Says Gallup.

To which, I ask: When was this ever not the case?

Posted by: Gary at 01:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

I had already known that Sen. Chris Dodd has endorsed Lieberman but the State's two Congressional Dems - Rep. John Larson (CT-1) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (CT-3) are also backing the incumbent Senator.

The nutroots will say "yeah, sure but wait until after Lamont wins the nomination, then they'll go with the party!".

Wishful thinking on their part.

The Dem leadership - Reid, Pelosi and their ilk - might. They have a lot to lose by pissing off the Left. But Dodd, DeLauro and Larson understand that - one way or another - Joe will be serving his fourth term starting next year. He may not be in their party anymore but they know who they're going to be working closely with for the next six years.

And Dodd, DeLauro and Larson don't have to worry about a backlash from the anti-war Left. Their seats will be safe - especially after Lieberman shows he can win without them.

Hat Tip: CT-CIA

Posted by: Gary at 09:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 173 words, total size 1 kb.

Hosted this week by Nick Schweitzer. The post is entitled "Lazy RINO Sightings" but if anyone's been a lazy RINO lately it's me. This week's edition is the first one featuring a contribution from me in well over a month. Sigh.

Posted by: Gary at 12:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

I don't normally address the use of this absurd epithet that the moonbats love to hurl at supporters of the current war in Iraq, but Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe has such a nice quote about it I have to reprint it:

"Chicken hawk" isn't an argument. It is a slur -- a dishonest and incoherent slur. It is dishonest because those who invoke it don't really mean what they imply -- that only those with combat experience have the moral authority or the necessary understanding to advocate military force. After all, US foreign policy would be more hawkish, not less, if decisions about war and peace were left up to members of the armed forces. Soldiers tend to be politically conservative, hard-nosed about national security, and confident that American arms make the world safer and freer. On the question of Iraq -- stay-the-course or bring-the-troops-home? -- I would be willing to trust their judgment. Would Cindy Sheehan and Howard Dean?

The cry of "chicken hawk" is dishonest for another reason: It is never aimed at those who oppose military action. But there is no difference, in terms of the background and judgment required, between deciding to go to war and deciding not to. If only those who served in uniform during wartime have the moral standing and experience to back a war, then only they have the moral standing and experience to oppose a war. Those who mock the views of "chicken hawks" ought to be just as dismissive of "chicken doves."

Then you have the Left-wing pinheads who try to have it both ways regarding support of the troops. You can't say you "don't support the mission, but support the troops". I can't think of a more ridiculous assertion. That's like saying, I support the players on the team but I don't support their effort to win the game.

Here's the skinny: if you don't support the mission than by extension you support its failure (and more for political reasons than anything else, which is sick). If you support the failure of the mission then you, in fact, support the failure of those carrying out the mission - which means you support the failure of the troops. In other words, you DON'T support the troops. You're just afraid to say you don't support the troops because you're worried that people will think you're not patriotic.

Most Liberals hate the military and everything it represents. If they could disband every branch and create a "Department Of Peace", they certainly would. Which is why they can't be trusted to defend this nation or be put in charge of it's national security.

So when these wingnuts taunt the supporters of our military as "chicken hawks" they make themselves feel superior enough. But for the rest of the country, they remind us why they should never be returned to power again.

Posted by: Gary at 11:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 514 words, total size 3 kb.

In all the hullaballo with Joe Lieberman and the Democrats, there are some interesting historical parallels that many have overlooked. Peter Brown of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute (the polling organization in CT) looks back at the last time the anti-war faction of the Democrat party ate one of their own:

Connecticut Democrats have been down this road before. In 1970, anti-Vietnam War candidate Joseph Duffy knocked off incumbent Thomas Dodd, who had been a supporter of Democratic President Lyndon Johnson's policy. Dodd's son Chris Dodd is now Connecticut's other U.S. senator.

But the anti-war wing, although powerful within Democratic primaries, did not represent the political mainstream in 1970. Duffy lost the November election to Republican Lowell Weicker, who is backing Lamont against Lieberman, who defeated him in 1988.

Flash forward thirty-six years. Joe Lieberman is being driven off the Dem ticket by the Left for supporting the opposing party's President. The result will likely be a net loss of one Senate seat for the Dems. Lieberman, as an independent, has the capacity to be a "maverick" and a thorn in the Dems' side for the foreseeable future.

