Booman Tribune ~ A Progressive Community

Petulant Lott Considers Retirement

by BooMan
Sun Sep 18th, 2005 at 07:44:35 PM EST

Poor Trent Lott. With his home destroyed he may decide not to run for reelection.

Among the factors tempting him to call it quits: His career in Congress has already crested, and Hurricane Katrina destroyed his family home -- which doubled as his retirement nest egg -- in Pascagoula. Lott has no personal wealth and is about to turn 64. If he serves another six years in the Senate, he may or may not have the energy for a lucrative stint in the private sector.

Everyone deserves the right to a lucrative stint in the private sector. Especially policians that do the private sector's bidding on taxes and regulation and then take no-work jobs upon leaving office. But Trent's Congressional career may not have truly crested:

On the other hand, Lott's formidable legislative skills have never been more needed, as Mississippi tries to recover from the devastating storm. Nor is it out of the question that Lott could return to leadership, especially if Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), who currently holds the Senate's No. 3 GOP post, loses his reelection bid next year, as polls suggest he might.

So, I guess I shouldn't keep my eye out for Trent visiting Pennsylvania anytime soon. It seems he'd love to see Man-on-Dog get routed out of office.

That's one thing I have in common with Trent Lott.

If it looks like Santorum is going to win then it appears Lott will call it quits and get rich. In that case there is an outside chance that the Dems could pick up his seat.

Two likely contenders: African-American, former Agriculture Secretary, Mike Espy. And Rep. Gene Taylor.

Petulant Lott Considers Retirement | 64 comments (64 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Petulant Lott Considers Retirement (4.00 / 8)

No, no, no on DFL favorite Rep Taylor. I'm so fucking tired of soft-on-human-rights pro-fetus Dems like Taylor being offered up as the future of the party.

Two-thirds of Americans polled, consistently over decades, are pro-women's health. MOST Americans want the government out of their bedrooms, examination rooms and bedrooms. Why won't EITHER party speak to that minority? Why must BOTH parties fight over that small, narrow, self-righteous subsection of America?

NO MORE FUCKING VICHY DINOS.

"Whenever a Voice of Moderation addresses liberals, its sole purpose is to stomp out any real sign of life." - James Wolcott

by Madman in the Marketplace on Sun Sep 18th, 2005 at 08:15:40 PM EST

Re: Petulant Lott Considers Retirement (4.00 / 7)

Gene Taylor is a Democrats for Life All Star.

Gene Taylor supports federal TRAP laws. He shows us his position with his vote. This bill, written and promoted by an extreme republican pro (fetal) lifer was aided and abetted by Mr Taylor.

Gene Taylor voted against the Davis amendment
which resulted in a navy wife with a brain dead baby in her tummy being denied government payment. The Democrats for Life crow and brag about this achievement on their website while women pay the price.

Oh, that was just his stand on women's reproductive rights. Look at some of his other votes over the last few years as congressman from Mississippi.

Gene Taylor on the Issues

Voted YES on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)

Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother's life. (Oct 2003)

Voted YES on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)

Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)

Voted YES on banning human cloning, including medical research. (Jul 2001)

Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)

Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)

Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)

Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)

Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

Voted YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)

Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)

Voted YES on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)

Voted YES on Constitutional amendment prohibiting Flag Desecration. (Jul 2001)

Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit burning the US flag. (Jun 1999)

Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)

Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)

Rated 20% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)

Voted YES on Bankruptcy Overhaul requiring partial debt repayment. (Mar 2001)

Rated 47% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record. (Dec 2003)

Voted NO on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)

Voted YES on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)

Voted NO on maintaining right of habeus corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996)

Voted YES on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995)

Voted NO on replacing death penalty with life imprisonment. (Apr 1994)

Rated 10% by CURE, indicating anti-rehabilitation crime votes. (Dec 2000)

Voted YES on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)

Voted NO on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC. (Oct 1999)

Voted YES on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998)

Voted YES on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)

Voted YES on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)

Voted YES on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998)

Voted YES on giving federal aid only to schools allowing voluntary prayer. (Mar 1994)

Let schools display the words "God Bless America". (Oct 2001)

Supports requiring schools to allow prayer. (Jan 2001)

Rated 50% by the NEA, indicating a mixed record on public education. (Dec 2003)

Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)

Voted YES on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects. (Nov 2003)

Rated 50% by the LCV, indicating a mixed record on environment. (Dec 2003)

Rated 76% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)

Voted YES on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. (Jul 2001)

Voted YES on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. (May 2001)

Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. (Jul 2000)

Voted YES on limiting attorney's fees in class action lawsuits. (Feb 2005)

Voted YES on restricting frivolous lawsuits. (Sep 2004)

Voted YES on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)

Voted YES on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)

Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003)

Voted YES on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)

Voted YES on continuing military recruitment on college campuses. (Feb 2005)

Voted YES on supporting new position of Director of National Intelligence. (Dec 2004)

Voted YES on adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. (Oct 2004)

Voted YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003)

Voted YES on permitting commercial airline pilots to carry guns. (Jul 2002)

Voted YES on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill. (Jul 1999)

Voted YES on deploying SDI. (Mar 1999)

Whew. That guy is no progressive is he?

Photo: Representative Taylor

Representative Gene Taylor (D-MS 4th)
Web Site: Gene Taylor - Home
E-mail: Web Form

Washington Office:
2311 RHOB
Washington, D.C. 20515-2404
Phone: (202) 225-5772
Fax: (202) 225-7074

Main District Office:
2424 14th St.
Gulfport, MS 39501
Phone: (228) 864-7670
Fax: (228) 864-3099

Our Word
Binti Pamoja nobody takes care of them, they take care of each other

by bayprairie (bayprairie<et>gmail <dot>com) on Sun Sep 18th, 2005 at 08:32:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is Mississippi (none / 1)

and Taylor is going to be a favorite to win the nomination. That's all I'm saying.

by BooMan on Sun Sep 18th, 2005 at 08:26:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is Mississippi (3.75 / 4)

don't expect me to celebrate or support it.

