under the circumstances.
But the original question was why Republicans are not wishy-washy about
the issue. I hope this explains why.
David Shemano
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of kelley
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 6:52 AM
To: [EMAIL PR
correct me if i'm wrong, but if memory serves, there wasn't an option for a
statewide manual recount, at first. there was an option for a statewide
machine recount. and there was the possibility of challenging the result
in particular counties. borehead's team (and shrubya's) already knew
f kelleySent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 6:52 AMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [PEN-L:5780] Re: RE: Re: GOP vs Dem
Behavior (e.g., voting)correct me if i'm wrong, but if memory
serves, there wasn't an option for astatewide manual recount, at
first. there was an option for a statewidemachine recount
ginal question was why Republicans are not wishy-washy about
the issue. I hope this explains why.
David Shemano
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of kelley
Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2000 6:52 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:5780] Re: RE
5:23
PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: [PEN-L:5829] Re:
RE: Re: RE: Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)No, it
is not completely cynical. As Boies argued this morning on the issue of a
broader recount, it is not the plaintiff's responsibility to protect Bush from
the incompetenc
I have no problem at all w/your being here,
but I have to say I am curious as to why.
mbs
Since you asked, I am a conservative who lurks on this list, . . .
: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 10:53 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:5665] Re: RE: RE: Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)
Dear conservative lurker (apologies for losing your name),
Since you asked, I am a conservative who lurks on this list, . . .
Lurk not, brave sir! Tell us why
for losing his name.
-Original Message-
From: Rob Schaap [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 10:53 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:5665] Re: RE: RE: Re: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)
Dear conservative lurker (apologies for losing your name),
Since
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/05/00 02:11PM
MK: I disagree. I think most folks take the outrages of the GOP for
granted.
They are shameless in their shamefulness.
Michael K.
Yes, they are. But it doesn't seem to hurt them.
Can you imagine the Democrats successfully doing
to Bush what was done
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/05/00 02:13PM
A comment - has anybody met/seen/talked with/heard or heard of a
single Republican who doesn't stand solidly on Bush's side in this
dispute?
Why is it that the Democrats are wishy-washy on Gore, while the
Republicans are hard-core for Bush?
Perhaps they
Dear conservative lurker (apologies for losing your name),
Since you asked, I am a conservative who lurks on this list, . . .
Lurk not, brave sir! Tell us why the economy's healthy. Or why it's not.
Or what, in the heady dynamics around and within us, represents the
If you have specific questions, I would be happy to answer as best I can.
David Shemano
How would you rank the following conservatives in terms of importance?
1. J. Edgar Hoover
2. Al Capp
3. Spiro Agnew
4. Oliver North
5. Frank Rizzo
6. Roy Innis
7. Rush Limbaugh
8. Joseph McCarthy
9. Roy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/05/00 04:43PM
Nathan Newman wrote:
One of the areas where
the Democrats have clearly and demonstrably moved towards a more progressive
position in the last fifteen years is on immigration.
Employers love loose immigration regulations, no? Forbes and the WSJ
are all in
]]On Behalf Of Louis Proyect
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2000 1:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:5725] Re: RE: GOP vs Dem Behavior (e.g., voting)
If you have specific questions, I would be happy to answer as best I can.
David Shemano
How would you rank the following conservatives
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/06/00 04:45PM
Why mention the lumpenconservatives? In terms of importance in establishing
the merits of convervatism, you are forgetting the most important
conservatives:
1. Rulers of Soviet Union from 1917 to 1991.
2. Rulers of Eastern European countries from
Why mention the lumpenconservatives? In terms of importance in establishing
the merits of convervatism, you are forgetting the most important
conservatives:
1. Rulers of Soviet Union from 1917 to 1991.
2. Rulers of Eastern European countries from 1945 to 1989.
3. Rulers of North
David Shemano wrote:
I am not sure what your question is, so I will answer as follows. First, I
am conservative, so I don't believe in perfection and am willing to defend
and conserve imperfection -- I am not going to throw the baby out with the
bathwater.
