Al Gore did not win the Oscar because while he wrote the book and did the narration for the documentary, he was neither the producer nor the director of "An Inconvenient Truth".

Next year should be easy to figure out. It'll be whoever wins the presidential election.

Posted at December 21, 2007 12:18 PM in response to Putin beats Gore

I first saw "The Cardinal" when I was in the third grade and attending a Catholic school. When the "partial birth abortion" debate started, it was the first thing I thought about.

Incidentally, that's not something that would have happened in most cases. The life of the mother is an acceptable exception to the prohibition against abortion in the Church. But come on! The little hussy had the effrontery to fall in love with a nonCatholic man who refused to bring up their then-non-existent children in the Faith!

Getting back to the decision, it's an extremely bad one. Unfortunately, I think the supporters of it were able to make the late-term abortion debate about women deciding arbitrarily while Junior was hurtling down the birth canal that they no longer wanted to have a baby and having the doctor smash the skull when it emerged. I tried to explain to people that this was actually about babies who were so deformed that they could not live outside the uterus for more than a few minutes and whose birth might not allow the mother to ever have another baby. I mean, why should a woman be forced to do that? It's one thing for the woman to choose that, but how does the state have the right to choose it for her?

Thank you, Ralph Nader.

Posted at April 19, 2007 8:21 AM in response to Today's SCOTUS Decision: Bad News and Better News

Ned Lamont ran a smear campaign using Rovian tactics. He lied and smeared his opponent. He doesn't deserve anyone's support.

Lieberman may be running as an Independent now, but he's still a Democrat and will be a Democrat if he wins his Senate seat. And if he doesn't win, I can't see any scenario where Lamont doesn't.

There is zero evidence to suggest that Lieberman would not be remaining a Democrat.

Posted at August 9, 2006 4:22 PM in response to The Democratic Response to the message from Conn.

Do you have proof anyone hired thugs? Sorry but this site's credibility is suspect since they ran the "Lieberman seriously mulling becoming a Republican" story.

Posted at August 7, 2006 11:27 AM in response to Question of the Day: Whither Joe?

I'm sorry to hear about your husband, Mary from RI.

I agree with everything you say. I've been disappointed in Josh too especially with his latest kick about Lieberman becoming a Republican or joining the Bush Administration. It's to his eternal shame that he has yet to acknowledge he was wrong about Lieberman seriously pondering switching to the GOP.

My prediction is that Lamont wins Tuesday and Lieberman stays in the race. I can't imagine that he and his team haven't already factored in that most Democratic voters and pols -- no matter who they supported in the primary -- are going to stick with the nominee of the party. I think he's counting on voters other than Democrats.

I think he stays in the race unless polls start showing that he can't win but that he could end up throwing the race to the Republican.

Posted at August 6, 2006 11:03 AM in response to Question of the Day: Whither Joe?

Here's the difference. Wittman is harsh on leftists but he has yet to say anything that isn't true. And he's clear that the extremists of the Republican party don't appeal to him either.

The leftist blogs routinely lie about Lieberman and any other Democrat who doesn't meet their purity standards. For instance, just about every lefty blog quotes the part in the Lieberman speech where he scolds Democrats and tells them that Bush will be Commander-in-Chief for the next three years and that we undermine him at the nation's peril.
They conveniently leave out the part where he scolds Republicans for not working more with Democrats to solve the very real problems of the war. So to the casual reader it looks as though Lieberman has nothing but praise for Republicans and always criticizes Democrats. It's a very Rovian tactic that Ned Lamont has profited in very handsomely.

Posted at August 5, 2006 11:19 AM in response to McKinney and Lieberman

I think the Democratic primary will be very very close no matter who wins. However, if Lieberman wins, look for the lefty blogs like dailykos to spout off all sorts of conspiracy theories about it.

I think Joe wins in a three-way race. However, I would not be shocked if he decides against it if Lamont beats him by a substantial margin -- more than 5 points.

Lieberman made the classic Dukakis mistake of assuming that when your opponent and his allies are lying about you and your record, response is unnecessary because intelligent people couldn't possibly believe those allegations.

Posted at July 26, 2006 11:06 AM in response to Question of the Day: Lieberman Edition

No, Ned Lamont and the anti-war movement deserve all the blame for it. Connecticut was a completely safe Senate seat for us but anti-war activists and a rich dilettante chose to put it into play for their own selfish reasons.

If indeed the GOP picks up the seat, it'll be another "victory" for the Left.

I have no problem with a primary fight for an open seat, but there is no good reason in Hell for one involving a safe seat.

Posted at July 5, 2006 10:42 AM in response to Independent Joe

But he is a milionaire trying to buy a Senate seat.

Posted at July 4, 2006 11:15 AM in response to Independent Joe

I agree. There is no evidence to support the idea that he will caucus with anyone other than Democrats should he win as an Independent.

Does he actually have to leave the party now? Carolyn McCarthy a Democratic Representative from New York who ran and won on an anti-gun platform after her husband was killed in a mass shooting spree was a registered Republican until her second or third term in office; she is a registered Democrat now.

Posted at July 3, 2006 2:49 PM in response to Independent Joe