Another example of regression toward the mean? You vot. You decide.

That's the message here it would seem.

damn that wine...."vote". Pay no attention to that drunk behind the curtain.

Yea!
Good-bye and good riddence to the man who exemplified the spineless wing of the Democratic Party.

I think that sums it up pretty well, Kevin. I'd say the same statement applies to the punditocracy that wants to claim that Lamont's victory is some kind of profound challenge to the moderates in the party. I say the voters in both states replaced unreliable candidates who did not advance the party's interests for two who look to be good party members, moderate and reasonable in policy and tone.

Nothing particularly radical in any capacity.

fercryinoutloud

Joe Lieberman almost won the primary, but he lost because of Bill Clinton. Before Clinton came to Connecticut and endorsed Lieberman, Lieberman and Lamont were neck and neck in the polls. After he left, Lieberman's poll results went in a nose dive and lost a lot of support among moderates and independents who would otherwise have supported him. Once again, the American people expressed their outrage at the despicable behavior of the philanderer in chief Bill Clinton.

The Republican & Democrats are just different sides of the same coin.

Or should I say shekel.

Is that "slim" or Mel Gibson?

The real meaning of this election won't be known until the party beltway elite starts working hard for Lamont. If they don't, then we know the whole darn bunch needs to be shown the door.

has407: What is your problem turkey.

1) Point to one factual error in the denial post. Please do, no other nutcase Jew has.

2) Explain exactly why the Jews had to reduce the number of dead at Auschwitz by 2.5 MILLION

3) Explain exactly why they buried the story on this.

4) Explain why Irving got jailed for questioning the numbers when Jews clearly don't even know.

You won't even try to answer these questions because you are either brain-washed, or a brain washer.

Come on turkey. Write some answers, so all can see. It will be a first for the bunch of nutcase Jews here.

No DeLay; no McKinney; no Lieberman. Wow, that's an improvement.

The Lamont victory by a narrow margin is the best political news for the GOP in a long time, by keeping both candidates in the race. How many millions of dollars are going to go towards fighting between two Democrats, rather than towards Democrats fighting Republicans? Is Ned Lamont working for Karl Rove? This is a dream come true. It basically doesn't matter which Democrat wins in Conneticut; resources there won't be used elsewhere.

Good work, Kos! Karl Rove owes you dinner.

Let's just hope that in their zeal to announce tonight's election results as an ominous portent of backstabbing McGovernite lefties running roughshod over America, the media will pause for a moment to note that a moderate Republican in Michigan lost his primary, evidently because the local GOP didn't take kindly to his lack of hatred for gay people.

Now we just have to can William J. Jefferson. Unfortunately we have to wait till November 7th to do it.

Slim: has407: What is your problem turkey.

1) Point to one factual error in the denial post. Please do, no other nutcase Jew has.

2) Explain exactly why the Jews had to reduce the number of dead at Auschwitz by 2.5 MILLION2

3) Explain exactly why they buried the story on this.

4) Explain why Irving got jailed for questioning the numbers when Jews clearly don't even know.

Okay, I'll take you on, you anti-semitic nut-job.

One by one:

1) I can't do that because that post has seemingly been deleted. sorry.

2) The plaque at Auschwitz you've referenced was Soviet propaganda, and was never part of the official count. That information is available here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_concentration_camp

3) How is the story buried? It's a google search away.

4) He violated anti-hate laws in his home country. I agree that those laws are bogus.

Better?

American Hawk

Lamont has his own millions.
Lieberman will have only lobbyist and GOP money, which will doom him when it becomes an issue.
And it excites the Dem base, which will help in money as well as enthusiasm as the direction of the campaign.
This was a very good night for Democrats and the country.

American Hawk

Lamont has his own millions.
Lieberman will have only lobbyist and GOP money, which will doom him when it becomes an issue.
And it excites the Dem base, which will help in money as well as enthusiasm as the direction of the campaign.
This was a very good night for Democrats and the country.

Lamont has already drained $300,000 or so from the wallets of blog readers. All that money won't go to elect some other democrat against an actual republican. He'll no doubt receive more as time goes on; Kos already has a post up asking people to contribute. Hillary has also wired him $5,000 from her PAC. Ned Lamont is going to be a very expensive transition from a democrat to another democrat, even if he wins.

Lieberman has been in the Senate for 18 years, and 48% of the Democratic faithful turned out to vote for him today. Many of those will no doubt write him checks that might have otherwise gone to other candidates. That's even more money that the GOP doesn't have to worry about.And Lieberman has no GOP money, or if he does, i'd like to see that cite.

When does the Congressional GOP begin to get rid of its purveyors of loony conspiracy theories, like, about how we've "found the WMDs"?

AMERICAN HAWK: Is Ned Lamont working for Karl Rove?

Oh, and you are.

Jayarbee: No, but as an independent challenging the Democratic nominee, Lieberman is.

A distinction without a difference; one way or another, the circular firinng squad that defines the Democratic party is helping the Republicans. Democrats *could* have had an easy kept seat, if they had just left Lieberman alone. Now, they're going to keep the seat, but it's going to cost them plenty. it's like being offered free ice cream, and insisting on paying an inflated price for it.

Oh, and you are.

Me? Hardly. Government work doesn't pay...

can a sycophantic foreigner like american hawk even name the repug candidate against lamont? ... without google?

I don't know if the chattering classes are going to do what is expected of them this time. So far, Chris Mathews is insulting Joe more thouroughly than Kos ever could by implying that:

Joe is a sore loser.
Joe won't endorse other CT dems.
Joe was defeated handily
Joe doesn't care what his party thinks.
Joe is waiting for Bush's endorsement.

I think Joe should be getting fit for a pointy red hat. The Travelocity "Roaming Gnome" is bound retire someday.

A-Hawk is right: it's an expensive way to keep a Democratic seat. But sometimes a business has to plow some money into improvements, rather than squeeze every dime. Joe was hurting the party, and now there's a high-profile example of what happens when you hurt the party to bolster your own personal nonpartisan/Republican brand.

All in all a win for Democracy. Who'd a thunk it?

You think the media will report that the Zionist lobby funded McKinney's opponent? Will they trumpet the power of out of state Jewish organizations?
Let's hear it for the power of the AIPAC!

can a sycophantic foreigner like american hawk even name the repug candidate against lamont? ... without google?

No. And that has.... precisely what to do with anything? Barring a miracle, a Democrat is going to keep that seat. It's just going to be very, very pricey, as Lamont and Lieberman go all out. It's a classic sunk costs problem: Do the blogs continue funnelning money to Lamont, even though that seat is a sure Democrat one? Or do they aim money elsewhere, trying to pick up republican seats, and make all the effort to date for naught?

Moonbat: Interesting way of looking at it. I guess the question you have to ask yourself is this: If, in a Texas senate race, a conservative republican and an ultra-conservative republican were battling it out, with lots of republican money being burned in the race, would you think that was good for the democrats or bad for the democrats?

just seems like you're sucking a lot of republican cock for candidates you can't even name, and whoring for hypothetical races involving OTHER candidates you probably can't name.

seems like you're spending a lot of time on your knees for the repugs ... be sure to wipe your chin.

Hawk;

Using your logic we might want to review the investment return on the $200 Billions we invested in that little fracas in the ME. I'm sure you applaud THAT wise use of money as well. Idiot.

American(?) Hawk:

My guess is that Lieberman's parroting of Republican talking points about Democrats is going to end up hurting the Republicans. From inside the party he was useful, something you could point to as the way real Democrats should act (i.e. like Republicans).

From outside the party, Lieberman is just a sore loser, and everything he says we can tie to your party. Until he finds it useful to insult the Preznit and you turn on him. Then we'll call you flip-floppers and jew-hating, terrorist-licking surrender monkeys.

American Hawk: "Lieberman has been in the Senate for 18 years, and 48% of the Democratic faithful turned out to vote for him today."

That doesn't necessarily mean that they'll stick with him through November.

In recent American political history, there has only been only one major incumbent -- New York City Mayor John Lindsay in 1969 -- who lost a primary race and then successfully mounted a subsequent independent re-election bid during the same election cycle.

Joe Lieberman would be facing awfully long odds as a third-party candidate, and I hope that he thinks twice before undertaking such a transperantly vainglorious venture.

But then again, George Bush might also be quietly looking for a new defense secretary ...

His former colleagues must recognize that he is now in the opposition, not just in CT, but in the fight to end the Bush's administrations disasterous policies.He can be given to no quarter from now until November.
Posted by: no quarter on August 9, 2006 at 2:39 AM | PERMALINK

Conyers isn't afraid to say it. Many other Dems are. Some Dems aren't even on board with it (*cough* Hillary *cough*). But November '06 is going to be all about Chimpeachment. They may not come out and say it - Karl Rove will do that for him. (actually, Mehlman already has).

Lieberman was one of the ones that Democratic Voters instinctively know, will try to block Chimpeachment if he can (just like he voted against Clinton).

The Rovies better fire up the Diebold machines this November. Democratic Voters want change. And they want Justice.

I'm about 90% sure that even if Dems win majorities in both houses (and that's a stretch) - they will not be able to muster enough unity in their own party to succeed at Chimpeachment. But I think that the majority of Dems are at least going to try to make the symbolic gesture.

enozinho: " think Joe should be getting fit for a pointy red hat. The Travelocity "Roaming Gnome" is bound [to] retire someday."

Either that, or he could provide the voice-over for another round of Droopy the Dog cartoons.

Government work doesn't pay? It does if you are a Republican and in Congress.
Rather than the public jump for joy right-wing apologists are attempting to put on this for pundit consumption, I'm willing to bet behind closed doors they, and a great many Republican politicans, are busy shitting their pants. This isn't a good sign for them. Quite the opposite. If a guy like Lieberman can go down, the actual far right, stay-the-course Republicans are in serious, serious trouble.
This wasn't come far-left radical win for Lamont. It was the voters of Conneticut voting for someone who was behind their values & their positions. Same thing with the McKinney race in Georgia.
The radical righties can jump & down all they want and scream their usual bullshit but a change is coming this November. Good God but it will be nice to see some actual oversight and maybe even sensible fiscal policy start coming out of Congress again.

Oh yeah.

And I'm really enjoying this bogus "Clinton lost it for Lieberman" meme. You can smell the desperation in that one.

But then again, George Bush might also be quietly looking for a new defense secretary ...

Surely you mean offense secretary.

(sorry, just don't see much in the way of defense from you guys these days)

Anyway, a hearty congratulations. It may be weak but the heart of American democracy is still beating. Absolutely great stuff.

And projecting forward, I will go out on a limb and (based on my woefully incomplete understanding of human nature) say that any independent run by Joe will be spectacularly unsuccessful and will be greatly resented even by many of those who cast votes for him. Joe as a politician is dead.

But then again, George Bush might also be quietly looking for a new defense secretary ...

I don't see why W doesn't just give Olmert the job. It would save the hassle of messages being delayed through Rummy anyway. From Likud to AIPAC to (Franklin/Wolfowitz/Pearle/Fliescher/Abramoff) straight to the Joint Chiefs.

Old Holy Joe just wore out his welcome. The people who used to elect him just told him his services would no longer be required.

Neoconservatives, particularly those still holding Democratic party cards, are hereby put on notice.

Anyone who once supported the invasion of Iraq and has just now reversed their rectal-cranial insertion still stinks, and any advice they might offer will carry that taint for quite some time.

And projecting forward, I will go out on a limb and (based on my woefully incomplete understanding of human nature) say that any independent run by Joe will be spectacularly unsuccessful

to expand... for an independent run to be successful, Joe needs to be seen as symbolizing something, something slightly more encompassing than egotism and a sense of entitlement. He has to be the center of a political movement not just the center of his own ambitions.

Nope, it's bye-bye Joe.

The voters in both states replaced unreliable candidates who did not advance the party's interests for two who look to be good party members, moderate and reasonable in policy and tone.

List of things to do when I recover from my hangover:

*Contact Harry Reid, promise the Democrats money only if they strip Lieberman of his comittee assignments by the end of this week.

*Send Lamont some bucks for his Senate campaign.

*Thank Hillary for supporting the Democratic nominee for the Connecticut U.S. Senate seat.

*Ask Bill to campaign as vigorously for Ned as he did for Joe.

*Continue to dance.

Neoconservatives, particularly those still holding http://www.ggdc.info/sitemap.htm Democratic party cards, are hereby put on notice.

Pardon?

"...when the punditocracy starts chattering about how Ned Lamont's victory in Connecticut is a sign that the Democratic Party is diving headlong over some kind of wild-eyed lefty peacenik cliff, I hope they keep in mind that Hank Johnson also won a landslide victory over Cynthia McKinney down in Georgia....Seems to me the party acquitted itself pretty well tonight." -- Kevin Drum.

What happened today is only the beginning. What really matters is how the Democratic Party reacts to these elections. I fully expect the McGovernite inmates to take over the Democratic Party asylum by 2008.

American Hawk:

I guess the question you have to ask yourself is this: If, in a Texas senate race, a conservative republican and an ultra-conservative republican were battling it out, with lots of republican money being burned in the race, would you think that was good for the democrats or bad for the democrats?

Given the volumes spent by both parties across the country the amount is de minimus. More important is that it matters to beat the "ultra conservative republican." Because the difference between, say, a Chuck Hagel and a bat-shit insane wingnut is substantial. This is why plenty of democrats were out working for Joe Schwarz.

Applied to Connecticut: the amount spent in the race to defeat a Bush enabler (on social security, cultural issues, the war) is cheap at the price.

What happened today is only the beginning. What really matters is how the Democratic Party reacts to these elections. I fully expect the McGovernite inmates to take over the Democratic Party asylum by 2008.

Posted by: Brad on August 9, 2006 at 4:14 AM | PERMALINK

Since when is voting out a guy that refuses to face reality and tells rape victims to go fuck themselves equal to bringing back the McGovernites? Get out of the past, man. That bowl has already been smoked. What people have been afraid to say isn't that Leiberman sunk himself because he was a "moderate" (even though his position on a number of issues is actually minority positions among the electorate in general and blue states in particular), but that he is just another DC Beltwar asshole who feels a sense of entitlement and is in love with his own false sense of intelligence that he gets from appearing on FoxNews. He is simply a dork and a douche.

too bad for 'reality man' that Lieberman is favored to win reelection in November

too bad for 'reality man' that Lieberman is favored to win reelection in November
Posted by: Brad on August 9, 2006 at 5:08 AM | PERMALINK

Favored by whom? Do those take into account the effect that this loss and seeing major Democratic backers (like NARAL and the Clintons) flee him like the plague will have on voters' perceptions of him? How about when they realize he has to latch onto this false "they hacked my site" meme when anyone who has used the internet in the past 10 years will understand that they screwed up their own site by being cheap? How about how once the independent run starts, the fact that it is an independent run will smell of ego and entitlement instead of standing on principle (something Leiberman stopped doing years ago)? I notice you don't address any of my points. You only throw out this one bit of analysis which is out of date because the dynamic of election forecasting changes from a hardly-fought primary to the actual election a few months away.

Brad, where do you expect the "neo-McGovernites" to strike next?

I keep hearing this line, mainly from right-wingers, Lieberman aficianados and a few lefties drunk on their own self-importance, but I see no real evidence of it. Lamont is essentially a country club type who would have been at home in the Republican Party a few years ago before that organization's tragic swerve towards the radical right. The fact that he got supported by a lot of liberals probably shows the inclusiveness of the Democratic party tent.

Lieberman had transcendant unlikeability. When a candidate is dumb enough to threaten to leave the party if he doesn't get the nomination, he deserves to be thrown out on his ear. Some one else summed it up perfectly: he got afflicted by Great Man Syndrome about six years ago and poor Connecticut has been dealing with it ever since.

The right lost one, and they're predictably screaming about it. "Commies under the bed!"

OTOH, as Atrios atrociously alliteratively said,

we won one.

Given what you, in a minor way, and the MSM, in a major way, have done to the phrase "conspiracy theories" the word "weird" you placed in front of it in this post becomes redundant. We salute the coincidentalists!

The larger question is, "How bad does this country have to get before more than 50% of the eligble voting population actually goes to the polls?"

When incompetent fools like Bush get elected by 25% or less of the electorate, this democratic republic is in serious danger of not surviving.

What many Democratic partisans here seem to forget is that 45% of Connecticut's electorate are Independents who really don't give a damn about either party (about 33% are Democrats and 22% are Republicans). The state has a long history of electing Independents, too. You can jump up and down all day and say it's just Republicans who support Sen. Lieberman but the fact is that there aren't very many Republicans in Connecticut but lots and lots of Independents. Even if the Democratic Party coalesces around Mr. Lamont for reasons of party loyalty, that will have no effect on the Independent vote because, as I said, they don't give a damn abut parties. So the Democrats may well have purged their party and made it a purer statement of what they believe, and but in the context of Connecticut politics, it's very hard to see how that's going to work out well for the Democratic Party or its candidate.

The Democrats won one, though, didn't they?

The "concern trolls" are always welcome. There's nothing Democrats love to hear more than the advice of Republicans.

Of couse, McKinney didn't hace the nutroots out for her blood, so I don't see the comparison.

when the punditocracy starts chattering about how Ned Lamont's victory in Connecticut is a sign that the Democratic Party is diving headlong over some kind of wild-eyed lefty peacenik cliff

Well, of course, the "punditocracy" hasn't got it thru their heads yet, but opposition to Bush's disastrous failure in Iraq is not even remotely a radical position -- to the contrary, it's mainstream. But Lamont's victory means something much more ominous for the GOP than a rejection of the war -- it's a rejection of Bush. The Connecticut primary was a referendum on George W. Bush writ large, and Bush's favorite Fox News Democrat got rejected by his party for kissing up to an incompetent, mendacious, corrupt President.

Too bad we can't vote the punditocracy out on similar grounds.

But the sweet part is that since he no longer represents the Democratic Party, Lieberman's tenure as a Fox News Democrat is just about done. His usefulness to the GOP is just about over, and I'll be satisfied and amused to see the Republicans abandon Holy Joe just like the Democrats did.

"Seems to me the party acquitted itself pretty well tonight."

Right! No reason for panic, nothing to be seen here, just SOP in a democracy. But there are always some spoilsports who won't acknoledge that the question about the right direction ought to be a democratic decision. Like Marshall Whitman, a.k.a. the Bull Moose, for instance. Pls check his latest post at his blog:

A few years back the Moose [sic! Pluralis majestatis! Gray] broke with the Republican Party on a range of issues dealing with economic justice. His reasons for leaving the GOP are explained here.

As the Moose indicated, just because he became a heretic on the right, he certainly did not join the left. At another time he would be in the mainstream of the Democratic Party. Alas, that Scoop Jackson wing today is miniscule.
...
So where does this situation leave the Moose? He is an economic progressive, cultural tradionalist and a hawk - a mammal without a party who continues to graze in the political center.
http://bullmooseblogger.blogspot.com/

Ok, surely some will say that's just the usual, whiny bull from the moose, but I think this statement is very significant and should have consequences. He clearly states he is not in the mainstream of the Democratic party, and in the end even openly says that in reality, he is without a party. You can't say it any clearer than that.

Now, his political identification is his personal business, except for the fact that he is still senior spokesman for the DLC. Shouldn't someone who is speaking for a mayor Democratic organisation be a convincing and supporting member of that party? After this statement by Whitman, is there any logical explanation why he should stay in the DLC any longer? If Whitman stubbornly clings to 'his' post like Lieberman clings to 'his' office, when will the Dem leadership finally make a decision on this matter? I want to add a concrete example why Whitman shouldn't be allowed to speak for the DLC anymore:

Marshall Wittman of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, who supports Lieberman, said Lamont has allowed himself to be defined by his left-wing supporters.

"Had it not been for the involvement of the Democratic left, the party would be fairly united going into midterm elections," he said. "The Lamont campaign can be potentially devastating to the party, not in 2006, but in 2008. At a time of horrific news for the Republican Party, this is the only silver lining they have right now."
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-lieberman9aug09,0,4115180.story?page=2&coll=la-home-headlines

Yes, that's in the LA Times right now!
Is that the official position of the DLC? That the result of this primary "can be potentially devastating to the party"? Even if some might think so, is it acceptable or even reasonable for the DLC to say so in public? And is it the mission of the DLC to give the republican party hope for a "silver lining"? It is my understanding that tomorrow at 11 will be the important unification meeting of the Dems. Doesn't this irresponsible statement from Whitman make this mission more difficult?

Imho the last thing the Dems need right now is a senior speaker who only cares for his personal ideas of the right direction and who shows a blatant disregard for party interests. Someone has to stop the Bull and ban the Moose. Now.

(ok, originally I posted this at MyDD, but there's only a very lame discussion there, so...)

AH: The Lamont victory by a narrow margin

ap: Lamont won with 52 percent of the vote, or 146,061, to 48 percent for Lieberman, with 136,042, with 99 percent of precincts reporting.

In the 2004 election, Bush won 51.0 percent of the popular vote compared to 48.1 percent for Senator John Kerry.

one mans landslide is anothers narrow win....

It's a mandate! :D

need coffee

nice catch Gray....

thisspaceavailable:

The 10,000 vote margain is less than the number who switched party registration to screw up the Democrats in CT.

P.S. Welcome, Gray -- perhaps you should coordinate with "sweaty guy" above about your next target. First, they came after the Liebermans, and I said nothing, then Marshall . . .

There's still nothing wrong with George McGovern-- an honest, far-sighted man who happened to be absolutely correct about the Vietnam war, and who was up against a corrupt and ruthless opponent who, as we all found out later, gamed the system in the extreme. I don't think "McGovernite" is a perjorative.

"First, they came after the Liebermans, and I said nothing, then Marshall . . ."

Hehe! But afaik Lieberman is still alive. Not too many tears, please, it's the right age for retirement. And pls note that I didn't say 'kill the Moose', I said ban him. I meant ban him from the DLC, not necessarily from the Dems. But to have an official post, he has to follow some rules, and he seems to be totally unwilling to accept that. Ok?

And, who after Lieberman and Marshall? There are plenty of us Democrats more "conservative" than they are.

"There's still nothing wrong with George McGovern", except, maybe that this idea of giving every US citizen 6500$ really sounded somewhat communistic. At least he should have had a very sound plan for funding it. This was an unnecessary risk and Tricky Dick was glad for the opportunity.
My two cent (that I borrowed from Wikipedia)...

"There are plenty of us Democrats more "conservative" than they are."

Oops? I thought there's only Zell Miller, and he changed his affiliation some time ago...
:P

Aweaty sounds totally reasonable to me:

"Lamont is essentially a country club type who would have been at home in the Republican Party a few years ago before that organization's tragic swerve towards the radical right. The fact that he got supported by a lot of liberals probably shows the inclusiveness of the Democratic party tent."

Exactly! As is said at another blog and in another threat, every time I hear someine calling a succesful businessman a 'lefty', my BS alarm goes off.

Some of us are pro-life, believe it or not. Also (from another thread), why not target those more conservative Dems, as well as Hillary and any other Democrat who does not spend every single minute between now and Election Day in the 3rd smallest State campaigning for Lamont? At the very least, MoveOn.org is tied up in CT rather than other States. Methinks you really miss the "silver lining" for the GOP.

And, sweaty guy is on the record as NOT targeting anyone else or bringing impeachment hearings against Bush. Are you SURE that sounds reasonable?

There are plenty of us Democrats more "conservative"

us Democrats? Charlie, when did you become a Democrat? Have you lost your concern for the unborn millions? Were your gleeful predictions for 50 million votes mere subterfuge? What gives, pray tell.

It's tough to be Charlie today, isn't it? I rarely read most of the trolls, but this is an excellent time to do so. I love the smell of rank desperation in the morning....mmmmmmmmm.

Sadly this will not dissuade the pantywaist democrats from pissing in their pants at the thought of confronting the GOP for Republicans' lies and immorality.

Is "sweaty guy" Charlie too? For the record, I've been a registered Democrat since I voted for John F. Kennedy (I did come to regret my Carter vote though and voted for Reagan twice), but I don't know how I can "prove" that to you either.

Morning s-s (well late evening at the office for me here). Yes. Ned has got my hopes up for the rest of this year. I look forward to all sorts of crashing and bashing and political upheaval. And the wailing and the gnashing of teeth from the political class and their chroniclers.

"Some of us are pro-life, believe it or not."I'm catholic. Imho pregnant women, especially young and/or single ones, should be supported by society. It can't be that in a civilized nation there are abortions because of financial hardship. That's babaric. However, I can't impose my believe on others, and it's the woman's tomb, so she has to make the choice. I'm very much for a compromise solution, choice until the 3rd or 4th month of pregnancy, that is. I don't feel very right wing because of this conviction.

Ok, back to topic. Lieberman, Whitman, don't forget Cuellar, and all the others, it's not about their political orientation in the first place, whether they are too far right. It's about party loyalty and not sabotaging the chance for the Dems to accomplish Democratic goals. So, sometimes a responsible policy has to prevail over personal interests. Especially as the GOP under Rove's guidance is playing devide et impera, they try to 'bribe' or manipulate lawmakers from the other side to support them on a project and thus manage to avoid any compromise with the Dems. Look at judicial nominations and the awful tax bills for evidence. Loeberman and Cuellar got away with this much to often, their tiny victories were always huge losses for their party. This got to have consequences.

Imho loyalty for the party and for the democratic process is not an unreasonable demand, look at this Senator who understands (via dkos):

"Senator Bayh supported Senator Lieberman in the primary because of his respect for Senator Lieberman's service and their long friendship," said Bayh spokesman Dan Pfeiffer. "The Democratic voters of Connecticut have spoken, and Senator Bayh respects their choice and will support their nominee."
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2006/08/lieberman_concedes_connecticut.html

"For the record, I've been a registered Democrat since I voted for John F. Kennedy (I did come to regret my Carter vote though and voted for Reagan twice)"

In my eyes, this makes you an independent, Tom. :P

Wow! Throwing every Reagan Democrat overboard will really win lots of elections -- talk about shooting yourself in the foot -- I hear Rove is inviting Senator Ben Nelson down from Nebraska to Crawford so Bush can give him the "kiss of death" too ; )

. . .woman's tomb . . .

Freudian slip?

"Throwing every Reagan Democrat overboard will really win lots of elections -- talk about shooting yourself in the foot"

Who said something about throwing somebody over board? In the strange US system, you're affiliated to a party by simply filling out a form, without having to contribute something. So, as a matter of fact, YOU once threw the Dems overboard for Reagan, and now you're back at the Dems, because of Bush, right? Do you expect the Dem politicians to always follow you on your zig-zag-course? You make the choice. And if it happens that your choice is a Dem candidate and Democratic policy, great. But imho it's a bit farfetched to say you're a democrat when actually you're bouncing from one side to the other. Let's say I see a difference between affiliation and conviction, and the best example is still Zell Miller. No Democrat in my eyes.

"Freudian slip?"
Lost in translation.

Thomas: And, sweaty guy is on the record as NOT targeting anyone else or bringing impeachment hearings against Bush. Are you SURE that sounds reasonable?

Are you asking me? Well, yeah. People are tired of impeachment. If it comes to light that the administration commited a shitload of prosecutable crimes out of the oval office, then impeach away. But if I were a Democratic strategist I wouldn't bother trying to sell impeachment based on evidence available now. People want good government. Promising that would be sweet enough. If they trust the Democrats to handle an impeachment proceeding fairly, and they think the president deserves it, then great. But the Dems still need to earn that trust.

And no, I don't think there is a witch hunt for moderate Democrats brewing. Lieberman wanted to be kicked out of the party, either that or he's an arrogant prick who thought he could take it for granted. For the Democrats to keep him in after he so casually dismissed them (not the national party, but the people in his own state!) would be pretty disgraceful. The GOP cut that NH bozo Bob Smith loose after he decided he wanted to be in the American Taxpayers' Party a few years ago. Dems shouldn't feel tied to Lieberman because he has made up his mind he is the second coming of Churchill.

Oh, O.K., you don't even have a vote here in the U.S.? Back on topic: Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT, so far) made the morning show rounds this a.m.

Asked if he'll listen to calls of Dems for him to drop out: "I'll always take the calls of friends. But my mind is made up. I'm going forward. I'm going forward because I'm fed up with all the partisanship in Washington that stops us from getting from anything done. If my opponent, Mr. Lamont, ever is successful, the fact is he would just be one more partisan polarizer."

Asked if there is anyone who could get him to drop out: "Respectfully no. I am committed to this campaign -- to a different kind of politics, to bringing the Democratic Party back from the extreme, back from Ned Lamont and Maxine Waters, to the main stream. And for doing something for the people of Connecticut. That's what it's all about" ("Today," NBC, 8/9).

Asked if his support for the Iraq war led to his defeat: "Oh there's no question about it. Everything indication I had from the voters of Connecticut -- including public opinion polls -- said that they agreed with me on most issues, that they appreciated all the work I had done for the state of Connecticut, but my opponent convinced them -- with a lot of distortions I think -- to use this as a referendum to send a message of opposition and anger to President Bush. ... But there's more to our future than that issue."

On running as an independent: "Yesterday less than 15 percent of the registered voters in Connecticut voted. A little more than 7 percent of the registered voters voted for my opponent. I think this is such an important decision ... for our future that all the voters should have a choice and that's why I'm running."

More: "I think this is all about Iraq and opposing President Bush. ... I certainly believe we did the right thing in going in to overthrow Saddam. I said, along with John McCain and others, that we made mistakes after that. ... The key question is what do we do now. My opponent says let's get all our troops out by a deadline. I saw that will be dangerous for our troops, disastrous for the Middle East and really make America vulnerable to another terrorist attack like 9/11."

Asked if he's opening the race to a GOP victory: "I don't believe that is of the actual risk. I think for the most part, and in the end, that this is going to come down between round two or the second half between Ned Lamont and me. Ned Lamont and his supporters on the margins of our party and Joe Lieberman a mainstream Democrat who can win and will win in November" ("Early Show," CBS, 8/9).

Asked if he'll be out there all alone: "I'm in until November and I will certainly not be all alone. ... It's not selfish. It would be the easiest thing in the world for me to walk away. And as my wife always tells me, I'd make a lot more money than I do as a senator. But I believe in public service. I believe in my vision of the Democratic Party."

On the blogs: "The blogs are a form of expression. There is nothing wrong with a blog. It depends how you use it. I will tell you that the bloggers who came after me -- some of them were so full of hatred ... that it is just not good for our politics. And, frankly, on some of those blogs was the kind of bigotry that just has no place in American public life. So I worry that this victory by Ned Lamont ... will send a message across our state and our country that the Democratic Party has been taken over by people who are not from the mainstream of America. And they are going to make this not Bill Clinton's party anymore" ("GMA," ABC, 8/9).

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/

What if McCain is shut out of the GOP Presidential primaries and also switches to Independent: McCain/Lieberman 2008?

It will certainly be interesting to watch this play out until November.

One has assume this will be a big distraction for Democrats. There will be sides to choose, back and fourth negative adds, and big moiney spent. With Lieberman getting 48% of Democrats, he has a srong case for an independent run and would likely take most (or at least >50%) of the Independents and even some Republicans. Quite a spectacle.

To date, Lamont has had the priveledge of allowing others to talk for him (Kos, Hamsher), but he will now be thrust into the spotlight and after watching his goofy speech last night, he certainly aint ready for primetime.

The only hope for Democrats to avoid a circus is for the entire party - all the bigshots (Clintons, etc), media synpathizers, etc, to quickly rally around Lamont. However, with 48% of the primary vote, ample financial backers, and loyal allies, Liberman aint going away anytime soon.

There ARE Democrats more conservative than Lieberman and Whitman. But that's because these wanna-be "cenrists" are not all that moderate. They're their own brand of extremist.

That's what has to be recognized in order to understand this.

While the pundits are running around proclaimeing 'the Democrats have been taken over by the bloggers and moon-bat left", nary a word will be said about the results in Michigan's 7th CD primary.

An anti-science, anti-choice, anti-equal rights, homophobic right wing preacher defeated moderate republican Joe Swartz. Where is the punditocracy proclaiming the GOP has been taken over by the reactionary moon-bat right?

Sweaty, you sound so reasonable today!? I remembered you much more, uh, 'trolly'. Must be my Alzheimer...

swaety guy:

No, I was just pointing that out to Gray. I agree with you about impeachment, but disagree about the witch hunt -- the bloggers have tasted first blood . . .

"Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT, so far) made the morning show rounds this a.m."

Hmm, so what? You endorse this BS or what do you wanna say? Life's too short to waste it by debunking obviously selfish brouhaha.

>Throwing every Reagan Democrat overboard will really win lots of elections

So change your registration or STFU. We got a two party system, and it's therefore impossible for either party to line up perfectly with pretty much anybody's exact views, let alone a WATB like you.

You've just seen a succesful businessman, as WASP and blue-bloody as they come, put on the road to be added to the Senate to replace a clueless never-had-a-real-job-in-his-life politician. So what's the problem, exactly?

Gray -- I do agree with this:

"I worry that this victory by Ned Lamont ... will send a message across our state and our country that the Democratic Party has been taken over by people who are not from the mainstream of America. And they are going to make this not Bill Clinton's party anymore"

American Hawk said: "1) I can't do that because that post has seemingly been deleted. sorry."

No, it was just never posted. It was meant for another thread. But since you really seem to need it, here it is:

I know it is hard to accept but, the holocaust AS DESCRIBED by Jews never happened.

It was hard for me, even though intellectually, I realized I had been LIED to, I could not really accept this for a long time, as its consequences were too frightening.

It is important to look at the holocaust evidence, or lack thereof, for yourself, but one indication that the story you have been told is a fable is this:

These are photos of plaques at Auschwitz (click on the links to have a look):

Plaque from Auschwitz showing 4 million "victims".

This plaque was on display at Auschwitz from 1948 until about 1990 (note the "4 million" victims).

Plaque from Auschwitz showing 1.5 million "victims".
Plaque from Auschwitz showing 1.5 million "victims" (Deutsch).

These plaques are currently on display at Auschwitz (English and German).

Note the dramatically reduced number of victims, now only 1.5 million (anderthalb millionen).

A casual reduction in the number of deaths by some 2.5 million.

Deaths at Auschwitz drop by a whopping 2.5 million, but 6,000,000 dead Jews, remains the same.

Why did you never hear about the Jew reduction of deaths at Auschwitz? I mean a reduction from 4 million to 1.5 million is quite significant, you must agree.

If Jews can reduce the number of dead from 4 million to 1.5 million, then why do they jail people like David Irving for just questioning the numbers who died.

There are many, many more problems with the HolyCo$t fable, but one must take one small step at a time.

Let's just hope that in their zeal to announce tonight's election results as an ominous portent of backstabbing McGovernite lefties running roughshod over America, the media will pause for a moment to note that a moderate Republican in Michigan lost his primary, evidently because the local GOP didn't take kindly to his lack of hatred for gay people.

Posted by: ajl on August 9, 2006 at 2:00 AM

Yep, and a Republican incumbent backed by Bush, no less. In the midst of Cal Thomas' harangue on WTOP this morning about "Hezbollah Democrats," where he compared the Republicans' "big tent" (Schwarzenegger, Giuliani) to the Democrats' "pup tent" (oh Cal -- that tent still includes Bob Casey), I didn't hear him mention that primary. Wonder why?

Goodbye to Cynthia McKinney too, no matter how much those radical rascals at Pacifica boo-hooed last night as the returns came in. It doesn't matter how "progressive" your policies are if you act like a jerk while in office.

The results in Connecticut are probably a "snap out of it" slap to the face to Hillary, Obama and other allies of the Democratic party bosses, all of whom backed or campaigned for Lieberman. (Obama a fresh face for the Dems? Naw, just another damn power-hungry Ivy League lawyer, as Alexander Cockburn has pointed out.) It will be fascinating to see how much aid the DLC and their ilk will give Lamont this fall.

"[I] disagree about the witch hunt -- the bloggers have tasted first blood"

The bloggers? It's not been the bloggers who voted! And the bloggers aren't stronger in convincing/manipulating undecideds than the MSM. So, don't mix things up!

As for calling politicians to resapect the party interests, what you call witch hunt, how should the Dems ever accomplish anything in the opposition if some lawmakers topple over every time the highly partisan, united front of the GOP offers them some pork? That's exactly the problem, and Lieberman is the part of the cause for it. How do you think this should work?

Tom, I want to ask

How many millions of dollars are going to go towards fighting between two Democrats, rather than towards Democrats fighting Republicans?

Democrats *could* have had an easy kept seat, if they had just left Lieberman alone.

American Chickensquawk: The Lamont victory by a narrow margin is the best political news for the GOP in a long time, by keeping both candidates in the race. How many millions of dollars are going to go towards fighting between two Democrats, rather than towards Democrats fighting Republicans? Is Ned Lamont working for Karl Rove? This is a dream come true. It basically doesn't matter which Democrat wins in Conneticut; resources there won't be used elsewhere.

Poll: 60 percent of Americans oppose Iraq war

Democrats don't need more resources; Bush in the White House supported by a GOP Congress, both spewing rampant incompetency, corruption, criminality, and immorality are sufficient resources.

But keep telling 60% of Americans they are cowards, traitors, and imbeciles, American Squawk - that will go over well during the November elections.

I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"I worry that this victory by Ned Lamont ... will send a message across our state and our country that the Democratic Party has been taken over by people who are not from the mainstream of America. And they are going to make this not Bill Clinton's party anymore"

I think I already answered this. Lamont's arguments convinced a higher share of the elctorate to vote for him. That more bloggers supported Lamont and more MSM outlets were for Lieberman is part of the process. That's democracy.

I suspect that most of the people who voice that fear you quoted are afraid that the highly business-oriented, easily manipulable network of the MSM will be substituted by the highly chaotic blogosphere, which is very diversified, but yet closer to the people in its main interests. This will make the jobs of the politicians and lobbyists harder, sure. And imho that's a good thing.

There are plenty of us Democrats more "conservative" than they are.

Jump back! "us Democrats"?! Charlie's pretending to be a Democrat? Now I've heard everything...

Gregory:

I'm not "Charlie" and have been a life-long Democrat.

Peter:

Is Senator Nelson of Nebraska a "DINO" too?

Gray:

You want to ask "what"?

P.S. sweaty guy re: "witch hunt" http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_08/009306.php#937306

What happens now among high-profile party figures will be significant. HRC and Bayh "supporting" Lamont means little in and of itself. Who's going to campaign for him, speak for him, hit the circuit with him, make ads for him, lend their organizations (if they're not using them themselves just now) to him? What kind of cash is heading his way? Who's going to help, rather than simply throw out a lukewarm "I like Ned" line as an afterthought at an occasional press conference?

We are all watching. Because the message Joe got last night wasn't just meant for him.

"This is a dream come true."

Not really, American Fried Chicken. You seem to forget that there's no GOP candidate worth it's name to take advantage of that. Shit happens! :P

"You want to ask "what"?"

Dumb mistake by my editor [slapping myself]...
Ignore it!

Thomas: Methinks you really miss the "silver lining" for the GOP.

Poll: 60 percent of Americans oppose Iraq war

Conservatives (Reagan Democrats or Republicans) also still believe you can turn lead into gold.

The Lamont victory by a narrow margin

52-48 isn't a narrow margin.

How many millions of dollars are going to go towards fighting between two Democrats, rather than towards Democrats fighting Republicans?

You see two Democrats and a Republican.

I see two supporters of Bush's failed war, and one opponent.

Is Ned Lamont working for Karl Rove?

No, Ned Lamont is working against George Bush's failed policies and for the people of Connecticut and the United States.

This is a dream come true.

Lieberman's rejection by Democratic voters is indeed a dream come true.

It basically doesn't matter which Democrat wins in Conneticut; resources there won't be used elsewhere.

That's okay; Lieberman's rejection by Democratic voters vastly reduces the propaganda value he has serving Republican interests by criticizing other Democratic politicians who, unlike him, oppose failed right-wing policies.

That's a big campaign boost for the Democratic Party right there, and one that will keep giving for years.

Lieberman accused Lamont of being a secret Republican. So, Democrats are diving in which direction toward radicalism, the right or the left?

I worry that this victory by Ned Lamont ... will send a message across our state and our country that the Democratic Party has been taken over by people who are not from the mainstream of America.

Here's my challenge: Name one position of Lamont's that is "not from the mainstream of America." Opposition to Bush's disastrous failure in Iraq, for example, is quite mainstream these days, reflecting the view of a majority of Americans.

As I said, Lamont's victory was more than a referendum on Iraq, it was a referendum on Bush, and Joementum went down with the S.S. Shrub. Not that the punditocracy will finally wake up and realize Bush is not longer a popular wartime president...

And Charlie, your pose as a "Reagan Democrat" is funnier than your pretending you were able to vote for Ralph Reed. The desperation in your points, as la shortstop said, is a most refreshing tonic!

cmdicely:

Who is next? Senator Nelson (DINO-Nebraska)?

Holy Joe's down and bleeding to death on the mat. Now let's take out Chafee in RI and pick up a seat for the Dems.

"Is Senator Nelson of Nebraska a "DINO" too?"

Why don't you ask about Webb? Got lot of support in the blogosphere. Again, this isn't about 'the right wing', 'the left wing', 'the Dem wing'. It's about reason, responsibility, and loyalty for the common goals. As opposed to spin, shortsightedness, and selfishness.

Lieberman's rejection by Democratic voters vastly reduces the propaganda value he has serving Republican interests by criticizing other Democratic politicians who, unlike him, oppose failed right-wing policies.

Word. As we discussed on another thread, cmd, one of the sweet, sweet bonuses of this election will be Lieberman's second rejection, by the GOP and its poropaganda assets that no longer have use for him now that he isn't Bush's favorite Democratic senator. (As for the notion that he might be nominated SecDef, rip that one up.)

You're right, he may be used as a Zell Miller-style apostate for an election cycle, but he's done. Poetic justice indeed.

Thank God, there comes the cavalry (in the form of gregory and cmdicely). Desperately need some cigarettes and maybe something to eat. :)
L8rs, folks.

Is Ned Lamont gay?

Who knows? there are also rumours that Ken Mehlman is gay!
Who cares? You're interested in some crisp poece of a? :P

cmdicely:

Who is next?

Who said someone else is “next”? Next is sending Lieberman to the scrapheap of history in the general election. Beyond that, with any luck, it's Mission Accomplished: Lieberman was uniquely bad and will have been dealt with uniquely.

Thomas: Who is next? Senator Nelson (DINO-Nebraska)?

Who's next for you, Thomas?

You're apparently on a witch hunt against any candidate who is pro-choice, yet you whine and rant about anybody who is, according to you at least, on a witch hunt against any candidate who is for the Iraqi war.

So, who's next?

Is Ned Lamont gay?

Ahhhh, now I see who's next: the homosexuals.

Reagan Democrats gave us deficits, Saddam Hussein, Noriega, arms for hostages, negotiation with terrorists, 250+ marines dead in Lebanon, and US violations of international law.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Democrats need you like the US needed a war in Iraq.

but when the punditocracy starts chattering about how Ned Lamont's victory in Connecticut is a sign that the Democratic Party is diving headlong over some kind of wild-eyed lefty peacenik cliff...

Then you know it's time to send their worthless asses back to the cocktail weenie circuit.

People who think for a living get their news from blogs.
.

"Name one position of Lamont's that is "not from the mainstream of America."

I would say emabracing a shrill twat like Jane Hamsher in out of the mainstream. (oh thats right, Lamont doesn't know who these bloggers are!"

The Republican talking points about the evolution of the Democratic Party have no basis in reality. I was watching some Fox news show the other day (it might have been Brit Hume's show, but he had a replacement host), and both Fred Barnes and Charles Krauthammer were saying the same thing: that the Democratic had been hijacked by 60s style hippie peaceniks, and that they would pay for it in the polls.

What in the world? The fact was that a majority of Democrats in Congress voted for both the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq. The majority supported the Patriot Act. The majority voted for the Department of Homeland Security. The majority voted for at least the first rounds of the Bush tax cuts. I'm not saying that these were good votes (I don't think they were), but they were not leftist by any means. Juan Williams pointed out how full of shit the other panelists were, but he was cut off by the host---"Sorry, out of time now."

billmon looks at the mckinney race.

Oh SLIM

American Hawk,
Lieberman means nothing to republicans, they're goin to vote republican no matter what. He's Jacob Javits II.
In 1980, very centrist, wildly popular 3 term republican senator from NY Jacob Javits lost the republican primary in a squeaker to unknown Al D'Amato, a long island selectman. Encouraged by his showing in spite of the millions poured into the primary by the new conservative PACs for the more right wing D'Amato, Javits ran an indy campaign. He was crushed, finishing a distant 3rd behind D'Amato the republican and Elizabeth Holzman the democrat.
Watch Lieberman's death spiral. It will be sad and pathetic.

I guess the choice has been made for "evil" Reagan Democrats in CT then -- support either Lieberman or Schlessinger.

BlaBlaBla: I would say emabracing a shrill twat like Jane Hamsher in out of the mainstream.

Since you read her blog, I guess that means you've embraced her too!

http://billmon.org/archives/002659.html

Screwed up the link so here it is

Oh, Donald from Hawaii, you're back. Did your aunt ever tell you how she escaped from Treblinka?

Bob asked about my mom, so I told him her harrowing story:

Mom was at Treblinka, she clawed through 8,000 yards of solid rock with her bare hands, while tunneling out of the Nazi slaughter house.

Unfortunately, her tunnel surfaced in the local Gestapo headquarters and she got transferred to Auschwitz.

I'd like to tell you about her escape from there, but she died there at the tender age of 11.

After the war, she wrote a book about her experiences, which was a best seller.

Donald from Hawaii, never told us how his aunt escaped from Treblinka, but I would still be interested in hearing it.

Why are you guys arguing with Charlie instead of enjoying this beautiful morning? Ain't no reason for bothering with crazy-ass trolls whose only purpose is to derail the topic.

The topic here is Lieberman's sweet, sweet defeat. Mmmmm.

Would just add to cmdicely's good point:

That's okay; Lieberman's rejection by Democratic voters vastly reduces the propaganda value he has serving Republican interests by criticizing other Democratic politicians who, unlike him, oppose failed right-wing policies.

That's a big campaign boost for the Democratic Party right there, and one that will keep giving for years.

...that this rejection also puts other incumbents on notice: rubber-stamping Bush policies can exact a large cost if your own constituents hold other views.

Question: if Lieberman was really a "moderate Democrat," why were the Repubs falling all over themselves to campaign and shill for him (and now they're encouraging their voters to support Lieberman's independent run - ugh, I'm going to be ill)?

Thomas: I guess the choice has been made for "evil" Reagan Democrats in CT then -- support either Lieberman or Schlessinger.

Yep. Do what's in the worst interests of the country out of spite. That's the ticket!

That's how to get the Democratic Party to welcome you back in!

Deny any mistakes!

Deny supporting Saddam Hussein and helping him to arm!

Deny supporting a drug-dealing Noriega!

Deny giving arms to terrorists in return for hostages, despite hypocritically ranting about no negotiation with terrorists!

Deny sending 250+ US marines to their deaths just so Reagan could look like a cowboy!

Yeah, baby, that's the ticket, the Democratic Party should embrace all of those failed foreign policy initiatives of the minority Reagan Democrats.

You think like a terrorist, Thomas: do whatever we say and embrace our vision of how the world will work or we will hunt you down and (figuratively in you case I would hope) kill you.

THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!

Go left young man, go left!

Sweaty, you sound so reasonable today!? I remembered you much more, uh, 'trolly'.

No way! I'm no troll, I just don't post here often enough to establish any kind of identity I guess.

I really do think Lieberman is going to win in November, which is too bad. McKinney may well come back in two years, as she did last time. Jesus, what is it with all this boomerang deadweight in the party?? Go away, people!

THOMAS: I guess the choice has been made for "evil" Reagan Democrats in CT

"I'm not "Charlie" and have been a life-long Democrat."

A "life-long Democrat" does not vote for Ronald Reagan. End of story.

"Go left young man, go left!"

(Go Left) Life is peaceful there
(Go Left) In the open air
(Go Left) Where the skies are blue
(Go Left) This is what we're gonna do

Dunno if Ken Mehlman is gay, but this IS gay!

LOL -- you just excluded millions of Democrats then -- congrats!

I'm off to CT at the end of the week. If you're keeping track, that's two more Lamont voters come November.

According to Wikipedia (there, are you happy, Bob?):

"The term 'Reagan Democrat' is used by political commentators to describe traditionally Democratic voters, especially white working-class Northerners, who defected from their party to support President Ronald Reagan, in both the 1980 and 1984 elections.

The classic study of Reagan Democrats is probably the work of the Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg. Greenberg analyzed white ethnic voters (largely unionized auto workers) in suburban Macomb County, Michigan, just north of Detroit. The county voted 63% for Kennedy in 1960 and 66% for Reagan in 1984. He concluded that "Reagan Democrats" no longer saw Democrats as champions of their middle-class aspirations, but instead saw them as working primarily for the benefit of others, especially African Americans, the very poor and unemployed, and other political pressure groups. In addition, Reagan Democrats enjoyed gains during the Reagan economic boom following the "malaise" of the Carter Administration. They also agreed with Reagan's strong stance on national security issues, and they opposed the 1980's Democratic party on such issues as pornography, crime, and taxes.

It is unknown exactly what political path these voters took after the end of the Reagan administration. Some believe they came back to the Democratic fold for Bill Clinton, but then voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004."

For the record, however, the only Republicans I've ever voted for President were Reagan (twice) and Bush 41 (once). I voted for Clinton both times, Gore AND Kerry. How sad some of you are willing to throw such a voter overboard.

Ok Thomas, lets hear it then.

Did you vote for Kerry?
Did you vote for Gore?
Did you vote for Clinton?

Have you, in fact, voted Democrat in the last 15 years?

The GOP trolls here are making the same bleating noises we heard from Democrats just before the Nov 1994 elections. Funny, that.

Lieberman's non-concession speech, in which he vowed not to abide by the results of a free and fair democratic (small "d") election, should really be the final nail in his political coffin. If he never intended to abide by the results, then why was he running in the Democratic primary in the first place?

It turns out that Joe's most deeply felt political principle, the one core belief for which he will sacrifice all else, is simply that Joe Lieberman should be a United States Senator, no matter the consequences. What a small, petty, pathetic man he turned out to be.

My appologies - you beat me to it.

You'll forgive us if we're questioning your party affiliation, given that everything you post is at right angles to the positions taken by the politicians you say that you support with your vote.

It is unknown exactly what political path these voters took after the end of the Reagan administration. Some believe they came back to the Democratic fold for Bill Clinton, but then voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004.

So it's unknown whether the so-called "Reagan Democrats" ever voted for another Democrat for President, but it's "believed" that they voted Republican at least four times (no data there on Bush 41) since 1980, including the last two elections?

In short, there's no data there that the so-called "Reagan Democrats" are still, in fact Democrats at all.

And Charlie, you are such a liar. Lying's a sin, don't forget. ;)

How sad some of you are willing to throw such a voter overboard.

Posted by: Thomas

Go ahead. Vote for failure. Now THAT'S sad.
.

TOAST: I'm off to CT at the end of the week. If you're keeping track, that's two more Lamont voters come November.

THOMAS: How sad some of you are willing to throw such a voter overboard.

Stefan:

When he wins as an Independent, you will "abide" by those results?

royalblue:

I've voted for every other Democratic Presidential candidate starting with John F. Kennedy. Happy? Sorry if I happen to be too "family values" for you.

toast:

Good luck.

Where is Lieberman going to get the money to run a campaign if he remains independent? His democratic sources will dry up, and if he isnt on committees, he will have little use to corporate sponsors.

Unless Joe becomes a Republican, I can't see him having the support or money to stay in this race.

When he wins as an Independent

Shall we put that one down along with your prediction about Ralph Reed's victory? Are your laome predictions ever right?

Thomas: . . . defected from their party . . .

Meaning, they aren't Democrats.

You may not be Charlie (or you may be Charlie), but just like Charlie you manage to provide the evidence to prove your own mendacity.

In any event, you are "Chuckles".

:-)

You're right, he may be used as a Zell Miller-style apostate for an election cycle, but he's done. Poetic justice indeed.
Posted by: Gregory on August 9, 2006 at 9:39 AM | PERMALINK

Doubtful.

Zell had the credibility of a long, career, uninterrupted by primary defeats, and ended by retirement. He had never been rejected by his Democratic consituency.

Lieberman, on the other hand, now has all the credibility as a Representative of his constituency, of John Ashcroft - they guy who lost his senate seat to a dead man.

No - I don't think that the Republicans will be using Lieberman in that way. Though it probably won't stop Lieberman from opening his fat mouth and trying to claim to speak for all Democrats, in a Rovian way, that is intended to hurt all Democrats.

I guess the "Clinton lost it for him meme" is losing favor, and now it's "Lieberman lost it because of his stance on the war" meme.

Which is false.

Lieberman lost it because of disloyalty to the party. Lieberman lost it because he was a willing participant of Rove's dismantling of liberalism in the American zeitgeist. For me, anyway, Lieberman lost it not because he supported the war. But because he supported Bush's war. Bush's war against American's right to disagree and dissent.

If Lieberman wants to insist that I can't dissent from supporting our fascist war, then I insist that he can't dissent from Democratic opposition stance. This is on a wide range of issues, from the war, corporate welfare, faith-based social legislation (abortion, blowjobs, gay marriage, school prayer, etc), 4th Amendment rights, 1st Amendment rights, getting tough on white-collar-crime, even single-payer healthcare. The list of Lieberman's betrayals goes on and on. It's not at all reflected in the bogus FoxNews "90% Liberal" statistic.

I really do think Lieberman is going to win in November, which is too bad.

Nah, he'll never make it to November. Sure, he's talking big now, but eventually the shock will wear off and he'll realize how ruined he is. Who's going to staff his operation? Who's going to donate? Who's going to hit the streets for him? If he couldn't get it in gear for the limited purpose of a primary election against an unknown neophyte he's hardly going to be able to do so for the much more massive and complicated general election. As soon as everyone sees which way the land lies all the money and support will flow to Lamont.

When he wins as an Independent, you will "abide" by those results?

Were he to win as an Independent, I don't think anyone here would fail to treat him as the incumbent, Republican-leaning Independent Senator from Connecticut.

You see, anything that happens is good for Republicans and bad for Democrats. If our Army in Iraq was destroyed in a mass Shiite uprising, it would be good for the GOP because it would remind everyone of the importance of national security, and how weak the Dems are. If Bush were to murder his family on national TV, it would be bad for Dems. If the world were to be hit by a meteorite, it would be bad for Dems.

mr. jayarbee: Just be sure not to say anything negative about Reagan so as not to offend the millions who would otherwise be voting for Lamont.

Now, that made me laugh out loud.

ex: Where is Lieberman going to get the money to run a campaign if he remains independent? His democratic sources will dry up, and if he isnt on committees, he will have little use to corporate sponsors.

Presumably the corporate sponsors will throw money at him in an attempt to retain his seat and thus his committee memberships. Accompanied by a screaming dearth of Democratic financial support, these corporate/lobbyist contributions will make for excellent Lamont ads and other campaign materials.

Thomas: Sorry if I happen to be too "family values" for you.

Sorry, "family values" is code for homophobic, misogynistic, and anti-science.

BTW, you should be voting for the candidate who will promote values you believe in and policies that you endorse, not for the candidate whose supporters kiss your ass to get your vote, and not for candidates who abandon you the moment they win - pretty much like Reagan who campaigned on fiscal responsibility, then never proffered a balanced budget to Congress, racked up huge national debt, then signed off on the tax increases.

Stefan: Nah, he'll never make it to November. Sure, he's talking big now, but eventually the shock will wear off and he'll realize how ruined he is.

Agree with everything else in your post, but not with this. Joe is so deep into angry denial territory that I don't think he'll give up before November. He'll straggle and stumble on, friendless but for a few corporate sponsors, organizationless, directionless, clueless. It's going to be embarrassing to watch, but he has only his own bullheadedness to blame.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060809/ap_on_el_ge/congress_schwarz_4

Michigan rethugs prove once again that there is no room for moderates in the party.

I really didn't have a big problem with Lieberman myself, until he started up with the "I'll run as an Independent" stuff. Man, what a crybaby. If you can't actually win a contested election, then maybe you don't belong in the Senate.

The Republicans have once again proven they are the party of the small tent! We laugh as wild-eyed radical Michiganders kick out the GOP's last moderate!

So, Conn. decided Lieberman shouldn't be their democrat. Market politics. Doesn't help the nat'l party, but it would be nice to get back to pre-Bush, where all politics was sort of local.

Agree with everything else in your post, but not with this. Joe is so deep into angry denial territory that I don't think he'll give up before November. He'll straggle and stumble on, friendless but for a few corporate sponsors, organizationless, directionless, clueless. It's going to be embarrassing to watch, but he has only his own bullheadedness to blame.

Well, if I'm wrong it'll still be fun to pour myself a drink, put my feet up on the porch and watch his frantic flailings....Goodbye, Joe. You won't be missed.

He'll straggle and stumble on, friendless but for a few corporate sponsors, organizationless, directionless, clueless.

Pretty good description of Bush these days, as well.

Great the sheep media follow the Mehlman line slavishly --starting with the FDR to Lamont what has the party become? Didn't the media learn anything in the last five years --talk about not doing your job

and denigrating the voters of Conn....gee and all this from the purple finger brigade

what a load of crap

I really didn't have a big problem with Lieberman myself, until he started up with the "I'll run as an Independent" stuff. Man, what a crybaby. If you can't actually win a contested election, then maybe you don't belong in the Senate.

It is partisan and divisive of you to suggest that the problem may be with me rather than with the democratic system. I urge you to put aside your biased politics and embrace the unifying goal of returning me to the United States Senate in any party.

"With nearly the entire Democratic and progressive advocacy organization establishment behind him, Joe Lieberman has done nothing but blow through millions of dollars, sink in the polls, and threaten to leave the party.

Our message is simple. No longer will candidates be considered unelectable for holding progressive views. No longer will the establishment take its supporters for granted. No longer will Democrats get away with boosting their own national image by facilitating the conservative movement and distancing themselves from their own party.

I do not have many complicated messages to give you when it comes to this race. We have already written more about this election on MyDD than any single election since the 2004 Presidential election. You can read you extensive archives on Ned Lamont, Joe Lieberman and CT-Sen. It should suffice to say that I believe this election represents nearly everything that the netroots is fighting for in our struggles to reshape the Democratic Party."

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/7/19/01555/2981

"We've bought and paid for this party and it is now time to take it" Moveon.org December 2004

You know what's really amazing is that Lieberman was this partys VP Candidate just 6 years ago. Moveon.org has taken this party and I don't think that's a good thing.

Stefan: Well, if I'm wrong it'll still be fun to pour myself a drink, put my feet up on the porch and watch his frantic flailings....Goodbye, Joe. You won't be missed.

Exactly. There is no downside here.

"In all other relevant ways, however, the Lamont win is a good thing. First, it shows that opposition to the war is NOT the overall dominant issue the Left would like it to be. Even among Democratic primary voters in a very blue state, the anti-war candidate could garner only 51.8% of the vote. The rest of the American electorate, however, is not in Connecticut, nor does it think like Democratic primary voters. What is actually surprising about the result is how weak the anti-war vote was in a decidedly Left-leaning venue.

Second, Lieberman is likely -- quite likely, as I see it -- to win the seat in November. I expect he'll get between a third to about 40 percent of the normally Democratic vote, plus at least 80 percent of the Republican vote (since, for one thing, the Republican candidate is uniformly regarded as having no chance to win, and Republicans have great and justified respect for Lieberman). Eighty percent of the Republican vote in Connecticut is not an inconsiderable thing; Bush got 44 percent against Kerry two years ago. For Lamont, it's all downhill from here"

The anti-war candidate only received 51.8% of the Democratic primary voters. Are you guys really sure that this is the issue you want to stake your future on?

SHORTSTOP: He'll straggle and stumble on, friendless but for a few corporate sponsors, organizationless, directionless, clueless.

Great the sheep media follow the Mehlman line slavishly --starting with the FDR to Lamont what has the party become? Didn't the media learn anything in the last five years --talk about not doing your job. and denigrating the voters of Conn....gee and all this from the purple finger brigade

To paraphrase George Bush's comments on Iraq a few days ago, "You know, I hear people say, Well, civil war this, civil war that. The people of Connecticut decided against civil war when they went to the ballot box.”

To Republicans, apparently a vote is the most wonderful and magical thing in the world when it's cast by an Iraqi. By an American, well, not so much....

"No longer will Democrats get away with boosting their own national image by facilitating the conservative movement and distancing themselves from their own party."

In short, there is no more room for debate, or diversity of opinion wihtin the Democratic party. Candidates will either tow the party line as dictated by Moveon.org and George Soros, or they will not be candidates.

Good luck with that.

mr. jayarbee: You're right about Republican money and support. But that's why I said all this will be grist for the Lamont campaign mill. It's not going to be hard to show where the support of this "real Democrat" is coming from...even if Joe will have to try harder to disguise the College Repubs than Santorum did to hide the fact that the Pennsylvania "Greens" are entirely GOP-financed.

In short, there is no more room for debate, or diversity of opinion wihtin the Democratic party.

No, just that there's not much room for Republicans in the Democratic Party.

Like the GOP is a bastion of ideological diversity. Look what happened when Bush the Elder raised taxes...

The anti-war candidate only received 51.8% of the Democratic primary voters.

The anti-war candidate, without being able to point to pork he's brought back to the state, or having any legislative record at all, defeated a 3-term incumbent Senator from the same party, who had all the advantages that come with incumbency.

And, as Kevin points out, even on primary election day, a fifth of Lieberman's own supporters opposed him running as an independent.

In short, there is no more room for debate, or diversity of opinion wihtin the Democratic party. Candidates will either tow the party line as dictated by Moveon.org and George Soros, or they will not be candidates.

Um, I think this is what you meant to say:

"In short, there is no more room for debate, or diversity of opinion wihtin the Republican party. Candidates will either tow the party line as dictated by Karl Rove and James Dobson, or they will not be candidates."

Do I have to google the posts where you complain that the weakness of the Democratic Party is that it doesn't have a unified vision or plan or speak with one voice on the issues?

I didn't think so.

"Like the GOP is a bastion of ideological diversity."

Was Colin Powell EVER treated this rudely?
Was John Mccain EVER chastized for not towing the line?
Does Rudy not divert from the party platform in several areas yet still enjoys support from many republicans?

Lieberman was your partys VP Candidate JUST 6 YEARS AGO.

"....defeated a 3-term incumbent Senator from the same party, who had all the advantages that come with incumbency."

This is a completely different party then it was six years ago (now operated by Moveon.org), so any advantages of incumbency have gone out the window.

In short, there is no more room for debate, or diversity of opinion wihtin the Democratic party.

There's plenty of room for debate and diversity.

But if you can't convince your Democratic constituents that your side of the debate is right, then they aren't going to want you to represent them.

Whether you're Joe Lieberman or Cynthia McKinney.

SHORTSTOP: But that's why I said all this will be grist for the Lamont campaign mill.

trex, why don't you just keep up your intellectual dishonesty as it relates to the poor victims in Lebanon.

Maybe more your speed.

btw, I seldom complain about the on-going implosion of the Democrat Party.

This is a completely different party then it was six years ago

No, it isn't.

(now operated by Moveon.org)

You just buy every group's hype, don't you?

Jesus people. Lieberman lost his party's primary race in what appears to be a fair & honest election. The voters in that state made their choice. It is called an election and it is supposed to be what we are all about in our form of government. Last night the people spoke and the system worked. This is a good thing for America. Granted, probably a bad sign for stay-the-course Republicans, or Democrats but as a country, a good thing.

"Is Senator Nelson of Nebraska a "DINO" too?"

Probably, but no one with any sense is going to go after him, or even say so, because he's probably the best we can do in Nebraska. Lieberman ain't the leftyest we can do in Conneticut.

Upthread McGovern's 'guaranteed income' was mentioned. I do believe there was another politician around the same time who supported the same thing: Richard Milhouse Nixon.

How the times change. Tricky Dick would be in the Green Party on some issues these days.

NATHAN64: Jesus people. Lieberman lost his party's primary race in what appears to be a fair & honest election.

"The liberal Democrats’ bigotry and even hatred of those who hold different ideologies to theirs is becoming increasingly palpable. In fact, it has become just downright vicious. Black Americans who have left the Democrat plantation are no longer “black”, according to Democrats.

In a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Op/Ed, Justice Clarence Thomas was said to be black but, ‘with an asterisk’; meaning he’s only a pretender and not really black. Justice Thomas, a conservative, has had to weather racial slurs from Democrat black Americans and Democrats in general for years. Democrats consider it bad enough to be white and conservative. But, if one is intelligent, black and conservative, they consider it a personal attack. And now that Maryland Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele, a conservative Republican black American, has decided to run for the US Senate—Democrats have become spitting mad!

Liberal Democrats hated it enough when Steele was the running mate of Maryland Republican Governor Robert L. Ehrlich. Democrat Maryland State Senate President Mike Miller Jr. even called him “an Uncle Tom”. Then, the liberal and most-intolerant Baltimore Sun gleefully joined Miller’s racism when it wrote that Steele “brings little to the team but the color of his skin.” How’s that for liberal “broadmindedness”? The usual and to-be-expected Democrat tactic of “if you can’t destroy the message, ruin the messenger” ploy was in full play."

Becoming less and less tolerant.

So the Democrats may well have purged their party and made it a purer statement of what they believe, and but in the context of Connecticut politics, it's very hard to see how that's going to work out well for the Democratic Party or its candidate.
Posted by: DBL on August 9, 2006 at 6:35 AM | PERMALINK

The only problem with this analysis is that independents are breaking for Democrats 3 to 1 this election cycle.
Don't be fooled by Lieberman using the independent label. He will be percieved as an incumbent Republican against Lamont and as such he will lose. The Dem establishment knows it, which is why they are losening up and more openly supporting Lamont, the official Dem candidate, this morning.

jayarbee: Much better Lamont's grist than Lieberman's froth, eh?

Well, you know, Dan Savage has pretty much reduced that word froth to one possible connotation. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Becoming less and less tolerant.
Posted by: Jay on August 9, 2006 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINK

The problem with your view is that it ignores the content of Clarence Thomas and Michael Steels, beleifs and actions.
They are not just republican's, they are far right republican's with views seriously out of step with the rest of America. If you understand this, then you can see why the average African American does not want these extremists speaking for or advocating for their community. Why should an African American accord respect to another African American who does things to hurt the community? Does character not count?

It is the quality of Steel and Thomas' character that make them objects of ridicule.

If you really want to inform yourself on this issue I recommend you read steve gillards blog. He may not have a post up on this issue today, but he pays close attention to African American politics and has clear insight.
http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/

Jay wrote: This is a completely different party then it was six years ago (now operated by Moveon.org), so any advantages of incumbency have gone out the window.

The Democratic Party is not "operated by" MoveOn.org, but your brain is operated by Rush Limbaugh.

All you ever, ever, ever bring to these comment pages is slavish, robotic, mindless regurgitation of scripted, programmed, right-wing extremist Republican drivel-points. You are exactly the sort of subservient obedient bootlicking mental slave that Karl Rove loves (and laughs at, in private, as a stupid gullible rube).

"Don't be fooled by Lieberman using the independent label. He will be percieved as an incumbent Republican against Lamont and as such he will lose."

Lamont only won 51.8% of the all Democratic voting primary. In the general election, CT republicans will be throwing their weight behind Indie Lieberman. So I predict Lieberman will still pick up roughly 30% of Democrats and nearly 80% of Republicans which may just be enough to win back his seat. Stay tuned.

Jay wrote: This is a completely different party then it was six years ago (now operated by Moveon.org), so any advantages of incumbency have gone out the window.

The Democratic Party is not "operated by" MoveOn.org, but your brain is operated by Rush Limbaugh.

All you ever, ever, ever bring to these comment pages is slavish, robotic, mindless regurgitation of scripted, programmed, right-wing extremist Republican drivel-points. You are exactly the sort of subservient obedient bootlicking mental slave that Karl Rove loves (and laughs at, in private, as a stupid gullible rube).

"All you ever, ever, ever bring to these comment pages is slavish, robotic, mindless regurgitation of scripted, programmed, right-wing extremist Republican drivel-points. You are exactly the sort of subservient obedient bootlicking mental slave that Karl Rove loves (and laughs at, in private, as a stupid gullible rube)."

And your posts represent the well-balanced reasoned mainstream?

"On the other hand, if somehow peace miraculously came to the whole region, then in that joyful time the oil companies and governments that control the oil supplies would be able to build up the extraction infrastructure without interference and merrily pump out all the oil in the region for the industrialized (e.g. USA) and industrializing (e.g. China) world to burn, and it would all be burned up within about 50 years, and then this all ends with civilization collapsing due to the exhaustion of cheap abundant energy supplies and global-warming-induced planetary ecological catastrophe."

Posted by: SecularAnimist on August 8, 2006 at 5:47 PM

And that's just one example of seculars balanced thinking.

Jay wrote: And now that Maryland Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele, a conservative Republican black American, has decided to run for the US Senate—Democrats have become spitting mad!

I live in Maryland and I can tell you that you are profoundly ignorant about the Maryland Senate race.

Which is not surprising since you have consistently demonstrated yourself to be profoundly ignorant about every subject you address in your comments.

You are a weak-minded, ignorant person who has willingly chosen to become a mental slave.

There is no reason for any normal person to respond to your comments with anything other than the derision and ridicule that they deserve.

Lamont only won 51.8% of the all Democratic voting primary. In the general election, CT republicans will be throwing their weight behind Indie Lieberman. So I predict Lieberman will still pick up roughly 30% of Democrats and nearly 80% of Republicans which may just be enough to win back his seat. Stay tuned.
Posted by: Jay on August 9, 2006 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

Couple of quick points.

I am really curious to see how many CT primary voters switched from republican to idependent in order to have a vote in the Dem primary. This story has yet to be told.

Unless the Republican candidate drops out completely I still see conservative/Republican vote spliting. Will the CT GOP take a dive for Lieberman? Why the hell should they? It's just not how the GOP operates, the label means something and if they take a dive they damage their brand.

Most importantly Liebeman has history against him. Independent candidates don't win. Talk to the old timers in your party or mine, they'll tell you.

Stay tuned.

JAY: In a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Op/Ed, Justice Clarence Thomas was said to be black but, ‘with an asterisk’; meaning he’s only a pretender and not really black.

"The problem with your view is that it ignores the content of Clarence Thomas and Michael Steels, beleifs and actions." - Nemesis

"Since taking office as Lieutenant Governor with Governor Robert Ehrlich in 2003, Michael has produced real solutions to the real problems facing Marylanders. The Lt. Governor has lead the fight to improve access to better-performing schools; worked alongside law enforcement officials to reduce crime and secure communities; strengthened the state's minority business program to foster greater entrepreneurship; and worked with Maryland conservationists to protect the environment for future generations.

Lt. Gov. Steele has helped redefine the state's goals and commitment towards small and minority businesses in Maryland as chair of the Governor's Commission on Minority Business Enterprise Reform. More recently, he chaired the Governor's Commission on Quality Education in Maryland, which recommended institutional reforms to improve the state's public education system.

Michael currently oversees the Governor's Office on Community Initiatives, partnering with faith-based, community and volunteer organizations to assist the state's most needy. Lt. Governor Steele also serves as a strong advocate for the preservation and advancement of the state's five Historically Black Colleges and Universities.

Michael continues to work with the Maryland police and the Maryland Vehicle Theft Prevention Council to reduce crime and vehicle theft, and he has forged a strong partnership with the mayors of the state's 157 municipalities while strengthening ties between the state and local governments"

Yeah, those are vile traits aren't they?

And that's just one example of seculars balanced thinking.
Posted by: Jay on August 9, 2006 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

What can we say Jay, you have a talent for making calm people angry.

"Unless the Republican candidate drops out completely I still see conservative/Republican vote spliting. Will the CT GOP take a dive for Lieberman?"

CT GOPers know very well that a republican candidate in the very left leaning state rarely stands a chance of winning. Therefore, yes, they will support the Indie candidate in the form of Lieberman.

Yeah, those are vile traits aren't they?
Posted by: Jay on August 9, 2006 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

You know reprinting the guys campaign site or State bio does not an objective picture make.
But then again, you don't care about the truth, just victory on your terms.

May God have mercy on your soul.

Nemesis: I am really curious to see how many CT primary voters switched from republican to idependent in order to have a vote in the Dem primary. This story has yet to be told.

Independents couldn't vote in the CT Dem primary, only registered Dems. Some Repubs switched to Dem registration to vote for Lieberman, no doubt, but independents (including some of my relatives) also registered as Dems just to vote for Lamont. You're right; it'll be interesting to see how this shakes out.

