(crossposted from my Livejournal.)

...so, to the "librul media" pundits:

Joseph I. Lieberman is not the "Democrat Party".

In fact, Joe Lieberman isn't even in the "Democrat Party", and has not been since he was defeated by Ned Lamont in the "Democrat Party" primary in Connecticut last year.

This fact does not make Ned Lamont a "radical left-leaning liberal" any more than it makes anyone who disagrees with your star pupil a "radical left-leaning liberal".

Let's take a look at the issues you've ascribed to "radical left-leaning liberals" and the public sentiment towards them.

...so, the Democratic-led Congress is at the very least trying to get various pieces of legislation that would get our troops out of Iraq on the table. But when they announce it, various pundits pounce on it. They say "Do you want to get out, or do you want to win?" And "This is proof positive that the Democrats don't have a plan to win in Iraq!"

And it strikes me: Why do we need to win in Iraq? Why should we be worried at this point about victory or defeat? Will winning bring back the dead soldiers and Iraqis? Will winning end all terrorism everywhere? Will winning even boost morale or bring back military registration to pre-Iraq levels (as they've dropped every year since 2002)?

What does "winning" get us, other than bragging rights? And even better, what is a "win" in this case? In every game I've ever seen, what defines a win is laid out beforehand. No goals have been laid out for Iraq, nothing that we can complete to say we've "won". And, just like that other conflict that went on too long, ultimately, "winning" or "losing" becomes irrelevant.

ter*ror*ism [ter-uh-riz-uhm] -noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

Actual headline of Ann Coulter's weekly column, 11/1/06:  "JIHAD IS FUN! VOTE DEMOCRAT!"

Actual yard signs in Fort Bend, Texas:  "Support the Terrorist -- Vote Democrat!" "Want more illegals?  Vote Democrat!"

More of the definition of terror, with examples, down south.

I look at all of this scuffling, scrambling, and shoving for seats -- in short, democracy in action -- and I think,  "This could've been Ohio three months ago."

But this news is big.  Today the 2nd richest person in the world, Warren Buffett, announced he was giving 80% of his fortune to the charity of the richest person in the world, Bill Gates.  The $30.7 billion gift is the largest on record in a long walk.

Now, when you hear this news, you will likely hear the spinmeisters on the Right rail about the elitism and how the rich look after their own.

But, what you won't hear (unless you dig a little deeper) is that Mr. Buffett, along with Mr. Gates, opposes the Republicans' attempt to repeal the estate tax, even though the pair would be the biggest benificiaries of such a repeal.

The answer to "compassionate conservatism" isn't timid progressivism.

Well, we've seen timid progressivism in spades the last couple of nights, when Dick Durbin apologized for his Nazi remarks.  He believed he was doing the right thing, I think.  The problem was, it was the right thing for him, but exactly the wrong thing for the Democratic Party.

More of my rant down south...

Gee, I think the last guys I'd give a break were guys who were losing my money...

The long, downward spiral toward a $215M loss down south.

From the Toledo Blade:

That means over 20% of the state's initial $50 million coin investment from the Bureau of Workers' Compensation is in limbo.  This is compounded by the fact that over 100 coins were stolen a few years ago when Noe was at a convention in Colorado.  

More down south...