jump to navigation

Yes Virginia, the Democrats believe in Santa Claus. 25 October 2006

Posted by marisacat in 2006 Mid Terms, DC Politics, Democrats, Inconvenient Voice of the Voter, U.S. House.

  Inflatable and Inflated...;)

I don’t think even the inflatable reindeer up there believes in Santa Claus… 😉

A commenter linked to this Bob Parry piece in the previous thread, but it is good enough to roll out again (on Donner! on Blitzen!):

Considering everything that’s at stake, many Democrats appear to be devoting way too much energy to their anticipation of victory – and to an obsession with polls about which seats are “in play” – rather than in sealing the deal with the voters.

Oh.  Voters.  Them…

“I’ve moved from optimistic to giddy,” Gordon R. Fischer, a former chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party, told the New York Times.

“I know a lot of people are in somersault land,” said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., and chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, although he didn’t count himself among them.

Democrats also seem to be hoping for victory by default as Republicans sink under the weight of chaos in Iraq and corruption scandals on Capitol Hill.

Alert the elves to prepare for our arrival!

“I think we have the best chance to take over simply because of the pileup of disasters,” said Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y. [NYT, Oct. 22, 2006]

Granted, some Democrats have issued cautionary warnings against over-confidence and many remember their premature celebrations in 2004 when the early exit polls showed Sen. John Kerry winning the White House. Opinion polls two weeks before an election mean even less, especially given the GOP’s reputation for hardball election tactics.

hmmm.  Some even believed they would win well into the cocktail hour on Nov 2, 2004…

But there is a troubling sense of déjà vu as Democrats let Republicans raise alarms on the Right about the dangers of a Democratic victory, while Democrats let up on their warnings to liberals, independents and even constitutional conservatives about what a Republican victory would foreshadow.

Yes… Candy Crowley and her line up of DLCers, Third Way, Red State Dems, and whoever else have a wonderful hatchet job running off and on all day long on CNN.  It was gag worthy.  They say there will be a similar production for the Republican side of the bed. 

Oh I don’t think so:

CROWLEY (voice-over): Asheville, we have a problem.

What’s a Democratic anyway? The party struggles to find itself and Shuler gets an unexpected assist.


CROWLEY: Hardcore Democrats in the 11th District have been waiting 16 years to put one of their own in Congress, but honestly, this is not what they had in mind.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: On a number of issues, on abortion, on immigration, and on gay rights, he’s absolutely indistinguishable from Charles Taylor.

CROWLEY: Ouch. Shuler just doesn’t fit the template. It’s remarkably difficult for a conservative to find space in the party.

The day her husband was nominated, Teresa Heinz Kerry did a meet and greet with the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Caucus, not that there’s anything wrong with that. Not exactly.

SAUNDERS: You know, I went to a DNC meeting one time, and they said, you know, the Women’s Caucus will meet over here, and the Black Caucus will be over here, and the gays will be over here. We forgot about the big tent. We’ve assembled a whole bunch of pup tents.

COWAN: And many voters, particularly white men, saw that collection of interest groups and said, that’s not me, there’s nothing in it for me.

CROWLEY: This is party with so many identities, it has no identity.

HATTAWAY: When you see an R after the candidate’s name on the ballot, you pretty much know what you’re going to get. Too many people in too many places see a D on the ballot and they don’t know what they’re going to get.

CROWLEY: This is no way to win an election. Democrats have been a minority on Capitol Hill for 12 years. When George Bush’s term ends in 2009, Democrats would have occupied the Oval Office just 12 of the last 40 years. In the last two elections, Gore and Kerry lost the entire South and much of the mid and interior West.

Tell Grover Norquist to move over.  The Dems will let ol’ Mudcat Saunders murder them, and from within.  Why off shore the work?

I was not going to bother to add this, a hard swipe at Rahm… But for the third day the Taps at the close of The News Hour was for 15, 16, 17 names.  Mostly men, from 19 to 40.  I felt like I was being tossed about on sharp rocks.  I am sick to death of the war mongers.

The closing graf:

But Emanuel and his fellow hawks may yet fail to get their way. Major figures among the rulers of U.S. empire, and their well-compensated advisors, from James Baker to Jimmy Carter to Zbigniew Brzezinski to Mearsheimer and Walt, see disaster looming unless the neocons of both War Parties with their dual loyalties to the U.S. and Israel are brought to heel. Second and more important, the people are fed up with the war on Iraq and wary of other wars the hawks like Emanuel have planned for us.The politicians who win office, whether Rove’s Republicans or Emanuel’s Democrats, will have to deal with this rising tide of anger or risk losing their sinecures. That risk is offset by the machinations of Emanuel and others to guarantee that there is no genuine opposition party or movement. And that lack of a real opposition is a problem we must solve.

Brownstein has a piece up in the LA Times… polls – LA Times/Bloomberg – and observations.

Underscoring the midterm election’s volatility, the survey results in all of these contests fall within the margin of error for the polling, which means they are too close to call.

The Democrats need a net gain of six seats to win a Senate majority. Polls in the other key Senate races show Democratic challengers holding consistent — though in some cases narrow — leads against GOP incumbents in Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Montana.

If Democrats captured those three seats, won Ohio and held New Jersey, Senate control would hinge on the outcomes in Missouri, Tennessee and Virginia.

If Democrats win two of these three races, they would have a 51-49 Senate majority. If they win just one, the Senate would be split 50-50 between the parties and Vice President Dick Cheney would provide the tie-breaking vote in the chamber for Republicans.

The latest Times/Bloomberg surveys underscore the trends that are creating opportunities for Democrats — particularly anxiety about the Iraq war and erosion of support for the GOP among centrists. But the poll findings also highlight the obstacles Democrats face in converting the national current of discontent into gains in conservative-leaning states.

Taegan Godard has polls up for races as well.  I am not a numbers person, but I see cliff hangers.

The latest round of MSNBC/McClatchy polls, conducted by Mason-Dixon, show Democrats “are slightly closer to taking control of the Senate than they were last month.” These results shows Democrats gaining five seats. To take control, Democrats need to win six seats.

