Poor Scott Richert

Trapped in the riptides of the Land Where There are Only Two Sides to Every Issue. The poor schmuck tries to make a simple point: our Ruling Classes are a fine reflection of the general American habit of parochialism that makes itself so evident in “Man on the Street” learning displayed on a regular basis in Jay Leno’s “Jaywalking” segments.

His case in point happens to be Hillary’s dumb question about the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, but he fleshes out the article with plenty of bi-partisan examples of pols saying stupid, embarrassing, and ignorant things about countries and cultures beyond our borders and therefore beneath our notice. His point is not “Hillary is peculiarly ignorant” but “We have a culture that tends to reward the ignorance of our leaders, because we are often ignorant ourselves.”

Sure as shooting, the conversation that ensues…

csh says:
Too bad for you and the other Hillary haters that (according to a recent CNN poll) 71% of Americans approve of the job she is doing as Secretary of State.

And recall that more people cast a vote for Hillary Clinton than for any other presidental primary candidiate in hsitory.

And that she won two landslide election to the US senate.

And that she has been named the most admited woman in the world for at least the last 10 years.

Scott P. Richert says:
Thanks, csh, for that insightful comment that has nothing to do with the post that I wrote. Next time, perhaps you could try reading the post and commenting on the substance of the piece.

For what it’s worth, I don’t “hate” Hillary Clinton, any more than I hate Barack Obama or George W. Bush. I disagree with the political stands of all three. No wonder American politics is in the shape it’s in when people equate political disagreements with hatred.

csh says:
I believe my comment was totally relevant to what was clearly a negative story about Hillary Clinton and her qualifications and performance (And my God, it’s been 16 years don’t you Hillary haters ever tire of the negativity)?

Point is that despite the constant negative attacks, she wins high marks from the American people on her job performance, won 2 landslide elections to the US senate, tons of votes as a presidential candidate and is universally admired by those outside of the right wing fringe element.

So your attacks (remember Ken Starr) have certaintly NOT worked.

That was my point.

Scott P. Richert says:
I see, csh, that you still haven’t read the post, which points out that the problem isn’t Mrs. Clinton but a much larger problem that affects the foreign-policy establishment of both parties.

My post is not “hatred,” and I’m not a “Hillary hater.” If you refer to it or me that way one more time, then I’ll simply assume that you are a troll.

Brig says:
csh,I am with you on this 100%, have you noticed that only the right wing blogs are harping on this faux outrage? As to the author of this piece: the SOS made an UNEXPECTED visit at that location: so when was her staff suppose to brief her on the picture or do you expect her to be a walking encyclopedia? She asked an innocent question that any non-catholic could ask. Moreover, that picture is framed looking more like a painting than any else. One thing is clear though, life is really hard for the haters these days, and they have to look for trouble under every rock or just make crap up to get their juice flowing. How sad…

…serves to prove

a) Richert’s point in a backhanded way and

b) Jesus’ point when he says “Don’t cast your pearls before swine.”