Posts filed under 'Lamont'

Deja Vu

Senate Guru points to some encouraging poll results (caveat: Rasmussen):

13.  What’s that number?  It’s the gap between Specter and Congressman Sestak in the latest Rasmussen Reports poll.  Specter’s lead over Congressman Sestak is only 47-34 according to Rasmussen.  Rasmussen’s last poll, in June, showed the 19-point deficit, a 51-32 result.

Rasmussen also reminds us that Specter still remains “much better known” across the state than Congressman Sestak.  In other words, Congressman Sestak still has plenty of room to grow in terms of name ID as his campaign gets underway, but has already cut his deficit by a third.  Also, this is the very first non-Franklin & Marshall poll (F&M’s numbers were relatively very low for both candidates) to show Specter under 50%.

(…)

This poll is bad news for Specter and great news for Congressman Sestak – not just because it shows Congressman Sestak closing the gap, but also because it adds credibility to his campaign.  Specter winning is not remotely a foregone conclusion.  The more that PA-Dem primary voters recognize that, the more open they’ll be to Congressman Sestak’s candidacy, and the less power the Ed Rendell machine will have to stop the political dam from breaking.

This reminds me a lot of Lamont’s campaign against Lieberman three years ago.  Most CT Democrats were desperate for an alternative to Lieberman, and all Lamont really had to do was make sure they knew who he was, and could see him as a viable, more progressive alternative.  Of course, the problem in CT was that Lieberman was able to run as an independent and get the benefit of the Republican vote, where PA affords Specter no such luxury.

It is probably also worth noting that outside of the Democratic party establishment (feh), Specter’s Democratic support is almost certainly a lot thinner than Lieberman’s was.  Lieberman was a Democratic senator (in name, at least) for 18 years, whereas for Specter it will be closer to 18 months.

My prediction is that Specter will attempt the same play Lieberman used in CT: Pretend to be a lot more progressive than he actually is, than revert to form immediately after the election.  Again, though, decades of being an actual Republican will make that a lot harder for him to pull off than it was for Joementum.  Fingers crossed.

August 13th, 2009 at 09:23am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Democrats,Elections,Lamont,Lieberman,Pittsburgh/PA,Politics,Polls,Republicans,Specter

Voter’s Remorse

The Great Orange Satan decided to use some of the generous stipend he receives from Liberal Mastermind George Soros to commission a poll of CT voters to see if they would vote for Joe Lieberman again if they were granted a second chance. Let’s see how that turned out…

For whom did you vote for in the 2006 race for U.S. Senate, Ned Lamont, the Democrat, Alan Schlesinger, the Republican, or Joe Lieberman, an Independent?

        Lieberman  Lamont  Schlesinger
All         49       42        9
Dem         34       62        4
Rep         67       10       23
Ind         53       41        6

If you could vote again for U.S. Senate, would you vote for Ned Lamont, the Democrat, Alan Schlesinger, the Republican, or Joe Lieberman, an Independent?

        Lieberman  Lamont  Schlesinger
All         40       48       10
Dem         25       72        3
Rep         69        7       24
Ind         38       49        9

Gee, you’d think Joe’s Reasonable Centrist Moderateness would only attract Independent voters, not drive them away in droves. Why, for something like that to happen, it would almost have to mean that all those Bipartisan Rawks!/Give-The-Republicans-Everything-They-Want-Because-It’s-The-Civil-
Thing-To-Do concern trolls like Broder are Wrong About Everything, and that can’t be possible, can it?

I also like the fact that CT Republicans actually like Joe a little bit more now, and that his current Democratic numbers bear a striking resemblance to Dubya’s approval rating. I guess there are always some brain-dead Kool-Aid drinkers in every tribe.

September 13th, 2007 at 05:42pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Elections,Lamont,Lieberman,Politics,Polls,Republicans

House Of Murtha

From the New York Observer’s Politicker blog, by way of Atrios, we learn that John Murtha has said that he would campaign for Ned Lamont if asked. I haven’t seen a whole lot of commentary on this, but I think this is huge, and Lamont must take him up on it.

I’m not saying this because Murtha is a darling of the left right now for his antiwar stance; in fact, my reasoning is almost exactly the opposite: Lamont needs Murtha to campaign for him precisely because Murtha is so far to the right. One of Lieberman’s favorite myths about himself that he tries to peddle to voters is that he’s some kind of principled bipartisan moderate, and that he’s being purged by an ideologically intolerant Democratic party (and/or rabid left-wing bloggers). John Murtha is probably to the right of Lieberman on most issues except the war, and yet his behavior is the exact opposite: He doesn’t suck up to the president, he doesn’t parrot Republican talking points, and he speaks out forcefully against the war and generally kicks Republicans’ butts.

I believe that if a genuine principled moderate like Murtha campaigns for Lamont, it will drive the message home that Lieberman is not a principled moderate, but a Republican suckup; and that capitulation is not bipartisanship. Murtha’s support will be much more difficult to dismiss than that of anyone else who has campaigned for Ned, because he is so much harder to paint as a member of the Radical Unhinged Angry Left Trying To Purge All Moderates From The Congress. Not that Lieberman and the Republicans won’t try, of course.

September 2nd, 2006 at 10:20am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Democrats,Favorites,Lamont,Lieberman,Politics

Mister No-Mojo RI-SEN

Okay, so I knew one half of story about the Laffey-Chafee (mmm, sounds like candy!) primary in Rhode Island: That in a near-perfect mirror image of the Lieberman-Lamont Democratic primary next door, a moderate incumbent is being targeted (and probably successfully) by an opponent on his less-moderate flank. But what I did not know was that the Republican senatorial re-election committee also decided to throw their full support behind the incumbent, despite his imperfect loyalty to their cause:

The National Republican Senatorial Committee has pumped an astonishing $536,420.41 into the Rhode Island Senate race to date this year in an effort to rescue GOP Senator Lincoln Chafee from conservative primary challenger Steve Laffey. You can find the figure in the NRSC’s filing today with the Federal Election Commission. And yet, as we reported below, Laffey is crushing Chafee in the latest poll. Yep, the NRSC is sinking huge sums of cash into a primary which they’d of course rather spend in GOP-versus-Dem races. But even those huge sums aren’t working.

Despite these similarities, I can think of at least four significant differences between the two New England primaries – five if you count the enormous amount of money the Republicans spent to prop up Chafee (I’m pretty sure the DSCC didn’t give Lieberman anywhere near that kind of money, but I couldn’t find a dollar total on Google):

1) The challenger is being backed principally by the Club For Growth, an ultraconservative organization, rather than by netroots/grassroots/those venomous rabid crazy bloggers. In other words, he’s not exactly “people-powered.”

2) The other party has a viable candidate and a home-field advantage in the state, so there is a much higher probability of losing the seat outright.

3) The incumbent has not pledged to ignore the will of the primary voters.

4) The media doesn’t care. No-one is wringing their hands over the Republican party’s destructive jihad against ideological impurity. No-one even seems to be reporting on it.

To me, the first three (or four, if you count the NRSC funding) make the fourth (or fifth) ever so much worse. The incumbent is not thumbing his nose at the voters, while the challenger does not reflect a popular movement, is jeopardizing his party’s Senate majority, and is wasting a whole bunch of their money as they attempt to beat him back. His challenge is far more damaging, and has far less legitimacy (by the pro-Lieberman hand-wringers’ standards) than Lamont’s, and yet no-one seems to mind.

So… the Republican-dominated punditocracy, whose presumed goal is to advance the fortunes of the Republican party, are outraged by Lamont’s challenge and not Laffey’s. I can only conclude that they believe such challenges against moderates are healthy and beneficial for the party involved.

Which kinda worries me, because, well, they’re always wrong.

(hat-tip to Atrios)

3 comments August 31st, 2006 at 07:20pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Favorites,Lamont,Lieberman,Media,Politics,Republicans,Wankers

But Is Anybody Listening?

A fellow Eli (Mr. Pariser from MoveOn) has an interesting and optimistic piece up at WaPo (hat tip to commenter blue e at FDL):

…Lamont’s victory… marks the beginning of the end for an old favorite of Washington insiders — the tactics of triangulation. Originally employed as a survival strategy by a Democratic president in the wake of 1994′s Republican revolution, the policy of seizing the political middle ground no longer makes sense in an era when any attempt at bipartisanship is understood as a sign of Democratic weakness and exploited accordingly.