Pennsylvania: Bob Casey (D) leads Rick Santorum (R), 51% to 39%
Rhode Island: Sheldon Whitehouse (D) leads Lincoln Chafee (R), 48% to 43%
Missouri: Claire McCaskill (D) leads Jim Talent (R), 46% to 43%
New Jersey: Bob Menendez (D) leads Thomas Kean Jr (R), 45% to 42%
Washington: Maria Cantwell (D) leads Mike McGavick (R), 52% to 37%
Ohio: Sherrod Brown (D) leads Mike DeWine (R), 48% to 40%
Montana: Jon Tester (D) leads Conrad Burns (R), 46% to 43%
Tennessee: Bob Corker (R) leads Harold Ford (D), 45% to 43%
Virginia: George Allen (R) leads James Webb (D), 47% to 43%


UPDATE, 5:20 am

I don’t know how many articles I have read on Nancy and the damned committees and chairs.  But Isikoff is up with a projection on the god damned mess… and if this has been reported before, I have missed it:

[B]ut much as Democrats might like to see a thousand hearings bloom, there is one thing standing in their way: the Democratic leader herself. Nancy Pelosi, who would presumably become Speaker if the party wins the House, has made it clear that she does not want to turn the Capitol into a courthouse. There will be hearings, and plenty of them, but according to a top Democratic staff member familiar with Pelosi’s plans—who, like all aides, wouldn’t be named talking about strategy—the would-be speaker intends to keep tight control.

The aide says Democratic leaders will have veto power over committee probes—something that in the past was the domain of the committee chairmen themselves.[snip]

The “powerful chairman/woman of the ___________ committee”… but finds he or she is tied to Mother.  And Reid and whomever else…



UPDATE, 12:45 pm

“This just in”:

Breaking News from ABCNEWS.com:





Achtung!  Heil Sam!

From Hotline On Call:

Brownback Slams NJ Marriage Ruling

The first major national political figure to respond is…. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS):

“The decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court only deepens the constitutional crisis with respect to the protection of traditional marriage, and warrants swift, decisive action by Congress in the form of passage of the Marriage Protection Amendment. Huge social changes should be decided by the people and their elected representatives and should not be forced by the courts.”

 And MPA would be the updated version of DOMA?  So, how many Democrats line up to parse their love, their sacred exclusive love, for the opposite sex?

Enough.  The Republicans always get what they need from the Dems.



Well I am up here as the site won’t let me comment.  I think that is being sent way way past the Spam Filter.  Sigh.

Schumer is on Cspan, at the Press Club.  He is all but taking a victory lap.  Oh, the usual caveats… they blur.  It was earlier today, Liddy Dole is there also.

“We never thought we’d be here three months ago, but Here We Are!”

What a fucking idiot.

Over and over, in election year after election year, GE and MidTerms both… the Dems start to purr and preen, they stretch luxuriously – at just being TOLD they are going to win […]


UPDATE, 3:15 pm

Tasini on Wellstone, who died a 4 years ago today with his wife, daughter and everyone else in the plane:

[H]e was the only senator running for re-election who had the courage to vote against the Iraq war resolution. And it wasn’t an easy political vote–he was in a tough re-election race but one that I believe he would have won because ultimately Minnesota voters, even those who didn’t always agree with him, respected his integrity and authenticity. Frankly, had he been alive today, I think there would be a huge movement to get him to take up the banner as the progressive candidate for the 2008 Democratic nomination (though, with his typical self-deprecating humor, Paul once dismissed his chances of running for president, saying, “I’m short, I’m Jewish and I’m a liberal”) While other senators who want to grab the nomination explain their vote for the war resolution as one that was cast because they were lied to or because of “false intelligence,” Paul had the moral compass to understand that attacking Iraq was immoral, unnecessary and would lead to the pointless deaths of tens of thousands of people.

What would an America be like if Sen. Paul Wellstone had still been in the U.S. Senate? Well, for one thing, Republican Norm Coleman would not be a U.S. Senator. You can bet Paul would have led a filibuster fight against the nominations of now-Justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts. My guess is that he would also have stood with Russ Feingold and called for the censure of the president–a position that no other Democrats have the courage to take.  [snip]


UPDATE, 5:20 pm

Daniel Ellsberg get off a good one, re-capping ’64 and ’02, then on to Iran.. He calls again for an official to step forward, as whistle blower… via Common Dreams   [thanks to Madman]

[E]ven more ominously, Philip Giraldi, a former CIA official, reported in The American Conservative a year ago that Vice President Cheney’s office had directed contingency planning for “a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons” and that “several senior Air Force officers” involved in the planning were “appalled at the implications of what they are doing- that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack-but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objection.”

Several of Hersh’s sources have confirmed both the detailed operational planning for use of nuclear weapons against deep underground Iranian installations and military resistance to this prospect, which led several senior officials to consider resigning. Hersh notes that opposition by the Joint Chiefs in April led to White House withdrawal of the “nuclear option”-for now, I would say. The operational plans remain in existence, to be drawn upon for a “decisive” blow if the president deems it necessary.

Many of these sources regard the planned massive air attack-with or without nuclear weapons-as almost sure to be catastrophic for the Middle East, the position of the United States in the world, our troops in Iraq, the world economy, and U.S. domestic security. Thus they are as deeply concerned about these prospects as many other insiders were in the year before the Iraq invasion. That is why, unlike in the lead-up to Vietnam or Iraq, some insiders are leaking to reporters. But since these disclosures-so far without documents and without attribution-have not evidently had enough credibility to raise public alarm, the question is whether such officials have yet reached the limit of their responsibilities to our country.

Assuming Hersh’s so-far anonymous sources mean what they say-that this is, as one puts it, “a juggernaut that has to be stopped”-I believe it is time for one or more of them to go beyond fragmentary leaks unaccompanied by documents. That means doing what no other active official or consultant has ever done in a timely way: what neither Richard Clarke nor I nor anyone else thought of doing until we were no longer officials, no longer had access to current documents, after bombs had fallen and thousands had died, years into a war. It means going outside executive channels, as officials with contemporary access, to expose the president’s lies and oppose his war policy publicly before the war, with unequivocal evidence from inside. [snip]



1. Madman in the Marketplace - 25 October 2006

not that there’s anything wrong with that. Not exactly.

Oh no, Candy, it’s not like they’re AMERICAN CITIZENS, or even HUMAN BEINGS … no, you asshole, no, they’re a problem BECAUSE:

And many voters, particularly white men, saw that collection of interest groups and said, that’s not me, there’s nothing in it for me.

Nope, nothing in it for THEM, except for a more just society, a society where their gay son, friend, relative, daughter MIGHT GET TREATED LIKE A HUMAN BEING.

No, lets keep reinforcing the idea that it’s better for both parties to pander to a narrow minded, patriarchical selfishness.

Meanwhile, the slaughter goes on, and neither party stands up for decency or humanity, BECAUSE THEIR ISN’T ANYTHING IN THOSE THINGS FOR THESE SELFISH, RACIST, MISOGYNIST, HOMOPHOBIC WHITE MEN.

Ugh ….

2. Ezekiel - 25 October 2006

Barone weighs in using Real Clear Politics as a starting point.

His “result:” Ds 219 – Rs 216.

Which means that the fun really begins November 8. He even mentions Gene Taylor who refused to vote for Pelosi last time, though the Speakership was not on the line that time.

And the new Republican meme: this will be decided in the courts. John Fund joins Kate O’Beirne, and Barone notes the former.

I keep recalling Orrin Hatch saying over and ove with a smug expression, early in November ’00, “This will be decided in the Supreme Court.” Absurd, thought I, how will a Republican-dominated court, always preaching federalism, step in to decide a question of state election law?

This is going to be painful. They are ready to use every–EVERY–means at the disposal to hold on. And all the Dem sucking up to the powers-that-be will be for nought.

3. marisacat - 25 October 2006

I think Gene Taylor is one who will switch. Not the only one either. Another candidate would be the salazar in the House… and there must b others..

4. Ezekiel - 25 October 2006

And if elections are contested, then it will be very interesting to see who gets credentials from Haas as January approaches.

Do you think Ted Olson is too busy saving Harman?

Lots of room to maneuver. One interesting thing that didn’t get a lot of notice. Republicans are postponing their post-election caucus. Denny will probably step down and allow someone with a cleaner slate and better media presence to run for Speaker.

5. Ezekiel - 25 October 2006

And Nancy’s promises aren’t to the voters, but to the “important people” in the media and otherwise.

Maybe if they can convince them that they are no impediment to war and pillage (at home and abroad), then Nancy & Friends can have a bigger piece of the pie–for two years at least. On a trial basis.

6. spiderleaf - 25 October 2006

I feel in my bones that this election is going to be a brutal non-wake up call for the dems.

Rove has called it, they may get thrown the bone of the House, but no way are they winning the Senate… too much at stake, even with guarantees of rolling over for the King. Let the peons argue in the House and save the ‘real’ work for the Repub Senate. Bread and circuses.

And I don’t even want to think about the blood bath on the blogs that will occur. King Kos and his little minions will have trouble herding the cats… I predict a call for ‘healing & faith’ led by the good pastor as Rome burns.

7. TustonDAZ - 25 October 2006

Don’t forget today is the day the NJ Supreme Court announces its decision on gay marriage…The Rethugs will make hay out of it no matter which way the court decides

8. TustonDAZ - 25 October 2006

Billmon is really kickin’ ass these days. From his post up this morning

… I am beginning to wonder if the Republicans are cooking up a heist — and no, I’m not talking about the screw up that deleted part of Jim Webb’s name from part of the ballot in part of Virginia. That seems to have been the product of a fairly typical software glitch — as stupid as, but no more intentional than, the hordes of bugs that keep the Microsoft download site spitting out patches 24/7.

No, what I have in mind is much more low tech, also easier to pull off and, strictly speaking, not even illegal, even though it would take the American system of goverment into uncharted waters.

My speculations were triggered by this John Fund column, which ran in the Wall Street Journal a couple of days ago, warning (anticipating?) that a number of close races could wind up being decided not at the polls and not even in the courts, but on the floor of the House and Senate — by majority vote.

Or maybe I should say “majority” vote, since if enough races are challenged, the bodies ultimately doing the voting may represent only a minority of the electorate. Which, for the losers, is the whole point of the exercise.

Maybe I’m going to have to retract my “serious prediction” (sans satanic sarcasm, really) of 23 and 5…

9. Ezekiel - 25 October 2006

I saw Billmon’s piece, too. I’m feeling rather proud of what I wrote back on the 13th before Fund & Co. weighed in: The Next Katharine Harris?.

In the long run, I think it fits well with a Republican effort to discredit democracy itself. That thread runs through Fund’s piece.

10. CSTAR - 25 October 2006

More reading and also this and thisto give one “paws”; at this rate, soon we’ll be all cats.

Yisrael Beiteinu Chairman Avigdor Lieberman on Thursday lashed out at Israeli Arab political parties and said he hoped Arab MKs who had contact with Hamas or did not celebrate Independence Day would be executed.

The phrase “There will be gnashing of teeth” to describe post Nov 7 keeps bouncing around in my head.

11. bayprairie - 25 October 2006

spiderleaf says:

And I don’t even want to think about the blood bath on the blogs that will occur. King Kos and his little minions will have trouble herding the cats…

the score is ready. i believe it starts off with a series of variations on the quite popular harry reid keeping his powder dry motif and then segue’s into a fortissimo Shut the Fuck UP, Shut the Fuck UP, Shut the Fuck UP.

oh sorry! what am i thinking? hey, lets talk about 2008!!!!

12. marisacat - 25 October 2006

I am sticking with the last line of what I wrote in May…Same as goddam fucking forever.

Upshot? The Republicans make it thru. They hold on.

13. christian - 25 October 2006

maybe kos can turn his site into a thread of kitten photos…

14. marisacat - 25 October 2006

Ugh CSTAR. Thanks for the links. Reminds me of some of the phrases Bob Parry used in his piece (linked up in the posting) to describe how Bush will consider a “win” for him and Rover as permission to unleash.

Executions? Set up Mme Guillotine in the Place de la Concorde and let ‘er rip.


15. TustonDAZ - 25 October 2006

I think Boober’s got an O.D. of faerie dust:
The left blogosphere is in the business of dissecting government pronouncements and lazy and misleading punditry and print-press articles. That is basically all we do. Yeah, we raise money and post guinea pigs and pandas and cats and dogs. But, our main function is to filter and vet the news. We are not in the business of supporting spin or glossing over government shortcomings. And that is why the Democrats are going to have a problem when they come into power. The blogosphere is going to expect them to be honest, incorruptable, and effective. We are also going to expect them to move to the left, not pander to the center. And we will be just as relentless with the Democrats as we have been with the Republicans. We are a beast that cannot change its stripes.

I see that both Markos and Chris Bowers have posts today that talk about the necessity for keeping a long-term view. This November election is just the beginning. No matter what happens, the left-wing blogosphere is going to continue to slap the donkey. Some will focus on policy, others will focus on the mechanics of the party. But one thing we will never be…we’ll never be mindless sycophantic cheerleaders for the governing party. It’s not in our DNA.

