No, we all know he wouldn't have.

Joe is carrying Republican water, bigtime!

Can you imagine how devastating it would be for Congressional R's if the Dem Party were to get behind Murtha? But then there is Joe "Our Troops Must Stay!" Lieberman.
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

m-

I am not going to delete comments here unless they're spam or patently offensive. Your comment above crossed the line, IMO.

Comments like that are neither useful nor humorous. There's need to talk about a candidate's family.
 

Third party, you annoy me. Mrs. Lieberman is in the business of pharmaceutical lobbying and her husband is on the receiving end. She may not be Tipper Gore, but when you play the game you make yourself fair game. *If* she were more of a private individual like Joan or Jackie Kennedy, I would say it is offensive. *If* she were not involved in the very business her husband helps write extremely corrupt laws for it would be offensive. That is what I was referring to. Crossing the line in my view would be attacking a *private* individual who creates no potential conflict of interest when it comes to the husband's lawmaking.
Lieberman is a Republican and the only elephant in that soiree last night that I know of. Trust me, Joe is willing to get down in the dirt and fling it. What he did last night was extremely offensive, in case you are not aware of how he used Obama to implicitly endorse him.
But this is your blog & I would rather you'd express disagreement than outright delete or label something offensive right off the bat. Please delete this too, because censorship is such a turn on. It really helps debate.
 

I didn't read your comment M but I'll take Thirdparty's word on it. There are plenty of areas which do cross the line.

This isn't a debating club for your entertainment. Few bloggers do this for money but provide a meaningful service of information in one convenient spot. And this is one of the better one's for a Senate race I've seen.

Consider more as being a guest in someone's home. If you're being loud and obnoxious your host has every right to ask you to tone it down, or even leave.
 

Scarce, I am not going to argue with you on that one, because I will not post here anymore. It's not worth it, to consider what Third Party finds offensive or not.

I however do think you should take a minute to consider here about blogs and "debating clubs," since you are dead wrong. Moulitsas, Firedoglake etc and other bloggers are successful because they provide an open forum and debate. They acknowledge their success is due to their readers. Comments tend not to be deleted unless other readers are attacked in some direct way (which happens). In other words, there is always room for disagreement. Blogs that should have "community" appeal, go belly up, because of a bunch of arbitrary lists of do's & don'ts. Please don't assume I don't have
experience in the blogosphere.

But with your comments, Scarce, I now see that this blog is not meant to foster community among Lamont supporters. I "provides information."
 

Again, this is not a business. This is a blog in support of Ned Lamont and will presumably disappear after he's elected. It's only purpose is to serve as a vehicle for his election, not for yours or my own gratification.

And you're quite wrong about other blogs. Comments deemed racist, bigoted, in some way "over the line" are routinely troll rated into oblivion at the Daily Kos. While at wingnnut sites the mere mention of something against the prevailing Republican orthodoxy will get you banned permanently, such as Bush maybe not being that great or Hillary might not be so bad,etc. The point is every blog is self-policing to a greater or lesser extent.
 

Who said anything about racist or bigoted? Who said anything about self-gratification? Blogs that are successful and self-policing exercise a certain amount of wisdom and tolerance and restraint of blogger ego. Wingnut blogs are not even on the scope here. But feel free to imitate: Post, 0 comments.