Dean Rant - Muske 1972 Redux?

RE: Muskie

>Ed Muskie wept when discussing verbal assaults on his wife.

>May not have been tough or politically astute behavior, but it

>was certainly not UNGLUED. I would call it honest and

>sensitive. (Translation: I liked Muskie in 72!)

If anyone ever needed an illustration of how out-of-touch and out-of-mainstream that little gay liberals on this Board are, here is the perfect one.

He thinks it's a GOOD thing for a Presidential candidate to weep in public over insults to his wife.

That's becasue many liberals, especially far-left gay ones, love to wallow in weakness and weepiness and being girls - so any candidate, like Muskie, who cries because bad things were said, will be loved by them.

But most Americans don't think that projecting weakness and girliness and over-sensitivity is a good thing. That's why that little episode immediately destroyed Muskie's political prospects forever. But the fact that the little fag-liberals here like that weeping show how far out of the mainstream so many of them (you) are.

RE: Muskie

Doug this post is the most asinine, most out of touch, most inappropriate, most insulting and most counter productive post that you've ever written here. Although I'm sure it's a matter of time only before you top this. Thank whatever power is in charge in the world that no one of any real world importance reads this board (hopefully anyway).

I'm not even sure where to begin. This pretty much is the final proof that you'll say anything and hurt/offend anyone just to get attention. Where the hell do you get the word "fag-liberals" anyway did you make it up all by yourself or did one of your focus on the family pamphets suggest using it or the 700-club??? And what in the world makes you delude yourself into thinking that "fag-liberals" are the only ones who admire those STRONG enough to let their emotions show. One of your special pathologies that even the amateur psychologists on the board can recognize is your nearly anaphylactic reactions to other people's emotions that aren't hate, anger or bitterness. But to project those aversions to everyone who isn't a "fag-liberal" is rediculous.

Gio in Denver

"Never Argue with a Fool---Those around you may not notice the Difference"

RE: Media war on democrat candidates, 2000 redux?

>

>Soros can donate $2000, same as you. Conservative shmucks

>have no problem with the DeLay fundraiser bullshit, the

>Enrons, and all the other corruption from big money, but one

>rich guy gives to the 'wrong' side and they go into

>convulsions...

>

Rather than ad hominem attacks on conservative schmucks:

How about facts:

1. George Soros has given a bit more than $2,000. Here's a Washington Post article about his donating over $15 million dollars thus far:

washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A24179-2003Nov10?language=printer

2. Enrons: Now didn't Enron happen while Clinton was president and so far the guilty pleas and trials to come are while Bush is President? What's the point here? Some corporations have unsavory history? Some labor unions have unsavory history too. What does that have to do with this discussion?

3. Delay fundraiser: I don't know the details, please inform us and then we can look into it. My guess is few politicians on either side have pristine fundraising history--(you'll recall Gore and the Buddhists.)

RE: Muskie

>Doug this post is the most asinine, most out of touch, most

>inappropriate, most insulting and most counter productive post

>that you've ever written here.

That's very persuasive, Gio. You may want to take some deep breaths before writing the next post.

>Thank whatever power

>is in charge in the world that no one of any real world

>importance reads this board (hopefully anyway).

Given that the only two posters here about whose importance you know anything are you and your boyfriend, this is a rather self-deprecating - even self-flagellating - statement to make. Try not to be so hard on yourself and on T&J. Just because you do "massages" for a living doens't mean that you are "no one of any real world importance." Well - actually, maybe it does mean that, but no need to run around beating yourself up this way in public.

>I'm not even sure where to begin.

Yes, you seemed a little confused throughout the whole post, so this is unsurprising.

>This pretty much is the

>final proof that you'll say anything and hurt/offend anyone

>just to get attention.

I know you didn't know where to begin, but you didn't choose a very good beginning - a melodramatic, substanceless, ad hominem whine.

Where the hell do you get the word

>"fag-liberals" anyway did you make it up all by yourself or

>did one of your focus on the family pamphets suggest using it

>or the 700-club???

I can create ideas and words on my own without having anyone tell them to me. I know that confounds you, but your limitations aren't everyone else's limitations.

I doubt that many people here would contest the notion that the term "fag-liberal" accurately describes them. Do you contest that?

Or are you one of those fags who get all pouty and pretensiously offended (imagine that - YOU pretensious - no way!) whenever you hear the word "fag."

