PSoTD

Seriously, Comcast - you have to give the users the option of how they want to use the spamfilter. Comcast shouldn't haphazardly block legitimate email - and Comcast is doing just that.

In all honesty, I think use of spamfilters by ISPs should be an issue looked at by the Congress, except I'm afraid of what this Congress might end up doing to these non-truck tubes.

And why isn't he campaigning for Lieberman?

I am amazed. AMAZED. And appalled, by how little coverage of Labor Day is given by labor unions. A great PR opportunity, and what do they do online? Not very much. I guess I should be happy that they don't crap all over the holiday and demean the meaning of it even further, but really, that's just pathetic.

At least the New York City Central Labor Council has a countdown to the annual parade. That's more than most.

It's almost here.

Labor Day is a national legal holiday that is over 100 years old. It grew out of a celebration and parade in honor of the working class by the Knights of Labor in 1882 in New York. In 1884, the Knights held a large parade in New York City celebrating the working class. The parade was held on the first Monday in September. The Knights passed a resolution to hold all future parades on the same day, designated by them as Labor Day.

Over the years, it has evolved from a purely labor union celebration into a general "last fling of summer" festival.

Of all the unuseful things that unions have done over the years, the loss of defining Labor Day may be the single most grating example. Instead of a holiday in which the working class celebrates itself and their improved lot over the years annually - and as a focal point in which future improvements can be hoped for - we treat it as a celebratory point of the "end of summer". That REALLY helps the working class in their struggle for a better life.

I'll be checking next week to see what unions are doing publicly to promote Labor Day. Not to promote their particular union, but to promote the working person and to instill pride in the working class for being the class that actually gets the work done in this country. Or, as the line in "It's A Wonderful Life" goes, the majority of living and loving and dying in this country. Workers - and I mean every level of work, with no differentiation between white and blue collar jobs - should enjoy a celebration of the benefit they provide the economy of this nation. And there should be a reflection about the better life we all have as workers, and a personal commitment to improvements in the future. It is time we quit trading it in for a salute to the end of summer which is more an honor of the school calendar than anything else. And to that end, unions should be trying to uplift the holiday for the sake of ALL workers. We'll see what happens.

This deserves to be reprinted around the nation's newspapers:

Our Reckless Employee
George Bush says we don"t understand the nature of the world, but he doesn"t comprehend the nature of the presidency.

by James Heflin - August 24, 2006

It must be hard to be president and maintain a sense of life beyond security perimeters and G-men with earpieces. But there's more than that behind a naive statement George W. Bush uttered last week. After federal judge Anna Diggs Taylor issued a ruling that laid waste Attorney General Gonzalez' novel defense of Bush's extra-constitutional eavesdropping habit--that, in effect, the judge had no right to judge George, the argument also currently employed by Saddam Hussein--Bush claimed that "those who herald this decision simply do not understand the nature of the world in which we live." It's hard to swallow that line from a man who is himself so very distant from the world in which the rest of us live. And that's the crux of the Bush problem: Bush, ensconced in his privileged life, has lost sight, or perhaps never even had sight of his actual, constitutionally decreed job decription.

In the Bush era, a lot of words have been drained of their once useful meanings. "Hypocrisy," for instance, is but the fading shadow of its former glory. Last week, when Bush and his pals trotted out to show the cameras lots of chiselled resolve in the face of a terrorist plot across the ocean, the word was begging to be hauled out. The Boston Globe reported that many types of liquid explosive-detecting technology have already been produced, and some have proven to work well. But "the TSA has not outfitted airports with the devices, in part, because officials have to prioritize where they spend limited dollars." George Bush projected his resolve from a safe distance--he already has scanning technology at the White House.

But of all the terms left without meaning, there is one which most strongly deserves revival. It sounds positively quaint in the age of Bush propaganda. George Bush, whether he knows it or not, is a "public servant." He is subservient to you. To me. And most of all, to the Constitution. His oath of office, after all, calls for him to protect that venerable document, that enshrining of all the rights that he and his see as mere impediments to their "unitary executive" and wartime powers theory.

A majority of the nation seems to have repeatedly been hoodwinked into a very different view of Bush's job. The term "public servant" has disappeared from public discourse, and perception managers like Karl Rove would just as soon usher it quietly into the graveyard where its cousins "liberal democracy" and "greater good" now wander, diaphanous specters.

The word deserves revival, if only to give a name to what Bush has defied in order that we might better explain it to those who would prefer a protective, strict father figure as leader. We don't elect bosses--we elect employees. Just because you get the corner office doesn't mean you own the building.

If you accept, as the Constitution sets out, that Bush is merely the head of one of three equal centers of power among public servants, it becomes all too clear just how far Bush is from any notion of public servitude. Jesus reversed his disciples' expectations by washing their feet. That, as Bush should know if he is the devotee of the Bible his conservative Christian base believes him to be, is the Biblical view of power through servitude.

It's time to inject a few choice words back into what remains of our public discourse, poisoned though it has been by a relentless and amoral onslaught of perception management over reality-based substance. Our reckless employee thinks we don't understand that he should be in charge of the whole shop.

The most frightening aspect of Bush's words is that he really seems to believe that his constitutional duties could include ignoring what the Constitution says. If he ignores our founding document, what is "America" but a nostalgic campaign buzzword?

Bush, faced with the presidential role of servitude, has not acted as the law requires him to do, let alone as his favorite philosopher Jesus might. Bush has instead let his own feet be washed, set the rest of the water aside for a few friends, and charged us for the towel.

Atrios states a primer for reporters covering Lieberman:

If you are writing about Joe Lieberman's activities in the US Senate it is fair to refer to label him as Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT).

However, if you are writing about his election campaign you should label him according to the party he has formed and joined, the Connecticut for Lieberman party. So, (CFL-CT) it is.

I have an idea of how we get out of Iraq.

We leave, and everyone that wants to come with us, can come along. We'll pay.

I mean, President Bush and the Republicans are so set on providing freedom and democracy and free enterprise for the Iraqis. So why are we trying to recreate the wheel? They keep telling us we're the most free and democratic nation on the earth. So why not give the Iraqis that want it the real thing?

Would it really be that expensive to create temporary housing in Texas and Alaska and Wyoming and Utah and any other state with great expanses, states that so generously support the idea through elective result that we're dedicated to give a way of life to people of another nation? More expensive than what we're doing? Would it cost more lives?

Imagine - all the money we'd be spending for providing this way of life to Iraqis would stay right here, in America. Soldiers could come home. We give Iraqis the choice - a vote with their feet - in what they want to do. We'll support them the first year.

So what's wrong with this idea? Why aren't we investigating it? Has there been a cost/benefit analysis? Wouldn't we be accomplishing our stated goal of bringing democracy and freedom to those who want it?

Passing news...

He loves to cuss, gets a jolly when a mountain biker wipes out trying to keep up with him, and now we're learning that the first frat boy loves flatulence jokes. A top insider let that slip when explaining why President Bush is paranoid around women, always worried about his behavior. But he's still a funny, earthy guy who, for example, can't get enough of fart jokes. He's also known to cut a few for laughs, especially when greeting new young aides, but forget about getting people to gas about that.

File under SBD - Story's bit disgusting.

From The News Star:

Term limits are the boogeyman waiting around the corner for Louisiana's long-serving lawmakers. Legislators complain about them, wish to reverse them and are looking to remain in politics despite them. But they can't get rid of them.

As Louisiana gets its first taste of state-level term limits in 2007, a new report on their impact around the country seems only to bolster state legislators' disdain for them.

The study says term limits haven't fulfilled the promise that the composition of state House and Senate chambers would dramatically change, offering more women, minorities or younger people a chance to serve. And the traditional cast of characters has not been swept out of politics because they simply switch political jobs.

So, Louisiana will do as they do in California and many other places, some Senators will run for the House and some House members will run for the Senate. Still, it opens up some House seats that normally might not have opened up. Many of those that don't run for - or don't win - a different seat, will become lobbyists. So many of the faces remain the same, although there is some change.

Term limits are a good example of a simple solution in search of a problem. What term limits does is force people in geographic areas into different house-specific representation after a period of time. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but it doesn't widen the playing field for elective office and it doesn't guarantee a change in the appearance of the kinds of people elected. And it doesn't do anything to open up the elective process, which requires change that devalues the power of money in an elective campaign. Term limits don't do anything to money.

One of the things missing from all the recent stories about this "study" about term limits are options to make policy to deliver the changes that the study says term limits fail to do. And I do believe that this study's authors need to be in the forefront of every article:

The study was done by the Joint Project on Term Limits — a collaborative of the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council on State Governments, the State Legislative Leaders Foundation and a group of political science professionals.

Who's on the committees of NCSL? State legislators. Who comprises the leadership of CSG? Governors and state legislators. What about that Board of Directors of SLLF? State legislators again. They all seem to have membership with a career interest against term limits. So the story is that groups of state legislators have released a study that term limits for state legislators isn't that great? Wow, that's really news!

Damn it, I am not seeing any critical thought in news reports about the comments Lieberman made about Rumsfeld.

I'll say it again. Lieberman is getting away with a parsing here. He says Rumsfeld should quit. He does NOT say that Rumsfeld should be fired. There is a difference - one is not an accounting and judgement of specific failures, and one is. Lieberman refuses to ask for judgement. I think it’s because he doesn’t want to split his Republican support in November.

Think about how World War II ended.

That's right - the bomb.

I think that's the point of the "World War III" talk - to get the American public behind the possibility of the United States using larger and larger weapons of mass destruction.

From CBS News:

Sen. Joe Lieberman, attacked by fellow Democrats as being too close to the White House on the Iraq War, on Sunday called on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to resign but said the United States cannot "walk away" from the Iraqis.

Now that is weak. It's okay for Rumsfeld to "walk away" from the Iraqis but not the rest of us. If Lieberman wants Rumsfeld out, then don't suggest he quit. Call for his firing. What's Lieberman afraid of - Republican ire? Exactly - and we all know why.

I have decided that each day I'll post a labor violation news snippet in honor of Labor Day. Labor Day will be here in a few weeks, and sadly, most Americans see it as the end of summer rather than a holiday to celebrate efforts to improve their lot in the workforce.

From Belle, WV:

A coal sampling and analysis company in Belle has agreed to pay 55-thousand-dollars in back wages and damages to settle allegations that it violated federal labor law.

The US Department of Labor announced the agreement with Mineral Labs today.

Mineral Labs and company President Paul Lyon agreed to pay the money to 95 workers. The agreement settles a civil complaint filed in federal court in Charleston by the Department of Labor.

The agency says employees were routinely docked 30 minutes per day for lunch periods -- even though their work duties frequently prevented them from taking an uninterrupted lunch.

Mineral Labs also allegedly failed to maintain adequate wage and hour records.

No wonder the Republican Congress is so weak as an institution.

With President Bush's poll numbers stuck in the cellar and Republicans in danger of losing control of Congress, the White House is turning to one of its most popular figures for help.

Laura Bush is back on the campaign trail.

The first lady traveled to Kentucky, Ohio and West Virginia on Wednesday and headlined fund-raisers for three Republican candidates, including Kentucky Congressman Geoff Davis and Ohio Sen. Mike DeWine.

...

"She comes in bringing the star power of the White House, but she is not expected to answer policy questions or have to defend the decisions made by the administration," Walter said. "In that sense, she is able to come in less as a policy figure and more as a personality.

"It's like getting the benefit of a White House visit without the political baggage."

Wow, Dick Cheney must be breaking mirrors with his scowl today after seeing this review of his buddy George:

If I were a conspiracy theorist I would be starting to conclude that you were some sort of Iranian Candidate, an agent of Tehran, brilliantly executing a covert strategy to enhance the prestige and power of the ayatollahs.

That's not a blog. That's a conservative in the London Times.

America's muddled viewpoint on terrorism regulation is evident in the logic of the Executive Editor of the Topeka Capital-Journal, saying that the new carry-on rules are good...

"For years, airlines and luggage companies alike have touted the convenience of carry-on suitcases. The advantage was obvious -- no long waits at baggage claims, no possibility of lost luggage, no hassle, period.

Now, it's a major hassle carrying on anything. Thanks to last week's terrorist scare -- a plan to simultaneously blow up planes flying from London to the United States -- already-tight airport security has been racheted up even more.

And that's OK. Good, even. And necessary. A little added inconvenience is a small price to pay to ensure travelers arrive safely and on time. (Based on our experience last week, passengers flying on United will have to settle for safe)."

He argues that plane safety requires that carry-ons become such a hassle that you don't want to bring them - and later on, explains that he's going to take the train to Chicago. One of the main reasons? He can have carryon.

So it appears to me he'd rather have convenience than safety - otherwise, why take the clearly less secure route? Here is a fairly prominent citizen of our country saying that he'd rather pay for convenience than safety - in both terms of money and time - in his long distance transportation. It's not like terrorists haven't bombed trains.

America's marketplace is in the process of "voting" on degrees of convenience and safety on the terrorism issue. The new Carry On rules seem to be a dividing point - and if they continue, will fester as such - on which side America's consumers want to stay. We can't keep bouncing from one side to another depending on whether there is an alarm or not. At some point, we'll have to decide whether inconvenience or risk applied across the board is acceptable.

From the Christian Science Monitor

In the week since British police conducted a major counterterrorism operation against an alleged plot to blow up airline flights between Britain and the US, a series of false alarms has shown how tense people have become about the threat of a terrorist attack in America. While all of the events were originally described, or considered, possible terrorist activities, none of them has been shown to have any connection with terrorism.

There's a lot of sudden tension the past few months as far as government and the media is concerned. And I wonder about that - is it because there's the expectation, with the five year anniversary of 9/11 coming up, and all the continuing violence in the world, that something is going to happen here? Or is it because the government knows a little about something, enough to know something is brewing in the near future but not enough to stop it? I wonder about the British reaction to the airline terrorist plot, and whether it was more a message to the terrorists that they're aware of plots and want to put the seed of doubt in their minds as to whether they know about it, rather than a message to citizens that they've got things under control. I don't know. But all the false alarms, and all the media and government hollering about alarms, makes me wonder.

Sometime in our country's future, there's going to be an unintentional literary contest of sorts, as writers develop novels that incorporate this time period within a commentary of our societal fabric, of what this time is going to be called, in particular the years directly after 9/11. Our country has other time periods in which novels can be classified, such as The Great Depression or Reconstruction, and I suspect that we're living in a time that is going to be the work of some of the great authors of the future.

I hope to live long enough to see what this time is generalized into as a term. At this point, I personally see it as "The Great Pall" or "The Malignant Redirection", but it will be up to those who can sweep our time into a greater narrative to define this time. I do hope that it is not simplified as just "The Bush Years", because, for one thing, it's really been more of the anti-Bush Years as far as most of the world seems to be going, and for a second, I think our nation needs to learn a lot more about itself from this time than how it interprets one President.

From the Des Moines Register

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, in Iowa today to help raise money for Republicans and give thanks to volunteers who assisted after Hurricane Katrina last year, said he's not running for president in 2008.

I'm not sure Barbour believes this, but I really doubt there are more than a couple of hundred people in the country that think Barbour is viable for a national campaign. He's so obviously not a legitimate candidate for President. Lobbying as a background would be very tough in a national campaign.

I've been thinking a bit about Tony Snow, the current White House Press Secretary, and I've got to say, I think the guy has made a horrible career move.

Bush has two years left, and it's going to be a rough two years for him. If the White House thinks it sucks to be hammered by some Democrats, some of the national media and most of national and world opinion, they're in for a bit of a surprise when their own folks start hammering them next. A crappy November election result for the GOP, and a "Bush is the loser killing the Republican Party" meme will start. Republicans will argue with non-Republicans, but they are not going to argue with Republican voters. Bush will be blamed for all Republican woes. That blame will leach into his most publicly visible hench... staff, including Snow.

Sure, it might sting a bit to Tony Snow's ears when he hears how Bush screwed up America's future, but he can tell himself that's partisan. But to hear that Snow was part of the screwing of the Republican Party - well, that's gonna put a hurt on the job options.

What will the future hold for employment of Bush's press flacks? Will people remember Ari Fleischer as the press face of the loser Bush Administration? Doubtful, he's been gone too long. And too quiet since. Scott McClellan wasn't likely to burble up into an opportunity for something relatively visible in national politics again anyway - I'd be moderately surprised to see his name in the national news again for anything future career related other than criminal prosecutions of members of the Administration. But Snow had a career on Fox News, and he's young enough to try to get another national broadcasting gig. But will he be wanted? He jumped onto a sinking boat, the opposite of what Fleischer or McClellan did. Liberals won't expect much truth from him anyways, and conservatives may be willing to write off everyone related to the final GWB years as bad history best forgotten. That's going to make for a rather invisible Tony Snow after 2008.

It wouldn't surprise me if Snow sees this coming, and tries to bail on the White House after the November elections after a small grace period, say in March or April 2007. Still, what call is there for a flack that can't even see how badly his own career path will be damaged by his choices, even amongst Republicans?

Why would any community want a blast "'equivalent to 593 tons of TNT' near them? If Nevada doesn't want it, why would Indiana?

A massive nonnuclear explosion aimed at testing the capability of "bunker busting" weapons for the military could take place in Lawrence County, according to a newspaper report.

But a spokeswoman for the government's Defense Threat Reduction Agency, which is planning the test, wouldn't confirm that a limestone quarry near Mitchell is one of the sites under consideration.

Cheri Abdelnour said the agency is "assessing several possible sites" for the explosion, but it's premature to say where they are.

The $23 million test, called Divine Strake, had been scheduled to take place this summer in the Nevada desert. It would involve detonating 700 tons of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil, a common explosive.

Why would Senators Carper, Pryor and Salazar expect support from Democrats when they run for re-election when they don't support Democrats themselves?

I do it from time to time while driving in the car, just to hear how mean the talking points are. But yesterday's show was an ear-opener. Limbaugh wasn't there, somebody named Paul W. Smith was guesthosting. He had as a guest a Stephen Slivinski, from The Cato Institute, who was there to discuss his book Buck Wild, the premise of which is that the national GOP leaders have built a party of Big Government, and that Bush's government had increased the "real" cost of government more than any President since LBJ.

Slivinski is a proponent of small government, and used his time to discuss the evolution of Republicans to becoming the biggest spenders. One of his biggest points was that the Republican Party won't likely get back to being the Party of Small Government unless it loses an election, and suggested that the GOP is most effective in reducing government when it is working in a split-government situation, where Democrats lead some facet of federal government, whether a house of Congress or the Presidency. Basically, Slivinski was arguing that conservatives need the Republicans to lose the '06 and/or '08 elections to get back to their philosophy.

I listened, because I expected callers to hammer him.

They didn't.

One caller, I believe, disagreed with Slivinski's premises, and that was it. Every other caller expressed disappointment in the Republican Party. Smith seemed to be on board as well.

Let's just review how amazing this is: A person comes on to the Rush Limbaugh show, and argues that Republicans need to lose control of Congress this year, and maybe more in 2008, in order for them to return to their values. He isn't ripped apart by callers, there's no angry mob waiting for him in the parking lot, and the host doesn't suggest he's a terrorist sympathizer. There's two ways to observe this:

1 - Rush Limbaugh's listeners are getting smarter about Republican politicians; and/or,

2 - The awful performance of Bush and the Bush Congress has become undeniable to even the most Republican partisan.

Either way, the attitude at this depth of partisan Republicania ought to be very discouraging to Republicans.

I think Slivinski is just a bit ahead of national Republicans on this. He's taking the next page from Ken Mehlman's strategy book, one that Mehlman probably doesn't even know about yet. While Mehlman is ineffectively trying to push "Adapt to Win" as the replacement to "Stay the Course" as the Republican motto on Iraq, Slivinski has discovered "Lose to Win" as a Republican governing strategy. I wish Republicans the best of luck with that in 2006.

Josh Marshall talks about lining up to say "No".

It is better to keep your armies at the ready and to be suspected of military power limitations, than to commit your armies and have it proven.

