Connecticut Primary will be the vote heard 'round the world

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Connecticut Primary will be the vote heard 'round the wo

Postby anothershamus » Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:02 pm

Maybe finally there will be a democrat that has a backbone and will stand up against the war. <br><br>Joe also got a note from Carl Rove that the White House will do anything at all to help him run to independant to split the vote and get a repub. in. <br><br>Obvious politics, too bad Joe can't just gracefully concede like he did last time! <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
anothershamus
 
Posts: 1913
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:58 pm
Location: bi local
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Connecticut Primary will be the vote heard 'round the wo

Postby Et in Arcadia ego » Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:17 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Obvious politics, too bad Joe can't just gracefully concede like he did last time!<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Yeah, it's not he's running for POTUS or anything dramatic..<br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/images/smiles/icon_hihi.gif" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--> <p>____________________<br>Some are born to sweet delight, some are born to endless night.</p><i></i>
User avatar
Et in Arcadia ego
 
Posts: 4104
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 5:06 pm
Location: The Void
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Connecticut Primary will be the vote heard 'round the wo

Postby chiggerbit » Fri Aug 11, 2006 1:39 pm

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://politicalwire.com/">politicalwire.com/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>"In Connecticut, Orchulli Approached About Senate Race<br>According to The Politicker, there may soon be a new face and a huge wild card in the Connecticut Senate race - multi-millionaire Jack Orchulli. <br><br>Orchulli ran against Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) in 2004 and drew nearly one-third of the vote. He says the state GOP has already approached him about replacing Alan Schlesinger on the November ballot. Schelsinger is polling very low after a gambling scandal. <br><br>"Should the party decide that they want me, and should Mr. Schlesinger decide that he wants to step aside, I would make myself available to them," said Orchulli. <br><br>The fashion mogul's entry in the race would likely be a huge drag on Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT), who will need independent and Republican votes to win the November election." <br> <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Connecticut Primary will be the vote heard 'round the wo

Postby chiggerbit » Fri Aug 11, 2006 3:29 pm

Joe Lieberman:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>"If we pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to, get out of Iraq by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England,"<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br>OMG, will someone please send Lieberman and his ilk back to geography class? When are people like Lieberman going to realize that Iraq is not the source of terrorism outside of Iraq? When do we get to invade Pakistan and go after Usama? Hell, it's even too late for that, since the administration's incredible bungling has metastasized the terror. <br><br>(I'm picturing a new ad here, along the lines of the duck and the Aflak ad, with Teacher Lamont standing in front of a big map, using a pointer to point out the correct country to Little Ducky Joe. "What's the capitol of Pakistan, Joe? IRAQ!!!! Where's Usama hiding, Joe? IRAQ!!!! What country has the highest Muslim population, Joe? IRAQ!!! Where were the World Trade Towers located, Joe? IRAQ!!! What country were were all the hijackers from? IRAQ!!!) <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 8/16/06 10:20 pm<br></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Connecticut Primary will be the vote heard 'round the wo

