firedoglake: Math Tutors Needed -- to help some miscalculating Dems

[understandinglife]

Democrats all over the country have been making their calculations regarding Ned Lamont's campaign. There are a few who need your help with their homework. They seem to be calculating that you will not notice their answers and will forget them by and by:

Barack Obama: Mr. "Audacity of Hope" is hoping you'll never find out he canceled his plans to campaign in Connecticut for Lamont weeks ago, right at the last minute. He has just recently agreed to send out an email under his name for Lamont, asking people to volunteer for Ned, and that's good. But he seems to be calculating that backing out of the rest of his promise won't matter, even as he turns up in New York and Massachusetts on his book tour (doesn't I-95 run from NY to MA through CT? What's the hypotenuse?). Can you help Mr. Audacity?

John Edwards: The smiling former senator did well to campaign with Lamont right after the primary, and he apparently told an audience in Colorado just this week he would be glad to go back anytime. Word on the street in Connecticut is he may have changed his mind when actually asked to deliver. Can you help Senator Edwards with his sums?

<clip>

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/10/27/math-tutors-needed/#comments

The CLINTONS and other notables need some tutoring, as well.

How about all of you giving them some help as I know we have many scholars on DU more than capable of solving the simple arithmetic that a vote for Lamont is a gain for Democrats in the US Senate and a vote for LIEberman is a gain for Bushbot Republicans in the Senate.


Be The Bu$h Opposition - 24/7

[applegrove]

1. Seems some of the Dems who wanted to slap Lieberman around

feel they have done enough. He was their Senator for decades. They have a relationship with him. I'm not surprised. And with a three way race.. more will follow.

[understandinglife]

2. Ned Lamont won the Democratic Party Nomination. Joementum ...

... should have done the ONLY honorable thing a REAL Dem would have done - supported Ned Lamont.

The syllogism is that simple. And, every Dem with any stature should be in CT busting their butts to ensure that the candidate that Dem voters selected in the primary is the Dem in the 110th US Congress.

Thank you for your comments.


Never Forget: George W. Bush willfully violated National Security to cover-up his willful launch of a war of aggression and illegal occupation of Iraq.

[applegrove]

3. I hear your frustration. It seems you work so hard for a little win..and

then it all slides backwards. Very frustrating.

[understandinglife]

4. Exactly. And, I appreciate your empathy.

We simply must have Dems in control of the 110th US Congress, as I know you realize.


Peace.

[applegrove]

13. Absolutely. I see Joe as a wedge. Fooled into following his own

worst fears. Like many in the country. Though as a politician..he should not have been surprised at loosing. And I would think he should have supported the Lamont. But someone obviously showed him the numbers..and he is off and running again.

[Cha]

9. Yeah right.

lieman the ol' bushlovin', warmonger, shitface lyin' asshole.

[understandinglife]

10. As accurate and terse a summation of Joementum as I've ever read .... !!

Right on!!!


BE THE BU$H OPPOSITION - 24/7

[WHAT]

17. Lieberman supported Bush x amount of times....

This is the anti-endorsement I want to see.

Plays well against Riechart, here in Washington.

Applicable...

[understandinglife]

19. "Plays well against Riechart, here in Washington." And, for those of us ...

... in WA, we're all painting Riechart with that brush, daily.

That's the Bushbot brush in case any wonders and the paint is blood red .... because of all the blood the Bushbots have enabled Bush and Cheney to spill.



BE THE BU$H OPPOSITION - 24/7

[understandinglife]

5. Urgently seeking tutors ... call these folk and help them with their math homework ...

... this weekend.

Lamont MUST WIN.

Thank you.


Peace.

[MH1]

6. That's an interesting FDL post

I didn't realize so many of the Dem "leaders" had backed off of Lamont.

Kudos to Kerry for showing up for his fundraiser like he promised.

[understandinglife]

7. We need to make sure everyone knows of the math-impaired Dems ...

... and ensure that they are rapidly tutored and quickly in CT ensuring the numbers for the Democratic Party NOMINEE for US Senate equal VICTORY on 7 Nov 2006.

Please do all the tutoring you can.

Thank you.


Peace.

