Content by kent cornwall
Posted at 2:27pm on Feb. 25, 2007 lies spread by al gore not limited to his putrid junk science
By kent cornwall
In addition to the junk science spewed by Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth—which even the “scientists” Gore quotes who side with its general theme say Gore demonstrates vast incompetence in simply being able to parrot what they say—another lie has been circulated about the commercial success of this film, which, bottom line, was a bomb.
The producers of this film tried to put out the complete and utter lie over the summer that An Inconvenient Truth was the third-most successful documentary/non-fiction film at the domestic box office of all time. This claim is a bald-faced canard.
Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 2:00pm on Dec. 17, 2006 the terri schiavo/tim johnson liberal hypocrisy [Comments closed]
By kent cornwall
[I would like to just make this diary go away, but the fact remains that kent is merely writing what other of our readers are thinking. I'd prefer that this wasn't the case - this mindset messes with people's heads in the long term - but I really can't do anything about it, except be disappointed.]
[And close the diary for deliberate flouting of the profanity rules. The author's been here long enough to know better. - Moe Lane]
Posted in Archived — Comments (5) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 2:50pm on Nov. 4, 2006 piercing the veil of political rhetoric
By kent cornwall
tough challenges are ahead. we need to work in a bipartisan way, myriad issues need to be addressed, we must reach out to the community, it's important to open up dialog, this is no time to compromise our basic principles.
we have to protect our children and think ahead for the generations to come, we need to safeguard the environment, our values are important, we have to protect our families, we need to reorder our priorities, we must return to basic fundamentals.
Comments (2) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 3:02pm on Aug. 8, 2006 lieberman campaign accuses nedheads of hacking joe's site
By kent cornwall
just ran into this via google news...
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/0-3&fp=44d8820a13aade49&ei=rt...
Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 1:06pm on Jul. 26, 2006 yet another curve ball in the connecticut senate race
By kent cornwall
today, we hear from bill buckley via his syndicated column, which appears among other places in the new york sun.
http://www.nysun.com/article/36772
mr. buckley, in his usual knowledgeable and historically conscious manner, compares ned lamont's role as a front man for the netroots/kos kids to that of henry wallace:
The backing for Mr. Lamont is by people, explicitly and implicitly, who wish to send the Democratic Party into a hard left turn. They are the equivalent of the Henry Wallaceites in 1948.
Mr. Wallace, having been rejected for renomination as vice president by FDR, turned against Harry Truman, his replacement, and bade for command of the Democratic Party. The Nedheads (as they are being designated) want to try that in 2006. For Mr. Wallace, the cardinal question was how to deal with the Soviet Union. For the Nedheads, it is how most deeply to reject the memory of George W. Bush and his works.
buckley then goes on to point out the historically low turnout for connecticut democrat primaries, and juxtaposes that with the further notation that 49% of connecticut's registered voters are unaffiliated.
these independents, he suggests, could reregister as democrats up till august 7, permitting them to vote for lieberman in the primary against lamont.
although buckley devotes some ink in this piece to lieberman's clear record as a liberal and his poor voting record ratings by conservatives, he doesn't mention the pivotal role that he (buckley) played in creating the phenomenon known as "joementum."
that's a bit of history well worth knowing, however, since it's one of the juiciest in demonstrating what conservatives can and will do when republicans leave them high and dry.
buckley doesn't, however, miss the opportunity to tip his hat to his brother's senatorial career in neighboring new york state, a phenomenon he implies he hopes will be repeated in connecticut.
definitely worth a read.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 10:08pm on Jul. 22, 2006 and then there were none? (republican candidates for US senate in connecticut, that is?)