Don't expect me to celebrate or support a party that will press forward candidates that will enslave fully half of my fellow citizens to the demands of religious superstition.

I don't give a fuck if it's the south, if it's MS. Human rights are human rights. We make noises of disgust as Bush's criminal war results in Sharia being enshrined in the Constitution of Iraq, while our very own theocrats install the same fucking thing here.

You'd be OUTRAGED if some politician in MS was in favor of poll taxes or reading tests for minority voters (after all, it IS the South, home of fear-addled racists and classists who block the evacuation of desperate evacuees with loaded weapons - maybe we'd win more seats if we backed Lott-like racists!!), yet a favorite of so-called Democrats for "Life" is going to get the full support of the party?!?!

Shame on you for jumping on the centrist Reid/Schumer bandwagon w/ Armando, DHinMI and kos.

"Whenever a Voice of Moderation addresses liberals, its sole purpose is to stomp out any real sign of life." - James Wolcott

by Madman in the Marketplace on Sun Sep 18th, 2005 at 08:37:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is Mississippi (4.00 / 2)

I'm not jumping on anything. I'm giving information. He is one of the likely Democratic contenders. So is Espy. Why do you think I am endorsing him?

by BooMan on Sun Sep 18th, 2005 at 09:03:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is Mississippi (3.83 / 6)

I've seen his named pushed on several affiliated blogs over the last couple of days. I take that as a sign that he is being pushed. If you're not at all interested in endorsing him, that is great, but he's getting plenty of free press lately as some kind of face for the Dems in the South. Don't help him ... he's part of the cabal that would help impress theocracy into our party and government.

"Whenever a Voice of Moderation addresses liberals, its sole purpose is to stomp out any real sign of life." - James Wolcott

by Madman in the Marketplace on Sun Sep 18th, 2005 at 09:08:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

All overreaction (none / 1)

he's only in the news because his is an effective spokesman for his state in a time of crisis.

Armando saw him on TV and got a boner. People read way too much into things.

by BooMan on Sun Sep 18th, 2005 at 09:58:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All overreaction (none / 1)

Who's the alternative in that district, because obviously this guy is no progressive. I have a feeling its a no win situation.

"We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; now we know that it is bad economics;" - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

by Salunga on Sun Sep 18th, 2005 at 11:02:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's not a district (3.50 / 2)

but a whole state. In Mississippi the Democrats are weak but not helpless.

From the same article cited above:

The Democratic roster of potential open-seat candidates includes Mike Moore, the former state attorney general best known for his lead role in the tobacco wars; former governor Ray Mabus; Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood; and Rep. Gene Taylor, who represents Lott's old district on the Gulf Coast. African American prospects include Mike Espy, the former Mississippi congressman and Clinton agriculture secretary, and James Graves, a justice on the Mississippi Supreme Court.

by BooMan on Sun Sep 18th, 2005 at 11:28:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not a district (4.00 / 2)

from same article:

Mississippians prefer Republicans in statewide races, and at the moment, the heavy favorite to succeed Lott is Rep. Charles W. "Chip" Pickering Jr., a five-term GOP House member.

Remember Judge Pickering, Chip's dad? You know, the one who tried to get the cross-burner's sentence reduced? The one that Dumbya gave a recess appointment? Well, they don't call Chip "Chip" for nothing.

Hey, I don't like most of Gene Taylor's positions, either, but given the likely alternative -Chip Pickering - Taylor is a flaming liberal. Taylor is the most conservative Dem in the House, but he's still more liberal than the most liberal Republican in the House. And his strategy of being the most conservative Dem is, quite likely, the ONLY WINNING STRATEGY FOR A DEM in his House district OR in Lott's Senate seat.

I would personally rather elect someone who is MUCH more liberal than Taylor, but Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton types don't poll very well down here. So I guess we might have to settle for at least a slight move to the left by replacing Lott with Taylor.

So, somebody go ahead and tell me that because I am a realist and I know my own state very well, that I am selling out, but IT IS MISSISSIPPI AND IT AINT GONNA CHANGE ENOUGH BETWEEN NOW AND THEN TO ELECT A PRO-CHOICE CANDIDATE. I'm tellin ya, it just won't happen down here.

Now, that will not prevent me from supporting one of the more liberal candidates in the primary (James Graves is good, if he runs, and so is Mike Espy), and I will do my best to get someone else to represent the Dems in this race if Lott retires. However, I would gladly vote for Taylor over Pickering, it's not even close.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. -Margaret Mead

by blueneck on Sun Sep 18th, 2005 at 11:49:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

oops, meant this under madman's last comment n/t (none / 0)

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. -Margaret Mead

by blueneck on Sun Sep 18th, 2005 at 11:50:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

madman's last comment n/t (none / 0)

my answer is here, under Crooner's comment.

"Whenever a Voice of Moderation addresses liberals, its sole purpose is to stomp out any real sign of life." - James Wolcott

by Madman in the Marketplace on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 12:30:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I've talked (none / 1)

quite a bit with a friend of mine who lived the last few years in Alabama. He would pretty much agree with you. Democrats are behind the eight ball down there on a lot of issues. However, maybe Katrina will change the priorities for a lot of people. Who knows?

by BooMan on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 12:58:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've talked (none / 1)

I hope you are right. It is possible that the Category 4 shock to the people on the coast will help move them to see things differently. I recently read some stuff about the federal response to Category 5 hurricane Camille in '69, and anyone who is old enough to remember those times on the coast will definitely see a huge difference. The efficiency of that recovery has not been duplicated, to say the least, for Katrina. Not even close...

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. -Margaret Mead

by blueneck on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 02:01:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Living down here in BAMA (none / 0)

I have to agree with you Booman. It is their time and they have been waiting very patiently for this time to roll around. Some Democrats down here resemble Republicans and that has to do with the culture of the South. I don't understand it, but I'm observing it.

PMS Purchase More Shoes

by Militarytracy on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 10:37:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All overreaction (none / 1)

so armando can still get it up?

impressive

Our Word
Binti Pamoja nobody takes care of them, they take care of each other

by bayprairie (bayprairie<et>gmail <dot>com) on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 12:51:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All overreaction (none / 0)

More likely Armando was told by the powers that be... ie Lieberman via Ried and Al From via Rosenberg to start talking this fool up in the blogosphere.

Isn't this why Simon Rosenberg is pumping 200,000 million dollars into his Vast issue-less center right coalition.

Let's beat the Republicans by by electing our own... Republicans.

by Parker on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 01:49:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No Parker (none / 0)

that is NOT WHAT IS GOING ON. That is precisely the paranoia I'm talking about. Armando watching him on TV and was impressed about how he performed and thought he was a great spokesperson. And he did do very well on TV that day.

It had nothing to do with his voting record.

There is no secret plan to make Taylor the new face of the party. Armando is not part of a secret cabal, and he in not taking marching orders from the NDN, DLC, or anyone else.

I'm getting tired of this.

The first thing you should realize is that Armando writes whatever he wants, not what Kos tells him to write. And the second is that Armando tends to defend Kos even when he doesn't necessarily agree with him.

by BooMan on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 01:32:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Parker (none / 0)

For heavens sakes, I have listened in on conference calls... I am not stupid.

Let's beat the Republicans by by electing our own... Republicans.

by Parker on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 03:24:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No (none / 0)

you're not stupid, just wrong.

I converse with Armando all the time. It's something that seems to confuse people because we fight constantly on dKos.

We enjoy battling wits and opinions, and we make up as passionately as we scrap. We both know how to say "I'm sorry", and "You were right, I was wrong".

I think I know a little more about Armando's behind the scenes thinking than you do. I've been a lot of conference calls and I've never, ever, for a moment gotten even a hint of direction from the DLC, or any notion whatsoever that I should fashion my message to conform with anything, let alone the DLC.

Kos is upfront about putting winning ahead of pro-choice, pro-gay rights. He has explained why he thinks majorities are more important than individual seats. There is nothing hidden or secretive about his views. Armando agrees to a point, but I would say that his view is more ambivalent and nuanced. But don't expect him to slam Kos too often, because it is unlikely to happen.

Armando writes what he wants, and his reticence to critique Kos is purely his own personal choice.

by BooMan on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 03:52:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No Parker (none / 0)

It doesn't require some kind of conspiracy. It works in much the same way the RWNM works:

a group of people share similar beliefs.
a group of people share similar goals.
a group of people have had several conversations, formed a general understanding of shared values, priorities.
afterwords, events and actions and statements become more and more cohesive, as the successive actions of the given group reinforce each other.

It is plain from what's been written, from the house parties and conference calls, that there is a drive to marginalize women's concerns and issues in favor of the bullshit tactic to move right. It's not even necessary to send actual faxes: all you have to do is have the Vichy leaders like Schumer put someone forward as a spokesman, and the people w/ those shared values will get the idea.

This is how it works. The mere fact that Taylor was put forth so eagerly in so many places is a sign of the short shrift being given women's CIVIL RIGHTS on some important communties on the 'net.

Take a step back and take a look at how this all plays from our perspective. It has the appearance of collusion, and like a conflict of interest, the appearance is for all intents and purposes the same as actual overt collusion.

This move to put forward DfA trojan horses will further damage the party & the country, and will solidify the Religious Right's stranglehold on the political debate.

"Whenever a Voice of Moderation addresses liberals, its sole purpose is to stomp out any real sign of life." - James Wolcott

by Madman in the Marketplace on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 04:12:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Whatever (none / 0)

either it is a conspiracy or it is something else.

A confluence of interests? Perhaps.

Chuck Schumer is as pro-choice as it gets. In his role of recruiter, he put winning ahead of women's rights. Is he a member of the DLC now? Please.

He has his own strategy which you vehemently disagree with. But it's ridiculous to label anyone who agrees with him as a DLC member and it is equally ridiculous to equate the NDN on a one-to-one basis with the DLC.

I stand somewhere between you and Kos. I can see the merits of running some anti-abortion candidates in some races, when there are other compelling reasons to do so. In my opinion, the situation in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island are not compelling enough.

In Nebraska, running Nelson was probably the only way we had a chance to win that seat that year. I support having done that. But it wasn't because Nelson was pro-life, it was because he was already popular and well known. I don't think there was an alternative with a chance.

In Pennsylvania, there were candidates (and perhaps still is) that could have won besides Casey. In Rhode Island, there are candidates that can win and might do so.

So, I don't subscribe to Kos's view that we should put winning before everything else, but I also don't subscribe to your view that running Nelson is equivalent to running Mengel.

by BooMan on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 04:32:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whatever (none / 0)

this is a question of whether this party stands for basic human rights. Either women are full and equal autonomous and free citizens, or they aren't. There is no "halfway" on freedom. Being a "little free" is like being a "little preganant". This goes for gay rights, and our party's pathetic response to Abu Grabe.

The party is acting in collusion with repressive policies by the majority party.

All I can ask is this: would it be okay for a southern Representative to be put forth as a candidate in a southern state if he/she was in favor of poll taxes or literacy tests? After all, it IS the south. Just who's freedom is worth abandoning in the name of winning? Who's repressive beliefs are worthy of acceptance, and who's aren't?

Schumer cares only about winning. He stands for nothing anymore. That may not have always been true, but seems to be now. He's like a football coach who encourages his linebackers to clothesline the receivers in the interest of winning.

"Whenever a Voice of Moderation addresses liberals, its sole purpose is to stomp out any real sign of life." - James Wolcott

by Madman in the Marketplace on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 05:03:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry (none / 1)

I don't see it that way.

First of all, I don't believe any politicians when they state their position on abortion anyway. It's all bullshit. Al Gore was pro-life was it suited his constituency and pro-choice when it did not. Same with Poppy Bush, same with Gephardt, same with Kucinich, same with countless others that state whatever position will cause them the least pain.

