Amen

My favorite quote from this excellent column:

Rather than naturally exhibiting the traits of a real leader, he replaces his lack of work ethic with an on-going lecture about the traits of a leader, i.e. "It's my job to [insert pitiable hardship here]." And our job, our "duty" in his perception of his subjects, is to superimpose these traits onto him simply because he says so. Then when we, via a reporter or otherwise, don't buy the smirking, too-loud civics lesson (a reaction more and more Americans are having these days) he's still the same ruffian -- but with a skinned knee.

There You Have It

Bush today:

We're not leaving [Iraq] so long as I'm president.

Vote accordingly.

A Question...

If these terrorists were so darn close to blowing up planes over the Atlantic, why exactly are the British having such a tough time charging them?

I'm not ready to go out on a limb yet, but could it be that this is yet another example of our government putting on a big scary show?

Making Sense

This is excellent. What's it doing in the Tribune?

Crossing Party Lines

So, I assume this means that Dick Cheney voted for Joe Lieberman, the man who strikes fear in the heart of Al Qeada, when he was running against him for VP in 2000:

The attacks came in searing remarks from, among others, Ken Mehlman, the chairman of the Republican National Committee and Vice President Dick Cheney, who went so far as to suggest that the ouster of Mr. Lieberman might encourage “al Qaeda types.”

“It’s an unfortunate development, I think, from the standpoint of the Democratic Party, to see a man like Lieberman pushed aside because of his willingness to support an aggressive posture in terms of our national security strategy,’’ Mr. Cheney said in a telephone interview with news service reporters.

Who knew.

Let Me Get This Straight...

So, these potential highjackers were British born citizens of Pakistani origin roaming around the UK, and the UK and Pakistan are allies of the US. Don't we have as much to fear from people born and raised within our own borders and those of our allies than we do from the axis of evil? Why exactly do we have 150,000 troops in Iraq?

I thought we were fighting them over there so we wouldn't have to fight them over here? I'm so confused...

Sad Day for Joe, Great Day for Democrats

I take no personal pleasure in seeing a man like Joe Lieberman be defeated like this. For all his faults, I believe that he is a decent person, and I hate to see someone beaten like this, no matter how defiant the media makes him out to be.

But, despite what you will read and hear for the next few days, this is the best possible thing that could happen to the Democratic party, and we may have just seen the first step in the long journey of taking the party to a better place.

I love Bill Clinton - really I do, some might say in an unnatural way. But, while it was great to have a smart, charismatic leader for 8 years, Bill Clinton so confused the party that it lost its way, and the Lamont victory is the first sign of the party regaining its core.

I believe Clinton won because of who he was, not because of his ideas. He was a truley gifted politician, and he would have won if he was the most liberal Democrat in the party, but many in the pundit class attributed his success to his "moving the party to the center." I believe that efforts among other candidates like Gore and Kerry and Lieberman to copy that strategy ultimately failed because voters felt there was something calculating and inauthentic about that. The Consultants in DC told those candidates and others that they shouldn't take controversial stands and they should play to the center (remember the lockbox?), and, well we've all lived through the results over the last 6 years.

It amuses me (well actually no, it really pisses me off) that the professional media in DC can on the one hand chastise the Democrats for not having a point of view and in the same breath talk about how the party shouldn't be too strident in its positions on things like the war. Well, Lamont went to the voters, who by an overwhelming majority feel that this war was a big mistake, and said just that. The electorate responded, judging by the 43% turnout during a primary in the middle of the summer, and they selected the candidate who was taking a stand.

And, you can be certain, as Kos points out, that this was the outcome the Republicans most feared. If Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity really saw a Lieberman loss as the Democrats' worst nightmare, then they would have sat back and watched it happen with glee. No, they realize that Democrats taking a stand that resonates with the public is the worst thing for Republicans, which is why they campaigned so hard for Lieberman.

So let's hope the party learns a lesson - this is a good start, as is this:

Mr. Lieberman’s determination to remain in the race may soon collide with the will of many Democratic leaders in Washington and Connecticut, however. The Senate minority leader, Harry Reid, and Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, who is leading the effort to elect more Democrats in November, planned to announce this morning that they were supporting Mr. Lamont and that the party should unite around the nominee, according to Democrats close to both men. A spokesman for Mr. Schumer said a statement would be forthcoming, but declined further comment.

The way to win is to say what you actually believe. In this case, it just so happens that the majority of the country agrees.

Primary Day

Connecticut Democrat Joe Lieberman today, saying that a Lamont victory in the primary will tell the country that "in the Democratic Party, there's no room for strong-on-security Dems."

This is exactly what's wrong with Lieberman. No, Joe - it will signal that in the Democratic party, there is no room for stupid on security Dems.

Joe's problem is that he as completely adopted the GOP spin that being strong on security means going around beating people up. Being strong on security means being effective on security, a characteristic that objective evidence would suggest is completely missing from the Lieberman-Bush approach.

Hearts and Minds

I don't want to generalize about our entire military or our presence in Iraq based on one incident, but this is really the most disgusting thing, among dozens of outrageous incidents, to emerge from our presence in Iraq.

I know people will say that these are isolated incidents, but the nature if this attack is so viscious that you have to believe that there's something in the psychology of our occupation over there that contributes to an environment where these types of things happen.

Events like this one, along with Abu Ghraib and Haditha, discredit the last remaining rationale for our invasion of Iraq - that we went in to stop a brutal dictator from mistreating his people - and serve as further proof that it's time to get out. I'd venture to say that the average Iraqi, and most notably the remaining family of this 14-year-old girl, would choose the rule of Saddam Hussein over this any day.