By kent cornwall
well, it isn't quite none yet--the number of republicans in the race to unseat three-term incumbent senator joseph lieberman (d-ct), that is--but they're doing their very best to work toward that eventuality.
media attention in this nationally watched race--so intensively focused upon because lieberman supports the war in iraq and has stood behind bush to the point of a democrat party cabal to throw him under the bus--has mainly covered senator joe's main challenger in the august 8 primary, megabucks antiwar greenwich cable baron and morgan bank scion ned lamont, and the fact that lieberman may be forced to run independently (a slot for which he has been petitioning) if his own party rejects him for their official nod.
way, way, way in the background (until a week or so ago) was the press's coverage of the republicans.
that's when it suddenly came to light that the official republican nominee, alan schlesinger, has a penchant for blackjack.
a retired state cop alleged, later confirmed by schlesinger himself, that he gambled at the foxwoods casino, and that he used an assumed name on a casino promotion card doing so.
for a short time after that it looked as though schlesinger was making the best of that situation, strenuously protesting at a press conference and subsequently in interviews his right to privacy and underlining the lack of any noncompliance with the law, including his declaration that consistent losses obviated any suspicion about unreported tax liability.
at about the same time, a southeast connecticut state legislator named diana urban, also a republican, resembling an al gore/cindy sheehan hybrid--perish the thought, but that's what you get from the gop in connecticut--entered the race.
since schlesinger is the official nominee and so far refuses to bow to pressure from the state party chairman and republican governor jodi rell to give it up in light of the gambling controversy--and also because the party can't throw him off the ballot--ms. urban is petitioning for an independent slot (in much the same way lieberman is doing in preparation for the ever growing possibility he may lose the democrat primary). talk of a three-way race gave way to talk of a four-way race.
but yesterday all that changed. news reports surfaced regarding schlesinger's gambling activities once again.
they're calling it a "bombshell" this time.
seems the republicans' official candidate was sued by two casinos in new jersey regarding some other gambling excursions.
sued for what? that's right, welching on outstanding markers at two atlantic city casinos, in the amount of five figures each. the records show he settled both claims, and schlesinger continues to deny he has done anything wrong.
full story here:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/437093p-368303c.html
disgruntled connecticut republican brass is stymied. if schlesinger digs in his heels and won't relinquish the nomination, the party can't replace him; no other candidate can run as the republican standard bearer.
depending upon whether sampled as a two-way or a three-way race, schlesinger was only marginally above single digits in the polls even prior to these revelations (which have increased his name recognition, to be sure). some have even suggested the republicans should give their line to lieberman, since both schlesinger and urban are antiwar (the republicans have more antiwar candidates than the democrats in this contest), and neither was well known until the casino chatter.
but again, cross-nominating lieberman can't be done either so long as schlesinger hangs tough; he owns the republican line.
the net impression at this point is that it's all about the democrats, even if lieberman runs independently. in recent days lamont has pulled ahead of lieberman in the polls; the netroots/kos kids rejoice. bill clinton announces he will soon be arriving in the state to campaign for lieberman; the netroots/kos kids smolder.
absent the blackjack brouhaha, it's as though the republicans don't even exist.
it's beginning to look like we should rephrase the prospect of a three-way race to something more along the lines of "two and a half."
or maybe just two. both democrats.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 4:27pm on Jul. 22, 2006 richer than a 25-layer torte cake
By kent cornwall
how do the french say this with a straight face?:
Meanwhile, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy called on Saturday for an immediate cessation of hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah, saying their conflict risked destroying the Lebanese state. "We must note the severity of the situation ... and call for humanitarian corridors, call for the immediate cessation of hostilities and find all the conditions for a ceasefire," Douste-Blazy told a news conference in the Egyptian capital.
"If not, it will be the destruction of the Lebanese state."
"We believe the spiral of violence will not lead to anything durable. Only political dialogue can lead to a durable solution," said Douste-Blazy, speaking after meeting Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul-Gheit.
France, which has close ties to Lebanon, its former colony, has called the Israeli bombardment a "disproportionate" reaction to the capture of the Israeli soldiers but has also called for Hezbollah to be disarmed. - Reuters
i mean, now really! the french say this and yet it was the french who walked away from their former colony, including "the paris of the middle east" (beirut), one of the europeans' former favorite playpens? and the french are talking about how the "current hostilities" (nice euphemism) amount to "threatening" the existence of the "lebanese state?" they think that's something that's about to happen (unless we take their enlightened advice, of course)?
hahahahahaha!!!!!
they don't think walking away from and eventually letting lebanon get into the hands of the syrians and the iranians and their nutcase shiite friends in hezbollah had anything to do with that, or that they're not at least worth a simple mention?
