[George M. Middius[_4_]]

"I'm a uniter, not a divider."

Who said that? Scottie? Sacky?

[Clyde Slick]

On 30 Aug, 22:05, George M. Middius wrote:
"I'm a uniter, not a divider."

Who said that? Scottie? Sacky?

not me!!!!

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

"I'm a uniter, not a divider."

Who said that? Scottie? Sacky?

not me!!!!

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was hoping you or Witless would be able to remind
me who did say it. I believe it was a personage of some note. Any ideas?

[Clyde Slick]

On 31 Aug, 01:39, George M. Middius wrote:
Clyde Slick said:

"I'm a uniter, not a divider."

Who said that? Scottie? Sacky?

not me!!!!

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was hoping you or Witless would be able to remind
me who did say it. I believe it was a personage of some note. Any ideas?

I was responding to 'the letter of the law', so
to speak.
Since you just asked a better question, I will answer it
Bush said it when he was running for the Republican
nomination. Of course, he was referring to uniting republicans.
Nobody can unite Democrats, its a lost cause.
Not that the Reps don't have their fractures, but the Dems
have more of them, and on more issues and on having many
competing liberal special interest groups.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 31, 2:01*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 31 Aug, 01:39, George M. Middius wrote:

Clyde Slick said:

"I'm a uniter, not a divider."

Who said that? Scottie? Sacky?

not me!!!!

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was hoping you or Witless would be able to remind
me who did say it. I believe it was a personage of some note. Any ideas?

I was responding to 'the letter of the law', so
to speak.
Since you just asked a better question, I will answer it
Bush said it when he was running for the Republican
nomination. Of course, he was referring to uniting republicans.

Oh, my bad. I thought he meant "everybody" because he also famously
said that he was the "president of everybody".

Nobody can unite Democrats, its a lost cause.

Too much emphasis placed on "differing POVs".

Not that the Reps don't have their fractures, but the Dems
have more of them, and on more issues and on having many
competing liberal special interest groups.

Groupthink is *still* not a good thing, even after Rove.

Look what it's done to McCain.

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

Groupthink is *still* not a good thing, even after Rove.

That reminds me, who said this about a possible vp choice:

With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he¹s been a governor for
three years, he¹s been able but undistinguished. I don¹t think people
could really name a big, important thing that he¹s done. He was mayor of
the 105th largest city in America. And again, with all due respect to
Richmond, Virginia, it¹s smaller than Chula Vista, California; Aurora,
Colorado; Mesa or Gilbert, Arizona; north Las Vegas or Henderson,
Nevada. It¹s not a big town. So if he were to pick Governor Kaine, it
would be an intensely political choice where he said, `You know what?
I¹m really not, first and foremost, concerned with, is this person
capable of being president of the United States?

--

Stephen

[John Atkinson[_2_]]

On Aug 31, 7:46 am, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:
Groupthink is *still* not a good thing, even after Rove.

That reminds me, who said this about a possible vp choice:

With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he¹s been a governor for
three years, he¹s been able but undistinguished. I don¹t think people
could really name a big, important thing that he¹s done. He was mayor
of the 105th largest city in America. And again, with all due respect to
Richmond, Virginia, it¹s smaller than Chula Vista, California; Aurora,
Colorado; Mesa or Gilbert, Arizona; north Las Vegas or Henderson,
Nevada. It¹s not a big town. So if he were to pick Governor Kaine, it
would be an intensely political choice where he said, `You know what?
I¹m really not, first and foremost, concerned with, is this person
capable of being president of the United States?

I believe it _was_ Karl Rove.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

[Clyde Slick]

On 31 Aug, 03:55, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Aug 31, 2:01*am, Clyde Slick wrote:


Bush said it when he was running for the Republican
nomination. Of course, he was referring to uniting republicans.

Oh, my bad. I thought he meant "everybody" because he also famously
said that he was the "president of everybody".




he is, every President is the Preident of everybody.
no Pres can unite everybody in a bitter, evenly divided
electorate.

[UnsteadyKen[_3_]]

George M. Middius wrote...

I believe it was a personage of some note. Any ideas?

http://archives.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0002/29/se.01.html
--
Ken

http://www.members.lycos.co.uk/buddyduck/

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 31, 6:46*am, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,
*"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

Groupthink is *still* not a good thing, even after Rove.

That reminds me, who said this about a possible vp choice:

With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he¹s been a governor for
three years, he¹s been able but undistinguished. I don¹t think people
could really name a big, important thing that he¹s done. He was mayor of
the 105th largest city in America. And again, with all due respect to
Richmond, Virginia, it¹s smaller than Chula Vista, California; Aurora,
Colorado; Mesa or Gilbert, Arizona; north Las Vegas or Henderson,
Nevada. It¹s not a big town. So if he were to pick Governor Kaine, it
would be an intensely political choice where he said, `You know what?
I¹m really not, first and foremost, concerned with, is this person
capable of being president of the United States?

You're not trying to ignite a fracture among the republicans, are you?
We were just told they have a united front, most likely because they
are all uniters.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 31, 7:10*am, John Atkinson wrote:
On Aug 31, 7:46 am, MiNe 109 * wrote:





In article
,
*"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:
Groupthink is *still* not a good thing, even after Rove.

That reminds me, who said this about a possible vp choice:

With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he¹s been a governor for
three years, he¹s been able but undistinguished. I don¹t think people
could really name a big, important thing that he¹s done. He was mayor
of the 105th largest city in America. And again, with all due respect to
Richmond, Virginia, it¹s smaller than Chula Vista, California; Aurora,
Colorado; Mesa or Gilbert, Arizona; north Las Vegas or Henderson,
Nevada. It¹s not a big town. So if he were to pick Governor Kaine, it
would be an intensely political choice where he said, `You know what?
I¹m really not, first and foremost, concerned with, is this person
capable of being president of the United States?

I believe it _was_ Karl Rove.

That's not even *close* to well-spoken American.

Please try again.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 31, 6:46*am, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article
,
*"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote:

Groupthink is *still* not a good thing, even after Rove.

That reminds me, who said this about a possible vp choice:

With all due respect again to Governor Kaine, he¹s been a governor for
three years, he¹s been able but undistinguished. I don¹t think people
could really name a big, important thing that he¹s done. He was mayor of
the 105th largest city in America. And again, with all due respect to
Richmond, Virginia, it¹s smaller than Chula Vista, California; Aurora,
Colorado; Mesa or Gilbert, Arizona; north Las Vegas or Henderson,
Nevada. It¹s not a big town. So if he were to pick Governor Kaine, it
would be an intensely political choice where he said, `You know what?
I¹m really not, first and foremost, concerned with, is this person
capable of being president of the United States?

I like these quotes:

BUSH: Senator McCain ought to stop those ads. Senator McCain ought to
do what he says he's going to do. The Straight Talk Express should not
be the Parse Talk Express. He ought to be a man who does what he says
he's going to do. He says he's going to run a clean campaign yet he's
got calls going into the Commonwealth of Virginia calling me an anti-
Catholic bigot, which is...

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

BUSH: Yes, he ought not to be doing it. Of course he ought to
apologize.

BUSH: I don't know. We've had six or seven debates already. I mean, we
-- as I recall, you all were suffering from debate fatigue at one
point, and I'm not saying I was. But I look forward to the Los Angeles
debate. I'm going. I will be there. I will be sitting in my chair,
ready to talk. And I hope we spend a lot of time talking about
education. I have a vision for education, and I have a record for
education. And my opponent, Senator McCain, has been largely silent on
education. He's been in the Senate for 17 years. It's hard to point
out any education reform that he has advocated.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 31, 8:21*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 31 Aug, 03:55, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Aug 31, 2:01*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

Bush said it when he was running for the Republican
nomination. Of course, he was referring to uniting republicans.

Oh, my bad. I thought he meant "everybody" because he also famously
said that he was the "president of everybody".

he is, every President is the Preident of everybody.
no Pres can unite everybody in a bitter, evenly divided
electorate.

I wonder where that bitterness came from. I don't recall it being
nearly as bitter when Clinton was in office.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

You're not trying to ignite a fracture among the republicans, are you?
We were just told they have a united front, most likely because they
are all uniters.

God willing.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

I believe it _was_ Karl Rove.

That's not even *close* to well-spoken American.
Please try again.

Your a looser.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

no Pres can unite everybody in a bitter, evenly divided
electorate.

I wonder where that bitterness came from. I don't recall it being
nearly as bitter when Clinton was in office.

Yes, isn't that noteworthy? I think when the Republicans realized some
people were still having fun, they flew into a collective rage and took it
out on Bubba.

[Clyde Slick]

On 31 Aug, 12:55, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Aug 31, 8:21*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 31 Aug, 03:55, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Aug 31, 2:01*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

Bush said it when he was running for the Republican
nomination. Of course, he was referring to uniting republicans.

Oh, my bad. I thought he meant "everybody" because he also famously
said that he was the "president of everybody".

he is, every President is the Preident of everybody.
no Pres can unite everybody in a bitter, evenly divided
electorate.

I wonder where that bitterness came from. I don't recall it being
nearly as bitter when Clinton was in office.

does the word impeachment suggest unity to you?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 31, 1:45*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 31 Aug, 12:55, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Aug 31, 8:21*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 31 Aug, 03:55, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Aug 31, 2:01*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

Bush said it when he was running for the Republican
nomination. Of course, he was referring to uniting republicans.

Oh, my bad. I thought he meant "everybody" because he also famously
said that he was the "president of everybody".

he is, every President is the Preident of everybody.
no Pres can unite everybody in a bitter, evenly divided
electorate.

I wonder where that bitterness came from. I don't recall it being
nearly as bitter when Clinton was in office.

does the word impeachment suggest unity to you?

Is "unity" a synonym for "bitterness"?

In any event, that disunity or bitterness came from...

....the republicans. What was it they spent? $150 million dollars? I'll
tell them a whole list of women who've given me a blow job for only
$500,000. I'd need to get releases first though, as I do not kiss and
tell. LOL!

[Clyde Slick]

On 31 Aug, 17:19, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Aug 31, 1:45*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:





On 31 Aug, 12:55, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Aug 31, 8:21*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 31 Aug, 03:55, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Aug 31, 2:01*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

Bush said it when he was running for the Republican
nomination. Of course, he was referring to uniting republicans.

Oh, my bad. I thought he meant "everybody" because he also famously
said that he was the "president of everybody".

he is, every President is the Preident of everybody.
no Pres can unite everybody in a bitter, evenly divided
electorate.

I wonder where that bitterness came from. I don't recall it being
nearly as bitter when Clinton was in office.

does the word impeachment suggest unity to you?

Is "unity" a synonym for "bitterness"?

In any event, that disunity or bitterness came from...

...the republicans. What was it they spent? $150 million dollars? I'll
tell them a whole list of women who've given me a blow job for only
$500,000. I'd need to get releases first though, as I do not kiss and
tell. LOL!-

thanks for amking my point, nobody can unite Dems and Reps

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 31, 7:16*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 31 Aug, 17:19, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Aug 31, 1:45*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 31 Aug, 12:55, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Aug 31, 8:21*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 31 Aug, 03:55, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Aug 31, 2:01*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

Bush said it when he was running for the Republican
nomination. Of course, he was referring to uniting republicans.

Oh, my bad. I thought he meant "everybody" because he also famously
said that he was the "president of everybody".

he is, every President is the Preident of everybody.
no Pres can unite everybody in a bitter, evenly divided
electorate.

I wonder where that bitterness came from. I don't recall it being
nearly as bitter when Clinton was in office.

does the word impeachment suggest unity to you?

Is "unity" a synonym for "bitterness"?

In any event, that disunity or bitterness came from...

...the republicans. What was it they spent? $150 million dollars? I'll
tell them a whole list of women who've given me a blow job for only
$500,000. I'd need to get releases first though, as I do not kiss and
tell. LOL!-

thanks for amking my point, nobody can unite Dems and Reps

My point was that somehow legislation got passed, somehow the business
of government got done. Clinton compromised, Kennedy compromised but
(and this is a *good* thing according to 2pid) the republicans don't.

It is not a shared thing here. It is not 50-50. Since Newt Gingrich in
1994 the republicans have been abominable. Somehow under Clinton
things still got done.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

It is not a shared thing here. It is not 50-50. Since Newt Gingrich in
1994 the republicans have been abominable. Somehow under Clinton
things still got done.

Clinton out-maneuvered Newt & Co. when the gubmint had to shut down. The
dickheads in congress got all the blame.

[Clyde Slick]

On 31 Aug, 23:00, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:

My point was that somehow legislation got passed, somehow the business
of government got done. Clinton compromised, Kennedy compromised but
(and this is a *good* thing according to 2pid) the republicans don't.

It is not a shared thing here. It is not 50-50. Since Newt Gingrich in
1994 the republicans have been abominable. Somehow under Clinton
things still got done.-

Right!!
Congress was Republican.
thanks!!!!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 1, 10:46*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 31 Aug, 23:00, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
My point was that somehow legislation got passed, somehow the business
of government got done. Clinton compromised, Kennedy compromised but
(and this is a *good* thing according to 2pid) the republicans don't.

It is not a shared thing here. It is not 50-50. Since Newt Gingrich in
1994 the republicans have been abominable. Somehow under Clinton
things still got done.-

Right!!
Congress was Republican.
thanks!!!!

Clinton was willing to compromise, as were the Dems. The republicans
are no longer interested. For proof, note that Clintion approached the
republicans (I believe it was Orrin Hatch in particular) about Supreme
Court nominations.

Back to your simplistic conclusions...

[Clyde Slick]

On 1 Sep, 21:03, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Sep 1, 10:46*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 31 Aug, 23:00, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
My point was that somehow legislation got passed, somehow the business
of government got done. Clinton compromised, Kennedy compromised but
(and this is a *good* thing according to 2pid) the republicans don't.

It is not a shared thing here. It is not 50-50. Since Newt Gingrich in
1994 the republicans have been abominable. Somehow under Clinton
things still got done.-

Right!!
Congress was Republican.
thanks!!!!

Clinton was willing to compromise, as were the Dems. The republicans
are no longer interested. For proof, note that Clintion approached the
republicans (I believe it was Orrin Hatch in particular) about Supreme
Court nominations.

Back to your simplistic conclusions...

The dems in Congress rejected almost all compromises
for the past 8 years

[MiNe 109]

In article
,
Clyde Slick wrote:

On 1 Sep, 21:03, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Sep 1, 10:46*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 31 Aug, 23:00, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
My point was that somehow legislation got passed, somehow the business
of government got done. Clinton compromised, Kennedy compromised but
(and this is a *good* thing according to 2pid) the republicans don't.

It is not a shared thing here. It is not 50-50. Since Newt Gingrich in
1994 the republicans have been abominable. Somehow under Clinton
things still got done.-

Right!!
Congress was Republican.
thanks!!!!

Clinton was willing to compromise, as were the Dems. The republicans
are no longer interested. For proof, note that Clintion approached the
republicans (I believe it was Orrin Hatch in particular) about Supreme
Court nominations.

Back to your simplistic conclusions...

The dems in Congress rejected almost all compromises
for the past 8 years

Nonsense and the "compromises" tended to resemble "complete
capitulation" on issue after issue: Patriot Act, FISA, etc.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 2, 2:51*am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 1 Sep, 21:03, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Sep 1, 10:46*am, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 31 Aug, 23:00, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
My point was that somehow legislation got passed, somehow the business
of government got done. Clinton compromised, Kennedy compromised but
(and this is a *good* thing according to 2pid) the republicans don't.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

The dems in Congress rejected almost all compromises
for the past 8 years

You're smarter than that.
This is something 2pid might say.

Clyde probably believes the blogosphere canard that the Katrina disaster
was Clinton's fault.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 2, 2:09*pm, George M. Middius wrote:
Shhhh! said:

The dems in Congress rejected almost all compromises
for the past 8 years

You're smarter than that.
This is something 2pid might say.

Clyde probably believes the blogosphere canard that the Katrina disaster
was Clinton's fault.

I think the reaction this time was funny.

"Let's cancel the convention, all race to the area, and show the world
how on-the-ball we are. Maybe they'll all forget how badly we screwed
the pooch (sorry, 2pid) the last time!"

[Clyde Slick]

On 2 Sep, 15:09, George M. Middius wrote:
Shhhh! said:

The dems in Congress rejected almost all compromises
for the past 8 years

You're smarter than that.
This is something 2pid might say.

Clyde probably believes the blogosphere canard that the Katrina disaster
was Clinton's fault.

Another affair?
I haven't heard of a Katrina groping incident, yet.

[Clyde Slick]

On 2 Sep, 18:17, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Sep 2, 2:09*pm, George M. Middius wrote:

Shhhh! said:

The dems in Congress rejected almost all compromises
for the past 8 years

You're smarter than that.
This is something 2pid might say.

Clyde probably believes the blogosphere canard that the Katrina disaster
was Clinton's fault.

I think the reaction this time was funny.

"Let's cancel the convention, all race to the area, and show the world
how on-the-ball we are. Maybe they'll all forget how badly we screwed
the pooch (sorry, 2pid) the last time!"

If you weren't such a hate-filled partisan schmuck,
you would have the sense to share the blame between, the Feds (FEMA),
Louisiana,
and the city of New Orleans.
All three did a much better job
two out of three are fresh faces, the old face, Nagin, really
did a superb job of leadership and oraqnization this time.
(See, schmucko, I can give a Dem credit, when credit is due)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 2, 5:45*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 2 Sep, 18:17, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Sep 2, 2:09*pm, George M. Middius wrote:

Shhhh! said:

The dems in Congress rejected almost all compromises
for the past 8 years

You're smarter than that.
This is something 2pid might say.

Clyde probably believes the blogosphere canard that the Katrina disaster
was Clinton's fault.

I think the reaction this time was funny.

"Let's cancel the convention, all race to the area, and show the world
how on-the-ball we are. Maybe they'll all forget how badly we screwed
the pooch (sorry, 2pid) the last time!"

If you weren't such a hate-filled partisan schmuck,

So bushie didn't screw the pooch during Katrina?

you would have the sense to share the blame between, the Feds (FEMA),
Louisiana,
and the city of New Orleans.

States and cities have little in the disaster-response assets. The
National Guard is one of them, but it seems they were elsewhere.

All three did a much better job
two out of three are fresh faces, the old face, Nagin, really
did a superb job of leadership and oraqnization this time.
(See, schmucko, I can give a Dem credit, when credit is due)

Are we sore because McCain is self-destructing? Sorry!

Apparently it was going to take all republicans to respond this time.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 2, 5:42*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 2 Sep, 15:09, George M. Middius wrote:

Shhhh! said:

The dems in Congress rejected almost all compromises
for the past 8 years

You're smarter than that.
This is something 2pid might say.

Clyde probably believes the blogosphere canard that the Katrina disaster
was Clinton's fault.

Another affair?
I haven't heard of a Katrina groping incident, yet.

Katrina cost far more than the $150 million the republicans spent on
their witch hunt. And nobody died.

[Clyde Slick]

On 2 Sep, 19:16, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Sep 2, 5:45*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:





On 2 Sep, 18:17, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 2, 2:09*pm, George M. Middius wrote:

Shhhh! said:

The dems in Congress rejected almost all compromises
for the past 8 years

You're smarter than that.
This is something 2pid might say.

Clyde probably believes the blogosphere canard that the Katrina disaster
was Clinton's fault.

I think the reaction this time was funny.

"Let's cancel the convention, all race to the area, and show the world
how on-the-ball we are. Maybe they'll all forget how badly we screwed
the pooch (sorry, 2pid) the last time!"

If you weren't such a hate-filled partisan schmuck,

So bushie didn't screw the pooch during Katrina?

you would have the sense to share the blame between, the Feds (FEMA),
Louisiana,
and the city of New Orleans.

States and cities have little in the *disaster-response assets. The
National Guard is one of them, but it seems they were elsewhere.


LOL!
so was the New Orleans Police Department.



All three did a much better job
two out of three are fresh faces, the old face, Nagin, really
did a superb job of leadership and oraqnization this time.
(See, schmucko, I can give a Dem credit, when credit is due)

Are we sore because McCain is self-destructing? Sorry!

Apparently it was going to take all republicans to respond this time.-

All that has nothing to do with Gustav.

[Clyde Slick]

On 2 Sep, 19:17, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Sep 2, 5:42*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:



Another affair?
I haven't heard of a Katrina groping incident, yet.

Katrina cost far more than the $150 million the republicans spent on
their witch hunt. And nobody died.


Maybe you are right, we should have gone back and visited the Kennedy/
Kopechne
incident. Someone 'did' die in that one.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 2, 8:38*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 2 Sep, 19:16, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Sep 2, 5:45*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On 2 Sep, 18:17, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 2, 2:09*pm, George M. Middius wrote:

Shhhh! said:

The dems in Congress rejected almost all compromises
for the past 8 years

You're smarter than that.
This is something 2pid might say.

Clyde probably believes the blogosphere canard that the Katrina disaster
was Clinton's fault.

I think the reaction this time was funny.

"Let's cancel the convention, all race to the area, and show the world
how on-the-ball we are. Maybe they'll all forget how badly we screwed
the pooch (sorry, 2pid) the last time!"

If you weren't such a hate-filled partisan schmuck,

So bushie didn't screw the pooch during Katrina?

you would have the sense to share the blame between, the Feds (FEMA),
Louisiana,
and the city of New Orleans.

States and cities have little in the *disaster-response assets. The
National Guard is one of them, but it seems they were elsewhere.

LOL!
so was the New Orleans Police Department.

LOL!

That job was far bigger than a city police department.

All three did a much better job
two out of three are fresh faces, the old face, Nagin, really
did a superb job of leadership and oraqnization this time.
(See, schmucko, I can give a Dem credit, when credit is due)

Are we sore because McCain is self-destructing? Sorry!

Apparently it was going to take all republicans to respond this time.

All that has nothing to do with Gustav.

Sure it does.

Suddenly every republican was "on duty" 24/7.

They were trying to make people forget how "off duty" they all were
during Katrina.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 2, 8:40*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 2 Sep, 19:17, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Sep 2, 5:42*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

Another affair?
I haven't heard of a Katrina groping incident, yet.

Katrina cost far more than the $150 million the republicans spent on
their witch hunt. And nobody died.

Maybe you are right, we should have gone back and visited the Kennedy/
Kopechne incident. Someone 'did' die in that one.

Is 2pid ghostwriting your posts now, Clyde?

Just curious.