It’s looking as if Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., will lose his re-election bid Tuesday. Lieberman has been beaten up for being too chummy with President Bush and for supporting the war in Iraq. But Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote in The Washington Post that the real issue is that Lieberman is too honest.
Unlike the other 28 Democratic senators who voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq, "Lieberman stands condemned because he didn’t recant," Kagan wrote. "He didn’t say he was wrong. He didn’t turn on his former allies and condemn them. He didn’t claim to be the victim of a hoax. He didn’t try to pretend that he never supported the war in the first place."
Meanwhile, there is a lot of speculation about what a Lieberman loss might mean for the Democratic Party and for the next presidential campaign. Here are two possible ramifications, per a Washington Post article: "One may be to signal immediate problems for Bush and the Republicans in November, but another could be to push Democrats into a more partisan, antiwar posture, a prospect that is already adding powerful new fuel to a four-year-long intraparty debate over Iraq."
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
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/8
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/8
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/8
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/8
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/8
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/8
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/8
- XXX on Open thread 11/8
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/8
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/8
132 Comments
Apparently nothing.
Good riddance.
I agree with Tracy. In the garnd scheme of things it means very little.
However, what if after all of the PR and hype the lovable little garden gnome wins the primary?
Again, apparently nothing. I bet he wins though!
Hank
Too honest? What has Kagan been smoking?
This is just the icing on the cake:http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2006/06/lieberman_lies.php
Lieberman has been dishonest and dishonorable for the last 24 years, starting with scorched-earth campaign against liberal Republican Lowell Weicker. He’s a DLC whore (sorry, didn’t mean to insult the working girls), and a crass opportunist who is only a Democrat by convenience, a lying, monarchistic, militaristic, Enron/NAFTA, big-business, screw-the-poor demorat. A friend of the religious right, who actually appeared in their ads for a while! He (and Al Gore) openly attacked religious freedom during the 2000 campaign. Al seems to have mellowed, but Joe is still Joe.
The poor guy is just soooo average.Whenever he starts to speak, I start to snore.The complete opposite of Howard Dean and the rebel yell.
Good riddance Lieberman. I know YOU wouldn’t vote to impeach bush. This will be high on the list of priorities when REAL Democrats take back the House and Senate.
Joe contracted a bad case of Potomac Fever when he got to Washington. A not uncommon condition.
If “bipartisan” means kowtowing to PNAC then let it die.
JR, are you saying he’s a DINO?
It doesn’t matter, I just wanted to use DINO, since we here RINO so often.
By the way, it’s fascinating that Kagan sees such stubbornness in the face of mountains of contrary evidence somehow admirable.
Yes, indeedy, Joe believes the same things on Wednesday he believed on Monday, no matter what happened on Tuesday!
ALL of what Rage said!!
And Tracy, you have to use the DINO deal if you ever mention Jan Pauls’ name. Other than mudd, I mean.
It says a great deal that conservative propogandist Sean Hannity is devoting his entire radio program today to shilling for Lieberman.
The big party insiders and the beltway pundit-ocracy can’t believe that Old Joe is going to lose.
“Democrats don’t stand for anything, remember?” “A populist challenger can’t beat a long-time incumbent.” “Those blogging liberals don’t know anything and can’t do anything. . . pay no attention to them.”
What you’re seeing folks is the Howard Dean’s people-power taking back the Democratic party.
Vichy Dems like Joe “Gimme a Kiss” Lieberman are going down with the Repukes they love so much.
Yeeeeeehhhhhhaaaaaaa!!!!!!
to quote a certain guy from Vermont
Hehe, thanks, KFG, and you too Dennis!
Speaking of Repubs:http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/2/14247/70377
Joe stood up for what he believes in. For that he’s been punished by the democrats.
It’s called “democracy,” LRB. Take it up with the good people of Connecticut.
And, hey, let’s do this right.
Q: Is Joe going to lose?A: http://leftleaner.blogspot.com/Howard%20Dean%20Scream.mp3
You’re absolutely right for once, LRB.
Joe believed in compromising with the Bush administration.
Now the Democrats who believe they should actually be a party of opposition to the WORST PRESIDENT EVER are taking him out.
Hallalujah!
I scream, you scream, we all scream for HOWARD DEAN!
Democratic mantra:
It’s either us or them. Us or them. All is black or white. There is nothing in between.
Don’t you all just get tired of not thinking or seeing the world as it is?
So the guy had a different opinion than the democratic collective hive-mind. That doesn’t make him a lapdog of the Bush Administration.
Joe, come on over to the third party side. We can you men of principle like you.
“Men of principle.” Jeez, that cracks me up!
Funny thing, LRB, but the “with us or against us” mentality is PRECISELY what we’re opposing!
I guess it’s wrong to have a “with ‘with us or against us’ or against ‘with us or against us’” mentality, huh?
The Iraq war debate is waaay past due, should have had it before the catastrophe that is Iraq, though!
I’m only against turning your mind off and marching in lockstep off the cliff. Something the democrats have perfected to an artform and something the republicans are quickly learning.
Meanwhile I’m satisfied to sit back with a bowl of popcorn and watch you two political parties fight over trivia like it were a circus act.
I have thought that Joe Lieberman was a well respected voice of reason in the Democratice party. He lost some of my respect when he compromised his stated views to fit those that Al Gore had manufactured when he made that fateful decision to go populist.
Still Leiberman represents a moderate voice that the Dems will need for the upcoming election. Kicking him to the curb will send a message to a lot of moderate voters about just how radical the Democratic party is becoming.
There are so many losers in the Democratic party that one more won’t make any difference.
There was a debate before the Iraq war. You democrats were as rabid to get Saddam as was Dick Cheney.
But now they war is not easy the seemingly genetic spinelessness of the liberals is becoming evident. “Oh my gawd, it’s not a 10 minute victory.” “Cut and run, cut and run.” “The soldiers are criminals.” “Sympathize with the terrorist insurgents – they’re now to be called freedom fighters”.
You liberal bozos are as much to blame with getting us into Iraq as was the Bush administration. You voted for it.
No, I didn’t. I didn’t even vote for anyone who voted for it.
Tell me, M(r)(s). Courage, on what basis are calling people you’ve never met “spineless’? What have YOU done that’s so courageous?
The Problem is that America doesn’t have any enemies in Iraq except the ones we are creating.
We don’t like Bush but do we want the Chinese to bomb us into rubble, then start paying Republicans to shoot Democrats?
That’s what we’ve done to the Iraqis. If we leave, they will settle down and fix whatever is wrong. Right now, we are what’s wrong.
“turning your mind off and marching in lockstep off the cliff”
Kind of like everyone did with BushdaBum going into Iraq. And how is that working out these days?
http://my.netscape.com/corewidgets/news/story.psp?cat=51180&id=2006080717100001832596
Iraq PM Criticizes U.S.-Led Attack
Correction: 2006-1988 = 18, not 24. My bad (see, we actually admit mistakes!).
Boy! I’m amazed at the attacks here on poor ol’ harmless Joe!
If I was a betting man (and I am) I’d bet $20 dollars that Joe wins tomorrow. (don’t everyone jump, first come first serve).
You see, even if the democrats win, they lose! The BLOGosphere may be able to stir up hate and discontent, but I’m betting that they don’t get the whacko turnout. It’s a primary. Whacko doesn’t get out the vote!
Hank
Hank – I’ll take your bet.
The Wall Street Journal gave Joe an editorial page. Did he use that to offer a plan for SS? Did Joe use that to offer a way to get seniors their prescriptions? Did Joe use that to plead for a minimum wage increase? Did Joe use that to help poor people in any way?
No, that fucking good old boy Joe, pleaded to keep out troops in Iraq, as though it would be the end of the world if we brought them home any way except dead.
Really, Hank. The wacko’s don’t vote? Maybe the wacko’s don’t vote in the primary, but the kook-fringe-left will because they are going to save the country by getting in touch with the terrorist feelings, and have them over for Chai singing kumbayah, forgetting that Islamic-fascist terrorist hate the liberal-thinking western culture.
First let me say that the wingers on here, like Hank and ’spineman’ LRB are not intelligent. By the way, LRB, a majority of Dems in the House voted AGAINST the resolution for war.
Now to Joementum: I just want to make sure I get the conventional wisdom correct: If Joe loses, it will push the Dems farther to the ‘left’ thereby alienating many voters with their anti-war stance. The problem with this analysis is that a majority of the country wants our troops pulled out in less than a year. Implicit in this conventional wisdom is that Dems should be Republican-lite and support an open-ended occupation with no plan. Again, a majority of Americans are against this war and an even stronger majority are against Bush. But the pundits would have you believe that any Demo attempt to capitalize on their unpopularity is akin to them jumping off a bridge, that any attempt to change the status quo (which nearly everyone will admit is NOT working) will somehow be perceived as being ’soft on defense’ and ‘far-left.’ Umm, yeah. Last time I checked it was not the liberal Dems that got the country involved in this disaster (but that point is somehow lost in all of the punditocracy’s handwringing), but somehow an attempt to work ourselves free of the Republican created quagmire is being soft-on-defense and playing right into the Republicans hands. RIIIGGGHHHT. So the public really IS for the current disastrous lack of leadership, and any attempt to change that will backfire. RIIIGGGHHHT. Once again, there is an implicit message in this CW: that the Washington political and media class really do know what’s best for us, and we should just shut up, listen, and vote accordingly for the status quo(for Repubs, or in this case, Joe). Two points about this arrogant elitism emanating from the likes of Cokie Roberts and other administration sycophants in Washington: 1.) The people run this country, not the other way around. DON’T. EVER. FUCKING. FORGET. THAT. EVER. This is OUR government, and we tell our leaders what to do, not the other way around. That is why we have elections in this so-called democracy. Which leads to point 2.) Elections are a chance to challenge and change the status quo, and replace an elected representative of the people, who has perhaps lost touch with the source of his power, with someone else more in line with the majority views of the people. That is what we are witnessing in CT – people their realize that Lieberman does NOT represent the majority view anymore, and are exercising their constitutional right to do something about it. If the pundit class doesn’t like it, it means we’re doing something right for once. And if wingnuts like O’Reilly, Hannity, or our garden-variety locals like Hank and LRB disagree with such vehemence, it means we are DEFINITELY doing something right.
Ddub?! Whoo-hoo! Get down!
Hank, you’re on. Supporting a challenger is never a sure thing, but I say Joe is toast.
You’re on!
Hank
Oops,
Ben was first. (cyber handshake) You’re on Ben, should be interesting!
Hank
Oops,
Ben was first. (cyber handshake) You’re on Ben, should be interesting!
Hank
Heh, $40 too rich for your blood, Hank?
No shame in that. I call that responsibility, unless. . .you’re absolutely sure Joe will win! :)
Joe wins and we all lose.
Does Joe know about this?
US/Israel SelectingTargets For CruiseMissile AttackGlobal Network Against Weapons8-6-6
Multiple military sources have told the Global Network that Pentagon personnel responsible for selecting targets for cruise missile first strike attacks have been sent to Israel.This indicates that U.S. and Israeli military strategists are now likely meeting to plan a join attack on Syria and/or Iran.The Persian Gulf war and the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq both began with cruise missile attacks by the U.S. from Naval ships.It would be wise to recognize that Bush has decided to expand the current war and chaos into the entire Middle East region. The implications for the U.S. will be enormous.Israel’s recent bombing of Lebanon near the Syrian border indicate to me that they are trying to draw a response from Syria. So far Syria has not responded. Look for more such efforts by Israel and the U.S. to provoke Syria.I would highly recommend local peace groups call on their members of Congress and ask them to speak out against a further widening of this already insane war.More and larger public protests should be organized immediately.Bruce K. Gagnon – CoordinatorGlobal Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power In SpacePO Box 652Brunswick, ME 04011207 729-0517http://www.space4peace.orgglobalnet@mindspring.com
Hey, look, more Lieberman supporters!
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002950470
The U.S fought our own civil war in 4 yrs., we’ve already been fighting in Iraq for that long. Just how much killing would LRB like to see, before we leave?
Actually Rage,
$20 is just a little fun bet. I haven’t got a horse in this race.
The only difference between betting on this primary election and betting on a dog at the dog track is that I would welcome the losing dog in my house!
I actually think that Lieberman getting knocked off by Lamont is sweet justice. Lamont is a rich liberal business man whose greatest campaign ploy was a lie about a kiss!
Imagine, liberal Joe, votes with the dems over 90% of the time and he gets beat by a rich millionaire with no plan!
Putting $20 dollars on the race gives me someone to cheer for. If I win I’ll buy Julie a gift certificate at Babies are Us!
Hank
Bushco is putting out the line that the Alaska pipeline repair is the reason for the new hike in gasoline prices. That is a baldfaced lie. That 1 million bbls per day is not enough to move Crude Oil prices. That Oil goes to Japan { 1/2 what California uses per day }.
Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice/Bush cabal is expanding the so-called “war” to Syria and Iran. That put Crude Oil futures passed 80 dollars today with no end in sight.
Bush is a halfwit, not in his right mind.
I just find it ironic that the liberals who bitch to no end about “THE RICH” hold someone like Lamont as their poster child. Really, if you were true libs and really concerned about “THE LITTLE GUY”, why not hold up Cindy Shehan or some other poor schmuck! Too F’n funny.
“First let me say that the wingers on here, like Hank and ’spineman’ LRB are not intelligent. By the way, LRB, a majority of Dems in the House voted AGAINST the resolution for war.”
Bzzzzztttt…
Oh, I’m sorry, but that is an incorrect answer.
The number of democrats voring for Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 ) – the one authorizing the use of force against Iraq – has 29 democrats voting Yea and 20 voting Nay.
It all on the public record.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237
Do your homework next time before you call someone out like that.
ddub posts: “First let me say that the wingers on here, like Hank and ’spineman’ LRB are not intelligent. By the way, LRB, a majority of Dems in the House voted AGAINST the resolution for war.”
LRB replies with: “Bzzzzztttt… Oh, I’m sorry, but that is an incorrect answer.”
WHY does LRB post the Senate vote? ddub said “House”.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xmlReps: Yeas=215 Nays=9Dems: Yeas=81 Nays=126
LRB?? Want to argue that 126 to 81 (60.9%) is not a “majority”? Did you misread ddub’s post, or were you trying to deceive?
