<p>Actually, I’m not Jewish, but as a christian, I’m thinking about taking on some jewish holidays as well. Don’t see why not.</p>
<p>Driver, the closeness of the vote is not at all strange considering the Lieberman was an incumbent with the full backing of the state Democratic machinery and the vast majority of national Democratic figures as well.</p>
<p>I’ll make book with you on the results in November now. Stakes?</p>
<p>BMan, Lamont’s positions are consistent with the majority of Americans in poll after poll. But please, feel free to stay inside the echo chamber and insist that the Republican positions are “normal” and it’s the Democrats that are fringe.</p>
<p>Why do you keep on thinking I’m a republican?</p>
<p>Check this out though. This is why I think this may be the best thing ever to happen to Liberman.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.unity08.com/node/337[/url]”>http://www.unity08.com/node/337</a></p>
<p>No, better yet, look at this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“토토사이트 | 최고의 메이저사이트 추천 순위 TOP 10 - 토토친구”>토토사이트 | 최고의 메이저사이트 추천 순위 TOP 10 - 토토친구;
<p>Anyone ever heard of playing clean?</p>
<p>
No, no, no, no. If the facts that you cite earlier are correct—that opposition to Bush “has united Democrats on the order of 90-10”----then it makes no sense when the most avid Democrats in the bluest state in the country, with record turnout, only unite in opposition to Bush on the order of 52-48. That’s not spin, I acknowledged earlier that it’s truly remarkable for someone like JL to lose to a neophyte in a primary. But the numbers do suggest that the anti-Bushies are not as united as some hope, even among the looniest lefties. Analysts must be able to keep emotions in check. I for one am hoping that the Republicans aren’t stupid enough to find a Republican Corzine to run in place of Schlesinger, who I can’t see breaking 5% despite what the polls say now. I’ll see your 200 ITYs and raise you 100.</p>
<p>“Lamont’s positions are consistent with the majority of Americans in poll after poll. But please, feel free to stay inside the echo chamber and insist that the Republican positions are “normal” and it’s the Democrats that are fringe.”</p>
<p>One of your favorites issues is the support of the war in Iraq. Please tell us if the officials elected by “your” people did not support the war when -and mostly because- of the massive support of the public at large. Let’s admit it: as long as we lit Baghdad like a Chrismas tree and tried bombing it into oblivion, cheers came from both sides of the aisle. As soon as we lost one live, and could not engage in the type of war people like to see on CNN, the polls changed. It is that spineless display that we can forgive from voters, but resent from our politicians. A fact well confirmed by the country’s rejection of Gore and Kerry, experts at defining their positions based on focus groups, polls, and never on personal convictions. </p>
<p>Our country wants -needs- leaders, not people who hide begind a mirror that reflects the current opinion of the public at large. Leaders have to make hard decisions and face the scrutiny and … disapproval of the chosen policies. </p>
<p>The war on Iraq is a wonderful case to showcase the hypocrisy of the people you support with such fervor. However, their votes on our conflict in Iraq stand in the registry, and this well before 9/11. Organizing the murder of hundreds of thousand of Iraqi children is, of course, a more palatable course of action. Ignoring the threat of terrorism–as we did during the entire gogo years of Clinton–is quickly buried in a sea of protests about today’s quick failure to end conflicts that have transcended centuries. </p>
<p>At times, I wonder if a good number of “your” people would not welcome another attack on US soil, just to highlight this administration reported ineptitude in dealing with national security. The fact that none happened on our US soil is such a pesky little fact! You’re welcome to beg for the return of a more begnin foreign policy a la Albright. Others are not that delusional about the price we paid and are paying for having buried our head in the sand while our battleships and embassies were attacked.</p>
<p>BMan, you’re hilarious. First, Lieberman’s web apparatus was so screwed up that they probably did it themselves. The FBI has the server records and is investigating. Let’s see. As for playing clean? GMAFB. The Republican party that placed hundreds of phone calls into New Hampshire to disrupt GOTV efforts? The Republican party that sees no problem with inadequate numbers of voting machines in Democratic-leaning minority districts so that voters waiting in line get discouraged and leave? The Republican party that is willing to disenfranchise a hundred voters, a thousand voters, at a time in pursuit of chimerical fraud?</p>
<p>Driver, you don’t get it. Voting for Lieberman did not equate with being pro-Bush. You’ve got your position, show some guts. I’m calling you out on it. Our positions about what will happen in Connecticut in November are diametrically opposed. C’mon, you’re a proponent of unilateral action…stick your neck out there.</p>
<p>FountainSiren: I’ve learned the new bi-partisanship from this administration. I’m eager to see how it feels to exchange footgear. I look forward to having my boot on some necks. Those who still have necks, that is. Under the terms of this administration’s outlook, you will be required to smile and accommodate at the risk of being called unpatriotic if you don’t. Payback’s a *****.</p>
<p>Xiggi, the fact that the latest threat comes from Pakistanis living in Great Britain makes me and mine think that 140,000 American troops in Iraq is a misallocation of resources, blood, and dollars. </p>
<p>Bush/Cheney constantly linked “9/11” and “Saddam Hussein” together so successfully that numbers equalling more than half his support still believe both that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 and that he had active WMD. (Why, Dick Cheney knew right where they were.) He may have stampeded many Democrats in the aftermath of 9/11 and defeated quite a number, including the disgraceful assault on Max Cleland, but as the reality has emerged, they’re not being stampeded anymore.</p>
<p>And a coda: payback’s a *****. May you enjoy the next few years as much as I’ve enjoyed the last six.</p>
<p>
No, you don’t get it. Being a NedHead did equate with being an a one-issue voter, and probably a drooling, bug-eyed Bush-hater, to boot–present company excluded, of course. I had fully accepted your idea that roughly 90% of your party fit that category. I was very surprised to be wrong. I don’t get the rest of your comment to me…sticking my neck out is pretty much all I do here.</p>
<p>Senator Mckinney, IMO, would be a great candidate for the democratic party. She stands for principle!!</p>
<p>If Lieberman weren’t an incumbent and held the same positions he does now, he would have lost by considerably more. You nearly have to move mountains to defeat an incumbent in a primary.</p>
<p>Thank you, Dadguy. We’ve covered that.</p>
<p>McKinney is an embarrassment that the Democratic party is well to be without. May Jefferson be next.</p>
<p>Driver, stick your neck out and make a wager: you’re convinced that only anti-Bush loons voted for Lamont, that Lieberman will win in a three-way race. As for Bush haters, I don’t think you get it that Strongly Disapprove outpolls strongly approve by more than 2-1. Strongly Disapprove is a hefty plurality, not needing many additions to attain a majority.</p>
<p>Dadguy, you’ve got it right: Lieberman with the same positions and attitudes but not as a three-term incumbent would have been crushed.</p>
<p>
I’ve already upped your initial ante by 100 ITYs–are you angling for a free copy of my Patti Smith workout video?</p>
<p>I was being sarcastic about Mckinney. I am certainly not promoter for that Mckinney!</p>
<p>Eh, maybe I wasn’t clear as to what I was upping the ante about. Yes, I think Lieberman wins handily in a three-way race with Lamont/Schlesinger. If the stupid party replaces the latter, all bets are off. I think they won’t–a hurt and p*ssed off JL will be a better ally.</p>
<p>I second your bet, Driver. I, too, think Lieberman will win in a 3-way race next November.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You still think I’m a republican! What is wrong with you!</p>
<p>BTW, Liberman’s site is still down. Check it out joe2006.com</p>
<p>I also think Liberman will win in November.</p>
<p>“And a coda: payback’s a *****. May you enjoy the next few years as much as I’ve enjoyed the last six.”</p>
<p>I am saddened to read that the guiding principle is one of payback. For the record, I did not find the last six years particularly enjoyable, mostly because of the incessant and utterly negative partisanship coming from your people. By now, I realize that most of the negative views on the current administration find their origin in a misplaced nostagia for the good old gogo days of Clinton’s reign. What exactly was so wonderful during those years is still well beyond my perception, but it must have been something really good, but obviously build on rather sahky foundation, considering the shape of our country at the end of 2000, when the smokes dissispated and the mirrors cleared up. </p>
<p>Here a few parting words on the subject of payback. It is a times like this than I regret having tried being overly conciliatory, especially after the Kerry debacle. Crow all you want about payback … the party and the people you support are still intensely anchored in a past that will never return, are still unable to formulate the singlest of solutions for our country, and worst of all, are still unable to bring forward a single candidate who could deliver a fraction of what you erroneously believe the country wants. Since you love polls, why don’t you pay some attention to the results of the ones showing who would be rejected in two years? Right now, Ronald McDonald would get more votes than any of your favorites. </p>
<p>Again, before thinking payback, you may start scratching the dark bottom of the pits in hopes to find an electable candidate. However, there is something we can count on: that your people will be stupid enough to go back to the same well that delivered empty suits such as Gore and Kerry.</p>
<p>Awsome! The Liberman site <a href=“http://www.joe2006.com%5B/url%5D”>www.joe2006.com</a> is almost back to normal. I can’t wait to see what it says when their done modifying it.</p>
<p>Finally, an Independent gets a break.</p>