In article <HVa_g.3539$Ka1.2953@news01.roc.ny>,
"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Stuart Krivis" <jd@mongo.krivis.com> wrote in message
> news:90dij2todm05cgqdvr0dmvnlmrvdd89e3v@4ax.com...[color=green]
> > On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 19:17:23 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
> > <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >>"dbu" <howardyno@jackass.com> wrote in message
> >>news:howardyno-FFE1DD.14144320102006@news-rdr-01.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> >>> In article <gq3ij2hja49dbhrc3ea857v3sqtnmv8r6o@4ax.com>,
> >>> Scott in Florida <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> How is your anti war candidate doing in the Senate race?
> >>>
> >>> Lieberman by 17.
> >>>
> >>> [url]http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11362.xml?ReleaseID=974[/url]
> >>>
> >>> If Lieberman wins does this mean the dimmies loose a seat in the Senate?
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>
> >>Liberman is the lowest form of trash.
> >>[/color]
> >
> > I don't know about that. He seems to be the type who sticks to his
> > guns and votes as he feels is right.
> >
> > From what I've seen, he's done what he said he was going to do.
> >[/color]
>
> As long as he's doing the right thing, that's fine.
>
> Bush's Favorite Democrat
>[/color]
Below is written by a demmie who wants to get his power back. More
trash in the media. I like Joe. He sticks up for what is right, he has
principles. He is up 17 pts in the latest poll.
[color=blue]
>
>
> In Connecticut's Democratic primary, Joe Lieberman claims he's facing a
> leftist "jihad," but there are two words the senator can't duck: "Iraq" and
> "war" (BY MATT TAIBBI)
>
>
>
> MATT TAIBBI
>
>
>
> Early Sunday afternoon, Beulah Heights First Pentecostal Church, New Haven,
> Connecticut. A hot summer day with an all-black congregation, a big hall in
> a tough neighborhood packed full to the last pew, with the faithful cooling
> themselves with old-fashioned hand-held fans. Sen. Joe Lieberman, a pale
> animal with a balloon head, stands at the podium and smiles, his gnomish
> Wallace Shawn mini-fingers piously clasped before him.
>
>
>
> As an orator, Lieberman is a pro's pro. No matter what the crowd, his rap
> always has the feel of a barroom Casanova's metronome come-on. He talks and
> talks, and five minutes later you can't figure out how his hand got that far
> up your skirt. He is especially brilliant in this particular environment, an
> absolute master of the "my heart is as black as yours" honkie-in-church act.
> He swoops in, tells a story about meeting Dr. King back in the day, shakes
> his head solemnly at the scourge of racism and then coasts to a
> Scripture-packed dismount. Clear throat; assume sonorous, preacherly intone;
> dream aloud of a better day ahead, a day when . . .
>
>
>
> "When the mountains will be made low, when the valleys will be raised up,
> when the rough road will be made smooth and the crooked path will be made
> straight," he says. "Because on that day, with God's help, the Earth truly
> will be full of the knowledge of the Lord."
>
>
>
> Jesus, I think. This guy's good. He pauses, smiling, for applause. Then:
>
>
>
> "Thank you! Enjoy lunch!"
>
>
>
> And he's outta there. The whole thing takes about eight minutes. You can
> keep your political speeches pretty short in the year 2006 if you don't once
> mention the words "war" or "Iraq." Next stop: firemen in Fairfield. I'm
> still gathering my shit in the church foyer when I see his caravan zooming
> past the entrance, back toward the highway.
>
>
>
> The scene says everything you need to know about the modern Democratic
> Party. It spends its weekdays sucking off the Pentagon and Wall Street and
> the pharmaceutical industry, and on the weekends it comes out and spends
> five minutes getting teary-eyed for the "I have a dream" speech and thinks
> you owe it your vote because of it. Some party members agree, but quite a
> few don't, which is why Joe Lieberman-the hawkish one-time vice-presidential
> candidate who has made himself the most visible symbol of the "new"
> Democrats-is facing a surprising primary challenge on August 8th. Like
> Lieberman himself, the "I was there in the Sixties" act is finally getting
> old.
>
>
>
> "I hate the Sixties, and I'm tired of hearing about it-what have you done
> for me lately?" says Regina Meade, one of the churchgoers. She shakes her
> head. "I lost a cousin in the war. Twenty-nine years old. What about that?
> What about that?"
>
>
>
> Billed as a preview to the midterm elections later this fall, with
> implications for the '08 presidential race, the Democratic primary for the
> Senate in Connecticut is a hot little turd attracting, for the first time
> since November '04, the exiled flies of national campaign journalism. They
> are here in Connecticut now, searching angrily for good coffee and road maps
> in precious little towns like Wallingford, Fairfield and Danbury, where
> Lieberman is currently even in the polls with an anti-war challenger in the
> person of a wide-eyed political rookie named Ned Lamont.
>
>
>
> If you believe the propaganda emanating from Lieberman and his coterie of
> whore-cronies in the Democratic Leadership Council, Lamont is a dangerous,
> pillar-crushing revolutionary, a preppy, tanned mixture of Lenin and the
> Ayatollah. The Democrat insiders' strategy vis-à-vis Lamont is very similar
> to the one used to dispose of Howard Dean a few years back, only it's even
> more savage this time around: They have chosen to go after Lamont's
> supporters in the blogosphere, deriding the likes of "Daily Kos" founder
> Markos Moulitsas Zuniga and the wackos at MoveOn.org as "liberal
> fundamentalists" bent on liquidating poor Lieberman for the sake of radical
> leftist orthodoxy. The DLC started the smear campaign in June with an
> editorial called "The Return of Liberal Fundamentalism" that used the word
> "purge" no fewer than eight times, in case you missed the KGB motif the
> first seven times.
>
>
>
> Since then, a spate of similar editorials has appeared in the national
> media, with anyone and everyone jumping on the theme of blood-hungry blogger
> leftists scheming to take over the world via the Lamont campaign-from New
> York Times elitist fuckhead David Brooks ("The Liberal Inquisition") to
> Jonathan Chait at The Los Angeles Times ("Purely Foolish Democrats") to
> those always-predictable bards of conventional wisdom at Newsweek ("The
> War's Left Front"). The whole campaign was a classic bit of bait-and-switch:
> Rather than face up to its own record on the war, the party tried to defend
> its own by making the race into a referendum on "leftist" Internet pests,
> some with suspiciously foreign-sounding names.
>
>
>
> And just like three summers ago, when the media cheerfully regurgitated
> party-concocted code words like "angry," "shrill," "testy" and "strident"
> when discussing the doomed Howard Dean, reporters this time around made sure
> to repeat the same terrorist/communist-themed code words in their campaign
> coverage, with nearly every major media outlet including some combination of
> the words "purge" or "fundamentalist" in their Lamont stories. New York
> magazine went so far as to call Lamont's net-roots supporters the
> "Blogitburo," and Lieberman himself, in an interview, derided his opponents'
> supporters as being on a "jihad."
>
>
>
> This witch-hunting horseshit was preposterous enough, when the DLC and its
> ilk somehow succeeded in painting a tepid, pro-business centrist from the
> Hamptons like Dean as the second coming of Karl Marx. But that was nothing
> compared to the stretch they're making in playing the red-baiting game with
> Lamont, a Richie Rich Harvard capitalist from the socioeconomic Olympus of
> Greenwich whose expensively wavy haircut and crisp, supernaturally clean
> chinos would bring a tear to the eye of the mannequin in the Pebble Beach
> Pro Shop.
>
>
>
> The only thing radical about Lamont is his opposition to the Iraq War
> policies of George Bush and Lieberman, and in this vague "radicalism" he is
> joined by upward of ninety-one percent of all Democrats, according to recent
> polls; otherwise, he is as vanilla and unthreatening as a politician could
> possibly be, the human incarnation of the white line in the middle of the
> road. Lamont's non-Iraq politics are not much more than a cautious
> presentation of already-tried mainstream party ideas, like permitting the
> uninsured to buy into the congressional health plan, and his stump humor is
> the gentlest kind of aw-shucks Americana-when he gets applause or cheers
> from the back of the room, he calls out, "Thanks, Mom!"
>
>
>
> When I sat down and talked with Lamont on a park bench after an appearance
> in Wallingford, he was plainly horrified when I compared the attacks against
> him to the campaign against Dean. "I hadn't thought about that," he said,
> adding quickly, "What you have to remember is that I'm a business guy from
> central Connecticut."
>
>
>
> He talked about the assault from the party regulars: "Well, I've got
> grass-roots support that is perceived as a threat to the established order,"
> he said. Then he scratched his head. "But it's weird. It's like there's a
> signal sent down from somewhere. The other day I was with this reporter from
> The New York Observer, and he was reading down a list of talking points: Why
> is it that bipartisanship can't exist in the party? Are you a pacifist? And
> so on. And I was like, 'Man, where is this coming from?' "
>
>
>
> Of course it's fairly obvious where it's coming from. Even the most casual
> Democratic voters understand by now that there is a schism within the party,
> one that pits "party insiders" steeped in the inside-baseball muck of
> Washington money culture against . . . well, against us, the actual voters.
>
>
>
> The insiders have for many years running now succeeded in convincing their
> voters that their actual beliefs are hopeless losers in the general
> electoral arena, and that certain compromises must be made if the party is
> ever to regain power.
>
>
>
> This defeatist nonsense is sold to the public in the form of beady-eyed
> party hacks talking to one another in the opinion pages of national media
> conglomerates, where, after much verbose and solemn discussion, the earnest
> and idealistic candidate the public actually likes is dismissed on the
> grounds that "he can't win." In his place is trotted out the guy the party
> honchos insist to us is the real "winner"-some balding, bent little
> bureaucrat who has grown prematurely elderly before our very eyes over the
> course of ten or twenty years of sad, compromise-filled service in the House
> or the Senate.
>
>
>
> This "winner" is then given a lavish parade and sent out there on the trail,
> and we hold our noses as he campaigns in our name on a platform of Jesus,
> the B-2 bomber and the death penalty for eleven-year-olds, consoling
> ourselves that he at least isn't in favor of repealing the Voting Rights
> Act. (Or is he? We have to check.) Then he loses to the Republicans anyway
> and we start all over again-beginning with the next primary election, when
> we are again told that the anti-war candidate "can't win" and that the smart
> bet is the corporate hunchback still wearing two black eyes from the last
> race.
>
>
>
> No one has played the role of that "winner" more enthusiastically, or more
> often, than Joe Lieberman. He is everything a Washington insider loves in a
> politician. He is pompous, pious and available. Routinely one of the very
> top recipients of campaign donations from the insurance, pharmaceutical and
> finance sectors, and a man whose wife, Hadassah, is a
> pharmaceutical-industry lobbyist for Hill and Knowlton, Lieberman has
> quietly become one of the greatest allies corporate America has in
> Washington.
>
>
>
> For example, Lieberman, who as chairman of the DLC in the mid to late
> Nineties presided over an organization heavily subsidized by companies such
> as AIG and Aetna (the latter of which also contributes lavishly to his
> campaigns), sponsored a bill that limited auto insurance suits by permitting
> the offering of lower rates to consumers who forfeited their right to sue.
> He has fought for similar anti-lawsuit laws for tobacco, for HMOs, for
> pharmaceutical companies. Victor Schwartz, general counsel for the American
> Tort Reform Association, once bragged that "if it were not for Lieberman,
> there would never have been a Biomaterials Access Act"-a 1998 law that
> protected companies like Dow Chemical and DuPont (also big DLC contributors)
> from lawsuits filed for the production of defective medical implants. Yes,
> that's right: Joe Lieberman fought for the principle of manufacturing faulty
> fake tits with impunity.
