Posted by Mark Silva at 1:42 pm CDT and updated at 8:08 pm CDT
The White House said today that President Bush would not comment on the outcome of the Democratic Senate primary election in Connecticut, and then the White House spokesman went on at length to talk about the meaning of the contest in the congressional elections ahead. And some time later, Vice President Dick Cheney had plenty to say about the election in an interview with reporters.
“This is a a defining moment, in some ways, for the Democratic Party,’’ said Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, speaking at a press briefing at the Western White House in Crawford, Tex. Some have tried to make this a defining moment for the president, Snow said, but “I would flip it.’’
Cheney, who of course debated Lieberman in the 2000 election, had this to say about the man who would be vice president: "When we see the Democratic Party reject one of its own, a man they selected to be their vice presidential nominee just a few short years ago, it would seem to say a lot about the state the party is in today if that's becoming the dominant view of the Democratic Party, the basic, fundamental notion that somehow we can retreat behind our oceans and not be actively engaged in this conflict and be safe here at home, which clearly we know we won't -- we can't be.''
Cheney delivered his remarks from Jackson, Wyo., at his vacation home, in a brief telephone interview with wire service reporters recruited for the call. Snow delivered his remarks from a lectern in Crawford, near the president's retreat.
The question of the war in Iraq, and how Republican and Democratic candidates might approach it, “is clearly going to be one of the central issues as we get ready for the election campaign,’’ Snow said.
The White House spokesman steered away from the buzz-words that his party is using in the wake of Lieberman’s defeat – with the Republican National Committee warning that “Defeat-ocrats’’ are ready to "cut and run" from Iraq. -- "I don't believe I used any of those terms,'' Snow said carefully. But in less incendiary terms, Snow was strictly on party message today.
“I am saying that there are some Democrats, that the key issue is leaving, and there are some elements within the Democratic party who are pushing hard to say, ‘Look, if you don’t agree with us, you no longer belong in the Democratic Party.’ Take a look at the blogs today, they are pretty hot’’
Maintaining that one of the Democratic Party’s evolving positions “is that we need to leave Iraq, we need to do it on a timetable and we need to do it soon,’’ Snow maintained Bush will not let the United States walk away.
It is not simply a war in Iraq, the White House maintains, but rather a war against world terror.
“Osama bin Laden some years ago said that, one of the keys is that if you simply stay at terror long enough, the West is too weak… America is too weak and will eventually stand down,’’ said Snow, maintaing that the U.S. is at war in Iraq to enable the Iraqis to eventually live free and democratically.
“To walk away from that now would send not only a sign of weakness but a sign of American unreliability,’’ Snow said. “This president… will not walk away from the promises he has made…’’
But, no, the president is not commenting on the Lieberman-Lamont contest.
“The president has no comment on the winner or the loser of the race,’’ Snow insisted. “But it also clear, because of the attention being paid to it, that there is a significant political argument underway.’’
This is what the vice president had to say on the telephone:
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. It's suggested I chat with you a bit just for a couple of minutes here about the Connecticut Democratic primary yesterday, and then I guess, we'll then be happy to respond to a couple of questions.
I was -- obviously, we're all interested in this year's election campaign. I know Joe Lieberman and have a good deal of respect for him given that we were opponents in the 2000 campaign; and of course, spent a fair amount of time watching the man and studying him over the years, especially in connection with our debate in 2000. And as I look at what happened yesterday, it strikes me that it's a perhaps unfortunate and significant development from the standpoint of the Democratic Party, that what it says about the direction the party appears to be heading in when they, in effect, purge a man like Joe Lieberman, who was just six years ago their nominee for Vice President, is of concern, especially over the issue of Joe's support with respect to national efforts in the global war on terror.