Thomas Dodd's son, Chris Dodd, is now CT's senior Senator. Lowell Weicker, who defeated Dodd now supports Lamont. And in both 1970 and 2006, the big loser as a result of the Left's actions is...the Democrat Party.

You just can't make this stuff up.

Posted by: Gary at 10:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.

No, he's not playing bass for the rock band. Republican Alan Schlesinger has got himself some gambling and ethics issues.

Hey, I'll be honest. I live in Connecticut. I'm a registered Republican. And I've never even heard of this guy. And honestly, I'd vote for Lieberman anyway.

Dems (especially the Lefties) will probably get all giddy over this, especially if Schlesinger drops out. But in reality, this is bad news for Lamont supporters. If Lieberman goes independent, the latest Quinnipiac poll puts him at 51% support over Lamont, who has 27% and Schlesinger with 9%. Schlesinger doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell as it is. But if he drops out, guess where that 9% is going to go? You guessed it. Liebs then polls 60% to Lamont's 27%. Hell, Lamont can even have all those undecideds and Lieberman wins in a landslide - with no formal ties to the Democrat party.

And every day it looks more and more like that will be the scenario. We'll know for sure in a couple of weeks.

Posted by: Gary at 11:11 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 189 words, total size 1 kb.

Polish grannies are putting their crocheting skills to a new use - making G strings!

No longer able to sell their hand-crafted doilies and table clothes, women in the tiny Polish mountain village of Koniakow turned their crocheting skills to making sexy lingerie.

And the business has proved such a success that the crochetiers have now launched an online shop for people around the world to buy the knitted underwear.

Tadeusz Rucki, who funds the granny g-string firm, said: "People aren't only mad about g-strings in traditional white crochet, but also in red and black."

But the head of the local Society for Folk Art, Helena Kamieniarz, is not happy with the new business, saying: "What is being done to our old traditions is a disgrace. The art of crochet is not intended for making such garments."

What would my dear old Nanna say?

Posted by: Gary at 12:30 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

1 :shock: I found this pic on a search under "crochet". The lace looks nice, the girl is devoid of _____ ____ & they don't pay crochet artists enough to make a living at selling table cloths or doilies, but these gals are making money at selling lace using ___ to promote their art. What else do we expect them to do? After all, at least they're not on Welfare!

Posted by: Janeen at January 08, 2007 05:30 AM (mFldJ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

According to Cal Thomas, the Castro-hugging filmmaker actually got this one right. Not only is it not an anti-American screed, Thomas (no Liberal, he) contends that it's right up there on his list of favorite patriotic movies.

There is another element to this film that should be recognized and applauded. It is the overwhelming number of men and women of differing ethnicities in police and fire department uniforms who were so much a part of the good that shone forth through evil on that terrible day. At a time when we are engaged in a battle over illegal immigrants and the future of American culture, it should be encouraging to see so many who recently came from elsewhere behave like most Americans think real Americans should behave. They did, because they are real Americans.

Posted by: Gary at 10:45 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.

Guys, just as a heads up. If you have A&E through your cable system, you can see a two-hour documentary tonight entitled "Cleavage":

Sexy and fun, this 2-hour special surveys mankind's fascination with breasts and cleavage, from the goddesses of antiquity to today's silicone-enhanced TV and film stars. Offering their opinions on why two simple mounds of flesh have wielded such power through the ages are comedian Joan Rivers; Cosmopolitan's Helen Gurley Brown; a plastic surgeon; a female body builder; and others. Narrated by Carmen Electra.

Hey, who isn't interested in learning "why two simple mounds of flesh have wielded such power through the ages"?

Time to broaden your minds. Set those TiVos!

Posted by: Gary at 09:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 128 words, total size 1 kb.

There's always mother nature to answer the call of the wild:

Now that's what I call sporting wood.

Posted by: Gary at 04:15 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.

So it's nice to see some more representation from the non-nutroots contingency.

Connecticut Citizens In Action follows CT politics fairly closely and will make a nice resource for news on this year's races - Federal, State and Local. Cuz I'm too lazy to follow it myself.

As such, it has earned a much-coveted slot in the ol' Official Ex-Donkey blogroll.

Posted by: Gary at 02:55 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

According to a new Quinnipiac poll, Ned Lamont has actually pulled ahead of Lieberman for the Aug. 8 primary race (which is within the margin of error). While I am a bit surprised, it does seem like timing is everything. Lamont has been filling the TV and radio airwaves with ads and - among Democrats - they seem to be having the desired effect.

