Disclosure: I worked for the Lamont campaign doing web design and production and some writing for the official blog (from 9/5/06 to 11/07/06).

Sunday, October 08, 2006


The Politics of Sticks and Stones

CGG gets Lieberman's emails. Funny.

Almost as funny as outfitting Young Republicans in light-bulb hats. But not quite.

And, on an only slightly related note, not nearly as funny as this:

Ned Lamont has to make a pledge that if he is elected that he will not support Frist or any other Republicans for the leadership of the Senate. Then he has to challenge alleged Democrat Joe Lieberman to make the same pledge. If Joe Lieberman is a real Democrat he will, of course, make the pledge. If he won't it will show that he can't be trusted to remain a Democrat if he wins the election. Will he risk angering Republicans by being the Democrat he claims he is or whill he slap Democrats in the face, even those prepared to vote for him next month to please Republican voters?

Some Connecticut voter has to get Ned Lamont to make the pledge. He has to be asked to make the pledge so Joe Lieberman can't whine about a double standard. If Lamont goes first there is no way for him to do that. Connecticut voters have to then challenge alleged Democrat, Joe Lieberman to make this pledge to Democratic and independent voters. You would think it would be the easiest possible thing in the world for a genuine Democrat to do.
hmmm. Frist is retiring this year. And if the republicans maintain their majority in the senate, democrats have no say in who the republican leadership is. If the republicans lose the senate, the democrats have no say in the minority leadership. Back to remedial civics for you
energyanalyst, if Lieberman could be the swing vote this could be crucial. And if you read how it was written, I didn't give Lieberman wiggle room. Back to remedial reading for you.

Besides, there are many more political implications in the questions than just the control of the Senate. Loyalty to Democratic Voters being the most important of all.
Actually, I believe the oath a senator takes speaks of his obligation to protect and defend the constitution of the US. Party is a nice thing, but really the obligation is to do what's right for the COUNTRY. Not the party, not the state, THE COUNTRY. Lieberman should profess his allegiance to a bunch of senators who effectively abandoned him--yeah right
Wanna go for that civics lesson now?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"Lieberman should profess his allegiance to a bunch of senators who effectively abandoned him--yeah right"

So true, energyanalyst. Lieberman will rightfully embrace us, the true friends who have supported him, financially and otherwise, all this time. It is truly sad when a good Republican has to remain in the closet for so long, if you know what I mean.
Crumbling Support for GOP
All year, CQPolitics.com’s ratings of House and Senate races have been a virtual one-way street: Almost all rating changes show improved chances for the Democrats to capture seats — a reflection of the year’s toxic political environment for the Republicans who control both chambers of Congress and the White House.

Reynolds lags behind Davis after connection to Foley scandal

CNN summary of this week's Time magazine cover story
But after controlling both houses of Congress for most of President Bush's six years in office, the GOP has a governing record that has dismayed those who fantasized about what Newt Gingrich and his band of rebels might accomplish.


To win votes back home, lawmakers in session have been spending like sailors on leave, producing the biggest budget deficits in history. The party's approach to national security has taken the country into a war that most Americans now believe was a mistake and that the government's own intelligence experts say has shaped "a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives."

The current crisis arrived with a sex scandal that has muddied one of the GOP's few remaining patches of moral high ground -- their defense of family values and personal accountability.

Though Hastert and other Republican leaders say they heard last fall about the "over-friendly" approaches of a not-so-secretly gay congressman to a 16-year-old former page, they insist they never imagined anything like the more graphic instant messages that subsequently came to light.

But shouldn't they have gotten chills at learning that a 52-year-old man had sent a teenager a creepy e-mail asking for a "pic of you"? Certainly, the page understood what the emails meant, which is why he forwarded it in August 2005 to the office of Louisiana Congressman Rodney Alexander, who had sponsored him for the page program.

"This freaked me out," the teenager wrote. "Sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick sick."

Lawmaker Saw Foley Messages In 2000
A spokeswoman for Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) confirmed yesterday that a former page showed the congressman Internet messages that had made the youth feel uncomfortable with the direction Foley (R-Fla.) was taking their e-mail relationship.

A source with direct knowledge of Kolbe's involvement said the messages shared with Kolbe were sexually explicit, and he read the contents to The Washington Post under the condition that they not be reprinted.

Kolbe once invited four former pages to make use of his Washington home while he was out of town, according to an instant message between Foley and another former page, Jordan Edmund, in January 2002.

[Kolbe spokeswoman] Cline said one of the youths invited was a former page of Kolbe's.

Cline said one of the youths invited was a former page of Kolbe's. Because the congressman frequently travels on weekends, either to his Arizona ranch or abroad, the house is often available to friends, constituents, staffers and former staff members, such as a former page, she said.

Kolbe, the only openly gay Republican in Congress, is retiring at the end of the year.

How many Republicans does it take to screw up our country?

Put that sign next to those light bulb boys...
energyanalyst, one obligation, that to the voters doesn't negate obligations of someone asking Democrats for THEIR nomination. The Democratic nomination doesn't belong to members of other parties it belongs to DEMOCRATIC voters.
you decide what you want. A party clone, or a senator that recognizes that his obligation is to all of his constituents and the constitution
energybanalist -- Yes, we don't won't a party clone -- that would be Lieberman, the Republiclone. And yes, we want a senator who recognizes his obligations to all of his constituents and the constitution, that would not be someone who ignores the CT constituents re: health care, war, torture, after-morning pill, Iraq, etc. and votes for ex post facto, anti-habeus laws which are unconstitutional.

I'm sorry you can't post at your own website since you don't believe in discourse with the constituents.
Seems to me like a clone is fine with you as long as you agree with him. I'd rather have someone who actually bothers to think (very rare for a KOS reader like you AH). I do not believe that we are under any obligation to extend constitutional protections to people who are not citizens. I am certain that there is no reason to provide them to our battlefield enemies. What would your solution be (oh right you dont have one, you just dont like any that have been offered by anyone else) No worries though AH, if the laws are unconstitutional there shouldnt be any problem getting that reversed, right? I'm sure your friends in the ACLU will be working overtime trying to make you and me safe from terrorists.

For the record, I have never been to Joe's site. It is so much more entertaining to read and respond to all the misinformation here
Perhaps you should immerse yourself in some case law re: who is protected under the constitution.

Glad you can be entertained -- you seem so humourless.
Funny how I think that may be your forte (yet it isnt that easy to imagine you with a forte). I do know that Judge Gleeson said exactly what I did back in June, but perhaps you'll enlighten us.
Perhaps you should do more reading of SCOTUS opinions. And yes, I do have a forte, but I think it is beyond your ken.
And now we know what it is. You know how to use a thesaurus. What a crafty devil. Remind me not to play scrabble with you.
While you are reviewing your SCOTUS opinions AH, take a look at article I of the constitution. I think is says something about the suspension of habeas. Perhaps someone of your ken will enlighten us. LOL. Just what the world needs another dim witted lawyer.
Yup, I just turned around, took my copy of the Constitution off the shelf and looked again at the habeas section -- and geeee, energybanalist, it still says what I thought it said -- so your point is?
Perhaps you wittle eyes got tired toward the end AH. Did you read this part:?

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

Now perhaps we can quibble as to whether a war is an issue of public safety, but since I was in the WTC on 9/11 I'd say it is. Of course reasonable people may differ reasonably, but that wouldnt be the democrat way now would it?
@energybanalist -- were you also in Vietnam, WWII, Beirut, WTC in '93, on the Cole? I don't quibble with the Constitution, sorry, what was your point?
Post a Comment

<< Home