It gets a little tiring after a while, hearing people who vote for wars tell you how nice they are.

This guy needs to look into the mirror. Up until that point ('peope who vote for wars"), he was describing your typical Seattle area resident, an are known more for its self-righteous sanctimoniousness than for its "rightwing" attitudes.

These people are professional communicators

Yet the best they can come up with is "scum"? At least blather like "gravitas" had the air of pseudo-intellectualism.

Rather telling that the suburbanite yuppies that this twit attacks were the ones actually voting for the empty suit Kossack, while the urban blue collar dems, whom Mr. Taibbi and his ilk no doubt celebrate as more "authentic" punched Lieberman on their ballots.

The party line thing is also hysterical given the behavior of the Kossacks towards a man with marks about as high as one can get in liberal voting.

He doth protest way too much.

They don't repeatedly use words like "purge" and "fundamentalist" -- terms obviously associated with communism and Islamic terrorism -- by accident.

There's an irony here, no? In that Democratic commentators regularly refer to Republicans as "fundamentalist," and probably use loaded language like "purge" too. Haha.

That said, as Ortega and Jim say above, I'm pretty sure that most yuppies' politics trend left-wing. I know most of my fellow yuppies seem a little left of the DLC, at least. I mean, it's "young urban professional--" just the kind of person you'd expect to be a Democratic stalwart. It's only once they've grown a bit older, perhaps got married and had a few children, that their segment shifts Republican.

That's kind of a low blow, Orrin. Tell them the evidence I produced.

I don't pay attention when you're raving.

Rick Perlstein:

We'll listen as long as you don't start going on about Lieberman blowing up frogs as a kid.

And aren't as potty-mouthed as usual...

Perlstein is a Quaker?

Very simple, guys. No ranting, no frogs, no Society of Friends. Lieberman's site went down on campaign day, they immediately accused Lamont people of hacking them, the Lamont people said wow, wasn't us, immediately offered them space on the Lamont server and to send a tech to help (on a busy election day!), and never got a response from the Lieberman team--which blasted out a message to the media that Lamont maniacs were hacking them.

When the smoke cleared, it turned out that the Lieberman incompetents had their web site on a server with like 70 other sites, paid something like $15 a month for web access through bad advice and back-scratching, and were shocked to learn that, lo and behold, on election day they'd get a spike in traffic--which they attributed to Lamont sabotage, even though the Lamont site got the same spike in traffic (because, duh, it was an election day).

Then they lied and said they lost their capcity to send emails. After they had sent out an event announcment via...email.

Hours after it became obvious what had happened--incompetence--Lieberman gave his concession/announcement speech, in which he still said his site had been "hacked." The claim was still being repeated the next day on all the cable channels.

They "won" the media cycle.

With a deliberate lie.

Scummy.

Here's the Lamont press release--sent, in wimp-like fashion, alas, days too late:

http://nedlamont.com/blog/1062/full-extent-of-the-law

STATEWIDE -Democratic Nominee Ned Lamont's campaign today demanded an
apology for false accusations that it attacked its opponent's web
site.

On Tuesday, the day Lamont beat incumbent Joseph Lieberman in an
election with record turnout for the Democratic nomination,
Lieberman's campaign began accusing Lamont of hacking into his web
site, issuing a press release and trumpeting the charge to numerous
reporters and accusing its opponent of interfering with an election.

"These are very serious charges, absolutely untrue, and a desperate
attempt to divert attention from the Senator's own record-and from
the fact that he is ignoring the will of the voters and running under
his own 'Just for Lieberman' banner," said Lamont spokeswoman Liz
Dupont-Diehl. "The Lieberman campaign has spread deliberately false
and slanderous lies about our campaign. There are no facts to back
their claims and they should apologize - and they should be held
accountable for pressing false charges."

Despite Lamont's victory, in a primary that drew record numbers of
registered Democrats to the polls, Lieberman is following through in
his bid to retain his Senate seat for a fourth term.

"We welcome investigations by the FBI and the Attorney General, as
they will prove our campaign had nothing whatsoever to do with this,"
she added. "And we hope that anyone in the Lieberman campaign found
guilty of making false charges is prosecuted to the full extent of the
law.

"It is sad that a former Presidential and vice-Presidential candidate
is resorting to such tactics in his last-ditch bid to keep his seat in
Washington," she added. "His party name says it all - it's not
Lieberman for Connecticut - for him, it's Connecticut for
Lieberman."

Friend Perlstein keeps referring to the Lieberman campaign as scummy.

Tell them the evidence I produced.

I too would like to know how the Lieberman campaign is like my shower stall. Is its drain clogged with hair, too?

Speaking of wanting to take a shower to wipe the scum off, I'm old enough to remember a time when the tone and the writing style of the average Rolling Stone article didn't suck anywhere nearly as badly as that screedy, sophmoric piece.

Really? A friend loaned me his collection of every Rolling Stone from 1972 for my Nixon research and they're full of gassy hackwork, when it wasn't, indeed, screedy and sophmoric. Hunter S. Thompson's outright invention/put-on that Hubert Humphrey was addicted to Ibogaine wasn't screedy and sophmoreic

I guess baby-boomer self-regard knows no intellectual bounds.

Rick,

OK fair enough--it's as scummy as ever.

Rick - There is a difference between being mistaken and lying.

Jim- the Left is not concerned with nuance.

geez, I'd fogotten your venom was based on something that trivial. The Left really is deranged.

Rick:

No one ever said they weren't Democrats.

No one ever said they weren't Democrats.

I think it's Jim Miller, who I believe comments here occasionally, who points out that most vote fraud and campaign dirty tricks is in Dem primaries, where it doesn't get much attention because all the sides are engaged in it.

(Gotta look more closely at the earlier poster names next time, and not react to the great line in the last one...)

fraud is, of course, a function of big city political machines, so it matters in Democrat politics, not in Republican.

From Mr. Perlstein's comment above:

They (Lieberman's campaign) "won" the media cycle.

With a deliberate lie.

Whoa! What a revelation?

Deliberate lying is the liberal M.O., to wit, the flap about photoshopped pictures and staged news reports. Once the media drum beats the big lie, it matters not what the truth is, because the lie in firmly imbedded in the public's psyche, not to mention millions of Google entries.

Even better, he thinks there was a meaningful media cycle in a race where only fanatics mattered. The race was about PC, not pc's.

oj. I'm beginning to agree with you that Republicans should vote for Lieberman, not because I've changed my mind about his character, but in order to reduce the number of Democrats in the senate.

OJ's of course correct in re the triviliaty of Friend Rick's attack on Lieberman.

But, I'd further note that Perlstein's regurgitation of the $15 a month meme spread by Kos et al is nonsense.

There was a good AP artiicle this week that said basically that Lieberman's IT op was not the best but it wasn't the disaster the Kossacks made it out to be -- particularly that it cost the Lieberman campain something like $150 per month etc.

(2) While charging the Lamont campaign with the attacks on the site may have been irresponsible w/o proof, given the attacks that hit the Lieberman campaign from Lamont's nut-roots allies

-- I'm thinking of (a) Jane Hamster's, or whatever her name is, portrayal of Lieberman in black face, which Lamont then lied about by claiming falsely that he had no association with Hamster . . .

and (b) Hamster's repeatedly calling Lieberman "Rape Gurney Joe" b/c he supported the right of Catholic hospitals not to have to provide "morning-after" pills to patients --

it's absolutely laughable that Perlstein is attacking Lieberman for being sleazy.