Talk about topsy-turvy politics. The former Democratic vice presidential candidate loses in the Connecticut Democratic Senate primary, and now Republicans are abandoning their own candidate and rushing to help Lieberman win as an independent. And according to one poll, they may succeed. Sen. Joe Lieberman is leading 53 percent to 41 percent over Ned Lamont, who beat him in the Democratic primary. Only 4 percent favor the GOP candidate, Alan Schlesinger, as 75 percent of Republicans polled back Lieberman. Few state and national Republicans have endorsed Schlesinger, while all three of the GOP congressional candidates in Connecticut have praised Lieberman, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has endorsed Lieberman, the New York Times reported. Meanwhile, Lieberman says that if he wins, he will continue to caucus with Democrats. Go figure.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Too many exemptions
- Phantom on Too many exemptions
- situveux1 on Too many exemptions
- Pleefer on Let immigrants run
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/23
95 Comments
Maybe the real strategy is that Republicans do not want Lamont in there as Senator? If I was Lieberman I sure would not be turning my back on Dick Cheney and George W. Bush. Washn’t he the guy just 6 short years ago that both Cheney and Bush were calling all kinds of names?
The Democrats have already threaten to take away all senority from Lieberman if he gets re-elected.
Since they throw their own under the bus and as an independent, he might as well switched to the other side. Since Republicans will still control the Senate as a majority, Lieberman will need them to help keep his senority and committee seats. Not for his own sake, but the sake of Connecticut, for which he represents.
He has help that state tremendously. He saved a lot of bases and tens of thousands of jobs, including the state’s largest employer.
It’s going to be interesting, but once again, the Democrats will be disappointed.
This is too good to pass up. The latest rant from queen facist herself: http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi
That Lieberman is willing to switch parties in order to keep his cushy job should tell you something about the man himself: he has no loyalties to anyone but himself and the business world. He is part of the political scum that needs to be purged from Washington if the people of this country are ever going to have a government by the people, of the people and for the people. What we have now is a government of business, by business and bought and paid for by business. Sucks to be a little guy in this country, don’t it.
The Lieberman wolf just took off his sheepskin, what’s the surprise?
Joe – one factor at work is a general belief that the winner of the primary is the nominee of the Party. That is one reason I generally do not like to see Party leadership get involved in Primaries – they should be neutral at that stage.
For good or for bad Lamont won the primary. He is the Party’s nominee.
How would local Republicans react if one of the losers from the primary here decided to desert the Party and run as an independent this fall? Maybe Connie?
Ben, here’s sumpin’ from Red State Rabble, since you’re wondering.
Connie Denies Write-in CampaignHutch News: “State school board member Connie Morris, R-St. Francis, denied rumors that she would seek to run a write-in campaign to regain her seat in this fall’s general election.
Asked about any future efforts to run for the board, Morris replied, “At this time, we’re not running a write-in.”
RSR has been listening to rumors of a Morris write-in campaign. Anybody else hearing anything? Let us know.
Bill Clinton was an immoral, self-serving turd. He sacrificed the democrat’s leadership in the house and senate to keep his butt on Air Force One. Al Gore was his butt-boy.
When Al Gore ran for president the garden gnome was his token Jew. Leiberman changed his position on several key issues to support the loser Al Gore as his running mate.
That makes Lieberman the butt-boy to a butt-boy for an immoral self-serving turd. He will do anything to keep his butt in the senate. Too bad the dems in CT couldn’t come up with a viable candidate to run against him.
The liberal wackos are runing/ruining the democratic party.
Hank
Hank–
Even assuming your rant had a kernal of truth in it, which it doesn’t, it contradicts itself.
Lieberman is a butt-boy to a butt-boy BUT when the Democrats run a Democrat against him (who wins, btw), they are “ruining” the Democratic Party.
So they should run someone just like Lieberman against Lieberman?
And since when do you care how “ruined” the Democratic Party is? You wouldn’t vote Democratic if Jesus were on the ticket.
CapnAmerica,
It is a political observation.
Dear Capn,
Have you noticed that Mr. Lamont has now started runnning to the right? He is in a hell of a bind. He needed to pander to the wacko left to get the nomination, now he has to go right to get enough moderates to win the election.
Ain’t going to work for him. The moderates with half a brain aren’t going to be fooled by his flip-flop and for every vote he picks up by running to the right he will lose a wacko vote by running to the right.
I seriously doubt that he gets 40% of the vote.
Lieberman, on the other hand, has nothing to lose. When he wins as an independent he merely changes back to a democrat and all is forgivin! The dems still need him in the senate.
Hank
Good points Hank. I haven’t seen much news since the primary – this will be an intriguing dynamic to observe. I would add to your comments that Lieberman seems to be ‘veering to the left’ in that he has become critical og Bush’s handling of the war.
Just what we need, Hank telling us what is wrong with the Democratic party. It’s our party, we don’t really need the input of somebody who as CapnAmerica says, wouldn’t vote Democratic if Jesus were on the ticket. From somebody who wouldn’t vote Republican at gunpoint.
“Since they [Democrats] throw their own under the bus…”
Someone seems to have a short memory. If Dems are throwing their own under the bus, what do you call the smearing of McCain?
I’m reminded of splinters and logs and eyes. And, oh, yes, glass houses and stones.
Or, for that matter, George H.W.’s smear campaign against Bob Dole (hey, it worked!).
Hey Dennis,
It’s a BLOG. It’s for the exchange of ideas. I don’t really care what you do with the democrat party. It’s just my opinion, if you don’t like it ignore it.
Hank
Hey Ben,
Yea, he started to the left before the primary. He pretty much supported Rumsfield until a day or two before the primary then he asked for his resignation. A pretty transparent attempt to pander to the wackos.
There’s plenty of room to criticize the administration’s handling of the war without proposing a cut and run policy that Lamont supports.
Hank
I saw a guy (Emanual?) on Charlie Rose last night and that was one topic. Said if Lieberman had come out more and sooner he would have won.
Hey RD,
One of the liberal’s best campaign ploys is to play the ‘victim’ complaining of ‘attack’ adds and negative campaigning. (That’s how Sebelius won!)
There is no evidence that the Bush campaign had anything to do with smearing McCain in SC. There isn’t even a definitive number of voters that were contacted by the so-called-push poll.
There is evidence that it was a very small majority of the republican voters. It is expensive to run an effective push poll. All of which leads one to believe that it could have been McCain’s plan to come up with a non-issue to win in SC all along.
McCain lost the SC primary because he bad mouthed Christian fundementalists in the heart of the Bible belt.
Hank
Dear Ben,
I think that is probably true. If poor ol’ Joe would have gone just a little further to the left he would have won. He could have stood his ground on the justification of the war and merely criticized Bush long and hard for inept execution.
Hank
“One of the liberal’s best campaign ploys is to play the ‘victim’ complaining of ‘attack’ adds and negative campaigning. (That’s how Sebelius won!)”
I can’t see where whimpering about an opponents attack ads could be very effective. And, I don’t recall Sebelius doing so.
I do remember that Clinton had a group ever vigilent about attack ads and they immediately countered and refuted them (I am pretty sure Carville was the captain of this effort). If Kerry had used a similar process he might have more effectively responded to the swift boat liars. (And, yes Hank, I know you have a different view on that subject — but let’s not go there, okay?)
OK Steven,
We won’t go there.
I still love ya though,
Hank
You owe me though, it’s hard for me to “not go there”!
Hank
I know, Hank, and I appreciate your restraint. I think we will get future opportunities to discuss that issue. No sense in highjacking this thread.
Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson run SC politics when it comes to their hatred. They were the ones that George W. Bush went to help smear John McCain and it worked! Why do you think Georgie bends over backwards anytime Robertson or Falwell beckons him.
On John McCain:Why in the world are any of you so worried about McCain? He hurt Wichita Boeing workers tremendously with his vendetta over the air-refueling tanker scandal. I dont fault him for his original expose’, but after those involved were rightly punished, he still would not let Boeing off the hook! He won’t let go of the issue, but he has punished the “little guy” that all you dems seem to care about. It is the Boeing workers who paid the price of McCains pet issue.McCain is not above dirty tricks and self serving moves.I also must tell you, as a hard liner on free-speach issues, McCain will never have my vote after “McCain Finegold”, and YES this is one of my complaints against “W” as well, but in W’s case there was no alternative for me. I can and will punish McCain for what I view as an unconstitutional attack on the First Amendment.
BenMike Steiben defeated Ellen Samuelson about 10 years ago, for a House seat in Harvey County. After the primary defeat, Samuelson, the “moderate” ran a write in campaign which was one of the most expensive state-rep campaigns in history, at that time. Samuelson won the general, and the press was generally supportive of her efforts. Samuelson retained her seniorty and committee assignments.
Back to the issue of political attacks, how about those horrible, nasty “Willie Horton” ads that Al Gore ran against Dukakis in the Democrat primary? Wern’t those ads just disgraceful? lol.
On Lamont flip flops:In the primary, Lamont was dismissive of the new HSA’s or Health Savings Accounts.Now, in the general campaign, he has come out strongly in favor of this market-based, consumer friendly innovation.
Lamont is toast and on November 8th the garden gnome will be a democrat again.
How will the anti-war crowd spin it?
Hank
“There is no evidence that the Bush campaign had anything to do with smearing McCain in SC”
As if we need more evidence that ‘people’ like Hank Price are clueless, fascist fanatics
“First it was rumored that McCain was gay, then that he was a tomcat who cheated on his first wife. Next came a pamphlet claiming that McCain’s wife, Cindy, was ‘a drug addict.’ When cruelly exploiting Cindy’s brief addiction to prescription painkillers didn’t work, they said McCain was crazy — too long at the Hanoi Hilton as POW. But that was a tough sell, so finally they played the race card. Since some South Carolinians still salute the Stars and Bars, a picture of McCain’s adopted daughter, a beautiful dark-skinned girl born in Bangladesh, was circulated to sons and daughters of the Confederacy in rural areas. Rove’s “East Texas Special” worked and Bush knocked off his only real Republican rival.” – Former Nixon White House Counsel John Dean
That’s okay, though. I understand that to win the hearts and minds of the ‘base’ of the Republican Party, ‘people’ like Hank and Nathan, a candidate has to be a vile, disgusting, hate-filled individual who runs a campaign that mirrors his personality.
Just good, God-fearin’, down-home, all-Amerikan “Christian” conservative Republicans, running our nation into the crapper.
I JUST CAN’T WAIT FOR NOVEMBER. COME ON BACK HERE AND TAKE YOUR MEDICINE LIKE THE GOOD LITTLE TOOLS YOU ARE, FASCIST SWINE
Hey Paul,
The wackos are going to run like rabbits from Lamont.
They aren’t sophisticated enough to realize they need to be abandoned for him to win.
Hank
Oh, and the race in Connecticut has tightened considerably.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/8/22/111212/953
http://americanresearchgroup.com/ctsenate/
N-O-V-E-M-B-E-R.
Paul F. Rosell,
“… how about those horrible, nasty “Willie Horton” ads that Al Gore ran against Dukakis in the Democrat primary? Wern’t those ads just disgraceful? lol.”
Why do you spread LIES?The GHW Bush campaign used Horton.Gore did NOT run Horton ads, or even mention Horton. Gore only brought up the general issue of Dukakis’ prison furlough program, in one out of 45 Dem debates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Hortonhttp://www.dailyhowler.com/dh110102.shtml
Hey ddub,
I was going to address the salient points of your comments and ignore your personal attacks, but..
What was your point other than a personal attack? Are you going to come forth with some evidence?
And of course the campaign against Bush was squeakiy clean. There is no evidence of any drug abuse in is past. The NYT sent scores of reporters to Texas in 2000 ane they interviewed over 300 of his friends, enemies, former classmates, former business partners and anyone else he had been remotely associated with and found no evidence of drug abuse. Still, the conventional wisdom is that he abused cocaine, solely on the dity campaigning agaist him.
Laura was in an unfortunate traffic accident that resulted in the death of another driver and that is till smugly brought up by the wackos for no other reason than to hurt and embarras a decent lady.
The false crap used against Bush could fill a book. And he has never complained about it nor made it an issue to use against his political oponents. Class act.
Now, I’m a little weak, so I feel that I must address your cowardly name calling. When would you be free to do lunch?
Hank
You’re kidding, right?
The Air Force instituted a mandatory drug test as part of its yearly physical in 1972, I think it was.
If a pilot didn’t take the physical, he couldn’t fly.
After implimenting the drug test, Dubya never took another physical and never flew for the Air Force again.
OK, Gore never ran an ad about Horton but Gore did bring up the Dukakis furlough program.Even Democrat Bradley took shots at Gore for it.http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/01/13/politics/main149346.shtml
ddub,
I have ran for Student Government 3 times and won all 3 times.
Once for Senator at WSU, twice as Vice President.
I never had to do a vile thing or be vile at all.
I have helped in one of Tiahrt campaigns against Nolla. No negativity there either.
Actually, it was Nolla who lied about Tiahrt to a crowd of students at WSU and when he was questioned about it afterwards was swept away by his wife.
I noticed in your “witty” reply that you failed to mention who said those things or who was doing those things to Mccain.
Oh, and DDub, don’t go to lunch with Hank.
Challenge him to a five mile run.
That should shut him up . . .
Paul,
Whose worried about McCain? You’re kind of jumping to conclusions, just because his name was brought up. But maybe you have orders to disagree with anything the “other side” mentions?
Hank,You believe whatever you want, hon. I’ll do the same. I think that’s fair.
I registered Dem because that’s the party that most represents what I think. Not everything and not always. Before I switched from registered Republican, I didn’t know there was a difference. Some will say there isn’t, but that’s their opinion.
ddub,
Used to be a Navy diver, I’ll do the five mile run, but you have to follow it with a swim across Lake Afton we me.
Loser buys lunch.
Hank
Hank – Thankfully for both of us, I don’t live in Armpitville, aka Wichita, anymore. Your veiled threats notwithstanding, I will tell you why I am here. I grew up in the Dub, and I find it entertaining to see the reactionary attitudes of a lot of the people there. This blog gives a good glimpse into the mind of the average, unthinking, reflexive Wichita/Kansas Republican.
As to my point in the earlier comment, I think what I was trying to say was that a candidate runs the campaign that he thinks will get him elected. Also, the candidate (or elected politician) must reflect, in one way or another, the attitudes, personalities, and beliefs of those whose votes he is courting. Thus, I do not think it is a coincidence that a man whose intelligence is so frequently questioned, even by wingers like Joe Scarborough, and whose incuriousness (if that’s a word) is legendary, is worshipped by the base of the Republican Party. That seems to be the MO of the vast majority of Republicans (those like Chuck Hagel and (ewww, I feel dirty saying this) Pat Buchanon excluded) – “I don’t know why I believe what I believe, I just know its true because I’m a Republican, and I hate liberals. Why am I a Republican, and what have liberals ever done to me? I don’t know. I just KNOW I’m a Republican.” The Glorious Leader and his ‘base’ – a match made in heaven (or hell?)
Dear RD,
Your’re more than fair! Confused, misinformed, but fair!
Hank
“I noticed in your “witty” reply that you failed to mention who said those things or who was doing those things to Mccain.”
If you’re actually stating that you ‘believe’ that Rove and his master Bush were not involved in this vicious smear against McCain, you’re even more disingenuous than I thought, Senator.
HankFor heavens sake take a shower before you have that lunch! lol.
Horton update:Floyd Brown ran the attack against Dukakis, not the GOP or the Bush campaign.Brown got his idea after listening to the Dukakis vs Gore campaign.Bush NEVER used Hortons face in any of the official attack ads against Dukakis.http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPrint.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\199910\POL19991007h.html
I apologize for saying “ads” — it did come up on TV, but came up as part of a televised debate.
ddub,
My proper title now would be Vice President Emeritus.
Why should I believe it was Karl Rove as the mastermind behind what was done to Mccain?
I have a hunch I’ll be “doubling” come November rather than “nothing”
We shall see …
ddub,
Lunch a veiled threat? Why would you believe that? I just think it would be easier for us to discuss issues over lunch.
No my friend I think you infer that which I don’t imply. I’m just curious as to how a man would act in person when his logic and arguments are so vacuous that he must resort to name calling.
Hank
Gotta stand with ahnk on this one – the only threat from lunch is too much salt and cholesterol!
Dear Ben,
For all I know (or care) about Connecticut politics you could be right!
I was stationed there a couple of times and all I remember about the place was I was always glad to leave it and hated to come back.
Hank
PS I’d do lunch with you any time, even though you are bigger than me!
Paul F. Rosell,
Bradley took FALSE shots at Gore re Horton — Dukakis criticised Bradley for doing it.
Paul: “Floyd Brown ran the attack against Dukakis, not the GOP or the Bush campaign.”
Cnsnews is not a reliable source.
I only said: “The GHW Bush campaign used Horton.”Bush 1st mentioned Horton June 9, 1988. The group ‘Americans for Bush’ started the TV ads later, September 21, 1988. Bush’s Lee Atwater, etc. at,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Horton
Paul: “In the primary, Lamont was dismissive of the new HSA’s or Health Savings Accounts.Now, in the general campaign, he has come out strongly in favor of this market-based, consumer friendly innovation.”
Do you have proof? Links?
Perhaps you’re referring to the false claim that Lamont flip-flopped on employer-based universal healthcare? ‘Tables Turned?’ at http://www.newshounds.us/2006/08/18/two_minutes_of_hate_dedicated_to_republican_unfriendlys.php
Hank – bigger AROUND doesn’t count!
;^)
Let the dems fight it out and may the best man win.
When Hank challenges you to lunch, he’s generally talking cheeseburgers or something equally tasty.
Hank,”Laura was in an unfortunate traffic accident that resulted in the death of another driver and that is till smugly brought up by the wackos for no other reason than to hurt and embarras a decent lady.”
Kind of like Kennedy’s accident, huh? Them “whackos” sure seem to get a lot of mileage out of that.
Dearest XXX,
You are smarter than that. Kennedy was drunk. He left the scene of the accident and didn’t report it until the next day. After he had contacted his lawyers and his office to set the cover-up wheels in motion. May Jo drowned in the wreck in six feet of water, three hours after the wreck.
Not only was her death a crime, it was unnecessary.
Laura on the other hand was a teenager and she did every thing she could have and shjould have done.
Nice try though. However, there is no comparison.
Hank
Hank,”Kennedy was drunk”.
There is nothing on record that proves Kennedy was drunk. Can you show me something that proves otherwise? Let’s avoid heresay and rumors.
“He left the scene of the accident and didn’t report it until the next day.”
How long was it before Cheney’s hunting accident was reported? How long before he was available for questioning?
“Not only was her death a crime, it was unnecessary.”
How was it a crime? Again, let’s avoid heresay and rumor. Was it a crime because he’s Democrat? Like Laura’s experience, could Kennedy have been involved in an unfortunate accident?
Dear XXX,
On a lighter note, the National Lampoon once had a full page ad that showed a Volkswagen floating upside down in a swimming pool. The caption read, “If Kennedy drove a Volkswagon, he’d be president today!”
While operating in the Med in ‘76 we got word that ol’ bubbles Ted was going to come and visit our boat for a day. I made a positive from that ad so I could print off posters in the micro fische printer/reader. Hundreds of them. I started placing them throughout the boat for days.
The captain and the XO knew it was me, but couldn’t prove it. They kept me hid in lower level engine room the whole time Teddy was on the boat.
Hank
Come on XXX,
You’re starting to sound like JR.
Hank
Great one Hank! I’d love to have seen those pictures.
People on this post actually write and talk like they know Laura Bush or John McCain or Ted Kennedy. Do any of you actually know anything truthful?
ursodumb,”Do any of you actually know anything truthful?”
Heh! The R’s can’t let truth get in the way of their bogus opinions. They have to rely on falsehoods, and inaccurate talking points like “cut and run”.
Is “cut and run” the same as “culture of corruption”?
Not exactly, Joe.
The Repubs didn’t invent corruption; they just perfected it!
And Dems define “cut and run”.
And Joe defines “Knothead”.Hang in there, Joe, we’re pullin for ya, we’re all in this together.
ursodumb,Did you have something to contribute, or are you content just to prove you’re an ass? Can you say “arrogant”?
Actually XXX! You’re the one that is arrogant and condescending. When all you do, and especially the people on the left, just demean and walk away from debate with the excuse that anybody that challenges you on a point (people who are not leftist Democrats) are just beneath you and have something physcologically wrong with them, so you arrogantly dismiss them.
You lose each and every time. Because you have no point to make, except that people are “idiots” in your mind.
Keep it up! You’ll lose each and every time.
Better hurry up and make babies or allow illegal immigrants and felons to vote, because you’re ideology isn’t going to connect to the majority of people, especially in the future.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008831
You’re just not progressive enough!
Joe Williams,
“And Dems define “cut and run”. ”
Actually, RNC’s “focus groups” defined that inaccurate sound bite — it’s # 2 at,’Media coverage of Iraq debate steeped in GOP talking points’http://mediamatters.org/items/200606300009
One Dem defines it as:”Our best chance of success requires that the Iraqis take control of their own destiny. America should make clear that we have no designs upon their oil and no plans for permanent bases.While we will continue to provide logistical and training support as long as we are asked, our frontline military troops should begin to be redeployed and our troops should start heading home.” From Lamont website.
A majority of Americans favor U.S. troop withdrawal from that civil war.Or we can “stay the course”, aka “stay and die”.
If we withdrawl. It will be a serious mistake. We should have permanant bases in Iraq and this war, in a way is about Oil. Because Iran wants to dominate the oil and dominate the entire Middle East.
We are not trying to conquer or aquiring oil through the spoils of war, we are planting the seed of Democracy in that region. Our real enemy is the terrorist and Iran.
Iraq was a brilliant proactive step in securing the world from the influx control of Islamic Facist that Iran has been controlling.
Did you know that Iran has already begun shelling Iraq. Did you know that Iran has amassed large amounts of troops on the border. Did you know that Iran just took over a foriegn oil rig in the Gulf today.
We need to “stay the course”. This is serious! This isn’t a political ploy, this is a battle that the West must fight.
If you “cut and run”, there will be serious consequences to pay for that huge mistake.
Sure! The majority of people may be against the war, because they don’t know exactly what is going on. They hear about our troops dieing over there and they are saying “enough”! But trust me! Those troops are not dieing in vain or for a lie. They are truely heros of our time and defending the West from an impeding conflict.
Bush said we must take the war to them, so they don’t take the war to us. That is exactly what he is doing.
A majority of Americans didn’t want us to get involved in WWII either. It wasn’t our fight! But we did fight and many of our fellow Americans died for us.
This is another world war! Please! Take the politics aside and look at it through a real lense.
I know you will say that Bush lied about WMD. He did not lie. He thought, along with many other government, including Clinton, thought he had WMD’s. We sent weapons inspectors over there and they all believed we didn’t get them all. But regardless, the WMD was one of the issues to go to war, but not the largest or the only issue for the reason to go into Iraq.
Bush, Cheney, Republicans! These people aren’t evil. I know you think they are and just are corporate hogs trying to make a buck for Haliburton, but that’s not true. They believe what they are doing is the best course of action that the USA can take against Islamic Facist. And I happen to agree with them.
Basically what Bush is doing is betting that the Arab street will prevail and demand reforms and change. That Democracy will take afloat and that they will weed out the dictators and religous fascist.
He is betting our treasury and American and Iraqi lives that this will bring about a better end in the future. I think this is the right move.
History will only tell!
But I’m sure, once the Democrats get back their power, inpeach Bush or win in 08′ and withdrawl the troops and the $hit hits the fan and we start having terrorist attacks in our country and Iran takes over the entire Middle East, I’m sure you all will blame Bush for everything.
I know Iraq is a bad situation, and I probably cannot convience you that it was the right decision for us to go in there. Either you disagree with the war, politics has blinded you, or you truely don’t know the scope and seriousness of what we are facing.
This wasn’t caused by Bush. This has been decades in the making. You can even say that Jimmy Carter gave rise to the birth of Islamic Facism. We are paying dearly for his mistakes and so many terror attacks later, all around the world. This didn’t start on 9/11. That was just once successful battle they won out of many. And we can see many of that right here even in the streets of Wichita.
You think I’m crazy and ridiculous? Tell that to 3000 people who died on 9/11 from the hands of terrorist. This is real dude! This isn’t about getting Ned Lemont elected because he’s just another rich punk against the war.
Joe?
Is this the big meltdown we all have been expecting from you?
It’s August 23 now. Where’s the twelfth imam?
Lieberman: No end to wars, no limit to the price of gasoline.
Good question Jack. Didn’t one of our resident Righties tell us Iran was going to nuke Israel on 8/22?
Joe – as bad as Saddam was he did give stability to the region. Hiw worst acts came when he was being actively supported by the US. Daddy Bush understood the chaos that would result from an overthrow – too bad Baby Bush didn’t. Yes, we WILL blame Bush for the mess – as Colin Powell said “you break it it’s yours”
By the way – the hijackers were mostly Saudi – none were from Iraq.
“Did you know that Iran has already begun shelling Iraq”? Got any proof? Or is this another of your tinfoil hallucinations?
Joe were you done? Seemed like you were just getting warmed up.
Wave your arms and bark at the moon some more. It is highly entertaining!
Yesterday Joe’s talking point was “most Democrats think Bush flew the planes”. That one got thoroughly shot down. Today he seems to back back to the usual 9/11 “Saddam did it WMDs” mantra.
I gotta start listening to Rush and the rest of the Rightie Radio bobbleheads – then I can anticipate Joe’s rants BEFORE he posts tham!
Joe, you’re damn right this is real. Well, some of it, anyway:
http://thismodernworld.com/3083
The question is whether we are going to meet the challenges of a world that’s dangerous (and always has been–September 11th changed nothing) with clear heads, good information, and something resembling moral standards–or whether we’re just going to threaten everyone, bomb the shit out of them, then hide under the bed.
The choices are that stark, and the consequences are grave.
Glenn Beck and other “news” talking heads are cheerleaders for World III. . .a self-fulfilling prophrecy. And they more-or-less represent the White House “thinking.”
Not good.
Speak loudly and brandish a twig.
Yes, indeed, Rage.
Osama and Weapons of Mass Destruction and “fight them over there, so we don’t have to fight them here” just isn’t having the same impact any more.
The Republican’s new fear-meme is “this is World War III!”
It’s pretty smart, I must say. It scares the blue-haired old ladies and whips up the religious heretics with its echos of “end times” and “Armageddon.”
Benj. Franklin I think it was said that “we have given you a democracy . . . IF you can keep it.”
Now the question is this: are Americans wise enough to hold on to their democracy?
DING DING DING DING!
Ringing the Joe Bell on another Joe-ism:
“This wasn’t caused by Bush. This has been decades in the making. You can even say that Jimmy Carter gave rise to the birth of Islamic Facism.”
Joe, the CIA believes that one of the prime causes of the rise in Islamic fundamentalism was Western powers taking out the duly-elected Prime Minister of Iraq in the 50’s.
So much for “creating democracy,” eh?
British and American interests backed the coup that installed the Shah (King) in Iran.
Knock off an elected official and replace him with a King . . . yeah, that’s democracy, isn’t it?
As a direct result of this, Islamic fundamentalists organized and schemed until they were able to overthrow the Shah and put the Ayatollah back in power.
The CIA even coined a term for what happened in Iran–”blowback.”
Google it.
Oh, I forgot, you don’t do research, you just spout off Republicanisms . . .
Dear Capn,
Ben referred to a republic, not a democracy.
When the Constitutional Convention ended, a lady asked Benjamin Franklin what kind of government they had given the people. “Madam, we have given you a republic – if you can keep it,”
A democracy is five wolves and a sheep voting for what to have for lunch.
Hank
Hank- RE: “A democracy is five wolves and a sheep voting for what to have for lunch.”
I’ll bet you have been outback rehearsing this just to spring it on someone??
G
Promoting democracy? Like we did when we overthrew Allende in Chile? The elected government in Iran? When we refuse to even talk to elected leaders in Palestine? When we refuse to talk to the current elected government in Iran? When we undermine the elected government in Lebanon?
We seem to only like democracies when they do what we want them to do.
“We seem to only like democracies when they do what we want them to do.”
Very insightful Ben, seems like a good basis for foriegn policy to me!
