Re: The Great Don Quijote of RBM!

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> > Bill Sornson wrote:
> >> ...(Just in time for -- God Forbid! -- Hillary...
>
> > Hillary Clinton is a corporatist
>
> You mean because she trashes Exxon-Mobil while secretly owning its
> stock? LOL
>
> > and no friend of labor.
>
> Yeah, but Labor doesn't recognize this.
>
> > Why does the political right hate her so much?
>
> For the same reason the political left loves her so much. (Hint:
> lies and opportunism.)

I'm to the left politically (slightly to the left of the late Paul
Wellstone, to put it in some kind of perspective) and I don't like
Hilary Clinton. She's a strident, annoying conservative masquerading as
a Democrat. I don't know how I am going to vote if she becomes the
Democratic candidate. There are no Republican candidates I can vote
for- they are all loonies- and I won't vote for H Clinton. A conundrum.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> Bill "Sorni" Sornson wrote:
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> Bill "Sorni" Sornson wrote:
>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>>>> ...(Just in time for -- God Forbid! -- Hillary...
>>>>> Hillary Clinton is a corporatist
>>>> You mean because she trashes Exxon-Mobil while secretly owning its
>>>> stock? LOL
>>>>
>>>>> and no friend of labor.
>>>> Yeah, but Labor doesn't recognize this.
>>> Actually, the Republican's better hope that Hillary Clinton wins the
>>> Democratic nomination, since she turns off labor more than any
>>> Democratic candidate since Joe Lieberman (who has been elected in
>>> large part by cross-voting Republicans).
>>>
>>>>> Why does the
>>>>> political right hate her so much?
>>>> For the same reason the political left loves her so much. (Hint:
>>>> lies and opportunism.)
>>> If Sorni knew what he was talking about he would know that no one on
>>> the US left likes Hillary Clinton (and they didn't like Bill
>>> either).
>>
>> You're delusional, Tom. (Otherwise, insightful commentary!)
>
> Hey Sorni,
>
> Go to your library and check out some of the left/progressive
> magazines to see what they say about the Clintons. Or just check out
> some of the websites of collected opinions. You will hardly find any
> support for either of them, other than as the "lesser evil".
>
> Don't believe what the "left" says/writes based on what you hear on
> the radio.

So now the "kook lunatic fringe" is mainstream left? Actually, when all all
the leading Dem prez 'dates attend the Cos Convention and skip the moderate
Leadership Council, you might be right.

Still, you and all the others will support or at least vote for Hillary,
won't you? Or can Rudy/Mitt/Fred count on you?!? LOL (You won't back
Blumberg in large numbers, since that will elect a Republican.)

Bill "too soon to really care about this ****" S.

(PS: You might want to fix your sig file so it's deleted in replies; PITA
to "erase" it every time.)

 

[Bill Sornson]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>> ...(Just in time for -- God Forbid! -- Hillary...
>>
>>> Hillary Clinton is a corporatist
>>
>> You mean because she trashes Exxon-Mobil while secretly owning its
>> stock? LOL
>>
>>> and no friend of labor.
>>
>> Yeah, but Labor doesn't recognize this.
>>
>>> Why does the political right hate her so much?
>>
>> For the same reason the political left loves her so much. (Hint:
>> lies and opportunism.)
>
> I'm to the left politically (slightly to the left of the late Paul
> Wellstone, to put it in some kind of perspective) and I don't like
> Hilary Clinton. She's a strident, annoying conservative masquerading
> as a Democrat. I don't know how I am going to vote if she becomes the
> Democratic candidate. There are no Republican candidates I can vote
> for- they are all loonies- and I won't vote for H Clinton. A
> conundrum.

You'll do what practically all Dems will do: you'll vote for Ms. Strident.
Even if there's a 3rd party candidate you like. Sad but true.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> Bill "Sorni" Sornson wrote:
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>>>> You had better get your head screwed on straight. Hillary was the
>>>> wife of Bill, who was a liberal if nothing else.
>>
>>> Only on matters of reproductive/sexual behavior.
>>
>> Red herring. (Hint: he was sued for sexual harrassment by Paula
>> Jones, and LIED UNDER OATH in the course of his defense. He also
>> coerced perjury from Monica Lewinsky. Then there's Kathleen "forced
>> to rub his" ***** and Anita Broderick and...well, at least one
>> other. These matters were NOT about sex or affairs; they were about
>> illegal, abusive behavior and lies and worse to cover it up. Monica
>> was just...a vessel.) Bill "I suppose they should be grateful he didn't
>> Vince Foster 'em"
>> S.
>
> Other than not supporting the agenda of the "Christian Coalition" in
> 1996, what substantive differences were there in the platforms of Bill
> Clinton and Bob Dole?

The latter would not have further decimated the military for one thing, and
would have taken out OBL when the opportunity presented itself on a silver
platter for another.

HTH

 

[Bill Sornson]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>>>> You had better get your head screwed on straight. Hillary was the
>>>> wife of Bill, who was a liberal if nothing else.
>>
>>> Only on matters of reproductive/sexual behavior.
>>
>> Red herring.
>
> You missed the point. Clinton from a policy perspective was quite
> conservative. I recently had a chat with someone who worked in
> Clinton's budget office, who stated that the Clinton Administration
> quietly de-funded hundreds of "liberal" programs and policy
> initiatives. Bill Clinton was arguably one of the most successful
> Republican presidents of the past 50 years, if examined from a policy
> perspective rather than a party affiliation perspective. Clinton
> only looked liberal by contrast because Gingrich et al were insane.

So why is he (Clinton) such a rock star among every liberal group out there?
Blind political partisanship (party-based)?

 

[Bill Sornson]

Tim McNamara wrote:

> There was no "al Qaeda in Iraq" prior to
> GWB's destabilization of Iraq.

So why did Hillary claim there was on the Senate floor in justifying her
vote? She went /beyond/ what the Admin claimed, yet gets a total pass for
it.

Bill "Hill lied, people died" S.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, "Bill
> > Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> >>> Bill Sornson wrote:
> >>>> ...(Just in time for -- God Forbid! -- Hillary...
> >>
> >>> Hillary Clinton is a corporatist
> >>
> >> You mean because she trashes Exxon-Mobil while secretly owning its
> >> stock? LOL
> >>
> >>> and no friend of labor.
> >>
> >> Yeah, but Labor doesn't recognize this.
> >>
> >>> Why does the political right hate her so much?
> >>
> >> For the same reason the political left loves her so much. (Hint:
> >> lies and opportunism.)
> >
> > I'm to the left politically (slightly to the left of the late Paul
> > Wellstone, to put it in some kind of perspective) and I don't like
> > Hilary Clinton. She's a strident, annoying conservative
> > masquerading as a Democrat. I don't know how I am going to vote if
> > she becomes the Democratic candidate. There are no Republican
> > candidates I can vote for- they are all loonies- and I won't vote
> > for H Clinton. A conundrum.
>
> You'll do what practically all Dems will do: you'll vote for Ms.
> Strident. Even if there's a 3rd party candidate you like. Sad but
> true.

Not just practically all Democrats but everybody who feels strong party
affiliation. I don't feel a strong party affiliation, though. I'm a
liberal, not a Democrat. I vote Democrat more often, but I have cast a
lot of votes for Republicans and a few independents and third party
candidates. Like many people, I try to select the person I think is
best for the job based on the information I have available to me. If
it's Hillary vs. Romnianison I will probably vote Green. Hell, the
Democrats have let themselves become little more than the moderate wing
of the Republican Party. Cracks me up when people describe the Dems as
"liberals." ROFL!

Interestingly many of the "liberal" changes in US law came under
Republican presidents: significant parts of the environmental
protection laws, creation of the EPA, Title IX. And then later the
Republicans keep trying to gut their own achievements...

Amusing (to me) further off-topic story. It must have been in 1994 that
I voted in the Republican primary in Minnesota. We had a decent,
moderate Republican governor named Arne Carlson who was in all
likelihood not going to be endorsed by the part for re-election, because
the party was controlled by a few right wing nutbars especially a guy
named Allen Quist (who IIRC did win the endorsement). I liked the job
Carlson had done in his first term, so I wanted to cast a vote in
support of him. I didn't care for the Democratic frontrunners so I
wanted to have a good alternative on the ballot. Carlson did win
re-election without his party's endorsement and had a second term as a
reasonable, effective governor under whose leadership the state did
well. Then we elected Jesse Ventura and it went to hell in a handbasket
but that's for another time. Here's the part I find amusing:

Of course, in a primary you can only vote within one party, so I had to
make other choices for other candidates. As much as I could I chose the
person I thought would be the best of the available options. In the
primary for Attorney General, I spotted a name I thought I knew and
voted for her. Turned out it was a name similar to another well-known
person and my memory had betrayed me. And it further turned out that
the memories of a *lot* of voters had done the same and she won the
primary. It further transpired that this person really was a nut; the
Republican Party chairman very honorably came out and stated that while
she had won the primary, she was not fit for office as far as the
Republican Party was concerned and they would not support her and
encouraged voters to select someone else. It was a good day for the
Republican Party in Minnesota, I thought, to show that kind of
refreshing forthrightness. The party has declined in recent years in
terms of its ethics, but one can hope for a return to integrity at some
point.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> > There was no "al Qaeda in Iraq" prior to GWB's destabilization of
> > Iraq.
>
> So why did Hillary claim there was on the Senate floor in justifying
> her vote? She went /beyond/ what the Admin claimed, yet gets a total
> pass for it.

The Senate was given doctored, skewed and fabricated information on
which to make their decision. In short, they were lied to and
manipulated. Personally I think they should have been astute enough to
see that, since it was bloody obvious to those of us outside the
Beltway, and I do hold the Senate accountable for that. The
Administration's claims didn't pass the smell test at the time, which of
course ended up being substantiated by later events.

Hillary doesn't get a free pass with me on this issue- one of the
reasons I won't vote for her.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> > Bill "Sorni" Sornson wrote:
> >> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> >>> Edward Dolan wrote:
> >>
> >>>> You had better get your head screwed on straight. Hillary was
> >>>> the wife of Bill, who was a liberal if nothing else.
> >>
> >>> Only on matters of reproductive/sexual behavior.
> >>
> >> Red herring. (Hint: he was sued for sexual harrassment by Paula
> >> Jones, and LIED UNDER OATH in the course of his defense. He also
> >> coerced perjury from Monica Lewinsky. Then there's Kathleen
> >> "forced to rub his" ***** and Anita Broderick and...well, at least
> >> one other. These matters were NOT about sex or affairs; they were
> >> about illegal, abusive behavior and lies and worse to cover it up.
> >> Monica was just...a vessel.) Bill "I suppose they should be
> >> grateful he didn't Vince Foster 'em" S.
> >
> > Other than not supporting the agenda of the "Christian Coalition"
> > in 1996, what substantive differences were there in the platforms
> > of Bill Clinton and Bob Dole?
>
> The latter would not have further decimated the military for one
> thing, and would have taken out OBL when the opportunity presented
> itself on a silver platter for another.

Oh ********. The outcome would have been no different. Clinton ordered
strikes and was aggressive about getting bin Laden. Hell, the
Republicans criticized him and his security team for being obsessed with
bin Laden and not with Hussein. Turns out that the Clinton team was
right and the Republicans were out to lunch. And they continued in that
befogged stupidity after taking charge in 2001, marginalizing the effort
to find and neutralize bin Laden and al Qaeda in favor of planning to
overthrow Saddam Hussein- the neocon's favorite hobbyhorse.

As far as "further decimating the military" goes:

http://tinyurl.com/2xwyle

http://tinyurl.com/353qq

http://tinyurl.com/yubyyq

http://tinyurl.com/27nstd

Less time listening to Rush, more time paying attention to reality would
do a world of good.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, "Bill
> > Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> >>> Edward Dolan wrote:
> >>
> >>>> You had better get your head screwed on straight. Hillary was
> >>>> the wife of Bill, who was a liberal if nothing else.
> >>
> >>> Only on matters of reproductive/sexual behavior.
> >>
> >> Red herring.
> >
> > You missed the point. Clinton from a policy perspective was quite
> > conservative. I recently had a chat with someone who worked in
> > Clinton's budget office, who stated that the Clinton Administration
> > quietly de-funded hundreds of "liberal" programs and policy
> > initiatives. Bill Clinton was arguably one of the most successful
> > Republican presidents of the past 50 years, if examined from a
> > policy perspective rather than a party affiliation perspective.
> > Clinton only looked liberal by contrast because Gingrich et al were
> > insane.
>
> So why is he (Clinton) such a rock star among every liberal group out
> there?

