Chris At Home

Allah has videos of Lieberman and Kerry's opinions of each other. The interesting part is the Lieberman is the 'defacto' Republican candidate with 80% of Republicans saying he deserves to be reelected vs 32$ of Democrates. He just hired a campaign consultant who has worked previously only for Republicans.

I support Lieberman because I think he is serious on the war, while Lamont is just a rich talking head. Given the trends in the campaign, we just might see Lieberman cooperating with Republican caucus after he winds the election. He will owe his seat to Republican voters, a Republican pollster, and Republican donations. The last time I checked, only 7 Democrats in national offices supported his campaign. He may not officially change his party affiliation, but he could be a DINO (Democrat In Name Only).

And Kerry is helping. He called Lieberman out of step with Connecticut, said he sounded like VP Cheney, and that his proposals were Republican. Way to go John!

Update: Pinketon at TCS Daily says AIDS is pushing the world towards convervatism and relgion as backlash against liberal values, secularism and neo-colonial attitudes of AIDS activists:

Melinda Gates, for example, attacked politicians who insist on attaching "stigma" to "sex workers" -- that being the politically correct term for prostitutes. Such stigma is "irrational," said the wife of the computer-software mogul, because "people who are involved in sex work are crucial allies in the fight to end AIDS." My guess is that it would be hard to get elected governor of the state of Washington on such a platform, let alone governor of Waziristan or Wake Island.

Then, still bathing in audience approbation, she continued, "Stigma makes it easier for political leaders to stand in the way of saving lives." Now let's stop right there for a second. Ms. Gates just said that political leaders in various countries are willing to see their own people die rather than wave away the stigma of the sex trade. So let's ask ourselves: Even if that accusation is true -- and it might be -- how will such words be received in Third World countries? Will a rich white woman be an effective voice for social transformation in, say, India? Or in Nigeria? Or Indonesia? Will leaders in these countries slap their foreheads, and say, "I'm wrong! Mrs. Gates is right! I'll change my hoary attitudes on whoredom!" Is that the way human nature works? Is that the way politicians think?

Peter Piot, the head of UNAIDS, waded even further into rhetorical neocolonialism. He told the same crowd that one "leg" of the anti-AIDS effort is "investments in prevention." But another "leg," he added, to rising applause, is "social change," addressing "gender inequality" and, of course, "homophobia." One can only wonder how those words played outside of Toronto, outside of Canada.

Note the quote on Hinduism as a "dirty religion" that "must be confronted." It always seems to me that the Left's self-proclaimed tolerance is tolerance only for ideas that they agree with. They want to change the world to their image, not allow other cultures to believe what they wish.