|
09 Aug 06 - 10:28 AM (#1805233) Subject: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: GUEST Eh? Wealthy descendant of J.P. Morgan defeats Democratic Leadership Council bigwig. It's nice to know we the little people still have some influence, isn't it? |
|
09 Aug 06 - 10:59 AM (#1805251) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: number 6 How do you pronounce Connecticut? sIx |
|
09 Aug 06 - 11:10 AM (#1805262) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: jeffp Just like it sounds! |
|
09 Aug 06 - 11:53 AM (#1805296) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: Jerry Rasmussen The election shows how sick people are of the war in Iraq. Jerru |
|
09 Aug 06 - 12:26 PM (#1805328) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: GUEST I don't think it was solely Lieberman's position on the Iraq war that resulted in his defeat. I think it is a referendum of sorts on the leadership of the Democratic party establishment, and the ownership of the party by the Democratic Leadership Council. I think the main message the Lamont voters wanted to send was a national one, that the party leadership is out of touch. On the war, but also on other issues of importance to mainstream Americans (the Terry Schiavo debacle was front and center in recent weeks, due to the appearance of her husband on the campaign trail for Lamont). Lamont also courted African American voters quite successfully in a few (though not all) places. Lamont won by a narrow margin, running as a new face for the status quo. Joe Lieberman wasn't the only Democratic incumbent to be defeated yesterday. Atlanta Rep Cynthia McKinney was soundly trounced (her opponent took 59% of the vote), and that race had nothing to do with the war in Iraq. She was perceived as being too combative for a woman, so who did the voters elect? A nice, safe, status quo male. I don't see any real "earthquakes" coming in the November mid-terms. The political landscape in the US is now owned and controlled by business interests, including the Democratic party noblesse oblige liberals, and Republican and Democratic family dynasties. The majority of eligible voters aren't represented by either party's special interest groups. The silent American majority now consists of people who don't vote, or are independents not registered as party members. In that context, ALL elected politicians can be said to be out of touch with mainstream American concerns. As an independent voter, I can tell you that the Iraq war is NOT my #1 concern. Lack of health care for the uninsured, and middle class indifference to it, is one of my top concerns. The effect climbing energy prices is having upon the working poor, and middle class indifference to it, is one of my top concerns. The segregation of urban schools by race and class, and middle class indifference to it, is one of my top concerns. The lack of a mass transit infrastructure, and middle class indifference to it, is a top concern. The war on terror being used as a means of racially profiling fellow Americans who are largely poor immigrants of color, and middle class indifference to it, is a major concern. The obscene militarization of our society, and middle class SUPPORT for it, is a major concern. The mismanagement by and corruption of government officials, and middle class acceptance of it, is a major concern. The destructive foreign policy/homeland security agenda being usurped by big business interests, who make money off political instability and government military and security contracts that "address" that instability, is one of my top concerns. But the war in Iraq? Hell, Americans are getting exactly what they voted for with the war in Iraq. I'm not going to speak up for Americans on that one--considering it isn't Americans who are suffering most as a result of their support for the Iraq war, Iraqis and the people of the region are. No So to claim that |
|
09 Aug 06 - 12:39 PM (#1805336) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: katlaughing Kuh-ne(as in net)-tee-cut |
|
09 Aug 06 - 12:44 PM (#1805340) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: Jim Dixon Anybody notice that the headlines today are all about Lieberman? Washington Post: "Lieberman Sets Sights on Independent Candidacy" New York Times: "Lieberman Begins Race as Independent" The Guardian: "Pro-war Lieberman loses Democratic primary" BBC's web site: "Defeated Lieberman to run alone" Forbes: "Dems Rally around Lieberman Opponent" Now, what was the name of the guy who actually won? Goes to show liberals will still have an uphill battle just to gain name recognition. What's that I hear about a liberal bias in the press? |
|
09 Aug 06 - 12:57 PM (#1805356) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: GUEST,number 6 "The election shows how sick people are of the war in Iraq." ... I don't think you need an election to show everyone is getting sick of the war in Iraq. Kuh-ne-tee-cut ... Kuhne-teecut ... Kuhneteecut looks like I got it now .... Thanks Kat sIx |