The thing that's partly disturbing about it is the fact that, the standpoint of our adversaries, if you will, in this conflict, and the al Qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task. And when we see the Democratic Party reject one of its own, a man they selected to be their vice presidential nominee just a few short years ago, it would seem to say a lot about the state the party is in today if that's becoming the dominant view of the Democratic Party, the basic, fundamental notion that somehow we can retreat behind our oceans and not be actively engaged in this conflict and be safe here at home, which clearly we know we won't -- we can't be. So we have to be actively engaged not only in Afghanistan and Iraq, but on a global basis if we're going to succeed in prevailing in this long-term conflict.
So it's an unfortunate development, I think, from the standpoint of the Democratic Party to see a man like Lieberman pushed aside because of his willingness to support an aggressive posture in terms of our national security strategy.
Lea Anne, you want to take it from there?
MS. McBRIDE: Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. First we'll go to Liz, Associated Press.
Q Yes. Mr. Vice President, thank you for joining us today. With Lieberman in Connecticut losing, Joe Schwarz in Michigan, Cynthia McKinney in Georgia, is there an anti-incumbent wave this year? If so, which party does it benefit?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I guess, I'd be hard put to think of what the wave is, or what parallel you can find between Joe Lieberman, Joe Schwarz and Cynthia McKinney.
Q Well, they're all incumbents and they all lost.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: That may be. I don't see it as an anti-incumbent move. I think each one of those races was -- the Schwarz race, obviously, was a Republican race -- there's a history behind that in terms of how Joe got elected last time around and his opposition this time around. I didn't see it as having national ramifications, nor do I think the McKinney race does. I think the Lieberman case clearly does.
Q But not in terms of anti-incumbent sentiment --
THE VICE PRESIDENT: No.
Q -- among the American people?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: No.
Q Thank you, Mr. Vice President, for doing this. Based on what's happened now to Joe Lieberman, do you think that Iraq is going to be -- the election is going to be a referendum on the Iraq war?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I can't say that. I think national security policy is likely to be generally important. I supposed it will depend a lot -- these off-year elections, obviously, turn a lot in terms of local issues, and issues that are identified with specific states and congressional districts. But clearly within the Democratic Party, it would appear to be that there are deep divisions. I think there's a significant body of opinion that wants to go back -- I guess the way I would describe it is sort of the pre-9/11 mind set, in terms of how we deal with the world we live in.
Q And do you see yourself on the campaign trail this fall making these same points? Are we hearing the beginnings of a strategy on how to deal with this situation?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I think it is appropriate and should be that there be some discussion, obviously, of these issues this fall. I suppose different people will look at in different perspectives. I expect there will be a number of people out there who put national security issues first and foremost when they evaluate candidates. And I suppose I'm probably one of those. And I think we ought to address it, and I think there will be a fair amount of debate associated with that campaign this fall. I can't say that that's going to be necessarily true in every single district. I certainly plan to talk about it a lot. I expect the President will, too.
Q Sure, okay.
Q Yes, thank you, Mr. Vice President. Is the White House going to offer Senator Lieberman any help as he runs as an independent? And in addition, what makes you think that the anti-war sentiment that Lamont won on won't work against Republicans, as well?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, I doubt that we have any intention or aspirations of getting involved in Joe Lieberman's campaign.
Q Well, just other than --
THE VICE PRESIDENT: I think we can look at it on a personal basis and say I think he's a good man. And if he were to leave the Senate, that would be a loss to the Democrats. But we're not embracing Joe Lieberman's candidacy.
Q Sure, okay.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Now what was the second part of your question?
Q The second part was, what makes you think the anti-war sentiment that Lamont tapped into won't work against Republican candidates this election?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, you've got to remember that was in a democratic primary. But I think Connecticut -- Connecticut is Connecticut. It's got a long history there. They have not elected a conservative senator for quite some time.
