Welcome To CT

My Left Nutmeg

A community-driven blog featuring news and commentary on local, state, and national politics.

helphaiti

Donate to CT Dems
Enable ActBlue
for CT Races		 $
John Larson
(1st CD)		 $
Joe Courtney
(2nd CD)		 $
Rosa DeLauro
(3rd CD)		 $
Jim Himes
(4th CD)		 $
Chris Murphy
(5th CD)		 $
Ads on My Left Nutmeg
 
 

 
Contact Info
To contact the site admin email ctblogger at ctblogger@yahoo.com

My Left Nutmeg

Whitnumz on the Ballot

by: mattw

Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 09:56:43 AM EDT


Only in Bridgeport has the scoop. An excerpt:

"It's a mandate." Said Whitnum. "The people don't want an elitist, Greenwich , Wall Street candidate like Jim Himes. They want candidates who will fight for jobs and the interests of the middle class."

Whitnum, a teacher and cancer survivor, boycotted the 4th Congressional District Convention on May 19 when she learned that her Democratic opponent was planning to deny her the opportunity to address the delegates. She also felt that she wasn't treated fairly by the Democratic powers that be.

Let the good times roll.

mattw :: Whitnumz on the Ballot
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Whitnumz on the Ballot | 57 comments
Wow! (0.00 / 0)
truly, WOW!

Connecticut Bob
Oh great (0.00 / 0)
This is just a waste of Jim's valuable time and money.  At a time when the campaign should be laser focused on Chris Shays it has to deal with this loon.  

This is a woman who concocts personalities out of thin air.  Dealing with her is impossible.  I had to fend off a call from her at 5 a.m, where she accused me of conspiring to ruin her life and barked profanities at me because she didn't like something I had wrote about her.

Any Democrat who signed her petition should be ASHAMED

Writing while aggravated (0.00 / 0)
And great.  I'm so pissed off that I have to deal with this nutjob again that I used improper wording.  I meant to say "I had written about her..."
[ Parent ]
Let's just hope (0.00 / 0)
that the more exposure she gets, the more people will realize what she's like. (Unless, of course, that exposure is from Vigdor at the GT.) To know Lee Roystone Masked Man Marianne Cook Whitnum is to realize that she is not the kind of person(s) we really want representing us in Congress.

But democracy is democracy, and I have faith that the voters will put the right person on the ballot in November. And that person will be Jim Himes, because he is a more qualified candidate.

[ Parent ]
Don't get me wrong (0.00 / 0)
Don't get me wrong.  I have no doubt that Jim will win the primary with extreme ease.  We're talking 95 to 5% AT WORST in my opinion, but her presence in the race is a distraction when all hands must be on deck to defeat Shays in November.

Jim is going to have to debate her I would assume and she is going to throw so much slime at him that it could end up hurting him.  Yes democracy is democracy, but not when someone is putting their vanity and obsession over the good of the party and the people.  

I've had the displeasure of working with Lee on several stories and hearing her speak.  She is I believe in need of psychiatric help.  Granted I might be biased against her because I've had personal problems with her, but this is a distraction Jim doesn't need.

My work brings me in contact with all kinds of whackos, but Lee takes the cake.  Ask anyone in Greenwich DTC who's interacted with her.  She is paranoid, delusional and a bigot to boot.  

I can't believe ANY Democrat signed this petition.  Whoever they are need to have their heads examined.

[ Parent ]
Slime? (0.00 / 0)
Apparently Ms. Whitnum has more than enough (real) slime in her own life, and I'm sure it will come to light soon enough.

It's really a shame there is no one in her life to rein her in -- this promises to be really painful to watch.

[ Parent ]
Could you lay all of this out again? (0.00 / 0)
I think it would be very helpful for all of us, including the reporters, all of whom read this website, for you to reprint your findings about Whitnum in one place.  Publish a long blog with all of the facts.  That should do it.  And it would put to shame Neil Vigdor, who has published such perversely one-sided and whitewashed articles about her.

[ Parent ]
Actually, I've started such a diary (0.00 / 0)
Gathering info now for an intro to Whitnum guide.
[ Parent ]
Has anyone looked at the signatures? (0.00 / 0)
It would be interesting to see if they are in conformance.  Also to see who signs such a petition.

She seems like the kind of candidate the Shays supporters  will love to "support", making use of her to feed crap that she can fling and keep Mr. Shays from looking like a mudslinger.  Take her to dinner, feed her some baloney along with the caviar, and see what her campaign comes up with "independently".  Much of what she says sounds like it is out of GOP talking points, so I wonder who is working her to get this going.

It just doesn't compute -- she has no money, and all of a sudden she's petitioning a primary.  There has to be someone pulling the marionette strings here.

Lee Whitnum doesn't realize she is highly likely to be used and manipulated by people she thinks are nice "supporters".  She is going to be publicly played like a violin here, and will be the last to figure it out.

I hope she researches carefully both her old and new "friends", especially those who like talkin' politics with her.  

[ Parent ]
Lifted from Only in Bridgeport comments (0.00 / 0)
At the link above, I found this comment:

Pray tell what has Chris Shays done? He thought he got a bargain of a house in B-port when he left Stamford but then reval came and all he has done is complain about how unfair it is. And the same can be said about the lack of his initiatives with access to the shoreline, affordable housing in the suburbs and his poor record on education.
After all of those years in DC for Shays and with B-port having nothing to show for it, there is no better argument for making a change unless it is and Chris Shays supports spending billions in Iraq while our own urban centers go underserved.

Jim Himes for Congress!


Could we do this? (0.00 / 0)
Could we combine all of our experiences with Lee Whitnum and document some of her crazy actions.  For example, Ken's comment above about her calling at 5am.  Could we get a date for that and exactly what she said?  I wrote a dailykos diary about her weird rant at the Greenwich DTC picnic last year.  Saramerica has written about her fake lawyer intimidation.  If we could document all of this and write opeds, especially an oped to be published in Greenwich Time/Stamford Advocate, which has been pushing Whitnum's candidacy, we could go a long way toward exposing her as the wackjob she is.
[ Parent ]
"exposing her as the wackjob she is" (0.00 / 0)
Two words: televised debate.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...
[ Parent ]
Ironic? (1.50 / 2)
You have no idea how amusing it is to hear all these complaints about the indignity of having to deal with a party primary from the very people who fueled Ned Lamont's primary challenge in 2006.
eh (0.00 / 0)
We have all sorts of different opinions -- I think that everyone should have a primary, and think this one will be a lot of fun.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...
[ Parent ]
There are some of us who wish (4.00 / 1)
..she were less of a joke candidate and would actually gain Jim Himes more attention instead of the 30 seconds a primary will give him.
[ Parent ]
Jim will get more exposure than Shays during the next 2 months (0.00 / 0)
While Chris Shays is hopping up and down and waving his arms yelling "What about me?", we'll see Jim Himes making speeches, campaigning all over the district, and getting exposure in the media.  

Sure, it's gonna be a slam-dunk, but in August we'll see Shays making his 22nd, 23rd and 24th trips to Iraq, while Jim Himes has a victory celebration, looking triumphant and unbeatable.  

You can't possibly buy this kind of publicity.  How is that a bad thing?

Connecticut Bob

[ Parent ]
The point being Whitnum has no usefulness (0.00 / 0)
..for Himes, or for any other democrat it appears. A nuisance.

Also, it's my understanding Shays has had it very easy in the 4th district over the years, sheltered as it were by the proximity to the all consuming New York media market. Gaining attention there in an expensive market has been a problem I hope he solves. (Himes, that is.)

[ Parent ]
personally (4.00 / 2)
I'm extraordinarily amused reading the college conservative punditry of a kid trying to blog his way into a job in CT politics.  