|
09 Aug 06 - 01:18 PM (#1805380) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: artbrooks Ku(u as in cut)-NE-ti(i as in ick)-cut |
|
09 Aug 06 - 01:39 PM (#1805397) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: DougR Folks got sick of WW2, but we didn't quit until the Facists were defeated. Why some people today appear to believe that the Islamic Crazies are anymore less threatening than the Facists is beyond me. DougR |
|
09 Aug 06 - 01:49 PM (#1805406) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: GUEST Because of the simple fact that the "Islamic crazies" (as you so aptly chose to put it in YOUR racist and bigoted terms) don't control any actual NATIONS or NATIONS' MILITARIES. In other words, the "Islamic crazies" are no more of a threat than the Cold War "communists" were a threat to the US. Or the Japanese were, for that matter. The Japanese never had the ability to invade the US, just as the Cold War "commies" never had the ability to invade the US, or Castro... The "Islamic crazies" do have the power to lob a few at us. Including a dirty bomb here and there. But none of them has the power to do any substantial damage to our sovereignty or our democratic freedoms. Unless, of course, we keep voting for Democrats and Republicans, who DO have the power to destroy our American way of life, through their control of mass media, the government, and the economy. Too bad Doug, you can't see who the REAL enemy of our way of life is: ourselves, and our fearful clinging to the status quo. |
|
09 Aug 06 - 01:57 PM (#1805416) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: Jerry Rasmussen In a close race, as the one was with Lamont/Lieberman, one issue can indeed tip the scales. I agree wholeheartedly with unnamed Guest, though. On pretty much every issue that he/she/it raised. There are countless issues that need to be dealt with that neither party is facing. I see the election of Lamont as having national percussions, as well. Maybe the new faces won't be any more effective than the old ones but at least there's some hope. We all (mostly) see what the status quo is doing to this country. Lamont, by the way spent a lot of time in the black communities and churches. If he'd been REAL smart, he would have had his hair cut in a black barbershop. As it turned out, my wife and I attended a black church in Bridgeport a couple of Sundays ago, and Ned Lamont and his entourage were there. He was scheduled to appear with Rev.s Jesse Jackson and Sharpton at another black church the coming Wednesday, and he was being widely praised by black politicians not only from Connecticut but by a black congresswoman from California. I could be real cyncial about all this. Cynicism is a piece of cake when it comes to politics and this country. I'd prefer to hope a little. I liked a lot of what Joe Leiberman did and don't consider him one of the major ills of this country. But people want change. Even if it could be easily argued that it is only the illusion of change. I'll still opt for hope. Jerry |
|
09 Aug 06 - 02:10 PM (#1805427) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: Joe Offer I've disagreed with the war in Iraq from the very beginning, but I've been impressed with Joe Lieberman since he ran for Vice President. He seems to be decent man, so I'm tisappointed he lost the election. On the other hand, I'm very happy that the election was won by an antiwar candidate, even though I know nothing about Lamont. Jerry, if Lamont had his hair cut in a black barbership, would it be a better haircut? -Joe Offer- |
|
09 Aug 06 - 02:16 PM (#1805435) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: GUEST "Maybe the new faces won't be any more effective than the old ones but at least there's some hope." Not with that attitude there isn't. That is the very attitude that renders me pretty fucking hopeless. Expecting a different outcome by engaging in the identical, same behavior you have always had, is the definition of either stupidity, and very evil cynicism, or some combination of both. Why will electing a DIFFERENT Harvard educated, silver spoon in his mouth raised, multi-millionare media mogul, Democratic party loyalist liberal, change ANYTHING??? "We all (mostly) see what the status quo is doing to this country." No you don't, Jerry. Or if you do, you are choosing to bury your head in the sand, and pretend like it isn't REALLY happening. Or maybe, that all you are willing to do about it is keep sending checks to the Democratic party and it's candidates, and voting for them every single time you get the chance. And as for the African American vote, in my experience, the majority of them in the Democratic party are as conservative as any right wing, Southern Reagan Democrat, except on race issues. So they are just as much a part of the problem as Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont is. |
|
09 Aug 06 - 03:05 PM (#1805484) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: kendall Doug, Japan attacked us, Germany declared war on us, Iraq did NOT attack us. |
|
09 Aug 06 - 05:37 PM (#1805595) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: Big Mick Good job, Captain. You have to keep things simple for conservatives. They see the world in black and white. Complexities take to much work and screw with their definitions of right and wrong. Mick |
|
09 Aug 06 - 05:48 PM (#1805609) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: Jerry Rasmussen So, oh gracious Guest: What is your approach to changing this country? Other than calling people who don't agree with you stupid? I actually would like to hear. If I knew a better approach, I'd be very open to considering it. Hopefully, you have a realistic, positive suggestion on what I should do.. Jerry |
|
09 Aug 06 - 05:52 PM (#1805614) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: GUEST Jerry, please don't take this personally, and understand I use strong, provocative language all the time. But this: "I actually would like to hear. If I knew a better approach, I'd be very open to considering it. Hopefully, you have a realistic, positive suggestion on what I should do." ...is pure, unadulterated bullshit. You are NOT open to hearing what I have to say, any more than Don Firth or Amos or katlaughing or any of the Mudcat Democratic loyalists are--you just want me to stick my neck out and make it easy for you to chop it off with derisive, smug, arrogant dismissals. Like you did in the 2004 election, remember? You are a real decent Christian, Jerry. Until someone disagrees with you. Then you get pretty ugly. HINT: posts dripping with condescending sarcasm are usually a dead give away that you aren't sincere. |
|
09 Aug 06 - 06:27 PM (#1805644) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: artbrooks How should someone who comments to/argues with an anonymous GUEST know that another anonymous GUEST is the same anonymous GUEST? |
|
09 Aug 06 - 06:37 PM (#1805653) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: Amos Wellll, ya know.... We'd all love to hear the plan.... Seriously, nameless, if you really had an action plan I would be all for hearing it. I can't tell if you do or not, though. I guess I would have to look through your past posts, but I can't very well just go trawling for Guest, unless I have a LOT of spare time, which is not the case. How about a summary? A |
|
09 Aug 06 - 06:37 PM (#1805654) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: Arne SiX: How do you pronounce Connecticut? IIRC, it's "quo-nee-ta-cutt" But us yanks really mangle it most of the time.... Cheers, |
|
09 Aug 06 - 07:26 PM (#1805697) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: GUEST Libermann's on the Bush/Clinton team. It's good he lost. Another world govt politician will take his place, but that old whore needed a good reaming. "A decent man." Geez. He supports the carpet bombing of Beirut. I think he should jet off to a vacation there. Or no...I hope he kills himself. I hope he jumps out a window and lands on Hillary, and GW rubbernecks on his way past the accident scene and has a fatal head-on with Tony Blair. |
|
09 Aug 06 - 07:32 PM (#1805706) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: katlaughing From the Christian Science Monitor: Sen. Joe Lieberman's loss in Connecticut's Democratic primary may well lead Congress next year to order a quick, perhaps premature, US pullout from Iraq. Watch to see how this primary's snowball will roll in other races this fall. But a longer-term meaning could be extracted from this spicy vote in the Nutmeg State. Senator Lieberman is only the fourth incumbent senator in 26 years to lose his party's nomination. He may yet win the general election running as an independent, but his primary loss was particularly spectacular because his opponent, Ned Lamont, was a political unknown only a few months ago. And in two House primaries on Tuesday, Republican and Democratic incumbents also lost. Usually these upsets suggest the national mood is rising against incumbents, as well as against Congress itself. And well it should. A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds Americans who approve of their own representative's performance is at the lowest level since 1994 - the last time control of the House switched parties. Usually, voters simply have a low opinion of Congress but then vote their senator or congressman back in. Incumbents have well rigged the electoral system to give them many advantages, from fundraising to gerrymandered districts. But now the percentage of voters disenchanted with their representatives has risen seven points, to 45 percent. Some of that increase could be related to a rising disgust with the way the Iraq war has been handled by both Congress and the Bush administration. But it may also arise from Congress allowing its powers as the first and most representative branch of government to be eroded by a wartime presidency and by a string of Supreme Court decisions. And voters are increasingly turned off by the extreme polarization of the win-at-any-cost politics that's developed over decades and ends up with both parties using national issues to score points rather than solve problems with a bipartisan spirit. The image of a gridlocked, dysfunctional Congress is very clear in the way lawmakers have failed to pass reforms that would solve the crises in immigration and energy, and that would translate into reality for voters. Impasses within the marbled halls of Capitol Hill that then lead to blame games - e.g., "do-nothing Republicans" or "obstructing Democrats" - may play well to the most partisan of voters, but not to the vast moderate voters who increasingly declare themselves as independent. And let's not even dwell on recent cases of blatant graft, a rise in pork-barrel profligacy using undebated earmarks, a decreasing number of days in session, and strange timing in House roll-call votes. Those in a supine Congress who would reform the institution itself - even if Democrats win a majority of seats in November - are still too few, but perhaps growing. The first override of a Bush veto came only last month, six years into his term. Senate oversight of Bush's wartime legal powers seems to be increasing. Too much can easily be read into Lieberman's primary defeat. But perhaps it really is the signal of a political shift toward institutional reform that would outlast the current national debates over the Iraq war or the Bush presidency. |
|
09 Aug 06 - 07:39 PM (#1805711) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: artbrooks The first override of a Bush veto came only last month, six years into his term. This was actually his first veto, and the vote to override failed. Otherwise a good article...thanks, Kat. |
|
09 Aug 06 - 08:39 PM (#1805764) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: dick greenhaus I dunno. I find it hard to see that voting against someone who wholeheartedly supports the Iraq war and tried to get the Federal Government involved in the Schiavo mess is an act of partisan politics. Maybe it would be a good idea if more people voted on issues. |
|
09 Aug 06 - 08:40 PM (#1805765) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: GUEST Nobody ever accused katlaughing of knowing what she was talking about. |
|
09 Aug 06 - 08:43 PM (#1805770) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: Amos Don't be an ass, G; the mis-speak was the CSM, not katlaughing. A |
|
09 Aug 06 - 08:47 PM (#1805774) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: katlaughing Thanks, Amos, but I don't think that's garg...:-) Good catch, artbrooks. |
|
09 Aug 06 - 10:31 PM (#1805843) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: PoppaGator I think "G" was meant to stand for "GUEST," not "garg." Got Gargoyle on the brain? Still??? |
|
09 Aug 06 - 10:34 PM (#1805846) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: GUEST So while all this hemming and hawing is going on about the non-upset upset, Americans have been completely deprived of the REAL story, largely ignored by every media outlet including the one that commissioned the poll: 60% of Americans oppose Iraq war So, just how newsworthy is it really that Lieberman lost yesterday, considering that unless Connecticut is hit by a very large meteorite between now and November, a Democratic senator will be elected regardless of the outcome of yesterday's primary? Even in the "control of Congress could change" fear mongering going on, this is a non-story because the seat isn't in play. That's the US mainstream media reporting for you. All the news that's fit to print gets ignored. |
|
09 Aug 06 - 10:38 PM (#1805850) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: GUEST PoppaGator, there is no shortage of sock puppets in those secret drawers katlaughing and the clones keep away from our prying eyes. For our own good, of course. |
|
09 Aug 06 - 10:52 PM (#1805857) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: Don Firth No good, Amos. I asked GUEST on another thread if he had any suggestions for what liberals and progressives could do to have a good chance of winning back the government, and all he responded with was to accuse me of being middle class (which is probably true) and of poisoning my mind by reading too much history, and was generally patronizing and insulting (note GUEST's reference to me, along with others, in a post above). Other than "vote for Nader," he seems to be devoid of ideas. Don Firth |
|
09 Aug 06 - 11:12 PM (#1805868) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: artbrooks Anon.GUEST, you said that's the US mainstream media reporting for you. All the news that's fit to print gets ignored, but you don't get much more mainstream than the paper you quoted, the Washington Post. The same information was on www.cnn.com , www.abcnews.com and www.cbsnews.com. They all sound pretty mainstream to me. |
|
09 Aug 06 - 11:47 PM (#1805883) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: katlaughing Here's one just for you, DougeR: This comes from Doug McIntyre who is a Republican radio talk show host on right-wing KABC, Los Angeles and who read this on his ABC radio program recently. "I was wrong to have voted for George W. Bush. I believe George W. Bush is unarguably the worst two-term President in the history of the country. Worse than Grant. A case can be made he's the worst President, period. I reached the conclusion he's either grossly incompetent, or a hand puppet for a gaggle of detached theorists with their own private view of how the world works. Or both. "After September 11th, I believed President Bush when he said we would go after the terrorists and the nations that harbored them. I supported the President when he sent our troops into Afghanistan. I supported the war in Iraq because I believed Colin Powell at the UN, and trusted Tony Blair. The President said Iraq was an urgent threat, and after 9-11, the risk seemed too real. But in the months and years since shock and awe I have been shocked repeatedly by a consistent litany of excuses, alibis, double-talk, inaccuracies, bogus predictions, and flat out lies. I have watched as the President and his administration changed the goals, redefined the reasons for going into Iraq, and fumbled the good will of the world and the focus necessary to catch the real killers of September 11th. The President says the commanders on the ground will make the battlefield decisions, and the war in Iraq won't be run from Washington. Yet, politics has consistently determined what the troops can and can't do and any commander who does not go along with the administration is sacked, and in some cases, maligned. I was wrong about everything associated with Iraq. "We're in the "waning days of the insurgency." We're about to slink home with our tail between our legs, leaving civil war in Iraq and a nuclear-armed Iran in our wake. And Bin Laden is still making tapes. It's unspeakable. The liberal media didn't create this reality, bad policy did. James Buchanan, Franklin Pierce, Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, Warren Harding were all failed Presidents but the damage this President has done is historic. His mistakes have global implications, while the other failed Presidents mostly authored domestic embarrassments. "And speaking of domestic embarrassments, let's look at President Bush's domestic record. He cut taxes and I like tax cuts. But tax cuts combined with reckless spending and borrowing is criminal mismanagement of the public's money. We're drunk at the mall with our great grandchildren's credit cards. We traded tax and spend Liberals for borrow and spend Conservatives. Bush created a giant new entitlement, the prescription drug plan. He lied to his own party to get it passed. It was written by and for the pharmaceutical industry. So much for smaller government In fact, virtually every tentacle of government has grown exponentially under Bush. Unless, of course, it was an agency to look after the public interest, the environment or worker's rights. His open border policy is a disaster for the wages of working people-- he debases the work ethic, "jobs Americans won't do!" He doesn't believe in the sovereign borders of the country he's sworn to protect. And his devotion to cheap labor for his corporate benefactors, along with his worship of multinational trade deals, makes an utter mockery of homeland security and calls into question his commitment to sovereignty itself. "Katrina, Harriet Myers, The Dubai Port Deal, shrinking wages for working people, staggering debt, astronomical foreign debt , outsourcing, open borders, the war on science, media manipulation, a cavalier attitude toward fundamental freedoms-- this President has run the most arrogant and out-of-touch administration in my lifetime, perhaps, in any American's lifetime. "America needs a vibrant opposition to check the power of a run-amuck majority party. Tragically, the Democrats have allowed crackpots, leftists and demagogic cowards to snipe from the sidelines while taking no responsibility for anything. In fairness, I don't believe a Democrat president would have gone into Iraq. Unfortunately, I don't know if President Gore would have gone into Afghanistan. However, the Republicans run the show and have more to answer for. With a belated tip of the cap to Ralph Nader, the system is broken, so broken it's almost inevitable it pukes up mediocrities like Al Gore and George W. Bush. Where are the Trumans and the Eisenhowers? Why do we have to settle for recycled hacks and malleable ciphers? Greatness is always rare, but is basic competence and simple honesty too much to ask? Does this make me a waffler? A flip-flopper? I prefer to see it as realism. "For those of you who never supported Bush, it's also fair to accuse me of kicking Bush while he's down. After all, you were kicking Bush while he was up. You were right. I was wrong." (P.S. Poppagator...he's never very far away.) |
|
10 Aug 06 - 07:48 AM (#1806073) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: Bobert Well, while I think this primary is a small step forward for the Dems what really bothers me is that should the Dems somehow take control of either house of Congress, I'm not feelin' all warm and fuzy about what that is going to mean other than they will now get a larger share of the corporate bribe money... Yeah, Bush and the current crooks need to go but rememeber the line from the Who song, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss"... This concerns me... But, hey, I'm still glad that Lamont won... It, if nuthin' else, at least puts a dent in the "cut 'n run" campaign that the current crooks will use agains folks who will not so eaasilly be labeled un-American... As fir me, vote Green whenever possible... Bobert |
|
10 Aug 06 - 11:58 AM (#1806319) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: dick greenhaus why not just vote for candidates (either damned party) who support what you want supported. AND, more importantly, vote against any incumbents who have demonstrated that they're opposed to what you believe? |
|
10 Aug 06 - 01:27 PM (#1806446) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: kendall But Dick, that would make sense! |
|
10 Aug 06 - 01:59 PM (#1806473) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: Greg F. Joe Lieberman ... seems to be decent man, so I'm tisappointed he lost the election. Sorry Joe, but Lieberman is a religious fundamentalist, which should be apparent if you look more closely to what he's said & done. He's no less dangerous than the Christian religious fundamantalists. Best, Greg |
|
10 Aug 06 - 02:01 PM (#1806477) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: GUEST My noontime email: Dear ex-Senator Lieberman, My condolences on your humiliating loss. You have now become a detriment to your overlord Bush crime family, and you may want to consider some new options. Falling on your sword before one falls on you seems your most reasonable out. Those Bush boys don't take kindly to hysterical losers knowing about the skeletons in their closets, and they might send you swimming with the fishes off Kennebunkport, so you really should look into the suicide option. Sincerely,.... |
|
10 Aug 06 - 03:45 PM (#1806555) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: Ebbie May I assume you didn't sign the email? |
|
11 Aug 06 - 11:22 AM (#1807250) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: GUEST,pattyClink Dick, to answer your question, "because my two senators have so much seniority they often literally run unopposed." When there are two candidates, they are both gladhanding vacantheads bought and paid for by business interests, who stand for nothing but their own career advancement. When there are 3, the alternative candidate generally gets 0.something of the vote. And often a third party is kept off the ballot by hairy registration procedures. Voting doesn't work anymore because the game is rigged by the two parties who make the rules. Don, if you are still looking for ideas on how to fix the system, here ya go. It will have to address the major root of the problem, so change will have to come from dismantling a lot of the rules Congress has decided to operate under. Specifically, a lot of the corruption goes back to the committee system, where one guy can pass or block legislation. This is the whole basis for the gamesmanship, dealmaking, and lobbying that goes on, and causes a truckload of decisions not in the public interest. Never mind the crazy length of the bills, the 90,000 staffers, etc. If there is one thing the Constitution was clear about it, it was that these reps are supposed to get one vote each, not that the party leader would get to decide what lived and died. This is legal leg to stand on. If an aggrieved class could show harm done by this committee meat-grinder which creates our budgets and laws, they could sue, and eventually the Supreme Court could take a hard look at the rules congress gives itself each session, and disallow some of them. Of course, that's if the Supreme isn't too far gone, too packed with corporate shills by now... |
|
11 Aug 06 - 08:32 PM (#1807777) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: GUEST,guy wolff |
|
11 Aug 06 - 08:48 PM (#1807784) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: GUEST,guy wolff Sorry I hit the wrong thing once again. You guys left out the t sound in connet eh cut . The c sound is silent as in CONNET EH CUT ,.,.,.,.,. My wife said to write it out sa Kah-NET-i-cut (THE I IS SHORT ) .Some people might also say ><><><><> kah-NED-i-cut But if you were from New Briton (pronounced New bri-H -an) you would say kan-NET-i-cah (THe i is a glottel stop the h is a silent breath ) All the best Guy |
|
11 Aug 06 - 11:05 PM (#1807849) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: DougR No, Kendall, Iraq didn't attack us. But the dictator of Iraq, had he been able to, would, I think have done so. Too bad that so many of my good liberal friends cannot buy into the plan to attack terrorists before they attack us. I assume we are to simply sit back, let them slam us and THEN we fight back. No, I guess even then we are supposed to turn our cheek. So, Kendall, you been measured yet for your Burka? Big Mick? DougR |
|
12 Aug 06 - 12:15 AM (#1807868) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: GUEST,Woody http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ned_Lamont Ned Lamont grew up in Syosset, New York, and is the heir to the fortune of his great-grandfather, Thomas W. Lamont, who was a partner of the banking and finance firm J. P. Morgan & Co. After graduating from Phillips Exeter Academy in 1972, Ned Lamont earned a bachelor's degree from Harvard University in 1976 and a Masters of Public and Private Management from what is now known as the Yale School of Management in 1980. He began his career working for a small newspaper in Ludlow, Vermont. Lamont then entered the cable television industry, managing the startup of Cablevision's operation in Fairfield County, Connecticut. In 1984, he founded, and is currently president and chairman of, Lamont Digital Systems, a builder and operator of advanced telecommunications networks for college campuses and residential gated communities, with over 150,000 subscribers. The company's finances are private, though it currently has 35 employees, down from 100 in 2001. Before running for the U.S. Senate, Lamont was elected and served as selectman in the town of Greenwich, Connecticut, for eight years (two terms), chaired the state investment advisory council, and served on many civic boards. Lamont unsuccessfully ran for a state Senate seat in 1990, finishing in third place. Family Lamont and his wife, the former Ann "Annie" Greenlee Huntress, a venture capitalist, have three teenaged children. Anne Lamont seconded her husband's nomination at the Connecticut Democratic Convention in May 2006. Their 18-year-old daughter, Emily, Harvard class of 2009, has campaigned frequently for her father across Connecticut, introducing him at various events. Her effort to vote for her father in the primary failed, as her ballot was rejected since she had not registered as a Democrat. Her younger siblings, sister Lindsay and brother Teddy, have generally remained out of the spotlight. Lamont is the great-grandson of former J.P. Morgan & Co. Chairman Thomas W. Lamont, and has a self-reported net worth valued between $90 million and $300 million and the grandnephew of Corliss Lamont who was a director of the American Civil Liberties Union from 1932 - 1954. On July 17 the Waterbury Republican-American reported the assessed value of Lamont's Greenwich home was $30 million. His father, Ted (Edward M. Sr.), was an economist who worked with the Marshall Plan which helped reconstruct Europe after World War II. He later served in the Nixon administration in Housing and Urban Development. Ted Lamont is now an unaffiliated voter, having last voted for a Republican in 1988. Since then he has voted Democratic. He told The Hartford Courant that "Eastern Moderates no longer have a place in the GOP." His mother, Camille Buzby "Buz" Lamont, was born in Puerto Rico, the daughter of an American salesman (a Quaker veteran of World War I) and a Catholic missionary. She speaks fluent Spanish but never taught Ned. 2006 U.S. Senate campaign Democratic Primary Results Candidate Ned Lamont 146,587 51.79% Joe Lieberman 136,468 48.21% Lamont began looking into a potential run against Lieberman around February 2005. In March 2006, Lamont officially announced his campaign for United States Senate against Lieberman. As of July 19, 2006, Lamont has spent over $2.5 million of his own personal fortune on his campaign. Also, Lamont pledged not to take money from lobbyists. In early 2006, Lamont received the backing of former independent Connecticut Governor and Republican U.S. Senator Lowell Weicker, who was unseated by Lieberman in 1988. Lamont has portrayed himself as a more progressive alternative to Lieberman. His campaign is mostly supported by progressive activists, including MoveOn.org, which donated $251,156 from its contributors to the campaign |
|
12 Aug 06 - 12:21 AM (#1807872) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: GUEST,Woody http://www.fecinfo.com/ Lamont Gave $4 Million to His Campaign Connecticut Senate Democratic primary winner, Edward (Ned) Lamont, contributed $4,001,500 to his own campaign race. His Ned Lamont For Senate pre-primary campaign finance disclosure report covering activity through 7/19 showed he gave $2,501,000 and later contribution notices indicated he gave donations of $500,000 each on 7/21, 7/27, and 8/2. The final tally of spending by the campaigns and other outside groups will not be completely known until more disclosure reports are filed. The pre-primary campaign finance report only covers activity through 7/19. Later reports will show activity from 7/20 on. |
|
12 Aug 06 - 12:31 AM (#1807875) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: Little Hawk Heh! If they were able to, Doug, I think almost the whole world would band together and attack you guys at this point...after all, self-defence against insane aggressor rogue empires is an inalienable right of the intimdated and afflicted, is it not? But quite aside from that...aren't erections illegal in Connecticut? ;-) |
|
12 Aug 06 - 01:42 AM (#1807903) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: Barry Finn "No, Kendall, Iraq didn't attack us. But the dictator of Iraq, had he been able to, would, I think have done so" Hey Doug Attack us, with what? He could not have attacked us if he were sitting on the White House lawn & he (Saddam) couldn't even cross the street outside his complex in those 45 seconds to push a button on a crossing light. "Too bad that so many of my good liberal friends cannot buy into the plan to attack terrorists before they attack us. I assume we are to simply sit back, let them slam us and THEN we fight back." Tell that to a cop when he asks you way you hit that guy for no reason at all. "I knew he was going to attack me, so I attacked him 1st". "Ok, buddy, let's go downtown". I'm pleased to see that MoveOn.org backed Ned against 'Hoe' Lieberman. MoveOn.org is becoming one of the people's gardian angels. Barry |
|
12 Aug 06 - 02:09 PM (#1808190) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: dick greenhaus And, while I have very little love for the Democratic party, it's insane to say that there's no difference between them and the Republicans. Just consider the Clinton years in contrast to the W years. And, BTW, equating terrorism with Fascism or Communism is equally insane: the latter two are philosophies and political systems; the latter is a methodology. Is it colder in our bedroom or on Tuesday? |
|
12 Aug 06 - 02:25 PM (#1808198) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: Amos Bush administration accused of politicizing terror threat Allan Woods, CanWest News Service Published: Saturday, August 12, 2006 WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is under fire for trying to make political gains from the foiled London terror plot after Vice-President Dick Cheney, one day before and in full knowledge of the impending arrests, warned that the electoral defeat of a pro-Iraq war Democrat would only encourage "al-Qaida types." Cheney's comments about the defeat of Senator Joseph Leiberman, a Democrat from Connecticut, are being viewed as a crass political effort to rehabilitate President George W. Bush and his Republican party in the eyes of the American public in the lead-up to the country's mid-term elections this November. "There is nothing Americans want more than to win the war on terror," read the lead editorial in Thursday's New York Times, which was critical of Cheney. "It comes like a punch to the gut, at times like these, when our leaders blatantly use the nation's trauma for political gain. We never get used to this." ... A |
|
12 Aug 06 - 04:53 PM (#1808291) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: Alaska Mike I always thought Joe Lieberman looked & sounded like the father figure in the old TV series "ALF". I'm glad the war-mongering, neo-con schmuck is gone. I believe he's the reason that the 2000 election was close enough for the Bushies to steal. Maybe he can find a nice Republican district in Texas to run in come November. Mike |
|
12 Aug 06 - 06:36 PM (#1808363) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: Greg F. Cheney's comments about the defeat of Senator Joseph Leiberman,... are being viewed as a crass political effort to rehabilitate President George W. Bush and his Republican party ..." And it'll be a SUCCESSFUL crass political effort, too! Just you wait & see. "No one ever went broke underestimating the taste or intelligence of the American people." -H.L. Mencken "It comes like a punch to the gut, at times like these, when our leaders blatantly use the nation's trauma for political gain. We never get used to this." People do indeed get used to it, especially from Republicans. If they didn't get used to it, they presumably wouldn't fall for it over & over again.The Times must be forgetting the Nixon campaigns, the Reagan Campaign, the "October Surprise", Dumbya's Campaigns, the Swift Boat Liars, & all. |
|
12 Aug 06 - 06:41 PM (#1808366) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: Peace "and they might send you swimming with the fishes off Kennebunkport" Fancy, you Yanks. What the hell ever happened to the trunk of an old car and a verticle trip down the river? |
|
12 Aug 06 - 06:41 PM (#1808367) Subject: RE: BS: So how about that Connecticut election? From: Peace Or even vertical! |