February 21, 2004
WHEN DEAN WAS KING
This ABC report is barely a month old, but reads like ancient history. It’s from the short-lived President Dean era. (If you take the time to go through the entire ABC item, there’s a bonus comical assumption in the final line.)
Posted by Tim Blair at February 21, 2004 01:50 PMNot only are we going DOWN, we're going to crash and burn and run and hide and cry like a girl, and we're going to go underground and crazy and get really drunk! And we're going to flip out and scream and curse Bush--no, I mean the Democrats! And then we're going to Washington, D.C. to say bye to the White House, Yeeeeeaaaaaah!"
Posted by: Vikki at February 21, 2004 at 02:31 PMIt's not reading the NYT that gets you into trouble, it's believing what you read in the NYT.
Posted by: JorgXMcKie at February 21, 2004 at 03:29 PMIs it my browser or something, or does the ABC always "justify center" their archived material? That was some hard reading.
I love the way they go on about Dean opposing the war. Maybe if he could have found some other issues to talk about, he might still be there.
Instead : "You can't believe how much I opposed this war....I told 'em I can't be a part of a war that kills innocent people, blows up their houses and allows murderous anihilation of defenceless soldiers.."
"Which war is that Mr Dean?"
"Which war!!! Which war!! Hahahahahahahahaha ...aaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrggggghhh"
Most of you thought was a scream...that's because you aren't as observant as I am about the environment.
It is in fact the rare mating call of the North Bornean Hunting Gnat.....apparently very compelling to the female.
Heard of Proposition 56, this is Proposition 64 when the male Gnat proposes to the female Gnat...champagne, flowers and a ring...(we'll do biology tommorow)
When Dean realised that he was going down he sought comfort from his intern.....well Gnat really....but someone who knew him well.....
It was to her that this mating call went and to her that he submitted himself.....3 times.....which as you know means...you're out.
Posted by: Traps at February 21, 2004 at 05:03 PMI know this is off topic but have just read the following article:
"Latham backs off new law
By Sophie Morris, Dennis Shanahan and Andrew McGarry
February 21, 2004"
Now if the PM had done this would it have been a "backs off" or a "Back Flip"?
Appears that the Latham Honeymoon is still being consumated (or are we being screwed?)
The media is still drunk with love for Mark Latham. Many of the family values espoused by Latham are in place. Balancing work and family and cooperative workplace arrangements are legislated and promoted by the Government. The media has no eyes to read or ears to hear what the Government has achieved. Everything that Latham says is new. What suckers!
In jsut one term of Government, Gough Witless in 1973 allowed a painless divorce and ripped families apart and destroyed the lives of young children by denying them the joys of living with both parents. We now see the results of those policies. The same Labor Party now wants to heal the rift by bringing about family values and unity and the need for kids to grow up under the loving care of mums and dads and punishing parents who neglect their chidren in the name of adult education. It is like giving freedom without responsibilities and then when the freedom is abused to bring about laws to curb the freedom. So why have such limitless freedom in the first place?
What shallow and hypocrital lot these journos are! they are the cheer leaders for Latham's ascendency. All the good that Howard has done is forgotten. The media has decided that it is going to back Latham in the race to the lodge. Never mind all the back flips. They are only back offs.
Posted by: perty at February 21, 2004 at 10:47 PMMAXINE McKEW (ABC reporter): Amazing, isn't it, when reading the 'New York Times' can be considered a political liability!
What about the latte ... the Volvo ... the body piercing ...
Posted by: ilibcc at February 22, 2004 at 10:21 AMilibcc,
I saw that attack ad on television somewhere here in Australia. I thought it was pretty funny, if a little clumsy.
The funniest thing of all is that I assume it was done by a rival Democrat campaign (?). The characters in it were a kind of parody of a great "middle America" that the Democrats could not afford to lose but who would be repelled by Howard Dean. Ad theme - "we might hate people like this but, by God, we want them to vote for us"!
Subtleties like this may escape Ms McKew entirely, of course.
Posted by: Bob Bunnett at February 22, 2004 at 01:27 PMHi.
"Howard Dean is not her first choice for nominee, but Democrats want to back a winner.
And if it looks like Dean has the best chance to beat President Bush, she'll back him."
I don't think that bottom line has changed. They want to beat Bush, and that's all.
Posted by: David Blue at February 22, 2004 at 04:52 PM