I think you're in need of these:
http://www.uline.com/Browse_Li...

[ Parent ]
Funnest thing I've seen all day! n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
For the record (0.00 / 0)
I graduated college about four years ago.  Pithy response, but you still have the headache of dealing with a primary you clearly find annoying.

Out of curiosity, why would you assume that commenting on this site means that someone is, "trying to blog his way into a job in CT politics?"

[ Parent ]
oh Adam (0.00 / 0)
You've stated more than once that you're looking for a job in politics to get you back to Connecticut.  You fall over yourself to post defenses of any and every CT Republican you can as well as criticize any CT Democrat who challenges them.

The fact that you graduated four years ago has no bearing on the reality of your college conservative punditry.

I, along with many others, do not find the fact of a primary annoying.  I find Lee Whitnum's primary annoying in that her candidacy is a joke -- and I don't like to see the mentally handicapped humiliated, even when they ask for it.


[ Parent ]
for the record (0.00 / 1)
I'm interested in retuning home for a number or reasons, including the desire to be closer to my family.  Unfortunately, working for Congress hasn't left me with experience that translates easily to the private sector.  Particularly, since I'd prefer not to lobby.

So I've been looking to gain skills that would make me more marketable to employers outside of the political arena.

It would be more accurate to say that I'm looking for a job that will allow me to get back to Connecticut, where I'd also plan on being involved in politics on the grassroots level.

[ Parent ]
Help Wanted (4.00 / 1)
Looking for college-educated male to head failing division of largest economy in the world. Must be willing to continue money-losing programs and disregard high employee casualty rates in perpetuity while maintaining a positive, future-oriented focus. Republican Party experience a plus.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...
[ Parent ]
kudos (0.00 / 1)
That's hilarious!
[ Parent ]
You're still here? (4.00 / 1)
Your boy Shays has been to Iraq 20+ times; when are you going to man up and enlist and fight for freedom?
[ Parent ]
Exactly! (0.00 / 0)
Has Adam ever explained why he hates our freedom so much that he refuses to go fight for it?

Adam?  Adam?  Is it a health-related problem?

[ Parent ]
hates freedom? (0.00 / 0)
Does my lack of military service restrict my 1st amendment rights in some way that I'm unaware of?

I would grant your argument were there a draft that I somehow managed to avoid while simultaneously supporting policies continuing said draft.  But since that is clearly not the case I don't understand how my decision to serve or not to serve in an all volunteer force can have any bearing on my right to hold a point of view on national security issues that differs from your own.

Or should I still be laughing because someone linked to a picture of knee pads?  The use of which in the manner insinuated, incidentally, would disqualify me from military service.

[ Parent ]
Whatever your spin may be... (0.00 / 0)
it does not hide the fact that you are a yellow elephant.  I feel that anyone who supports this war who is elegible to enlist is a coward, and by your own argument above, many of your party heroes are cowards, like Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, Lieberman, and Guiliani.  Birds of a feather flock together.
[ Parent ]
Don't confuse the issue (0.00 / 0)
Avoiding a draft while supporting a war is quite different from choosing not to enlist (although in my case I'd probably pursue a commission rather than enlisting) in an all volunteer force.  Absent a draft, your statement that I "hate freedom" because I am not a member of the armed forces is just silly.

Furthermore, unless you're going to suggest that only the military is allowed to support deploying the military, your argument is quite inconsistent.  Civilian control of the military is a major tenant of our political system.  I'm entitled to my opinion on this matter just as much as you are.

If you have a problem with the policies I support why not respond with a substantiative critique of those policies?  I realize it's easier to mock me, but that won't affect my point of view.

[ Parent ]
Hate Freedom? Chuckle, chuckle...Silly boy, I never said that (0.00 / 0)
I merely stated that those chickenhawks who support a senseless war and that the select few that are benefitting financially are all hat and no cattle.  If you think that this war is necessary to save our nation's freedom, then man up and either enlist or pursue a commission.  What is it with you College Republicans?

BTW, mocking you and others like you and critiquing the poor policies of the Bush administration is pretty much the same thing.

[ Parent ]
Apologies (0.00 / 1)
I should have specified - it was 'chele' who said, "Has Adam ever explained why he hates our freedom so much that he refuses to go fight for it?" not you 'snorwich'

Again though, I'd suggest that you'd be on stronger ground arguing why you believe that this is ,"a senseless war," rather than trying to argue that my opinion doesn't matter because I'm not serving in uniform.

I actually wasn't that involved with the College Republicans at GW after Freshman year.  Was a bit of a culture shock coming from New England to the GOP nationally.  I think I've found my niche though.

Everything else aside, it comes back to my small town upbringing and sense that issues should be dealt with on the most local level possible.  Limited government, and local control.  Those are the core principles that led me to become a Republican.

I didn't get it from home - my mother voted for Carter, twice.

[ Parent ]
Do you believe (0.00 / 0)
that the Iraq War in which we are now engaged is correct and necessary to keep the United States of America secure?

[ Parent ]
I believe (0.00 / 1)
That there are two separate issues (1) the decision to invade (2) what we do now.  We can debate whether or not we should have invaded in the first place, or the reasons we invaded, but ultimately it comes down to one question: what should we do now?

I don't believe that simply leaving Iraq is in our best interest.

It would be too easily used for propaganda purposes.  Our enemies would claim that they "defeated America."  I'm afraid it would embolden not only terrorist organizations but also rouge states like Iran, or North Korea.

It would mean that all the lives that have been lost and all the money that has been spent these past seven years was for nothing.  With such a large investment in Iraq already I feel we have a duty to salvage something positive from the situation.

That said, I'm talking about the larger strategic level picture here.  Clearly I am not qualified to discuss the current military situation in Iraq, or what types of tactical decisions are being made.

For that sort of detailed information I've relied on victorycaucus.com which aggregates a good deal of the data and information.  And yes I realize they're not an unbiased source of information - I've simply been impressed with the primary sources they link out to.

[ Parent ]
Letting Arsonists Run the Fire Department (0.00 / 0)
That there are two separate issues (1) the decision to invade (2) what we do now.  We can debate whether or not we should have invaded in the first place, or the reasons we invaded, but ultimately it comes down to one question: what should we do now?

You see the first question as inconsequential -- I see it as disqualifying you and the types of people who write for "victorycaucus.com" from being taken seriously to begin with.  

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

[ Parent ]
not inconsequential (0.00 / 1)
Let's say for arguments sake that we should never had invaded Iraq in 2003.  That doesn't automatically mean that the correct decision today in 2008 would be to withdraw.  It's not as if you've misfiled something and are simply correcting the mistake by refiling it properly.

Do you believe that by having the President snap his fingers and withdraw from Iraq that we'll have undone the invasion and subsequent seven years of war?

I don't believe that the first questions is inconsequential, it's an important issue for history and understanding it will inform future decisions.  However, it is independent from the discussion of what we should do now.

[ Parent ]
Sunk-Cost Fallacy (0.00 / 0)
link:
When one makes a hopeless investment, one sometimes reasons: I can't stop now, otherwise what I've invested so far will be lost. This is true, of course, but irrelevant to whether one should continue to invest in the project. Everything one has invested is lost regardless. If there is no hope for success in the future from the investment, then the fact that one has already lost a bundle should lead one to the conclusion that the rational thing to do is to withdraw from the project.


|Spazeboy.net|Spazeboy's Guide to Political Videoblogging|
[ Parent ]
Nice (0.00 / 0)
It occurs to me that -- with the foolish-to-start, long-running, expensive, paranoia-inspiring habit that is the Iraq war -- that having this sort of debate with the Adams of the world probably has a lot in common with talking a junkie out of scoring.

It's pointless -- to someone like that, there's no solution to their problems that doesn't involve them continuing the same abusive behavior that got them where they are to begin with.

Perhaps a couple of years without control of any of the branches of government will wean these poor souls off of their self-destructive tendencies. Maybe it won't. But the rest of society can't afford to keep feeding their habit (which costs us lives and treasure in staggering amounts) in the meantime.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

[ Parent ]
Indeed (0.00 / 1)
We just need to accept that this is one of those issues where both sides have very strongly held beliefs that no amount of discussion is going to change.  I'm under no illusions that I'm going to change your thinking on this - I simply enjoy understanding the reasoning that has led you to your conclusions.  It helps me understand your position and challenges me to defend my own.
[ Parent ]
Defend your position? (0.00 / 0)
But not your country, apparently.
[ Parent ]
You're right (0.00 / 1)
If there's no chance of anything positive coming out of our involvement in Iraq then it would make sense to cut out losses and withdraw.  However, I don't think we can know today with any amount of certainty if that's the case.  Fundementally, that's the difference of opinion that leads us to draw opposite conclusions about what we should do in Iraq next.

There is every chance that I could be wrong - unfortunately, as I said there's no way to know with certainty one way or the other.

[ Parent ]
. (0.00 / 0)
If there's no chance of anything positive coming out of our involvement in Iraq then it would make sense to cut out losses and withdraw. However, I don't think we can know today with any amount of certainty if that's the case.  Fundementally, that's the difference of opinion that leads us to draw opposite conclusions about what we should do in Iraq next.

There is every chance that I could be wrong - unfortunately, as I said there's no way to know with certainty one way or the other.

We do not need an absolute certainty, we need decision-makers that have been proven wise by the course of events. That categorically excludes you.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 1)
You can be happy that I'm not a policy maker then.
[ Parent ]
You didn't answer my question. (0.00 / 0)
Do you believe the war in Iraq is necessary to the security of the United States.  In other words, was/is Iraq such a threat to the United States that we need to be at war there?

It's pretty much "yes" or "no" Adam.

[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 0)
It's certainly necessary now that we're committed.  Withdrawal would be defeat.
[ Parent ]
Down is up too (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
You're ignoring reality (0.00 / 0)
We're in Iraq, we're committed. I believe Colin Powell described it as the "you break it you buy it" policy.  We can rehash the decision to invade, and we should as it will help us learn for future decisions.  But reviewing that decision from 2003 with hindsight shouldn't have any bearing on what we do now.

Are you under the impression that if we withdraw we'll undo the invasion and magically make everything right with the world?  Because that's the impression I get from many of you who dogmatically claim some sort of moral high ground because you were against the decision to invade.

Perhaps you should stop standing their saying 'i told you so' and start coming up with solutions.

[ Parent ]
we v you (0.00 / 0)
"We" are indeed in Iraq.

But it is "you" that is committed.

We have, through the actions you've promoted thus far, very likely created thousands of future terrorists. When your loved ones are killed -- and there's no system of justice that can hold those responsible for the act accountable -- then you will by human nature seek revenge. And it's true that we can't un-shit that bed.

The only way that problem can be solved is for us to simply kill everyone else in the country so as to eliminate any possible "enemies," and though certainly some have that in mind as a valuable mission for the U.S. to undertake, I imagine you would stop well short of that. (At least, I certainly hope so.)

But, absent that monstrous policy, our presence is simply aggravating that situation, killing more Iraqis, more Americans, and making more enemies. Over 2/3 of Iraqi citizens believe that killing Americans should not be against the law. We should get the hell out -- at the very least to the borders -- and provide reparations and apologies to everyone who lost family or property in this mind-blowingly stupid war that a domestic band of (mostly) bloodthirsty Republican and (an alarming number) of craven Democratic politicians foisted on us.

And yes, those who were against the war to begin with do have the moral high ground. Pretending otherwise is... well, ignoring reality.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

[ Parent ]
Observations (0.00 / 0)
You seem to believe that "bloodthirsty Republicans" are the monsters here and not the brutal dictatorship that was recently deposed in Iraq.

As for the moral high ground: Restoring the right of self determination to the people of a nation held captive by tyranny would appear on its face to be a rather noble and moral endeavor.  I take it you disagree with that assessment.

The solution to the threat of terrorism (both state sponsored and otherwise) breaks down into two parts.  In the short term we need to identify those who intended to do us harm and eliminate them before they can do so either by capturing or killing them.  In the long term we need to identify what drives terrorists and what conditions create an environment that fosters them.

For nearly the past seven years we've been in a war against violent extremists.  If we decide to withdraw from the battlefield in Iraq we will embolden our enemies and invite further attacks on our homeland.  This was the pattern through the 1980's and 1990's that led our enemies to believe that if we were hit hard we would simply back down. (ex. Beirut, Somalia, USS Cole)

We are in Afghanistan because that was where Al-Qaeda was based and planned the attacks on our country.  We are in Iraq because we're trying to change the environment in the middle east that fosters terrorism.

I'd think you would be excited that as a Republican I'm not advocating that we prop up a corrupt dictatorship in the name of international stability but instead supporting a Wilsonian expansion of Democracy.

[ Parent ]
Congratulations on your purple fingers! (0.00 / 0)
So sorry about all those dead relatives.

You know, since it was the aforementioned "bloodthirsty republicans" that propped up and armed the "brutal dictatorships" and trained the "violent extremists," then I'm pretty comfortable saying that yes, you twisted amoral monsters are indeed the problem. Everything you lot touches turns to shit, so priority number one is necessarily getting your hands off of foreign policy.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

[ Parent ]
I tried to stay out... (0.00 / 0)
But the hypocrisy got to me.

You seem to believe that "bloodthirsty Republicans" are the monsters here and not the brutal dictatorship that was recently deposed in Iraq.

That brutal dictatorship was responsible for far less loss of life in the last 7 years of it's rule than the GOP has been responsible for in the first 7 of its rule. That brutal dictatorship was able to provide services that we, 7 years later, still can't provide. That dictatorship was able to keep the three waring factions at bay while the GOP-run clusterfuck has put the three into constant war and carnage. We can go on and cover things like the dictatorship protected Turkey from being able to perform a genocide against the Kurds as it eliminated the Kurd threat, etc.

As for the moral high ground: Restoring the right of self determination to the people of a nation held captive by tyranny would appear on its face to be a rather noble and moral endeavor.  I take it you disagree with that assessment.

No, and I see that the GOP feels that they were 100% right since they jumped in to save Dufar. Opps, my mistake. Well, I'm sure they would have if Dufar was sitting on the largest reserves of untapped oil in the world. Silly me for thinking that the party led by two oilmen was doing this for something other than altruistic reasons.

The solution to the threat of terrorism (both state sponsored and otherwise) breaks down into two parts.  In the short term we need to identify those who intended to do us harm and eliminate them before they can do so either by capturing or killing them.  In the long term we need to identify what drives terrorists and what conditions create an environment that fosters them.

Nice segue there. We go from talking about the clusterfuck that took our eyes off of getting the terrorists to terrorists as if they are one and the same. In fact, the Iraq clusterfuck brought to you by the GOP has increased terrorism around the world and made the US less safe (don't believe me, this is the few honest government workers that can't be silenced)

For the record, in case you missed it. Iraq had no intention or ability to harm the US. Iraq had no contacts with terrorists who wanted to harm the US. In fact, all Iraq wanted was the lowering of sanctions so they could sell their oil openly. Oh, that and the end to the no-fly zones and indiscriminate killing of their people by foreigners.

Now I am not a person in favor of Saddam, but the reality is that he kept a sizable piece of the middle east puzzle stable. Which could explain why Daddy Bush let him stay there rather than instituting the clusterfuck his idiot son did.

For nearly the past seven years we've been in a war against violent extremists.  If we decide to withdraw from the battlefield in Iraq we will embolden our enemies and invite further attacks on our homeland.  This was the pattern through the 1980's and 1990's that led our enemies to believe that if we were hit hard we would simply back down. (ex. Beirut, Somalia, USS Cole)

You been reading Joe Lieberman's notes? I doubt I can type slowly enough or loudly enough to get this simple point through, but I'll give it a try. For the last seven years we have been creating terrorists by our invasion of Iraq. We took our eye off the ball and now the Taliban and Al Quada are bigger and stronger than ever We have proven to the "terrorists" that we are run by a bunch of fuckups who could screw up a wet dream. That we are better at hurting ourselves (look at the US standing in the world today verses 1999) than we are at hurting them. That they can scratch us, but only we can put a powerdrill to our heads and effect real lasting damage.

We are in Afghanistan because that was where Al-Qaeda was based and planned the attacks on our country.  We are in Iraq because we're trying to change the environment in the middle east that fosters terrorism.

We are in Afghanistan because we took our eye off the ball and went into Iraq. Had we kept our eye on the ball we would have been successful and out of there some time ago. Al-Qaeda and the Taliban would have been wiped out and we would still have great international standing in the world. We wouldn't have violated the Geneva Conventions and had two war criminals leading the country.

We are in Iraq because... well your choice. Was it because Bush the idiot wanted to get the man who tried to kill his daddy? Or was it because Cheney the criminal wanted to make huge profits from outsourcing a war to the company he ran and then helping his buds get the oil reserves? Your call, either answer will do.

I'd think you would be excited that as a Republican I'm not advocating that we prop up a corrupt dictatorship in the name of international stability but instead supporting a Wilsonian expansion of Democracy.

Dufar, Dufar, Dufar. And of course. That's 100% bullshit. But you already knew that.



The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s

[ Parent ]
Response (0.00 / 0)
We are in Afghanistan because we took our eye off the ball and went into Iraq. Had we kept our eye on the ball we would have been successful and out of there some time ago.

Are you at all aware of Afghanistan's history?  The British Empire could not hold it and neither could the Soviet Union.  The border with Pakistan is a purely political divide without regard for the tribes that straddle it.  Pakistan and Iran struggle to influence its future and accessing it after 9/11 involved negotiating with any number of former Soviet satellite nations.  In short, if you thought we could have "been out of there some time ago" you are either being optimistic to the point of fantasy or simply not dealing with reality.  I can accept that the situation might be improved had we brought additional resources to bear, but to argue that we'd have held a victory parade in 2005 had we just not invaded Baghdad seems quite presumptuous.

As for some of your other points - what is your solution for Darfur?  As I understand it China and Russia are the primary roadblocks to further action.

The US has been actively involved and helped negotiate a treaty in 2005: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

A sizable number of people have been killed in Iraq the past seven years; on that much we agree.  The question appears to be whether the whole endeavor has inspired more would be terrorists than it has killed.  Which I take to be your assumption.  The alternative view would be that it has acted as a magnet for terrorists, thus resulting in their death by US forces rather than successful attacks on western targets.

If you want to learn more about why we went to war I suggest you rely on first had accounts from policy makers involved in the decision: http://online.wsj.com/article/...

[ Parent ]
Conventions (4.00 / 2)
You would do well to remember that Ned Lamont received more than 30% support at the state convention (twice what he needed to force a primary), while Lee Whitnum received zero votes and zero percent.

In one case, there was support for the primary and in the other there is a deafening silence (or a mandate, since the word as applied to politics seems to have lost all meaning since 2004).

[ Parent ]
true (0.00 / 0)
That is an excellent point.  I'd imagine getting that level of support at the convention was more difficult that gathering signatures by saying you wanted to get on the ballot to have a shot at challenging a sitting Republican.
[ Parent ]
I'm not sure if you reply was snarky or not... (0.00 / 0)
but I'll assume not and reply as such.

Getting 30% of support at a convention of Democratic insiders to run a primary against a sitting Democratic Senator is without question exponentially harder than gathering the necessary signatures to petition on the ballot (or than getting 30% of the vote at a convention to run a primary against another Democratic challenger to a Republican incumbent would have been - sure the party was behind him, but its not like he was an insider in any place outside of Greenwich before he started campaigning).

[ Parent ]
not at all (0.00 / 1)
I wasn't being snarky - I was conceding your point and agreeing that drawing 30% took a lot of work.  I don't belittle the accomplishment at all.

I was also pointing out that those of you who have expressed anger at Democrats that signed her petition are probably ignoring how easy it was for her to target people who dislike Shays and ask them to sign a petition for her to "take him on" or "replace him with a progressive" or whatever tag line you choose.  I'd imagine she didn't have to mention Himes that much in collecting signatures.

I'd be curious to hear if anyone knows what he pitch was on the signature drive.

[ Parent ]
Given her penchant for being oblivious to the truth (0.00 / 0)
I wouldn't be surprised if she was out there promoting it as "a petition that the sun rose in the east".

The question is not what you are, we already determined that, we are now negotiating price.
electrealdemocrats.com Online since 3/07 -- TimetogoJoe.com Online s
[ Parent ]
One tact (0.00 / 0)
Would be to allege that she had misled people as to the nature of her petition - but you don't seem to know what her pitch was.  Doesn't really matter though since all signs point to an easy win for your candidate anyhow.
[ Parent ]
Whitnumz on the Ballot | 57 comments
 
0 user(s) logged on.
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

Spotlight

Use the Spotlight tool to send a diary to offline journalists, with your feedback or suggestions.
(What is Spotlight?)


Search


   Advanced
My Left Nutmeg Feeds

Links


Connecticut's War Dead

Blogroll
Powered By
- SoapBlox

Connecticut Blogs
- Capitol Watch
- Colin McEnroe
- Connecticut2.com
- Connecticut Bob
- ConnecticutBlog
- CT Blue Blog
- CT Energy Blog
- CT Local Politics
- CT News Junkie
- CT Smart Growth
- CT Voices for Civil Justice
- CT Voters Count
- CT Weblogs
- CT Working Families Party
- CT Young Dems
- Cool Justice Report
- Democracy for CT
- Drinking Liberally (New Milford)
- East Haven Politics
- Emboldened
- Hat City Blog (Danbury)
- The Laurel
- LieberWatch
- NB Politicus (New Britain)
- New Haven Independent
- Nutmeg Grater
- Only In Bridgeport
- Political Capitol (Brian Lockhart)
- A Public Defender
- Rep. David McCluskey
- Rep. Tim O'Brien
- State Sen. Gary Lebeau
- Saramerica
- Stamford Talk
- Spazeboy
- The 40 Year Plan
- The Trough (Ted Mann: New London Day)
- Undercurrents (Hartford IMC)
- Wesleying
- Yale Democrats

CT Sites
- Clean Up CT
- CT Citizen Action Group
- CT Democratic Party
- CT For Lieberman Party
- CT General Assembly
- CT Secretary of State
- CT-N (Connecticut Network)
- Healthcare4every1.org
- Judith Blei Government Relations
- Love Makes A Family CT

CT Candidates
- Chris Murphy for Senate
- Susan Bysiewicz for Senate

- William Tong for Senate


Other State Blogs
- Alabama
- Arizona
- California
- Colorado
- Delaware
- Florida
- Georgia
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Missouri
- Missouri
- Montana
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- New York
- North Carolina
- Ohio
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin


More blogs about connecticut+politics.
Technorati Blog Finder


 
Powered By
MLN is powered by SoapBlox
 
Powered by: SoapBlox