John Kerry on Rush Limbaugh’s Comments on Israel

[CharlestonChad]

If you had to ask, then you weren't personally attacked by ME. If and when it occurs, you WILL know.

When the poster's intelligence is indeed in question, then there is legitimate reason to question it.

And all I can say if you want to cry "foul" every time you get your feathers ruffled is "WAH!"

I haven't personally attacked you, which is why I see no reason for you to attack me. If you want to play that game, then I'll play, but I was hoping this board was more mature than that.

 

[nt250]

I haven't personally attacked you, which is why I see no reason for you to attack me. If you want to play that game, then I'll play, but I was hoping this board was more mature than that.

I do not take what people say to me on message boards personally. Not when I post about politics or about issues. Why don't I? Because I think other people are entitled to their opinions and I am entitled to call them stupid for their opinions and how they express them, and because I don't take disagreement personally.

A personal insult on a message board is when you take something someone posted about themselves on a totally unrelated thread, and use it against them in an argument. That's a personal insult. A personal insult is when someone insults you through your wife, husband, children, or animals. That's a personal insult.

If you post something moronic, calling you a moron is not a personal insult.

You get offended when called a moron and stupid?

Like I said, you either have little experience on political message boards or you are way too thin skiinned to post on political message boards.

You wanna know some of the names I've been called in my 7 years on message boards?

I'd list them all for you, but I'm not too sure what the policy is here on profanity.

 

[Gunny]

-You're dancing around the first question. I wasn't aware you were also schooled in the art of tap.

I believe I have addressed it more than twice. What part aren't YOU getting?

-Thank you for your service.

While I appreciate your thanks, it is not necessary. When I point out my military service within the context of an argument it is to make a point, not seek praise. Nor is this statement a rebuff .... rather clarification.

-No Dem or Lib honestly wants to protect Saddam. Everyone knows how terrible of a person he is and what atrocities he's committed. That's not the point. If Bush had been honest and said how terrible he was and that we need to stop this, then that would at least have been honest. But he had to put his spin on the situation, and that is lying to America.

Bush did not lie to America by presenting the facts that the US -- to include the Clinton Administration, and most of the world posessed at the time. That some of those facts turned out to be erroneous AFTER-the-fact does not change what was believed BEFORE-the-fact.

-Holding a president to a standard of honesty is not a bad thing. I criticized Clinton just like I criticize Bush. I've mocked, criticized, and disowned many of the leaders of both parties on multiple occasions, yet some still believe that I'm a bleeding-heart liberal. It sucks that some people cannot get other their devotion to one party enough to attempt to see things from another perspective.

You're completely missing the boat. It's easy-as-Hell for me to see things from the liberal perspective .... I was raised as one from Kennedy to about halfway through Carter. Being able to see things from that perspective does not necessarily make them relevant, nor right.

I have criticized Bush on more than one occasion. I'm just not going to criticize him based on revised history and or completely fabricated allegations. The BIGGEST problem I see with the left is y'all are so fragmented, you can't keep up a sustained attack on the right, and one of the reasons it always fizzles out is because rather than attack the Republicans for what they ARE doing, you have to make shit up.

 

[nt250]

I have criticized Bush on more than one occasion. I'm just not going to criticize him based on revised history and or completely fabricated allegations. The BIGGEST problem I see with the left is y'all are so fragmented, you can't keep up a sustained attack on the right, and one of the reasons it always fizzles out is because rather than attack the Republicans for what they ARE doing, you have to make shit up.

Here's what rabid liberals do not seem to understand: You can criticize a person, their policies, words and actions, without demonizing them. They do not seem to understand that. Some of the best written, well though out criticisms of the Bush administration I've read have been written by conservatives. Writers like George Will, Phyllis Schafly, Pat Buchanan. But liberals never read anything a conservative writes so most of them have no idea that many conservatives can't stand Bush either. Many mainstream conservatives feel that Bush has betrayed the cause.

But liberals don't know that because they let their hatred of conservatives color everything they think. So they fling invective. Compare Bush to Hilter. Call him a Nazi. The Anti-Christ. Hell, when his dog died they couldn't help gloating. Nothing is sacred to these idiots. I've even seen posters on message boards accuse him of molesting his daughters. He's a "dry drunk". He's stupid. Except when he's an Evil genius. Oh, and then he's stupid again. Oooops, then he's a calculating mastermind of the "neocons" plans. Oh, and then he's drinking again.

It's pathetic.

But what can you expect? On another board I post at now some of the liberals are claiming the terrorist plot that's in the news today is nothing more than a publicity stunt to get Blair and Bush's poll numbers up. You can't win with these people. If they don't catch a plot it means they knew about it and let it happen, or planned it. If they do catch a plot, they publicize it to scare people and to win elections. These same people who had no problem with the secret programs that would catch terrorists plots being plastered all over the front page of the New York Times, are now saying this latest plot should not have been publicized.

Nuts.

 

[red states rule]

[


and the liberal media...........


Olbermann Inserts 'Red Meat' Anti-Bush Conspiracy Theory Into Terror Plot Story
Posted by Brad Wilmouth on August 11, 2006 - 06:58.
MSNBC's Keith Olbermann has a history of pushing conspiracy theories questioning whether the Bush administration has politically timed terror alerts or the release of terrorism-related stories for political advantage. Since the timeline of the current terror plot story was controlled by the British, one might expect Olbermann to take a break from his fascination with such ideas. But, true to form, the Countdown host still found a way to insert an anti-Bush conspiracy theory into the story, as he questioned whether some of the Bush administration's recent criticism of Democrats for ousting pro-Iraq War Senator Joe Lieberman had been timed to exploit the terror story that would soon break. (Transcript follows)

Olbermann referred to "unbridled rhetoric" against Democrats and the "specter of an administration that has seemingly played politics with past terror alerts." Olbermann plugged his segment on the topic with Newsweek's Jonathan Alter: "And could it just be coincidence that the President finds out about this plot, then his Vice President and the Republican chairman start slamming Democrats for being soft on terror, then the public is informed about the plot? Could it really be just coincidence?"

Alter contended that the administration was using the terror news as "Hamburger Helper for the red meat that they want to throw out politically" as they were "exploiting it politically." He also lamented sometimes thinking "the motto these folks have is 'The only thing we have to use is fear itself.'"

After Olbermann summarized the day's terror plot news during the show's teaser, he conveyed skepticism as he mentioned past mistakes by British authorities: "But intelligence sources say the supposed plotters only began looking at flight schedules last week. The source is the British, the same people who missed both subway bombings in London last year, then shot a purported terrorist wearing a suicide bomb vest and running from police, only it turned out he was a 27-year-old electrician wearing an ordinary shirt and walking."

Ignoring the administration's history of attacking Democrats over the war on terror at critical election times, which is consistent with doing so right after a primary dominated by anti-war Democrats, Olbermann wondered if the "unbridled rhetoric about the Democrats" was inspired by the administration's inside knowledge that a terror plot story was about to break, and claimed the administration had a history of "playing politics" with terror alerts: "His press secretary said Mr. Bush knew of the British investigation as early as Sunday. Did his Vice President know? His party national committee chair? Does that explain the unbridled rhetoric about the Democrats in the Connecticut Senate primary vote? ... And Jonathan Alter on the specter of an administration that has seemingly played politics with past terror alerts, and how much of this we can all believe."

Olbermann later plugged the segment: "And could it just be coincidence that the President finds out about this plot, then his Vice President and the Republican chairman start slamming Democrats for being soft on terror, then the public is informed about the plot. Could it really be just coincidence? That ahead on Countdown."

The Countdown host introduced the segment by trying to invent a contradiction in President Bush's public statements regarding the danger of terrorism at home as the MSNBC host ridiculously claimed that Bush had last year "made it very clear that we are safe here at home thanks to his war in Iraq." The statement in question made no such claim:

Olbermann opened the segment: "If you have any trouble following your government's position on terror and your safety, let's clear it all up right now in our third story on the Countdown. A year ago on July 4th, the President made it very clear that we are safe here at home thanks to his war in Iraq."

George W. Bush, dated July 4, 2005: "We're taking the fight to the terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them here at home."

Olbermann: "However, if you think that means that we don't have to face them here at home, well, as the President said today:"

Bush: "It is a mistake to believe that there is no threat to the United States of America."

Olbermann mockingly reacted: "Now, where would anyone have gotten such an idea?"

During the interview with Alter, Olbermann referred to his past conspiracy theories questioning whether the Bush administration has politically timed terror alerts or the release of terrorism-related stories for political advantage: "There have been a lot of terror threats, warnings, events that have come in the wake of bad political news for the administration. We chronicled them here. They might be coincidences, they might not. There is such a thing as the logical fallacy. But this is the first time I've ever heard of an anti-conspiracy conspiracy theory, that the revelation of this purported plot could not be politically timed because the administration would have really benefitted had this plot been revealed Monday or Tuesday before the voters went to the polls in the primary in Connecticut. I gather you don't buy the anti-conspiracy conspiracy theory."

During his response, Alter accused the administration of "exploiting" the terror story they knew was about to break, calling the news a "sort of Hamburger Helper for the red meat that they want to throw out politically." After arguing that the anti-war result of the Democratic primary may benefit Republicans, Alter continued: "I think the British were controlling the timing of these arrests, and it's really important not to get into this sort of crouch where you say everything that involves terrorism is political. You can hold two seemingly contradictory ideas in your head at once, Keith. One is that, you know, they use this kind of news as sort of a Hamburger Helper for the red meat that they want to throw out politically. In that sense, they're exploiting it politically, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're timing this politically."

Olbermann then brought up the possibility that the Bush administration has exaggerated past terror threats to "scare its own people unnecessarily," prompting Alter to coin the phrase "The only thing we have to use is fear itself." After listing out other terror plot stories from the past, Olbermann continued: "Is there a point at which most people start doubting the idea that no government would ever dream of scaring its own people unnecessarily?"

Alter responded: "Well, you know, you mentioned by FDR book. I mean, I sometimes think the motto these folks have is 'The only thing we have to use is fear itself.'"

Olbermann: "Mmmm."

Alter: "It works well for them. And yes, they do exploit it."

Olbermann ended the show wondering how much the media should scrutinize the government during such events: "What about the role of the media in authenticating that for which we have only the word of two governments and no other evidence of our own?"

Alter praised Olbermann's scrutiny, but warned against being "cynical": "I think at a certain level the media always has to give the government in this kind of case the benefit of the doubt at first, then go back and ask a lot of hard questions, which you've started quite appropriately to do here tonight. But to assume from the get go that the government is lying about security matters, I think, would be an excessively cynical posture so that the key thing for the media is to perform that accountability function. ..."

Olbermann concluded the interview: "Skeptical, not cynical. We'll try."

Below is a complete transcript of relevant portions of the August 10 Countdown show:

Keith Olbermann, in opening teaser: "Which of these stories will you be talking about tomorrow? The hysteria stops here. The British send international air travel into disarray as they arrest two dozen suspects in a purported plot to blow up as many as 10 U.S.-bound international flights, allegedly using liquid explosives smuggled on board in containers."

British police officer: "This was intended to be mass murder on an unimaginable scale."

Olbermann: "But intelligence sources say the supposed plotters only began looking at flight schedules last week. The source is the British, the same people who missed both subway bombings in London last year, then shot a purported terrorist wearing a suicide bomb vest and running from police, only it turned out he was a 27-year-old electrician wearing an ordinary shirt and walking."
...

Olbermann: "What about the delay in American politics?"

George W. Bush: "This nation is at war with Islamic fascists."

Olbermann: "The President interrupting his vacation not to reassure the nation, nor go back to the capital, but merely to hit a fund-raiser in Wisconsin. His press secretary said Mr. Bush knew of the British investigation as early as Sunday. Did his Vice President know? His party national committee chair? Does that explain the unbridled rhetoric about the Democrats in the Connecticut Senate primary vote?"
...

Olbermann: "And Jonathan Alter on the specter of an administration that has seemingly played politics with past terror alerts, and how much of this we can all believe."
...

Olbermann: "Good evening from New York. At first glance, it appears that British intelligence has thwarted the biggest terror attack since 9/11, discovering a plan, arresting its plotters, aimed at simultaneously blowing up nine different planes headed to the United States from Britain by using the components of liquid explosives smuggled in carry-on luggage by suicide bombers. But in our fifth story in the Countdown, how much of the plot was actually operational? How much of it feasible? How much of the reaction political? Tonight, a rational but not cynical look at an extraordinary day."
...

Olbermann, before commercial break at 8:16 PM: "And for four years and eleven months, national security has been the favorite political club of the current administration. So would it be a surprise that even before this latest news broke, we were getting the spin on it from Washington?"
...

Olbermann, before commercial break at 8:25 PM: "And could it just be coincidence that the President finds out about this plot, then his Vice President and the Republican chairman start slamming Democrats for being soft on terror, then the public is informed about the plot. Could it really be just coincidence? That ahead on Countdown."
...

Olbermann, before commercial break at 8:33 PM: "That was in March on this broadcast. No outcry from the administration then, heavy politicizing now, now that there is an apparently obvious threat from liquid explosives. We'll truth squad the politics of the terror threat."
...

Olbermann, at 8:36 PM: "If you have any trouble following your government's position on terror and your safety, let's clear it all up right now in our third story on the Countdown. A year ago on July 4th, the President made it very clear that we are safe here at home thanks to his war in Iraq."

George W. Bush, dated July 4 2005: "We're taking the fight to the terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them here at home."

Olbermann: "However, if you think that means that we don't have to face them here at home, well, as the President said today-"

Bush: "It is a mistake to believe that there is no threat to the United States of America."

Olbermann: "Now, where would anyone have gotten such an idea? And as the timeline of the revelation of the purported liquid explosives airline plot becomes clearer, the political facts are underscored. You can say without fear of contradiction that there is a political component to all this. The President had the details from London no later than Sunday, so when Republican Committee chair Ken Mehlman and Vice President Dick Cheney eviscerated Connecticut Democrats for choosing Ned Lamont over Senator Joe Lieberman, and they brought al-Qaeda into the equation, they at minimum knew a terror story would be breaking shortly. Did the press secretary know it when he threw the President's own father under the wheels of the bus of history last night?"

Tony Snow: "The real question for the American people to ask themselves is: Do you take the war on terror seriously with all the developments going on around the world? And if so, how do you fight it to win? There seem to be two approaches, and in the Connecticut race, one of the approaches is ignore the difficulties and walk away. Now, when the United States walked away, in the opinion of Osama bin Laden in 1991, bin Laden drew from that the conclusion that Americans were weak and wouldn't stay the course, and that led to September 11th."
...

Olbermann: "Joining us now to help us measure the political element here that we mentioned, Jonathan Alter, the NBC political analyst, also of Newsweek ... Let me start with that strange statement from the President about making the mistake of thinking there's no threat against us. Who is he saying made that mistake, and at what point did they make it?"

Jonathan Alter: "Well, it's innuendo, you know, he's trying to imply that people who disagree with his policy in Iraq are somehow soft on terrorism. That's their game. That's the only card politically that they have to play. They play it extremely well. It did extremely well for them in both the 2002 and 2004 elections, and they're going to play it again hard this year."

Olbermann: "There have been a lot of terror threats, warnings, events that have come in the wake of bad political news for the administration. We chronicled them here. They might be coincidences, they might not. There is such a thing as the logical fallacy. But this is the first time I've ever heard of an anti-conspiracy conspiracy theory, the revelation of this purported plot could not be politically timed because the administration would have really benefitted had this plot been revealed Monday or Tuesday before voters went to the polls in the primary in Connecticut. I gather you don't buy the anti-conspiracy conspiracy theory."

Alter: "Not quite, for a couple of reasons. First of all, if you're thinking conspiratorially, which I'm not in this case, it actually makes more sense for them to have Lieberman lose the primary because now they can use, you know, Ned Lamont as their poster boy of a McGovern liberal, and already in the last 24 hours, they've been out saying that any other Democrat in a close race who endorses Ned Lamont as the Democratic nominee for the Senate is thereby, you know, soft on terrorism and some kind of extremist liberal. So it made more sense for them to have Lieberman lose. That was in their interests. However, having said that, I don't believe that that was at play here. I think the British were controlling the timing of these arrests, and it's really important not to get into this sort of crouch where you say everything that involves terrorism is political. You can hold two seemingly contradictory ideas in your head at once, Keith. One is that, you know, they use this kind of news as a sort of Hamburger Helper for the red meat they want to throw out politically. In that sense, they're exploiting it politically, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they're timing this politically."

Olbermann: "But Roger Cressey put this neatly earlier, and he's far less prone to calling a foul on this stuff than am I. This administration has set the bar so low when it comes to trumpeting its terror arrests, he said, so we have a bit of a credibility gap here -- this is the greatest threat since 9/11; the discovery of the recon photos of the financial buildings in New York and D.C., that was the greatest threat since 9/11; the rock hard evidence of flights from Europe that were to be crashed into Vegas at Christmas time in 2003, that was the greatest threat since 9/11. Is there a point at which most people start doubting the idea that no government would ever dream of scaring its own people unnecessarily?"

Alter: "Well, you know, you mentioned by FDR book. I sometimes think the motto these folks have is 'The only thing we have to use if fear itself.'"

Olbermann: "Mmmm."

Alter: "It works well for them. And yes, they do exploit it. You didn't even mention all the cases, you had John Ashcroft in Moscow at one point I believe in 2002, you know, trumping something up from thousands of miles away."

Olbermann: "The arrest of Padilla, yes."

Alter: "You know, you've got a whole series of events, but, you know, in the same way that even paranoids have real enemies, even people who are exploiting things politically are still confronting a serious terrorism threat. And if Democrats don't want to be thrown into the briar patch on this issue again, they will be very careful to make sure that they don't, in the interest of scoring political points, forget that there are people out there who want to kill us, and we've got to keep that in mind."

Olbermann: "So let's also point one last finger here towards the media, ourselves. Flying into the whole thing, whole hog, 'terror in the skies' on the graphics on TV. But the newspapers have not been far behind. What about the role of the media in authenticating that for which we have only the word of two governments and no evidence of our own?"

Alter: "I think at a certain level the media always has to give the government in this kind of case the benefit of the doubt at first, then go back and ask a lot of hard questions, which you've started to do quite appropriately here tonight. But to assume from the get go that the government is lying about security matters I think would be an excessively cynical posture so that the key thing for the media is to perform that accountability function. So, for instance, and I don't know how many people know this, but air cargo, in other words, the cargo that's beneath everybody when they're on a plane, is not checked. Less than 10 percent of it is checked. So we have this other huge security gap, and it's the media's job to ask all the tough questions on all these issues."

Olbermann: "Skeptical, not cynical. We'll try."

Alter: "Exactly."

Olbermann: "Jonathan Alter of Newsweek and NBC News. Great thanks for your time, sir."

http://newsbusters.org/node/6909

 

[nt250]

[


and the liberal media...........



http://newsbusters.org/node/6909

Somebody really ought to tell Olbermann and Alter that Joe Leiberman is a Democrat.

Does their whole Connecticut election thing confuse anybody else? I don't even understand what point they were trying to make.

 

[red states rule]

Somebody really ought to tell Olbermann and Alter that Joe Leiberman is a Democrat.

Does their whole Connecticut election thing confuse anybody else? I don't even understand what point they were trying to make.

To the liberal media, Sen Lieberman is a Republican. They "overlook" the fact Lieberman voted with the democrat leadership 90% of the time

The libs actually think they won something in the primary.

When Joe wins the general election it will be fun to watch the meltdown

 

[nt250]

To the liberal media, Sen Lieberman is a Republican. They "overlook" the fact Lieberman voted with the democrat leadership 90% of the time

The libs actually think they won something in the primary.

When Joe wins the general election it will be fun to watch the meltdown

This is another perfect example of how liberals think.

I read an article, or a blog (liberals don't seem to know the difference), that compared Leiberman and Chaffee.

The premise was that the Republicans were being hypocritical for exploiting the divison in the Democratic camp over ousting Leiberman, while at the same time the Republicans want to get Chaffee out.

Chaffee is a one term Senator (not counting the time he spent in the seat after he was appointed when his father died), and he's never voted with the Republicans. They've been trying to get rid of him since he was appointed, and he certainly has never been held in high esteem by ANYBODY. Unlike Leiberman, who was the party's vice presidential candidate just 6 years ago, and the only thing the democrats seem to have against him is that he doesn't hate George W. Bush (if I read about the kiss one more time I'm gonna puke).

The reasoning skills and logic of the average liberal will never cease to amaze me.

 

[red states rule]

This is a good one.


WashPost Reporters Switch Quick: Establishment Lamont, Outsider Lieberman
Posted by Tim Graham on August 10, 2006 - 22:31.
It's fascinating how fast the roles have switched in the DNC Media's take on Ned Lamont. Today's front page in the WashPost printed the headline "Democratic Leadership Welcomes Lamont." Next to that, a promotional headline: "Will Lieberman Hurt or Help Democrats?" They're not asking whether Lamont as a Democratic poster boy will hurt or help Democrats. Overnight, Lieberman has gone from party stalwart to independent pariah in the wilderness. You might expect the Democrats to switch horses like they're changing socks like party politicians. But it ought to be more surprising that the "objective, mainstream media" follows suit (or sock) so slavishly.

The front-page article by Shailagh Murray and Dan Balz began typically by using "antiwar" as a stalking-horse adjective for liberal: "Democratic leaders embraced their new antiwar Senate nominee Ned Lamont on Wednesday, but his defeated rival, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) vowed to wage an independent crusade to save his seat and prevent the party from being captured by forces he said are out of the political mainstream."

Lieberman wants to tag Lamont as an ultraliberal, but reporters refuse to cooperate. They're still covering Lamont in ideological camouflage. Murray and Balz continued, in the classic style: "Also laying on hands for Lamont were such powerful party figures" as Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi, and not a liberal to be found and labeled anywhere. Oh, and then, here's another blown chance for an L-word:
When he announced his candidacy earlier this year, Lamont was a lonely figure in the party, enjoying the backing of so-called Net-roots activists and bloggers but little else. His campaign tapped into grass-roots antiwar, anti-Bush sentiment in the state and the race became a national symbol of the debate over the war.
In reviewing the "Lieberman effect" on the fall elections, Murray and Jonathan Weisman start with a lot of good-for-Dems happy talk: "by keeping the state's electorate focused on President Bush and the war in Iraq, the Lamont-Lieberman rematch will keep voters energized, and may ultimately bolster the House challengers, Democrats and some independent analysts said."
Not everyone agreed: "Even Democratic partisans said the rematch would distract activists' attention from the House races, including the opinion "blogger Markos Moulitsas wrote on his liberal Daily Kos Web site." Bing-a-ding-ding! We have a liberal label, people!

PS: You have to shake your head at the Democratic Tower of Jello that incredibly squishy GOPer Chris Shays is facing: "In no contest will the political lines be as scrambled as in Diane Farrell's House race against Shays, a moderate Republican who has also run into trouble because of his support for the war. Farrell endorsed Lieberman in the primary, then switched to Lamont after he won." Oh yeah, here for the voters is the sterling image of opportunistic indecision.

http://newsbusters.org/node/6903

 

[sitarro]

-You're dancing around the first question. It sucks that some people cannot get other their devotion to one party enough to attempt to see things from another perspective.

Do you mean an adult who is all about some team that they worship like the Atlanta Falcons. Nothing quite as pathetic as someone over 4 that says "we" when speaking about what their favorite team did in the "big game" today, like they are some how part of the team instead of couch watchers rooting for their boys. Of all the "who gives a shits", team sports takes the cake.

That's just my opinion, if you want to paint your car your team colors and act like a fool for them I'm sure they really appreciate the support and don't make fun of you in the locker room(sure they don't)..... after all, they are the ones taking the hits and making most of the money.

Too bad there isn't a smiley performing oral on a football smiley, it would seem so apropos for you.

 

[nt250]

This is a good one.


WashPost Reporters Switch Quick: Establishment Lamont, Outsider Lieberman
Posted by Tim Graham on August 10, 2006 - 22:31.
It's fascinating how fast the roles have switched in the DNC Media's take on Ned Lamont. Today's front page in the WashPost printed the headline "Democratic Leadership Welcomes Lamont." Next to that, a promotional headline: "Will Lieberman Hurt or Help Democrats?" They're not asking whether Lamont as a Democratic poster boy will hurt or help Democrats. Overnight, Lieberman has gone from party stalwart to independent pariah in the wilderness. You might expect the Democrats to switch horses like they're changing socks like party politicians. But it ought to be more surprising that the "objective, mainstream media" follows suit (or sock) so slavishly.

The front-page article by Shailagh Murray and Dan Balz began typically by using "antiwar" as a stalking-horse adjective for liberal: "Democratic leaders embraced their new antiwar Senate nominee Ned Lamont on Wednesday, but his defeated rival, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) vowed to wage an independent crusade to save his seat and prevent the party from being captured by forces he said are out of the political mainstream."

Lieberman wants to tag Lamont as an ultraliberal, but reporters refuse to cooperate. They're still covering Lamont in ideological camouflage. Murray and Balz continued, in the classic style: "Also laying on hands for Lamont were such powerful party figures" as Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi, and not a liberal to be found and labeled anywhere. Oh, and then, here's another blown chance for an L-word:
When he announced his candidacy earlier this year, Lamont was a lonely figure in the party, enjoying the backing of so-called Net-roots activists and bloggers but little else. His campaign tapped into grass-roots antiwar, anti-Bush sentiment in the state and the race became a national symbol of the debate over the war.
In reviewing the "Lieberman effect" on the fall elections, Murray and Jonathan Weisman start with a lot of good-for-Dems happy talk: "by keeping the state's electorate focused on President Bush and the war in Iraq, the Lamont-Lieberman rematch will keep voters energized, and may ultimately bolster the House challengers, Democrats and some independent analysts said."
Not everyone agreed: "Even Democratic partisans said the rematch would distract activists' attention from the House races, including the opinion "blogger Markos Moulitsas wrote on his liberal Daily Kos Web site." Bing-a-ding-ding! We have a liberal label, people!

PS: You have to shake your head at the Democratic Tower of Jello that incredibly squishy GOPer Chris Shays is facing: "In no contest will the political lines be as scrambled as in Diane Farrell's House race against Shays, a moderate Republican who has also run into trouble because of his support for the war. Farrell endorsed Lieberman in the primary, then switched to Lamont after he won." Oh yeah, here for the voters is the sterling image of opportunistic indecision.

http://newsbusters.org/node/6903

We'll see how this whole anti-war thing and the Netroots things plays out. Remember Howard Dean? He was anti-war, had all this success rasing money and support on the internet, and all it took was Iowa and a scream to make him crash and burn.

 

[Annie]

I seriously hope I'm wrong, but I have a very strong feeling that the Islamo Nazis are going to bring focus to this debate, soon.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Re: Complaining about the Lurch comment: Did I miss the post where you libs complained about Bully calling the President Chimpy?

 

[Stephanie]

Did I miss the post where you complained about Bully calling the President Chimpy?

You know Abbey..
I do believe SOME people just have to ride on that high horse...

Giiiiiiddy Up.....



And hey if the shoe fits....
Of course now that I think about it, I think I'll start calling him Gomer....

:teeth:

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Re: Complaining about the Lurch comment: Did I miss the post where you libs complained about Bully calling the President Chimpy?

The point wasn't that I cared if Kerry was called Lurch, Gomer, Mr. Ed, or whatever, but rather that it was particularly ironic to do so considering the original subject of the thread.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

You know Abbey..
I do believe SOME people just have to ride on that high horse...

Giiiiiiddy Up.....



And hey if the shoe fits....
Of course now that I think about it, I think I'll start calling him Gomer....

:teeth:

So then you don't really have a problem with Kerry making fun of Rush with the donut comment?

The shoe may fit, but are you wearing it or not?

 

[Abbey Normal]

The point wasn't that I cared if Kerry was called Lurch, Gomer, Mr. Ed, or whatever, but rather that it was particularly ironic to do so considering the original subject of the thread.

I wasn't singling you out, Clay, but the point remains valid. With the endless anti-Bush, anti-Rush, anti-any Republican name calling and insults on this board, it's ludicrous to try to base anything on one thread. Hence my comment that those upset with the Lurch comment were strangely silent about all the Chimpy posts. Yet, I have yet to see one conservative here get upset about Bully's name-calling.

Put another way, this thread cannot be judged in a vacuum. Just looking at Bully's ubiquitous school yard-level insults towards the President probably put the libs over the top for childish insults against politicians.

 

[Abbey Normal]

So then you don't really have a problem with Kerry making fun of Rush with the donut comment?

The shoe may fit, but are you wearing it or not?

I expect a higher level of discourse and conduct from a public official than from people just messing around on a message board. Obviously, I need to adjust my expectations downward.

Also, comments like that work for me, in that they shine a light on Kerry's lack of class, and show that he and the Dems are Rushphobic.

 

[Stephanie]

So then you don't really have a problem with Kerry making fun of Rush with the donut comment?

The shoe may fit, but are you wearing it or not?

No, I didn't have a problem with Kerry saying it...
I was just pointing out how stupid it sounded, coming from a US senator....
Now me, I'm not in the public limelight, so I can act as childish as I want....

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I wasn't singling you out, Clay, but the point remains valid. With the endless anti-Bush, anti-Rush, anti-any Republican name calling and insults on this board, it's ludicrous to try to base anything on one thread. Hence my comment that those upset with the Lurch comment were strangely silent about all the Chimpy posts. Yet, I have yet to see one conservative here get upset about Bully's name-calling.

Put another way, this thread cannot be judged in a vacuum. Just looking at Bully's ubiquitous school yard-level insults towards the President probably put the libs over the top for childish insults against politicians.

I understand your point. But my point was along the lines of the reaction you would have upon hearing someone ask someone else to not swear by saying "Please don't fucking swear, damnit."