Hank
Problem is hank – we create many enemies with that policy. Add to that our support for dictatorships and our claim of being pro-democracy rings a bit hollow.
Ben,
We do what any other country does with it’s foreign policy… do what is in our peoples best intrests.
To think that anyone else does otherwise is simply naive.
Heh, you’re a funny guy, Hank.
Your distinction between “republic” and “democracy” has no bearing on the point in question–you either believe in gov’t by the people, or you don’t.
You don’t.
And btw, you ought to tell your hero Bush while you’re at it:
QUOTES FROM THE 2006 STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS
“We remain on the offensive in Afghanistan, where a fine President and a National Assembly are fighting terror while building the institutions of a new democracy.
“Our work in Iraq is difficult because our enemy is brutal. But that brutality has not stopped the dramatic progress of a new democracy.
“Raising up a democracy requires the rule of law, and protection of minorities, and strong, accountable institutions that last longer than a single vote.”
*****
So, according to Hank and Nathan, we should only support these new democracies . . . uh, republics . . . only so far as they reflect US interests.
Now, how is that different from COMMUNIST TOTALITARIANISM again?
Nathan,
“We do what any other country does with it’s foreign policy… do what is in our peoples best intrests.”
So you believe Bush caused this, because it was in our best interests?
‘Iran now the key power in Iraq, says UK think-tank’http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2325352,00.html
“We do what any other country does with its foreign policy… do what is in our people’s best intrests.” (corrected for punctuation)
Good one, Nathan, good one.
You mean of course, the US gov’t (not the PEOPLE of the United States) does what is in the best interest of the powerful influences that have bought and paid for it–Halliburton, Shell, Bechtold, aerospace, big pHarma, big agriculture etc. etc.
To believe anything else would be . . . how’d you put it? . . . naive.
Never said anyone else did Nathan. If other countries extolled the virtues of democracy while undermining and/or overthrowing democracies I would point out their hypocricy as well.
US self-interest?
“There is little doubt that Iran has been the chief beneficiary of the War on Terror in the Middle East,” says the report from Chatham House’s Middle East Programme.
“The United States, with coalition support, has eliminated two of Iran’s regional rival governments – the Taleban in Afghanistan in November 2001 and Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq in April 2003 – but has failed to replace either with coherent and stable political structures.”
The Chatham House experts wrote that their original report was to analyse Iran’s regional influence in the context of international efforts to prevent it developing nuclear weapons.
Its scope was also to encompass the complexities of Iranian domestic politics and the clash between the “apocalyptic world-view” of President Ahmadinejad and the more pragmatic, conservative Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
But as the conflicts grew in Gaza and the Lebanon, where Iran is the key backer of the Hezbollah militia, the 50-page report was expanded to consider all other inter-connected regional crises.
“A recurring theme is the desire of most states to maintain good relations with Iran or, where the relationship is less strong, to avoid antagonisation or any further deterioration,” the report says.
“There exist a variety of reasons for this which have generally been strengthened by the turmoil in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon. Iran is in a powerful regional position and its co-operation and positive influence are needed to douse the many fires currently alight.
“Were Iran to feel seriously threatened by outside forces, it does have the potential to inflame the region yet further.”
And isn’t it interesting, Ben, how many countries find that “there best interest” means allowing democracies . . . uh, republics . . . only after a long, sustained war?
England in The United States and India
France in Algeria
The Dutch in South Africa
Spain in Mexico
etc. etc.
oops, “their” best interest
It should also be noted that our foreign policy is driven by our addiction to cheap (sic) oil.
A few lines from a 1990 op-ed, ‘Make Fuel Efficiency Our Gulf Strategy’http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Security/S90-26_MakeFuelEffGulf.pdf“Are we putting our kids in tanks because we didn’t put them in efficient cars? Yes: we wouldn’t have needed any oil from the Persian Gulf after 1985 if we’d simply kept on saving oil at the rate we did from 1977 through 1985….The Reagan Administration doubled 1985 oil imports from the Gulf when it rolled back efficiency standards….An M-1 tank gets 0.56 miles per gallon. An oil-fired aircraft carrier gets 17 feet per gallon. And no good outcome — in dollars, oil, or blood — is in sight.”