OT - EARTHQUAKE!
MR. PHP
A Republican wins in MD?
OMG!
Go Bob!
Maybe Bob Ehrlich and Mike Steele, the first African-American elected
to statewide office as Lt.Gov,. can help to change things in the "Free
State."
Of course, thanks to Spendenning and KKT they start $1.7 billion in
the red.
It's going to be tough!
There were not very many smart moves in the KKT campaign, but the best
move was blasting the endorserments of Chuck Thompson, Mike Flanagan,
Mike Curtis, and Jim Palmer. KKT called them "Has Beens!"
ROFL
Thanks! KKT! After 34 years we rule the roost!
All the weirdo/kooky stuff coming from the liberal-socialists in
Montgomery, and PG will meet the mighty veto pen of BE!
LOL!
Oh! Yeah! and did I mention that the first African-American elected to
state-wide office in Maryland is a Republican!
So where is all this "inclusiveness" of the Democrats?
Oh! Yeah! And Mike is a pro-life conservative!
He is the next Governor of MD after Ehrlich finishes his second term.
What happens to the liberal-socialist Dems when the the first
African-American Governor of Maryland is a Republican?
Ooooh! Thats gotta hurt! lol!
LOL!
David H
news:66E0510043524CBC.01A8434E...@lp.airnews.net...
"Better put some ice on it." - Bill Clinton
David H.
Stephen Mack
<66E0510043524CBC.01A8434E...@lp.airnews.net>,
MR. PHP <tpwh...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Holy cow!
>
> A Republican wins in MD?
Well, I'm not a Marylander, but it's worthwhile to keep in mind that
Erlich had to resort to the "Democrats like me, too" schtick in order
to win.
BTW, this petty "ours is bigger" thing that goes on after elections is
really sickening.
--
Smack
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." -Publius Terentius Afer
Charles Supha
"Stephen Mack" <sm...@zzappspam.org> wrote in message
news:061120021458543443%sm...@zzappspam.org...
> In article
> <66E0510043524CBC.01A8434E...@lp.airnews.net>,
> MR. PHP <tpwh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Holy cow!
> >
> > A Republican wins in MD?
>
> Well, I'm not a Marylander, but it's worthwhile to keep in mind that
> Erlich had to resort to the "Democrats like me, too" schtick in order
> to win.
>
> BTW, this petty "ours is bigger" thing that goes on after elections is
> really sickening.
>
Registered Democratic voters outnumber Republican registered voters by a 2
to 1 margin. So it's basically impossible for any Republican candidate in
MD to win w/ just the Republican base. Which is why the Republicans that
were elected in MD are considered "independant/moderate Republicans".
C.
MR. PHP
MR. PHP
<cli...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>"Stephen Mack" <sm...@zzappspam.org> wrote in message
>news:061120021458543443%sm...@zzappspam.org...
>> In article
>> <66E0510043524CBC.01A8434E...@lp.airnews.net>,
>> MR. PHP <tpwh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Holy cow!
>> >
>> > A Republican wins in MD?
>>
>> Well, I'm not a Marylander, but it's worthwhile to keep in mind that
>> Erlich had to resort to the "Democrats like me, too" schtick in order
>> to win.
>>
>> BTW, this petty "ours is bigger" thing that goes on after elections is
>> really sickening.
>>
>
>Registered Democratic voters outnumber Republican registered voters by a 2
>to 1 margin. So it's basically impossible for any Republican candidate in
>MD to win w/ just the Republican base. Which is why the Republicans that
>were elected in MD are considered "independant/moderate Republicans".
>
Ehrlich is indeed a moderate Republican.This made it difficult for KKT
and her minions to paint him as a radical, but it wasn't for a lack of
trying to do so (Bob Shrum is gonna go negative every time! He makes
alot of money playing THAT game)!
Mike Steele is more conservative than Ehrlich, which is why the SUN
went after him with the long knives. They even claimed that Ehrlich
selected Steele just because he was Black. What is really funny, is
that The Sun really likes affirmative action programs. In this case,
however, they don't! LOL! I'm surprised they just didn't just call
him an "Uncle Tom" or a "House Negro" (ala Belefonte").
Oh! Well. The Sun has lost their last half-ounce of credibility and
now their editorial staff looks stupid and they don't mean squat.
Their Os beat in the Sports section is pretty good. The rest of the
rag goes to the bottom of the cages for my two cockatiels and my two
parakeets. My birds do some pretty good commentary themselves! They
even whistle while they work!
LOL!
>C.
>>
>
MR. PHP
wrote:
>"MR. PHP" <tpwh...@comcast.net> wrote in message
Check this out...