Reading comprehension is very important — without it, you become very confused, and appear VERY “not intelligent”.
cosmos – you have to understand that LRB is a bit “reading-comprehension-challenged” – or maybe he/she is simply without clue as to the structure of the federal Government.
Good catch cosmos!
I kinda figured LRB was pulling a fast one there.
ddub–you rock, my friend.
You got it spot-on.
This race is about big Washington insiders–Joe L, the Clintons, the Democratic Leadership council, the pundit-ocracy and the beltway media VERSUS the will of the people.
The will of the people is decidedly liberal–WE want Social Security, Medicare, abortion-on-demand, real science in education, fully funded public schools, gay marriage, stem cell research, and a plan for leaving Iraq.
Even George W. Bush said he would never commit troops without an “exit strategy.” (See his first debate with Gore, Sept 30, 2000)
What’s happening now is that a candidate like Ned Lamont comes along and gives the majority what they want–and listen to the beltway insiders bitch and moan!
Do you dislike LRB more for her disingenuous manipulation of “facts” or her sneering arrogant manner?
She’s much smarter, so much smarter, than anybody in an established political party.
It’s a toss up . . .
LRB,”…has 29 democrats voting Yea and 20 voting Nay.”
According to LRB’s link, 21 voted Nay (23 minus 1R, 1I).
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/aug/08/poll_dems_now_preferred_on_terrorism
Oh, look, here’s more evidence of exactly what I’m saying.
And the “liberal” Washington Post won’t report on it other than to leave it buried in poll results–
Poll: Democrats Now Preferred On Terrorism
By Greg Sargent | bio
Deep in the guts of that big Washington Post poll today is a startling number that didn’t make it into the Post’s accompanying article. It reads: Which political party, the (Democrats) or the (Republicans), do you trust to do a better job handling the U.S. campaign against terrorism?
The answer: Democrats 46%, Republicans 38% That’s right: this poll’s respondents preferred Dems not just on Iraq, but on the broader war on terror. If this number accurately reflects the electorate’s mood, this may represent a watershed moment at which Americans have stopped reflexively believing the GOP is better on terrorism in general. Two questions: Will future polls show the same? And how much longer will media commentators keep saying that the GOP automatically has the advangage on national security issues?
Makes sense SJ – after all, it would be much better to focus on the REAL problem rather than launching stupid elective wars and creating MORE terrorists.
Gee, I wonder how hard it would be for AlQuada to recruit surviving relatives of the 14-year-old rape/murder victim?
And where did LRB go?
Leaving the field in disgrace? Cant face the shame of being wrong like a, um, COMMON person?
heheheheh
Like the song says “come and get your love”…
hee hee hee
And dont ya love how the republicans here are bitchin’ because the democrats IN CONN might want to elect a, wait for it, DEMOCRAT instead of a republican?
Hehehe. Of course, if the dems are not republican enough they are on the wrong track.
heheheh. hee hee. ROFLMQAO!!!!!!!
Sure. Uh hum.
Lieberman is the only sane democrat elected. All the others are corrupted with hate for George Bush.
Good joke Bud – Lieberman’s blind love affair with the worst president ever is the problem.
Ben, All three are nuts.
Bud–
We just want Bush to feel the same love that Clinton got from the Repukes.
John Zogby:
Let’s just look at the numbers from my most recent national poll (July 21). Overall, only 36% of likely voters told us that they agree that the war in Iraq has been “worth the loss of American lives”, while 57% disagree. But the partisan splits are more revealing: only 16% of the Democrats polled said the war has been worth while 82% disagree and only 26% of Independents agree the war has been worth it while 72% disagree. On the Republican side, 64% said the war has been worth it, while 23% disagree. The war has been the principal cause of the nation’s polarization in the past three years. The polling evidence shows the degree to which Iraq has become a Republican war. And these latest numbers are also noteworthy in that they show that about one in four Republicans have now pretty much given up on the war.
All of which is to suggest that Democratic candidates will now probably be emboldened to take a stronger stance against the war. If principle doesn’t win the day, at least the polling numbers are pretty clear what their base wants. Indeed, the polling numbers were pretty clear what Democrats and Independents wanted in 2004 – and the fact that they didn’t receive the opposition to the war they were looking for from their standard-bearers is the main reason that they lost both the Presidency and did not pick up seats in either house of Congress.
Meanwhile, look for Ned Lamont, who is running a strong antiwar campaign, to be the new face of the Democrats in 2006 and perhaps beyond. And look for Democratic voters to push harder for even more clarity on where Democrats stand. Lieberman will be gone and Clinton will be distancing herself from her previous stand. But calling an obvious failure a failure will not be enough. The next step in offering voters some clarity on Iraq will be to develop an exit strategy.
That is what leadership is all about and Democrats, fresh from sending the pro-war Lieberman a clear message, will be looking very closely.
*****
16 percent of Democrats agree the Iraq war is worth it. 82 are against. We simply want somebody who represents our position: out now.
ASK CONGRESSMAN SNOWBARGER WHAT HE THINKS ABOUT THE LIEBERMAN LOSS — Oh yeah, Snowbarger of Johnson County KS lost his seat in a November election when a divided Republican Party could not defend his seat.David Millers run against Governor Graves in the Republican Primary was a bad idea. No matter who won that race, half of the Republican primary voters would go to the General Election mad at the Republican Party.Lieberman’s loss in the primary pretty much guarantees Republican control of the House after the November elections.Democrats need ALL 3 vulnerable Republican House seats in CT to take control.Whether Lieberman runs as an Indepenedent or not, the Dems are toast this November.Bob Beckel is a Democrat strategist that I respect. In Beckel’s words, “Democrats in CT are playing with dynamite here.”
ASK CONGRESSMAN SNOWBARGER WHAT HE THINKS ABOUT THE LIEBERMAN LOSS — Oh yeah, Snowbarger of Johnson County KS lost his seat in a November election when a divided Republican Party could not defend his seat.David Millers run against Governor Graves in the Republican Primary was a bad idea. No matter who won that race, half of the Republican primary voters would go to the General Election mad at the Republican Party.Lieberman’s loss in the primary pretty much guarantees Republican control of the House after the November elections.Democrats need ALL 3 vulnerable Republican House seats in CT to take control.Whether Lieberman runs as an Indepenedent or not, the Dems are toast this November.Bob Beckel is a Democrat strategist that I respect. In Beckel’s words, “Democrats in CT are playing with dynamite here.”
ASK CONGRESSMAN SNOWBARGER WHAT HE THINKS ABOUT THE LIEBERMAN LOSS — Oh yeah, Snowbarger of Johnson County KS lost his seat in a November election when a divided Republican Party could not defend his seat.David Millers run against Governor Graves in the Republican Primary was a bad idea. No matter who won that race, half of the Republican primary voters would go to the General Election mad at the Republican Party.Lieberman’s loss in the primary pretty much guarantees Republican control of the House after the November elections.Democrats need ALL 3 vulnerable Republican House seats in CT to take control.Whether Lieberman runs as an Indepenedent or not, the Dems are toast this November.Bob Beckel is a Democrat strategist that I respect. In Beckel’s words, “Democrats in CT are playing with dynamite here.”