He's not. The right wing thinks he is, because they can only think in
black and white, but they are wrong (again).

> Blind political partisanship (party-based)?

In many cases, yes. He apparently has immense personal charm, or so I
am told, which may also account for it. I also think that Clinton
benefits from the contrast effect with the current President. By
comparison, the Clinton Administration was the shining city on the hill.

 

[A Muzi]

-snip Mr Lyme Disease-
Tim McNamara wrote:
> I also think that Clinton
> benefits from the contrast effect with the current President. By
> comparison, the Clinton Administration was the shining city on the hill.

First incidence of spewed coffee on keyboard today. That's funny!
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[Bill Sornson]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>
>>> There was no "al Qaeda in Iraq" prior to GWB's destabilization of
>>> Iraq.
>>
>> So why did Hillary claim there was on the Senate floor in justifying
>> her vote? She went /beyond/ what the Admin claimed, yet gets a total
>> pass for it.
>
> The Senate was given doctored, skewed and fabricated information on
> which to make their decision. In short, they were lied to and
> manipulated. Personally I think they should have been astute enough
> to see that, since it was bloody obvious to those of us outside the
> Beltway, and I do hold the Senate accountable for that. The
> Administration's claims didn't pass the smell test at the time, which
> of course ended up being substantiated by later events.
>
> Hillary doesn't get a free pass with me on this issue- one of the
> reasons I won't vote for her.

She went /beyond/ Admin claims -- prolly because of inside info from Hubby.
(Hell, read his 1998 speech about Saddam Hussein sometime.)

Again, she gets a PASS (from the mainstream media at least) for this.

Bill "Hillary Lied, People Died" S.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, "Bill
> > Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >>
> >>> There was no "al Qaeda in Iraq" prior to GWB's destabilization of
> >>> Iraq.
> >>
> >> So why did Hillary claim there was on the Senate floor in
> >> justifying her vote? She went /beyond/ what the Admin claimed,
> >> yet gets a total pass for it.
> >
> > The Senate was given doctored, skewed and fabricated information on
> > which to make their decision. In short, they were lied to and
> > manipulated. Personally I think they should have been astute
> > enough to see that, since it was bloody obvious to those of us
> > outside the Beltway, and I do hold the Senate accountable for that.
> > The Administration's claims didn't pass the smell test at the
> > time, which of course ended up being substantiated by later events.
> >
> > Hillary doesn't get a free pass with me on this issue- one of the
> > reasons I won't vote for her.
>
> She went /beyond/ Admin claims -- prolly because of inside info from
> Hubby. (Hell, read his 1998 speech about Saddam Hussein sometime.)
>
> Again, she gets a PASS (from the mainstream media at least) for this.

The mainstream media owned and operated by high-dollar Republican
contributors? That mainstream media? The one that abdicated all
responsibility in looking in the Candidate Bush's background of
incompetence prior to the 2000 election and gave him a free pass? The
mainstream media that failed to bother to look into the veracity of the
Bush Administration's claims during it's rush to war? The mainstream
media that didn't bother to challenge the Bush Administration's obvious
outrageous lies, high crimes and misdemeanors until after the public
finally managed to wise up? That mainstream media?

Given that I see Hillary's votes on the issue reported in the media all
the time, I think you're dreaming. Most of the media is firmly
entrenched with the new right. Whether the voters will care about
Hillary's votes for war is a different issue the electorate being prone
to a short memory.

