[Kerrigan]

http://rasmussenreports.com/2006/Sta...icutSenate.htm

Senator Joe Lieberman’s decision to run as an Independent sets up a lively campaign season for Connecticut voters. In the first General Election poll since Ned Lamont defeated Lieberman in Tuesday’s primary, the incumbent is hanging on to a five percentage point lead. Lieberman earns support from 46% of Connecticut voters while Lamont is the choice of 41% (see crosstabs).

A month ago, the candidates were tied at 40% each.

Republican Alan Schlesinger earns just 6% of the vote, down from 13% a month ago.

This will make for an interesting race. Looks like Lieberman knew what he was doing when he went independent. I thought he didn't have a chance after losing the primary but he just might end up as the state's senator again. It goes to show that senators never lose their seat due to beltway politics.

[greenG4]

It's nice to see an independant ahead in polls. It's just wierd that he would be ahead in polls and still didn't win the primary. But, then again, I don't put much faith in polls. People often read way too much in to them.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by greenG4

It's just wierd that he would be ahead in polls and still didn't win the primary. But, then again, I don't put much faith in polls. People often read way too much in to them.

It's because the primary was only for Democrats, and this polls includes all voters.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by BRussell

It's because the primary was only for Democrats, and this polls includes all voters.

I knew that.

[voodoo]

Independant? Isn't Lieberman a Republican?


(...far worse than being caught on camera shaking hands with Saddam)

V

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Shaking hands with Saddam, and undermining his own resolutions with oil for food deals never stopped any of his fans from digging Kofi Annan.

This will be interesting with Lieberman. If he wins as an Independant, he'll have more power and actual independance than he ever had as a backwater Democrat. And the Dems are down one senator. Way for a party to shoot itself in the foot!

Meanwhile, Cynthia McKinney lost her primary too. Anyone think she'll run as an Independant and stand half a chance of winning?

Granted, she's only a rep, but it's interesting how mum the Democrats have been on her loss, since we've been led to believe that voters want anti-war, anti-Israel (McKinney types) over pro-war on terror, pro Israel (Lieberman types).

[Kerrigan]

Is that Barney Frank?

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Shaking hands with Saddam, and undermining his own resolutions with oil for food deals never stopped any of his fans from digging Kofi Annan.

Mhmm, oil for food is nice but WMDs for money are even better..


(Rummy selling WMDs to Saddam in the early 1980s. Satisfaction guaranteed)

V

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Mhmm, oil for food is nice but WMDs for money are even better..


(Rummy selling WMDs to Saddam in the early 1980s. Satisfaction guaranteed)

V

Your picture is blocked for me saying "Extreme Politics." That tells me what I need to know...

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by greenG4

Your picture is blocked for me saying "Extreme Politics."

Qué dices? What are you talking about? Anyway, unless you've been with your eyes closed since 1983, you'd have seen that picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein, while on a WMD sales trip to Iraq on behalf of the Gipper.

V

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Qué dices? What are you talking about? Anyway, unless you've been with your eyes closed since 1983, you'd have seen that picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein, while on a WMD sales trip to Iraq on behalf of the Gipper.

V

Clarification.

1. The picture is hosted by a website the government (I'm on a gov network) puts under the category "extreme politics" so it was blocked.

2. In 1983, I was 3 years old. I will look into the event this picture originates from for myself.

Thanks.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by greenG4

Clarification.

1. The picture is hosted by a website the government (I'm on a gov network) puts under the category "extreme politics" so it was blocked.

2. In 1983, I was 3 years old. I will look into the event this picture originates from for myself.

Thanks.

Which government is censoring you web browsing?

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

Which government is censoring you web browsing?

It's a DoD system. They strictly monitor all network activity and block many things. It's not a big deal. I'll look at it at home.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by greenG4

Clarification.

1. The picture is hosted by a website the government (I'm on a gov network) puts under the category "extreme politics" so it was blocked.

2. In 1983, I was 3 years old. I will look into the event this picture originates from for myself.

Thanks.

Oh wow! Extreme politics! Really? They are controlling what opinions reach you. Very cute. Let's see if this can be circumavigated, shall we



This photo is served by the University of British Columbia. Extreme politics? I don't know.. I'd hope not..

V

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

I'll see your antiquated image and raise you one that was actually taken THIS century!

Let's not forget, whatever Rumsfeld was dealing with Saddam over years ago, flash forward to what matters: the present. He’s one of the people responsible for Saddam cowering in a spider hole and having US troops pull him out of it so he can now stand trial.

Meanwhile Kofi and his cadre of crooks was still in bed with Saddam so they could sell out the Iraqi people for multi-billion dollar oil scams.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

I'll see your antiquated image and raise you one that was actually taken THIS century!

Let's not forget, whatever Rumsfeld was dealing with Saddam over years ago, flash forward to what matters: the present. He’s one of the people responsible for Saddam cowering in a spider hole and having US troops pull him out of it so he can now stand trial.

Meanwhile Kofi and his cadre of crooks was still in bed with Saddam so they could sell out the Iraqi people for multi-billion dollar oil scams.

what did the US do to prevent these oil-scams? the US was in charge of policing UNSCR 661 and 665. oil smuggling gave saddam 4x the money received through OFFP skullduggery.

edit: OT i can only hope that this democratic split is the beginning of the end of the two-party system.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by black bear theory

what did the US do to prevent these oil-scams?

Chased Kofi's partner out of power and into a spider hole.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Chased Kofi's partner out of power and into a spider hole.

the whole time allowing $5.7 billion in illicit oil trade. compare that with the OFFP (sum/total/cumulative/all-encompassingly) figure of $1.7 billion.

edit OT: if lieberman had stood up to this very type of glossing over history, he might have done better with the voters.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by black bear theory

the whole time allowing $5.7 billion in illicit oil trade. compare that with the OFFP (sum/total/cumulative/all-encompassingly) figure of $1.7 billion.

So what would that figure be up to now, if we'd have allowed Kofi and his cohorts keep their scam going?

Some things are better done late, than NOT AT ALL, the later being the UN's "timeline" for most anything.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

So what would that figure be up to now, if we'd have allowed Kofi and his cohorts keep their scam going?

pure speculation, but i'd guess that iraq would still be getting 4x the amount through US-condoned transactions than through the OFFP "scandal" (as the case had been through 2004). no reason to believe the US's et al., along with OFFP's, complicity was limited to a few years of the sanctions - it was probably an ongoing thing.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by black bear theory

pure speculation, but i'd guess that iraq would still be getting 4x the amount than through the OFFP "scandal". no reason to believe the US's et al. complicity was limited to a few years of the sanctions - it was probably an ongoing thing.

And the UN was completely innocent in being responsible for policing their resolutions, right?

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

And the UN was completely innocent in being responsible for policing their resolutions, right?

have you read UNSCR 661 or 665?

The United Nations prohibits cargo originating from Iraq and any imports not accompanied by a U.N. authorization letter. Although, under the food for oil agreement, Iraq can sell oil and import approved goods into Iraq.

Prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, MIO was focused on enforcing United Nations sanctions against Iraq. More recently, those intercept operations have been focused on stemming the flow of contraband goods, including smuggled Iraqi oil.

The enforcement of U.N. sanctions against Iraq is a multi-national operation. So far, ships from 15 countries, and members of the U.S. Coast Guard have served together to help enforce sanctions.

U.N. Sanctions Resolutions are: UNSCR 661 (established economic embargo), UNSCR 665 (called for naval forces to enforce the embargo), UNSCR 687 (Gulf War cease-fire; authorized shipment of food, medical supplies, U.N. approved goods), and UNSCR 986 (oil for food deal).

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/mio.htm

the MIO/MIF was comprised primarily of the US fifth fleet and british naval vessels. these are the only two countries i've seen mentioned manning this force, though i'm sure several have supplied some ships.

[edit: was the UN innocent? no. but let's put credit where credit is due. fair and balanced and all that...]

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

That the US may have failed to completely stop all oil smuggling hardly seems the same to me as saying its directly responsible for it. Meanwhile, who was paying for and getting smuggled oil, and wouldn't that be a major reason they'd oppose taking out their partner in it?

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

That the US may have failed to completely stop all oil smuggling hardly seems the same to me as saying its directly responsible for it.

is there any evidence they stopped any of it??? i mean really?

are you saying the US fifth fleet can't spot and interdict oil tankers? i mean those things are huge! and all iraqi shipments must pass through the persian gulf (a not so broad body of water). is that too much for the fleet to handle?

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Meanwhile, who was paying for and getting smuggled oil, and wouldn't that be a major reason they'd oppose taking out their partner in it?

are you paying attention? within the span of UNSCR 661 and 665 (which started post 1991 gulf war) the OFFP misappropriations garnered 1/4 the amount of money to 1/500 of the recipients than did the non-OFFP (MIF/MIO) smuggling.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by black bear theory

are you paying attention? within the span of UNSCR 661 and 665 (which started post 1991 gulf war) the OFFP misappropriations garnered 1/4 the amount of money to 1/500 of the recipients than did the non-OFFP (MIF/MIO) smuggling.

Are you paying attention? I'll ask it again: Who was paying for smuggled oil, and wouldn't that be a major reason they'd oppose taking out their partner in it?

Or do you think billions were materializing out of thin air, and tankers were shipping oil to nowhere?

Were any of these parties doing illicit business UN signatories? If so, then what were they doing violating and completely undermining UN resolutions, regardless of whose fleet they were sneaking it past?

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Are you paying attention? I'll ask it again: Who was paying for smuggled oil, and wouldn't that be a major reason they'd oppose taking out their partner in it?

jordan, syria, turkey and egypt.

[

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Were any of these parties doing illicit business UN signatories? If so, then what were they doing violating and completely undermining UN resolutions, regardless of whose fleet they were sneaking it past?

i assume those four are UN signatories. and the US did issue "national security waivers* for these countries, based solely on presidential approval for "security reasons".

funny i thought our biggest concern (ca. 2002) was saddam receiving money, "cold hard cash", to bolster his WMD program, yet the US was allowing this money to flow freely based on "national interest" and to simply bolster support among allies?

(*sorry, it really is a boring read, but probably necessary in this case)

[edit to add: and yes to be fair 20% of iraq's ill-gained money was through the OFFP scandal which benefited 2,000 plus companies (many US btw), not the four recipients of the larger illicit "aid", the remaining 80%]

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by black bear theory

jordan, syria, turkey and egypt.

But wait, I thought the US is made responsible for this via fleet in the Arabian sea?

Why on earth would anyone use tankers to transport oil from Iraq to any one of these places, in fact HOW would it even be possible?

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

But wait, I thought the US is made responsible for this via fleet in the Arabian sea?

Why on earth would anyone use tankers to transport oil from Iraq to any one of these places, in fact HOW would it even be possible?

most of the refining is done along the coast, whereas oil is a generally found in NW iraq. i guess they could ship the unrefined oil...

it's a good logistical question, though. the waivers i linked to above weren't for sea-based shipment rather other kinds of illegal (truck, rail) shipments out of iraq, which the US, regardless of transportus operandi, still waived for security purposes (bolstering allies) while our security concerns in iraq was saddam obtaining WMD either through illegal imports or illegal trade going into WMD programs.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by black bear theory

most of the refining is done along the coast, whereas oil is a generally found in NW iraq. i guess they could ship the unrefined oil...

it's a good logistical question, though. the waivers i linked to above weren't for sea-based shipment rather other kinds of illegal (truck, rail) shipments out of iraq, which the US, regardless of transportus operandi, still waived for security purposes (bolstering allies) while our security concerns in iraq was saddam obtaining WMD either through illegal imports or illegal trade going into WMD programs.

You're blaming the US for things it had no control over what-so-ever. Not to worry though, that's not atypical.

The UN resolutions you cited "called for naval forces to enforce the embargo".

Navel forces don't stop trucks and rail from shipping oil to nations that border Iraq, over which the US has no control. Ditto amounts that were smuggled to Iran and shipped from there. (Quite a large sum, actually). In fact, sounds to me like if you want to stop those things you've got one real option. Invade Iraq.

You can take whatever amounts of those billions you're blaming on the US that left Iraq via other means than navel forces could stop out of the "The US is to blame column" and get back to making excuses for what Kofi Annan and cohorts actually are responsible for.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

You're blaming the US for things it had no control over what-so-ever. Not to worry though, that's not atypical.

I thought you said that the U.S. couldn't stop all the corruption? Insinuating that the U.S. stopped most of it. Now you're backpeddling saying that the reason there's corruption is because the U.S. had zero control.

Make up your mind.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

*useless drivel*

Oh please. You don't even understand the basics of the topic, as usual.

[Kerrigan]

What the hell are you guys going on about? This is a thread about Lieberman, not everything that's happened in politics over the last 30 years.

[BRussell]

I heard Lieberman has some opinions about evolution, and abortion too. Maybe we could work that in here?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I heard Lieberman has some opinions about evolution, and abortion too. Maybe we could work that in here?

What are their stances on the selective and incomplete release of John Kerry's medical records?

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

You're blaming the US for things it had no control over what-so-ever. Not to worry though, that's not atypical.

Since FY 90, the annual Foreign Operations Aprropriations Acts have contained restrictions on U.S. assistance to any country "not in compliance with the United Nations Security Council sanctions against Iraq."

re: jordan

Despite UNSC resolutions banning Iraqi oil imports (except under the terms of "oil for food" resolutions such as UNSCR 986) Jordan has continued since 1991 to import oil from Iraq. The UN Sanctions Committee, with USG support, has "taken note of" Jordan's imports of Iraqi oiland it's lack of economically viable alternatives."

the memo outlines why the US should still supply jordan with money despite their blatant embargo breaking. same goes for turkey.

the memo is signed by richard armitage.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

The UN resolutions you cited "called for naval forces to enforce the embargo".

Navel forces don't stop trucks and rail from shipping oil to nations that border Iraq, over which the US has no control. Ditto amounts that were smuggled to Iran and shipped from there. (Quite a large sum, actually). In fact, sounds to me like if you want to stop those things you've got one real option. Invade Iraq.

You can take whatever amounts of those billions you're blaming on the US that left Iraq via other means than navel forces could stop out of the "The US is to blame column" and get back to making excuses for what Kofi Annan and cohorts actually are responsible for.

US 'ignored Iraq oil smuggling'

But it also said that the far bigger smuggling trade was carried out with tacit US approval.

Much of the oil went out by land through Turkey and Syria, but much also went by sea.

The report takes the example of a series of shipments from the port of Khor al-Amaya in southern Iran in the month before the US-led coalition began its 2003 invasion.

Jordan paid $53m in hard currency for 7.7 million barrels on seven tankers, all of which were explicitly allowed to pass by the US naval blockade.

"The US was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions," the report said.

"On occasion, the US actually facilitated the illicit oil sales."

the US could have done something about it - put some pressure on these countries to stop violating UN security council resolutions - or at the very least stop giving those countries gulping down iraqi oil money, which ultimately could end up in saddam's palaces, or WMD programmes. it wouldn't have been the first time the US has withheld money to ME countries that weren't doing what we want.

heh. navel forces...

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by black bear theory

re: jordan


the memo outlines why the US should still supply jordan with money despite their blatant embargo breaking. same goes for turkey.

the memo is signed by richard armitage.

I'm all for cutting off all money and support to all Middle East countries other than Israel, but for a lot more reasons than them never obeying UN sanctions.

the US could have done something about it - put some pressure on these countries to stop violating UN security council resolutions - or at the very least stop giving those countries gulping down iraqi oil money, which ultimately could end up in saddam's palaces, or WMD programmes. it wouldn't have been the first time the US has withheld money to ME countries that weren't doing what we want.

The example of oil shipped through Iranian ports is a smokescreen- the US doesn't have any way of controlling what's shipped from Iranian ports. Iraq paid Iran heavy fees for smuggling oil for them, losing billions, for that very reason. You're ascribing to the US powers beyond the scope of any mortal- to know what every nation in the world is up to, and to magically police borders and shipments in and out of in nations it has no access to.

You're typical of people that ascribe everything as 'blame the US'.

The entire world could have put pressure on these nations to stop blatantly skirting UN resolutions, to say nothing of the UN itself. But none did, and of course we now know why many didn't- they were in on it too. So what do you turn around and do? Blame it all on the US. Typical.

[Macrobat]

Black Bear Theory is more than amply aware that it was published most of the smuggling occurred overland, through Syria, using trucks and two (still-existing) pipelines - d'oh. Fifth Fleet has no "ships of the desert."

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Further, it seems if anyone (other than Iraq and the nations involved in smuggling) would be to blame for Iraq's unmonitored borders, it'd once again be the UN itself:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li.../ch2_img66.jpg

Iraq managed to circumvent UN sanctions through long-established business relationships with its neighbors, cross-state tribal connections, and use of ancient smuggling routes. Contemporary smuggling methods used by Iraqi trade companies used the entire spectrum of smuggling methods: disguising illicit shipments as legitimate cargo; hiding illicit goods in legitimate shipments; avoiding customs inspections; and for high priority, low-volume shipments, using Iraqi diplomatic couriers.

There are a dozen official entry points into Iraq from the neighboring countries of Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, three air entry points at Baghdad, Basra, and Mosul and two main ports at Umm Qasr and Al-Basrah. As indicated on the map, the UN monitored only five border crossings. The primary reason for the UN’s oversight centered on the UN OFF Program. UNSCOM weapons inspectors seldom visited Iraq’s border control points because they were based in Baghdad. The UN contracted two private companies from 1996 to 2003 (Lloyds Register and later a Swiss company called Cotecna) to authenticate and certify the arrival of humanitarian supplies under the UN OFF Program at three land border points. (A fourth was added just prior to OIF and the port of Umm Qasr (see figure 67).

This left at least two major border crossings and Baghdad’s airport completely unmonitored. Even at the monitored crossings, cargo not approved by the UN could freely enter Iraq because UN monitors only dealt with UN OFF cargo. Any non-UN cargo could freely enter Iraq at either monitored or unmonitored entry points.

During the sanction years, traders used a pool of private dhows, barges, and tankers to smuggle oil out and commodities into and out of Iraq’s southern ports with relative ease. It is possible that easily concealed military and dual-use items could have been transported by this method.

The Iraqi Regime frequently employed smugglers who used oil smuggling routes through the northern Arabian Gulf. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy facilitated this illicit trade by providing safe passage through the northern Persian Gulf for Iraqi oil smugglers in return for a fee. This arrangement allowed oil smugglers a safe passage through Iran’s northern territorial waters, but smugglers remained subject to being interdicted by Iranian authorities farther south (see figure 68).

By calculating the $50 per metric ton of oil fee, the Maritime Interdiction Force (MIF) estimated in 2000 that Iran was taking about 25 percent of the profit from smuggled Iraqi oil (see figure 69). These high profits resulted from the difference between the market price for crude oil and the low prices Saddam was willing to charge to earn revenue that was not tracked by the UN.

The chart illustrates the facilitation role Iran played in Iraqi oil smuggling. On two occasions in 1998, Iran took actions to stop oil smugglers from using its territorial waters. The figure compiled by the MIF, clearly indicates the impact this action had on the volume of prohibited trade in the Gulf.

Source.



It should be noted that the US Fifth fleet or any other had no way of patrolling Iran's territorial waters- or even entering them without sparking an international conflict. It's pretty clear that the US isn't accountable for not being able to stop illicit shipping via Iranian waters, any more than it's magically accountable for monitoring Iraq's overland borders.

[black bear theory]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

It should be noted that the US Fifth fleet or any other had no way of patrolling Iran's territorial waters- or even entering them without sparking an international conflict. It's pretty clear that the US isn't accountable for not being able to stop illicit shipping via Iranian waters, any more than it's magically accountable for monitoring Iraq's overland borders.

iran's territorial waters do end eventually.

that is some good info though. while it is obvious that the US knew of the oil smuggling (it acknowledged as much in documents dating back to the end of the first gulf war), the UN remained essentially powerless to have any effective control over the smuggling outside the OFFP.

i'll read up more on it...

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by black bear theory

iran's territorial waters do end eventually.

We’ve sure come quite a long way from blanket statements that the US is to blame for Iraqi oil smuggling though.

How would you imagine the US would be able to stop shipping coming out of Iranian territorial waters, and not spark an international conflict virtually every time? This is even assuming there would be any way of knowing for certain exactly which ships among thousands were Iraqi in origin, as compared to Iranian. Do you really imagine they’d be flying Iraqi flags, and openly broadcasting their true port of origin?

This is kind of like expecting a police force to sit at the exit ramp of a busy freeway, pull EVERYONE over, and randomly catch drug smugglers. Surely the drug smugglers -as opposed to all the rest of the traffic- MUST be wearing ski masks, openly brandishing weapons, and wearing T-shirts that say “drug smuggler”.

while it is obvious that the US knew of the oil smuggling (it acknowledged as much in documents dating back to the end of the first gulf war), the UN remained essentially powerless to have any effective control over the smuggling outside the OFFP.

As much as I think the UN is useless and corrupt, I don't really even blame them for the smuggling. The DEA knows and acknowledges there's drug smuggling that goes on across our own nation's borders, and is probably powerless to stop the vast majority of it. That's a FAR cry from directly blaming them for it. Who's to blame? Ultimately, the smugglers themselves, and those that buy the smuggled product.

[Kerrigan]

Lieberman is now ahead of Lamont by 12%

BOSTON (Reuters) - U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman (news, bio, voting record), a three-term Democrat now running as an independent candidate, leads the man who beat him in last week's primary vote by 12 points in a three-way race, a poll released on Thursday shows.

The latest Quinnipiac University poll, conducted between August 10-14, shows Lieberman leads Democrat Ned Lamont, a wealthy businessman with little political experience who has played on anti-war sentiment, by 53 percent to 41 percent among likely voters in November's election. The Republican candidate Alan Schlesinger drew 4 percent, the poll shows.

Democratic voters selected Lamont as their candidate on August 8 with 52 percent of the vote after an increasingly bitter race dominated by Lieberman's support for the
Iraq war.

[NYCFarmboy]

I think it is pretty much a accepted conclusion that Lieberman will easily win in November...
the interesting question I'm wondering about is how his victory will either quell the Wackadoo wing of the Democrat Party .....

or will the Lieberman win bolster the Wackadoos/Moonbats to push the party so far to the left that the party will be left with another Lament type nominee for Prez in 08 who has no chance of winning?

It is interesting to see the disintegration of the once mainstream Democrat party dissolve into a left/hate based party intent on self-destruction.

It is like watching a car crash in slow motion.

[black bear theory]

my hope is that it will split the democratic party [edit: yeah probably not likely to happen though]. the primary showed that citizens (moonbat or otherwise) are not happy with the status quo. lieberman probably will win handily in november. he has the connections, the corporate funding to do it. from what i've heard lamont received lots of small $50 donations rather than the corporate out-of-state $2000 donations lieberman gets. and lamont probably has his own money too, but i see lieberman winning out on the funding aspect easily.

i am always amazed that in this free-market country, people are content with the only two choices presented to them. in what other area of our lives are americans happy to be able to choose between two possibilities? [edit: i guess the majority of americans do exercise the third option very easily] i imagine it's not very many. it is hard to start a new corporation, but if the demand is there, it can be done to cater to a group. i bet it's a lot harder to do with a political party.

americans compromise a lot politically and for the sole benefit of the two parties, that not suprisingly, grasp onto their power at all costs.

you may call it a car wreck - i see it as a long needed divorce. a small-d democratic win in a big-d democratic primary.