Fitzy!

Whoa!!
FDL!!

I am so peeved about a new mailing I got yesterday from my own local republican thug-Randy Kuhl. A total hit piece against Eric Massa, saying that Massa will cut your social security. At the bottom it says something like I can’t afford to vote for Liberal Eric Massa.
I called local republican comm and complained and Kuhl’s office. Told them I thought they had more class than this… (so that might have been a strech…)

fitz

ruffian at 2 — that’s the sort of thing that could use a letter to the editor response in your local paper as well — or calls into local talk radio. Folks need to hear that other people are disgusted by this tactic — it helps to get something in print on it, if you have time to do one today.

EPU’d but you need to see this!

This is the single most damning video of Lieberman I have ever seen.

And I have seen a lot of damning video of Lieberman.

It is a comparison of Nixon’s rhetoric on Vietnam and Joe Lieberman’s statements on Iraq.

Please go watch and forward to everyone you know:

http://www.nedlamont.com/page/invite/nixonian

Here’s a corrected link:

http://www.nedlamont.com/page/invite/nixonian

Re LTE: I am closed out for another 30 days (local paper policy) but I am going to write the publisher of the paper that sponsored the last debate where Randy whined about misquotes and negative campaigning. Even if I can’t get published again (btw Kuhl’s staff knew me by name so my complaint did not get a lot of sympathy but I still felt good about saying I thought Randy had more class than this)but I hope to get publisher’s ire up about the hypocrisy.
note I said I hope….

**g***

Ruffian at 7 — good on ya!

Whats the poll numbers update? Anyone have a good site that tracks multiple polls?

I found a few but that had good links, but lots of stale or missing data.

Matt Stoller is reporting the following at MyDD:

Oh yeah, and hired gun PR flack Mike McCurry was just hired as the CBS election night Democratic analyst. Don’t worry, it’s all going to be fine.

VA-Sen: George F. Allen vs. James H. “Jim” . . . ?

Have y’all seen this? WTF Grrrr…

http://www.dailykos.com/

gleex @ 9

Whats the poll numbers update? Anyone have a good site that tracks multiple polls?

I found a few but that had good links, but lots of stale or missing data.

Here’s one

http://www.pollster.com/

and…

http://www.cqpolitics.com/

*xyz @ 6

Here’s a corrected link:

http://www.nedlamont.com/page/invite/nixonian

Oooh, most excellent and damning.

And a reminder, folks, click all the way through to YouTube and recommend the video. I was the only who had out of 40 (at the time) views.

SharonW @ 13

*xyz @ 6

Here’s a corrected link:

http://www.nedlamont.com/page/invite/nixonian

Oooh, most excellent and damning.

And a reminder, folks, click all the way through to YouTube and recommend the video. I was the only who had out of 40 (at the time) views.

Lamont’s campaign should tighten this up a little bit and make it into a TV commercial. Everyone remembers Richard Nixon’s failure in Vietnam.

Tying Lieberman to Nixon will resonate with people across the political spectrum and it will also appeal to those critical low-information Democrats who haven’t learned enough about Joe Lieberman yet.

Thank you Cozumel, much appreciated.

Richard Nixon means nothing to today’s voters. Many of them weren’t even around when he was president. Move on and nail Joe on being Joe.

Biggus Diggus @ 16

Richard Nixon means nothing to today’s voters. Many of them weren’t even around when he was president. Move on and nail Joe on being Joe.

I disagree. There are millions of Connecticut voters my age or older who remember. And some of them, like me, were in Vietnam in 1969-70, when Nixon was lying, and we were there for the Watergate hearings. We remember. Run the ad.

Biggus at 16 — not true when you are talking about senior citizens, who do vote regularly. And who have substantial memories of both Nixon and the attempt to corrupt the political process in a win-at-all-costs Presidential campaign. But Joe’s mendacity needs to rest on Joe’s actions — the comparison to Nixon is merely one device among several to make that stick in the minds of voters. Personally, I prefer the comparison to the lies and machinations of George Bush and Dick Cheney — especially since Joe has been their go-to guy for far too long.

Now I just have to figure out how the prizes will be divided among the two categories: between Bush and Lieberman, which one deserves denial and which one deserves brainless, do you think?

Christy: Is that a rhetorical question?

:-)

I hope Northern Virginians get after their election officials PRONTO about the voting machines that haven’t room for Jim Webb’s last name. WTF?

*xyz,
Awesome stuff, thanks for the link. Equivocating SOB needs to be sent to Faux analyst hell.

billmon
has a great Lixon pic.

” NYT: Lieberman made negative comments about fellow Dems three times as often as positive comments. ”

via rawstoy.com:

http://tinyurl.com/ykxn8c

Christy Hardin Smith @ 18

Biggus at 16 — not true when you are talking about senior citizens, who do vote regularly. And who have substantial memories of both Nixon and the attempt to corrupt the political process in a win-at-all-costs Presidential campaign. But Joe’s mendacity needs to rest on Joe’s actions — the comparison to Nixon is merely one device among several to make that stick in the minds of voters. Personally, I prefer the comparison to the lies and machinations of George Bush and Dick Cheney — especially since Joe has been their go-to guy for far too long.

Yes, the comparisons with Bush/Cheney are also important. But Lamont’s campaign (and last night’s debate) have already made the link clear. So why go back to Nixon?

IMO, Ned is closing the loop — Nixon (liar about the war, impeached, resigned in disgrace, lost the war) = Bush (liar about the war, impeachable, should resign in disgrace) = Lieberman (liar about the war, enabler of those who should disgraced)

This is a nice summary of polls as well, though the sites noted above are better and have a ton more data.

It looks like the Allen race in VA is the one that is going back to the terrible incumbent.

The numbers for Lamont don’t look to good, whats the deal he is getting 35% of the R vote, and 22% dem or something? I gotta check out what sort of indepent vote he is getting.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 18

Biggus at 16 — not true when you are talking about senior citizens, who do vote regularly. And who have substantial memories of both Nixon and the attempt to corrupt the political process in a win-at-all-costs Presidential campaign. But Joe’s mendacity needs to rest on Joe’s actions — the comparison to Nixon is merely one device among several to make that stick in the minds of voters. Personally, I prefer the comparison to the lies and machinations of George Bush and Dick Cheney — especially since Joe has been their go-to guy for far too long.

All due respect Christy, but there are lot of us who are NOT senior citizens that were alive and kicking and even registered to vote during the Nixon years. I mean 1968 was only 38 years ago and ‘72 only 34. 34 plus 18= Not a senior citizen yet. Don’t put us in the home prematurely. :)

Money Squabbles in Connecticut
NYT’s Jennifer Medina blog, Ms. Medina’s reporting still getting hammered. FDL is very well represented in the comments.

dratty @ 25

Christy Hardin Smith @ 18

Biggus at 16 — not true when you are talking about senior citizens, who do vote regularly. And who have substantial memories of both Nixon and the attempt to corrupt the political process in a win-at-all-costs Presidential campaign. But Joe’s mendacity needs to rest on Joe’s actions — the comparison to Nixon is merely one device among several to make that stick in the minds of voters. Personally, I prefer the comparison to the lies and machinations of George Bush and Dick Cheney — especially since Joe has been their go-to guy for far too long.

All due respect Christy, but there are lot of us who are NOT senior citizens that were alive and kicking and even registered to vote during the Nixon years. I mean 1968 was only 38 years ago and ‘72 only 34. 34 plus 18= Not a senior citizen yet. Don’t put us in the home prematurely. :)

Yep. Perhaps our Christy doesn’t trust anyone over . . . uh . . . 48?? ;>)

Coz @ 11

Funny, here in California they can fit all of Arnold’s name on one of those displays. Are they trying to make us believe that “Arnold Schwarzenegger” is shorter than “James H. ‘Jim’ Webb”? They need to fix their machines. Better yet, lose them completely.

If a candidate is down by double digits with less than two weeks to go- he’s gonna need something pretty big to turn the race around.

If last night’s debate is to be the vehicle- then what matters is how it is reported- because all the “swing voters” are gonna see are the headlines and the two minute clip on the evening news.

How did the local papers headline the debate? That will probably tell the story.

dratty at 25 — lol — I know. But the senior citizens crowd is a huge, reliable voting block — and one with which every candidate tries to make headway during the last weeks of a campaign. It’s just speculation on my part, but I’d say that would be one target audience with a commercial like this — that and the mid-range age group (of which I am almost a part these days thanks to my last birthday…) of which I have no doubt CT has many folks, just like WV does. I have a number of relatives who fought in Vietnam, one of whom still deals with Agent Orange exposure problems to this day — and I have no doubt that there are a LOT of folks in CT who have the same sorts of relative issues and memories from their 30s forward. It’s just that seniors tend to vote in droves, which was why I concentrated on them first.

P J Evans @ 28

Coz @ 11

Funny, here in California they can fit all of Arnold’s name on one of those displays. Are they trying to make us believe that “Arnold Schwarzenegger” is shorter than “James H. ‘Jim’ Webb”? They need to fix their machines. Better yet, lose them completely.

Maybe if they just took Allen off they’d have some room LOL

If Richard Nixon and Vietnam mean nothing to today’s voters– then shame on them and our educational and political system.

George Santayana: “Those
who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Biggus Trollus

*xyz at 33 — not so much. It was a legitimate issue to raise. Let’s not be so fast to call troll, shall we — debate is good, echo chambers breed the Bush Administration. *g*

Ran across this from a Google search, gives some good info on why the Larouchers are so miffed regarding Lieberman. Some good Lieberman quotes in there that I’ve tried to run down with no luck so far.

No love there for Liarman, for sure.

trailng edge baby boomers united to Dump Hump Joe!

Christy Hardin Smith @ 30

dratty at 25 — lol — I know. But the senior citizens crowd is a huge, reliable voting block — and one with which every candidate tries to make headway during the last weeks of a campaign. It’s just speculation on my part, but I’d say that would be one target audience with a commercial like this — that and the mid-range age group (of which I am almost a part these days thanks to my last birthday…) of which I have no doubt CT has many folks, just like WV does. I have a number of relatives who fought in Vietnam, one of whom still deals with Agent Orange exposure problems to this day — and I have no doubt that there are a LOT of folks in CT who have the same sorts of relative issues and memories from their 30s forward. It’s just that seniors tend to vote in droves, which was why I concentrated on them first.

And seniors are among those most likely to have difficulty letting go of Lieberman.

We need to help them to let go by reminding them of another reprehensible politician, Nixon, with whom they are extremely familiar.

If made into a commercial, this video could really help seniors to move away from Lieberman in droves.

ARRRRRRRRGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
Chris-for-Lieberman Jansing doing J-Lie’s shilling for him.

punaise @ 36

trailng edge baby boomers united to Dump Hump Joe!

Just for you ; )

There are some of us who could forgive you for trying to run your candidates on the coattails of the Grim Reaper, for reducing your party‘s existence to “Death and Attacks Us.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15400201/

P J Evans @ 28

Coz @ 11

Funny, here in California they can fit all of Arnold’s name on one of those displays. Are they trying to make us believe that “Arnold Schwarzenegger” is shorter than “James H. ‘Jim’ Webb”? They need to fix their machines. Better yet, lose them completely.

Actually, the Republicans are cleverly manipulating the voting with the machines (again). Used to be a given that having a nickname (in quotes) on the ballot was worth a one-or-two percent bump due to low-information voters preferring a “friendly” candidate.

Jansing/MSNBC shill-for-Lieberman keeps repeating that 17 pts down Quinnipiac poll as the latest. Now talking to some newspaper guy named Ray? He says it’s not the war anymore, it’s the economy….

*xyz @ 37

Christy Hardin Smith @ 30

dratty at 25 — lol — I know. But the senior citizens crowd is a huge, reliable voting block — and one with which every candidate tries to make headway during the last weeks of a campaign. It’s just speculation on my part, but I’d say that would be one target audience with a commercial like this — that and the mid-range age group (of which I am almost a part these days thanks to my last birthday…) of which I have no doubt CT has many folks, just like WV does. I have a number of relatives who fought in Vietnam, one of whom still deals with Agent Orange exposure problems to this day — and I have no doubt that there are a LOT of folks in CT who have the same sorts of relative issues and memories from their 30s forward. It’s just that seniors tend to vote in droves, which was why I concentrated on them first.

And seniors are among those most likely to have difficulty letting go of Lieberman.

We need to help them to let go by reminding them of another reprehensible politician, Nixon, with whom they are extremely familiar.

If made into a commercial, this video could really help seniors to move away from Lieberman in droves.

Also, this commercial would get tons of free media attention. If Lamont’s campaign ran it a few times, it would definitely get spotlighted on the evening news in CT, and it would start a discussion.

Anytime we can get Lieberman, Iraq, Nixon and Vietnam mentioned together in the media, it hurts Lieberman terribly.

Democrats Urge Their Flush Candidates to Share the Wealth

http://tinyurl.com/y5b4ay

Web activists have a plan for Democrats

http://tinyurl.com/y774dw

Based on what I’ve seen the last several minutes on MSNBC, I’m concluding the reason Rove’s sitting back quiet is he’s got MSNBC doing his GOTV effort for him.

Maybe after the announce downsizing there, these were the people who kept their jobs by promising a Rethug win…. /snark

Re marksb’s 109 at last thread regarding the economy we are told is going so well. Yep, today the Times has “This time, It’s Not the Economy,” by Eduarto Porter. Porter must be living outside the Continental United States or believes what the goopers are telling him.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 30

dratty at 25 — lol — I know. But the senior citizens crowd is a huge, reliable voting block — and one with which every candidate tries to make headway during the last weeks of a campaign. It’s just speculation on my part, but I’d say that would be one target audience with a commercial like this — that and the mid-range age group (of which I am almost a part these days thanks to my last birthday…) of which I have no doubt CT has many folks, just like WV does. I have a number of relatives who fought in Vietnam, one of whom still deals with Agent Orange exposure problems to this day — and I have no doubt that there are a LOT of folks in CT who have the same sorts of relative issues and memories from their 30s forward. It’s just that seniors tend to vote in droves, which was why I concentrated on them first.

No prob Christy, I was just funnin with ya.

Cozumel @ 39

punaise @ 36

trailng edge baby boomers united to Dump Hump Joe!

Just for you ; )

There are some of us who could forgive you for trying to run your candidates on the coattails of the Grim Reaper, for reducing your party‘s existence to “Death and Attacks Us.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15400201/

s(t)ay “a course is a course” till hoarse, till hoarse

dratty @ 46

Christy Hardin Smith @ 30

dratty at 25 — lol — I know. But the senior citizens crowd is a huge, reliable voting block — and one with which every candidate tries to make headway during the last weeks of a campaign. It’s just speculation on my part, but I’d say that would be one target audience with a commercial like this — that and the mid-range age group (of which I am almost a part these days thanks to my last birthday…) of which I have no doubt CT has many folks, just like WV does. I have a number of relatives who fought in Vietnam, one of whom still deals with Agent Orange exposure problems to this day — and I have no doubt that there are a LOT of folks in CT who have the same sorts of relative issues and memories from their 30s forward. It’s just that seniors tend to vote in droves, which was why I concentrated on them first.

No prob Christy, I was just funnin with ya.

Me to. ;)

Also want to note that Christy’s previous thread, “The Heart of the Matter” was one of her all-time greats, maybe the best. Deserves to be Spotlighted to all local/national media –so if you haven’t read it, go back, then spread the word.

Senator Kerry just sent me a request for a contribution to the following candidates’ final media buys: Ford, McCaskill, Menendez, Webb: “Pull out all the stops.” He might try that himself.

In fact, five years ago, after Saddam ejected the UN inspectors, John McCain and I gave up on containment and introduced the Iraqi Liberation Act, which, when it became law, made a change of regime in Baghdad official US policy. You might therefore say that, when it comes to Iraq, President Bush is just enforcing the McCain-Lieberman policy.

From a conference speech given by Joe.

Kerry’s got the right senate races targeted- dems need to win three out of that four or goopers keep the senate.

scarecrow @ 48

Also want to note that Christy’s previous thread, “The Heart of the Matter” was one of her all-time greats, maybe the best. Deserves to be Spotlighted to all local/national media –so if you haven’t read it, go back, then spread the word.

Agree completely. Excellent post, Christy.

Totally agree on “Heart of the Matter”.

jeffreyw @ 50

In fact, five years ago, after Saddam ejected the UN inspectors, John McCain and I gave up on containment and introduced the Iraqi Liberation Act, which, when it became law, made a change of regime in Baghdad official US policy. You might therefore say that, when it comes to Iraq, President Bush is just enforcing the McCain-Lieberman policy.

From a conference speech given by Joe.

WOW!! That may be the find of the week. This is Joe’s war. He asked for it; he got it; it’s his. Let’s get this to the Lamont campaign.

scarecrow @ 54

jeffreyw @ 50

In fact, five years ago, after Saddam ejected the UN inspectors, John McCain and I gave up on containment and introduced the Iraqi Liberation Act, which, when it became law, made a change of regime in Baghdad official US policy. You might therefore say that, when it comes to Iraq, President Bush is just enforcing the McCain-Lieberman policy.

From a conference speech given by Joe.

WOW!! That may be the find of the week. This is Joe’s war. He asked for it; he got it; it’s his. Let’s get this to the Lamont campaign.

hang that albatross on Joe tout de suite!

scarecrow @ 54

jeffreyw @ 50

In fact, five years ago, after Saddam ejected the UN inspectors, John McCain and I gave up on containment and introduced the Iraqi Liberation Act, which, when it became law, made a change of regime in Baghdad official US policy. You might therefore say that, when it comes to Iraq, President Bush is just enforcing the McCain-Lieberman policy.

From a conference speech given by Joe.

WOW!! That may be the find of the week. This is Joe’s war. He asked for it; he got it; it’s his. Let’s get this to the Lamont campaign.

I checked out the link. The immediately surrounding text of the same speech is worth reading too. Here it is with emphasis added:

“I respectfully suggest that the nations of Europe define their positions on Iraq independently and affirmatively – not in reaction to America or its President. As you know, I am a Democrat. In fact, I’m a Democrat seeking to replace George Bush in the Oval Office. But he and I agree on the danger posed by Saddam and the need to do something soon to eliminate that danger to us, to you, and most immediately to his neighbors in the Arab world as do most other Democrats, Republicans, and Independents in the US. In fact, five years ago, after Saddam ejected the UN inspectors, John McCain and I gave up on containment and introduced the Iraqi Liberation Act, which, when it became law, made a change of regime in Baghdad official US policy. You might therefore say that, when it comes to Iraq, President Bush is just enforcing the McCain-Lieberman policy.

The facts here are stark and even more clear after Secretary Powell’s chilling and convincing testimony at the UN on Wednesday. For twelve long years, Saddam has flaunted every attempt to get him to keep his promise to disarm and instead has continued building weapons of mass destruction. If we shrink from challenging his defiance, we will not only leave a ticking time bomb ticking, we will have undermined the remaining credibility of the United Nations, and further diminished the power of NATO to protect the peace of the world.”

jeffreyw @ 50

In fact, five years ago, after Saddam ejected the UN inspectors, John McCain and I gave up on containment and introduced the Iraqi Liberation Act, which, when it became law, made a change of regime in Baghdad official US policy. You might therefore say that, when it comes to Iraq, President Bush is just enforcing the McCain-Lieberman policy.

From a conference speech given by Joe.

and i believe joe even includes a big lie (in bold).

“As you know, I am a Democrat. In fact, I’m a Democrat seeking to replace George Bush in the Oval Office. “

(from the quote above)

Yep- Joe’s been running for the White House lo these many years tryin to establish turf as a centerist with a tough approach to national defense- this actually explains EVERYTHING.

OT- I drove under a bridge overpass on a main highway this morning with a 15ft. long sign in clear block letters saying “Vote For Change. Vote Republicans Out Nov. 7″.

Not sure if that kind of thing is allowed though it was a sort of private bridge overpass with no other signs on it. An awful lot of peeps are going to see it for now.

scarecrow @ 54

jeffreyw @ 50

In fact, five years ago, after Saddam ejected the UN inspectors, John McCain and I gave up on containment and introduced the Iraqi Liberation Act, which, when it became law, made a change of regime in Baghdad official US policy. You might therefore say that, when it comes to Iraq, President Bush is just enforcing the McCain-Lieberman policy.

From a conference speech given by Joe.

WOW!! That may be the find of the week. This is Joe’s war. He asked for it; he got it; it’s his. Let’s get this to the Lamont campaign.

Anyone with contacts in Lamont’s campaign? Now is the time to use them. Send this quote and the link to Lamont’s people. They could definitely use it.

Clinton signed the bill making regime change official US policy- but that didn’t mean INVASION- it meant overt and covert acts to soften Saddam’s regime and enable a revolution in Iraq.

punaise @ 55

scarecrow @ 54

jeffreyw @ 50

In fact, five years ago, after Saddam ejected the UN inspectors, John McCain and I gave up on containment and introduced the Iraqi Liberation Act, which, when it became law, made a change of regime in Baghdad official US policy. You might therefore say that, when it comes to Iraq, President Bush is just enforcing the McCain-Lieberman policy.

From a conference speech given by Joe.

WOW!! That may be the find of the week. This is Joe’s war. He asked for it; he got it; it’s his. Let’s get this to the Lamont campaign.

hang that albatross on Joe tout de suite!

It’s a beaut!

Then we can hang in on MacaCain, too.

Traitors.

Even more surreal is his claim that he and McCain introduced it. Go here and see that they were just 2 of the 8 co-sponsors. Trent Lott introduced it.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/…..02525:@@@P

for those of you contending over the relevance of Lieberman/Nixon, i trust you have seen the graphic at Billmon’s place. if not, go to the Whiskey Bar and revel (SPEW ALERT!). And of course he’s writing even better than before, so that’s a special treat….

scarecrow @ 54

jeffreyw @ 50

In fact, five years ago, after Saddam ejected the UN inspectors, John McCain and I gave up on containment and introduced the Iraqi Liberation Act, which, when it became law, made a change of regime in Baghdad official US policy. You might therefore say that, when it comes to Iraq, President Bush is just enforcing the McCain-Lieberman policy.

From a conference speech given by Joe.

WOW!! That may be the find of the week. This is Joe’s war. He asked for it; he got it; it’s his. Let’s get this to the Lamont campaign.

Double wow. Hnag that on his neck, and put the nixon video on every station every hour.

Duplicitous asshat. “we’ve never been stay the course, George”

Kos is rightfully pissed. I am excerpting his post in its entirety because I’m sure all here will find it of interest:

—–

“This is a great way to build netroots support for 2008.

The New York Times is picking up on Chris Bowers’ brilliant “Use It Or Lose It” campaign, which seeks to force comfortable Democratic incumbents to donate 30% of their useless war chests in order expand the field of competitive seats. The Times leads with Martin Meehan, a safe, Massachusetts Democrat with $4.8 million in the bank. He’s donated $355,000 to the DCCC.

Now, Meehan won in 2004 with nearly 70% of the vote. This year is a Democratic dream and he lacks a serious challenger. A 30% donation from him would be $1.44 million, more than enough to fund a couple smaller House races and offer the Democrats a cleaner, less compromised majority. But he has no intention of giving more money. In part, that’s because he dreams of eventually running for Senate. In part, it’s because he doesn’t see why he should have to. Kerry’s spokesman, David Wade, sounds similarly entitled:

Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, came under fire last week when it was pointed out that he had contributed only $15,000 this year to the party’s senatorial committee. Heyjohn.org, whose creator has remained anonymous, highlights the fact that Mr. Kerry has $14 million in his campaign accounts.[…]

“Cowards can hide behind anonymous Web sites,” Mr. [David] Wade said, “but Democrats out in the country, party leaders and real net-roots activists know how hard John Kerry has fought to win these elections.”

Bowers doesn’t look that anonymous to me. Nor am I. But to Wade, here’s a hearty “fuck you”. We have long memories.

Here’s the bottom line — safe Republican incumbents are ponying up in an effort to keep control of Congress — to the tune of $2.3 million more than Democrats. It’s why they win — they work harder and sacrifice more than our safe, lazy, entrenched incumbents who would rather stew in the minority than actually extend themselves out a bit.

Ask any campaign around the country at this stage what they would prefer — a campaign visit from Kerry (or anyone else save the Big Dog), or cold hard cash, and guess what they’ll answer? Money and volunteers will help us close this election strong. Not campaign appearances that is more about Kerry building support and chits for 2008 as it is about helping our guys this year.

Ante up. It’s that simple. Those of us in the rank and file have been doing so, taking money out of our household budgets. We’re expected to sacrifice, yet these incumbents act like it’s an insult to their honor to expect the same out of them?

And insulting people like Bowers doing heroic work to change the stultified culture in DC Democratic establishment circles isn’t the best strategy. “

ACTION ITEM: Ask Boxer to Support Lamont

I believe, as some others do, that Barbara Boxer may be someone we can persuade (guile) into doing the right thing. Boxer’s progressive instincts are pretty strong, and she actually might cease her fence-sitting if enough of our voices are raised.

Don’t you think it’s worth a try? Here is my letter to Boxer, and her contact info beneath. Please feel free to base a letter of your own on what I’ve done. If you don’t have time for that, please call her at the number below!

Dear Senator Boxer:

We consider you to be a champion of progressive causes, and we’ve generously contributed to your “PAC For A Change” in the past. But we were appalled to see you campaigning with Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut primary. As one of the Senate’s most corrupt and dishonest entrenched encumbents and a tireless Bush apologist, Lieberman epitomizes everything you should be fighting against — that is, if you really do believe your own words on the importance of combatting DC’s culture of corruption. In Connecticut, you even had the gall to lie to a reporter about Lieberman’s disgusting stance against emergency contraception.

Now, we’re dismayed to find you fence-sitting in the general election, when Democratic nominee Lamont so badly needs and deserves your support. Lamont couldn’t possibly be running a better campaign, and that race is winnable. All that’s needed is visible and vocal support from key Democrats like you to put him over the top.

Senator Boxer, we are huge fans of yours, and despite your recent mistakes, it’s not too late to do the right thing. A true progressive, a great honest man worthy of your support, is running against one of the most corrupt politicians in Washington. This is your time, this is the fight you should fight. And we will be right there beside you. Please campaign with Lamont, make advertisements with him, and do everything you possibly can to help him defeat Lieberman. It’s the right thing to do.

Yours Sincerely,
name withheld

As promised, here is Boxer’s contact info:

DC voice: (202) 224-3553
DC FAX: (202) 228-0426
CA FAX: (916) 448-2563
(415) 956-6701
(213) 894-5042
(559) 497-5111
(619) 239-5719
(909) 888-8613

TPM has the new Mason-Dixon polls for the all-important Senate races: TN–Corker over Ford by two; MT–Tester over Burns by three; MO–McCaskill over Talent by three. (On 23 Oct, TN–Allen at 47 and Webb at 43)

Looks as if dems are going to take over five governorships, five senate seats- and twenty or so house seats. The importance of the house seats is obvious- but the governor’s mansions are important as well- as are the state legislatures. I have heard that dems expect to make progress with state legislatures- but I haven’t seen any numbers on “takeovers”..

We’re getting closer and closer to “reapportionment” time- and the state houses will be critical. Has anyone seen any polling data?

Great comment/quote, xyz at 10:14.

rwcole @ 61

Clinton signed the bill making regime change official US policy- but that didn’t mean INVASION- it meant overt and covert acts to soften Saddam’s regime and enable a revolution in Iraq.

it was still a stupid and dangerous bill that should never, imo, become law.

Item: I’ll assume HS civics/history has for some time included mention of the singular USPrez ‘resignation’ and maybe Watergate (can you say ’slush fund’?)

Item2: Jim Van Der Hiel and AdNags between them used the term ‘Republican GOTV ‘MACHINE” about six times on their Sun. TalkingHead appearance. NOT ‘GOTV effort’ groundgame, etc. Made me think ’twas sorta Freudian slippage, but what do I know? Now, a vote machine hasn’t got enough space for the challenger’s full name? S.Holmes – ‘The game is afoot.’

selise- you may be right- it was a different time- Saddam had kicked the inspectors out and wouldn’t allow em back in as I recall- the ‘getting tough” position was ascribed to by both goopers and dems- Clinton certainly didn’t resist the policy as I recall.

Shared sacrifice.

Whether or not Kerry and others donate cold hard cash to these campaigns, we will/have done so.

Shared sacrifice, they spout the words when attacking Bush on Iraq [THE issue despite the Liebermedia’s effort to change the subject].

Shared sacrifice. So far Kerry’s not sacrificed, nor the other safeseat Dems. They have worked to build their 2008 campaign quid pro quos.

The time for sacrifice is now. And as others have noted that means cold, hard cash.

We will remember.

Sally @
49

Senator Kerry just sent me a request for a contribution to the following candidates’ final media buys: Ford, McCaskill, Menendez, Webb: “Pull out all the stops.” He might try that himself.

I didn’t see the Kerry request but i think it’s good advice for us. I have pretty much done it already this week with a bennie each for Ford, McCaskill and Webb. The first two are polling even with their opponents and we need Webb to beat Allen. We need a strategy for our last minute contributions and they need to be made this week, really, no later than tomorrow to be of any use in this election. I don’t know if it will make any real difference but it seems like a coordinated strategy in the tight races is the smart thing to do.

rwcole @ 72

selise- you may be right- it was a different time- Saddam had kicked the inspectors out and wouldn’t allow em back in as I recall- the ‘getting tough” position was ascribed to by both goopers and dems- Clinton certainly didn’t resist the policy as I recall.

Whoa, Nellie! Saddam didn’t kick the inspectors out then and he didn’t kick them out this last time either as Cheney said on his last MTP appearance

“it was still a stupid and dangerous bill that should never, imo, become law.”

Completely agree. This has to be left to the U.N.

Reckless rhetoric about “regime change,” does nothing but crush reformers in these countries and incentivize the dictators to acquire WMD as a “poison pill.”

Coz–Yeah? I can’t remember very clearly how the inspectors came to leave– do you?

rwcole @ 77

Coz–Yeah? I can’t remember very clearly how the inspectors came to leave– do you?

The inspectors were having trouble getting in to some of the sites so Clinton pulled the plug

xyz (65), I posted my irked 49 about Kerry asking for contributions (”Pull out the stops”)after reading the article earlier that you linked to at 65 which made me think Kerry is being a miser while hitting the roots up for hard-earned cash.

Question for whomever will take it–Is winning the House more important for the Dems than winning the Senate? I know, I know but we may not win both.

From Fair:
“The story centers on the Iraq crisis that broke out on December 16, 1998.Richard Butler, head of the United Nations weapons inspection team in Iraq,had just released a report accusing the Iraqi regime of obstructing U.N.weapons checks. On the basis of that report, President Clinton announced hewould launch airstrikes against Iraqi targets. Out of concern for theirsafety, Butler withdrew his inspectors from Iraq, and the U.S.-Britishbombing proceeded.”

“… to the degree that we brook no dissent within the Democratic Party, and demand fealty to the one, ‘true’ progressive vision for the country, we risk the very thoughtfulness and openness to new ideas that are required to move this country forward. When we lash out at those who share our fundamental values because they have not met the criteria of every single item on our progressive ‘checklist,’ then we are essentially preventing them from thinking in new ways about problems. We are tying them up in a straightjacket and forcing them into a conversation only with the converted. Beyond that, by applying such tests, we are hamstringing our ability to build a majority. We won’t be able to transform the country with such a polarized electorate.”

Cozumel @ 78

rwcole @ 77

Coz–Yeah? I can’t remember very clearly how the inspectors came to leave– do you?

The inspectors were having trouble getting in to some of the sites so Clinton pulled the plug

clinton pulled them (which he shouldn’t have done – since it was supposed to be a UN operation) so that he could commence bombing.

scott ritter has discussed this at length, especially prior to run up to iraq 2003 invasion. will look for links if you wish.

Coz/Patick- thanks

B.Obama @ 81

“… to the degree that we brook no dissent within the Democratic Party, and demand fealty to the one, ‘true’ progressive vision for the country, we risk the very thoughtfulness and openness to new ideas that are required to move this country forward. When we lash out at those who share our fundamental values because they have not met the criteria of every single item on our progressive ‘checklist,’ then we are essentially preventing them from thinking in new ways about problems. We are tying them up in a straightjacket and forcing them into a conversation only with the converted. Beyond that, by applying such tests, we are hamstringing our ability to build a majority. We won’t be able to transform the country with such a polarized electorate.”

And if we are going to make a fetish of bi-partisanship, it helps to wear a blindfold.

Sally @ 79

xyz (65), I posted my irked 49 about Kerry asking for contributions (”Pull out the stops”)after reading the article earlier that you linked to at 65 which made me think Kerry is being a miser while hitting the roots up for hard-earned cash.

Question for whomever will take it–Is winning the House more important for the Dems than winning the Senate? I know, I know but we may not win both.

I think winning big (like, say, a 20 seat majority) in the House is preferable to winning only slightly – all we can do – in the Senate. A large majority in one house will allow the leadership to keep party discipline and not have to worry about a few “moderates” jumping ship.

So I would favor putting more money into the newly competitive House races as opposed to throwing even more money at the Senate races.

Sorry for the OT, but I can’t hold back my amusement:

Brian Williams (on MSNBC’s daylong election special) just said “during this ‘throw the rascals out’ theme of the ‘06 elections”

He is quoting the lyric from “Have You Had Enough?”

This is good.

Jacqrat @ 86

Sorry for the OT, but I can’t hold back my amusement:

Brian Williams (on MSNBC’s daylong election special) just said “during this ‘throw the rascals out’ theme of the ‘06 elections”

He is quoting the lyric from “Have You Had Enough?”

This is good.

no, that’s great! hope you just emailed him a link to the mp3!

There’s plenty wrong with the democrats- but a good win would mitigate a lot of it.

selise @ 70

rwcole @ 61

Clinton signed the bill making regime change official US policy- but that didn’t mean INVASION- it meant overt and covert acts to soften Saddam’s regime and enable a revolution in Iraq.

it was still a stupid and dangerous bill that should never, imo, become law.

agreed, selise.

Question for whomever will take it–Is winning the House more important for the Dems than winning the Senate? I know, I know but we may not win both.

A win in either house, brings with it subpoena power and control of the legislative agenda.

Everyone except Barrons’ thinks Dems will win the House of Representatives. The House can vote to impeach with a simple majority. Conviction requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate. Winning the House would position Dems to cripple the WH and GOP attempts at legislation.

If the Senate is split on a 50 50 vote, DeadEye Cheney casts the deciding vote. In this scenario, I would expect Lieberman4Lieberman to abandone his promise to caucus with the Dems, thus giving control over to the GOP. Lieberman4Lieberman wants his seniority and the GOP will give it to him in a heartbeat, if it means control of the Senate.

There has been a lot of speculation that if Dems win control of the Senate, 51 – 49, Lieberman will resign to replace Rumsfeld as Sec. of Defense. That allows the Republican Governor of CT, Jodi Rell, to appoint a Republican to replace Lieberman. That effectively eliminates the Democratic control of the Senate.

Seems to me that holding the senate is better than holding the house- if dems had a choice in the matter- because of the senate judiciary committee.

It will be very tough, however, to win the senate- even ignoring the potential Lieberman game playing that John writes about.

The house is not a sure thing- but it’s probably at least two in three bet- while the senate is one in four. Lamont is probably about one in ten- but that’s an empirical issue- someone could perhaps check on the historic track record of senate candidates down by double digits with two weeks to go- I doubt if the success rate is any better than that- so if dems can’t control the senate without Lamont- it’s a long uphill grind.

MayDaze @
85

Sally @ 79

xyz (65), I posted my irked 49 about Kerry asking for contributions (”Pull out the stops”)after reading the article earlier that you linked to at 65 which made me think Kerry is being a miser while hitting the roots up for hard-earned cash.

Question for whomever will take it–Is winning the House more important for the Dems than winning the Senate? I know, I know but we may not win both.

I think winning big (like, say, a 20 seat majority) in the House is preferable to winning only slightly – all we can do – in the Senate. A large majority in one house will allow the leadership to keep party discipline and not have to worry about a few “moderates” jumping ship.

So I would favor putting more money into the newly competitive House races as opposed to throwing even more money at the Senate races.

MayDaze: you may be right, although i’ve split up my money (2 house races and 4 senate races). it’s too bad we can’t get better intel or find a way to coordinate what we do. but then again, following howie klein’s lead may be the way to coordinate.

Christy’s offering the Worst.Congress.Ever upstairs.

….”When we lash out at those who share our fundamental values because they have not met the criteria of every single item on our progressive ‘checklist,’ then we are essentially preventing them from thinking in new ways about problems…..”

Bold is mine.

Barack, when you see someone “lashing out” at “our fundamental values,” please by all means, let us know.

Last I heard, the writ of habeas corpus was a fucking “fundamental value.”

Watching MSNBC decision 2006. Brian Williams just aired footage of (surprise) Hastert walking into a closed Ethics Hearing – fade to Tweety who is still looking for an “October scratch that November surprise.”
Hello? The Speaker of the House just walked into a hearing about his possible coverup of a sexual predator!

I think there are quite a few 2nd and 3rd tier House seats in play that aren’t on anyones radar. Here’s one and I’m sure there are others.

Tessa Hafen

http://www.pollster.com/house.php#NV-02

Muzzy @ 59

OT- I drove under a bridge overpass on a main highway this morning with a 15ft. long sign in clear block letters saying “Vote For Change. Vote Republicans Out Nov. 7″.

Not sure if that kind of thing is allowed though it was a sort of private bridge overpass with no other signs on it. An awful lot of peeps are going to see it for now.

Thanks for the cheerful report and hope you live in CT…sounds like the intrepid Freeway Blogger’s influence keeps spreading…..a good thing in these unsettling times.

Patrick 4/4 @
84

B.Obama @ 81

“… to the degree that we brook no dissent within the Democratic Party, and demand fealty to the one, ‘true’ progressive vision for the country, we risk the very thoughtfulness and openness to new ideas that are required to move this country forward. When we lash out at those who share our fundamental values because they have not met the criteria of every single item on our progressive ‘checklist,’ then we are essentially preventing them from thinking in new ways about problems. We are tying them up in a straightjacket and forcing them into a conversation only with the converted. Beyond that, by applying such tests, we are hamstringing our ability to build a majority. We won’t be able to transform the country with such a polarized electorate.”

And if we are going to make a fetish of bi-partisanship, it helps to wear a blindfold.

and a clothes pin on your nose.

if the house goes democratic i could live with bi-partisanship. the senate majority leader and minority leader could go to speaker pelosi and say: “madam speaker, we have agreed on articles of impeachment for the president and vice president and we are ready to support you bringing this to a vote.” that would show America that it was time to become united again.

MayDaze (85) and John Casper (90), thank you. A Lieberman win is a bigger threat than the elected Dems seem to realize or they would be “pulling out all the stops” as Kerry wants us to do. Why they let the bad guys like Joe and Dick have the upper hand is quite beyond me and that’s what they’re doing by supporting Joe or hanging back from supporting Ned. The Clintons and Gore need to show up in Connecticut.

I have no idea what “bi-partisanship” means. If it means “horse trading” (OK I’ll vote for your bill if you’ll vote for mine)- well then it’s a necessary and important part of the political process.

Most pople know that when you go to the polls- you aren’t going to have a chance to vote for a “dream candidate” in most elections. You are going to vote for the person who will do the least damage.

jeffreyw @
50

In fact, five years ago, after Saddam ejected the UN inspectors, John McCain and I gave up on containment and introduced the Iraqi Liberation Act, which, when it became law, made a change of regime in Baghdad official US policy. You might therefore say that, when it comes to Iraq, President Bush is just enforcing the McCain-Lieberman policy.

From a conference speech given by Joe.

I hate to say this, but if this was during the 2004 presidential election, the 5 years ago reference is to legislation during Clinton administration. Doesn’t change the fact that making overthrow a national policy is idiocy and that Joe’s got a lot of responsibility for the Iraq debacle. But we should be clear eyed about the situation to avoid a Gotcha that let’s Joe off the hook.

Sparcatus @ 101

jeffreyw @
50

In fact, five years ago, after Saddam ejected the UN inspectors, John McCain and I gave up on containment and introduced the Iraqi Liberation Act, which, when it became law, made a change of regime in Baghdad official US policy. You might therefore say that, when it comes to Iraq, President Bush is just enforcing the McCain-Lieberman policy.

From a conference speech given by Joe.

I hate to say this, but if this was during the 2004 presidential election, the 5 years ago reference is to legislation during Clinton administration. Doesn’t change the fact that making overthrow a national policy is idiocy and that Joe’s got a lot of responsibility for the Iraq debacle. But we should be clear eyed about the situation to avoid a Gotcha that let’s Joe off the hook.

i’m pretty sure it’s from feb 2003 and referencing 1998. yes during clinton’s presidency, and yes it was a bad bill – see my (and other’s) comment above.

scarecrow @
23

Christy Hardin Smith @ 18

Biggus at 16 — not true when you are talking about senior citizens, who do vote regularly. And who have substantial memories of both Nixon and the attempt to corrupt the political process in a win-at-all-costs Presidential campaign. But Joe’s mendacity needs to rest on Joe’s actions — the comparison to Nixon is merely one device among several to make that stick in the minds of voters. Personally, I prefer the comparison to the lies and machinations of George Bush and Dick Cheney — especially since Joe has been their go-to guy for far too long.

Yes, the comparisons with Bush/Cheney are also important. But Lamont’s campaign (and last night’s debate) have already made the link clear. So why go back to Nixon?

IMO, Ned is closing the loop — Nixon (liar about the war, impeached, resigned in disgrace, lost the war) = Bush (liar about the war, impeachable, should resign in disgrace) = Lieberman (liar about the war, enabler of those who should disgraced)

There is even more to it than that. The Nixon administration isn’t just some distant historical parallel or some chance circumstantial similarity.

Many of the people we are fighting now were part of the Nixon administration, or are the children or protoges of people who were. It isn’t like we’re fighting an eerily similar enemy, it’s the same damned “Imperial Presidency” gang, still at it. Cheney, Rove, Bush, the Cubans in Florida, the Ratfuckers, even the secret slush fund paid out in cash right before the election, the race bating, Rumsfeld, secret bombings, warrantless wiretaps, CIA infighting,…this isn’t a new battle, it’s a continuation of the battle which has been going on unabated for decades.

*sigh*

–MarkusQ

P.S. Pop quiz…anybody remember the name of the woman who’s office was bugged in the bungled burglary?

MarkusQ @ 103

Pop quiz…anybody remember the name of the woman who’s office was bugged in the bungled burglary?

i fail…. but, i’m curious – will you tell me the answer?

I’d hazard some O’Brien staff, including perhaps phone operators.

Biggus Diggus @ 16

Richard Nixon means nothing to today’s voters. Many of them weren’t even around when he was president. Move on and nail Joe on being Joe.

You’re wrong I couldn’t even vote when Tricky Dick was prez and I remember him and his gang. The fact that a couple of his minions the vile liddy and the faux christian colson are still around and stalwarts of the rethug party is evidence that nixon wasn’t that long ago.

Still a lot of folks living in a dream world about what the ‘Democrat’ Party as exemplified by The Boxer Short, Kerry, Schumer, Emmanuel and all the rest of the DCCC crowd are all about. They luvs them some ‘Liarmann’…they hate the netroots. Whoops, almost fergot ‘Big Dog’ and his bitch; they campaigned fer ‘Rape Gurney’ Joe did they not.

Do you see them up in CT campaigning for the Democratic Party nominee?

Nope.

And you ain’t gonna neither.

That’s why I wrote ‘Why we must move ahead.’ months ago.

Where you’all been.

There’s a lotta trash in the Democratic Party we gotta throw out.

I hope we start with ‘Liarmann’.

Whether we do or we don’t I say the trash removal process needs to start Nov 8.

A.Citizen @ 107

Still a lot of folks living in a dream world about what the ‘Democrat’ Party as exemplified by The Boxer Short, Kerry, Schumer, Emmanuel and all the rest of the DCCC crowd are all about. They luvs them some ‘Liarmann’…they hate the netroots. Whoops, almost fergot ‘Big Dog’ and his bitch; they campaigned fer ‘Rape Gurney’ Joe did they not.

Do you see them up in CT campaigning for the Democratic Party nominee?

Nope.

And you ain’t gonna neither.

That’s why I wrote ‘Why we must move ahead.’ months ago.

Where you’all been.

There’s a lotta trash in the Democratic Party we gotta throw out.

I hope we start with ‘Liarmann’.

Whether we do or we don’t I say the trash removal process needs to start Nov 8.

according the boston globe from last month, kerry will be in ct tommorrow for ned. credit where credit is due.