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Bill "Sorni" Sornson wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> Bill "Sorni" Sornson wrote:
>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>> Bill "Sorni" Sornson wrote:
>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>>>>> ...(Just in time for -- God Forbid! -- Hillary...
>>>>>> Hillary Clinton is a corporatist
>>>>> You mean because she trashes Exxon-Mobil while secretly owning its
>>>>> stock? LOL
>>>>>
>>>>>> and no friend of labor.
>>>>> Yeah, but Labor doesn't recognize this.
>>>> Actually, the Republican's better hope that Hillary Clinton wins the
>>>> Democratic nomination, since she turns off labor more than any
>>>> Democratic candidate since Joe Lieberman (who has been elected in
>>>> large part by cross-voting Republicans).
>>>>
>>>>>> Why does the
>>>>>> political right hate her so much?
>>>>> For the same reason the political left loves her so much. (Hint:
>>>>> lies and opportunism.)
>>>> If Sorni knew what he was talking about he would know that no one on
>>>> the US left likes Hillary Clinton (and they didn't like Bill
>>>> either).
>>> You're delusional, Tom. (Otherwise, insightful commentary!)
>> Hey Sorni,
>>
>> Go to your library and check out some of the left/progressive
>> magazines to see what they say about the Clintons. Or just check out
>> some of the websites of collected opinions. You will hardly find any
>> support for either of them, other than as the "lesser evil".
>>
>> Don't believe what the "left" says/writes based on what you hear on
>> the radio.
>
> So now the "kook lunatic fringe" is mainstream left? Actually, when all all
> the leading Dem prez 'dates attend the Cos Convention and skip the moderate
> Leadership Council, you might be right.

Nope, what has happened is the Democratic party has been mostly taken
over by the same rich campaign donors, leaving NO MAJOR party to support
labor. Win-win for the moneyed classes, lose-lose for those who work for
a living.

> Still, you and all the others will support or at least vote for Hillary,
> won't you? Or can Rudy/Mitt/Fred count on you?!? LOL (You won't back
> Blumberg in large numbers, since that will elect a Republican.)

I would vote for gene daniels as a write in candidate before voting for
Hillary Clinton.

> Bill "too soon to really care about this ****" S.
>
> (PS: You might want to fix your sig file so it's deleted in replies; PITA
> to "erase" it every time.)

My signature file starts with "-- ". What is it supposed to start with?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[A Muzi]

-snip Hillary-

> Bill "Sorni" Sornson wrote:
>> (PS: You might want to fix your sig file so it's deleted in replies;
>> PITA to "erase" it every time.)

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> My signature file starts with "-- ". What is it supposed to start with?

Yeah, and why does my 2-line sig sometimes end up all on one line when
quoted? Mysteries abound.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Andrew Muzi wrote:
> -snip Hillary-
>
>> Bill "Sorni" Sornson wrote:
>>> (PS: You might want to fix your sig file so it's deleted in replies;
>>> PITA to "erase" it every time.)
>
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> My signature file starts with "-- ". What is it supposed to start with?
>
> Yeah, and why does my 2-line sig sometimes end up all on one line when
> quoted? Mysteries abound.

Note to mention what the latest version of Google does to the
attribution field and it still ignores the signature separator - Google
really aggravated me compared to Thunderbird when my news-feed went down
for a few days.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Clive George]

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Andrew Muzi wrote:
>> -snip Hillary-
>>
>>> Bill "Sorni" Sornson wrote:
>>>> (PS: You might want to fix your sig file so it's deleted in replies;
>>>> PITA to "erase" it every time.)
>>
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> My signature file starts with "-- ". What is it supposed to start with?
>>
>> Yeah, and why does my 2-line sig sometimes end up all on one line when
>> quoted? Mysteries abound.
>
> Note to mention what the latest version of Google does to the attribution
> field and it still ignores the signature separator - Google really
> aggravated me compared to Thunderbird when my news-feed went down for a
> few days.

The sig problems are due to you using a free teranews account - they put a
sig on advertising themselves, so you shouldn't put your own on. If you want
to use sigs, use a better news server...

cheers,
clive

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Clive George wrote:
> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]...
>> Andrew Muzi wrote:
>>> -snip Hillary-
>>>
>>>> Bill "Sorni" Sornson wrote:
>>>>> (PS: You might want to fix your sig file so it's deleted in
>>>>> replies; PITA to "erase" it every time.)
>>>
>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>> My signature file starts with "-- ". What is it supposed to start with?
>>>
>>> Yeah, and why does my 2-line sig sometimes end up all on one line
>>> when quoted? Mysteries abound.
>>
>> Note to mention what the latest version of Google does to the
>> attribution field and it still ignores the signature separator -
>> Google really aggravated me compared to Thunderbird when my news-feed
>> went down for a few days.
>
> The sig problems are due to you using a free teranews account - they put
> a sig on advertising themselves, so you shouldn't put your own on. If
> you want to use sigs, use a better news server...

butbutbut, I'm a cheap *******!

