Monday, August 21, 2006
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Incoherence
Along with Saint "stay the course even though it's wrong" McCain, Joe "lost the plot" Lieberman is someone people like the bullshit moose think is "serious" on foreign policy.
These people are very silly, and should not be listened to.
These people are very silly, and should not be listened to.
Big John
Kerry:
Kerry Calls Lieberman the New Cheney
Senator Labels Bush Iraq Policy 'Disaster,' Lieberman Bid 'Huge Mistake'
By ED O'KEEFE
Aug. 20, 2006 -- - Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., blasted fellow a Democrat, Sen. Joe Lieberman, for continuing his bid in the Connecticut Senate race despite a narrow loss to newcomer Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary earlier this month.
"I'm concerned that [Lieberman] is making a Republican case," Kerry told ABC News' "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" in an exclusive appearance.
Kerry accused the 2000 Democratic vice presidential candidate of "adopting the rhetoric of Dick Cheney," on the issue of Iraq.
"Joe Lieberman is out of step with the people of Connecticut," Kerry added, insisting Lieberman's stance on Iraq, "shows you just why he got in trouble with the Democrats there."
Kerry called Lieberman's independent bid a "huge mistake" and applauded businessman-turned-politician Lamont as "courageous" for challenging Lieberman on the war.
Incoherent
Shorter John McCain on MTP (Russert-free, thankfully):
I guess this is what counts for "seriousness" on foreign policy in Beltwayland.
...oh Lordy, it's a "critical time" in Iraq. I guess that's critical time #1432.
...Jeebus, McCain sez:
CNN poll:
CBS poll:
USA Today Gallup:
Fox News Poll:
So much for the straight talk express.
The administration has done the wrong thing for the last 3 and a half years which leaves us with no option other than staying the course.
I guess this is what counts for "seriousness" on foreign policy in Beltwayland.
...oh Lordy, it's a "critical time" in Iraq. I guess that's critical time #1432.
...Jeebus, McCain sez:
Most Americans, when they're asked if they want to set a date for withdrawal, say no.
CNN poll:
"Which comes closer to your view about U.S. troops in Iraq? The U.S. should set a timetable for withdrawal by announcing that it will remove all of its troops from Iraq by a certain date. The U.S. should keep troops in Iraq as long as necessary without setting any timetable for withdrawal." Options rotated. Half sample, MoE ± 4.5.
8/2-3/06 Timetable 57 No timetable 40 Unsure 4
CBS poll:
"Do you think the United States should or should not set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq?"
Should 56 Should not 40 Unsure 4
USA Today Gallup:
"Here are four different plans the U.S. could follow in dealing with the war in Iraq. Which ONE do you prefer? Withdraw all troops from Iraq immediately. Withdraw all troops by August 2007, that is, in 12 months' time. Withdraw troops, but take as many years to do this as are needed to turn control over to the Iraqis. OR, Send more troops to Iraq." Options rotated.
Withdraw immediately 19% Withdraw by August 2007 33% Takes as Long as Needed 38% Send More Troops 7% Unsure 2%
Fox News Poll:
Pull out by year-end 27% Pull out all over the next year 31% After Iraqis capable 33% send more 4%
So much for the straight talk express.
That's Rich
Frank Rich:
The hyperbole that has greeted the Lamont victory in some quarters is far more revealing than the victory itself. In 2006, the tired Rove strategy of equating any Democratic politician’s opposition to the Iraq war with cut-and-run defeatism in the war on terror looks desperate. The Republicans are protesting too much, methinks. A former Greenwich selectman like Mr. Lamont isn’t easily slimed as a reincarnation of Abbie Hoffman or an ally of Osama bin Laden. What Republicans really see in Mr. Lieberman’s loss is not a defeat in the war on terror but the specter of their own defeat. Mr. Lamont is but a passing embodiment of a fixed truth: most Americans think the war in Iraq was a mistake and want some plan for a measured withdrawal. That truth would prevail even had Mr. Lamont lost.
A similar panic can be found among the wave of pundits, some of them self-proclaimed liberals, who apoplectically fret that Mr. Lamont’s victory signals the hijacking of the Democratic Party by the far left (here represented by virulent bloggers) and a prospective replay of its electoral apocalypse of 1972. Whatever their political affiliation, almost all of these commentators suffer from the same syndrome: they supported the Iraq war and, with few exceptions (mainly at The Wall Street Journal and The Weekly Standard), are now embarrassed that they did. Desperate to assert their moral superiority after misjudging a major issue of our time, they loftily declare that anyone who shares Mr. Lamont’s pronounced opposition to the Iraq war is not really serious about the war against the jihadists who attacked us on 9/11.
Sunday Bobbleheads
Document the atrocities. Here's the lineup. I recommend putting on some biohazard gear before watching the fluffing Russert will undoubetdly give Saint McCain.
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Chris Shays Wants to Cut and Run
Now that Chris Shays has become a cut and run Republican will any reporter ask Ken Mehlman if he still has the RNC's support?
Oy
I don't know how we go from:
To:
The point is that the amount of money that has come from "progressives" to Lamont is a drop of the bucket in the grand scheme of things and most of it is "found money" and not diverted money. While the Lump of Campaign Cash fallacy is popular it's one of the more annoying ones.
Look, there's always a more important cause and a more worthy candidate. I don't know why someone who thinks that there's too much attention paid to the Lamont/Lieberman race thinks the best use of his/her time is to "stick to critcizing" that attention. If the thing is bad, presumably the meta-thing is worse. Some float above, some dive in.
But, anyway, this race is about more than Lamont now, it's about 3 important House races that Lieberman's going to ratfuck with all of his Republican pals. Attention must be paid by time wasters like myself because too many of the powers that be have apparently forgotten that they do, indeed, have a Lieberman Problem. It's not a circular firing squad, it's the implicit Republican candidate (Lieberman) versus the explicit Democratic one (Lamont). Joe's going to try to win by bringing Republicans to the polls, and when he does it won't be the fault of Lamont supporters, it'll be the fault of Lieberman and Dems who failed to confront him.
Should progressives shift their money and attention from the Connecticut Senate race to more important contests?
To:
Call me crazy, but I think I'll stick with criticizing the circular firing squad that is the Lieberman-Lamont race, rather than focusing on whether everyone has their fair share of bullets, as Atrios seems to want to do.
The point is that the amount of money that has come from "progressives" to Lamont is a drop of the bucket in the grand scheme of things and most of it is "found money" and not diverted money. While the Lump of Campaign Cash fallacy is popular it's one of the more annoying ones.
Look, there's always a more important cause and a more worthy candidate. I don't know why someone who thinks that there's too much attention paid to the Lamont/Lieberman race thinks the best use of his/her time is to "stick to critcizing" that attention. If the thing is bad, presumably the meta-thing is worse. Some float above, some dive in.
But, anyway, this race is about more than Lamont now, it's about 3 important House races that Lieberman's going to ratfuck with all of his Republican pals. Attention must be paid by time wasters like myself because too many of the powers that be have apparently forgotten that they do, indeed, have a Lieberman Problem. It's not a circular firing squad, it's the implicit Republican candidate (Lieberman) versus the explicit Democratic one (Lamont). Joe's going to try to win by bringing Republicans to the polls, and when he does it won't be the fault of Lamont supporters, it'll be the fault of Lieberman and Dems who failed to confront him.
LitPAC
LitPAC was founded to provide a way for authors to get more involved with politics. You can read more about them here. Anyway, for local folks they're having an author reading/fundraiser on September 20 at the Khyber.
Participants include Jennifer Weiner, Buzz Bissinger, Ken Kalfus, Lise Funderburg, Elise Juska, and Curtis Sittenfeld. I'll be there to do a brief introduction.
Participants include Jennifer Weiner, Buzz Bissinger, Ken Kalfus, Lise Funderburg, Elise Juska, and Curtis Sittenfeld. I'll be there to do a brief introduction.
Money
I always get annoyed when people write something like this:
I'd like more of that advice going to, say, the people who gave money so that Hillary Clinton could have $22 million cash-on-hand. Does Bill Nelson need $12 million to run against Katie Harris? On the House side, does Marty Meehan, who won with 67% of the vote last time, really need to have 5 million bucks in the bank?
There is always an incredible misallocation of resources in elections and that's the money which flows to incumbents. Sure, they're not all safe and it's understandable that they need somewhat of a defensive warchest just in case, but if you want to criticize where donors are directing their money (and attention) start there.
Should progressives shift their money and attention from the Connecticut Senate race to more important contests? Absolutely.
I'd like more of that advice going to, say, the people who gave money so that Hillary Clinton could have $22 million cash-on-hand. Does Bill Nelson need $12 million to run against Katie Harris? On the House side, does Marty Meehan, who won with 67% of the vote last time, really need to have 5 million bucks in the bank?
There is always an incredible misallocation of resources in elections and that's the money which flows to incumbents. Sure, they're not all safe and it's understandable that they need somewhat of a defensive warchest just in case, but if you want to criticize where donors are directing their money (and attention) start there.
Friday, August 18, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)