Standing for something? Maybe Brownback stands for something, the most of the rest of them are just mouthing words.

You can put a pox on all their houses are you simply stop taking them seriously. What I do take seriously is when politicians run anti-abortion in pro-choice states and vice-versa.

Do you think for a moment that Pataki and Guiliani would be running pro-choice if they were running in Mississippi? Do you think Nelson would run anti-choice if he were running for Congress in San Francisco? I don't.

If you want to protect women's rights you need to change the dynamics in a lot of anti-choice districts. You need to make the election about something much more relevent to ordinary people's lives than overturning Roe and passing annoying parental notification laws.

The reason I am not an absolutist on pro-choice candidates is because most races will have little to no effect on the issue. Certainly the House of Representatives has no say in whether Roe is upheld or not, although they chip around the edges. Most of them are going to vote pro or con based on their district regardless of party.

And I don't believe them anyway. They say what they think they need to say.

We are so far from being able to break that logic that I am not willing to make it an absolute litmus test for Democratic candidates.

You can use the rhetoric of poll taxes all day long and it will have no effect on me. Go ahead and take the moral high ground.

I think we need to find candidates that are willing to stand up for women's rights in disticts were it is difficult to do so, by crafting an effective populist message to oversome the obstacle. But I'm not willing to oppose everyone who fails to do so, if it means we don't win with the candidates we have.

It's a long range project. We can recruit new candidates and the same time we work with some of the suck-ass candidates we are stuck with.

And if you are going to call me someone kind of sell out, you've got to realize one thing...

I'm sticking up for progressives against this centrist crap. I'm trying to figure out a way forward. But I'm not an absolutist like you. You are alienating your allies with you hot rhetoric.

by BooMan on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 05:58:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

replied downthread by mistake n/t (none / 0)

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. -Margaret Mead

by blueneck on Sun Sep 18th, 2005 at 11:52:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

hmm, I'm making it worse (none / 0)

geez, I wish there were some way to move a comment to the right place....

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. -Margaret Mead

by blueneck on Sun Sep 18th, 2005 at 11:54:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: hmm, I'm making it worse (4.00 / 3)

hey its ok dude. what counts is you're being read. dont worry about the rest, its just housekeeping, k?

Our Word
Binti Pamoja nobody takes care of them, they take care of each other

by bayprairie (bayprairie<et>gmail <dot>com) on Sun Sep 18th, 2005 at 11:55:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

just housekeeping, fer sure! (none / 0)

And you should see my filing system here in the office! "downthread" might mean "in that other stack over there, about a foot down from the top".... :)

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. -Margaret Mead

by blueneck on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 12:06:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

yeah, but (none / 1)

Chafee, for example, is famously pro-choice, and a fat lot of good it does to anyone who actually values that choice. As long as Taylor as senator would help give us the Senate--majority leader, committee chairs and all--then I can live with it.

"I told them on Inauguration Day. I said look into my eyes: no new enhancements." - President Johnny Gentle (Famous Crooner)

by Johnny Gentle famous crooner on Sun Sep 18th, 2005 at 09:15:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yeah, but (4.00 / 3)

yeah. well go ahead. vote for him if you're in mississippi. if i was, i wouldn't. i'd skip that line on the ballot. reason why?

uterus, most likely.

Our Word
Binti Pamoja nobody takes care of them, they take care of each other

by bayprairie (bayprairie<et>gmail <dot>com) on Sun Sep 18th, 2005 at 09:54:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yeah, but (3.80 / 5)

oh, yes, the Reid party line. It's hopelessly naive, that view. DfA Vichy will cross the aisle on questions re: women's health, freedom and autonomy. DINOs like Taylor help push TRAP laws.

Again, ask yourself how you'd feel about a candidate who advocated a return of elements of the old Jim Crow laws.

Shame on this party.

"Whenever a Voice of Moderation addresses liberals, its sole purpose is to stomp out any real sign of life." - James Wolcott

by Madman in the Marketplace on Sun Sep 18th, 2005 at 09:28:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

okay, you're right. (none / 1)

We'll just wait for the Mississippi version of Wellstone to show up. Enjoy being in the minority for another decade.

"I told them on Inauguration Day. I said look into my eyes: no new enhancements." - President Johnny Gentle (Famous Crooner)

by Johnny Gentle famous crooner on Sun Sep 18th, 2005 at 11:23:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bullshit (4.00 / 4)

DLC sell-out tactics put us where we are. You think you can out-DLC the DLC with the NDN?

When you wake up and smell the coffee, let us know.

media girl

by media girl on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 01:10:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: okay, you're right. (3.87 / 8)

Man, I just love this straw man you defeatists throw up ... always claiming that I want a Wellstone/Kucinich/Jesse Jackson ... whatever your stereotype "liberal" is. How about a Feingold? A populist? How about a progressive populist? Remember Huey Long:

Is that a right of life, when the young children of this country are being reared into a sphere which is more owned by 12 men that is by 120,000,000 people?
Ladies and gentlemen, I have only 30 minutes in which to speak to you this evening, and I, therefore, will not be able to discuss in detail so much as I can write when I have all of the time and space that is allowed me for the subjects, but I will undertake to sketch them very briefly without manuscript or preparation, so that you can understand them so well as I can tell them to you tonight.
I contend, my friends, that we have no difficult problem to solve in America, and that is the view of nearly everyone with whom I have discussed the matter here in Washington and elsewhere throughout the United States -- that we have no very difficult problem to solve.
It is not the difficulty of the problem which we have; it is the fact that the rich people of this country -- and by rich people I mean the super-rich -- will not allow us to solve the problems, or rather the one little problem that is afflicting this country, because in order to cure all of our woes it is necessary to scale down the big fortunes, that we may scatter the wealth to be shared by all of the people.
We have a marvelous love for this Government of ours; in fact, it is almost a religion, and it is well that it should be, because we have a splendid form of government and we have a splendid set of laws. We have everything here that we need, except that we have neglected the fundamentals upon which the American Government was principally predicated.

And yes, Huey was not perfect. That's not my point. The time is right for real progressive populism, if only we had the balls as a party to express it, to stand up to it. Dean peppered it throughout his campaign. Feingold uses it. So does Conyers. It's there, waiting to be used, but over and over again this bullshit either/or is "we can't have a liberal like YOU want."

I'm fucking sick of it. This part of the country is in peonage. No healthcare. No education. No jobs. No prospects. No hope. What do BOTH parties offer? Two parties willing to offer the same pandering to religious bullshit that helps nobody. That offers nothing but more of the fucking same. Deafeatist pandering, fighting over the same bullshit non-issues instead of really listening to people, fighting for people, working for people.

Fucking sick of it.

"Whenever a Voice of Moderation addresses liberals, its sole purpose is to stomp out any real sign of life." - James Wolcott

by Madman in the Marketplace on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 12:26:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

out of the mouths of mississippi river babes... (3.80 / 5)

Hot Throbbing Okra

I'm with Harvey (none / 0)

on this one. And for the record, I am from "down here"; I live and
work in Mississippi. Taylor has been a Democrat in name only.

He is rabidly anti-women's reproductive rights, and has been very
strongly opposed to gay rights. He has been a vocal advocate for the
war, and I find his comments lately about how there have not been
enough National Guard troops available for hurricane relief very
hypocritical (and don't believe his flag-waving constituents aren't
noticing either).

He sided with credit card companies on the bankruptcy bill. He is
about as pro-death penalty as they come in DC. His record on
environmental issues sucks. And it goes on and on.

There is a reason this guy is a Democrat representing the 4th
District in Mississippi... he isn't really a Democrat. His base would
dump him in a second if he became anything other than what he currently
is. When his party needed him last year, he didn't exactly stick his
neck out and stump for Kerry around here, as the Swift-Boat Liars
shoveled their dung.

Sure, he's pissed now about the hurricane response, because he has
to be. Most of the voters in his district lost something in the storm,
and they are angry that the federal response has not been fast enough,
contrary to what Haley Barbour has publicly stated.

I wonder how Taylor feels about that bankruptcy vote now? I
suppose this is what it has come down to now for the Democratic Party:
ignore a candidate's stand on the issues as long as he/she can win
elections and are willing to call himself/herself a Democrat.

by Hot Throbbing Okra on Thu Sep 15th, 2005 at 23:17:57 PDT

So hey Johnny Gentle. exactly which plank of this guys party do you support?

Support the credit card companies?

Support the war?

Support hatred of gays?

Support hatred of women?

So what do you support about this guy's platform? I listed his votes above, why dont you inform us on exactly what issue of his you agree on?

Our Word
Binti Pamoja nobody takes care of them, they take care of each other

by bayprairie (bayprairie<et>gmail <dot>com) on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 01:09:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: okay, you're right. (3.00 / 3)

keep jerking off the same strawman. Idiot.

"Whenever a Voice of Moderation addresses liberals, its sole purpose is to stomp out any real sign of life." - James Wolcott

by Madman in the Marketplace on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 12:26:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: okay, you're right. (4.00 / 2)

Hey madman, I really do agree with you. I am angry about the Dem party too, and I would support someone other than Taylor in the primary. I'm just saying that I won't skip the line on the ballot if the choices were taylor vs. pickering. I honestly hope it doesn't come to that, but I think it probably would if the two of them were to run when Lott retires.

For what it's worth, I've never felt like any of my elected representatives here in MS have been completely worthy of my vote. I have had to look to the elected representatives of other states to see my values reflected in the body politic all of my life.

Are there any circumstances under which you would vote for a less-than-ideal candidate? I've done it lots of times. I've done it when the choice was between an active racist and a laissez-faire racist, preferring the laissez-faire racist. I've done it when the choice was between cutting Medicaid to the bone immediately or letting it starve from lack of budget increases, choosing lack of budget increases over sudden loss of the entire program. I don't apologize for those choices. I hate hate hate being put into those positions, but when I am, I will choose the candidate closest to what I believe.

I'd love to see the kind of candidate you propose. If and when one comes forth, I will support them. But you have to remember that the candidate must come from the district they run in and I don't believe these areas are producing the candidates that you and I would really like. Any candidate that completely agreed with you and me would not win. The amount of personal charisma required to overcome the entrenched positions of the voters in the area would be huge, and the overriding personal charisma of a Huey Long is hard to come by. You can call that a straw man argument if you want, but that doesn't actually get us any good candidates.

The problem is systemic, and progress will most likely be made in small increments over years of time. I could probably write a book about why I think this is the case, but I won't bore you with my knowledge because realism is just idiotic and offensive.

Or, maybe you will move to Mississippi and run for the seat yourself?

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. -Margaret Mead

by blueneck on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 02:03:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: okay, you're right. (4.00 / 2)

basic questions of human rights are well I draw the line. I have NEVER voted for an anti-woman candidate. As I got older, I added anti-gay to that list.

If I'm left w/ the choice of two pro-oppression candidates by the major parties, I leave the line blank.

"Whenever a Voice of Moderation addresses liberals, its sole purpose is to stomp out any real sign of life." - James Wolcott

by Madman in the Marketplace on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 07:03:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Blank Ballots (3.66 / 3)

No, I think it is about time that Democrats leave some ballots blank. Voting for people like Casey and Taylor are just lose /lose propositions.

Democrats should stay active and fund and vote for progressive candidates and leave these DLC/NDN morons to rot.

Let's beat the Republicans by by electing our own... Republicans.

by Parker on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 02:19:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blank Ballots (3.50 / 2)

I see the point, I really do, but isn't wishy-washy on the environment (Taylor ~50% on environmental votes) better than totally anti-environment? And isn't 76% Christian Coalition votes better than %100?

