A bit more respect for Ronald Dumbsfeldt, a.k.a. Donald Bombsfelldt, as he did
acquire Madass Hussein's Marantz collection.

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 09:39:00 GMT, "Sandman"
wrote:

BRAVO, "clam" for bringing this to our attention.

Undoubtedly, an entire catalogue of such lies could be compiled during this
campaign year. Rumsfeld comes off like such an ass, as usual, in that
interview.

When cornered like that, the funniest thing is that he scrunches up his face
like he's got a cattle prod shoved up his ass, and stumbles all over his
words scrambling for evasions.


Um, Mike? Art?

The silence is deafening.

Here's a clip of it:

http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/

--

Jacob Kramer

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 23:47:49 -0600, Miles Long wrote:

This was so delicious you should really catch the video:

http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/

Arny? Pyjamarama? Geosynch?

Anyone?

--

Jacob Kramer

On 18 Mar 2004 10:34:21 -0800, (ScottW) wrote:

Remember Clinton implemented the regime change policy and
the hypocrisy of the dems in this obvious desire to
remove Bush at all costs is nauseating.

More or less nauseating than the way the Republicans went after a lame
duck president?

BTW, you should read the Matalin/Carville book "All's Fair". What a
great read. It might actually make you see some humor in all of this
political stuff.

On 18 Mar 2004 15:16:38 -0800, (ScottW) wrote:

dave weil wrote in message . ..
On 18 Mar 2004 10:34:21 -0800, (ScottW) wrote:

Remember Clinton implemented the regime change policy and
the hypocrisy of the dems in this obvious desire to
remove Bush at all costs is nauseating.

More or less nauseating than the way the Republicans went after a lame
duck president?

BTW, you should read the Matalin/Carville book "All's Fair". What a
great read. It might actually make you see some humor in all of this
political stuff.

James Carville and his kind are the worst thing to ever evolve on the
face of the American political system.

Once again, you should read the book, "All's Fair", by MARY MATALIN
and James Carville.

Or maybe you shouldn't. You seem so dour that you probably wouldn't
enjoy it at all.

Is it funny that America has reached a point where almost nothing can
be believed during a political campaign? No wonder voter turnout is
so low.

You should read the book, "All's Fair" by Mary Matalin and James
Carville. It is FULL of funny stuff about political campaigns. It's a
well-written and entertaining book.

On 18 Mar 2004 15:16:38 -0800, (ScottW) wrote:

James Carville and his kind are the worst thing to ever evolve on the
face of the American political system.

No it's not. FoxNews seems to beat it handily.

Just finished watching Hannity and Colmes (for probably the last
time).

Fox seems desperate to promulgate the idea that Ayman al-Zawahri is
*indeed* the high level target, so they got a guy on the phone (Hamid
Mir) who had been in contact with the commander of the Pakistani
forces. Colmes asked him whether or not the Pakistanis thought that it
was indeed al-Zawahri and the guy said that it seemed to the Pakis
that it seemed to be mostly Chezchnians and he said, "I have the
information that al-Zawahri is not there" (this is a direct quote as
are everything that I put in quotes from here on out).

So, Sean Hannity comes in and says, words to the effect that he is
indeed Sean Hannity and that they have been receiving information and
"You have been in touch with the commander in charge of this operation
the past few days. Can you SPECIFICALLY tell us that you feel
confident that it is him? What do you think the odds are it is him"?
(It's like Hannity wasn't even listening to what was said). He then
replies that yes, he has been there for the last few days and that
he's talked to many people and that "Yes, the Arab fighters WERE there
but they left that area round about 4 weeks ago when the Pakistani
forces entered in the area and the only people who left there were
some Chezchnians and some Uzbechs who had their families with them...
(Hannity tries to interrupt)...that's why they were staying there and
that al-Zawahri was staying in that area a few months ago (more
interruption) and then, as he tries to proceed, they totally cut him
off to go to the next guy, a guy from the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, a guy who was an advisor to Bhutto. They then
asked "Should we be assured that the person that we say we believe is
captured is al-Zawahri - do we believe that it is he, why should we
believe that"? (as if the last last guy on the phone hadn't even said
ANYTHING) He said, "I don't think that we should believe ANYTHING
until we see a dead body, if there IS a dead body", etc. He points out
that Musharrif has done this before and that we should simply wait and
see. Well, Hannity then goes after him and says, "It's apparent from
your remarks that you have political hostility toward Musharrif" and
then he harangues him some more as he says that we should wait and
see.

Of all of the people that either Fox or CNN has had by telephone (and
there have been quite a few journalists that they've been talking to),
the *one* person who seems to have spoken directly to the commander in
the field and seems to have specific information about the combatants
and time frames of known knowledge about al-Zawahri is cut off and
treated like he didn't say *anything*. Totally absurd. He didn't toe
the party line that's going on right now as the news agencies seem
bent of running with this obvious misleading "leak of intelligence"
that seems pretty carefully planted (no matter HOW it pans out at this
point - it just helps underscore the "War President" thing, especially
coupled with the Ft. Campbell visit today).

To me, it sounds like al-Zawahri slipped out of the area weeks ago,
but who knows? Maybe we'll be lucky and hear of his capture or death
in the morning. But I have to wonder at this point.

In any case, enough of those two bozos. And enough of FoxNews for the
time being.

"elg110254" wrote in message

A bit more respect for Ronald Dumbsfeldt, a.k.a. Donald Bombsfelldt, as he
did
acquire Madass Hussein's Marantz collection.

Marantz, eh? Saddam had good taste.

"ScottW" wrote in message
dave weil wrote in message

On 18 Mar 2004 15:16:38 -0800, (ScottW) wrote:

James Carville and his kind are the worst thing to ever evolve on the
face of the American political system.

No it's not. FoxNews seems to beat it handily.



How do you figure? The media is just a pawn to the likes of
Carville.
He is the villainous puppetmaster.

ScottW,

I always thought you were a bit of a lunatic. But I did not ever anticipate
your stupidity would reach such a fantastic zenith.

Carville is a contributor to CNN, not Fox News. So assuming that he is the
villainous puppetmaster that controls the universe and puts Howard Stern on
the air, he would promote CNN, not Fox News.

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

"ScottW" wrote in message
dave weil wrote in message

On 18 Mar 2004 15:16:38 -0800, (ScottW) wrote:

James Carville and his kind are the worst thing to ever evolve on
the
face of the American political system.

No it's not. FoxNews seems to beat it handily.



How do you figure? The media is just a pawn to the likes of
Carville.
He is the villainous puppetmaster.

ScottW,

I always thought you were a bit of a lunatic. But I did not ever
anticipate
your stupidity would reach such a fantastic zenith.

Carville is a contributor to CNN, not Fox News. So assuming that he is
the
villainous puppetmaster that controls the universe and puts Howard Stern
on
the air, he would promote CNN, not Fox News.

I'm not talking about Carvilles current role as contributor to CNN you
moron.
I'm talking about his roles as DNC strategist and campaign manager.
If you can't keep up, I suggest you keep quiet until you have a clue.


ScottW

"Matthew" wrote in message
om...
Seems you have been watching Fox News and Hannity & Colmes.

Since you are interested, why not switch to PBS?
Try the News Hour, Washington Week, Frontline and Now!
More depth per story and no stupid commercials.

As for Hannity, I listened to his radio show for a couple of months.

I hate his nonstop interruptions and insisting on putting words in
everyones mouth.

But he does have the occasional interesting guest so I listen in the car.

He had a fascinating discussion today with Pat Buchanon.
It was one of the best and most insightful perspective
on problems on both sides of the aisle
I've heard in a long time.

Buchanon was driving Hannity nuts BTW.

ScottW

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:02:08 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

"ScottW" wrote in message
dave weil wrote in message

On 18 Mar 2004 15:16:38 -0800, (ScottW) wrote:

James Carville and his kind are the worst thing to ever evolve on
the
face of the American political system.

No it's not. FoxNews seems to beat it handily.



How do you figure? The media is just a pawn to the likes of
Carville.
He is the villainous puppetmaster.

ScottW,

I always thought you were a bit of a lunatic. But I did not ever
anticipate
your stupidity would reach such a fantastic zenith.

Carville is a contributor to CNN, not Fox News. So assuming that he is
the
villainous puppetmaster that controls the universe and puts Howard Stern
on
the air, he would promote CNN, not Fox News.

I'm not talking about Carvilles current role as contributor to CNN you
moron.
I'm talking about his roles as DNC strategist and campaign manager.
If you can't keep up, I suggest you keep quiet until you have a clue.

So, does that make Matalin a puppetmistress?

Once you calm down, maybe you can answer that...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:02:08 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

"ScottW" wrote in message
dave weil wrote in message

On 18 Mar 2004 15:16:38 -0800, (ScottW)
wrote:

James Carville and his kind are the worst thing to ever evolve
on
the
face of the American political system.

No it's not. FoxNews seems to beat it handily.



How do you figure? The media is just a pawn to the likes of
Carville.
He is the villainous puppetmaster.

ScottW,

I always thought you were a bit of a lunatic. But I did not ever
anticipate
your stupidity would reach such a fantastic zenith.

Carville is a contributor to CNN, not Fox News. So assuming that he is
the
villainous puppetmaster that controls the universe and puts Howard
Stern
on
the air, he would promote CNN, not Fox News.

I'm not talking about Carvilles current role as contributor to CNN you
moron.
I'm talking about his roles as DNC strategist and campaign manager.
If you can't keep up, I suggest you keep quiet until you have a clue.

So, does that make Matalin a puppetmistress?

No, she held a legit post as Communications director for the VP
(IIRC) until she left. I don't know if she has any current role
within the government or the Republican party.

Once you calm down, maybe you can answer that...

Stop projecting Dave.

ScottW

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 21:31:33 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

So, does that make Matalin a puppetmistress?

No, she held a legit post as Communications director for the VP
(IIRC) until she left. I don't know if she has any current role
within the government or the Republican party.

You need to read the book, because you really *are* clueless.

At least read a bio of her.

You're really missing out on a good read by steadfastly refusing to
consider reading the book. It gives a really candid, inside view from
both sides. It's entertaining as hell, *and* you'll actually learn
something about the subjects that you're attempting to discuss.

"The Artist" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" emitted :

What do you want? Admission Rums looks like an idiot?
Ok, he looks senile. Their intel on WMD was bad.
The whole war justification thing was badly managed and has blown up
in their faces. They need to admit it and move on. Most of America is
smart enough to realize that whats done is done, and in spite of the
lack of WMDs, removing Saddam was a good thing.

So you do or don't think senior ranking figures in the Bush
administration should face any responsibilities for their actions?
They should or shouldn't be tried for war crimes?

To you, engaging in war is a war crime.

ScottW

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 21:31:33 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

So, does that make Matalin a puppetmistress?

No, she held a legit post as Communications director for the VP
(IIRC) until she left. I don't know if she has any current role
within the government or the Republican party.

You need to read the book, because you really *are* clueless.

That book is 10 years old.


At least read a bio of her.

I did read a bio. Nothing I said is in error.
You're propensity to leap to insults without
cause reveals the depths of your distress.

ScottW

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 08:23:40 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 21:31:33 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

So, does that make Matalin a puppetmistress?

No, she held a legit post as Communications director for the VP
(IIRC) until she left. I don't know if she has any current role
within the government or the Republican party.

You need to read the book, because you really *are* clueless.

That book is 10 years old.

Of course it is. Does that make it any less informative and
entertaining? It's a real page turner. It's done from a "he said, she
said" perspective, and neither of them are shrinking violets, *that's*
for sure. Even though I fundamentally disagree with almost *all* of
Matalin's political stances, I find her extremely entertaining,
ascerbic, insightful, and intelligent. Just like Carville, she takes
no prisoners. And as much as I despise Carville's annoying pit-bull
public personna, I find him quite the mirror image of Matalin on the
printed page.

At least read a bio of her.

I did read a bio. Nothing I said is in error.

No, it just left out the first 20 some-odd years of her life as a
political operative (excatly what Carville is). She was a key player
(actually higher up the chain than Carville, who was the chief
campaign strategist for the campaign) in the first Bush reelection
campaign. She was his POLITCAL DIRECTOR for reelection. Carville was
just an consultant (a very effective one after his initial string of
losses on a regional level). Perhaps if he hadn't been advising
foreign polititians rather than Gore, Gore might have won. Carville
*also* does not have a role within the government or the Democratic
Party. In fact, he's been out of the Democratic Party structure for
far longer than Matalin has been. He's been consulting for foreign
politicos for many years now.

I guess I could call Ms. Matalin the bagman (sic) of the RNC instead
of the puppetmaster. No wait, she was that too. Not only did she run
envelopes of $10,000 to party hacks for Rich Bond, she coordinated
much of the fund-raising effort as well as setting up the grass-roots
organizational structure of the Republican party.

You're propensity to leap to insults without
cause reveals the depths of your distress.

And your poor grasp of the language undermines even the shreds of
credibility that you might have when discussing issues of import.

Once again, you are missing a great opportunity to see the inner
workings of the American political process (with all of its warts) on
a very personal and fundamental level, simply because you despise one
of the authors.

I'm sure that the current Bush operatives have read it though
chuckle.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 08:23:40 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 21:31:33 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

So, does that make Matalin a puppetmistress?

No, she held a legit post as Communications director for the VP
(IIRC) until she left. I don't know if she has any current role
within the government or the Republican party.

You need to read the book, because you really *are* clueless.

That book is 10 years old.

Of course it is. Does that make it any less informative and
entertaining? It's a real page turner. It's done from a "he said, she
said" perspective, and neither of them are shrinking violets, *that's*
for sure. Even though I fundamentally disagree with almost *all* of
Matalin's political stances, I find her extremely entertaining,
ascerbic, insightful, and intelligent. Just like Carville, she takes
no prisoners. And as much as I despise Carville's annoying pit-bull
public personna, I find him quite the mirror image of Matalin on the
printed page.

At least read a bio of her.

I did read a bio. Nothing I said is in error.

No, it just left out the first 20 some-odd years of her life as a
political operative (excatly what Carville is).

Did Carville ever serve in government? No.

She was a key player
(actually higher up the chain than Carville, who was the chief
campaign strategist for the campaign) in the first Bush reelection
campaign. She was his POLITCAL DIRECTOR for reelection.

Insert Weil bash on spelling here.

Carville was
just an consultant (a very effective one after his initial string of
losses on a regional level). Perhaps if he hadn't been advising
foreign polititians rather than Gore, Gore might have won. Carville
*also* does not have a role within the government or the Democratic
Party. In fact, he's been out of the Democratic Party structure for
far longer than Matalin has been. He's been consulting for foreign
politicos for many years now.

I guess I could call Ms. Matalin the bagman (sic) of the RNC instead
of the puppetmaster. No wait, she was that too. Not only did she run
envelopes of $10,000 to party hacks for Rich Bond, she coordinated
much of the fund-raising effort as well as setting up the grass-roots
organizational structure of the Republican party.

I see your confusion. When you asked if Matalin was also a puppetmaster
I should have said, "No, not currently".
Carville is still playing in the shadows I'm afraid.

You're propensity to leap to insults without
cause reveals the depths of your distress.

And your poor grasp of the language undermines even the shreds of
credibility that you might have when discussing issues of import.

You just can't help yourself. The elitist left has always thought
they are just smarter than everyone else.
It's kind of sad that some people could become just so
much 'hot air'. Well, whatever makes you feel better.
Don't get to hatred and endorsing violence ala Sanders
if your frustration with my "grasp of the language"
exceeds your ability to contain it.


Once again, you are missing a great opportunity to see the inner
workings of the American political process (with all of its warts) on
a very personal and fundamental level, simply because you despise one
of the authors.

Yup, I despise that piece of the American political system and
I won't reward the participants by buying their books.
I suppose you rush out and buy Hannity's books or Savage's?
Hannity isn't doing what he does to follow his heart, he's in it
for the money and you're being duped.

ScottW

"The Artist" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" emitted :

What do you want? Admission Rums looks like an idiot?
Ok, he looks senile. Their intel on WMD was bad.
The whole war justification thing was badly managed and has blown up
in their faces. They need to admit it and move on. Most of America is
smart enough to realize that whats done is done, and in spite of the
lack of WMDs, removing Saddam was a good thing.

So you do or don't think senior ranking figures in the Bush
administration should face any responsibilities for their actions?
They should or shouldn't be tried for war crimes?

To you, engaging in war is a war crime.

That's baseless rhetoric, Scott. I have never stated such a thing, nor
do I subscribe to it.

Baseless rhetoric begets baseless rhetoric.

ScottW

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 09:11:56 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 08:23:40 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 21:31:33 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

So, does that make Matalin a puppetmistress?

No, she held a legit post as Communications director for the VP
(IIRC) until she left. I don't know if she has any current role
within the government or the Republican party.

You need to read the book, because you really *are* clueless.

That book is 10 years old.

Of course it is. Does that make it any less informative and
entertaining? It's a real page turner. It's done from a "he said, she
said" perspective, and neither of them are shrinking violets, *that's*
for sure. Even though I fundamentally disagree with almost *all* of
Matalin's political stances, I find her extremely entertaining,
ascerbic, insightful, and intelligent. Just like Carville, she takes
no prisoners. And as much as I despise Carville's annoying pit-bull
public personna, I find him quite the mirror image of Matalin on the
printed page.

At least read a bio of her.

I did read a bio. Nothing I said is in error.

No, it just left out the first 20 some-odd years of her life as a
political operative (excatly what Carville is).

Did Carville ever serve in government? No.

Sure he did. He was a senior advisor to President Clinton after the
election. Very similar to Matalin's short stint in government
recently. Up until her recent government service, she worked for the
RNC, which really isn't "government work", as you seem to define it.

She was a key player
(actually higher up the chain than Carville, who was the chief
campaign strategist for the campaign) in the first Bush reelection
campaign. She was his POLITCAL DIRECTOR for reelection.

Insert Weil bash on spelling here.

Whatever *that's* supposed to mean.

Carville was
just an consultant (a very effective one after his initial string of
losses on a regional level). Perhaps if he hadn't been advising
foreign polititians rather than Gore, Gore might have won. Carville
*also* does not have a role within the government or the Democratic
Party. In fact, he's been out of the Democratic Party structure for
far longer than Matalin has been. He's been consulting for foreign
politicos for many years now.

I guess I could call Ms. Matalin the bagman (sic) of the RNC instead
of the puppetmaster. No wait, she was that too. Not only did she run
envelopes of $10,000 to party hacks for Rich Bond, she coordinated
much of the fund-raising effort as well as setting up the grass-roots
organizational structure of the Republican party.

I see your confusion. When you asked if Matalin was also a puppetmaster
I should have said, "No, not currently".

Well, Carville isn't "currently" a "puppetmaster" for any candidate
and hasn't been one for any American candidate since 1992 (the same
time that Matalin was doing the same for Bush). He *has* done some
consulting for the Democratic party though, AFAIK. So has Matalin, for
that matter.

So what's yer point?

Carville is still playing in the shadows I'm afraid.

Not for any American candidates at this point. And if you call
Crossfire "the shadows" (or appearing on shows like Meet the Press),
then I guess you're entitled to spin this however you like.

You're propensity to leap to insults without
cause reveals the depths of your distress.

And your poor grasp of the language undermines even the shreds of
credibility that you might have when discussing issues of import.

You just can't help yourself. The elitist left has always thought
they are just smarter than everyone else.

Ahhh, the ole Agnew strategy. Yes, it's a horrible thing to try to get
the English language correct. And no, just because someone makes an
occasional error doesn't make them stupid. It's when people can't even
get some of the most fundamental grammatical concepts correct that
they become fair game. And yes, I make myself a target on occasion. I
*do* make an attempt to get it right though. I've know for years the
difference between your and you're, even as I might transpose the two
once in a blue moon.

BTW, your line is a parrot of a Sorkin line in the West Wing from the
first season, when he used the character of Mary Marsh to fling the
same claim at a couple of White House characters. it was just as venal
sounding then as it sounds now.

It's kind of sad that some people could become just so
much 'hot air'. Well, whatever makes you feel better.
Don't get to hatred and endorsing violence ala Sanders
if your frustration with my "grasp of the language"
exceeds your ability to contain it.

You're the one who seems to be burning up with hatred. The problem is,
you can't really express yourself very well. Yes, I guess that's *my*
problem as well as yours since I have to suffer your communications.

Once again, you are missing a great opportunity to see the inner
workings of the American political process (with all of its warts) on
a very personal and fundamental level, simply because you despise one
of the authors.

Yup, I despise that piece of the American political system and
I won't reward the participants by buying their books.

....even if it gives you valuable insights about the way things are
done (as I said, warts and all). Just stay ignorant.

I suppose you rush out and buy Hannity's books or Savage's?

No, I haven't been so inclined. I *did* read part of one of Limbaugh's
books though. If Tucker Carlson wrote a book, I doubt I would read it
either. I'm not all that interested in reading talking heads' books,
unless those talking heads have also been involved in the process.
This book is a primer about the modern political process *as it is*.
Anyone interested in the process (even those disgusted by it) would be
stupid to ignore the book. I'm sure the Bush team isn't ignoring it.

Hannity isn't doing what he does to follow his heart, he's in it
for the money and you're being duped.

How am I being duped by not being interested in a not-very-interesting
and not-very-informative right wing commentator? BTW, I find Colmes
even more of a joke and wouldn't touch any book that he wrote either.

"The Artist" wrote in message
news
"ScottW" emitted :

What do you want? Admission Rums looks like an idiot?
Ok, he looks senile. Their intel on WMD was bad.
The whole war justification thing was badly managed and has blown
up
in their faces. They need to admit it and move on. Most of America
is
smart enough to realize that whats done is done, and in spite of
the
lack of WMDs, removing Saddam was a good thing.

So you do or don't think senior ranking figures in the Bush
administration should face any responsibilities for their actions?
They should or shouldn't be tried for war crimes?

To you, engaging in war is a war crime.

That's baseless rhetoric, Scott. I have never stated such a thing, nor
do I subscribe to it.

Baseless rhetoric begets baseless rhetoric.

N/A. All I did was ask you a couple of straight ahead questions.

Let's try again.. try and restrain yourself from drooling this time.

A) You do or don't think senior ranking figures in the Bush
administration should face any responsibilities for their actions?

Yes. Responsibilities to be determined by U.S. voters.

B) They should or shouldn't be tried for war crimes?

Should not.

ScottW

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 09:11:56 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 08:23:40 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 21:31:33 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

So, does that make Matalin a puppetmistress?

No, she held a legit post as Communications director for the VP
(IIRC) until she left. I don't know if she has any current role
within the government or the Republican party.

You need to read the book, because you really *are* clueless.

That book is 10 years old.

Of course it is. Does that make it any less informative and
entertaining? It's a real page turner. It's done from a "he said, she
said" perspective, and neither of them are shrinking violets, *that's*
for sure. Even though I fundamentally disagree with almost *all* of
Matalin's political stances, I find her extremely entertaining,
ascerbic, insightful, and intelligent. Just like Carville, she takes
no prisoners. And as much as I despise Carville's annoying pit-bull
public personna, I find him quite the mirror image of Matalin on the
printed page.

At least read a bio of her.

I did read a bio. Nothing I said is in error.

No, it just left out the first 20 some-odd years of her life as a
political operative (excatly what Carville is).

Did Carville ever serve in government? No.

Sure he did. He was a senior advisor to President Clinton after the
election. Very similar to Matalin's short stint in government
recently. Up until her recent government service, she worked for the
RNC, which really isn't "government work", as you seem to define it.

He didn't list it in his personal bio

http://www.carville.info/jcbio.html

Are you really so certain you know this stuff?



She was a key player
(actually higher up the chain than Carville, who was the chief
campaign strategist for the campaign) in the first Bush reelection
campaign. She was his POLITCAL DIRECTOR for reelection.

Insert Weil bash on spelling here.

Whatever *that's* supposed to mean.

So much for superior intellect.
You really aren't as smart or as intuitive
as you think you are.

Carville was
just an consultant (a very effective one after his initial string of
losses on a regional level). Perhaps if he hadn't been advising
foreign polititians rather than Gore, Gore might have won. Carville
*also* does not have a role within the government or the Democratic
Party. In fact, he's been out of the Democratic Party structure for
far longer than Matalin has been. He's been consulting for foreign
politicos for many years now.

I guess I could call Ms. Matalin the bagman (sic) of the RNC instead
of the puppetmaster. No wait, she was that too. Not only did she run
envelopes of $10,000 to party hacks for Rich Bond, she coordinated
much of the fund-raising effort as well as setting up the grass-roots
organizational structure of the Republican party.

I see your confusion. When you asked if Matalin was also a
puppetmaster
I should have said, "No, not currently".

Well, Carville isn't "currently" a "puppetmaster" for any candidate
and hasn't been one for any American candidate since 1992 (the same
time that Matalin was doing the same for Bush). He *has* done some
consulting for the Democratic party though, AFAIK.

Carville has been behind numerous democratic strategy
papers since Gore lost. He is very active behind the
scenes.

So has Matalin, for
that matter.

So what's yer point?

Carville is still playing in the shadows I'm afraid.

Not for any American candidates at this point. And if you call
Crossfire "the shadows" (or appearing on shows like Meet the Press),
then I guess you're entitled to spin this however you like.

Carville is still active in the ranks of the DNC.

You're propensity to leap to insults without
cause reveals the depths of your distress.

And your poor grasp of the language undermines even the shreds of
credibility that you might have when discussing issues of import.

You just can't help yourself. The elitist left has always thought
they are just smarter than everyone else.

Ahhh, the ole Agnew strategy. Yes, it's a horrible thing to try to get
the English language correct. And no, just because someone makes an
occasional error doesn't make them stupid. It's when people can't even
get some of the most fundamental grammatical concepts correct that
they become fair game. And yes, I make myself a target on occasion. I
*do* make an attempt to get it right though. I've know for years the
difference between your and you're, even as I might transpose the two
once in a blue moon.

I do it often because my typing sucks, spellchecker doesn't catch it,
and it shouldn't cause any confusion for any but the stupidest of
readers. Those who resort to such criticisms are clearly obfuscating
in a futile attempt to obscure their own inability to effectively defend or
refute a position.

BTW, your line is a parrot of a Sorkin line in the West Wing from the
first season, when he used the character of Mary Marsh to fling the
same claim at a couple of White House characters. it was just as venal
sounding then as it sounds now.

It's kind of sad that some people could become just so
much 'hot air'. Well, whatever makes you feel better.
Don't get to hatred and endorsing violence ala Sanders
if your frustration with my "grasp of the language"
exceeds your ability to contain it.

You're the one who seems to be burning up with hatred. The problem is,
you can't really express yourself very well. Yes, I guess that's *my*
problem as well as yours since I have to suffer your communications.

The arrogance to assume the problem is always on the other end
is yours. I do look at what I wrote when you fail to comprehend
and the slightest of subtlety or sarcasm often leave you perplexed.
It really makes the whole discourse much less entertaining than it
could be.

Once again, you are missing a great opportunity to see the inner
workings of the American political process (with all of its warts) on
a very personal and fundamental level, simply because you despise one
of the authors.

Yup, I despise that piece of the American political system and
I won't reward the participants by buying their books.

...even if it gives you valuable insights about the way things are
done (as I said, warts and all). Just stay ignorant.

Conclusion that failure to read this one book
causes ignorance is just another example of Weil logic.
Still, any opportunity to insult rather than discuss is
not to be ignored, right Dave?

I suppose you rush out and buy Hannity's books or Savage's?

No, I haven't been so inclined. I *did* read part of one of Limbaugh's
books though. If Tucker Carlson wrote a book, I doubt I would read it
either. I'm not all that interested in reading talking heads' books,
unless those talking heads have also been involved in the process.
This book is a primer about the modern political process *as it is*.

There are other ways to become aware without condoning and
subsidizing that which is despicable.

Anyone interested in the process (even those disgusted by it) would be
stupid to ignore the book. I'm sure the Bush team isn't ignoring it.

Sure, lets make it the de facto standard template for winning elections.
Democracy is not the better for it.

ScottW

The Artist wrote:

"ScottW" emitted :


What do you want? Admission Rums looks like an idiot?
Ok, he looks senile. Their intel on WMD was bad.
The whole war justification thing was badly managed and has blown up
in their faces. They need to admit it and move on. Most of America is
smart enough to realize that whats done is done, and in spite of the
lack of WMDs, removing Saddam was a good thing.


So you do or don't think senior ranking figures in the Bush
administration should face any responsibilities for their actions?
They should or shouldn't be tried for war crimes?

They can't be until July 2004. Exemption granted by the U.N.
in exchange for blackmailing them with shutting down all the
Peacekeeping support we give the U.N.

It really did happen - look it up. We blackmailed them. They
caved. We could burn whole villages and not be prosecuted
for it until the exemption runs out(which is coincidentaly
a week or twoafter our planned withdrawl).

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 17:41:16 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

He didn't list it in his personal bio

http://www.carville.info/jcbio.html

Are you really so certain you know this stuff?

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_repor...lle.james.html

You're getting annoying. You must have slept through the 90s.

On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 21:03:12 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:

I guarantee you'll screw up to/too and your/you're at least three
times in the next week.

But it doesn't matter because the world is so screwed up.

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 08:23:15 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:



dave weil said:

I guarantee you'll screw up to/too and your/you're at least three
times in the next week.

But it doesn't matter because the world is so screwed up.

Did Scottie really say that?

It just drips from his posts.

It sounds so familiar.... There must be
some low-profile confederation of losers who have a book of excuses.

You can make book on it.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 17:41:16 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

He didn't list it in his personal bio

http://www.carville.info/jcbio.html

Are you really so certain you know this stuff?

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_repor...lle.james.html

You're getting annoying. You must have slept through the 90s.

This say's Carville held no formal position within the Clinton
administration. It appears senior "political" advisor is
not an official government position.
You really have trouble with blurred lines.

http://tinyurl.com/3gpyh

ScottW

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 08:23:15 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:



dave weil said:

I guarantee you'll screw up to/too and your/you're at least three
times in the next week.

But it doesn't matter because the world is so screwed up.

Did Scottie really say that?

It just drips from his posts.

It sounds so familiar.... There must be
some low-profile confederation of losers who have a book of excuses.

You can make book on it.

The grammar police are ganging up on me.
A sure sign the truth has left them stymied again.

ScottW

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


DummyDork said:

You're getting annoying. You must have slept through the 90s.

This say's

I think this little bit of illiteracy is in the same class as
its/it's, which you get wrong 90% of the time.

Note to the extra-stupid (that's you): This is a grammatical error,
not a "typo". However, if had run your spellchecker, it probably would
have caught the error for you.

Who was it bitching about the quality of public education in
California? It would be ever so ironic if such complaints came from
somebody who failed to absorb the foundations of education such as
elementary language skill.

It's a good thing you don't care what people think of you. If you made
an error that basic on your resume, I'd never hire you.

I'm not writing a resume here George. Are you?

I admit my apostrophe control on the keyboard is poor.
Do I care because it drive you buggy? No.

You can't see the truth because the apostrophe was in
the wrong place. I could pity you.

ScottW

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 12:08:50 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:



DummyDork said:

You're getting annoying. You must have slept through the 90s.

This say's

I think this little bit of illiteracy is in the same class as
its/it's, which you get wrong 90% of the time.

Note to the extra-stupid (that's you): This is a grammatical error,
not a "typo". However, if had run your spellchecker, it probably would
have caught the error for you.

Who was it bitching about the quality of public education in
California? It would be ever so ironic if such complaints came from
somebody who failed to absorb the foundations of education such as
elementary language skill.

Agreed.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


The cosmically stupid Terrierdork thumps his furry chest and claims
yet another empty "victory".

I guarantee you'll screw up to/too and your/you're at least three
times in the next week.

But it doesn't matter because the world is so screwed up.

Did Scottie really say that?

It just drips from his posts.

It sounds so familiar.... There must be
some low-profile confederation of losers who have a book of excuses.

You can make book on it.

The grammar police are ganging up on me.

Good thing you don't care how stupid you come off.

Only the truly shallow would jump to the conclusion you do
without considering the content (meaning) of my posts.
Your grammar attacks really say more about your lack
of depth and personal insecurities than they do about
my intellect. Call me lazy. I can't deny that.
Call me selfish. I am. But call me stupid because
my apostrophe is in the wrong place - I tell you
your criteria is that of a shallow person devoid of
interesting thought.


A sure sign the truth has left them stymied again.

Or not. In my view, anybody who observes an event and says "obviously,
that means...." or "a sure sign...." suffers from a serious mental
handicap. It could be intense anxiety coupled with repressed anger. Or
an entrenched and dogmatic ideology that governs his every attempt at
analysis. Or a persistent laziness combined with a deeply ingrained
resistance to accepting criticism. Or maybe just plain stupidity. Ask
your therapist for some guidance, why don't you.

Here's a thought: When you're in an expansive mood (and by that I mean
pretty much the opposite of the snarling pit-bull persona to which you
treat RAO most of the time), ask your friend Marc to explain why you
deserve the criticism much more than most of the rest of us.

You presume to judge. I've noted that despite all your words,
you have yet to provide one pertinent comment on the subject.
Was Carville ever an employee of the U.S. government?
The best information I can find says the answer is no.

ScottW

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 12:08:50 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote:



DummyDork said:

You're getting annoying. You must have slept through the 90s.

This say's

I think this little bit of illiteracy is in the same class as
its/it's, which you get wrong 90% of the time.

Note to the extra-stupid (that's you): This is a grammatical error,
not a "typo". However, if had run your spellchecker, it probably would
have caught the error for you.

Who was it bitching about the quality of public education in
California? It would be ever so ironic if such complaints came from
somebody who failed to absorb the foundations of education such as
elementary language skill.

Agreed.

George is gonna hate the next technology wave when
grammar is going to be determined by speech to text software.
Which will then be read back by text to speech software.
One can envision a society where the need to read is as
obsolete as the need to properly punctuate.
No one will care about his precious grammar rules but the
teachers and the programmers.

ScottW

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 09:32:41 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

Was Carville ever an employee of the U.S. government?

He was a contractor. I'm sorry if gave the impression that his
function in the adminstration was equivalent to Matalin's in terms of
being a White House staffer equivalent to, say a GS level position. I
looked over my answer and can see how I gave that impression. I meant
that his function was similar to Matalin's. I didn't mean that he was
a "government employee" as Matalin was for a short time in her career.

I hope this clarifies. I was taking issue to the idea that being a
political operative is somehow not "working in government", especially
when you are directly working in an administration for a president
(which Matalin didn't even do, unless you consider Cheney the "real
president", which is certainly a viewpoint that's defensible).

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 09:42:38 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

One can envision a society where the need to read is as
obsolete as the need to properly punctuate.

You seem to be a trendsetter, that's for sure.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 09:32:41 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

Was Carville ever an employee of the U.S. government?

He was a contractor.

This would still be a position paid by the government.
Are you sure his compensation didn't come from
the Democratic party or Clinton campaign funds?

I wouldn't be too pleased for our tax dollars to be
funding the role of "political" advisor.

I'm sorry if gave the impression that his
function in the adminstration was equivalent to Matalin's in terms of
being a White House staffer equivalent to, say a GS level position. I
looked over my answer and can see how I gave that impression. I meant
that his function was similar to Matalin's. I didn't mean that he was
a "government employee" as Matalin was for a short time in her career.

I hope this clarifies.

It does, thanks.

I was taking issue to the idea that being a
political operative is somehow not "working in government",

I will always try to distinguish between party employees and
government employees. At times, it is difficult.
I've read of party employees having offices in government
facilities at times.

especially
when you are directly working in an administration for a president
(which Matalin didn't even do, unless you consider Cheney the "real
president", which is certainly a viewpoint that's defensible).

They are all part of the administration. Every administration seems
to have a different breakdown of which segment wields power.
I did find it interesting that Hillary functioned as a government
employee in the Clinton administration without appointment.

Change in tone and rhetoric noted and appreciated.

ScottW

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
news


Stupid Dorky Spittle Gob whined:

Who was it bitching about the quality of public education in
California? It would be ever so ironic if such complaints came from
somebody who failed to absorb the foundations of education such as
elementary language skill.

Agreed.

George is gonna hate the next technology wave when
grammar is going to be determined by speech to text software.

You moron, I'll still learn it ten times better and ten times faster
than a whack-job like you.

As a "manager", do you have a team of assistants to write your memos
and emails for you? BTW, your employer must be truly hard-up for
"managers" if they're willing to give the job to a dork who comes off
like an illiterate numbskull.

How many IT consulting gigs did you lose because they didn't hire
you to be the company spellchecker?
They subbed that job to MS. You can't compete.


If you have a diagnosed LD condition,

It's called Acquired MiddiusImmunity Sydrome.
Commonly associated with successful career
people who can focus on what's important
and ignore the rest.

ScottW

"Useless George" wrote in message
...


MoreExcusesThanKroogerDork whined:

If you have a diagnosed LD condition,

It's called Acquired MiddiusImmunity Sydrome.
Commonly associated with successful career
people who can focus on what's important
and ignore the rest.

That's almost funny, but it's still more pathetic than witty.

If education is important, how can not having it be unimportant?

You have a fool's narrow perception of education.

ScottW

On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 10:16:39 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 09:32:41 -0800, "ScottW"
wrote:

Was Carville ever an employee of the U.S. government?

He was a contractor.

This would still be a position paid by the government.
Are you sure his compensation didn't come from
the Democratic party or Clinton campaign funds?

I couldn't tell you. He runs a consulting firm and he was a senior
advisor to the President.

I wouldn't be too pleased for our tax dollars to be
funding the role of "political" advisor.

I really don't know *who* funds those type of positions.

I'm sorry if gave the impression that his
function in the adminstration was equivalent to Matalin's in terms of
being a White House staffer equivalent to, say a GS level position. I
looked over my answer and can see how I gave that impression. I meant
that his function was similar to Matalin's. I didn't mean that he was
a "government employee" as Matalin was for a short time in her career.

I hope this clarifies.

It does, thanks.

I was taking issue to the idea that being a
political operative is somehow not "working in government",

I will always try to distinguish between party employees and
government employees. At times, it is difficult.
I've read of party employees having offices in government
facilities at times.

especially
when you are directly working in an administration for a president
(which Matalin didn't even do, unless you consider Cheney the "real
president", which is certainly a viewpoint that's defensible).

They are all part of the administration. Every administration seems
to have a different breakdown of which segment wields power.
I did find it interesting that Hillary functioned as a government
employee in the Clinton administration without appointment.

I've never understood this criticism. Mrs. Bush does a lot of advocacy
work for the government as well.

Change in tone and rhetoric noted and appreciated.

I try to respond as I am responded to. I appreciate *your* courtesy
here as well...

dave weil wrote:

Who was it bitching about the quality of public education in
California? It would be ever so ironic if such complaints came from
somebody who failed to absorb the foundations of education such as
elementary language skill.

That would be ME who was "bitching" about the poor state
of education in California schools. And, no, I didn't post
the error in question.

California WAS good - 10-15 years ago. Now, it is a disaster.

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 08:15:15 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

Who was it bitching about the quality of public education in
California? It would be ever so ironic if such complaints came from
somebody who failed to absorb the foundations of education such as
elementary language skill.

That would be ME who was "bitching" about the poor state
of education in California schools. And, no, I didn't post
the error in question.

And that would not be ME who wrote that.

dave weil wrote:

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 08:15:15 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
wrote:


dave weil wrote:


Who was it bitching about the quality of public education in
California? It would be ever so ironic if such complaints came from
somebody who failed to absorb the foundations of education such as
elementary language skill.

That would be ME who was "bitching" about the poor state
of education in California schools. And, no, I didn't post
the error in question.


And that would not be ME who wrote that.

Note the third set of indents. I edit out the parts that seem
excessive to keep bandwidth down and sometimes the newsreader
program does this nonsense anyways - it gets confused.

I think I need a new newsreader program. Netscape sucks.