From Jim Gilliam's blog archives
political earthquake

August 9, 2006 10:03 AM

From my colleague, Rick Jacobs: "Tonight, the political world quaked. An outsider with a team of outsiders proved that by saying “I’ll run” and by standing up for character and pluck, for being willing to say no to the president who will go down in history (although painfully slowly) as the most destructive ever, won. He won without the consultant class fluffing him and supping at the trough. He won without conventional wisdom at his back. He won without Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, Barbara Boxer, Barack Obama or anyone else anointing. He won without asking permission of the establishment. He won without looking at the polls and without living in focus groups. He won the way Americans have stopped imagining people can win. He won by trying, by saying I will and then saying we did."

UPDATE: Petition is up to tell Lieberman to "Respect the Voters"

More from the archive in Elections, Politics.

political earthquake (08.09.2006)

Next Entry: Lieberman gets offer from the devil himself (08.09.2006)
Previous Entry: Lamont wins! (08.08.2006)

Read the 27 comments.

Right Wing Robby:

Facts: 1.5 million voted in 2004 in election.

160,000 voted for your guy in this primary.

Wheres the rest of the votes going?

Lets say that 1 million vote in Nov. The Rep will get some votes for being a Rep, but Lieberman is going to clean up. It wont even be close.

Mark my words, you will be reminded of them.

Wed Aug 9 2006 11:29 PM


Dave E.:

Wow -- such a complex formula.

Seriously, that's one of the funniest things I've ever read on this website.

Thu Aug 10 2006 12:28 AM


Right Wing Robby:

Whats going to be funny is when you boy loses, which he will.

Whats even funnier is the claim of victory you libs are having after a liberal won an election against another liberal in a blue state.

Know whats not funny? The major terror plot uncovered by the global network of anti-terror governments. Lets see now, which democrat is strong on security and which democrat wants retreat from the fight.

People love their children, more then they hate George Bush. Well, not you, but normal people.

Thu Aug 10 2006 8:28 AM


Mike of the Great White North:

you're a f(*&ing tool RWR. i mean that with all sincerity.

Lieberman maybe a 'democrat' as much as Zell Miller was. Thats not the point. Point is people are waking up and tired of the continual bullshit propped up for the war. If Liebby wants to answer questions like 'knowing then what you know now, would you support going to war?'.. with a yes, then thats his perogative. And he lost for it. We shall see how the rest of the Democratic hawks begin to act (take note Hilary you war whore)

Know whats really funny? That the terrorist plot that was foiled involved ZERO military action you idiot. Notice how the REAL war on terror doesn't involve invading and levelling countries that didn't attack you? You're equating the Iraq war with 'security' continues to show how stupid you are, no question.

You're last line is just so f&(*ing rediculous, i just think it speaks volumes towards your character and intelligence.

It's people like you that may actually make me cast aside Darwins theory and embrace creationism.. because your proving devolution.

Thu Aug 10 2006 12:53 PM


Dave E.:

I just wanna see more wingnut math. Methinks that could be some endlessly entertaining reading.

If he went to college, he'd better ask for a refund.

And great distinction Mike. With the exception of Afghanistan, the prosecution of this "war on terrorism" has always been and will always continue to be, practically speaking, squarely within the province of law enforcement. By its very nature.

See, I believe America can preserve its Constitution and protect its citizens at the same time. Under the chickenhawk Bush and his wingnut chorus of keyboard kommandos, we have taken the path of the coward. If RWR wants to equate leaving the Iraq sinkhole with retreat from the fight, he doesn't understand the war.

Google SCOTUS Justice Kennedy's speech to the ABA the other day to understand what I mean. He spoke about the meaning of freedom, the role the law plays in defining the word, and the precarious position this nation finds itself in.

No one is debating that terrorists need to be stopped. The debate is at what price. Call me sentimental, but I refuse to compromise my Constitutionally protected freedoms in exchange for being safe but suffocated. That is a role fit for a coward.

I'm sensible enough to understand Iraq had nothing to do with the real threat of terrorism, and that there should be consequences for politically exploiting the real threat as an excuse to invade. I mean, you really wanna talk about reprehensible behavior, look no further than that.

But going forward, a coward thinks we need to stay in such a deleterious and compromising position simply because a few dim bulbs throw around phrases like cut and run, retreat, or raise the white flag. Idiots. Really really stupid people. There's really no other way to characterize it. Terribly misinformed, misguided, and manipulated stupid people.

And, ultimately, cowards.

Thu Aug 10 2006 6:52 PM


Right Wing Robby:

Do you realize, as the American people will, that if NSA wiretaps were not allowed this plot would have worked for the terrorists? We would have had another 9/11. If liberals were in charge, people would have died, in mass.

Lets get some libs in here argue against the NSA now.

Not only are you liberals against such measure, but you are now claiming 9/11 was an inside job. Unbelievable. How do you argue with such madness?

Thu Aug 10 2006 8:51 PM


Dave E.:

You don't argue with such madness, because it doesn't exist.

Who the fuck do you listen to so that your mind is raped with such nonsense? No doubt a cite sheet would be littered with Hannity and Rush and Savage...paid shills and fear manipulators, the entire lot.

You are speaking nonsense. Your paranoia over this phantom liberal position is clearly constricting your ability to think with any shred of honesty, or dignity for that matter.

But I wouldn't suggest your voice be quieted - quite the opposite in fact. I hope you continue to post here for as long as possible. Please do. There is value found when reasonable people who lurk read this generally representative, absurd and corrosively divisive position you spout. Reasonable people can realize how far gone over the edge wingnut radicals really are.

As for the substance of your post...currentlty your statement (which essentially endorses usurping the Constitution) wouldn't stand up to any scrutiny. Cite me a reputable source which credits an unconstitutional US data mining program with British arrests from across the pond for an alleged terror plot, when virtually no substantive details have been released.

Yes terrorism is real. (Please don't be stupid enough to continually reset to your default position which paints anyone critical of Bush as a de facto terrorist. It makes you look stoopid.) But I refuse to be a coward. I will not compromise the Constitution just to feel warm, fuzzy, and safe.

Thu Aug 10 2006 9:33 PM


Dave E.:

And for the record -- yes, I acknowledge there are borderline personalities (not restrictive to left/right, mind you) that think 9/11 was totally cooked up by Bush. You'll have this riff raff.

Personally, after seeing how bungled this admin has handled virtually everything it has encountered (Katrina, Iraq, Afghanistan post-war, abiding by the rule of law, et cetera, et cetera...), there is no fucking way Bush and company could've pulled off 9/11. Some pissant croney would've fucked something up for sure.

Thu Aug 10 2006 9:37 PM


Dave E.:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060810/pl_afp/britainattacksairline_060810185330

"But a senior White House official said that the British government had not launched its raid until well after Cheney held a highly unusual conference call with reporters to attack the Democrats as weak against terrorism.
[...]
"Weeks before September 11th, this is going to play big," said another White House official, who also spoke on condition of not being named, adding that some Democratic candidates won't "look as appealing" under the circumstances."

PR orchestration in preface of a raid? Cheney took a pause to craft the PR before acting?

Nuff said. Kick these bastards out. I swear, anybody that doesn't see this plain language manipulation that covers for ineptitude is a full fledged knucklehead. These dopes are charlatans, and anyone that took their bait (wingnuts) needs to reevaluate what they are witnessing...because this is the equivalent of political pro wrestling.

Fri Aug 11 2006 2:48 AM


Mike of the Great White North:

Some sad suggestions for you in this time of crisis... RWR and other nuts take note.

1. Throw more troops into Iraq so you can fight them over there instead of over here, umm er, in Britian, uhh?

2. Since democracy is the only cure for terrorism, you must implement regime change in Britain, for its democracy has failed.
-Credit: Daily Show-

3. Consider taking a Tylonol 3, or morphine even. It seems those 'birth pangs' eminating from the middle easts new love child are giving you phantom labour pains. But we all know its worth it because democracies don't go to war with/against other democracies like Israel and Leba... oh f@#<!!!!!!!!

