All Hank, all the time.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
[Penske] We are Americans!!! We have a military option everywhere. The Baby Jesus Gunfighter said so when He made Glorious Leader Bush our Heroic President and when He created the Second Amendment!! [/Penske]

confridential to Penske: no offence.

What does "confridential" mean? Is that more politicals of personal destruction?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
What does "confridential" mean? Is that more politicals of personal destruction?

It means: No offence.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I guess that depends on who's running against her, and maybe also who controls Congress. With a Democratic Congress, I'd be more likely to vote for a Republican President, and vice versa.

Now I've heard everything. I may need to retire again if you are going to keep up this campaign of lies. Stop hating America! Come home, Ty.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The CIA told them the information was no good. So there was no "good faith belief." They sourced it to the British for this reason. That shows an intent to mislead. This has nothing to do with being firm, or worrying about polls.

The British are our allies. It is a special relationship. Why do you hate the Brits? Why do you hate our allies? All the admin was doing was attempting to get the most info possible, doing its diligence, as the kids say, just in case the CIA dropped the ball, like on 911, although in fairness that was mostly due to Clinton's evisceration the Agency during his 8 years of denigrating the office of the President. And the Gorelick wall, of course.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Two minutes on Google led me to The Smoking Gun, which says that Michael Moore claimed he's not a Democrat in 2004, though he registered as one twelve years earlier.

• Prior to last week's Washington, D.C. premiere of "Fahrenheit 9/11," Michael Moore denied that the new documentary represents his de facto endorsement of John Kerry. "I am an Independent," the filmmaker told reporters. "I'm not a member of the Democratic party."
  
  Which is not exactly correct.
  
  New York City Board of Elections records show that Moore, 50, registered to vote in Gotham in 1992, checking off "Democratic" as his party affiliation (below you'll find a copy of his original registration form). He listed his address as the swanky Upper West Side building where he owns a multimillion dollar condominium (Moore's office is on West 57th Street). The filmmaker's New York registration remains active, though he has not voted since an October 2001 Democratic runoff election.
  
  Now here's the good part: Moore is simultaneously registered to vote in Michigan, where registrants aren't even given the option of party affiliation (so he's not an Independent there either). According to Antrim County records, Moore registered last April from his lakefront spread in northern Michigan, where he reportedly splits his time, but has yet to vote in Michigan. He transferred his drivers license to Michigan from New York around the same time, though Moore has a Volkswagen Beetle registered from his Manhattan home.
  
  We're sure this is some kind of innocent mix-up, that Moore forgot to cancel his New York registration before signing up in Michigan.

I'm not a Republican. I went Independent the first time I voted for Perot.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I gave up this battle long ago. Trust me, they don't know and if they did they wouldn't care.

I don't think the two of you know. I essentially live in the upscale part of the ghetto, although I am probably middle class.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Despite all the grassroots crap, it's just another example of a non-politico with a lot of money buying himself an election (a la Corzine)

Lamont funded 60% of his campaign finances from his own pocket. To quote Ed Crane from Cato, "Without Ned, Ned loses"

Right. I thought so. Typical of these namby-pamby silver spooned limo liberals.........they want the government to take our money, the hardworking middle class small businessmen, to redistribute to further their warped social agenda, while they sit back at the country club on their billions, sipping gin and tonic juice and laughing at us.

Fuck Ned Lamont and Fuck Howard Schultz. I'll never drink starbucks again, you socialist douchebag!!!!!

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
2, except for the courageous bit. Courageous? Principled, maybe, but not courageous.

He knew it would make him vulverable from the left and in his own primary. Once it became apparant that he might get a challenge on the left he still stuck by his guns. He risked his seat for what he though was right and it will probably cost him his seat. If that isn't courageous I don't know what it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
He knew it would make him vulverable from the left and in his own primary. Once it became apparant that he might get a challenge on the left he still stuck by his guns. He risked his seat for what he though was right and it will probably cost him his seat. If that isn't courageous I don't know what it.

If all that were true, and if you set aside Penske's view that he's a shoe-in for the general election, it might be considered courageous. But that's not Joe. Joe never thought he was vulnerable from the left. He thought he was presidential material in 2004. He hasn't had a hard election since 1988. It's pretty apparent that he never took Lamont seriously, and never thought he'd have to run for the seat. The most obvious evidence of this is that he never bothered to set up a GOTV ground operation, and then had to scramble at the last minute to pay people to do what other campaigns have volunteers do. He was taking it all for granted.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You can spin that in the other direction. It's just as accurate to say that because of the selfishness of several grass roots lunatices who do not represent the general consensus of CT voters, the Dem party is fucked and will likely lose a seat in the Senate.

Exactly. In response to Sgt.'s comment, races for assembly seats (congress, senate etc) are all about majorities. The individuals are less important and people seem to forget that.

When you vote in such an election the most important issue you are voting for is which party are you helping put in the majority. Lieberman, by running as an independent, is helping the Republicans retain the majority. Therefore he is helping the Republican cause. If he truly believes in Democrat principles he is doing the worst thing he can do to promote those principles.

Traitors always do more damage to their own cause than the enemy could ever hope to do. One should always work with traitors (if they are on the other side) because they are huge unexpected gifts but one should never respect them.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
Exactly. In response to Sgt.'s comment, races for assembly seats (congress, senate etc) are all about majorities. The individuals are less important and people seem to forget that.

When you vote in such an election the most important issue you are voting for is which party are you helping put in the majority. Lieberman, by running as an independent, is helping the Republicans retain the majority. Therefore he is helping the Republican cause. If he truly believes in Democrat principles he is doing the worst thing he can do to promote those principles.

Maybe he believes in the principle of principled government? Or freedom? Or supporting our commander in chief during wartime? Or the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state? If so, he owes it to the country and to history to retain his seat, because the Dems don't believe in any of those principles.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
My party right or wrong is rather a foolish position to take, given the venality and idiocy running rampant in the leadership of both sides. I personally would count a willingness to buck the apparatchik as at least a possibility of integrity.

This is not my party "right or wrong". When voting for Senators it is about majorities not individuals. If you think the Senate would be better off with a certain party in the majority, but you vote for a Senator in the other party because you like them, you are the ultimate political idiot.

[Spanky]

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

• Many liberals started off supporting the war and believed for years that American efforts would somehow conjure a stable democracy out of Iraq’s hot and violent recesses. It took years of bloody photos on the front pages, bleak assessments from generals, and rising regional instability before doubt and fear hardened into distrust and frustration. But for nearly a year now, more than 60 percent of the public has disapproved of President Bush's handling of the Iraq war.
  
  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.”
  
  Though Lieberman's piety and stern talk of principles have always played well with pundits who celebrate centrism and bipartisanship as ends in themselves, they came to strike Connecticut voters as arrogance. Lieberman’s stubborn consistency fed the impression not of a brave maverick but of a moralist too smug and proud of his cross-party ties to contemplate change, even in the face of America’s worst foreign policy debacle in decades.

link

The article is a long way of saying that the person does not like Liebermans positions. He is trying to say that because he does not like the guys positions he can't be courageous. People from one political stripe to another don't like to call the enemy courageous, even when they are. That is what cost Bill Maher is job. Suicide bombers are courageous (stupid, misguided and evil - but courageous). Lieberman has been courageous.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
This is not my party "right or wrong". When voting for Senators it is about majorities not individuals. If you think the Senate would be better off with a certain party in the majority, but you vote for a Senator in the other party because you like them, you are the ultimate political idiot.

I agree with this. In 2000 I hated Slade Gorton with a passion. I still do and hope he burns with the jihadis. Further I was sort of okay with Cantwell (hi Uknowwho), but when push came to shove, I couldn't risk that W wouldn't have the Senate at his disposal, so I held my nose and voted for Gorton.

[Spanky]

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

A yut who would other wise have no chance in hell if it weren't for Liebermann. The only way this guy could possibly win is if the loser of the Democrat primary stayed in the race - and that is what has happened.