Had triangulation worked, we’d be in a different moment. But for six long years, it hasn’t. Even Sen. Hillary Clinton has seen the writing on the wall in recent weeks, criticizing the Bush team’s Iraq fiasco by publicly confronting Donald Rumsfeld, calling on him to resign and demanding that troop withdrawals from Iraq begin soon.

With triangulation passing, a new era of bolder, principle-driven politics can begin. Lamont’s success should be the opening salvo in a 90-day campaign to establish the clear-cut differences between Democrats and Republicans. Most independent voters, like Democrats, want change, but many of them aren’t sure yet whether Democratic candidates are capable of giving it to them. Now’s the chance to seize that mantle.

(…)

If the Democratic Party can emulate Lamont’s principled progressivism, a durable national electoral majority and a government that embraces real people’s concerns awaits. Americans want change as badly as they did in 1994…. [T]hey want their officeholders and candidates to hold the president accountable for his failures.

The time has passed for what a New York Times editorial aptly characterized as Sen. Joseph Lieberman’s “warped version of bipartisanship, in which the never-ending war on terror becomes an excuse for silence and inaction.” People don’t want Democratic politicians whose grotesquely nuanced positions on issues make their utterances incomprehensible or meaningless or both. They want a new direction.

The pendulum is swinging, driven by the all-too-apparent shortcomings of the Bush administration. To paraphrase a great Democrat, the only thing Democratic leaders have to fear is timidity in the face of opportunity.

Pariser is correct about the message that Lamont’s victory is sending. The question is whether the Democratic party establishment is willing to hear it. Will the Theodems shake off the poisonous counsel of Grima Moosetongue and regain their youthful vigor? Or will they stick their fingers in their ears like Miracle Max and yell “Lalalalala, not Listening!“?

The key to regaining power is within their sight and grasp, if they have the will to reach for it.

(Yes, I did work a Lord Of The Rings reference and a Princess Bride reference into the same paragraph – what are you trying to say? I’m totally not a geek, if that’s what you’re thinking.)

August 10th, 2006 at 12:00am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Democrats,Favorites,Lamont,Lieberman,Politics

Wait… What?

By way of Atrios:

From a press release just issued containing a speech he’s delivering at a campaign event with Max Cleland.

Sadly, my opponent has done his best to distort my record, spending at least $4 million of his own money to mislead people into thinking that I am someone I am not. Not unlike what happened to Max Cleland four years ago.

Now that’s chutzpah. I think it’s pretty safe to say that Lieberman’s support for George W. Bush has been considerably more substantive than Cleland’s support for Osama bin Laden. Come to think of it, Bush’s support for Osama has been considerably more substantive than Cleland’s…

But that’s not actually what made me go WTF. Why is Cleland campaigning for Lieberman??? Why is any anti-war Dem (I’m looking at you, Ms. Boxer) campaigning for Lieberman? He’s stabbed Boxer and Cleland in the back on Iraq; he’s stabbed NARAL and Planned Parenthood in the back on Alito and emergency contraception at hospitals; he’s stabbed Bill Clinton in the back on Monica Lewinsky, and yet they’ve all supported him against an actual anti-war, pro-choice Democrat. I don’t know what kind of pheromones or hypnotism Joe is using, but if I could bottle it I’d make a fortune.

2 comments August 6th, 2006 at 05:37pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Democrats,Iraq,Lamont,Lieberman,Politics,Wankers,War

Dances With Polls

Well, Quinnipiac’s July poll on the CT races finally came out, and it’s been so chock full of interesting stuff that I’ve had a hard time digesting it into anything even halfway resembling a coherent post. But what the hell, I’ll try anyway, it’s not like coherence is any kind of gold standard for me…

Of course, the two most important numbers are Lamont vs. Lieberman head-to-head for the primary, and Lamont vs. Lieberman vs. Some Republican Guy for the general election. The other numbers are useful for trying to understand where the headline numbers are coming from, and where they might be going.

To the Bulletpointmobile!

o The primary numbers are now 51-47 in favor of Lamont among likely CT voters, way up from 55-40 Lieberman last month. The three-way numbers are 51-27-9 in favor of Lieberman, which is not so hot. Bear in mind, however, that last month it was 56-18-8, Lamont has three months to keep improving, and Lieberman has three months to continue imploding.

o In the three-way election scenario, a narrow 46-44 majority of Dem voters chose Lamont, while Reps and Indies went for Lieberman 58-7 and 54-22, respectively (yes, Joe handily outpolled the Republican candidate among CT Republicans, 58-24).

o The percentage of CT voters who “haven’t heard enough about” Lamont to have an opinion of him has dropped from 76 to 51. This is still Lamont’s biggest hurdle, but he’s making great strides here (it was 90% in May, and 93% in Feb.). It is worth noting that Lamont’s other numbers are improving as this number improves – the more CT knows about Ned, the more they prefer him to Joe. Even with what I’m loosely calling “name recognition” at less than 50% (65% among likely primary voters), Lamont is already positioned to beat Lieberman in the primary, which buys him another 3 months of general election campaigning to make himself known to the rest of Connecticut.

o Only 24% of CT voters think Lamont has “the right kind of experience to be a United States Senator,” with 39% Nos and 37% Don’t Knows. Among CT Dems, it’s 31-33-36, and among likely primary voters, it’s 37-37-26. This is easily Lamont’s biggest hurdle, convincing voters that his resume translates to the Senate. Fortunately, Lieberman’s staff has been too clueless to make this a campaign issue… yet. Ned will need to counter this effectively if/when it comes up.

o CT voters think Lieberman “deserves to be reelected,” 56-31. It’s 68-23 among CT Republicans (this is not as bizarre as it sounds – if you look at approval ratings in the poll, you will see that CT Republicans actually like Lieberman better than Bush), but only 51-37 among CT Dems, and 46-45 among likely primary voters.

o Of the 31% of CT voters who don’t think Lieberman deserves to be reelected, 42% chose some variation of “supported the war/not a real Democrat” as their main reason. Among likely primary voters, that number climbs to 56% (surprisingly, Joe’s announcement that he would run as an Independent if he lost the primary barely registers: 1% among CT general population and Dems, 2% among Repubs, and 3% among likely primary voters). This is Lieberman’s biggest hurdle, convincing Democratic voters that he’s not a Republican in Democrat’s clothing. I don’t think he can do it; his record speaks for itself.

o When asked whether their primary vote would be for their guy or against the other guy, 63% of likely Lamont voters said they were voting against Lieberman, while only 11% of likely Lieberman voters said they were voting against Lamont. This is helping to blunt the effects of Lamont’s low name-recognition: Everyone in Connecticut knows who Lieberman is, and an awful lot of them can’t stand him.

Overall, I think Ned’s in very good shape. All he has to do is stay the course and let Joe continue to make an ass of himself, and he should take the primary. The general election will be more challenging, as he will have to contend with the Republican and Independent votes, as well as a sizable chunk of the Democratic vote. I’m hoping that Joe being a colossal sore loser will hurt him among Dems and Indies, but I don’t think Ned can count on that. Ned will have to get himself out there and make sure everyone in CT knows who he is, what he stands for, and that he’s qualified to represent Connecticut in the Senate. He’ll have three months after the primary – I think he can do it.

6 comments July 23rd, 2006 at 11:45am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Lamont,Lieberman,Politics,Polls

Ooo!!!

Chris Bowers has some very intriguing CT numbers from Rasmussen, the most pro-Bush of pollsters:

Rasmussen shows Lamont with a solid 51-41 lead (currently, the poll is only available to subscribers to Rasmussen). The previous Rasmussen poll, conducted in mid-June, showed Liberman ahead 46-40.Rasmussen has consistently shown better results for Lamont than the homegrown Q-poll. The reason, as Mystery Pollster notes, is that this race is very difficult to poll. Clearly, they are using different models for likely voters. Because this is such an unusual race, no one knows what the best model would be right now. It is possible that all polls are off.

In a three way race, Rasmussen shows Lamont and Lieberman tied at 40% each, with the Republican at 13%. It is pretty amusing to see just how hapless Republicans are in this race.

Please let Rasmussen actually be right this time…

2 comments July 22nd, 2006 at 01:38pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Lamont,Lieberman,Politics,Polls

Brief Thoughts

1) Atrios sez: “Joe sez he won’t run as a Republican.”

Eli sez: Joe won’t admit to being a Republican.

2) It would be damn funny if Bush’s determination to make the presidency all-powerful ended up delivering said presidency to the Democrats. President Gore could really use some extraordinary powers if he’s going to clean up the Republicans’ mess…

3) I hope the shadowy and mysterious Codename V. has not been eaten by krill.

10 comments July 19th, 2006 at 06:43pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Bush,Lamont,Lieberman,Politics,Wankers,Weirdness

Is Ned Enough?

First off, let me restate that I believe a Ned Lamont victory in the CT primary or, better yet, general election would be a hugely great and important thing, because it would establish the importance of the netroots as a force to be reckoned with in its own right, and not just a giant piggybank and pool of cheap labor. I believe that this realization is necessary for the salvation of the Democratic Party’s soul. But I’m not sure that it is sufficient.

The Democratic Party’s disdain for and fear of the netroots is a symptom of a larger problem, one that I will call “the DLC myth.” This myth began when Bill Clinton defeated George Bush I in 1992. Instead of drawing the trivially obvious conclusion that a charismatic and politically brilliant outsider can defeat an unpopular, out-of-touch incumbent, the Democratic cargo cult instead concluded that Clinton’s centrism was the secret to his success, and that a triangulating, Run-DLC strategy would secure Democratic supremacy until the end of time.

Obviously, it didn’t work out that way. Democrats-who-are-not-Bill-Clinton have suffered a steady string of humiliating electoral defeats against a Republican party that is inept, corrupt, and quite often nakedly evil. And yet, the Democrats, with the eager encouragement of the right-wing commentariat, not only cling stubbornly to the DLC myth, but actually see their losses as a vindication of it. Surely, they think, they are not losing because their opposition to godawful Republican policies and nominees has been intermittent and half-assed. No, they are losing because they can’t make all those salt-of-the-earth, middle American swing voters forget about Crazy Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan and all those other unhinged Bush-hating lefties who want to hug terrorists and and ban Jesus and force everyone’s kids to marry gay people. Surely, if they could just run to the center and appease the Republicans a little more, and convince Ma & Pa American Gothic that the barking mad hippie moonbats don’t speak for the Democratic Party, they would really start to get the votes in truckloads.

Personally, I think this is just stupid. Failure to consistently oppose Republican policies and nominees stamps the Democrats as spineless and unprincipled, not bipartisan and noble, and it costs them votes all the way across the political spectrum. But hey, what do I know? I’m not a highly-paid political consultant with a proven track record of losing elections.

So, to return to the subject at hand (Ned Lamont – I can’t blame you if you’ve forgotten by now): Would a Lamont victory do anything to expose the falsity of the DLC myth? Alas, I don’t believe it would. The same factors that work in Ned’s favor (solidly blue state, no Republican candidate to speak of) are the same factors that make his campaign a poor test case for progressive strategy overall. In other words, it doesn’t really prove anything to the Democratic leadership if a progressive Democrat beats a fake Democrat in a blue state. Now, if progressive Dems start winning in purple or even red states and districts, then the Democrats as a whole might just jump on progressivism like the 70s jumped on bellbottoms. They might even start to embrace the netroots willingly as partners, rather than grudgingly as yet another power base to be appeased. Caveat: This all assumes that the Democrats have embraced centrism because they sincerely want to win, and are just misguided. If they have embraced centrism as a cover story for doing the bidding of big corporate donors, then nothing will change.

My point is not that a Lamont win wouldn’t be the best thing to happen to the progressive movement in a long long time; it would. My point is that I have come to realize that it’s only part of the puzzle, and I need to pay more attention to the lower-profile progressive campaigns and candidates around the country, who may ultimately send an even broader and more important message than Ned can. Not just “The netroots are important,” but “Progressives can win.” And with the Republicans perhaps as unpopular as they have ever been, this may be the best opportunity progressives will have for decades. Unless, of course, Iraq and America continue to free-fall – but what are the odds of that, eh?

Question to ponder: If the progressive/oppositional candidates consistently overachieve in November, and the centrist/appeasing candidates consistently underachieve, will the Democratic leadership notice? And if not, how can we make them? How do we rub their noses in the reality of what works and what doesn’t? (Assuming that I’m right about what works, of course)

11 comments July 15th, 2006 at 03:42pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Democrats,Favorites,Lamont,Politics,Wankers

Starting To Feel A Little Better…

Still not happy about Rover evading the much-deserved noose, but Eschacommenter DemByDefault has managed to brighten my day considerably with this happy little tidbit from The Hotline:

As Taegan Goddard reports over at Political Wire, “key allies of Sen. Joseph Lieberman

(D-CT) are making contingency plans” for an Indie bid.

And now we learn that the CT chapter of AFT will buck the three-term Sen to back Ned Lamont.

AFT becomes the first major union to bail out on Lieberman.

We heard very recently from one of Lieberman’s closest friends that he knows he could “really lose this thing.”

If more unions defect, he’ll have good reason to think that.

Muahahahahahaha…

Shorter CT Dems: “You had me at, ‘Someone’s running against Lieberman.’ ”

UPDATE: Also, my blog is the #3 Google search result for we hate ligers. Thanks, Three Rivers Online Guy!

UPDATE 2: What Jane says:

Things look better and better for Lamont every day, and I hope every Senator who ignored our faxes and voted for cloture on Alito gets a little shiver when they watch what is happening to Joe.

Exactly. I want Joe’s demise to send the message that we want to start getting some value for our support. Donation without representation is no longer acceptable.

1 comment June 13th, 2006 at 09:43pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Eli's Obsession With The Google,Lamont,Lieberman,Politics,Wankers

Shorter

Just a couple of brief, distilled thoughts that I may or may not have expressed here in wordier form:

1) The principal problem with congressional Democrats, and why I fear that they will not adequately take advantage of Bush’s soaring unpopularity, is not their failure to work the media or express a coherent agenda. It is their failure to materially oppose Republican nominees and initiatives. How will the Democrats use the Republicans’ voting records against them when half of their own party voted the same way?

Their opposition doesn’t have to be successful every time, but it does have to be undeniable.

2) The most important thing about a Lamont victory in Connecticut is not that it would replace a fake Dem with a real Dem, nice as that would be. It’s that it would represent a power shift from corporations and lobbyists, to citizens and netroots. I simply cannot understate how huge this would be.

8 comments June 12th, 2006 at 10:11pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Bush,Democrats,Favorites,Lamont,Politics

Why Joe Must Go

Chris Bowers at MyDD (by way of Atrios) says it much better than I can:

As I talked to people in the [Lamont] campaign, who were a healthy mix of political professionals and newly energized activists, one theme kept coming up in my head. This campaign is an accountability moment. For all of the Democrats over the past fifteen years and more who have helped facilitate negative narratives about our party, this is their moment of accountability. For all of the Democrats over the past six years who have helped facilitate the Bush agenda, this is their moment of accountability. For all of the party leaders over the past couple of decades who have told activists that they need to temper their desires, support a politics of triangulation, and fall in line behind candidates, policies and strategies that do not exactly fulfill the hopes and dreams of the activist base, then this is their moment of accountability. The Ned Lamont campaign is the moment where those Democrats and those leaders are forced to be accountable for those actions. Now, they will have to answer to the voters and to the activists who make their positions possible.

I have been saying this, albeit less well, for the past month or so. The Democratic establishment has taken it for granted that they can safely ignore the progressive base and netroots, except to hit us up for money or GOTV. In their comfortable little minds, they have never paid any price for this neglect; they actually believe that they lost the last three congressional elections because they paid too much attention to Those Crazy MoveOn/Michael Moore Hippies, and scared off the Real Americans whose approval they so desperately crave.

The reality is that the Democrats don’t lose because they’re too shrill and confrontational, but because they’re not shrill and confrontational enough. They caved on the Iraq war, they caved on the bankruptcy bill, they caved on Schiavo, they caved on Roberts, they caved on Alito. Sure, they might have lost anyway, but they never even made the attempt. There are far too many Democrats who choose Republican approval and corporate donors over the progressive principles of their party. We need to send them the message that the netroots are a force to be reckoned with, and that they can no longer win without us. We need to get rid of Joe so that the Democrats realize that we matter more than the corporations do.

4 comments May 8th, 2006 at 06:15pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Democrats,Favorites,Lamont,Lieberman,Politics,Wankers


Contact Eli

Globe Ghosts




Choose a color scheme:

Feeds

Linkedelia!

Most Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Calendar

August 2014
M T W T F S S
« Jul    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031


Thinking Blogger

Pittsburgh Webloggers

Site Meter


View My Stats *