Tom Friedman never disappoints:
THE Associated Press reported last week that Fidel Castro, the former president of Cuba, wrote an opinion piece on a Cuban Web site, following a Republican Party presidential candidates’ debate in Florida, in which he argued that the “selection of a Republican candidate for the presidency of this globalized and expansive empire is — and I mean this seriously — the greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been.”
When Marxists are complaining that your party’s candidates are disconnected from today’s global realities, it’s generally not a good sign.
Not a good sign for who?
Update: Whoops! Sorry, didn’t see Mark beat me to it below.
...for whom.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFriedman's world nust be flat.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse*M*ust be flat.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDoes Friedman actually read his own writing from piece to piece?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Goldberg never disappoints: a link to someone else's writing with a penetrating question (ungrammatically stated, it's "for whom"). At least Mr. Steyn put some actual effort into his post.
Re the substance, if the priesthood of the right is counting on the electorate to forget the Mitt-Newt deathmatch and all the current collateral damage, you're kidding yourselves. Democrats will use this and, assuming Mitt secures the nomination, the hard-core Mitt-haters aren't particularly likely to put a lot of support behind him.
Finally, for what it's worth I've never been particularly impressed with Mr. Friedman. Why he thinks anyone in this country cares about Fidel Castro's opinion is a mystery to me.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusecaptcha: ship-shape
which aligns nicely with my thought that Friedman is supported in his comments by the actions of the many, many 'boat people' who have risked life and body to escape from Florida to Cuba ... oh, wait.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFidel and Obama - great minds think alike!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNote to the NYT. The title "president" really does imply democracy. As such, it should not be applied to the leader of a one-party state which runs sham elections as a fig leaf for its de facto dictatorship.
Oh, speaking of Cuba, there haven't been many zombie posts on the Corner recently.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd to think, Thomas Friedman has grown wealthy writing things like this. Perhaps OWS has a point about the injustice of the system after all!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEven if one could somehow ignore the atrocious content of this sentence, one could not ignore its terrible construction:
"THE Associated Press reported last week that Fidel Castro, the former president of Cuba, wrote an opinion piece on a Cuban Web site, following a Republican Party presidential candidates’ debate in Florida, in which he argued that the “selection of a Republican candidate for the presidency of this globalized and expansive empire is — and I mean this seriously — the greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been."
So many disparate ideas and clauses joined together so unnecessarily...it's truly a wonder that this man is regarded as such a sage.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDo you think the Commies will let him keep the big house if he keeps helping them and they eventually do take power?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseT. Lauren Friedman - Power Worshiper.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"When Marxists are complaining that your party’s candidates are disconnected from today’s global realities, it’s generally not a good sign."
It's generally a sign that the Marxists know that a Republican winning the White House is bad for them. Does Friedman EVER think before his fingers hit his keyboard?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJonah, it's "For whom."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think that Friedman was going for something like, "If even a crazy person thinks you're crazy then you must be *really* crazy!" Poor analogy because you might be either super-crazy or perfectly sane.
Although I have been disappointed in the choice of Romney/Gingrich/Santorum/Paul I never thought Fidel Castro would have been a better alternative.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSTOP THE PRESSES!!!! NEWS FLASH!!!
"Fried-man and Castro don't like Republicans!!"
Good Grief! Who'da thunk?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe implication appears to be that Castro has established his economic incompetent bona fides to such an extent that he comes full circle and is therefore an expert. I see this often with the left’s argument that we should listen to Europe regarding foreign, economic and social policies. Europeans have made so many mistakes, almost to the point of self-extermination, that they are now authorities on how to order society. Thankfully, most people don’t pick doctors and engineers based on these standards. Sadly, the New York Times picks their journalists in this fashion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe more relevant observation, which curiously Thomas Friedman never raises, is why El Jefe Maximo withheld his endorsement of the President. Fidel must be anticipating somebody will primary Obama.
After all, just less than two years ago, El Commandante Castro was praising the passage of Obamacare, wasn't he?
As has been previously reported, Obama has been losing some key backers.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse