I was pretty annoyed by Bill Clinton stumping for Lieberman, but it wasn't exactly unexpected so it wasn't a huge deal. It didn't turn the tide for Lieberman anyway.

Now that Joe's turned on the Democratic Party, the former President is returning the favor. Via Political Wire:

Clinton Sounds Off on Terror, Republicans [KLTV7]

Lieberman has characterized his loss - and the need for his subsequent independent run - as liberals in the party purging those Olymp Trade apk for android with the Lieberman-Clinton position of progressiveness in domestic politics and strong national security credentials.

"Well, if I were Joe and I was running as an independent, that's what I'd say, too," Clinton said.

"But that's not quite right. That is, there were almost no Democrats who agreed with his position, which was, 'I want to attack Iraq whether or not they have weapons of mass destruction.'"

"His position is the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld position, which was, 'Does it matter if they have weapons? None of this matters. ... This is a big, important priority, and 9/11 gives us the way of attacking and deposing Saddam.'"

Clinton said that a vote for Lamont was not, as Lieberman had implied, a vote against the country's security.

Gracias, eh.

He had some other good quotes; they haven't made it very far into the media bloodstream yet according to GoogleNews.

"I don't think the thought in that London bomb plot has any bearing on our Iraq policy," Clinton said.

"The Republicans should be very careful in trying to play politics with this London airport thing, because they're going to have a hard time with the facts."

Clinton said that the London terror plot had raised two questions about the Republicans' political strategy.

"They seem to be anxious to tie it to al Qaeda. ... If that's true, how come we got seven times as many troops in Iraq as in Afghanistan?" he said. "Why have we imperiled President [Hamid] Karzai's rule and allowed the Taliban to come back into the southern part of Afghanistan? Why was Iraq deemed to be seven times more important than finding the al Qaeda leaders for the last five years?"

Secondly, Clinton asked why the administration and congressional leadership had opposed tighter security on cargo containers at ports and airports buy Litecoin.

I've been following the Connecticut Senate race (at just about every political site there is) and don't have much to add, except that it would warm my heart to see Joe "I'd say that the Bush recession would be followed by the Dean depression" Lieberman slink away in defeat.

Color me shocked that Lamont's been able to mount a serious challenge at all given the inherent advantages an 18-year incumbent enjoys. The fact that he's actually expected to win today is mind-boggling and speaks to the complete ineptitude and the attitude of entitlement of both Lieberman and his campaign team.

Good luck Mr. Lamont. May all the votes be counted accurately.

Via TPMMuckraker:

Ney drops out of fall race [Pittsburgh Tribune-Review]

"I'm doing this for one reason: my family," Ney said in an exclusive interview with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. "My wife and two children have been through enough. I really believe this is the best decision."

Ney said his family had not asked him to withdraw.

"They said, 'Whatever you want to do, we're behind you.' They would have said that had I went the opposite way," he said. "But I just told them I felt maybe it was best not to continue."

..."Frankly, I had constituents calling me (last) week, telling me to hang in there," he said. "But I can't continue to put my family through this."

...When he does depart, Ney said, "I will do so without an ounce of bitterness or regret. It's time for my family and I to move on to a regular life."

Ney was vague about his future plans.

"I have some options in the nongovernment sector," he said.

OK, that last line I believe.

Attaturk @ Atrios has the link where in January Ney vowed to run even if indicted. Oh, Congressman, for shame.

Dems vow to block pay raises until minimum wage increased [The Carpetbagger Report]

[CNN: Reid refused to spell out exactly how he will block a $3,300 pay raise scheduled for January 1 for members of Congress, who currently earn $165,200 annually. He said with 40 Senate Democrats backing the maneuver, "We can stop anything they (Republicans) try to do with a congressional pay raise."]

This makes so much political sense, it's astounding it took this long. The public strongly supports an increase to the minimum wage and strongly opposes lawmakers giving themselves a raise.

... For Dems, it's a winner: it's not only the right policy for working families and the economy, but it's also the right political stand on two issues that matter to voters. Dems can be a little slow sometimes, but they usually manage to get it right eventually�

I would agree with the first half of that last sentence.. I'm still waiting for them to getting more things 'right eventually'.

Still not a Democrat, still forced by circumstances to be a one-party voter...

Funny line from an article on how out-of-sync the Republican-controlled House and the Republican-controlled Senate are:

House, Senate inject bad blood into relations [ContraCostaTimes.com]

Throughout history, jealously and conflict have been common between the House and the Senate. For example, until 2004, House rules for floor debate banned members from uttering the word "Senate," requiring them instead to refer to "the other body."

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said the problem is summed up by a comparison to "The Wizard of Oz."

"The House thinks the Senate is the Cowardly Lion, the Senate thinks the House should sing 'if I only had a brain,' and the president turns out to be the Wizard of Oz: You pull back the curtain and there's only a little man there who can't keep them together."

If you add up all the dissatisfactions I have with all the different Democrats and their weird failures, it still pales in comparison to the utter distaste I have for the Republicans who are running things into the ground and just say it's proof government doesn't work.

They're only a few words off - government by the modern Holy Republican Party doesn't work.

zzzzzz.... snxx? ... Oh. Hi there. ... <creeeeak> <yaaaaaawn> What day is it?

  June 21.

Um, 2006?

  Yes.

Wow. Jeez. So there are less than 5 months between now & the 2006 midterm elections?

  Obviously.

Uh... probably a lot going on, then.

  You could say that.

OK, OK, I'm up, I'm up.

Following Hurricane Katrina, some New Orleans folk and EPA staffers have taken to calling the flooded part of town 'Lake George'.

That sounds pretty good to me except for a couple of things -- one, there are already Lakes named George; two, Bush alone isn't responsible; there's the Congress which rubber-stamped the various FEMA-gutting budgets, there's lame FEMA chief Mike Brown, there's Homeland Security head Michael "we just now heard about those people!" Chertoff...

But if you want to look deeper into how we all got here, look at the guy who's been working for decades to cut every tax and gut every program:

(From user 'highacidity' at Kos)

Grover meets with government bigshots every Wednesday morning to plan ever more budget sops to rich patrons and starving of funds to every part of government. Setting up a screwup this big takes more than a few years, and Grover doesn't just have a finger in this pie, he's been trying to bake it all his life.

'Lake Norquist' would even share the same beginning as 'Lake N'Orleans', which is probably what the media will call it.

But then again, outside the politically obsessive, just about nobody knows the name Norquist at all, no matter how deserving of this blame.

So the Divinely Chosen Guitar-Strumming President will probably win out. The fish rots from the head, etc.

Besides, he's such a Strong Leader that he must surely agree that the buck stops with him. (Joke.) And he has had five years to put his own stamp on FEMA (not to mention DHS).

But if it's going to be His lake, I'd rather skip the ambiguous "George" and go with the very clear 'Lake Dubya'.

Expose a CIA WMD agent in a column? No.

Change your story when you realize you could be in trouble for exposing a CIA agent? No.

Say a bad word on basic cable and leave the set of a program? Now that's SERIOUS! Hit the showers, Bob!

mediabistro: 'Time Off' For Novak After 'Bullshit'

CNN's not happy about the bullshit Bob Novak just pulled:

"Bob Novak's behavior on CNN today was inexcusable and unacceptable. Mr. Novak has apologized to CNN, and CNN apologizes to its viewers for his language and actions. We've asked Mr. Novak to take some time off," a CNN spokeswoman told us.

His other actions? "Yeah, whatever."

---

UPDATE: How weird.

CNN, which thought it a big enough deal to toss Novak (however temporarily), has posted the video itself!

So, now they're proud of the footage they just apologized for? Or, it's all just so newsworthy they can't help but promote it?