All Hank, all the time.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You can say this about just about every single election. One candidate loses, because he doesn't capture as many voters.

In this instance, the GOP candidate is such a yutz that I will be amazed if he wins.

As opposed to the utterly unqualified and shrill Lamont? The biggest voting bloc in CT is independents. And Dems are notoriously less loyal than Republicans. The GOPers will vote for the shmuck, and Lieberman and Lamont will split the rest. The shmuck wins.

The only question is whether the GOP can funnel enough dough to Joe to make it happen, and whether Joe has the staying power to see it through. He's going to have a lot of lucrative lobbying gigs dangled in front of him by the Dems. Maybe even some appointment in a Dem administration...

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
I will be supporting the Republican in the race. Since Joe is so selfish and puts himself above his party, our guy may have a chance. Joe will split the Demo vote giving the Repub a victory.

Who is it? I'd vote for Rowland. I'm an old skool Rowland supporter.

Either way, win win.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You can be so square.

I'm just, as I think PJ O'Rourke said, "a liberal who's been mugged by Uncle Sam."

Actually, I'm with you on all the social isssues. I just don't want any taxes or bureaucrats around, and I don't want to pay for anyone's health care, social services, bridges to nowhere or expensive wars of choice.

[Adder]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I'm already hearing moderate Clinton Republicans bitching about "not having a choice." When the middle class doesn't have a choice these days, it defaults to the GOP, because, if you're going to get shit for your vote, you might as well get shit with lower taxes.

Who in the middle class got lower taxes from Bush?

ETA: I wouldn't expect much to come from Kos's call to arms. I think you will see the Clintons and the like mostly staying out of it, and a good bit of the non-party money still finding its way into Joe's coffers.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sgtclub


Still, whatever his rationale for running, if his constituents vote him in that's all that counts. The parties both suck.

2. Parties are the bane of effective governance. When someone takes office they should stop being a member of a party. They represent the total of the constituency.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Who is it?

He's been thrown out of CT casinos for card-counting under a fake name.

• Top Republican officials in Connecticut are calling on candidate Alan Schlesinger to consider dropping his Senate bid after allegations of a gambling scandal, but Schlesinger maintained he has done nothing wrong and will not withdraw.
  
  Schlesinger, a former six-term state representative, is the GOP candidate in the increasingly convoluted race for Connecticut’s Senate seat — one that includes incumbent Democrat Joseph I. Lieberman facing a significant challenge in the Aug. 8 primary from Democratic anti-war candidate Ned Lamont, and the recent entry of state Republican Rep. Diana S. Urban as an independent anti-war candidate.
  
  The allegations -- reported by Hartford Courant columnist Kevin F. Rennie and first published by National Journal's Hotline on Call, to which Rennie is a contributor -- came from the former commanding officer of the state police's casino licensing and operations union. Bradley Beecher alleged Schlesinger was a card counter who plays under an assumed name and has been thrown out of the Mohegan Sun casino in Uncasville, Conn.
  
  Schlesinger denounced Beecher as a “disgruntled employee and said he had done nothing wrong. “It’s all innuendo.”
  
  Schlesinger, who describes himself as a “recreational gambler,” said he gave a false name in obtaining a promotional player’s card at the casino to protect his privacy.
  
  He also said that counting cards was “using your brain” and not illegal.
  
  “I didn’t break any laws,” he said.
  
  In the wake of the report, however, popular Republican Gov. Jodi Rell asked Schlesinger to seriously reassess his candidacy, state party Chair George D. Gallo said. “Alan Schlesinger’s got a little bit of an issue here,” Gallo said.
  
  Gallo said the allegations raised serious issues, including whether Schlesinger had evaded taxes on his winnings. Schlesinger said he never gambled enough to make money, and that he did not think he gambled in Connecticut more than once a year.
  
  Schlesinger, who served as mayor of Derby for two terms in the 1990s, easily won the party’s endorsement at its convention last month.
  
  Gallo said the situation should resolve in the next several days, but that as of late Wednesday the Republican Party did not have an obvious successor should Schlesinger withdraw from the race.

link

[Insert your own socking joke here.]

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Adder
Who in the middle class got lower taxes from Bush?

You don't "get" lower taxes. You avoid higher taxes, which you'll most certainly get from Dems, as predictably as you would clap on a headful of cheap x in Tijuana.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I'm just, as I think PJ O'Rourke said, "a liberal who's been mugged by Uncle Sam."

Actually, I'm with you on all the social isssues. I just don't want any taxes or bureaucrats around, and I don't want to pay for anyone's health care, social services, bridges to nowhere or expensive wars of choice.

Regardless of where you stand on the issues, your dismissal of Lamont as shrill -- you do realize the guy is a cable-TV executive, right? -- and his supporters and whackjobs is about the squarest thing anyone has said on this board in months and months. You sound positively Broderesque. Really, if anyone comes over here from the FB you're going to lose your cynical hipster credibility. But don't worry -- we won't tell. Still, time for some soul-searching -- you're too young to sound this old.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
He's been thrown out of CT casinos for card-counting under a fake name.

card counting story

Why would anyone care if he counts cards?

And I have never understood how card counting could remotely be called cheating.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Adder
I think you will see the Clintons and the like mostly staying out of it, and a good bit of the non-party money still finding its way into Joe's coffers.

Senators Reid and Schumer had this to say this a.m.:

• “The Democratic voters of Connecticut have spoken and chosen Ned Lamont as their nominee. Both we and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) fully support Mr. Lamont’s candidacy. Congratulations to Ned on his victory and on a race well run.
  
  “Joe Lieberman has been an effective Democratic Senator for Connecticut and for America. But the perception was that he was too close to George Bush and this election was, in many respects, a referendum on the President more than anything else. The results bode well for Democratic victories in November and our efforts to take the country in a new direction.”

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Adder
Why would anyone care if he counts cards?

And I have never understood how card counting could remotely be called cheating.

It isn't cheating. It's really just doing the same thing the house always does, using the changiing probabilities to its advantage. They just call it cheating because card counters tend to win more.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Regardless of where you stand on the issues, your dismissal of Lamont as shrill -- you do realize the guy is a cable-TV executive, right? -- and his supporters and whackjobs is about the squarest thing anyone has said on this board in months and months. You sound positively Broderesque. Really, if anyone comes over here from the FB you're going to lose your cynical hipster credibility. But don't worry -- we won't tell. Still, time for some soul-searching -- you're too young to sound this old.

C'mon, cut Sebby some slack. He's still in the midst of Infant-Related Sleep Deprivation, and he's practicing all of his Future Grumpy Dad moves, like growling at the television and standing in the front yard shaking his fist at the local Street Urchins.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I have seen a number of the photos. It appears that one Reuters photographer was recycling and photoshopping (hi Penske!) his work. Reuters has canned him.

More than one photographer has been named.

The guy did things like using pictures of the same woman and destroyed house twice in two weeks,

It was not two pics of the same woman in front of the same home used two weeks apart. It was the same woman, in front of two different houses, both of which were alleged to be hers, used two weeks apart. Big difference.

What I don't understand is why Right Blogistan is so exercised, except that they obviously need something to be excited about given the clusterfuq that is the Middle East and this'll have to do.

The issue that has many right-wing blogs in a fury is not so much the shit-poor photoshopping by the photographer. The larger issue, which Reuters and the AP are not addressing, is the allegation that Hizbollah and these photgraphers are staging "massacres."

aV

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by taxwonk
It isn't cheating. It's really just doing the same thing the house always does, using the changiing probabilities to its advantage. They just call it cheating because card counters tend to win more.

Yup. It's cheating only because the casinos say it's cheating, and when you're tossed off the floor of the Stardust onto the strip, you realize that's all that really matters.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
On Iraq, Lieberman was the opposite of courageous:

"Yet as the public mood changed, Lieberman stood still. While professing unhappiness with what he called a handful of "mistakes," he held fast to his basic support of Bush’s policies. He offered no proposals to stabilize Iraq, reduce anti-American hostility worldwide, or spare the lives of more soldiers. Even his "last ditch" speech on Sunday aimed to shore up wobbly voters understated the gravity of the Iraq debacle. He showed no inclination to rethink the administration’s false framework of either “stay the course” or “cut and run.”"

link

Remember all this talk in 2008 - when Hillary, who has virtually taken the exact same stance as Lieberman - is your Presidential nominee