Q So how certain are you that Republicans will maintain control of both houses for this election?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I feel significantly better about it today than I did, say, three months ago. I've done about 80 campaigns now. I think we've got a lot of good candidates out there. We're making a major effort. I've done more this cycle than I have in previous cycles with respect to these off-year elections. The President is actively and aggressively involved. I think it will be a hard fought election contest. Clearly, the off-year election in the second term of a presidency always is. But as I say, I'm more optimistic now than I was a few months ago that we'll have a good November 7th. I think it will be a hard fought contest, but I do expect we'll retain control of both houses.
Q What makes you more optimistic, sir?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Just the feel I get out on the road, the quality of the candidates, the way our fundraising is going, I think the caliber of our get-out-the-vote efforts and so forth various places have been important in the past, and I think will be again this time around.
MS. McBRIDE: Thank you so much, sir.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Good to talk to you.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
The true defining moment was when President "Fortunate Son" gave Joltin Joe that nice warm,wet kiss.Rumor has it the Prez got all tingly in his cowboy boots.
As for Tony Snowjob,He's another example of the great "CHICKENHAWK SOCIETY",as young people trotted off to Nam,Tony had better things to do.
Posted by: john scanlon | August 9, 2006 2:06 PM
Heres a piece of reality for everyone.
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200608/r98284_298920.jpg
200,000 Iraqis supporting Hezbollah in the streets of Sadr City, Iraq.
200,000 NEW reasons to believe that the current plan in Iraq, stay the course, is not effective in reducing or eliminating terrorism.
Why can't any of the elected representatives, Republican or Democrat, see this?
Posted by: johnf | August 9, 2006 2:07 PM
Hey Tribune people, why is it that when I joked that Jeff Zeleny and Barack Obama should get a room with all the puffball coverage he gives Obama such as in New Orleans, you folks wouldn't post it? But here we have John Scanlon saying the president got all tingley in his boots when he and Lieberman kissed. In fact, it was "a warm, wet kiss."
So why does one get censored but not the other?
Hypocritical, perhaps?
Posted by: John D | August 9, 2006 2:34 PM
John D. has a point. When I wanted to post that Zeleny was jealous of Dick Durbin for endorsing Obama ahead of him it never got posted. Yet, most of the stuff Scanlon posts is about fictional parties featuring ribald and sexual acts that prominent republicans supposedly engage in. Is there a different standard for Libune reporters than there is for elected officials? Is that what it is?
Posted by: Bill | August 9, 2006 2:51 PM
Thats funy...I had the same problem with fox news...Duh!!!!!
Posted by: bill r. | August 9, 2006 3:03 PM
John D and others here's the party in action read this
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-08-brain-center_x.htm
Posted by: Dale Peters | August 9, 2006 3:08 PM
Snow certainly has a point. There's a huge difference between the people who believe in the righteousness of the global war on terror and those who don't. Those who want to interdict the terrorists where they hide and cripple the nations who harbor them are for it and those who don't are against it. Simple, really.
Posted by: Bill | August 9, 2006 3:09 PM
First, I have to giggle at the whining rightwingers on this thread. But then righties are great at whining, aren't they?
Secondly, Joe Lieberman sabotaged Al Gore's efforts to push for a recount in the stolen 2000 election. Now he has decided to run against the legitimate winner of the primary, being a sore loser. Isn't it obvious that Joe is a GOP mole? For crying out loud, it was William F. Buckley who helped Joe run for senate the first time, 18 years ago. The Democratic party needs to lose Joe Lieberman, he's nothing but a Benedict Arnold, i.e. a Tory spy.
Posted by: Patrick | August 9, 2006 3:21 PM
Come on John D,and Billyboy,
Other than on Fox News,there is not alot of "goodnews" for the right wingnuts,and unlike Fox,the Trib. is just giving you the facts.
The facts are something KKKarl Rove twists everyday for breakfast,I think it's time to eat crow my friends.
Posted by: John E. | August 9, 2006 3:21 PM
Ah, Mr. Scanlon, Tony Snow couldn't have served in Vietnam because he was too young at that time -- unless you think he should have served at 14? Why don't you use facts and think for once before you go disparaging other people?
And while I never served in the military, my brother and dad did. And I have given to groups such as the wounded warrior project.
You really are a hateful little bum aren't you?
Posted by: John D | August 9, 2006 3:24 PM
Ah, Mr. Scanlon, Tony Snow couldn't have served in Vietnam because he was too young at that time -- unless you think he should have served at 14? Why don't you use facts and think for once before you go disparaging other people?
And while I never served in the military, my brother and dad did. And I have given to groups such as the wounded warrior project.
You really are a hateful little bum aren't you?
Posted by: John D | August 9, 2006 3:25 PM
Oh Scanlon, that Tony "Snowjob" seems like such an evil person:
"Snow was born in Berea, Kentucky, and raised in Cincinnati, Ohio. His father, Jim, taught social studies and was an assistant principal at Princeton High School in suburban Cincinnati, where his son graduated. His mother was an inner-city nurse who died of colon cancer in 1973 when Tony was 17 years old. After graduating from Princeton High School in Sharonville, Ohio, Snow obtained his Bachelor of Arts in philosophy from Davidson College in 1977. He taught physics and geography in Kenya, and was a substitute teacher in Cincinnati, teaching everything from calculus to art. He also worked as an advocate for the mentally ill and developmentally disabled in North Carolina."
Get my point about knowing a little something before you spout your ridiculous hate??
Posted by: John D | August 9, 2006 3:31 PM
Oh Scanlon, that Tony "Snowjob" seems like such an evil person:
"Snow was born in Berea, Kentucky, and raised in Cincinnati, Ohio. His father, Jim, taught social studies and was an assistant principal at Princeton High School in suburban Cincinnati, where his son graduated. His mother was an inner-city nurse who died of colon cancer in 1973 when Tony was 17 years old. After graduating from Princeton High School in Sharonville, Ohio, Snow obtained his Bachelor of Arts in philosophy from Davidson College in 1977. He taught physics and geography in Kenya, and was a substitute teacher in Cincinnati, teaching everything from calculus to art. He also worked as an advocate for the mentally ill and developmentally disabled in North Carolina."
Get my point about knowing a little something before you spout your ridiculous hate??
Posted by: John D | August 9, 2006 3:31 PM
You have to be either Caroline Herzenberg or Ken Zimmerman from Huntington Beach in order to get published.
I wonder if they are related to anyone at the Trib.
Hmmmmmmm.
Posted by: JD | August 9, 2006 3:44 PM
The Tribune has never endorsed a Democrat for president yet the sniveling and whining about liberal bias persists.
Posted by: Doug Zook | August 9, 2006 3:59 PM
John Scanlon,
You are dead on the money.
All these chicken hawks led by Alabama Air National Guard no-call, no-show DESERTER DUBYA had other "prirorities" during the Vietnam war. But these hypocritical cowards don't think twice about sending our soldiers back for 3,4 tours in the tar pit commonaly known as Iraq.
Posted by: Doug Zook | August 9, 2006 4:06 PM
He's not going to comment? That's funny because
George Stephanopoulos reports, “According to a close Lieberman adviser, the President’s political guru, Karl Rove, has reached out to the Lieberman camp with a message straight from the Oval Office: ‘The boss wants to help. Whatever we can do, we will do.’”
Posted by: Cheryl | August 9, 2006 4:09 PM
Never mind that the majority of Americans want our soldiers out of Iraq now. The reason Lieberman lost is he deaf to what the people who elected him have to say. And someone should tell Tony that Bin Laden was and is not in Iraq.
Posted by: lochnessmonster | August 9, 2006 4:12 PM
A defining moment says Tony Snow...he would 'flip it'. Tony Snow's defining moment is when he dodged the VietNam war. This coward (Snow) should be the last person alive to tell us about what a defining moment is.
Posted by: Greg D. | August 9, 2006 4:26 PM
Billy boy,quit whining,just because you can't do a triple toe loop like this "Raving Loon"
As for you John D. if you wanna play with the big boys ,go ask jo momma to put on your big boy pants.
I think,as usual,you wing nuts like to dish it out,just don't like the return fire.
I've been sensored by this blog,unlike you I don't complain about it.
I think the Dems on this blog are kicking your tails and your whining.
Bill,you're the one that proudly stated that politics is a contact sport,so quit trying to do the toe loop and run w/the rock.
One more thing Mr.Masters degree,just hit post once,it works,so we don't have to read your dribble twice.
Posted by: john scanlon | August 9, 2006 4:35 PM
JOHN D.,
When you post a message,press post ONCE!
Tony Snowjob,what a waste of a good education,and interesting background.It's to bad he's wasted it on being a talking head for Fox news,and now being the mouthpiece for a failing Dubya administration SAD.
Posted by: John E. | August 9, 2006 4:42 PM
Hey, one more democrat fighting a bitter, expensive campaign for a formerly safe seat is fine by me.
Doug Zook, the Tribune editorial board and its staff do not share news space or (usually) political opinion. In journalism (and I am a journalist) we call this separation the editorial wall. John D. and I mainly rail against the opinions that sneak into reporters' work (Zeleny fawns over Obama, for instance). This is all well and good, all reporters are filters, after all but it would be nice for them to admit it instead of trying to maintain that their reports are objective. And some do. Eric Zorn is a good example of a columnist who puts his preferences front and center. But most of them don't.
John E., what a hateful term KKKarl is. Once again I feel implored to remind you that the only politician in office today who has ever written a letter praising the KKK and who also is a former member is democrat senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia. Byrd was a recruiter for the KKK in the 1940s and also served as an "exalted cyclops" (whatever that is). It's been reported that his membership in the Klan was instrumental in keeping him from having to serve his country in World War II.
Posted by: Bill | August 9, 2006 4:53 PM
Well, if George Stephanopoulos said it then it must be true. Lord knows he doesn't have any axes to gring and never worked as a mouthpiece for the DNC or any administration... oh, wait.
Posted by: Bill | August 9, 2006 4:57 PM
I am afraid the "defining moment" for Americans (Repubs and Dems) will be when we are given the choice to convert to Islam, or have our head cut off.
Losing Joe Lieberman to a wimp like Lamont will only bring that moment closer.
Posted by: Liz | August 9, 2006 5:10 PM
Here's the no comment:
CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - The White House accused the Democratic Party on Wednesday of catering to the extreme left after Connecticut voters defeated Sen. Joe Lieberman in a primary election over his support of the Iraq war.
Foreshadowing a debate likely to play itself out in November congressional elections, White House spokesman Tony Snow called the election a defining moment 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," he said.
Posted by: Cheryl | August 9, 2006 5:14 PM
“Osama bin Laden some years ago said that, one of the keys is that if you simply stay at terror long enough, the West is too weak..."
And then, sure enough, Bush forgot about Osama and launched the invasion of Iraq. Mr. Snow failed to mention that in his speech, strangely enough.
Posted by: Tom O | August 9, 2006 5:19 PM
Billy boy,once again,you have selective memory about the KKK.Your constant rants about Robert Byrd are at best mis-leading.
Maybe you want to talk about the wing nuts that have recently addressed the KKK,Lott and Barbour.
And really,your use of Robt.Byrd to try and dis-prove your party's racist plank,is getting very old.Billy boy ,the well is dry on that one.
Billy boy,you want to talk about Jesse Helms,Strom Thurmond,no I didn't think so.
One more point Billy boy,your above post about your war on terror,you had your opportunity to explain your position and you fumbled.No,it's not that simple.
Posted by: john scanlon | August 9, 2006 6:18 PM
It's obvious Lieberman is a W Administration stooge. If he were actually a Democrat and had party loyalty, and integrity (the last honest man...what a crock), he would accept defeat gracefully and offer his support of Lamont. After all, Joementum was beaten fair and square. The people have spoken with their votes and they don't want Lieberman. That's not to say, however, that there aren't thousands of people out there who, since they can only think on the surface, will vote for Lieberman as an Independent because they're comfortable with him, or he appeals to them somehow. So then it is also obvious that if Lieberman were to actually run as an independent, it would be a direct act of sabotage against the party that he claimed allegiance to for the last 18 years, could only benefit the Republicans and increase their chances of retaining a Senate majority, but most hilariously it would run in the face of ol' Joe saying, in his defeat speech:
"People are fed up with the petty partisanship and angry bickering in Washington. It is continually blocking progress on major problems and wasting America's greatness."
Can anyone tell me how Lieberman filing to run as an independent is NOT an act of petty partisanship?
Also, Joe, if the billion-dollar a week war in Iraq and the rest of the bloody mess that this administration has made of the Middle East is not a "major problem," what the heck is?
Further, "wasting America's greatness" is the vaguest phrase of despotism I've ever heard. I think Tony Snow wrote his defeat speech.
But, this issue really doesn't matter, because all political discourse is rendered invalid without a sufficient answer to the question: What really happened on 9/11? Anyone who has read the Commission's "report" and has a brain that can still think critically knows it's incomplete and it has only raised more questions. In fact, it hasn't answered ANY of the questions of 9/11, it just "confirms" the administration's story of 19 hijackers flying planes that crashed and burned so hot that it melted the steel in the Towers, certified to last for 6 hours without catastrophic loss of strength at a tempurature far higher than jet fuel and office contents could ever possibly burn, in less than 100 minutes and this caused the buildings to fall perfectly into their own footprint at the free-fall speed of gravity (which is physically impossible if the Comission's conclusion on the "pancake theory" of floor collapse is actually what happened), while giving no credence to eyewitness accounts from WTC employees and NY cops and firefighters alike who all agree that there were bombs and explosions continuing to detonate throughout the building until they both collapsed like slinkies, leaving hell-pits of molten metal that smoldered for six months afterwards? If you believe the report you are not thinking. Please, do your duty as an American and look at the evidence.
www.st911.org
Posted by: etheryang | August 9, 2006 6:31 PM
"It's suggested I chat with you a bit just for a couple of minutes here about the Connecticut Democratic primary yesterday, and then I guess, we'll then be happy to respond to a couple of questions."
-VP
Mr. Vice President, who 'suggested' that you comment on this matter and why have you chosen to talk about this and not more weighty matters, such as the corroding BP oil pipes?
Posted by: Jorge from Bloomington | August 9, 2006 8:36 PM
Billyboy,Don't even get me started on politicos who found a way to avoid the draft,Dubya,Darth Cheney,you know the neo-con list is a long one.
And I'm sorry, Rove is the most,spiteful,hateful,disgusting piece of sewer scum that I can remember in a long time.The man has not only ruined peoples lives,and careers,he has indirectly caused the deaths of all of our troops,and the Iraqi citizens.IRAQ WANTS US TO LEAVE NOW,why can't Dubya listen??KKKarl it is,because he represents all that is wrong in our country right now,very similar,but in a differnt way than what the klan represented in it's heyday.
Posted by: John E. | August 9, 2006 9:23 PM
Johnny Boy Scanlon, this will be the last time I address you from the adult table. This will also be the second post of yours disproven today, right after the fact that Tony Snow was 14 when Vietnam ended. Trent Lott and Haley Barbour were never members of the KKK and never praised it in a letter. That's what I said Byrd did and it's the truth. Byrd's own book explains the whole story. The person you so cavalierly label KKKarl has never been involved with, attended a meeting of or endorsed that hateful, vile organization. I know the truth doesn't matter to you, but I feel your libel and bile needs to be pointed out.
I don't care if you think my party's racist. Like most intelligent people, I don't care what you think, flatscanlon.
I'm fine with my position on the war on terror and fine with my choice of political leaders. Because I wouldn't allow myself to be drawn into one of your little written screaming matches, doesn't mean anything.
Posted by: Bill | August 9, 2006 9:24 PM
...All of this commotion because Sen. Lieberman wants to turn his back on his party's nominating process. This should not surprise anyone. For while there is no "I" in "team," there is an "I" in "Joseph I. Lieberman."
When asked what the "I" stood for in her son's name, Mrs. Lieberman said, "It stands for Joe. It's all about Joe. Joe, Joe, Joe. And if the world can't understand that, then the world had better watch out because he will hold his breath until he turns blue... or jumps off a roof*, whichever gets the most sympathy."
*"(Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman's) campaign poster when he ran for high-school class president featured him crouched on his parent's roof under the line: VOTE OR I'LL JUMP."
- Jonathon Alter, "The Putting of First Things First," Newsweek, August 7, 2006
Posted by: Last Comic Standing | August 9, 2006 10:23 PM
Scanlon, how about proving that Haley Barbour and Trent Lott spoke to the KKK. You lie so often you really do believe all the sh-t you dispense.
And I love these people who say Tony Snow dodged Vietnam. He was 18 when Vietnam ended. How did he dodge it?
Joe Lieberman, Mr. 85 percent approval rating for voting Democrat, is a GOP plant? You folks on the left are truly out of your minds -- if you ever had any.
Posted by: John D | August 9, 2006 10:25 PM
Dear Fairy Godmother:
I have only two wishes in life.
1)Please permanently ban for life, Jarrod from ever doing another Subway commercial.
2)Please impeach George W. Bush.I think lying to the American people,and war crimes also qualifies him for an inditement.
P.S....John D.,
Your Masters degree from the University of Phoenix Online doesn't count.You failed American Government class.
John D.,I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance.
Posted by: FOX LIES!! | August 10, 2006 1:38 AM
Hey Neocons:
How's that "Democratizing the Middle East" going for ya?
LOL
Posted by: BB | August 10, 2006 7:28 AM
Oh Mr. FoxLies, my master's degree comes from Louisian State University. In fact, my college was paid for as i was a graduate assistant. Also got a salary too.
Now, for your inane inability to think, I love how you mock Fox and its security threat elevated. I guess your brain inactivity deprives you from knowing that Al Qaeda tried blowing up more planes today.
Oh that's right, it's just another brainwashing attempt by the Bushies and its ally FoxLies.
You really are messed up, aren't you???
Posted by: John D | August 10, 2006 8:42 AM
John E. Thank you for illustrating for The Swamp readers a logical fallacy. Because Karl Rove represents (to you) everything that's wrong with the country, it somehow stands to reason that he was in the Klan? How does that make any sense in your fevered mind?
I also find it humorous that many posters are pulling out Strom Thurmond now, too. Do you know what Strom Thurmond was for nearly half his political career? Particularly the half when he ran for president on a segregationist platform and said hundreds of hateful things about African-Americans? Yep, a democrat.
Posted by: Bill | August 10, 2006 9:20 AM
More on Big Byrd. Here's some text from his letter to the Klan, dated 1946: “The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia.” Byrd defended the Klan in his 1958 U.S. Senate campaign when he was 41 years old.
Big Byrd is still the only sitting U.S. Senator to have voted against both African-American members of the U.S. Supreme Court: Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas. He also filibustered the voting rights act of 1964 (supported by a majority of those racist republicans) for more than 14 hours.
In 2001 on a nationally televised program (hosted by now White House press secretary Tony Snow) Big Byrd repeatedly used the worst racial slur used to describe African-Americans in our language. Here's his quotes cleaned up a bit because they're so reprehensible that the Swamp wouldn't allow such language: "There are white (disgusting racial epithet for African-Americans). I've seen a lot of white (disgusting racial epithet used against African-Americans) in my time. I'm going to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much."
Posted by: Bill | August 10, 2006 10:21 AM
Most politicians from the south were segregationist back in the 40,s and 50's.Robt.Byrd re-nounced his affiliation with those groups and became a leader in civil rights.
As for Thurmond and Helms they became leaders in the Republican Party.Did Thurmond have a black child?
As for most of the southern Repubs,they still address chapters of the KKK and use code words.
See,Billy boy,you know that,but choose to slander Byrd knowing your only telling part of the story.
You must be one hell of an editor,always giving only half of loaf stories.
Posted by: john scanlon | August 10, 2006 10:46 AM
SPEND WHAT EVER IT TAKES TO MAKE OUR HOMELAND SAFE AND SECURE. IT START WITH OUR SOUTHERN AND NORTHERN BORDERS. SPEND THE MONEY DON'T BE SHY. BEEF UP ALL TRANSPORTATION SECURITY INCLUDING RAILWAYS AND BUS TERMINALS IE GREYHOUND. REQUIRE A NATIONAL ID PROGRAM FOR ALL US CITIZENS. MAKE IT SIMPLE SPEND THE MONEY. WHAT EVER IT TAKES, BE CAREFUL NOT TO INFRINGE OUR OUR FREEDOMS INVEST IN THE MANPOWER NEED NOT THE NATIONAL GUARD
Posted by: DDS | August 10, 2006 12:14 PM
Billyboy,
Read my earlier post slowly:
"KKKarl Rove it is because he represents everything that is wrong in our country right now,VERY SIMILAR,BUT IN A DIFFERNT WAY THAN THE KLAN REPRESENTED IN IT'S HEYDAY."
Billy,you know you shouldn't take reading lessons from Dubya.
Posted by: John E. | August 10, 2006 12:49 PM
Scanlon, Bill supports his contentions with facts, quotes, links. I'm still waiting for you to prove that GOP candidates address KKK rallies. You keep saying it, but you never support it. Who only gives "half a loaf stories"?
Posted by: John D | August 10, 2006 1:02 PM
Thanks, John D. I haven't slandered anyone. And as an editor, I know the legal definition of slander, unlike John Scanlon. The only things I've used to paint this picture of Robert Byrd are his own writings and his own words. Read Byrd's book and you'll find the same information in there!
So Johnny Boy Scanlon, if most politicians from the south were segregationist in the 40s and 50s what's your excuse for Byrd filibustered the Voting Rights Act of 1964, which was, you know, passed in 1964 after a solid block of republicans and northern democrats finally got the votes to end Byrd's filibuster? He may have moderated his views later in life but African-Americans should never forget that this man used every procedural tactic the Senate allows to deny them their right to vote.
p.s. West Virginia really isn't a part of the South. It stayed in the union during the civil war. West Virginia provided to the Union Army 31,872 regular army troops, 133 sailors and marines, and 196 United States African-American Troops, during that terrible conflict of 1861-1865. Looks to me like the state was ahead of its senator even at its time of birth.
Posted by: Bill | August 10, 2006 6:46 PM
Oh, yeah, and I'd love to talk about Strom and Jesse. They were both democrats during the most bitter fights of segregation (that period you mentioned in the 40s and 50s) and fought integration alongside the likes of democrats like George Wallace. Meanwhile people like Earl Warren were fighting to overturn Brown vs. Board of Education.
Posted by: Bill | August 10, 2006 6:52 PM
One other little insight. Which party controlled the south in the 40s and 50s? I'll give you a hint. It wasn't the GOP.
Posted by: Bill | August 10, 2006 7:06 PM
Did anyone in this forum even look at those 9/11 websites that guy posted? I'm conservative, but wow there is really some evidence that every American should look at. If you do not look at the evidence for 9/11, you should sew your lips shut because nothing you say about our country can be taken seriously until you address the issue of 9/11 and at least take a stance. Last chance to take a stance against getting lanced in the a$$ by Bush and those who hate France.
Posted by: Intelligence Police | August 11, 2006 4:53 PM