Romney goes red-baiting
Oh dear, oh dear. Mitt Romney is on the war path. Instead of attacking his fellow Republicans, he’s switched tactics and turned his sights to the Democrats. Recently in Massachusetts, for example, Romney compared Hillary Clinton to Karl Marx, waxing thus:
“She said we have been an ‘on-your-own society’ and she says we need to replace that with shared responsibility and ‘working together society.’ That’s out with (free-market pioneer) Adam Smith and in with Karl Marx.”
Granted, we here at the Commentator are no fans of socialized medicine, but comparing Hillary Clinton to Karl Marx is like comparing, say, a Ford Festiva to Bigfoot the monster truck. One is laughable and weak, and the other is powerful, yet taken way too seriously by stupid people. Just for the sake of argument, though, let’s compare Hillary Clinton and Karl Marx to see how they stack up against each other.
Occupation
Marx: social and political theorist, father of Marxism
Clinton: Senator of New York
Magnum Opus
Marx: Das Kapital
Clinton: Living History
Victim of
Marx: Bourgiousie and capitalist mode of production
Clinton: vast, right-wing conspiracy
Facial Hair
Marx: heavily bearded
Clinton: lightly mustachioed
Biggest influence
Marx: Hegel
Clinton: her parents, of course
Most embarassing moment
Marx: awkward transition between early focus on alienation and later works on political economy
Clinton: that one time her husband recieved oral gratification from an intern in the Oval Office
Quotable quote
Marx: “Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”
Clinton: “I wonder if it’s possible to be a Republican and a Christian at the same time. ”
Sorry, Mitt. I’m gonna have to call bullshit on your analogy. Not that I doubt for a moment your expertise on influential political and economic theorists, it just seems like, well, a little bit of a stretch.
“lightly mustachioed”
Yes. Yes. Yes.
Yeah, I’ll admit my analogy isn’t exactly airtight, but think about it like this: Hillary is the Festiva, and Marx is Bigfoot. I wasn’t comparing their actual political power now, but rather their relative socialism. Sure, Hillary has some power now, but her actual ideas are mundane and small – a conglomeration of Democratic talking points. Marx’s ideas, on the other hand, had that earth-shattering, car-crushing (or people-crushing) quality to them.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that Hillary Clinton is to socialism what a Ford Festiva is to an automobile, and it’s a little absurd to compare her to Karl Marx. But I guess that’s Mitt Romney for you …
Some friends and I once moved a Ford Festiva from my parking spot when I lived in Eugene. We were kind enough not to flip it over.
CJ: I’m having trouble picking out which is Bigfoot and which is the Festiva in your analogy. On the one hand, Marxism is pretty weak and pathetic these days, but it had some glory in the past (sort of like Ford in general, really), on the other Hillary is powerful now and taken seriously by stupid people…of course Hillary, to my knowledge (and despite what Rush Limbaugh might say) isn’t responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people over the last century.
Well I call bullshit on you analogy, CJ.
A) While the Festiva may look weak because of its size, I still wouldn’t go head to head with her on my bike. And she’s festive, which makes her strong in spirit.
B) Anyone with a Milwaukee Beast in their hand only takes one thing seriously, and that is Dale Jr. Nascar always trumps monster cars, as the appropriate lift on a Ford can achieve similar heights to that of Bigfoot, thus nullifying the seriousness of Bigfoot and the crux of your argument.
You learn some very valuable lessons growing up in the country …