Republican mental slave Jay wrote: And your posts represent the well-balanced reasoned mainstream?

My posts represent my own independent thought, a concept that is totally alien to you, since your mind operates solely on the basis of "Republican propaganda in, Republican propaganda out," with no intervening thought processes.

Nemesis wrote: What can we say Jay, you have a talent for making calm people angry.

Jay's comments don't make me angry. They make me sad -- sad to see a human being who has willingly chosen to degrade and debase himself by becoming a mental slave.

"May God have mercy on your soul."

Thank you. I didn't realize you were so religious.

"You know reprinting the guys campaign site or State bio does not an objective picture make.
But then again, you don't care about the truth, just victory on your terms."

Please provide examples of your argument that Steele is a far right winger whose policies do not represent the majority of African Americans.

"You are a weak-minded, ignorant person who has willingly chosen to become a mental slave."

So, if someone does not agree with you, they are a mental slave?

And that's your idea of independent thinking?

Just asking.

Ken Mellman Total Fag!!

Even momey on David Dreyer. No wait total Fag!

Jay: The anti-war candidate only received 51.8% of the Democratic primary voters. Are you guys really sure that this is the issue you want to stake your future on?

You must be getting dizzy with all your desperate and hysterical spinning!

CT GOPers know very well that a republican candidate in the very left leaning state rarely stands a chance of winning. Therefore, yes, they will support the Indie candidate in the form of Lieberman.

In other words, Lieberman is really a GOPer and therefore good riddance.

So does AH really think the dems are going to fund Lamont and Old Joe,No Lamont has his own money and Old Joe can only get his money from Repugs.Moral of the story,This will cost Repugs lots of money,Sorry AH try again.

Jay: So, if someone does not agree with you, they are a mental slave?

That's exactly what you've been saying about anybody who disagrees with Bush, that they are a mental slave to MoveOn.

You're such a transparent hypocrite.

Your hypocrisy is almost as transparent as your lies!

"You must be getting dizzy with all your desperate and hysterical spinning!"

Not really. I actually think Lamonts victory is a good thing. His victory is one of the first times that the true left agenda was in full bloom. Also, considering he only won 51.8% of the ALL Democratic primary, that should send a message that only slightly more than 50% of ALL CT democrats (a very left leaning state) are as anti-war as their party has become.

Republican mental slave Jay wrote: So, if someone does not agree with you, they are a mental slave?

When you post nothing but robotic, verbatim regurgitation of scripted, programmed, fake, phony, bullshit Republican propaganda, you are a mental slave.

You have chosen to abandon independent thought and enslave your mind to the Republican Party and its propaganda outlets, e.g. Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, etc.

In this way you are exactly like the mental slaves of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Mao.

"That's exactly what you've been saying about anybody who disagrees with Bush, that they are a mental slave to MoveOn."

I have never said that nor do I believe it. I disagree with Bush on a lot of issues and would much rather see Gingrich as our president.

Nice try though.

PLEASE Democratic Leadership:

• Strip Lieberman of all committee assignments.

• Get all Democrats to publicly back Ned Lamont.

• Get all Democratic interest groups to back Ned Lamont.

I think everyone should call him "LOSERman"

No one likes a sore loser!

He screwed the Dems when he was VP candidate -
spending more time on his Senate race than
winning the Executive office.

He couldn't even deliver Florida -
seems to me, he has working with the republicans then.

Other fatal flaws:
Bill Clinton Empeachment
Terri Scheivo
Bush kiss
Scolding democrats - that not supporting Bush in embolding the enemy
Social Security
2 Supreme Court - right wingers
... ... ...

Jay wrote: I actually think Lamonts victory is a good thing. His victory is one of the first times that the true left agenda was in full bloom.

A multi-millionaire executive of a cable TV corporation represents the "true left agenda".

This statement perfectly encapsulates the entirety of what you bring to these comment pages: mindless regurgitation of scripted, programmed, fake, phony, idiotic Republican talking points.

Not only are you a mental slave, you are a pathetic clown.

skibumlee: I think everyone should call him "LOSERman"

No one likes a sore loser!

He certainly is a sore loser, but doesn't anyone else remember the Sore Loserman bumper stickers--reproduced in the same colors and typeface as the Gore Lieberman bumper stickers--put out in December 2000 while we were in limbo, waiting for the Supremes to appoint the king?

"Ned Lamont reached his political breaking point last November after reading an op-ed piece by Joe Lieberman in the Wall Street Journal.

The three-term Connecticut senator’s sunny description of war-torn Iraq (“There are many more cars on the streets, satellite television dishes on the roofs, and literally millions more cell phones in Iraqi hands than before.”) and his uncompromising support for U.S. involvement were too much for Lamont.

The former Lieberman campaign contributor reached out to Democratic leaders and liberal groups in Connecticut in an effort to find an anti-war candidate to oppose Al Gore’s former running mate in the Aug. 8 Democratic primary. There were no takers. So Lamont decided to do it himself.

“I’m an entrepreneur, I’m a business guy,” Lamont told CBSNews.com. “I think if you see a problem, you want to go out and fix it.”

Lamont, 52, has come closer to “fixing” the problem than Lieberman and the Democratic Party establishment ever imagined. With the primary less than a week away, a new Quinnipiac University poll shows Lamont with a solid 54-41 percent lead over Lieberman among likely Democratic voters.

Lamont’s edge reflects a remarkable 28-point swing in less than two months. (Lieberman held a 15-point lead over Lamont in a June 5 Quinnipiac poll.)

The roots of Lieberman’s free fall in the polls (complacency, hubris) have been hashed over in the press.

But Lamont’s secret recipe probably deserves a little more attention. While there’s no question about the fact that Lamont’s anti-war crusade is driving his candidacy (65 percent of the Democrats backing Lamont in the Quinnipiac poll say they’re voting against Lieberman), Lamont has also been boosted by a frenetic, hustling grassroots campaign."

btw secular, ones party affiliation is attributed becasue of their positions, not as a result of their professional life.

Just FYI.

"Not only are you a mental slave, you are a pathetic clown."

Why do you hate clowns?

Cut 'N Run Jay: Was John Mccain EVER chastized for not towing [sic] the line?

From Richard H. Davis, McCain's 2000 campaign manager, on how McCain was smeared by Bush and Rove:

Having run Senator John McCain's campaign for president, I can recount a textbook example of a smear made against McCain in South Carolina during the 2000 presidential primary. We had just swept into the state from New Hampshire, where we had racked up a shocking, 19-point win over the heavily favored George W. Bush. What followed was a primary campaign that would make history for its negativity.

In South Carolina, Bush Republicans were facing an opponent who was popular for his straight talk and Vietnam war record. They knew that if McCain won in South Carolina, he would likely win the nomination. With few substantive differences between Bush and McCain, the campaign was bound to turn personal. The situation was ripe for a smear.

It didn't take much research to turn up a seemingly innocuous fact about the McCains: John and his wife, Cindy, have an adopted daughter named Bridget. Cindy found Bridget at Mother Theresa's orphanage in Bangladesh, brought her to the United States for medical treatment, and the family ultimately adopted her. Bridget has dark skin.

Anonymous opponents used "push polling" to suggest that McCain's Bangladeshi born daughter was his own, illegitimate black child. In push polling, a voter gets a call, ostensibly from a polling company, asking which candidate the voter supports. In this case, if the "pollster" determined that the person was a McCain supporter, he made statements designed to create doubt about the senator.

Thus, the "pollsters" asked McCain supporters if they would be more or less likely to vote for McCain if they knew he had fathered an illegitimate child who was black. In the conservative, race-conscious South, that's not a minor charge. We had no idea who made the phone calls, who paid for them, or how many calls were made. Effective and anonymous: the perfect smear campaign.

Some aspects of this smear were hardly so subtle. Bob Jones University professor Richard Hand sent an e-mail to "fellow South Carolinians" stating that McCain had "chosen to sire children without marriage." It didn't take long for mainstream media to carry the charge. CNN interviewed Hand and put him on the spot: "Professor, you say that this man had children out of wedlock. He did not have children out of wedlock." Hand replied, "Wait a minute, that's a universal negative. Can you prove that there aren't any?"

www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/03/21/the_anatomy_of_a_smear_campaign

Please provide examples of your argument that Steele is a far right winger whose policies do not represent the majority of African Americans.

He's a Republican, ergo a far right-winger out of step with the mainstream of the American public. 'Nuff said.

Jay wrote: btw secular, ones party affiliation is attributed becasue of their positions, not as a result of their professional life.

Absolutely nothing whatever in the article that you cut & pasted (without attribution) supports your slavishly regurgitated, scripted, programmed, right-wing extremist idiotic talking point that Ned Lamont represents "the true left agenda in full bloom."

There is nothing whatever "leftist" about opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. For example, one of the most outspoken opponents of the Iraq war, from before the invasion up this day, has been conservative Texas Republican Representative Ron Paul, who is a self-described Libertarian.

There is nothing whatever "leftist" about opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. For example, one of the most outspoken opponents of the Iraq war, from before the invasion up this day, has been conservative Texas Republican Representative Ron Paul, who is a self-described Libertarian.

Not to mention Pitchfork Pat Buchanan. Or this guy, who in 1991 predicted the costs to the US of an invasion of Iraq ($5 if you can guess who said this):

"Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there.... How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there?... I think to have American military forces engaged in a civil war inside Iraq would fit the definition of quagmire, and we have absolutely no desire to get bogged down in that fashion."

Why do you hate clowns?

Good Ford -- Jay posts something intentionally funny! (Sorry, SA, but it was.) What next?

Jay's rant today:

In short, there is no more room for debate, or diversity of opinion wihtin the Democratic party. Candidates will either tow the party line as dictated by Moveon.org and George Soros, or they will not be candidates.

Posted by: Jay on August 9, 2006 at 11:41 AM | PERMALINK

Jay's opposite rant last month:

So over three years into this the Democrats are still trying to put together a collective front and a plan for Iraq. Well let us know when you come up with something.

I guess that's how insignificant the left has become, I mean does it really matter what they come up with?

Leaders lead with conviction and vision, followers guage their movements on polls. That's why the left has yet to develop that "plan". They're actually waiting for someone else to tell them what to do.

Posted by: Jay on June 16, 2006 at 9:34 PM | PERMALINK

You know you've beaten them GOP when they turn to personal attacks; completely void of any coherent debate. They lack vision, they lack strength, they lack leadership and most importantly they lack a platform.

Posted by: Jay on June 16, 2006 at 9:58 PM | PERMALINK

So which is it that you want, Jay? A "diversity" of opinions or a "collective" front and a "platform?"?

Cheney?

Or this guy, who in 1991 predicted the costs to the US of an invasion of Iraq ($5 if you can guess who said this):

I guess 41.

Incredible show of memory, trex. And this after the exhausting peimary day and night. I'm envious.

It was Shotgun Dick Cheney. Five bucks to jayarbee.

"He's a Republican, ergo a far right-winger out of step with the mainstream of the American public."

Hehehe!
Hmm - Stereo. Typewriter. Some subconscious brainactivity required?

Damn it, Stefan. You've sealed my sad fate for the day. All right, then, let's get it over with:

jayarbee is the king of prescience.

(Marge Simpson sighing sound.

"Please provide examples of your argument that Steele is a far right winger whose policies do not represent the majority of African Americans."
Sure. Here:
http://search.blogger.com/?as_q=Steele&ie=UTF-8&ui=blg&bl_url=stevegilliard.blogspot.com&x=277&y=7
Pls help yourself.
:P

trex, diviersified opinions within the party and rigorous debate is how balanced platforms are derived. The Dems have been unable to coalesce their differences because one side (the far left) is too rigid and too demanding.

"While there’s no question about the fact that Lamont’s anti-war crusade is driving his candidacy (65 percent of the Democrats backing Lamont in the Quinnipiac poll say they’re voting against Lieberman),"

unless a democrat is in this camp, they're not welcome. That issue supercedes all others thanks to the far left.

Stefan, your post has been well rehashed and exaggerated by the "Boston Globe" (about as far left as they come).

Is John McCain still very popular among republicans? And where does Joe Lieberman find himself today 6 years removed from the being the darling VP candidate?

Was Colin Powell EVER treated this rudely?
Was John Mccain EVER chastized for not towing the line?

Neck Smith was. From Slate:

Rep. Nick Smith, R-Mich., says that sometime late Nov. 21 or early in the morning Nov. 22, somebody on the House floor threatened to redirect campaign funds away from his son Brad, who is running to succeed him, if he didn't support the Medicare prescription bill. This according to the Associated Press. Robert Novak further reports,

On the House floor, Nick Smith was told business interests would give his son $100,000 in return for his father's vote. When he still declined, fellow Republican House members told him they would make sure Brad Smith never came to Congress. After Nick Smith voted no and the bill passed, [Rep.] Duke Cunningham of California and other Republicans taunted him that his son was dead meat.

Speaking through Chief of Staff Kurt Schmautz, Smith assured Chatterbox that Novak's account is "basically accurate." That means Smith was an eyewitness to a federal crime. United States Code, Title 18, Section 201, "Bribery of public officials and witnesses," states that under federal law, a person commits bribery if he

directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity [italics Chatterbox's], with intent to influence any official act.

http://www.slate.com/id/2091787/

Jay-Jay, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that political fortunes are sealed in amber, never to evolve regardless of what the politician in question may subsequently do. Now, can you think of any national Republican figure whose popularity has plummeted steeply in the past six years, so that he's now despised by nearly all the people who voted for him? Someone, say, whose popularity rating went from 80-something to the 30s?

Take your time; we'll wait.

STEFAN: It was Shotgun Dick Cheney.

"Maryland has one of the largest numbers of black professionals in the US. U Maryland has the most black students of any university in the country.

Yet for whites, he wants to talk about "being from da hood" and playing on ever negative sterotype of black people popular among the right.

No dignity, no self-respect, no character. And people gave me shit for calling him Simple Sambo. Well, you describe what he's doing here."

So a GOP black man referencing ghetto speech is offensive to you?

If Joe Lieberman can't keep his seat, how can a rent a negro get one?

"With nearly 90 percent of the vote counted, Bouchard held a 3-2 margin over Troy clergyman Keith Butler in Tuesday's voting."

This is another post from the very website you steered me to. But a Democrat black man referncing ghetto speech is tolerable.

Isn't that a bit duplicitous?

Secondly I have yet to see the actual "policies" by Steele that are so disturbing.

"Someone, say, whose popularity rating went from 80-something to the 30s?"

"June 21, 2004

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Public confidence in President Bush's ability to fight terrorism has significantly eroded, in a challenge to his re-election campaign as a "war president," according to a poll released on Monday.

ADVERTISEMENT

The ABC News/Washington Post poll also found, for the first time, that more than half of Americans believe the Iraq war was not worth fighting.

The poll's findings could spell trouble for Bush, whose ratings in the anti-terrorism fight have been one of his strongest suits as he seeks re-election on a national-security platform."

And yet he was still elected by more than 3.5 million popular votes.

Stefan, your post has been well rehashed and exaggerated by the "Boston Globe" (about as far left as they come).

It's not an article "by" the Boston Globe, but a first-person account by Richard Davis, who as head of McCain's presidential campaign was, of course, a longtime Republican political operative. I note you don't deny any of the charges that the Republican Davis made, charges which are a proven matter of fact.

the "Boston Globe" (about as far left as they come).

No, that would be the Daily Worker. The Boston Globe is a respected middle of the road newspaper. As always, when Republicans can't deny the message they attempt to attack the messenger. Pretty transaparent.

The Dems have been unable to coalesce their differences because one side (the far left) is too rigid and too demanding.

60% of Americans agree with the "far left" on Iraq.

Sixty percent of Americans oppose the U.S. war in Iraq and a majority would support a partial withdrawal of troops by year's end, a CNN poll said on Wednesday.

http://tinyurl.com/mmfhh

Also, only thirty-something percent agree with Bush's policies - and by extension the "conservative" wing of the Democratic party.

If anything, we've not been demanding enough.

"Speaking through Chief of Staff Kurt Schmautz, Smith assured Chatterbox that Novak's account is "basically accurate." That means Smith was an eyewitness to a federal crime. United States Code, Title 18, Section 201, "Bribery of public officials and witnesses," states that under federal law, a person commits bribery if he

directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity [italics Chatterbox's], with intent to influence any official act."

You know I am beginning to think that the left is way too soft on crime. Considering all of the crimes you attribute to republicans, there has not been one single conviction.

How can I trust the left to uphold the law?

"the "Boston Globe" (about as far left as they come)."

Hey! I protest! What about 'The Nation'? They worked very hard for several decades to establish such a bad rap among republicans! :D

Yes, that obviously did not speak well of republican politics but I will ask again.

"Is John McCain still very popular among republicans? And where does Joe Lieberman find himself today 6 years removed from the being the darling VP candidate?"

JAY: Secondly I have yet to see the actual "policies" by Steele that are so disturbing.

"And where does Joe Lieberman find himself today 6 years removed from the being the darling VP candidate?"

Hmm, he's looking quite fit now, but the probabilities, high blood pressure and all - 6 feet under?

"Milwaukee Journal Editorial: Clarence Thomas Not Black Enough, Deserves *
Posted by Brent Baker on November 1, 2005 - 18:35.
In denouncing President Bush's nomination of Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court, an editorial in the Tuesday Milwaukee Journal, “A nomination that will divide,” charged that Justice Clarence Thomas really isn't black. After fretting about how a “minus” of the Alito pick “is that the nomination lessens the court's diversity,” the editorial writers argued: “In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America.”"

Ask and you shall receive.

Jay: Also, considering he only won 51.8% of the ALL Democratic primary, that should send a message that only slightly more than 50% of ALL CT democrats (a very left leaning state) are as anti-war as their party has become.

The lack of any connection to logic in your analysis is absolutely astounding.

And yet he was still elected by more than 3.5 million popular votes.

And apparently you are timeframe challenged also, unable to understand that 2004 and 2006 are in fact different years.

Considering all of the crimes you attribute to republicans, there has not been one single conviction.

Hmmmm. Abramoff ring a bell?

That's "one single conviction", liar.

In any event, Bush is in control of prosecutorial authorities at the federal level, not the Democrats in Congress.

You've tried this lame argument before and it smells just as bad the second (or third, or fourth) time around.

How can I trust the left to uphold the law?

You have absolutely no concern in having the law upheld when conservatives are the criminals.

S*T*R*A*W*M*A*N

Considering all of the crimes you attribute to republicans, there has not been one single conviction.

How can I trust the left to uphold the law?

If you bothered to read the story, it was a Republican who attributed the crime .

You blithering idiot.

Jay: Ask and you shall receive.

So, basically you simply link to someone who claims the paper printed that editorial, not the actual editorial.

And to boot, you said: "In a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Op/Ed, Justice Clarence Thomas was said to be black but, ‘with an asterisk’; meaning he’s only a pretender and not really black."

The description of the op/ed you post doesn't say the op/ed says what you claim it says . . . at no point does the information you quote say that the op/ed claimed that Thmas is "not really black."

Proving again, you are a L*I*A*R and quite willing to prove it by providing the evidence to convict yourself.

JAY: Ask and you shall receive.

"And apparently you are timeframe challenged also, unable to understand that 2004 and 2006 are in fact different years."

So even that more than half of the country opposed the Iraq war in 2004, you're saying that Bush should have won by more than 3.5 million popular votes?

"Jay: Also, considering he only won 51.8% of the ALL Democratic primary, that should send a message that only slightly more than 50% of ALL CT democrats (a very left leaning state) are as anti-war as their party has become.

"Hmmmm. Abramoff ring a bell?
That's "one single conviction", liar."

He's not an elected republican, try again. btw, you might want to ask Harry Reid about Abramoff.

The lack of any connection to logic in your analysis is absolutely astounding"

Ned Lamonts campaign was single issued, anti-war. And only 51.8% voted on that issue alone.

"How can I trust the left to uphold the law?"

You really do need to get a sense of humor.

"Considering all of the crimes you attribute to republicans, there has not been one single conviction."

What about that WH staffer who made such great deals at Target?

"Editorial: A nomination that will divide
From the Journal Sentinel
Posted: Oct. 31, 2005

"Another minus is that the nomination lessens the court's diversity. O'Connor herself had expressed the desire that her successor be a woman. O'Connor seems to have grown wiser about diversity as a result of her Supreme Court experience. She came to see the virtues of having a court that looks like America - doubtless a big reason she softened her opposition to affirmative action in recent years.

In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America.

Finally, many of Alito's opinions, often dissents, are worrisome. He was the sole justice on a 3rd Circuit panel in 1991 to regard a Pennsylvania requirement that women notify their husbands before getting an abortion as not an undue burden on access to the procedure. The Supreme Court specifically disagreed with his dissent in an opinion written by O'Connor."

Do I have to do everything for you guys?

Hmm, my memory is bad, but what happened to that republican campaign manager who was so crazy about calling the democrats every other second? And those older scandals, Gatorwait or whatsthatname and later that 'follow-the-orders' guy, Stan South and Iraq Anti?

Jay: He's not an elected republican, try again.

Chief of Staff isn't an elected Republican either.

So, in responding to the comment in question, you in no way restricted your rebuttal to "elected Republicans".

You are still a liar, no matter how many times you move the goalposts or lie about what you wrote.

Jay: Do I have to do everything for you guys?

No matter how many different ways you post the substance of the op/ed, it doesn't say what you said it does.

You are still a liar and a boring one at that.

You do realize that I left the door wide open for you advocate. I am surprised you missed it.

Does the name Cunnigham ring a bell?

Of course I would retort with Jefferson.

Corruption is bi-partisan.

"http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=367053"

This isn't an op-ed piece?

And it doesn't claim that Thomas should have an asterisk as being representative of blacks?

BTW, just in case you are too stupid to get it:

"does not represent the views of mainstream black America" is not equivalent to "not really black".

You also still do not link to the original.

LOL, liar.

I know that asterisk is a telephone system powered by Linux, but where is the connection to Thomas, and even more important, to the topic at hand? Can't see anything about afro americans, judges or phone systems in Kevin's post.

Jay: Of course I would retort with Jefferson.

Jefferson hasn't been convicted.

Cunningham has been.

Your retort lacks significance, as does your quote of the (still alleged - not that it matters much) editorial.

. . . as being representative of blacks?

No, it claims he doesn't represent black views, not that he is not representative of blacks, much less that he is "not really black".

I'm pretty sure that you can't just wash Thomas off and find a white skin underneath or review his ancestry and find no Negro forbears, which is what "not really black" means.

I guess it all depends on what the definition of "is" means, right?

Still playing that game huh?

jay: Was Colin Powell EVER treated this rudely?
Was John Mccain EVER chastized for not towing the line?

certainly republicans richard clarke and paul o'neill were treated "rudely" by the GOP...

He's not an elected republican, try again.

Duke Cunningham.

Jay: Still playing that game huh?

No, Jay, we're playing with real words that have real meanings; you are playing the lying game, trying to equate non-equivalent terms and phrase.

Indeed, it seems to be you who is playing the "what the definition of 'is' is" game, trying to give new and unusual meaning to the phrase "not really black."

BTW, Jay, are you "representative of whites"?

And a further btw, the "Milwaukee Journal Sentinel" doesn't speak for Democrats and your claim was that Democrats are bigots and racists, not the editors of some Wisconsin newspaper.

But if you want to play that game, Democrats can always counter with Ann Coulter, David Duke, etc., real racists, real promoters of hate, real conservatives, and far more GOP-linked than the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is Democrat-linked.

"He's not an elected republican, try again.

Duke Cunningham."

Finally. I was surprised advocate missed that. I tried to lead you guys right to it, although you're a little late on the draw Stefan.

"And a further btw, the "Milwaukee Journal Sentinel" doesn't speak for Democrats and your claim was that Democrats are bigots and racists, not the editors of some Wisconsin newspaper."

Where did I claim that?

Bottom line is, it is Joe Lieberman who is saying there is no room in the Democratic Party for alternate viewpoints - if you disagree with Joe, a big middle finger to you gift-wrapped from him.

That's what his running as an independent means - no respect for the Party's choice as delivered by the people in the party on election day.

He's saying, "I'm Joe, I'm God and can do no wrong (hmmmm, very much like Bush) and there is no room in me to admit I've been wrong, no room in my little pea brain entertain the legitimacy of someone who disagrees with my choices, including the Democrats in Connecticut, my way is bipartisan and loyal to the country's needs because I say it is and anybody who disagrees with me is not bipartisan, not loyal to the country, and can go to hell. Because I'm right and the Democratic voters are wrong. And even though I'm a Democrat, I reject the choice made democratically by Democrat voters in Connecticut."

Joe is a petulant, self-absorbed, snooty, and small man who shouts the same refrain as Bush: I'm never wrong, everybody else is, and no matter how things turn out I will continue to pursue and support failed policies because to do otherwise would be to admit being wrong and I will never, never do that because I am infallible and anybody who thinks otherwise, who thinks I might make a mistake here and there, is an evil anti-American partisan freak.

advocate, what about the 48.9% of democratic voters who voted for Lieberman? Should their voices be silent now because they lost?

"Bottom line is, it is Joe Lieberman who is saying there is no room in the Democratic Party for alternate viewpoints - if you disagree with Joe, a big middle finger to you gift-wrapped from him."

Isn't that exactly what the left is doing to republicans? If you don't think that Iraq is a quagmire, you receive the "big middle finger"?

Jay: Should their voices be silent now because they lost?

That's what conservatives say about those who opposed Bush and supported Kerry, so you should be quite okay with that.

In fact, conservatives are saying that about the 60% of Americans who now don't support the war in Iraq.

Isn't that exactly what the left is doing to republicans? If you don't think that Iraq is a quagmire, you receive the "big middle finger"?

That's what 60% of Americans are doing.

So, you must believe that "the left" is 60% of Americans.

If so, then you must believe that you will most certainly lose this fall and your claims that you will win must be lies, eh?

Isn't that exactly what the left is doing to republicans?

The left is giving the GOP the big middle finger because they are corrupt and immoral criminals who lied about Iraq, who have to date gotten more than 2500 American soldiers killed with no enhancement to American security, who have stifled the economy and increased the national debt and engaged in run-away spending, and who have viciously attacked even those in their own party who voice any measure of disagreement.

"The left is giving the GOP the big middle finger because they are corrupt and immoral criminals who lied about Iraq, who have to date gotten more than 2500 American soldiers killed with no enhancement to American security, who have stifled the economy and increased the national debt and engaged in run-away spending, and who have viciously attacked even those in their own party who voice any measure of disagreement."

Howard Dean, is that you?

Jay: Howard Dean, is that you?

No, it is the voice of 60% of the American public.

So, you must agree then that Howard Dean represents 60% of the American public and you must further agree that this is the majority of Americans which means you must finally agree that what is in the best interests of this country as determined by the majority is to have Howard Dean as president.

To where should we send your Dean for President bumper sticker?

advocate, I disagree with you on EVERYTHING.

"Polls: Any Democrat Beats Bush 45% to 41%; Dean New Hampshire Lead Gone
By Zogby.com

Tuesday 20 January 2004

As Democrats Vote in Iowa and New Hampshire, President Bush Looks Vulnerable in Both His Re-Elect and Face-Off with Generic Democrat; Bush?s Job Performance 49% Positive, 50% Negative; Democrats Lead Over Republicans in Congressional Generic, New Zogby International Poll Reveals
President George W. Bush?s job performance has dropped since mid- December, while his vulnerability increases when matched against an unnamed Democrat or when respondents are asked if he should be re-elected.

The most recent Zogby America poll of 1000 likely voters chosen at random was conducted January 15-18, 2004 and has a margin of error of +/- 3.2 percentage points. Slight weights were added to region, party, age, race, religion, and gender to more accurately reflect the voting population.Margins are higher in sub-groups.

Bush Job Performance Positive%
Negative %

January 15-18, 2004 49
50

December 15-17, 2004 53
47

December 4-6, 2003 49
51

November 3-5, 2003 48
52

October 15-18, 2003 49
51

September 22-24, 2003 50
49

September 3-5, 2003 45
54

August 2003 52
48

July 2003 53
46

March 2003 54
45

September 2002 64
36

September 2001 82
17

August 2001 50
49

January 2001 42
36

Overall opinion of the President has dropped from mid-December. Nearly half (49%) say their opinion of him is somewhat or very favorable, while 50% say it is somewhat or very unfavorable. In December, opinion was 53% favorable, 47% unfavorable.

Nearly two in five (41%) would vote for Bush, while 45% would opt to support an unnamed Democrat over Bush. In December polling, Bush held a slight edge over a generic Democrat. Nearly one in eight are unsure or prefer another choice.

Date Bush %
Any Democrat %

January 15-18, 2004 41
45

December 15-17, 2004 47
42

December 4-6, 2003 43
41

November 3 ? 5, 2003 41
41

October 15 ? 18, 2003 43
45

September 22-24, 2003 41
45

September 3-5, 2003 40
47

August 2003 43
43

June 2003 44
37

The President remains behind in his ?re-elect? numbers, where 41% of likely voters now say he deserves to be re-elected, while 48% say it is time for someone new. In early September polling, 52% said it was time for someone new, and just two in five (40%) said he deserves re-election.

Date Re-Elect Bush
Someone New

January 15-18, 2004 41%
48%

December 15-17 45
47

December 4-6, 2003 44
46

November 3 ? 5, 2003 43
49

October 15-18, 2003 42
50

Sept 22-24, 2003 43
49

Sept 3-5, 2003 40
52

August 2003 45
48

June 2003 49
38

Americans are equally split on whether they think the US is headed in the right direction, with 45% saying it is the right direction, and 42% voicing ?wrong direction.? Thirteen percent are not sure"

Haven't you grown suspect of polls yet?

"Franklin Delano Roosevelt: The Four Freedoms

Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, members of the 77th Congress:

I address you, the members of this new Congress, at a moment unprecedented in the history of the union. I use the word “unprecedented” because at no previous time has American security been as seriously threatened from without as it is today.

Since the permanent formation of our government under the Constitution in 1789, most of the periods of crisis in our history have related to our domestic affairs. And, fortunately, only one of these -- the four-year war between the States -- ever threatened our national unity. Today, thank God, 130,000,000 Americans in 48 States have forgotten points of the compass in our national unity.

It is true that prior to 1914 the United States often has been disturbed by events in other continents. We have even engaged in two wars with European nations and in a number of undeclared wars in the West Indies, in the Mediterranean and in the Pacific, for the maintenance of American rights and for the principles of peaceful commerce. But in no case had a serious threat been raised against our national safety or our continued independence.

What I seek to convey is the historic truth that the United States as a nation has at all times maintained opposition -- clear, definite opposition -- to any attempt to lock us in behind an ancient Chinese wall while the procession of civilization went past. Today, thinking of our children and of their children, we oppose enforced isolation for ourselves or for any other part of the Americas.

That determination of ours, extending over all these years, was proved, for example, in the early days during the quarter century of wars following the French Revolution. While the Napoleonic struggles did threaten interests of the United States because of the French foothold in the West Indies and in Louisiana, and while we engaged in the War of 1812 to vindicate our right to peaceful trade, it is nevertheless clear that neither France nor Great Britain nor any other nation was aiming at domination of the whole world.

And in like fashion, from 1815 to 1914 -- ninety-nine years -- no single war in Europe or in Asia constituted a real threat against our future or against the future of any other American nation.

Except in the Maximilian interlude in Mexico, no foreign power sought to establish itself in this hemisphere. And the strength of the British fleet in the Atlantic has been a friendly strength; it is still a friendly strength.

Even when the World War broke out in 1914, it seemed to contain only small threat of danger to our own American future. But as time went on, as we remember, the American people began to visualize what the downfall of democratic nations might mean to our own democracy.

We need not overemphasize imperfections in the peace of Versailles. We need not harp on failure of the democracies to deal with problems of world reconstruction. We should remember that the peace of 1919 was far less unjust than the kind of pacification which began even before Munich, and which is being carried on under the new order of tyranny that seeks to spread over every continent today. The American people have unalterably set their faces against that tyranny.

I suppose that every realist knows that the democratic way of life is at this moment being directly assailed in every part of the world -- assailed either by arms or by secret spreading of poisonous propaganda by those who seek to destroy unity and promote discord in nations that are still at peace. During 16 long months this assault has blotted out the whole pattern of democratic life in an appalling number of independent nations, great and small. And the assailants are still on the march, threatening other nations, great and small.

Therefore, as your President, performing my constitutional duty to "give to the Congress information of the state of the union," I find it unhappily necessary to report that the future and the safety of our country and of our democracy are overwhelmingly involved in events far beyond our borders.

Armed defense of democratic existence is now being gallantly waged in four continents. If that defense fails, all the population and all the resources of Europe and Asia, and Africa and Austral-Asia will be dominated by conquerors. And let us remember that the total of those populations in those four continents, the total of those populations and their resources greatly exceed the sum total of the population and the resources of the whole of the Western Hemisphere -- yes, many times over.

In times like these it is immature -- and, incidentally, untrue -- for anybody to brag that an unprepared America, single-handed and with one hand tied behind its back, can hold off the whole world.

No realistic American can expect from a dictator’s peace international generosity, or return of true independence, or world disarmament, or freedom of expression, or freedom of religion -- or even good business. Such a peace would bring no security for us or for our neighbors. Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

As a nation we may take pride in the fact that we are soft-hearted; but we cannot afford to be soft-headed. We must always be wary of those who with sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal preach the "ism" of appeasement. We must especially beware of that small group of selfish men who would clip the wings of the American eagle in order to feather their own nests.

I have recently pointed out how quickly the tempo of modern warfare could bring into our very midst the physical attack which we must eventually expect if the dictator nations win this war.

There is much loose talk of our immunity from immediate and direct invasion from across the seas. Obviously, as long as the British Navy retains its power, no such danger exists. Even if there were no British Navy, it is not probable that any enemy would be stupid enough to attack us by landing troops in the United States from across thousands of miles of ocean, until it had acquired strategic bases from which to operate.

But we learn much from the lessons of the past years in Europe -- particularly the lesson of Norway, whose essential seaports were captured by treachery and surprise built up over a series of years. The first phase of the invasion of this hemisphere would not be the landing of regular troops. The necessary strategic points would be occupied by secret agents and by their dupes -- and great numbers of them are already here and in Latin America. As long as the aggressor nations maintain the offensive they, not we, will choose the time and the place and the method of their attack.

And that is why the future of all the American Republics is today in serious danger. That is why this annual message to the Congress is unique in our history. That is why every member of the executive branch of the government and every member of the Congress face great responsibility, great accountability. The need of the moment is that our actions and our policy should be devoted primarily -- almost exclusively -- to meeting this foreign peril. For all our domestic problems are now a part of the great emergency.

Just as our national policy in internal affairs has been based upon a decent respect for the rights and the dignity of all our fellow men within our gates, so our national policy in foreign affairs has been based on a decent respect for the rights and the dignity of all nations, large and small. And the justice of morality must and will win in the end.

Our national policy is this:

First, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to all-inclusive national defense.

Secondly, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to full support of all those resolute people everywhere who are resisting aggression and are thereby keeping war away from our hemisphere. By this support we express our determination that the democratic cause shall prevail, and we strengthen the defense and the security of our own nation.

Third, by an impressive expression of the public will and without regard to partisanship, we are committed to the proposition that principles of morality and considerations for our own security will never permit us to acquiesce in a peace dictated by aggressors and sponsored by appeasers. We know that enduring peace cannot be bought at the cost of other people's freedom.

In the recent national election there was no substantial difference between the two great parties in respect to that national policy. No issue was fought out on this line before the American electorate. And today it is abundantly evident that American citizens everywhere are demanding and supporting speedy and complete action in recognition of obvious danger.

Therefore, the immediate need is a swift and driving increase in our armament production. Leaders of industry and labor have responded to our summons. Goals of speed have been set. In some cases these goals are being reached ahead of time. In some cases we are on schedule; in other cases there are slight but not serious delays. And in some cases -- and, I am sorry to say, very important cases -- we are all concerned by the slowness of the accomplishment of our plans.

The Army and Navy, however, have made substantial progress during the past year. Actual experience is improving and speeding up our methods of production with every passing day. And today's best is not good enough for tomorrow.

I am not satisfied with the progress thus far made. The men in charge of the program represent the best in training, in ability, and in patriotism. They are not satisfied with the progress thus far made. None of us will be satisfied until the job is done.

No matter whether the original goal was set too high or too low, our objective is quicker and better results.

To give you two illustrations:

We are behind schedule in turning out finished airplanes. We are working day and night to solve the innumerable problems and to catch up.

We are ahead of schedule in building warships, but we are working to get even further ahead of that schedule.

To change a whole nation from a basis of peacetime production of implements of peace to a basis of wartime production of implements of war is no small task. And the greatest difficulty comes at the beginning of the program, when new tools, new plant facilities, new assembly lines, new shipways must first be constructed before the actual material begins to flow steadily and speedily from them.

The Congress of course, must rightly keep itself informed at all times of the progress of the program. However, there is certain information, as the Congress itself will readily recognize, which, in the interests of our own security and those of the nations that we are supporting, must of needs be kept in confidence.

New circumstances are constantly begetting new needs for our safety. I shall ask this Congress for greatly increased new appropriations and authorizations to carry on what we have begun.

I also ask this Congress for authority and for funds sufficient to manufacture additional munitions and war supplies of many kinds, to be turned over to those nations which are now in actual war with aggressor nations. Our most useful and immediate role is to act as an arsenal for them as well as for ourselves. They do not need manpower, but they do need billions of dollars’ worth of the weapons of defense.

The time is near when they will not be able to pay for them all in ready cash. We cannot, and we will not, tell them that they must surrender merely because of present inability to pay for the weapons which we know they must have.

I do not recommend that we make them a loan of dollars with which to pay for these weapons -- a loan to be repaid in dollars. I recommend that we make it possible for those nations to continue to obtain war materials in the United States, fitting their orders into our own program. And nearly all of their material would, if the time ever came, be useful in our own defense.

Taking counsel of expert military and naval authorities, considering what is best for our own security, we are free to decide how much should be kept here and how much should be sent abroad to our friends who, by their determined and heroic resistance, are giving us time in which to make ready our own defense.

For what we send abroad we shall be repaid, repaid within a reasonable time following the close of hostilities, repaid in similar materials, or at our option in other goods of many kinds which they can produce and which we need.

Let us say to the democracies: "We Americans are vitally concerned in your defense of freedom. We are putting forth our energies, our resources, and our organizing powers to give you the strength to regain and maintain a free world. We shall send you in ever-increasing numbers, ships, planes, tanks, guns. That is our purpose and our pledge."

In fulfillment of this purpose we will not be intimidated by the threats of dictators that they will regard as a breach of international law or as an act of war our aid to the democracies which dare to resist their aggression. Such aid -- Such aid is not an act of war, even if a dictator should unilaterally proclaim it so to be.

And when the dictators -- if the dictators -- are ready to make war upon us, they will not wait for an act of war on our part.

They did not wait for Norway or Belgium or the Netherlands to commit an act of war. Their only interest is in a new one-way international law, which lacks mutuality in its observance and therefore becomes an instrument of oppression. The happiness of future generations of Americans may well depend on how effective and how immediate we can make our aid felt. No one can tell the exact character of the emergency situations that we may be called upon to meet. The nation's hands must not be tied when the nation's life is in danger.

Yes, and we must prepare, all of us prepare, to make the sacrifices that the emergency -- almost as serious as war itself -- demands. Whatever stands in the way of speed and efficiency in defense, in defense preparations of any kind, must give way to the national need.

A free nation has the right to expect full cooperation from all groups. A free nation has the right to look to the leaders of business, of labor, and of agriculture to take the lead in stimulating effort, not among other groups but within their own group.

The best way of dealing with the few slackers or trouble-makers in our midst is, first, to shame them by patriotic example, and if that fails, to use the sovereignty of government to save government.

As men do not live by bread alone, they do not fight by armaments alone. Those who man our defenses and those behind them who build our defenses must have the stamina and the courage which come from unshakable belief in the manner of life which they are defending. The mighty action that we are calling for cannot be based on a disregard of all the things worth fighting for.

The nation takes great satisfaction and much strength from the things which have been done to make its people conscious of their individual stake in the preservation of democratic life in America. Those things have toughened the fiber of our people, have renewed their faith and strengthened their devotion to the institutions we make ready to protect.

Certainly this is no time for any of us to stop thinking about the social and economic problems which are the root cause of the social revolution which is today a supreme factor in the world. For there is nothing mysterious about the foundations of a healthy and strong democracy."

Now this is a democrat I could vote for. Quite a departure from the current party.

"A multi-millionaire executive of a cable TV corporation represents the "true left agenda"."
Exactly.
I love it. As the right-wing nut rhetoric becomes more & more shrill with each passing pundit & talking point you begin to get a picture of how freaked out they are getting. I really wish Hunter S. Thompson were alive right now to see it & write about it. From the Democrat getting elected governor in Virginia to Ralph Reed losing his primary race to the Hammer DeLay having to resign to Bob Ney pulling out of his race to Duke Cunningham being hauled off to jail to Joe Lieberman losing his primary bid last night, the tide is turning. People are seeing that the current crop of Republicans are bad for this country and morally corrupt. They also see people on the other side who are helping those Republicans destroy America. You can only fool people for so long. It's starting to happen. Last night democracy worked and hopefully come November it will work again on a much larger scale.

Jay: Haven't you grown suspect of polls yet?

These are Rasmussen polls and as conservative lemmings like to constantly remind everybody, Rasmussen rules.

So, quote Zogby polls all day long.

Your side is losing the PR and money game big time and that translates into November losses.

Besides, a significant number of Republicans will be in jail and its really, really hard to campaign from jail.

In fact, some, like Harris, can't even campaign while still out of jail.

Now, where do I send that Howard Dean for President bumper sticker?

Now this is a democrat I could vote for.

No, you would find some dishonest excuse to viciously attack FDR because Bush has your heart and soul and so does the GOP.

Besides, FDR was confronting a real enemy with real weapons, not an imaginary enemy with imaginary weapons dreamed up by conservative nincompoops, and he fought a real war with real competence, unlike Bush who can't even figure out where the enemy is, much less how to combat that enemy.

BTW, the polls predicted a Lamont win and they were right, so sit tight, fall will be alright for the Democrats, and a plight for the Republicans.

"Besides, FDR was confronting a real enemy with real weapons, not an imaginary enemy with imaginary weapons dreamed up by conservative nincompoops, and he fought a real war with real competence,"

"The total estimated human loss of life caused by World War II, irrespective of political alignment, was roughly 62 million people. The civilian toll was around 37 million, the military toll about 25 million."

Is this your vision of competence?

"Let us say to the democracies: "We Americans are vitally concerned in your defense of freedom. We are putting forth our energies, our resources, and our organizing powers to give you the strength to regain and maintain a free world. We shall send you in ever-increasing numbers, ships, planes, tanks, guns. That is our purpose and our pledge.""

Not exactly Howard Deans position.

Anybody else care to compare FDR's speech with the current positions of the people now leading his party?

He was a great Democratic leader. You guys should really get to understand his vision of your party.

Jay wrote: Anybody else care to compare FDR's speech with the current positions of the people now leading his party?

No, because everyone has grown bored with your inane drivel.

Jay: Is this your vision of competence?

It was a real war, with casualties to match.

And FDR won.

Bush has won nothing, not even Iraq, much less the rest of the Middle East that he promised would follow.

So, yes, that is my vision of competence.

And my "prediction" also came true: "No, you would find some dishonest excuse to viciously attack FDR because Bush has your heart and soul and so does the GOP."

"We Americans are vitally concerned in your defense of freedom."

Certainly not the GOP's vision; they supported Saddam, Noriega, Pinochet, the Shah, the Saudis, Musharraf, and South African aparthiedists, to name just a few tyrannical regimes.

They have not supported democracies in Lebanon, Venezuela, and a host of other countries whose opinions they despise - the GOP only likes democracies that goosestep to conservative principles.

"We shall send you in ever-increasing numbers, ships, planes, tanks, guns."

And Bush has sent fewer and fewer, depriving our soldiers of sufficient support, armor and training in deference to tax cuts for the wealthy - not exactly FDR-like positions.

"We are putting forth our energies, our resources, and our organizing powers to give you the strength to regain and maintain a free world."

In Bush's vision, free only to the extent you bow down before him and his neocon buddies or Bush's proxy tyrants like Musharraf or the Saudi Monarchy.

Again, FDR's vision not even remotely the GOP vision.

Homebuilder Toll Brothers said the current slump in residential construction is unlike any it has seen in 40 years as it became the latest to warn of a glut in new homes for sale and a slowdown in the closely watched real estate market.

Smokin' Bush economic policy at work.

FDR saves the country from poor economic times; Bush turns good economic times into lousy economic times.

I've studied FDR's presidency and Bush is no FDR.

Anybody else care to compare FDR's speech with the current positions of the people now leading his party?

The Democrat position is to fight real wars and track down real terrorists, something FDR would approve of, not to fight wars against imaginary foes and in places where the enemy is not.

The Democrat position is to not steal money from public coffers for partisan campaigning.

The Democrat position is to support democracy whereever it be found, not just in those countries who bow and scrape to Republican interests.

The Democrat position is to fight and act honorably, rather than engage in torture, murder, theft, and election fraud.

The Democrat position is to protect the country at home and abroad by addressing real security threats, rather than creating false threats (strawmen) to defeat.

It takes no courage to defeat a group of wannabe terrorists who have no plans, no weapons, and no money, like the Bush administration recently crowed about.

Too bad they didn't put such effort into preventing 9/11, but then that would have meant putting tax cuts for the wealthy and stealing elections on the back burner and they couldn't have that!

From Slate:

Dead With Ned: Why Lamont's victory spells Democratic disaster

One can only hope....

Pinochet - "General Augusto Pinochet in London, where he was seeking medical treatment, has made the left-wing human rights community erupt in cheers. They want to put him on trial before an international tribunal for crimes committed when the Chilean military under Gen. Pinochet overthrew the Marxist regime of Salvador Allende at the request of the Chilean Chamber of Deputies. Pinochet served as President for the next 17 years and made an orderly transfer of power to Democratic forces. Chile today is a model of democracy and economic progress and Pinochet has been serving in the country's Senate.

If Clinton Administration officials are supporting this treatment of Pinochet, it is an action that may come back to haunt them. After all, the public evidence now shows that the military attack that Clinton ordered on Sudan was completely unjustified. The factory that was obliterated did not produce chemical weapons and wasn't owned by terrorist Osama bin Laden. Under these circumstances, Clinton could be charged as a "war criminal" and, if he travels abroad, he could be picked up by foreign agents and forced to stand trial."

Noriega - Manuel Antonio Noriega Moreno (born February 11, 1938) was a Panamanian general and the de facto military leader of Panama from 1983 to 1989. Contrary to several sources, Noriega was never President of Panama. He was initially a strong ally of the United States and worked for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from the late 1950s to 1986. By the late 1980s, relations had turned extremely tense between Noriega and the United States government, and in 1989 the general was overthrown and captured in the United States invasion of Panama. He was taken to the United States, tried for drug trafficking, and imprisoned in 1992.

This means he was supported by Democratis presidents as well and ulitmately arrested under Bush 1's tenure.

The Shahs largest supporter was actually Jimmy Carter, hence the overthrow and the 52 hostages for 444 days.

Musharraf is a democratically elected leader of his free nation.

The Saudi's have been supported by EVERY president.

"Bush has won nothing, not even Iraq..."

250,000+ military force
A new constitution
A freely elected representative gov't
Three free successful elections
By Ashraf Khalil and Edmund Sanders, Los Angeles Times

NAJAF, Iraq -- U.S. troops withdrew from this holy city in southern Iraq yesterday, an initial step in the military's effort to pull back from the country's urban centers and turn over authority to Iraqi forces.

Under waving Iraqi flags, U.S. commanders formally turned over control of Forward Operating Base Hotel, a square, concrete-walled U.S. base on the edge of Najaf, a shrine city about 100 miles south of Baghdad that saw intense fighting last year.

"The Iraqi army is operating successfully throughout the region," said Lt. Col. James Oliver, the outgoing base commander, as he handed over the ceremonial keys to the base. "They are fully independent and capable of responding to all security needs. We are now here in a strictly advisory"

"And Bush has sent fewer and fewer, depriving our soldiers of sufficient support, armor and training in deference to tax cuts for the wealthy - not exactly FDR-like positions"

WASHINGTON, June 21, 2006 – Yesterday's announcement of deployment orders for Iraq issued to four more combat brigades should not be viewed as an indicator of future force levels there, a top Defense Department spokesman said here today.
The deployment orders allow commanders in Iraq to have flexibility in capabilities available to them, but actual decisions about units deploying will be made after further, careful consideration of the situation on the ground, Bryan Whitman, deputy assistant defense secretary for public affairs, said.

"You want to notify units as early as you can, but you want to do it within the framework that you also maintain the maximum amount of flexibility given that you have changing and evolving situations in Iraq," Whitman told reporters.

Kevin, can I have smarter liberals please?

oh and this......

The republican position is that ice cream tastes good.

The republican position is that babies and puppy dogs are cute.

The republican position is that bicycles have two wheels.

There are some more empty platitudes for you advocate.

If you are going to comment on Cynthia McKinney, I think for the first time, could you be honest about it and at least mention the AIPAC element to it ? It is a pretty significant part of the story.

One reason I turned to blogs was because the MSM tended to leave out crucial bits of inside information. If you have to do the same about a story then I would prefer you not to blog about it at all.

GOP: One can only hope....

Yep, that's all you got left: futile hope.

But hey, a prayer and a hope is all you ever had going for you in Iraq and look how that turned out . . .

Oops. Not so well, eh?

Jay: The Shahs largest supporter was actually Jimmy Carter, hence the overthrow and the 52 hostages for 444 days.

An outright lie. Not unusual for you.

Musharraf is a democratically elected leader of his free nation.

Saddam was a demoncratically elected leader of his free nation.

Your point?

250,000+ military force

Another outright lie.

Yesterday's announcement of deployment orders for Iraq issued to four more combat brigades should not be viewed as an indicator of future force levels there, a top Defense Department spokesman said here today.

Only after he'd already drawn down forces in Iraq, so there has not been a net increase in the force in Iraq - replacing some of what you took away isn't sending more and more.

Again, proving you a liar.

There are some more empty platitudes for you advocate.

Conservatives in a nutshell - empty platitudes: terrorists are evil, the US is strong and determined, we will not abandon the Iraqis (until it becomes politically important to do so - which is why so many GOPers who said never to "cutting and running" are "cutting and running").

Yep, that's all you got left: futile hope.

Yep, that's right. The Presidency, the House, the Senate, a majority of state legislatures and a majority of state governorships obviously don't matter.

If ever anyone deserved the "What color is the sky in your world?" dismissal, it's you, Advocate. You are so utterly disconnected from reality it's really hard to believe you ever pick up a newspaper or watch the news.

"Rôle of US Former Pres. Carter Emerging in Illegal Financial Demands on Shah of Iran

Exclusive. Analysis. By Alan Peters,1 GIS. Strong intelligence has begun to emerge that US President Jimmy Carter attempted to demand financial favors for his political friends from the Shah of Iran. The rejection of this demand by the Shah could well have led to Pres. Carters resolve to remove the Iranian Emperor from office.

The linkage between the destruction of the Shahs Government directly attributable to Carters actions and the Iran-Iraq war which cost millions of dead and injured on both sides, and to the subsequent rise of radical Islamist terrorism makes the new information of considerable significance.

Pres. Carters anti-Shah feelings appeared to have ignited after he sent a group of several of his friends from his home state, Georgia, to Tehran with an audience arranged with His Majesty directly by the Oval Office and in Carters name. At this meeting, as reported by Prime Minister Amir Abbas Hoveyda to some confidantes, these businessmen told the Shah that Pres. Carter wanted a contract. previously awarded to Brown & Root to build a huge port complex at Bandar Mahshahr, to be cancelled and as a personal favor to him to be awarded to the visiting group at 10 percent above the cost quoted by Brown & Root.

The group would then charge the 10 percent as a management fee and supervise the project for Iran, passing the actual construction work back to Brown & Root for implementation, as previously awarded. They insisted that without their management the project would face untold difficulties at the US end and that Pres. Carter was trying to be helpful. They told the Shah that in these perilous political times, he should appreciate the favor which Pres. Carter was doing him.

According to Prime Minister Hoveyda, the Georgia visitors left a stunned monarch and his bewildered Prime Minister speechless, other than to later comment among close confidantes about the hypocrisy of the US President, who talked glibly of God and religion but practiced blackmail and extortion through his emissaries"

Let's be honest, America's relationship with the Shah was not healthy, but Carter took the relationship for granted and pressed his luck.

"Only after he'd already drawn down forces in Iraq, so there has not been a net increase in the force in Iraq - replacing some of what you took away isn't sending more and more."

"NAJAF, Iraq -- U.S. troops withdrew from this holy city in southern Iraq yesterday, an initial step in the military's effort to pull back from the country's urban centers and turn over authority to Iraqi forces."

um.....we're protecting less and less territory.

"WASHINGTON, Aug. 9, 2006 – The Iraqi army is halfway to its goal of 10 divisions as the 4th Division assumed command of the area north of Baghdad yesterday.

Lt. Gen. Abdul-Aziz Abdel-Rahman al-Mufti (left), commander of 4th Iraqi Army Division, and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad (second from left), present gifts to the division’s senior staff Aug. 8 during a ceremony at Forward Operating Base Dagger, in Tikrit. Photo by Staff Sgt. Russell Lee Klika, USA '(Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution image available.

The division assumed primary control of its area of responsibility from the 101st Airborne Division. This is the fifth of 10 division headquarters in Iraq to assume the lead in regional operations.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman called the development a key benchmark in the effort Iraqis are making to take control of their own country. The division will be in the lead for security in Salah Ad Din, Sulaymaniyah and Kirkuk provinces. This area includes the cities of Tikrit, Kirkuk and Samarra and Iraq’s northern oil fields.

Overall, Iraqi security forces are in the lead with five army divisions, 25 army brigades and 85 army battalions, Whitman said. The Iraqi national police have two battalions in the lead in other areas.

In northern Iraq, 33 battalions, nine brigades and two divisions have demonstrated their ability to operate independently and now lead the fight against terrorists and anti-Iraqi forces. The 5th Iraqi Army Division assumed the lead in Diyala province in July."

Do you actually pay attention to what's going on?

GOP wrote: "a majority of state legislatures"

You haven't had that since 2004.

Don P posting as "GOP" wrote: If ever anyone deserved the "What color is the sky in your world?" dismissal, it's you, Advocate. You are so utterly disconnected from reality it's really hard to believe you ever pick up a newspaper or watch the news.

If you ever listened to anything on the radio besides Rush Limbaugh, or read anything in a newspaper besides the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal, or watched any news other than Fox News, you would be aware that many Republican officials are very concerned that their party will lose control of one or both houses of Congress in November -- and with good reason, based on recent opinion polls showing that strong majorities of voters disapprove of Bush's handling of the Iraq war, don't believe the Iraq war has been worth the cost in American lives, think that the Democrats would do a better job in the "war on terrorism" than the Republicans are doing, and would prefer that the Democrats control the Congress.

Advocate for God is right. You can "hope" all you like. But the fact is that the prospects for the Republican Party this November are pretty gloomy, and "hoping" is not going to save any Republican seats in the Congress -- although lying, cheating and stealing might, just as it "won" the last two presidential elections for Bush.

You'd best stick with the lying, cheating and stealing that has worked so well for you in the past.

Anon,

You haven't had that since 2004.

Yes we have.

secular,

Lamont ran a single issue campaign: anti-war, and yet only garnered 51.8% of an all Democratic voting primary.

The general election will be a two-man race; Lamont and Lieberman (if Joe pursues the Indie nomination), republicans in CT are never a factor. Considering the relationship between Lieberman and republicans, Joe will garner over 80% of the republican vote, will capture 30% of the Dem vote and he will win. Which means the Dems lost a seat they didn't have to.

Stay tuned.

Jay: Do you actually pay attention to what's going on?

Michael Reagan: But the Shah somehow offended Brother Carter’s exalted view of the inherent
goodness of a mankind freed from the strictures imposed by dictatorial rules. With a wink and a nod, he arranged to have Pahlavi replaced by an exiled mullah - the Ayatollah Khomeini - who in Carter’s view would be a moderate leader who would democratize Iran.

[Mike Reagan, the eldest son of President Ronald Reagan, at the time was being heard on more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Radio America Network.]

[Michael Edward Reagan (born March 18, 1945 as John Flaugher), adopted son of President Ronald Reagan and his first wife Jane Wyman, is the host of a conservative talk radio show, the "Michael Reagan Show", which is syndicated to over 200 radio stations in the United States through Radio America.]

Yes, I do.

You do not. Or choose to lie.

I think the latter.

While I do not agree with Reagan's take on Carter's involvement with replacing the Shah, it is clear that conservatives themselves were of the opinion that Carter was not only not a friend of the Shah but in fact furthered his ouster.

They thought that a bad thing.

I think it a good thing.

And once again you fail to provide a source for your quotation, much less a link.

And more importantly, nothing in the information you provide remotely suggests that Carter was "the Shah's largest supporter", which was your claim and the claim that I disputed.

A claim now proven to be false, a lie, by your very own post no less!

So, you once again prove provide the evidence that proves your own mendacity.

Which means the Dems lost a seat they didn't have to.

Yes. But Jacob Weisberg (that famous conservative) thinks it's even worse for Democrats than that. He writes:

"This [the Lamont win] is a signal event that will have a huge and lasting negative impact on the Democratic Party. The result suggests that instead of capitalizing on the massive failures of the Bush administration, Democrats are poised to re-enact a version of the Vietnam-era drama that helped them lose five out six presidential elections between 1968 and the end of the Cold War."

GOP: The Presidency, the House, the Senate, a majority of state legislatures and a majority of state governorships obviously don't matter.

And you are controlling the agenda in neither chamber of Congress because moderate Republicans are running from the president's and GOP leadership like rats fleeing a burning ship.

Obviously, it is you who needs a dose of reality.

Not that you will find it with your lips planted firmly on Bush's ass; ass cheeks tend to obscure one's vision of the world from that position.

Jay: Lamont ran a single issue campaign: anti-war, and yet only garnered 51.8% of an all Democratic voting primary.

Another lie.

You racking up a lot today, Jay!

"http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/klaus080505.htm"

"The trouble with Carter
by Klaus Rohrich
Friday, August 5, 2005

Jimmy Carter, the peanut farmer and former U.S. President, has a huge problem: his mouth. The things emanating from that orifice are bizarre in the extreme, considering that Carter was arguably the worst president in the history of the United States. His most recent foot-in-mouth episode involves his running commentary on George W. Bush’s veracity and the "atrocities" committed by American soldiers in the war on terrorism. Carter maintains that had the U.S. not waged war against the Taliban who were sponsors of Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda network, or deposed Saddam Hussein, then the Islamic terrorists would have no excuse for attacking the West.

To say this sentiment is naïve is charitable, given Carter’s history of extreme failure as America’s 39th president. For those too young to remember, under Carter’s tenure in the White House inflation and interest rates rose to their highest levels since the Second World War. In 1978 interest rates of 20 percent were not unheard of, as Carter dithered with the U.S. economy. It was also under Carter’s watch that Iranian fundamentalist Muslims took 66 American diplomats hostage and held them for 444 days, while Carter was powerless to do anything but posture.

It is ironic that this happened, as Carter was directly responsible for the Ayatollah Khomeini’s takeover of Iran. Carter had decided that Mohammed Reza Palavi, the Shah of Iran and a committed friend of the United States, wasn’t democratic enough for Carter’s taste. As a result, Carter insisted the Shah democratize his regime, the result of which was the takeover of Iran by the Ayatollah when the Shah left Iran for cancer treatment in the U.S.

More ironically still, the takeover of Iran by the Islamic fundamentalists emboldened Saddam Hussein, who had just begun his tenure as absolute dictator of Iraq. Believing that the departure of the Shah and the chilling of American/Iranian relations would render Iran ripe for an invasion, Saddam attacked Iran in hopes of securing that country’s oil fields and deposing the Shia Muslim theocracy there. The result was that over 1,000,000 men died during that conflict, which remained at a stalemate for years.

Had Carter not been instrumental in deposing the Shah, then Saddam would likely have remained a bit player in the region, which might have resulted in greater stability.

In 2002, Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize "for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development". This sounds to me like it may have been the booby prize, given that Carter actually never accomplished anything concrete that resulted in the resolution of international conflicts, the advancement of democracy or even the promotion of economic and social development. Quite the opposite, as under Carter’s reign the "misery index", which was Carter’s own invention (leave it to a Democrat to focus on misery), climbed by over 50 percent! But then, we have to remember that the Nobel Peace prize also went to Yassar Arafat, the notorious murderer who is responsible for thousands of deaths, both among Israelis as well as Palestinians.

It’s so characteristic of Democrats in the U.S. to take total failures, flunkies who accomplish less than nothing, and elevate them to some mythical pantheon of liberal heroes because they had good intentions. My grandmother used to tell me that the road to hell was paved with them

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/peopleevents/e_hostage.html

"The Iranian Revolution
Fast forward to New Years Eve, 1977: President Carter toasted the Shah at a state dinner in Tehran, calling him "an island of stability" in the troubled Middle East. What the president also knew, but chose to ignore, was that the Shah was in serious trouble. As opposition to his government mounted, he had allowed his secret police, SAVAK, to crack down on dissenters, fueling still more resentment. Within weeks of Carter's visit, a series of protests broke out in the religious city of Qom, denouncing the Shah's regime as "anti-Islamic." The popular movement against the Shah grew until January 16, 1979, when he fled to Egypt. Two weeks later, thousands of Muslims cheered Khomeini's return to Iran after fourteen years in exile.

Did the Carter administration "lose" Iran, as some have suggested? Gaddis Smith might have put it best: "President Carter inherited an impossible situation -- and he and his advisers made the worst of it." Carter seemed to have a hard time deciding whether to heed the advice of his aggressive national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who wanted to encourage the Shah to brutally suppress the revolution, or that of his more cautious State Department, which suggested Carter reach out to opposition elements in order to smooth the transition to a new government. In the end he did neither, and suffered the consequences."

Carter tried to play both sides of the fence. Sound familiar?

And you are controlling the agenda in neither chamber of Congress because moderate Republicans are running from the president's and GOP leadership like rats fleeing a burning ship.

Ha ha ha ha ha! Yeah, the GOP-controlled executive and GOP-controlled legislature are clearly at odds. That must be why Bush has used his veto power precisely once in six years.

Jay: "http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/klaus080505.htm"

Let's see; on every other issue, conservatives like Jay insist that Canada's opinion can't be trusted, but he cites to a Canadian source for criticism of Carter.

And a really unbiased Canadian source at that.

I cite to a well-recognized American conservative, from the branch of conservatives whose opinions Jay insists are gold.

LOL, Jay.

". . . considering that Carter was arguably the worst president in the history of the United States."

Sorry, Jay, but Bush has Carter beat in the worst president race by a mile and a half.

"Had Carter not been instrumental in deposing the Shah . . ."

Again, you cite even more evidence that Carter was not "the largest supporter of the Shah", proving yourself a liar.

=============

GOP: Yes. But Jacob Weisberg (that famous conservative) thinks it's even worse for Democrats than that. He writes:

There's a shock, a war-supporting American Jew supporting Lieberman and doing everything he can to discredit anyone who challenges Lieberman and support for the war.

Weisberg: If it were up to me, I still might choose to gamble a bit longer—six months, a year, two years. But the real-world choice isn't between going to war when I'd choose to go to war and when Bush chooses to go to war. To some extent, someone like me who shares the administration's basic view about the eventual necessity of using force has to defer to the military planners and intelligence folks about timing. The practical choice isn't between now and later. It's between going to war in the next several months (the Bush position) and not going at all (the default position of the opposition).

Yeah, that's a real objective opinion, GOP.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ad infinitum . . .

Weisberg is just the journalistic version of Lieberman.

Hardly surprising he predicts all sorts of dire consequences from Lieberman's fall.

This is just the sort of intellectual dishonesty we've come to expect from you, GOP - thanks for not disappointing.

GOP: Yeah, the GOP-controlled executive and GOP-controlled legislature are clearly at odds. That must be why Bush has used his veto power precisely once in six years.

I guess that's why there is a flag-burning amendment to the Constitution, a gay-marriage ban amendment to the Constitution, etc, etc, etc, and why a significant number of Republicans are calling for a plan of withdrawal and end game and distancing themselves from Bush, Frist, and Hastert's publically stated policies.

You must be lying to yourself as much as you are lying to us!

Advocate for God,

There's a shock, a war-supporting American Jew supporting Lieberman and doing everything he can to discredit anyone who challenges Lieberman and support for the war.

"war-supporting American Jew."

Careful, Advocate. Your anti-semitism is showing again.

Advocate for God,

I guess that's why there is a flag-burning amendment to the Constitution, a gay-marriage ban amendment to the Constitution, etc, etc, etc,

You guess what's why there are those things? Do you have even a semblance of an idea of a coherent response?

Careful, Advocate. Your anti-semitism is showing again.

Recognizing that the combination of agreement on key issues ("war supporting") and shared identity ("Jew") make it unsurprising that a person would support a particular politician isn't anti-semitism.

cmdicely,

Recognizing that the combination of agreement on key issues ("war supporting") and shared identity ("Jew") make it unsurprising that a person would support a particular politician isn't anti-semitism.

Advocate for God didn't say that. He said:

"There's a shock, a war-supporting American Jew supporting Lieberman and doing everything he can to discredit anyone who challenges Lieberman and support for the war."

The only reason for referring to Weisberg as a "war-supporting American Jew" rather than just as a "war-supporting American" is to imply that his Jewishness is the cause of his support for Lieberman, for the war, and for his alleged intolerance of opponents of the war and of Lieberman. That is classic anti-semitism.

Of course, while we're on the subject, perhaps we should investigate the long and virulent history of anti-semitism by the Catholic Church. You're a Catholic, aren't you? Or, at least, you play one on this stage.

This morning, on NPR, I heard Lieberman saying he would run as an "independent democrat".

If so, I think the democratic party should sue to stop him from using the word democrat.

The only reason for referring to Weisberg as a "war-supporting American Jew" rather than just as a "war-supporting American" is to imply that his Jewishness is the cause of his support for Lieberman, for the war, and for his alleged intolerance of opponents of the war and of Lieberman.

Uh, no, its to suggest that his "war support"-ingness and is "Jew"-ness are (respectively) an issue and an additional identity which they share which makes it unsurprising that Weisberg is pro-Lieberman.

Recognizing that identity is frequently a powerful factor in politics is not anti-(whatever particular identity you happen to be pointing to at the moment)-ism.

Of course, while we're on the subject, perhaps we should investigate the long and virulent history of anti-semitism by the Catholic Church.

To what end?

You're a Catholic, aren't you?

According to you, no.

cmdicely,

Uh, no, its to suggest that his "war support"-ingness and is "Jew"-ness are (respectively) an issue and an additional identity which they share which makes it unsurprising that Weisberg is pro-Lieberman.

He didn't say merely that Weisberg is "pro-Liberman." He specifically attributed Weisberg's support for Lieberman, for the war and for allegedly "doing everything he can to discredit anyone who challenges Lieberman and support for the war" to Weisberg's being a "war-supporting American Jew." As I said, that's classic anti-semitism. In fact, the anti-semitic "war-mongering Jews" stereotype was recently on display by your own fellow Catholic Mel Gibson.

According to you, no.

But according to you, yes. You do know that the church of which you claim to be a part has a long history of despicable anti-semitism, don't you?

GOP: Careful, Advocate. Your anti-semitism is showing again.

No, it isn't.

But your propensity to prevaricate is!

You remind me greatly of Clarence Thomas and his supporters who were always ranting and raving hysterically about "racial victimization" and how minorities can't succeed because they are always playing the victim card and then lo and behold Thomas plays the racial victim card in his confirmation hearings and his supporters jump on the bandwagon.

Methinks thou dost protest too much about anti-semitism.

That leads me to believe it is in fact you who are the anti-semite, pretending not to be for the mere sake of temporary political convenience, much like the radical right of the Republican Party.

You guess what's why there are those things? Do you have even a semblance of an idea of a coherent response?

What's incoherent is your inability to recognize a group of legislative failures that were directly within the core values of the GOP.

That's not strength, that's weakness.

Your responses are equally weak.

The only reason for referring to Weisberg as a "war-supporting American Jew" rather than just as a "war-supporting American" is to imply that his Jewishness is the cause of his support for Lieberman, for the war, and for his alleged intolerance of opponents of the war and of Lieberman. That is classic anti-semitism.

No, it isn't.

Many American Jews are supportive of aggressive US foreign policy initiatives in the Middle East (military action) because of their self-identity with and support for Israel - i.e., their Jewish identity makes them biased towards policies that will supposedly make Israel more secure (they are quite often wrong in their conclusions, however). The ties are not simply ethnic, but religious, which makes the connection more unique than the connection for most other ethnic US groups with their 'homelands'.

To fail to recognize this bias is foolishness and intellectually dishonest; to recognize it is to deal with reality, not to engage in or embrace racism.

Kevin has an interesting post about Godwin's law and cherry-picking conservative trolls.

This invites an ironic comparison between those who invoke the Nazis to intentionally derail a thread by attempting to marginalize those with whom they disagree and those who invoke anti-semitism for the same purposes.

You and your ilk routinely accuse those who refuse to support the war and/or who criticize American Jews who do support the war as being anti-semitic, attempting to divert attention from the real subject of the debate instead of answering the issues and marginalize their comments.

Sorry, I'm not biting.

In fact, the anti-semitic "war-mongering Jews" stereotype was recently on display by your own fellow Catholic Mel Gibson.

Bullshit.

I was clearly referring to a particular subset of American Jews, those who supported the war in Iraq in the same way Lieberman has, and was not making any even remote claim that all American Jews were supporters of the war in Iraq, which would be the only type of response that would justify the claim you made above, and you know this perfectly well.

"War-mongering Jews" would be a reference to ALL Jews, not just a subset who clearly and quite publically have stated their position on the war as well as their support for Israel and the link between the so-called gwot and Israel's survival and security.

This makes you a liar, a defamer, and someone who routinely and vigorously misrepresents the comments of others on these threads.

But cmdicely and I already knew that.

GOP: You do know that the church of which you claim to be a part has a long history of despicable anti-semitism, don't you?

You do know that this is despicable anti-catholicism far more than anything I've even remotely posted could be interpreted, even innocently due to poor writing, to be anti-semitism, as it would appear to ascribe anti-semitism as a foundational characteristic of Catholics as a whole, don't you?

You are not only a hypocrite, you are a lying hypocrite.

Wouldn't that be funny if Charlie, Cheney, GOP, and Don P. were all the same person, Kevin Drum?

Thomas: Wouldn't that be funny if Charlie, Cheney, GOP, and Don P. were all the same person, Kevin Drum?

Not really. But it would be pathetic.

And you left out 'Thomas'.

Sorry that was not clear enough for you -- what would be funny is if Kevin Drum, Charlie, Cheney, GOP, and Don P. were all the same person.

Thomas: Sorry that was not clear enough for you . . .

Incorrect grammar usually results in a lack of clarity.

About three years ago, I saw Krauthammer flip out in synagogue on Yom Kippur. The rabbi had offered some timid endorsement of peace — peace essentially on Israel's terms — but peace anyway. Krauthammer went nuts. He actually started bellowing at the rabbi, from his wheel chair in the aisle. People tried to "shush" him. It was, after all, the holiest day of the year. But Krauthammer kept howling until the rabbi apologized. The man is as arrogant as he is thuggish. Who screams at the rabbi at services? For advocating peace?

Nope, no bias among a certain subset of American Jews toward particular liberal and conservative policies thought to favor or disfavor Israeli security, GOP. Not a single American Jew rabid about Israel and its relation to the war on terror.

You were so right.

Not.

Run along now and spew your stupidity and mendacious charges of anti-semitism somewhere else.

It was not incorrect grammar.

It was not incorrect grammar.

True, in that the sentence was syntactically correct; however, it was poorly structured to say what you apparently meant, which would be unambiguously stated by using a colon in the place of the last comma:

"Wouldn't that be funny if Charlie, Cheney, GOP, and Don P. were all the same person: Kevin Drum?"

I apologize for my ignorance in confusing grammar and punctuation.

I should have stated that it was incorrect punctuation.

As cmdicely has noted, a colon should have been used, which is what I meant by my critique.

I will be more accurate next time.

That way, you won't be confused about what I meant.

4y15wdw3q5l6r8x7me03scwah05czf0kw4dh89v