"*JimH*" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

You know that newspaper you hate? They're suggesting he's a decent
choice. You might not be comfortable with why they're saying this.
Let's see if you can figure it out.

NY Times? Washington Post? LA Times? There are so many, it would
take more effort than I'm willing to give to figure out which
article
you're talking about. Why don't you post the article?



NYT. Front page today. Your little puppy may have chosen someone who
real conservatives (the ones who haven't been pithed like frogs for a
biology class) feel is credible. By doing this, the puppy may gain
some
credibility with people who have recently disowned him.

You said:
"You might not be comfortable with why they're saying this"


So what wouldn't I be comfortable with?


I believe your puppy was forced to compromise. He may have ended up
with
a better judge than we expected, but lost because he got someone who
doesn't sound simple. We win, he loses. Not surprising.

Actually *you* lost as GWB won two consecutive terms. He therefore earned
the right to name a replacement Supreme Court Justice.

The Democratic party will again be the loser if they decide to filibuster
or
otherwise drag out his approval.

Mark my word on this.

Dude, I couldn't agree with you more. I mean,
*many* people couldn't agree with you more.
Its sad to see the demise of the Democratic party
like this - this "Deanism" if you will. Used to be
(60's, 70's, 80's) that, although opposite of the
Republican party, the Dems were considered
fairly noble (and civil). Now days, the direction
from the leaders of the Democratic party is this
Howard Deanism. Ted Kennedy, John Kerryism
calling the president Hitler, calling Aubu Grab
Saddams tortue chambers under "new management".
List goes on. This is a fairly new (failing) strategy
for the Dems, and even in the height of Viet Nam
I don't think we've seen this. Think about it, no
one (at least me) didn't hear Jimmy Carter up there
calling the President "Hitler", and yada, yada...
Hell, I didn't like Carter per-se, but I thought he
was a good man (really genuine), and I couldn't
even picture him saying HALF of the **** that you
see these new modern, radical Dems saying NOW.
Honestly, I feel bad for the Dem party - I don't see
any Jimmy Carter types in the hopper for 08. Even
if there were, the Dem party no longer sees the
value of them - they are of this misguided idea
that its this "Deanism" anger is where the biggest
percentage of voters are. And this insn't the case.
Dennis Kucinsih, Al Sharpton, John Kerry etc.??
*thats* what the Dem part put up against Bush ?
How stupid is THAT? - no wonder Bush won.
The only one marginally like the old school Dems
was John Edwards, but he was a little too young
and boyish, and lacked experience, and went down
in flames. I thought Joe Leiberman would have been
a good choice for the Dems, but this 'Dean-ism' has
brainwashed the Dem voters that no, its not logic and
even-keeled that they want, its HATE/ANGER for
Bush. But the problem in 08 is, there *is* no Bush
to challange. But I'll bet you my new boat that the
the Dems will *still* make that their main platform.
Anyone but Bush, out with Bush, beat Bush, yada.
(even though Bush is out no matter what). Baffling.