And what in the world makes you delude

>yourself into thinking that "fag-liberals" are the only ones

>who admire those STRONG enough to let their emotions show.

I didn't say that fag-liberals are the only ones who admire weakness and melodramatic displays of over-the-top femininity. I just said that many of them do.

If one says: "Many X are Y," that is not the same as saying "Only X are Y." Did you really not know that?

And it's one thing to let your "emotions show." But if those emotions are weepy, whiny tears over petty insults to one's wife, that is an extremely feminine, weak reaction to a relatively mundane episode - one which plainly reveals a lack of strength, masculinity and resolve necessary to lead the strongest nation on earth.

>One of your special pathologies that even the amateur

>psychologists on the board can recognize . . .

There you go again, being so hard on yourself.

. . . is your nearly

>anaphylactic reactions to other people's emotions that aren't

>hate, anger or bitterness. But to project those aversions to

>everyone who isn't a "fag-liberal" is rediculous.

This sentence makes no sense, Gio. I simply observed that many gay liberals love weakness and melodramatic femininity, which places them far out of the mainstream in political terms. Admiration for Sen. Muskie's girly tears is just the other side of the same coin as many of their obssession with, and worship for, the Bette Davis's, Joan Crawford's, Cher's, Bette Midler's, Barbra Streisand's, and Judy Garland's, etc. etc. of the world.

Pointing that out says nothing about people who aren't gay or liberal.

RE: Media war on democrat candidates, 2000 redux?

> (you'll

>recall Gore and the Buddhists.)

Wasn't that a spinoff of Josie and the Pussycats?

< There is no way for Theresa Heinz to fund Kerry's campiagn >

Yes and no. It depends on how much of her inheritance was transferred to joint ownership before whenever the deadline was. Once transferred, it's Kerry's money as well and not subject to the limits on her contributions to his campaign.

That said, clearly W's war chest is huge. I wasn't comparing Kerry's fundraising to Bush's, but to Dean's, in response to Rick's post.

RE: Media war on democrat candidates, 2000 redux?

< How fucking sad is it that a guy that tells the truth and speaks as he feels is considered "unelectable"? >

Well now, James, "the truth" is often in the eye of the beholder, no?

That said, I pretty much agree with your observations. The question is, what the fuck do we do about it, if much of the country doesn't agree with us? We can tilt at windmills and make ourselves feel good - while losing elections, OR we can deal with political realities. After over 30 years of chasing political dreams - and rarely seeing them realized - I'm willing to settle for half a loaf when I have to. Not my first choice, but better than 4 more years of W. :*

When the country moves around to our point of view, which it will as these things always come and go in cycles, then it's time to go for broke. When the country's split 50-50, as nearly everyone agrees we've been since the 2000 election, we need to take what we can get.

RE: Muskie

Well, I'm definitely a liberal and I'm absolutely a fag, so I definitely love your fag-liberal tag. Can we also use queer-conservative? Call me homo, call me queer, call me fag, just don't call me gay as that makes me GAG. "I feel witty, and pretty and gay" with all those rainbows and daisy chain flowers and Judy and

Babs playing while I shower.

I'm glad that you said "many" and not "all", because I, fag-liberal that I am, agree with your point 100%. IMO, most people should be free to express their true emotions, but if a person is to be a leader, whether in the corporate world or the political arena, such displays of emotions should be confined to private arenas or anonyomous internet boards.

Those in a position of leadership who can not control their emotions are going to be perceived as weak and vulnerable. As such, they become ineffectual as a leader as they garner no respect from the opposition or even from their own people. Just like poker, people like this are easy to read and easy to beat.

IMO, that is just the way it is and a lot of really good, honest people with truly worthy goals for the benefit of all, just lose to lesser people who have the "game".

I know, I know... I sound very cynical. But as far as I can see, the Democrats have absolutely no flag to rally 'round these days.

Eventually, whatever Bush does can be undone. But not with a Democratic President who straddles the fence on most every controversial issue, or who tries his darndest to please everyone, all the time. Bush has done neither, and obiously it's working for him.

Frankly, I'm tired of independent thinkers and candidates being blamed for the Democrats' losses.

If they want to be the Milktoast Party, so be it.

But don't ask those of us who'd like to see real change enacted to just play along. All that does is keep this Nation waffling back and forth between the "two parties", and keep good and sincere people feeling that they must choose the "lesser of two evils" rather than the leader of their choice.

The Democratic Party is going to have to light a fire if they want to compete with the Republicans' burning tireyard of an agenda.

