posted on September 2, 2004 03:16:22 PM new "And I'd expect this nonscense from a newbie helen but to constantly have to keep responding with your continue discussion of items we've discussed a million times is getting real old."
What nonsense, lindak? That reply above was intended to help you out with what's happening this week. It's laughable though to read that you object to discussing old history. How will you justify bringing Clinton into the discussion now?
posted on September 2, 2004 04:00:16 PM new "I'd It's not discussing old history that I mind...it's your continued desire to discuss the exact old history, exact issue, three million times."
Linda, sometimes I wonder if your spin gets so out of control that even you don't know what you are talking about. My answer was in reference to risasperson's fact which you labeled a "democratic claim". But, I'll keep your remark above in mind...that you don't mind discussing old history so long as it's not "exact" old history. Hahaha
It's time for your break. Go look at the tv or something.
posted on September 2, 2004 04:17:28 PM newIf New York City is such a democratic city than why do they have a Republican Mayor. Why did they have a different republican mayor before him? Also a Republican Govenor
Libra, that is a very good question!! I think the last democrat mayor was Koch - and even he is batting republican this year from what I've heard. (He is gay,btw.)
And as far as old cros's comments to me or directed to me, or her comment to you about being nasty...its just bait for attention. You have to laugh it off. They are of the do as I say; but not as I do, oh-so wholesome brady bunch morality! doncha know?
..
..
~~ Keep thy heart with all diligence for out of it are the issues(forces)of life..Proverbs 4:23~~
posted on September 2, 2004 10:11:35 PM new
helen - Here's my WSJ copy and paste to address your A. Sullivan paste.
Sullivan's blasting Miller as a "Dixiecrat" is simply bizarre.
The term Dixiecrat refers specifically to supporters of Strom Thurmond's third-party presidential bid in 1948 (when, as Glenn Reynolds notes, Miller was not even old enough to vote), and more generally to the segregationist Democrats who succeeded in blocking most civil rights legislation until 1964.
How in the world could Miller's speech last night have been "a classic Dixiecrat speech" when it not only did not defend segregation (a question that was settled long ago), but did not even remotely allude to race? The speech was entirely about national security.
This was not Miller's first political convention speech. In 1992, also at Madison Square Garden, then-Gov. Miller delivered the keynote speech at the Democratic convention that nominated Bill Clinton.
Does anyone remember The New Republic, of which Andrew Sullivan was then editor, criticizing the Dems for having a "Dixiecrat" as their keynoter? chuckling here.....I SURE don't.
posted on September 2, 2004 10:51:52 PM new
Dr. Do. I wasn't commenting on Chris Matthews interview with Miller as I did not see it. I was commenting about him in general. I stopped watching him when he got so upset he couldn't talk fast enought to get his words out he started spitting. That was the end for me. I have no idea who he was interviewing.
Of course the liberals will like Matthews as he is very one sided as many news people are and I am not saying that only about the democrats. Republican news people are the same.
While watching CNN they have that call in show after each session and I was watching Wednesday night. A journalist from the Miami Herald was on and after each Republican line he commented on what the Dems would do. He did not comment on the Democratic line as he was asked to do.