Is there a better FREE news server?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[RonSonic]

On Thu, 9 Aug 2007 08:49:34 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Tim McNamara wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You had better get your head screwed on straight. Hillary was the
>>>>> wife of Bill, who was a liberal if nothing else.
>>>
>>>> Only on matters of reproductive/sexual behavior.
>>>
>>> Red herring.
>>
>> You missed the point. Clinton from a policy perspective was quite
>> conservative. I recently had a chat with someone who worked in
>> Clinton's budget office, who stated that the Clinton Administration
>> quietly de-funded hundreds of "liberal" programs and policy
>> initiatives. Bill Clinton was arguably one of the most successful
>> Republican presidents of the past 50 years, if examined from a policy
>> perspective rather than a party affiliation perspective. Clinton
>> only looked liberal by contrast because Gingrich et al were insane.
>
>So why is he (Clinton) such a rock star among every liberal group out there?
>Blind political partisanship (party-based)?

Because the somewhat-liberal outnumber the moonbat-left. The Moonbat faction
hates the Clintons even more than they hate Republicans - hasn't changed much
since the early seventies really, it's the "liberal establishment" that's the
enemy of the people's revolution. Anyway, somewhat-liberals are a lot closer to
the fat part of the bell curve and although it's easy to be misled by the
relative noise levels they vastly outnumber the whackoes.

Bill Clinton, after some serious missteps got his balance and basically governed
as a moderate. Republican partisans hated him for stealing their issues as much
as the carpet chewers hated him for, well, the same thing.

Moderate Democrats know he's the only Dem to get elected to two full terms since
television and love him for it. Unfortunately they're allowing their party to be
dragged off by the same collection of leftover hippies, rage junkies and protest
sex addicts that's been losing all those other elections for them.

Ron

 

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

RonSonic wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Aug 2007 08:49:34 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>>>> You had better get your head screwed on straight. Hillary was the
>>>>>> wife of Bill, who was a liberal if nothing else.
>>>>> Only on matters of reproductive/sexual behavior.
>>>> Red herring.
>>> You missed the point. Clinton from a policy perspective was quite
>>> conservative. I recently had a chat with someone who worked in
>>> Clinton's budget office, who stated that the Clinton Administration
>>> quietly de-funded hundreds of "liberal" programs and policy
>>> initiatives. Bill Clinton was arguably one of the most successful
>>> Republican presidents of the past 50 years, if examined from a policy
>>> perspective rather than a party affiliation perspective. Clinton
>>> only looked liberal by contrast because Gingrich et al were insane.
>> So why is he (Clinton) such a rock star among every liberal group out there?
>> Blind political partisanship (party-based)?
>
> Because the somewhat-liberal outnumber the moonbat-left. The Moonbat faction
> hates the Clintons even more than they hate Republicans - hasn't changed much
> since the early seventies really, it's the "liberal establishment" that's the
> enemy of the people's revolution. Anyway, somewhat-liberals are a lot closer to
> the fat part of the bell curve and although it's easy to be misled by the
> relative noise levels they vastly outnumber the whackoes.
>
> Bill Clinton, after some serious missteps got his balance and basically governed
> as a moderate. Republican partisans hated him for stealing their issues as much
> as the carpet chewers hated him for, well, the same thing.
>
> Moderate Democrats know he's the only Dem to get elected to two full terms since
> television and love him for it. Unfortunately they're allowing their party to be
> dragged off by the same collection of leftover hippies, rage junkies and protest
> sex addicts that's been losing all those other elections for them.

Yeah, the Republicans are better at "purging" voter rolls and at
"counting" votes.

Of course, the 5 whackos that voted for Bush in 2000 must have known
they were doing wrong, since they said their decision should not be used
to establish future precedent.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com