I’ve made my decision, and it way not easy to come by. I think I’m willing to give Lamont a chance to prove himself. While I appreciate Joe’s willingness to cross party lines for some issues, I know that he certainly doesn’t cross them for every issue. And many of his “crossings” have to do with the Gang of 14 group in the Senate – the people who won’t filibuster the President’s political appointees, and (for the Republicans) won’t vote to use the so-called “nuclear option.” That’s great in some cases, but I’m not sure how many crossing he does to actually write bills.

So, I’m willing to give Lamont a chance. I’m still a little indecisive on the 2nd District House race. Simmons hasn’t done much to piss me off, so my leaning is still toward him. As for Governor, no question there: Rell gets my vote. I like the reforms she’s enacted since taking office. No, she doesn’t support gay marriage, but honestly, how many Democrats do you think really support gay marriage? I’m guessing that, while there are some (like Lamont, apparently), I’m guessing that many do not. There’s also the question of what Rell knew about Rowland’s dealings, but until evidence comes out to say she did something wrong, I’ll presume her innocent.

Back to Lamont…as of October 20th, the latest Quinnipiac poll, Lieberman is leading Lamont by 17 points. That’s huge! They still have the majority of Democrats voting for him, but Independents and Republicans are for Lieberman, according to the poll. I think that this is because Lamont hasn’t been doing enough to appeal to the moderates. He did great in rallying the core Democrats on the issue of Iraq, and that’s part of what won him the primary. However, since then, I feel he’s kind of been staying on the same track instead of adding to his scope in order to reign in more people. His method of campaigning so far appears to consist of attacking Lieberman on his closeness to President Bush, Lieberman’s attendance record, how great a teacher he was, and of course, Iraq. Well, that’s great if all the people you want voting for you are Democrats. But, that won’t convince some of the moderates, and definitely not the hardcore Republicans.

Instead, I think Lamont should be using all the commercials he’s been putting out to discuss his position in other areas. Two particular ones he seems to care about the most (besides Iraq) is healthcare and renewable energy. He’s always talking about how he drives his Toyota Prius (I think) around everywhere, so he should use his commercials to talk green energy. He could use them to briefly present his ideas on healthcare. Should he also talk about the record on voting for the issue in Washington? Sure, but link it to something else than just Iraq. Not everybody shares the same view, and just because it’s the hottest issue right now doesn’t mean it’s going to help you. Personally, I think people are starting to get sick of hearing politicians talk about Iraq (gods knows that Chris Murphy and Nancy Johnson have never touched on Iraq, they’re too busy with taxes).

Lamont has a lot of work to do if he wants to win that seat on November 7th. As time goes on, his chances of getting it become slimmer. Could things go down differently on the day? Sure could, but the numbers seem to show what’s going to happen. Mr. Lamont, if you want to win, you MUST appeal to the moderates. I know I had a hard enough time deciding on who to support, and while I’m willing to give the chance, many others may not be so nice.

Here it goes…he’s on. All of this is paraphrased, by the way. My comments in parenthesis.

11:01AM – “Will you work with Iran and Syria if it will help the job get done?” (Didn’t really answer the question, but)…They need to understand they cannot interfere with progress.

(Honestly, I have better things to do, and I’m not hearing much, except that we _need_ to pressure Iraq to get things done, and we’ll _consider_ anything that will help us win. So, time to take a shower.)

10:57AM – Q&A#2 – Timetables don’t work. (Come on, SOMEBODY needs a timetable. If you give Iraq all the time in the world, the “job” will never be done).

10:51AM – Q&A#1 – Terrorists hate freedom, we can’t cut and run (again), and yes, we are winning.

10:49AM – Q&A#1 – If we “cut and run,” we lose.

10:47AM – We have to deal with the struggles ahead…blah…blah.

10:45AM – If we don’t defeat the terrorists, we’re all dead (maybe slightly exaggerated here). If I thought we were going to lose, I’d bring the troops home tomorrow.

10:42AM – The experts are offering their advice on the course we should take, and my administration will take into consideration everything suggested.

10:39AM – Not only are we using military methods, we’re using diplomatic ones as well. We’re working with the Iraqi government and surrounding nations in order to stop sectarian violence.

10:37AM – Goal is the same, but methods adapt. The commanders on the ground have adapted to on-the-ground conditions.

10:34AM – We’ve made progress in Iraq, and today I’ll tell you how we’re adapting.

I’ve got it! In my entry from the other day about Chris Shays’ comments about the Foley scandal, I tried coming up with a political catchphrase for the right to use to counter the one oft-used by the left: “When Clinton lied, nobody died…”. I wasn’t able to think of one then, but I think I’ve got one now.

According to something said supposedly said by Foley’s lawyer, Foley had made his emails whilst intoxicated. Well, combining this factoid with the subject behind Shays’ comments, Ted Kennedy’s involvement in the Chappaquiddick incident, and for allegedly having also been intoxicated during that shocking turn of events, here’s my catchphrase. It even rhymes!

At least when Foley was drunk, nobody sunk.

There you go, Republicans, you have a catchphrase now, that sounds just about as stupid as the one by the left. Please be sure to credit me whenever you use it…on the other hand, never mind. This entry will probably already get taken out of context by somebody who thinks I’m actually apologizing for Mark Foley. In any case, you probably don’t want to use it, at least not right now. You can’t really afford to do anything more to hurt your chances of keeping control in Congress.

It would appear that North Korea isn’t bluffing, and that they have indeed tested a nuclear bomb. This is sad news for the world, that yet another regime has a nuke, not to mention yet another autocratic, care-nothing-for-its-population regime. So, what are the options?

I think the current viable option, at least for the people who’s opinions matter, is continuing the multi-lateral talks that have been going on and off for some time now. NK wanted bi-lateral talks with us, but it seemed that Bush did something right for once, and insisted on including everybody.

The second, and an option possibly being planned, from what I’ve been reading, is some kind of military action. Not a full blown invasion such as in Iraq, but some kind of semi-blockade. Ships from NK would be checked to make sure they aren’t carrying nukes. That would make sense, and would probably garner a lot of support from the international community if NK keeps blowing people off. Also, if things get bad, we could go for the full military invasion, but I don’t think anyone should expect the US to provide all the troops. We’re already spread far too thin, and the Republicans don’t have a hope in hell of getting the Presidency in 2008 if they institute a draft. So, while we could provide SOME troops for such an action, I think a wide multi-lateral force would have to go in effect for it to be viable. I expect we might get more support for it, if things come to that, since we’d be going into a country we KNOW has WMDs.

Then there are sanctions, which I can see being imposed. Well, these will probably do absolute crap, anyway. We might be able to shut down the government, but that’s about it. The people are already starving, anyway, so it’s not like we can threaten the starvation of the population, since it’s already happening.

The fact that NK’s closest ally, China, is expressing reservations about all of this, says a lot. I think China is today’s Soviet Union. I think it wants to be the big Communist leader, with its little brother North Korea following along, rather than it growing taller than big China. China might be Communist (or…one-party capitalist), but they’re not stupid. The last thing is needs is someone else becoming a threat to its power. It already is surrounded by people it doesn’t necessarily like, all who either are nuclear, or have friends that are. Russia, India, Pakistan, Japan, and it goes on. It doesn’t need someone else with that power, particularly when its leader would probably like nothing more than to supplant China as the Communist leader.

That’s my take on it.

I advocate waiting to see if they’re just blowing smoke (they’ve done it before) to try and get everyone tense. All the same, a successfully nuclear NK is the last thing the world needs at the moment.