My comment on Weisberg's nonesene along these lines in Slate was that apparantly seeing 60% of the country as looney left extremists is a prerequisite for being a serious minded grown up pundit.

... the right has lined its ducks up in a row. But these ducks can be scattered. 

Right, it's time to send out "Dead-Eye Dick!"  His message today:  A vote for Lamont is a vote for AlQaida.  How lame is that?  He should go back to "duck hunting" anesthetized ducks with their wings clipped.  It is the only thing that makes him feel like a big man.  Too bad he took all those deferments; he could have shot lots of people over in Vietnam and gotten it out of his system. 

Jan Knaus

Todd

I would love to agree with you. But I simply cannot.

Yes the Neoconservative branch of the GOP has done a lot of reckless, inept things in their 6 plus years in office.

But embracing people like Lamont, who have no political experience, in the blind hope that they can "breath fresh air" into Washington, seems a bit idealistic.

The Neocons, after all, are extremely gifted politicians. They are masterful at persuasion and very convincing during election cycles.

To combat this, the Democrats need politicians who are capable of playing the game. If Alex Rodriguez is at the plate with the bases loaded and the game on the line, you do not want triple-A pitchers like Ned Lamont taking the mound. You need someone with experience; someone who is familiar with tension and can deal with the large obstacles facing them. A veteran.

The Democrats went to great pains to get Jimmy Carter elected not because of his political experience (he had no familiarity at all with national politics) but because they saw in him the POSSIBILITY of a great, genuine president.

We all know how that charade played out.

Yes, but we don't have anyone who is familiar with tension and can deal with the large obstacles facing them. We have Lieberman.

If Alex Rodriguez is at the plate, we don't want his pitching coach on the mound, throwing wiffle balls. Our team stands a far better chance with someone who's really on our side, Triple-A or not.

Lieberman has been the Repuklican's enabler-in-cheif for the last six years. Sending him home would, itself, be a huge accomplishment.

Why is it that Democrats don't go on the offensive, loudly and consistently, by asking why none of the supporters of the war have children serving in the military? Why not shame them, loudly and often, for sending other people's children overseas to face bullets and shrapnel while their children go off to elite universities and get choice summer internships?

I can't agree with this. He's a compromiser on social security, he's a complete ass on "Plan B" assistance for rape victims ("girls, if the senate dining room is out of my favorite poppy seed bagels, I just have my driver run over to that deli in Georgetown") a dangerous dupe on the Iraq war and a damned rube on the filibustering agreement.

My only hope is that they go after the other old power hogs in congress because if we don't, we're going to end up like our cousins, the Brits, sitting around waiting for some old bag to die so her jug-eared adulterer of a son can inherit power - with us paying the freight.

The last thing that I want to see is the people who will decide this election -- the GOP moderates -- to get frightened by the Connecticut results. That's why framing the debate (semantics over theory) is crucial. Simply repeating that Bush et al are creepy liars isn't going to cut it...I'm convinced and you're convinced, but the trick is convincing the people who voted for them twice (the second time grudgingly) that its okay to admit a mistake and you can trust the "other side" to start fixing it. Despite the overwhelming agreement among Dems that the Iraq war was wrong, is wrong, and will always be wrong, there is no consensus on what the next correct step should be. Coming home and pretending it didn't happen is not the answer. The presidential candidate that solves that Sudoku to the satisfaction of the middle ground will be the front runner in '08. Maybe setting up shop in Afghanistan for awhile, like we could have done at the outset,is the answer.

Well, McCain's got a son in the Marines now so that isn't even going to work.

Gettysburg, is your nose growing?

Looking at Lieberman's record, he actually opposes Bush on almost every single domestic issue.

 The Supreme Court, Terri Schiavo, Plan "B," his wishy-washy Social Security creds.  What exactly do you mean when you say he opposes Bush on almost every single domestic issue?  What do you mean by "almost?"

And his alleged "support" of the war only goes as far as his belief that pulling our troops out of Iraq constitutes a greater danger then leaving them there.

How about when he publically chastised fellow Democrats for speaking their opinions on Bush's war; the lies that started it; the incompetent planning; the quagmire that is the result; the needless deaths of our soldiers and untold numbers of Iraqis.  His "support" goes far deeper than not wanting to leave.  He is deep into the administration's talking points as well as their basic dishonesty.

Jan Knaus

The GOP are making public claims of this to help the Lamont campaign, because it's their only way of getting a republican from CT in that senate seat.

 Yeah, that's why Karl Rove called Lieberman and offered to help; that's why Ken Mehlman wouldn't endorse the GOP candidate in CT.  Mary, wake up and smell the reality of Lieberman.

His money comes from big Pharma and other huge industries; he is not interested in health care reform, which I know really matters to you (as it does to me). 

The GOP wants Lieberman in.  I have my own scenario; I think the plan was to get him back in the Senate, and then Bush would appoint him to the cabinet.  Then the (republican governor) would appoint a republican to take his place in the Senate.

 ...and a personal request/piece of advice:  You would make yourself more credible if you would stop with statements like this:

 it's the likes of you who are enabling the republicans.  Kinda over-broad and makes you seem slightly unhinged.

Jan Knaus

This is a pretty nasty thing to do, Mary.
Armstrong was never convicted of a weapons charge and if you had read either of those links, you would have to know it.

He happens to agree with President Bush on one or two issues.

I've said this before -- it's not "happens to agree," like he "happens" to think peanut butter and jelly tastes good.

He's completely and fantastically delusional about Iraq. 

Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.

Ford, watch out! Arthur Dent is a poster here and I think he is REALLY not true to his name! In fact he is an Australian troll! Glad to see you are true to yourself!

Apologies to those who have not read Douglas Addams, but may I suggest that you all get started right now? The HitchHikers Guide to the Galaxy - A trilogy in 4 parts -- a great read.

Jan Knaus

The answer is pretty basic.

Either double troop numbers and get the job done, or get out.

This slow bleeding is insanity, and NO, leaving the mess until a competent president is elected isn't GOOD ENOUGH.

Throw the bums out. Anti-incumbancy is here with a vengence.

If Lieberman isn't safe. None of them are.

CSPAN junkies visit http://spannerbackup.ipbhost.com

The neocons are extremely gifted politicians? I think perhaps we can let that one die now before it embarrasses us anymore....

They've been given 6 years of carte blanche -- a supine Congress and judiciary, rows of conservative think tanks, a cowed, lazy, media, more money than they want us to know about, control of the world's most powerful military. And they have screwed up brutally. Is there anything they've done right?

So where's the evidence of political acumen, the reliability of experience? Crikey! Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are two of the most experienced men in government today. You think they've done a great job? Hmmm!

I hate to say it, but I think Todd and many of us are at fault here. To take as one's premise what Tony Snow says or the WSJ editorial board (a laugh-riot in itself) says is probably as good a symptom as any of the co-dependency problem Dems are embracing so tenaciously. We know Snow and Cheney and Hannity and all the rest are nuts, a bunch of desperate blowhards. A bare moment's indignant reaction to them is more than enough; they no longer have the credibility for the left and center to both about. If the Dems are at 60% (and they are), then the Dems better run with it. And stop looking over their shoulders!...

Why is it that the 60% (or thereabouts) of Americans that favor getting out of Iraq have come to see the futility of our effort there but the administration has steadfastly refused to acknowledge this obvious fact?

Personally, I think it extremely dumb to think the U.S. (or anybody) can play in the Al Queda ballpark with the bleachers absolutely overflowing with local and very partisan fans. We can barely read the scoreboard and can't abide the rules our opponents have decided to use. We could have had home field advantage in this but we tossed it away because we thought we were so damn good. Handing home field advantage to your opponent is about the dumbest thing I have ever seen. We should have forced them to play on our home field or Fuggetaboutit. I wish we had spent all the money we used financing the road game on their turf on our own ball park. I think its a lot better to be throwing beer bottles from our bleachers at their guys than the other way around.

thepeoplechoose