In this sense I am also a
Dear conservative lurker (apologies for losing your name),
Since you asked, I am a conservative who lurks on this list, . . .
Lurk not, brave sir! Tell us why the economy's healthy. Or why it's not.
Or what, in the heady dynamics around and within us, represents the status
quo to which you
MK: I disagree. I think most folks take the outrages of the GOP for
granted.
They are shameless in their shamefulness.
Michael K.
Yes, they are. But it doesn't seem to hurt them.
Can you imagine the Democrats successfully doing
to Bush what was done to Clinton? For example,
a la
A comment - has anybody met/seen/talked with/heard or heard of a
single Republican who doesn't stand solidly on Bush's side in this
dispute?
Why is it that the Democrats are wishy-washy on Gore, while the
Republicans are hard-core for Bush?
Perhaps they have a clearer vision.
Barry
For those who don't think that the dispute in Florida
is a big deal, consider this:
Aside from Bush getting the presidency, we are now (if
things go as I predict) going to see:
Widespread voting abuse conducted by a party, sufficient
to alter a national election. The campaign co-chair
rushing
A comment - has anybody met/seen/talked with/heard or heard of a
single Republican who doesn't stand solidly on Bush's side in this
dispute?
Why is it that the Democrats are wishy-washy on Gore, while the
Republicans are hard-core for Bush?
Perhaps they have a clearer vision.
Barry
The
- Original Message -
From: "Louis Proyect" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I expect that as the social and economic crisis of late capitalism deepens,
the Republican Party will continue to shift to the right. Despite Bush's
minstrel show at the convention, the Republican Party ruled Texas with a
racist
So where is your evidence of any even incipient rightward shift among Dems
on immigration issues. In the last four years, especially, as the results
of the latino electoral mobilization of 1996 was fully appreciated, the Dems
have been moving in a MORE pro-immigrant stance.
-- Nathan Newman
At 02:13 PM 12/5/00 -0500, you (Barry?) wrote:
Why is it that the Democrats are wishy-washy on Gore, while the
Republicans are hard-core for Bush?
perhaps because Gore is such a robot? or because he's so wishy-washy
himself, first being a DLC technocrat and then pretending to be an "I'll
fight
Nathan Newman wrote:
One of the areas where
the Democrats have clearly and demonstrably moved towards a more progressive
position in the last fifteen years is on immigration.
Employers love loose immigration regulations, no? Forbes and the WSJ
are all in favor of pretty open borders. Can you
- Original Message -
From: "Louis Proyect" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If and when objective conditions foment a Buchanan candidacy, I
would expect the Democrats to run somebody who has an abysmal position on
immigration and all the rest of it.
New immigrants becoming citizens are voting
The Democratic Party essentially believes in nothing except winning office,
so why would it be capable of galvanizing a nonexistent base?
This state of affairs was created by the Democratic Leadership Council. The
DLC was launched by Gore, Clinton and other disciples of New Republic
The DLC started after the Mondale defeat. The guiding
principle was not any special conservative ideological
position, but a determination not to get smoked again
in a national election. What did Mondale win? Two
states or something? A pretty strong reaction was
understandable.
Mondale was
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Hoover" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
First specific DLC accomplishment was to convince 11 southern states to
hold their prez primaries on same day in 1988 for purpose of boosting
their clout, enhancing position of south in nominating process and
helping
A comment - has anybody met/seen/talked with/heard or heard of a
single Republican who doesn't stand solidly on Bush's side in this
dispute?
Why is it that the Democrats are wishy-washy on Gore, while the
Republicans are hard-core for Bush?
Perhaps they have a clearer vision.
Barry
Since
From: "Michael Hoover" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
First specific DLC accomplishment was to convince 11 southern states to
hold their prez primaries on same day in 1988 for purpose of boosting
their clout, enhancing position of south in nominating process and
helping "moderate" southern candidates.
32 matches
Mail list logo
