These two scare me…now we see the increasingly bizarre statements being made by “Evita”-…“deliver us from four more years of hell”-where does SHE get off! The comparison is making more and more sense…John is a relative bumbler, but Theresa WANTS power! I expect that once she becomes first lady, she will set up a ministry of propaganda.
Don’t say I didn’t warn ya! :smack:
So one extreme side of this BS think that Bush=Hitler and you seem to fear that JFK adn THK=the Perons.
Hmmm I’d say both sides are wrong.
Theresa ‘Mama T’ Kerry is certainly batshit nutty, but I believe that first ladies (Mama F?) cannot setup ‘ministries’ in America. They certainly can say all sorts of humorously embarassing shit that doesn’t help their hubbies chance at getting elected, but that’s about it.
I like Theresa. She’s got some spunk. I prefer her style to the Laura Bush-Nancy Reagan “I’ll just smile sweetly and look adoringly at my husband.” What’s not to like about a woman with a mind of her own?
Is there actually a debate in here somewhere?
Don’t cry for me, ralph124c,
the truth is I still ignore you
through all these debates
and all those Pit threads
you say so little…
…Now keep your distance.
Well now you are the one exagerating. Peron was certainly a populist leader but he was no dictator. Compare him to Chavez but not to Hitler.-
I have no sympathy for the man neither for his wife (in fact for none of his wives) but I think you went to far with that statement.-
Errrm what?
I just said that some dipshites equate Bush to Hitler. I was saying that to equate the Kerrys to the Perons is equally as silly.
Evita Peron: penniless illegitimate uneducated girl who becomes an actress and sleeps her way through powerful men before becoming the mistress and later wife of a military dictator in a Second World country. Died at 32.
Teresa Heinz Kerry: daughter of a wealthy Portugese doctor living in a posh segregated community of Mozambique, educated by private tutors and in Swiss boarding schools, fluent in five languages, married a billionaire then after his death liberal lawfully elected senator who makes a peaceful bid to unseat an unelected president against a man who invaded a nation based on falsified information and against the jeering of the world community.
The resemblance is eerie.
You’re going to have to tell where exactly she’s being unreasonable. Did she set up a militia to oust Bush? Did she surupticiously acquire illegal weapons to facilitate that ousting?
Or did she just say she doesn’t like Bush?
If you are worried about propaganda replacing intelligent political discourse in this country, the current Administration ought to be scaring the bee-jeezus out of you.
Since Chris Wallace of Fox News made the same Eva Peron reference after listening to Teresa Heinz- Kerry’s speech at the Dem. convention, I guess I can safely assume that this is now an official RNC talking point that will be repeated by mindless people ad nauseum even though it has no basis in reality. Oh wait. Now I get it. Both women were born in foreign countries. Of course! :smack:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200408020001
And if Teresa Heinz Kerry is so power-mad, why did she wait until she was 65 years old to pursue it?
THK is power-mad! She planned on being firts lady before…but John Heinz had the bad luck to be killed in a plane crash. She is very ambitious…I think you will be amazed at her ambition. John Kerry isn’t much…in 20 years in the senate, he has only sponsored a handful of unimportant bills. His Iraq policy won’t be very different from Bush’s…but Theresa…watch out! I predict that she will follow in the footsteps of Evita:
-she will have a weekly radio address
-she will start working with labor unions
-she has even adopted the mannerisms
I predict that if she becomes first lady, we will be subjected to constant harangues, and frequent public appearences.
ralph 124c, are you being serious???
I mean, I could see the Right being apoplectic about Hillary, who had some actual major policies whose national implementation she wanted to direct, about whom some too-clever Dem wag mentioned that you’d “vote for 1 Clinton, get 2 for the same price”, and who stumbles into episodes of “I’m smarter than you and you know it” syndrome (Though it still does not excuse the raving red-faced sheer hatred of the woman some in the Far Right seem to entertain; and it didn’t bother me).
But Teresa??? No, she’s not power-mad, ralph, she’s accustomed to being at the top as is pretty obvious from her bio (daughter of a wealthy colonial expat; billionaire’s wife; presidential aspirant’s wife). Nothing immoral, wrong or dangerous about it. Or about the FL being outspoken, blunt, and having her own agenda. To paraphrase Hillary, who says the role of the First Lady is to stay home and bake cookies? In any case, the FL of the USA has zero legal authority.
If anything, were she plotting a power-grab all along she would have been workign hard to train herself to act like an American populist and suppress her tendency to act and react in an imperious manner. (If she’s trying to, it’s not working)
Constant exposure in the media? Nancy and Hillary were pretty much in the spotlight full-time and could be quite the primadonnas when they wanted.
Harangues and public messages? Nancy about Say No to Drugs, Hillary on healthcare and almost anything else under the Sun until someone told her it was hurting Bill, and even then she chafed.
In both cases, include the key allegation that the husband-President was a good-natured doofus and the one with the real ambition, drive, and “killer instinct” was the First Lady. Guess what, we lived through 8 years of it. Twice.
My prediction is she’ll be allowed to carry on and act up for about the first 6 months of the administration, then there’ll be an intense meeting with the Prez and McAuliffe to prevail on her to tone it down and lower her profile.
Do you have anything remotely resembling evidence for these odd claims?
Are you at all familiar with the ancient proverb, “Behind every successful man is a woman”?
Do you know from what direction the sun rises each morning?
(I suspect that we would survive THK–unless she intends to follow a predecessor’s policy of dictating who would hold what position on the President’s executive staff, supported by her astrologer, of course.)
Nonsense!
Any proof of this? Whatsoever? Even one little eensy shred? I thought not.
Fates forfend! Ambitious you say? Does that mean that she’ll dictate appointments (ala Nancy Reagan)? Try to fix the nightmare that is health care (ala Hillary Rodham-Clinton)? Just what is it, precisely, that you find so horrifying about ambitious women?
As opposed to who? You? How many bills, important or no, have you introduced? And I think that he’s done just a skosh more than you think.
Well, y’know, except that the rest of the world might be a little less inclined to sit back and watch the Prez flail about and get his ass handed to him. And laugh. Oh, how they laugh. . .
Damn, Sam! Where do you get this nonsense? I wanna know because I have precious few opportunities to laugh these days, and I get the impression that if I were to go there, I would laugh my ass off.
Let’s see:
Teresa Heinz refused to run for Senator when the Republican Party asked her to do so following her husband’s death. She’s been happily running her foundation, or whatever it’s called, from said late husband’s family fortune. She consistently sells us on her husband, how he’ll be a good President. Not exactly Hillary saying, “I will help govern.”
Anyway, if she were all those things ralph thinks, so what? You mean she might be another Eleanor Roosevelt? Sounds good to me! (She’s not, but so what if she were?)