4. Since there appear to be many people of Pakistani origin involved in the plot, I suggest immediate 'shock n awe' followed by ground invasion of ... um... Papua New Guinea!

5. No they don't hate you for your foriegn policy. They hate you because of your freedoms and values. Become a fascist state, and install a dictator for life, remove all personal freedoms and civil liberties. Should that fail, simply accept Islam as your faith and ideology and you shall be safe. Just like the Swiss & Swedes!

I hope the sarcasm didn't cut too deep and didn't make you feel to retarded.

Fri Aug 11 2006 10:57 AM


Right Wing Robby:

http://rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/August%202006/ConnecticutSenate.htm

Wait, whats this?

Sun Aug 13 2006 4:52 PM


Jim Gilliam:

RWR: Lieberman has always polled much better in the general election matchup than in the primary. That's because Republicans like him so much. He's got about a snowball's chance in hell of hanging on to it though since all the dem heavyweights have left him in favor of Lamont.

Sun Aug 13 2006 5:58 PM


NJGuardsman:

The recent Primary election in Connecticut just goes to show that the Democrat party can eat its own, this man was the VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE 6 years ago and now his party has left him twisting in the wind.

This goes to show that the Democrat party does not want people with personal convictions; they want people that spew the party line!

The Democrats scream to any one who'll listen that THEY are the party of TOLERENCE, they and only they champion DIVERCITY, and are ALL INCLUSIVE in their membership. In fact they are not.

Lamont won by <4%, had the election happened 24-48hrs later it would have turned out differently. And like you all like to pound on my head <4% does not make a mandate make!

Sun Aug 13 2006 10:00 PM


Right Wing Robby:

If Lieberman is winning in the polls, and has been, how exactly is it that telling him to drop out is "respecting the voters?"

Mon Aug 14 2006 10:56 AM


Mike of the Great White North:

Love this stuff.

Democrats eat their own. Yup. So he was a vp candidate 6 yrs ago. Whoopdee doo.

Its funny how these war pigs suddenly care so much about a democrat. Maybe they have a personal stake in it? And it’s rich to hear NJ spewing about 'towing the party line'. He’s been living that for 6 years now. The party line for Democrats was 'support the war'. Lamont broke with the party line. He won for it. Now we watch other democratic hawks squirm on the line. How can i back this claim up? Because I’ve been telling all of you, since day one on this blog that both parties foreign policy sucks. Lamont just may be the refreshing change that may save your country from eternal war, if others jump on the bandwagon.

Love hearing NJ talk about tolerance and diversity. It is to laugh.

Yes NJ, I’m glad we both agree that a miniscule percentile victory does not a mandate make.
http://www.jimgilliam.com/2005/01/because_hes_hiding.php
Sun Jan 16 2005 07:32 PM

I’m still waiting for Lamont to come out and say he's gonna start spending some of his 'political capital'. HA.

ps-find any WMD in Iraq yet NJ? farting in a jar of French's mustard don’t count.

Mon Aug 14 2006 12:10 PM


Mike of the Great White North:

[removed at author's request]

Mon Aug 14 2006 12:33 PM


Mike of the Great White North:

Must apologize actually. I misread NJ's comment on the mandate. Made a wrong assumption. But he is correct, Lamonts win isn't a mandate by the same definition we applied to Bush. Jim please remove the comment directly above... it comes off as spite and isn't neccessary.

Not a mandate... but the winds have certainly shifted.

Tue Aug 15 2006 11:18 AM


Anonymous:

Jim Gilliam: NEW

He's got about a snowball's chance in hell of hanging on to it though since all the dem heavyweights have left him in favor of Lamont.

Couple more photo ops with Jesse and Al standing in the background and Leiberman walks away with the election and keeps his war chest. The democrats keep taking sweeps at Joe and he won't return the party after he's elected, how does losing another Senate seat work into their plans?

Wed Aug 16 2006 5:43 PM


NJGuardsman:

I stand by what I wrote when Bush won in 2004.

I also beleive that Lieberman is a liberal and I disagree with 90% of what he stands for. I respect him for the position he's taking on the war because deep down inside he realizes what's at stake.

I believe because he has a conscience he has been sacrificed by his party and I believe that to be wrong. Democrats prove time and again if you don’t get in line you get left behind. No matter what the issue, no matter what the cost if you’re not with them 100% you’re not with them (so much for divercity, tolerence and inclusiveness).

I long ago stopped being a one issue voter (no more litmus test) and if I were a Republican/Conservative living in his state I would vote for him over his Repulican opponant.

Thu Aug 17 2006 11:49 PM


Dave E.:

Lieberman's position could not withstand the scrutiny of the voters.

Stop manufacturing your own comfortable ideas and deal with what actually happened.

Why do you fail to understand democracy in action NJ?

What's ironic about your post is that the GOP has virtually excommunicated the actual Republican running in Connecticut; yet, for some reason, you choose to waive your misplaced disdain at the voters instead of your own flippin party. If I've mischaracterized anything...by all means, let me know, I'd love to hear how you convince yourself of this shit.

More examples of wingnuttery's mental gymnastics, bounding over all the obstacles that objective reality places in its path.

Fri Aug 18 2006 9:18 PM


NJGuardsman:

Dave,

The Republican candidate has about a snowball’s chance in hell of even placing! Along with the fact that he has ethical issues.

In my opinion Lieberman IS the lesser of two evils, and make the effort (in my own state) NOT to vote the party line – I look for PEOPLE that support issues I’m interested in regardless of party affiliation, unfortunately I find almost no democrats/liberals that subscribe to my point of view (probably BECAUSE they are democrats & liberals).

I have no disdain for Connecticut’s voters, my theory is “be careful what you wish for you just might get it” if Connecticut’s voters vote in Lamont and his extreme leftist views… frankly it sucks to be them, (I have my own political fish to fry in Jersey) I do have disdain for any political party that preaches one way and when the opportunity presents itself to prove what they preach… DON’T. Lieberman is a prime example of this!

“democracy in action” equals mob rule, we (or at least I) live in a representative republic.

Sat Aug 19 2006 11:04 AM


Right Wing Robby:

Well than that settles it. If Lieberman is going to get beat this fall, then there is no problem with him running.

If there is such a huge "movement" in Conn, why are the democrats begging him to get out? Why are the democrats "failing to understand democracy in action?" Why is he leading in the polls? Who are the other 1 million voters going to vote for?

I can understand your desperation. You havent won in years, so a democratic primary in a blue state gets you all excited when a democrat wins. Congratulations!

Whats even more interesting is the call for third party canidates, more open elections and end to the two party system so touted by liberals has now been forgetten and replaced with a petition to urge Lieberman to get out. LOL

Instead they are holding a wealthly, Walmart investing corporate capitialist who bought his election as the ideal for the democratic voter. mmmmmkay.

The simple fact is Reps never had a chance to win in that state. He has 6% support right now. Maybe he'll double by Nov, but id guess he'll be half.


Sat Aug 19 2006 11:52 AM


Right Wing Robby.:

"Likely voters say 53 - 40 percent that Lieberman deserves reelection."


http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11362.xml?ReleaseID=948

Sat Aug 19 2006 11:57 AM


Dave E.:

If you characterize desperation as someone who takes umbrage at non-stop logical fallacies and blatant untruths flowing like Niagara from right wing nutjobs and Bush admin apologists like yourself, then I guess my registered-independent tukus is guilty as charged.

If you had any shred of objective deduction, you'd be able to admit that the Grand Ol Party has grandly FUBAR'd this country into something almost illegible from what its foundational document calls for. I'm just willing to call a spade a spade.

Every Q-study that's been done has Lamont trending upward and Holy Joe downward. It's a large gap to close, but we'll see how things flesh out in November. Lamont might win, he might lose. And if Lieberman wants to run as a turncoat, well then that's a moral quandary he'll have to deal with on his own. If you fail to see the issue there, and why Democrats are asking him to respectfully bow out, then your definition of loyalty obviously falls somewhere within the "only if I know you're gonna win" camp. Another phrase for that is "fairweather fan". And speaking as a devoutly loyal sports fan, nobody likes a bandwagon jumper. Scumbags of the highest order -- even reaching the rarified air of the wingnut category. But I digress.

Personally, the value I see has already been acheived by this discussion even existing right now. Every single campaign, nationwide, is on notice. I see it as another incremental step toward reestablishing sanity in our political leadership.

More broadly, Democratic primary or not, I think it's evidence that a growing majority of the country sees that Republicans are drowning and Iraq is their anvil, as it should be. If you don't think that primary sent a shockwave through GOP campaigns all over, then explain why this has become a top punditry issue. This should be self-evident. (should be, but I'm given pause when considering who this correspondence responds to).

Now that I've disposed of RWR's O'Reilly transcription (hide the falafels!), next up in the wingnut rotisserie is everybody's favorite space cadet, a guy who has never met a sentence full of head-scratching gibberish he didn't like...NJGuardsman:

"The Republican candidate has about a snowball’s chance in hell of even placing! Along with the fact that he has ethical issues."

This is interesting. This is the first time I've ever seen a wingnut admit one of its own is ethically-challenged. Why here, and not at virtually every tier of GOP leadership? Why Schlesinger and not Delay? Or Frist? Or the national security compromising Plame leakers? This list could go on and on, and is basically the who's who of the Republican party.

But in the end, it's only moral relativism, on display yet again. Can you say anything that is remotely consistent? Or do you just craft your opinions based upon how you feel things should be, absent all evidence to the contrary? I'll put you down for the latter.

And realize that when you say Lamont has "extreme leftist views" for his Iraq position, you're saying 60% of the country has the same. By definition, that is not extreme. More apt would be: "sensible" or "having the ability to dispassionately arrive at a reasonable opinion based on empirical evidence". You should try it sometime. It's liberating (and not in the 'liberate by bombing and killing you' sorta way).

Buh bye.

Sat Aug 19 2006 1:36 PM


Right Wing Robby:

"And if Lieberman wants to run as a turncoat, well then that's a moral quandary he'll have to deal with on his own"

Considering his lead in the polls, we can see that Dave has decided the majority of the state has no right to vote for their canidate of choice. Instead poll leading canidates will be removed from the ballot in order to serve a far left political agenda and ever failing power grab.

So much for liberal ideals and fair elections.

And when Lieberman wins this fall. Where will it leave the democrats? Avoiding eye contact in the halls of the senate? Lol.

Everytime you libs think you've opened a door, you open it right into your nose.

Mon Aug 21 2006 1:01 AM


Dave E.:

Nothing of substance there to refute.

Yawn.

Mon Aug 21 2006 10:16 AM


NJGuardsman:

Dave,

I am UNCOMFORTABLE with the Republican candidate in Connecticut for the same reasons I was UNCOMFORTABLE with the Dubai Ports Deal, and the Presidents female nominee to the Supreme Court.

Although he’s taken care of his gambling debts he will not win.

I have said before I’m not a one issue voter, but I believe so much in the war against terror and its the most important issue in our time it is incumbent on us to do all we can to elect those who want to win, to prosecute this war.
Without winning this war no other issues happen, not the economy, not gay marriage, not gas prices, not any of the issues that people try to put to the forefront.

Wed Aug 23 2006 4:40 PM


Jim Gilliam
Jim Gilliam

Email:







Add to My Yahoo!

Last week's soundtrack:

jgilliam's Last.fm Weekly Artists Chart