Saturday, November 11, 2006

keep these creeps in their crypts

* david sirota has a post-mortem about lamont. Kathleen responds:
This is crap. They ran a lousy campaign, plain and simple. Of course Reid didn't help,promising Joe his seniority, but the fault lies with their smugness and ineptitude. They made no attempt whatsoever to work with the Dem town committees, and even when asked by supporters if they would campaign with the other candidates, they couldn't even get that much together. They thought they were rock stars and everyone should come to them, the press, other candidates, even other Dems from other states, while they were being what Tom Swan called '"choosey"' I call it downright stupid. The big shot bloggers blew into town and knew so little about local sentiments, they had Lamont walking with Dick Blumenthal in the Vets Day Parade, so Bye, Bye black vote.. Apparently they never heard of Scheff vs CT. I could go on, but what's the use.

I hope Dems don't misread the results and think there was insufficient opposition to Bush and Brown Nose Joe. That was not the problem. They treated CT voters like dumb little kids and practically told us to wear long sleeve shirts and bring bug spray for Christ's sake..This is not to say that Lamont didn't change the whole dialogue of the past election. If not for him, Dems would not be in the majority today because Lamont;'s primary win shook the DLC out its reactive quaking in the corner bullshit., jumping into the corner of Rove's choice.

If this is what Sirota thinks is a campaign second to none, we're in big trouble if anyone lets him run anything. He should stick to research.

* kathleen:
"Starroute, you're scaring me (re Gates). No, seriously, I remember lots of this stuff from being alive and reading the news, but conveniently pushed it to the back of my mind. Get a wooden stake guys, we'll have to drive it through that spot where most people have a heart to keep these creeps in their crypts."

* Raimondo:
"The Lobby opposes a Middle East settlement: they stand for expanding Israeli interests, at the expense of the Arabs and the Persians, and their goal [.pdf] – the atomization of existing Middle Eastern states down to a more manageable stature – is being rapidly accomplished in Iraq. Their goal is to duplicate the process throughout the region, and this means more "regime change" – in Lebanon, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, as well as Iran.

In any contest pitting the Baker Commission against the Lobby, the outcome is going to be problematic – but I'd put my money on the latter. Especially as the neocons ditch their old Republican allies and attach themselves to a new host – the Democratic Party – it is hard to see how the War Party is going to be stopped. Unless, of course, the American people wake up in time – there's always that possibility. The recent election is proof that they haven't fallen permanently asleep: they can be roused, if only there's the right stimulus."

* dreyfuss via scott:
"That will mean that they (Dems) must become a resonant echo chamber for the anti-war voice of the American voter, who will demand nothing less. The Democrats must thunder from the pulpit, threatening to rain down hellfire, hail and brimstone on Republicans who want to stay the course—while scrutinizing every Pentagon budget request and holding investigative hearings into war crimes, abuses, cost overruns and mismanagement. Expect every general who’s ever called for Donald Rumsfeld’s scalp to headline a House or Senate hearing. And just wait ‘til the new leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees get their hands on those long-suppressed files on the lies that got us into war in 2003."


ewastud said...

I think the analysis by Wayne Madsen concerning Gates and his closeness to GHWB (Bush Sr.) is more plausible and accurate than what I have read elsewhere so far. Robert Parry has also implicated Gates in the October Surprise affair in 1980 and the Iran-Contra scandal.

The October Surprise affair was a name given to the time when American hostages in Iran were alleged to have been secretly negotiated to stay put by VP candidate Bush Sr., and Iranian negotiators were encouraged to NOT make a deal with Carter that would have helped his re-election bid. It was no mere coincidence that the hostages were released immediately after the Reagan inauguration in January '81. Reagan-Bush continued to deal secretly with Iran for years afterward in connection with aiding the Nicaraguan Contra terrorists / narcotics traffickers that the clueless frontman Ronny Reagan so enthusaustically embraced. Gates has a VERY dirty past, to be sure, if it will be forced out into the open. I hope they bring up the findings of the Larry Walsh Iran-Contra special prosecutor investigation in the upcoming hearings.

lukery said...

ewastud - good to see you.

there has been a lot of coverage of Walsh et al so far - at least in the blogs and alt-press. hopefully we'll see it bubble through.

btw - why didnt we get an Oct Surprise this year? or did we?

rimone said...

Kathleen: The big shot bloggers blew into town and knew so little about local sentiments...

who were these people, by name?

btw, i remember that whole 'october surprise' shit (cause i was already researching shit in libraries that didn't make it into corporate media) and was totally pissed off about the hostages being released right after raygun (on top of my anger at ronnie's win or whatever the fuck it was).

steven andresen said...

This interests me,

"..."The Lobby opposes a Middle East settlement: they stand for expanding Israeli interests, at the expense of the Arabs and the Persians, and their goal [.pdf] – the atomization of existing Middle Eastern states down to a more manageable stature – is being rapidly accomplished in Iraq. Their goal is to duplicate the process throughout the region, and this means more "regime change" – in Lebanon, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, as well as Iran..."

I have been curious why these countries do not get together to oppose these efforts by the United States or others to invade them, as in Afghanistan, or Iraq, and then threaten them in Syria and Iran.

I understand that there are great differences between the religious affiliations between Iran and Iraq, for example. So, that might explain some of it.

I understand that the United States already controls the kinds of positions their governments can take because the U.S. supports their particular leaders against the will of their populations. I take it this is true in Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, and Pakistan. Several of the -stans. Maybe more. So that explains some more of it.

Then, I guess there's the idea that opposition to the U.S. will make the U.S. mad at you. So far, at least, this can have consequences. So, Cuba is a demonstration project to that effect. Maybe Venezuala is another. So, you have to be aware that there are costs. That explains some more.

All of this may go to explain why the Islamic countries don't just stop selling oil to the United States, for example. They could sell all they have to China or Europe.

I would just point out to them that by not standing together, then they could or will fall seperately.

I would wonder whether China and Russia realize this and this is why they have supported Iran with the weapons systems and technical help that they have, so far.

How long can the United States afford to buy off their opposition? Or maintain governments that suppress the perceptions by their populations that Islamic countries with oil wealth are just targets of opportunity?

I bring this up because I don't think it is in our interest to survive by stealing the valuables of other countries and then killing whomever tries to object.

Kathleen said...

Rimone; The bloggers I know of who were paid were David Sirota, Tim Tagaris, Matt Stoller and one other I can't recall at the moment, not Jane or Christy from FDL. They may have been great at blogging, but not at running a campaign or what Sirota calls strategizing. The campaign's efforts were all insular, online, non exciting non-events, only preaching to the choir. That Chris Murphy and Joe Courtney were able to unseat incumbents, especially in our district where the now famous Submarine Base that Joe Lieberman allegedly saved singlehandedly, with no help from the top of the ticket shows that the support was there, Lamont's camapaign staff just didn't know how to work it. Chris Shays kept his seat, but his district has never elected a Democrat since George Washington fought the Revolution and even the most popular Dems who win office have not carried that district. Senator Abe Ribicoff in 1968 was the one exception. He ran ahead of Nixon who carried it. I know support was there, but all they could think to ask of people was to sign up for a time slot to phone bank. No ideas of how to work their district were welcome. In fact, if you took any initiative, you might just get scolded by some out of state college kid, like you're too stupid to write a three line press release. God forbid you should let the local press know the candidate was coming. They left it to the press to check their website. Duh? The story is rife with dumb things like that. It's a downright pity. What worries me is how the DLC is going to interpret Lamont's defeat and how that will impact the tack they take as a whole. They think because some conservative dems won, this means Lamont was too liberal. What they don't realize is that Libera;s held their nose and voted for conservative Dems for subpoena power, so if they don't use it, they'll oose it.

rimone said...

thanks, Kathleen (i love D Sirota)