Aside from the Republican national convention, they are about the only groups who will still have him Certainly there are not many venues in Conneticut that will still give him a welcome.

And, once electin day is past, they will not bother with this year's "Zell Miller" either.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/22/obama-far-more-popular-am_n_114182.html

(or signature)

Among the most high-profile Jews in Congress, Lieberman is viewed far more unfavorably than the presumptive Democratic nominee, according to a new poll. Only 37 percent of Jews view the Connecticut Independent in a favorable light compared to 48 percent who have a negative perception. As for Obama, 60 percent of Jews view him favorably while 34 percent view him unfavorably.

Did anyone see TPM this morning? It seems that Obama has higher approval ratings among Jewish people than even Lieberman. Go figure!!

Obama is more popular with Jews than Lieberman. Not THAT shocking really...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/22/obama-far-more-popular-am_n_114182.html

"that Jews believed that their spit contains magic healing powers and thus ran around rubbing it in the eyes of blind people in order to heal them"

The spit does NOT contain magic healing properties? Christ. I am going to have to have a word with human resources regarding the behaviour of my boss then....

The J Street survey can be downloaded here:

http://www.jstreet.org/page/media-advisory-new-survey-american-jewish-community

I realize that the reference to Joe Lieberman as a "centrist" is meant as tongue-in-cheek, but I have to go back to Lakoff's use of Lieberman in his brilliant exposition of why there is no such thing as a "center" in American politics. He offers us Joe Lieberman and Chuck Hagel as the current media poster children for the political center and then points out how Lieberman is progressive on social issues and conservative on the war. Conversely, Hagel is progressive on the war and conservative on social issues. These two agree on nothing, yet both occupy the "center". That center is a complete myth. Individuals can have progressive views on some issues and conservative views on others, but there simply is no center for them to occupy.

is Mel Brooks also attending?

They can push the idea that Lieberman is reasonable and serious all they want, just like they can say that Bush is an easy going, down to earth guy.

As the polls in Connecticut show, the public's not buying it anymore.

Lieberman is fast eclipsing a long list of other politicians in my pantheon of hatred. He's a disgrace to humanity. Joe, just so you know, neocons like you are one of the main the reasons I no longer identify as a Jew. Good going.

Joe, just so you know, neocons like you are one of the main the reasons I no longer identify as a Jew.

That makes me sad. Just like it makes me sad to think that Hagee could define Christianity.

I bothers me in the same way that faux patriots have coopted the flag, so I feel that I am sending a message of support of Bush and the war when I want to fly one at home.

Look, if Joe "kill anyone near Israel" Lieberman is a centrist then I am dang sure getting out of the middle!

Lieberman is as near the crazy McCain as anyone in government as to foreign policy.

Joe, just so you know, neocons like you are one of the main the reasons I no longer identify as a Jew.

Strategic mistake, IMO.

because the undistructable quality of jewish humor is - you can laugh, when it really hurts.

Please, Mona, that's all right. "Libertarianism" will do that to you. I understand. The most important thing is that no, nada, none and zero media time which could be turning a profit should ever be turned towards informing the public at, horrors! our taxpaying expense. (oh, did someone note that advocates will produce the segments or messages at their own expense?

Anyway, you were right, I was wrong. We can count on commercial broadcasting to give our kids (and the adults in loco parentis over them) the information they need:

See:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/22/business/media/22sava.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Headline:Savage Stands by Autism Remarks

Michael Savage, the incendiary radio host who last week characterized nearly every child with autism as “a brat who hasn’t been told to cut the act out,” said in a telephone interview on Monday that he stood by his remarks and had no intention of apologizing to those advocates and parents who have called for his firing over the matter.

Skip to next paragraph “My main point remains true,” Mr. Savage, whose radio audience ranks in size behind only those of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, said in the interview. “It is an overdiagnosed medical condition. In my readings, there is no definitive medical diagnosis for autism.”

On the July 16 installment of his program, which is broadcast every weekday, Mr. Savage suggested that “99 percent of the cases” of autism were a result of lax parenting. He told his audience: “They don’t have a father around to tell them, ‘Don’t act like a moron. You’ll get nowhere in life.’ ” Among the other admonitions he felt children with autism should be hearing, he said, were: “ ‘Straighten up. Act like a man. Don’t sit there crying and screaming, idiot....’

Thank God that St. Ronnie got rid of that awful Fair Play, or Paid Time, or whatever it was.

Sorry for the OT, but I'm still rankled over that one. And when I'm rankled, I don't gruntle that easy.

DINOs like Joe LIE-berman are beyond contempt. By posing as Democrats they give their constituents a Hobson's choice of an R Republican or a D Republican. Thus is democracy thwarted in a manner that approaches treason.

When you think about it it's a lot more cost effective for the Republicans to run a stealth candidate in a Democratic primary than to run against a real Dem in the general - when the general comes around they don't really have to spend very much on either campaign, since a Republican will win anyway. That frees up money to fight in another district where there is a real Democrat in opposition. Besides, one side of the general battle is going to be financed primarily by gormless Democratic supporters who have no idea they're being duped.

Not all DINOs are of this blatant 'wolves in sheeps clothing' variety. Many start off as relatively principled liberals and become co-opted by the twin evils of campaign financing and lobbying conducted by the same corporate entities that finance the campaigns. In most countries what passes as legal in the US would be criminal influence peddling. Perhaps the best way to combat this would be to enact a law that says, "you may lobby, or you may contribute to political campaigns, but not both." Penalties for infractions should be substantial.

This situation will not correct itself in one election cycle. It may take generations, if it can ever be accomplished. There is a catch-22 in force here. In order for the necessary reforms to be enacted, you would need a much better set of legislators. You're not going to get such legislators until after the reforms come into effect. Sad, but true.