• comment on a post Moving On over 6 years ago

    Jerome-

    This post is a 99 on the scale of lame.

  • Guru is a partisan.  Breaking a promise is something he is going to use.  Who cares if Wellstone did it too?  The point isn't to be fair, the point is to trash Collins.  

  • comment on a post Whither the Netroots? A Party Within a Party over 7 years ago

    Also in green and orange.

  • I think you are wrong about there never being 67 votes.  What we need are more hearings like the ones with the fired US Attorneys.  

    Those certainly shook up Michael Barone.

    But this is a long subject that requires beer.

  • again, you have to ask yourself whom it was that saw Clinton as the spawn of Satan.  In the end, they tamed him quite nicely.  Just follow the money.  The DLC has filled the ranks of this Presidential race.  The game is already up.  Despite Bush there will be no populist backlash.  But the RW will gnash their teeth about socialism and secularism nonetheless.  It sells books and ads.  

  • it all depends on who you are talking about.

    For many GOP activists the most important things are what kind of judges get appointed.  They'll oppose any Democrat will relatively equal fervor.

    Hillary is acceptable, however, to a narrower group of people that are more concerned with free trade, an expansive military and forward leaning basing posture, the continued privatization of government work, and a basically pro-business deregulatory Democratic Party.  Murdoch fits in this group.  Hillary is perfectly fine with him.  

  • In your own bizarre way, you've nailed it.

    It's kind of like how Rupert Murdoch sells you the Simpsons and Family Guy on his regular broadcasting channel and then uses his news channel to sell you on the war on christians and family values.

    Murdoch will be perfectly find with Hillary even as his news outfit treats her as a moral outrage.  

    Nothing contradictory here at all.  

  • comment on a post Stab Us in Back Day over 7 years ago

    Matt-

    This isn't surprising to me.  Here is how I put it yesterday.

    If the top of the Democratic Party really was in touch with the bottom of the Democratic Party there is no way in a hundred years that Hillary Clinton would celebrate the 10th anniversary of FOX News and accept cash from Murdoch. There is no way that Harry Reid would choose FOX News to carry the Nevada debate. Prior experience should show them that FOX News doesn't give Democrats a fair shake....

    ...Reid, Hillary, and Murdoch probably all 'respect' each other and see each other as 'peers'. And that might be fine and understandable, seeing as they are all wealthy, successful, and powerful people. Nothing wrong with that. Except Murdoch runs a media empire that is ostensibly out to destroy Hillary and Reid, take away their power, and relegate them to the dustpin of history. Sorry...I'm not buying it. What we have here is as obvious as the disconnect between the family values trumpeted in FOX shows like The Simpsons and The Family Guy and the values espoused by loudmouths Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. It's a bait and switch.

    So...don't get me wrong...if we actually succeed in getting Nevada to drop FOX News from the debate it would be a huge move in the correct direction. It would be fantastic. It's worth trying...I guess. But sometimes it's better to choose your battles a little more carefully. If we get the higher echelons of the Democratic Party to suddenly declare FOX News a worthless propaganda outfit and to shun it...well...then I guess I've totally misjudged the state of American politics.

    As far as I can see, when we get up to Reid and Hillary, the distance between the parties is about as broad as the distance on the couch between James Carville and Mary Matalin.

  • I don't know what this means. If I did know what it meant I don't think I'd think it made any sense.
  • comment on a post Within the System and Without over 7 years ago
    Also available in green.
  • comment on a post Within the System and Without over 7 years ago
    Also available in green.
  • on a comment on Why Movements Move Me over 7 years ago

    I have a quibble with this.  The criticism of the Church or Vatican was indeed that their positions on both abortion and contraception are motivated by self-interest.  But that doesn't mean that individual Catholics have the same motivation for opposing those anti-natal policies.  

    You can't transfer cynicism about the Pope to cynicism about all Catholics.

    If Catholics are offended at the suggestion that the Vatican sets its policies with an eye toward swelling their ranks, that's understandable.  But it is not the same thing as suggesting that every Catholic thinks that way.  

    If the accusation is directly insulting to the rank and file it is in suggesting that they are unwitting.

  • comment on a post Why Movements Move Me over 7 years ago

    Minus your open mindedness on H. Clinton, I'm with you on this 100%.

  • comment on a post Major Schumer Bombshell? over 7 years ago

    I don't even want Lautenberg to run again.  Why should he?  We need young blood.

  • comment on a post The One Where I Introduce Myself over 7 years ago

    welcome Nancy.  I hope you enjoy blogging here.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads