Since Mehlman is appointed, and most Republicans seem to think he is doing a pretty good job, especially as the voice of the party, it's hard to imagine how Dean thinks he can take him "down."

Perhaps he believes a big Democratic victory could cost Mehlman his job. The problem with that is there isn't going to be a big Democratic victory. I suspect they will gain a few seats in the House, and maybe one or even two in the Senate.

The historical average for a President's second midterm is something like 53 House seats lost for his party and seven Senate seats gone. This will be nothing of the sort.

But yessireebob, the moonbats are emboldened. Why wouldn't they be? The Kos Kids "list" is now 2-21, with both wins coming this primary season. Of course, they are still 0-fer in general elections but, you know: baby steps first.

Yeah, if left activists on the blogs wanted a good record, they would support incumbents and build their winning percentage.

It's like saying, "Man, the Cubs don't win, you should be a Yankees fan and then your team will win the World Series more often."

It's not the record that counts, its the idea of supporting strong progressives.

Pat Robertson should give up, because Fidel and Chavez are still alive and he wants them both dead.

Is Mehlman elected or appointed? At least Dean had to win a good old fashioned election to get the chair of the party.

Anyway, you can harp on the phrase "going down", but if you are Bush, an avid Bush supporter (Lieberman), or a mouthpiece for Bush (Mehlman) your likelihood of survival is not good. When your popularity crests at 40%, maybe you should try something other than tax cuts for the rich and stay the course.

Yes, Bush should have at least supported heavier medication for moonbat morons.

I just read this on InstaPundit " so a pro-Bush candidate just got 48% of the vote in a democratic primary." Gotta love that.

Moonbat rhetoric looks like this:

Man, Bush knew about 9/11 and then he blew the towers up to start world war 3 because he believes we have to invade the homeland of jesus and did you know that the nsa is recording your calls and everyone who hates bush is flagged and why dont we just shut down every corporation and give workers all the money and stop cutting down trees and start slashing tires on SUVs so people cant drive them and Fidel is doing such a great job and we need to accept that all this terrorism is our fault and stop giving money to Israel and just support slave reparations, etc. etc.

That is a moonbat rant. It has no basis in reality, it is angry and fearful. I believe none of those ideas, and so when I post on here and you call me a moonbat, you use the wrong word. Feel free to argue with my reasoning, or offer a different opinion, but I am not some disconnected psycho--I read about a half dozen news outlets everyday, I know more about history than 90% of people my age, and I am interested in reality and how it works.

Kimyl,

Do you ever read the stuff you post here? It's pretty much the same as your moonbat sample paragraph.

Maybe in few years when you're in highschool your horizons will be expanded and you'll realize that "reality based" you are not at this time.

KimmyOh, you write the most ridiculous things. Sen. Lieberman has been a senator for 18 years. Voted for the first Gulf War, Regime change in Iraq in 1998, (which former President Clinton signed into law), and has always been strong on National Defense. President Bush and Sen. Lieberman agree on fighting the Global War on Terror but little else. In fact, Sen. Lieberman has one of the most liberal voting records in the senate. To write that Sen. Lieberman is an "avid supporter" of President Bush is just plain moronic.

I see, so anyone to the left of Lieberman is a moonbat. I thought that term was reserved for the real whackos who don't deserve to be addressed because the ideas they support are grounded in fantasy(i.e. Bush planned 9/11) or so simplistic as to be laughable (trees are more important than people). Now I know, if you are a secular market socialist, you are just as bad as a militant communist on LSD.

If you cannot differentiate between a deranged, conspiracy-minded, kneejerk anti-conservative wingnut and someone who has ideas different from yours, your opinion matters very little.

As for CT; hey, votes matter, I wont argue with that, but public perception matters as well and Lieberman has helped the President, on numerous occasions, to provide cover for his policies. If you look at the handful of times he has attacked Bush, it was in 04 when he ran in the primary, and this summer when running again. For the 60-70% of CT citizens who oppose the Bush agenda, that is lip service, and would qualify as avid support.

Good Lord KO, the primary was only 3 days ago and a little over 48% of the Democrats voted for Sen. Lieberman. How Lamont's 51%+ becomes 60-70% is a typo or wishful thinking.
If you will narrow Sen. Lieberman's "avid support" to his premise that Iraq is the central front in the Global War on Terror, (the jist of his WSJ article that supposedly forced Lamont into the race), then you are correct in writing so. Otherwise, you're fooling yourself....Again.