Now what?
August 8, 2006 8:37 PM   Subscribe

McKinney, Lieberman gone - just another news blip
posted by mischief (151 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite
 
w00t w.r.t lieberman.
posted by delmoi at 8:37 PM on August 8, 2006


And actually he's not gone, he's like a zombie, you've got to kill him twice. Since the primary is so close he'll have a lot more momentum going into the general, where republicans can vote for him.
posted by delmoi at 8:39 PM on August 8, 2006


Don't you mean Joementum?
posted by spilon at 8:40 PM on August 8, 2006


Lamont mandate
posted by edverb at 8:41 PM on August 8, 2006


Was the Lieberman result driven by the net much?

Did the Kossacks cause this one?
posted by sien at 8:41 PM on August 8, 2006


Joe'll win easily in November, alas.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 8:42 PM on August 8, 2006


No, it was the Bolsheviks
posted by spiderwire at 8:42 PM on August 8, 2006


Hallelujah
posted by matkline at 8:44 PM on August 8, 2006


Don't you mean Joementum?
Don't you mean Sore Loserman?
posted by matkline at 8:44 PM on August 8, 2006


I'm really quite curious what Schumer's office is going to say tomorrow morning.
posted by icosahedral at 8:44 PM on August 8, 2006


I say it was the Gnomes of Zurich. They haven't been blamed for anything good in a long time.
posted by the_savage_mind at 8:44 PM on August 8, 2006


He hasn't lost...... he's just in a threeway tie (applause)..... for third place
posted by matkline at 8:47 PM on August 8, 2006


He's in a two-way tie for first.

Also, it was the blogofacists!
posted by delmoi at 8:50 PM on August 8, 2006


13 comments, but not one mention of McKinney going down in flames?
posted by dw at 8:54 PM on August 8, 2006


Lamont is just so much more handsome. I commend the American public for working to beautify congress.
posted by odasaku at 8:56 PM on August 8, 2006 [2 favorites]


never ending radical dude(s)
posted by foot at 8:56 PM on August 8, 2006


13 comments, but not one mention of McKinney going down in flames?

That cop was asking for it. The way he was dressed...
posted by delmoi at 8:57 PM on August 8, 2006


honestly i think ned lamont was a shitty choice. his platform was basically "IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ".
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 8:57 PM on August 8, 2006


Fuck Liberman, sore loser
posted by growabrain at 9:02 PM on August 8, 2006


Jeez...this is worthy of FPP? Not even some background links, or editorializing, or humor...?
posted by davidmsc at 9:03 PM on August 8, 2006


Joe'll win easily in November, alas.

Evan Bayh has already said he'll now support Lamont; that's a mere 24 minutes after Joe conceded. Expect Obama, Clinton, Reid, and a few others to do the same before primetime tomorrow. It sounds likely now, but the fact is, Lieberman's officially a loser, and the Democrats have a nominee. He won't keep this up until November, and honestly I don't think the DSCC will let him.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:04 PM on August 8, 2006


his platform was basically "IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ

Hmmm.

High gas prices: IRAQ.
World hates us: IRAQ.
We have become torturers: IRAQ.
Our defenses are stretched thin and we are more vulnerable to attack than we have been in decades: IRAQ.
The economy is performing poorly for middle class people: IRAQ.
Funding that could be going to education, social services, medicare, public transpoartation, transitioning to non-oil based fuels is being poured into a useless, costly black hole: IRAQ.

I'd say that was a good platform to run on.
posted by eustacescrubb at 9:09 PM on August 8, 2006 [4 favorites]


He won't keep this up until November, and honestly I don't think the DSCC will let him.

How will they stop him? He is a neo-con through and through and his neo-con buddies will prop him up. Ned needed a shutout and he squeezed by, I think Lieberman has a chance in the fall. "Support" is nice but unless they're going to come down and campaign, don't expect that "support" to count for much.
posted by delmoi at 9:10 PM on August 8, 2006


his platform was basically "IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ".

Do you honestly think that the last three years, and the legacy of those who took us there, are going to be judged by any other measure? (Osama Bin Where-now?) Stupid, stem cell-bannish fuckups can be reversed by the next group of tools who get into office and yet have an iota of damn sense.

Iraq, no so much.
posted by Cyrano at 9:11 PM on August 8, 2006 [1 favorite]


McKinney campaign claims name left off ballots. "The Man" is at it again....
posted by swell at 9:17 PM on August 8, 2006


Hmm.. as of right now Lamont beat Lieberman more than Bush beat Kerry in '04 (51.8/48.2 vs 50.7/48.3).

Just thought it was interesting.

I should really call Minority Leader Reid in the morning (I am one of his constituents) and drop a note asking if he'll remove Lieberman from his democratic committee assignments now that he is running as an independent candidate.
posted by SirOmega at 9:20 PM on August 8, 2006


Here's your McKinney comment:
Seeing that self-righteous, race-baiting crybaby bitch McKinney lose gives me the first indication in years that the Democratic party has not completely lost its soul and spine to cynical PC special interests that are completely out of touch with mainstream America and allow the Republicans to continue destroying everything good about this country.
Same goes for Lieberman
Let's hope this is the beginning of the rebirth of the Dems
posted by banishedimmortal at 9:23 PM on August 8, 2006


I'm perpetually amused by how so many Americans still cling to this absurd belief that it matters whether we vote republican or democrat or independent. We should dump all politicians into the landfill and institute a mandatory civil service draft. Randomly select people to fill in seats at Capitol Hill like Jury Duty. Pay them about as much as jury duty too. Okay, maybe a little bit more than jury duty. Pay their airfare to and from DC, a free lunch, and a validated parking stub. Tell them they have to pass a bill that actually helps Americans before they can go home. They won't be able to vote raises for themselves cuz they won't get a wage to raise.

Joe Lieberman is just not as good at playing the whole 'conservative versus liberal' game as other politicians. He sucks at pretending to give a shit. He's like a football player who catches the ball and 'accidently' runs it towards his own goal line to 'accidently' give points to the alleged opposing team. They're all playing the same game so in a way they're working together to entertain their audience. They just pretend to hate each other. McCain's just as bad on the other side of the aisle. Every once in a while he makes me forget he's supposed to be conservative. Then he jumps back to the other side of the line and tells himself no one saw him stab at his own.

The only good politician is a retired politician. Those are the guys trying to win their soul back from hell by building houses for the homeless or doing PSAs about protecting the environment and crap like that. Anyone who actually wants an elected position as a Man Of The People is not in it for the people and they ain't in it for the money either. They're a bunch of power hungry animals who'll be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes, provided they haven't escaped to a bunker in some undisclosed location.
posted by ZachsMind at 9:24 PM on August 8, 2006 [5 favorites]


Wow ZachsMind, thanks for dropping that wisdom on us! You're totally so above it all! All these pols are all just The Man, dude. Like, if Gore was elected in 2000, the U.S. position the world would be exactly in the same shit shape it is right now!
posted by malphigian at 9:27 PM on August 8, 2006


We should dump all politicians into the landfill and institute a mandatory civil service draft. Randomly select people to fill in seats at Capitol Hill like Jury Duty ... Tell them they have to pass a bill that actually helps Americans before they can go home.

Who's going to stop them?

They won't be able to vote raises for themselves cuz they won't get a wage to raise.

Seems like they wouldn't have any trouble raising their wages to me. In fact, they could simply raise the wage of all Juries.

All they would do in this case is just take bribe after bribe. They'd probably feel like they were owed the bribes because they were forced to do this annoying crap and unable to work during the time they were in office.
posted by delmoi at 9:34 PM on August 8, 2006


So which Democrat incumbent is next to be knocked off?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 9:36 PM on August 8, 2006


Presenting... the JOENECTICUT FOR LIEBERMAN Party... I've written my senators & Harry Reid to express my displeasure at the idea that Lieberman, sworn not to let the primary results stand, sworn to oppose the Democratic Party nominee, even might continue to be in the party's good graces...
posted by Zurishaddai at 9:37 PM on August 8, 2006


I don't care about Lieberman one way or the other, but tonight is a good night because McKinney got slaughtered (59%-41%). This country doesn't need her in Congress. Good riddance.

And now she's going to prove why, with public bitching and moaning and likely with lawsuits.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 9:38 PM on August 8, 2006


He won't keep this up until November

48% of the Dems who cared enough voted for Lieberman. He'll get enough (R) love come November to make up the difference, given how well Lieberman represents Republican interests.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 9:44 PM on August 8, 2006


Steve_at_Linnwood writes "So which Democrat incumbent is next to be knocked off?"

I'm guessing the next really high-profile one will be whoever wins the presidency in 2008, as by 2012 I expect that the full repercussions of the Bush Administration's incompetence will begin to be felt. America will no longer be "the world's only superpower", our diplomatic credibility will be totally compromised, and our economy will be in tatters. As Americans recoil against the horror that Bush has wrought, they will throw out all of the incumbents.


Civil war will soon follow. I'm probably gonna fight for California independence, myself.
posted by mr_roboto at 9:46 PM on August 8, 2006


So which Democrat incumbent is next to be knocked off?

Probably Lincoln Chaffee.
posted by boaz at 9:46 PM on August 8, 2006


Metafilter: Also, it was the blogofascists!
posted by owhydididoit at 9:48 PM on August 8, 2006


Probably Lincoln Chaffee.

lulz
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 9:49 PM on August 8, 2006


We now take you to a secret DNC smoke-filled room:

SHADOWY FIGURE: "So, Joe ... wanna be Secretary of Defense in '08".

LIEBERMAN: "Sure ... "

SHADOWY FIGURE: "Then get lost 'til then. We'll let you spout off for a few weeks, then you quietly redraw. Maybe a short-term health thing. How's Hadassah feeling? You'll say it's for the good of the party ... we wrote some stuff."
posted by RavinDave at 9:51 PM on August 8, 2006


I'm probably gonna fight



We've already got the flag made, at least.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 10:09 PM on August 8, 2006


That's what happens when you French Bush.

Interesting Reuteur juxtaposition on their feed:
  # Lieberman loses battle over war
  # Israel considers expanding war
posted by NewBornHippy at 10:12 PM on August 8, 2006


Goodbye Lieberman you worthless fuck. Sit the fuck down, son, you're done. You are exactly what's wrong with the Democratic party, you and your bullshit conservative lite agenda, bending over for the war, your utter lack of charisma and smug self-love. The 2000 race was close. Close enough to split the electoral and the popular vote. Do you think your spineless whimpering, disconnection from voters and lack of message might have had any impact on the final, disastrous result? When I think of you I want to rewrite Bill Hick's Rush Limbaugh routine, except that instead of being peed on by Reagan and Quayle, you'll be toe up in garters and a teddy, getting reamed in the ass with a dildo by Diane Feinstein wearing a fireman costume while Dukakis and Gray Davis sandwich your face in their buns and roast it with flatus until you cry your mother's name and cream your lingerie.

Please, please just go away, write a book no one will buy, and give some forgetable commencement addresses at third-tier colleges.
posted by scarabic at 10:44 PM on August 8, 2006 [2 favorites]


Like, if Gore was elected in 2000, the U.S. position the world would be exactly in the same shit shape it is right now!

Yeah, man! Cuz, like, Gore's totally all ecological 'n' shit, he's not in the pocket of Big Oil like those other guys! Well, except for Occidental Petroleum. But I'm sure they're really great guys, and those U'wa and Kitanemuk fuckers are probably all CIA plants anyway, right? Opening up the Elk Hills reserve is just totally different from opening up the Alaskan oil reserves, cuz, like, man, Alaska's all pristine and shit, y'know? And anyone, at least he's not some fundamentalist nutjob. Except for when he voted five times to let Bob Jones U keep its religious exemption despite its ongoing racial discrimination. And, you know, that whole Gulf War thing. But yeah, I mean, if would've been totally different if he was the president, man, there wouldn't be any of this zinc-strip-mining pro-Middle-East-war bullshit then, oh no!

Why do you smart people on MetaFilter fall for Gore's unending spew of bullshit? He's a hypocritical, lying, rat-bastard politician like all the rest of them. He's anti-Iraq and grandstanding about global warming because it's politically expedient and if he thought he could get more mileage out of calling for the extermination of the International Jewish Bankers' Conspiracy he'd be doing so in a heartbeat, and please, I mean really fucking please, people, come to your fucking senses and don't run this sack of shit in 2008, I can't take four more years of the Neocon Statist Regime, I really fucking can't, have some fucking mercy, I'm begging you.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 10:46 PM on August 8, 2006


RavinDave has it.
posted by bob sarabia at 10:47 PM on August 8, 2006


McKinney was one of the few in Congress who had the bravery to speak out against AIPAC and the other factions of the Israel lobby. That kind of courage will be missed.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 10:47 PM on August 8, 2006 [1 favorite]


Al Gore would most likely not have gotten the US into Iraq.
posted by delmoi at 11:05 PM on August 8, 2006


ZachsMind writes "We should dump all politicians into the landfill and institute a mandatory civil service draft. Randomly select people to fill in seats at Capitol Hill like Jury Duty. Pay them about as much as jury duty too. Okay, maybe a little bit more than jury duty. Pay their airfare to and from DC, a free lunch, and a validated parking stub. Tell them they have to pass a bill that actually helps Americans before they can go home. They won't be able to vote raises for themselves cuz they won't get a wage to raise. "

I like the way you think, ZachsMind. I have a similar idea. Have elections and whatnot... but anybody who's elected into public service is required to take on a vow of poverty for as long as they are in office. The'd have to live in tiny, monk-like cells. The only incumbents would be those who actually give a rat's ass about their job.
posted by brundlefly at 11:21 PM on August 8, 2006


After participating in a few campaigns, I decided that there is not enough money in the US treasury to pay me to run for or hold political office.
posted by Cranberry at 11:38 PM on August 8, 2006


McKinney was one of the few in Congress who had the bravery to speak out against AIPAC and the other factions of the Israel lobby. That kind of courage will be missed.

McKinney is a raving nutcase. One time she said that she thought that the Bush administration had deliberately set up the 9/11 attacks.

That kind of lunacy won't be missed in the slightest.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 11:56 PM on August 8, 2006


Doesn't Lieberman have a larger Republican base than most Democratic candidates - especially anti-war ones? With 49% of the Democratic vote plus a good chunk of non-party conservatives, it seems like a win in November would be easy.

Assuming primary results can be extrapolated to broader Democratic voters in November..
posted by unmake at 12:08 AM on August 9, 2006


Remember when Saudi Prince Alwaleed gave $10 million to the City of New York but used the opportunity to make all sorts of anti-Israel comments?

Mayor Giuliana gave the check back. (Damned right.) Then McKinney sucked up and said, "You were right about the Jews. Care to give me that money so I can use it on behalf of American Blacks?"

In an interview on KPFA in March of 2002, McKinney said that she thought that the Bush administration actually knew that the 9/11 attack was coming and deliberately let it happen.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 12:15 AM on August 9, 2006


Joenertia!
posted by maryh at 12:15 AM on August 9, 2006


Goodbye Lieberman you worthless fuck... Sit the fuck down...bullshit conservative lite...bending over...spineless whimpering...reamed in the ass with a dildo...roast it with flatus...cream your lingerie.

Are you still planning to get into politics? Just wondering.


McKinney was one of the few in Congress who had the bravery to speak out against AIPAC and the other factions of the Israel lobby.

And that fact alone speaks volumes about the crusaders against the all-powerful Israel lobby... ooooooh... scary.
posted by Krrrlson at 12:29 AM on August 9, 2006


48% of the Dems who cared enough voted for Lieberman. He'll get enough (R) love come November to make up the difference, given how well Lieberman represents Republican interests.
posted by Heywood Mogroot

Yeah, but that's without the stigma of 'loser' that's going to hang around his neck. The simple psychological impact- on both the Senator and the voters- could make your math moot.

I'm not saying Lieberman can't, or even won't, win. I am saying it won't be so clear cut until we see some polling results a week or so from now. Primary voters are less likely to be fair-weather friends, but some Lieberman people might just stay home in November.
posted by spaltavian at 12:33 AM on August 9, 2006


McKinney said that she thought that the Bush administration actually knew that the 9/11 attack was coming and deliberately let it happen

I believe that too, for an operative definition of "administration". Though I also believe Condi when she said they didn't expect the planes to be crashed into buildings. That, no doubt, surprised everybody.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 12:37 AM on August 9, 2006


Joeblivion!
posted by the_bone at 1:10 AM on August 9, 2006


Jobscurity!
posted by RavinDave at 1:24 AM on August 9, 2006


Don't let the Capitol Hill door hit you in the ass on the way out AGAIN, Cynthia. She made me ashamed to be a Democrat from Georgia.
posted by deadmessenger at 2:10 AM on August 9, 2006


"McKinney is a raving nutcase. One time she said that she thought that the Bush administration had deliberately set up the 9/11 attacks."

Raving nutcase, eh? Well, she ain't the only nutcase out there who thinks there's something fishy. You might be interested in what the raving nutcases who made this film have to say about it. It includes assessments by basket cases like, um, some highly respected professors (engineering at MIT and physics at Boston Univ). While you're at it, check this film too.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 2:15 AM on August 9, 2006


Raving nutcase, eh? Well, she ain't the only nutcase out there who thinks there's something fishy.

You're right, she's not. There really are a lot of raving nutcases out there. Still nutcases, though. I can't comment on McKinney spesifically since I don't know the context of her statements.
posted by delmoi at 2:53 AM on August 9, 2006


48% of the Dems [and Republicans who changed their registration] who cared enough voted for Lieberman. A lot of those people aren't Democrats. Those who are, probably shouldn't be.

Have elections and whatnot... but anybody who's elected into public service is required to take on a vow of poverty for as long as they are in office. The'd have to live in tiny, monk-like cells. The only incumbents would be those who actually give a rat's ass about their job.
Or those who plan to return to their lucrative private-sector jobs after skewing things to benefit their favorite big corporations. You don't think Cheney's in it for the paycheck, do you? This applies to all levels of government; look at the Selectmen in most New England towns: builders, real-estate speculators, and their lawyers. It is very rare for a anyone to seek elective office for altruistic reasons; at a minimum, people do it for the power and self-aggrandizement. (And those people are so easy to purchase before or after being elected.) You can scoff at ZachsMind's idea if you want, but it couldn't help but be an improvement on what we have now.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:27 AM on August 9, 2006


"There really are a lot of raving nutcases out there. Still nutcases, though."

So, delmoi, is this simply a face-value statement? If so, well, of course there are plenty of nutcases out there, no doubt about it. World's full of 'em. But in the context that the comment was originally made, the indication was that anyone who would even suggest that there may have been administration complicity in the events of 9/11 is, by definition, a raving lunatic. If this is what you believe as well, you might want to look a little deeper. Or not. I see you made no mention of the links I added to my comment.

And it was probably just a typo, but that's speCifically.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 3:41 AM on August 9, 2006


Al Gore would most likely not have gotten the US into Iraq.

Thank you delmoi. It's really hard to believe that after all the craziness that this administration had put us through, that anyone can say with a straight face that there is no difference between the parties. Yea Gore might be somewhat of a corporate tool but he's not a moron and he's not insane. He wouldn't have taken us into Iraq and he wouldn't have make every government agency into a forum for religious nuttery and incompetent nepotism.
posted by octothorpe at 3:48 AM on August 9, 2006


Complicity is an interesting word. There's willful complicity and complicity through incompetence. The bush administration clearly made several errors before 9/11, which in their absence may not have happened. To argue that bush, or other people in the federal government knew that 9/11 was going to happen, I think, does in fact veer into crackpotopia.

Have elections and whatnot... but anybody who's elected into public service is required to take on a vow of poverty for as long as they are in office. The'd have to live in tiny, monk-like cells. The only incumbents would be those who actually give a rat's ass about their job.

bleh, seriously I don't understand people's desire to punish their elected leaders. Especially the above suggestion to draft people and then pay them hardly anything while they try to run the country. It's just idiotic, and would only lead to people who are already rich running for office.

Why would a talented, smart individual opt to live in poverty? Only two reasons: Ideology and megalomania, which is basically what we have now. You think Ned Lamont or the guy who unseated McKinney would have run if meant giving up a comfortable life? Please.

What we really need to do, IMO, is pay senators and congressmen a ton of money. That way, we'd get smart, competent people to run and take the job, as opposed to what we have now: a government run by morons (just look at ted stevens!) Bleh.
posted by delmoi at 3:56 AM on August 9, 2006


Raving nutcase, eh?

Do not interfere with perfectly well-established warblogger memes from 4 years ago. TIA.
posted by mediareport at 4:02 AM on August 9, 2006


What we really need to do, IMO, is pay senators and congressmen a ton of money. That way, we'd get smart, competent people to run and take the job, as opposed to what we have now: a government run by morons (just look at ted stevens!) Bleh.

A ton of money? Like, a lot more than the 150k they already make?

I know that may not seem like that much to some people, but the average American makes about thirty thousand bucks a year.
posted by EarBucket at 4:21 AM on August 9, 2006


Yeah, but the average American doesn't have to keep a residence in DC as well as one in their hometown. Maybe we should build Congressional Dormitories in Georgetown.
posted by Tullius at 4:34 AM on August 9, 2006


"Raving nutcase" ... "raving nutcases" ... "crackpotopia" ...

It's not my intention to try to move this thread into a battleground between conspiracy theorists (CTs) and those who characterize all CTs as hopeless basket cases. But it is interesting to me how so many otherwise questioning, discerning and open-minded people tend toward knee-jerk denial when it comes to even suggesting that elements within the US government might stage a domestic disaster scenario in order to galvanize the public into accepting all manner of military interventions and adventurism. And of course the increased military expenditures which make it possible. And to accept the gradual erosion of civil liberties. The use of torture. Abandoning the Geneva Convention. The list goes on and on.

It's also important to realize that governments have been doing just that type of "event staging" throughout history in order to justify wars. And please remember that includes past governments of the good ol' US of A, for those who believe that Americans are, well, just too nice to do things like that.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:35 AM on August 9, 2006


Al Gore doesn't care about black people.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 4:54 AM on August 9, 2006


Maybe we should build Congressional Dormitories in Georgetown.

Can you imagine Congressional panty raids? Only the best hookers, all the blow you could ever want, and Presidential pardons all around!

Wait, isn't that happening now?
posted by SeizeTheDay at 4:56 AM on August 9, 2006


But it is interesting to me how so many otherwise questioning, discerning and open-minded people tend toward knee-jerk denial when it comes to even suggesting that elements within the US government might stage a domestic disaster scenario in order to galvanize the public into accepting all manner of military interventions and adventurism.

9/11 mythology is a powerful, polemic beast. Either you're with the Good Guys, or you're a Nutcase.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:00 AM on August 9, 2006


Ref McKinney, good riddance. We'll be reading about her going ballistic over a routine traffic stop one of these days.
posted by pax digita at 5:12 AM on August 9, 2006


"We'll be reading about her going ballistic over a routine traffic stop one of these days."

Would that be a routine routine traffic stop, or one of Georgia's routine racial profiling routine traffic stops?
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:27 AM on August 9, 2006


Contrary to the CW I don't think Lieberman can win the general. There is a real Republican candidate who isn't backing down who will take some of the Republican vote, and a lot of Lieberman supporters are actually going to be loyal to their party's choice. Then there's the whole sore-loser thing, the negative campaign, the stupidity ("My website was hacked!"), the hypocrisy ("My opponent is outspending me (while I get $1.5 million at the last minute from my lobbyist buddies)) and so on all of which has lots of time to come out in the next 100 days.
posted by localroger at 5:29 AM on August 9, 2006


Lieberman only got close because of union and interest group support. Most of those will switch to Lamont now. He doesn't have a prayer in the general.
posted by empath at 5:38 AM on August 9, 2006


So set 'em up, Joe
I got a little story I think you oughtta know
We're drinking my friend
To the end of a brief episode
So make it one for my baby
And one more for the road
posted by kirkaracha at 6:16 AM on August 9, 2006


> Would that be a routine routine traffic stop, or one of Georgia's routine racial profiling routine traffic stops?

It will be a routine cynthia-mckinney-profiling traffic stop. I so hope I'm there with a camera for one of 'em.
posted by jfuller at 6:22 AM on August 9, 2006


I am no fan of McKinney (or Saudi Royals for that matter), but

Remember when Saudi Prince Alwaleed gave $10 million to the City of New York but used the opportunity to make all sorts of anti-Israel comments?

Here's what he said (quotes from JewishSF):

After touring the devastation in Manhattan on Oct. 11, the 44-year-old Alwaleed called the attacks "a tremendous crime," and presented Giuliani with the check. In a subsequent press release, however, the multibillionaire investor urged the United States to "address some of the issues that led to such a criminal attack" and "adopt a more balanced stance toward the Palestinian cause."

The release also stated that "our Palestinian brethren continue to be slaughtered at the hands of the Israelis while the world turns the other cheek."


Anyway kind of off-topic but thought I'd sneak that in there. Good riddance to Joe and to Cynthia, I say.
posted by cell divide at 6:22 AM on August 9, 2006


Just sent to Harry Ried by me:
If Senator Lieberman wishes to campaign as an independent, I advise you to strip him of Congressional Appointments and remind your fellow Democrats in the Legislature that there is a DEMOCRAT who WON the Conneticut primary, by vote of the state's registered voters, and who is the only person worthy of their support. Any support of an independent candidate comes at the cost of the Democratic candidate, and will be viewed as such by the electorate, with dire political consequences. Democracy is on the march!
Also, it didn't take long, but the rightie bloggers are crying anti-semitism and anti-Israel sentiment helped defeat Leiberman...

Also, the GOP is rallying around Chancellor Palpatine Lieberman...check the love letter.
posted by rzklkng at 6:29 AM on August 9, 2006


I don't hold out a lot of hope for Lieberman's chances.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that this was an open primary, and Republican turnout was high. My gut feeling is that Lieberman really lost by a few more points.

Come November, that Republican "support" will disappear, and the large independent base (most Connecticut voters are registered independents) will break for Lamont.

On another note, how long will it take for these dumbass pols to understand that, in this age of blogs and video, they cannot continue to parse and dissemble comments they made previously. "What I really said was...." just doesn't work anymore.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 6:30 AM on August 9, 2006


Out of the frying pan and into the fire I say. Not that I want Liebermann in the Senate, but I think his seat was just given the Republicans. This is going to split the dem/unaligned vote between Liebermann/Lamont and allow the GOP to gain control of the seat.

But, you could argue that they have been in control of that seat since the early 90's anyways ( :) DINOLiebermann).
posted by i_am_a_Jedi at 6:41 AM on August 9, 2006


Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that this was an open primary, and Republican turnout was high.

Consider yourself corrected. Connecticut's primaries are closed. That said, in the run-up to the primiary undeclareds did register as Democrats in record numbers, but until we see some more detailed polling, it'll be hard to say how these went. I'm inclined to think that they split 50/50, but we'll see.

Lieberman's tin ear (wrt the country's attitude toward the war, his constituents, his party, etc.) is what has been his undoing all along, and I see this trend very much continuing until the general election. I think Lamont has an excellent shot at the win the general, even if Holy Joe runs as an independent.

This is going to split the dem/unaligned vote between Liebermann/Lamont and allow the GOP to gain control of the seat.

Doubtful. Alan Schlesinger is a token nominee (three time loser in races for US Congress) with little name recognition outside of Derby. I don't see this one going GOP whatever happens. He's currently polling at 20% one on one vs. Lamont, and between 8 and 15% in a three way race.
posted by psmealey at 6:55 AM on August 9, 2006


Jedi, there is no chance the Republicans will win the seat in Connecticut. They don't have a candidate. The guy running as a Republican is a joke who has been disowned by his own party.

A lot of Republicans love Lieberman, for obvious reasons, and will vote for him.
posted by Justinian at 6:56 AM on August 9, 2006


The endlessly irritating, unctuous and sanctimoniously warmongering Joe Lieberman apparently doesn't understand his vision of a "one party" state has been crippled by the Fine People of Connecticut. This man is so disconnected from reality and so selfcentered he can't envisions the US Senate without his presence. Hopefully other "Bushite Kool-Aide" drinking Oppostition Party Hacks get the message!
posted by xenophanes at 6:58 AM on August 9, 2006


IshmaelGraves: Gore's totally all ecological 'n' shit, he's not in the pocket of Big Oil like those other guys! Well, except for Occidental Petroleum.

No, he's not. If you actually read something other than NewsMax, you might have figured out that Gore doesn't own those shares....his father's estate owns them indirectly as part of a fund.

I figure, by that logic, I can prove that you had something to do with the Kent State shootings, IshmaelGraves. You had a relative that once lived somewhere near Ohio, right???
posted by thanotopsis at 6:59 AM on August 9, 2006


Seeing that self-righteous, race-baiting crybaby bitch McKinney lose gives me the first indication in years that the Democratic party has not completely lost its soul and spine to cynical PC special interests that are completely out of touch with mainstream America and allow the Republicans to continue destroying everything good about this country.

So, you're saying that every single Democrat in the US is able to vote in Cynthia McKinney's district?
posted by NoMich at 7:03 AM on August 9, 2006


So Lieberman gets shutdown for misrepresenting the Democratic Spectrum, and now he's going to run as an Independent? Honestly, who can respect someone who is obviously only concerned with staying in his padded chair, giving lipservice to whatever administration is in power? You know what they used to call those people? Pathetic fucking liars.
posted by prostyle at 7:03 AM on August 9, 2006


Jedi, there is no chance the Republicans will win the seat in Connecticut. They don't have a candidate. The guy running as a Republican is a joke who has been disowned by his own party.

Which is why he's going to crash and burn. The message will become very clear that "I'm running as an independent" means "Republicans should vote for me to stick it to the Democrats." The big issue against Joe is that pesky federal law that requires campaign donations to actually be disclosed. The inevitable news reports that his campaign is being funded by GOP donors (and that will be the story, trust me) will bury him if he actually tries to keep this farce up long enough.

For all the "insider" talk, the Democrats do NOT want Joe staying in now that he's lost. Giving Republicans an excuse to show up in November means more votes for the Congressional candidates in a year when there's actually a good chance to steal a seat or two. It means airtime and PR wasted on Joe vs. Ned instead of Cadey vs. Santorum, or Brown vs. DeWine, or a host of other potential pickup races. If Lieberman was actually beneficial to Democratic platform policy, maybe there'd be more concern. But frankly, it's going to become painfully obvious to the DNC and Lieberman that he's not worth it.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:31 AM on August 9, 2006


I can see the Republicans forcing Schlesinger to pull out as a way to keep Lieberman in power. Joe's basically the new Zell Miller and does more to undermine the Democratic party than any Republican Senator could.
posted by any major dude at 7:33 AM on August 9, 2006


Al Gore would most likely not have gotten the US into Iraq.
posted by delmoi at 11:05 PM PST


Because the Carter Doctrine was repealed?
posted by rough ashlar at 7:34 AM on August 9, 2006



The reason there is now a modicum of hope for the Democratic Party -- Joe Liberman can no longer be the Fox News Democrat.

Even if Liberman should win in Novemeber, the Democratic Party no longer has to worry about Joe Liberman D-CT going onto Fox News to talk about how wrong the Democratic Party is.

In 2000, he said that there was no award for second place -- despite the fact that he and Al Gore got more votes for president than any Democratic Party canidate in history, they still lost.

It's okay with Joe for Democrats to lose. Why isn't he okay with losing, then?
posted by eriko at 7:37 AM on August 9, 2006


delmoi: "Al Gore would most likely not have gotten the US into Iraq."

Maybe maybe not. We'll never know. Maybe he woulda left Saddam where he was. That was Clinton's solution for eight years. That worked great for the people living there in the 90s didn't it? NOT. There was no right answer there we were screwed regardless. Same holds true for Kennedy's solution to Fidel Castro, and then every president since. Eventually we just decided to outlive him. Oh that's worked great! Insert sarcasm here.

We can play the wouldacouldashoulda game all we want. The fact is, Gore wouldn't have stopped Nine Eleven any more than Bush did. What politician we put in the seat is irrelevant. They all support whatever lobbyists' interests that got them in there. It's not a man's vote that counts in a corporate oligarchy pretending to be a democratic republic. It's money. There's a lot more money in oil than there was in what was fueling Gore's campaign, and that's the real reason why we'll never really know what Gore woulda done in Bush's place.
posted by ZachsMind at 8:11 AM on August 9, 2006


Same holds true for Kennedy's solution to Fidel Castro, and then every president since. Eventually we just decided to outlive him. Oh that's worked great!

You can't be serious. It's been completely tolerable, just as Saddam's reign was completely tolerable.
posted by empath at 8:21 AM on August 9, 2006


Even if Liberman should win in Novemeber, the Democratic Party no longer has to worry about Joe Liberman D-CT going onto Fox News to talk about how wrong the Democratic Party is.

Dangerously untrue. If Lieberman wins in November, the first thing he'll do is re-file as a Democrat. He'll then make even more appearances talking about how the "people of Connecticut" (read: Republicans) voted him in as proof they want a "centrist, non-partisan" (read: Republican) Democrat serving them.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:23 AM on August 9, 2006


I don't know about Joe winning as an independent. Prominent democrats (Reid, Clinton, Schumer) will have to give more (i.e., $$$) than lipservice to Lamont or risk serious political damage. Hillary has already told Joe he needs to go. The unions, most democrats and most independents in Conn (who I suspect lean democrat and at any rate are completely disillusioned with Bush and his handling of the war) will go with Lamont who is going to be the beneficiary of an unreal amount of publicity as a "giant killer".

Joe can go one of three ways: He can move to the center, admit the war was a gross mistake and begin to move away from being a useful idiot for Bush. In which case he's going to alienate the extreme and centrist elements of the GOP (although it might pick him up some democratic votes). He can move even more towards the right and fully and unapologetically embrace his true GOP colors and completely alienate democrats and a lot of independents or he can walk the fine duplicitous line he's been walking all along as an "Independent Democrat", which might be okay in different circumstances, but look he (a powerful three term Sen) has just decisively lost his party's primary to an unknown. I think that's huge. And he simply does not have, has never had, the charisma or the political flexibility to diminish the fact that he's betrayed his party and that he's a sore loser. BUT as can be seen from this ongoing nonsense being milked for everything it's worth (they could so easily at this point get the site back up, address this issue on the homepage and get back to business, but obviously they have to stick with the stupid story of being hacked. It makes him seem like even more of a sore loser if you ask me), Joe is willing to pursue extreme means to get what he wants and look for a huge manufactured Rovian scandal to be thrown at Lamont soon.
posted by Skygazer at 8:28 AM on August 9, 2006


As of this morning, Lamont's assets include:

*The nomination of his party, with all the money and organizational support it entails.
*The endorsement of virtually every prominent member of his party.
*The endorsement of all relevant unions and interest groups.
*A campaign headed by a team good enough to take down a three-term incumbent in a primary.
*The strong likelihood of a surge in the next round of three-way polls, possibly into the lead.
*Positions that place him in the mainstream of CT voters on just about every issue.

Imagine a Lieberman independent campaign, in contrast. Who will appear with him at events? Who will man his phones and pass out his leaflets? Who's going to pony up the money (other than Republicans)?

And while much of his campaign team has clearly gotta go...what young geniuses in the Democratic party are going to go work for an independent candidate opposing the party's nominee? A nominee who's already suffered an embarrassing defeat, no less? That can't be good for your career.

I don't think Lieberman will stick it out. He has neither the wisdom nor the integrity usually attributed to him, but I don't think he can overlook the scale of the forthcoming humiliation.
posted by Epenthesis at 8:43 AM on August 9, 2006 [1 favorite]


This is going to split the dem/unaligned vote between Liebermann/Lamont and allow the GOP to gain control of the seat.

Yeah. That could happen. ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 8:59 AM on August 9, 2006


Maybe maybe not. We'll never know. Maybe he woulda left Saddam where he was. That was Clinton's solution for eight years. That worked great for the people living there in the 90s didn't it? NOT.


Awww...there really are still people who believe that we invaded for humanitarian reasons...that's so cute. You're so right; why can't people look past their partisan blinders and see how everything is soooo much better and how the Iraqis are living large these days!


There was no right answer there we were screwed regardless. Same holds true for Kennedy's solution to Fidel Castro, and then every president since. Eventually we just decided to outlive him. Oh that's worked great! Insert sarcasm here.


I KNOW! Castro is nothing but a menace II society! It's his fault thugs like Tony Montana were able to terrorize Miami!



posted by giantfist at 9:00 AM on August 9, 2006


Maybe he woulda left Saddam where he was. That was Clinton's solution for eight years. That worked great for the people living there in the 90s didn't it? NOT. There was no right answer there we were screwed regardless.

You're kidding, right? Seems to me, our deposing Iran's only real enemy in the area has only put us in a MUCH more dangerous position. And, don't forget, Saddam was no friend to Al Qaeda, either. (Bin Laden called him an infidel, remember?) This war has been a boneheaded move on so many levels it's mindboggling.

And, psmealey, thanks for setting me straight.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 9:05 AM on August 9, 2006


Dangerously untrue. If Lieberman wins in November, the first thing he'll do is re-file as a Democrat.

Everyone working with and for the Democratic Party has just seen Joe Lieberman stab the party in the back, and announce that he intends to defeat the party's candidate.

The moment he did that, his affiliation with the Democratic Party ended. If he wins in Novemeber, he wins by defeating the Democratic candidate, and he will go into the US Senate as "Lieberman I-CT", not "D-CT."

Now, it may be that the DC party will forgive him. I doubt that -- and you'll know that they won't forgive if Ried does exactly what every other party leader has done when a member has announced that they will run against a party nominee -- remove them from the caucus. No votes for leader, no committee seats, no administrative help, nothing.

Given that Reid has already announced that Lamont has his full support as the democratically selected candidate of the Democratic party, it is clear that the only reason he hasn't pulled the trap door lever is that they're giving Lieberman a few days to unstupid and leave quietly. That's a mistake, I think -- the moment Joe stabbed you, you stab back -- but there are reasons to try to talk Lieberman into just going away. So, Holy Joe may be allowed to retire as a Democratic Senator, if he gets a clue.
posted by eriko at 9:07 AM on August 9, 2006


Any pretense that Lieberman is a Democrat is gone.

If he actually does run as an "Independent Democrat" (what the fuck is that? It's D, R, other party, or I, not ID, schmuck), he will run a real chance of giving CT to a fucking Republican this Nov. Never mind taking a piss on the will of the (Democratic) people in CT, which he supposedly supports.

Split the D vote something like 70-30, and give the R just enough boost to win. I dunno how Blue CT is, but I doubt it's Blue enough to make this an impossibility.

Lieberman is no Democrat. He's just a fucking prick and and an idiot.

And Zachsmind: you're part of the problem. As big a part as any nasty Republican or Democrat. Your attitude is part and parcel of how they get to be so corrupt.
posted by teece at 9:10 AM on August 9, 2006


Steven C. Den Beste: "In an interview on KPFA in March of 2002, McKinney said that she thought that the Bush administration actually knew that the 9/11 attack was coming and deliberately let it happen."

Flapjax At Midnite: "Well, she ain't the only nutcase out there who thinks there's something fishy."

First off it's kinda creepy wanting this to be true, but IF it were true, don't you think we woulda proven it by now? By the way, the Earth is flat, Oswald didn't act alone, and there's aliens in a jar over at Roswell.
posted by ZachsMind at 9:15 AM on August 9, 2006


I shall make Lieberman a cake of apple and cinnamon and I shall call it delicious.
He shall taste of it and find the taste poor, of bitter ashes.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 9:16 AM on August 9, 2006


teece: "Your attitude is part and parcel of how they get to be so corrupt."

You wish! Soon as I take some mood altering, doctor prescribed drugs, and improve my outlook on life so that it's all teddybears and rainbows, my vote will suddenly count for much more. Yes. My attitude actually influences politics. Thank you for showing me how omnipotent I would be if only I embraced CareBear philosophy.

Democrats are politicians. Republicans are politicians. Just as the Steelers and the Pirates are both football players... or, uhm.. baseball? I get those mixed up. My point is, it's a game. My 'attitude' towards the game doesn't change its futility.

Teece, I disagree with your assessment, but I wouldn't use this forum to place the corruption of the world on your shoulders. Please argue the facts and opinions, rather than insult or malign the messenger. Thank you drive thru.
posted by ZachsMind at 9:23 AM on August 9, 2006


Empath: "You can't be serious. It's been completely tolerable, just as Saddam's reign was completely tolerable."

Tolerable to whom? You've obviously never spoken to someone who has come from there. Or how about the people STILL living there today? I doubt they'd use the word tolerable to illustrate their living conditions or quality of life. Of course I'm serious, and don't call me Shirley.
posted by ZachsMind at 9:28 AM on August 9, 2006


ZachsMind: if you think there is no difference between R and D: YOU ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!

(yes, I'm shouting. That idea is so laughably asinine that it really needs to be shouted down).

Your "just an opinion" is a key part of why half of Americans don't even bother to vote. "It's all fucked, they're all crooks, they're all the same" etc. That's all bullshit. There are good and bad politicians. There are major and easily discernible differences between the current Republican and Democratic parties, ideologically (both in statement and in practice, and it's just stupid, and completely ignorant of reality and fact, to say otherwise). There are easily discernible and quite provable differences between the current level of corruption in the two parties right now.

You have the oh-so-astute observation that all politics sucks, that R and D are the same, and that anyone that believe otherwise is "absurd." (In a thread where such a comment is nothing more than trolling, so leave the bullshit about facts and disagreement behind, please).

Give me a fucking break. American politics is Americans. If American politics sucks, you and I suck.

Play the "game" or shut the fuck up, basically. One of the reasons Republicans are having such an easy time being the most corrupt, criminal, and unethical governors of the American people in the history of this nation (which is saying something), is because folks like you (for whatever naive or misguided reasons), buy into the Republican idea that politicians and politics is evil. Republicans use this to great effect.

Politics is just people. You and I own it.
posted by teece at 9:35 AM on August 9, 2006 [2 favorites]


teece shoots and scores!
posted by grubi at 9:38 AM on August 9, 2006


First off it's kinda creepy wanting this to be true, but IF it were true, don't you think we woulda proven it by now?

"Deliberately let it happen" is something that will never be (dis)proven, but it's hard to hear about intelligence memos named things like "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" and not think that the Administration knew something was up.

And can we please let go of the "Gee, we'll never know whether Gore would have done into Iraq" bullshit? Might as well start spreading the possibility that he would have left his wife for another man. I mean, he doesn't hate gays, so we'll never know, right?
posted by mkultra at 9:38 AM on August 9, 2006


First off it's kinda creepy wanting this to be true, but IF it were true, don't you think we woulda proven it by now?

Well, according to this fairly well-documented piece of research, Roosevelt knew an attack on Pearl Harbor was coming and did nothing. It can't be argued there isn't precedent for rational skepticism about 9/11.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:43 AM on August 9, 2006


I just moved to Atlanta and was surprised about how many people McKinney pissed off. Well, white people.

I think, regardless of politics, what she voted for and against, people only entertain this sort of "nutjob" "crackerjack" name calling she's an unapolegetic black woman. I think she did some really stupid things, but I wonder if she looked like Ted Kennedy if all her actions, hitting a security guard and being outspoken about her beliefs, would really be an issue.
posted by Destroid at 9:44 AM on August 9, 2006


The fact is, Gore wouldn't have stopped Nine Eleven any more than Bush did.

In the closing arguments of the Moussaoui trial, the government claimed that the only reason they didn't prevent the 9/11 attacks was that Moussaoui lied to them about the attacks. The FBI agent who interrogated Moussaoui repeatedly told the FBI he believed that Moussaoui was planning on hijacking an airplane and said that the FBI ignored his warnings. (If you prevent hijackings, you prevent the attacks.)

This was right after President Bush, who's said he "didn't feel that sense of urgency" about terrorism despite getting more than 40 briefings on Al Qaeda between January 20 and September 10, 2001, was warned that Al Qaeda was planning to hijack planes and attack inside the United States and stayed on vacation. President Bush ignored Sandy Berger and Richard Clake's repeated warnings about Al Qaeda. He ignored the Hart-Rudman Commission's warning that "Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers" due to terrorism. Maybe if the president had felt a sense of urgency about terrorism, the FBI brass would've been more responsive to their field agents' concerns about terrorism and, by the government's own logic, prevented the attacks.

Clinton made terrorism a priority and "chaired near-daily meetings with Justice, CIA, FBI, Defence and all relevant principals." After an alert Customs agent captured Ahmed Ressam, the Clinton administration went to "battle stations" and captured other members of the Millennium Plot. Gore's policy would probably have been closer to Clinton's than to Bush's.

posted by kirkaracha at 9:48 AM on August 9, 2006 [3 favorites]


Even if the Democrat vote is split, the Republican guy is not going to win in Connecticut. I'm not saying that no Republican could win in Connecticut, but Schlesinger specifically couldn't win even if there were ten candidates splitting the Democrat vote.

I think Lieberman meant to say he'd run as an "Independent democrat" -- as a democrat, even if not as part of the Democratic Party.

My opinion and experience (I'm in Connecticut) indicate that Lamont trumped Lieberman for a couple of good reasons, but mainly because of Lieberman's track record. The perception is that when he was running with Gore, he really ignored his Connecticut constituency (despite still being a CT senator) in favor of furthering his own career. Nobody's forgotten that, and I think it motivated a lot of people into voting for not-Lieberman.
posted by booksandlibretti at 9:49 AM on August 9, 2006


but I wonder if she looked like Ted Kennedy if all her actions, hitting a security guard and being outspoken about her beliefs, would really be an issue.

Two words: Jim Trafficant. Looks like Kennedy, frequently referred to as a fuckin' nutjob. Of course he was also corrupt as hell, a charge I haven't seen laid at McKinney's feet.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:50 AM on August 9, 2006


teece: "ZachsMind: if you think there is no difference between R and D: YOU ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!"

Ow.

*turns down hearing aid*

D is the fourth letter of the alphabet. R is.. further down the list there...

Of course there's differences between republicans and democrats! You think I'm blind?!! Republicans are elephants and democrats are donkeys! Everyone knows that!

There's obvious differences between the Steelers and the Pirates too. They use different color uniforms. When one is playing defense the other is playing offense. They have different coaches and different cheering sections. Their mascots are different. Maybe one side prefers passing and the other tends to favor long bombs. Lots of differences between two teams playing the same game.

And in recent years, or perhaps decades, the players of the game have been more interested in how much money and fame they can get as opposed to whether or not the people in the stands are having a good time. Maybe for football that's not something that troubles most fans. It's a primary reason why I'm not a fan of sports.

It's not time to change teams. It's time to replace them. Put people in there who love the game and love the people who support it. Not people using the game for their own selfish ends. It's time to stop seeing politicians as democrats, republicans or independents. It's time to start seeing them as People for the People, or people slated for removal.
posted by ZachsMind at 10:12 AM on August 9, 2006


Schmoementum
posted by RakDaddy at 10:20 AM on August 9, 2006


I'm with XQUZYPHYR on this one. The Republicans know they have no shot in this race and will line up behind Lieberman as the lesser of two evils. While getting those votes will help him, the fact that he is getting most of his support for the other team will do him a lot of harm as well, I think.

Oh, and re: his platform was basically "IRAQ IRAQ IRAQ", I think it is very interesting that early in the campaign and in smaller venues Lamont seemed much more eager to talk about other issues (health care, jobs, etc.) but in his more recent appearances (like the Colbert Report) he always found a way to turn whatever the question was back to Iraq. I think this is a conscious and calculated move. I think his people have seem the Rove and company have 8 years of succeess by hammering at the same simple talking points no matter what they are asked. They knew Iraq was a winning issue for them, so that is what they stuck to.

The question for me is that while Iraq worked for the primary, will play as well in the general election, or if Lamont is going to need to add some moves to his playbook to pull this one out.
posted by Lazlo Hollyfeld at 10:21 AM on August 9, 2006


Oh. And by the way, Teece. I do vote. So your idea that people who think like me don't vote? Completely unfounded.
posted by ZachsMind at 10:27 AM on August 9, 2006


Oh. And by the way, Teece. I do vote. So your idea that people who think like me don't vote? Completely unfounded.

posted by ZachsMind at 12:27 PM CST on August 9 [+] [!]



I'm sure you know that that doesn't actually follow.
posted by goethean at 10:52 AM on August 9, 2006


"I'm sure you know that that doesn't actually follow."

Oh, you're no fun anymore!
posted by ZachsMind at 10:54 AM on August 9, 2006


teece, with all due respect, I *have* been paying attention -- and even voting -- longer than some MeFiers have been alive, and the Rs and the Ds are more alike now than they've ever been. It's all about the Benjamins, appearances, and the next election cycle; the country, not so much.
posted by pax digita at 11:07 AM on August 9, 2006 [1 favorite]


Aye.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 11:11 AM on August 9, 2006


George Stephanopoulos: Can Karl help Joe?
"According to a close Lieberman adviser, the President's political guru, Karl Rove, has reached out to the Lieberman camp with a message straight from the Oval Office: 'The boss wants to help. Whatever we can do, we will do.'

But in a year where even some Republican candidates are running away from the President on the campaign trail, does this offer have any value to Lieberman? Still smarting from all that coverage of 'the kiss' at last year's State of the Union, the Lieberman camp isn't looking for an explicit endorsement. That could create more problems than it solves.

The White House might help Lieberman by putting the kibosh on any move to replace the weak Republican candidate, Alan Schlesinger, with a stronger candidate.

And it might be able to convince Schlesinger to drop out of the race and endorse Lieberman in the final week or two, when it's too late for another candidate to fill the GOP slot. A quiet White House effort to steer some money in Lieberman's direction is another possibility.

This is a tricky dance for Lieberman. He needs to figure out a way to get the benefits of Bush support -- some votes from loyal Republicans -- without turning off the independents and moderate Democrats he needs to win. The safest course may be a polite 'thanks but no thanks' to the White House offer."
posted by ericb at 11:20 AM on August 9, 2006


General Wesley Clark:
"You see, despite what Joe Lieberman believes, invading Iraq and diverting our attention away from Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden is not being strong on national security. Blind allegiance to George W. Bush and his failed 'stay the course' strategy is not being strong on national security. And no, Senator Lieberman, no matter how you demonize your opponents, there is no 'antisecurity wing' of the Democratic Party."
posted by ericb at 11:24 AM on August 9, 2006


Prospective letter to my Senators (both Democratic) expressing outrage over Lieberman's conduct follows:
I am outraged by Senator Joseph Lieberman's audacious decision to run for reelection to the United States Senate despite his loss in the Connecticut Democratic Primary. His decision contravened the expressed will of Democrats in his own state and now threatens to weaken the fiscal and political prospects of the entire party during the upcoming general election.

While I firmly believe that the Democratic Party is made stronger by the diversity of social and fiscal positions held by its candidates, and that Independents with compatible views (such as Bernard Sanders) should generally be welcomed into the Democrats’ voting bloc, Lieberman’s recent decisions have made him the exception to these rules. The party should give no quarter to an individual who would submit himself to the mandate of Democratic voters only to ignore their verdict.

As a Massachusetts Democrat, I expect my Congressmen to pledge their enthusiastic, wholehearted support to Ned Lamont, the legitimate winner of the Connecticut Democratic Primary.

I also expect my Congressmen to oppose Senator Lieberman’s quixotic quest to retain his title and influence at the expense of the state and national Democratic establishment. I expect this opposition to include action as well as rhetoric, as Lieberman has proven himself undeserving of any leadership position within the Democratic Party.

I appreciate your attention to this matter.
Given my insular personality, much of what I write is suitable only for my own consumption, so I'd appreciate some comment re: the content/tone of this letter before I send it out to my Senators. I considered making it the subject of an AskMe question, but proofreading assistance would probably be considered beyond the site's purview. I'd put it in my blog for comment, but I'm the only one who reads it!
posted by The Confessor at 11:25 AM on August 9, 2006




I'm really quite curious what Schumer's office is going to say tomorrow morning.

Senators Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer announce full support for Lamont. They call Lieberman loss a "referendum on the president more than anything else.”
posted by ericb at 11:31 AM on August 9, 2006


teece

You seem rather delusional in your love for politicians. I can't seem to avoid the oxymoron "good politician" in your snark comment toward Zachsmind. Zachsmind is only guilty of stating the obvious. Stop the Presses:Politicians Lie!
posted by xenophanes at 11:32 AM on August 9, 2006


Lieberman Lost the Old-Fashioned Way -- "He was out of touch with voters. And he's not alone. His defeat foreshadows an upheaval to come in November."
posted by ericb at 11:42 AM on August 9, 2006


There isn't a chance in 1 billion that Gore or almost any other democrat would have taken us into Iraq.

For that matter, I think it's fairly questionable whether any other republican would have taken us into Iraq. The decision to go into Iraq wasn't based on necessity or on political philosophy. It was quite unique to this particular administration.

The only reason that I think other republicans might have made the same choice is that I think a number of the people in this administration would have been in any republican administration.

To suggest though that there is even the slightest chance that Gore might have chosen to take us into Iraq is to be willfully ignorant of the facts.
posted by willnot at 11:50 AM on August 9, 2006


It was quite unique to this particular administration.

I agree with that, but it's unique to a particular clique of people who have been around forever, and a support clique with dubious rationale and backers. They latter, PNAC group could have potentially gotten to both Repubs and Democrats, but the former, Rumsfeld-Cheney group needed a really weak and soft-headed Republican to get their mission accomplished.
posted by cell divide at 11:53 AM on August 9, 2006


The way the numbers break down in CT is pretty darn interesting. Know what would ensure that Joe wouldn't dare take on a run as an (I)? A viable Republican candidate.

But you run a campaign with the opposition candidates that you have, not the ones that you want. The first wave of polls should be telling--how many CT moderate Dems and Independents (more registered I's in this state than registered D's or registered R's) who liked Uncle Joe against out-of-nowhere upstart Lamont are now going to look at this thing and think, ya know, do we really want six more years of this smarmy SOB? And is a guy who won the Democratic nomination (in a very blue state) really such a wild-eyed upstart? For all intents and purposes, they're both CT millionaires (as is Bush II, although he likes to play brush-clearer on weekends).

I imagine plenty of I's will, but many Lieberman Dems are going to come around once he's stripped of his committee positions and buddies like Bill Clinton aren't showing up in New Haven to say nice things about him. Which is to say, he still has a good shot at winning, but I imagine his negatives are going to start sky-rocketing soon.
posted by bardic at 11:57 AM on August 9, 2006


And a moderate R incumbent got beat in Michigan as well by a hard-right newb.

I've been enjoying CNN and MSNBC's coverage of how this is a signal that the radical, extreme wing of the Republican party is taking power from the traditional, moderate mainstream of the GOP.

And I happen to live on Pluto.
posted by bardic at 12:25 PM on August 9, 2006


The Confessor, if you're sending that to Kerry & Kennedy, don't refer to them as Congressmen. They like to be Senators. Other than that, it's fine.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:33 PM on August 9, 2006


It's funny, back around xmas Lamont didn't have a chance according to the polls IIRC, weither the big Joe wins or not, at least he is running out of the party. It'll be interesting to see if Lamont can use the new backing to his advantage.
posted by edgeways at 1:19 PM on August 9, 2006


One time she said that she thought that the Bush administration had deliberately set up the 9/11 attacks.

then


In an interview on KPFA in March of 2002, McKinney said that she thought that the Bush administration actually knew that the 9/11 attack was coming and deliberately let it happen.

You do realize that these two sentences contain differeing accusations, right? Are you so sloppy with your accusations or id dyou upll the first one out of your ass? Becaus ethe second one can be answered with "bin laden determined to attack in U.S.? What? Don't bother me, I'm on vacation."
posted by Space Coyote at 2:34 PM on August 9, 2006


The Rs and the Ds aren't exactly alike. When they pander they pander to the opposite extremes. Exactly alike but the playbooks are different.
posted by Carbolic at 3:04 PM on August 9, 2006


I think, regardless of politics, what she voted for and against, people only entertain this sort of "nutjob" "crackerjack" name calling she's an unapolegetic black woman. I think she did some really stupid things, but I wonder if she looked like Ted Kennedy if all her actions, hitting a security guard and being outspoken about her beliefs, would really be an issue.

I dunno. I think if Teddy (or anybody else) punched a cop, it might affect his credibility.
posted by EarBucket at 3:14 PM on August 9, 2006


Yeah, I remember when Clinton invaded a nation with 150,000 troops and began an expensive, bloody, and un-winnable occupation. And then he started pissing on the Constitution, ensuring that the Executive branch was no longer held in check by either the Legislative or Judiciary.

And that time Bush II had the economy creating more jobs per month than ever before in American history? And created a record budget surplus, restoring financial responsibility to the Fed?

Look, politicians are politicians, but it's simple ignorance to say the Dems are as bad the Republicans. As venal and capable of mercencary attitudes? Absolutely. But it's about performance and competence, stupids. In the last two decades, a Democratic White House (granted, the lone one) proved objectively better for our nation's economy, security, and international standing. Please feel free to prove otherwise.
posted by bardic at 3:45 PM on August 9, 2006


a Democratic White House (granted, the lone one) proved objectively better for our nation's economy, security, and international standing. Please feel free to prove otherwise.

Just to stir the pot: Clinton has little to nothing to do with the economic well-being of this country during the 90s, just as you couldn't blame Bush for the recession prior to 9/11 that went on for a couple of years. This nation's security was, again, not controlled by Clinton, but by the end of the Cold War and countries, interest groups, and terrorist factions organizing and gathering resources (BTW, remember the WTC bombings in '94, WACO, Oklahoma City, and the bombing of the USS Cole? All through Clinton's watch). Finally, I'm not sure why international standing is all that important in a single hegemon structure.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 4:03 PM on August 9, 2006


To add: Presidents rarely have any influence over the market's cycle of boom and bust. They have indirect controls through budgetary measures of course, but they certainly don't influence how well the market does on a whole; Greenspan had more influence than Clinton (of course, one could argue even Greenspan's importance).
posted by SeizeTheDay at 4:06 PM on August 9, 2006


Tolerable to whom? You've obviously never spoken to someone who has come from there. Or how about the people STILL living there today? I doubt they'd use the word tolerable to illustrate their living conditions or quality of life.

Well, you ask the right question to begin with, then you go off track. Tolerable to whom? To Americans, that's who. You know. The ones who rushed off to topple the government? Life in Iraq was awful beforehand (due as much to the sanctions as Saddam) but it's also awful now with an uncertain future.

So why did we run in there again?
posted by scarabic at 4:24 PM on August 9, 2006


To argue that bush, or other people in the federal government knew that 9/11 was going to happen, I think, does in fact veer into crackpotopia.

Hardly. When investigating an unsolved crime, one of the first logical lines of enquiry is to establish who has benefited. Who might that be?

Of course, one must assume that the Iraq War is relevant to our response to 9/11.
posted by owhydididoit at 4:28 PM on August 9, 2006


"First off it's kinda creepy wanting this to be true,"


Who said anything about wanting it to be true? Personally, I want to believe that the government wouldn't lie, and that it's made up of honest and reputable people who wouldn't stoop to such actions. History, of course (and common sense) tell us otherwise.


but IF it were true, don't you think we woulda proven it by now?


You really should pay a bit closer attention to history. Conspiratorial actions by governments (or elements within governments) often take years (decades) to be exposed. This has been the pattern for a long, long time.


But, hey, we Americans seem to need our precious myth of "honest government" more than just about any other people on earth, and I'm not surprised that you can't bring yourself to acknowledge what is, admittedly, a horrible possibility. But regarding 9/11, just think about this word: implosion, implosion, implosion...
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:05 PM on August 9, 2006


Just to stir the pot: Clinton has little to nothing to do with the economic well-being of this country during the 90s, just as you couldn't blame Bush for the recession prior to 9/11 that went on for a couple of years. This nation's security was, again, not controlled by Clinton, but by the end of the Cold War and countries, interest groups, and terrorist factions organizing and gathering resources (BTW, remember the WTC bombings in '94, WACO, Oklahoma City, and the bombing of the USS Cole? All through Clinton's watch)


You can't have it both ways. If Clinton had nothing to do with the state of the economy during his administration, then you can't blame him for WTC Part I, WACO, Oklahoma City, or the bombing of the Cole. There's eitehr a lag time, or there's not.

Let me guess...all the bad stuff...Clinton's fault. All the good stuff...thanks to Reagan. Right?
posted by giantfist at 5:19 PM on August 9, 2006


I admit, I came off a bit confusing. I don't blame Bush for 9/11. I do think that Clinton was lucky in that the world is far more dangerous today than it was 14 years ago when he took office. But, as an example of how the Democratic White House did not prove to be safer than a Republican one, I cited those examples. I don't blame Clinton for those events. But if you're looking for events that challenged out national security during the time of a Democratic President, you don't have to look that hard.

BTW, mentioning that I favor Reagan is a pretty cheap rhetorical trick constructed by someone who doesn't care about what I'm thinking, but is more interested in labelling me. You get a rise out of me only enough for me to mention that it's a pretty stupid thing to say on your part.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 5:32 PM on August 9, 2006


Just to stir the pot: Clinton has little to nothing to do with the economic well-being of this country during the 90s, just as you couldn't blame Bush for the recession prior to 9/11 that went on for a couple of years.

Republicans always say crap like that to hide the fact that since Ragen the economy has sucked under bushes and done well under Clinton. It's ridiculous.
posted by delmoi at 5:39 PM on August 9, 2006


"a pretty cheap rhetorical trick"

hey, SeizeTheDay, good point! There's way to much of that going on in MeFi political threads and, of course, in the wider world as well. Wouldn't it be nice if people would stop resorting to such easy (and ultimately pointless) characterizations of those whose opinions differ from their own?

Signed,

Nutcase At Midnite
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:43 PM on August 9, 2006


I do think that Clinton was lucky in that the world is far more dangerous today than it was 14 years ago when he took office.

That's the kind of statement that's taken as Gospel today; a perfect example of the reframing of the debate by our neocon overlords. IF the world is more dangerous today, the main reason is because our little adventure in Iraq has turned that country into a giant recruiting poster for the fanatics.

The world was no more dangerous the day after 9/11 than it was the day before 9/11. Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, Richard Clarke, Israel, Interpol and many others knew who Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were, and the danger they represented. It's absolutely not disputable that Bush and Company were briefed by the outgoing Clinton administration. The danger, for whatever reason, just did not resonate with the Bush administration.

I am not laying the blame at the feet of the Bush administration. I just have problems with the "more dangerous world" mantra. It's an easy out, and the perfect excuse for dismantling our civil liberties. The world has always been a dangerous place. One of the true strengths of the American Experiment has been that, historically, we have chosen liberty over safety. Many of us now regard that concept as quaint (or dangerous) - at, I believe, our peril.

Who needs terrorists to take away our rights, if we're willing to do it to ourselves? It's like Mark Twain said, "It's not what we don't know that gets us into trouble, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so."
posted by Benny Andajetz at 6:11 PM on August 9, 2006


Benny Andajetz, your points are well taken, and it's always a good idea to quote the estimable Mark Twain. I'd disagree with this, however:

"The danger, for whatever reason, just did not resonate with the Bush administration"

I'd say the danger resonated like a Tibetan bowl with the Bu$h administration. They knew exactly what to do with it. Like, say, help convince a whole lot of people that we should invade Iraq. Condone torture. Erode civil liberties. Etc. ad nauseum...
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:35 PM on August 9, 2006


Now what?

Now the Soros Shadow Party takes over. Those damned liberals have doomed us all!
posted by homunculus at 7:52 PM on August 9, 2006


Kirth Gerson writes "You can scoff at ZachsMind's idea if you want, but it couldn't help but be an improvement on what we have now."

I wasn't scoffing. Dead serious about ZachsMind's idea and my own. You do raise a good point about the post-office perks. Lifelong vow of poverty, maybe?
posted by brundlefly at 2:38 AM on August 17, 2006


« Older Perihelion   |   You want an office? You got an office. Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments