All Hank, all the time.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


As I said before, Lieberman failed to line up campaign staff until very recently. That is not the action of someone who is preparing to take a political hit for his courage. It's the action of someone who is out of touch.

As for these other people whose articles you post, believe it or not, and don't puke when I say this, but I am much more interested in what you have to say than what they have to say.

He clearly did not see Lamont coming. But because he was unprepared, does not mean that his position on Iraq did not cost him before Lamont. Prior to this debacle you see Lieberman's position of gaining accolades from the pundits and from the administration as benefitting him politically and therefore his position brought him more benefit than costs. However, I don't think you appreciate the abuse one takes when they go against their party. As someone who often bucks his party a lot, I may put more emphasise on that type of action than it deserves.

BTW: one reason I think Lieberman was unprepared for Lamont is the fundraising aspect. The one place incumbants trump everyone else is their ability to raise money (especially from PACs) and that makes them think their invulnerable (which it usually does). What they forget is that a wealthy opponent totally negates that huge advantage. Its not just that wealthy candidates can bring their own money, but the fact that they can bring their own money, makes it easier for them to raise money. I know it sounds crazy, but I have experienced this first hand, people love to donate to self financed candidates. I always thought people would take the attitude of "if they can pay for it - why should I donate" (which is my attitude) but generally the attitude is just the opposite. I find it easier to raise money for Steve Poizner and the Governator than any other candidates, and they don't really need the money. I find this very unexpected and frustrating.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
What color is the sun on your world? Lieberman has been fawned over by Washington before, during and after the 2004 campaign. Every Senator lives in a bubble, but his was especially thick. Lieberman was so out of it that he initially attacked Lamont as a Republican:

• Lieberman's new ad... same DC consultant hit man, Carter Askew.... It portrays Lamont as a whining, hop-about baby who doesn't want to run against Lieberman because he previously gave Lieberman a campaign contribution. "But I agree with the Republicans 80 percent of the time!" cartoon Lamont protests in a shrill toddler's voice....
  
  Lieberman... [claims that Lamont] he sides with right-wing Republicans on the issues most important to Connecticut Democrats these days.... [T]the Lieberman team has pursued a strategy of relentlessly labeling Lamont the Republican. Why? Because 12 years ago, as a Greenwich selectman, he and other Democrats voted alongside Republicans on some non-ideological town issues.

If you like, I'll find the ads on YouTube. That's not courage. That's obtuseness.

Here's Josh Marshall on Lieberman, at TIME.com:

• The Lieberman camp says Joe stuck to his guns on Iraq notwithstanding the political perils or the unpopularity of the position in his party. But that doesn't quite cut it. True, he had to know he wasn't winning any points with the broad mass of Democrats around the country. And his embitterment against his party for his ignominious defeat in the 2004 presidential primaries probably made him more willing to court that displeasure. But I don't think Lieberman really understood the peril he was courting back home. Because if he had, he would have been more prepared for it. And he wasn't.
  
  Most politicians keep close tabs on what's happening back home and work assiduously to keep lines of communications open with the political players in their states or districts. They may get into trouble for any number of reasons. But if they're good at what they do, they don't get caught off guard. And no one was more caught unawares by what happened in the last two months than Joe Lieberman.
  
  Many pundits claim that Lieberman's defeat is a replay of the way Democrats tore themselves apart over Vietnam. It's an appealing thought for Republicans. And it has got nice drama. But those pundits are either being disingenuous or are caught in a time warp. Democrats are actually fairly united on the Iraq War in their opposition to it — which is actually where most Americans are right now. And though many Senators are not as full-throated in their opposition as the base of the party, you don't see any successful challenges being made against other Senators who aren't ready to bring the troops home. . . .
  .
  
  Lieberman got in trouble because he let himself live in the bubble of D.C. conventional wisdom and A-list punditry. He flattered them; and they loved him back. And as part of that club he was part of the delusion and denial that has sustained our enterprise in Iraq for the last three years. In the weeks leading up to Tuesday's primary, A-list D.C. pundits were writing columns portraying Lieberman's possible defeat as some sort of cataclysmic event that might foreshadow a dark new phase in American politics — as though voters choosing new representation were on a par with abolishing the Constitution or condoning political violence. But those breathless plaints only showed how disconnected they are from what's happening in the country at large. They mirrored his disconnection from the politics of the moment.

As I recall, he also voted against the Patriot Act renewal, until he voted for it.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I didn't say just a few bombs. I did say tactical nukes, as I think that if we use nukes, and I think that should be on the table here, they should be used judiciously. As for other types of bombs, I would go with this part of my earlier post:

"and as much of their military apparatus as bombing can take out".

We don't necessarily need to limit that to a few or pinpoint accuracy, although I do think some measure of accuracy would be needed to take out Ahmadinejad and the mullahs, but I would be willling to roll the dice on Israeli intelligence pinpointing where he would be for some speech, maybe in front of their parliament, with enough lead time to let us do what we need to.

Spanky -- since you are sane, and since you apparently need something to talk about, maybe you could comment on this. Do you advocate nuking Iran? Do you think that we have a realistic chance of targetting and eliminating Iran's nuclear capabilities and programs with a quick set of bombing raids? Do you think we could pull off another invasion?

Put more simply -- as I asked before --- do we have a military option in Iran?

I am not advocating putting soldiers in Iran. Yet.

Good. Because we would need to depend entirely on the Coalition of the Willing and I'm not sure Costa Rica and Bermuda can spare enough troops.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
As for these other people whose articles you post, believe it or not, and don't puke when I say this, but I am much more interested in what you have to say than what they have to say.

I'm not puking. Don't puke when I say this, I post stuff written by other people because I think they raise valid or interesting points. I assume you post articles from the Economist, e.g., for the same reason, not because you think we will be impressed just because it's the Economist.

He clearly did not see Lamont coming. But because he was unprepared, does not mean that his position on Iraq did not cost him before Lamont. Prior to this debacle you see Lieberman's position of gaining accolades from the pundits and from the administration as benefitting him politically and therefore his position brought him more benefit than costs. However, I don't think you appreciate the abuse one takes when they go against their party. As someone who often bucks his party a lot, I may put more emphasise on that type of action than it deserves.

Washington Democrats were supporting him, up until very recently, because they assumed he would win. I think that's why Lamont so took him by surprise. If he had been paying that price, sure, but I think he loved the fact that he was Mr. Bipartisan.

BTW: one reason I think Lieberman was unprepared for Lamont is the fundraising aspect. The one place incumbants trump everyone else is their ability to raise money (especially from PACs) and that makes them think their invulnerable (which it usually does). What they forget is that a wealthy opponent totally negates that huge advantage. Its not just that wealthy candidates can bring their own money, but the fact that they can bring their own money, makes it easier for them to raise money. I know it sounds crazy, but I have experienced this first hand, people love to donate to self financed candidates. I always thought people would take the attitude of "if they can pay for it - why should I donate" (which is my attitude) but generally the attitude is just the opposite. I find it easier to raise money for Steve Poizner and the Governator than any other candidates, and they don't really need the money. I find this very unexpected and frustrating.

This sounds right. But also, I think Lieberman is very taken with his own gravitas, and figured he would trounce some unknown rich guy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
As I recall, he also voted against the Patriot Act renewal, until he voted for it.

He voted for cloture on Alito and the bankruptcy bill, and then voted against each.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
Yes, but according to your theory we don't need an all-out battle.* We just need to drop a few bombs with pinpoint accuracy. And in that regard, Israeli intelligence has not done so well.




*And as I noted -- our soldiers are a little busy bringing democracy to Iraq.

Wrong. They need to think like their Muslim enemy, not a give a fuck about who they kill as long as they wipe out the target and take out every thing in South Lebanon that moves.

Then move in some crazy colonists from Brooklyn.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
He voted for cloture on Alito and the bankruptcy bill, and then voted against each.

That's him. Joe the Brave.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
That's him. Joe the Brave.

He was playing Joe the Reasonable Bipartisan.

The act got tired.

[Diane_Keaton]

Dont' know if this has been posted already today but more bullshit photos, this time an alive dude pretending to be a dead dude hiding under a shroud:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008766

I've about had it with the press coverage on this battle. Today for several hours, Google News had a huge headline that said "Israel on baby-killing spree" in its World News section. That was Google's idea of what's going on in the world today -- those damn Jews out there hunting down Muslim babies. The link led to an article on current events in Lebanon written.....by some dude for the... Kuwaiti Times (surely, an unbiased paper, no?)

Google will probably say their link was just showing that a paper was calling Israelis baby killers but the headline didn't say "Kuwaiti press accuses Israel of going on baby-killing spree." Just: Israel on baby-killing spree. I'm sure there's such a paucity of coverage on Lebanon that Google just HAD to rely on the fucking "Kuwaiti Times" to tell its readers what's happening.

So much for "Jews Control the Media." Looks more like Mel Gibson's at the reigns.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Wrong. They need to think like their Muslim enemy, not a give a fuck about who they kill as long as they wipe out the target and take out every thing in South Lebanon that moves.

Hey, it worked for the French in Algeria, am I right?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
He was playing Joe the Reasonable Bipartisan.

The act got tired.

Thank God. Wouldn't want to have anyone acting reasonable in the goevrnment.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I understand this perfectly well. Which is why I reject Penske's notion that we have a simple military option of dropping a few bombs.

I didn't say a "few". Is Ty's propensity to lie contagious?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Dont' know if this has been posted already today but more bullshit photos, this time an alive dude pretending to be a dead dude hiding under a shroud:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008766

Uh, Diane? Read to the bottom of that post and you'll see it acknowledges that the guy really was dead, and links to several more photos on this page, as well as this text:

• I have now seen several photographs of the scene with the man I thought was getting up. His position is more or less the same in them all, suggesting rigor mortis.

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
Spanky -- since you are sane, and since you apparently need something to talk about, maybe you could comment on this. Do you advocate nuking Iran? Do you think that we have a realistic chance of targetting and eliminating Iran's nuclear capabilities and programs with a quick set of bombing raids? Do you think we could pull off another invasion?

Put more simply -- as I asked before --- do we have a military option in Iran?

The Cold War worked specifically because of the concept of mutually-assured destruction: Westerners just don't want to die.

We are now talking about an enemy who doesn't care about death. If anything, they glorify it at all turns.

If Iran (or its supporters) gets the bomb, nothing will prevent them from wiping out Israel - and then coming after us - because they don't and won't care about reprisal. Hell, the Iranian PM publicly declares this every other day.

The real question - the scary one - is HOW many lives will be lost before we have to take them out for good?

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Uh, Diane? Read to the bottom of that post and you'll see it acknowledges that the guy really was dead, and links to several more photos on this page, as well as this text:

• I have now seen several photographs of the scene with the man I thought was getting up. His position is more or less the same in them all, suggesting rigor mortis.

OK - how about the NYT one?

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/20...hezbollah.html