ASK CONGRESSMAN SNOWBARGER WHAT HE THINKS ABOUT THE LIEBERMAN LOSS — Oh yeah, Snowbarger of Johnson County KS lost his seat in a November election when a divided Republican Party could not defend his seat.David Millers run against Governor Graves in the Republican Primary was a bad idea. No matter who won that race, half of the Republican primary voters would go to the General Election mad at the Republican Party.Lieberman’s loss in the primary pretty much guarantees Republican control of the House after the November elections.Democrats need ALL 3 vulnerable Republican House seats in CT to take control.Whether Lieberman runs as an Indepenedent or not, the Dems are toast this November.Bob Beckel is a Democrat strategist that I respect. In Beckel’s words, “Democrats in CT are playing with dynamite here.”
sorry folks, the above repeat was not intentional, dont know what happened!
sorry folks, the above repeat was not intentional, dont know what happened!
Happens all the time, Paul. Don’t sweat it!
Well, Ben, it’s official! You are now $20 richer! And we ALL know why, don’t we?
http://leftleaner.blogspot.com/Howard%20Dean%20Scream.mp3
And it looks like Mr. Joementum is indeed running as an independent.
I know the pundits are saying it will throw the election to the Republican. I say bull.
Nice spin, Paul.
Lieberman just got his ass handed to him because he’s too Republican, and Paul “Mr. Republican” Rosell claims this spells defeat for the Democrats in Connecticut.
Heh, nice try, Loserman.
And let’s just review Hank’s words of wisdom from the radical right, shall we?
“You see, even if the democrats win, they lose! The BLOGosphere may be able to stir up hate and discontent, but I’m betting that they don’t get the whacko turnout. It’s a primary. Whacko doesn’t get out the vote!
Hank”
Uh . . . looks like Howard Dean and the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party are proving you wrong.
Don’t bother to explain. You already muffed it. You’ll just embarrass yourself further . . .
Maybe if Paul F. Rosell just repeats his spin often enough, he’ll set up his own echo chamber and it will come true.
When Repukes issue portentious warnings about what Democrats should do if they want to win, I detect, well, a bit of a sincerity deficit.
The race is on. Lieberman has shown what a Beltway dicksucker he is–and if Shumer, Boxer, Dodd, and others support him against the party, they’re a bunch of dicksuckers as well. Fuck ‘em all. Revolutions don’t happen all at once, and if it takes time to get the would-be Republican corporate dicksuckers out of the Democratic Party, so be it.
And I must say, it’s great to see Hank take it right in the shorts with his sneering dismissals. Guess what Hank–with tonight’s results, you’re the reality-challenged one ’round these parts. What claptrap–when a Democrat wins, it really means they’re going to lose. Doesn’t ANYTHING embarrass Repukes? Between Iraq and the Israeli rampage in South Lebanon, I guess we have our answer.
Republicans are shit. And everything they stand for is shit. And lies. And more shit.
I read that they kept playing Bush planting a kiss on Lieberman after the State of the Union. Might call that the ‘Kiss of Death’! Throw all the bums out, Democrat or Republican!
CF, I believe the term weenie-cleaners would be more acceptable.
THE STATUS QUO HAS GOT TO GO !!
Ironically, Joe could win in November – based on Republican votes. That would put the GOP candidate third in a field of three.
My prediction: A close race between Lieberman and Lamont with ‘whoever’ a distant third.
An interesting question is “who will the GOP establishment support?” Will Bush come up and platn another big kiss on Lieberman?
Hi, CF! You’ve been missed!
This is going to get even more interesting! On on side we have the extreme left wing long term butt-boy (Lieberman) and on the other we have the George Soros radical butt-boy! (Lamont).
Which side do the dems support? The shadow party money is with Lamont. Do you back the democrat choice with the money? Or do you back the garden gnome?
Either way the long term effects on the dems will be the same. The party is becoming more and more marginalized by the extreme left. Look for a battle between Algore and the Hildebeast for the ‘08 presidential nomination.
What fun!
Hank
You bet CF we missed you like a fat dog misses his fleas!
CF, THANK GOD you escaped austin. I was afraid you had been seduced by the culture, the creativity, the music, the food, the responsive government, the fun people….
Please post here again. We miss you. I miss you.
Good to see you again!!!!!!!
So….
are paul and lrb the same person? or is it a right wing reading and comprehension thing again. Hooked on phonics paul and lrb?
heheheheh
They just cant seem to keep the house and senate separate in their tiny little minds. LRB gives figures on a house vote to support some stupid shit said about the senate.
Paul, also unable to distinguish the house from the senate, says this:
“Lieberman’s loss in the primary pretty much guarantees Republican control of the House after the November elections.Democrats need ALL 3 vulnerable Republican House seats in CT to take control.”
Uh paul, we know you are a brilliant republican as republicans go. I guess you just missed the little detail that lieberman WAS in the SENATE, not the house.
hee hee hee hee hee
But we are amused, and we do encourage the literacy challenged like paul and lrb to play again.
we love it when you show your ass ’cause you do it so well and so often….
heheheheheh
still laughing at ignorance gone wild here
I am SO CONVINCED now paul that you are a very sophisticated political operative for the republicans.
Details, like the difference between house and senate candidates are so, well, for the little people to worry about.
The big picture, big thinkers of the republican party, like you paul, dont need to worry about little things like the differences between the house and senate.
In diebold, all are the same!!!!!!!
Dick Morris is another political expert you should read:http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm
heheheheheh
no wonder the republicans hate education and public schools. They clearly have not seen the inside of either, given the quality of their posts and their reading and writing ability.
And paul musta missed a few basic government classes….
Kill the schools if they produce intellects like paul’s and lrb’s.
Dick Morris is another political expert you should read:http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm
Dick MORRIS!!!!!
ROFLMAO!!!!!!! hehehehe hee hee hoo hoo haa haa.
DICK MORRIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
just google or wikipedia him!!
hehehehe the disgraced, whoremongering ex clinton advisor is now a “political expert” we should listen to? heheheheheheh
why paul?
‘Cause he crossed the aisle? hee hee hee hee.
Does he know the difference between the house and senate? IF so, no WONDER you consider him someone to listen too.
heheheh. Ya just cant make this stuff up.
Wanna quote the coultergeist too?
hee hee hee hee heeh
Who nees the funny pages when you can come here and read the republcians?
Y’all are too, too kind.
While I was in Austin, I realized the WeBlog was going to scarf down my academic career if I didn’t take drastic measures. So, literally, I went SIX WEEKS without consuming any political discourse–no blogs, no commentators, nothing; just headlines. I wrote one paper (now submitted for peer review), substantially revised a second (now submitted for peer review) and am still revising the third one. The moral? One needs to unplug. And Jesus, does this place eat up the time.
At the moment I’m in Seattle. It’s 60 degrees. Cloudy and cool. Things to do. But I’ll pop back in later.
AND matt drudge of the DRUDGE REPORT!!!!!!
Yikes.
I heard you say before that you get your news from matt “the gay liar” drudge.
I thought you were just kidding.
No wonder your posts have such depth, such wit, and NO FACTS!!!
hehehe the drudge report indeed!
Please paul, are you sure you are not on OUR payroll?
‘Cause I’m gonna say it again. If you really are paid by the repubs, someone REALLY should ask for their money back……
CF-Glad you checked in! I am very jealous that you are nice and cool. Think of me and MM while you drink your coffee. :)
CF said this:Revolutions don’t happen all at once, and if it takes time to get the would-be Republican corporate dicksuckers out of the Democratic Party, so be it.
CF: Lamont is another millionaire Democrat trust fund baby, an heir to the JP Morgan businesses.I would have more respect for him if he was a “self-made” man — of course, I have nothing personal against the “wealthy.”However, Lamont hasnt been weaned yet, he is still sucking up to everyone, since he feels the common inferiority of second and third and forth generation wealth.
hehehehhehehe at Paul
And he won.
you forgot to say that.
HE WON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And your guy?
“CF: Lamont is another millionaire Democrat trust fund baby, an heir to the JP Morgan businesses.I would have more respect for him if he was a “self-made” man — of course, I have nothing personal against the “wealthy.”
heheheheh
How about this pauly boy?
“George Bush is another millionaire republican trust fund baby, an heir to the family oil and nazi financing businesses.
I would have more respect for Bush if he was a “self-made” man — of course, I have nothing personal against the “wealthy.”
jesus wept paul. are you becoming completely unhinged?
OMG, I find it TOO FUNNY
that the capitalist loving republican religious right here finds the worst they can say about joeloser and the debacle he created is that
the democrats, gasp, want to elect a RICH GUY!!!!!!
Hey paulie boy, wanna rehash your spectacular flame out regarding millionaires in congress? Where you still couldnt distinguish the house from the senate?
heheheheh. He just cant see how dumb his arguments are.
Bring ‘em on Paul. Or should I just post bone dig links to his greatest gaffs?
OMG… pot… meet kettle……..
Morris in DRUDGE: “While Ned Lamont will clearly have a bounce after yesterday’s primary victory, the Rasmussen Poll of July 20 showed Lieberman and Lamont tied at 40 percent each in the general election (with scandal-plagued GOP nominee Alan Schlesinger at 13 percent).”
Ben earlier this AM: “My prediction: A close race between Lieberman and Lamont with ‘whoever’ a distant third.”
Like I said – it all depends of whether Republicans vote for Lieberman of for ‘whoever’
Ben, I think it also depends on how publicly the GOP leadership supports Joe vs. their own guy.
They heart joe more than the real republican running.
And they wonder why the DEMOCRATS turned his ass out of office?
To quote faith hill “this kiss, this kiss…..”
Why dont you all just take lieberman and run him?
Oh, that would mean the r’s would have to be honest and, well, we just cant HAVE that, now can we?
KsFarmGirlDo you even know who Bob Beckel is? Bob Beckel agrees with ME that the Lieberman Senate race will cost the Democrats some House seats.Beckel is a loyal Democrat with strong Union roots. I disagree with him on policy, but I listen when he makes predictions. He is often right.Try a google search dear!Political Maturity is what is missing in your analysis.What you want to BELIEVE is that all people either AGREE with YOU and are your friends, or that they DISAGREE with YOU and are your ENEMIES, on ONE issue primarily, the WAR.A great many people dont give a RIP about your issue(s) as proven by the low voter turn out in the Democrat Primary in CT.It can hurt the ego to find out that what you are all fired up about doesn’t even register with other folks, but that is how politics has ALWAYS worked.You WIN by avoiding losses. You win by advancing those who believe like you believe, while avoiding the alienation of those who dont really care much about your issues.Political Maturity requires humility.Party leaders on both sides always have this problem with immature party activists.Howard Dean and Lamont lack political maturity and humility.Together, they are taking the Dems over the cliff.Most people who vote only know for sure who they are voting for on one or two or three races.If you make it easy for “party-line” voters to ignore party loyalty, you destroy your party’s “coat-tails.”Nasty Party Primaries destroy party loyalty, this would be true even if Lieberman was not running as an independent.Now, with Lamont and Lieberman running, who would you want to appear with publicly, if you were a House Dem candidate?The answer is NEITHER, for an appearance with either Lamont or Lieberman will hack off HALF of the party base.Bye-bye coat-tails!
KsFarmGirlDo you even know who Bob Beckel is? Bob Beckel agrees with ME that the Lieberman Senate race will cost the Democrats some House seats.Beckel is a loyal Democrat with strong Union roots. I disagree with him on policy, but I listen when he makes predictions. He is often right.Try a google search dear!Political Maturity is what is missing in your analysis.What you want to BELIEVE is that all people either AGREE with YOU and are your friends, or that they DISAGREE with YOU and are your ENEMIES, on ONE issue primarily, the WAR.A great many people dont give a RIP about your issue(s) as proven by the low voter turn out in the Democrat Primary in CT.It can hurt the ego to find out that what you are all fired up about doesn’t even register with other folks, but that is how politics has ALWAYS worked.You WIN by avoiding losses. You win by advancing those who believe like you believe, while avoiding the alienation of those who dont really care much about your issues.Political Maturity requires humility.Party leaders on both sides always have this problem with immature party activists.Howard Dean and Lamont lack political maturity and humility.Together, they are taking the Dems over the cliff.Most people who vote only know for sure who they are voting for on one or two or three races.If you make it easy for “party-line” voters to ignore party loyalty, you destroy your party’s “coat-tails.”Nasty Party Primaries destroy party loyalty, this would be true even if Lieberman was not running as an independent.Now, with Lamont and Lieberman running, who would you want to appear with publicly, if you were a House Dem candidate?The answer is NEITHER, for an appearance with either Lamont or Lieberman will hack off HALF of the party base.Bye-bye coat-tails!
KsFarmGirlDo you even know who Bob Beckel is? Bob Beckel agrees with ME that the Lieberman Senate race will cost the Democrats some House seats.Beckel is a loyal Democrat with strong Union roots. I disagree with him on policy, but I listen when he makes predictions. He is often right.Try a google search dear!Political Maturity is what is missing in your analysis.What you want to BELIEVE is that all people either AGREE with YOU and are your friends, or that they DISAGREE with YOU and are your ENEMIES, on ONE issue primarily, the WAR.A great many people dont give a RIP about your issue(s) as proven by the low voter turn out in the Democrat Primary in CT.It can hurt the ego to find out that what you are all fired up about doesn’t even register with other folks, but that is how politics has ALWAYS worked.You WIN by avoiding losses. You win by advancing those who believe like you believe, while avoiding the alienation of those who dont really care much about your issues.Political Maturity requires humility.Party leaders on both sides always have this problem with immature party activists.Howard Dean and Lamont lack political maturity and humility.Together, they are taking the Dems over the cliff.Most people who vote only know for sure who they are voting for on one or two or three races.If you make it easy for “party-line” voters to ignore party loyalty, you destroy your party’s “coat-tails.”Nasty Party Primaries destroy party loyalty, this would be true even if Lieberman was not running as an independent.Now, with Lamont and Lieberman running, who would you want to appear with publicly, if you were a House Dem candidate?The answer is NEITHER, for an appearance with either Lamont or Lieberman will hack off HALF of the party base.Bye-bye coat-tails!
KsFarmGirlDo you even know who Bob Beckel is? Bob Beckel agrees with ME that the Lieberman Senate race will cost the Democrats some House seats.Beckel is a loyal Democrat with strong Union roots. I disagree with him on policy, but I listen when he makes predictions. He is often right.Try a google search dear!Political Maturity is what is missing in your analysis.What you want to BELIEVE is that all people either AGREE with YOU and are your friends, or that they DISAGREE with YOU and are your ENEMIES, on ONE issue primarily, the WAR.A great many people dont give a RIP about your issue(s) as proven by the low voter turn out in the Democrat Primary in CT.It can hurt the ego to find out that what you are all fired up about doesn’t even register with other folks, but that is how politics has ALWAYS worked.You WIN by avoiding losses. You win by advancing those who believe like you believe, while avoiding the alienation of those who dont really care much about your issues.Political Maturity requires humility.Party leaders on both sides always have this problem with immature party activists.Howard Dean and Lamont lack political maturity and humility.Together, they are taking the Dems over the cliff.Most people who vote only know for sure who they are voting for on one or two or three races.If you make it easy for “party-line” voters to ignore party loyalty, you destroy your party’s “coat-tails.”Nasty Party Primaries destroy party loyalty, this would be true even if Lieberman was not running as an independent.Now, with Lamont and Lieberman running, who would you want to appear with publicly, if you were a House Dem candidate?The answer is NEITHER, for an appearance with either Lamont or Lieberman will hack off HALF of the party base.Bye-bye coat-tails!
KsFarmGirlDo you even know who Bob Beckel is? Bob Beckel agrees with ME that the Lieberman Senate race will cost the Democrats some House seats.Beckel is a loyal Democrat with strong Union roots. I disagree with him on policy, but I listen when he makes predictions. He is often right.Try a google search dear!Political Maturity is what is missing in your analysis.What you want to BELIEVE is that all people either AGREE with YOU and are your friends, or that they DISAGREE with YOU and are your ENEMIES, on ONE issue primarily, the WAR.A great many people dont give a RIP about your issue(s) as proven by the low voter turn out in the Democrat Primary in CT.It can hurt the ego to find out that what you are all fired up about doesn’t even register with other folks, but that is how politics has ALWAYS worked.You WIN by avoiding losses. You win by advancing those who believe like you believe, while avoiding the alienation of those who dont really care much about your issues.Political Maturity requires humility.Party leaders on both sides always have this problem with immature party activists.Howard Dean and Lamont lack political maturity and humility.Together, they are taking the Dems over the cliff.Most people who vote only know for sure who they are voting for on one or two or three races.If you make it easy for “party-line” voters to ignore party loyalty, you destroy your party’s “coat-tails.”Nasty Party Primaries destroy party loyalty, this would be true even if Lieberman was not running as an independent.Now, with Lamont and Lieberman running, who would you want to appear with publicly, if you were a House Dem candidate?The answer is NEITHER, for an appearance with either Lamont or Lieberman will hack off HALF of the party base.Bye-bye coat-tails!
KsFarmGirlDo you even know who Bob Beckel is? Bob Beckel agrees with ME that the Lieberman Senate race will cost the Democrats some House seats.Beckel is a loyal Democrat with strong Union roots. I disagree with him on policy, but I listen when he makes predictions. He is often right.Try a google search dear!Political Maturity is what is missing in your analysis.What you want to BELIEVE is that all people either AGREE with YOU and are your friends, or that they DISAGREE with YOU and are your ENEMIES, on ONE issue primarily, the WAR.A great many people dont give a RIP about your issue(s) as proven by the low voter turn out in the Democrat Primary in CT.It can hurt the ego to find out that what you are all fired up about doesn’t even register with other folks, but that is how politics has ALWAYS worked.You WIN by avoiding losses. You win by advancing those who believe like you believe, while avoiding the alienation of those who dont really care much about your issues.Political Maturity requires humility.Party leaders on both sides always have this problem with immature party activists.Howard Dean and Lamont lack political maturity and humility.Together, they are taking the Dems over the cliff.Most people who vote only know for sure who they are voting for on one or two or three races.If you make it easy for “party-line” voters to ignore party loyalty, you destroy your party’s “coat-tails.”Nasty Party Primaries destroy party loyalty, this would be true even if Lieberman was not running as an independent.Now, with Lamont and Lieberman running, who would you want to appear with publicly, if you were a House Dem candidate?The answer is NEITHER, for an appearance with either Lamont or Lieberman will hack off HALF of the party base.Bye-bye coat-tails!
KsFarmGirlDo you even know who Bob Beckel is? Bob Beckel agrees with ME that the Lieberman Senate race will cost the Democrats some House seats.Beckel is a loyal Democrat with strong Union roots. I disagree with him on policy, but I listen when he makes predictions. He is often right.Try a google search dear!Political Maturity is what is missing in your analysis.What you want to BELIEVE is that all people either AGREE with YOU and are your friends, or that they DISAGREE with YOU and are your ENEMIES, on ONE issue primarily, the WAR.A great many people dont give a RIP about your issue(s) as proven by the low voter turn out in the Democrat Primary in CT.It can hurt the ego to find out that what you are all fired up about doesn’t even register with other folks, but that is how politics has ALWAYS worked.You WIN by avoiding losses. You win by advancing those who believe like you believe, while avoiding the alienation of those who dont really care much about your issues.Political Maturity requires humility.Party leaders on both sides always have this problem with immature party activists.Howard Dean and Lamont lack political maturity and humility.Together, they are taking the Dems over the cliff.Most people who vote only know for sure who they are voting for on one or two or three races.If you make it easy for “party-line” voters to ignore party loyalty, you destroy your party’s “coat-tails.”Nasty Party Primaries destroy party loyalty, this would be true even if Lieberman was not running as an independent.Now, with Lamont and Lieberman running, who would you want to appear with publicly, if you were a House Dem candidate?The answer is NEITHER, for an appearance with either Lamont or Lieberman will hack off HALF of the party base.Bye-bye coat-tails!
KsFarmGirlDo you even know who Bob Beckel is? Bob Beckel agrees with ME that the Lieberman Senate race will cost the Democrats some House seats.Beckel is a loyal Democrat with strong Union roots. I disagree with him on policy, but I listen when he makes predictions. He is often right.Try a google search dear!Political Maturity is what is missing in your analysis.What you want to BELIEVE is that all people either AGREE with YOU and are your friends, or that they DISAGREE with YOU and are your ENEMIES, on ONE issue primarily, the WAR.A great many people dont give a RIP about your issue(s) as proven by the low voter turn out in the Democrat Primary in CT.It can hurt the ego to find out that what you are all fired up about doesn’t even register with other folks, but that is how politics has ALWAYS worked.You WIN by avoiding losses. You win by advancing those who believe like you believe, while avoiding the alienation of those who dont really care much about your issues.Political Maturity requires humility.Party leaders on both sides always have this problem with immature party activists.Howard Dean and Lamont lack political maturity and humility.Together, they are taking the Dems over the cliff.Most people who vote only know for sure who they are voting for on one or two or three races.If you make it easy for “party-line” voters to ignore party loyalty, you destroy your party’s “coat-tails.”Nasty Party Primaries destroy party loyalty, this would be true even if Lieberman was not running as an independent.Now, with Lamont and Lieberman running, who would you want to appear with publicly, if you were a House Dem candidate?The answer is NEITHER, for an appearance with either Lamont or Lieberman will hack off HALF of the party base.Bye-bye coat-tails!