There are less than three weeks remaining until the primary and , unless Lamont is peaking too early, he very likely may end up with the nomination. This would push Lieberman into an Independent candidacy. While the nutroots are all a-twitter with the news, such a scenario doesn't help the Democrats in the Senate as Lieberman would certainly attract enough independents and Republicans to carry him to victory in November anyway. The only difference is that he wouldn't have a (D) after his name.

"The poll shows [Lieberman] leading a three way race with the support of 51 percent of likely voters, compared to 27 percent for Lamont and 9 percent for Republican Alan Schlesinger."

Capt. Ed weighes in:

A Lieberman primary victory would be the best outcome for the Democrats; it would keep the state's party from fracturing in the general election. It doesn't look good for that result at the moment. Lamont may well top Lieberman in the first round, but an eventual Lieberman victory looks all but assured. That means that the national party leaders will have to be very careful in how they support Lamont, if they decide to do so at all. If they antagonize Lieberman enough, he may give Democrats a few more headaches in the next session of Congress.

John Hawkins makes this observation:

So, if Joe loses as a Democrat, but wins as an independent with lots of Republican and Independent support, what does that mean?

Well hopefully, it'll mean that the "Harry Truman Democrats" will realize that if they're serious about defending America, they're in the wrong party. Could it mean that some Jews, who vote Democrat 2 to 1, might get the message that they're in the wrong party? Sure. Could we see Joe Lieberman become a true centrist in the Senate in order to better represent his much more Republican and independent base? Sure.

And all the while, Kos and Company would be crowing about the huge "victory" they've won. It sounds like a real Pyrrhic victory to me.

Lieberman still has one big weapon left in his arsenal. According to his campaign, Bill Clinton will be coming to Connecticut to campaign for him and, these days, the former President is probably the most popular and influential Democrat alive. But time is running out.

Be careful what you wish for, guys...

Posted by: Gary at 11:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 545 words, total size 4 kb.

Those of you who tried to post comments yesterday should be aware that the mighty Mu Nu machine was on the fritz. For those of you who aren't familiar with it, the mu.nu domain is a private server that I and many other blogs use for publishing our sites. It runs on the Movable Type (MT) format and a lot of Mu Nu blogs have been coming under heavy comment spam attacks lately.

There is a way to block the IP addresses of these spambots using what's called an MT Blacklist. Unfortunately, if you don't know what you're doing you could potentially throw a monkey wrench into the works by using it. That's what happened yesterday when someone was trying to shield themselves from these annoying spam comments. As a result, the whole system went kerflooey. The administrator is doing his best to upgrade the server including putting in verification codes for comments that spambots cannot read. I will let everyone know how this is working out as he feverishly works to put this into place. In the meantime, thanks for your patience.

Rest assured I haven't banned anyone from commenting on the site (except for the chosen few that I have - and you know who you are!) and as of now everything seems to be back to normal.

Posted by: Gary at 09:00 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 1 kb.

Man, no sooner do I trot out my recurring "Would you vote for McCain" poll and Gallup goes and steals my thunder. Bastards!

Interesting to note is that in their poll, 41% or respondents find AZ Sen. John McCain "unacceptable" as a Presidential aspirant. The responses are purely a result of polling Republicans, while I have no way of guarantying the sample for my poll (in left sidebar).

Thus far, my results show about 20% pure "unacceptable" response. However, if you throw the "vote for him only if Hillary is running" category, that brings the "unacceptable" portion up to 38.6% - very close to the 41% that Gallup got. That's about the same as two months ago, when I posed the same choices.

Personally, I think McCain absolutely blew it back in May, 2005 when he rounded up his "Gang of 14" crew that prevented the abolition of the judicial filibuster. At that moment, a lot of potential supporters backed away for good. My guess is that any mending of fences that McCain tries to do with the base will be offset by other shenanigans that piss them off over the next two years. He's probably at his "high-water mark" for support among Republicans. My guess is that as it becomes clearer who else is running, his base support will drop even further.

Poll is still open through Friday, so go ahead and weigh in if you already haven't.

Posted by: Gary at 03:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 245 words, total size 2 kb.

