<p>Maybe to you, but not in mainstream. I have never heard any pundit say that term…yes, I watch Tim Russert, Chris Wallace, Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, Hannity and Colmes, read drudge and politico.</p>
<p>Post #176 …… you miscomprehend many statements of the opponents, resulting in your unfounded attacks on them</p>
<p>Give me examples of what you are talking about and explain why you think they are attacks….</p>
<p>I am wondering why you didn’t address your name calling issue, but picked the economic royalist comment to respond to. You started the name calling thread, but yet you did not respond to why sjm feels you attacked sokkermom and zoosermom</p>
<p>I had address many questions to you and I hope that you will respond to them… sokkermom, zoosermom, cyber-stalking… no majority lead in dems…how you know what republicans beliefs are.</p>
<p>Post #178…… “Maybe to you, but not in mainstream.” </p>
<p>I think that is true. I have never hear the team used on TV, but it appears quite often in the many books about the New Deal.</p>
<p>Post 183…how you know what republicans beliefs are.</p>
<p>i read</p>
<p>I am wondering why you didn’t address your name calling issue</p>
<p>see my post 182</p>
<p>Thank you for agreeing, but if you use a term that is uncommon, than you need to acknowledge it, otherwise people will read into it as a slam. Not many people, including me can remember terms used in the New Deal. How many people remember the League of Nations? </p>
<p>Honestly, even using the New Deal as a source is outdated. The world has evolved into a global economy and is inter-connected that the New Deal is a NON DEAL… We are not in a depression, we are not isolationists, we are in a global community (WTO, G-8, international space station, NAFTA, KYOTA treaty, etc)</p>
<p>bulletandpima in post 175</p>
<p>Here are two cases of the term economic royalist being used.</p>
<p>Attached is a link to a web page dated Nov. 28 of 2007 that uses the term economic royalist.</p>
<p>[Dana</a> Blankenhorn: Paul and Huckabee](<a href=“Home - Dana Blankenhorn”>Paul and Huckabee - Dana Blankenhorn)</p>
<p>Attached is a link to a web page containing a letter to Mrs. Roosevelt dated Jan 18, 1937 that uses the term economic royalist. </p>
<p>[Historical</a> Thinking Matters: Social Security](<a href=“http://historicalthinkingmatters.org/inquiry.php?moduleID=3&page=inquiry&sourceID=37]Historical”>http://historicalthinkingmatters.org/inquiry.php?moduleID=3&page=inquiry&sourceID=37)</p>
<p>So we have the term economic royalist being used during the New Deal and a late as last week.</p>
<p>Dana Blankenhorn…again let’s get to mainstream…Maureen Dodd, Robert Novack, Charles Krauthammer, James Carville, Donna Brazille…Does anyone know who Dana Blankenhorn is? My guess he is a blogger. I don’t see any AP/ Reuters by line</p>
<p>Then to bring up 1937…different century, different world!</p>
<p>I just proved the term, economic royalist, was in use in 1937 and as late as last week. If I understand you, you think that because you have not heard the term on TV it shouldnt be use. I disagree, the term is well known and used exactly as I used it by well informed and well read people. I agree it is not a common term, but economic royalist is exactly the correct term to use to make the point I was making. I will repeat myself economic royalist is exactly, the correct term to use to make the point I was making.</p>
<p>I think it quite unfair for you to claim that I cant use a term just because you have not heard people like Maureen Dodd, Robert Novak, Charles Krauthammer, James Carville, Donna Brazille use it. I hope to die before I have to limit my knowledge and use of the language to TV talk.</p>
<p>You will find the sentence Stephen Schwarzman, the co-founder of the Blackstone Group, is an unabashed economic royalist, in this article from slate.com publish last Jan. </p>
<p>[Why</a> are billionaires fretting about income inequality? - By Daniel Gross - Slate Magazine](<a href=“http://www.slate.com/id/2157859/]Why”>http://www.slate.com/id/2157859/)</p>
<p>Perhaps you don’t understand my message. Proving your point with a 70 year old refernce and the words of some unknown blogger doesn’t legitamize your point; it only shows that you will reach outside of normal “experts in the field” to lay claim that you are right.</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but I also don’t get my news just from TV, but from current “recognized” pundits in papers such as NYT, Wash Post, and LA Times. Your use of the word is rarely, if ever, used by either side</p>
<p>From bulletandpima in Post 92… Perhaps you don’t understand my message. Proving your point with a 70 year old refernce and the words of some unknown blogger doesn’t legitamize your point; it only shows that you will reach outside of normal “experts in the field” to lay claim that you are right.</p>
<p>In an article the subject of which is Mr. Hucklebee in todays (Dec. 6, 2007) New Yorker magizine you will find the following written: Such signals have begun to excite the suspicions of the economic-royalist wing of the G.O.P. Hendrik Hertzberg has use the term today to mean the same thing I use it to mean, and with reference to the same subject matter. I use the term yesterday he used it today. </p>
<p>I hope this will respond to your concerns about my use of the term, and put to rest your contention that it is outside the use of experts in the field.</p>
<p>Thank you.</p>
<p>[Huckabee?:</a> Comment: The New Yorker](<a href=“http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2007/12/03/071203taco_talk_hertzberg]Huckabee?:”>Huckabee? | The New Yorker)</p>
<p>The dates are wrong Mr. Hertzberg’s article is dated Dec 3 not Dec 6 as I first reported.</p>
<p>Giuliani Mistress Judy Had Security Longer Than Previously Disclosed</p>
<p>From the Friday, December 7th 2007, Daily News.</p>
<p>Witnesses claim Judith Nathan received a full-scale valet service at Nathan’s beck and call well before the affair became public.
Judith Nathan got taxpayer-funded chauffeur services from the NYPD earlier than previously disclosed - even before her affair with then-Mayor Rudy Giuliani was revealed, witnesses and sources tell the Daily News.</p>
<p>Read More:
[Judith</a> Nathan got security earlier](<a href=“http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2007/12/07/2007-12-07_judith_nathan_got_security_earlier.html]Judith”>http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2007/12/07/2007-12-07_judith_nathan_got_security_earlier.html)</p>
<p>No such indescretions for McCain! :)</p>
<p>Just in case some of y’all might grow weary of my McCain interjections - I hope you don’t mind too much & can be a sport until the primaries are over. For some reason McCain doesn’t get the “airplay” that the other candidates do - in spite of the polls that show he has the best chance of winning the general election. For some reason, H, G & R are getting all the press, even tho’ McCain clearly has the most knowledge, experience, & integrity, best & most consistent record.</p>
<p>I hope he gets the votes for the nomination - he deserves a shot! </p>
<p>(So - these are “political” threads, right?)</p>
<p>Cheers!</p>
<p>Keep on going bz! no problem from me. You actually make me :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can empathize with you, bz. Substitute my candidate of choice, Ron Paul, into your statement and it is true also. It’s despicable how the media basically dictates to the American people which candidates are supposedly the ‘frontrunners’ instead of letting them choose for themselves.</p>
<p>The debates should have allowed equal time for ALL the candidates. It was outrageous how they wasted so much time with Romney & Giuliani discussing SPORTS, of all things! when the other candidates were not allowed much time to discuss the important issues.</p>
<p>And now why all of a sudden the surge of interest in Huckabee? Why? Because some Christian pastors have endorsed him, so now suddenly he’s getting attention.</p>
<p>On 12/5 I said the following It will be interesting to see how the economic royalists in the Republican Party try to deal with Huck. They are split among themselves and as such dont have the control of the party they are use to having.</p>
<p>Below we are beginning to see how the economic royalists in the Republican Party are going to deal with Huck
From the Huffington Post
His shot at the Republican presidential nomination in jeopardy, Mitt Romney will begin running a TV ad against Iowa front-runner Mike Huckabee on illegal immigration starting Tuesday while weighing how much negative campaigning he can add to the methodical plan he’s followed all year.
The ad says the former governors have a lot in common _ but not on illegal immigration, an important issue in Iowa, which will lead off nomination voting with its caucuses on Jan. 3.
“Mitt Romney stood up, and vetoed in-state tuition for illegal aliens, opposed driver’s licenses for illegals,” the ad says. “Mike Huckabee? Supported in-state tuition benefits for illegal immigrants. Huckabee even supported taxpayer-funded college scholarships for illegal aliens.”
“On immigration, the choice matters,” the ad ends.
With Huckabee surging in Iowa _ and showing strength nationally as well _ Romney offers positive as well as negative words on his rival.
“Two former governors. Two good family men. Both pro-life. Both support a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage,” the ad says _ then it focuses on what it says are stark differences on illegal immigration.</p>
<p>Read more: </p>
<p>[Romney</a> to Run Ad Against Huckabee - Politics on The Huffington Post](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost)</p>
<p>Sorry, but the “Debates” are a farce as far as I am concerned. Anderson Cooper (a likeable fellow) and Wolf Blizter get to appear pompous. I wish just one of these candidates would actually take on the ‘rock star’ moderators and say “that’s a silly question…” or “don’t you have a more important issue for us?”</p>