[Cha]

8. KNR! Like they calculated the

fucking War On Iraq? Those kind of sleazecrap numbers that were suppose to be so winning and came back ZERO?

[bleever]

11. Joe doesn't seem to have considered the positions he has put

people into.

I thought he had something of a statesman in him, but to put your own family through something like this is selfish and shortsighted.

Democrats need to stand up for other Democrats, and respect what Democrats in Connecticut decided.

Ned Lamont for U.S. Senate. The whole party will be better off.

[understandinglife]

12. "Democrats need to stand up for other Democrats, and respect what Democrats in Connecticut decided."

Could never had said it better, my friend.


Peace.

[autorank]

14. That's why the establishment of the party is history. Their moments pass

so quickly that they are unaware, thinking that no one is watching or that those who are will fail to remember when the greater glory of the calculation-challenged is at stake.

We notice.

We remember.

We want real leaders who stand for real causes rather than their own pathetic, orchestrated, choreographed, blow dried dance down the memory lane which constitutes their tired concept of service; defined by their actions as ultimately service to to meet their own ends, not ours.

Lamont must win.

[understandinglife]

15. Right On. And, if anyone needs a primer on how disgusting Joementum is ...

... check this out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2500858&mesg_id=2500858

Thank you, my friend.


BE THE BU$H OPPOSITION - 24/7

[autorank]

16. When we win this time, we have exactly two years; the public remembers

this shit, how Democrats don't stand up and, leave their own behind when it suits them.

Lamont won the f'ing primary. How hard is that for Obama, the new anointed one, to understand.

If he wants to move out of hack status, which is where he is now, he would be well advised to
show some real party loyalty and guts.

OBAMA WON'T BECAUSE HE ENDORSED LIEBERMAN OVER LAMONT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I've worked in the last three campaigns (we have off year elections in my state) and I've given
too, a fair amount. If the "elders" don't show some class and courage soon, I'm going to re-evaluate
who I devote my time too. I could care less who accomplishes the end to the war madness, violations of
the constitution, and destruction of the environment...I just want it done. Endorsing a weak man
like Lieberman who finds Clinton's indiscretion more objectionable than the Iraq war is simply beyond
the pale.

[understandinglife]

18. "Lamont won the f'ing primary. How hard is that for Obama, the new anointed one, to understand."

Evidently, very hard for a guy who is way to smooooooooooooooth to be trusted.

The great Obama-one has some major league proving to do before he's anything more than another smmmmoooooooothiiiieeeee.

Lamont won the DEMOCRATIC PARTY NOMINATION in CT. Why is that sooooooo difficult for Obama, the Clintons and other high-roller Dems to get.

Why - because they are likely worried about something that they don't understand.

Specifically, if the Dems take control of the House and Senate in the 110th US Congress, the President of the USA, by this time next year, at the latest, will be the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Maybe Hilary and Obama do understand that. Maybe, that's why neither of them is doing nearly what they could be doing to ensure that the Democratic Party controls both the House and the Senate - the outcome that the majority of "We the People ..." want.

But, since when did folk like that care what "We the People ..." want?


Peace.

[autorank]

22. In answer to your question: Never! I'll clean up my language on future

threads in so as to fully deserve the honor of being quoted by you;)

[SoCalDem]

20. Apparently primaries are meaningless these days

The deadline to be on the ballot in ANY capacity should be at least 2 months before the election, and the only way to "switch" names would be for the candidate to DIE .

[autorank]

24. Maybe we've got some secret thing like Hastert's swearing in deal.

You're not the "true" nominee until the fellas all dress up in tuxes and top hats and serenade you
with a few tunes from Busby Berkeley's time.

Primaries are simple. They choose the nominee. The -a u g u s t- ones know, they just don't care because, don't you know, the rules aren't for them, they're just for us. Take a look at the labor laws for Capitol Hill, oh right, there are none, have been none under both parties. Why? The regular rules are not made for them because they're -a u g u s t- and in the "gentleman's club." We wouldn't understand.

:sarcasm:

The rules are made for workers, the self employed, small businesses people, union members and folks here from other countries; but no rules for the =a u g u s t- members of the club. If you don't know the password, you can't get in. So sorry Connecticut Democrats, you don't have what it takes to join the 'lete circle of geniuses who've enabled the process that brings us to where we are.

[blm]

28. I think the "elite" Democrats are becoming apparent in this election cycle.

I can't believe they would work against a Dem nominee and WITH Bush and Rove to protect Lieberman.

Of course, it took some time to see that the same team was working against the 2004 Dem nominee, too.

[mom cat]

25. Primaries are the will of the people, not the DLC king makers!

[Stephanie]

21. The Clintons can't..

Hillary doesn't want to talk about the war. If she did she'd have to explain her support for permanent bases, etc.

[autorank]

23. Which would display stunning bad judgment. Who would even hire

a person with such bad judgment? Let alone make her president? Go figure;)

[blm]

26. Clintons NEED Joe to win, so it can be spun that voters REJECTED the antiwar

candidate. THAT is why no one is showing up for Lamont. Clintons are planning to use Lieberman to be their Zell MIller against Kerry for the entire primary race - count on it.

[understandinglife]

27. That's an equation I definitely understand.

BE THE BU$H OPPOSITION - 24/7

[karynnj]

29. I'm not convinced that would hurt Kerry as much as

call attention to the fact that he is a more effective anti-war leader of the party than Clinton is. ( The same would go if Lieberman is used against Feingold or Clark) With the bulk of the party anti- war, I think that this would HELP Kerry.

Even in 2004, Most people I knew saw Kerry as anti-war as Dean and never took Kuchinich, Sharpton or Braun as serious. In 2008, the country has shifted to accepting that an exit plan is needed. Kerry has the most coherent exit plan. (Ford seems the only possible Senator I know who says he supports the Biden plan.)

The Lieberman wing of the party in 2004 was tiny and is now even tinier. He is not a good speaker, nor is he likable. Kerry is not Lamont, a novice to politics. Lieberman would be less effective than a Big Yellow Chicken nagging that Kerry is cutting and running.

Also, what do the Clintons do with Lieberman attacking Kerry? Side with him?, say he's wrong?, or say they are triangulating?
Kerry did NOT endorse anyone in the primary. Endorsing and defending the party's nominee is not fringe. Lieberman winning also doesn't mean the majority of the country doesn't want out of Iraq - it means that Lamont, lost what was a very long shot. Remember Liberman had approval ratings in CT well above 60% before the primaries.

[blm]

30. I see that - but, I also don't think it will be just Joe taking on that duty.

I could see a Clinton-Biden alliance with Joe angling for VP.

Hard to trust any in this crew after the way they acted throughout the last 3 years.

[Land Shark]

31. K&R

[applegrove]

32. Editorial

October 29, 2006
Editorial
The Senate Race in Connecticut

"The Congressional elections are very much about America’s problems in Iraq. But the campaigns have shed little light on exactly what should happen next. Nowhere is that more true than in Connecticut. The two leading candidates, Ned Lamont and Joseph Lieberman, have clear disagreements over whether invading Iraq was a good idea in the first place, but grow much fuzzier when the question of future strategy comes up.

Mr. Lieberman, a three-term Democratic senator now running as an independent, talks about the threat of Islamic terrorism. Mr. Lamont, who beat Mr. Lieberman in the Democratic primary, reminds voters what a mess the invasion created. When it comes to the next step, Mr. Lieberman seems to mimic the Bush administration’s proposal to stay the course (while no longer mentioning that toxic phrase) with new tactics. Mr. Lamont is close to the Senate Democrats (minus Mr. Lieberman) who demanded a timetable for withdrawal without being too firm on what that ought to entail.

No one expects legislators to dictate military tactics. But what we need from the next crop of elected officials in Washington is a willingness to face reality, to choose from among difficult options and have the courage to be honest with the public about the consequences. On those points, Mr. Lamont is by far the better candidate.

Two months ago, Connecticut’s Democratic voters sent Mr. Lieberman what should have been a jarring wake-up call when they rejected him for Mr. Lamont, a relative newcomer. We have been waiting to see what lessons the state’s best-known politician took from his defeat, and from the daily evidence of the deterioration of the situation in Iraq.

.....SNIP"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/29/opinion/29sun2.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

[upi402]

33. a vote for LIEberman is a gain for Bushbot Republicans

agrees with OP
:hi: