 |
 |
   Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Gnter Grass still thinks reunification was a bad idea.
 Forty years of writing from Taylor Branch, James Fallows, Katherine Boo, Marjorie Williams, Joshua Micah Marshall, and more.
 With help from Washington, the for-profit college industry is loading up millions of low-income students with debt they'll never pay off.
 The best recent memoir from republican Washington is a hoax. That should tell you something.
|
   |
|
|
October 24, 2006
By: THE NETROOTS....In the LA Times today, political guru Ron Brownstein highlights a project from Chris Bowers at MyDD:
I thought it was interesting that Brownstein is now taking the time to follow blogs closely and report on what they're up to, and via Tapped, I see that the New York Times wrote about it as well. The times, they are a changin. But not changing too much. Brownstein's conclusion so far? Democrats are being "cordial but resistant." In other words, they're holding onto their cash. So far. —Kevin Drum 12:42 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (66)Comments
Yeah, I can see why cash-rich Democrats with safe seats would be "resistant" to helping out their party. After all, the last 10 years of Republican domination of Congress--and the last 6 years of the Bush presidency--have shown them that the fates of their party and their country are of no consequence whatever. So no reason at all for Democrats to work toward a Democratic victory. Feh! Posted by: Derelict on October 24, 2006 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK"Me first" liberals refuse to help people on their side, whereas conservatives work hard to optimize their resources to do the most possible good. Someday, the Democrats will realize it's impossible to build a coalition around people who are simply selfish (union workers come to mind; talk about becoming the party of laziness). Posted by: American Hawk on October 24, 2006 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINKAl and I are really happy that Kerry, for one, is keeping his money safe! Run again, John, run again! Posted by: Al's Mommy on October 24, 2006 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINKHere is another things that makes me and Al happy! Posted by: Al's Mommy on October 24, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK"Me first" liberals refuse to help people on their side, whereas conservatives work hard to optimize their resources to do the most possible good. Yep. Conservatives like Scaife and Murdoch are willing to be unselfish and give out money to support conservatives because they believe in conservative principles and not because of any selfish motives. Liberals on the other hand only care about themselves and never think of others first. Posted by: Al on October 24, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINKliberals refuse to help people on their side, whereas conservatives work hard to optimize their resources to do the most possible good.,/em> Phil Knight? Bill Gates? Ring any bells? Posted by: Global Citizen on October 24, 2006 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINKSomeday, the Democrats will realize it's impossible to build a coalition around people who are simply selfish ... libertarians? Posted by: cleek on October 24, 2006 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINKwell, there is a simple solution. No Chairs for tightwads. And perhaps some tightwads get bumped from committes of choice. Posted by: jimmy on October 24, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINKActually, AH, it's the DINOs who are being selfish. Ben Chandler in Central Kentucky is the state's only dem in congress, has NO OPPOSITION (R dropped out; token libertarian isn't even trying), yet won't cough up a dime for the very conservative dem challengers in the two toss-up districts adjacent to his. Weaver in the 2nd and Lucas in the 4th are charging hard and moving up fast, and all they need is that last hundred grand infusion to make it over the top. Chandler could give them both twice that much and never miss it. If they lose, Chandler will burn in hell for it. Posted by: Yellow Dog on October 24, 2006 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINKPhil 'The Sweatshop King' Knight and Bill 'The Monopolist' Gates are liberals? People become politicians to feed their need for attention. It does not matter what their party affiliation is. It should not be surprising that any politician, Democratic or Republican, does not want to collectivize campaign contributions they worked so hard to obtain. Posted by: Hostile on October 24, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINKMHR: Not really. I've been quiet about all the individual races. It's not something I'm very knowledgable about, and there are loads of people who do it a lot better than me. I comment occasionally in individual races when there's something in my strike zone, but not very often. Posted by: Kevin Drum on October 24, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINKThere are too many comments on the earlier thread, so I'll reply here. The supposed "Latino backlash" is an invention of those who support illegal immigration because they profit from it in some way. Drum's idea that somehow opposition to illegal immigration is just "culture war politics" reveals his limited grasp of this subject. Somehow I don't think that if a U.S. president is going to outreach to one race he should do it using the flag of their former country. I also don't think his top advisor should legitimize a far-left group that has links to and funds extremists. But, then again, the Democrats see things a different way. For instance: elected Georgia Democrats Sam Zamarripa and Pedro Marin led a pro-illegal immigration march organized by former Mexican consul. Due to all the links between the Democratic Party and extremist ethnic nationalistic Hispanics and due to the Democratic Party having direct and indirect links to the Mexican government, Mexican political parties, and Mexican officials, perhaps they should just make it official and declare themselves a trans-border political party. Posted by: TLB on October 24, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINKHey, hey, our boys kissed a whole bunch of doner ass to get those Bennys. They barely got the savory taste off their lips and Chris expects them to fork it over? Why hellfire, comrad, that sounds like communism! Posted by: Keith G on October 24, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINKHere's part of why these House Dems won't surrender the cash: Many of them are looking at Leadership PACs if the Dems regain the House. Extra campaign funds become seed money. Posted by: SocraticGadfly on October 24, 2006 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINKTLB, I think you posted to the wrong thread by mistake. This thread is discussing financing of House campaigns. You can't possibly have meant to put something unrelated here. Posted by: Brittain33 on October 24, 2006 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINKI think the most important issue facing both Democrats and Republicans is addressing the Millennium Development Goals. Agreed to by every nation on earth in 2000, The Millennium Development Goals focus on curbing global poverty. According to The Borgen Project, merely $19 billion annually would cut global poverty in half by 2015 and bring it to an end by 2025. Posted by: seattle206 on October 24, 2006 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINKWhy should they fork over the Money the Rightwing is folding up on it's self.Stay tuned big surprise comming next week.Dems will have Super Majority in the House.You heard it here first.Just STAY THE COURSE, everything is going just perfect! Posted by: Thomas2.0 on October 24, 2006 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINKWhich is EXACTLY why I have declined what seems like a thousand requests from Dems for MONEY. I didn't give to John Kerry in '04 to enhance his empire. Any funds left over should have gone into the Dems "general fund". When I see that kind of accountability, then...and ONLY THEN...will I write the next check! Posted by: ronbon on October 24, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINKRonJon - I agree - to a point. I did not giove to the DSCC or the DCCC for those very reasons. I did, however give to the DNC, specifically because I approved of Dr. Dean's 50-state-strategy. I had been agitating for years along the same lines. When a national politician started saying the same thing, I couldn't get on-line and donating fast enough Posted by: Global Citizen on October 24, 2006 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINKDems, especially the so called the netroots, are SOBs. Have they contributed LARGE amount of money to any condidates? NO. Most the the big money came from big donors. So now people like Bowers and Markos are attacking Kerry and others because they would not give up their campaign cash. How pathetic. Thousands of people read blogs like this one and Dailykos but they never did contribute a f* buck when asked. I understand the netroots wanted to prove that they can change DC Dems or at least have people like Kerry or Clinton be on their knees and beg for mercy. Tha attacks on Holy Joe are stupid, uncalled for. Replacing Lieberman does not help Dems retake the senate but the netroots wanted to prove that they can take an incumbent like Joe in order to make their points. Joe will win the election b/c many ppl are against what the netroots are doing. People can see what the netroots are doing is stupid and not constructive. Posted by: bob on October 24, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINKKerry's wife is worth how much? How much do they contribute? Mass.? Kennedy is supposedly a spy for the KGB and that's because Shays was'nt and is'nt from Mass, but Conn; not that the real war is between Harvard and Yale, but Shays did work on the steroid committee after losing the intelligence committee and they were both freak air plane crashes and Plame really did'nt complain and work with Shayes because he really worked with Chayes and she and her family are from Harvard,Mass like Kennedy and it's not like all these were involved with Peace Corps at one time and kennedy really was'nt a dem like Clinton and that's why its Harvard and Yale and not Conn. and Mass. because Shayes is a Republican who got his job by making a deal like a Dem, not that this was confusing because of Kennedy and his democrats that are really from states and not parties because it's really Harvard and Yale................ Posted by: Filmal on October 24, 2006 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINKI want to make another point. Pelosi raised over 50mils this year and it did not come the netroots. She probably had to promise to do some stuff for the big donors in order to get the money. Until the netroots can replace GE, AOl, Hollywood etc.. stop it. It is wrong to attack Kerry and Clinton bc of the money issue. The netroots do not decide or affect mojority of the races, yeah in few local races but most are won or lost despite of the blogging community. The energy and money that were given to Ned Lamont could have been used to help Claire McCakill in MO or Jim Webb in VA. Posted by: bob on October 24, 2006 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINKKev, Kerry has more than cash, he has a very powerful email network. Help Kerry understand that YOU understand that he is keeping the cash YOU gave him. Unsubscribe from Kerry's email list and blog about it. Posted by: jerry on October 24, 2006 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINKjerry: what about the money Kerry raised for other local candidates this year ? it does nout count ? Please we are getting to be stupid and ridiculous by attacking Kerry and Clinton. Posted by: bob on October 24, 2006 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINKI forgot to mention that Markos and Bowers took the money from Dean and did the biddding for Dean w/o telling their readers. Was it right? Of course, not. Now Bowers and Markos are out doing the bidding for another contender and we are supposed to believe them? Warner was supposed to be the netroots darling but he dropped out. Gore is the next real thing so Kerry and Clinton must go down. It is getting ugly and dishearting indeed. Posted by: bob on October 24, 2006 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINKWinning control of the house and senate. That is what counts. A strong second place finish? Doesn't count. Posted by: jerry on October 24, 2006 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINKjerry: why are we trying to take Lieberman out? Posted by: bob on October 24, 2006 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINKI never suggested we should attack Clinton! Attack Bill? Heaven forbid! Shame on you for suggesting such an appalling task! Go wash your mind out with soap and perform 98 Hail Bills. Posted by: jerry on October 24, 2006 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINKbob: Ask the people of Connecticut. It's not like Ned Lamont is hurting for funds, or that the funds he does have came from donors that couldn've been used elsewhere. Lamont's funding his campaign pretty much by himself. His own brother won't contribute, because giving money to Ned Lamont is like "coals to Newcastle." Lieberman has done many things to dis the national Democratic Party, and he needed very much to be smacked hard for it. But the netroots community has bigger fish to fry, so we're over obsessing about that race. Let the CT voters decide, and if they pick Lieberman -- we can always hope that he has been chastened by his experience losing the primary. Bob Posted by: rmck1 on October 24, 2006 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINKBecause he is a douchebag republican lite that votes against democratic interests (like the bankruptcy bill) and supports asshole justice nominations and wants to continue the war in iraq, and doesn't listen to his constituents, and makes life hard on all democrats by his fellating of the president, and has taken many many unprincipled stances, and because he lost the Democratic primary and because he is not sure if the dems should win the congress and because he has not said he would never caucus with the thugs and is this multiple choice? Posted by: jerry on October 24, 2006 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINKWhen your toe has gangrene you excise it, you don't apologise for it and worry about not having 20 toes. It's poisoning you and you cut it out. Posted by: jerry on October 24, 2006 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK"we can always hope that he has been chastened by his experience losing the primary" Yes, that sounds likely. Posted by: jerry on October 24, 2006 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINKrmk1: so what? Lieberman is a safe seat we don't need to protect. Instead, the netroots all got up and decided that we must flex our muscles. Lamont got over 400K from the netroots. Image if Clair MacCakill can use that sum. My cousin called from MO last night to report that Talent is killing her with nagative ads every 2 seconds but she does not have the money to respond inkind. So what if Lieberman kissed and slept with Bush. We don't need to spend money or energy in CT. We shoudl help Diane Ferrell take out Shays, not Lieberman. Posted by: bob on October 24, 2006 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINKBob - A McClatchey/MSNBC poll shows Claire pulling ahead. The debates helped her. Posted by: Global Citizen on October 24, 2006 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINKIt's funny that I seem to be getting it from both sides from bob and jerry. Heh -- prolly a good sign :) bob: First, I dispute your figures. I don't believe Lamont took 400k from the netroots, and if you'd like me to believe you, you'll have to provide a link. Lamont has been self-financing his campaign, and makes a big to-do about not taking PAC money. Small voluntary donations, I'm sure. But a concerted netroots fundraising effort? You're going to have to prove it. Otherwise, I agree with you that defeating Lieberman is not our biggest priority, nor should it be. jerry: Look, I have no desire to argue with you; I was a Howard Dean activist and agree strongly that "Republican Lite" is one of the Democrats' biggest *psychological* problems, because forcing ourselves to be "centrist" only makes us internalize the GOP talking points. We have no fundamental philosophical or ideological disagreement. That said, I think you're being way too much of a hardass about Holy Joe. The dude's got a strongly liberal voting record relative to the whole senate; and a 100% rating from the League of Conservation Voters (a group I used to work for) is nothing to sneeze at. Sure -- he sucks on a bunch of important issues (bankruptcy; he's beholden to the insurance industry -- and military boondoggles to bring the pork into his state and "save jobs") -- but he also has a very good rating on other extremely important issues. My personal beef with him is his goddamn neocon analysis of the Mideast; it makes me cringe to hear how he's pivoted on the Iraq war since he lost the primary. He is without any question the Senator from Tel Aviv, and this bugs me a lot. Believe me, I'd vote for Lamont if I was a Nutmeg Stater. But all this being said, I think you're pushing Lieberman-hatred to a counterproductive level. He's keeping his seniority (according to the Democratic leadership), so he's still going to caucus with us. Mainly, what bugs me about Joe-hatred is upon listening to some of these red-state opportunity candidates we're all praying will win. I mean shit -- have you heard Harold Ford, Jim Webb or Bob Casey on social issues? These guys are sucking moral conservative ass even more vigorously than Lieberman -- who at least ardently supports pro-choice and embryonic stem cell research. Yeah, his Schiavo posturing made us all ill -- but all I'm arguing for ultimately is to keep the bigger picture in perspective. Pax, Bob Posted by: rmck1 on October 24, 2006 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINKIt's not a zero-sum game and it is nowhere close to being a zero-sum game. It's not money to Lamont strips others of money. It's not accept Lieberman or else we lose the Senate. It is about party discipline. It is, nuke Lieberman and teach any assholes that voted NOT to strip Lieberman of his seniority that they could be next. It is, nuke Lieberman and put the fear of the voter into any opportunist that is ready to sell out on bankruptcy, abortion, Social Security and Iran. It is, nuke Lieberman until he glows so that the next time some SOB loses the primary he will not entertain the notion of going independent. It is, nuke Lieberman so that the next time we have a flawed and human president/senator/congressman that person will not be sandbagged by some sanctimonious prick. Too hard on Lieberman? Can you guarantee he won't flip the senate to the thugs should he become re-elected? And if he does, what will you be doing about that? I know the answer about Lamont. I have no idea about Joe who says that a vote for Lamont is a vote for terrorists and who says that he doesn't know if the Dems should win the House. That is an unprincipled weasel and the fewer we have of those in the congress of ANY party, the better for all Americans. What makes you certain that Joe will not flip the Senate to the Republicans? Abortion, bankruptcy, social security, the war in Iraq and Iran, calling Democrats traitors, enabling Bush and giving him cover, just who would Lieberman have to fuck before you walked away from him? Posted by: jerry on October 24, 2006 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINKAh, the eternal search for the selfless politician. Posted by: Yancey Ward on October 24, 2006 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINKGlobe: I hope you caught another Norman smackdown on the Gaffe thread :) jerry: I'm not a Connecticut resident, so you question's kind of irrelevant. Also answered -- because I said I'd definitely vote for Lamont if I was, and probably volunteer for him as well. As it is, I live in NJ -- and that race is much more critical if your goal is Democratic gains / dominance in the Senate. That happens to be my goal. Couple quick points: Where do you get the idea that Lieberman sold out on pro-choice? First I've heard of that, so if you could provide corroboration for that assertion, I'd appreciate it. Secondly, I'm all for party discipline -- but Democrats aren't Stalinists, either. Part of our values as Democrats is that we honor diversity of opinion. If they's room in the party for the Nelsons, Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln (who have easily sold out Democrats as much if not more than Lieberman), then there's also room for Holy Joe. Having a "smaller, more pure" Democratic Party is kind of like having a "smaller, more pure" Catholic Church. Political parties aren't suicide pacts; what we need to do as Democrats is to focus on the issues that unite us and deemphasize the wedge issues the GOP has been using for decades now to divide us. We need to become the party of economic populism again and put these stupid and divisive social issues aside. A certain amount of posturing for "values voters" is going to be inevitable, sadly enough. Finally, at the end of the day I'm only bowing to reality. Joe is up by 17% in the latest polls; he is going to win the election (and I've seen Lamont in the debates; the guy's kind of a stiff who hasn't been well-served by his inexperienced campaign team). I'm simply choosing not to angst about that -- with so many other important elections hanging in the balance. The only way we can even *begin* to change things for the better, jerry, is to start denying the GOP the power of majority. That's Priority One -- everything else we can hash out later after we've crossed that bridge. Bob Posted by: rmck1 on October 24, 2006 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINKgoogle rape gurney joe. We need to become the party of economic populism again That ain't Joe! Who bows to pro-life, to religious nutjobs (Schiavo), to war, to bankruptcy, to social security reform, all under while claiming to be the best damn democrat in the world. And I am definitely against big tents for dems if they think that means that when they lose a democratic primary they can continue as an independent. There's a reasonable difference too between the politics of a Louisiana Dem and the politics of a Connecticut Dem, but that difference is all the more reason to demand Joe take a position of leadership on the fundamental Dem issues and not a position of weaseling. Again, you think it is a zero-sum game. A vote for Ned is a vote against NJ. It's not. I can donate my $20 and my voice to many races. Posted by: jerry on October 24, 2006 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINKjerry: I'm not googling "rape gurney joe" -- that keword sounds flatly ludicrous. If there's a reputable source that demonstrates Joe has sold out his longstanding support for choice, I'm sure you, as an honest interlocutor, can provide it. It's not a zero-sum game. Ned doesn't need my money; I can't legally give him my vote. Which part of "I'd vote for Lamont if I lived in Connecticut" don't you understand? If you understand that there are cultural differences between Southern Dems and Northern Dems, then you accept the principle that this is one for the CT voters to decide. Your arguments would have been (and were) very persuasive in a primary. But this is a general election, and the CT voters seem to be choosing experience. As I say -- it's really their choice to make. I'd definitely vote for Lamont primarily because Joe chose a "do-over" that only an incumbent politician could pull off by running as an Independent. That completely burns my ass -- even more than Joe's horrendous, neocon-enabling views on Iraq and the Mideast. But Joe is going to win. At the end of the day, I'd rather ship my dwindling supply of uncommitted double sawbucks to candidates who 1) need the cash and 2) have a reasonable shot at winning. Say what you will about Ned Lamont -- but hurtin' for cash just doesn't compute. Bob Posted by: rmck1 on October 24, 2006 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINKjerry: Okay, I broke down and googled "rape gurney joe" and the first hit was Althouse's comment on an FDL piece. Okay -- I disagree with Joe's position on both Catholic hospitals denying emergency contraception to rape victims and his opposition to OTC sales of Plan B. I'm pretty much a hardcore pro-choicer and I don't like virtually all the sorts of restrictions that are broadly supported by the American people. That would make me further left on choice than most members of the Senate -- including Hillary. But I don't think those two positions make Joe "anti-choice," either. Bob Posted by: rmck1 on October 24, 2006 at 6:08 PM | PERMALINKBut I don't think those two positions make Joe "anti-choice," either. He ain't pro-choice, he ain't anti-choice. He ain't pro-war, he ain't anti-war. He ain't pro bankruptcy, he ain't anti-bankruptcy. He's for social security reform and he's not for social security reform. He's Jewish (so am I), but he's really a very strong Catholic Born Again Protestant Fundamentalist. He's a little bit country, but he's a little bit rock n roll. He's black, he's white. He's Ebony, he's Ivory. He's a Democratic Republican Independican-American He's a goddamn leader that refuses to take a position and he's enabling the killing of our kids. If you think it is more important to concentrate on NJ, than have at it, but then I am not certain as to why you would even contribute to this thread which was really about getting Kerry, et. al., to open the wallets they have stuffed with our money to support Democrats EVERYWHERE, especially the ones in CT and NJ. Posted by: jerry on October 24, 2006 at 6:16 PM | PERMALINKClaire - I really loathe your anti-semitism. i would just love to have the opportunity to show you some Krav Maga technique. I am proudly a Jew, and I am no fan of Lieberman. But I like you and your ilk even less, you stupid racist bitch. Posted by: Global Citizen on October 24, 2006 at 6:22 PM | PERMALINKClaire: Kindly go fuck yourself. I'm the lone "Lieberman apologist" on this thread -- and I said that the fact that he's the Senator from Tel Aviv bugs me greatly. But you, naturally, have poor reading skills. jerry: Okay, we apparently *do* have a philosophical difference. You have a much lower tolerance for ambiguity than I do. You satirize Lieberman for being in the middle on everything -- and I see a commenter who apparently needs to see the world in black & white. I'm commenting on this thread because I completely support the premise that safe Democrats should be giving up their wads of cash to candidates whose chances are opening up in the final stretch. Once again, what part of "Ned Lamont isn't hurtin' for cash" and "If I lived in Connecticut, I'd vote for Lamont" don't you understand? Apparently, I don't meet your Purity Test for being a Democrat. Hey -- I think both the party and myself can live with that. Bob Posted by: rmck1 on October 24, 2006 at 6:50 PM | PERMALINKIn America we like diversity: Lamont is a millionaire running as a liberal Democrat. Lieberman is a Democrat running as an Independent who argues for Republican policies, but who says he'll caucus with the Democrats in the senate. And, the Republican candidate is at about 5% in the polls. What's not to like in this race? 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 两性生活 性教育片 两性健康 性爱图片 免费激情电影 免费黄色电影 最新电影 成人性爱电影 免费小电影 性电影下载 成人电影下载 免费电影在线看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影网 美女写真 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 强奸图片 美女祼体图片 性爱文学 偷拍走光 漂亮美眉 泳装写真 乳罩内裤 成人贴图 情趣内衣 性生活电影 作爱自拍 艳情图片性交电影 做爱视频 性福电影 人体艺术 明星合成裸照 裸女贴图 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦故事 强暴图片 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 妓女日记 强奸小电影 自拍裸体 美女床上自拍 黄色电影下载 在线色情电影 裸露美少女 av美女贴图 色情电影下载 同志图片 性爱视频 明星露点 激情写真 女性阴部 美女乳房 美女裸照 性激情图片 激情小电影 性感图片 妹妹贴图 美女做爱图片 汤加丽写真集 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书金瓶梅 舒淇写真 美女脱衣视频 裸体女人图片 人体写真 美女手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴道阴毛屁股 美女图库 口交肛交图片 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛网站 性变态图片 淫女图片 日本女学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 美女激情 搞笑手机铃声 个性铃声 dj铃声 唱得响亮铃声 手机铃声图片 高频铃声下载 手机铃声格式 搞怪铃声 比特铃声 自编铃声 adp铃声 七彩铃声 经典手机铃声 最新手机铃声 手机铃声制作 诺基亚手机铃声 小灵通铃声 移动手机铃声 手机动画 手机彩图 手机铃音 手机铃声论坛 短信铃声 来电铃声 音乐铃声 歌曲铃声 铃声试听 手机壁纸 彩色铃声 v3铃声下载 手机待机图片 免费手机图片 三星手机图片 手机mp3下载 手机主题 如何制作手机铃声 真人原唱和弦铃声 qd铃声下载 经典铃声 联通手机彩铃 神奇铃声 最新铃声 另类铃声 联通铃声下载联通手机铃声 联通炫铃 中国联通炫铃 联通彩铃 联通彩铃下载 中国联通铃声 联通免费铃声 联通用户铃声 联通cdma铃声 联通和弦铃声 联通mp3铃声 联通特效铃声 联通炫铃下载 联通炫铃网站 联通炫铃业务 联通cdma炫铃 联通手机图片 联通手机炫铃 中国联通彩铃 联通手机彩铃下载 联通彩铃业务 联通彩铃网站 联通免费彩铃 联通cdma彩铃 Posted by: mmf铃声 on October 24, 2006 at 9:25 PM | PERMALINKOkay, we apparently *do* have a philosophical difference. You have a much lower tolerance for ambiguity than I do. You satirize Lieberman for being in the middle on everything -- and I see a commenter who apparently needs to see the world in black & white. Yes, I think you're right. You are a hexi-flexi-dexi male able to see, support, and celebrate ambiguity. Your life is joyous! I am a neandertal with rods and no cones that can only see things in black and white and beat people with my clubs as I grunt. You are a big tent Democrat. I am a Stalinist with Purity Tests. (Your words). Hey Mr. Hexi-flexi-ankles-around-your-ears-d00d, anymore names you want to call me as you proclaim your moral superiority and toss me from your brand of Democrats? In the meantime, since Mr. Lieberman is up 17 points and is apparently a safe Democrat in a safe race, will you join me in encouraging Joe to give up his money to races that need his help? Posted by: jerry on October 24, 2006 at 10:11 PM | PERMALINKrmck1: http://www.actblue.com/page/netrootscandidates here is the link. in fact, Lamont probably took over half mils from the netroots. Why even thinking about taking out Holy Joe when we need to win 6 seats to take the senate. I don't understand what we are doing here. Claire and Webb need our help but where are Kos, Atrios, Jane Hamsher and all the bloggers who came to CT for Lamont ? Where are they? Ford don't have a chance in hell in TN so it comes down to MO and VA. Claire and Jim Webb need our help, not Lamont.
Bob - this post loos over the in-play senate seats and has links to the campaigns. A Blue Senate, Too? Posted by: Global Citizen on October 24, 2006 at 11:45 PM | PERMALINKbut where are Kos, Atrios, Jane Hamsher and all the bloggers who came to CT for Lamont ? Where are they? You know, that's a pretty good question to be asking at this point. Seems to me, knocking off Rick Santorum should have been priority number one, closely followed by pouring every available dime into beating Allen, Talent, Burns and Corker. Look at the dog fight Harold Ford Jr. is in--they are deliberately race baiting in that contest and he is taking hits so bad that his own opponent--Corker--is calling on the GOP to pull the ads. "Lieberman" is a problem. But you solve problems AFTER you solve the crisis, and the crisis would be failing to put some real criminals out of the Senate--hello, Conrad Burns? Yeah, we're looking over at you and your Abramoff feed bag. And those real fucking criminals are benefitting from internecine warfare, aka, going after Lieberman's seat when we already fucking have his seat. Posted by: Pale Rider on October 24, 2006 at 11:51 PM | PERMALINKjerry: Oh good lords no, Jerry -- we shouldn't even be having an argument. I was overjoyed when Lamont won the primary. It's just that I can also understand why his campaign sagged, and at this point I think it's fair to put most of the blame on Team Lamont, because an opportunity was clearly blown here. Of the factors out of Lamont's control, first and foremost was the GOP's strategic decision to invest virtually nothing in Alan Schlesinger. Had they, and Schlesinger polling in the low twenties, Lamont would doubtless be ahead right now. I put most of the blame on Lamont's Howard Dean-like inexperience in fixating on the wrong sort of campaign manager. Just as Dean chose Joe Trippi, let him do his thang when the internet fundraising became a phenomenon and didn't see the handwriting on the wall as Trippi became ever-more-detatched and grandiose while Dean was the frontrunner (Dean should've at least read some of Trippi's endless press profiles and sensed something was not quite right), Ned Lamont has pinned all his hopes and all his loyalty on campaign manager Tom Swann. Swann has little or no experience in electoral politics. He's a Connecticut Citizen Action organizer. And I've worked with NJCA; this is a hard-leftist group that can do some very dramatic things in publicizing issues -- but they spend all their time preaching to the choir. Swann ran a classic insurgent campaign in the primary, among Democrats where frustration at Lieberman was palpable and demonizing him got results. Swann made no real tactical pivot into the general, with a universe of voters who simply don't respond well to seeing their longtime senator demonized. This is just the sort of mistake one would expect a CTCA organizer to make. Tactically, Swann's biggest correctable blunder was to spend the entire month of August waiting for Lieberman to be talked out of running. He should've realized that only a double-digit blowout would have made that a possiblity. Mainly, though, I place the blame on Lamont himself. A lot of this is inevitable; like Dean, Lamont is an "accidental politician" who got into the race primarily because of outrage at the war. And this is sadly very apparent from his oratorical skills and demeanor. First, he looks like refugee from Nick at Nite; one of the older teen sons on an early 60s sitcom (which is, you know, fine. It's that rigid pouf of side-parted hair that does it). And his demeanor is entirely monochromatic; a hectoring whine full of indignance. Which is also fine -- if he had another mode or two to go along with it. While Howard Dean often came off badly on TV, he had his own legitimate brand of quirky charisma. Sadly enough, the scenery-chewing Alan Schlesinger seems to have more charisma in his ring finger than what is in the entirety of Ned Lamont. I keep expecting to hear Lamont say "But this isn't fair, Dad ... !" Does this sound sort of mean-spirited? I suppose; it's certainly not based on his policies, which I wholeheartedly support. But politics hinges on things like demeanor. Lamont could've used some serious debate coaching and advice on how to come across. Ironically enough, his desire to be himself and not another cookie-cutter politician is what has turned him into a monodimensional stereotype. He had no party to defer to, no ranks through which he climbed, no elder statesmen to mentor him, so he's relying entirely too much on gut instinct. All this being said -- I would of course join with you in calling on Lieberman to cough up some of the cash he doesn't need in a safe race to spread around to his fellow "independent-minded Democrats." Heh, there are some Southern and Western races opening up with Democratic candidates after Joe's heart, ideology-wise. Joe would of course claim that he needs every dime he can get his grubby mitts on to defend himself against Ned Lamont's bazillions. But I'd still make that call with you regardless. And on this note -- you, bob and I can wholeheartedly agree. Bob Posted by: rmck1 on October 24, 2006 at 11:55 PM | PERMALINKThe Kansas City Star today demanded Missouri Senator Jim Talent either correct or stop airing some of his political ads. The misleading nature of the ads was exposed by FactCheck.org, a non-partisan group underwritten by the Annenburg School for Communications at the University of Pennsylvania. FactCheck.org called the ads "misleading", designed to "deceive voters" and that in the ads Talent "falsely attributes several unflattering quotes" about McCaskill to the Kansas City Star. The ads make it seem like reporters and columnists from the Star made statements that were actually made by McCaskill's political opponents. The Editorial Page Editor of the Star, Merriam Pepper, has gone on the record for the paper "We are requesting that the Talent campaign pull ads that site cite the Kansas City Star as the source for material that is not properly attributed." It is just another example of Talent's desperation as election day draws near and his record haunts him - that would be a record of missed Senate Armed Services Committee meetings, of opposing body armor for troops and of supporting Bush 94% of the time - oh wait - I forgot - he doesn't support Bush, Bush supports him. I have got to get that committed to memory. Posted by: Global Citizen on October 24, 2006 at 11:56 PM | PERMALINKOh, and for all you Jane Hamsher disciples, please. Show me how you can go after Lieberman but not the other eleven useful idiots listed below: Final Tally on the McCain Torture Act, 65-34 Democrats in favor (12) - Carper (Del.), Johnson (S.D.), Landrieu (La.), Lautenberg (N.J.), Lieberman (Conn.), Menendez (N.J), Pryor (Ark.), Rockefeller (W. Va.), Salazar (Co.), Stabenow (Mich.), Nelson (Fla.), Nelson (Neb.) [that's a who's who of Democrats who stab the party in the back. So do we go after all of them and lose the Senate for another decade? Hmm, I'm thinking if we can just get Harry Reid elevated to Majority Leader, we might see some changes for the good, but I digress...] And when it counted, these two Senators answered the bell of history and can hold their heads high: Republicans against (1) - Chafee (R.I.) (please remind me again why we're putting money into THAT race while Ford and Webb are fighting for their lives?) Independents against (1) - Jeffords I ahve been asking that question myself - where are the big bloggers? Posted by: Global Citizen on October 25, 2006 at 12:04 AM | PERMALINKInstead of a salvaged constitution, we have the "Dirty Dozen Democrats" -Carper (DE), Johnson (SD), Lieberman (CT), Landrieu (LA), Lautenberg (NJ), Menendez (NJ), Nelson (FL), Nelson (NE), Pryor (AR), Rockefeller (WV), Salazar (CO), and Stabenow (MI). I contacted them and told them to get the hell out of my party. (Okay, Lieberman already did). I for one want nothing to do with any of them. I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire, I am so pissed off. If the Democrats had held firm and mounted a fillibuster, the soul of America could have been saved. Instead we have these wobbly bastards. Global Citizen: All things considered, I'd still rather not lose either Lautenberg or Menendez, and I echo Pale Rider that perhaps things would be different with Reid as Majority Leader. Both these guys have a sterling progressive record on economic issues. Lautenberg voted against the IRW (or AUMF, whichever acronym you prefer). Having a spine is important. But being in the Democratic Party is not a suicide pact, either. I surely am not comfortable with the social-issue stands of many of the newly-competitive Democrats in states like Indiana or Kansas ... But I certainly fervently hope each and every one of them wins -- and I count on the discipline of Reid and Pelosi to keep them in line. Because that's precisely how the Republican base handles their disagreements with the moderates in their ranks. Bob Posted by: rmck1 on October 25, 2006 at 12:30 AM | PERMALINKAll things considered, I'd still rather not lose either Lautenberg or Menendez, and I echo Pale Rider that perhaps things would be different with Reid as Majority Leader. How can you agree and disagree with me at the same time? What did I miss? Lautenberg and Menendez--hello, one criminal put in office by another criminal named Corzine--voted to give the POTUS the power to pick up a person and torture them without having one shred of accountability. And you're saying that they shouldn't be held accountable for that? Sorry, I don't care if they kiss puppies and hug babies--neither of them deserves to be in the Senate, period. On the one question that mattered, they answered wrong, and that's huge. Get your nose out of my ass, dude. Pretend I'm not here and just go about your business. Posted by: Pale Rider on October 25, 2006 at 12:50 AM | PERMALINKAs long as you can wear a Member's Only jacket, you belong in my Democratic Party! BIG TENT EVERYONE! Posted by: jerry on October 25, 2006 at 1:13 AM | PERMALINKPale Rider: Why do you consider this personal? You yourself argued to jerry that in a crisis, the first thing we Pale, you know virtually nothing about NJ politics, so save your You can't beg, borrow or steal political guts like that. You want to repeat the GOP talking points that Menendez is a The central question being: Do you really want Menendez to lose as If so, then consider my opposition Bob Posted by: rmck1 on October 25, 2006 at 1:22 AM | PERMALINKPale Rider: The fundamental problem here, Pale, is that everything -- *everything* -- reduces to GOP control of one or both houses of congress. This means that a moral objection to even a bill as henious as the torture bill does not override getting control of one or both Houses so that we can start holding the Bush Administration accountable for the very policies that led to the torture bill to begin with. Tom Kean, Jr. is a guy who never met a position on an issue he couldn't take. He's a go-along-get-along neophyte who would be completely rolled by the GOP leadership and serve as just another happy-face rubber stamp to war crimes. Menendez, OTOH, has a spine of steel -- wearing a bulletproof vest for months while testifying against his old political mentor in a corruption case that linked the Hudson County political machine to the mob. Much rather Menendez than Kean when it comes to standing up against the very worst sort of abuses of the GOP leadership. As for Linc Chafee? I'm sorry -- this is another super-nice guy the GOP keeps on a long leash because RI is one of the most Democratic states in the country. But he *also* has a spine of mush where it counts -- and will vote with the GOP leadership on the issues that truly count -- even while casting high-profile liberal floor votes for the folks back home. Kind of like, umm, Joe Lieberman. He absolutely needs to go as well -- again, for the larger good of flipping the chamber back into the opposition party's hands. Bob Posted by: rmck1 on October 25, 2006 at 1:41 AM | PERMALINKAll that being said, both Lautenberg and Menendez need to be held accountable for that vote. I called both their offices and gave them earfuls on the dark day it passed. They need to hear it in no uncertain terms from their constitutents; and for the life of me I still can't figure out why either of them would cast that vote to begin with -- it's completely out of character with their records. But holding them accountable isn't necessarily tantamount to chasing one of them out of office, given the larger political context. Bob Posted by: rmck1 on October 25, 2006 at 1:54 AM | PERMALINK卫星电话|卫星手机|导航系统 卫星电话|卫星手机|导航系统 Discount online pharmacy - no prescription! Cheap meridia - 
November 2009
October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
