joke about a Martian landing during a party convention and being amazed that this was how we pick our leaders? Imagine what the Martian would think today.
DaddyD wrote on January 23, 2008 6:55 PM:He does look like one of those amped-up Jim Carrey characters in that Nixon photo, doesn't he? Clearly some wires crossed.
moondancer wrote on January 23, 2008 7:06 PM:This guy is so clever...in a fourth grade kinda way. Two things for sure the man-children at fox will be snickering in the break room while trying to look down womens blouses; and the goopers will be obvious in their insincerity when they denounce this slime.
Hillary wrote on January 23, 2008 7:08 PM:See how the GOP attacks me? It's all Obama's fault!
Sue wrote on January 23, 2008 7:14 PM:And does anyone think that if Obama gets the nomination that the Republicans will have any shame with regards to race.
The Republican machine has sliced and diced every Democratic candidate since 1972. Maybe Jimmy Carter got luckier than the rest but all you have to do is look at the history of presidential politics since then and the future is before your eyes.
If not Hillary, then OBama, or Edwards. They will find something, anything to defeat a Democrat. The Clintons beat them and they (and a lot of people who call themselves Democrats) think this is purely a Clinton thing. It's not.
BWAHHAHAHA wrote on January 23, 2008 7:44 PM:Shorter TPM: WAAAAAAAAA
Pepp wrote on January 23, 2008 7:46 PM:I suggest to you that Mr Stone belief in his own reach is greatly exaggerated and he will of course pull the wing nuts but the conservative base is not against Clinton, catholic women specifically are likely not going to play along. How do I know because I am surrounded by them?
ChrisO wrote on January 23, 2008 8:10 PM:Mark F
I try to be civil on these threads, but screw you. If you'te so willing to throw away the future of this country because of your irrational hatred for the Clintons, then I have no use for you. Just don't give me this bullshit that you won't vote for Hillary, then figure you can say I told you so if she doesn't win. I notice a lot of the people who say they won't vote for her have this attitude like it's the "others" who will cause her defeat, as if you not voting for her has no effect on the outcome. If we get four more years of Republican rule, the fault will lie with people like you, not with some faceless mass of voters.
Your lack of logical thinking is evident in your last post. You take a quote from an obvious Clinton hater, about "the Clintons" being elected, then pull out of your ass the notion that this represents the mindset of Clinton supporters, then sayy "that's just utter nonsense." Gee, political debates are easy to win when they all take place in your own head, aren't they?
Joyce wrote on January 23, 2008 8:29 PM:I'm sorry, but I do not feel sorry for the Clintons. They are in the same slime pit as this guy. It's time for us all to grow beyond this type of politics and stop buying into this.
pkj wrote on January 23, 2008 8:32 PM:Mark F--
Do I surmise rightly that you are yourself a Citizen United Not Timid?
stew65 wrote on January 23, 2008 8:45 PM:Well, Tweety helped Clinton win NH by pissing off women with his blatent sexism. This guy might just put her over the top.
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 8:48 PM:Joyce,
We can all spot ditto-head trolls here. Try to be a bit more original next time.
lorelynn wrote on January 23, 2008 9:14 PM:Ahhhh, wingnuts making money off the Clintons. Some things never change.
I guess this means they think Hillary will get the nomination and win.
Chris Corbell wrote on January 23, 2008 9:18 PM:America needs to wake up to the sick resurgence of sexism that's ridden in on the wave of what was originally a lighthearted anti-PC backlash. What if your sister or daughter fought her way through a political career and was running for office - would you still feel this was fair game?
There is no excuse for anyone thinking this is valid public discourse. It is sick.
And the commenters who think that Hillary somehow deserves it are part of the problem - you do not transcend the worst tactics in America by blaming the person they are aimed at. Your attitude as well as the slogan is deeply offensive to the millions of Hillary supporters who place their hope in her experience and believe that she can make this country better. You can disagree on that score, but if you have any decency you should be outraged at this sick misogyny no matter who it targets.
G Davis wrote on January 23, 2008 9:20 PM:Simple solution to all this mess...unelect all the partisan hack politicians and start electing leaders for our whole country.
"We can no longer afford to build ourselves up by tearing someone else down. We can no longer afford to traffic in lies or fear or hate." Barack Obama
Vote hope, not fear. Vote unite, not divide and conquer.
Chris Corbell wrote on January 23, 2008 9:27 PM:G Davis, that's a great quote and it would be great if Barack Obama had actually decided to run that kind of campaign. Unfortunately he learned some lessons in Chicago politics. When you subtly attack someone on character or trust dozens of times over the course of several months, guess what - that's still an attack. We are not stupid. A smug grin and a smile does not make it clean.
I was impressed by Obama last year but thought Hillary a little more likely for '08, all things considered. But when Obama started attacking Hillary's character last summer I wrote him and asked him not to, for the sake of unity - but alas he never wrote back. So much for unity.
http://www.attacktimeline.com/
Mike timmons wrote on January 23, 2008 9:50 PM:The Republicans and the Clintons have the same goal, Hillary's nomination, for different reasons.
This proves it.
anon wrote on January 23, 2008 10:15 PM:...do ya suppose this could backfire bigtime?...
I think it's pretty well protected from serious backfire. Think about it: 1. There's no there there, it's the most minimal Hate Clinton project ever so there's really nothing to argue about, and 2. The _only_ there there is CUNT=Clinton and, ya know, not even TPM used the C word so do you think there will be _any_ serious coverage of this? It's immune to a rational discussion because no paper will print CUNT.
OxyCon wrote on January 23, 2008 10:17 PM:In 1996, Roger and his wife Nydia purportedly placed an ad in Swing Fever magazine looking for single men and couples to join them in group sex. According to reporting in the National Enquirer and the Star, the copy proclaimed:
C-161,787-DC* INSATIABLE COUPLE
We are hot, athletic and very fit. We are seeking similar couples or exceptional muscular, well hung, single men. She's 40DD-24-36 and bi. She loves to fuck hard and deep. He's 195 lbs., trim, muscular and 8" +. She prefers jocks, miliary men, and body builders. No fat people or smokers need respond. Send photo and phone. No photo, no response! We are interested in DC, VA, MD, NYC, Miami, and LA.
VOICE MAIL 12209
Kalkaino wrote on January 23, 2008 10:22 PM:Just what is the law about "fighting words?" Would one have a viable defense if one choose to punch someone in the face for calling the former First Lady a cunt? Suppose on put Babs Bush on a T-shirt and applied the sobriquet?
On the other hand, she is narcissistic, delusional, and destructive. She's going to do for America what Janet Reno did for Florida. I predict Democrats will be using this language, privately, by December.
Finally, we should not forget that "Conservatism" is a cult of masculinity, a form of psychosexual dysfunction -- of which this is the quintessential and quite inevitable expression.
Turbo Torino de la Bumblast FUCK wrote on January 23, 2008 10:36 PM:CUNT
FUCKING CUNT
FUCKING CUNT
FUCKING CUNT
Duck Soup wrote on January 23, 2008 10:51 PM:This guy is an idiot. But unfortunately so are the Clintons.
How can we trust them when their personal greed is totally out of control. Bill is cashing in his Presidency, again, while Hillary tries to move them back into the White House. They'll be billionaires from our votes by the time they're done with us!
This is getting disgusting. Okay we know that the Clintons say Bill is just like any old spouse campaigning for their mate. And they are right of course, except that he was the President of the United States!
Now we learn that Clinton is raking in another $20 mil from a multi-billionaire friend for admittedly throwing around his Commander-in-Chief influence to benefit some investment fund. Of course Bill won't disclose the details of his investment, just like he and Hillary won't disclose the details of their $500 million dollar "charity" which employed some of their key campaign staffers and to which their campaign contributors have donated tens of millions of dollars. Just like Hillary won't disclose the official records of her experience as First Lady which she says makes her more qualified than the other candidates. How can they stand for transparency when they obfuscate to mask their greed??
I am sick of this. It's disgusting. The Clintons have cashed out the Presidency to the tune of Dick Cheney money. When is America going to call them on this?? This is not leadership. It's greed. Pure and simple. And it's part of a pattern of smarmy questionable gains - see them in Hillary's bio on Wikipedia, including the amazing $100,000 she made in 10 months on a $1,000 investment, the $1 million blind trust when Bill took office in 1993 that the Clintons rapidly turned into a whopping $23 million.
If they were simply investors, I would have no problem with these gains. It's capitalism baby. But that's not what they ran on. That's not what they told us. Surprise - another lie! Their platform was not to lead our Nation to get the big bucks. They did not run to not lead our Democratic Party - where have you been Bill for anyone but yourself over the past 7 years?? It's to the point where even the Democratic Party elders have gone public to tell Bill to grow up.
It's time to end this. It's time to end the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton cycle. I am a Democrat. A staunch Democrat. But I am for them because I think they are more moral and have better values. If it's Hillary versus McCain I just don't know. I was having doubts before Bill did the pile on Obama and cashed out his Presidency for this additional $20 mil, and now I really don't know . . . This is the kind of stuff that turns my stomach.
Obama is worth just over a million. This Rezko stuff is a tiny droplet in the ocean compared to the massive Clinton greed and scandals. Obama has run a clean campaign. He's been far ahead on POLICY - he was against the Iraq war from the start and he didn't fall for the patently idiotic Bush bill to declare Iran's military to be "terrorists" (Clinton lost my respect when she voted for that one, unbelievably, just last Fall). Clinton is playing catchup to Obama on policy, whether it's her bailout plan or saying we should be more aggressive in going after bin Ladin. Clinton is a bonfire wherever she goes. She will never unify America - she can't even unify her party. She will burn us up. And without unity there can be no real change, only another leg in the Bush-Clinton saga.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120097424021905843.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/MutualFunds/HillaryClintonMidasTouchAtWork.aspx?page=1
MB wrote on January 23, 2008 10:59 PM:This is the kind of stuff that makes me think HRC could win in November. John Kerry barely (51%) won the overall women's vote in '04. He only got the votes of 44% of white women. If GOP dirty tricksters pull a bunch of misogynistic crap like this against HRC, it will backfire. Big time.
Jennifer wrote on January 23, 2008 11:39 PM:When the topic is Hillary, with the rightwingers, it always boils down to teh Scary Vagina.
I think Stone's T-shirt does a great job of underlining that fact. I can't see it helping anyone other than Hillary if she's the nominee.
TJ wrote on January 24, 2008 12:56 AM:These guys will probably sell more shirts to so-called "progressives" then they will to conservatives. The vitriol directed against Hillary from the left has shown me that the right does not have a monopoly on misogyny.
brian wrote on January 24, 2008 1:58 AM:Phony posters are posting Right Wing Nonsense in here - is it not easy to pick them out ?
The Right Wingers have nothing new, however. All their hysterical accusations are stale. Old, worn out, stale, tiresome. Y A W N .
Hey Right Wing Operatives : hire some new writers. Make up some new nonsense.
Keep the blustery, know-it-all tone, though. Your illiterate listeners love that tone.
Imelda Blahnik wrote on January 24, 2008 5:01 AM:Welcome, Moderate Republican Women!
Jan wrote on January 24, 2008 5:53 AM:Joyce, people like you don't even realize what idiots you are.
Watch --
Joyce wrote on January 23, 2008 8:29 PM:
"I'm sorry, but I do not feel sorry for the Clintons. They are in the same slime pit as this guy. It's time for us all to grow beyond this type of politics and stop buying into this."
So...
(1) The Clintons are in the same SLIME PIT...
(2) It's time for US ALL to grow beyond this type of politics...
LOL!
Joyce, maybe YOU should out-grow saying the Clintons are in a slime pit, before you plead for "US" all to grow up.
What an IDIOT!
joojooluv wrote on January 24, 2008 7:29 AM:Clinton Haters are ALL IDIOTS.
as a Dem-voting woman who is not currently a Clinton supporter, this sick piece of shit Stone needs to be excoriated. It's disgusting and repulsive, insulting and enraging What a hate-filled person he must be, nasty and vile. Whatever one's feelings about Bill or Hillary, the sane would have to agree if a similar attack was formulated against any prominent female political figure, (C Rice comes to mind) the Repubs would would be decrying it.
Let's see what their response is? I can only imagine they will embrace it. IOKIYAR
JohnJ wrote on January 24, 2008 8:15 AM:First, get the Big Dick and Chimpy to wear the shirts. That will totally get her elected.
Second: make a shirt with a picture of Stone (and MARK_F and Turbo Torino de la Bumblast) and say "these guys hate Hillery". Slam Dunk again.
Third: get them to make it into a bumper sticker here in Florida; all the knee-pad people will be getting BIG tickets 'cause it's now illegal here!
JohnJ wrote on January 24, 2008 9:10 AM:Ooops, should have said that the Voting machines and Barbra Harris are GONE! That means the goopers can't drop more than ~10% of the Democratic votes without getting caught anymore. (Think 2006, we overwhelmed the cheating, even with the GOP magical voting machines!)
Tim wrote on January 24, 2008 10:13 AM:Haha! As a Hillary supporter, I still find this absolutely hilarious.
mike wrote on January 24, 2008 10:27 AM:No doubt this jackass is currently readying the paperwork for National Initiative for the Greater Good of Emerging Races as we speak.
Just in case, ya know
Jim wrote on January 24, 2008 10:38 AM:This says more about Roger Stone than it does about Hillary Clinton. I am no fan of Hillary, but I am ashamed that this low-life activity is attached to the party I belong to. I hope that no one will actually buy one of these things.
Jack wrote on January 24, 2008 11:29 AM:We democrats should be on the lookout for talented sociopaths like Stone to work for our side. For some reason the right seems to have a lock on these types.
Linda wrote on January 24, 2008 11:56 AM:I think it's funny and I want one. I'm a female and I don't take offense at it. Hell, I've used that and worse to describe many females and males.. the thing is.. the truth about dems has always been met with vitriolic insanity.. all we conservatives do is just laugh.. you're all too funny.. but don't quit your day jobs.. ooops forgot you're libs. you live off the conservatives who actually work and pay taxes so you can sit in your homes in your underwear biting the hand that feeds you. typical...nonetheless.. it is a funny t-shirt.. gotta have one.
rasher wrote on January 24, 2008 11:58 AM:Another winning strategy from "the party of ideas." They sure do shake up the "conventional wisdom," don't they?
brian wrote on January 24, 2008 12:11 PM:'Linda' is a man, baby. A big, fat republican man.
You will look nice in the shirt, 'Linda'.
BigWig wrote on January 24, 2008 2:27 PM:The Republicans DO want Hillary to be the nominee. They already know how to run against her. The vitriol, from both sides, will only have just begun. I, for one, an SICK OF IT.
BigWig wrote on January 24, 2008 2:35 PM:If Hillary's qualifications were evaluated in a vacuum, she would obviously be qualified to be President; but her qualifications must be evaluated in the political environment in which they exist. If you want more of this incredibly slimy mudslinging and name-calling, go ahead and nominate her.
We've all heard the definition of insanity: to continue to do the same thing and expect a different result. Well, I'm not insane, and I want some thing different.
Obama for President.
Blowback? Backfire? Anyone who thinks that conservative women will vote for Hillary because of this trash is kidding him or herself. Aint gonna happen.
TeresaInPa wrote on January 24, 2008 3:13 PM:These guys have go to be working for Clinton. This is her 50 state strategy, I just know it. = )
To the person above who said that Obama can win over republicans and Clinton can not, that is not what polls are saying. In head to head match ups with McCain, Clinton does better among republicans and ties Obama with independents. She does quite a bit better with democrats than Obama does. Over all she is the strongest candidate.
TeresaInPa wrote on January 24, 2008 3:17 PM:Bigwig...
Wren_W wrote on January 24, 2008 5:11 PM:Who cares about conservative women. Most women are not republicans and of those who are most of them are moderates. Many of them will vote for Clinton. Women who have never voted before will vote for Clinton just like they did in NH.
That's it. Hillary's in for sure now.
J Esbe wrote on January 24, 2008 5:41 PM:I thought I hated Hillary more than any Republican. I probably do. I almost wonder if this beady-eyed ferret-faced asswipe Roger Stone actually wants her elected, because after seeing this I actually feel like defending her ....until I think about it.
Someone needs to just kneecap this cocksucker with a ballpeen.
Steven Mosher wrote on January 24, 2008 5:41 PM:"T'wat did you say?" she screamed? "I cun't hear you... I have an ear infucktion..."
I think that says it all.
Nimrod Gently wrote on January 24, 2008 5:52 PM:You have GOT to be kidding me.
Chris wrote on January 24, 2008 7:57 PM:"Monica Lewinsky's Ex-Boyfriends' Wife For President"
I can't believe anyone would want these people in any kind of office...He's a creep and she'll accept adultery to keep power...Real Class. And for those of you who think a blowjob is no biggie, is it OK if your significant other blows someone without your knowledge?
Didn't think so.
And yes, she is a Cunt.
Andy wrote on January 25, 2008 12:19 AM:The strange logic of the Democrats is fascinating.
Andy wrote on January 25, 2008 12:26 AM:Don't run a candidate that the other party don't like.Now figure that one out if you can.Check with your opponents before you select a candidate. If they don't give you the all clear go find another one.Of course this may take some time but what the heck we would not want to annoy the people who gave us Bush2 and Chaney1, preemptive strike and water boarding, Abu Grabe and Donald R.Phone taps and Guan Tanamo.
Hillary Clinton certainly would never meet the high standards of her Republican opponents.So do them a favor and ditch her.
Chris
Anonymous wrote on January 25, 2008 12:27 AM:Your SO would certainly be impress by your dignity, refinement, and probity. I certainly am impressed. What a man !
Anonymous, Too wrote on January 23, 2008 4:40 PM:
If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, I fear this is only the beginning...
Oh, yeah - they'll just run to embrace Obama. I'm sure they'd never use any kind of epithets against him.
republicanSScareme wrote on January 25, 2008 1:01 AM:CUNT?
Those folks have such class. Gee, I hope any women aren't offended...
I got one for the Snot Rats. How about:
COUNTRY CLUB THUGS.
It means "COUNTRY CLUB THUGS".
Sprechen Sie Deutsch?
KarenZipdrive wrote on January 25, 2008 1:18 AM:I think the man's just angry at women in general because he found out his Walmart toupee was made from female pubic hair.
Pat Williams wrote on January 25, 2008 1:47 AM:Well, that and the probability that he's just one more women-hating closeted gay Republican.
I can't wait for the acronym he comes up with for Senator Obama. Anyone want to hazard a guess?
Ya know, these old geezers think they can still get away with abusing women. I cannot imagine many people who would be willing to sport such a shirt. I've been planning to vote for Edwards on Feb. 5th. This makes me feel like I need to support Hillary Rodham Clinton. What amazes me is that the Republican lies told about this decent woman are the ONLY thing that really haunts her reputation. LIES, entire books of lies! I am concerned about her political choices some of the time. But that has nothing to do with poor character or weakness.
Silversmith wrote on January 25, 2008 11:06 AM:What some many of you are missing is the fact that you can call an arrogant, abrasive, mean-spirited, underhanded, power-hungry, egomanical woman a CUNT -- and that's OK, according to the majority of Americans, including other women. But you CAN NOT call some a NI**ER, like some are saying the GOP's surrogates will try to do to Obama. Think about it - the first slur, while in extremely poor taste, is still not as repudiated as the second slur, in America.
Furthermore, what a lot of other folks don't get is that is NOT, NOT, NOT about winning!!! For those dipshits who think Hillary is a great nominee, explain to the rest of us this: if Bill Clinton BECAME a polarizing figure during (and even more, after) his presidency; and while he was under attack by his political rivals (the reich-wingers), because he wasn't as polarizing at almost any point during his presidency than Hillary is now, he was able to get quite a few things done "under the table"; then, someone like Hillary, who is far more polarizing than Bill was back then, will be able to get even LESS done, than he was.
Folks... if she wins, we ALL lose. Whether or not you like her, whether or not she's politically talented... NONE of that matters. If she wins the nomination, there are enough Hillary Haters and doubters that we will lose the most easily winnable election in history. And then, when the Rethuglicans REALLY take over, we'll have to go to war, with each other, in order to get our country back.
So is Hillary a C.U.N.T.? If she doesn't realize the above, I'd say, "Yea, kinda." Which is more important: the future of the country? Or her becoming the first woman President?
kennedy wrote on January 25, 2008 5:54 PM:corrected link for stone's kink
www.nndb.com/people/844/000047703/
anonymous, thank you. great site.
rocco wrote on January 25, 2008 6:38 PM:remember this guy used to advertise in swing mags looking for young men to have sex with his wife while he watched. wish someone would have the pics because they are out there
Dean wrote on January 25, 2008 8:41 PM:LiberalTarian wrote:
Isn't this the same guy who is an infamous wife-swapping swinger???
Yes he is. The name rang a bell with me to. Here's the 3rd item on a google of "Roger Stone". He and his wife are next to last. Like apparently 90% of Republicans he's a moralizing pervert of a high order.
Naryaquid wrote on January 26, 2008 10:02 AM:Silversmith..Thanks for reminding us that it is still more acceptable to shit on women than it is anyone else...The fact that this is an "issue" in itself is something that apparently doesn't much bother you..Well, John Lennon did note that "Woman is the Nigger of the World" didn't he?
It's o.k. It certainly reminds we of the "shit on" -- making us a LOT more likely to vote for one of our own.