Tom Bevan at RealClearPolitics describes pretty aptly why Liberals so often have problems winning over voters:

One of the major failings of liberals (and liberalism in general) is an attitude that reeks of smugness, of arrogance, and of a sense of intellectual and cultural superiority. They're enlightened, the rest of us are not. And, as a matter of policy, they know what's best for us poor unwashed dolts living between Manhattan and Berkeley, and Brentwood and Georgetown. Limousine liberals often fail to connect with "regular" people because they talk down to them, primarily because liberals view so many of their values with contempt - especially if we're talking about the South.

Posted by: Gary at 02:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 162 words, total size 1 kb.

The caption to this Reuters pic reads:

"Athlete Kathy Brennan (R) of Washington, D.C., helps to apply tanner on Forrest of Ferndale, Michigan, before the Physique competition during Gay Games VII in Evanston, Illinois, July 18, 2006."

Umm. I think somebody needs to explain to Ms. Brennan that applying the tanner internally amounts to overkill.

h/t: Neale News

Posted by: Gary at 09:40 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 68 words, total size 1 kb.

And they're hoping to ride that misconception into a sweeping control change of Congress this November. Today's Democrats look at the 1994 GOP takeover as their benchmark and are betting that voters have had enough of Republican control. If that's all they've got, they better think again. Former Congressman George R. Nethercutt, Jr. explains:

[V]oter unrest does not by itself portend wholesale electoral change. Even disgruntled Americans are reluctant to "fire" incumbents if they think they're just trading in one pol for another, regardless of party. That's the lesson of 1994.

Led by Newt Gingrich, the GOP candidates that year responded to the disillusionment of voters with the refreshing and specific ideas of the Contract with America. They proved that voters are drawn to issues and genuine political leadership, even in the absence of complete ideological agreement. In my own case, the voters in my district seemed electrified by the positive promise of specific policy proposals related to issues they cared about--fiscal responsibility, ensuring the safety of our homes and streets and schools, securing family values, family-oriented tax policies, strong national defense and commonsense legal reforms. And this was not just a Republican phenomenon. The Contract spoke to a wide cross-section of all voters.

For their part, Nancy Pelosi's Democrats seem confident that they'll sweep into the majority this fall on a single concept: "We're not them." Even their highly anticipated "Take Back America" agenda was little more than a public relations ploy to repackage the same vague and boring platitudes their pollsters have been feeding them since George McGovern: "Putting People First," "Real Security," "Healthcare for All" or "An Economy That Works." Whatever happened to "Where's the Beef?"

As if conducted by a tone-deaf maestro, the Democrats unveiled this agenda against a public chorus of Bernie Sanders, Jesse Jackson, Howard Dean--and Gary Hart. "Take Back America"? Two-thirds of Americans, if they paid any attention at all, probably turned to each other and asked, mystified, when did we ever govern America with them? And Ms. Pelosi is certainly no Newt Gingrich.

Now the party of "same old, same old" thinks that their mere absence has made the voter's hearts grow fonder. If they stick with their current strategy, they're probably in for a big disappointment come November 7.

Posted by: Gary at 09:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 440 words, total size 3 kb.

Site was unavailable for most of the day. Probably had something to do with F&*#%$# comment spammers. Texas Hold Poker, indeed. Assholes.

Posted by: Gary at 10:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 32 words, total size 1 kb.

"...People who are intolerant of other people's cultures. And the Dutch."

Seriously, though. Apparently, there is a political party in the Netherlands dedicated to the passage of a law that lowers the age of sexual consent from 16 to 12.

12!!!!! Ferchrissakes!!!

A judge recently overturned a ban on this "political party" which is headed up by some pervert who molested an 11-year old boy. It's called the PNVD party (an acronym for "Brotherly Love, Freedom and Diversity" - yech). This is really nothing more than an out-and-about version of the Super Adventure Club from South Park.

The judge's rationale was that it was up to the voters to decide the appeal of such a group. Fine, I agree in principle. But hear me now and believe me later; if this group of sickos gets more than 2% of the vote in the next Dutch election, I am taking old Nigel's declaration to heart.

Posted by: Gary at 02:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 176 words, total size 1 kb.

Came home from the lake last night to find I'd been comment spammed to the tune of over 100 bullshit texas poker website spam comments. It seems lately this has gotten worse and worse. MuNu is usually pretty good about keeping this crap out, but it's getting to the point where I may have to shut down comments for a while.

Now you have to deal with a cranky Ex-Donkey.

Posted by: Gary at 09:10 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 74 words, total size 1 kb.