Giant, spongey "No. 1" hands just aren't enough.

Trix

I learn something new every day here

Thanks, Doug, for your insightful post and personal slur. You know, I never realized that the majority of Americans don't like to see men and leaders cry. You usually follow my posts so closely, so I am surprised you did not read my other post where I reminded the readers of this board that a significant number of Americans do not like homosexuals, among other things. I am actually a lot more in touch with "mainstream America" than you realize. I am, however, entitled to my own opinions and values, as you are yours.

By the way, for your personal edification, I am not a liberal. Also, unlike others, I would not describe myself as a "fag," which to me is a personality type that does not apply to me.

From my lips to Joe Trippi's ears

So how was the Dean appearance on the Late Show with David Letterman?

Al Gore was successfully able to use these kinds of shows during the 2000 campaign to overcome the stigma that he was "stiff" and "robotic". Hopefully Gov. Dean will have equaL success getting this behind him.

Jeff

Get your own personal majority leader, only $500K...

>Rather than ad hominem attacks on conservative schmucks:

Sorry, forgot that only conservatives are allowed the ad hominem attacks. I'll try not to let it happen again!

>How about facts:

Alright!

>1. George Soros has given a bit more than $2,000. Here's a

>Washington Post article about his donating over $15 million

>dollars thus far:

>

>washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A24179-2003Nov10?language=printer

Ooops, that has nothing to do with the facts. You said Soros could make up the difference between Ketchup's war chest and Bush's... no, the *fact* is, he can not. $2000.

He can give all the money he wants to MoveOn and the like (isn't that a core part of free speech), but nothing they do can say 'vote for Kerry'. Oooh, but they can attack Bush you rave... I say there ads will be documented and traceable, as opposed to the crap Rove will pull through the 'left-biased media'.

>2. Enrons: Now didn't Enron happen while Clinton was

>president and so far the guilty pleas and trials to come are

>while Bush is President? What's the point here? Some

>corporations have unsavory history? Some labor unions have

>unsavory history too. What does that have to do with this

>discussion?

Didn't Enron also happen in Texas, in fact, didn't it begin there? Who was it that was governor of Texas while Clinton was president? Who was it that had Enron executives come to the White House to tell the administration who to appoint to oversee Enron? Hmm...

>3. Delay fundraiser: I don't know the details, please inform

>us and then we can look into it. My guess is few politicians

>on either side have pristine fundraising history--(you'll

>recall Gore and the Buddhists.)

But to use charities 'for orphans', how cynical can you get. Hmm, funny it hasn't been all over the 'liberal-biased news'...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/14/politics/main583606.shtml

http://www.esoterically.net/log/archives/001129.html

Notice the last paragraph of the CBS story?

"The charity has a built-in incentive for potential donors since contributions to non-profit organizations are tax deductible. And DeLay won't have to reveal the names of the donors, which campaign finance experts say insulates anyone who may be trying to curry favor with one of Washington's most powerful politicians."

Hmm, compared with Soros' donation, which is public and not tax deductible, yet Soros is the one that's evil and is endangering American democracy! A fully disclosed general donation to a general cause, vs. secretly buying 2 dinners with the House Majority leader! God damn it, are conservative immune to recognizing hypocrisy? And even evil??

From the Columbia Journalism Review, the story behind the media's out-of-control spin of the "I Have a Scream" speech: http://www.cjr.org/blog/archives/cat_spin_buster.asp#000051

Pretty fucking amazing...

When you think about it, it's pretty fucking amazing we spent the weekend seeing Dean's scream everywhere we turned, but practically no in-depth discussion of the David Kay resignation. Remember the old days, when 'journalists' worked in news?

Another abject surrender from the "independent" press

Interesting article Rick. What wasn't included in the analysis was the relentless repeating of the soundbite on cable news outlets (Fox, MSNBC, and CNN). Also it was picked up right away by Leno and the other late night comedians.

I had no idea that big media lets John Stewart decide how something like that gets spun. Sure he's funny as shit but it's no substitute for sober analysis and reporting. Another disgusting example of the "independent" press following the pack. If it has started in the National Enquirer would they have followed the lead so readily? I'm afraid the answer is probably yes.

Lost in the hilarity the press had with Dean's speech was good analysis on why Dean failed to close the deal with so many Iowas voters. Thats okay they got Dean's funny speech and that will sell LOTS more papers.

WORST. REPORTING. EVER.

Jeff