Primary insanity
August 4, 2006 12:10 PM   Subscribe

Things in the CT-Senate race take a bizarre turn. yesterday several Lieberman supporters waited for Challenger Ned Lamont at a campaign stop. When he got there they all put on Joe Lieberman t-shirts and started harassing him and his supporters. It turns out one of the loudest hecklers was a professional lobbyist for a chemical and health supplies industry group. Today Lieberman announced that he was going to give up [2] on his ground game in order to save money for the general.
posted by delmoi (100 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

 
Wow. What a quick and embarassing implosion. All Lieberman had to do was act like a grown-up. But he couldn't do it, from the nonsensical Weicker ad at the beginning, to the angry appearance at the debate, and to the "crazy bald guy man yelling at a deli for Lieberman" stunt.

I sure hope he just bows out if he loses the primary.

I really admired him till the past few years.
posted by ibmcginty at 12:18 PM on August 4, 2006


He'll got stomped in the primary and then get appointed to replace rumsfeld as secdef.
posted by empath at 12:21 PM on August 4, 2006


Lieberman would be a full to just bow out, if the poll results are to be believed:
In possible general election matchups:
* Running as an independent, Lieberman gets 51 percent, to 27 percent for Lamont and 9 percent for Schlesinger.
posted by smackfu at 12:24 PM on August 4, 2006


There's been a a lot of speculation that Lieberman might be a candidate to replace Rumsfeild as the secretary of defense after the election. That would explain why he's been so loathe to criticize the war effort, since obviously you're not going to get into the bush cabinet if you disagree with the president in any way. The thing is, if he did take the post he would hand one senate seat over to the republicans (since the governor is a republican). Still, why would you give up a six-year senate seat for two more years in the Bush administration?

Then again, Lieberman's perception of the world seems to be very off at the moment.
posted by delmoi at 12:26 PM on August 4, 2006


smackfu, that poll's a couple weeks old, and doesn't account for the impact of a (potentially imminent) testicle-whomping in the primary. I'm not convinced that Joe would run so strong in a general election in a poll on August 10 or 15.
posted by ibmcginty at 12:31 PM on August 4, 2006


I eagerly await Stephen Colbert's response to this.
posted by ColdChef at 12:37 PM on August 4, 2006


He also went back in time and dressed in blackface while standing next to President Clinton.
posted by Falconetti at 12:39 PM on August 4, 2006


Apparently all of the jokes about him looking like Senator Palpatine have led him to emulate the character.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 12:41 PM on August 4, 2006


Wow. That's some serious downward Joementum.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:43 PM on August 4, 2006


smackfu, that poll's a couple weeks old,

Yeah, Quinnipiac didn't include the general election questions on their latest polls for some reason.
posted by smackfu at 12:43 PM on August 4, 2006


Lieberman must have gotten a deal on some slightly used Tom DeLay supporters.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 12:45 PM on August 4, 2006


The left's obsession with the minutia of this particular race bewilders me.
posted by pardonyou? at 12:48 PM on August 4, 2006


I just want to know how Zell Miller got elected in Connecticut in the first place.
posted by mullingitover at 12:50 PM on August 4, 2006


The left's obsession with the minutia of this particular race bewilders me.

Well, let me try to explain, y'know, being a leftist and all. Lieberman is supposedly a Democrat who, for all intents and purposes, votes like (quacks like, smells like, etc.) a Republican. Our side of the aisle has too many of these DLC scumbags (Hillary, I'm looking at you!). We're obsessed simply because here's our chance to clean house, get a real progressive in there.

And you know what? We might lose. Ned Lamont may indeed win the primary and proceed to have his clock cleaned in November. But so what? To paraphrase another famous leftist, Let the word go forth, from this time and place, to regressive and progressive alike, that if you don't represent your constituents, you're out. That, I think, might get DINOs to see things a little differently.

But that's just one leftist's point of view.
posted by John of Michigan at 12:56 PM on August 4, 2006


In case anyone didn't catch Falconetti's reference, it is explained here. Warning: really disturbing picture in story.
posted by ND¢ at 12:57 PM on August 4, 2006


"[Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey] said Friday that if Sen. Joe Lieberman loses his primary Tuesday by a significant margin, he expects the Connecticut lawmaker to abandon plans to run as an independent."
posted by ericb at 12:58 PM on August 4, 2006


Between Iraq and a hard place: In Connecticut, Lieberman is on the brink.
posted by ericb at 1:00 PM on August 4, 2006


Lieberman is supposedly a Democrat who, for all intents and purposes, votes like (quacks like, smells like, etc.) a Republican.

Gallup poll: Lieberman Now More Popular With Republicans Than Democrats.
posted by ericb at 1:01 PM on August 4, 2006


He'll got stomped in the primary and then get appointed to replace rumsfeld as secdef.

Lieberman to Call for Rumsfeld Resignation.
posted by ericb at 1:04 PM on August 4, 2006


smackfu, that poll's a couple weeks old

"With the primary less than a week away, a new Quinnipiac University poll shows Lamont with a solid 54-41 percent lead over Lieberman among likely Democratic voters.

Lamont's edge reflects a remarkable 28-point swing in less than two months. (Lieberman held a 15-point lead over Lamont in a June 5 Quinnipiac poll.)"

[CBS News | August 4, 2006]
posted by ericb at 1:07 PM on August 4, 2006


Christ on a crutch, what an asshole. Reading through some of the coverage on this, I found myself over at meetned.com, a frequently-updated series of digs at Ned Lamont, all of which seem to base their rancor on his being a Greenwich Millionaire. Call me crazy (and I feel like we've discussed this before, though a quick search doesn't turn up anything), but isn't Lieberman an insanely wealthy Gold-coaster himself? It's like he's completely ceded every issue that Lamont is running on, and is basing his campaign on trying to dredge up whatever residual dislike for Fairfield County exists in the rest of the state...
posted by Mayor West at 1:08 PM on August 4, 2006


Here's another pair of perspectives on smackfu's observation, which two weeks ago may have seemed like conventional wisdom, from the likes of Josh Marshall and Mark Schmitt
But as Mark Schmitt's been saying for a while the negative momentum created by a clear defeat in the primary will have a catalyzing effect.1
posted by sequential at 1:11 PM on August 4, 2006


The left's obsession with the minutia of this particular race bewilders me.

The press and media are always like that during elections. Focusing on minor things rather then great issues. And It's been Joe Lieberman himself who's really focused the debate on the minor things. Talking about Lamont owning Halliburton stock (even though he owns some himself), and not releasing his tax returns, etc.

here is an interesting story on the DLC by Matt Taibbi, and one about the liberman Lamont race in Rolling stone.

but isn't Lieberman an insanely wealthy Gold-coaster himself?

Lieberman is from a working class family (his dad owned a liquor store) But he's certainly a millionaire today. I'm sure his wife's job, as a high-priced corporate lobbyist doesn't hurt.
posted by delmoi at 1:13 PM on August 4, 2006


isn't Lieberman an insanely wealthy Gold-coaster himself

"A new financial disclosure statement released by [Lieberman's] office last week lists the value of his investments at between $500,000 and $2 million, compared with an estimated median household net worth in Connecticut of $121,525...The candidates’ financial disclosure statements do not include the value of Lieberman’s homes in New Haven and Washington, D.C...."

[The Hartford Courant | June 4, 2006]
posted by ericb at 1:13 PM on August 4, 2006


Another wierd thing about Lieberman. I used to work towards protecting the patent of a drug that had long lost its patent protection (i.e. it got its fair share of monopoly profits for about two decades) and was trying like CRAZY to protect it. I hated my work (and have since left it).

But, it was funny when the bosses of the drug I worked for wanted to gain protection for the drug from Washington. They went to Lieberman and had him sponsor a bill that classified the drug as a vital anti-chemical terrorism resource (and, yes, it did indeed have such purposes) BUT they wanted him to have the law state that because of how crucial it was to the fight against terrorism that it needed to maintain its patent protection so as to ensure quality and quantity of supply or some garbage.

Now, I'm not sure how many Senators said yes or no, but Joey sure did -- to the point of sponsoring it.

The bill went nowhere, like most bills do, but I'm sure Lieberman got his BigPharma street cred and some money in his political coffers.

I only make the point because, even as a Democrat, I can't stand this guy. Lieberman is going to do absolutely NOTHING towards getting us a cheaper, more efficient health care system. He is going to do even more NOTHING to making insurance reform a reality. He is going to do even more NOTHING to try to get us out of Iraq in an responsible fashion. Etc. Etc.

If the Democrat party is going to be about him its not a party worth even having.

He's been a Senator for like forever and he's just a piece of the system that we foolishly send back 99% of each election cycle. Worse, he's become more of a story in politics than the politics itself. That indicates it is TIME TO GO.
posted by skepticallypleased at 1:17 PM on August 4, 2006 [1 favorite]


Picking up on John of Michigan's point, from a pro-DLC, anti-Lieberman point of view...

Lieberman's voting record is just not that bad, from a liberal perspective.

But his rhetorical support for the Hannitys, Roves, and Malkins who want to tar as unpatriotic and dangerous any criticism of the president.

Anyone who's genuinely concerned about the US succeeding in Iraq must, must, must be a critic of the president and the leadership in the Pentagon.

So, it's Joe's bizarro-world sense of bipartisanship-- which, by definition, has no principles, and happens, in Karl Rove's America, to be quaint-- that hurts America in our ability to discuss the war.

He's also done some other annoying stuff-- cloture vote on Alito, unthinking comments on the impact on rape victims of hospitals that don't provide emergency contraception, etc.

But it's not his support for the war that's sent me over the edge-- it's the cover he provides for people like Karl Rove, who hate reality and hate fact-based criticism.
posted by ibmcginty at 1:18 PM on August 4, 2006


John of Michigan, I understand completely the argument for supporting Lamont over Lieberman (even though I don't share it). But I don't understand the degree of time, energy, and attention directed at this one race. It just appears completely disproportionate and misplaced (to me).

And to clarify, I wasn't insinuating "leftist" -- in my head I was referring to the "left side of the Democratic party." I should have been more clear.
posted by pardonyou? at 1:18 PM on August 4, 2006


But I don't understand the degree of time, energy, and attention directed at this one race.

I think many in the media are tracking the Lamont/Lieberman race to see if it can be considered a bellwether for other mid-term races around the country.
posted by ericb at 1:24 PM on August 4, 2006


Pathetic, feeble, woeful, sorry, poor, pitiful, lamentable, deplorable, contemptible, inadequate, paltry, insufficient, insubstantial, unsatisfactory.

Joe would fit right in with the Bush crowd.
posted by R. Mutt at 1:24 PM on August 4, 2006


New blood versus old blood.

"Vote the incumbents out!"

What impact does the war in Iraq have on a candidate's electability, re-electability?

What effect does one's alignment with the Bush administration have on his/her own campaign?
posted by ericb at 1:26 PM on August 4, 2006


But I don't understand the degree of time, energy, and attention directed at this one race.

I think it's also that many many lefty Democrats are increasingly frustrated and alienated by the centrism of the Democratic Party and we relish the idea of seeing one of the worst offenders eat it. At least that's why I care.
posted by dame at 1:30 PM on August 4, 2006 [1 favorite]


Question:
Do you see the Lieberman primary challenge as a bellwether, or is it peculiar to very blue Connecticut?
The Fix/Washington Post [July 25, 2006]:
No race in the country is drawing as much national attention as Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman's challenge from wealthy businessman Ned Lamont in the state's Aug. 8 Democratic primary. While we tended to limit our bellwether picks to general-election races rather than primaries, the Connecticut contest is certainly a bellwether of sorts -- it shows the depth of dissatisfaction within the Democratic base toward the war in Iraq.

The Quinnipiac poll released recently showed Lieberman down by four points among those most likely to vote in the Democratic primary -- an extremely troubling sign for the incumbent. Some in the Democratic consulting world are predicting a double-digit loss for Lieberman in the primary, arguing that Democrats -- for whatever reason -- have decided they want him gone.

As I've said before, I think it is not just the fact that Lieberman has supported the war but how he has expressed that support that has gotten him into this bind. Many liberal Democrats view Lieberman as sanctimonious and scolding when it comes to Iraq, and I think it is his tone (more than his stance) that has provoked the outpouring of vitriol toward him on the liberal left.

Should Lieberman go down in the primary, expect other Democrats -- especially those thinking about running for president in 2008 -- to become more tepid in their support -- or more vocal in their criticism of -- the Iraq conflict.
posted by ericb at 1:31 PM on August 4, 2006


The left's obsession with the minutia of this particular race bewilders me.

The right's obsession with the minutiae of the left's obsessions bewilders me.
posted by blucevalo at 1:34 PM on August 4, 2006


The right's obsession with the minutiae of the left's obsessions bewilders me.

They wouldn't know who they were if they weren't always pointing out what they're not.
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:36 PM on August 4, 2006


sometimes all you need is a single thing, that tells you everything you need to know about a man: in 2000, Lieberman ran for VP and for US Senator

you just never know, right?

that's all you need to know about Lieberman
posted by matteo at 1:37 PM on August 4, 2006


And to clarify, I wasn't insinuating "leftist" -- in my head I was referring to the "left side of the Democratic party." I should have been more clear.

No need to apologize. I'm an old-school leftist. Proud of it; Mother Jones, Debs, Darrow, hell, even I even liked old Willy Brandt and Helmut Schmidt. (Daniel Ortega, Fidel, and Chavez, well, I'm on a fence about them, but even so . . . .) Even the so-called "radical" Democrats are pretty much all corporatist pussies to me.

Which goes to the heart of the problem regarding Lieberman. He's a DLC poster boy, supposedly the face of moderate centrism. Y'know, I respect conservatives and Republicanism--while loathing them at the same time. Their whole philosophy is all about lowering taxes on the rich. That's it in a nutshell. Forget values. Forget small government. Anti-estate tax and anti-capital-gains tax. The whole platform. So, vote Republican, you know EXACTLY what you're getting.

With Lieberman (and Schumer, and Hillary), not so much. Perhaps if Lieberman weren't such a big name--VP candidate and all--and his star so closely tied to the Bush assholes, then the media and the rest of us leftists wouldn't notice. Think Zell Miller. He's just as bad as Lieberman, but lacks the recognition. But I may be wrong. We'll see if we're obsessed with him when he's up for re-election in 2008.

Just this leftist's $.02.
posted by John of Michigan at 1:41 PM on August 4, 2006 [1 favorite]


But I don't understand the degree of time, energy, and attention directed at this one race.

Well, for people outside CT like me, and I imagine for liberals inside CT we basically feel betrayed by Lieberman. He's worse then an average republican because Lieberman comes up from behind and stabs you in the back. It's not about him being conservative, it's about respect. He has no respect for the liberal core of the democratic party.

I think that's what's so upsetting to liberals these days, the lack of respect. The other side vilifies us in order to whip their base into a frenzy of hatred, and what do "our" guys do? Roll over and pretend we don't exist, while enabling all the shit the republicans do. We want people who will fight back rather then claiming all our issues are just losers and we should forget about 'em so that our mandarins can stay at the royal court, feasting on corporate pork.

I mean if we can't win any of our issues anyway, we might as well be represented by people who are representative of us.

Lieberman acts like the voters of CT are his personal property, and that irritates them.
posted by delmoi at 1:41 PM on August 4, 2006


and we relish the idea of seeing one of the worst offenders eat it. At least that's why I care.

I hear you, but it's sad, in a way, that, mostly unable to unseat actual Republicans, the Democrats have to cheer for the unseating of a Republican Lite, mostly pro-choice* nominal Democrat

* Lieberman voted for Roberts and against Alito. so I guess he's only half bad for Fetus Americans, that staunchly Republican segment of the electorate
posted by matteo at 1:42 PM on August 4, 2006


We want people who will fight back

we all know how well that worked
posted by matteo at 1:44 PM on August 4, 2006


* Lieberman voted for Roberts and against Alito. so I guess he's only half bad for Fetus Americans, that staunchly Republican segment of the electorate

He voted for robers and for Alito. Which is to say, he voted for cloture on Alito, guaranteeing him a seat on the court.
posted by delmoi at 1:48 PM on August 4, 2006


But I don't understand the degree of time, energy, and attention directed at this one race.

If a 17-year senior senator and former vice presidential candidate can be unseated from within his own party by a political neophyte over the single issue of the war in Iraq, well, it does not bode well for contested Republican seats. If Lamont can pull off the upset (and it's far from pre-decided - I wouldn't pust so much trust in those Quinnipiac poll numbers, as Lamont's own internal polling numbers are much tighter), every House Republican up for re-election will start shitting bricks, and begin to distance themselves as much as possible from George Bush. The RNC has supposedly come out and advised it's members not to defend Bush and Congress record, but rather to focus on the "local" issues.

If Lamont wins, 20 bucks says the Democrats recapture the house, and at least get 50 seats in the Senate/.
posted by Fidel Cashflow at 1:49 PM on August 4, 2006


we all know how well that worked

Dems chose to nominate Kerry rather then Dean, and Kerry went on to run one of the worst, spineless campaigns that I've seen. Dean never had a chance to face off against bush, and who knows what would have happened if he had. He probably would have lost as well, but he would have at least fought back, rather then running around like a chicken with his head cut off.
posted by delmoi at 1:51 PM on August 4, 2006 [1 favorite]


mostly unable to unseat actual Republicans

And most lefties think the Democratic vision he represents is the reason why Democrats are in that position. You know, bring up the Republicans' platform forty years ago and people would think they were nuts. But they managed to keep hammering away on the nuttiness and eventually it seemed to make sense (to many people). And then there was a new middle ground. And so it goes. We won't be able to unseat Republicans without a real alternative party. (But you've heard that before and I've heard the arguments against it, so I don't need to keep going.)
posted by dame at 1:58 PM on August 4, 2006


The left's obsession with the minutia of this particular race bewilders me.

Lieberman's presence in the party decalibrates what it means to be a democrat: He makes actual liberals seem like extremists, pundits and dem leaders then freely maginalize the more progressive elements, and this defangs the democratic platform. This allows the media to say the democrats don't 'stand for anything'. This pisses us off, greatly.
posted by tula at 1:58 PM on August 4, 2006


delmoi: rather then running around like a chicken with his head cut off.

If we are talking about Kerry, I think you mean "running around like a chicken with his face squeezed flat."
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:59 PM on August 4, 2006


Oh man matteo, I missed that response to fighting back. It takes time. It's like when the Israelis pull back and then, two months later, it's all "Oooh, they're shooting at us, we told you it wouldn't work." Well, yeah, you can't be a dick for decades and expect everyone to be okay in two months. It takes time and repetition.
posted by dame at 2:00 PM on August 4, 2006


He voted for robers and for Alito


U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 2nd Session
Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Samuel A. Alito, Jr., of New Jersey, to be an Associate Justice )
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
Say what you want against Lieberman, he voted against Alito -- unlike, say, other Democrats like Byrd, you know, the liberals favorite Klukker. like most Democrats on Capitol Hill, Joe's just not the right guy to boycott a Republican nominee, live with it. and, I seriously doubt that Lamont's voting record will be that different. but maybe Lieberman can make it as an Independent
posted by matteo at 2:00 PM on August 4, 2006


It's about time we had a national referendum on that stinking war. I'm glad to see the #1 Vichy Democrat bite it. Now there is only his Admiral Darlan moment.
posted by warbaby at 2:02 PM on August 4, 2006


but he would have at least fought back, rather then running around like a chicken with his head cut off.

I guess McGovern fans used to repeat that to themselves a lot. say what you want about Kerry (I know I do) but he came incredibly close, especially when you consider that his opponent was counting the votes.

thinking that Dean could have done better than Kerry is either wishful thinking, outright delusion or a serious misreading of American popular opinion in that sorry 2004 year. Bill Clinton wins national office, Dukakis loses -- the formula still works. Hillary must have realized that, too. want to live in a country that elects Zapatero -- move to Spain.
posted by matteo at 2:05 PM on August 4, 2006


another article on the heckler

Say what you want against Lieberman, he voted against Alito

Next time read the whole paragraph before replying. I wrote:

He voted for robers and for Alito. Which is to say, he voted for cloture on Alito, guaranteeing him a seat on the court.

Lieberman's vote let Alito on the court. There is no other way to parse that. The final vote was meaningless; Alito was guaranteed to win it. The cloture vote was the only opportunity for democrats to stop Alito.
posted by delmoi at 2:10 PM on August 4, 2006


thinking that Dean could have done better than Kerry is either wishful thinking, outright delusion or a serious misreading of American popular opinion in that sorry 2004 year.

Matteo There is simply no way to empirically measure what would have happened if Dean had won the primary. You may believe that it's 'delusional' to think Dean would have won, but the only thing we can say for certain that Kerry did lose.

Sadly it would have mainly came down the personality characteristics of the candidates. In my opinion Kerry lost because he seemed indecisive and weak in the face of the swift-boating, and that's something that wouldn't have happened with dean. Or he may have gone off in the other direction.

But look, democrats have been doing the "don't offend the moderates" dance for a long time and it hasn't done shit. There's no reason to continue, since it's obviously not working.
posted by delmoi at 2:16 PM on August 4, 2006 [1 favorite]


thinking that Dean could have done better than Kerry is either wishful thinking, outright delusion or a serious misreading of American popular opinion in that sorry 2004 year. Bill Clinton wins national office, Dukakis loses -- the formula still works. Hillary must have realized that, too. want to live in a country that elects Zapatero -- move to Spain.

So Kerry is Clinton and Dean is Dukakis?

I heard that a lot back then from well-meaning people trying to explain why one of the most liberal senators (from Massachusetts, for Christ's sake!) was a better bet than a moderate former governor. The truth of the matter is that Kerry's a chickenshit who wouldn't even defend himself when being slandered, while Dean would have given no quarter. That's what's come to stand for the difference between liberals and moderates in the Democratic party, an willingness to take and defend a goddamn position on the issues (even the stupid ones such as "did you actually fake your well-documented military service") versus a desire to please everyone by being evasive and noncommittal.

Kerry didn't almost win--Bush almost lost.
posted by Epenthesis at 2:29 PM on August 4, 2006


Lieberman is from a working class family (his dad owned a liquor store)

Gee, that expands "working-class" in new directions.
posted by fourcheesemac at 2:30 PM on August 4, 2006 [1 favorite]


Some folks think he's a great candidate. Not that he sought their endorsements.
posted by owhydididoit at 2:30 PM on August 4, 2006


Lieberman's vote let Alito on the court. There is no other way to parse that. The final vote was meaningless; Alito was guaranteed to win it. The cloture vote was the only opportunity for democrats to stop Alito.

seconded delmoi,

He blocked a potential filibuster with his vote for cloture, which ensured Alito's appointment. Don't you remember all that garbage about how using a filibuster would ruin parliamentary procedures forever. Fox had a bunch of talking points about it. Well Lieberman was the sly bastard in the democratic party that made this all possible. By putting cloture to a vote, which the democrats could not win.

Then by voting against alito in a meaningless vote, think "republican majority" in the senate, Lieberman allowed people who don't understand to say what you have just said.
posted by sourbrew at 2:31 PM on August 4, 2006


Joe must go...wish I could vote against him. Hell, I wish i could vote for/against any Senate candidate. However, we DC residents aren't allowed to vote for that office.
posted by aiq at 2:34 PM on August 4, 2006


Please Liberman isnt a democrat anyway hes a wannabe GOP but his job is in a blue state.
posted by MrLint at 3:05 PM on August 4, 2006


But look, democrats have been doing the "don't offend the moderates" dance for a long time and it hasn't done shit. There's no reason to continue, since it's obviously not working


I know, that's what the Naderites said in 2000. they totally won _that_ one, right?
it remains to be seen if nominating a liberal works (evidence to the contrary: McGovern, Mondale). please name a liberal who can win the White House -- an actual liberal (not an anti-war fiscal conservative, a centrist at heart, just with a short fuse, like Dean). please name one.

look, I certainly like US liberals -- that endangered species -- much more than I like the DLC robots. that's why I hope that you guys manage -- I don't know how, frankly -- to nominate a liberal in '06 instead of Hillary. it'll do you a lot of good, you'll spend a great summer and fall in '06. I don't know, run Pelosi or Sharpton or Kos or Wellstone's corpse, or even good old Teddy. politics as therapy, see.

then, when you lose in a 49-1 landslide, sending President Jebby, Bush III, straight to the White House, no need to bother Diebold or the Supremes, the real self-analysis will begin. but don't forget that after McGovern and Mondale, a third landslide could be quite bad for the party. the Greens are too far behind to be able to become the electoral alternative to the GOP. your electoral system does not help you, you're stuck with the Dems.

one fears you'll have to work inside the Democratic party or, as I said, move to Spain if you don't want to get ulcers


Next time read the whole paragraph before replying.

regretfully, I _did_ read you. you can dance around it all you want, let me spell this out for you because this is a key fact in electoral politics:

voters don't understand shit about cloture. they don't even know what that is because voters don't subscribe to Congressional Quarterly. if you tell them that Lieberman voted for Alito, you lie, if you want to explain cloture to hundreds of thousands of voters, good luck. for all practical electoral purposes, Lieberman voted against Alito.

again: Lieberman voted against Alito. against. Alito.

I know you hate it, because it'd be a great weapon against him now, but he's not that dumb. he fucked you over with cloture then he voted against Alito when other Democrats voted for him instead, so he came out on well.

and really, if you guys expected Lieberman of all people, that cheerful member of the Congressional lynch mob that wanted to get Clinton at all cost, to start torching George Bush's nominee, well, you worry me.

but then I see you really dislike the guy and I don't, he's just a politician and this is what politicians do, they try to stay afloat, so there's no point in having an argument -- you posted this very thread just to shit on him. like he's the only problem the Democrats have. whatever. but start considering the possibilty that he might actually win as an Independent, becoming Jeffords polar opposite.

buy some Maalox, just in case.
posted by matteo at 3:09 PM on August 4, 2006


You know what his other problem is? Lieberman has hit the wall.

Joe is 64. Nobody should be in politics past 65. With wide media exposure it's inevitable they come off kinda like Grandpa Simpson eventually. Out of touch. Looking lost.

So the handlers come up with pr images and contemporary jargon to make these old coots look "with it." Slogans like "Joementum." And then they look worse.

He has no clue that college kids hear Joementum and it immediately becomes a ridiculed catch phrase dripping with irony.
posted by tkchrist at 3:10 PM on August 4, 2006


a liberal in '06

it's '08 of course
posted by matteo at 3:11 PM on August 4, 2006


if you want to explain cloture to hundreds of thousands of voters, good luck. for all practical electoral purposes, Lieberman voted against Alito.

Good thing the voters don't care about Alito in CT. Well, I suppose they care, but they have plenty of other things they disagree with Joe about, so it's not a sticking point.
posted by smackfu at 3:17 PM on August 4, 2006


(Plus Lamont has much better commercials.)
posted by smackfu at 3:17 PM on August 4, 2006



posted by kirkaracha at 3:23 PM on August 4, 2006


Think Zell Miller. He's just as bad as Lieberman, but lacks the recognition. But I may be wrong. We'll see if we're obsessed with him when he's up for re-election in 2008.

Zell Miller retired from the senate.
posted by Dreamghost at 4:16 PM on August 4, 2006


again: Lieberman voted against Alito. against. Alito.

Obviously we're defining the word "vote" differently. Lieberman took two different votes, one was for Alito and one was against. One had an effect, and the other one didn't. The vote that had effect was for Alito.

voters don't understand shit about cloture. They don't even know what that is because voters don't subscribe to Congressional Quarterly. If you tell them that Lieberman voted for Alito, you lie, if you want to explain cloture to hundreds of thousands of voters, good luck. for all practical electoral purposes, Lieberman voted against Alito.

With all due respect, how the hell would you know? You don't live in the United States, and the only voters you know are the ones who post on metafilter, and we obviously understand what cloture means. Can you name a single specific Connecticut voter who doesn't understand how filibusters work? Some specific person you've talked to? Do you know of some poll that shows that voters don't understand what a filibuster is?

You seem to be confusing "electoral purposes" with "effective purposes". The truth is, that for practical purposes Lieberman took a vote that guaranteed Alito a seat on the Supreme Court. Now you're arguing that American voters are stupid and don't understand cloture and that "electoral purposes" are somehow different then "effective purposes". And I disagree.

I know you hate it, because it'd be a great weapon against him now, but he's not that dumb. he fucked you over with cloture then he voted against Alito when other Democrats voted for him instead, so he came out on well.

Exactly. And people who vote in democratic primaries are people like me. I would go so far as to say this: anyone who knows who Alito is know what a filibuster is as well. The filibuster was all over the news last year when the republicans tried to implement the "nuclear option". Anyone who watched even a little news during that time, or during the Alito nomination would know what a filibuster is.

You don't live in the US and you have no idea what the average American thinks. Reading a bunch of blogs and news sites isn't going to give you an accurate picture of what the average American thinks or knows.

And anyway, I'm not personally upset about it. I don't like Alito, but not because of his stance on abortion. I like Roberts even less. Joe Lieberman is going to lose because of the war. The few voters for whom Alito is a major issue understand how the government works.

-----

As for figuring out the "truth" of the statement about whether or not Lieberman voted for Alito, I normally say "Lieberman voted for cloture on Alito" To me, that sentence is true, and it has the same truth value as "Lieberman voted for Alito". In other words I believe the statement "Lieberman voted for cloture on Alito implies Lieberman voted for Alito."

If you disagree that's fine, but you obviously don't represent the average American, pro-choice voter.
posted by delmoi at 4:17 PM on August 4, 2006


Zell Miller retired from the senate.

He's still in the senate, but he's not running for re-election.
posted by delmoi at 4:17 PM on August 4, 2006


Er, I thought he was. Nevermind.
posted by delmoi at 4:23 PM on August 4, 2006


He's still in the senate, but he's not running for re-election.

For the second time, no he isn't.
posted by gsteff at 4:23 PM on August 4, 2006


One should point out that while McGovern lost his 1972 presidential bid and that Eugene McCarthy, beloved candidate of liberal anti-war activists, went nowhere as a presidential candidate after the 1968 NH primary, both of them were elected and re-elected to their own home states' senatorial seats. While a Liebermanesque Democrat may be just the sort of guy who should be running in Nebraska (and in fact is, in the form of Sen. Ben Nelson), the voters of Connecticut probably feel that their state would be better represented by a more liberal senator.

If the entire country, in every state, is too liberal for George McGovern and Walter Mondale, then people need to explain how George McGovern and Walter Mondale got to be prominent politicians in the first place. They didn't come out of nowhere-- they were elected by the voters of their home states.
posted by deanc at 4:29 PM on August 4, 2006


... mostly unable to unseat actual Republicans, the Democrats have to cheer for the unseating of a Republican Lite ... nominal Democrat

So true, matteo. I think this is the answer to pardonyou?'s question.

If Lamont wins, 20 bucks says the Democrats recapture the house, and at least get 50 seats in the Senate

I'd take that bet, unfortunately, even if he wins. I don't think the numbers are there for the individual races, although the Democrats will certainly come close in both houses. I hope I'm pleasantly surprised, of course (will you take a check?).

Keep in mind, though, that for now Lieberman is still going to be in the November race. A lot can happen in three months.

I think it's significant, though, that both Broder and Friedman have oh-so-carefully stepped off-center this week on the war. My own paper ran the Nancy Youssef piece about the situation in Baghdad that echoes what bloggers have long known through pieces such as the London Times, and a piece about Abizaid and Pace basically conceding the case. (Heck, it's been 13 months since Allawi said they were on the brink.) The conventional wisdom is finally catching up with reality, and the American people are getting exposed to it. So things are going to have to go extremely well in the Middle East to buck those numbers back up.
posted by dhartung at 4:33 PM on August 4, 2006


Zell Miller retired in 2005. 'I will not be a candidate for re-election in 2004'
posted by ericb at 4:33 PM on August 4, 2006


I'm pretty excited to see all this interest in our little state. As someone who has sat in the Kiss Float, it's just amazing to see that sucker in papers like WaPo and NYT.
posted by QuarterlyProphet at 4:34 PM on August 4, 2006



posted by ericb at 4:35 PM on August 4, 2006


It would be best, honestly, if people just voted for whoever they liked the most in primaries rather then trying to psychoanalyze the rest of the country.

The democrats as a group seem to be suffering from a sort of helplessness. No matter what they do they fail. Its time to stand up and fight, rather then trying to accommodate. We (liberals) are in the right, and the country is being trashed. It's time to stand up. My feeling is that people respond to bold leadership. They don't particularly care about shit like the Estate Tax or a 5% tax cut or whatever.
posted by delmoi at 4:36 PM on August 4, 2006


FWIW, my CT in-laws have grumbled about Lieberman since at-least Monica Lewinsky days, and they seem excited there's an alternative who isn't a Republican. It doesn't hurt that Ned seems like a decent, passionate fellow either.

I'm in CT probably once a month or so (in fact I'm hopping the Acela tomorrow morning to catch up with wife and child visiting in Milford) and I can honestly say the number of Lamont signs and bumper stickers I've seen in the last few months is truly astonishing. I'm trying to keep a realistic viewpoint, but it's simply undeniable that there's something special in the air. We'll see what happens Tuesday.
posted by jalexei at 4:52 PM on August 4, 2006 [1 favorite]


it remains to be seen if nominating a liberal works (evidence to the contrary: McGovern, Mondale). please name a liberal who can win the White House -- an actual liberal (not an anti-war fiscal conservative, a centrist at heart, just with a short fuse, like Dean). please name one.

Well, I have no idea and I don't care. Belive it or not, I'm actually an anti-war fiscal conservative :P (and social liberal) That's why I liked dean. I've just been radicalized by the lunatics running the country.

Anyway, it would help if you could give a more specific definition of "liberal". Does Edwards count?
posted by delmoi at 4:54 PM on August 4, 2006 [1 favorite]


Anyway, it would help if you could give a more specific definition of "liberal".

Seriously. Given the way he it, it seems the only acceptable answers can be Teddy Kennedy and Franklin Roosevelt.

The problem with a guy like, Joe Biden, for example (a perfectly liberal guy that is completely unelectable as President), is that not that he's liberal (and he is), it's that he's owned. Conservatives suffer from that same problem, but their base seems to care less about where the money comes from that whatever ideological bullshit the candidate spouts.
posted by psmealey at 5:08 PM on August 4, 2006 [1 favorite]


And by some reasonable definitions, George W. Bush is a Liberal. Just look at all the money he's spending. Hardly fiscal conservatism
posted by delmoi at 5:10 PM on August 4, 2006


Imagine how Lieberman would be doing they hadn't kept Groton Sub Base open. That's a huge issue on the Eastern half of the coast. Interesting considering that the rest of the state here doesn't care, but we sure do see it a lot on TV.
posted by smackfu at 5:29 PM on August 4, 2006


"And by some reasonable definitions, George W. Bush is a Liberal. Just look at all the money he's spending. Hardly fiscal conservatism"

um, zell, pissing away mind-numbing amounts of money on the military doesnt make fundamentalist aristocrat george a liberal.
posted by Gaius Gracchus at 5:29 PM on August 4, 2006


While in traffic tonight, I happen to flip away from Randi Rhodes on AM1600, preset number six on my car stereo, to Afternoons with Bruce and Colin on AM1080, preset number four. Randi was getting into it with an astroturfer pretending to have been a contractor outside the green zone in Iraq. The whole exchange was labored and painful.

Just my luck, I left this thread to hear a Fox radio affiliate interview Dan Gerstein of Dan Gerstein Consulting, a formerly retired Lieberman advisor and current volunteer for the Lieberman primary campaign. You might have read Gerstein's critique of John Kerry's 2000 loss or other recent critiques of the party he claims to work for as a professional. Of course, I had no idea who he was sitting in the car. To me, a resident of Connecticut, he just sounded like another schmuck astroturfer. He claimed that the news about Senator Lieberman giving up the GOTV effort and dropping out if he loses the primary was actually a PR stunt being orchestrated by none other than the Lamont campaign. At the very least, we know the GOTV effort continue according to witnesses in state. Not to mention, I am receiving several phone calls a day from unnamed automated, pre-recorded Lieberman supporters, telling me to show my support for Senator Lieberman by visiting ConnecitcutPrimary.com.

Needless to say, the Lieberman campaign is not giving up the GOTV effort. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth, at least that's how things seem here on the ground in Connecticut.
posted by sequential at 6:08 PM on August 4, 2006


You don't live in the US and you have no idea what the average American thinks. Reading a bunch of blogs and news sites isn't going to give you an accurate picture of what the average American thinks or knows.

and no matter how many West Wing reruns you watch, delmoi, it isn't going to make Martin Sheen electable. the most liberal Democrat you can pray to see in the White House is someone like Bill Clinton, ie a moderate pro-choice Republican in disguise. it's not my fault, so it's useless to attack me. Kerry, whom you don't seem to like much, would have governed more or less like Clinton, and that's as liberal as you can get in the White house nowadays and for the foreseeable future. President Harkin? I don't think so.

(also, do you live in the Middle East delmoi? do you speak Arabic? if you don't, why do you still discuss the Middle East?)

this hardon that some liberals (well, the marginally more clueless among them) have for the Defeat Lieberman thing is seriously creepy -- what the hell do you think you're going to accomplish? you had to wait for a DA to take out a real target, DeLay, because you couldn't do it at the polls, for fuck's sake. Lieberman is just another politician, not devil incarnate. this frenzy for a small-state primary is just funny. you're beating up the small guy because you cannot beat the big badass ones, that's what the anti-Lieberman front looks like.

and frankly, this thread shows that living in the US didn't really help _you_ have a realistic view about US politics, then my living abroad does not seem to be particularly relevant, does it. you seriously think you can campaign on issues like "cloture", in any country? I may live abroad, but you're the one who's clueless here. see, in the real world -- as opposed as to, say, a high-school classroom -- electoral politics functions on simple, clear-cut issues. if you want to paint Lieberman as anti-choice, well, not even the NYT did that in their pro-Lamont editorial. his not filibustering Alito is a double negative, a non-issue. you don't campaign on filibusters. if he goes down, he goes down because he supported the war and an unpopular President, period. cloture and filibusters are a non-issue. they're also unusual, multisyllabic words. they don't take you far enough, just ask Al Gore.

you're assuming a lot of things about me, not all of them correct, but I'm digressing. see, I can understand the frustration of young Democratic supporters who see their party get its skull bashed in on a regular basis by the GOP, and fear another big loss when/if Hillary gets to run. I mean, shit, can you imagine the rightwingers' gloating after they take out Hillary? if I were a US Democrat I wouldn't turn a TV on for for years, then. so, believe me, I feel for you. with the only exception of Tony Blair, all the foreign leaders who followed Bush into Iraq have been voted out one by one, and instead your country elected Bush in '04. I understand your anger, I'm sure it sucks.

but it's hopelessly naive to dream of a liberal savior, 9-11 placed a bullet in US liberalism's brain -- not that it was in good shape before, but now liberal equals soft-on-terrorism. the way it equaled soft-on-communism during the Cold War. Kerry was deemed to liberal by your countrymen. Dean would have gotten creamed.

one thing you can be pretty sure of, looking back, is that liberals don't win the White House (unless there's a Great Depression going on). look at past Presidents -- Truman nuked the Japanese (FDR had only firebombed them); JFK, that strange liberal hero, ran a shockingly hawkish campaign, harder than Nixon, LBJ finally freed the Negroes but, hey, he's the one who razed Vietnam to the ground -- another strange liberal, to say the least. Carter won only because Nixon covered the Republican in so much elephant dung that they needed Zombie Lincoln to win in 1976 and they only had Gerald Ford.

then it was all Reagan/Bush until Clinton figured out that the only successful Democrat, for a national office like the Presidency, is a pro-choice moderate Republican in disguise.

and that's what you got for the eight Clinton years -- the most successful Republican president of the 20th Century. only he ran as a Democrat.
posted by matteo at 6:58 PM on August 4, 2006


Lieberman's ability to make Democrats hate him is NOT based only on the war.

Some of the MANY reasons he makes me want to kick cats are:

-His eager participation in the "faith-based" gangbang initiated by Bushco
-his ceaseless demonization of dissent
-his "no pandering left behind" policy re: censorship (er...regulation?) of "Hollywood" that just helps reinforce the bullshit notion that sex on tv and violence in video games is what's unraveling the moral fabric of society (not wars of choice, religious zealotry, corporatist politicians or increasing consolidation of wealth and media outlets into fewer and fewer hands)
-his smirking disdain for everyone, it seems, but Bush.

OH! I almost forgot...his participation in the jackass coalition of democrats who rolled over on the nuclear option vs filibuster issue, giving the Republicans everything in exchange for nothing.

I'd REALLY like to see Feinstein on the hot seat next.
posted by mer2113 at 7:30 PM on August 4, 2006


*skips discussion*

When your first link is a .pdf, please please please note that in your post somewhere. It's courteous to notify fellow members when a link requires opening another program.

*thanks future .pdf posters in advance*
posted by mediareport at 8:00 PM on August 4, 2006


and no matter how many West Wing reruns you watch, delmoi, it isn't going to make Martin Sheen electable.

What the fuck are you talking about? I've seen that show maybe four times in my life.

the most liberal Democrat you can pray to see in the White House is someone like Bill Clinton, ie a moderate pro-choice Republican in disguise.

You still havn't even defined what it is to be Liberal.

(also, do you live in the Middle East delmoi? do you speak Arabic? if you don't, why do you still discuss the Middle East?)

Do I pretend to know what the average Middle-Easterner thinks? Aside from some obvious things, like that they don't like being bombed, not really. And what exactly are you basing your pronunciations on anyway? People you've talked too? What? I don't see why you think you know what the average American thinks about issues better then I do. I actually live here.

You don't think Howard Dean is a liberal, so who do you think is a liberal? Do you think Ned Lamont counts as one? What? Who are these people you think can't get elected? Be specific. Right now you're not really saying anything at all.

"Liberals can't get elected" you say, but what's a liberal. That you don't say, and so you are really saying nothing at all.

and frankly, this thread shows that living in the US didn't really help _you_ have a realistic view about US politics, then my living abroad does not seem to be particularly relevant, does it. you seriously think you can campaign on issues like "cloture", in any country? I may live abroad, but you're the one who's clueless here.

All that boils down to "you're an idiot, because you disagree with me, and I'm obviously right" Thanks. But actually you're wrong. nyah-nyah-nyah.

see, in the real world -- as opposed as to, say, a high-school classroom -- electoral politics functions on simple, clear-cut issues.

You think voters don't understand a filibuster and I do. We disagree. Unless you have some specific evidence that you're right and I'm wrong, just shut up. You're not convincing anyone of anything by repeating yourself over and over again.

The fact that you're so certain you can make grand pronouncements about what's 'true' and 'not true' about something as complex and murky as electoral politics only proves that you are the one who is 'clueless'. This isn't mathematics. Or physics we're talking about.

All you're proving is that you've swallowed a bunch of DLC propaganda whole. Well we're about to see the result of all of that in CT in a couple of days.

---
Anyway, I'm still curious to see what it is exactly you think of as "liberal" positions on the issues. Your definition might be so narrow as to exclude even me.
posted by delmoi at 8:51 PM on August 4, 2006


Back to the issue at hand: Here's some video of Goodstine today
posted by delmoi at 9:01 PM on August 4, 2006


Actually I would have to reluctantly agree that any for any real definition of liberal, a progressive politician really doesn't have a chance of winning (at the presidential level). As someone already pointed out in another thread 90% of traditional media is wholly owned by 5 or 6 large corporations. There is no possible way they would let anyone who would endanger their positions come to power. It just isn't going to happen.
posted by dopeypanda at 10:58 PM on August 4, 2006


matteo, I think you're unfairly baiting delmoi here. Sort of the thread version of what you say the Democrats are doing to Lieberman.

I seriously still do not believe that "liberal" is per se the problem. It's a serious dirty word for about 1/3 of the electorate but then so is conservative. The swing voters tend to go with what works or seems good at the time and they shy away when there's a screw-up. Carter's liberalism wasn't the problem, the "malaise" economy and the hostages were the problem. Gore actually won (and despite all the chicanery the GOP pulled, too -- it came down to one stupidly-designed butterfly ballot that threw just enough votes to Pitchfork Pat). Kerry had his faults but he was more than adequate (I saw him in Madison, WI energized by a massive crowd) and he won more votes than any Democrat in history.

I think Dean could have done surprisingly well, because of all the disaffected voters who'd get interested by somebody with that kind of elan (charisma isn't right, exactly). And I'm less and less certain that Hillary would even be a liability after two more years of Bush -- the country is turning against him. Seriously, this guy is fucking up but good and people are starting to feel comfortable admitting it.
posted by dhartung at 11:19 PM on August 4, 2006


Actually I would have to reluctantly agree that any for any real definition of liberal, a progressive politician really doesn't have a chance of winning (at the presidential level). As someone already pointed out in another thread 90% of traditional media is wholly owned by 5 or 6 large corporations. There is no possible way they would let anyone who would endanger their positions come to power. It just isn't going to happen.

I think it could happen, but not in 2008. It would take decades of slow methodical work to undermine the vast right-wing conspiracy and (re)indroduce liberal ideas into the mainstream the way the conservative movement has made conservatism fashionable.

Of course, we still haven't even defined what liberalism even is. There are some definitions of liberalism that could probably get someone elected today, and some that couldn't.

Gore actually won (and despite all the chicanery the GOP pulled, too -- it came down to one stupidly-designed butterfly ballot that threw just enough votes to Pitchfork Pat).

Matteo would argue that Gore didn't run as a liberal, and he'd be right. Hell Lieberman was his running mate!
posted by delmoi at 11:34 PM on August 4, 2006


Matteo is simply making the same mistake as the national US media, thinking that it's bloggers driving the Lamont effort. Bloggers don't plant lawn signs or stir up as much local discontent as is apparent in Connecticut. But the lazy reporter can google up a bunch of blogs much more easily than actually talking to COnnecticut voters, so those are the stories one reads if one doesn't look any deeper.
posted by Space Coyote at 1:46 AM on August 5, 2006


[Kerry] won more votes than any Democrat in history

That's less a reflection on him than it is on demographics. It's like saying a movie made the most money ever without adjusting for inflation. The US population goes up, so more people vote. A better comparison would be his percentage of the popular vote compared to previous candidates.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:56 AM on August 5, 2006


Matteo is simply making the same mistake as the national US media

He also doesn't seem to understand what this race is about (nothing against him, a lot others here and on DailyKos have similarly misinterpretted this). Lamont, may be a liberal by some definitions, but that's not why he's leading. This primary is basically a referendum on Lieberman's choices and actions of the past six years (e.g.: Alito cloture, Terry Schiavo, the Iraq War and his general coziness with the Bush administration). His voting record, pronouncements and general activities have gone against the will of the people of Connecticut. Statewide polling has put Lieberman on the opposide of the vast majority on many of those key issues, but Joe has gone ahead, doing what he does, because, well he just knows better than us decent Nutmeggers.

This is a classic primary challenge and it's come about for all the right reasons; not for petty or cynical ones (as they normally do). This is why I think people are excited about it. Lieberman has become too arrogant and intractible for him to be an effective national advocate for the people of Connecticut. It's time for him to go.
posted by psmealey at 11:04 AM on August 5, 2006


Matteo, if you're still reading, this video compilation of TV clips gets deep at the heart of why so many people want Joe to go.
posted by CunningLinguist at 2:38 PM on August 5, 2006


Interesting (and stomach-turning) video montage, CL. Only on FoxNews could a WASPy Greenwich Country Club guy like Ned Lamont be painted as a "Candidate of the Far Left(tm)". That Lamonts insurgent candidacy means that there is no more room for "moderates" or "reasonable people" like Joe Lieberman in the Democratic Party. Bullshit.

This race is about proper representation, not partisanship.
posted by psmealey at 3:31 PM on August 5, 2006


Poll: Lieberman Should Bow Out Entirely If He Loses Tuesday Primary
"If there is worse news for Sen. Joe Lieberman than the fact that another poll shows him well behind his primary challenger, Ned Lamont, it may be this: Almost two-thirds of his party's voters said they thought he should bow out of the race if he cannot beat Lamont on Tuesday.

Lieberman, who is seeking a fourth term in the Senate, trails Lamont 53 percent to 43 percent, according to a poll of likely Democratic voters commissioned by The Day.

And 63 percent of those polled said they thought Lieberman should not run as an independent candidate if he loses the primary, as the senator has said he will. Only 24 percent said Lieberman should stay in the race if he can't win his party's nomination.

The numbers are grim for Lieberman, said Delair Ali of Research 2000 in Rockville, Md."

[The Day | New London | August 5, 2006]
posted by ericb at 4:00 PM on August 5, 2006


WASPy Greenwich Country Club guy

Just like Prescott Bush, George W.H. Bush and George W. Bush (until 2 y.o.).
posted by ericb at 4:02 PM on August 5, 2006


WASP Tea Partay [YouTube video].
posted by ericb at 4:04 PM on August 5, 2006


My point exactly, ericb.
posted by psmealey at 4:09 PM on August 5, 2006


Great video, also. That's pretty much how we roll in the FC.
posted by psmealey at 4:10 PM on August 5, 2006


Just north of the FC -- in LC we used to roll a little slower. ; )
posted by ericb at 4:40 PM on August 5, 2006


« Older The tromba marina, also known as the marine trumpe...  |  Fokke & Sukke are a strange co... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments