“The media continues to portray this contest as a one issue referendum on the war. While certainly the dominant issue, I think this view masks the widespread dissatisfaction with congress, not just the administration, and is reflected in a ‘zero tolerance’ attitude toward incumbents. People are looking for an excuse to ‘vote the bums’ out. Watching the debate, I was struck by several differences between the candidates – most notably on the topic of ‘earmarks’. I went into the debate with an open mind, expecting to retain my mild preference for Lieberman. Lieberman’s brazen support for the corrupt earmark process, and craven appeal to Connecticut voters based on his ability to bring home the earmark ‘pork’, completely changed my thinking. Lamont took a principled stand on earmarks, which resonated with me and I suspect resonates with Connecticut voters (which – full disclosure – I am not), even if he is more left of center than I would like. I posted a short video and transcript about this telling exchange in my blog post: ‘To earmark or not to earmark, that is the question’
mw | Homepage | 08.06.06 – 12:42 pm | #

Gravatar LV: Sorry. I hadn’t rea”

Jesus, Mary & Joseph. God save us from Democrats who could ever do the right thing by adhering to logic, usuing the most basic tenets of reason and last but not least, employ a morality that precludes blowing up children for nothing! That country had done nothing to us!

What the fuck do ya know, if we had real Democrats the war never would have started in the first place.

I hope everyone here understands that just the very existence of that rationale above is an empirical irrefutable demonstration of Democratic failure.

Utter total fucking failure, for the Dmeocrats to be thinking like that is ragingly disguting, incredibly fearful, and so fucking lame I can’t believe I spend time with politics in this goddamn country anymore.

Fucking pussies, I’m ranting and using using words I shouldn’t but jesus, let’s just take a look at ourselves. God, Hobbes was right.
paradox | Homepage | 08.06.06 – 10:21 am | #

Mackris v. O’Reilly: The Opera: ” In the book Sweet Jesus, I Hate Bill O’Reilly, we discussed the possibility of a musical theater
production. We even went so far as to throw together some lyrics. Well kids, in the race to the
stage, we’ve been beaten to the punch… and by a guy named Igor, no less.

Mackris v. O’Reilly is the new work by Igor Keller. The oratorio (which is basically an opera
without the scenery), is for a 31-piece chamber orchestra, 32-voice chorus and three soloists,
directed by Kris Falk.

The libretto is comprised of the original court document and O’Reilly’s on-air settlement
announcement. Imagine a two-hour neo-baroque extravaganza including seven chorales, two
madrigals, three choruses, four recitatives, two instrumental entrances and numerous arias
dedicated to the sexual exploits of the most popular man in cable news.

Order the book

Charles Robert Stephens – Baritone
as Bill O’Reilly

Stephens’ performances show ‘a committed characterization and a
voice of considerable beauty.’ (Opera News) He has been hailed by
The New York Times as a ‘baritone of smooth distinction.’

Signe Mortensen – Soprano
as Andrea Mackris

Mortensen’s roles include Musetta in La Boheme (Bellevue Opera),
“

Crooks and Liars » Joe Lieberman: By: John Amato @ 11:10 AM – PDT
Russ Feingold joined THIS WEEK and had a few choice words for Lieberman and Bush. He told the country the basic fact about Lieberman: ‘He doesn’t get it.’ Feingold also explained that Bush can fight terrorism without breaking the law and stick to the FISA court.
Video-WMP Video-QT (about six minutes)
Lieberman (on video): “If we just pick up as Ned Lamont wants us to do and get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England, and it will strengthen them and they will strike us again.”
Stephanopoulos: “Senator Lieberman thinks that your approach will strengthen the terrorists and it’s a victory for terrorists. What’s your response?”
Feingold: “Well, I like Joe Lieberman, but I support Ned Lamont. Because Joe is showing with that regrettable statement that he doesn’t get it. He doesn’t get it. The fact is that we were attacked on 9/11 by Al Qaeda and its affiliates and its sympathizers, not by Saddam Hussein. And unfortunately, Senator Lieberman has supported the Bush Administration’s disastrous strategic approach of getting us stuck in Iraq instead of focusing on those who attacked us.
(Read the rest of this story…) “

Crooks and Liars » Joe Lieberman: By: RJ Eskow @ 2:02 PM – PDT
The NRSC has confirmed that it’s backing Lieberman:
“This morning, a source at the National Republican Senatorial Committee confirmed in a phone interview that the party will not help Schlesinger or any other potential Republican candidate in Connecticut, and it now favors a Lieberman victory in November.’
Adam Schlesinger is running on the Republican ticket. The NRSC, perhaps realizing its blunder, called back and tried to back off its original statement:
‘An NRSC spokesman just called to make clear the distinction between actively and openly supporting Lieberman, which they’re not doing, and merely opting not to support a Republican in Connecticut.’
Democrats should take a cue from Republicans, who flood Green candidates with money so that they can get on the ballot and draw votes from Dems. They should shower Schlesinger with campaign contributions (after donating as much as they’re allowed to Ned Lamont.)
(via David Sirota)”

Crooks and Liars » Joe Lieberman:
By: John Amato @ 5:45 PM – PDT
This man is beyond words. He leads the Congress against Democrats that propose timetables to get out of Iraq and now what does he say?
Duncan can fill you in:
So, when Democrat Ned Lamont says we need to start a timetable for withdrawal, Lieberman says that would be a victory for terrorists. When Democrats in the Senate put that up for a vote, Joe leads off the debate on the side of… the Republicans. But when Republican Chris Shays says we need a timetable then Lieberman says…
Sen. Joe Lieberman, the three-term Democrat whose independent campaign for re-election is being seen as a referendum on the Iraq war, said Friday he would consider taking a look at a fellow lawmaker’s proposal for a time-line for troop withdrawals.
Update: Best comment- Brawlin_Dem: ‘What’s the big deal? He’s just standing up for a fellow Republican.'”

CT-SEN: Lieberman Says Lamont’s Policies Would Be “Tremendous Victory” For Terrorists TPMCafe: “According to the Stamford Advocate, Lieberman said today that Lamont’s policy for an Iraq pullout would be a ‘tremendous victory’ for and would ‘strengthen’ the people who wanted to blow up the planes in the scheme foiled in England:
‘If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them and they will strike again.'”

CT-SEN: Lieberman Won’t Say Whether Dems Should Win House TPMCafe: “When they voted to give Bush the authority to go to war, he was still pretending war was a last resort. And none of them, not even Hillary Clinton, has spoken out to support the ‘stay-the-course’ non-strategy. And Lieberman accused Kerry of ‘playing politics with Iraq’ when Kerry called for Rumsfeld’s resignation in April of 2005, after Abu Grahib. And Lieberman was the Republican’s first scheduled speaker when Kerry, Feingold and others tried to get the Senate to do its damn job by conducting some oversight of this Administration.

“Dissent Protects Democracy”

CT-SEN: Lieberman Won’t Say Whether Dems Should Win House TPMCafe: “Dead people aren’t ‘smears’ or ‘lies’ are they?? Doesn’t Lieberman bear some responsibility for those killed in Bush’s bogus war? Is it ‘bitching’ to demand accountability for failed policy and it’s results-lots of dead people?
dead troops
more dead troops
dead Iraqi’s “