>
>
>
> In a move that was perfectly characteristic of everything he stands for,
> Lieberman in 2001 offered a piece of legislation, S. 1764, that purported to
> provide incentives to companies that develop medicines to treat the victims
> of bioterror attacks but, more important, extended the patent life of a wide
> range of drugs for several years, delaying the introduction of more
> cost-friendly generic drugs. Shilling for the socialist subsidy of drug
> companies while masquerading as a Churchillian, tough-on-security Democrat
> in the War on Terror age: That's Joe Lieberman, and the modern Democratic
> Party, in a nutshell.
>
>
>
> In the midst of all this whoring for business interests, Lieberman has
> preposterously marketed himself to the public as a stern guardian of
> "morality" and "traditional values," along the way taking some admirably
> mean-spirited positions. He once supported a bill denying funding to public
> schools that counseled suicidal teens that it is OK to be gay, a remarkable
> position for a man whose response to the Enron scandal was to say that
> "government will never be able to legislate or regulate morals."
>
>
>
> Lieberman also signed the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, the
> notorious organization founded by Lynne Cheney that published a baldly
> McCarthyite list of "anti-American academics." In 1997, Lieberman pushed for
> warning labels on CDs, getting the Senate to take up the issue under the
> title "Music Violence: How Does It Affect Our Youth?" in the hopes of
> snagging the votes of a few grandmas by wagging a finger at Marilyn
> Manson-yes, Lieberman was one of those asshole politicians who tried to pin
> Columbine on rock music. And rather than denounce Ken Starr for the most
> egregious misuse of prosecutorial authority since the House Un-American
> Activities Committee, Lieberman's response to the Lewinsky scandal was to
> attack Bill Clinton in one of the lamest "O the children!" acts of all time,
> saying, "It is hard to ignore the impact of the misconduct the president has
> admitted to on our children, our culture and our national character."
>
>
>
> A few years later, faced with a similar political choice, he chose to stand
> fast by Bush on the issue of Iraq, saying, "We undermine the president's
> credibility at our nation's peril." Apparently the president deserves
> absolute loyalty only when his mistakes result in teenagers getting their
> heads shot off.
>
>
>
> It was this last position of Lieberman's that forced the candidacy of Lamont
> into being. "We're trying to determine what the right boundary is on a
> Democrat," says Lamont spokesman Robert Johnson. "We know what the left
> boundary is. But what is it on the right? At some point, when a Democrat is
> sucking up to a president like George Bush, you have to put your foot down.
> Lieberman does not stop at a 'center.' The further right they go, he just
> follows."
>
>
>
> But, of course, Lieberman's crowning insult-and perhaps his last fatal
> mistake as an (ostensible) member of the Democratic Party-was his recent
> decision to register and run as an independent in case he loses the primary
> to Lamont. Finally taking his mask off and revealing himself as a baldly
> self-interested political creature, this final-act version of Lieberman
> plans on dying hard, forcing liberal voters to kill him twice in the same
> movie, like Jason in Friday the 13th.
>
>
>
> With his hideous fake folksiness, much-celebrated "great sense of humor" and
> relentless Beltway hype as just the nicest guy you'd ever want to meet
> (David Brooks calls him "transparently the most kindhearted and
> well-intentioned of men"), Joe Lieberman is easy to hate-which makes him
> easy to hate for the wrong reasons. Sure, he's an arrogant, condescending
> prude; sure, he's a willing, energetic censor who outrageously poses as an
> aggrieved champion of "decent people everywhere"; and sure, he reminds you
> very much of the lecturing, overbearing high school vice principal you once
> had who ended up getting busted on a kiddie-porn rap ten years after you
> graduated.
>
>
>
> But all of that means nothing. What is important to remember about Joe
> Lieberman is that his individual personality is incidental. Lieberman is
> just another "winner" to be rolled off the line and served up to Democratic
> voters by the behind-the-scenes corporate masters bent on controlling both
> sides of Washington politics, using whatever scare tactics necessary to
> ensure success. He's a pawn and a stooge whom they've gotten good mileage
> out of so far because he happens to have a special talent for being just the
> kind of officious, self-righteous prick you have to be to sell their muddled
> policies in public-but his time is up now, and not because of him but
> because of them. People are tired of being told who can and cannot win. As
> it turns out, they get to decide that for themselves.[/color]
--
Linear Mode
