100% accurate observation

Keith Olbermann is right on target on the bizzare attack of Bush on senator Kerry. Thats what he said tonight in his show:

"BUSH IS TOO STUPID TO KNOW WHEN SOMEONE CALLS HIM STUPID"

Wow......... They are more desperate than I thought.

.
Today's bizzare attack of Bush on senator Kerry demonstrated that the administration is much more desperate than I thought. The democratic tidal wave is threatening the corrupt republican party more than I even thought.

The concept of attacking Kerry for something irrelevant, to distract attention from the war and solidify the republican base is laughable. It clearly underestimates the intelligence of the American people and reveals extreme desperation.

And I used to think that Karl Rove was a smart guy...Not anymore after this. The only one who looks good after all that is senator Kerry. The more I see of him, the more I like him all of the sudden.

New Zogby Poll: Lamont within 4 points

A new Zogby poll released today shows that Lamont has closed the gap and he is within striking distance. The poll was taken between 10/23-10/27 and shows:

Lieberman 47

Lamont 43

Schlesinger 6

So, the race is far from over. Lamont is within 4 points and he can win. In fact when Lieberman won in 1988, Weicker was leading in the polls by 6 points the day before the election.

I think Lamont has regained the momentum and closed the gap. It seems that Lieberman realizes that, and maybe thats why he has been so angry again, especially after the endorsement of Lamont by the New York Times.

The race has tightened, and it will all come down to GOTV. I hope and believe that Lamont will win this election a week from now.

It appears that Joe Lieberman is freaking out

Yes, freaking out . And his campaign manager loses it and sends a bizzare letter to the New York Times expressing anger and frustration for the New York times endorsement of Lamont. How does the New York Times dare not to endorse Lieberman?

Can you imagine how Lieberman will be next Tuesday, November 7, after he realizes that he lost the election? Wow. It will be real scary.

IL-10. Dan Seals Ahead In a New Poll

.
That is a remarkable development. A new poll from RT strategies shows that Dan Seals is ahead by 2 points!! That is very good news for the Seals campaign. It is the first time that a poll shows Seals ahead in the race.

The poll was conducted between 10/24- 10/26 and shows:

Seals 48%
Kirk 46%
Undecided 6%

I am more and more confident that Dan Seals will win this race. IL-10 deserves better than Mark Kirk. I have made 2 contributions to the Seals' campaign, and I think now it is about time to support him again, as he really has a good chance to win.

How to find Joe Lieberman in the Ballot

Full description in this video.

Lieberman And His Republican Petty Cash

This information from Connecticut Blog is shocking. Look what money Lieberman used as "petty cash" as compared to other republican or democratic senators. What did he do with that money? Did he try to buy votes? Who knows.... You can expect anything from someone like Lieberman.

Lieberman and the democratic leadership

I think that this post by Mat Stoller at DD summarizes the problems of the democratic leadership relatively accurately, although the tone is a little too strong. Here is part of it:

"Whether it was a standing ovation at a caucus meeting when Joe got back to the Senate after his primary loss, or Obama refusing to come to Connecticut or criticize Joe in any way, or Bill Clinton praising Lieberman on Larry King, or Harry Reid promising Lieberman seniority, or Chuck Schumer refusing to get involved and practically being forced to not back Lieberman after the primary, or insiders telling Lamont's campaign that they would talk Joe out of the race if Lamont didn't go on the attack, it's very clear that the Democratic Party leadership is rotten to the core. With the exception of John Kerry and Wes Clark, no high profile Democrats have been there for Lamont. "

Well that is not exactly accurate, because Ted Kennedy, John Edwards and Chris Dodd also campaigned for Ned Lamont after the primary. However, I agree that Obama and Clinton were terrible in the way they handled the Lamont - Lieberman issue. It makes you wonder if Obama is principled or competent enough to really be a presidential candidate. I dont think so. Although he is from my state and I have voted for him, I have lost completely faith on him from the way he handled the Lieberman problem. He looks more and more like Chuck Shumer, Joe Biden, and some other soft-principled democrats.

IL-10: The friends of Mark Kirk

Tell me who your friends are, to tell you who you really are...

The New York Times Endorses Ned Lamont

From the New York Times, Sunday, October 29, 2006

The Senate Race in Connecticut

The Congressional elections are very much about America’s problems in Iraq. But the campaigns have shed little light on exactly what should happen next. Nowhere is that more true than in Connecticut. The two leading candidates, Ned Lamont and Joseph Lieberman, have clear disagreements over whether invading Iraq was a good idea in the first place, but grow much fuzzier when the question of future strategy comes up.

Mr. Lieberman, a three-term Democratic senator now running as an independent, talks about the threat of Islamic terrorism. Mr. Lamont, who beat Mr. Lieberman in the Democratic primary, reminds voters what a mess the invasion created. When it comes to the next step, Mr. Lieberman seems to mimic the Bush administration’s proposal to stay the course (while no longer mentioning that toxic phrase) with new tactics. Mr. Lamont is close to the Senate Democrats (minus Mr. Lieberman) who demanded a timetable for withdrawal without being too firm on what that ought to entail.

