I gave you a rate, but I wanted to point out that (a) what we have isn't a free market and (b) damn few lobbyists or their clients really want a free market, despite their lip-service. Judging by the things they push for, what want is a market freer for them and less free for their employees, customers, and competitors.
Most people loudly extolling the virtues of a free market would probably starve in a real one.
Democratic gubernatorial candidates Deval Patrick of Massachusetts and Bill Ritter of Colorado appear to be pulling away these days, with Patrick in particular potentially taking his race completely off of the table (a la Eliot Spitzer in New York).
I'd be delighted if Patrick's campaign managed that, but I'd also be surprised. Granted, the last poll I saw had him way out ahead, but that was right after a very solid win in the primary. I doubt very much that he'll keep that lead.
Failing a major blunder, I'm pretty sure he'll win -- his Repub opponent is running an uninspired campaign in a state that's pretty fed up with its current Repub Gov -- but I don't think it'll be a blowout.
I had the great pleasure of voting for Deval Patrick in the primary this morning, and I hope that I can vote for him again in November. He has a solid lead in recent primary polls and last I saw has a fair lead against the Repub candidate.
(The Repub candidate is kinda ho-hum, and is saddled with the legacy of being Lt. Gov. to Mass Gov. Romney. Romney -- on top of being a not-very-good governor -- has spent the past couple of years travelling around the country bashing his own state, in the deluded impression that he's got a shot at the Presidency.)
Remember: a "composite" is an artificial material invented to serve a function that other materials can't. Somebody -- like a real journalist, if one can be found -- might want to ask Kean what function his "composite" serves that he doesn't think the truth is suitable for.
Have some staffer make an official statement, then ignore it. If a reporter asks Lamont directly, all he needs to say is, "I don't know anything about why the Lieberman website had problems, it had nothing to do with our people -- who incidently offered to help the Lieberman folks with their problem. Do you have any questions for about real issues?"
There's nothing wrong with Richard Goodstein visiting CT to help Lieberman's campaign. But the fact that he's a DC lobbyist does make his participation in this little confrontation rather ... symbolic. Good for a laugh at the Lieberman campaign's expense, if nothing else.
I've been meaning to say this for some time, but you're off the mark if you think Colbert, Stewart and Olbermann are part of the triangle. They are anti-authority.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Dems aren't angels, they just look so in comparison to the current Repubs in charge. If the Dems get back in power (gods, please hear my prayers) some of them will no doubt do things that are well worth mocking, and I hope that Jon Stewart et al give them shit. I'm not at all interested in trading IOKIYAR for IOKIYAD.
Singer: Aside from what we've talked about, or perhaps including it, could you name one fireable offense that Senator Lieberman has committed?
I've recently added a new entry to my list of memes to fight, and you've just triggered my mini-rant on the topic.
You don't need to find a "fireable offense". It's not a choice between firing him and keeping him. It'a a choice between hiring him again and hiring someone else.
Every election, we as voters hire someone for each office for a particular period of time. Near the end of that period we decide who we want for the next period. Maybe it's the same person as last time, maybe not.
Aside from recall elections, there's no such thing as "voting somebody out". It's not "their seat", it's our seat, and every election we get to choose anew who we want in it.
The distinction may seem subtle, but it's also important. There's a sense of entitlement that most incumbents seem to have that goes beyond experience and seniority to an assumption that they should be able to stay in that seat indefinitely, unless they screw up really badly. Wrong. Every two or four or however many years, we get to decide who we think would be the best person for the job.
Even if Lieberman was a good senator from CT -- which is obviously debateable -- it would be absolutely reasonable for CT voters to pick someone they think will be better. Whether or not Lieberman has committed a "fireable offense" is irrelevant. The question before CT voters is whether or not Ned Lamont will be a better candidate in November and -- most importantly -- a better senator.