August 3, 2006

By their friends ye shall know them

Here's an email sent out by College Republicans.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 18:52:09 -0400
From: "[windows-1252] College Republicans"
Reply-To: College Republicans
To: collegerepublicans@PRINCETON.EDU
Subject: Unconventional Primary Campaign Opportunity (LIEBERMAN)

Republicans,

I hope everyone is enjoying their summer. In June, I informed you all of a campaign opportunity for State Senator Tom Kean race for U.S. Senate in NJ. Continuing the tradition of letting you about summer campaign opportunities here is a much more unconventional option:

Incumbent Senator Joe Lieberman (Democratic Primary)
Lieberman is facing a tough primary fight versus far-left anti war activist Ned Lamont.
----------------------------------------------------------------
August 4-9th Primary Campaigning:

Elissa Harwood '09 (NOT A CLUB MEMBER) has organized a series of buses departing on Friday August 4 from Washington DC (6:30 Foggy Bottom Metro) and NYC, destination: Hartford, CT

People interested in campaigning for Lieberman in the Democratic Primary will have lodging accommodations paid for (by his campaign), as well as food and transportation.

Buses would bring you back on August 9th.

If Interested, E-mail: XXX@Princeton.EDU or call her
at (757)-XXX-XXXX.
Hell yeah, feel the Joementum. The Lieberman campaign is paying College Republicans for their food, lodging, and transportation. What more needs to be said?

And this endorsement should put Joe over the top. He's such a great Dem.

15 Comments:

At 8/03/2006 10:09 AM, Blogger Craig said...

THis is awful, he needs to get the hell out!

 
At 8/03/2006 10:40 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

No argument here.

 
At 8/03/2006 5:02 PM, Blogger DookOfURL said...

Well, yeah, HELL yeah! Feel the racism, oops, I mean distance that Ned puts between himself and the nutroots----I mean NETROOTS concerning this little piece of work.

Hey, Ned knew bloggers before he didn't know 'em. Har!Har!

 
At 8/03/2006 5:33 PM, Blogger DookOfURL said...

More comments about "cut-n-run"Lamont. If you can stand to look outside your bubble, go here.

I love pointing out the hypocrisy of the rich and powerful---like Lamont!

 
At 8/03/2006 6:01 PM, Blogger Scott said...

I always said he was a Republican.

 
At 8/04/2006 2:24 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Getting a bit desparate there Dook? Throwing out your favorite epithet of the moment, "nutroots" to describe what? Only Dem bloggers? I guess the freaks on the right such as Malkin are just hunky-dory?

The woman who actually wrote a book defending the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII? Yeah, she's real mainstream. No "nutroots" there, nosireee.

She's a self-hating racist weirdo, constantly seeing muslim conspiracy behind every bush. Hell, even Chris Matthews as much as told her she was nuts on his show. (It was great. Maybe I can find it on YouTube)

That attempt to suggest wrong-doing on Lamont's part is weak as circus lemonade. You're capable of better.

As to "cut and run" Lamont, I guess you and smokin' Joe are "stay, kill, die, and lose" types?

Good luck supporting a war that the rest of the world has already figured out long ago was unwinable and actually dangerous to American interests and security.

I guess someone needs to go down with the ship. Enjoy the ride.

 
At 8/04/2006 10:30 AM, Blogger DookOfURL said...

OK, whatever, but what do you think about Hamsher's use of the photoshop of Lieberman in blackface on her HuffPo post? Kinda nutrooty wouldn't you say?

What do you think of Lamont, whose run for the Senate is driven by bloggers, saying "I don't know anything about the blogs", which is a blatant lie, and a dodge to distance himself from Hamsher after the blackface hit the fan?

The main reason the Lieberman/Lamont race is garnering so much national attention is that it a test of how the netroots (or nutroots, depending) affect politics and political races.

In '04 some Democrat candidate for Prez (can't remember which one) had to de-link himself from Kos after Kos made the nutrooty "Screw 'em" comment. People are wondering if the net/nutroots crowd is just too wild and woolly for mainstream politics, where what you say and do and the company you keep can have devastating consequences, as opposed to blogs where the more hyperbolic and outrageous, the better.

I'd like your comments on these points please----I'm not inclined to defend either Malkin or Hamsher nor am I interested in more useless debate about Iraq.

PS: If you'd read my links, you'd know that the "cut and run" remark was about how quickly Lamont abandoned Hamsher and bloggers, and was not about the War in Iraq. Sheesh!

 
At 8/04/2006 4:08 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

OK Dook. Sounds reasonable.

First of all, I don't like the term "netroots", let alone "nutroots". I guess it's a term of convienience to describe some amorphous group of political blogs, yet it gets distorted by the likes of you into meaning only liberal blogs, or only prominent liberal blogs... or... who knows.

I think it's unhelful. The right wing was on the net earlier and has dumped far more money and effort into it, (the Freepers, etc.) but the left has overtaken them in true grassroots up from nothing style.

I think it's truly like the right wing whine of all time.... that they weren't represented in the so-called "liberal press".

Only on the left, they KNEW their views weren't seeing the light of day, that the "liberal press" was anything but, and just corporately controlled commercial ventures which wouldn't dare step out of line and report anything to do with the left. And on the few occasions they did, they'd be sure to have 5 conservatives on the show to shout them down.

At any rate, I think the net was truly the only outlet available to millions upon millions of people out there who felt truly ignored and abandoned by BOTH parties.

Nader's followers were largely accepted, but when it became apparent that Nader might hurt Gore, the bloggers definitely went anti-Nader, except in states where a vote could be symbolic without affecting the outcome.

So to try to, as you and so much of the media who fear them do, portray them as "nuts" or somehow "fringe" or "far-left" is neither accurate, nor fair.

Yes, compared to the daily drivel put out in the media, they may appear really far left. But the fact remains that they're not radical in any respect, but simply the basic, common sense Democratic liberals who have always made up the majority of this country.

They're not wild eyed bomb throwers, for God's sake. They're simply people who dare to say that Bush is a disaster, Republicans are crooks, and the "war" is a misguided disaster and we need to get out.

All of those things were portrayed as just way, way out. Yet they've all come to be accepted as generally true, DESPITE the efforts of the right and the media, particularly newspapers who obviously feared the new media form, to portray them as somehow illegitimate, representing the fringe, and safely ignored.

Believe that at your peril.

Read a few days worth at Free Republic and then read a few days at KOS or Atrios' blog. Then tell me who's on the fringe?

Freepers routinely celebrate the death's of reporters they felt were insufficiently right slanted, were jubilant at the death of Paul Welstone, and routinely call for the death or murder of those they don't like, usually indulging their gun lust in the gruesome details.

So easy on your overused term "netroots". It's pretty generic, though you try to put it on liberal blogs only.

As to the Lamont/blog flap, I don't think it's much of anything at all.

I have no idea what the point was of putting Smokin' Joe in blackface. I read that he was in the picture with someone else, also in character. I suppose it was to illustrate something, though I have no clue what.

At any rate, I think it was trying to make a point, clearly not trying to disparage blacks.

To even try to suggest so is kind of bizarre, and is nothing more than the almost orgiastic urge by those on the right to catch someone on the left doing something the right has been guilty of for years.

Many on the right are out and out racists, and many more are racists in more subtle ways. So to wingers, the thought of catching a liberal doing something racist is cause to rub their thighs with glee and maybe spend some time with that poster of Ann Coulter.

I can't make a judgement of whether the picture was in bad taste. But I also understand it was taken down after a very short time.

It's expected that Lieberman's campaign would seize on it and try to tar Lamont... all's unfair in love and politics.

But to try to somehow hold Lamont accountable for what a supportive blogger did is kinda whacky, don't you think?

As to his comments, you take them out of context. He was most likely asked about this issue, which he knew nothing about. "What about the thing on the blog??" some reporter probably asked, sticking a mic in his face.

So Lamont simply said, "I don't know anythying about any blogs".

He CLEARLY didn't mean that he had no idea what a blog was. And neither could his statement be taken and twisted to suggest he was saying he didn't know any bloggers. I mean, c'mon.

That's hardly a "blatant lie" as you try to suggest.

And it truly is sad to hear you feel that debate over what we should do in Iraq is useless. Pehaps it is, unless we get Republicans out of the White House.

 
At 8/07/2006 3:43 PM, Blogger DookOfURL said...

Dope, thanks for your answers to my questions. It would have been nice if you could have eliminated the partisan screed, but really, I expect no less from you. So, let me say this about that:

1. "netroots" has entered the common lexicon. I saw netroots used recently on the CBS News blog. Please don't try to tell me that CBS is right-wing. I'll provide a link if you're skeptical.

2. The right-wing has always complained about the national press that it does not take it seriously. What's different now, is that the left wing thinks like the right wing. MSM-they're uniters not dividers!

3. I consider Free Republic and LGF the same as Kos and Atrios. I don't read any of 'em---they're all too extreme. I'd be hard pressed to find the right-wing twin of Democratic Underground, though.

4. It's interesting, but not surprising that you make excuses for Lamont and Hamsher, though I'm sure if a Republican and a right-winger blogger did the same thing as Lamont/Hamsher, you'd be in a frothing lick-spittal frenzy. It's called hypocrisy----or partisan hackery.

5. But really, partisan hackery is really trite and boring, be it on the left or right, so let me ask you a new set of questions, and please refrain from casting liberals as victims or from blaming/attacking Republicans/conservatives.
My questions is this: do you believe that the Democratic Party is basically isolationist and anti-war? If Lamont wins tomorrow, do you think this will push the Democrats further to the left? Some Democrats say a push to the left would be disasterous for the party nationally and some say it wouldn't. I have my opinion, but I would like to know yours.

 
At 8/07/2006 4:47 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

I'll let someone else answer your questions. I have no desire to try to predict the future when all you'll do is dismiss it as "partisan".

Secondly, I simply said I don't like the term "netroots", yet you seem to act like I think you'd made it up yourself. Nope. Wrong.

Thirdly, you're far too shrill yourself. Expressing a rational and reasoned view is not a "partisan screed".

The right always does this and it's so dishonest. Any time anyone writes anything they think it remotely off the party line, they condemn it as "partisan".

Well of course it is! There's nothing wrong with being partisan!

What the hell are the right wingers if not partisan themselves?

The entire thing of trying to smear someone as "partisan" is utterly ridiculous.

And I know you have some sort of rightous impression of yourself as "moderate", and that's fine, though it's clear you're a conservative trying to pass as moderate.

But that's just another place on the spectrum. It certainly doesn't give you the right to dismiss anyone who is to the right or left in their views.

Being moderate does not mean you're somehow more virtuous or that your views are somehow more valid.

I suggest anyone confronted with the political situation as it is and has been for the past 10 years or more who still thinks there's some sort of middle ground either isn't paying attention or simply has no concern over what has been happening in this country.

It's kind of pathetic to hear you bash me for expressing partisan views when that's usually all YOU do as well. Your comment above is a case in point.

I'm NOT a damned middle of the road, everything is fine, kind of person.

The right HAS lead this country down a wrong and I believe dangerous path.

There are people being murdered around the world due to their actions, there are people suffering in this country, and there are freedoms and liberties we've always taken for granted which are in great danger, all due to the Bush Administrations actions.

So excuuuuuuuuuuse me for opposing that and having an opinion on matters and feeling it's important to express them.

If you can't figure out a way to actually THINK about what I write simply because I point out things that make the right look bad, then I can't help you.

The fact is that I'm not the one that is making the right look bad. They are.

I fail to see how it helps to dismiss views out of hand which have been expressed thousands of times by "mainstream" pundits and authors.

You may be uncomfortable hearing them, and they may ring a little too true, but sticking your fingers in your ears and rejecting them by simply slapping a label that's pleasing to you just doesn't cut it.

If you can't respond to what I write, then don't bother asking me questions. I'm sure you wouldn't approve of the answers.

 
At 8/07/2006 5:02 PM, Blogger DookOfURL said...

OK, nevermind.

 
At 8/07/2006 5:20 PM, Blogger DookOfURL said...

Can you at least get past your hurt feelings and answer my questions about the future of the Democrat Party?

And I did respond to what you wrote----you just didn't like the answers.

 
At 8/08/2006 6:32 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

It's over between us Dook. I want my records back.

Just kidding.

You know, in order to answer that question, I'd write a really long reply. Then you'd belittle me for writing a long reply, or like Mowen, say you just didn't have the mental power to read it all, and then I'd be pissed, and the whole thing starts again.

Well, you asked for it. I feel a really long-winded comment welling up in my "whacko liberal" brain and straining to escape through my fingertips.

Better stretch your legs, get a cold beverage, maybe some popcorn or snacks for substinance, and visit the water closet. This might take a while.

You'll probably end up wishing you'd never pressed me for an answer.

So for those with MTV-like attention spans, the short version of my answer is:

We need to take a giant step to the left. From where the government currently stands, way, way out on the right, a giant step to the left would still leave us right of center.

Now, on with the show.

I think I kinda arrived at an opinion on the matter in my reply to your comment on the post about Charlie Rangel.

I really think that the country needs to take a giant step to the left.

But I doubt it will happen because too many people have been mislead into thinking that would mean going back to the 60's and all the evils that have been dishonestly ascribed to liberalism.

That means that we'd go back to fiscal responsiblity, semi-sane foriegn policy, an end to goofy military adventurism and dreams of empire based on the thoughts of a small group of misguided ideologues.

It would mean an approach to rebuilding America's status in the world by means other than pointing the barrel of a gun at everyone.

The country has been hijacked by a melding of corporate and fundementalist Christian interests with the result that things have gotten so bad, so fast, that it sometimes seems surreal.

Going back to the left means that those congressmen who are nothing but glorified corporate lobbyists would get shamed out of office.

It would mean electing people who take the principles of personal freedoms and constitutional rights seriously and not something to be bargained over or compromised.

And most of all, it would mean electing more congressmen who acknowledge the millions of people who believe in the principles of liberalism, people who, I might add, have been utterly ignored by both parties for too long.

The fact is that a relatively tiny, wealthy, and powerful minority on the far right have had influence over our government far, far in excess of their number.

This needs to be corrected, and doing so will mean a move away from such truly radical right wing policies and priorities.

Forget burning the flag, let God, Guns, and Gays fade back into their proper place. (none of them are issues anyone but a small minority of people would be concerned about if they weren't constantly thrown in their face by the right)

I truly believe that this country NEEDS a move to the left, if for no other reason than to get away from far-right course it's been on.

The fact remains that there is much about liberalism that is appealing to a vast majority of this country. When polled about liberal issues, a large majority of people support them.

At their core, all right wing proposals, policies, and views are all designed to benefit the very wealthy and political donor class, period.

That may sound radical, but it's hard to argue it's not true.

This fact explains why the American people have been so barraged with distortions and lies.

The right first needs to devise a strategy to make average people feel that these measures are done for them somehow, not just the very very wealthy.

Hence all the BS storm about evil trial lawyers, farms which have to be sold due to "death taxes", (even the Farm Bureau can't produce one single instance where that's happened.), the war against universal health care, rigging the bankrupcy laws so that credit card companies get their money before people can even pay medical bills, and on and on and on, including naming bills that allow corporations to pollute MORE, the "Clean Air Act" and one which opens up more federal lands and strips regulations for logging in federal lands which they named the "Healthy Forrest Act", etc.

It's a con game through and through, and it's been so effective that the average rube will vote against their own interest and for Republicans over and over.

In that respect, I think if Lamont beats Lieberman, it will be a step in the right direction.

In the face of overwelming right wing power, the country simply can't tolerate those who say they're in the opposition party, yet do little or nothing to oppose the right, much less anything effective. (though with no majority, it's near impossible for any Dem to do much, and the Republicans have absoulutely abdicated their duty to perform any oversight of the executive branch whatsoever)

The country simply needs a return to balance, and the restoration of a true opposition party which can return the checks and balances prescribed in the constitution before the government moves even further towards a one party state.

I don't think those thoughts are radical. I think it's all based on simple observation of what's occured during the Bush era.

It's gotten so bad that now more and more conservatives, even former administration members, are beginning to speak out.

It's not "whacky" to note that the country has gone in a direction which it's never gone before, and which is truly threatening to our established form of democracy.

 
At 8/08/2006 12:04 PM, Blogger DookOfURL said...

If you're talking about classical liberalism, I'm in.

Unfortunately, the Democrats have been either unable to unwilling to present any sort of policy or plan that addresses the serious concerns facing our country. It's just the usual bromides of "raise the minimum wage", etc. that are frankly in the same category as the rights "gay marriage" bit. These are fringe issues.

But look at how John Kerry struggled to present some sort of coherent foreign policy. This is truly the Democrat's weakness, in my view, and they are going to have to do better that calling for gradual withdrawl from Iraq, which is no policy at all. You might be right that it would be a real boon to the Democrats and to the country in general if the Democrats became more anti-war. We should have had this conversation in '04 (I backed Howard Dean), but the Dems chose to nominate that lame@ss Kerry. I'd say a good punch in the gut is what is needed here.

BTW, great comments. You were really rational and not too vitriolic!

 
At 8/08/2006 12:18 PM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Now you're making me blush.

I guess those pain pills I was taking for tooth pain must somehow make me sound more reasonable.

Maybe opiates are the key?

I should consider getting a good oxycontin addiction going like Rush. I could end up making millions and living in a mansion in Palm Beach and frolicing with news bimbo Daryn Kagan or whatever her name is.

And I wouldn't even have to be a fat hypocritcal blow hard! (though it seems to be all the rage these days and might be a good career move. I just don't know if I could do it if I tried.)

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home