No one expects legislators to dictate military tactics. But what we need from the next crop of elected officials in Washington is a willingness to face reality, to choose from among difficult options and have the courage to be honest with the public about the consequences. On those points, Mr. Lamont is by far the better candidate.

Two months ago, Connecticut’s Democratic voters sent Mr. Lieberman what should have been a jarring wake-up call when they rejected him for Mr. Lamont, a relative newcomer. We have been waiting to see what lessons the state’s best-known politician took from his defeat, and from the daily evidence of the deterioration of the situation in Iraq.

We wanted to see a capacity for growth and change in Mr. Lieberman. The country is full of Republicans who now realize the Iraq invasion was a disaster, either in its basic concept or in its execution. The most honorable of them are in agony over what has happened. Mr. Lieberman, who had not only continually defended the administration’s Iraq policy but also attacked Democrats who criticized the president, had more cause for soul-searching than most.

But instead of re-evaluating his own positions, Mr. Lieberman blamed his constituents for failing to notice that he had offered some negative comments about the conduct of the war, too, mainly when he was running for the Democratic nomination for president in 2004. He did not protest when Dick Cheney said that people who voted for Mr. Lamont were giving comfort to “Al Qaeda types.” His only reflection seemed devoted to a re-examination of the rules for getting back on the ballot.

Since his primary defeat, Mr. Lieberman has run a well-packaged campaign built around his self-assigned bipartisan image — “It’s not about politics,” say his ads. But it is very much about politics — from the flood of special interest campaign donations that has been running Mr. Lieberman’s way to the old Karl Rove lesson that political winners never admit to error.

We are living in perilous times. Being able to work with the opposition party — Mr. Lieberman’s claim to fame — is hardly a sign of moral courage when the opposition party controls the White House, Senate and House of Representatives. President Bush did not need Mr. Lieberman’s persistent support on Iraq when he had the deference of his own party members in Congress. What the country needed — and what Connecticut had the right to expect — was for Mr. Lieberman to risk some of his bipartisan clout to call attention to the way Iraq was spiraling out of control.

The fatal problem with Mr. Lieberman’s candidacy is not that he was wrong about the invasion, but that he has not shown any capacity to grow and change. Suggesting that getting rid of Donald Rumsfeld might be a good idea is hardly a breakthrough at a time when the secretary of defense’s supporters are pretty much limited to the president and members of the Rumsfeld family.

Mr. Lieberman has changed his tone but not his underlying conviction that he has been right all along. He and Mr. Bush are still on the very same page, encouraging the American people to believe that there is a happy ending for American involvement in Iraq, and that all it takes is the perseverance to keep marching toward the end of the rainbow.

Ned Lamont has run a far less polished campaign than Mr. Lieberman, but the more we see of him, the more impressed we are by his intelligence and his growing sophistication about the issues facing the nation. He is very much in the Connecticut mold of basically moderate, principled politicians, and his willingness to take on Mr. Lieberman when no one else dared to do it showed real courage and conviction. He would make a good senator. More important, he has the capacity to continually become a better one. We endorse Ned Lamont for Senate.

Wesley Clark on Joe Lieberman

Wes Clark says things as they really are. Lieberman should not be re-elected. It is so simple.

A "personal friend" of Joe Lieberman

I lost any respect for Joe Biden. Why? How could you respect a democratic senator who says that he can not campaign against Lieberman because he is a "close personal friend," and that that his son and Lieberman's son attended Yale together, and that his daughter-in-law was the matron of honor at Lieberman's son's wedding? What kind of ideological and political criteria are these?

Of course he says that he backs Lamont, but thats not enough. The country needs people that can stand above "friendships" and fight for principles and ideals. Apparently, Joe Biden is not one of them.

Dan Seals-Mark Kirk Debate

Here you can see a video with the closing statements of the two candidates in the debate. There is huge difference between the two of them. Mark Kirk is an arrogant republican who reminds me a little of Joe Lieberman. He has the mentality of how do you dare to challenge me. Dan Seals is a real strong inspired candidate with a strong message. See how enthusiastically the crowd responds to Seals' message. I think Dan Seals will win on November 7.

Here is the TV ad of Dan Seals.

The Dixie Chicks are cool. Shut up and sing.

They are coming back big time. And I bet you that now they are much more popular than Bush.

IL-10: Dan Seals wins the debate. Mark Kirk's campaign imploding?

There are numerous reports that Dan Seals won the debate yesterday for the IL-10 district. Dan Seals was apparently very effective, while Mark Kirk had hard time defending his record of support for Bush and the Iraq war.

As we wrote before, Dan Seals has the momentum and seems poised to win this very close race in IL-10. But there are also signs that Kirk's campaign may be imploding. It all started when a staffer of Kirk tried to threaten a council member of Tel Aviv University not to support Dan Seals. Apparently, Dan Seals is a strong supporter of Israel and this council member, who in the past supported Kirk, is now supporting Dan Seals. Although Kirk strongly denounced the action of his aid, he did not fire her. That person who tried to theraten a a council member of Tel Aviv University, is still in Kirk's staff. That has become a major story in Chicago newspapers and has been a developing big problem for the Kirk campaign.

We may be witnessing the beginning of the collapse of the campaign of republican Mark Kirk . Dan Seals on the other hand is an excellent candidate, strongly supported by Barak Obama. He would make an outstanding congressman for IL-10.

Mary Landrieu campaigning in Connecticut against the democratic party

The worst (ok, maybe second worst after Ben Nelson of Nebraska) democratic senator in the country is campaigning against the democratic party and in favor of an obscure party called Connecticut for Lieberman. Instead of trying to help her state that still has not recovered from the Katrina disaster, she went to Connecticut to campaign for a defeated ex-democrat (Joe Lieberman) who has been a rubber-stamp for Bush, including his incompetent handling of the Katrina crisis.

Mary Landrieu is apparently neglecting her job as senator of Louisiana and has now turned against her own party. She does not deserve to be re-elected and, hopefully, the voters in Lousiana will remember that when she comes up for re-election in 2008.

UPDATE
Here is a statement of Laundrieu from today while campaigning with the chairman, and single member, of the Connecticut for Lieberman party (Joe Lieberman):

"We're going to have a better homeland security system tomorrow because of Joe Lieberman."

What kind of a judgement is that? She does not deserve to be re-elected. And I stick with what I wrote above. When she campaigns in Connecticut for an obscure party she neglects her job and her state. It is not the same as senators campaigning for the democratic party. She is waisting her time campaigning AGAINST the democratic party where she belongs.

Racism

Congratulations to the RNC. It succeeded in demonstrating to the whole country that it can appeal to the racist instincts of some as needed to win elections. There is no question that the RNC TV ad against democrat Harold Ford in Tenessee will pass in history as a terrible racist incident.

If Tenessee elects Bob Corker after all that, that would speak terribly about that state. Hopefully it will not happen.

Despicable Attacks

The attack of far right extremist and lunatic Rush Limbaugh on Michael J. Fox is despicable. Nevertheless it shows the real face of the republican party of today, as it is the party that represents the religious wingnuts (they all vote for it). A party that attacks science and has no morals. Rush Limbaugh would be normally a laughable low IQ radio host, except that there are people out there that really believe him.

Earlier this evening I was watching Fox News (dont ask me why). Bill O'Reilly had invited a "moral expert" to discuss the attacks of Limbaugh on Michael Fox. That woman, called Sandy Rios defended Limbaugh and said that Michael J. Fox was misleading the country with his ads. Why? Because embryonic stem cell research is not really promising, and Jim Talent in Missouri supports adult stem cell research. She kept saying how the radical wingnuts really support stem cell research, because they support adult stem cell research. And she essentially made the point that embryonic stem cell research has nothing to offer. That woman is either completely illiterate or malicious, or both. And Fox News gives credibility to bizzare wingnut statements and theories like that, by allowing illiterate fanatics to talk about it without anyone challenging them.

We are witnessing a fundamentalist religious movement that behaves like its predecessors in the medieval times in Europe. These guys should not be allowed to gain more power. Any vote for the republicans (with few exceptions) gives them more power. Thats why rational republicans must vote democratic in this election. It is critical for the future of science, democracy, and the country.

IL-10. Kirk airs negative ad, but he is losing ground in the polls.

Republican congressman and Bush ally Mark Kirk started airing a negative ad against democratic candidare Dan Seals, in which he accuses Dan Seals that he runs "negative ads". Unbelievable, huh?

But the most remarkable point Mark Kirk makes is that he is "independent". He keeps repeating that he is "independent". Well, last time I checked Kirk was still a republican. Not only is he a republican, but he is among the leaders of republicans in the congress. There are a few reasons for which Kirk should be defeated in that district that voted democratic in the last election:

1. Mark Kirk misleads the voters by declaring that he is an "independent thinker". No he is not. He votes with the rest of the republicans around 90% of the time.

2. Mark Kirk is a supporter of the disastrous Iraq war. He still supports the Bush administration on that. That alone should disqualify him.

3. Mark Kirk, along with other republicans congressmen, voted to interfere in the Terri Schiavo case in the past.

Mark Kirk is a reliable ally of the disastrous Bush administration and should be defeated on November 7.

Arizona Senate Race - John Kyl Losing Ground

That race is supposed to be the one that the republicans will win for sure. Well, things are changing. Apparently republican senator Jon Kyl is not that popular in Arizona. The last poll from Arizona State University shows a tightening race:

Kyl (R) 47 (49)
Pederson (D) 41 (38)

Hopefully Jon Kyl will be defeated. He is a conservative republican that does not deserve to be in the senate.

Joe Lieberman. A Nixon Wannabe.

=

Lieberman's Nixonian transformation. A real Nixon wannabe. Lieberman is worse than I even thought. And by the way Connecticut voters.

Not reimbursed well?

How much were they paid by the Lieberman campaign (if they did)? Any guesses? I am wondering if some of the $387,000 petty cash fund of Lieberman went to them. Anyway, they dont look that happy. These guys look like they are ready to change jobs and find another candidate to support.

Connecticut Senate Debate. Lamont delivers a knockout. Lieberman loses badly.

I watched every second of the Connecticut senate debate tonight. This was not simply a victory for Lamont. It was a catastrophy for Lieberman. Lamont looked like a senator, while Lieberman looked like someone who begs to retire.

A large portion of the debate was focused on Iraq and that was good news for Lamont. Lieberman looked like a flip-floper, but at the end had to essentially acknoweledge that he is a Bush supporter as it relates to Iraq. Lieberman looked so bad in this debate that it makes you wonder how was this guy ever elected senator.

That was most definitely a knockout. Lamont is on his way to Washington. And I dont care what old polls show. On November 7 Ned Lamont will win and will be elected senator in Connecticut.

Where is the Journal? Joe Lieberman must answer

Lieberman must answer where is the Journal. His campaign spokesperson has denied wrong doing and has insisted that they dispersed $387,000 to various workers in payments of $50 t0 $100 per day. Do the math. At the very least, Lieberman must have paid around 500 different volunteers for 10-12 days each. Is that the case? If so, they should produce the Journal required by federal law. If they dont have it, then it raises suspicions of vote buying and an investigation of the case should start immediately.

Mark Kirk. A reliable ally of president Bush facing defeat in IL-10.

It appears that congressman Mark Kirk is getting desperate with the new polls showing that the race is a dead heat. His keeps calling himself "independent" in his radio ads. Well, he is not independent. He is very much a pro-Bush republican that votes with the republicans over 90% of the time. What kind of independent is that?

Most importantly Mark Kirk is a supporter of the disastrous Iraq war and he still supports Bush on this issue. Of course, as many republicans he has previously received contributions from Halliburton. In addition, he voted with the conservative republicans in the tragic Terri Schiavo case.

Although Kirk has a good position on stem cell research, he is a terrible choice for the voters of IL-10. He is a reliable supporter of Bush who will back his leadership on important issues. In other words he is a reliable supporter of what is likely, the worst president (and vice-president), in the history of the country.

Dan Seals is a much better choice for Illinois and, hopefully, he will be elected congressman on November 7.

CT-Sen: Time for Al Gore to correct his mistake

There is one way that will guarantee a Lamont victory and it involves Al Gore. Yes, Al Gore. Al Gore needs to come out now and strongly endorse Ned Lamont for the Connecticut Senate. He should also make clear that he made a mistake selecting Lieberman as a VP candidate in his ticket in 2000 and indicate that, knowing what he knows now, he would not pick him ever again.

Such a move will finish this race. It will lead to a clear-cut Lamont victory. Why? Here are the reasons:

1. There are still a large number of "low information democrats" in CT (38%) that plan to vote for Lieberman. Why? Because they think that he is a democrat and they remember him as the VP candidate. If Al Gore denounces Lieberman now and admits that including him in the ticket in 2000 was a mistake, these people will finally (!) realize that Lieberman is not a real democrat and will NOT vote for him.

2. Gore is liked in liberal states like Connecticut and an open endorsement of Ned Lamont will help him tremendously. Take together with the recent TV ads with senator Dodd, it will be a kncokout move.

Such a move would be also good for Al Gore. Why? Here are the reasons:

1. It will show that he stands for principles and he supports the principled candidate in this race.

2. It will show that he learned from his mistakes and he is willing to correct them.

3. It will show that he is above politics and friendships and he sinecerely cares for the country.

4. It will show that he is tough and he does not hessitate to condemn even his ex-running mate if it is in the interest of the country.

The truth of the matter is that Al Gore made a huge error selecting Lieberman as a running mate in 2000. Lieberman was a conservative then and Gore knew it. With the credibility of his previous VP candidacy Lieberman had a lot of influence in Washington in the subsequent years. That gave him the ability to act as a "credible" supporter of the disastrous decisions of the Bush administration and the neoconservatives. In the interest of the country, it is about time that Al Gore corrects his mistake. Why has n't he done so yet? He should come out now and denounce Lieberman and strongly endorse Ned Lamont.

Mr. Vice President, please do the right thing. It is important for Connecticut and the country that Lieberman is defeated. And you have the power to influence the outcome of this race. I am sure you know that the outcome of this race will have important implications on the identity of the democratic party and may, somehow, accelerate the end of the disastrous Iraq war.

It is now official

The republican party of today is the homebase of many lunatics. Doubt it? Then watch this TV ad that the RNC is running in Tenesse against Harold Ford. There is no question that only the mind of a certified lunatic would conceive an ad as bizzare as that one. Unbelievable, but true.

Dont take me wrong. There are still many rational republicans, like Hagel, McCain, Guiliani, or even Buchanan. But the republican party as a whole has been hijacked by lunatics. To my republican friends: Dont vote for these crazy people. Demand that the common sense returns to the republican party. It is a party with a long history and it is sad to see it going down to that level.

Lieberman has huge "petty cash" problems.

.

There are important breaking news of major problems for the Lieberman campaign. It seems that his campaign broke the law. What did Joe Lieberman buy with nearly $400,000 in petty cash?

Lieberman should either accept responsibility and withdraw from his bid for re-election in the senate, or at the very least, fire the head of his campaign and call for an immediate investigation. Breaking the law is not the way to be re-elected. Even if you your name is Joe Lieberman.

New poll shows Dan Seals leading in IL-10. Mark Kirk heading for defeat.

It looks more and more that the democrats will win an additional district: IL-10. A recent poll shows Dan Seals clearly leading the race. That poll conducted October 10 and 11th shows:

Dan Seals (D) 52%
Mark Kirk (R) 38%

That is a remarkable turn of events, as Kirk is an incumbent that had won in 2004 with 65% of the vote over another democratic challenger. But Dan Seals is a particularly strong candidate and has the endorsement and active support of Illinois senator Barak Obama. On the other hand, republican Mark Kirk is closely linked to the Bush administration and has voted for the Iraq war and the interevention in the Terri Schiavo case. Dan Seals will be hopefully the next congressman from IL-10 and republican Mark Kirk will be forced to a, well-deserved, early retirement.

Why Ned Lamont will win (yes win) the Connecticut senate race

After the depressing (and likely misleading) Qunnipiac poll, there is a new poll from ARG that shows that things are not so bad afterall.

For starters, in this poll Lieberman's lead is 5 points less than the Quinnipiac poll. And this poll likely has not been influenced by the last 2 debates (as it was not the Quinnipiac poll, no matter what Schwartz says). Most importantly, this poll has included proportionally more republicans (28%) than the previous ARG poll (24%) that had shown essentially a tied race (Lieberman 44% Lamont 42%). This is important as Connecticut is a very blue state, and in reality, not more than a quarter of the actual voters will be republicans.

Dont take me wrong. Lieberman has slightly improved his numbers, while Lamont has not. In fact, comparing the polls, it appears that Schlesinger has taken away some republican votes from Lamont. But things are not so bad. The race is still open and either Lamont or Lieberman can win.

I still believe that Lamont will win at the end, after a very tight race. Here are the reasons for which I believe that:

1. Lamont's voters are commited and will vote, while Lieberman has very soft support.

2. Lamont has more money to spend in the last 2 weeks and he is already intensifying his TV ads.

3. Lamont has a better ground game.

4. The new TV ad with Dodd will have a major impact in Connecticut. Dodd is very much liked and respected there and when voters realize that Dodd has switched his support to Lamont, they will take a closer look.

5. Lieberman's position in the ballot will cost him at least 5, if not more, points.

6. Lets not forget that most people who say that they will vote for Lieberman in the polls, they do so simply because of name recognition. Some of the democrats who say they will vote for him (34%), are "low information voters" and probably think that he is still the democratic candidate. When they look at the ballot and realize that another democrat is the candidate, many of them will end up not voting for Lieberman.

7. Finally, many republicans may skip voting this year with the disastrous situation of their party. That means less votes for Lieberman.

In summary, Lamont can still win. This race is open, and after the 2nd debate Lamont has been gaining momentum. We should not let biased polls take away the momentum from him. Lamont deserves to win because he will be a much better senator than Lieberman. There is a good chance that he will.

Howard Dean In Connecticut Attacks Lieberman and Backs Ned Lamont

Howard Dean is simply the best. He was in Connecticut campaigning for Ned Lamont. He also took the opportunity to trash liar Joe Lieberman. Here is the video with a part of his talk.

Religious Inspirations

Now we know why that war has been conducted in such a disastrous way. Unbelievable. As I said repeatedly, being a religious fanatic makes you lose touch with reality and here we go. Lets pray that he will get an inspiration to resign soon.

The Real Joe Lieberman

From the Hartford Courant.

Are we up for a landslide? The Dan Seals - Mark Kirk Race in Illinois.

The last polls on congress races released yesterday are remarkable. They show that the democrats are much more competitive than we thought. As an example: IL-10 congressional district. A poll yesterday shows that the race is a dead heat with republican congressman Mark Kirk at 46% and democratic challenger Dan Seals at 44%. Why is that remarkable? Well, because Kirk has been re-elected several times and in 2004 he won another democratic challenger by a 65%-35% margin.

Interestingly, Kirk has been trying to distance himself from Bush and pretend that he is "independent", but he is not. He is a right-wing republican that supported the Bush administration in key decisions. You can see how happy he looks in these pictures with Bush and...Rumsfeld! On the other hand, Dan Seals has much better friends, like Barak Obama (picture below).


Prediction here? Dan Seals has the momentum and will win. And this race is completely out of the radar screen of seats needed for the democrats to get back the congress.

Things look better. Ned Lamont can win. And he will.

Tom Kean can not answer a simple question

This guy is a joke. I am wondering if his I.Q. score is as good as George W's. Unbelievable.

Alan Schlesinger Wins The Second Debate In Connecticut

Alan Schlesinger is the rising star in the senate race in Connecticut. There are reports that he had an outstanding performance in the second debate and he clearly has the momentum in this race. There is no question that Schlesinger is a credible candidate and an emerging threat, not only for the Lieberman campaign, but for the Lamont campaign as well.

Lieberman's steps to success

Lieberman's steps to success.

Torture and Connecticut

From a Connecticut street.

The republican primary in Connecticut. Alan Schlesinger versus Joe Lieberman.

I think that this article is right. There is a republican primary going on in Connecticut, with Schlesinger and Lieberman now fighting hard for the republican votes. But the momentum is clearly with Alan Schlesinger. His performance in the debate yesterday was superb and he proved that he can be an effective senator if elected. Certainly better than Lieberman.

I think Schlesinger has a chance. Not a great chance, but he has a chance. If the democratic vote is split between Lamont and Loserman, then Schlesinger could pull a huge upset. Thats why true republicans should vote for him and not the outdated and flip-flop Joe Loserman.

Oh, and for the (few) republican visitors to this blog: Hey, consider supporting Alan Schlesinger. He is intellectually superior to Lieberman.

Alan Schlesinger wins the debate in Connecticut. Lieberman losing ground.

There is no question that the republican candidate for senator in Connecticut won the debate today. He was strong and he proved that he is a great choice for republican voters.

Alan Schlesinger Interview

The republican candidate for the senate in Connecticut, Alan Schlesinger, gave an intereview online to Connecticut Bob, that can be found here. I watched most of it and I conclude that this guy is rational and his position on Iraq is much better than Lieberman's. There is no question that he deserves the vote of republicans in Connecticut. He is much better than Lieberman.

Traveling

I will be in Washington until Wednesday. So posting for the next couple of days will be light.

Lieberliar

Lieberliar and his promises. There is no question that this guy lies and lies and lies. He almost makes Bush look like an honest man.

Lieberman and Bush. And what happens if Lieberman wins?

From MFW blog. And here there is another post asking what happens if Lieberman wins? Will he join the republicans if they promise him seniority? There is no question that Lieberman is a consistent liar and he will say whatever it takes to be re-elected. Thats why it would be disastrous for the democratic party if Connecticut re-elects Lieberman. It is hard to imagine how 30-35% of the democrats there still plan to vote for Lieberman. Any democratic vote for Lieberman is a waste and reflects lack of understanding of the facts.

Remarkable

Remarkable post.

Alan Schlesinger in Connecticut

There is more evidence that the campaign of Republican candidate for senator in Connecticut, Alan Schlesinger, is getting better and is gaining some momentum. It is hard to believe that he will get only 5-10 % of the vote, as the polls have shown so far. He deserves much more. I still think that many real republicans in Connecticut will vote for him at the end and not the (multi-faced) Lieberman. After the 3 debates he should quickly improve his numbers.

Allan Schlesinger. The republican candidate in Connecticut gaining republican support.

Here is a new republican site called "whose side are you on?" that supports Schlesinger. I think his numbers will go up after the debates. He is a real republican, while Lieberman is simply an opportunist fishing for votes. Real republicans support Alan Schlesinger. People who support Lieberman are simply uninformed.

A Certified Lunatic campaigning for Joe Lieberman.

Ed Koch and Joe Lieberman. Both are nauseating. Yuk.

>600,000 deaths in Iraq?

The new study published in the Lancet by the same group that published the original study on Iraqi civilian deaths should be taken very seriously. Why? Because it comes out of a place with very high credibility (Johns Hopkins), that happens to be in the top 4-5 Universities in the country (at least the school of Public Health). It is also published in a highly credible medical Journal (The Lancet). Undoubtedl,y it underwent very rigorous review to make it there, especially after the shock that the first paper had created, and the issues raised then.

That study estimates that "as of July, 2006, there have been 654,965 (392,979–942,636) excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war, which corresponds to 2·5% of the population in the study area".

Now, I am not an epidemiology expert, but I respect Johns Hopkins and the Lancet and I have to accept the conclusions of the study. Even if the lowest margin (392,979 deaths) is closer to reality, this study is shocking. Think about it...392,979 deaths, at the very least. For what?

The most remarkable data of that study are in Table 3, where it is clearly shown that the pre-invasion crude mortality rate was 5.5 deaths per 1000 people per year (with 95% confidence intervals, 4.3–7.1). That number kept rising 7.5 in 3/03 to 3/04, 10.9 in 5/04 to 5/05 and 19.8 in 6/05 to 6/06. Astonishing! It is not just the net number of deaths that is shocking, it is also the pattern of increasing deaths that it is now at its worst point ever. During the Saddam regime the numbers of deaths daily were almost 1/3 of what they are now! These numbers clearly show that things are rapidly getting worse in Iraq. The removal of the fascist regime of Saddam not only did not help the Iraqis, but in fact made things much worse for them. Mush more people die now daily than when the horrible dictator Saddam was in power.

Of course the radical right and the republican party will attempt to "disqualify" this study. The same way they attack and try disqualify science at multiple levels. But the truth is that Lanset is a very serious journal with serious reviewers, and they certainly dont like to accept in their Journal "flawed" data. Lancet is not Fox News or the National Enquirer.

There is something called accountability. Who should be held accountable for such massive loss of life? Maybe someone should ask George Bush, Dick Cheney or Condoleezza Rice this question. Maybe they have an answer.

New Lamont-Lieberman Poll. Lamont Closing The Gap.

There is a new poll from Hartford Curant and University of Connecticut that shows a move in favor of Lamont:

Lieberman 48
Lamont 40
Schlessinger 3

This last poll is very good news for Lamont, if someone takes into account that within 2 weeks he has cut the lead of Lieberman in more than half (a previous zogby poll had shown a 20 point lead for Lieberman). Also, the difference is even less among likely voters. Now, taking into account that Lamont has seized again the momentum, that there is a 3-way debate set in October and that the Lamont voters are much more likely to show in the polls, we predict that by November 7, Lamont will win the race and will be the next senator from Connecticut.

Lieberman Campaigning Against Himself

Finally Lieberman admits that 18 years is too long and asks for a change in the Connecticut senate.

Al Sharpton: Joe Lieberman tactics border on racism

Bordering on racism. Thats how low some people would go to get re-elected.

He deserves it

The DamageTo Connecticut Caused By Joe Lieberman

From Firedoglake

Cool Book

I just ordered this book from Amazon.com, that looks pretty cool. Maybe I will right a review of it after I read it.

Tom Kean and his support for Bush's Iraq war.

Republican candidate for senator in NJ, Tom Kean, is pathetic. What a loser.

Resignations

Now it came out that the republicans knew about Foley since 2000. And thats not a rumor or a question. It is a direct admission by republican congressman Kolbe (R-AZ). And they are atalking about instant messages, not emails. This is a direct proof that the republican party knew about Foley and covered him up for 5 years. Yes, the party of moral values was covering up a predator for 5 years. Will Hastert resign now?

By the way, talking of resignations, I think that either Cheney or Bush should resign after the nuclear test of North Korea. LOL, I know this would never happen, but think about it. This is a huge international crisis, and we have a president and vice president with essentially zero credibility among the majority of Americans (65-70%). At this point, the best move for the country would have been if either Bush or Cheney (probably Cheney) resigned and was replaced by a democrat, and a goverment of national unity was formed to address the crisis and take the country to early new elections. We need a president that has credibility and the approval of the American people, and George Bush does not. I know that what I suggest would never ever happen, but I think it would have been the right thing for the country.

Another republican scandal: George Allen. Again!

Beyond being racist, republican senator from Virginia George Allen appears to have more poblems. Somehow I think thats simply the tip of the iceberg.

Sounds like a liar

This guy, republican congressman Patrick McHanry, sounds like a liar, and not a very nice person altogether.

Oh, and Joe Lieberman happens to be scary

Very scary

Joe Lieberman. The pro-torture candidate in Connecticut.

Being pro-torture like Joe Lieberman is, does not always click well with others.

Joe Lieberman. Lying again.

Again and again. It is called compulsive lying.

Stop lying (soon to be ex-)senator!

How many days left?

How many days are left until this guy loses his job? He already proved that he has no self-respect and has not resigned yet. But I think at the end the republican party will force him to resign. He should be ashamed of himself for covering up a predator like Foley. He would have a lot of time to think about it after he resigns over the next few days.

Things are about to get very ugly

I think that things are about to turn very ugly for the republican party. According to this post of John Aravosis, there are rumors for the involvement of another republican congressman in the page scandal and a member of Hastert's own staff.

If thats the case, and such story breaks out, we are talking about complete implosion of the republican party. By the way, that may be a good thing, as it may result in a split of the religious lunatics from the republican party and that party can find back its old respected identity.

The Foley Scandal and Joe Lieberman

Joe Lieberman is no different than Dennis Hastert and the republican politicians that were covering up Mark Foley and he proved it, when he said that the whole story has become a "partisan" issue. Firedoglake and Daily Kos have the video posted and the video does not lie.

As Kos points out "Lieberman (apparently) thinks it's okay for congressmen to run around the House preying on teenage pages. Why else would he adamantly refuse to hold people accountable for enabling Foley's sexual predation?"

I would be shocked if the people of Connecticut decide to send back in the senate Lieberman. People like Lieberman do not deserve to be in the senate or congress. At this point, I think honorable republicans who were planning to vote for Lieberman should reconsider their vote. In a similar way that they should reconsider voting for the corrupt leadership of the republican party.

Ed Koch, Ann Coulter, and others like that for Joe Lieberman.

Ed Koch is 82 years old and he is the ex-mayor of New York City. At some point in his life is was a democrat, but he is not anymore. He has degenerated to a lunatic of the radical right who campaigned actively for the re-election of George Bush in 2004 and he currently campaigns for Joe Lieberman. Ed Koch is not much different any longer than lunatics like Ann Coulter and Pat Robertson that are enthusiastic supporters of Joe Lieberman.

It is irritating to see this weird old man going around claiming to be a democrat and praising the neoconservative Joe Lieberman. “I think the senator is one of the greatest senators we've ever had in the Senate” Ed Koch said earlier this week in New York. Well, this is coming from one of the worst mayors that New York City ever had. I was living in New York City during the years that Ed Koch was a mayor and, since then, I thought that he was a weirdo and a failed mayor.
Joe Lieberman has formed a group called "Dems for Joe" that includes some old right-wing democratic senators from the past and even some people that are politically to the right of Bush and Cheney. I think he should form a new group called "Weirdos for Joe" and appoint Ed Koch as the president of the group and Ann Coulter as the vice-president.

Joe Lieberman represents the interests of the antidemocratic extreme far right in this country and thats why they support him. Not only he was never a democrat, but I have serious doubts that he even believes in democracy.

These were the people that were handling the Katrina disaster

A Group of Republican Leaders

Brown, Bush and Foley

A pro-torture man makes fun of the Geneva conventions

Joe Lieberman. How pathetic. He is a really mean person. Yuk.

Shame...

This picture from today shows Laura Bush campaigning/fundraising for Tom Reynolds, the republican leader and NY congressman that was aware of predator's Foley behavior and he still supported him to run for re-election.

So Laura Bush was campaigning today for someone who was essentially covering up a predator in order for his congressional seat to stay republican. These people, including Laura Bush, have no moral values and they apparently dont care if they have predators/criminals in Congress, as long as they support the republican party. Laura Bush showed her true colors. I would say that she should be ashamed of herself, but people without conciense have no shame.

Fox News, Mark Foley, and the Pravda of the Old Soviet Union

Fox News is a propaganda TV station. It consistently distorts the truth in order to advance the positions of the radical right. With lunatic contributors and analysts like Ann Coulter, one can not expect better from it.

I have always thought that Fox News operates in a similar way to the Pravda of the Old Soviet Union or some state-controlled TV stations in dictatorships of the past (i.e. South American dictatorships). But I have now concluded that Fox News is worse than the Pravda of the old soviet union. Why? Because a trash station like that is watched widely in the largest democracy of the world and because corporate money allows it to have influence in Anerica.

Labeling Foley a democrat is a "mistake" that Fox News likes. And thats why "mistakes" like that happen. They are deliberate mistakes.

Laura Bush shows who her friends are...

Wow...it is really unbelievable that Laura Bush will still campaign for Reynolds...Yes thats the same guy who was covering up for predator Mark Foley...And Laura Bush will be the keynote speaker (!!!!) in the fundraising for that guy (Reynolds)....Thats the sort of family values that she has? Astonishing...

The party of family values.

Bush and Boehner fundraising for GOP congressman whose mistress says that he strangled her.

I guess it is all because Bush, Hastert and Boehner believe in family values and have high moral authority. However, I think they should rush to do the fundraising, because my guess is that Hastert will resign soon for covering up for Foley. Especially after the Washington Times called for his resignation.

Ned Lamont - New TV Ad

Go Ned !.

The party of corruption and torture

It appears more and more that the republicans did not take any action against Foley because they did not want to lose his congressional seat in Florida. If Hastert or Reynolds had some self respect, he would had already resigned. In fact, it has now come out that Reynolds received $100,000 from Foley in July, after he learned about Foley's inappropriate emails.

But what can you expect from the leaders of the party of corruption? Corrupt leaders never resign. And these are they same guys that they have been calling the democrats unpatriotic and have been passing pro-torture legislation. Shame on them.

Good Question

Good Question. Especially now that it is becoming clear that Dennis Hasterd and other leading republicans knew and were covering up Foley for a while.

The republican party has reached new lows in its history. It has become the party of lies, corruption, and torture. It now appears that they have no problem covering up for people like Mark Foley, as far as it serves their (corrupt) political goals. But that should not come up as a surprise. These people have no principles. They are a bunch of corrupt politicians.