King is in! Angus King (I-ME) to run for Snowe's seat.

[Is Totally Not Feeblepizza.]

Yes!

[King]

He can borrow all my King for Senate banners from AFE if he wants.

[bgwah]

How is he another Lieberman?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

How is he another Lieberman?

I guess because he's not a real Democrat, which still makes it a stretch to assume that he's a troll whose primary focus is to go out of his way to damage the Democratic Party.

[Napoleon]

How is he another Lieberman?

I guess because he's not a real Democrat, which still makes it a stretch to assume that he's a troll whose primary focus is to go out of his way to damage the Democratic Party.

King didn't endorse McCain/Palin either.

[redcommander]

How is he another Lieberman?

I guess because he's not a real Democrat, which still makes it a stretch to assume that he's a troll whose primary focus is to go out of his way to damage the Democratic Party.

King didn't endorse McCain/Palin either.

He endorsed Bush. That's even worse.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

How is he another Lieberman?

I guess because he's not a real Democrat, which still makes it a stretch to assume that he's a troll whose primary focus is to go out of his way to damage the Democratic Party.

King didn't endorse McCain/Palin either.

He endorsed Bush. That's even worse.

What? No it's not. He endorsed Bush in 2000. A lot of the following political alignment and discourse have been products of Bush's first term. Bush's 2000 run among other things trumpeted a 'humble' foreign policy, for instance...

[redcommander]

How is he another Lieberman?

I guess because he's not a real Democrat, which still makes it a stretch to assume that he's a troll whose primary focus is to go out of his way to damage the Democratic Party.

King didn't endorse McCain/Palin either.

He endorsed Bush. That's even worse.

What? No it's not. He endorsed Bush in 2000. A lot of the following political alignment and discourse have been products of Bush's first term. Bush's 2000 run among other things trumpeted a 'humble' foreign policy, for instance...

His foreign policy was only one aspect of his platform though. Bush was still very much a social conservative in 2000.

[smoltchanov]

The only important thing now - King will, probably, win. Right now i don't see neither Democrtic nor Republican candidate able to beat him. As Senator he will likely vote as moderate-liberal Democrat (Herb Kohl-type). That's fine enough with me.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

How is he another Lieberman?

I guess because he's not a real Democrat, which still makes it a stretch to assume that he's a troll whose primary focus is to go out of his way to damage the Democratic Party.

King didn't endorse McCain/Palin either.

He endorsed Bush. That's even worse.

What? No it's not. He endorsed Bush in 2000. A lot of the following political alignment and discourse have been products of Bush's first term. Bush's 2000 run among other things trumpeted a 'humble' foreign policy, for instance...

His foreign policy was only one aspect of his platform though. Bush was still very much a social conservative in 2000.

I might be misremembering 2000 (I was very young), but were social issues particularly trenchant at that point?

[Joe Republic]

I might be misremembering 2000 (I was very young), but were social issues particularly trenchant at that point?

Despite Clinton's lingering popularity, both parties wanted to clean the slate after the Lewinsky debacle.  Republicans tried to play the moral high ground as best they could, with 'compassionate conservatism' as GWB's buzzword throughout the campaign.  Meanwhile, the Democrats gave us Joe Lieberman and Tipper Gore.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I might be misremembering 2000 (I was very young), but were social issues particularly trenchant at that point?

Despite Clinton's lingering popularity, both parties wanted to clean the slate after the Lewinsky debacle.  Republicans tried to play the moral high ground as best they could, with 'compassionate conservatism' as GWB's buzzword throughout the campaign.  Meanwhile, the Democrats gave us Joe Lieberman and Tipper Gore.

That's what I thought. I meant it didn't seem like there was a stark division on such matters going on between the campaigns the way there was in 2004.

[Joe Republic]

Indeed, the VP debate between Lieberman and Cheney was seen as more of a luncheon between old friends than a knockout deathmatch.  But then that's pretty much why Lieberman was put on the ticket in the first place.

[Landslide Lyndon]

King just endorsed Obama for reelection so I guess he won't be caucusing with the Republicans anytime soon.

[minionofmidas]

How is he another Lieberman?

I guess because he's not a real Democrat, which still makes it a stretch to assume that he's a troll whose primary focus is to go out of his way to damage the Democratic Party.

King didn't endorse McCain/Palin either.

He endorsed Bush. That's even worse.

What? No it's not. He endorsed Bush in 2000. A lot of the following political alignment and discourse have been products of Bush's first term. Bush's 2000 run among other things trumpeted a 'humble' foreign policy, for instance...

His foreign policy was only one aspect of his platform though. Bush was still very much a social conservative in 2000.

I might be misremembering 2000 (I was very young), but were social issues particularly trenchant at that point?

They were. Though the main "social issue" was gun control.

[Oakvale]

Bush in 2000 ran on a fairly sane platform, actually, and if he'd governed halfway competently as the candidate he ran as he might have been an okay President.

Bush even criticised some Republicans for wanting to "balance the budget on the backs of the poor". Can you imagine one of the current candidates saying something like that without getting booted out of the party for being a Marxist RINO?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I prefer a real independent over a "moderate Republican".

[smoltchanov]

I prefer a real independent over a "moderate Republican".

"Independent" is not ideological category, "moderate" - is. It's absolutely impossible to compatre them - that would be something like comparing scissors and apples.

[minionofmidas]

I prefer a real independent over a "moderate Republican".

"Independent" is not ideological category, "moderate" - is. It's absolutely impossible to compatre them - that would be something like comparing scissors and apples.

Ever tried trimming your toe nails with an apple?