---------------
Washington (bird cage fodder) Post
Sunday, July 25, 1999; Page A1
...
Kathleen Townsend is the oldest member of the generation, born in
1951. It is possible that she will become the dominant figure in a
family that has until now been dominated by men.
Married to an unassuming college professor, mother of four daughters,
Townsend is the increasingly popular (PHP remembers other articles in
national magazines that had KT as the future of the liberal dems)
lieutenant governor of Maryland and appears poised to succeed Gov.
Parris N. Glendening when he steps down in three years.
She is not a natural pol, not in the easy, graceful way of her uncle
and cousin, the two John F. Kennedys. She lost her first race, for
Congress in 1986, and was universally judged a weak public speaker
during her first campaign with Glendening in 1994.
But she has pursued popular issues straight from President Clinton's
"New Democrat" playbook: crime prevention, community policing,
volunteerism, economic development. She is a Kennedy who favors the
death penalty (PHP remembers that it was KKT who suggested to
Spendenning that he impose a death penalty moritorium). At the same
time, Townsend has consulted speech coaches to work on her technique.
...
-----------------------
Notice that in 1999, she was "Kathleen Townsend," not "KKT!"
ROFL
With help from the Impeached One, KKT failed to "score a football!"
What a waste of money on speech coaches.
ROFL
David H.
> <66E0510043524CBC.01A8434E...@lp.airnews.net>,
> MR. PHP <tpwh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Holy cow!
> >
> > A Republican wins in MD?
>
> Well, I'm not a Marylander, but it's worthwhile to keep in mind that
> Erlich had to resort to the "Democrats like me, too" schtick in order
> to win.
Wow! Look at the big brains on Smack!
A candidate has to appeal to the other side in order to win an election?
>
> BTW, this petty "ours is bigger" thing that goes on after elections is
> really sickening.
F*ck you!
You want some cheeze with that whine?
David H.
Douglas T. (Doug) Massey
Stephen Mack <sm...@zzappspam.org> writes:
>
> Well, I'm not a Marylander, but it's worthwhile to keep in mind that
> Erlich had to resort to the "Democrats like me, too" schtick in order
> to win.
Why is that considered "schtick"? Apparently, enough of them voted
for Erlich for him to win the election . . .
Doug
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
___, Doug Massey, ASIC Digital Logic Designer
\o IBM Microelectronics Division, Burlington, Vermont |>
| Phone: (802)769-7095 t/l: 446-7095 fax: x6752 |
/ \ |
. My homepage: http://doug.obscurestuff.com (|)
Charles Supha
"MR. PHP" <mr...@planet.gong.rgi> wrote in message
news:06FAFE345E4A0583.D058A0B0...@lp.airnews.net...
I only read the Sun for their Sports and Business coverage.... everything
basically sucks....
C.
Stephen Mack
<dhag...@erols.com> wrote:
> > BTW, this petty "ours is bigger" thing that goes on after elections is
> > really sickening.
>
> F*ck you!
>
> You want some cheeze with that whine?
I'm sorry if I think that the process of dealing with the way society
functions and dealing literally with human lives should be more than
just a game of one-upmanship.
Stephen Mack
<mas...@valhalla.btv.ibm.com> wrote:
> In article <061120021458543443%sm...@zzappspam.org>,
> Stephen Mack <sm...@zzappspam.org> writes:
> >
> > Well, I'm not a Marylander, but it's worthwhile to keep in mind that
> > Erlich had to resort to the "Democrats like me, too" schtick in order
> > to win.
>
> Why is that considered "schtick"? Apparently, enough of them voted
> for Erlich for him to win the election . . .
I apologize if my use of the word "schtick" isn't strict enough for
you. I consider just about any campaign gimmick "schtick." I'm just
pointing out that he didn't necessarily win on Republican values. The
Republicans chose a candidate to appeal to Democratic voters. It would
be much more a thing to gloat over (if that's your style) if they put
up a Jesse Helms character and got him elected in Maryland.
The importance of this: next to none. Who cares? Whether Democrats or
Republicans are elected really doesn't matter that much. For some
reason, though, I still reserve hope for the days when voters begin to
think for themselves and start voting for people who will do the same.
Douglas T. (Doug) Massey
Stephen Mack <sm...@zzappspam.org> writes:
> In article <aqdu5o$kvm$1...@news.btv.ibm.com>, Douglas T. (Doug) Massey
> <mas...@valhalla.btv.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <061120021458543443%sm...@zzappspam.org>,
>> Stephen Mack <sm...@zzappspam.org> writes:
>> >
>> > Well, I'm not a Marylander, but it's worthwhile to keep in mind that
>> > Erlich had to resort to the "Democrats like me, too" schtick in order
>> > to win.
>>
>> Why is that considered "schtick"? Apparently, enough of them voted
>> for Erlich for him to win the election . . .
>
> I apologize if my use of the word "schtick" isn't strict enough for
> you. I consider just about any campaign gimmick "schtick." I'm just
> pointing out that he didn't necessarily win on Republican values. The
> Republicans chose a candidate to appeal to Democratic voters. It would
> be much more a thing to gloat over (if that's your style) if they put
> up a Jesse Helms character and got him elected in Maryland.
Oh, okay. I've always thought that they're precious little difference
between the two parties -- they form their platform such that it pleases
51% of the electorate nationally, then tailor it a little more to the
left or right as local constitencies mandate. Most politicians are
pretty moderate these days, except in districts where they can afford
to be whacked out to the left or right.
A Republican who wants to be elected to state-wide Maryland office had
better come across as at least half-Democrat.
PS: Irrelevant trivia: I grew up with US Representative from Maryland
Roscoe Bartlett's (R) family -- he's a Seventh Day Adventist as was my
family. Went to the same church in Frederick, went to school with his
sons (both as dumb as posts, as best I could tell). After I escaped to
the University of Maryland and the world of sinners, he ran for the US
House. I'm not sure who's going to burn in hell longer, him or me . . . :-)
> The importance of this: next to none. Who cares? Whether Democrats or
> Republicans are elected really doesn't matter that much. For some
> reason, though, I still reserve hope for the days when voters begin to
> think for themselves and start voting for people who will do the same.
That'll never happen.
The vast, vast majority of the world doesn't think beyond their five
senses. Very simple things just aren't worth the effort to most people.
For instance: ask a religious person why they follow the religion
they do. Invariably, it's because their parents followed that religion.
See? No conscious thought -- they just pick the brainless option.
Same thing with political party. If you associate yourself with a
political party, chances are, so did your parents. There are exceptions,
but that's exactly what they are: exceptions. The vast majority doesn't
think when they vote.
Oh well, the democratic republic works anyway.
Stephen Mack
<mas...@valhalla.btv.ibm.com> wrote:
> Same thing with political party. If you associate yourself with a
> political party, chances are, so did your parents. There are exceptions,
> but that's exactly what they are: exceptions. The vast majority doesn't
> think when they vote.
I guess I've never realized how lucky I was to grow up with parents on
opposite sides of the political spectrum. If they had both been
Republicans or had both been Democrats, it may have never occurred to
me to question what either side was saying.
Though, then again, they're both ardent Catholics and it didn't take me
very long (age 9, as I recall) to seriously question what I was being
fed there. I guess I'm just odd.
But even now you see a lot of secularization; certainly much more now
than fifty years ago, and there was much more secularization fifty
years ago than there was two hundred years ago. It's a slow process
but human consciousness evolves just like every living thing.
Disclaimer: No, I'm not saying that secularization is a good thing, but
questioning the authority of one's church/state/etc. is a necessary
step in maturation. In many cases, the path ultimately leads back to
that institution, but with a more inclusive and mature sense of what it
all means. One can't understand spirituality if he mindlessly swallows
everything that's told to him. Jesus acted out of intuition, not a
book of rules and myths.
Douglas T. (Doug) Massey
Stephen Mack <sm...@zzappspam.org> writes:
> In article <aqod9n$uj8$1...@news.btv.ibm.com>, Douglas T. (Doug) Massey
> <mas...@valhalla.btv.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> Same thing with political party. If you associate yourself with a
>> political party, chances are, so did your parents. There are exceptions,
>> but that's exactly what they are: exceptions. The vast majority doesn't
>> think when they vote.
>
> I guess I've never realized how lucky I was to grow up with parents on
> opposite sides of the political spectrum. If they had both been
> Republicans or had both been Democrats, it may have never occurred to
> me to question what either side was saying.
Neither of my parents were political -- I had to sort of figure it
out on my own.
> Though, then again, they're both ardent Catholics and it didn't take me
> very long (age 9, as I recall) to seriously question what I was being
> fed there. I guess I'm just odd.
I would guess that there are lots of people who decide religion isn't
for them, despite religious parents. But if you decide you *are* a
religious person, you almost always choose your parents' religion --
despite the hundreds of choices available.
> But even now you see a lot of secularization; certainly much more now
> than fifty years ago, and there was much more secularization fifty
> years ago than there was two hundred years ago. It's a slow process
> but human consciousness evolves just like every living thing.
Thankfully. :-)
> Disclaimer: No, I'm not saying that secularization is a good thing, but
> questioning the authority of one's church/state/etc. is a necessary
> step in maturation.
You may not, but I will. :-)