And besides, Democrats are supposed to be disorganized and speak with many voices, so that Chait et al. can write stories accusing them of being disorganized and speaking with many voices.

I know online media are desperate for "content," but honestly, it's seeming more and more like bad cable TV...

Jon Chait, eh? Same guy whose May 7th column was titled, "Don't let the left defeat Lieberman"? Can't very well back away from that, can he?

Two words: Joe Biden

If Kossacks were really trying to enforce a party line in Blue states Biden would be as much a target as Lieberman.

The difference is Biden doesn't give cover to the President and suggest stupid crap like criticizing Bush hurts the country's defense.

Given that one of the major complaints about kos is that he's on record as being totally willing to throw 'minority' issues like reproductive rights to the wolves if that means the Democrats can get 2% more of the national vote, I think Chait's 'party line' is mostly in his head. DC's idea of 'moderate' at work.

The example of Norquist is illustrative and well chosen, by the way.

Can't we talk tennis instead?

Kucinich

Or maybe, *gasp*, there's an election and bloggers are picking their favorite candidate.

Try to imagine a primary challenger who would instead have cemented support for Lieberman. It's not that hard.

I've kind of been wondering why Lieberman is getting approximately one million times more coverage than Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee, who's in an adjacent state and also facing a primary challenge from a candidate who believes he's not committed enough to his party's agenda.....any theories?

Ted:

Sure.

Because Republicans don't eat their young.

It is absolutely non-news when a GOP frother jumps into a primary to challenge a more centrist incumbent.

But the left is supposed to be perpetually embarrased by *its* base. Notice what a periennial theme this is with our trolls, who jump in to offer us good Democrats "advice" on how our looney activists will keep us losing if we don't smack them down hard and disown them?

Probably the most toxic anti-Democratic meme out there -- and it's time to lose it entirely.

Bob

I think people are flailing about for an explanation of the vicious anti-Leiberman sentiments one encounters among the Kossacks et. al. I'm not Lieberman fan...not by a very, very long shot. But I'm one of those people who thinks out money and energy is better spent elsewhere. If Dems could re-take the Senate, Lieberman would fall back in line. Maybe the Kossacks worry that that isn't true, and that having Lieberman there is just like having a Republican in that seat. If so, then they're right and I'm wrong.

But I think that Chait et. al. are baffled by what seems to them to be a waste of resources in a time when getting Bush out of office is phenomenally important. Consequently, they're flailing about for explanations for the (to their mind) self-destructive actions of the Kossacks. Which, of course, doesn't mean that their explanations are correct.

Any intelligent analysis of the opposition to Lieberman amongst the Democratic netroots must begin with "The Kiss" and what it symbolizes. In fact, the analysis could essentially end there.

How hard is this to understand? If Chait doesn't get something as simple and basic as that, what is that idiot doing in this business?

"Last I heard, Grover Norquist had built an entire career on insisting that every last Republican politician kiss his pinkie ring and pledge never to vote for a tax increase. And the Republican Party seems to have done pretty well as a result."

Somehow I don't think a party line of 'soft-on-national-defense' resonates with the public the same way opposition to tax increases does.

All of these Establishment types defending Lieberman based on his pre-2000 record remind of Charlton Heston talking about how he used to march with MLK, Jr. He never mentioned that he then joined the Goldwater campaign against Civil Rights. Lieberman has been campaigning to be John McCain's running mate since the day after the 2000 election.
As to the notion that crazay Lamont supporters drove Saint Joe from the party, a poster on Kos (horrors!) has an article from three weeks before the '04 election, which describes Lieberman speaking in Palm Beach County (!), Florida (!!), effectively endorsing Bush over Kerry.

I have sympathy for Winston's view. My first thoughts of the primary challenge by the base groups was that this is battle poorly chosen. I despise Liberman, but he's solid on many issues, an excellent constituent-massager and has a bunch of important seniority.

But I really am beginning to think that the strategy is broader and more important than '06, maybe even than '08. It's a meta-strategy that argues it's about time the Democratic base needs to assert itself as strongly and unashamedly as the GOP base does routinely. There are a few issues in which we fervently believe (e.g. opposition to the Iraq war) which are "out of the mainstream."

So what? Ask the GOP about banning abortion lately?

And I agree with frankly. So much of it revolves around the pungent symbology of The Kiss.

Bob

Brad:

North Korea just fired a bunch of fucking long-rage missiles on THE FOURTH OF JULY.

Yeah. The Republicans and their gratuitously-piss-off-the-entire-Muslim-world "strategy" is really "strong on national security."

Blow me, dude. Without a condom.

Bob

Even if Lieberman wins with a narrow win, he will not change his positions or try to make nice with the progressive wing. If he loses, he for sure won't make nice with them. That's part of the problem. And BTW this does not have to do with principles. He's either just a nasty man or he is becoming senile or delusional(I mean this seriously.) Even Biden who I think is really oily, sleazy and ewww will try to have a reasonable discussion with progressives. Liebo will just tell them to f off.

"waste of resources" / "If Dems could re-take the Senate" / "money and energy is better spent elsewhere"

Winston, do you know what would be a really big waste of resources; a major diversion of money, energy, and media attention in November; and a major risk of a lost dem senate seat?

I think it would be a prominent dem senate candidate refusing to abide by the results of the democratic primary and forcing a three way race between two dems and a republican in November.

All these howls of indignation are starting to get on my nerves. Lieberman is in this position because of this actions. Pure and simple. He's developed a pattern of undermining democratic positions that's frankly, disturbing.

A lot of water has built up behind this dam. Starting with his actions in 2002 on the war and finishing up -- at least with me -- with his johnny-come-lately stance on Social Security. After Social Security, I'd completely lost patience with Joe.

On another blog -- can't remember which one, exactly -- a poster opined that if Joe wins the primary, he'll then come back next year and be even worse than in the past. I'd have to say I largely agree with this. I think Joe's actions in the past few days show that he feels he's entitled to the seat. If he wins, he'll probably be worse than before -- especially on Iraq.

Here's how I read it:

The people whose careers are in politics, both at the state and national level, are far better off than the average American. They also tend to come from, and be socially connected to, equally well-off, educated individuals. Whether they profess to be Democrats or Republicans they are culturally very similar. They have similar family structures and life histories and probably range from the 45%-70% percentile (0% being the most conservative) on social issues and from the 10%-40% percentile on economic issues. In many respects they are more similar to each other than they are to the 'base' of either party. They share these cultural features with the professional class as a whole (probably with most of the readers of this blog!).

Considering the similarity of the high level party functionaries, why is the relationship between the each party and its base so different? I would venture that the desires of the Republican base are far more easily accommidated by the Republican leadership because the social interests of the base are orthogonal to the finacial interests of the party functionaries. Democrats on the other hand, cannot disentangle their social program from their finacial program so easily. The result is that the party functionaries are profoundly uncomfortable with the base. "Watch out" you can hear them mutter, "give the activists Lieberman and the next thing you know they'll be going after free trade!" THEY don't know anyone so radical on the economic side -- democrat or republican alike they are mostly on the same page -- so they can't imagine such appeals aren't poison. The discomfort over Lieberman is the same as the discomfort over Dean -- the party functionaries see the activists as a threat to their wallets and their livelyhoods, and respond accordingly.

The democrats today are the American equivalent of some senescent "left wing" european or latin american party - packed with snobs and technocrats - coopting the impulse for economic reform and forcing all genuine popularism to manifest itself on the right.

Anything any Dems do is bad and pathetic and worthy of mockery. No matter what they do!

I just think his primary campaign strategy sucks.

He's basically told the Democratic primary voters that they are a small irrelevant interest group that's easily swayed by color TV ads and Lamont's fancy haircut. He doesn't trust them and would risk focusing national attention on an inter-party fight in CT during a fairly critical November election (and risk losing a safe seat to a Republican) than abide by their vote.

He's pissing off the average dem primary voter and telling those that do support him that they needn't bother showing up till November. I don't think any of Lieberman's advisors are going to be taking credit. In fact, I expect there will be some leaks assigning the blame pretty soon.

it seems to me that turning a rock-solid Democratic seat into a potential Republican pickup represents something less than a political masterstroke.

Leaving aside the obvious point that many perceive Lieberman as less than a "rock-solid" Democrat (And this has to do with things like Lieberman's ties to Enron - remember that? - as well as the Iraq War) it is also very important for the liberal wing of the party to fire a shot across the party's bow.

For too long, Washington Democrats have been too "bipartisan" and there always seems to be a Gang of Fourteen willing to "compromise" away everything substantial at the crucial moment. Rember the 2004 National Convention, when attacking Bush was banned? Nobody has heen fired for this. Yet.

And the 2008 elections are coming up. Which are not going to be a cakewalk for Hillary. And are not going to be a bonanza for the consultants.

Forget me if I'm wrong, but I always thought that "democracy" had something to do with supporting people you agree with and - yes - opposing people you disagree with. Voting in people you like and voting out people you don't like. Lieberman could be the swellest guy in the world, but that doesn't mean you therefore want him as your senator.

Only one thing is abundantly clear in American politics - This great nation will not survive twelve more years of Republican governance. Period.

I don't give a damn if the Democratic Party, the Libertarian Party, the Green Party or the Very Silly Party runs viable Congressional candidates in 2006 and a strong presidential candidate in 2008. Joe Lieberman, however, is neither a viable candidate nor a reasonable alternative to the abomination currently residing in the White House. Next topic, please...

f Dems could re-take the Senate, Lieberman would fall back in line.

Lieberman, who was Enron-connected, is the reason why there were no Enron hearings the last time the Dems took the Senate.

Now that I've read it -- Where does Chait get off turning Lieberman's decision to run an independant candidacy into a grand miscalculation by Lamont and Kos?

Lieberman doesn't get any credit for this "political masterstroke"?

Rather, shouldn't Lieberman get all the credit? A primary opponent is hardly a justification for going apeshit crazy like an ex-boyfriend stalker.

The Party Line is: 1) a firm deadline for withdrawal in Iraq, and 2) an equally firm for George Bush on all occasions, in all contexts.

This is the Party Line that Lieberman has strayed from.

I am puzzled by your claim that you cannot discern it.

"... equally firm disdain for George Bush ..."

Let's see. Two recent senate votes on Iraqi withdrawal:

The more far-reaching measure, calling for all United States combat troops to be withdrawn within a year, failed 86 to 13, with no Republican supporters. An alternative, backed by the Democratic leadership and calling for troop withdrawals to begin by the end of the year without setting a deadline for complete withdrawal, was also defeated, 60 to 39, with one Republican voting with the Democrats and six Democrats joining the Republican majority.

What was that firm Party Line you so easily discerned? Maybe you were playing SIM-America, Republican edition again.

I'll agree with latter statement if you replace "firm disdain", with "well-earned suspicion".

To those folks going on about how Kos, etc are wasting resources going after Joe Lieberman, the only reason they are having any impact is because it turns out that Joe Lieberman is not much liked by his constituents. If Joe were popular in Connecticut then Lamont would not have gone anywhere, with or without Kos' support.

Thinker: Leaving aside the obvious point that many perceive Lieberman as less than a "rock-solid" Democrat (And this has to do with things like Lieberman's ties to Enron - remember that? - as well as the Iraq War) it is also very important for the liberal wing of the party to fire a shot across the party's bow.

Absolutely right. And they recognize this as a well-earned shot, for all the caterwauling about how unfairly Joe's being treated by the betrayin' constituents he loved and trusted so much. This has symbolic, message-bearing value far beyond getting rid of a liability to the party. And people like spluttering Chuck Schumer know it.

Actually, it's been argued, that the Democrats..natch..the activist Democratic base needs not narrow victories, but clear mandates in order to create the economic and social change needed to right the ship, at least in our views.

It's also been argued that even worst case scenario..losing the CT seat, isn't that worst case, when we believe that we lose that one seat, and we probably gain 10% nationwide from the other..cynical side.

机票~北京机票

Kevin is right that there is not really a "party line" with the Kossacks in terms of many specific positions on policy issues; there is just a vague underlying assumption that the liberal position is right (which of course would mean agreement with Leiberman on virtually everything except Iraq). But I think he also misread Chait. The party line comment was not the heart of what he wrote, at least not the normal sense of the term. He wrote about how Kossacks opposition to Leiberman and other extreme Bush hatred positions were poor tactical politics.

The Kossacks are driven by Bush hatred, which has taken the form of Leiberman hatred because of Leiberman's support of the Iraq war. It is amazing that they have received so much attention from the press and from democrat politicians. The Kossacks almost certainly will hurt the electoral prospects of democrats.

I belong to no organized political party. I'm a Democrat.

brian:

How about the other way around?

How about, let's call it strong disdain, for Bush and Lieberman is driven by passionate hatred of the Iraq war and -- at least as importantly -- the mendacious way it was sold to the American people?

Certainly a more psychologically cogent explanation than some arbitrary hatred for a political figure, just, you know -- cuz.

Bob

brian:
"The Kossacks are driven by Bush hatred, which has taken the form of Leiberman hatred because of Leiberman's support of the Iraq war"

Um....no....people (Kossacks, progressives, liberals, whoever) dislike and distrust Bush because of the war (and all the dishonesty and incompetence for which the war has become shorthand), and because of his contempt for the Constitution (can you say "Unitary Executive"? it means the destruction of the system of checks and balances). There are a few other reasons to oppose the Bush administration, but those (along with the corporate corruption, economic irresponsability, and know-nuthins' disdain for science) are the big ones.
Lieberman has been a vocal, relentless and proud allly of this unconstitutional (and again, incompetent) administration in virtually all of its biggest mistakes. He only held back on Social Security because he's enough of a rat to know when a ship is going down. That's why he effectively quit his own primary campaign last week.

"Somehow I don't think a party line of 'soft-on-national-defense' resonates with the public ..."

This comment might be funny if Bush hadn't given up on bringing the butcher of 9/11 to justice, and hadn't destroyed the good will of almost every ally we had in the world.

Tell me again how squandering our defense budget AND our troops by attacking a country that really posed no threat against us make us more "secure."

Kevin,

Gotta agree with you here. Seem like Chiat may be engaging in either fantasy or project. One of the main problems on the dem side is that they don't have an easy unified party line that they can all fall back on.

Chait is way out of bed. He needs to hang up the pundit cap.

"The Kossacks are driven by Bush hatred, which has taken the form of Leiberman hatred because of Leiberman's support of the Iraq war ... The Kossacks almost certainly will hurt the electoral prospects of democrats."

Brian comes up with another one.

There he goes again.

Like the Republican'ts hatred of Clinton hurt them so bad at the polls.

I guess that's different. Hatred IS what the Republican't Party is all about, so it's OK for them.

What's with trolls that don't know anything about Lieberman?

or Kos or liberals or Bush?

Cal Gal, please list the allies that have had their good will destroyed.

There was a little thing called UN resolution 1441, which was overwhelmingly passed, stated that Saddam needed to become completely transparent with all weapons programs and allow inspectors full access, or face serious consequences. Saddam failed to comply.

There is also that annoying little thing of the past 17 UN resolutions, over a 12 year period, that were all violated.

Oh and shooting at British and American patrol planes that were surveilling the no-fly zone mandated by UN resolutions.

And this not even mentioning the mass graves that have been found.

Yeah, you're right we should let that continue.

Jay:

Don't you get tired of spewing such ancient bullshit, bro?

This shit has been thoroughly debunked *three years ago*.

If it were true -- don'tcha think it'd remain a key component of Bush's rationale to be in Iraq?

What a fucking *tool* you are. And you wonder why so many of us take such great delight in anatomizing this thoroughly brainless adherence to the party line to some sort of sick desire to be sodomized and sexually humiliated by your political "superiors"?

Bob

MP3铃声
手机铃声下载
MP3手机铃声下载
手机铃声免费下载
手机铃声
手机铃声
免费手机铃声
免费手机铃声
手机铃声下载
手机铃声
手机铃声
手机铃声
铃声下载
免费手机铃声
手机铃声
铃声下载
免费手机铃声
手机铃声下载
手机铃声下载
手机铃声下载
手机铃声下载
手机铃声
手机铃声
铃声下载
手机铃声下载
手机铃声
手机铃声下载
手机铃声下载
手机铃声
手机铃声下载
手机铃声
手机铃声
手机铃声下载
手机铃声下载
手机铃声
手机铃声
手机铃声下载
手机铃声下载
手机铃声下载
手机铃声
免费手机铃声
手机铃声
手机铃声下载
手机铃声下载
手机铃声下载
手机铃声下载
免费手机铃声下载

Now, now rmck1, what kind of example is that of the big liberal tent tolerant of diverse opinion?

Good to know though that serious violation of law by Saddam, according to you, can be debunked. So what's all this hoopla about US violation of international law you profess to be sooooo ashamed of? Couldn't it be debunked?

But the personal attacks will serve you well in '08. I promise. Just ask Howard Dean.

Jay:

1) Saddam *did* comply. Re-read the final reports of Blix and ElBaradei -- they found nothing and the initial resistance they encountered melted to an insignificant point.

2) 1441 did *not* authorize an invasion. It tabled an invasion vote until a later resolution -- which, of course, never happened because it was pointless; we decided to invade anyway, fuck the UN. The invasion of Iraq violated the UN Charter itself.

3) The UN did *not* mandate the no-fly zones (although it didn't prohibit them, either). The US and Britain did them on their own; Saddam rightfully considered them an incursion into his country's airspace.

4) If violating cherry-picked UN resolutions was a legit casus belli, you really have to wonder why the entire world hasn't carpet-bombed both the US and Israel yet.

Just to set the record straight here.

Bob

1. Saddam failed to grant full access to his numerous mansions until it was too late. He obviously was not fully transparent, hence the 500 shells of sarin gas.

2. 1441 stated "serious consequences". Take that for what it is.

3. The no-fly zones were established for the protection of the Kurds, Shiite and Kuwaitis. You know that life you care so much about and was supported by the UN.

You said more about yourself than you'll ever know with that tripe you just wrote. Please don't hide any of that agenda in the coming elections, it will do well for you. Just ask John Kerry, he ran on that same platform in '04 and we all know what a success that was.

Jay:

And as far as mass graves go -- the vast majority of them were pre-'91 (with the notable exception of Shi'ite and Kurd suppression after the Gulf War).

Mass graves suck and it's pointless to argue moral equivalency between atrocities.

But at the same time, I'd be just a touch concered about all the bodies that keep turning up EVERY FUCKING DAY in dumpsters and canals and just tossed on streets -- many with signs of exceedingly brutal torture (acid and power tools, anybody?) which are the result of an apparently endless series of sectarian reprisal killings.

Oh, and many of these murders are being carried out by the Interior Ministry -- which is chock-full of Shi'ite militiamen.

Nice to know our government had a role in both supporting Saddam when he was gassing Iranians and Kurds *and* Shi'ite death squads who operate through the "freely elected government" we helped to install.

Speaking of, you know, moral equivocation over atrocities.

Bob

Chait is full of it. There may not be a party line, but there is a line that hardly any Democrat can stand to see crossed: unequivocally supporting Bush on the Iraq war. It's completely ridiculous that Lieberman has done just that. It's very difficult to exaggerate Bush's folly regarding Iraq.

Lieberman's stance that he should be handed the nomination like a crown is pathetic. Lamont should never quit talking about what kind of whiney baby feels so entitled that he threatens to abandon his party. Lieberman is making a joke out of the Democratic party and the primary process.

Oh well they happened "pre-'91"? Well, I apologize. Just tell me what year you would like to start counting the bodies that Saddam piled up.

"Supporting" Saddam, is better stated "not-hostile" to Saddam. There were no relations with Iraq 1967-1984, a brief cautious relationship between the years 1984-1989, then Gulf 1. So should we just count the bodies piled up between 1984-1989?

www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/glaspie.html

Our civil war saw the loss of over 51,000 men in one single battle; Gettysburgh. Civil wars can be part of the natural process of forming a union, unfortunately. Why would Iraq be any different?

So I question your confidence in freedom and democracy in addition to your self professed "concern-for-life".

Jay:

Jay, you are such a lying sack of shit, bro.

1) Read the final reports. Saddam complied to Blix and ElBaradei's satisfaction. Shit, I remember reading about those 500 shells of pre-'91 chemical weapons when we discovered them back in '03. They're about as lethal today as a case of poison ivy -- that's why nobody jumped all over that claim as proof that Saddam had active WMDs.

2) Now you want to equivocate on the plain language of 1441. Jesus, that is as lame as Clinton attempting to parse the meaning of "is." Remember the whole "Axis of Weasels" brouhaha? Recall what that was about? It was because France, Germany and Russia nixed a vote to AUTHORIZE THE USE OF FORCE AGAINST IRAQ.

3) I'm not arguing against the no-fly zones; what we did was appropriate. However, to accuse Saddam of violating a UN resolution by shooting at our planes is just flat-out bullshit. He was within his rights to defend his own airspace.

4) When your argument is trashed on the merits, try to turn it -- with mindbending cynicism -- into a pure issue of electoral politics.

Which speaks volumes about *you* morality in this debate.

Bob

1. They were discovered in '03? What part of the word "transparency" don't you understand?

2. I didn't parse any words. The resolution stated "serious consequences". I want you to define serious consequences, if only for the laughs. Do you wonder why Germany, France and Russia nixed the vote to use force?

Any idea at all?

3. You defend our right to enforce the no-fly zone but at the same time you defend Saddam's right to shoot at us? OK, Mr. Kerry, whatever you say.

That's a great platform; stand for something before you stand against it.

Jay:

The *adults* in the picture -- Blix and ElBaradei -- did not conclude from discovering a cache of obsolete and degraded chemical weapons shells that Saddam had an active WMD program. It was an oversight -- just like that bunch of overpowered rockets they discovered which the Iraqis immediately destroyed. You recall how difficult it was to get any WMD intelligence -- truth is, if there was stuff there, nobody knew where it was. Saddam was obsessed with keeping his WMD program a secret even from his own military.

Because Blix and ElBaradei didn't deliver the goods is why the UN did not vote to authorize force. Our intelligence case unravelled before the whole world, to the eternal disgrace of Colin Powell.

Jay, I know it's hard for your tiny little pinhead to logically follow out an argument, but do give it the ol' college try: I'm not defending Saddam shooting at our planes *per se*. I'm glad we enforced the no-fly zones which probably prevented further atrocities against the Kurds.

I'm simply saying that Saddam shooting at our planes was within his rights. You were the one who said that this violated a UN resolution.

There was no UN resolution authorizing the no-fly zones.

So I am merely calling bullshit on your factual assertion -- not defending Saddam's actions.

Bob

I've given them Friedman after Friedman, threatening to stop voting for Democrats if they (I"m talking about you Democratic Leisure Class) keep making war on Democrats who insist (as strongly as they insist) on positions different frrom theirs.

The fact is they think their base is not sufficiently right; they, like Republicans, look in the mirror and think they're seeing liberals.

What is it with projection these days?

In any case: the Friendmans are over.

I'm voting only for people who meet my freakin' litmus tests.

My vote, doesn't matter much. The fact that someone like me finally got to the end of the rope?

I don't believe I'm alone.

But, hey, they'll do fine. They've been piling up such massice margins they can afford to shave off a few percent.

My guess is that Brian and Jay not only approve of the Iraq war, but they approve of the methods the Bushies used to get us into the war, i.e., lies and deception.

If there were such good reasons to invade Iraq, why did Bush and his folks have to engage in so much deceit? Why the focus on a faked nuclear threat? The answer: the real reasons would not wash with the American people. So, is it a surprise that it was difficult to maintain support for the war?

Jay, why don’t you give me a body count on the mass graves and compare them to the military and civilian casualties and the Iraqis who have been made refugees since our invasion. I have watched with interest while the people actually looking for these hundreds of thousands of bodies have only found a few thousand; and then they then argue over who really killed them when. What a mess. Pay attention to the people on the ground actually looking for truth, not the pop-off ideologues.

Saddam was awful, so the exaggeration is not necessary... unless you want desperately to make our invasion not look so bad by comparison.

little ole jim:

Nicely stated.

Bob

lojfrc (for short), I am not a Bush fan as much as I am a conservative fan, and most conservative presidents would have gone into Iraq. I do approve of the war, and the person most responsible for convincing me of that was Sen. Jay Rockefeller. When I heard Rockefeller, a strong opponent of GW's, give the speech he gave in Oct. '02 on the senate floor, I was convinced. I'll aks you, how long were you willing to placate Saddam with "containment" when some accounts say that roughly 500,000 people died under that policy?

And I do listen to people on the ground, primarily Gen. Casey.

You know another poster here, Stephen Kriz, actually came out and said it one day. That life in Iraq was better under Saddam rule, why don't you and rmck1 just say it. And then realize that you have just put it upon yourselves to be the judge and jury for the Iraqi people; it's been decided, their life is better under tyranny. Isn't that right?

Jay, I think just the opposite is true. I'm as interested in what is best for Iraq as much as you are.

But it's such a joke to say that Rockefeller is the one who convinced you. Is he still the guy you listen to? Because he has chaned his mind, you know.

Life better in Iraq now or under Saddam? Give me a break, trying to put me on the "side" of Saddam.

What I "think" is that the situation in Iraq is horrible and "appears" to be worse than it was prior to the invasion. The Bathist are still killing left and right, and now so is everybody else. Certainly the numbers killed, wounded, kidnapped, raped, made homeless all appear to be higher.

What I "know" is that now "we" are responsible for the situation. Maybe you are so brillant the you can "know" that Iraq is not only better off now, but that it has been worth the price. If you know that, you are some kind of smart cookie. Your information is judgement is amazing.

Oh, I get it. You just like Rockefeller's first name.

The "experts" (was it the Lancet? not sure) estimated that upwards of 100,000 Iraqis died in the first few years of the war. They used statistical methods, and do not have an actual list of names, but they are the experts, and we trust such methods in many other contexts.

So, it looks like Iraqis were dying at a higher rate without Saddam, than with him. I read somewhere (again, reference has faded) that the difference between then and now was one of randomness; then, if you could keep your head down and avoid attracting attention, life was ok. Now, with our soldiers not sure of friend and foe, and various terrorists trying to incite a civil war, and a religious civil war slowly cranking up, it's random.

