Redstate

That comment shows ignorance of the dynamics of the two races. Had there been a runoff election two years ago, Schwarz would never have been the primary winner and subsequently a congressman. In effect, this was the runoff, that gave conservatives their first opportunity to express their displeasure at a representative who doesn't represent them.

I do admit I am ignorant to a point regarding the MI primary - most of the coverage I have heard of this race came from this site, which is the equivalent of relying on Daily Kos for info on the CT primary. Plus, I live in WI, so I can't attest to the local trends in Walberg's soon-to-be district. However, I do think that the CT primary was the first chance for far-left liberals who are up-in-arms about the war to, as you put it, 'express their displeasure at a representative who doesn't represent them'.

Although Schwarz would have likely lost a run off 2 years ago, it is by no means a certainty he would have lost this election (as an incumbent with endorsements from Bush et. al.) had Club for Growth not spent major coin on Wallberg.

So I think the point that outside interests (eg netroots/Kos, club for growth) played a big role in ousting incumbents based on ideology rather than competence is valid. (debatable in the case of schwarz depending on your definition of competence-but there was not large LOCAL hue and cry to have him ousted)

...that nobody here used blatant racist imagery in their efforts to give Schwarz the boot.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

get hashed out. But the two races were different in one serious regard. Joe Lieberman was a mainstream liberal with a 90 percent ADA rating. He was a liberal in a left-of-center party. Joe Schwartz, on the other hand, was a liberal in a right-of-center party. So to claim an analogy between them is a stretch.

That is true - Lieberman is much more of a liberal than Schwartz is a conservative. That was actually one of my biggest problems with all of the liberal uproar to unseat Lieberman: on pretty much every issue, he votes with the dems, but his support of the war is the sole issue that got him voted out (of the dem primary, not necessarily the office).

While the war (and its consequences in the US and around the world) is the biggest issue facing the country right now, and will likely remain so through the 2006 and 2008 cycles, people in CT and across the liberal blogosphere seemed to ignore the body of his voting record and focus in on that singular issue.

Ugh. Serenity now.

In addition to what you said, also consider that lieberman was a liberal in a liberal state and a recent VP of the party. Schwartz was a RINO in a conservative michigan district. He may have played in RI, CT, ME, Tom Davis' district, etc. but he was a liberal in a conservative district.

Also the negatives with Nut Ned were ignored by the leftists in CT. Look at the traditional support of liberal dem's, all the unions supported Lieberman and from what I've heard, they continue to, Lamont's cable co is non-union. The top ten list from Redstate were all negatives about Schwartz, there was one against Lieberman.

Look at how nuts the leftists are, they want Hillary's head. Who would call Hillary even a moderate except for her Lieberman views. The big tent is not subscribed to by the leftists, you are 100% leftist or get out. These are the people who brought the world Howard Dean, the man who thinks Bin Laden shouldn't be judged before a fair trial but IMPEACH BUSH NOW!!!!!!!!!

I don't think anyone against Schwartz were putting him in black face, making anti semitic type remarks or the other hateful things from the leftist blogs. Remember the "screw them" remark? That is who Lieberman was against and you, I and everyone else knows that 95% of democrats do not want them in the party but not one will stand up for fear of being next on the hit list.

Since when? Maybe to the Kos Kiddies he's a Moderate.

The difference, as I see it, between those 2 races is that, in the CT primary, a growing majority took another step towards wiping out what was once a majoity in that party.

In the MI primary, conservatives are the majority and refused to allow the co-opting of the Party's values by a few extremists that have more in common with Lamont than with Reagan.

Lieberman and Schwarz are "moderates"? I find the world of language to be enlightening.

Under the Republican tent, we have "conservatives", and that label has been good for 60 years. Under the Democratic tent, you have "progressives". Used to be "liberals" but people figured out that liberals promote policies that don't work, generally favoring people who don't work and punishing people who do so they abandoned the word "liberal" in favor of "progressive", probably as a result of a focus group which Democrats seem to use instead of developing policies that will work.

Bottom line, Lieberman and Schwarz are classic liberals. There isn't much difference in their platforms. Lieberman's ONLY sin was to support the war while remaining liberal on every other issue. Schwarz doesn't support the war and votes likes a Democrat on virtually every other issue.

A more apt comparison would be Zell Miller and Schwarz. Miller was a conservative Democrat and voted with the Republicans more often than with his caucus.

-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Sorry..link included now.

Principles? You mean other than selfish, inhumane, me-firstism? Governing as a conservative=consolidation of wealth within the top 1% and to the rest of us: [Go pick flowers]! Modern conservatism is a reversion to feudalism and history will inevitably prove that progressivism, with its emphasis on the interconnectedness of human beings, is the best way for civilization to thrive. For the party of the Christian right, I see very very little of the compassionate teachings of Christ. Wake us sheeple. Its okay to admit when you make a mistake. Jesus forgives!!

And you're just getting an advanced preview.

As you ponder whether those twelve seconds of your life were wasted (Free answer: They were), I want you to ponder that your description of progressivism is superficially similar to a correct description of feudalism.

Assuming you can actually think, which is a point so far in debate.

Toodles.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

Let us pray it gets spread far and wide between now and November.

I live in MI-07. I listen to WBCK AM 930 daily for Rush and Hannity-well most days. The first salvos I heard came from Club for Growth long before Schwarz got on the ball. They were essentially low-brow attack ads. They set the tone for a mud-slinging nasty campaign. There was plenty of truth stretching to go around. So what say we not kick the guy while he is down.

I want the blogosphere to succeed. I think porkbusters is fantastic. The success of CfG on schwarz and left netroots on Lieberman means there is more to come. BUT having lived through it I am left with a bad taste. Partly because of the tactics CfG used. And partly because I can't shake the feeling my local election got shanghaied by people who don't give a rip about what happens after 8/8/06 in MI-07.

in Lenawee County, which went almost 70% for Walberg. My wife works in Hillsdale, so her commute takes her there from Adrian every day. Drive over from Schwarzland in Battle Creek some time and you'll realize that the grass roots support for Walberg is there regardless of the Club for Growth ads. By my estimation, the ratio of Walberg signs to Schwarz signs is about 50 to 1.

along with her use of Lanny Davis as her surrogate for the Joe Lieberman campaign. Triangulation and all that jazz.

Could it be that the Clintons supported Lieberman so that when he lost they would be in a stronger position to try to convince him not to run as an independent? If the Clintons now come out and say, "We backed Joe but he lost fair and square. Now it's time to move on and elect the person the Democratic voters chose." that would seem to be a huge boost for Lamont.

That's it, force your presidential candidates to take sides. Go for it, Mr. Lamont!!

Disclaimer: Works for Alan Schlesinger (R-CT). Volunteer, no pay.

...such trivia as terrain, technology, nature and manner of the opponent, American objectives in both the short and long term, logistics, tactics, local indigenous culture (and cultural identity), wider geopolitical situation, domestic political makeup, domestic military makeup and overall casualty rate. Aside from all of that, sure, it's just like Vietnam. Well, at least the vowels are the same. Except for the E.

LINDA, the people here at this website? We like history. It's usually one of our hobbies.

So don't write out silly things like that, 'kay?

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

what you did is called "mobying." And a very poor job of it at that.

Unless you have a mouse in your pocket, knock off the "we" crap because no one believes you are a Republican.

Final and only warning.

But she certainly isn't very smart, and I have no cause to believe she's conservative. Perhaps she's Chafee posting under a pseudonym?

I was going to post this sentiment. G-d knows I loved Reagan and respect his memory, but each of these points is true. (And which governor of California, exactly, signed the nation's first abortion liberalization in 1967?)

We've been treated to a lot of great rhetoric over the years but which Republican officeholders have really been known for cutting taxes, curtailing spending, and shrinking government???

But I can't let all those go completely unchallenged.

When Reagan took office the top rate for individual income tax was 70%. When he left office it was 28%. It went back up to 40% under Clinton.

As for abortion, try googling "Mexico City policy".

Reagan didn’t open it [ANWR] up for drilling during the eight years that he was president.

The President cannot open up ANWR for drilling, which is why neither Reagan nor Bush has opened it. Only Congress can take that action.

There are some very peculiar ideas about RR floating around on this Republican web site.

We need to remember that if it were not for the French that we would not be here today, as they helped our forefathers fight for what is now the United States.

The French helped our fledgling democracy come along ... thank you for helping me realize that we are carrying on that tradition in Iraq.

Just a little point to remember...France in 1778 was a monarchy and had no interest in "helping democracy." Their exclusive interest in helping the Americans was to exact some payback on their centuries' long adversary, England. Maybe Lafayette was a useful aide-de-camp to Washington, and maybe Grasse's fleet helped win at Yorktown. That doesn't entitle the French of 2006 to dictate American interests.