If you haven't heard, "somebody" hacked into Joe Leiberman's homepage and knocked it out of commision with a "denial of service attack." Of course, Karl Rove denies any involvement, but then doesn't he always? I mean who else but Rove would replace Joe's homepage with a message like this:''We ownz u site.''
Oh, yeah. That typifies the typical imperialistic neo-con jingo grabbism that typically this Administration is typically famous for so typically. And note the sly attempt by Rove and his gang of hackers to engage the black vote at the same time by layin' down some "jive." Shame on you, Karl. Have you at last no sense of decency?
There's little doubt that the Republicans are out to get Joe. After all, if Bush hadn't stolen the 2000 election, Joe might be president today - or still a heartbeat away. (Try harder Tipper!) Plus, he let the President kiss him! I'm no homophobic anti-semite, but according to Reverend Al Sharpton, this is probably the time that I should be laying in a stock of man-sized Holy Trojans for the coming of the End of the World.
Or something.
Seriously, folks. It has to be Rove, right? I mean, it couldn't be a Democratic operative or moonbat ticked off that Joe's going to run as an independent. Democrats don't stifle free speech, they bathe in it.
Like ducks in water.
9 comments:
To be a terrorist, one must induce actual terror.
Little cyber-punks, these...
We ownz u site"
Good stuff, spd. I wanted to write about this mishagaus earlier but I ran out of time, and words.
I find the whole Lieberman/Lamont debate curious. I find the fact that onsconservative Republicans have embraced Lieberman as their ideological soulmate bizarre, if not laughable.
Bill Cristol: "What drives so many Democrats crazy about Lieberman is not simply his support for the Iraq war. It's that he's unashamedly pro-American."
Cheney: "By rejecting Mr. Lieberman, the Democrats are encouraging “the Al Qaeda types."
GULP.
OK. By my math, we now know who wears the white hat in Connecticut. Cheney, et al, are supporting Lieberman's run because he's the most pro-American and the least rah-rah in his support of the Al Qaeda types. Did anyone tell that to Alan Schlesinger? How does the Republican candidate become more pro-American and less rah-rah? How does he "out Lieberman" Lieberman?
One guess who gets thrown under the bus, and it ain't Rove.
Nope. It ain't Rove. But don't the Dems just love, to bring him into the mix.
You don't like Joe? Vote for the Other. But the Other isn't Hartford, or New London, or Lichfield, Suffield or Brookfield Counties. The Other is from big, fat and happy-on- pappy's- dime, Greenwich. Hello Lamont. Talk to me about the minimum wage and the immigrants cutting your lawn.
Please.
Joe is the the Dems' last grasp at civility and discourse...and dare I say...moderation. Go ahead and kill him. But before the knife is plunged ever deeper, a moment's reflection as to the identity of the intended victim would be advised.
But don't the Dems just love, to bring him into the mix.
And don't the neocons just love to remind us--even in the midst of another party's primary!!--that anyone who who disagrees with Bush is un-American?
I like Joe alot and if I lived in CT. I probably would have voted for him (despite his views on Bush and the Terry Schiavo brouhaha).
However, unlike the pundits on the right who suggest the primary signalled the demise of the Democratic party, I think it better illustrates just how mainstream anti-war sentiments have become. Cheney stumping for Joe tells me I ain't the only one who thinks so.
I don't think that the sentiments of one-sixth of the Connecticut's eligible voters illustrates "mainstream" America. Lamont pulled in 68% of the vote in Greenwich. Is Greenwich "mainstream?" Hardly. More like limosine liberal (like Lamont). Joe had the lousy luck of being in a primary the before the Brits nailed another bunch of Islamic nut-jobs ready to blow up Americans. I wonder what the result might be today.
Interesting point, albeit spoken like a Republican:) One can only hope that it would have helped shift the debate to more pesky
issues like whether being "strong on national security" includes cutting the DHS budget or voting down port security amendments.
Scary sh*t.
Portia, I think you are reading a bit much into what Cheney has done. Lieberman has made common cause with conservatives on a number of issues in the past, and even when they disagree he is still honest principled opposition. This seems entirely sensible considering the alternative.
I am sure where you live the results of a Democrat primary might tell you what is mainstream, but that stream doesn't flow by here.
I think you are reading a bit much into what Cheney has done.
Maybe. But I ain't alone. DHS Secretary Ridge didn't think so either. "That may be the way the vice president sees it," he said, "but I don't see it that way, and I don't think most Americans see it that way."
Honestly, I find the vice-president's comments along with Cal Thomas' "Taliban Democrats" slur, reckless political pandering, particularly when last week's foiled attempt tells me--again--that our presence in Iraq has done precious little to undue the dynamics of young muslim men who believe that martydom on behalf of Allah is far more important than victory on the field.
But I digress.
For many, the war and Bush are inextricably connected, however, I think Lieberman's defeat was more a referendum on Bush than it was on the war on Iraq. Case in point: There's little talk of the Taliban Democrats "killing" off Hillary in next month's NY Democratic primary when she faces her opponent, Jonathan Tasini, who supports an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Funny that.
Well, what are your thoughts on this.
http://www.spencerforsenate.com/site/c.euLPK3MNItG/b.1000379/k.B95B/Media.htm
Post a Comment