Identity Crisis

posted by greider on 08/18/2006 @ 1:49pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (144)

Subscribe Now

The question of party identity takes on weird new relevance now that Joe Lieberman is cross-dressing in Connecticut. Defeated once as a Democrat, tiresome Joe is now running again as an independent. Only he says he's still a loyal Dem at heart. How can we know he's not lying?

Karl Rove and the Republicans appear to think otherwise. They are pouring serious money into Lieberman's campaign and dumping a classic Republican smear job on Ned Lamont, the legit Democrat. Ned, remember, beat Joe fair and square in the party primary.

But Joe agrees with Karl that Ned is a threat to the Republic because Lamont thinks Bush's war in Iraq is a bloody catastrophe--as do nearly two-thirds of the American public.

Something about this odd drama doesn't pass the smell test. I suspect Karl and Joe have made a deal. A back-scratching understanding, you might say.

Karl says to Senator Joe: We will help you beat Ned in the general election and you will agree to cross over and sign up with the Republicans--if we need your vote to retain our majority in the Senate.

Joe says: It's a deal--but only if my fellow Democrats make a sincere effort to support Ned and defeat me. Otherwise, if the Dems go limp and sell out Ned, I have to stay loyal.

Karl: Fair enough. How do we make the terms of the deal clear to everyone without announcing it?

Joe: You very publically dump the no-name Republican candidate in the race. I start attacking the patriotism of anti-war Democrats like Bernie Sanders, who's running for senator in Vermont. We both cut up Ned Lamont with the same vicious slurs--portraying him as a fellow traveler for al Qaeda.

Karl: Excellent. I have a hit group called Vets for Freedom, who will start tossing the mud.

Joe: My Democratic pals will understand completely. This is the kind of bipartisan civility I've always sought in politics.

Okay, I cannot prove any of the above. But it is at least clear that the devious and undependable Lieberman has devised a very nasty dilemma for his erstwhile friends in the Democratic minority. Most of them have declared their support for the party nominee, Ned Lamont, and at least some of them seem sincere. That demonstrates the party establishment's respect for the new energies that Lamont's anti-war supporters are bringing to the party.

But Joe's flagrant turncoat routine effectively warns the party regulars to back off--or else.

His suggested logic goes like this: the Dems will win the Connecticut senate seat by doing nothing from the national level, since it's either going to be Lamont or Lieberman. But if the party establishment provokes Joe by putting real heft behind Lamont's campaign, then it risks losing the seat. If Joe wins with the heavy support provided by Bush and Republicans, he may feel compelled to walk out.

Some Democrats--I hear this second-hand--are flirting with this "go limp" strategy. Others are arguing intensely that the party has no option except to put all of its weight behind the party nominee and, in effect, make damn sure Ned wins. Above all, they have to demonstrate their commitment to Lamont followers, those new rank-and-file forces who harbor deep skepticism about the party's timid leadership.

If Democrats fail to demonstrate their genuineness, they may very well create a much more serious problem for the party down the road. A Lieberman victory, regardless of how it occurs, would encourage the rebels and insurgents from within the party to skip party primaries as bogus events and run their challenge candidates in the general elections--just like wayward Joe.

These rebel challengers might not win, but they could rally enough dissenting voters to bring down a lot of incumbent Dems. Joe tossed party identity out the window; why shouldn't they?

This would be a far bloodier path to reinvigorating the Democratic party--bringing it down in order to rebuild it--but some reform agitators have noticed that it works. Fratricidal bloodletting was how the Republican Right got its groove and gained its power over the other party.

Comments (144)

No sane person is prowar. So to answer your question, the sane are the democrats.

sorry republicans (and your newest boy joe quagmire)... you're crazy

Posted by Will C. at 08/20/2006 @ 2:05pm
"Ned, remember, beat Joe fair and square in the party primary. "

Yes, he did.

And if Lieberman beats all in the general...then he wins...its called democracy..and it doesn't matter who told who to vote for whom(see black/democratic votes for years for nothing)...

No sane person is anti war when his home has been attacked from many sides..and his country responds....just because you disagree with the response does not entitle you to completely demonize and under mind the players involved, as the kooks here do,...and then label themsilves "pro peace"... you are the best thing to happen to Al queda..

Posted by john maasch at 08/20/2006 @ 3:05pm
we we're attacked by Iraq?

(that's crazy talking)

Posted by Will C. at 08/20/2006 @ 3:10pm
"Joe says: It's a deal--'

Never happen, Joe is a liberal . Period and will never cross the line....it is the democrats in CT, who have crossed the line...intom looney toon town. as is their right...but Joe, if he wins, will not lose his "rank", as the dems will need his vote, and the repubs will never get it beyond the occasional Iraq vote...the rest of his time he do as he has always done..vote lib...

Posted by john maasch at 08/20/2006 @ 3:15pm
maasch we don't need his vote

and his seniority is gone

Posted by Will C. at 08/20/2006 @ 3:17pm
By a pan Islamic jihadists, where ever they are....including Iraq...I believe it is world wide and it started before Carter and is getting "louder"...and will br fought for a long time...

Will, there is actually more to the fight than Iraq...and Irsaq is a cog in the wheel..but not the entire focus,,as you and yours seem to have made it...

back to the BBQ grill..I don't enjopy banter with you or your one/two line poetry style...nothing there... sorry..

have a nice Sunday..

Posted by john maasch at 08/20/2006 @ 3:18pm
and Irsaq is a cog in the wheel

I don't enjopy banter with you

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/20/2006 @ 3:18pm

I see you're still teetering along the ragged edge of sanity maasch

don't get too close to the grill... ok

Posted by Will C. at 08/20/2006 @ 3:22pm
Actually, we were attacked by Iraq. Shooting at our aircraft and attempting to assasinate Bush is enough for me! Plus, we all know Al Qaeda was in Iraq before 9-11. Sorry Will, you suck. Furthermore, you dem's are always cryin' about democracy, dictatorship, one-party dominance etc. and yet, when Lieberman runs as an independant, and the people of Mass., as a whole, vote him in, you act as if it's a bad thing! This is typical of the looney left, other examples could include, " freedom of speech " as long as we agree with the speech, "innocent until proven guilty" unless you're Bush or any other republican, " tax the rich " unless you're Theresa Heinze ( 12% on 5 million income ) or Katrina " I ain't payin' no stinkin' inheritance tax " Vander Huevel. Hypocrites of the highest order is what you fools are and that's why your ideas ( not ) are rejected and ignored by the American people. Lieberman will win, Lamont will claim fraud, and the losers will whine for another 2 years until their next embarrassing defeat. I love America!

Posted by barry25 at 08/20/2006 @ 3:47pm
Posted by BARRY25 08/20/2006 @ 3:47pm

we shoot at enemy aircraft in our airspace

we actually killed saddam twice... before we found him in the spider hole.

and the only operational al qaeda base in iraq was safely tucked under the benevolent hamster aircap in northern Iraq, outside of saddams reach and never bombed by ol gee dubya... never

Posted by Will C. at 08/20/2006 @ 3:57pm
and what makes you think that I care whether or not joe quagmire wins the general

I don't live in CT

Posted by Will C. at 08/20/2006 @ 3:58pm
are you crazy or something?

Posted by Will C. at 08/20/2006 @ 4:00pm
Barry,

."Actually, we were attacked by Iraq. Shooting at our aircraft and attempting to assasinate Bush is enough for me! "

This is enough for most, but if Bush leads the charge...Bad, if Clinton lead the charge.."Let's GO!!"

It is so transparent...as is the fact you can not let people like the Kerrys and Lamouse(Lamice?) of the world be in charge of anything, much less allow them access to our military and our national safety.....they are too political, and not enough "gut instincts"...too many polls, et al..

Posted by john maasch at 08/20/2006 @ 4:04pm
This is enough for most, but if Bush leads the charge...Bad, if Clinton lead the charge.."Let's GO!!"

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/20/2006 @ 4:04pm

sorry... wrong again

the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud was good enough for most people

of course that whole charade (crazy huh) was nothing more the the lastest in hamster lies

Posted by Will C. at 08/20/2006 @ 4:08pm
you fellas will say anything to get us into a war

Posted by Will C. at 08/20/2006 @ 4:09pm
Will, what's funny is that you actually believe all that crap you just spewed. Here's a conspiracy theory for you: maybe, just maybe, Saddam and Al Qaeda have done some things that we don't know about, have money in places we haven't found yet, trained in areas we haven't found yet or have enough evidence, to date, to prove to you morons that there were strong ties between the two. Maybe, just maybe, there are diamond, gold, and oil deposits around the world that haven't been found yet ( although man has been searching for those far longer than they've been searching for WMD's, links between Saddam and AlQaeda etc.! You are such a baffoon that you actually believe that since we haven't found enough proof for you yet, that it will never be found. As if there is an exact timeline for which anything searched for will be found or it's non-existence will be proven. Will, I say this sincerely, you're a idiot!

Posted by barry25 at 08/20/2006 @ 4:16pm
Here's a conspiracy theory for you: maybe, just maybe, Saddam and Al Qaeda have done some things that we don't know about, have money in places we haven't found yet, trained in areas we haven't found yet or have enough evidence, to date, to prove to you morons that there were strong ties between the two.

Posted by BARRY25 08/20/2006 @ 4:16pm

and you're calling me an idiot

crazy

Posted by Will C. at 08/20/2006 @ 4:18pm
YOU WILL SAY AND DO ANYTHING TO PREVENT US FROM WINNING AND FINISHING ONE...one in which we are already engaged....you risk us every day.

Posted by john maasch at 08/20/2006 @ 4:24pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/20/2006 @ 4:24pm

mission accomplished baby

Oh wait... was that a lie too?

Posted by Will C. at 08/20/2006 @ 4:27pm
or is it crazy to think that you guys ever finish what you start?

Posted by Will C. at 08/20/2006 @ 4:29pm
Mission of invasion and regular army engagments were accomplished..so, yes, the mission of deposing and destroying the Iraqi Army was accomplished, with record low casualtys on both sides...so, no, there was no lie.

I will never forgive you for helping give comfort to the enemy, which you do everyday in the belief that you are helping your country...I suggest you find the book, " Useful Idiots",...you will be comfortable reading this, as it is close to a biography of what I believe you and your ilk present to the the rest of us...

The BBq was great..

Posted by john maasch at 08/20/2006 @ 4:34pm
We are not finished and will not be for a long time...and you prolong the work.

Posted by john maasch at 08/20/2006 @ 4:34pm
Mission of invasion and regular army engagements were accomplished..so, yes, the mission of deposing and destroying the Iraqi Army was accomplished, with record low casualtys on both sides...so, no, there was no lie.

