Ghost of BiB Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 Dems pull support for Arab candidate OK, you have a heavily Arab constituency and you pull your Arab candidate for what is essentially a BS PC over reaction. Keep it up guys, and the Republican party will run sh-- for years to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 Dems pull support for Arab candidate OK, you have a heavily Arab constituency and you pull your Arab candidate for what is essentially a BS PC over reaction. Keep it up guys, and the Republican party will run sh-- for years to come. 642496[/snapback] The article (and a bunch of others I pulled up to get a better idea of what happened) says he lost out on the nod for the same position two years ago, over the same remarks he made in 2002. Where was the outrage then? Plus, I can just imagine how the GOP would have handled a Dem candidate whose interpretations of the WTC/Pentagon bombers compared differently to palestinian suicide bombers. While it was most definately in poor form to endorse him last saturday, then un-endorse him a week later, they might have had some indication of a GOP-led backlash coming. Lastly, he's not being singled out because he's arab-american. He made a stupid statement on the record. If a candidate of any other ethnic background made a political blunder like that, there wouldn't be an issue with them being a political hot-potato. He said a stupid thing, and he shouldn't be using his ethnic background to suggest he's being "Dubai'd". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 The article (and a bunch of others I pulled up to get a better idea of what happened) says he lost out on the nod for the same position two years ago, over the same remarks he made in 2002. Where was the outrage then? 642516[/snapback] Under the couch? .... Or did that good-for-nothing Daniel Danielson put it up in the attic? Merhi said he appealed to them during Saturday's meeting, saying that he opposes all forms of terrorism and that killing innocent people is always wrong. Except that the comparison wasn't so spot-on and absolute four years ago? Newsflash, Mr. Merhi! The only reason that the Palestinean 'suicide bombers' don't kill 3,000 people at a clip is that they lack the means, not the motive. Better that he's not on a legislative floor, and the state party leaders did the common-sense vetting they should do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 26, 2006 Author Share Posted March 26, 2006 Yeah, you guys are right. I jumped the gun here. My immediate thought was that since it was such a dumb thing to say (especially for a guy in business with an Israeli Jew) that another type of intent may have been behind his statement than what was implied. Doesn't change the fact it was said. Whatever he was thinking, he should have engaged his brain faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 Yeah, you guys are right. I jumped the gun here. My immediate thought was that since it was such a dumb thing to say (especially for a guy in business with an Israeli Jew) that another type of intent may have been behind his statement than what was implied. Doesn't change the fact it was said. Whatever he was thinking, he should have engaged his brain faster. 642533[/snapback] And Corzine is Jewish, nothing from nothing, but it would be an insult to his integrity not to do everything in his power to get rid of this guy for these statements. Unless the guy came up and kissed some major ass and made a groveling opology, quietly, then stood with Corzine in support of an Israel state or something along those lines. Would have lost is base though in doing so. The worst thing is that a simple small change in his choice of words would have avoided the debacle. Saying what you really feel in politics is stupid without carefully choosing you words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 Under the couch? .... Or did that good-for-nothing Daniel Danielson put it up in the attic? Except that the comparison wasn't so spot-on and absolute four years ago? Newsflash, Mr. Merhi! The only reason that the Palestinean 'suicide bombers' don't kill 3,000 people at a clip is that they lack the means, not the motive. Better that he's not on a legislative floor, and the state party leaders did the common-sense vetting they should do. 642522[/snapback] Hey UConn, speaking of candidates on the rocks, it looks like GOP Joe Lieberman isn't such a shoe-in after all. Not only did he freak out on the radio, but the buzz on Ned Lamont is getting louder...in less than two weeks. This delegate explains why he's voting for Lamont. Here's the radio freakout...I can't link because the "sh-t" filter changes the URL (http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/03/22/no-sh*t-holy-joes-cracking/). [Colin McEnroe] interviewed Joe today on his radio show and Joe comes off as angry, sulky, defensive and unable to adopt anything higher than O’Reilly-esque shouting tactics in the exchange: McEnroe: You probably know that I wrote in the Currant last Sunday that if I had to vote in the primary right now I would, with some sorrow vote for Ned Lamont simply because you have kind of drifted so far towards the Bush Administration whose policies I don’t approve of very much. Tell me why I’m wrong, tell me why I should vote for you. Lieberman: Well I…I think that your statement just then was as ridiculous and unfair as your column was. I was really upset by it. I don’t get to hear you a lot because I’m in Washington but if you’re saying that on the air really I hope your listeners are taking it with a grain of salt. First off let me go to something that really bothered me. You have this line saying that I’ve come to a point where I’m saying that those who do not parrot my support of the war are unpatriotic and then you take TOTALLY out of context something that I said in a speech that I gave last December when I came back from Iraq and I urge you to go back and look at that whole speech. McEnroe: Okay, tell me why… Lieberman: Let me just finish this! McEnroe then went on to try and read the quote in question and force Lieberman to respond but Lieberman kept cutting him off, he wouldn’t have it: McEnroe: Let me read the line to you and then you tell me how to interpret it. Lieberman: I know what the line is! I said it! McEnroe: Okay but the listeners don’t. The line actually reads: "It’s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine the president’s credibility at our nation’s peril." Lieberman’s response? Lieberman: This quote is totally out of context. You might have gotten it from the bloggers, who love to do this. McEnroe: No actually I got it… Lieberman: Read the whole speech, it’s below your standards. McEnroe: Senator actually I got it from the New York Times. Lieberman: Well that’s just as bad! Go back and read the speech, be more responsible. Here's some of what the Connecticut delegate has to say: But in truth, Joe Lieberman abandoned the Democratic Party and Democratic principals long ago. For years he has disparaged fellow Democrats and, time and again, provided a bi-partisan shield for Republicans' harsh right-wing policies. It is time for Connecticut Democrats to tell Joe Lieberman that he no longer represents us. It is time for us to vote for a true Democrat who's not afraid to stand up to Republican extremism. It is time to vote for Ned Lamont. And that is why I endorsed Ned Lamont and stood for election as a delegate to the Connecticut state party convention from Greenwich.[snip] (NB 16 of the 22 delegates to the convention from Greenwich, Connecticut pledged to support Lamont; not one endorsed Lieberman for reelection.) Lieberman is a Bush/Cheney toady, and an embarrassment to the Democratic party. Lamont probably won't win, but he's making a strong showing in only two weeks. (from the "buzz" link above...) Online buzz about Lamont, who has been an official candidate for less than two weeks, already has helped generate $132,255 in credit-card donations to Lamont through a Democratic fundraising site, ActBlue.Com. About $10,000 came in Thursday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted March 26, 2006 Share Posted March 26, 2006 Hey UConn, speaking of candidates on the rocks, it looks like GOP Joe Lieberman isn't such a shoe-in after all. .... 642671[/snapback] I don't know about all of that, but Lieberman has seemed more and more cuckoo since the 2000 run (specifically an interview he did in the 2004 run when he got a basement apartment in NH. The very definition of senility right there on the teevee). Has gotten little to nothing done for Connecticut and representing what we want and need (Along with most of CT, I could really give a sh-- if you stray from the Dems as long as you make sense); almost always in Washington --- his own words --- and goes off on tangents. Yet he gets elected b/c of the incumbent advantage. If he's getting some heat, he deserves it. We've been getting back 60 cents on the dollar in federal taxes for the last 15-20 years. Maybe he could do something about that? No, 'course not. We need to save the children by putting 'MA' ratings on video games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts