Pollsters Predict: "Lethargic Republicans" Likely To Be Lethargic Come Election Day

The Wash Times reports on a likely (or is that possible?) reason the GOP is going to take one in the chops come Nov. 7: "lethargic Republicans" unmotivated to rouse themselves from their grotesquely overstuffed couches, turn the ignition key on their Rascal Ultralite scooters, and head down to the local voting booth to punch a ticket for the "lesser of two evils.":

"The message hasn't gotten across because a lot of people are sick and tired of thinking the only reason for going to the polls is to vote for the Republicans because they are lesser of two evils," said Tom McClusky, vice president for government affairs at the Family Research Council (FRC), a leading social conservative group....

A top Republican pollster confidentially echoed those sentiments.

"There are very definitely trouble signs in many states of what we call the 'LRs' -- the lethargic Republicans," said the pollster, who agreed to speak on the condition of anonymity. "They are unhappy with the president and have little love lost for Congress."

More here.

I, for one, welcome our new lethargic underlords, especially in a divided-government setting.

Why are Republicans and conservatives suffering from the political equivalent of Epstein-Barr Virus? There's the overspending, of course, and the botched war effort. The sense that the Bush admin and GOP Congress, for all their conservative family-values talk, hasn't done enough to stop abortion and Terri Schiavo plug-puliings and stuff like that. Nor have they done enough to electrocute illegal immigrants like "livestock" (as Rep. Steve King of Iowa quaintly put it) or repress the seemingly irrepressible "homosexual agenda," etc. Since I'm not a conservative, I'm skylarking here.

This much seems more clear (and surprising) and doesn't bode well for the Republicans: On terrorism-related issues (stopping it, not causing it), the Dems are shaping up as the party of choice. Early October polls asking which party will do a better job fighting terrorism gave the Democrats sizeable advantages on the issue: 5 points in a CNN poll; 5 points in a Gallup/USA Today poll; 7 points in a Newsweek poll; and 6 points in an ABC News/Wash Post poll. More on that here.

Comments

GILMORE | October 19, 2006, 8:46am | #

Nice one linking to that Homosexual Agenda Q&A piece. One of my favorite examples of Objective Journalistic Interview Techniques:

e.g.
"Q. Do you think most people understand that there is a gay agenda, that it isn't benign and that homosexual activists are actively advancing it?"
"Q. You mentioned lies. Isn't one of the lies that homosexuals really want marriage?"
"Q. Isn't one of the key features of the gay agenda to silence opponents?"

I saw that like 3 years ago, and as a joke summarized the key 'facts' he cites in a powerpoint pack and sent it to my friends as though it was the real deal. I was hoping it might leak back into the public sphere and then be eventually cited by other crazycons as evidence that the thing is 'real'; a la, 'Protocols of the Funboys of Chelsea'. no luck. Maybe i'll dig it up and try again!

JG

Lou | October 19, 2006, 8:53am | #

Snorlax FTW

rhywun | October 19, 2006, 9:00am | #

They have been moving the ball back and forward down the field with little or no opposition....

And after their balls are done slapping back and forth, no doubt they'll give each other a friendly pat on the ass.

Son of a! | October 19, 2006, 9:16am | #

Offtopic-ish: (it concerns voting, at least)

Does anyone know if it's legal to take photographs of the voting booths? When I went to vote in the primaries, none of the booths had curtains, and the electronic display screens had enormous fonts I could read from ten feet away.

I'd like to think it was a matter of, "Oh, these are just out-of-the-box new and we didn't have time to set up curtains," but if they're really doing away with secret ballots, I'd kind of like to document that.

"Well, Bobby, your Papaw can remember a time when nobody knew who he voted for."

Pro Libertate | October 19, 2006, 9:20am | #

Feeling. . .so tired. Sluggish. . .can't pull. . .the lever.

sage | October 19, 2006, 9:23am | #

I wonder how many republicans are pissed that they can no longer go online and gamble?

Todd | October 19, 2006, 10:10am | #

I don't see it as lethargy - implying that we want to vote but just don't have the energy; it's more like disgust. Many R voters are libertarian-leaning small government types who voted for the GOP as at least the party of smaller govt than the Dems were promising. Now, many (like me) see that they are actually the party of huge government, just like the dems and our best bet is for a divided government (which historically is the best for small government types - gridlock is golden). However, I'm not about to go pull a lever for a big-government democrat, either. SO, I'll just stay home and let the process do its work.

Mr. Nice Guy | October 19, 2006, 10:12am | #

Trust me, I think the Republicans really screwed up the opportunity given to them (total power) and deserve a good dose of ass-whupp'n.

But I think most of this "Republicans are in malaise" is liberal wishful-thinking and Democratic propaganda. "Don't show up at the polls! Your fellow Republicans aren't going to (or, if they do, they will be voting Democrat!) Stay home!!"

This is basically the moral-sapping Tokyo Rose of the left, and I think it's dangerous to propagate it. As irritating and hypocritical these Republican clowns are, just ask yourself this question: Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker?

ChicagoTom | October 19, 2006, 10:26am | #

As irritating and hypocritical these Republican clowns are, just ask yourself this question: Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker?

BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!!!

Do people really believe that you are gonna scare people into voting GOP by making vague references to a congressperson with about 4% name recognition??? No wonder GOPers might stay home this cycle.

And for the record, I'll take speaker Pelosi over that fat fuck Dennis "I bought cheap land and then appropriated funds for the prarie state parkway that made my cheap land reap a $2 Million dollar profit" Hastert any day of the week.

And it wasn't Pelosi who covered up for Foley and his Cyber-Sexing of the pages. I wonder who the "values voters" that the GOP desperately needs are going to find more offensive: Pelosi or the guy who covered for the creepy old congressman who was propositioning male teen pages.

Joseph Majsterski | October 19, 2006, 10:30am | #

Yes, we're all familiar with the scary-Pelosi meme, but to be honest, it can't get much worse. I'm ready to be disturbed and upset by the Dems again.

mtm | October 19, 2006, 10:37am | #

Um, Mr. Nice Guy, did you notice the article ran in the Washington Times, and quoted Republican pollsters and operatives exclusively? If it is propaganda, it's got damn good cover, don't you think? I'd be more apt to believe the opposite interpretation, that this is a deliberate lowering of expectations so the GOP can spin their probably minimal losses (the Dems are, as usual, counting their chickens before they hatch) into a collective victory.

Mr. Nice Guy | October 19, 2006, 10:47am | #

CT:

Nice "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!!" If you are correct that Pelosi has very little "name recognition", we therefore shouldn't be concerned about her?

For fuck's sake. Pelosi is from the leftist of the left coast. She is a San Franciscan modern liberal of the worst sort. And this broad is going to be the number three person in power?

Mark my words. She is going to be the left's Newt Gingerich. And, unfortunately, our country is going to suffer that much more because of it.

And yeah, the Republicans screwed up big time in handling the Foley fondles. But I don't buy for a minute that the Democrats would do any better. In fact, they go pretty much the opposite. They make it a matter of policy excusing the behavior of creeps and freaks (and I'm talking about truly dangerous and predatory people).

smacky | October 19, 2006, 11:17am | #

Ha ha snorlax

James Ard | October 19, 2006, 11:27am | #

ChicagoTom, I guess it is ok for Harry Reid to pull a land scam, but when a Republican does it it's a big deal. And since most Republicans aren't FM listening idiots, we know all too well the kind of Speaker Nancy Pelosi is going to be.

ChicagoTom | October 19, 2006, 11:44am | #

James Ard,

Nice try, but I wouldn't continue barking up this tree if I were you -- you will only make yourself look more foolish.

Harry Reid didn't pull a land scam. He moved the property to an LLC before selling it. This was all disclosed to the ethics committee. The place were things got sloppy is that Reid continued to disclose ownership of the land as a personal asset rather than ownership in the LLC which owned the land. But that's it. Fact is, the LLC had no other assets other than this piece of land, and Reid disclosed ownership of the piece of land. Furthermore, Reid didn't use his position as a legislator to to benefit himself in the sale of the land.

Hastert's property, on the other hand, appreciated considerably in value after he earmarked taxpayer funding for a highway near the property.

You can play your bullshit equivalence game if you wish, but the sad fact is that Reid didn't use his influence as a policy maker to enrich himself the way Hastert did. Reid is guilty of sloppiness at worst. I'll take that over what Hastert did anyday.

Pro Libertate | October 19, 2006, 11:55am | #

Always conceding that the national GOP jokers are probably worse than their Democratic brethren given their steely grip on all three branches, it's a Red Queen's race indeed to bicker and argue about which politician is more corrupt than another. Clearly, a large percentage of the entire lot of them are apparently corrupt by our personal standards. Putting that point aside, if there really were a corrupt party and a non-corrupt party, I think it would be glaringly obvious. It isn't, 'cause there ain't no such thing.

James Ard | October 19, 2006, 12:07pm | #

ChicagoTom, You're just mad that Reid was only able to make $750,000 off his honest transaction. And maybe Hastert's constituents would benefit from the highway, or doesn't that matter? I doubt Reid's scam had any benefit to anyone but that mafia lawyer partner of his.

joe | October 19, 2006, 12:12pm | #

Wait a minute, Reid disclosed that he owned the land?

I haven't been following this very closely. I thought he put the land into the LLC then didn't disclose it because it wasn't a "personal asset."

Are you telling me that this entire "scandal" is about the fact that Reid delcared something to be personal property, when it was in the name of an LLC instead of his own?

joe | October 19, 2006, 12:16pm | #

A"nd maybe Hastert's constituents would benefit from the highway, or doesn't that matter?"

The highway bill isn't the problem. Nobody's complaining that there's a highway being built there.

The problem is that Hastert bought land because he knew he could increase its value. Whether the action that increased its value is a good or bad project isn't the point.

But, hey, Harry Reid's partner was a lawyer, so that's pretty much the same thing.

Pro Libertate | October 19, 2006, 12:17pm | #

I wonder if Reid's situation involves one of those 1031 exchanges. They're a little tricky.

bendover | October 19, 2006, 12:20pm | #

Per ChicagoTom:"but the sad fact is that Reid didn't use his influence as a policy maker to enrich himself"

Per Captains Quarters:

As it happens, in 2001, the Clark County (Nev.) Zoning Commission approved a zoning change that allowed commercial/retail development on the land that Reid owned with Brown.

Then, the next year, Reid introduced and pushed into law the Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002. The senator heralded this as vital in protecting the environment near Las Vegas. In fact, however, the law forced the Department of the Interior to sell off 18,000 acres of land around Las Vegas, spurring development and boosting the value of real-estate investments in the region. (Not what anyone normally associates with "protecting the environment.")

ChrisO | October 19, 2006, 12:22pm | #

I predict that the weather on Election Day will have more to do with the actual results than any high-falutin' theory you read about in October. Really.

bendover | October 19, 2006, 12:25pm | #

joe & CT,

Here's a thought for the two of you - they're both crooks who used their positions of power to enrich themselves. End of story.

ChicagoTom | October 19, 2006, 12:35pm | #

Are you telling me that this entire "scandal" is about the fact that Reid delcared something to be personal property, when it was in the name of an LLC instead of his own?


Bingo! That is "the scandal" that the AP's resident hack John Soloman to write :

"Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid collected a $1.1 million windfall on a Las Vegas land sale even though he hadn't personally owned the property for three years, property deeds show".

Now ignoring the fact that he only made a $700 K (a minor mistake but one that clearly shows that Mr. Soloman is not to concerned with accuracy) -- the piece also doesn't explain that he actually did still own the land, he just transfered ownership to an LLC.

James Ard | October 19, 2006, 12:44pm | #

If Reid didn't do anything wrong, why has he asked to be allowed to pay a fine?

Mr. Nice Guy | October 19, 2006, 12:48pm | #

Just a thought for those of you who are thinking of sitting out this one.

Yeah, there is nothing but crap on the ticket. But just the fact that there is a coordinated effort in trying to convince people like me to "stay home" is enough to get me to the polls. Fuck them. The last time I checked, this is a representative democracy, and I am a citizen who has an obligation.

Vote "third party". Write-in Mickey Mouse. Fucking do SOMETHING. At the very, very least, it gives you the right to complain. People who don't vote don't have the right to complain.

ChicagoTom | October 19, 2006, 12:49pm | #

Here's a thought for the two of you - they're both crooks who used their positions of power to enrich themselves. End of story.

Here's another thought....

Maybe both parties aren't equally corrupt in every instance. Maybe sometimes the party that controls all the levels of government is more corrupt than the one that is out of power....at least during its tenure as the ruling party.

Hastert is a low-life scumbag who not only protects sexual deviants in order to maintain power, but is also directly using his position of power to line his own pockets at taxpayers expense. Harry Reid has done neither of those things (at least so far there isn't any evidence has has done any of them) That is the End of the story.

And let's get something straight...Im not trying to be Reid's fluffer -- Im not even a fan of the guy....but it was James Ard who tried to play the equivalency card where there was no equivalence.

Because like a typical accountability-free republican -- It doesn't matter what they do wrong, its ok beacuse the other side is worse, somehow, even if they have to make shit up.

That's the essence of GOP style "personal responsibility" -- it applies to everyone else, never to themselves.

Thomas Paine's Goiter | October 19, 2006, 12:51pm | #

There's the overspending, of course, and the botched war effort.

I could handle the botched war if they would have cut spending.

The ban on gambling sites accepting monies via EFT and credit cards (It's NOT a ban on gambling, that's still perfectly legal so that states can now legalize it and run with the tax dollars) is *this close* to making me vote democrat this year. It will be the first time I've ever voted for one of the two major parties.

ChicagoTom | October 19, 2006, 12:54pm | #

If Reid didn't do anything wrong, why has he asked to be allowed to pay a fine?

James Ard,

I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. No one said "he did nothing wrong" he is guilty of a technicality. He continued to disclose ownership of the land as a personal asset rather than ownership in the LLC which owned the land.

bendover | October 19, 2006, 1:03pm | #

CT

"And let's get something straight...Im not trying to be Reid's fluffer" ...and yet you never seem to pass up an opportunity to drop to your knees.

"Maybe sometimes the party that controls all the levels of government is more corrupt than the one that is out of power" ...and if the democrats are in power - this will change?

"Maybe both parties aren't equally corrupt in every instance" ...maybe pigs will fly.

James Ard | October 19, 2006, 1:15pm | #

Technicality my ass. Reid ain't no dummy, there had to be some reason why he made the transaction but decided to not disclose it.

Mr. Nice Guy | October 19, 2006, 1:30pm | #

Chicago:

Yeah, the Republicans had a golden, though short-lived, window of opportunity and fucked it all up (the Dems had a 40-year run not too long ago).

But to argue that the Dems have anything even remotely better to offer is the biggest load of horseshit I've read all day.

The best example I can offer is that whole Lamont/Lieberman debacle. The Dems are so fucking clueless that they trash one of their biggest star players just to pander to the Cathy Sheehan wing.

The Dems don't have no game. They're basically wandering onto the field after the idiot Republicans take themselves out. No guts. No glory.

Buckshot | October 19, 2006, 2:36pm | #

Mr. Nice Guy:
People who don't vote do have the right to complain.

ChicagoTom | October 19, 2006, 2:37pm | #

"And let's get something straight...Im not trying to be Reid's fluffer" ...and yet you never seem to pass up an opportunity to drop to your knees.

Right....Anyone who points out factual innacuracies and lies that are being told about him is fluffing for Reid. You got me. Wow, you're an idiot.

...and if the democrats are in power - this will change?

Since I don't have your fantastic future telling ability, I dunno...but I'm not going to pre-emptively say they are / will be just as bad. Once they become as bad as the current GOP Ill call them out too.

But I'm not gonna be stupid and downplay/excuse/justify real corruption that is currently going on based on what I perceive the future is going to be like if the other guys gain control.

...maybe pigs will fly. and maybe the intellectually lazy will drop their pre-conceived notions and worry about reality instead of the future they see in their heads.

James Ard Said:
Technicality my ass. Reid ain't no dummy, there had to be some reason why he made the transaction but decided to not disclose it.

Sure there must be a reason -- and it must be corruption because a Dem did it. Because the simplest answer....an honest oversight...could never be the case. He didn't hide anything, he disclosed his ownership of the land -- down to the exact plots -- which would allow for watchdogs to monitor any potential conflicts of interest. The only difference is he listed it as a personal asset instead of an asset owned by the LLC that he is a partner of. That is exactly what a technicality is. But keep repeating your story -- eventually the lowest hanging fruit might believe you.

ChicagoTom | October 19, 2006, 3:01pm | #

But to argue that the Dems have anything even remotely better to offer is the biggest load of horseshit I've read all day.

Speaking of horseshit.

I never argued that -- my argument has been that:

1. Using Pelosi as a boogey man is dumb move.
2. Hastert is a much bigger liability to the GOP "values" crowd than Pelosi.
3. Harry Reid's non scandal is not anywhere near as bad as Hastert's scandal.

But since you brought it up....if the Dems can get control and defund this stupid Iraq debacle, or even superficial oversight or a check to the executive branch, then that in itself is offering something leaps and bounds better than what the current congress is offering.

The Dems are so fucking clueless that they trash one of their biggest star players just to pander to the Cathy Sheehan wing.

Joe "We undermine the President's credibility at our nation's peril" Lieberman is a "Dem star player"? A Democrat who when asked if he would prefer to see a Democratic Congress replied: "I dunno...Ill have to get back to you" ?? A Democrat who spends every chance he gets chiding Democrats for being overly partisan when its the GOP that has blocked out the minority party of even basic input on most legislation. Lieberman has been one of the biggest GOP enabler since the GOP took over. Getting a Vichy Democrat like Joe Lieberman out of the Democratic ranks is one of the smartest things they could do.

Why do you think the GOP machinery has abandoned Schlessinger and has thrown all of it's support to Holy Joe?? Because they want to protect a Dem star?? It seems you are the clueless one in this case.

And BTW, her name is Cindy Sheehan -- not Cathy. But facts dont really matter when you are talking out of your ass.

How stupid did you think it was when Laffey almost beat Chafee in the primary?? How clueless were the republicans there? I dont remember you attacking them for that. I guess it's only clueless and dumb when the Dems primary one of their own. When the GOP does it -- that's just democracy in action.

The Dems don't have no game. They're basically wandering onto the field after the idiot Republicans take themselves out. No guts. No glory.

I agree with this overall...the current Dems...the ones that are very comfortable being in the minority party have no guts whatsoever. But if people like Lamont -- people who actually publically state that they want to get our troops out of Iraq instead of staying the course get into office I think you are gonna see a new Democratic party with more guts and a lot more glory.

A mid-term victory similar to the GOP's '94 victory will embolden the party. I think you are gonna see the Democrat's standing up for themselevs a lot more. Winning tends to fix dysfunction.

Mr. Nice Guy | October 19, 2006, 3:25pm | #

C'mon, Tom.

Maybe I'm talking out of my ass, but I happen to think that being the FREAK'N VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE pretty much puts one on "star" status in their party. And this wasn't really that long ago.

But the Dems gave ol' Joe the big fuck-you over JUST ONE ISSUE (consequently, Lamont's campaign is collapsing because he is just a one-trick pony). Now it looks like Joe will walk back into the Senate anyway, the only difference is that he will be pissed at the party that abandoned him. Yeah, talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

And I think it's brilliant to tag Pelosi as a bogeyman, because this whack-job is so far to the left (as Gingerich was to the right) that it's going to resonate very strongly with the mainstream. Yeah, Pelosi may very well be our next House leader, but if she is unable to keep her big mouth shut for two years (which I'll put money on), this will go a long way in helping the Republicans keep the White House come two years from now.

ChicagoTom | October 19, 2006, 4:51pm | #

MNG,

You really are talking out of your ass.

Yeah he was the Dem VP nominee 6 years ago...
but how did that star fare in 2004??

So I guess by your definition Dan Quale was a GOP star too -- and an even bigger one than Holy Joe since he wasn't just a nominee but actually served as VP, right?

And it isn't only one issue (but even if it was...Iraq is THE ISSUE right now). Holy Joe has been pissing off Democrats since 2000. He is George Bush's favorite Democrat. When Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and every other shrill GOP pundit is praising you to high heaven -- it seems awfully silly to claim that that person is a Dem "Star". He is a Vichy Democrat plain and simple. He undermines the party better than anyone else.
In fact, its republicans who lamented Joe's primary loss more than anyone in the Democratic establishment....Im sure that the GOP is just looking out for the Dems best interest.

And maybe you should follow the CT race a little closer if you are going to be commenting about it.

The first 2 debates just happened -- and by all accounts Schlessinger has been the guy who has gained the most. Holy Joe will only get re-elected if the CT republican voters choose him over Schlessinger -- becuase right now about 65 - 70% of Dems in CT are gonna pull the lever for Lamont.
Lieberman is pulling over 75% of the republican vote in CT (just what you would expect from a Dem star, eh??)
Unfortunately for Joe, Schlessinger had quite an impressive showing in the debates and has been hitting Lieberman hard on core conservative issues (immigration, Social Security, taxes / spending, pork etc) -- if Schlessinger pulls even 20-25 percent of the vote Lieberman is toast. That race isn't over. (Oh by the way Lamont has closed the gap in a three way to about 10 points....maybe in pull-shit-out-of-your-ass-land that's considered a "collapse" but in reality 10 points before the debates is not a bad position to be in against an 18 year incumbent)

And just to prove my point that Sore Loserman is by no means a Dem "Star" -- he made a comment during the first debate after Schlessinger attacked him on some issue...he said, (I watched the debate live and almost fell off my chair when he said it) in a surprised tone, "I expected to be attacked from this side [pointing to Lamont] but not from this side [pointing to Schlessinger]" the implication is obvious....he lost the Dem primary so now he is running as the defacto republican. And somehow rational people are supposed to be bothered by the fact that DINO Joe lost a primary to a much better candidate??? The Dem party will be better off without a subversive like Joe in its midst. The GOP can have him -- since they are the ones who consider him a star and so important to remain in the Senate anyway. (Psst -- party "stars" don't lose their primary)


As for Pelosi -- maybe she will be a disaster once she becomes speaker and gets a higher profile..I dunno...but to use her as a boogeyman before the election -- when so few voters have even heard of her is the epitome of desperation. The only people who would respond to Pelosi as a boogeyman are those who were gonna vote GOP no matter what.

joe | October 19, 2006, 5:55pm | #

"The only people who would respond to Pelosi as a boogeyman are those who were gonna vote GOP no matter what."

That's the point - demonizing Pelosi (who, if I understand correctly, is a grandmother) is a more to whip up the base. The people putting out that message know it - that's why they're targetting it towards their mailing list and right-wing media consumers.

It's not a message for mass consumption. There are anti-Hastert and anti-Bush ads on broadcast media all over the country, but the anti-Pelosi screeds only appear in targeted media. If Pelosi and a Democratic takeover strikes such fear into the hearts of the public, why are the Democrats working to nationalize the election, while Republicans (and Joe Lieberman) work to frame the contests as local races, devoid of partisanship?

But it probably is "brilliant to tag Pelosi as a bogeyman," because at this point, the Republicans have no chance of winning the election or convincing swing voters, and are wise to focus their efforts on cutting their losses by turning out their base.

Pro Libertate | October 19, 2006, 9:32pm | #

Ahem. All this Pelosi-will-suck talk is just making me want her all the more. Yeah, what I'd really like to see is a completely loony Speaker. Too bad McKinney is gone, 'cause Pelosi is merely wacky.

If the LP can't win, why not vote for the most incompetent candidate in your district? Let's breed an even stupider, more blatantly out-of-touch politician. While we're at it, let's make them more corrupt! I think I see a cunning plan evolving here. . . .

Jim Walsh | October 20, 2006, 12:40am | #

People who don't vote don't have the right to complain.

Just try and stop me (from complaining, that is)...

Mr. Nice Guy | October 20, 2006, 8:17am | #

Dan Quayl was obviously a terrible choice for VP. They only picked him because of how he appears (WOW! He looks like Kennedy!!). The guy was a total embarrassment.

I don't think the same applies to Lieberman. Unlike Danny boy, Lieberman is intelligent. He is an excellent debater. And he certainly had the substance that Gore severely lacked ("Hey, I'm going to pound to death a nebulous issue just for the sake of attention! Just don't pay attention to the fact that my family made a fortune off of the consumption of fossil fuels!) Plus there was a great strategic advantage of Lieberman's ethnicity. But despite this, Gore blew it for you guys, and of course afterwards he turns on the man who was backing him up, like the bitter, sore loser that he is.

I find it especially galling that the Dems act like Joe has no "right" to run since he lost the primary. He should just give up. Like a citizen of this country only has to right to run for office as long as he has the blessing of a particular party. This is collectivism at its worse. It's not the individual, but the party that matters. That is such bullshit. But I guess this is par for the course for closet communists.

I'm probably the suckiest amateur political pundit, but my money's on Lieberman. It's going to take a hell of lot more than fabricated pants-wetting over Iraq to dig out an incumbent. The centrists going to stick with Joe. And I think a lot of moderate and even right-wing Republicans are going to be on board, too.

Let's see what happens.

James Ard | October 20, 2006, 8:29am | #

My last word on Reid is that he transferred the property to a limited liability company because he was scared that his fucking trial laywer buddies might take it from him. LLCs exist because Democratic trial laywers make them necessary.