Gee, does it _have_ to “um” only ?

“The relations with, uhh — Europe are important relations, and they’ve, uhh — because, we do share values. And, they’re universal values, they’re not American values or, you know — European values, they’re universal values. And those values — uhh — being universal, ought to be applied everywhere.” —George W. Bush, at a press conference with European Union dignitaries, Washington, D.C., June 20, 2005

“Because the — all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There’s a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those — changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be — or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It’s kind of muddled. Look, there’s a series of things that cause the — like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate — the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those — if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.” —George W. Bush, explaining his plan to save Social Security, Tampa, Fla., Feb. 4, 2005

“And one of the things we’ve got to make sure that we do is anything.” —George W. Bush, discussing the Middle East after meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Washington, D.C., May 7, 2002

The attacks on Joe have not been personal for the most part, though I’m sure you can use the O’Reilly tactic of going through blog comments and think you have disproven that statement. Joe has been attacked mostly for his stance on the issues. That’s politics. In the debate last night it was Joe who engaged in personal attacks.

“I [Ned Lamont] do find that Senator Lieberman too often is willing to undermine the Democrats, be it on issues of war and peace like the war in Iraq, or be it on a variety of other issues. Be it um… you know, social security, be it affirmative action, be it vouchers.”

What kind of real politician says “um?” Not only that, the last time I checked, Leiberman was against Bush’s SS plan and for affirmative action. So, what is Ned talking about? All of his major talking points are for the war, as it is his only real issue. He has no hope.

Bush’s two most eloquent supporters for Iraq? A senate democrat and the the leader of Britain’s labor party. What drives the left so crazy is that joe’s argument for Iraq is well spoken and reasonable-it migth contaminate otherwise ‘pure’ minds. The english language has often failed ‘w’, but never joe.