It is entirely true most of the Iraqis are not killed by us directly; we merely created the disorder that is allowing it to happen. It's not our fault, it's those evildoers, you can hardly blame us iif evildoers kill people, now, can you? We wash our hands of it, you might say.

The main reason that I want Bush out of power is that none of this was a surprise; he had experts who (more) correctly predicted the outcome of the war, and they were shoved out. He had experts who predicted the need for peacekeeping, and they were ignored. He's blown the national debt up like a goddamn blimp. We've got no evidence that all this domestic spying has been good for shit -- yes, I know we can't go tipping our hand, so we can't talk about our successes (except for when we blew the cover on a British intelligence operation by talking about our successes -- that was ok). For a good time, go read the just-out New Yorker on how the CIA's obsessiion with not tipping our hand kept vital information from the FBI, and probably made 9/11 possible. Go read how an actual interrogator works, and gets answers -- he didn't need to commit any war crimes at all. People like me want Bush out because he is a train wreck of a president.

North Korea just fired a bunch of fucking long-rage missiles on THE FOURTH OF JULY. Yeah. The Republicans and their gratuitously-piss-off-the-entire-Muslim-world "strategy" is really "strong on national security."

This comment by rmck1 illustrates a basic divide. Some believe that belligerence from Korea (and others) is a reaction to American belligerence. They believe the road to peace is American passivity and kindness. This POV is typical of the Dems, particularly those on the left.

Others believe that belligerence from such countries comes from within. They believe the road to peace is American aggression and toughness. This POV is typical of the Reps, particularly those on the right.

IMHO the second group is larger. The worse NK behaves, the better the Republicans will do in the election, in my opinion.

Lieberman and the rest of the DLC establishment are scared and confused by the progressive movement. They are freaked out about the fact that the Internet has made it possible for grass roots populism to rear its irreverent head.

It has been so long since we have seen anything that resembles real democracy that the mainstream political and media types have no sensible response-- they are choosing to act like petulant reactionaries who have just been told that their sense of entitlement has been taken away.

dr2chase: the Lancet study results were published in 2004 prior to the election in November. They used an accepted methodolgy that placed researcher/interviewers on the ground in Iraq.

Thus, their estimate of 100,000 Iraqi civilian casualties is now two years old. It would be nice to see people doing follow up studies. At least nice for people who think information is good.

The 500,000 figure quoted by Jay is meaningless. Go look for the research. There are a lot of short media reports that will mention a large number (usually 2-3 hundred thousand), and you wonder where the number came from until you realize they are quoting other vague media reports.

The trial of Saddam is interesting. They are tying him to as much mischief as possible, but coming up with small numbers. When professionals (forensic and otherwise) get involved, you realize the numbers are very shakey and they are probably pretty small unless you count some of the Iraqis killed during the war with Iran.

Of course, when I say "small", they are only small in comparison some of the numbers thrown out in the hundreds of thousands. One group who has been searching predicted they would settle on the number of 5,000 that appeared to be related to atrocities. Bad enough.

But I have no idea what the real number are.

Jay:

I echo little ole jim's views above about Iraq itself. Oil, electricity, water, sewage infrastructures are all below prewar levels. And while I'm happy for the Kurds and the areas of the south -- there's still a high level of Islamist agitation all throughout the country. The Kurds are struggling with their new democracy; there have been riots recently which trashed a museum dedicated to the victims of Saddam's gas attacks, because it's a symbol of an apparently corrupt government. Formerly calm Basra has become a mini Shi'ite theocracy, with religious enforcers trashing liquor stores and harrassing "immodestly dressed" women. And oh -- civilian deaths were over twice as much last month as they were a year ago.

On top of this less-than-salubrious situation in Iraq, the overall strategy of Mideast democracy promotion as a way to curtail Islamist terrorism is proving in the short term to be an abject failure. Note something: in the *long term* this is no doubt a worthy goal, both for humanitarian reasons and to promote our interests. But the long term is a couple decades while the Islamist threat exists right now.

Note something else: This is a no-brainer to anyone who's even superficially studied Mideast culture and is familiar with the way democracy arises. It's not saying that those swarthy Arabs are just incapable of democracy, bless their turban-wrapped little heads. And it's not saying that Islam is incompatible with democracy -- because the Golden Age of Islam was far more tolerant and egalitarian than was Christian civilization at the time. Militant Salafism is hardly the only strain of Islam in the world.

But this is simply the natural and inevitable consequence of loosening up authoritarian regimes. In every Muslim country with a recent election: Ahmadinejad in Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, conservative Iran-aligned Shi'ites in Iraq -- once you begin to loosen the authoritarian lid a little, the power vaccum makes formerly oppressed people choose the authority of political Islam. It may well be an evolutionary stage Muslim countries have to go through before they evolve to a more moderated, tolerant and genuinely representative form of government. Iran's Islamic Revolution, for instance, is almost 30 years old and the people are growing sick of it. Then, lo and behold, we invade its neighbor and they elect an Islamist reactionary and set that cultural process back by a good five years or so. Geez, who woulda thunk it.

Consider this also: The Mideast countries who are most successful at controlling their Islamist radicals -- and who are, coincidentally enough, our biggest allies in the war on terrorism -- are heavy-handed authoritarian regimes: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states. Gee, *that's* a surprise, isn't it.

Every liberal worth his or her salt supports democracy promotion around the world, Jay; that's hardly the issue.

The issue is how to do this without unleashing the forces of reaction instead.

Bob

Jay, Let's go back to your first post:

There was a little thing called UN resolution 1441, which was overwhelmingly passed, stated that Saddam needed to become completely transparent with all weapons programs and allow inspectors full access, or face serious consequences. Saddam failed to comply.

Did he? Inspections were on going a few days before the invasion and the US was the one that ordered they be pulled out. The strongest evidence we had of a WMD program was chemicals that Saddam could not account for. Many required refrigeration and they'd last been seen in 1991 before we dropped about 100,000 tons of munitions on military sites in the gulf war and no-fly zone operations. Not to mention the sanctions and their impact on electricity generation that would be needed to run any hypothetical refrigeration units. Blix was highly skepitical that they existed and the more he saw on the ground the more skeptical he grew. At a minimum he knew many administration arguments were bullshit before the war:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june04/blix_3-17.html

Do you seriously still believe that the occupation of Iraq was a necessary step and fundamentally sound idea? You don't think it reduced our military preparedness, encouraged enemies, degraded aliances, trained terrorists, wasted tax dollars, divided the country, and made us less safe?

Maybe I should use people's current beliefs on Iraq as a litmus test. Idiots like you should never have a say in foreign policy again.

Jonathan Chait is unfair and balanced.

ex-liberal:

>> North Korea just fired a bunch of fucking long-rage missiles
>> on THE FOURTH OF JULY. Yeah. The Republicans and their
>> gratuitously-piss-off-the-entire-Muslim-world "strategy"
>> is really "strong on national security."

> This comment by rmck1 illustrates a basic divide. Some believe
> that belligerence from Korea (and others) is a reaction to
> American belligerence. They believe the road to peace is
> American passivity and kindness. This POV is typical of
> the Dems, particularly those on the left.

Oh what a reeking pantload of GOP talking points *this* is.

Like any sane human being -- let alone a liberal -- would believe
that a nutjob like Kim would respond to kind hearts and coronets.

It's a question of *focus*. Where are our real threats in the world?
And how, exactly, *do* you deal with a paranoiac like Kim Il Jong?

George Bush thought that by invading Iraq and making not-so-veiled
threats in his axis-of-evil speech that Iran and N Korea could/would
be next, that he was sending a "strong message" to evildoers.

Instead, he did two things: 1) Bog nearly our entire ground
forces down in a tar baby and then insist we're not leaving
until Iraq stabilizes (without giving any benchmark criteria,
which might be used to judge failure), which any sane observer
realizes is going to take many years, probably over a decade.

and 2) Give N Korea and Iran every reason in the world to quickly
develop nukes as a deterrent to "preventive" US military aggression.

In the immortal words of Tina Turner: What's love got to do with it.

Bob

George Bush thought that by invading Iraq and making not-so-veiled threats in his axis-of-evil speech that Iran and N Korea could/would be next, that he was sending a "strong message" to evildoers.

I never heard Bush say this. This is someone's imagination of what he thought. Bush said he wanted to invade Iraq in order to overthrow Saddam and to establish a democratic government. His actions have been consistent with his stated purpose.

Instead, he did two things: 1) Bog nearly our entire ground forces down in a tar baby and then insist we're not leaving until Iraq stabilizes

True. Although I'm happy to see our ground forces usefully occupied in Iraq. Bush was never going to invade NK or Iran. I doubt if rmck1 would support a ground invasion of NK or Iran.

(without giving any benchmark criteria, which might be used to judge failure)

Actually, I believe Bush has given benchmark criteria, mostly about the ability of the democratic government of Iraq to defend itself and the country against insurgents.

which any sane observer realizes is going to take many years, probably over a decade.

I agree. George Bush has made similar statements, indicating the he expects the war to last beyond his Presidency.

It would be nice if we could fix world problems before the final advertisment, but the real world isn't a TV show. It took 40 years to prevail in the Cold War. It will take many years to prvail over Islamic fundamentalism.

and 2) Give N Korea and Iran every reason in the world to quickly develop nukes as a deterrent to "preventive" US military aggression.,

Yes and no. Bush gave terrorist nations reason either to end their nuclear aspirations or to hurry them. Libya chose the former; NK and Iran chose the latter.

However, NK and Iran were working on nukes long before Bush was President. If Bush hadn't invaded Iraq, NK and Iran would still be developing nukes. At least, thanks to Bush, we know that Iraq won't be developing nukes.

Brian, and other "agents provocateur" (sometimes I think it must be Kevin himself who pays them. To keep the conversation going) who are "oh, so concerned" about the Democratic netroots' anti-Joe campaign:

The correct spelling of the name is *not* "Leiberman"; it's LIEberman. Just so you know whom you're defending.

It now appears that the spelling is not only correct, but *appropriate*...

http://tinyurl.com/q6zzl

If there was ever any doubt that Lieberman is a (possibly moderate) *Republican* at heart, this is it; it seems that only outright lies will do for Joe. I sure hope Lamont nails him to a barn door for that.

OOO! OOO! I know Mr Cotter!
Does "party line" mean something like expecting your primary candidates to support the winning nominee in the general election, and not risking a safe democratic seat to loss just because the incumbent has a big ego? Those blogofacists! Where will it end?

ex-liberal:

>> George Bush thought that by invading Iraq and making
>> not-so-veiled threats in his axis-of-evil speech that
>> Iran and N Korea could/would be next, that he was
>> sending a "strong message" to evildoers.

> I never heard Bush say this. This is someone's
> imagination of what he thought.

How mind-bendingly disingenuous. Isn't your whole premise in this
argument that Democratic appeasement-through-kindness is worse for
our national security than Republican toughness-through-action?

We raped the UN Security Council and tore the UN Charter to shreds
by invading Iraq after our case for a credible threat collapsed.
We promulgated a brand-new doctrine -- preventive war -- which
stated that we'll invade whoever we godammn well want to invade,
for whatever reason we deem appropriate and fuck international law.

How the *hell* do you think we thought Iran and N Korea would read
that? After the "axis of evil" speech? That they *weren't* next?

> Bush said he wanted to invade Iraq in order to overthrow
> Saddam and to establish a democratic government. His
> actions have been consistent with his stated purpose.

His actions are *impeding* the cause of democracy in the Mideast,
because true democracy is impossible without certain cultural
prerequisites like the rule of law, transparent institutions,
respect for contracts, a disdain for corruption -- cultural
factors which will take Iraq well over a decade to inculcate.
Elections without these things produce the opposite of democracy:
resurgent Islamism, demagogy, supremecist identity politics.

Oh and violence, too. Lots and lots of violence. Stuff happens.

>> Instead, he did two things: 1) Bog nearly our entire
>> ground forces down in a tar baby and then insist we're
>> not leaving until Iraq stabilizes

> True. Although I'm happy to see our
> ground forces usefully occupied in Iraq.

*Are* they usefully occupied in Iraq? Or are they just in the
middle of domestic conflicts that only the Iraqis can work through
themselves? Does having so much of our military occupied in what
amounts to police work on steroids enhance our national security?

> Bush was never going to invade NK or Iran.

News flash: The Special Forces are already *in* Iran, fomenting
unrest in the border regions with non-Persian ethnic groups. In
recent months we've floated plans to bomb their nuke facilities
with bunker-busters. And most assuredly had Iraq gone according
to the original neocon playbook, with most of our army out of Iraq
we'd be sabre-rattling against Iran's "intolerable" nuclear threat.

> I doubt if rmck1 would support a ground invasion of NK or Iran.

I doubt if any sane human being (save Bush) would do likewise.

>> (without giving any benchmark criteria,
>> which might be used to judge failure)

> Actually, I believe Bush has given benchmark criteria,
> mostly about the ability of the democratic government of
> Iraq to defend itself and the country against insurgents.

Those are vapid generalizations, not benchmark criteria.

>> which any sane observer realizes is going
>> to take many years, probably over a decade.

> I agree. George Bush has made similar statements, indicating
> the he expects the war to last beyond his Presidency.

And that's precisely where Republicans will fail -- because
the American people will not tolerate conflating the war on
terrorism with an Iraqi police action with infinite patience.

> It would be nice if we could fix world problems before
> the final advertisment, but the real world isn't a TV show.

Sadly enough, for the vast majority of Americans that's precisely
what the Iraq war is. And the ratings could cause a cancellation.

> It took 40 years to prevail in the Cold War. It will
> take many years to prvail over Islamic fundamentalism.

We can't prevail over Islamic fundamentalism by militarily occupying
a Muslim country. Islam will never go through the process of self-
criticism necessary to purge itself of radicalism when that very
radicalism is seen as a heroic defense of both Islam and Muslims.

>> and 2) Give N Korea and Iran every reason in
>> the world to quickly develop nukes as a
>> deterrent to "preventive" US military aggression.,

> Yes and no.

It's the "yes" part that we're in control of. If we give them
all the more concrete reason to act beligerent and paranoid --
why should we wonder when they act so beligerent and paranoid?

> Bush gave terrorist nations reason either
> to end their nuclear aspirations or to hurry them.
> Libya chose the former; NK and Iran chose the latter.

Moamar Qaddafi is a poster boy for the effectiveness of
international sanctions (which Libya had been under for two
decades). He had been moderating long before 9/11 and just
chose that moment to make the announcement for maximum PR
effect and to cut the best economic deal he could with the West.

> However, NK and Iran were working on nukes long
> before Bush was President. If Bush hadn't invaded
> Iraq, NK and Iran would still be developing nukes.

But arguably not nearly at the frantic pace
they're doing it now, nor with quite the sense
of justification in the name of self-defense.

Had Bush not invaded Iraq, it's much less likely that Ahmadinejad
would have been elected by a nervous Iranian public. And without
Ahmadinejad, perhaps Iran wouldn't have conflated its nuke
program with national self-determination quite so stridently.

> At least, thanks to Bush, we know that Iraq
> won't be developing nukes.

And thanks to Mohammed ElBaradei, we knew there wasn't
a prayer of that happening under the sanctions regime.

Bob

I'm writing from Iraq. Lieberman should be attacked for being an immoral and unpatriotic. First, this pseudo-hawk (he should really switch to the GOP, a party populated with flocks of them) opted out of Vietnam and styles himself as pro-defense. Why? General Dynamics/New London /submarine mfg. and Israel. The jobs the Electric Boat plant provides are important to Connecticut. Second, his interest in a strong U.S. military is only important from the perspective of how that helps Israel. And it is okay for other people's children to serve. He or his kids? C'mon, evryone knows military service is for suckers. Lieberman is supposed to be pro-business too. But he didn't so much as join the reserves when draft age. CT Atty Gen Richard Blumenthal served in the Marine Corps Reserves (as did I, AFTER, active duty). So like many Republicans, ol' Joe is just a parasite, who has obtained the blessings of Liberty, but when young and able-bodied, REFUSED to pay. And like other Likudite so-called Americans, Wolfowitz, Perle and Fieth (none of whom--surprise, surprise--served)he subscribed to this Iraq is a great threat crap, as if a No-Fly zoned Saddam was a major problem for Israel. Hmm, I seem to remember hearing of Syria, Iran and our ally(?) Saudi Arabia (home of most of the 9/11 terrorists)being major terrorists financiers. I was living in NYC during 9/11 and remember hearing of a NY TImes poll of Jews on the question of whether Iraq was the greatest threat to Israel and the majority were opposed to that notion. But what do they know. The Alice-In-Wonderland contradiction of the opinion of draft-dodging hawks with dual loyalties know better.
Well, I'm missing sleep so I'm off. What do I know, I'm just a reservist who actually is unafraid to provide MARTIAL service to my country.

"Having an activist base challenge incumbents viewed as too moderate is hardly unheard of in American politics, is it?"

Kos is not supporting the challenge to Lieberman because Lieberman is insufficiently liberal. Kos is supporting the challenge to Lieberman because Lieberman is insufficiently loyal to the Democratic Party. For Markos, the greatest crime a Democrat can commit (short of losing an election) is failing to be sufficiently loyal to the Democratic Party... whether said disloyal Democrat is too kissy-face with Republicans or too kissy-face with Greens doesn't matter to him.

In short, Kos isn't an ideologue, he's a party hack.

All clear?

Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA

>Bush said he wanted to invade Iraq in order to >overthrow Saddam and to establish a democratic >government.

That's pure Bu..Sh..

Prior to the invasion, not only was the word "invade" never used (and still isn't, or only by the left, so far as I can determine. Ditto "occupation"), we originally went in to prevent Sadam from nuking us to hell and gone, according to the Cowboy-in Chief. Cheney even chimed in with "we know where those weapons are", implying that UN wasn't looking too hard.

"Rogue states", supporting terrorists (Al Qaeda) who'd killed Americans in the Twin Towers were mentioned, suggesting that Saddam's Iraq was one of them, even though, according to the government's own maps and charts, there were no sightings of Al Qaeda representatives in Iraq at that point (there were some in the allied countries, though).

The whole "we're there to teach them democracy, if we have to kill every last one of them" thing came up only after we were there and failed to find any nukes or anything other than conventional weapons (and we happened to "loose" some of those too -- remember the unsecured munitions which had disappeared?)

Anyway... I thought this was a "more Lieberman blogging" thread, not "how we got into Iraq" one...

e-l: It would be nice if we could fix world problems before the final advertisment, but the real world isn't a TV show. It took 40 years to prevail in the Cold War. It will take many years to prvail over Islamic fundamentalism.

I'm glad you are keeping your eyes on the ball. Bankrupting the suicide bombers and jihadists with pointy sticks will be a long and difficult struggle .. . and I think you are right that it won't start reaping benefits till well after 2008.

People that call themselves liberals do not understand the type of long term planning and the foresight shown by the President in this struggle. Liberals dismiss Iraq as counter-productive when in fact we are smoking out anonymous arabs preprogramed to hate us and try to kill us if we occupy their country and kill their families and friends. Well I ask them: How else would we figure out if they might be dangerous under these specific conditions?

To the godless liberal it might look as intelligent as sitting on a hornets nest, but how would they even know that hornets stung if not for such so-called "blunders".

Liberals are continuously distracted by shiny shiny balls . . .free trade agreements sending all our blue color jobs to Asia, immigration policies giving all our service industry jobs to recent immigrants, education policies failing to prepare our children for white color and science jobs, personal and federal fiscal policies ensuring our homes and government are owned by communist china, our tenuous petroleum supply, our changing climate, our increasingly amoral culture, our increasingly divided political landscape, our degrading environment, our corrupt congress, our expensive healthcare and prescription drugs, etc. Almost any little shiny ball would do. If they are allowed to govern for even a month, the struggle of bankrupting the jihadists with pointy sticks could be set back years.

Kos is supporting the challenge to Lieberman because Lieberman is insufficiently loyal to the Democratic Party. For Markos, the greatest crime a Democrat can commit (short of losing an election) is failing to be sufficiently loyal to the Democratic Party... [...]

Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
Posted by: Patrick Meighan on July 10, 2006 at 2:48 AM

I do so wish that the wingnuts would synchronize their attacks better... Because, according to David Brooks' (9.VII.'06) column in NYT, it's Lamont (supported by the Kos-sacks) who's forgotten the cardinal rule: being in lock-step with one's party.

So, *which is it*? Are the Kos-sacks scum party-ideologues, attacking Lieberman for not being loyal to the party, or are the Kossacks scum because they are not loyal to the party?

Can't have it both ways. Unless, of course, you're a Clueless George, with equally clueless supporters.

libra:

David Brooks (who I haven't read since the implementation of TimesReject) is a "contrarian" conservative pundit -- who insinuates himself into the good graces of liberals whose minds are a little *too* open by tweaking the conventional wisdom du jour.

What he's trying to do is undermine the solidarity expressed by Lamont supporters by undercutting Kos's un-ideological party-warrior meme. No no, see ... it really *is* all about ideology. It really *is* about the fact that the Democratic base are leftist fruitcakes.

The national Democratic Party ideology *is* closer to Lieberman than Kos.

This is the most effective attack the GOP has against this challenge. Make the base eat each other. Gods forbid it ever develops the strength and cohesion of the GOP's base -- which nobody wonders for a minute whether or not it's out of the mainstream.

In the ostensible interest of "reasonable centrism" -- Brooks is pushing the standard GOP attack line.

Lamont supporters should just ignore it and continue to pull the party towards the vibrant and active grass/netroots.

The Iraq war is wrong and counterproductive.

End of story.

Bob

Kevin: Comprehensive smackdown of Chait and his ilk from Nim of "The Ham Hock of Liberty" blog:

http://lerani.blogspot.com/2006/07/attention-pundits.html

Attention Pundits

Memo to: Jon Chait, Joe Klein, Lee Siegel, Richard Cohen, and the rest.

From: Some guy with a blog.

Gentlemen, it has come to my attention that your strings of pearls are being worn thin from clutching, at the intemperate and potty-mouthed "fascism" of liberal blogs. Apparently, you don't like these self-appointed kingmakers "purging" the Democratic party of anyone who doesn't toe the line, as seen most clearly in the current Senatorial primary race in Connecticut. You have picked up the whiff of intolerance and fascism behind the near-unanimous support for Ned Lamont, versus the incumbent Joe Lieberman. You think that the full-court press to elect Mr. Lamont is, apparently, almost a crime against basic human decency. And so you have started several sandbox fights with your arch-enemies, the guys (and girls) with blogs.

As you are so fond of explaining to the rabid pre-teens on the internets what is really good for them, let me explain what's good for all of you: NOT calling the exercise of democracy "fascism" or "purging." Some people with websites do not hold the reins of governmental power. They do not direct party funds. They don't run the military. They have, in other words, no actual power. What they have are opinions and some facts. Sort of like yourselves. When they advocate the election of Ned Lamont, the only ability they have to effect this is to convince people that he is a worthy candidate. Worthy of votes, donations, and word of mouth to Connecticut voters. The voters of Connecticut will decide whether they agree. This is the point you seem to be missing. If enough voters in Connecticut decide that their views will be better represented by Ned Lamont than by Joe Lieberman, he should be elected. Right? This is how democracy works. If you disagree, you are just as free as Markos, or Jane Hamsher, or Atrios, to make your argument why Joe Lieberman is the better choice.

Let me suggest, however, that "Joe follows his conscience" and "Joe is bipartisan" may not be compelling reasons for a voter who does not agree with Mr. Lieberman on the substance of his beliefs. And when you attack the rabid lambs of the blogofascisphere, you're insulting and denigrating not the purported kingmakers of the internet, but the people who read and contribute to these sites. This is the second mistake you've been making. Markos, Atrios and the rest do not have monopolies on truth any more than you do, and their audiences are quite aware of this. What the popular bloggers provide is not the shining light of truth, but fora. They're basically glorified party hosts, and if the party ends, or the host starts acting like an ass, the party will go elsewhere. But it won't go away. It could even end up back on your doorsteps, if you had opinions and information that were of interest.

In the meantime, however, I have not seen any of you offer a compelling reason why a Connecticut voter should cast his or her ballot for a candidate that does not represent that voter's views as well as another candidate. Maybe competence or ethics would be a good reason, but nobody has offered any evidence that Lamont would be unethical or inept, apart from the fact that he would be new at the job. Which, of course, every officeholder is at some point.

So, for your own sakes, please consider trying to understand the new media environment a little better. As far as I can tell, none of you does actual investigative reporting, just opinion. Now that instantaneous worldwide publishing is available to just about anyone, you can no longer expect to have an audience simply because of your names, or your employer. There is simply no point in attacking the blogosphere because it speaks out and supports politicians with whom the writers and readers agree, and criticizes those with whom it does not agree. If you continue to perceive this as "fascism" rather than the epitome of "democracy," the next few decades are going to be very unpleasant for you.

Stop focusing on the messengers, and focus on the message. If you believe that Ned Lamont's campaign is misguided, and the voters of Connecticut should have fewer choices on election day, explain why on the substance of the candidates' positions. I'm glad Joe Lieberman has a conscience (which I sincerely believe he does), and that he is willing to break with his party when he does not agree with them. If, however, Joe's conscience causes him to cast votes that make his constituents unhappy, he runs an electoral risk. See the difference? Joe is not being challenged because he has a conscience and does not toe the party line, he is being challenged despite those traits. Because he breaks with the party on issues of importance to lots of people and lots of voters.

"Lieberman deserves support, because he votes against your beliefs and interests." That's basically what you're saying. Think about it.

Ceny Uygur is even more blunt over at Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/note-to-dense-mainstream-_b_24654.html

Best line from his screed:

"[Lieberman] isn't just buying Republican talking points, he's selling them."

But this is simply the natural and inevitable consequence of loosening up authoritarian regimes. In every Muslim country with a recent election: Ahmadinejad in Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, conservative Iran-aligned Shi'ites in Iraq -- once you begin to loosen the authoritarian lid a little, the power vaccum makes formerly oppressed people choose the authority of political Islam.

This phenomena is not limited to Islam. For example, all those immigrants