All I'm saying is that I have had to grasp for straws here in MS all my life. We have never had a real progressive movement here. NEVER, N-E-V-E-R. So what you are saying is that those of us who are stuck in red states should just not vote at all if a candidate isn't our dream candidate? That incremental change for the better is futile? THAT seems to be the defeatist attitude from where I sit.

The changes that have happened in MS have come VERY slowly and one small bit at a time. I understand and respect your opinion, and the opinions of the others in this thread. I do believe that if a lived in a state where mostly progressive Dems get elected, and the national party threw gobs of money at a conservative Dem, I'd be mad as hell.

But it just ain't that way here. Call me defeatist, call me vichy, whatever. But I intend to vote to move my state/district TOWARD progressive policies.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. -Margaret Mead

by blueneck on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 02:39:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blank Ballots (4.00 / 2)

nobody is calling you a vichy dem. he's calling the candidate that. heck you deserve more progressive candidates. so do we all, believe me. no one in this thread is faulting you. taylor, yes, not you.

Our Word
Binti Pamoja nobody takes care of them, they take care of each other

by bayprairie (bayprairie<et>gmail <dot>com) on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 02:44:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blank Ballots (none / 1)

Thank you bayprairie. We do deserve more and better progressive candidates in Mississippi, but I've waited and hoped all my life. When those candidates come along, I hope my voice and my vote help them to win.

In the meantime, I will mostly have to choose between "bad" and "really really bad".

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. -Margaret Mead

by blueneck on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 02:59:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blank Ballots (none / 0)

No in the meantime, you can keep you ballot blank and support local candidates on school boards, sheriffs office, city councils...etc.

No way should Democrats "de"-activate... but supporting this nonsense is a lose-lose proposition.

Let's beat the Republicans by by electing our own... Republicans.

by Parker on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 04:31:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Totally Blank Ballots? (none / 0)

This would be a great suggestion if I weren't in the same exact position with regards to almost every single race, including school boards, sheriff, etc.

It seems that no matter how I describe to you how grim the situation on the ground is here, you don't give me an inch. That's ok. I understand your position. You are certain that your strategy works in every single instance and every single political scenario.

I am probably more frustrated than you can imagine at what my choices are here, but I choose not to opt out of the system. I will not be defeatist. I will continue to vote for incremental differences in the progressive direction whenever I can. I will continue to voice my progressive views wherever and whenever I can. I will try to exert pressure on the slightly less backwards candidates and officials to move toward my viewpoint. And if that incredibly charismatic progressive Dem candidate comes out of nowhere and makes a credible run at bringing the local public along with them, I will volunteer, donate, and whatever necessary to help that candidate.

I'm radically pro-choice, pro-environment, anti-racist, pro-affirmative action, pro-LGBT full rights, etc. But, I NEVER have any remotely viable candidates to vote for who will actively push my agenda.

SO I do what I can, and I do my best. If the R candidate is an all-out gay basher and the D candidate is merely tolerant of gays, but doesn't come out in support of full marriage rights, I will support the D candidate every time. I'm thinking the same way for every issue, every candidate and every contest.

As I said before: if, say, I lived in California or NYC and the National Dems poured gobs of money into a conservative Dem candidate and ignored a viable progressive Dem, I'd be mad as hell. But it really is different in Mississippi.

That's my local story and I'm stickin' to it.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. -Margaret Mead

by blueneck on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 03:47:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blank Ballots (4.00 / 2)

Do what you want...

This is what is really breaks down to:

I voted against best interest, before voting in my best interest.

I don't vote against republicans because the have an R behind their name I vote against them because of their issues and ideology... so why in the hell would I vote for a Democrat who holds the same issues and ideologies as Republicans?

This is the BIG LIE the Al From and Simon ROsenberg crowd are trying to get the blogosphere to swallow... it is a lie and it will not help Democrats ...or any citizen.

Let's beat the Republicans by by electing our own... Republicans.

by Parker on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 04:27:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: okay, you're right. (2.33 / 3)

Wow, you actually are so insanely confrontational and neurotic that you posted a follow-up insult to your first response? Well that sure takes shrillness to a new level.

I realize that you've found a lovely playground where you and the same two or three likeminded people can keep affirming one another's opinions and working yourselves into a raving froth. But really, it just doesn't work very well in making a serious argument. In fact, it just makes you look sad and a bit ridiculous.

Oh, but really...don't let me stop you from demonstrating how "uncompromising" you are, or from continuing your paranoid quest to root out "moderates" undermining "your" party. It's all very amusing. Maybe somewhat disconcerting that someone this incredibly abrasive is such a frequent presence here, but amusing nonetheless.

So enjoy the frothing. We're all just terribly impressed. But do make sure to keep the lithium handy.

"I told them on Inauguration Day. I said look into my eyes: no new enhancements." - President Johnny Gentle (Famous Crooner)

by Johnny Gentle famous crooner on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 12:58:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: okay, you're right. (4.00 / 4)

I'm glad I amuse you. I hope that it keeps you happy as the strategy you support leads to more losses of both elections and freedoms for your fellow Americans. I hope it makes you smile as corporate coffers overflow, and more and more of your neighbors, and perhaps you, become reduced to peonage. Perhaps it will give you a chuckle when the nice girl next door is found dead from an infection she got while receiving an illegal abortion. Maybe guffaws will set in as the rest of the world shuns and isolates us even more, as Hillary, Biden and the other "strong" Democrat warhawks bomb somebody new in the name of oil and Likud. May tears of joy stream down your face when the next disaster strikes, as an indebted US treasury is unable to borrow any more from Chinese and Japanese banks no longer willing to face the risks resulting from our love of debt, empty consumerism and righteous war fought by pushing buttons from afar.

I hope you enjoy your little laugh.

"Whenever a Voice of Moderation addresses liberals, its sole purpose is to stomp out any real sign of life." - James Wolcott

by Madman in the Marketplace on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 10:44:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: okay, you're right. (none / 1)

Harry Reid and his DFL buddies will just hide the women's bodies like they are doing in NOLA. Botched abortions will become "Died of unknown causes".

Let's beat the Republicans by by electing our own... Republicans.

by Parker on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 12:02:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: okay, you're right. (none / 1)

no one has called you neurotic. where do you get off doing that. that is way out of line, remember the rule. dont be a prick.

Our Word
Binti Pamoja nobody takes care of them, they take care of each other

by bayprairie (bayprairie<et>gmail <dot>com) on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 01:14:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ha! (none / 1)

Oh, I see... someone posts "keep jerking off the same strawman. Idiot." and you reward them with a 4, but I respond and you give me a 0 and say that's being a prick. Right. I'm guessing your definition of being a "prick" changes based on who's making the comment.

How about I just call you an idiot, and you give me a 4. I'm just living by the rules you're explaining to me.

I'll be damned if I'm not going to defend myself against a hysterically over-the-top comment like that.

"I told them on Inauguration Day. I said look into my eyes: no new enhancements." - President Johnny Gentle (Famous Crooner)

by Johnny Gentle famous crooner on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 01:07:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ha! (none / 1)

my rating of your comment is due to your use of disability and disability related-medication as a form of denigration, i.e., insanely confrontational and neurotic and do make sure to keep the lithium handy. which i find particularly and personally offensive. by using it you insult anyone that has a medical condition which requires the use of a lithium-based drug. i also urge anyone reading this exchange who agrees with me to rate your offensive comment accordingly.

Our Word
Binti Pamoja nobody takes care of them, they take care of each other

by bayprairie (bayprairie<et>gmail <dot>com) on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 01:50:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

so like i said... (none / 0)

"keep jerking off that straw man, idiot" (or whatever) is not offensive to you, but a comment about lithium is. Mighty fair use of the ratings there, my friend. I hope you'll be as vigilant for any and all comments using mental health-related terms such as "crazy," "disturbed," "nuts" and whatever else people use to ridicule Bush, Republicans and others. I fully expect to see several hundred comments downrated by the end of the day. Let's stamp out this problem together!

I'm glad you've explained the ground rules, and what "being a prick" is and is not: As long as no one resorts to commenting on medications, then all other insults are not only acceptable, they're encouraged!. So on that note Bayprairie, keep jerking off that straw man, you idiot. (Please give me my 4 now. I called you an idiot AND added a 'please'...I should be deluged with 4s by now!)

"I told them on Inauguration Day. I said look into my eyes: no new enhancements." - President Johnny Gentle (Famous Crooner)

by Johnny Gentle famous crooner on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 03:24:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: so like i said... (none / 0)

hmmmm, can dish it out ... can't take it.

Of course, except for the "idiot" part (judge a man by his attitudes/actions, I always say) the comment was directed at your argument, which is, of course, a particularly soft blowup-doll-version of a straw man, full of DLC hot air and scare-tactic demands for loyalty oaths from the li'l wimmin and the men who actually respect them.

"Whenever a Voice of Moderation addresses liberals, its sole purpose is to stomp out any real sign of life." - James Wolcott

by Madman in the Marketplace on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 03:51:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: so like i said... (none / 0)

now now, let blueprairie answer...the comment wasn't directed to you, and we've already established your delusional belief that everyone who disagrees with you is a DLC secret agent. My being a DLC secret agent is news to me, of course, but who am I to doubt your keen insight?

Oh well. I'm sorry that you don't grasp the inherent irony of complaining about straw men through the use of a straw man. I'd chuckle about it, but i'm too busy guffawing at teenagers dying of rusted hanger infections or whatever the heck it is you're prattling on about.

Cheers!

"I told them on Inauguration Day. I said look into my eyes: no new enhancements." - President Johnny Gentle (Famous Crooner)

by Johnny Gentle famous crooner on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 03:58:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree (none / 0)

with you Johnny. Politically, I probably straddle the fence between your position and your critics here, but they are ganging up on you without justification.

Moreover, they are bullying anyone who doesn't feel the Democratic Party should be 100% purged of anti-abortion candidates.

It says right in the FAQ that this site is not for the enforcement of any orthodoxy on its members and that anti-abortion members should be made to feel unwelcome.

Even less so people are willing to tolerate anti-abortion arguments.

Make your case, don't get personal.

by BooMan on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 04:02:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

should (none / 0)

NOT be made to feel unwelcome, that is.

by BooMan on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 04:04:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Secret agent/dupe (none / 0)

tomato/toMAHto ...

"Whenever a Voice of Moderation addresses liberals, its sole purpose is to stomp out any real sign of life." - James Wolcott

by Madman in the Marketplace on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 04:13:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: so like i said... (none / 1)

i find using an insinuation of bipolar disorder in your attack to be far more objectionable than madman's use of the word "idiot". one is insulting, the other disrespects the disabled. i'm rating your disrespect of those to whom lithium is a hope, as opposed a punch line of a bad joke. i could care less about your fight.

Our Word
Binti Pamoja nobody takes care of them, they take care of each other

by bayprairie (bayprairie<et>gmail <dot>com) on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 07:30:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

well, (none / 0)

i kind of respect that Lott was never a spoiled millionaire like so many of his fellow Republican "public servants" (and many Dems, too). I'd like to think that not being a spoiled richboy keeps you more rooted to the average constituent. (Though in reality, we know DC is an inherently insulating bubble.)

Anyway, he said his home was his biggest asset, and i feel bad that he lost his home. Now if it was Rove, that's another story. But Rove could never really lose his house, because there's always another pile of dog shit to burrow into.

"I told them on Inauguration Day. I said look into my eyes: no new enhancements." - President Johnny Gentle (Famous Crooner)

by Johnny Gentle famous crooner on Sun Sep 18th, 2005 at 08:02:39 PM EST

Betrayal is like LSD. (none / 0)

Your waking delusions no longer control.

Perhaps he realizes he's played the fool.

Perhaps he was one of only a few in power who believed all that values nonsense, actually felt a drop of the sincerity he projected. Well, it was an ideology for fools, an ideology of exploitation and derision, so he should not have been surprised that his turn came. Now he knows.

Now he knows also that he could be the reigning shepherd of the movement in retreat. But he thinks about what it's worth, and what he must look like as Chief of Chump, and a retirement of contemplation sounds better. At least it leaves hope for better answers.

by macdust on Sun Sep 18th, 2005 at 09:45:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

er...let's not read too much into it. (none / 0)

He didn't find Liberal Jesus or anything, he just lost his house and doesn't have a lot of money in the bank. He can make a fortune lobbying, speaking, etc.

"I told them on Inauguration Day. I said look into my eyes: no new enhancements." - President Johnny Gentle (Famous Crooner)

by Johnny Gentle famous crooner on Sun Sep 18th, 2005 at 11:21:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Liberal Jesus, no. (none / 0)

Making money is not inconsistent with being lost.

He was betrayed by money-changers at the Church of Low Wages and Big Interests. He believed, probably still does, in their wares, because he's at home with it.

But betrayal has its own psychic effects. The effect of being trashed for talking trash on point and on plan must be quite withering. And with the loss of his home, I think he may be a bellwether of a transforming Southern White Male Anger.

Betrayal doesn't change your philosophy. It changes your ability to feel protected by it. And he probably sees little future. Otherwise he is not the sort to pass up a shot at vindication, at getting back his power.

by macdust on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 03:44:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Petulant Lott Considers Retirement (none / 1)

Lott looks good only by comparison to Santorum. Let's not forget he's a dinosaur. Sure would like for Mike Espey to come back to MS electral politics. The article seems to point to the Dems having a pretty good bench available for the race. Hey MITM: Don't shoot Sheriff, there's other'n there'n Taylor.

by rolfyboy6 (rolfyboy@NOSPAMsonic.net) on Sun Sep 18th, 2005 at 09:53:16 PM EST

Re: Petulant Lott Considers Retirement (none / 0)

There are other excellent potential Democratic candidates for Lott's seat.

And given his embarrassing fall from grace and power after pining for the good old segregated days, I think there's opportunity here even if Lott runs again.

A short list:

Former Governor Ray Mabus
Former Corrections Commissioner Robert Johnson
Democratic Party Chair Wayne Dowdy (a rematch!)

by FYMC (FYMCH@yahoo.com) on Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 11:11:00 PM EST

Petulant Lott Considers Retirement | 64 comments (64 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ Booman Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

. Home
. About
. Contact
. Advertise
. FAQ
. Search

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Proud member of

The Liberal Blog Network

a FeedBurner Network

Advertise in The Liberal Blog Network

Subscribe to this network

Gift Cards * New Arrivals

NOTE: Overstock bests Amazon's prices and is "blue."

THE BOOKS WITH "BUZZ":
______________

Learn the real story behind the WMD in Iraq:

The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism
by Ron Suskind

Read Barack Obama's vision for America:

The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream
by Barack Obama

DaveW recommends:

I Am a Strange Loop
by Douglas Hofstadter

Need some laughs?

I Am America (and So Can You!)
by Stephen Colbert

rae recommends:

Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire
by Morris Berman.

On BooMan’s shelf:

The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End
by Peter W. Galbraith

This looks interesting:

Adventure Divas
by Holly Morris

Here’s a good one from
Elizabeth Gilbert:

Eat Pray Love
by Elizabeth Gilbert

"Crash" * Best Motion Picture, Academy Awards * Only $11.79 at Overstock * 2006 SAG Winner, Best Ensemble

Check out
Powell's new section:
NEW FAVORITES
Selected new arrivals at 30% off

Recommended by Indianadem and ejmw:
The Conscience of a Liberal
by Paul Wellstone

From northcountry’s bookshelf:

The New Golden Age:
The Coming Revolution Against
Political Corruption and Economic Chaos by Ravi Batra

A novel about contractors in Iraq from the woman that runs The Spy That Billed Me:

Outsourced: A Novel
from RJ Hillhouse.

Download Sleeper Cell on iTunes

(Better than "24") Download Weeds on iTunes

(Hilarious 1/2-hour adult comedy starring Mary-Louise Parker) Download Late Nite with Conan O'Brien on iTunes

Download South Park on iTunes

James Hunter - People Gonna Talk:

Great Deals
----- * ^ * -----

Find mystery novels by Nancy Pickard ("Kansas")

Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power by Phyllis Bennis (interviewed on DN!)

Featured by Keith Olbermann, New (Powell's Sale): Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by William Blum (whose other books merit serious consideration)

"Explosive" State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration
by James Risen

The book the CIA doesn't want you to read: Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander
Larry Johnson's review

BT's all-time best seller:

PERMACULTURE:
A Designers' Manual
$79.95 * Sale: $59.95

Unequal Sisters: A Multicultural Reader in U.S. Women's History (Third Edition)

The Undercover Economist: Exposing Why the Rich Are Rich, the Poor Are Poor And Why You Can Never Buy a Decent Used Car!

The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl
by Timothy Egan

Green Press Initiative
----- * ^ * -----

Journalistas: 100 Years of the Best Writing and Reporting by Women Journalists by Eleanor Mills * NYT review

Bury Me Standing: the Gypsies & Their Journey

1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus

Brokeback Mountain
by Annie Proulx
----- * ^ * -----
Check out Powell's
"At The Movies"

Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World by Noam Chomsky (Power & Terror: Post 9-11 Talks)

The Price of Privilege:

How Parental Pressure and
Material Advantage Are Creating a Generation of
Disconnected and Unhappy Kids
by Madeline Levine

Save 35-70% on
name brand clothing,
footwear, and outdoor gear
at SierraTradingPost.com
:

We listened to PEN American Center's "State of Emergency" and found 1940s books by Curzio Malaparte only at Alibris. (Selection (MP3) excerpted from "The Skin.")

Banned Books * Are you a fan of Film Noir, Art House, Documentaries or Hong Kong Action? * Searching for a long-lost children's book or a first printing of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue on vinyl? Find it at Alibris!

:
:
<