Man, I hope Bush tries to ride a Harley. After seeing him on a Segway, I can just imagine the results. As long as he doesn't kill anybody, comedy gold.

I like this kind of statistic, kept on Casey Roncaglione's web site, who is the Democratic Candidate 164th District Pennsylvania House Of Representatives...

HOMES VISITED SO FAR
5745

I think this should be an expected stat by the candidate-visiting web public.

Seriously, if you didn't, you deserve an F in Bushistory.

If being seen as tough on terrorism is Bush's best attribute, and he can only muster a 55% approval rating directly after a discovered terrorist plot, I would suggest that his (and his Republican Party enablers) hat is none too secure.

For a Democratic Party member of the United States Senate to say something like this...

"Joe Lieberman has served the state of Connecticut as U.S. Senator over his past three terms, and Democrats have nothing to regret for having elected him as their nominee during that time. However, the Democratic Party voters of Connecticut have decided that Joe's been in the Senate long enough, and they chose Ned Lamont to be their nominee for U.S. Senator this November. Joe has a choice to make - either make the majority of Democratic Party voters this year regret having elected Joe Lieberman in the past by disregarding the primary vote, or accept the will of the people. I honor the vote of the people, and fully support Ned Lamont as the Democratic Party's candidate for U.S. Senator in Connecticut this year, and I DO NOT support disrespect of the party's voters. Furthermore, Joe should recognize that the Democratic Caucus does not provide committee seat assignments for members of other political parties. Either Joe is a Democrat, and will accept the will of Democratic Primary voters, or he is not. The choice is his."

The first public draft of the Organization's Campaign Plan is now online. Check it out.

It's his priorities about who he will speak with, and when he will speak with them.

Karl Rove, Bush strategist and leaker? Election day, before the polls closed. (according to the White House)

Chris Dodd, Connecticut's other U.S. Senator (and Democrat)? Not election day...

Earlier that evening, Lieberman spurned a meeting with Dodd, his longtime colleague who had come to caution against making a hasty decision to run as an independent and to explain why he would be supporting Lamont in the fall, according to a Democratic official who asked not to be identified in order to speak freely about events on primary night.

It is a big story, still unfolding.

Predictable, but sad: Why do some Republican bloggers have to attack other Americans during such an event? Check out some of this beautiful prose by conservative bloggers this morning:

But hey, according to the left all we need is to give these wayward Muslims a hug and the war on terror will go away. It's all our fault anyways.

and...

Watch now as the Left wail and moan, if only we would get out of Afghanistan and Iraq none of this would be happening. Further, the left will say this is a direct result of the current fighting in Lebanon.

You peace-at-any-price demotards, fricking idiots need to take heed and pull your heads out of the sand and then your asses.

Today, after unknown numbers of Republican incumbents called Crawford to beg George W. Bush to do something... ANYTHING... to help them out in their November elections, this is what Tony Snow came up with as he proactively spoke on the Connecticut primary:

As for the primary election in Connecticut last night, I know there's a lot of concern and interest about that. Democratic voters in Connecticut have made their choice, and they have chosen Ned Lamont over Senator Lieberman. Just a couple of observations. Key leaders in the national Democratic Party have made it clear — let me back up. This is a defining moment in some ways for the Democratic Party. I know a lot of people have tried to make this a referendum on the President; I would flip it. I think instead it's a defining moment for the Democratic Party, whose national leaders now have made it clear that if you disagree with the extreme left in their party they're going to come after you. And it is probably worth trying to trace through some of the implications of that position, because it is clearly going to be one of the central issues as we get ready for the election campaign this year, that is, the mid-term elections.

Tactic One: Lie.

What National Democratic leaders can Tony Snow be talking about? Bill Clinton? Joe Biden? Barbara Boxer? All supported Lieberman. What is Snow talking about?

This, however, is much better...

Democracies operate on different principles than totalitarian states. In a democracy, you have to respond to the will of the people. In a democracy within the United States, whether it be Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont competing for votes in Connecticut, or on the local level, dealing with the needs for people to have safe streets, good schools and services they can depend upon, those are the things. You respond to the stated desires of the people. In totalitarian states, the despot alone has the opportunity to declare what he or she wants to do, and frankly, quite often they are much more warlike.

Tactic two: Tell the truth in a confusing way.

Let's see - at this point in time, a majority of Americans - the will of the people, some would say - want us to commit to a plan to leave Iraq. Ned Lamont just won a primary over a sitting incumbent and his position was just that.

George W. Bush wants to stay until we accomplish whatever it is that George W. Bush decides is acceptable. This is not in line with the majority of Americans, according to the polls, and so not really in line with "the will of the people."

So who's the despot, Mr. Snow?

I almost feel sorry for those Republican incumbents who are so afraid of the voter wrath that very well could be awaiting them in early November, if only in this way: they're depending on George W. Bush. As we've seen over the past five years, there's not much hope in that.

From Eschaton:

From the Today Show this morning:

...

LIEBERMAN: Respectfully, no. I am committed to this campaign, to a different kind of politics, to bringing the Democratic Party back from Ned Lamont, Maxine Waters to the mainstream, and for doing something for the people of Connecticut. That's what this is all about: which one of us, Lamont or me, can do more for the future of our people here in Connecticut. And on that basis, I'm going forward with confidence, purpose and some real optimism.

I just want to know how, if Joe Lieberman is elected somehow, he's going to be able to do anything for the people of Connecticut. If Republicans are in power, are they going to give him what he wants in budgets or policy, when they see his seat as takeable in six years? If Democrats are in power, are they really going to want to help a guy who is constantly pissing on the party? Connecticut will be down to one Senator - Chris Dodd - to get all their stuff done. He is incredibly isolated at this point. Anything Lieberman touches will be anathema to both parties. He could possibly use his dynamic personality to get things done, except he doesn't have any. He is a lame duck today. He has no future beyond that status, even if somehow elected.

Why would any state vote to do that to themselves?

Finally, the Connecticut Primary is over, but Joe Lieberman insists he isn't done. He is continuing to state that he plans to run as an independent in the fall, as is his right if he can file properly and completely.

Democratic Party incumbents who may want to endorse Lieberman's candidacy because of friendship ought to remember that - losing primary candidates can run in the general election as independents if they can qualify for the ballot. What Joe Lieberman is claiming is that the Democratic Party primary doesn't matter to him anymore because he was somehow miscast. This isn't lost on many of us, and I think there will be a keen eye kept on any Senator or Representative or other elected Democratic Party official who aligns to that point of view by backing Lieberman's candidacy. Joe Lieberman is threatening to tear apart the process and the value of the party primary for his own elective purposes. If a sitting 3-term incumbent from the party doesn't respect the primary process, why should any challenging candidate do so in the future?

From the Wood River Journal, Idaho.

Spirit of wilderness not honored

Editor:

On June 7, 2006, the USDA Forest Service announced plans to give authority to Wildlife Services to use aircraft for aerial gunning, motorized vehicles and equipment to set out poison baits and M-44 cyanide guns to kill what grazing permittees consider to be "nuisance animals" like wolves, bears, coyotes, and foxes in wilderness areas. This proposal violates every aspect of the Wilderness Act. I understand that grazing of domestic livestock is allowed in wilderness areas but this proposal removes all semblance of ecosystem management in favor of a few special interests.

The Wilderness Act was enacted by Congress in 1964 to protect these special lands in as pristine condition as possible and reads: "To secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness ... and to leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness..." The Forest Service itself uses a brochure about the Sawtooth Wilderness from which I quote: "The Wilderness provides shelter to many native species of plants and wildlife, as well as a refuge for visitors seeking solitude."

This proposal violates the Wilderness Act as follows:

. Natural systems are to dominate in the wilderness.

. Predators are a critical part of an ecosystem.

. Serving special interests of a few violates the rights of all Americans on their public lands.

. Presents a danger to all wildlife-and to humans and pets.

. Humans are busy consuming all habitats-can we not leave some areas for wildlife?

. Public lands belong to all Americans-not the few who hold grazing permits.

USDA Wildlife Services already uses your tax dollars to "make wildlands safe for permittees to graze their animals" but if these animals cannot be safe from poisons and guns in the wilderness areas, where can they exist? Grazing on public lands is destructive enough to the lands themselves but this proposal goes over the top to please a few individuals who profit from using your public lands. Please write: Director, Wilderness and Wild Scenic Resources, U.S. Forest Service, 201 14th Street, Washington D.C. 20250 or send an e-mail to: PDM@fs.fed.us by Aug. 7, 2006.

Christine Gertschen

Director, Sawtooth Science Institute

Sun Valley

Edwards beat Cheney in the '04 VP debate.

From the Honolulu Star-Bulletin:

Three-term veteran Sen. Joe Lieberman is opposed by political newcomer Ned Lamont, and the polls are showing that Lamont might win.

So Lieberman is calling in the heavy hitters ranging from former President Bill Clinton to Hawaii's Sen. Daniel Inouye.

Just as interesting is Inouye's endorsement. Lamont, a multimillionaire businessman, is making the best of a campaign built around the opposition to the war in Iraq because Lieberman is President Bush's biggest Democratic supporter.

If he loses to anti-war Democrat Lamont in the primary, Lieberman says he is considering going into the general election anyway by running as an independent. And Inouye said he would remain with the hawkish Lieberman.

The progressive Democrats in Hawaii must be hitting the replay button on their TiVos as they try to fit Inouye's endorsement of Lieberman next to his endorsement of Dan Akaka, who is running an "I told you Iraq was wrong, wrong, wrong" campaign.

Precisely what is the value of an Inouye endorsement if he supports pro-Iraq and anti-Iraq senators?

Just being in the Senate might speak louder than a voting record.

From today's talking head circuit: Lieberman and Lamont went on ABC's "This Week", and sent their surrogates to NBC's "Meet the Press". What does that say about MTP?

I wish Gore's numbers were better, though.

From The American Enterprise:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said recently that "we are in the early stages of what I would describe as the third world war." Citing fresh examples of North Korean belligerency, Islamic terrorism in India, ongoing fighting in Afghanistan, insurgency in Iraq, support for Hezbollah terrorism by Iran and Syria, the related fighting between Israel and Lebanon, and the arrests of terrorists aspiring to murder Americans, Gingrich analogized the current state of affairs to the Great War and World War II.

...

Simply declaring World War III will not suddenly clarify the stakes for the American people. As we have seen, the phrase is imperfect. It could even be rejected by some as a scare tactic. If, though, administration officials were to consider using such language, it may serve them to make it part of a wide-ranging rethinking of public affairs and public diplomacy.

Words matter, especially in this war.

Until there's a public consensus that there's a World War III, it's irresponsible to suggest that the White House use the term to push their agenda. The public names wars. I don't think George W. Bush said "let's call our excursion to Iraq, the Iraq War" but that's what we call it. Apparently "Operation Iraqi Freedom" just didn't cut it.

If they start using such language, I hope Democrats and the public at large rethinks all legal courses of action taken to remove such people from office immediately. IMMEDIATELY.

I don't understand why some conservatives can't see the irony of a pro-military simultaneous with an anti-big government attitude. There is nothing bigger, as far as big government is concerned, than war. Nothing. Compare it to any other government program and they are historical footnotes by comparison. War changes population sizes, war changes national boundaries, war changes the way all government expenditures are formulated and spent, war takes valuable resources out of the civilian population for use out of country, war impacts the economy, etc., etc., etc.

The military is the most controlling government entity we have. It tells people what to do, where to live, what they can and can't wear, etc., etc., etc. It is the ultimate big government agency.

If you're pro big military, then you're pro big government. Period.

Someone said it yesterday, and whoever did had it right - let's just stop any use of that imagery, please. It's unfortunate this happened, and it gives Lieberman a talking point that isn't about defending awful positions and woeful arguments as to why he's doing so, but the national press has to remember - it wasn't a campaign that did it, it was a blogger. Yes, blogs are important, but they aren't political campaigns. Jane Hamsher isn't running for Senate, so the press needs to focus on the political positions and not on distractions being pumped by Lieberman's campaign, and, of course, conservative blogs.