Comments on: This Also Is What Joementum Looks Like http://old.furiousnads.com/2006/08/this-also-is-what-joementum-looks-like/ You're furious. I never taught you to sing. You carry rocks in your head and pitch them. Without warning. Happy drunk. You're furious. I beg you for sin. I beg your skin. You buy a whore. Don't give her water. You're furious. Fri, 02 May 2008 14:41:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: loadedorygun http://old.furiousnads.com/2006/08/this-also-is-what-joementum-looks-like/#comment-234 loadedorygun Sun, 06 Aug 2006 23:38:00 +0000 http://furiousnads.com/2006/08/this-also-is-what-joementum-looks-like/#comment-234 This is TJ, not Carla, BTW. This is TJ, not Carla, BTW.

]]> By: loadedorygun http://old.furiousnads.com/2006/08/this-also-is-what-joementum-looks-like/#comment-233 loadedorygun Sun, 06 Aug 2006 23:37:40 +0000 http://furiousnads.com/2006/08/this-also-is-what-joementum-looks-like/#comment-233 There are other war supporters (like Cantwell and Hillary) who are not seeing any serious primary opposition. It's not the war, per se--it's his ridiculous support of it in ways that are totally indefensible, and his much more dangerous parroting of GOP lines that are intended to stifle dissent on the war. Not only is Joe wrong, he is sanctimonious about it. And even THEN, people might forgive it if Joe didn't continue to behave like the job was his by default, and any discussion otherwise is beyond the pale. Lamont hit places in CT Joe hasn't seen in years, and that's why 33% of the delegates backed him. I'm very surprised Kari is buying the MSM punditry line on this race. This isn't about liberals and conservatives. It's about apologists for bad policy and bad policymakers, and how they needed to be rooted out so we can address the policy and policymakers without being dressed down for our impudence. And Joe's a liberal? Hardly. He's consistently around the 30th most liberal of 40-odd Senators, and he tends to get more liberal if he's running for something. Keith Poole's Congressional rankings are the best I know of: <a href="http://voteview.com/sen109.htm" rel="nofollow">http://voteview.com/sen109.htm</a> There are other war supporters (like Cantwell and Hillary) who are not seeing any serious primary opposition. It’s not the war, per se–it’s his ridiculous support of it in ways that are totally indefensible, and his much more dangerous parroting of GOP lines that are intended to stifle dissent on the war. Not only is Joe wrong, he is sanctimonious about it.

And even THEN, people might forgive it if Joe didn’t continue to behave like the job was his by default, and any discussion otherwise is beyond the pale. Lamont hit places in CT Joe hasn’t seen in years, and that’s why 33% of the delegates backed him.

I’m very surprised Kari is buying the MSM punditry line on this race. This isn’t about liberals and conservatives. It’s about apologists for bad policy and bad policymakers, and how they needed to be rooted out so we can address the policy and policymakers without being dressed down for our impudence.

And Joe’s a liberal? Hardly. He’s consistently around the 30th most liberal of 40-odd Senators, and he tends to get more liberal if he’s running for something. Keith Poole’s Congressional rankings are the best I know of:
http://voteview.com/sen109.htm

]]> By: b!X http://old.furiousnads.com/2006/08/this-also-is-what-joementum-looks-like/#comment-232 b!X Sun, 06 Aug 2006 23:06:48 +0000 http://furiousnads.com/2006/08/this-also-is-what-joementum-looks-like/#comment-232 The fact that a liberal alphabet soup of endorsers is standing with Lieberman doesn't mean much beyond the fact that (1) he passes the litmus test of whatever their niches are and (2) such organizations tend to bet on the establishment rather than a challenger. All their endorsements really mean is that they're dancing with the one what brought 'em, and don't much care whether or not Senator Joementum is a Bush apologist on most of the administration's greatest threats to the basic fabric of the constitutional republic. The fact that a liberal alphabet soup of endorsers is standing with Lieberman doesn’t mean much beyond the fact that (1) he passes the litmus test of whatever their niches are and (2) such organizations tend to bet on the establishment rather than a challenger.

All their endorsements really mean is that they’re dancing with the one what brought ‘em, and don’t much care whether or not Senator Joementum is a Bush apologist on most of the administration’s greatest threats to the basic fabric of the constitutional republic.

]]> By: Kari Chisholm http://old.furiousnads.com/2006/08/this-also-is-what-joementum-looks-like/#comment-231 Kari Chisholm Sun, 06 Aug 2006 23:00:29 +0000 http://furiousnads.com/2006/08/this-also-is-what-joementum-looks-like/#comment-231 I'm not sure I agree. Cleland, a war veteran, is attacked by pro-war folks because he strayed from orthodoxy on one issue. (He wanted to allow Homeland Security employees to unionize.) Lieberman, a lifelong liberal, is attacked by liberals because he strayed from orthodoxy on one issue. And yes, Lieberman - despite the war stuff and his idiotic attacks on tv violence and swear words - is basically a liberal. He's got strong 85%+ career voting records from AFL-CIO, NARAL, Human Rights Campaign, League of Conservation Voters, etc. Which is why all those organizations have endorsed him. I like Ned Lamont. Seems like a great guy. But I just don't understand why progressives are investing so much time, money, and energy defeating a guy who is better than every single incumbent Republican - especially when Santorum, DeWine, Talent, and Burns so badly need defeating. I’m not sure I agree.

Cleland, a war veteran, is attacked by pro-war folks because he strayed from orthodoxy on one issue. (He wanted to allow Homeland Security employees to unionize.)

Lieberman, a lifelong liberal, is attacked by liberals because he strayed from orthodoxy on one issue.

And yes, Lieberman – despite the war stuff and his idiotic attacks on tv violence and swear words – is basically a liberal. He’s got strong 85%+ career voting records from AFL-CIO, NARAL, Human Rights Campaign, League of Conservation Voters, etc. Which is why all those organizations have endorsed him.

I like Ned Lamont. Seems like a great guy. But I just don’t understand why progressives are investing so much time, money, and energy defeating a guy who is better than every single incumbent Republican – especially when Santorum, DeWine, Talent, and Burns so badly need defeating.

]]>