« Yes But No—But Yes | Main | "International Polar Year" Begins Amid Worries of Rising Seas »

01 March 2007



LOL neo-con, perhaps he just does not like hillary; it's not a far stretch of the imagination; his democratic credentials are solid; he did work for Carter and Tip O'Neill


Matthews Democratic credentials expired long ago. He "worked' for Tip O'Neill and Carter way back in the day before he began attacking Bill Clinton in 1991 when he was still a print reporter. Now he supports George W. Bush and Mitt Romney.

Former liberals who turn conservatiove are called ... "neo-conservative." The term was popularized in the Reagan Administration.

Andy in Seattle

Yes, Matthews has left the building--the Democratic Party one--and if he thinks his neocon leanings will earn him kudos from the right, fine, go work for Fox "News" and continue to distort and mislead. The problem is, how many people in the MSM are taking the time you, Rod, just have to point out the distortions and misrepresentations? Not many, I fear. But thanks Rod for your clearly annotated entry.


It's OK Rod, when he's tired of bashign Hillary, he'll move on to Sen. Obama. He's about ripe for his hi-tech lynching by the Clintonians...

Andy in Seattle

Agreed, Bill--any moment now all those who fear (and serve to lose something) if Obama prevails will bring out the long knives and wait until they see a weakness or peak of his popularity... and then let's stand back and watch. Smears, obfuscations, distortions, etc. It's going to be a very interesting political open-season.


eh, the liberals say he's conservative; the conservatives say he's liberal; maybe he is just in that center that so many seem to be desparately grasping for these days


Publicly supporting Georege W. Bush and Mitt Romney is not cenetr. That is right. I'd say Giuliani or Clinton are in the center.

Matthews is on the record for voting for and supporting Bush. Twice. That's not centrist.

Michael D. Fein

I am not a fan of Mr. Matthews and I take very little of what he says seriously. But I am quite surprised that so many people seem to be willing to decide so far in advance who they are supporting in the 08 presidential election. We are almost a year away from the first primary. The candidates haven't even all declared. Their positions have been all over the map, and only with time, can we figure out who we feel will serve the country best. This whole idea of these ultra-long campaigns in the states is just ridiculous, in my rarely to be humble opinion. :-) Here in Canada, when an election is called, the maximum length of the campaign is 6 weeks, usually less. The voters get to focus on the issues, the candidates abilities to govern, their parties agenda and priorities, etc. Of course, there is always a bit of negativity, but nowhere near what goes on in the U.S. campaigns. No one really cares who slept with whom, or he they are gay or straight, or if there is truth to the rumour that he/she parented a black child out of wedlock etc. The campaigns are too short for the elements of personal destruction that the U.S. campaigns seem to thrive on more and more with each passing event. Perhaps shorter campaigns might help keep the focus on the important elements of the office each candidate is seeking.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Rod 2.0 Premium

Rod 2.0 Recommends

  • PrideDating.com, a Relationship-Oriented Gay Dating Site

    The largest gay roommate finder in America

    Rolex Watches


Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Search Rod2.0




    Blog powered by Typepad