Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
What really disturbs me is that the issues aren't grammatically parallel. Some begin with verbs, others with gerunds.
Ugh!I really like Joe, but it looks like they used an intern and didn't provide any adult QA for things like- parallelism- Capitalization- overlapping or duplicate itemspathetic
What you're seeing are the traces of change to what was once a better written list. As Connecticut Bob speculates, the list must have included material about the war and national security.
Joe, the Left isn't going to support you unless your repudiate what you believe in. They aren't fooled by your attempt to avoid the main issue. So why not stand by your principles? You might even win. And if you lose, well, being a Senator is a nice job but it isn't worth your soul. At least I don't think it is.VW: "ditpyboo"
John, I like your observation, even though I didn't consider the grammatical implications when I wrote the article. The teacher's unions in CT have already endorsed Lamont...obviously this may have had something to do with it.Ann, thanks so much for mentioning Kos's take on the story. The hits are really coming in from your blog, and I'm thrilled that we're getting Ned's message out to so many people. We're all working to see Lamont replace Lieberman in the Senate. This is truly a battle for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party.Regards,"Connecticut Bob" Adams
Well, he could have used someone a little handier with an HTML editor, but I don't think the site is "pathetic." What Ann points out is certainly true, however. That said, Sen. Lieberman presents solid information about his positions and accomplishments in areas of traditional Democratic interest: Job Creation, Human Dignity, Education, etc. What's wrong with that? "The Left" may view all issues through the prism of Iraq, but I don't think Sen. Lieberman has sold his soul for his stands on national security. He has been very consistent about this. The fact that his position is not mentioned in this site is, to me at least, somewhat disturbing.I love Joe Lieberman. I agree with him on most issues and admire him tremendously. As someone who thought of himself as as a liberal, I am perfectly happy with the traditional Democratic agenda as represented by this man. The traditional Democratic agenda also used to include a strong stand on national defense. And, yes, this is a battle for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. If the "Left" is salivating for a detailed defeat of the United States in a foreign war, you can count me, and I sincerely hope Sen. Lieberman, out.
Look, I like Lieberman, but Connecticut Bob is surely correct that he's deliberately excised the references to the war and national security from that checklist. That's what Jonathan is referring to in saying that he's sold his soul. Hey, I just looked at Connecticut Bob's Site Meter and I'm sending him way more traffic than Kos is. Kos and I both linked this morning. Isn't that interesting? You realize what it means, don't you?
Some sort of Annhola controversy over pay for play?
Or that your style of link saying "Go and click" and "It really is quite pathetic" was less informative to the reader than what was at DK in which they reproduced the graphics over at ctbob's?
Perhaps it means that the average reader of Kos is a 30-50 year old parent and they are all out this morning with their kids and so have no real time to click on links.
You realize what it means, don't you?A) You should start a political movement.B) Newsweek is preparing a scathing article about your influence.C) You should quit your day job and blog full time?D) Your readers have more curious minds?E) Jacques is jealous.I lean towards (D) but could just as easily vote for (E).
Duh...Yes, of course, you're right, Ann. I'm so used to reading Kos Komments, that I see "worth your soul" and "Lieberman" in the same post, I immediately launch without a second thought. Embarassing. Anyway, I agree with Jonathan, although I don't think Sen. Lieberman's soul is in much danger. I don't think his Senate seat is, either.
Life puts us all to hard choices. Didn't the junior senator from Connecticut crater on affirmative action to hitchhike a ride to Number One Observatory Circle? This isn’t nearly as unprincipled as that.It’s the smart move. Fools rush in where brave men dare not enter.
Kossacks are 30-50 year old parents. THAT may be the single most high-larious thing I've ever heard. Yeah, Kos is riddled with soccer moms on the way to church this morning. Perhaps many (not all and not most) Kos-sacks already believe Lieberman is a soulless "Jew" -- said with Lefty conspiratorial neo-con hatred?
I think Sen. Lieberman's former flip flops represent something like the twists and turns all successful politicians must take. That said, the excision of any mention of national security from his website is disturbing. The Iraq war is wildly unpopular here in New England, but politicians are bound not only to consult and follow their constituents' opinions, but to occasionally lead. I sincerely hope Sen. Lieberman is pondering his next move in trying to convince people of the value of his positions, and not cravenly attempting to run away from them.
Theo,You misunderstand my pathetic comment. Not the site overall, but that feedback sheet.The careless lack of quality assurance, rather than complaints about the message or lack thereof.
I wonder why Lieberman is taking so much flack for his pro-war stance, while Hillary is taking none?They're both up for re-election this year.
SGT,Sorry about the misunderstanding. I think the rest of the site is quite tolerable--actually pretty informative--if a little boring. Just what you'd want from a meat-and-potatoes Democrat.But, yes, the feedback sheet is embarassing. As I say, I hope Sen. Lieberman is taking a break from the HTML editor to ponder how to bring his constituents around on national security.That raises another question: Seeing as it's so boring, does Sen. Lieberman code his own site?
What Jonathan said. If Joe supports the war, he should be upfront about it. It is not an unpopular point of view in general, except among the far left branch of his party, who unfortunately have too much influence in the nominating process. I don't think Hillary has taken as much flak for her position as Joe has, but she does have antiwar protesters at her appearances. Maybe the party core knows at heart that she doesn't really mean it.
Pathetic? Perhaps. But for pure insanity, see the Rick Santorum campaign site. He claims: "More than 500 WMDs have been discovered post invasion."The man is delusional.But I imagine he's immune to criticism here.WV: nowmds
ADJ- How is he delusional?
Lieberman always looks so nebbishy and pathetic. Like Mike Dukakis.
How is he delusional?Hint: it has to do with the five in five hundred.Remove it and you have reality. You also have Rick's chances of winning!
I hate to defend Rick Santorum, but are you suggesting the NID is lying about the 500 chemical munitions that have been found? Or did Santorum just imagine this whole thing?
Dave,Yes, a little nebbishy, but you gotta admit that NOBODY can out-nebbish Michael Dukakis. I was going to say in a previous comment that Joe Lieberman is a real Mensch, but that seemed a little extreme. On the other hand, Dukakis wins my award for Most Irritating Politician, Ever.
Ann, could you please bring all of your commenters up to date on the Santorum WMD fiasco. Unlike Noxie girl, I am certain you weren't taken in.If I explain it, it won't be believed, but if you issue a clarifying diktat, all of your functionaries will receive it and we can get back to the business at hand of blogging about reality shows and tootie.The point being what was found was predicted by Charles Duelfer, were weapons that had been discarded, were weapons over 15 years old, were weapons in no position to be used, were weapons with highly degraded chemicals, and were explicitly, not the weapons the US was looking for. There is still no evidence that the Iraqi ever tried to produce WMDs after 1991Santorum knew that, Fox knew that, only Captain Ed, the call center manager, Sebastian, and Althouse functionary Noxious Girl continue to pretend otherwise.
That's it! Ricky Santorum thought WMD meant Weapons of Mass Deterioration! Or do the Althouse masses think that 15-year-old degraded weapons that couldn't destoy a beehive were the kind of weapons that Bush had in mind when he told the country about the "imminent threat" from WMDs?WV: sckrs
Bob Adams -- "We're all working to see Lamont replace Lieberman in the Senate. This is truly a battle for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party."Ah, yes. Someone with a 77.82 lifetime average rating from Americans for Democratic Action (80 in 2005), and a 16.59 rating from the American Conservative Union (8 in 2005) is clearly a dangerous conservative who must be purged from the Democratic Party.AJD --How many times do people have to point out that Bush explicity said before the invasion that the threat from Iraq was not imminent before you and your fellows in the fantasy-based community get it through your skulls that Bush not only never said there was an imminent threat, but went to pains to say ending an imminent threat was not a goal of the invasion?Or are you a conservative trying to undermine the credibility of the left by repeating a long-exposed faleshood?
Steven: You can repeat your revisionist history as often as you like. And who knows? At a blog called Althouse, maybe people will believe you. You can even chant "Mission Accomplished." But that doesn't make it true. I guess you now think that the 15-year-old degraded weapons that have Ricky Santorum all excited are what Bush meant when he said that Iraq could, without notice, inflict massive and sudden horror on the U.S. October 6, 2002 Sunday Final EditionSECTION: News; Pg. A1 / FRONTLENGTH: 717 wordsHEADLINE: Iraq could strike: Bush: Warns of 'Massive and sudden horror'. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, a leading Democrat, strongly challenges 'hit-first' policySOURCE: APBYLINE: RON FOURNIERDATELINE: MANCHESTER, N.H.BODY:U.S. President George W. Bush warned yesterday that Saddam Hussein could strike without notice and inflict "massive and sudden horror" on the United States, offering a new rationale for pre-emptive military action against Iraq.
AJDAttributing "imminent threat", in quotation marks, to the Bush Administration is a falsehood. See here.Your reaction to that being pointed out could have been a mere "sorry, my mistake" Instead, you spewed insults.So, my question of your nature becomes even stronger. You certainly are acting like someone who wants to bolster Santorum's credibility by discrediting his critics.
Dear Insult King:You have ignored the substance of the Bush quote from October 2002. The man said that Saddam Hussein could strike without notice and inflict "massive and sudden horror" on the United States.Do you deny that he said that?Do you think that it was true? Try to stick to the topic. I know it's hard.WV: idiot
You have ignored the substance of the Bush quote from October 2002. The man said that Saddam Hussein could strike without notice and inflict "massive and sudden horror" on the United States.Do you deny that he said that?I deny he said that. That's not a Bush quote. That's a New York Times headline containing four words from Bush ("massive and sudden horror") and a statement ("could strike without notice") found nowhere in his speech. The actual speech is here. (What he said was that Hussein had a history of striking without warning -- a statement Iranians and Kuwaitis would surely agree with.)Look, he certainly said Iraq was a threat. (And he certainly made statements about WMD that we now know were wrong.) But to read a speech fairly, one does not pluck isolated sentences (or even worse, four-word phrases) from it.The overall thesis of the speech is clearly that Iraq is a threat in the near future -- which turns out to have been wrong -- not that Iraq was going to attack us tomorrow. He's still talking about disarming Iraq and using force if necessary, and talking about the time for doing so being "limited" -- not the sort of language one generally uses if one is trying to say that someone is an imminent threat.
Steven, regarding those Lieberman report card ratings, they tend to be faulty in that they ignore the REAL politics involved, and only focus on the actual vote.For example, Joe Lieberman couldn't wait to vote FOR cloture on the Alito nomination, which effectively caused the Democrats gave up their only tool to prevent Alito's confirmation.Then Joe cast his useless No vote on the actual confirmation, which is counted as a positive Democratic vote. But the vote for cloture was absolutely equal to a vote FOR Alito's confirmation. The reality is, Joe is counting on Connecticut voters to be too "low information" (Lieberman's campaign manager's phase) to know what really happened. That's why we work so hard to help inform the public of the DINO that Joe's become.Believe me, I used to support Lieberman, and I voted for him three times previously. Apparently he's given up on being a "centrist" and has gone all the way to the right.
Oh back to imminent threat denial?Look, in the trial it came out that Fat Tony never said, "Unless you pay me money I will break your windows." What he did say was, "Nice shop you have here, it would be a shame if something were to happen to it."Lawyers, always able to understand what someone means until it pays for them not to.
Joe Lieberman has ALWAYS been a centrist. That's why his running with Al Gore was completely out of left field.A lot of you are hypocrites--you supported Joe wholeheartedly before, but now he's "pathetic". It's obvious who the "pathetic" one(s) are here. You never really looked at Lieberman before and what he stood for, you just blindly embraced him like good little democrats.I hope Joe wins today, and if he doesn't and has to run as an independent, he will wipe the floor with Lamont.
Post a Comment