KsFarmGirlDo you even know who Bob Beckel is? Bob Beckel agrees with ME that the Lieberman Senate race will cost the Democrats some House seats.Beckel is a loyal Democrat with strong Union roots. I disagree with him on policy, but I listen when he makes predictions. He is often right.Try a google search dear!Political Maturity is what is missing in your analysis.What you want to BELIEVE is that all people either AGREE with YOU and are your friends, or that they DISAGREE with YOU and are your ENEMIES, on ONE issue primarily, the WAR.A great many people dont give a RIP about your issue(s) as proven by the low voter turn out in the Democrat Primary in CT.It can hurt the ego to find out that what you are all fired up about doesn’t even register with other folks, but that is how politics has ALWAYS worked.You WIN by avoiding losses. You win by advancing those who believe like you believe, while avoiding the alienation of those who dont really care much about your issues.Political Maturity requires humility.Party leaders on both sides always have this problem with immature party activists.Howard Dean and Lamont lack political maturity and humility.Together, they are taking the Dems over the cliff.Most people who vote only know for sure who they are voting for on one or two or three races.If you make it easy for “party-line” voters to ignore party loyalty, you destroy your party’s “coat-tails.”Nasty Party Primaries destroy party loyalty, this would be true even if Lieberman was not running as an independent.Now, with Lamont and Lieberman running, who would you want to appear with publicly, if you were a House Dem candidate?The answer is NEITHER, for an appearance with either Lamont or Lieberman will hack off HALF of the party base.Bye-bye coat-tails!
Dont forget, the new republican meme strategy is that “up is down and white is black” and if you have a weakness, try to pin that weakness on your opponent.
Paul is on the front line of the fighting meme warriors when he says this:
“What you want to BELIEVE is that all people either AGREE with YOU and are your friends, or that they DISAGREE with YOU and are your ENEMIES, on ONE issue primarily, the WAR”
hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hoooo…..
Uh paul dear, it was the bushies and the preznit who said “you are either for us or against us” you are either “with us or with the terrorists”.
hee hee hee hee hee
but DO try to continue to pin that on the democrats.
The dems elect someone they want, and the R’s want to tell them why that is wrong?
hehehehehehehehehehheeheheheh
Oh yea, we know you have OUR best interests at heart. The more you whine, the more the dems know, electing lamont was the right decision.
NOVEMBER IS GONNA BE SO.MUCH.FUN!!!
KsFarmGirlDo you even know who Bob Beckel is? Bob Beckel agrees with ME that the Lieberman Senate race will cost the Democrats some House seats.Beckel is a loyal Democrat with strong Union roots. I disagree with him on policy, but I listen when he makes predictions. He is often right.Try a google search dear!Political Maturity is what is missing in your analysis.What you want to BELIEVE is that all people either AGREE with YOU and are your friends, or that they DISAGREE with YOU and are your ENEMIES, on ONE issue primarily, the WAR.A great many people dont give a RIP about your issue(s) as proven by the low voter turn out in the Democrat Primary in CT.It can hurt the ego to find out that what you are all fired up about doesn’t even register with other folks, but that is how politics has ALWAYS worked.You WIN by avoiding losses. You win by advancing those who believe like you believe, while avoiding the alienation of those who dont really care much about your issues.Political Maturity requires humility.Party leaders on both sides always have this problem with immature party activists.Howard Dean and Lamont lack political maturity and humility.Together, they are taking the Dems over the cliff.Most people who vote only know for sure who they are voting for on one or two or three races.If you make it easy for “party-line” voters to ignore party loyalty, you destroy your party’s “coat-tails.”Nasty Party Primaries destroy party loyalty, this would be true even if Lieberman was not running as an independent.Now, with Lamont and Lieberman running, who would you want to appear with publicly, if you were a House Dem candidate?The answer is NEITHER, for an appearance with either Lamont or Lieberman will hack off HALF of the party base.Bye-bye coat-tails!
KsFarmGirlDo you even know who Bob Beckel is? Bob Beckel agrees with ME that the Lieberman Senate race will cost the Democrats some House seats.Beckel is a loyal Democrat with strong Union roots. I disagree with him on policy, but I listen when he makes predictions. He is often right.Try a google search dear!Political Maturity is what is missing in your analysis.What you want to BELIEVE is that all people either AGREE with YOU and are your friends, or that they DISAGREE with YOU and are your ENEMIES, on ONE issue primarily, the WAR.A great many people dont give a RIP about your issue(s) as proven by the low voter turn out in the Democrat Primary in CT.It can hurt the ego to find out that what you are all fired up about doesn’t even register with other folks, but that is how politics has ALWAYS worked.You WIN by avoiding losses. You win by advancing those who believe like you believe, while avoiding the alienation of those who dont really care much about your issues.Political Maturity requires humility.Party leaders on both sides always have this problem with immature party activists.Howard Dean and Lamont lack political maturity and humility.Together, they are taking the Dems over the cliff.Most people who vote only know for sure who they are voting for on one or two or three races.If you make it easy for “party-line” voters to ignore party loyalty, you destroy your party’s “coat-tails.”Nasty Party Primaries destroy party loyalty, this would be true even if Lieberman was not running as an independent.Now, with Lamont and Lieberman running, who would you want to appear with publicly, if you were a House Dem candidate?The answer is NEITHER, for an appearance with either Lamont or Lieberman will hack off HALF of the party base.Bye-bye coat-tails!
KsFarmGirlDo you even know who Bob Beckel is? Bob Beckel agrees with ME that the Lieberman Senate race will cost the Democrats some House seats.Beckel is a loyal Democrat with strong Union roots. I disagree with him on policy, but I listen when he makes predictions. He is often right.Try a google search dear!Political Maturity is what is missing in your analysis.What you want to BELIEVE is that all people either AGREE with YOU and are your friends, or that they DISAGREE with YOU and are your ENEMIES, on ONE issue primarily, the WAR.A great many people dont give a RIP about your issue(s) as proven by the low voter turn out in the Democrat Primary in CT.It can hurt the ego to find out that what you are all fired up about doesn’t even register with other folks, but that is how politics has ALWAYS worked.You WIN by avoiding losses. You win by advancing those who believe like you believe, while avoiding the alienation of those who dont really care much about your issues.Political Maturity requires humility.Party leaders on both sides always have this problem with immature party activists.Howard Dean and Lamont lack political maturity and humility.Together, they are taking the Dems over the cliff.Most people who vote only know for sure who they are voting for on one or two or three races.If you make it easy for “party-line” voters to ignore party loyalty, you destroy your party’s “coat-tails.”Nasty Party Primaries destroy party loyalty, this would be true even if Lieberman was not running as an independent.Now, with Lamont and Lieberman running, who would you want to appear with publicly, if you were a House Dem candidate?The answer is NEITHER, for an appearance with either Lamont or Lieberman will hack off HALF of the party base.Bye-bye coat-tails!
Dont forget, the new republican meme strategy is that “up is down and white is black” and if you have a weakness, try to pin that weakness on your opponent.
Paul is on the front line of the fighting republican meme warriors when he says this:
“What you want to BELIEVE is that all people either AGREE with YOU and are your friends, or that they DISAGREE with YOU and are your ENEMIES, on ONE issue primarily, the WAR”
hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hoooo…..
Uh paul dear, it was the bushies and the preznit who said “you are either for us or against us” you are either “with us or with the terrorists”.
hee hee hee hee hee
but DO try to continue to pin that on the democrats.
The dems elect someone they want, and the R’s want to tell them why that is wrong?
hehehehehehehehehehheeheheheh
Oh yea, we know you have OUR best interests at heart. The more you whine, the more the dems know, electing lamont was the right decision.
NOVEMBER IS GONNA BE SO.MUCH.FUN!!!
You WIN by avoiding losses.
hee hee heee heeeee
Oh hell, if I had just known that earlier….
hoo hoo haa haa hee heee
Comments like that must be what make paul such a brilliant political analyst.
hehehe. That and POLITICAL MATURITY
I guess your preznit and paul are good examples of that?
hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee
“BYE BYE Coattails”
Especially with the CT Republican running third with less than 20% of the vote.
CT will remain solidly BLUE. Lieberman might squeek through in November but the GOP will come in dead last – with the emphasis on DEAD!
OMG, ROLLING with laughter.
Yes, PLEASE DO google Bob Beckel.
heheh. You will find that his claim to fame is that he managed Walter Mondale’s campaign for president in 1984. I guess that would explain why paul admires his political genius even if he is a democrat.
It would also explain why bob beckel is stupid enough to say the lieberman race is all about the HOUSE!!!
hehehe. Yes indeedy doo. I see why Paul thinks he is a top political person of substance. hee hee hee
You will also find info on google about Bob Beckels arrests on morals charges and his CONTRACT WITH FOX NEWS.
hee hee hee hee
Paul, you are the best friend our side has.
KfG – the race MIGHT impact the House races in CT – however I tend to doubt it. CT voters are notorious ticket-splitters.
Senators Schumer and Reid have issued a joint statement supporting Ned Lamont as the Democratic Party’s Senatorial candidate in Connecticut. Lieberman is toast. Voters don’t like it when elected officials try to play by a different set of rules in order to stay ‘elected’.
More to the point, Reid and Schumer have lots to gain by turning their backs on the Garden Gnome: namely, the love and money of Democrats like me. Lose the Gnome, and CF opens his wallet and shuts his mouth.
Game. Set. Match.
Oh, and Paul F. Rosell, hit the button ONCE, dude. We know you really want to see your important-sounding spin in print, but Sir, please control yourself!
Schumer and Reid are for Lamont, surprise surprise!
I knew poor ol’ Joe was in trouble when Billy boy Clinton campaigned for him.
Now if Joe can get Clinton to endorse Lamont he’ll have a chance!
Joe is going to play the dirty-campaign-they-are-anti-semantic-I’m-a-victim card and the idiots in CT will elect him.
Hank
Hank – you are probably correct. The anti-Semite card will be played real hard, however it just might not work this time. I think Israel has deliberately hit just too many civilian targets this time; the case can be made that being anti-empire does not equal being anti-Semitic.
“You WIN by avoiding losses.”
The above is what the Dems have been trying the last few election cycles.
I haven’t been impressed with the results of the “Political Maturity” approach. It’s past time to try something different.
I heard an analysis on NPR, that voters are wanting to hear clear messages on what candidates think about issues — and are not impressed with the “let’s try and sneak into office without anyone noticing approach” (what Paul suggests in the above). Please Paul, convince your Republican brethren of the value of your methods.
Let’s see, Hank dropped 40 bucks yesterday backing the most Republican candidate in the Senate.
It was a good bet on his part. A sitting Senator has only been defeated in their own primary four times (that’s what I heard anyway).
Looks like the Democratic wing of the Democratic party (you know, the wack-os) had more clout than you gave them credit for.
I wonder if you want to offer the same bet that you took several months ago with another poster–that in November the Democrats will not gain any seats in either the house or the senate.
Hank?
Absolutely right, Stephen!
The Republicans win on taking a strong (wrong) stand on the issues.
When the Dems lose, they tell us it’s because we’re too opinionated . . . we need to tone down our message.
It’s like telling a miler he’s losing races because he’s running too fast; he needs to slow his pace down . . .
Hank–”I knew poor ol’ Joe was in trouble when Billy boy Clinton campaigned for him.”
No you didn’t. Otherwise you wouldn’t have dropped 40 bucks on the guy.
But keep re-writing history. That’s what you Republicans do best, isn’t it.
“We have always been at war with East Asia. We have never been at war with Eurasia.”
Hey RedRad,
I only dropped $20 bucks. I didn’t bet Rage, I’m not sure who the hell he is. (like you) Hard for me to send Guido out to collect my bets when I don’t know where to send him.
By the way, who the hell are you? Are you who I think you are?
Hank
Sigh . . . let me try this again.
“I wonder if you want to offer the same bet that you took several months ago with another poster–that in November the Democrats will not gain any seats in either the house or the senate.”
Hank
Don’t do it, if your right, they’ll all commit suicide and you won’t be able to collect on the bet
Ahem, Hank, this is a fairly trivial point, but you actually did post “you’re on!” to me before noticing Ben’s post. You backed out then, and I graciously let you. It had nothing to do with knowing who the hell I am.
For the record: Hank and I have met, several of the regulars know who I am, and Steven Davis has my address.
You, are however, correct that it would not have been worth a 900-mile trip to “collect” (that works both ways, ya know).
We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.
Hey Rage!
I just remembered who you are! I apologize!
Hope you are doing well, look us up if you get back in town!
I did say in my open bet post, first come first serve and Ben jumped on it like white on rice.
Next time I pull my head out of my ass to make a stupid bet like that I’ll give you first chance!
Hank
PS I never forget a dog, if you had a dog, I’d remember its name.
Paul: “A great many people dont give a RIP about your issue(s) as proven by the low voter turn out in the Democrat Primary in CT.”
More of Paul’s Coulterism’s — voter turnout was huge, about 50%, exceeding the 1970 record of 38.8%.
Paul: “.. [Lamont] feels the common inferiority of second and third and forth generation wealth.”
Your bogus amateur diagnosis, and constant use of lies to support your false opinions, suggests that YOU have problems.
I called it the ‘Kiss of Death’ this morning, come home tonight to see the anchor on Ch. 12 National News call it the ‘Kiss of Death’, Man is the internet ever fast! ha haNews said the independents in Connecticut outnumber either the Dems, or Repubs. So, Lieberman will probably pull an equal # from either party, and not have the Ralph Nader effect the Repubs. are praying for.Don’t worry about Lieberman’s finances though, I’m sure the Israeli Zionist will fund his campaign.
It’s okay, Hank.
Everybody including you knows it going to be a rout for the Dems this November.
You don’t have to say you were wrong.
That’s apparently impossible for conservatives to say. Just look at Bush. He still won’t say he was wrong about WMD’s in Iraq.
Bush has never explained or apologized for making any of these statements–
“Saddam Hussein has continuing ties to terrorist organization.”
“The danger to our country is grave, the danger to our country is growing.”
“The Iraqi regime possesses chemical and biological weapons.”
“The Iraqi regime could launch a biolgical or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes.”
“We can’t wait for the final proof the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”
“I . . . I . . . I . . . think we’re going to find the truth and the truth will tell us he was developing weapons of mass destruction.”
“To those people who said we haven’t found the weapons of mass destruction, they were wrong. We found them. We found them.”
Soon, the adults will be back in office, the ones that don’t lie us into endless war . . . .
The newly Independent Lieberman is ahead in the Polls by double digits.
Bad news for the liberals that screwed him.
http://www.forbes.com/technology/ebusiness/feeds/ap/2006/08/17/ap2957271.html