i wonder what they'd say about israel's walking away six years ago had on that score (or were we enraptured with "land for peace" then while hezbollah, iran and syria used this great achievement in diplomacy to set up shop? no comment from the french on how that worked out?).
no comment on how that effect compares with the pounding israel is giving hezbollah today? or what about the us marines taking off after the barracks were blown up? do the french have a comment on that and the "future" of the "lebanese state?"
what jokers!
unbelievable these folks have the nerve to get in front of a microphone and say these things! as though they are bystanders, or that they have no idea what it means when muslims come into a christian nation and, by the sheer demographics alone of multiplying like rabbits, take over major influence within a government, significantly alter the religious composition, defiantly and hatefully separate themselves from the once prevailing culture (a clear form of invasion and takeover), consider themselves outside the jurisdiction of the law of the land (and what is more, fully entitled to replacing that with and enforcing their own), then invite in the most rabid among their religious zealot fellow-travelers to join them to conspire to wreak havoc (as the host government hands them passports), riot, take lives, destroy property and overtly defy the police power of the "legitimate state."
apparently the french have no experience at all with what that's like, eh?
gee, i wonder where we have seen that happen in western europe not all that long ago? hmmm.... let me think about that one....it's on the tip of my tongue....just wait a sec....it's coming to me....
maybe i missed mr. bolton's response to this but i would sure like to see it if he did respond. then again, i have read his comments to the effect that it isn't worth the ambassadorial breath of the united states to respond at all to such nonsense, and i agree with that too. but i'm sure he'd have a beaut' if he did.
did you also notice that "spiral of violence" and "'disproportionate' reaction" blather in there too? yes, we know, the french are experts when it comes to restraint and proportion. and just look at the wonderful results they've earned for their country practicing it.
guess i'll just shut my unrefined, uncouth, uncivilized, undiplomatic, tactless and indecorous and most certainly american mouth now.
but may i please have a piece of that lovely torte cake to enjoy out in the kitchen where i belong? i'm well aware i'm unfit to sit at the table among the properly attired "family of nations," and i'm pretty sure it will taste better out there anyway, away from their company (apologies to mr. bolton, of course).
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 5:51pm on Jul. 16, 2006 Democrats' Infighting in Lieberman's Connecticut: Nation in Microcosm
By kent cornwall
Despite the quickening pace of ever more surprising developments in the race for U.S. Senator in Connecticut--the principal focus of which is whether antiwar upstarts in his own party can knock off their own 18-year incumbent, Joe Lieberman--no matter how juicy the hard news gets, it always keeps coming back to how this contest bespeaks a Democrat party in a virtual suicide mode. Indeed, what Democrats are doing in Connecticut may be only a more clearly perceivable version--given its personally identifiable focus on Lieberman and President Bush wearing what some Democrats see as identical black hats--of what they are doing nationwide.
Its rank and file starkly divided, its younger "netroots" antiwar zealots sharply at odds with the older constituents who still fashion themselves in the mold of Harry Truman, Hubert Humphrey--and of course, in Connecticut, Joe Lieberman--lack of consensus on almost every major issue has devolved into devouring one another.
Divisions on the war in Iraq, as well as Lieberman's image among antiwar Democrats as the man who betrayed them by standing behind President Bush, animate a gloves-off fight for ideological control of the party both locally and nationally. And it's a fight sure to gain even more attention in Connecticut, the nation and even beyond national borders as hostilities between Israel, Syria and Iran (via Hezbollah inside Lebanon) continue to grow, further underscored not only by Lieberman's continuing allegiance to the President, but also, if only tacitly, that he remains the most prominent Orthodox Jew in American politics, as well as the man who rounded out the Gore ticket in 2000.
While Ned Lamont, the man challenging Lieberman in the upcoming primary, may be the incarnation of this revolt faction, he hardly symbolizes it except for his antiwar views.
Lamont is, after all, someone you might otherwise expect to be a Republican: a millionaire several times over, a resident of one of the most concentrated bastions of wealth on the entire planet (Greenwich), a man who swashbuckled his way into his riches in the often unsavory world of cable telecommunications.
But none of that matters to these young revolutionaries. Driven only by something so close to hatred for this war and this President it can hardly be distinguished from it, if at all, their single-minded goal is Joe Lieberman's political throat, regardless of the cost to the party, regardless of whatever may actually define the man they've gotten behind to take Lieberman on. And they smell blood.
A piece in today's New York Times by Mark Leibovich
resorts to Orwellian Newspeak to describe it this way:
Kisses mock Mr. Lieberman, the incumbent Democrat, all over Connecticut -- on signs, on buttons, even on giant parade floats. They commemorate the one President Bush appeared to plant on his cheek after last year's State of the Union address, a symbol, in the eyes of Mr. Lieberman's liberal critics, of an unforgivable alliance in support of the Iraq war.
"It's a `Godfather' kiss -- one of those kisses that says, `I own you,' " said Edward Anderson, a supporter of Mr. Lieberman's Democratic primary opponent, Ned Lamont, who was distributing "kiss" buttons outside a Lieberman campaign event in Stamford, Conn., on Monday.
In an interview in his Senate office, Mr. Lieberman said he recalled only a hug, not a kiss, but acknowledged, "There has been some doubt, based on the postgame films." Asked if there had been any subsequent kisses with the president, he said, "None that I'm prepared to talk about," and chuckled.
Despite his amused disposition, these are down days for Mr. Lieberman, the onetime Democratic nominee for vice president who, six years later, finds himself fighting to save his career amid a strenuous effort by antiwar activists in his own party to dislodge him. Friends say his predicament has left Mr. Lieberman nervous, dispirited and angry, a portrait of a politician stunned to face opponents as passionate in their loathing of his principles as he is proud of them.
He is in his 18th year in the Senate, where he has prided himself as being moderate, collegial and willing to work with Republicans. He has built the kind of seniority that often leads lawmakers to consider themselves invulnerable.
Yet he suddenly finds himself in a nasty tangle, not with the Republicans who held little back in their effort to thwart his run for vice president, but with a wing of his own party that has adopted a bloody-knuckle approach to politics and wants to finish him off in Connecticut's primary on Aug. 8.
In other words, implies the Times, it's not about a revolt, it's about Lieberman's betrayal. So vicious are the attacks coming from within his own party, in any other year such a story would be assumed to be the dirty tricks of Republican mudslingers out to get Senator Lieberman.
Not this year.
And it's interesting whom Leibovich seems to go out of his way to note didn't serve as source material for the story:
Mr. Gore declined to comment for this article. Privately, other leading Democrats have been quick to catalog what they consider to be Mr. Lieberman's slights to the party over the years -- including his mild-mannered performance in his vice-presidential debate against Dick Cheney in 2000; his rejection of a filibuster that would have opposed the nomination of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court; and his on-air chumminess with Sean Hannity, the conservative co-host of "Hannity & Colmes" on Fox News. His willingness to run for re-election as an independent is merely the latest offense.
Indeed, there is an unmistakable sense of satisfaction, if not glee, over Mr. Lieberman's difficulties in the primary, even among people who consider themselves friends.
But that doesn't seem to bother the Times or Mr. Leibovich very much. They were more than happy to draw instead on the bloggers at Arianna Huffington's Huffington Post, a copious storehouse of anti-Lieberman vitriol, despite the fact that the Times itself had just run an expose about that outlet's own suspicious activities in locking out a blogger who had lost his job at Pfizer allegedly because he advocated reimportation of prescription medicines, along with the further allegation that this blogger had been hacked by somebody inside the Huffington Post.
June 26, 2006, Monday
By MARIA ASPAN (NYT); Business/Financial Desk
Late Edition - Final, Section C, Page 5, Column 1, 362 wordsDISPLAYING FIRST 50 OF 362 WORDS -The Huffington Post, the popular news and blogging Web site, again found itself the subject of commentary last week when one of its bloggers was fired after accusing a site staff member of posting negative comments on his blog entries....
Despite Gore's and others' refusal to comment on record but who still say they are Lieberman's "friends," you can practically hear the 40 pieces of silver jangling among their mouthpieces in the form of disgruntled leftovers of the 2000 and 2004 Gore (whose running mate was Senator Lieberman, who wisely chose to run for reelection to the Senate simultaneously) and Kerry campaigns, respectively, obtained by Leibovich in part via The Huffington Post.