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/20/2006 @ 4:34pm

Destroyed?! Are you crazy?

They faded back into the population and became the insurgency. You hamsters were not only too stupid to finish the job. You were so stupid that you didn't even know you left it unfinished.

Mission most defiantly unaccomplished

Posted by Will C. at 08/20/2006 @ 4:40pm
And maasch I don't expect to find any forgiveness in you. You're evangelic conservative. And that's about as far away from divine as any human being can get.

Posted by Will C. at 08/20/2006 @ 4:41pm
You are standing behind me, sir...

Posted by john maasch at 08/20/2006 @ 4:48pm
You are standing behind me, sir...

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/20/2006 @ 4:48pm

Of course I am maasch

I'm an American and I'll back the play of my countrymen.

even when they act un-American

Posted by Will C. at 08/20/2006 @ 4:52pm
Posted by BARRY25 08/20/2006 @ 3:47pm: when Lieberman runs as an independant, and the people of Mass., as a whole, vote him in, you act as if it's a bad thing!

Hey Ba. Still a scared little hamster, I see.

It's hard to believe that the people of Mass. will vote Joe in. The people of Mass. are not that stupid.

Oh, and Joe is running in CT.

But, thanks for the political analysis.

Posted by orwell2005 at 08/20/2006 @ 5:07pm
But, thanks for the political analysis.

Posted by ORWELL2005 08/20/2006 @ 5:07pm

Isn't Bush Boy fun to have around?

:)

Posted by Will C. at 08/20/2006 @ 5:09pm
Posted by BARRY25 08/20/2006 @ 4:16pm

Maybe, just maybe, you are joking.

If not, you win. You have beaten Mr. Maasch, Rio, Luvvy, and the rest. Congratulations. You are quite a remarkable idiot.

Posted by orwell2005 at 08/20/2006 @ 5:10pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/20/2006 @ 4:34pm: I will never forgive you for helping give comfort to the enemy

So, Maaschy, ya think Al Qaeda reading this blog and getting comfort from Will C's post.

Guess what, they're not reading this blog.

And, if they were, they would take far more comfort from your posts. They want a clash of civilizations. And silly you are acting as their agent in America, promoting their agenda.

Posted by orwell2005 at 08/20/2006 @ 5:14pm
my bad. But will you admit that you're an idiot AFTER lieberman wins? " limosine liberal " lamont doesn't stand a chance!

Posted by barry25 at 08/20/2006 @ 5:30pm
" limosine liberal " lamont doesn't stand a chance!

Posted by BARRY25 08/20/2006 @ 5:30pm

interesting idea Ba

considering that Ned has already beaten our good buddy Joe quagmire once

Posted by Will C. at 08/20/2006 @ 5:37pm
If the dems do not put their full support behind Ned winning the election-- they will most definately be viewed as no better than the repubs, i.e. liars, betrayers, stabbers in the backers (Alan Schlesinger), just can't trust those slimmy evil sick, turn everything to shit 'new cons' repubs...

And then there's:

Lieberman Calls for Rumsfeld to Resign

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: August 20, 2006 Filed at 1:15 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sen. Joe Lieberman on Sunday called on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign and backed an international conference to find a way out of the crisis in Iraq.

(Wants Rummy's job after screwing the dems or even if if he doesn't get re-elected...)

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

_________American Military Dead in Iraq______

________Date__________Total_____In Combat

Since war began

______(3/19/03)________2602________2108

Since "Mission Accomplished"

______(5/1/03)_________2465________2009

Since Capture of Saddam

_____(12/13/03)________2135________1801

Since Handover

_____(6/29/04)_________1736________1476

Since Election

_____(1/31/05)_________1166_________991

American Wounded___Official______Estimated

Total Wounded:______19270____20000 - 48100

As of 8/19/06

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

20 pilgrims killed, hundreds wounded in Baghdad Second Hussein trial starts Monday

Sunday, August 20, 2006; Posted: 11:45 a.m. EDT (15:45 GMT)

AGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Gunmen opened fire on crowds of Shiite pilgrims in Baghdad Sunday, killing at least 20 and wounding more than 300 others, according to police and health ministry officials.

(Estimated over 100 a day death rate for civilians...)

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

A Nonpartisan Look at the Price Tag of Overseas Wars

By HUBERT B. HERRING Published: August 20, 2006

As the study notes, the Defense Department recently put the "burn rate" -- a term for the sums being spent -- for Iraq and Afghanistan at $6.8 billion a month. But as the study says, that excludes maintaining and replacing equipment or building and improving facilities. The official "burn rate," it concludes, is only about 70 percent of the true cost.

(So that's about 8 billion a month...

And it was all based on lies. Lie berman, Sore Loserman, needs to bow out. If he wins, the stench for the dems will be intolerable.)

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/20/2006 @ 5:42pm
jesus are they still trying to sell the bs that al quaida was in iraq? these slavishly devoted useful idiots will push any lie, no matter how treasonous, as long as it benefits the extremists and traitors that have taken over the republican party.

Posted by pretzel at 08/20/2006 @ 6:28pm
LOL the people of massachusetts?? no wonder these idiots couldnt tell Saddam from Osama. bush couldnt tell Sunni muslims from Shiite Muslims.

Posted by pretzel at 08/20/2006 @ 6:29pm
I will never forgive you for helping give comfort to the enemy

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/20/2006 @ 4:34pm

What an old, stuffy woman you are. Did you get bad meat at your BBQ? Too much 'shine out of a jug?

The enemy, you incomparable jackass, has yet to defined.

The Shia? The Sunnis? Hardly. Our president is still learning the difference between the two, as remarkable as it seems.

Terrorists? No-sir-ee-bob. We work hand in hand with terrorists when the mood and means strike us. Will we utter word one about Israelis donning the garb of the Lebanese army to conduct their own private mission "in support" of the UN ceasefire? Do we not create instability in countries who won't play by our rules through our support of guerrilla activities against standing governments?

Islamic fundamentalism? Haven't heard that uttered, but we seem hellbent on turning every passionate Muslim, regardless of specific background, into our enemy. Smart planners, we. We might want to do a headcount before we pick on someone who might be just a little more than our size.

Dictatorships/Totalitarianism? We wish. But no, we are only too happy to rip into democracies when we don't like the results and too happy to prop up bastards around the world who let us funnel their resources out on the backs of their beaten down citizens.

So whom do you think we're fighting, tough guy? Who is it that Will supports with his posts on thenation.com? Please, share your thoughts rather than directing us, once again, to some flatulence-filled brochure promoted by your AM radio heroes.

There is only one unforgivable thing among humans and that is intentional ignorance. You, Barry, Pontificus, and the like are among the unforgivable. Amiable though you attempt to be from time to time, your buried head routine has worn completely through.

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/20/2006 @ 6:46pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/20/2006 @ 7:31bm

LuvLying can quote the Bible! Get thee behind me Lucifer - (Lord Of Light) Asmodeus The Hooven Cloof Pocker The Prince of Darkness The Prince of Devils The Prince of This World The Prince of the Air His Satanic Majesty Satanel The Prince of Hell The Prince of Pandemonium The (Arch-) Fiend The Evil One Beelsebub Belial The Wicked One The Tempter The Author of Evil Mefistofeles The (Common) Enemy (of Mankind) Old Harry Old Nick The Angel of the Bottomless Pit Old Horney Old Gooseberry Satan Mr. Scratch LVLIBERTY1.

How's eating that DU doing you? Eat more so there's less to use on innocents.

Did you know-- "he only terrible evil" is LVLIBERTY1 said backwards?

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/20/2006 @ 8:00pm
Proving Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq is like proving Slick Willy only had one affair because it's the only one he got caught on and had to admit to. Please, childish moron, you, me, and everyone else do not really know to what extent Al Qaeda was involved in Iraq. It may have been that they had very close ties with Saddam, and it may have been that there were very few ties ( whcih the evidence, to date, has shown them to be ). Yet, you haters act as if you KNOW the extent to which they were involved with Saddam. Please, get a grip!

Will, your last post shows how out of touch you are with reality! Lamont won because only liberals, and not even all the Dem's that will be voting in Nov, voted in the primary. For your info., there's an election in Nov. where ALL registered voters get to vote. The outcome will be quite different and I will be happily GLOATING on this blog, rubbing it in the face of the seditious traitors that live here!

Posted by barry25 at 08/20/2006 @ 8:03pm
LL,

Your point is what? That liberals should support those who are not liberal? Profound..ly stupid.

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/20/2006 @ 8:05pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/20/2006 @ 7:31pm

You really do hate the democratic process don't you luvvy.

You tar others as evil for resisting the hell you bring to their country at the very same time that you actively engage in trashing our constitution: the very thing that all of our servicemen and women swore they would support and defend before they followed your lies into your endless quagmire. And now you'll do whatever you can to keep them there

Our rights are god given. Liberal democracy is god's mechanism of freedom and liberty on this good earth. The only true evil in this world is furthered by those who would use god as a pretext for undermining his mechanism and his gift of our rights. The only true evil in the world is the evangelic church here in America and its murderous incarnation abroad in the Middle East.

But we'll be dealing with you in good time... count on it

Posted by Will C. at 08/20/2006 @ 8:10pm
"...Here's a conspiracy theory for you: maybe, just maybe, Saddam and Al Qaeda have done some things that we don't know about, have money in places we haven't found yet, trained in areas we haven't found yet or have enough evidence, to date, to prove to you morons that there were strong ties between the two. Maybe, just maybe, there are diamond, gold, and oil deposits around the world that haven't been found yet ( although man has been searching for those far longer than they've been searching for WMD's, links between Saddam and AlQaeda etc.! You are such a baffoon that you actually believe that since we haven't found enough proof for you yet, that it will never be found. As if there is an exact timeline for which anything searched for will be found or it's non-existence will be proven. Will, I say this sincerely, you're a idiot!"

Posted by BARRY25 08/20/2006 @ 4:16pm

Are you seriously comparing mineral deposits, at any level, anywhere on earth, created at any time during the millennia (uh, I mean past 5000yrs.), to shit somebody hid in one country within the last few years? We've been looking for how long?

" we all know Al Qaeda was in Iraq before 9-11."

We do? How about evidence to back up this baseless claim. Or are you like your beloved leader; you don't read and just repeat what you're told?

And Will and his ilk are morons, huh?

Alrightythen.

Eric

Posted by Malcontent at 08/20/2006 @ 8:12pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/20/2006 @ 8:04pm

Results 1 - 10 of about 3,910,000 for the devil's names. (0.20 seconds)

Funny that your's is one of them!

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/20/2006 @ 8:12pm
Will, your last post shows how out of touch you are with reality! Lamont won because only liberals, and not even all the Dem's that will be voting in Nov, voted in the primary. For your info., there's an election in Nov. where ALL registered voters get to vote. The outcome will be quite different and I will be happily GLOATING on this blog, rubbing it in the face of the seditious traitors that live here!

Posted by BARRY25 08/20/2006 @ 8:03pm

Ned only won because he got more votes. Its crazy how that works isn't it. And I have no doubt that if Lieberman wins in November that you will be here rubbing our faces in it. That's just one of those sick hamster conservative pleasures we've all come to expect.

But what I don't understand how is after all the accusations we've gotten from you hamsters about how democrats betrayed Joe quagmire by voting for Ned in the democratic primary, it only took you hamsters a pico-second to betray the republican candidate and throw your money and support behind Joe.

Do any of us matter to you or is the raw exercise of power all that really matters to you in the end?

Posted by Will C. at 08/20/2006 @ 8:20pm
Posted by WILL C. 08/20/2006 @ 8:20pm

This only goes to show whose Sore Loserman's constituancy really is...

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/20/2006 @ 8:25pm
Dick.

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/20/2006 @ 8:26pm
listen to the wingnuts continue to dole out feeble justifications ad nauseum. sure, the invasion and deposition may have been successful---but don't they have to remain successful? over half of baghdad is in the midst of a power grab. sunni insurgents currently control basra, and if memory serves me correctly, 60% of at least one other major city in the north. outside of major cities, the situation is even more depressing. several right wing intellectuals, friedman and will included, are calling the situation 'anarchy.' the united states army is currently baby-sitting a civil war. we have turned the entire middle east into a powder keg.

on the home front, bush and cheney continue to characterize the iraqi occupation as the central front in the so-called 'war on terror', despite the fact that terrorists aren't exclusive to that country. quite the contrary, our visibly stagnant occupation has made it easier for terrorists to work elsewhere.

this is not even to mention that bush has not a single justification for remaining in iraq, unless of course it is "to babysit a civil war."

i don't remember his saying this in his '03, '04, '05 or '06 state of the union.

Posted by darladoon at 08/20/2006 @ 8:28pm
our presence is fueling more anti-american sentiment, and more pan-arab unification.

we are doomed. totally fucking doomed.

you know, i've made mistakes. several. i've even felt bad about some of these mistakes for months, even years.

but, the mistakes bush has made are simply beyond extraordinary. they are tragic, in fact. because he thinks he's doing the right thing. and keeps doing so. he's like captain ahab, except he has scores of thousands of dead bodies on his hands.

Posted by darladoon at 08/20/2006 @ 8:31pm
"... you, me, and everyone else do not really know to what extent Al Qaeda was involved in Iraq."

Posted by BARRY25 08/20/2006 @ 8:03pm

My point exactly.

Lemme get this straight.

We don't KNOW whether Iraq have any minimal ties to Al-Qaeda. So we invade.

We don't KNOW bush spies only on terrorists, so we do nothing.

We DO KNOW Suadi-Arabia does...and Pakistan. So they're our friends.

Wingnut logic, in action.

---------------------------------

"Brood of vipers! How can you being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks" Matthew 12:34"

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/20/2006 @ 7:31pm

What a non-sequitur. Comparing people against a real war, for real reasons, to your fairy-tale story about breaking the rules of the invisible man in the sky, by eating on Sunday.

Here you go;

"A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things." Matthew 12:35

What kind of man are you, advocating the invasion of a country, that posed no threat to us?

You are so much more tolerable, when you keep your sick god out of our political discussions.

Eric

Posted by Malcontent at 08/20/2006 @ 8:37pm
it's the rumsfeldian 'known-unknowns'. in his twisted logic, he asks us to "prove that nothing exists?" i have a feeling bush, cheney and rumsfeld all scored low grades in math or logic.

Posted by darladoon at 08/20/2006 @ 8:42pm
you know, what we really need is an honest and open debate in this country. the media have provided little platform for a blatantly anti-war view. sure, there are some public intellectuals who have been relatively honest, and even complex in their analysis, but taken as a whole, the debate has only skirted the fringes of the anti-war position. the moment anyone takes a firm stance against the war, we hear a deluge of vacuous right wing talking points.

Posted by darladoon at 08/20/2006 @ 8:48pm
" ...the moment anyone takes a firm stance against the war, we hear a deluge of vacuous right wing talking points."

Posted by DARLADOON 08/20/2006 @ 8:48pm

Damn liberal media.

Eric

Posted by Malcontent at 08/20/2006 @ 8:57pm
Posted by BARRY25 08/20/2006 @ 8:03pm

I like this "maybe, just maybe" line of reasoning, Ba. It is very effective.

Maybe, just Maybe, George W. Bush is an agent of Al Qaeda. While it is true that we can not prove that he is, you can not prove that he is not. So, maybe, just maybe, he is.

Yet, you haters act as if you KNOW the extent to which he is involved with Al Qaeda. Please, get a grip!

Posted by orwell2005 at 08/20/2006 @ 8:58pm
yeah, bush gets serious props with al qaeda....

Posted by darladoon at 08/20/2006 @ 9:14pm
Posted by DARLADOON 08/20/2006 @ 9:14pm: yeah, bush gets serious props with al qaeda....

When you think about it, you never see George and Osama together. Why is that?

Maybe, just maybe, George and Osama are the same person. I'm not sayin that I can prove they are the same. But you can't prove they're not. Maybe, just maybe...

Posted by orwell2005 at 08/20/2006 @ 9:20pm
Rep. John Murtha

08.14.2006

The Dichotomy of Two Wars

Those who speak of ending the war in Lebanon, to stop the loss of more lives, are seen as skillful diplomats. Yet those who dare speak about ending the war in Iraq are labeled by Bush's henchmen as unpatriotic defeatists.

(Er, you think maybe there's an irrational agenda based on quagmire-economics maybe? Why can't anybody just follow the bloody stinking money and cut the spigot off? Repubs in congress just sit on their little dirty hands and speak nonsense with their evil little tongues. And Sore Loserman is there on their side where it counts--- like trying to stop the occupation in Iraq.)

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/20/2006 @ 9:32pm
when it counts---

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/20/2006 @ 9:34pm
oh duh--- like 'not' trying...

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/20/2006 @ 9:44pm
Will, there is actually more to the fight than Iraq...and Irsaq is a cog in the wheel..but not the entire focus,,as you and yours seem to have made it...

Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/20/2006 @ 3:18pm

John, we have spent over $300 billion. I'd say that a big problem was that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld had tunnel vision on Iraq after 9/11.

Posted by Hman23 at 08/20/2006 @ 9:54pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/20/2006 @ 4:34pm: I will never forgive you for helping give comfort to the enemy

John, have you forgiven Bush yet for pulling our troops and bases out of Saudi Arabia in 2003?

Posted by Hman23 at 08/20/2006 @ 10:02pm
...Aid and comfort to the enemy?

To paraphrase another Muhammed (Ali), "No Iraqi ever did anything to me," as the Uncle Sam frog marched him out of his heavyweight champion belt.

On the other hand my own government funded by multinational corporations having neither national loyalty or allegiance has...

Made me a pariah in all but perhaps three or four countries of the world.

Engendered millenial hatred of me and my generations by the approximately 1.5 billion Muslims.

Demonstrated time after time after time, total contempt for the very Constitution that our President is required to swear an oath to defend during each inauguration. (Note - No oath to defend the country. That is how highly our founders' and a long line of predecessors' faith and dedication to the rule of LAW has been held.)

Spared no effort or expense to keep me and my fellow citizens subject to monied interests.

Bankrupted our country's treasury.

Presided over every effort to dismantle my country's social safety net.

And on, and on, and on.

I agree with the poster who asked the question of whether the enemy had yet been identified.

The kind of tripe that the wingers serve up would spoil an otherwise appetizing menudo.

Posted by canaar at 08/20/2006 @ 10:05pm
Barry - thanks for your posts. Now I realize why so many people in this country believe Hussein was behind 9/11.

Massachusetts . . . lol . . . great stuff!

Posted by Hman23 at 08/20/2006 @ 10:08pm
Yep, I saw a program in passing today with a general stating that the Iraq occupation is screwing over our military's preperation for any possible conflict with China per the pilfering of funds not going to it's upkeep and advanced weapons research and development... Thus the hsuB admin are the ones weakening the US in every way they can per their incompetence, lack of a real backbone, lack of anything resembling 'wisdom', (greed yes/ wisdom no)-- to the point where China will only have to say roll over and the hsuB admin will comply.

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/20/2006 @ 10:10pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 08/20/2006 @ 3:05pm No sane person is anti war when his home has been attacked from many sides..and his country responds ....

Quite right. To open up a new front against a country that is not directly threatening you when your home has been attacked from many sides may or may not be insane ... but what it most certainly is, is irresponsible.

Whether or not Bush is insane, he is without a doubt the most recklessly irresponsible President that we have had in many a year, and its high time that he be held to account.

Posted by BruceMcF at 08/20/2006 @ 10:10pm
Posted by BARRY25 08/20/2006 @ 3:47pm Plus, we all know Al Qaeda was in Iraq before 9-11.

And we all know that was in the part of the country not under the direct control of Saddam. Nice try, trying to slide through a fairly stale old RRW of the Republican't party talking point ... but no cigar.

Posted by BruceMcF at 08/20/2006 @ 10:13pm
Posted by BARRY25 08/20/2006 @ 4:16pm Here's a conspiracy theory for you: maybe, just maybe, Saddam and Al Qaeda have done some things that we don't know about, have money in places we haven't found yet, trained in areas we haven't found yet or have enough evidence, to date, to prove to you morons that there were strong ties between the two.

It does not occur to you that an equally strong case can be made that maybe, just maybe, BARRY25 and Al Qaeda have done some things that we don't know about, have money in places we haven't found yet, trained in areas we haven't found yet or have enough evidence, to date, to prove to we morons that there were strong ties between the two?

Of course its implausible, but its equally implausible that a control freak and Mussolini wannabe like Hussein would be a big al-Qaeda supporter. They are too hard to control.

Posted by BruceMcF at 08/20/2006 @ 10:17pm
Way off topic but...

Time Poll conducted by Schulman, Ronca & Bucuvalas (SRBI) Public Affairs. July 13-17, 2006. N=902 registered voters nationwide.

"Looking ahead to the presidential election in November 2008 -- If you had to decide now, would you be more likely to vote for [see below]?" If unsure: "As of today, do you lean more toward [see below]?"

____________John McCain (R)__Hillary Rodham Clinton (D)___Unsure

7/13-17/06________49______________47_________________4

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

I'm assuming that they're within the percentage of error...

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/20/2006 @ 10:20pm
Posted by BARRY25 08/20/2006 @ 5:30pm my bad. But will you admit that you're an idiot AFTER lieberman wins? " limosine liberal " lamont doesn't stand a chance!

How big a margin is required for "not standing a chance" to be proven?

Its obvious that Lamont is going to pick up support among more Democrats as Leiberman's support by the Republicans becomes more widely known (that is, out in the real world ... a lot of people don't tune in until after Labour Day).

And Lamont's name recognition right now if fairly low outside of Democrats, so its obvious he will pick up support among independents.

What's not known is whether the last vestiges of support will abandon the Card Counter, and exactly how many independents will be more interested in Lieberman's "Liberal Republican" act compared to being interest in holding this criminally irresponsible Bush regime to account.

Posted by BruceMcF at 08/20/2006 @ 10:22pm
Posted by BARRY25 08/20/2006 @ 3:47pm Plus, we all know Al Qaeda was in Iraq before 9-11.

And we all know that was in the part of the country not under the direct control of Saddam. Nice try, trying to slide through a fairly stale old RRW of the Republican't party talking point ... but no cigar.

Posted by BRUCEMCF 08/20/2006 @ 10:13pm

And we also know that Bush could have taken out Zarqawi prior to the invasion when he was in Northern Iraq, but did not. It would have muddied the waters in his ramp-up to war.

Posted by Hman23 at 08/20/2006 @ 10:24pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/20/2006 @ 10:28pm

Now THAT'S gotta be a violation of any human rights statement.

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/20/2006 @ 10:41pm
Just have the far right wingnuts memorize hsuB's resume-- (that's a symetrical punishment)-- start with their ignorance. hsuB's big flaw, history will show, is that he never got over the gambling with other's wellfare adiction out of his system. Great if you're a winner-- lousy for all involved if you're the unluckiest smirking whiny spoiled frat brat in history.

Just a small part of his accomplishments, more at:

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/04/23_resume.html

George W. Bush Resume

Past work experience:

Ran for congress and lost.

Produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.

Bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas, company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.

Bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using tax-payer money. Biggest move: Traded Sammy Sosa to the Chicago White Sox.

With fathers help (and his name) was elected Governor of Texas.

Accomplishments: Changed pollution laws for power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union. Replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog ridden city in America. Cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas government to the tune of billions in borrowed money. Set record for most executions by any Governor in American history.

Became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of my fathers appointments to the Supreme Court.

Accomplishments as president:

Attacked and took over two countries.

Spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury.

Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history.

Set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.

Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.

First president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.

First president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.

First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history.

After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, presided over the worst security failure in US history.

Set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips than any other president in US history.

In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their job.

Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in US history.

Set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12 month period.

Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.

Set the record for the least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.

Signed more laws and executive orders circumventing the Constitution than any president in US history.

Presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/20/2006 @ 11:07pm
And by the way, Maasch,

This from August 9, 2003:

"Two years ago, I told the Congress and the country that the war on terror would be a lengthy war, a different kind of war fought on many fronts in many places.

"Iraq is now the central front."

Please square this with your assertion that "Irsaq is a cog in the wheel..but not the entire focus,,as you and yours seem to have made it..."

Are Iraq and Irsaq the same, as I suspect? Are there differences between "central front" and "entire focus"? If so, please enlighten us.

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/20/2006 @ 11:39pm
The students of the ‘60's who lionized mass murderers such as Che Guevara, Mao Tse Tung and Fidel Castro are now the professors, media elite and other Democrat party activists who still lionize their old heroes – and now also are apologists for Muslim terrorists.

Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/20/2006 @ 11:34pm

FYI Rio,

This is 2006. Those hippy children of your glorious '60s are as old as you are, which is to say, old. Perhaps there is a senior conservative site that will welcome you. Meanwhile, the smell of Ben Gay and prune juice is getting to those of us who still have our teeth and knees. AARP is a powerful organization, but not nearly as powerful as you might believe during one of your viagra-inspired hallucinations.

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/20/2006 @ 11:43pm
I know you only have America's best interest in mind.

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/20/2006 @ 11:51pm
True to form RB! You misspelled "vilification".

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/20/2006 @ 11:52pm
Defend this:

The Democrat Left's support of terrorists derives from self-hatred. They are convinced that Americans, and Westerners in general (but also including African Christians who were slaughtered without a peep from the Left), are the source of violence and resentment in the world. Because we have caused the problem, they believe, we deserve to be attacked. This belief is so deep set that the Left believes self defense and retaliation are morally unacceptable.

And then justify your claim that I vilify and denegrate and that you do not.

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/20/2006 @ 11:54pm
I did retaliate against the likes of you. Obviously it is not beyond my morality.

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/20/2006 @ 11:55pm
The issue of our age is self defense be it personal or national. The Democrat Left has drawn a line in the sand in Connecticut. They are against survival. Hopefully they will consume their time and money as usual with non-issues!

Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/20/2006 @ 11:34pm

But if the 'new cons' are the ones raping the US, rather than self-defense, your solution is to join in.

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/21/2006 @ 12:01am
Ok, there's really no-- 'IF'.

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/21/2006 @ 12:01am
Posted by TJBEHRENS1 08/20/2006 @ 11:43pm: viagra-inspired hallucinations

Bingo! We have a winner.

Indeed, that finally explains the spasms of vile idiocy that Scared Little Boy (tm) periodically ejects upon this board.

Thanks TJ.

Posted by orwell2005 at 08/21/2006 @ 12:03am
Posted by ORWELL2005 08/21/2006 @ 12:03am

If you catch me being civil to those who don't understand the concept of civilization, feel free to reach through my monitor and smack me. I'm through with them.

Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/21/2006 @ 12:09am
I still believe that the far righties that sully the blogs here are paid to do it. My experience with people that were in that way in real life, I mean the agressively near sighted to the point of a self imposed mental flaw, all either died by junior high or were locked up. hsuB's resume does state he hires the most criminals. Now we know their jobs!

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/21/2006 @ 12:27am
Any Democrat that supports any such effort is the lowest kind of turncoat against the leftists.

Well, LL, you have shown that your political accumen is about is sharp as your theology. If Democrats in general, and liberals in particular, are insisting on such ideological purity on the Iraq War, why hasn't their been a viable primary opponent for Hillary Clinton, Ben Nelson, Dianne Feinstein, or Maria Cantwell this year?

Since you want to quote the Bible to feel good about disgracing the name of Jesus Christ, try these on for size:

"But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue yuo and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles." Matthew 5:39-41

"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men-- robbers, evidoers, adulterers-- or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'

"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'

"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." Luke 18:10-14

Posted by steve4wv at 08/21/2006 @ 12:36am
Maasch, since you are accusing those of us who are opposed to this war of being pro-terrorist, you have officially triggered the question: Are you currently in the military? Are you a veteran? If so, are you a war veteran? Which war?

I am curious about this one, because being a veteran of this war, I always like to hear what those who support this war from a distance have done in support of it. (If you're like those kids from the College Republicans in last year's story "Generation Chickenhawk," what's your excuse? I've already heard "I come from a good family" from one poster on this site, and a former neighbor from my undergraduate days told me that he isn't enlisting because he feels that he shouldn't have to give up the high-paying job waiting for him upon graduation.)

Posted by steve4wv at 08/21/2006 @ 12:40am
Joke of the day:

As I pondered on this thread and the attitude of today's leftists towards those they hate, I am reminded of how Jesus addressed the self-righteous appeasers of His day and their constant attacks and personal slurs on those who sought to bring good.

Brood of vipers! How can you being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks" Matthew 12:34

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/20/2006 @ 7:31pm

Once again the great Antichrist lvl squeaks, as a supporter of greed avarice and abuse, the very things Christ stood against, you have the audacity to quote Christ in an effort to stroke your own anally retentive piousness what a smuck!

Posted by dycel8r at 08/21/2006 @ 01:18am
Saved again, thank the Lord, saved again By William Blum Online Journal Guest Writer

Aug 21, 2006, 00:46

"Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear -- kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor -- with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant funds demanded. Yet, in retrospect, these disasters seem never to have happened, seem never to have been quite real." --General Douglas MacArthur, 1957[1]

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

From what is typical in terrorist scares, it is likely that the individuals arrested in the UK August 10 are guilty of what George Orwell, in 1984, called "thoughtcrimes".

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

(Of course 99% of what the 'new cons' say is BS.)

Posted by hsuBfools at 08/21/2006 @ 01:52am
Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/20/2006 @ 11:48pm Don't wanna hurt 'em none or violate their rights. Just tryin' to keep 'em away from the voting booth so they can't do anymore damage.

... keep them away from the voting booth without violating their right to vote, I'm sure.

Is it any surprise that the Republican'ts moved from regulatory vote suppression to illegal vote suppression? Once you believe that it is the way to win, and have convinced yourself that the other side is a tool of Satan, Collectivists, or the Anti-Gun-Profit lobby, its just a small step over that pesky line dividing the wrong from the illegal.

How did the Ramp Up the Debt party slide from trying to out-politic and out-smart the other side under Reagan to simply cheating and violating the Constitution under Bush the Younger?

Posted by BruceMcF at 08/21/2006 @ 02:03am
If Lieberman wins as an Independent...

Doesn't that mean that a "real" Democratic Party loses Independent voters?

Posted by Mask at 08/21/2006 @ 07:28am
Posted by MASK 08/21/2006 @ 07:28am

Duh.

Eric

Posted by Malcontent at 08/21/2006 @ 07:47am
Posted by MALCONTENT 08/21/2006 @ 07:47am | ignore this person

Again, sorry, Eric for not spelling it out.

If the Democratic Party nation-wide loses independent voters...they lose elections. Lieberman is going to hold SOME Democrats in CT, a lot of the Independents, and a lot of the Republicans.

In a Presidential election...that would translate into a 40+ state win and a 2-5% popular vote victory.

If "Lamont Democrats" lose to "Lieberman Independents" (or even, if you like, "Lieberman Republicans")...that's the ball game.

Posted by Mask at 08/21/2006 @ 08:55am
BTW, why did Mr Grieder's piece just get bumped from "top story" on "The Notion" for Mr Kim's silly S.O.A.P. post from last week?!?!?!

Posted by Mask at 08/21/2006 @ 08:56am
Doesn't that mean that a "real" Democratic Party loses Independent voters?

Posted by MASK 08/21/2006 @ 07:28am

no... it means independents are still voting republican

Posted by Will C. at 08/21/2006 @ 08:59am
The issue of our age is self defense be it personal or national. The Democrat Left has drawn a line in the sand in Connecticut. They are against survival. Hopefully they will consume their time and money as usual with non-issues!

Posted by RIO BRAVO 08/20/2006 @ 11:34pm

Actually we're against "Survivor".

Reality TV sucks

Posted by Will C. at 08/21/2006 @ 09:14am
you know the camera crew is letting the survivors slip into the catering line

Posted by Will C. at 08/21/2006 @ 09:15am
If Lieberman wins as an Independent...

Doesn't that mean that a "real" Democratic Party loses Independent voters?

Posted by MASK 08/21/2006 @ 07:28am

No, it means that Lamont will have less votes than Lieberman amongst CT voters (some of them obviously independent).

Posted by Hman23 at 08/21/2006 @ 09:27am
Posted by HMAN23 08/21/2006 @ 09:27am | ignore this person

Which is it, HMAN....the "Lamontians" (even here at TN) tell us that "The primary election in CT has NATIONAL impact"...

so why doesn't the GENERAL election in CT have "national impact"?

Posted by Mask at 08/21/2006 @ 09:58am
Who in Joe Liebermann's family is currently serving in Iraq? How many conservatives have that level of visceral interest in what's happening there?

Shoot, we can't even get the conservatives to tax their rich friends to fund this war adequately, and yet they expect us to believe it's important to continue it. Hogwash, folks, put your money where your filthy mouth is! Do it now or shut up.

barry writes, "...when Lieberman runs as an independant, and the people of Mass., as a whole, vote him in..." Barry, please feel free to take a break from your onerous posts and go study your geography a little before returning. Just do it.

Jerk.

Posted by barnesgene at 08/21/2006 @ 10:19am
Simple: There are not many people left in this country that think invading Iraq was a good idea. You can call each other names all you want, but that does not change the fact that Iraq is in a civil war, and our troops are in the middle of it. The people on the Right are frustrated, because they backed a loser, and they have no dignified way to get out. The Left is frustrated because they don't understand how to change their minds.

Posted by wpsinni at 08/21/2006 @ 11:04am
Posted by MASK 08/21/2006 @ 09:58am

The reach has been exaggerated by both sides. If Lieberman wins, it's not the defeat of the Democratic Party on a national scale. If Lamont wins it hardly means that an anti-war position will win in all other states. It has a possible effect in some tight races because it shows that those who are against the occupation will vote the issue. In those tight races, it may cause some wishy-washy Dems and even folks like Chaffee (if he survives his primary)to shift and solidify their position more firmly against the occupation. The main implication being that the results in CT are a nudge in a particular direction. It shows that taking a withdrawal position is not the loser Karl Rove would like everyone to believe. Had Lamont lost to Joe, the GOP would have had a field day and many running would have shied away. But Joe lost.

Posted by Hman23 at 08/21/2006 @ 11:29am
Lieberman is a closet Republican. He was looking pretty closely at Rumsfeld's job so he had to support the war in Irag. Once a great guy, now a self serving politician.

Posted by Pats at 08/21/2006 @ 12:05pm
Posted by HMAN23 08/21/2006 @ 11:29am | ignore this person

Wait a minute, HMAN...you left out a scenario-

What if Lieberman wins the general?

Doesn't THAT "nudge" things AWAY from the "anti-war" guys? Indicating that while it may hold a SLIM majority (52%-Lamont, 48%-Lieberman), that it is NOT a majority of the voters in general???

Posted by Mask at 08/21/2006 @ 12:07pm
Really? How about the words of Michael Moore in his letter to Democrats this month. Tell me his threat against Dems who don't change their view on the war is just a joke?

I don't doubt that Michael Moore means it. I think the real question is whether or not it has legs. The reason that it worked against Joe Lieberman is because he has said that opposing this war and being critical of Bush is the equivalent of treason. If he wouldn't have submitted that op-ed to the Wall Street Journal and restated it in the Senate, he wouldn't be in this situation. He lost because he showed his true GOP colors, not because of "just one issue." However, I see the nail in the coffin for Lieberman's primary bid as his refusal to accept the results of the primary. If he would have simply focused on the primary, he probably would have won the nomination, and all of you right-wingers would have to control your self-gratification over us anti-war liberals' defeat in Connecticut instead of trying to find ways to spin the primary defeat.

Using Michael Moore was too easy and obvious. Here is another one for you.

Ooh, Hillary Clinton's primary opponent is running at 12% with a few weeks to go before the primary. Yeah, us anti-war Dems are just kicking her out of the party. Questions about the 2008 nominee for an open race are far different than questions about whether an incumbent should get re-elected. If I lived in NY, I probably would vote for Clinton's opponent as a protest vote, but I would realize completely that she will be the nominee, and I would support her in November.

Yes, there is outrage among voters for this unjust war (You claim to be a minister, so I'm wondering, in my theology training, we were taught the just war criteria, so can you tell me and those of us on this board just how the Iraq War meets them?) but that is not the only issue. If someone is in trouble for other reasons, support of the war might be the thing that pushes them over the cliff, but that is not the end-all-be-all of the Democratic platform. (For example, I know of a few people who left their ballot blank in 2002 for the US Senate race in frustration over Jay Rockefeller's vote on the war, but none of those people actually wanted him to lose.)

Posted by steve4wv at 08/21/2006 @ 12:37pm
"No sane person is anti war when his home has been attacked from many sides..and his country responds...."

Of course. See, America was attacked by al-Qaeda once. And some Iraqi official, somewhere, at some point in time, must have done business with the Afghanistan-based organization. I mean, they're so close together on the map and they're both heathen Muslamics and all that. I know we don't have the "proof" or "evidence" you pinko commies talk about. But come on, it's common sense.

The "home" that was attacked was New York City - wait, I thought true Blue NYC wasn't part of Real America, what with their sushi-eating, abortion-having, yoga-doing Politically Correct populace - a bastion of sanity and sense that will no doubt be the target of another terrorist attack. That would not have otherwise taken place had not recent American policy be so hell-bent on turning every able-bodied Muslim male on the face of the Earth an anti-American militant. Due mainly to some Republican miles away voting off some vicarious rah-rah off of his mediocre system.

Posted by sylphhead at 08/21/2006 @ 12:47pm
If Lieberman had any class, he'd come clean and admit he's actually a member of Israel's Likud party.

Posted by rabblerowzer at 08/21/2006 @ 1:10pm
Posted by MASK 08/21/2006 @ 12:07am

I didn't leave it entirely out. I said if Lieberman wins it will not signal the death of the Democratic Party (as claimed by many here). As for nudging away, maybe in 2008, but since most of the ones I am speaking about are already straddling the issue, it likely won't nudge them anywhere. If Joe wins, they will just keep straddling until the next election, unless something else develops. However, the principle effect I am speaking about is for 2006 and those up for election this year. The CT general election results will be too late for them.

Posted by Hman23 at 08/21/2006 @ 1:13pm
Liberty -

I am not sure what your point is. Conservatives have their own Joe Lieberman too. His name is Lincoln Chaffee.

Posted by Hman23 at 08/21/2006 @ 1:18pm
We seem to not be dealing with the same point. My post which you responded to originally dealt with Greider's attack on any Dem who refuses to line up with the hardcore leftists and the intent by them to oust any Dem who won't line up.

Yes, there is a different point, because you are making a false dichotomy. As has been pointed out before, on the Iraq War, there are four types of Democrats: the doves, people like Kucinich, Feingold and Byrd who were opposed to this war from the start; the repentant hawks, like Kerry, Murtha and Edwards, who orginially supported the war, but now see it as a mistake; the cautious hawks, like Clinton, Bayh and Biden, who still support the basic idea of the war although they criticize the specific implementation of it; and the hawks, like Ben Nelson, who supported the war from the beginning and still support it. Lieberman lost because he didn't fit any of these categories. He was an enabler because he gave legitimacy to GOP attacks of Democrats who oppose the war as unpatriotic. You can look at my posts on this issue from the beginning of my involvement here on the Lieberman-Lamont race and see that this has been my point all along.

You seemed to downplay that notion and I have cited multiple examples that validate my point. I thought the reasoning put forth by the left was that Lamont wasn't a viable candidate either until the bloggers got behind him.

It seems you and others are trying to have it both ways.

Show me where I said that Lamont won because of the bloggers. I think that they were a factor, but that the Lieberman situation was unique and therefore not an attempt to "purge" every pro-war Democrat. (For someone who talks about democracy when defending Lieberman's run as an independent, I find it highly ironic that so many on the right refuse to attribute the decision of the Connecticut Democrats, in a record turnout, btw, to nominate Ned Lamont rather than Joe Lieberman.) If the bloggers are a factor, they are not the only factor, and you won't find a post of me saying so.

Trying to bunch every opinion that you disagree with into "the left" and everyone who falls into that category into every single position that you deem as being of "the left" is not going to help you understand the issues and it isn't going to help you in the search for knowledge about the issues.

Posted by steve4wv at 08/21/2006 @ 1:26pm
Posted by HMAN23 08/21/2006 @ 1:13pm | ignore this person

I agree, if Lieberman holds a 10-12% lead over Lamont well into October, the "fence straddling" will continue. (also if Tasini never busts through the "12% ceiling" against HRC).

And if Lieberman wins, and if the GOP holds the House and Senate (2 of 3 I've predicted WON'T happen)....then that about wraps it up for Feingold or Gore or John Kerry 2.0.

Posted by Mask at 08/21/2006 @ 1:54pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/21/2006 @ 1:36pm: Look at the difference in attitude as indicated here:

Some of President Bush's biggest donors are hosting an event next week for Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.), a centrist Republican who has frequently opposed Bush's top priorities.

Gee Scared Little Evangelical Tax Cheat, that doesn't sound too different from the primary support given to Lieberman by the Democratic establishment. Remember, pretty much all of the Democratic leadership endorsed and campaigned for Lieberman, including President Clintion.

What is the significant difference that you see?

Signaling that the White House is solidly behind Chafee's candidacy, Andrew Card, Bush's chief of staff, also will be on hand

Um, Scared Little Evangelical Tax Cheat, you realize that Card resigned in April. The article you are quoting is from June 23, 2005.

You are a disingenuous little sh*t, aren't you?

Oh, and here is the lede from last week's AP story [tinyurl.com] on the RI primary:

Fresh off their first victory over a Republican incumbent, GOP conservatives seeking party purity on taxes and spending are focused on ousting moderate Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island.

Sounds like you whackjobs are trying to purge the party.

Praise the Lord!

Posted by orwell2005 at 08/21/2006 @ 2:10pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/21/2006 @ 2:16pm: However, you won't find conservatives mounting the kind of attack on him that you see with the left against Lieberman.

The degree to which you are a lying scumbag is extraordinary, Scared Little Evangelic Tax Cheat. Your boys are going after Chafee. And the Club for Growth has been going after the few remaining moderate republicans for several years.

The best the left can hope for is a possible return to a Dem House in '06.

Gee, a few months ago, you claimed that the best the left can hope for is not to lose ground to the whackjobs. So, I guess the best is getting better.

The Senate seems fairly safe still for Republicans.

If it is only "fairly safe", why is taking the house the best we can hope for?

It's getting better all the time...

Posted by orwell2005 at 08/21/2006 @ 2:28pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/21/2006 @ 1:36pm

Liberty you are comparing views expressed on Counterpunch.org and Michael Moore with those of Norquist and the White House. Apples and oranges - either compare blogs and rags from both sides of the spectrum or compare views expressed by pols and talking heads like Norquist.

Posted by Hman23 at 08/21/2006 @ 2:40pm
The Republican party has proven over many decades to be a party that is far more tolerant of diverse views than the Democrats.

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/21/2006 @ 2:16pm

Liberty - this is rubbish. You cannot paint the entire party like that. It depends who you ask and what their particular bent is. You will find conservatives who bristle at the thought of George H.W. Bush, liberals who disliked Clinton, and conservatives who are abandoning George W. Bush. There are GOP voters, writers, bloggers who want nothing more than to cut Chaffee and Hagel loose, as there are liberals who would like Lieberman and Hillary Clinton made jobless.

You cite fundraising events by the GOP for Chaffee as if that shows the GOP "big tent." Well, big deal - those fundraisers were happening for Lieberman during his primary too. Point me to an incumbent Democrat prior to the primary that did./does not have the support of the state or national Democratic Party. See what happens to those GOP fundraisers if Chaffee loses his primary - they will dry up just like Lieberman - as they should.

The "Democrats in disarray" talking point has nothing behind it - it's just a clever tactic by the GOP to make voters feel that the Democrats are well . . . in disarray.

Posted by Hman23 at 08/21/2006 @ 2:54pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/21/2006 @ 2:39pm: One of these days your mommy is going to come in and find you playing on the internet. Go back and play with your toys until they find a cure for you.

Good comeback scared little evangelical tax cheat.

But, you still haven't explained why you whackjobs are purging Chafee from the "big tent" party?

Do you have an answer?

Posted by orwell2005 at 08/21/2006 @ 2:58pm
Posted by HMAN23 08/21/2006 @ 2:54pm: You cite fundraising events by the GOP for Chaffee as if that shows the GOP "big tent."

Hman, you should understand that the fundraiser referenced by Scared Little Evangelical Tax Cheat took place in the summer of 2005.

Posted by orwell2005 at 08/21/2006 @ 3:01pm
Well, Kerry says Joe is sounding like Dick (using Dick's rhetoric) and since Dick is completely cynical believing only in the self-justification of power can it be that Joe not only sounds like Dick, Joe also believes only in the self-justification of power? Can I go on and say "Joe IS Dick" if I promise to leave out the "a"?

Posted by felicity at 08/21/2006 @ 3:08pm
I'm sorry but that last is rather amusing to me (not that you would have known prior to your comment). I have volunteered in conservative politics since 1960. After 46 years I think you get a feel for the issues.

Well, I know quite a few people on the right and the left who have been activists for decades who don't know diddly squat about the issues, and some of the further things that you say prove that you have no grasp at all.

Bill Clinton played to that demographic and gave the Dems their only real success in the second half of the 20th Century.

Now, my degree was in religious studies, not math, but I did win my county's local math field day competition five years in a row and six times in a seven year stretch. That being said, I don't think that it takes a math genius to prove you wrong on this one. Half of 100 is 50, and if we use the technically accurate definition of the 20th Century of 1901-2000, that would make the second half stretch from 1951-2000. In that time, there were quite a few "real successes" at the ballot box:

1) In 1954, the Democrats regained both Houses of Congress, an edge that would be maintained for 26 years in the Senate and 40 in the House. 2) In 1958, Democrats made huge gains in Congress. 3) In 1960 (the year that you claim to have begun your activism), John F. Kennedy was elected President. 4) In 1964, Lyndon B. Johnson defeated Barry Goldwater in a landslide, winning 60% of the popular vote and the electoral vote in all but Arizona and five states in the Deep South. 5) In 1974, Democrats gained 48 seats in the House. 6) In 1976, Jimmy Carter won the Presidency with 51% of the vote and Democrats made solid gains in each House of Congress. 7) In 1982, Democrats gained 26 seats in the House. 8) In 2000, Democrats gained enough seats in the Senate to force a 50-50 tie, which would ultimately lead to Democratic control of the Senate to the right wing pushing Jim Jeffords out of the party.

Gee, I was able to name eight that didn't include Bill Clinton, and seven of those were after your activism began, so it looks like you still don't have much of a grasp of the issues here.

When the Dems begin embracing any in their party who mirror the conservative Republicans as we do liberal Republicans like Arnold, Guliani, Chafee, Snow, Spector, Whitman, Lindsay, or Rockefeller, perhaps Democrats can laud their being a party of diversity.

First of all, none of the people you have listed are self-identified "liberal Republicans," they all claim to be moderate. Second, it kind of undermines your case when you misspell Giuliani, Snowe and Specter. (Maybe that is why you didn't even try to spell Schwarzenegger correctly.) Third, John Lindsay left the GOP. Fourth, Whitman was burned so many times at the GOP that she became a punchline and irrelevant, leading to her resignation in 2003, and the subsequent publishing of It's My Party, Too, complaining about treatment of moderates like herself. Fifth, if you are talking about Nelson Rockefeller, conservative Republicans are the ones who forced him off the national ticket in 1976, so that is ludicrous.

If you want to back that far, Democrats to this day haven't tried to exile people like Sam Nunn, Gene Taylor, Fritz Hollings or Ben Nelson. The only conservative Democrat I can think of that we have abandoned was Zell Miller, who left us first, only he won't change the D behind his name because he knows that with an R behind his name, he is just another partisan hack.

Also, if the GOP doesn't go after its own, how do explain the way John McCain got swiftboated in the 2000 Presidential primary?

You know, when you are claiming to have this great political accumen from years of experience, it doesn't help when you display just how much you lack it.

Posted by steve4wv at 08/21/2006 @ 3:12pm
Posted by HMAN23 08/21/2006 @ 11:29am The reach has been exaggerated by both sides. If Lieberman wins, it's not the defeat of the Democratic Party on a national scale. If Lamont wins it hardly means that an anti-war position will win in all other states.

The biggest effect is the freedom of Democrats who think they are in safe seats to sell out to big money interests, safe in the knowledge that incumbency and the (D) after their name will keep them safe.

Liberman was supposed to win this easy, with nobody to run against him on whatever Republican't pandering he wished to do, based on the fact that he was more Democrat than any RRW Republican't challenger could ever be.

That fact that he has to run is his punishment for failing to hold George W Bush to account for being a lying sack of shit on the occupation of Iraq and for playing politics with terrorism, allowing people who might have been terrorists to get of scot free.

And it is automatic that with his superior name recognition, the present lead is the maximum he is going to get. The empirical evidence on name recognition is that there are clearly a number of Independents who have not yet heard Lamont call for Bush to be held to account. When they do, some will support him.

If Lieberman wins a close victory, its still stands as additional discipline on DINO positions ... if Lamont wins, it only gets better.

Posted by BruceMcF at 08/21/2006 @ 3:33pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/21/2006 @ 2:16pm The Republican party has proven over many decades to be a party that is far more tolerant of diverse views than the Democrats.

Yes, but those decades do not include the 80's, 90's or "naughties". A willingness to engage in a brutal intra-party fight to the death is one of the main tools of the radical reactionary wing of the Republican't party in their rise to dominance.

Posted by BruceMcF at 08/21/2006 @ 3:36pm
In '08 there would have to be some truly terrible economic news (ie a complete market crash) and a total massive success by the terrorists against the US for a leftist to have any real opportunity in the presidential election.

Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/21/2006 @ 2:16pm

Liberty - so many conservatives blame liberals or Democrats for things that go wrong as it is even though they have been running the show for almost 6 years - whether it is Bill Clinton's policies in the 90's or the "message" the Democrats are sending to the terrorists today - Orrin Hatch even said that the "terrorists" are waiting to see what happens with the 2006 election, hinting that the "terrorists" will attack more if the Decmoratcs take control (i.e. if you vote DEM, you are voting to be attacked).

So do not worry - no matter what happens Karl Rove will figure out a way to blame the Democrats.

Posted by Hman23 at 08/21/2006 @ 3:39pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/21/2006 @ 2:16pm In '08 there would have to be some truly terrible economic news (ie a complete market crash) and a total massive success by the terrorists against the US for a leftist to have any real opportunity in the presidential election.

Well then, the Democrats better hope to have a radical reactionary Republican't in the WH for the next two years ... a wait a minute, they are going to have that.

Pushing the economy into recession is a long time Republican't skill, and giving aid and comfort to terrorists through putting politics over success on the ground is an extra new twist added by the Bush regime.

| ignore this person

Posted by BruceMcF at 08/21/2006 @ 3:43pm
Brucemcf, since you know it all when it comes to Republicans, the economy and recession, can you tell us why federal tax revenue has made such a huge jump since Bush took office? Hold on to your seats everyone, this one's gonna have lots of twists and turns and SPINS!

Posted by barry25 at 08/21/2006 @ 4:16pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/21/2006 @ 4:11pm:

Silly Scared Little Evangelical Tax Cheat. As was pointed out numerous times, the Democratic establishment overwhelmingly supported Lieberman, until Lieberman lost in the primary. Chafee has yet to lose in his primary.

If Chafee does lose the primary, are you claiming that Republicans will refuse to endorse Laffey?

Posted by orwell2005 at 08/21/2006 @ 4:25pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/21/2006 @ 4:33pm: Lastly, I know Dems need to do it, but listing Carter in a resume of successes would seem rather embarrassing.

Nowhere near as embarassing as citing George W. Bush and Richard M. Nixon.

Posted by orwell2005 at 08/21/2006 @ 4:38pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/21/2006 @ 4:11pm

Posted by ORWELL2005 08/21/2006 @ 4:25pm

You took the words right out of my mouth Orwell.

And another thing Liberty, you posted something a few months ago about how conservatives "have stayed home from the polls before and we are willing to do it again, if necessary" or something along those lines. So, do conservatives really "get it" or did you mean something else when you said that?

Posted by Hman23 at 08/21/2006 @ 5:04pm
BARRY25 08/21/2006 @ 4:16pm

After Bruce gives you an answer, since you seem to represent the conservative point of view, maybe you can tell us for starters why the Bush administration has borrowed more money from foreign governments and banks than all previous administrations combined.

Posted by Hman23 at 08/21/2006 @ 5:19pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 08/21/2006 @ 5:16pm

That was in the context of the presidency which is supposed to reflect the party.

You were the one who brought up Nixon in '72 as evidence of the "big GOP tent." So, you are starting to confuse me here.

But Congressional races are and should be different. They should be more reflective of their state or district.

Exactly what happened in the CT primary.

That doesn't conflict with this whole Lieberman/Lamont issue. My issue there is the labeling of someone as a traitor or turncoat because they choose to still run on their conscience.

I take issue with that as well. So I trust you also take issue whenever a Republican (or as Lieberman did to some extent) attaches those labels to those that oppose the occupation in Iraq, or warrantless wiretaps, or rendition, or torture.

As I said because we seem to better understand the difference in local vs national, Republicans seem to still value those Republicans who do not line up with the national party because of local differences.

Again, I am confused. Republicans and conservative pundits are usually the ones attacking Democrats for not having a cohesive policies, as if the fact that they are all not in lockstep on certain issues is proof that Democrats "have no strategy."

As voters we just do a fairly good job of communicating our disagreement at the national level when the Party screws up as they did with Bush Sr. and Dole.

The upshot I take from this is that Republicans only lose national elections because of the way conservatives feel about the GOP candidate - not that it has anything to do with the Democratic one. That is a bit narcissistic.

But we never go to the extreme (at least most don't) that Dems do with slurring fellow party member. We try to uphold the Reagan Commandment=Thou shalt not speak ill of thy fellow Republican

Apart from blogs, I do not recall any public officials or people from the DNC, tossing slurs at Lieberman. Like I said before, you could probably find plenty of conservative blogs doing the same to Chaffee, Snowe, and the others on your earlier list.

And as far as "never speaking ill of thy fellow Republicans," I definitely agree that commandment is followed by many conservatives - no matter what a Republican may do. That is the problem with so many conservatives recently - they put loyalty to the party over loyalty to laws, the constitution, adherence to ethical standards, and common decency.

Posted by Hman23 at 08/21/2006 @ 5:51pm
Liberty:

Because I am sure we will go off in a dozen different directions, let me get to the point. Democrats understand too that the party will have more conservative Democrats in places like the Prairie States and in the South. It's just silliness to suggest otherwise. If they didn't take that view, the so-called red states would not have any Democrats at all. This is obviously not the case. Had Lieberman won the primary, the DNC and other Democrats in Congress would have been right behind him going into the general election.

And who are the other Democrats being branded as traitors by the party? Sure, you'll see write-ups of Democrats who voted for or against this bill or that bill and maybe even some calling for their ouster at the next election over it - but that is mainly because in those cases, the side that most of the Democrats were on lost the vote. If the Democrats had carried those votes, you probably wouldn't even hear much about the Democrats who voted the other way. Had these close votes gone against the Republicans, however, you can bet that similar write-ups from conservatives would have rehashed the roll call calling-out the "defectors" in the Republican ranks.

Posted by Hman23 at 08/21/2006 @ 6:28pm
On the evening of March 14,1965 the civil rights marchers were enjoying the last day of the historic Selma To Montgomery March. It was a great love in. Phrases like," we have changed the south forever," and we have changed America forever." It was all wonderful until the young civil; rights workers from Cofo and Sncc arrived from Mississippi. They were bitter and angry. They called Doctor King, "Mr. I'll fix it" "Don't worry about registering to vote folks," Mr. I'll fix it is here." They said the none violent movement is dead and you can not talk non violence to Mississippi Sheriff Rainey's gun." They had been through it all. The jails, the beatings, the tear gas and the shootings. I knew the basis for their fear and anger.

While I agreed with much of what they said (we found a place away from the media to continue our discussion) My argument was simply that we need a Doctor King to create the atmosphere for change. Without that there is no political way to create change. Doctor King has certainly done that. He has involved whites and Blacks, actors and clergy, and even some politicians. From now on it is up to you young folks to keep the momentum going.

Last night I found myself saying the exact same thing to folks who are disappointed in Ned Lamont. I agree he has said and done some things that will lose him a great deal of support among peace activists.

So he has decided to sit down and break bread with SHIMON PEREZ: Who said, "We don't feel that we have to compensate the Hezbollah because they took two of our soldiers. " This is the same man who was responsible for the first massacre at Qana and partly responsible for the second one. He has so tarnished the Nobel Peace prize that it can never be the same. The idea of such a private meeting has shocked many of us, but to use an old sixties expression lets keep our eyes on the prize

Ned Lamont has given courage and impetus to many who want to have their country back. He has created a new political atmosphere for change. We can not abandon him and we can not allow him to make blunders that will destroy that atmosphere. The stakes are too high. There are those who say you can not be against the war in Iraq and support the brutal crimes against humanity of the Israelis and I agree, but I have spent most of my life in the struggle for peace and justice and I can not let the Lamont momentum die.

It is a time for MORE involvement. Let him know what you think and help guide him. He is after all a beginner with the fever. David Truskoff Suttonbear@erols.com www.erols.com/suttonbear

Posted by Lolah at 08/21/2006 @ 6:29pm
Hman23, for one, Bush spends ( like a liberal ) way too much for sure, and he needs to cut back on those damn entitlement programs! Second, America is involved in a few issues that just popped up, in case you didn't know, like a WAR ON TERROR, WAR IN IRAQ, WAR IN AFGANISTAN, natural disasters like KATRINA, and HOMELAND SECURITY. Now, it may be news to you, BUT THESE THINGS COST MONEY! Furthermore, trust me, all future administrations will keep spending more money than the previous due to the fact that ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS are spreading like wildfire and our gov't pays for it in terms of criminal justice, health care, educations etc. Every year there are more mouths to feed, people to incarcerate, people to give medical attention to, and so on. Got it! Now grow up and realize that fighting a war on terror and taking care of the citizens of another country ( MEXICO ) costs a lot of money! Thank gooodness for tax cuts that increased federal revenue to pay for this shit! Class is dismissed!

Posted by barry25 at 08/21/2006 @ 6:58pm
I've got to run out but will try and get to the rest later (unless we all get thoroughly sidetracked by some new issue).

In 1992= 62% of Evangelicals voted for Bush Sr.

In 1996 65% of Evangelicals voted for Dole

2000 I don't have the figures

2004 85% of Evangelicals voted for Bush

http://Evangelicalvote.notlong.com [url]

You tell me if that doesn't make a difference. I get a lot of my faith based survey data from the Barna Group.

LL, have you no understanding of the concept of irony? You have been saying all along that conservatives welcome people into their fold with open arms, but now you are saying that to cross you is to seal that candidate's defeat. You are going to have to make up your mind which argument you are going to make. Does your party allow contradicting points of view or does it not?

That being said, I seriously question the poll that says that 85% of evangelicals voted for Bush. I have seen polls that said that Bush won 78% of white evangelicals, so once you factor in evangelicals of all colors, it has to be lower than 78%.

Still, you are now saying that yuor comment about "no real successes" was at the state and local level, which is completley ludicrous because your exception to the rule was Bill Clinton in the '90's, not even Clinton in the '70's and '80's. That being said, a Democrat in the South is often to the right of a Republican in the North. Look at my state. I haven't seen a mass movement to oust Joe Manchin from the Democratic Party, even though the odds that, with his ideology, that he would be a Democrat in any other state is quite low. Go farther into the south and it is the same thing. You are going to have to make up your mind what your argument is if you expect anyone to believe it.

Posted by steve4wv at 08/21/2006 @ 7:33pm
Barry - thank you so much for enlightening me. Let's see - apart from the entitlement programs (does this include missing billions from the Pentagon and overcharges flowing to his corproate cronies?) estimates are that illegal immigration has a net cost, after taking out $16B a year in tax revenue paid by illegal immigrants, about $10B a year (this is disputed, but I will assume it for this discussion); Katrina costs expected to exceed $7B; Homeland Security (which I think includes your "War on Terror") budget in FY 2006 was around $40B. And invading and occupying Iraq - a country that did not attack us and did not have WMD - has cost over $300B to date. Yes, teacher, thank you for reminding me that the biggest part of this pie is Bush's misadventure in Iraq.

Posted by Hman23 at 08/21/2006 @ 7:36pm
Does your party allow contradicting points of view or does it not?

Posted by STEVE4WV 08/21/2006 @ 7:33pm

You missed it Steve, Liberty says REPs allow them when commenting on races in other states, not in national elections for president. THEN it is ok to not have the big tent view.

I agree with the rest of your points, made some of the same to Liberty myself, but cannot see why he doesn't get it.

Posted by Hman23 at 08/21/2006 @ 7:39pm
I agree with the rest of your points, made some of the same to Liberty myself, but cannot see why he doesn't get it.

Well, LL (I won't call him by his full name because it is just as misleading as the Clear Skies Act) won't understand because he refuses to understand. Willful ignorance can be quite strong. I have dealt with it face-to-face, and I know it when I see it, and this is what is at play here.

Posted by steve4wv at 08/21/2006 @ 8:01pm
Hman: so we seem to agree on almost everything, and that's encouraging. Here's where you're flat wrong: the war in Iraq was completely and totally justified! Now, you, me, and everyone else do not KNOW whether there were, or are, WMD'S in Iraq ( OR WERE MOVED TO SYRIA ), we all can only SPECULATE! Because something has not been found it does not mean it doesn't exist! So your claim that Iraq didn't have WMD's is just wishful/hopeful thinking! Let's just remember that Clinton didn't quite experience costly occurences such as 9-11, Katrina, etc. And it was Clinton who allowed terrorism to grow and strengthen, and allowed Saddam to go unchecked ( so did the U.N.). And don't even try to give Clinton credit for the great economy of the 90's, give it to Silicon Valley!

Posted by barry25 at 08/21/2006 @ 8:26pm
Posted by BARRY25 08/21/2006 @ 8:26pm: the war in Iraq was completely and totally justified! Now, you, me, and everyone else do not KNOW whether there were, or are, WMD'S in Iraq ( OR WERE MOVED TO SYRIA ), we all can only SPECULATE! Because something has not been found it does not mean it doesn't exist!

I have heard it said, Ba, that you are an agent of Al Qaeda. Some people say that you are stockpiling weapons and plan to kill Dear Leader.

To clear this up, Ba, it would be helpful if you could:

* Prove that you are not an agent of Al Qaeda

* Prove that you are not stockpiling weapons to use in your jihad against the United States

* Prove that you are not plotting to kill Dear Leader

I don't want to believe that you are a traitor, Ba. But without proof, I would only be speculating. And I don't think that the United States of America can take that kind of chance.

Posted by orwell2005 at 08/21/2006 @ 8:56pm
Well, Barry did insult me when I asked him about his veteran status, so maybe that was because I was onto him. ;-)

That reminds me. Maasch, you never did answer my question about your military status, so are you a veteran?

Posted by steve4wv at 08/21/2006 @ 9:09pm
Orwell = freak ( get checked soon )! Steve4wv, I'll continue to insult you because you're a fool! You speak for the tiny MINORITY of military personell, the vast majority consider you a traitor! I don't remember being asked about my veteran status though, but if you'd like to know, I have never served in the military. I am, however, an American citizen and taxpayer and in case you are too stupid to be aware of it, the U.S. military is ALL-VOLUNTEER, moron! I, as an American citizen, have the right to an opinion on the affairs of our country and military, and I also have the right to vote accordingly as did the draft-dodger ( whom I'm sure you voted for )Bill Clinton! So, any argument that one cannot have an opinion or debate the issue of war if they haven't served in the military is an asinine and childish argument at best. Grow up, and stop betraying your fellow servicemen and women!

Posted by barry25 at 08/21/2006 @ 9:55pm
We were not attacked "from all sides", but our response has ensured that we will be in the future. As soon as we can get just one conservative to stop name calling and telling people who disagree with them "you suck" and actually engage in informed debate (not the shouting down of dissent that passes for debate on Fox News), we might actually move forward and heal some of the deep divides this current administration has inflicted on our nation.

Posted by mfuent1 at 08/21/2006 @ 11:24pm
Posted by BARRY25 08/21/2006 @ 9:55pm: Orwell = freak ( get checked soon )!

I am truly sorry, Ba, that you offer not one iota of defense against the charge that you are an Al Qaeda agent plotting to kill Dear Leader. Maybe, just maybe, we're on to you, old boy.

You speak for the tiny MINORITY of military personell, the vast majority consider you a traitor!

But Ba, how would you know this? You told me that you came from a "good family" that didn't believe in service to country. So, how would you have the slightest f*cking clue what the vast majority of military "personell" think about anything?

So, any argument that one cannot have an opinion or debate the issue of war

Ba, you are a head without a brain. You can neither form opinions nor debate in any rational manner. Whatever information you discharge, has been directly injected into your spinal nerve cells by some, as yet, undetermined process.

if they haven't served in the military is an asinine and childish argument at best.

Then why do you keep bringing it up? No one ever said you don't have a right to an opinion. What people have questioned, Ba, is how you can look in the mirror when you argue for the existential importance of sending American citizens to fight and die in far-off lands, yet you yourself are unwilling to take up arms in the fight.

Your excuse that you come from "good family" makes you a Grade A prize chickenhawk.

And you know it, too. Doncha Ba. That's why you explode into tantrums whenever someone calls you on it. You're a coward, Ba.

Posted by orwell2005 at 08/21/2006 @ 11:38pm
Orwell, you're insane. You got me mixed up with someone else. First of all, I never said I was from a good family who didn't believe in military service. Second, I don't think I've ever said to anyone ( ever ) that I come from a good family, because I come from an OK family, due mainly to the fact that some in my family were the typical irresponsible liberal " anything goes " types. So Orwell, you really are mixed up, and you mixed me up with someone else on this last issue. Now here's another bitchslap to your face: I can look in the mirror the same way Bill " draft dodger " Clinton did ( and you didn't question him, you hypocrite ) when he said we needed to send bombs and troops to Bosnia. I can look in the mirror the same way John " if you don't believe saddam is a threat, you shouldn't vote for me " Kerry did when he voted to go to war, I can look in the mirror the same way Hillary and the majority of the Dem. party did when they voted to go to war ( based on worldwide, not Bush's, intelligence ). Now, dumbshit, Almost all, if not all, of these Dem's NEVER served a second in the military, and you never questioned them ( I'm speculating based on your idiotic viewpoints ) concerning their decisions to go to war. How many times do I have to clown you before you get it?

Posted by barry25 at 08/22/2006 @ 12:01am
I guess this is one of those 10% of the times that good ole Joe goes against the Dems................

Posted by joeyess at 08/22/2006 @ 02:29am
You speak for the tiny MINORITY of military personell, the vast majority consider you a traitor!

If Barry is talking to me, I have him on my ignore list, because I have better things to do with my day than read someone's verbal diarrhea that never gets anywhere near a coherent point. When someone gets so angry he/she can't see straight and calls me a traitor, even though I have done more for the country than he has, and had to go to an unjust war so he could sit comfortably on his butt and feel so morally superior for "supporting our troops" by putting a stupid magnetic ribbon on his car.

How would anyone know that "the vast majority" in the military consider me a traitor? Before we got activated, I'd say about 90% of my unit disagreed with me on the war. When we were overseas, a lot of people came up to me to apologize and tell me that I was right all along. (By the time we got home, the support for the war was about 50-50 in my unit.) Then again, I've actually been there and seen what is going on, so I know what I speak of, and I don't have to watch Fox news for their sunshiny spin of the war to get my facts.

Then why do you keep bringing it up? No one ever said you don't have a right to an opinion. What people have questioned, Ba, is how you can look in the mirror when you argue for the existential importance of sending American citizens to fight and die in far-off lands, yet you yourself are unwilling to take up arms in the fight.

Exactly. If someone believes that a war is just and good, is of the proper age for military service (the Army is now allowing people to enlist up to their 42nd birthday) and of sound mind and body, and they refuse to join the military, then they are showing to me, and to lots of people who are actually in the military, that they don't have the courage of their conviction. Just because someone is a physical and moral coward doesn't preclude that person from an opinion, but I will continue to voir dire anyone's military credentials if they are going to accuse me of treason for telling the truth about an unjust war, which is exactly what a patriot is supposed to do.

Posted by steve4wv at 08/22/2006 @ 08:13am
Steve, then you better not vote for a Dem. ever again. I'm sorry to have to tell you for the third time but the majority of Dem's seeking re-election voted for a war that they thought was " just and good ", and we don't see any of them having the " courage and conviction " of enlisting in the military ( those cowards )! So, by using YOU'RE words against you, I have shown how hypocritcal it would be for you to vote for many Dem's in upcoming elections. Furthermore, nimrod, I base my facts ( that the vast majority of military personell disagree with your seditious point of view )on info. given to me by a great friend who has already served 2 tours in Iraq ( convoys, very dangerous ) and not info. given by Fox news! Furthermore, he is trying/wanting to go back to Iraq to serve his country and he's feeling quite guilty about not being there right now. Forgive me, but I'll take his word over your's any day!

Posted by barry25 at 08/22/2006 @ 3:53pm
BARRY -

Check the roll call on the AUMF. 81 DEM reps voted for it, 126 against it. 29 DEM senators for, 21 against. Not sure that gets you a majority.

Posted by Hman23 at 08/22/2006 @ 4:20pm
I won't waste my time looking it up, I'll take you at your word! So, there are 81 cowardly Dem's that Steve won't be voting for or supporting in upcoming elections due to the fact that they are cowards! If Hillary runs, Steve will be a hypocrite if he votes for her! If Steve voted for Bill Clinton, he's a hypocrite! Clinton sent troops and boms to Bosnia and murdered American citizens ( see Waco )and didn't serve a day in the military ( see: draft dodger )!

Posted by barry25 at 08/22/2006 @ 5:05pm
I agree, if Lieberman holds a 10-12% lead over Lamont well into October, the "fence straddling" will continue.

Posted by MASK 08/21/2006 @ 1:54pm | ignore this person

Lieberman may not hold a 10-12% lead over Lamont to the end of August, let alone into October.

ARG has Lieberman - Lamont at 44% - 42% as of today, 8/22/06.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/ctsenate/

Posted by Lillian at 08/23/2006 @ 02:04am

About the Authors

Adam Howard (Posts | Bio)
Ari Melber (Posts | Bio)
Ari Berman (Posts | Bio)
Betsy Reed (Posts | Bio)
Christopher Hayes (Posts | Bio)
Dave Zirin (Posts | Bio)
D.D. Guttenplan (Posts | Bio)
Emily Douglas (Posts | Bio)
Esther Kaplan (Posts | Bio)
Eyal Press (Posts | Bio)
Jon Wiener (Posts | Bio)
Laura Flanders (Posts | Bio)
Leslie Savan (Posts | Bio)
Maria Margaronis (Posts | Bio)
Melissa Harris-Lacewell (Posts | Bio)
Richard Kim (Posts | Bio)
Roane Carey (Posts | Bio)
Zephyr Teachout (Posts | Bio)

Identity Crisis

posted by greider on 08/18/2006 @ 1:49pm

About the Authors

Adam Howard (Posts | Bio)

Ari Melber (Posts | Bio)

Ari Berman (Posts | Bio)

Betsy Reed (Posts | Bio)

Christopher Hayes (Posts | Bio)

Dave Zirin (Posts | Bio)

D.D. Guttenplan (Posts | Bio)

Emily Douglas (Posts | Bio)

Esther Kaplan (Posts | Bio)

Eyal Press (Posts | Bio)

Jon Wiener (Posts | Bio)

Laura Flanders (Posts | Bio)

Leslie Savan (Posts | Bio)

Maria Margaronis (Posts | Bio)

Melissa Harris-Lacewell (Posts | Bio)

Richard Kim (Posts | Bio)

Roane Carey (Posts | Bio)

Zephyr Teachout (Posts | Bio)

Archives

» The Beat

» The Notion

» Altercation

» Editor's Cut

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!

Identity Crisis

posted by greider on 08/18/2006 @ 1:49pm

Share this article

About the Authors

Adam Howard (Posts | Bio)

Ari Melber (Posts | Bio)

Ari Berman (Posts | Bio)

Betsy Reed (Posts | Bio)

Christopher Hayes (Posts | Bio)

Dave Zirin (Posts | Bio)

D.D. Guttenplan (Posts | Bio)

Emily Douglas (Posts | Bio)

Esther Kaplan (Posts | Bio)

Eyal Press (Posts | Bio)

Jon Wiener (Posts | Bio)

Laura Flanders (Posts | Bio)

Leslie Savan (Posts | Bio)

Maria Margaronis (Posts | Bio)

Melissa Harris-Lacewell (Posts | Bio)

Richard Kim (Posts | Bio)

Roane Carey (Posts | Bio)

Zephyr Teachout (Posts | Bio)

Archives

» The Beat

» The Notion

» Altercation

» Editor's Cut

» The Dreyfuss Report

» Act Now!