Postby Et in Arcadia ego » Fri Aug 11, 2006 11:12 pm

Here's the best one yet:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/news/opinion/15249007.htm">www.philly.com/mld/dailyn...249007.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>BUSH AND CHENEY'S REIGN OF ERROR<br>VEEP SAYS CONN. VOTERS AIDING AL QAEDA. NOW, THAT'S SCARY.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>THESE PEOPLE have no shame. Their contempt for democracy is so great they will stop at nothing to undermine it. Their adherence to fundamentalist beliefs that blinds them to reality is frightening. They must be stopped.<br><br>And that's just the Republicans.<br><br>Let's start with Vice President Dick Cheney.<br><br><!--EZCODE UNDERLINE START--><span style="text-decoration:underline">Yesterday, Cheney bashed those who voted for Democrat Ned Lamont in the Connecticut Senate primary, claiming that these votes would encourage "al Qaeda types" to think that "they can break the will of the American people."</span><!--EZCODE UNDERLINE END--><br><br>The idea is that since 18-year incumbent Joe Lieberman lost based on his support for Iraq, Americans opposing the war are waving a white flag of surrender to terrorists.<br><br>This is stunningly ignorant logic, as well as annoyingly consistent with the Bush administration's fundamentalist myth that Iraq had ties to al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden - a claim by now well-discounted, most notably by a presidential commission.<br><br>And yet the presidential fog machine has continued to belch out its Iraq-al Qaeda-link fumes to the extent that a recent poll suggests that 64 percent of Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein had strong links to al Qaeda. More people than ever now believe, according to a new poll, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.<br><br>Ironically, the number who believe in the al Qaeda link is almost precisely the same number of Americans - 62 percent - who believe we are bogged down in Iraq.<br><br>For Cheney - and other Republicans like GOP National Chairman Ken Mehlman - to suggest that those Americans are encouraging terrorism is reprehensible.<br><br>Cheney's comments came out a day before British intelligence officials announced they had thwarted a major terrorist attack. Surely Cheney was aware of the plot and the work to thwart it, and was no doubt aware of the timing of yesterday's announcement.<br><br>To exploit a very real terror threat that could have led to major casualties, and to even indirectly implicate Americans who were exercising their democratic right by going to the polls and making a choice borders on the criminal, to say nothing of the insane.<br><br>Has Cheney completely lost it?<br><br>The latest terror scare is upsetting enough: It is bound to lead to havoc and chaos both domestically and internationally. It could damage the economy if fears on flying are sustained. It reopens the profound wounds of 9/11, a scab we should figure by now will never completely heal.<br><br>But the real terror is this: While our Vacationer- in-Chief and his vice president shut down dissent, and discourage questions about the way our government has directed our intelligence and military resources toward a single target in Iraq, we are no closer to understanding or dismantling the threat of al Qaeda.<br><br>Cheney's remarks underscore just how unsophisticated our understanding of terrorism is. We have no more understanding of the global forces at work that lead so many to want to bomb and destroy innocent lives than we did five years ago.<br><br>America's latest crisis is not what happened in Connecticut; it's what was going to happen in airplanes over the Atlantic.<br><br>The immoral and ridiculous claims coming out of the Bush administration's reign of error could ultimately be responsible for the kind of casualties that al Qaeda can only dream of.<br>__________________________<br><br>I just wanna know when the concentration camps are going to open, cause by this logic of theirs, more than half our country needs a heavy dose of Zyklon B..<br><br>I wanna know when these f#cking assholes are gonna put their money where their mouths are and start acting against the dismantled Constitution and start imprisoning and executing American dissidents. Maybe they'll have balls enough to make it a reality TV show.<br><br>I wish something out there had the inertia to force their hand into coming out in the open just once.. <p>____________________<br>Some are born to sweet delight, some are born to endless night.</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=etinarcadiaego@rigorousintuition>et in Arcadia ego</A>  <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://www.sickle666.com/images/Arcadia.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 8/11/06 9:25 pm<br></i>
User avatar
Et in Arcadia ego
 
Posts: 4104
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 5:06 pm
Location: The Void
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Connecticut Primary will be the vote heard 'round the wo

Postby chiggerbit » Fri Aug 11, 2006 11:53 pm

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>presidential fog machine</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> <br><br>I love it. Kind of reminds one of those mosquito fogging machines, eh? <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Anti-war candidates still learning to tie their shoes.

Postby rothbardian » Sat Aug 12, 2006 5:57 am

By the way, I wonder if it occurs to anybody that it does not matter one teensy tiny bit WHO defeated Lieberman? It makes absolutely NO difference. Why is that?<br><br>It makes no difference because there isn't a single candidate for any higher office in the land (Lamont included) who rises even to the level of average intelligence required to see through the 9/11 scam, and see it for the false flag operation that it was.<br><br>So...if Howard Dean were to make it into the White House...or Lamont's popularity dramatically snowballed and catapulted him onto the national scene, right past the Senate and into the Oval Office (by the way, we'll ignore his scary 'Bushesque' pedigree for the moment)...<br><br>...both of those dimbulbs (pardon my French) have not the first foggy clue as to the true nature of 9/11. And there are hundreds more politician/dimbulbs where they came from.<br><br>THEREFORE....when "9/11 Part-Two" comes along and Bush/Cheney murder several more thousands of American citizens --say 500,000 Bostonians (or something)-- people like Dean or Lamont will have absolutely zero ability or intellectual grounds for withstanding a huge nationwide roaring 'war whoop'.<br><br>They would meekly climb onto the war bandwagon along with everyone else because after all...Osama Bin Laden and the terrorists have struck again. <br><br>There certainly are belated opponents (erstwhile supporters, by the way) to the Iraq War on Capitol Hill (mostly only because "it's being fought the wrong way"). <br><br>But...was there a single dissenter to the Afghanistan war? (Maybe Congressman Ron Paul, and Cynthia McKinney?) Afghanistan was <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>just as contrived</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> and <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>just as fake</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> as the Iraq war, because Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11. It was Cheney/Bush.<br><br>At the very very least, we need candidates who are screaming bloody-murder about 9/11...otherwise even the most rabid anti-war politician is nothing but cannon fodder, if another 9/11 (x10 maybe?) comes along.<br> <p></p><i></i>
rothbardian
 
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:08 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Anti-war candidates still learning to tie their shoes.

Postby chiggerbit » Tue Aug 15, 2006 1:11 pm

Odd how there are not just one, but two personalities in the race for this one seat exhibiting extreme conceit and extreme stubbornness---Lieberman and the Republican gambler whatshisname. I mean, Lieberman thinks he is soooo important that it is his duty to trash the party for its own good? And the other guy says, more or less, I won it, I'm keeping it no matter how much my party wants me to fade away in shame. Whew! Are we talking pathology here?<br><br>Keep an eye on the polls the few weeks before the election if Lamont begins to pull ahead--time for another Mel Carnahan/Paul Wellstone air crash. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 8/21/06 9:18 pm<br></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Lieberman

Postby yathrib » Tue Aug 15, 2006 5:41 pm

The most frightening thing about this is that Lieberman is not just an opportunist with the moral fiber of Vidkun Quisling, but a megalomaniacal psychopath as well. *No one* is as important as he thinks he is. <p></p><i></i>
yathrib
 
Posts: 1880
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 11:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Anti-war candidates still learning to tie their shoes.

Postby Wolfmoon Lady » Wed Aug 16, 2006 11:46 pm

Chigger, thanks for keeping this thread alive. I've been working and also had a couple of days where I wasn't feelin' too good. Meanwhile...<br><br>You should see the freaking campaign ads that Lieberman is running. OMG! He's calling himself a Democratic Independent, and saying he's for ending the war, blah, blah, blah. Most fun is what the GOPS are saying.<br><br>Get this, from MSNBC (*12 hours ago):<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Lieberman vs. Lamont</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>Republicans continue to try to cast Sen. Joe Lieberman (D) as the victim of Democratic disunity over what course to take in Iraq, having apparently decided that they can gain more political ground against Democrats by glomming onto Lieberman than by supporting their own, hardly credible nominee, Alan Schlesinger. Schlesinger himself told MSNBC's Chris Matthews yesterday, "What's happening with the White House is very clear. I'm not going to allow Washington and the media to hijack this race and turn it into a national referendum on... the Democrat Party's future."<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>White House spokesperson Tony Snow said yesterday that Bush will not endorse Schlesinger. </strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> Meanwhile, Vice President Cheney, fundraising in Phoenix, commented that Democratic National Committee chair Howard "Dean's party has turned its back on [Lieberman]. Senator Lieberman was my opponent in 2000... and one of the most loyal and distinguished Democrats of his generation. Joe is also an unapologetic supporter of the fight against terror. He voted to support military action in Iraq when most other senators in both parties did the same -- and he's had the courage to stick by that vote even when things get tough. And now, for that reason alone, <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>the Dean Democrats have defeated Joe Lieberman. Their choice, instead, is a candidate whose explicit goal is to give up the fight against the terrorists in Iraq.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->"<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Dean's call for Lieberman to exit the race two days after the primary took place, which he made in the best interests of the party, hangs out there almost unechoed</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->. Many prominent Democrats were hesitant to follow suit even before the London-based terror plot was exposed, and may be even less inclined to now. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Sen. Russ Feingold, both presidential contenders, have been the only ones to do so, as best we can tell. We'll see what former Sen. John Edwards (D), who very publicly changed his position on the Iraq war by saying his vote for the resolution was wrong, has to say when he campaigns with Lamont on Thursday. Full report <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14301380/" target="top">here.</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>I'm interested in what Edwards has to say, as well. The latest terror alert is meant to separate the men from the boys in the upcoming elections. Let's see which Dems have the spine to stand behind Howard Dean and Russ Feingold.<br><br>Yath - I hear you re that megalomanic thang. Seems to be an epidemic in post 9/11 American politics. Firedoglake's <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/08/16/crooksrus/" target="top">Crooks R Us</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> post might interest you: <!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I hope everyone is done now with slinging around the cockeyed notion that Lieberman somehow is, or ever was a "moderate." This isn’t "moderates" vs. "extremists" as Lanny Davis and Mike McCurry would have it — this is entrenched kleptocrats vs. those who would hold them accountable. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>And do the entitlement set know how to show up for Joe!</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>He quotes<!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/16/105621/233" target="top"> Sirota's must-read rant</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> against corrupt politicians who are still protecting Enron:<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The Hill Newspaper reports that <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20020117-0105-enron-lieberman.html" target="top">Enron lobbyist Michael Lewan</a><!--EZCODE LINK END-->, Joe Lieberman’s former chief of staff, is "work[ing] to quell Democratic discontent with Lieberman and to steer [Senators] away from campaigning against his former boss." Lewan has simultaneously raised cash for Lieberman and for now-convicted Connecticut Republican Gov. John Rowland, telling the Hartford Courant at the time that "they are two like-minded guys" and that his job for both men is to "collect checks and pass them along." Lewan also recently held a lobbyist-sponsored D.C. fundraiser for Lieberman, Lewan breathlessly begging his fellow influence peddlers to give more cash to Lieberman. "The Washington lawyers and lobbyists in those rooms will come back for Joe Lieberman," he said. "Who knows what Lamont would be like?"<br><br>Lewan’s loyalty is understandable - as the Washington Monthly reported, <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0301.scheiber.html" target="top">Lieberman obediently "balked" at Democratic demands to use his committee chairmanship to intensify the Enron investigation</a><!--EZCODE LINK END-->. What is surprising and nauseating is that Lieberman’s Enron lobbyist has any influence over other Democrats.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Sirota's calls out the bottom line (in the same blogpost):<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Make no mistake about it - this is a litmus test issue for Democratic Senators. Echoing one Senate Democratic staffer quoted in the Hill, I'll put it this way: the willingness by some Democrats to embrace Lieberman, continue preserving his committee spots, and reward him with seniority should he defeat the Democratic nominee gives the view that some Democrats "view that the Senate is a country club rather than representative of a political party and political movement."</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br>Another good read from Firedoglake: <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/08/16/lamont-v-cheney/" target="top">Lamont vs. Cheney</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>I'll try to check back later. <br> <p></p><i></i>
Wolfmoon Lady
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Anti-war candidates still learning to tie their shoes.

Postby chiggerbit » Thu Aug 17, 2006 12:18 am

What's surprising me---so far----is that there has been almost no polling bump for the Repugs with this latest terror "crisis". Not yet, so far, although sometimes it takes a little more time than this for that to register. <br><br>Makes me wonder if there aren't a whole bunch of politicians out there who are underestimating the power of the discontent with this war, which is well into its third year, seeing as how WWII lasted four years. Let's see, we were in Nam for how long and never "won", didn't have a hope of winning? Nine years, something like that? All because Vietnam was a "domino", and if it went, communism would take over that whole region. Right. And now we are presented with another domino theory, that if Iraq becomes a Westernized Isalm, the rest of the Middle East will follow suit. Right. I'm getting fricking tired of their domino theories. Ivory tower idiots. How much blood and money and time are Lieberman and his cohorts willing to donate? Of OUR blood and money and time, of course, not his. Over 3000 Iraqi dead this month. Damn. How many Iraqis have to spill their blood into the dirt to pay for a 9/11 with which Iraq had no involvement? It's getting worse, not better. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 8/16/06 10:25 pm<br></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Anti-war candidates still learning to tie their shoes.

Postby chiggerbit » Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:41 pm

Found on Taegan Goddard's Political Wire:<br><br>"Even if Joe Lieberman leaves the race, it will still be a three-way race, me, Schlesinger and Gold. So it's going to be crowded."<br><br>-- Connecticut U.S. Senate candidate Ned Lamont (D), on Hardball, referring to GOP rival Alan Schlesinger's (R) gambling name, "Alan Gold." <br> <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Party of One

Postby Wolfmoon Lady » Sat Aug 19, 2006 5:09 am

Right now, running as an Independent, Lieberman is leading at 53%. The Rethugs are not even supporting their own candidate in CT. That's how sure they are that Joey will win, and believe me, that win will be to their best advantage. Democrats should be writing their representatives and asking some serious questions, like ARE you supporting the CT voter's choice of Ned Lamont or not? If not, why?<br><br>On 8.17.06, David Sirota (Working for Change) posted:<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=1CFF7F2A-E0C3-F090-AB8EF74D1B9B91CE" target="top">National Republican Party Officially Endorses Lieberman for Senate</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Joe Lieberman is no longer the De Facto Republican nominee - he is officially the Republican Party-endorsed candidate for Senate in Connecticut.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>Here is Sirota's 8.18.06 entry:<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/index.cfm?mode=entry&entry=21D4A2F1-E0C3-F08F-99C24D7F9ECE389F" target="top">Sen. Pryor: "Don't ask me to be consistent"</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) is vice-chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee - the committee whose official mission is "to elect more Democrats to the United States Senate." Yet, Pryor says he's supporting GOP-endorsed candidate Joe Lieberman (CT) against Democratic nominee Ned Lamont. He's supporting Lieberman at the very same time he acknowledges that Lieberman's continued parroting of RNC talking points is unacceptable. Pryor's public rationale? "Don't ask me to be consistent," he told a group in Arkansas. Right, I forgot - no one should ask Democratic U.S. Senators to be consistent...what were we thinking?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Firedoglake reports that W. Va's Robert Byrd came out for Lamont, in an 8.18.06 post, <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/08/18/kudos/" target="top">"Kudos",</a><!--EZCODE LINK END-->:<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Senator Robert Byrd, my state Senator, has announced his support for Ned<br>Lamont (h/t Bob Geiger), the Democratic nominee for Senate from the great state of Connecticut. Why is this big news, you ask? Because he is the only member of the "Gang of Fourteen" to do so thus far...<br><br>...Byrd's endorsement now gives the other wavering neutrals and iffy Lieberman supporters steady cover for heading over to the Lamont camp. (As if they needed it, but several ninnies have been hiding out in the "neutral" position on this, and that's simply unacceptable.)<br><br>This is very well timed. And I can't help wondering what Sen. Byrd has worked out in the background on this with some of the other Gang of Fourteen members - and whether we'll see a few more of them stepping out to support Lamont in the days ahead.<br><br>... Bob Geiger has put together the full list of Senators who have gone on the record on a Connecticut endorsement - if your Senator has endorsed Ned, please remember to thank them.<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>If your Senator has not, or hasn't gone on the record at all, please continue to call the office and voice your feelings on that issue as well. You can call toll free at 1-888-355-3588 to the Capitol switchboard.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br>This is a fundamental issue of principle: the Democratic voters of Connecticut have spoken. Either you are for democracy or for incumbent cronyism and back-stabbing party disloyalty. I am proud to say that both my West Virginia Senators stand firmly on the side of democracy. Where do yours stand?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I'm glad CT 'outed' Joe. What good did it do? In the long run, probably nothing. At least, I can sleep at night, knowing I voted my conscience. For some time, I've suspected the GOPS would retain control of the government for the rest of my lifetime. Yet, some part of me held a glimmer of hope that progressives would eventually rally and reform the party. It appears, not surprisingly, that the majority of Dems are cowards, as I said after November 2004, and say again, now. They are interested in nothing more than sustaining the status quo. It's somehow comforting to realize there really is no going back. The Dems ARE dead. Really dead. I don't see a positive outlook for America, just more of the same. If that's what people want, that's what they deserve.<br><br>I'll end this post with a link to Take Back the Media's Flash movie, "<!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://web.takebackthemedia.com/geeklog/public_html/staticpages/index.php?page=20060819044200833" target="top">A Party of One - Joe Blows</a><!--EZCODE LINK END-->" -- set to Dylan's <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Master's of War</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->. It's devastating - like a bullet to the gut.<br><br>Peace. Out. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=wolfmoonlady>Wolfmoon Lady</A> at: 8/19/06 3:17 am<br></i>
Wolfmoon Lady
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: And the band plays on...

Postby Wolfmoon Lady » Mon Aug 21, 2006 8:52 pm

I realize the JonBenet thread is raging but I thought I'd remind folks who care that we in CT are still at it.<br><br>Latest developments --<br><br>I'm sure you've all heard that John Edwards and a few others (LOL) finally endorsed Lamont. This picture cracked me up, so I thought I'd share. Caption, anyone?<br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.courant.com/media/photo/2006-08/24990543.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br>Next, it seems there's a law on the books whereby Lieberman can be removed from the Democratic Party. A local group, based in New Haven, is requesting that Joe be given the formal boot:<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-lieberman-dems-0821,0,7247090.story" target="top">Lieberman's Independent Run Questioned By Democrats</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br>6:04 PM EDT, August 21, 2006 <br>Associated Press <br><br>Critics asked a New Haven election official to remove Sen. Joe Lieberman from the Democratic Party on Monday, a request which could potentially lead to a hearing in which the longtime Democrat would have to argue that he still adheres to the principles of the party.<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>The group, whose members described themselves as peace activists, said Lieberman cannot belong to the Democrat Party while running for office under the "Connecticut for Lieberman" party banner.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br> <br>"The law is pretty clear he is no longer a member of the Democratic Party in good standing," said group leader Henry Lowendorf of the New Haven Peace Council. "There was an open vote and he was voted out. He joined a different party."<br><br>Sharon Ferrucci, the Democratic registrar of voters, said she would research the request, which she said was the first such in her two decades on the job. Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz said Ferrucci could choose to deny the request.<br><br>Lieberman campaign manager Sherry Brown said the effort was "dirty political tricks at its worst."<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Also on Monday, a university professor filed complaints with state officials to try to keep Lieberman's name off the November ballot.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br>John Orman, a Fairfield University political science professor and a former Democratic candidate in the Senate race, filed complaints with the Secretary of the State's Office and the State Elections Enforcement Commission accusing Lieberman of creating "a fake political party" to resuscitate his re-election bid.<br><br>"He's doing anything he can to get his name on the ballot," Orman said.<br><br>Lieberman campaign spokesman Dan Gerstein said Lieberman has followed the law in his re-election campaign. "This is dirty politics at its worst," Gerstein said of Orman's complaint.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->Meanwhile, another strand in the already tangled web. <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Did Harry Reid make a private deal with Joe Lieberman?</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-lieberman0818.artaug18,0,1390319.story?coll=hc-headlines-politics" target="top">Would Party Forgive Joe? Lieberman Says Democrats Can Count On Him If He Wins</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>"Sen. Reid left no doubt in my mind that I would retain my seniority and committee assignments within the Senate Democratic Caucus should I be re-elected," Lieberman said Thursday, "and that has been confirmed to me by several other members of the Democratic caucus."</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>Reid spokesman Jim Manley confirmed that the two men spoke but would not comment on the substance of the conversation. And he added an asterisk: Ultimately, Lieberman's fate is up to his colleagues, who would vote on his status after the election.<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Privately, some members and their advisers are increasingly concerned that Lieberman is becoming political poison for any Democrat who backs him</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> - someone who is too closely identified with President Bush's support for the Iraq war and is getting too much Republican support for his re-election.<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>But at least four factors could help Lieberman retain his status in the Senate, which includes the possible leadership of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee if Democrats win the majority.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>One is Reid. The Nevada Democrat usually is able to bend his caucus to his will, so an endorsement for leaving Lieberman alone would probably carry weight.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> He could also be aided by Dodd. An impassioned pitch by his Connecticut colleague could move members into Lieberman's camp. Dodd, who stumped for Lieberman during the primary campaign but is now backing Lamont, is vacationing and could not be reached for comment.<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Then there's the power an individual senator holds. One person can block Senate legislation or nominations indefinitely,</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> so "the cost of alienating a single member is high," said congressional expert Randall W. Strahan, associate professor of political science at Emory University in Atlanta. "Democrats may not want to treat him in a manner that he sees as heavy-handed."<br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Finally, there's Lieberman himself</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->. "I don't think there's any personal animosity toward him," said Strahan. "<!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>He's never been a bomb thrower, and he's been a good institutionalist</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->."<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->I'll leave the last word to Chimpy:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-bush-lightman,0,1098274.story?coll=hc-headlines-home" target="top">Bush Avoids CT Senate Race</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Bush today pointedly refused to endorse Republican Senate nominee Alan Schlesinger. "I'm staying out of Connecticut," he said, "because…that's what the party suggested, the Republican party of Connecticut, and plus there's a better place to spend our money, time and resources."</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> I don't know whether to be glad or insulted! <p></p><i></i>
Wolfmoon Lady
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: And the band plays on...

