Tagged: détournement

Conservatives discussing the Clintons (circa 2007)

Now that Hillary Clinton has announced her campaign for the American presidency, this old post is relevant and likely predictive of the tone of the conservative opposition towards her. In December 2007, I engaged in a piece of détourned online conversation with four “conservatives”:

*

Conservative #1: I want to say only a couple of things. I blame Mr. Clinton for our lax attitude toward terrorism. There was plenty he could do and he didn’t do. Apparently Waco and Elian Gonzales were bigger problems. I believe life under Mrs. Clinton will be very bad. Universal health care is one of her craziest ideas that comes to mind. She has no understanding of the Middle East. No understanding of economics.

Conservative #2: The real danger of Hillary’s election will be the undermining of the Republic. One or more ACLU lawyers like Ginsberg will be put on the court. Someone totally scary will run the justice department. And there will be nothing to stop the democrats in control of all branches of government from pushing the most far left agenda since FDR’s New Deal. If you think Healthcare is the goal, you’re not thinking big enough. This power grab will be the biggest in our lifetimes. Expect your taxes to go way up, expect your civil rights such as how your raise your children to be eroded. Expect us to give away more military secrets to hostile nations, etc. etc.

Conservative #1: I remember when Mrs. Clinton talked about eliminating the Electoral College. Talk about a fascist. That could be our next president.

Conservative #3: There is good evidence that when the Clintons first took office, Mrs. Clinton wanted to make a Communist Party fellow traveler Secretary of Education.

Raffine: I’ve heard Hillary plans to abolish Christmas.

Conservative #4: Raffine, rather than pass on (or create) rumour and speculation, why don’t you reference news articles or reliable web sites that mention that tidbit. Frankly, I think it’s ridiculous.