Bowel Movement Talkin’

The entire story is ostensibly about lowering expectations for the MYTHIC DEM WAVE this election, but boober got it all fucked up and backwards…

16. TustonDAZ - 25 October 2006

Whoops! something happened to the blockquote, but I think you can distinguish my words from his…

17. gong - 25 October 2006

“Slap the donkey.” Heh.

What I really wonder is how it’ll be before “taking the long-term view” means keeping pie-holes shut till after 2008.

18. marisacat - 25 October 2006

That is hilarious. He links to long quote from Al sharpton. At a time Al was in the employ of Roger Stone who traces his operative work for the R party from Watergate (at 20 or so) to Florida in 00.

NYT LA Weekly Black Commentator Village Voice all reported on the relationship and what RS’s objectives were in making AL his worker bee.

19. spiderleaf - 25 October 2006


you forgot the requisite “Where’s Armando when you need him?”


20. gong - 25 October 2006

Thinking about the NJ Supreme Court decision today, I wonder why anybody would think that same-sex couples should be able to enter into a union that is legally equivalent to marriage, but that it should not actually be called “marriage.” (The decision demands equal rights but leaves open the question of whether legally-recognised same-sex unions should be called “marriages.”)

I’ve actually met someone who professed to hold this view, apparently sincerely. She seemed genuinely upset to learn that Vermont-style civil unions do not actually confer equal rights, for example. And she agreed that her view made no sense. Still, it was somehow important to her that marriage only be for a man and a woman.

How can people be so invested in a word? I just don’t get it.

21. marisacat - 25 October 2006

oh marriage is sacred. Ask Gingrich. Or Henry Hyde … or so many others.

So sacred they do it over and over… 😉 Or “adulterate” the sacredness.

22. gong - 25 October 2006

But if there’s no difference in the institution, legally speaking, it’s like they’re saying that the word rather than the institution is sacred.

Hmm, though with the Gingrich and Hyde references, maybe you’re onto something. It’s really not about what people do, but about what people say.

Maybe I’m not cynical enough. 😦

23. NYCee - 25 October 2006

I’m glad you didnt neglect the Rahm piece, Marisa. Just partway thru, but have to pop back to throw this extraction down.

In terms of retired Senator Fritz Holling’s statement that Congress is Israeli occupied territory[…]


Also read the last one you linked by the same author a week or so ago about the Rahm coalition of the willing … us to war.

Fuck that fucking Rahm. Ugh. He so epitomizes that (hawk) TYPE in the party who drones on about how Dems are so much better because they, unlike the abominable BushCo, would create a MULTIlateral force. Have friends, make WAR! Mo betta bombing… and such.

Oh, I fucking despise them and their multilateral coalition of the willing (and as Ellen Tauscher, D-CA, added on Cspan recently … Dems would make “not just a coaltion of the willing but of the “capable”) Schumer is high on that list. They bang and bang on the gift that keeps giving – Bush’s Iraq war failure; they gleefully use it to WIN, yet Schumer himself said just THIS year, this spring, that he would vote again to make war on Iraq. He is so Israel Occupied Territory. And he and his ilk have nothing else to say to distinguish themselves from BushCo on fp, esp in the ME, except to make claims about better Dem management and coalitions of the capable.

Just saw him with Libby D on Cspan discussing their senate campaigns. He brought up the multilateral thing there as well. See, he was telling the assembled press how the BUSH war on Iraq is so bad so he needs something to make space btw himself and Bush, being a mega supporter as well, which means his ACTUAL fp philosophy doesnt meld well with the ANTIwar magic carpet the Dems are using to woo the public. So he talks about this terrible “mess” in Iraq with Iraqis killing Iraqis and our troops. (Oh, very out on a limb. Not. A mere observation, no responsibility attached.) And Bush cant build a decent coalition (to do preventive war right).

The man goes with what he can.

The Rahm coalition of the willing (us to war) are a bag of shite.

24. NYCee - 25 October 2006

Reading on, I find the author does associate Schumer with Emanuel in shying away from the war on Iraq. Ah, yes, the omission. It speaks volumes. Wish he had added the sin of comission – the quote from Schumer, this year, where he said on some Sunday show (may have been local ABC thingie that’s on), that he still thinks making war on Iraq was the right thing to do. Doesnt take back his vote, so to speak. So of a piece, although definitely not a PEACE, those two.

In January 2005, when asked by Meet the Press’s Tim Russert whether he would have voted to authorize the war-‘knowing that there are no weapons of mass destruction’-Emanuel answered yes. (He didn’t take office until after the vote.) ‘I still believe that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do, okay?’ he added.”

Okay, Rahm! (Ooooh, so in-your-face aggressive. Manly man.)

The full paragraph here:

How does Emanuel, the man who has screened and chosen the 2006 Democratic candidates for Congress, feel specifically about the war on Iraq, the number one issue on voters’ minds. Emanuel and Reed do not so much as mention Iraq in their book except in terms of the “war on terror.” Nor does Emanuel mention Iraq on his web site as among the important issues facing us, quite amazing omission and one shared by Chuck Schumer who is his equivalent of the Senate side, chairing the DSCC (Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee). However a very recent profile in Fortune (9/25/2006), “Rahm Emanuel, Pitbull Politician,” by Washington Bureau chief Nina Easton notes: “On Iraq, Emanuel has steered clear of the withdraw-now crowd, preferring to criticize Bush for military failures since the 2003 invasion. ‘The war never had to turn out this way,’ he told me at one of his campaign stops. In January 2005, when asked by Meet the Press’s Tim Russert whether he would have voted to authorize the war-‘knowing that there are no weapons of mass destruction’-Emanuel answered yes. (He didn’t take office until after the vote.) ‘I still believe that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do, okay?’ he added.”(3)

25. NYCee - 25 October 2006

Quite an article.

I really should have put to full view that sentence with the Hollings’ quote, as it says something tres important about Rahm. And there is so much more within re Rahm and deep Israeli connections (including Irgun Papa… ergo, sonny boy!)

[… ]In terms of retired Senator Fritz Holling’s statement that Congress is Israeli occupied territory, Rahm Emanuel must be considered one of the occupying troops. And he certainly is a major cog in the Israel Lobby as defined by Mearsheimer and Walt.

Walsh goes on hopefully.

Nor is the idea that the Lobby exists and has tremendous influence on Middle East policy any longer a taboo in the minds of the general populace. According to a poll just carried out by Zogby International for CNI (5), 39% of the American public “agree” or “somewhat agree” that “the work of the Israel lobby on Congress and the Bush administration has been a key factor for going to war in Iraq and now confronting Iran.” A similar number, 40%, “strongly disagreed” or “somewhat disagreed” with this position. Some 20% of the public were not sure.

That is similar to what I noticed in Cspan callers. May the trend continue.

As for the part you quoted, where he mentions Carter in that pantheon of powers that are on a divergent track from Rahm, I immediately thought of a talk Carter gave (on Cspan last few days) where he described the/his (12 point) deal he cinched with NK/Kim Il Sung, another major negotiating coup of his. (His skills re Egypt/Israel deal were brought up on another panel, this one on the ME, I saw recently) The Clinton admin quickly came around to snapping up the deal, overcoming initial resistance, esp from the state dept. Carter was the first American, I believe, to be able to cross into NK from SK. Oh wow, even Papa Kim trusted him. How bleeding rare.

It was wonderful to hear Jimmy Carter (and Rosalyn, plus the ambassador and Carter Center right hand man to the deal) talk about it. It was, bizarrely, so… human.

Think JC is high on Rahm’s list for ME brokerage? I tend to think NOT.

26. marisacat - 25 October 2006

Oh Carter and Clinton are not on amicable terms. Due to N Korea as well as Darfur…

Jimmy has all but made that clear. For a couple of years now.

He had to get a signed document from No Korea confirming what he said in his debriefing at the WH after return.


Clinton is such a fucked mess. And all of his dullards and Dlcers and Republicans and Third Wayers.

27. marisacat - 25 October 2006

oh yes, and Clinton’s 20 Blahhhgers.

28. NYCee - 25 October 2006

True, but at least he had the good sense to go with it. Therein lies the difference btw him and Bush, who wouldnt have even let it get started.

How that man has fucked up the world and this nation is really beyond me sometimes. Carter all but said that too.

(And Poppy saying he couldnt be prouder, even referenced the powerful closeness of “Italian families” as he accepted an award from Jack Valenti recently… who slobbered all over him. Couldnt help but think of a certain sort of infamous Italian famiglia type, not usually honored in polite company, before realizing it was a posy to Valenti.)

Carter was also generally described as a “Good Neighbor” by many in LA. A rare feat for an American president, esp after all those bloody years of covert “regional management.”

29. NYCee - 25 October 2006

Just a short break before Reagan got started.

30. NYCee - 25 October 2006

Camp Clinton was definitely NOT happy with Dean, and Carter backed him. Of course, he was anti Iraq war, so Dean was a logical choice, but still, it stands out. Also Gore backed Dean.

Speaking of Gore (and the Billarys) just recalled a funny comment that stuck from some news chatter I heard a few years ago. How Tipper never liked Hillary, and the word she was quoted as using to describe her, which became more understandable to me over time, was that she found Hillary to be a very “grasping” kinda person. Lol.

31. marisacat - 25 October 2006

Well I think Jimmy was a mixed bag. But he did try.

And has tried as an ex-president.

Bill just munches on plastic clover. And Hails Jesus.

32. NYCee - 25 October 2006

Yeah, he really fucked up with his fp on Afghanistan (typical cold war US shite) – Ziggy was so taken with the notion of funding the fundamentalist “freedom fighters” for the purpose of giving the “Soviet Union its Vietnam” in Afghanistan.

But considering what shakes out, he was better than most. I hold him in very high esteem re his ability to negotiate in very sticky situations. If there were more like him….

33. marisacat - 25 October 2006

Oh I agree he was better. Frankly better to have a Sec Def from your own party. Zbig has been out there relentlessly for years on Iraq and whatever else. (On Lehrer right now)

Cohen is SO useful. LOL.

Carter’s other big mess was to defer to Baker on the whole voter/the vote thing they chaired. Carter utterly caved to the Voter ID idea.

Really bad news. Carter k nows what that means.

34. NYCee - 25 October 2006

Yes, I’ll watch Lehrer later… saw Ziggy as I was breezing by, and he has been good on Iraq.

Heads up on Democracy Now for those interested (Have the eve installment on now… recording as I wash dishes. Wash now, watch later) and see Amy is doing the show on the Greens – NY: debate shut outs, Hawkins is on, League of Women Voters arrests; DE: Berg; PA: GOP money funding Greens; and WA: Dem manipulations…


(Was cleaning out my answering machine and heard my old volunteer coordinator for Tasini had invited me to some sort of shindig with the gang, which I totally missed. Damn. I like that guy a lot. Very liberal, friendly dude from Arkansas. Gotta give him a call and see what theyre up to in Camp Tasini)

35. NYCee - 25 October 2006

Damn. There is the Green again, in another MA gubernatorial debate.

I mean good. It’s just that ….

I feel so fucking cheated.

I did not even bother to watch the second Hillary debate, the two pro warriors, the Republican idiot allowing her to claim the antiwar mantle as she maintains her hawk cred for those for whom that counts. Now, the News Director at ABC chided me because he said I didnt know what sort of tough questions they were preparing to ask… this when we were jousting on the phone, me complaining there were no antiwar voices, and the Green was a bona fide candidate who should have been there.

Oh right. Yes, I trust ABC, Mr News Director. From the coverage I read afterward, it really seems they cracked her facade. No, actually, it was said she seemed more comfortable than the first debate. And they slipped it by us in the wee hours of the am on Sunday. Sweet.

36. NYCee - 25 October 2006

i like the way that a default to the Strongman Solution is wending its way into the propaganda mills re Iraq solution. Prepping the public for what America does best.

Whoops! Catching it late, but Chris Matthews grilling Dick Durban as to why so many of his “smart” Dem colleagues didnt get what he got – Vote NO on this horrid war res. Well, Dick was on the intell committee so he heard special stuff, the rest were bamboozled by the witchcraft of BushCo, according to him.

Erm, uh, dont they fucking talk to each other? Wasnt war-voter DiFi on that same committee? And Rockefeller? And Bayh? And there was nothing that Graham or Feingold or Durbin et al could have said to them that would make the go-alongs trust THEIR fellow Dems’ judgement more than motherfucking Bush and Cheney?

No, this question must be asked, and asked, and asked. I translate that to dog, pester, hammer. Relentlessly. Make them pay in some way. And still it will never be commensurate to how those who are really paying are paying for those callous, miserable, politically expedient votes for this war.

37. marisacat - 25 October 2006

They wanted the war. I don’t even buy the old “we wuz up for re-election”. I consider that cover.

LOL Obamamamamama virtually erased his speech against the war (Black Commentator has it), would nto speak of it and dissembled for more than 2 years to Rahm, Hillary, Bill, Blair etc., type speech.

Now he is some fake standard bearer.

I wish them luck.

38. Arcturus - 25 October 2006

Tuston it looks like he at least got one thing right in that bit you snipped:

We are a beast that cannot change its stripes

Not that I’m all enamoured by Camejo, but I heard him on KPFA pleaing for votes this aft saying, in effect, the gov race is over, why vote for Angelides now?

39. Madman in the Marketplace - 25 October 2006

Speaking of Rahm’s REAL priority, the Israelis are making the German’s feel welcome:

The German Defence Ministry was investigating an incident involving two Israeli fighter jets and a German warship patrolling the Lebanese coast as part of a peacekeeping force.

A ministry spokesman said that two F16s apparently fired two shots in the air and released flares that can be used as a defence against heat-seeking missiles.

The Israelis denied that shots were fired.

The German spokesman did not identify the vessel or say when the incident occurred.

The Israeli Defence Ministry said that Amir Peretz, the Defence Minister, had called Franz Josef Jung, his German counterpart, about the reports.

Why, the Germans must be making it up … the Israelis would never attack a ship flown under the flag of an ally!

40. Ezekiel - 25 October 2006

I’m afraid my opinion of Jimmy Carter as President is quite low. Three recollections:

Jimmy came up to Boston to prepare the ground for the Presidential run while he was still governor. He tried to snow everyone about what a “liberal” he was, when he was a “fiscally responsible” social services cutter in reality. His perceptiveness also didn’t impress me. As Jimmy made the rounds of the room, he came up to this kid with shoulder length hair (me) and introduced himself, “Hi. I’m Governor Jimmy Carter from Georgia. Where are you from?” When I told him Missouri, he immediately started to praise Warren Hearnes. Now I had worked hard for McGovern both in MA and in MO, and that shouldn’t have been too hard to guess considering my appearance and the setting. And Hearnes had done all he could to stab McGovern in the back from the convention right on through the general. But for Jimmy, origins trumped ideology. And he brought good old Ham Jordan, Powell, Bert and Stu with him to DC in ’77.

Then the first summer after Carter’s inauguration. I happened to be in DC and my wife even interned in the EOB. We were hopeful that liberals in the administration could steer things in the right direction. Carter was asked at a press conference whether he would introduce legislation to repeal the Hyde Amendment, and he replied no. The reporter followed up with a question about whether it was fair that abortion services were not available to poor women while they were to those who were affluent. Carter’s response was a flip, “Life isn’t fair.”

Finally, through that summer, people in my wife’s office did try to accomplish some things and raise consciousness levels, but they were finally paid a visit by Stu Eisenstadt, part of the Georgia mafia our of one of the big law firms in Atlanta. That was the end of that.

Carter was a Trojan Horse sold to a party that had previously nominated McGovern for President. He was the original DLC.

Now since then, he’s done a lot of good things. But as President, no thanks.

41. marisacat - 25 October 2006

IIRC the “life is not fair” episode played out rather nastily. I am running on memory here. Mrs Mondale had a reaction that went public… something along the lines of ‘we are required to work to make life fair(er)’ and, again iirc, they forced an apology out of her. She managed an elegant parsed concession, but only becasue they forced her…

Jimmy has a hard dark spot about abortion – and women I suspect… A real streak of meanness. Just a few months ago he said “I don’t think Jesus wants all of these abortions”.

Funny how they still get to wage war to the full extent that they wish. Jesus seems to take a powder on war for them.

By now Jesus should just open a Golden Arches franchise and be done with it…

42. Ezekiel - 26 October 2006

Kos rips Ford for his statement on the NJ decision, and gets some pushback in the thread:

whine and bitch about dems (2+ / 0-)

Recommended by:
xynz, Sam I Am

not doing what it takes to get elected.

Memo—Ford is campaigning for a Senate seat in TN. How many blacks win Senate seats in the south? So he’s trying to pick up some extra votes from the “hate crowd” who also probably hate him because he’s black. It’s ironic that he’d try and win votes from the people who aren’t going to vote for him anyway but politicians in the south don’t win on anti-gun, pro-gay marriage platforms. It sucks. We know it sucks…I guarantee Harold Ford knows it sucks but thats the way it is so fucking deal with it.

Memory serves kos, you were pumping the dem from OK v Coburn last go around and he wasn’t exactly a beacon of progressive thought. You want dems elected or you want to “stay the course” on sticking with platforms that don’t play locally. Marilyn Musgrave wins against good opponents because she lives in a part of Kansas..er CO, where Bible before Constitution is the ideology. No Dem is going to beat her unless they subscribe to at least a handful of the bullshit conservative values like banning gay marriage, banning stem cell research, being pro-life etc.

fucking pretty hypocritical to voice your favor for some dems who are staunchly anti-abortion (Casey) but you take Ford to task for taking a stance that will make him look more appealing to TN voters. Um, Santorum will win unless Casey continues to make the PA voters think he has the same morality as the person they’ve elected in previous elections.

Tired of the lies? That makes 60% of us!

by Bill O Rights on Thu Oct 26, 2006 at 01:18:28 AM PDT

43. marisacat - 26 October 2006

oh I think Kos has finally figured out TN. My guess is/has been that Ford will lose… and sure some of it is racism. No question. I just don’t think TN is gonna send a black unmarried man to DC as a SENATOR. To the Frist seat (what a laugh they call it that… His Royal SOuthern WHite Boy Ass has sat on some throne in DC… Geesh)

So my guess, Kos feels like hving something to bitch about… or Kos wants to pretend years of being vicious to women and about reproductive rights, demagoguery, pure and simple, did not happen on his limp FP.

As if Kos gave a flying hoo hoo.

44. JJB - 26 October 2006

I doubt that Kos is capable of remembering how many times he comes down on the opposite sides of issues, I doubt he can remember what stance he took on a particular issue the day before. Everything is of the moment, and no thought is ever given to anything, he just spews out whatever is in his spleen at any one given time.


You’ve pretty much caught my feelings about JC as President. Right from the start, he went out of his way to alienate the still considerable base of power in the Democratic Party, organized labor, and the Congressional Dems, who actually had realistic hopes of enacting a fair amount of social welfare legislation, including national health insurance. One of the worst failures came when Carter couldn’t get passed the common situs picketing bill that had been passed while Ford was still President (Ford vetoed it). He deliberately snubbed Ted Kennedy, entirely out of pique it would seem, with disastrous results for himself. I ended up voting for John Anderson in 1980, a vote I now regret simply because Anderson never pursued organizing a third political party the way he’d said he would.

Carter’s post-Presidential career has been magnificent, and he deserves all the accolades he’s received. But his Presidency was an enormous disappointment to countless millions of people.

Incidentally, I cast my first-ever vote in 1972 for George McGovern, and after all these years, it’s still the one with which I’m happiest.

45. Ezekiel - 26 October 2006


Many parallels to my history. I had no use at all for Carter by ’80.

No, Carter was no friend to labor either. Everyone remembers the Reagan and the air traffic controllers, but the pace of decline quickened first under Carter.

46. TustonDAZ - 26 October 2006

Well, Bushco signed the border wall bill today, fighting against the tide to assuage the profound terror of the browning of Amerikkka…to bad mother nature don’t give a damn about segregating black and white:

Brisbane twins, Alicia and Jasmin are part of an exclusive worldwide club because one was born white and the other is black.

Born five months ago to a mum of Jamaican-English heritage and a dad with a German background, the twins are remarkable because of the drastic difference in their skin colours.

While genetically explainable it is fairly rare to see such a remarkable difference.

“There are multiple genes involved in skin colour and the determination of skin colour is just by the luck of the genes that are selected,” fertility expert Dr Frank Carmody said.

“There have been reports of black and white twins as far back as 1812 and while genetically explainable it is rare.”

“In this case these twins are non-identical so would have been two eggs and two sperm,” Dr Carmody said.

Another rare example comes from Holland where twins Koen and Tuen were born five months ago with strikingly contrasting skin colours.

The boys gave their parents quite a shock when Koen was born black and his brother Tuen was born white.


But love is colour blind and as far as the family is concerned the pair are twin brothers.

And these like all of the parents of the black and white children say their mixed twins are a blessing

Sorry to be so OT, but I thought a little good news might be welcome…

47. NYCee - 26 October 2006

Good points on Carter’s failings. I have a strong focus on foreign policy these days and so I place a lot of value on where I find Carter has shone, has a talent and skills that are hard to come by, ie, in the fp negotiating arena.

48. marisacat - 26 October 2006

Tuston… so interesting. I had no idea it also happened naturally. I o nly knew of the instance a few years ago of a mix up at a sperm bank. Sperm was mixed and ended up producing a twin pair of girls. one black one white.

How interesting… thanks for the link.

49. JJB - 26 October 2006


Yes, that’s very true, and to be fair, he started his administration with an act of great courage, i.e., the pardon for Vietnam era draft resisters, and those who’d emigrated to avoid conscription. Carter had said up front he’d do this in the campaign, and Ford probably managed to win a fair amount of votes on this issue. There were also the Camp David Accords, a remarkable accomplishment, and he accorded diplomatic recognition to Communist China.

Still, the image of his presidency that is indelible in my mind was that photo op showing him at that wasteland in the South Bronx, vowing to rebuild it into a thriving, livable neighborhood. Nothing was ever done about that, and it remains for me a potent image of squandered hopes and dreams, as well as broken promises.

50. marisacat - 26 October 2006

Reagan made use, iirc, of the same corner in the SO Bronx. Pointing out it was still a mess and making promises.

Frankly it sums up our mess.

Jimmy tried, I give him that. But that narrowness of a small town, Southern white preacher type has left lingering damage.

51. NYCee - 26 October 2006

I became very familiar with the belly of the S Bronx (Fort Apache Central) shortly into Reagan’s tenure, just a year post Carter, and it was appallingly evident that nothing had been done – such an incredibly ravaged and neglected place. It was during this period that one thing was done – bright, happy scenes (potted flowers, smiling families, pets) were painted onto the boarded up windows on scores of abandoned, burned out buildings. Quite a sight as one rode the elevated trains.

52. NYCee - 26 October 2006

Whoa! What’s this from Kos – a dis to Harold, a shining example of the glorious diversity (GOPpiness) of the Big Tent? Well, silence IS golden…

DK is down now, but I think I saw some pissy comments about Ford supporting Lieberman, last I looked, included in the pile on.

Looks like Ford needs to get some of that Ben Nelson magic mojo going on to weatherize him from fp attacks on DK. I mean, Nelson still hasnt been denounced, and last I looked Nelson was hanging in there supporting Lieberman over Lamont, along with Salazar, Pryor, Carper and Landrieu. You’d think the oft-repeated excuse – he’s from a RED state, whatcha gonna do! – would work for Ford too. Where IS the consistency in the inconsistency? Well, mostly it’s the silence on Bush/GOP enabling that’s key to passing the Dem loyalty test with DK frontpagers. Likewise, go very, very silently if you dare to support Lieberman. Unfortunately for Ford, he is in a very high profile campaign and is not afforded the luxury of cover that Nelson enjoys.

I came to understand that mouthy party disloyalty is the big taboo on DK most markedly when I stumbled across Armando on the front page making quite a show of contrasting Nelson to Lieberman, when the knives for miserable ole Joe were just getting sharpened. He lauded Nelson, telling us that, unlike Lieberman, Nelson was da man because he is a quiet, discreet man, and thus a loyal man. Unlike Joe, Ben doesnt make flashy, overt gestures of BushLove as he unobtrusively goes about the business of voting deeply rightwing on just about every important issue/appointee to hit the floor, much more often than even Joe or Harold Ford. While laying low on his abhorrent trail of Bush/GOP loving votes, he has the “decency” to be noncritical of the rank and file whose deepest values he works to defeat. But this is all we can possibly hope for from Nebraska Ben, so send him a thank you note sealed with a kiss, Armando urged. Hold him up as a role model!

Then on Majority Report, I heard Kos’ reedy little voice hammering home the same point about this contrast btw the two, giving Nelson the thumbs up, Joe the thumbs down, again because of Nelson’s ability to lay low while voting Bush/GOP over and over and over. The glorious “diverse” big tent hoorah was thrown in, of course. Yup, Nelson was quite the star.

53. NYCee - 26 October 2006

Funny, I just googled to check on Nelson’s support for Lieberman and that fantabulous Armando post I referenced, his Ode to the Odious Nelson, was second from the top of my search.

What Lieberman Can Learn from Ben Nelson (There are no longer comments, and it is no longer in his immense diary history… hmmmm…)

And he wasnt satisfied with one fp bouquet, as he followed up with numerous other homages to Nelson later on, in his big tent rampages across the blogosphere. My, my, what those orange progressives will say! Here is an example of his utter foolishness in one of his follow ups, crossposted at MLW. It really is a larf.

Big Tents, Core Values and The Politics of Definition

He responds to this portion of Trevino’s criticism of Crashing the Gate:

Among their targets are the “single-issue groups,” as they term them: the activist organizations that push one cause above all else, and hence lose sight of the larger goal of Democratic victory. It’s an interesting argument, and it has some merit inasmuch as it doesn’t make sense — to appropriate one of their examples — for NARAL to endorse a pro-abortion Republican when the totality of Republican control will act against their cause.  But the authors give short shrift to the causes as such: they have no time for the principled in a party they describe as “stand[ing] for nothing.”

Armando/(BigTentDem, how appropriate!), ‘counters’ with this:

In my view, Trevino has completely misunderstood the thesis of CTG, just as many have misunderstood the thinking of Ruy Texeira and John Halpin’s piece The Politics of Definition”. What CTG and T&H are talking about is a Democratic Party that is committed to its core values and also is a Big Tent — the type of party required to be a majority party in the United States. They are arguing for a party that has defined its values while at the same time NOT requiring lockstep agreement on all the issues across the country. It will be a party where Ben Nelson will stress his fight for working Americans and contrast that with the Republican Party’s neglect of the common man, but also a party where a Ned Lamont will battle with Joe Lieberman over the Iraq War and where Ted Kennedy will fight for civil rights. Much may divide Ben Nelson, Ned Lamont and Ted Kennedy, but their core values, values of the Democratic Party, pull them together. And each should stress those values in ways that make sense for each of them in their respective political situations. And in this way a national Democratic brand can be created that appeals in all sections of the country.[… ]

Yessir. Tell that to poor Harold! (Oh what a tangled tent they weave…)

54. TustonDAZ - 26 October 2006

Wow, talk about a heavy dose of irony:

… just spent over half an hour responding to an email from the Green candidate I met last weekend, Byron DeLear.

As I wrote, I found myself coming to an inescapable and nauseating realisation: I am a coward.

…. I wrote to Mr. DeLear my reasons for having concluded — and posted said conclusion in a diary (here and at Daily Kos) — that I preferred to vote for Howard Berman, the longtime incumbent Democrat in my district, than for Mr. DeLear, whose name on the ballot sits beneath the aegis of the Green Party.

I realised that I was relieved to have come to the conclusion I had, because if I had honestly decided to vote for Mr. DeLear, I might not have had the wherewithal to post that in a diary at Daily Kos. That is to say, I would have been AFRAID to post it at Daily Kos.

Which means I am a coward. I fear the hostility, verbal abuse, loss of respect and, most shameful and embarrassing, the loss of popularity I would sustain if I posted a diary at Daily Kos endorsing anyone but a Democrat in any campaign.

I fear being marginalised, should I come to the conclusion that the Democratic Party is unacceptable to me. I fear the enmity of people I once called allies and compatriots — for it would surely come, if I abandoned the Party. I’ve tasted the wrath of the mob that patrols the diaries at Daily Kos — and despite my bravado and defiance, I will admit to you here and now, it hurt.

They did their work well — for surely, if the Great and Powerful MSOC is not immune to the viciousness of the “Democrats at DKos: Love Us or Leave Us” (aka SYFPH) mentality that so often dominates discussions of diaries even HINTING at dissent from that stance, then why on earth would a newcomer or lurker want to open himself up to that sort of treatment at the hands of the Mob?

(Full disclosure: I’ve repeated this many times in the past year or so, but it certainly bears saying here… I was once one of the more vocal, vicious and powerful advocates of SYFPH. I am ashamed of it…
See what I mean? I am a coward. I’ve debated crossposting this to Daily Kos and frankly, I am AFRAID to do it. I watched yesterday as a well-meaning Democrat posted a diary about his misgivings regarding Hillary Clinton and his decision not to vote for her (in the upcoming election, mind you — NOT in 2008) — and the swiftness with which the mob descended on this fellow was surreal and terrifying. It took less than 5 minutes for over 35 comments to appear, most of them demanding the guy shut his fucking piehole, delete the diary and say ten hail marys for DARING to state aloud his intent to decline to support a Democrat. Needless to say, he deleted that diary. Dissent silenced.

So, I was utterly dismayed this morning to find myself realising that I was RELIEVED to have come to the conclusion that I preferred to vote for the incumbent Democrat than for the Green candidate I’d met and admired over te past weekend. I was relieved because I felt spared the agony of having to decide whether to post a diary about it. Imagine it — it isn’t hard to do, it’s happened so many times, too many times to count — imagine what would happen if I were to post a diary at Daily Kos, endorsing a GREEN PARTY candidate over an incumbent DEMOCRAT.


Lordy, a “GREEN”, can you imagine?

I’m too busy laughing (and procrastinating from RL office work I should be grinding through right now) to delve into the comments so I have no sense of where they go…

Call it mean-spirited if you will, but my response to MSOC is “take another shot of courage” and try to see beyond your Kool-Aid induced Dim-ocratic Lieberturdian delrium before you vote…

55. TustonDAZ - 26 October 2006

No, really I’m going to get back to work but I’ve got to share my S. Bronx story…

PK’s family are from Queen’s, and we visit at least once a year (its great fun, the hippie-hick schtich seems to goeover well with new yorkers ), anyhoo I rented a vehicle the first year we went back and missed an exit and ended up somewhere in the south bronx, at least it said it was the south bronx. I thought I was in Bagdad, what with the burned out car, the crater-like pot-holes and the gun fight across the street.

I made it out alright, obviously, but there are few slums I’ve visited that looked that fucked up and they were in Belize City…

Okay, back to the grind…(if I type that enough, I’m sure it will happen)

56. marisacat - 26 October 2006

So, I was utterly dismayed this morning to find myself realising that I was RELIEVED to have come to the conclusion that I preferred to vote for the incumbent Democrat than for the Green candidate I’d met and admired over te past weekend. I was relieved because I felt spared the agony of having to decide whether to post a diary about it

oh that weak Green capitulation is ridiculous… Is that a plant diary?

Good lord.

BTW, new thread, if anyone wants one.

57. cactus ed - 26 October 2006

Nice comment from that thread. (Thanks, TustonDAZ.) Here’s a taste:

But ya know what ? The bottom line is the bottom line. All this hate and spiteful rhetoric does what?

It makes Kos a wealthy man.

58. TustonDAZ - 26 October 2006

Wowzers! You must have had to shift a shit to get to that gold.

You’re a more stalwart man than I, cactus ed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: