You got that right, Steve, infering Lieberman should declare for the republican party. If he would have done it a few months ago, he could have joined several other Bush cronies finding jobs in the administration.
Posted by Hank at July 3, 2006 10:45 AMLieberman is no loss, and if what I have read out of Connecticut is accurate, he's not going to win in any case.
Posted by pessimist at July 3, 2006 11:01 AMJoementum jumped ship when he fellated Bush and threw his support behind the Iraq war.
Leave; go; split; scram; take a hike Lieberman, you antigay, antichoice, pro-war DINO asshole.
You're ugly and everyone hates you.
Posted by Christopher at July 3, 2006 11:05 AMAbsolutely no Dem support, financial or otherwise, for Loserman. Adios, Joe. Don't let the door hit you in the ass...and enjoy retirement as a lobbyest, you fucking puke!
Posted by phidipides at July 3, 2006 11:42 AMDid someone PhotoShop Loserman stuffing the tongue to the chimporer? I bet these guys couldn't get an erection unless they drank a gallon of fresh Iraqi children's blood and fucked the eyehole of Geronimo in a Skull and Bones ceremony. If Loserman is gay, I've been driven straight. Jesus, what a miracle!
Posted by phidipides at July 3, 2006 11:47 AMAlthough I no longer live in the state, my friends back in CT tell me Lamont remains a relatively unknown, but increasingly visible, figure.
As Lamont becomes better known, they think, he'll poll much better. They also say Lieberman, despite recent polls, is on a steep downward slide in populairty and ultimately may not fare well in a three-way race.
Posted by Danton at July 3, 2006 11:49 AMWhy in the hell would a Democrat vote for a Republican anyway in CT.
Posted by Judith at July 3, 2006 12:43 PMI'm still pissed that Democrats have a hard time endorsing Progressives. The Democratic Party will not get one dime from me until this tactic changes.
We need strong, firm changes, Joe is one of bu$h'$ little princes.
O/T New Murray Waas piece up at National Journal - Leaker in Chief
Posted by mainsailset at July 3, 2006 01:03 PMGood riddance to that whiney little Bu$hCo rimjobber. Now he can be Dumbya’s Head of the Privy Chamber and wipe his ass instead of just licking it.
Posted by red_neck_repub at July 3, 2006 01:16 PMThe first syllable in Joe's name says it all: LIE.
If it were not for Donna and Joe-shmoe, Gore would be in his second term, and Arlington and Walter Reed would be far less populated.
Higher loyalties = Israel.
Posted by at July 3, 2006 03:42 PMHigher loyalties = Joe
Posted by benjoya at July 3, 2006 03:53 PMHigher loyalties = Joe, Israel, and the God of Israel.
Posted by TIKI AL at July 3, 2006 04:05 PMSteve,
A couple of days ago you posted an essay titled "John And The Girls" which detailed some of the things that the Democrats must do to regain the presidency. (A laundry list of
Given some of the comments in this thread (and others), you may want to append the original post: something to the effect that the Left must hide its hatred of Israel and the Jewish people (in general).
Israel has huge support in the United States -- rightly so -- and, as such, I seriously doubt that a Democrat seeking to win the presidency can be very overt about the Left's hatred of all things Jewish.
Posted by Bagley at July 3, 2006 04:13 PMteabag you make idiotic comments on a regular basis but the last one has to be among the stupidist yet...try removing your head from your ass before posting...asswipe
Posted by headxray at July 3, 2006 04:27 PMheadxray,
How would you characterize posts like:
"Higher loyalties = Joe, Israel, and the God of Israel."
from TIKI AL?
Please, I would really like to know.
Regards,
Bagley
Posted by Bagley at July 3, 2006 04:42 PMtea bag I happen to agree with those comments..all YOU need to know is that you're a useless asshole thats trys to stir up shit...
Posted by headxray at July 3, 2006 05:02 PMLieberman is a dirty Jew. The Democratic Paty is better off without him.
There is no god but Allah, and Howard Dean is his Prophet!
Posted by Jihad-Against-the-Machine at July 3, 2006 05:17 PMActually, headxray, my original post was to let Steve know that in the litany of things that Democrats should pretend to be in hopes of regaining the presidency (as detailed in the referenced post) he should include "pretend not to hate the Jews."
You should take this to heart: (after all) the vast majority of the US population is not anti-Israel and bigoted against Jews.
And as to your comment:
"...all YOU need to know is that you're a useless asshole thats trys to stir up shit..."
What better place to "stir up shit" than the cesspool that is the comments section of TLC?
Regards,
Bagley
Posted by Bagley at July 3, 2006 05:20 PMlieberman is a shonda for the goyim. but feingold is a mensch; and wellstone, too, RIP. soros also makes jews look good even though he's a rich financier with a foreign accent. these are a few of my favorite jews…
Posted by benjoya at July 3, 2006 05:32 PMScrotumly, you Nazi sympathizing piece of shit. All of your posts have at their heart antisemitism and xenophobia of the most aberrent kind. You only pull this shit because you think you can get a bit of traction with your race-bating and paranoia. Calling for the accountability of Israel is representative of the idea that our $100 billion yearly investment in that country have some rational payoff. But you are a neo-con, so rationality is not your long suit. God knows, it's not your long suit at all.
Posted by phidipides at July 3, 2006 05:36 PMoh, and i.f. stone and bernie sanders and chomsky. and howard dean's jew-jew-jewy wife and kids. us jew-hatin jews are everywhere!
Posted by benjoya at July 3, 2006 05:37 PMand howard zinn, anti-semitic jew historian.
Posted by benjoya at July 3, 2006 05:41 PMWe only allow blacks in the Democratic party...no Jews need apply. Thank God no Jews are Democrats!
Posted by phidipides at July 3, 2006 05:41 PMphidipides,
"....our $100 billion yearly investment in that country..."
One-hundred billion? Sources please.
Posted by Bagley at July 3, 2006 05:42 PM"We only allow blacks in the Democratic party..."
That is why representative of the Democrat Party throw oreos at Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, a black fellow who is running for Governor in Maryland.
uh-huh...
And
"Thank God no Jews are Democrats!"
One less with Joe gone.
...anything else?
Posted by Bagley at July 3, 2006 05:47 PMAt least three quarters of American jews support the Democratic party on a regular basis. The neocons are a noisy minority within the jewish community. If they did not have several individuals in positions to be noisy, their tiny numbers would make them ignoreable in an election race.
Posted by herbal tee at July 3, 2006 05:59 PM...anything else?
Yeah. You are fucking stupid, you neo-con shill for a failed administration. You are no better than a Tory who supported their "Mad" King George during the Revolution. You should read about it sometime. Our Founding Fathers knew what to do with y'all.
Now, here is what a Black Democrat said about the Oreo incident (and it was blacks tossing the cookies, you rascist bastard):
Delegate Salima Siler Marriott, a black Baltimore Democrat, said Mr. Steele invites comparisons to a slave who loves his cruel master or a cookie that is black on the outside and white inside because his conservative political philosophy is, in her view, anti-black.
Posted by phidipides at July 3, 2006 06:01 PMphidipides,
So I take that you see nothing wrong in a Democrat -- black or white -- referring to a black man as an oreo?
And as to your comment...
"Yeah. You are fucking stupid, you neo-con shill for a failed administration. You are no better than a Tory who supported their "Mad" King George during the Revolution. You should read about it sometime. Our Founding Fathers knew what to do with y'all."
I am well familiar with the American Revolution and the reasons behind it and how the result is this great country.
And as we approach the 4th of July, thank God the founders created a country where someone can be as ignorant, racist, and insulting as you are and still be heard in a public forum.
Posted by Bagley at July 3, 2006 06:14 PMAnd as we approach the 4th of July, thank God the founders created a country where someone can be as ignorant, racist, and insulting as you are and still be heard in a public forum.
I can be heard unless it's at a republi-con political rally. You only listen to each other, not dissent.
I too thank the Founding Fathers for the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Something you wipe you ass and line your parakeet cage with. They gave us the tools to deal with traitors, and I hope you are one of the first to have it applied.
Posted by phidipides at July 3, 2006 06:18 PMphidipides,
"You only listen to each other, not dissent."
And what about Joe Lieberman's dissent....no room in the Democratic Party for that, huh?
Posted by Bagley at July 3, 2006 06:25 PMJoe's announced he will leave the party, and that is his right. Nothing says that the party has to support Joe if they don't like his stands.
By the way, Sack, I found an old Navy photo of you. Did you know someone was taking your picture while you were mooning?
Posted by pessimist at July 3, 2006 06:38 PMGiven the previous discussion, pessimist,
"Joe's announced he will leave the party, and that is his right. Nothing says that the party has to support Joe if they don't like his stands."
Weak, very weak.
As to the "photo of me," well (unfortunately) I tried to access the website and it returned an error. However, I am quite sure that it was meant as an insult: insults are all you (and your ilk seem to) have.
Regards,
Bagley
Posted by Bagley at July 3, 2006 06:48 PMDoes the name 'Luigi' mean anything to you, Sack?
Posted by pessimist at July 3, 2006 06:50 PM"Does the name 'Luigi' mean anything to you, Sack?"
No. Will you tell me?
Posted by Bagley at July 3, 2006 06:59 PM"The situation has become so bad," he told the thousands in attendance, "that anyone who gets up to speak of openmindedness and change is likely to be thought somewhat subversive."
Remember that? That is how you, Sack, think of us here on this blog. We demand open-mindedness and change from those who do support Bu$hCo, like your heero, Joemental. You think us subversive, and thus an enemy to your state.
I can see why you are so haughty! If I had your creds, Sack, I'd be tempted to get a swelled head about being so damned superior also!
Enjoy your high station while you can, Sack! You won't have it much longer, and you will be down with the rest of us.
By the way - the link worked fine for me when I checked into your complaint. Maybe you should get something fixed.
Posted by pessimist at July 3, 2006 07:01 PMpessimist,
Your explanation is as clear as your postings: not so very clear at all.
"We demand open-mindedness and change from those who do support Bu$hCo..."
You demand? You demand 'change'?" How so very open-minded.
The link does not work in Opera.
Regards,
Bagley
(Bagley....is that so very hard for you? Perhaps you and your ilk consider calling me names the pinnacle of intellectual achievement. I used to think that calling people names was clever....but, then again, I used to be in the second grade.)
Posted by Bagley at July 3, 2006 07:17 PMHey, if George can call Vladimir Putin 'Pooty-poot', why can we have pet names for our favorites? Or, isn't that open-minded enough for you?
Speaking of open-mindedness, what about Ann Coulter? Read her latest yet? Or did she miss the boat like Luigi did?
Posted by at July 3, 2006 07:22 PMThat should have read "... why CAN'T ..."
By the way, Sack, when do you start showing some of that open-mindedness that you expect of us?
Posted by pessimist at July 3, 2006 07:24 PM"... why can we have pet names for our favorites?"
You can, but I hardly think that I am your favorite.
"what about Ann Coulter? Read her latest yet?"
Yeah, I read it. Coulter is selling books. She deliberatly causes discord.
Posted by Bagley at July 3, 2006 07:26 PMAt last! Something we can agree on!
Now - explain to me how what Ann Coulter does is any different than your entrance into thhis thread:
" ...the Left must hide its hatred of Israel and the Jewish people..."
Is that not a bit inflammatory?
You might get more respect here if you didn't display such blatant hypocrisy.
Posted by pessimist at July 3, 2006 07:34 PM"Is that not a bit inflammatory?"
Yes, it is inflamatory....but it does not make it any less true.
The Left's support of the (atrocities) committed by the PLO and their progeny is well documented: you are the Left.
Ipso facto.
Coulter is selling books. The "palestinians" are killing men, women, and children.
the difference is pretty obvious to me...what about you?
Posted by Bagley at July 3, 2006 07:45 PMOnce again, Bagley hi-jacks the comment section.
Posted by at July 3, 2006 07:53 PMIt's very curious how Leiberman was endorsed and elected to the Senate three times by those clearly antisemitic CT Dems, no?
But if they now refuse to endorse/elect him, it's because of anti-semitism? Oh, the fevered Right Wing mind...
As to how Leiberman will fare in the primary, I thought the Reactionary Right was in favor of lettin' the people speak through the ballot box....this being a democracy and all.
Posted by euzoius at July 3, 2006 08:00 PM"Once again, Bagley hi-jacks the comment section."
No, not at all. I referenced some of the comments made in this thread with respect to a previous post. That is all that I did: others decided that it was an opportunity to voice their thoughts. I (simply) followed up on what these others posted.
Posted by Bagley at July 3, 2006 08:02 PM"As to how Leiberman will fare in the primary, I thought the Reactionary Right was in favor of lettin' the people speak through the ballot box....this being a democracy and all."
We are.
What I find interesting is that joe was your VP nominee in 2000 -- a celebrated person, but he is now a traitor to your cause (and some of the comments in this thread are blatantly representative of jew hating).
Did Joe change, or has the Democratic party been so skewed to the Left that Joe (and Zell Miller) found a need to leave?
I think that it is the latter.
Posted by Bagley at July 3, 2006 08:07 PMAnd we follow up on the pronouncements of Joe Lieberman. Your disagrements with our comments is no different than our disagreement with Joe's.
Think about this, Sack. You are about the only person who comes here without getting your comments deleted very often, because you generally remain civil and you tend to remain in the neighborhood of the topic. If we were as closed-minded as you accuse us of being, would we let you have almost half of the column-inches of this comment thread? You would have been cut out hours ago.
If I were to attempt on, say, Drudge's site what you do here, I wouldn't get a word out. Not one. But do we hear comments about 'a lack of open-mindedness'?
Instead, here we let you talk, for you are your own worst-enemy. Your words are the petard upon which you hoist yourself.
Face it, Sack - your people are losing support. Only blatant vote-theft like went on in Mexico this weekend will keep your boys in power.
That will only work so long - especially if we can get rid of DINO's like Joe Lieberman.
Posted by pessimist at July 3, 2006 08:10 PM"I've been a proud, loyal and progressive Democrat since John F. Kennedy inspired my generation of Americans into public service and I will stay a Democrat, whether I am the Democratic party's nominee or a petitioning Democratic candidate on the November ballot."
My my, how Joe deludes himself. "Loyal and progressive Democrat?" Really? If that is "loyal" I would hate to see a traitor to our Party.
Posted by Judith at July 3, 2006 08:13 PMWell, boys and girls, it has been the usual adventure in the swamps of the "Fevered Left."
Pessimist dug a deep hole and the rest of you jumped right in...par for the course, I would say.
But now it is time to turn in, for tomorrow I celebrate the 4th of July with my family: a happy bunch of folks; confident in their country and their future.
The Left can be miserable (as they usually are) but that is of little concern to me. History proves that the ideas that you folks belive in -- higher taxes, government intervention, "nanny state" control -- is a failed ideology. (Not to mention your burgeoning, public admiration for Islamic terorism.)
George will be gone in 2008 and this year the voters will eject some of the less than reliable Republicans. The others will learn the lesson and return to the fold. The conservative movement will continue to move forward and the dream of the Founding Fathers will will continue in fits and starts.....but continue none-the-less.
The Democratic Party, a once great political power, will continue its descent into becoming irrelevant, nothing more that a footnote in history. (As I have posted before: Truman and JFK would not be welcome in today's Democratic Party.)
So who are you left with? Chuck Shumer. Hillary Clinton. John Kerry. Harry Reid. Good luck with that.
Happy 4th!
Posted by Bagley at July 3, 2006 08:23 PM"If I were to attempt on, say, Drudge's site what you do here, I wouldn't get a word out."
Probably not, drudgereport.com does is not setup for public comment.
Good night.
P.S. Stop digging.
Posted by Bagley at July 3, 2006 08:27 PMOh for goodness sake---"joe" doesn't feel a "need to leave" the Dems, he's desperately trying to win the Dems endorsement, haven't you noticed?
He'll run as an independent not because he actively wants to break with the party, but because he wants to hold on to his seat at all costs. This isn't some principled decision by a politician to leave his party, obviously, and it's absurd for you to make such an argument.
And If Lieberman loses the primary in a state he's won several times, that's a whole lotta people "skewing to the left".
What's "changed" is that CT Dems hadn't seen Holy Joe's enabling and craven behavior with a Republican president as vile as Nero Jr before, and they can't stand the disgusting spectacle any longer. Seems sensible to me.
Posted by euzoius at July 3, 2006 08:29 PMBagley - Explain to us all how it came to be that you have been able to penetrate beneath the veneer of the Dems to see its anti-semitic undercurrent whereas 2/3 of the American Jewish community is still blind to it. Of course given the fact that your dumbass cracker ancestors probobly "strunged up" a few in their day, perhaps in their last moments 'em Jews revealed secret inner knowledge to 'em Bagleys of old (who weren't "busy" with their sisters), that the common Jew of today isnt privy to? Do tell.
Posted by Gannon Phister at July 3, 2006 08:39 PMBagley - Speaking of losers: 35%. Congrats, your boys are still ahead of Nixon. Now theres a legacy.
Posted by jondee at July 3, 2006 08:42 PMBag: As an agnostic, I don't trust people like Bush or Joe, who get their marching orders directly from God and destroy the world in the process. They, like you, should not be in positions of power.
Somehow in your twisted mind this makes me a Nazi? Do you get paid by the post or bandwith? You signed off at 8:27, the White House basement clock read 11:27, right?
Posted by TIKI AL at July 3, 2006 09:18 PMBagley, thanks for driving up the traffic today.
Posted by Steve Soto at July 3, 2006 09:57 PMhigher taxes, government intervention, "nanny state" control
Holy Fuck!! And you think the "War on Terra" is anything other than the "nanny state" on acid? What a shrill maroon!
Fear, baby. Fear. That's all you have. Fear of taxes? Yours haven't dropped a fucking whit. Government intervention? Make a phone call. You are so deluded as to be entirely unbelievable. And we are racists? Well nuke a fuckin Towel Head for Old Glory. You are the exact thing you claim us to be, only worse. And you simply cannot forecast future results from current actions. Means/end with you guys is means........uh, means........
Not to mention your burgeoning, public admiration for Islamic terorism.
You state my case better than I. Fear, baby. Fear. It's all you have. While you take the family truckster to your fireworks extravaganza, regale the kids with stories of how the British would grab the mail so they could know who you were communicating with, and how it led to an Amendment (make one up since you don't know them), and how Bush is doing something completely different. Then talk about fear of Towel Heads, but how you are not a racist. I bet your kids are a fucked-up treat to be around!
Posted by phidipides at July 3, 2006 10:48 PMbagley, that you would link "the dream of the Founders" with the "conservative movement" (especially today's "version") illustrates the depth of your disinformation, mental misfiring and intellectual dysfunction.
You really shouldn't actually believe what you read on the various Right Wing internet shit-troughs you frequent, it can cause extreme embarrassment when you go out in public.
But perhaps you can bring up this howler on a future thread, should be good for a few laughs (at your expense, naturally)
Posted by euzoius at July 4, 2006 05:58 AMSome Democrats have suggested that if Lieberman cannot accept the verdict of the party leaders and sacrifice his Senatorial seat on behalf if their choice, Lamont, then Lieberman should simply switch to the Republican Party.
By proposing this dangerous idea, they reveal their political amnesia. Many years ago, a Democrat named Ronald Reagan DID switch to the Republican Party and proceeded to give the Democrats a real shellacking in 1980 and 1984.
Posted by Jack Olson at July 4, 2006 06:10 AMyeah Jack, Lieberman would have a real chance running for president in today's (or tomorrow's) Republican party. That's really a likely, plausible scenario, for sure.
Where'd you get this absurd talking point from?
Joe Lieberman, as a "dangerous" new Republican. He'll end up controlling the world because CT Dems wouldn't endorse him!
Can any member of the Reactionary Right think?
Posted by euzoius at July 4, 2006 06:46 AMCan any member of the Reactionary Right think?
Jesus Christ, morals and the War on Terror...and taxes...and...and...nuke the fuckin Towel Heads!!!! What the hell don't you get about it? I would explain it, but you aren't smart enough to understand. You faggot liberals are all alike!
Posted by phidipides as a member of the Reactionary Right at July 4, 2006 08:54 AMeuzoius, I wasn't nominating Lieberman for a Republican presidential candidate. I was merely pointing out that after Reagan switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican he became the Democrats' most powerful opponent. In the 2004 party conventions 12% of Democratic delegates were former Republicans yet 24% of the Republicans were former Democrats. These conversions among politicians, activists, and voters are the reason the Democratic Party lost its status as the majority party at all levels of government and all three branches.
"Can any member of the Reactionary Right think?" Euozious, they won control of both houses of Congress by winning elections, not by winning at Bingo.
But, since you asked a question, may I ask one too? Why do people on the political left keep deriding the people on the right who keep defeating them at the polls? Ann Richards famously said of George H. Bush, "Poor George. He can't help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth." That line got a big laugh at the 1988 Democratic Convention. It didn't sound so funny when the object of the verbal barb was sworn in as President four months later. The person who got the last laugh was George W. Bush, who booted Governor Richards out of office on his way to the Presidency.
Clark Clifford called Reagan "an amiable dunce." Then this "dunce" gets re-elected by a landslide and retires from politics as a much honored and fondly remembered statesman, while Clifford retires under a scandal which he himself said proves that he himself was "either stupid or venal." So, who's the dunce?
Julian Bond claims that W. represents "the Taliban wing of the Republican Party" even though Bush launched the war which overthrew the real Taliban. Then W. gets re-elected, which cannot possibly be due to securing the Taliban vote.
Why do the lefties do that, keep deriding the people who deal them continual political defeats? Wouldn't it be wiser to figure out how to be gracious winners instead of sore losers?
Posted by Jack Olson at July 4, 2006 01:07 PMYes, Jack was "merely pointing out" that (20-some years) after Reagan switched parties he became the Democrats worst nightmare. What was the point of this observation, if not to imply that the same same thing could happen with Leiberman? But good backpedaling.
And I'm sure he's really pretty concerned about how the left can "become gracious winners instead of sore losers". We'll definitely be looking for political advice from the Reactionary Right, they really have our best interests at heart.
Posted by euzoius at July 4, 2006 01:52 PMeuzoius, the Democrats' problem with Reagan wasn't Reagan, it was the Reagan Democrats. Reagan's gone but they're still around. How do you suppose they voted in 2000 and 2004, for Gore and Kerry or for Bush?
The only way to win them back is to pay attention to their views particularly on the issues of terror and the Iraq War. Lieberman attempted to do this and for his trouble his own party is trying to unseat him. If he wins re-election as either an independent or a Republican, surely this will not help the Democrats' attempts to regain a Senate majority. As a Republican Senator he would have more power than ever before due both to seniority and new membership in the majority party. Will he be favorably disposed toward the Democrats who attempted to remove him from the Senate?
Even as an independent he could be trouble for the Democrats. An independent candidate can be a real electoral threat, as Al Gore and George H.W. Bush can tell.
But, you haven't answered my question, euzoius. Why do liberals keep deriding conservatives who keep beating them? It makes no sense either logically or politically.
Chevy Chase, who is hardly known for political acumen, claimed that W. is "waging a jihad" and "has the intelligence of an egg timer", ignoring Bush's war on real jihadists, Bush's Ivy League degrees, and his training as a fighter pilot. Teresa Kerry claims that Laura Bush never held a job, ignoring Mrs. Bush's ten years as a teacher and school librarian. Garrison Keillor, who calls himself a "Homegrown Democrat", joked on his radio show that he was promoting a law to deny the vote to born-again Christians. Does he have any idea how that sounds to people who consider themselves dedicated Christians? The Democratic Party needs to win back the Democrats who joined the Republicans but how can it do so under a chairman who explicitly said he hates them and everything they stand for? "Vote for us--we despise you!" Folks, that is just not the way to win friends and influence people.
Posted by Jack Olson at July 5, 2006 06:54 AMJack, I don't play the "question and answer" game with committed Rightists; it's pointless. You're not actually seeking information and I'm certainly not going to learn anything from your "questions".
But if you look closely, you'll see I did answer your question, just not in the terms you framed it in.
Put simply, if the Left is engaging in a tactic which you are certain hurts them badly at the polls, shouldn't you be pleased with the tactic and want us to continue it?
Obviously, I'm not looking for an "answer".
Cheers.
Posted by euzoius at July 6, 2006 08:55 AM