[JohnHuang2]

Thanks, amigo =^)

I still think you were off base with your prior essay raising the question of 'latent anti-semitism' by Matthews and the gang, but today's effort was superb.

Conservatives, for years, have been unfairly accused by liberals of harboring the ugliest of motives for what amounts to honest policy differences with the left.

And I agree with you, if your point is that it's not a tactic conservatives would be wise to emulate. I couldn't agree with you, in fact.

Which is why I didn't, per se, accuse CM of being an anti-Semite, but his virulence, on this issue generally, and against 'neo-cons' in particular, is deeply troubling. Moreover, his 'dovish' stance vis-a-vis Iraq is hard to reconcile with his gung-go hawkish, 'bombs-away' attitude towards the Serbia/Kosovo campaign back in April-June '99.

Then again, perhaps we'll never see eye-to-eye re: CM, but know this: I value your opinions and know you arrive at them honestly.

[RJCogburn]

Fair enough, compadre. ;^)

[cake_crumb]

"neo-cons"

That petty, sweeping condemnation of all conservatives who don't get with the idea of a status quo held by rabid right wingnuts is really getting to me too.

The other day, I told a poster who using the term "neo-con", shall we say, very liberally, that it sounds too much like the people who killed many of my family in Europe before and during WWII, and I find sich a comparison to be extremely offensive.

He came back with first : "if the shoe fits, wear it" reply, then when that didn't work, said "we should all work together for compromise" (on HIS terms, no less), then third, came out with some goofy definition of the term "neo-con" from some obscure book that no one who was offended by the term "neo-con" had heard of, let alone read in order to justify his overuse of the word. I mean...DUH!

That is virulently venemous. Also stupid.

[patriciaruth]

Then again, perhaps we'll never see eye-to-eye re: CM, but know this: I value your opinions and know you arrive at them honestly.

Like all liberals, Chris Matthews doesn't have a conhesive philosophy about government, so he takes practically all his views from the pages of his Bible, The New York Times.

Rarely, he blanches, and renders a more considered opinion, but it is rare....because he wants to hold onto his job.