"Many Democratic activists and bloggers have concluded that some of the party's most visible scars are self-inflicted," said Ari Melber, a former staff member for Senator John Kerry's presidential campaign who writes regularly for The Huffington Post, a Web site with political commentary. "When prominent Democrats regularly capitulate to Republicans, they undermine the rationale for an opposition party. Lieberman is seen as the serial offender."
The blood sport in Connecticut among Democrats of getting Joe Lieberman so overshadows this race, these other juicy nuggets take a back seat (along with Ned Lamont's status as the unlikely netroots Fat Cat):
- Republican candidate Alan Schlesinger, whose war position is closer to Lamont's than Lieberman's, was recently outed by a retired state cop as a blackjack card counter who used an assumed name on a promotion card at the Foxwoods Casino 14 years ago while he served in the state legislature.
- Mr. Schlesinger seems to have turned this development to his advantage, at least in terms of heretofore abysmally low name recognition, but it could become an even greater asset since he insists he broke no law doing so (Mr. Schlesinger is a lawyer), was exercising his Constitutional right to privacy, used no fake i.d. and avoided no income tax liability.
- The revelation of Mr. Schlesinger's penchant for blackjack came within 24 hours of another Republican's hat in the ring, Diana Urban's, a North Stonington selectman. Ms. Urban is another curious development considering both her antiwar stance and her affiliation with the Republican Party, even though Mr. Schlesinger owns that party's nod (the reason Urban is running independently like Senator Lieberman may have to if he loses his primary).
- North Stonington is in the immediate vicinity of the Foxwoods Casino, and the retired cop who outed Mr. Schlesinger appeared before the board
on which Urban sits on March 14, of this year.
M. Jodi Rell, Connecticut's unelected Governor, who assumed that post as disgraced, convicted and imprisoned John Rowland's successor, publicly suggested Mr. Schlesinger should step aside as the Republicans' candidate in view of the gambling pseudonym controversy, and did so without consulting Mr. Schlesinger. Party boss George Gallo thought it better to let public opinion take its course first. Mr. Schlesinger says he isn't going anywhere, and the party can't replace him without his consent. He seems to be emboldened by the controversy, turning it into a sort of "me versus Big Brother" and right-to-privacy imbroglio. It may well work in his favor and elevate him in the polls.
And still the Connecticut Democrats continue to go on as they have been all along, attacking each other.
They're ignoring the recent advice of their hero, Bill Clinton, who says their battle regarding Mr. Lieberman is self-defeating at a time the party should be concentrating on winning elections:
HARTFORD, Conn. --Former President Bill Clinton is sticking up for U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman and his support of the Iraq war.
Clinton, who spoke at an Aspen Institute conference last week, questioned why Democrats in Connecticut are focusing on ousting a fellow Democrat, Lieberman.
Clinton added:
"If we allow our differences over what to do now in Iraq to divide us instead of focusing on replacing Republicans in Congress; that's the nuttiest strategy I ever heard in my life," Clinton told the nonprofit cultural organization.
Clinton also said this:
"Why send a signal to the people that are trying to keep Iraq divided and tear it up when we're gonna go," he asked.
Clinton defended Lieberman's Democratic credentials, mentioning how the senator has been endorsed by labor unions, environmental organizations and gay groups.
Wow! Is that Bill Clinton or George W. Bush? And yet the antiwar netroots youngsters leading the revolt against Lieberman are the first on line to salute the former President as the man they wish were still in the Oval Office. Funny that he seems to "feel their pain." They might just turn on him next if he keeps making those Bush-like comments about the perils of withdrawing troops from Iraq on a preannounced basis.
Have the Democrats in Connecticut gone mad? Have they been infected by a mysterious and irrational Death Wish pathogen? Is it spreading nationally?
No medical or political expert seems to know.
But if you're not a Democrat--a designation that could soon include Senator Lieberman himself--enjoy the ride.
Posted in User Blogs — Comments (24) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 2:06pm on Jul. 14, 2006 nutmeg state lives up to its name: spicy and seedy
By kent cornwall
in what is quickly becoming the dirtiest race in the country--and which has already been termed the most closely watched election nationwide--surprising new twists and turns are greeting connecticut voters in the senatorial contest most know simply as "will joe lieberman keep his job?"
quick recap: senator joe, renowned for being gore's running mate in 2000, and for standing by bush on the war in iraq, is an 18-year senate vet now seeking a fourth term. he is a curious phenomenon in american politics, an orthodox jew who almost became a rabbi instead of a politician. he is no doubt a liberal, but even those outside his party, even those who disagree vehemently with his pro-war stand, almost uniformly respect him as a man of integrity and principle in a way that harkens back to long since departed political eras.
as his official bio reads:
Senator Lieberman was first elected to the United States Senate in 1988, scoring the nation's biggest political upset that year by a margin of just 10,000 votes. Six years later, he made history by winning the biggest landslide victory ever in a Connecticut Senate race, drawing 67 percent of the vote and beating his opponent by more than 350,000 votes. In 2000, Senator Lieberman was elected by another overwhelming margin to a third term.
these things in mind, it is senator joe himself who forms an anachronistic backdrop, before which an onslaught of netroots/kos kids seeking to dethrone his lofty and indisputably powerful standing among senators is lining up behind a fairfield county cable executive millionaire cashing in on new england's widespread negative war sentiment. allowing for the possibility (but not probability) that he may lose his party's official nod in this primary race against ned lamont, senator joe, blessing in hand from chuck schumer (the democrat senator who holds the authority to decide whether the national party would support lieberman even if he lost the primary and ran independently), got in just under the statutory wire and began a petition drive for an independent ballot spot "just in case."
meanwhile, republican powerbrokers--mainly governor by inheritance (remember john rowland?) jodi rell and party boss george gallo--anointed lawyer alan schlesinger, a man who, somewhat like democrat lamont, also calls for troop withdrawals from iraq, and who has served as mayor of derby, and in the statehouse, as their official standard bearer.
this was the way this big story shaped up until a few moments ago.
in the past few days things have taken an altogether different turn. first, along comes diana urban, a north stonington selectman and war opponent/global warming-style environmentalist, who this week threw her hat in the ring. again, she is another new england republican that non new englanders would scratch their heads muttering "that's a republican?--much as they have done at times with schlesinger to a somewhat lesser degree. but she'll be running as an independent just like senator joe might if he loses his primary.
and no sooner did that announcement air when, suddenly, a retired state cop, who has worked for the mohegan tribe with casino interests in urban's part of the state, came out of the woodwork with the accusation that schlesinger used a pseudonymous promotional card (known as a "wampum card") on occasional gambling adventures 14 years ago.
this revelation has evolved into a minor uproar, with governor rell announcing to the world that she thinks schlesinger should give up his nomination, yet--and this is worth noting--this unelected governor but still leader of the republican party here didn't even bother to pick up the phone to talk with mr. schlesinger prior to airing her views.
so that's where this incredibly mercurial race stands now. what was thought to be the senate contest that would nationally put into bas relief the divisions between those who support and those who oppose the war, those who respect the tradition of supporting incumbents and those who reject that tradition in order to build up the netroots movement and war opposition in the democrat party, has instead turned into a tabloid drama about whether alan schesinger, the official republican candidate, who heretofore practically no one was talking about, may have used an assumed name on a promotion card in a casino and, so far as anyone knows, having broken no law if he did so.
where this goes now is anyone's guess, but i'm betting it raises schlesinger's status markedly because he had been consistently overlooked until now, given senator joe's big shadow. the allegations leveled against schlesinger have all the earmarks of a bum rap, and a lot of nutmeggers enjoy gambling at their casinos, often with an "it's none of your business" attitude, which is exactly what schlesinger is now protesting.
veteran broadcaster brad davis hosts a morning talk show in connecticut that may well be this state's most revered; a loyal following tunes in as we wend our way to our jobs. this morning he grilled schlesinger for more than half an hour over the wampum card. schlesinger stood his ground and said he did nothing wrong and only sought privacy. he further lambasted the governor for going to the news media with her recommendation that he quit the race without consulting him. and he enthusiastically promised to hang in there, while also expressing understandable regret that the governor seems to have abandoned him just because "somebody threw some mud" in the most competitive election in the country.
brad davis was detectably impressed and said so.
it's a whole new ballgame.