Postby chiggerbit » Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:41 pm

Heck, Nevada Senator Reid has suddenly become a boil on the Dem party's rump, so I don't know that he will be able to throw his weight around in the party. (Oops, did I just mix metaphors?) And I see that Joe has come out for dumping Rumsfeld. I don't know if that will be a net loss or a net gain for him. It might appeal to the Dems that already support him, but I doubt that it will to the ones who are for Lamont. However, it may turn some of those Lieberman Repugs off, even enough to back out of suporting Joe. Time will tell.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001385.php">www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001385.php</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>LAT: "Reid Pushed for Buddy Developer, Contributor<br>By Justin Rood - August 21, 2006, 2:33 PM <br>Democrats have tried to make a campaign theme out of the "culture of corruption" in GOP-run Washington. But stories like this don't help their cause one bit. <br><br>From his perch as the top Dem in the Senate, Harry Reid (D-NV) -- that's would-be Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to you, ma'am -- has been trying to do big favors for a close real estate developer/lobbyist friend, the Los Angeles Times reported Sunday. Unfortunately for his pal, Reid's efforts were only middlingly effective.<br><br>How close is Reid to Harvey Whittemore? Reid's son, Leif, is Whittemore's personal lawyer. At one point or another, all four of Reid's sons have worked for Whittemore's law firm. Whittemore says the relationship goes back "decades." (Reid wouldn't comment to the Times for the article.) And Whittemore's given $45,000 to Reid's various organizations, plus $20,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.<br><br>Eight years ago, Whittemore sank at least $15 million for land and rights in a 67-square-mile tract of empty Nevada desert, the paper reported. There, he hoped to build a massive development of 159,000 homes, 16 golf courses, and requisite stores and services.<br><br>Only three things stood in his way: Government plans for a high-voltage power line, the Environmental Protection Agency, and a tortoise. According to the paper, Reid led efforts to help Whittemore around at least two of the three.<br><br>Reid and his Nevada colleagues tried three times to get the power line idea moved off the tract. The first time he tried to get it done for free, although it was worth millions to Whittemore; when that got shot down, he and other Nevada lawmakers tried to get it done for a $160,000 fee. But when that faced criticism, they consented to having it done at a price set by government appraisers. (It wound up costing Whittemore $10.4 million, the Times said.)<br><br>Then there's the EPA: in 2005, the agency objected to Whittemore's plans because they would upset important water resources. According to the Times, Whittemore called Reid's top aide, Peter Umhofer, and asked him to set up a meeting between Whittemore and federal officials. Umhofer called both the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers.<br><br>Reid and Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) called EPA Adminstrator Stephen L. Johnson to complain. Reid staffers called EPA regional officials. A meeting was set up between Reid and Ensign and Johnson. Clearly, the Nevada delegation was showing some interest.<br><br>But before the three men met, Whittemore agreed to several concessions with regional EPA officials and the agency withdrew its concerns.<br><br>And finally, there's the tortoise: in the middle of Whittemore's tract, several thousand acres had been set aside as a protected habitat for the desert tortoise, the Nevada state reptile. Whittemore himself pushed to move the turtles to land on the edge of the tract. The paper gives no evidence that Reid helped with this, but in 2004 the Bureau of Land Management agreed to move the turtle habitat in an exchange some experts said was illegal.<br><br>Reid wouldn't speak with the Times, although according to the paper he has said he supports Whittemore's efforts on economic grounds."<br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 8/21/06 7:50 pm<br></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Politics and Stolen Elections

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests