Unbelievable. King is a disgrace.

Will Lieberman disavow the comments of his supporter Peter King? Does he think the voters of Connecticut are bigots? Will the media respond to King's assault on Democrats and the democratic process?

I and every other Democrat - Connecticut native or otherwise - should demand Lieberman to denounce Peter King for calling Connecticut Democrats bigots. There's no place in politics for this brand of attack and Lieberman should not condone King and his sentiments by refusing to denounce this slur.

Well, here's the big news, Dave:  Charlie Cook has updated his list and now considers your race competitive ("Likely Republican" but one of the top 55 pickup opportunities for Democrats).

The more King shoots off his mouth, the more likely he'll be to pull defeat out of the jaws of victory like Holy Joe.

  I don't know the in and outs of politics. I'm as informed as I could reasonably be, while growing considerably more concerned. I don't write unless it's creative or I feel I must. I'm not sure about the risk-ratio in politics. I'm imagining a concept in politics that may go, "always make sure the desired possible outcome(s) outweigh the risk(s), risk little to achieve the desired outcome when possible, and use Common Sense." While that may be totally wrong  terminology, the difficulty seems to be the fact that the risk is now greater than it has been, the uncertainty of  the risk being "worth taking" due to poor information-gathering strategies and dispersal, and fear. I believe that what is at stake now is grossly underestimated. The America I love and need is facing extreme difficulties, because my party lacked the courage and unity to prevent the crisis's we've been facing when the opportunity presented itself. As a result, it will take many more times that now.
      The extreme rhetoric propagated by the far-right in the media goes on ignored and condoned. What needs to be recognized are the true origins of the rhetoric. To give you an example of allowing lawlessness from the preceding paragraph: a senator said once that the Democrats were denied participation in certain meetings of the dominating party. What prevented Democrats from demanding their constitutionally required participation by walking into the room and sitting down with conviction? If you watch the link below, remember  the Americans (like my grandfather) who already made sacrifices so we could be free of  influences now present, the discrimination allowed by "Faith-Based Initiatives," (answer to the Extreme- Right's claim that secularism/liberalism is itself a religion, "the Constitution is not a religion, it's our government."), and the point I already made about it being in the media unchallenged.
     Finally, I have two more suggestions: 1). Respect the Office of the President. By this, I mean as supporters of the Constitution, you focus on issues of intense debate rather than throw in red herrings of personal attacks (which you can do again after you win). You can't afford to change your own subject(s). Also, respecting the office of the President is respecting the Constitution, which they have been attempting to alter. 2). Know that the general religious base of the G.O.P. is very sensitive. Call them on their actions, never be indirect by using name-calling. Consequently, personal criticism of their beliefs rallies and strengthens them. They frame everything as attacks on their religious freedom, which they define as their "religious-right" to change everyone else's beliefs and be punitive when they don't. When they falsely redefined secularism as a religion, they were already plotting to do so for at least two decades. This overall phenomenon I speak of can only be witnessed by seeing them in a group. Individually it is more challenging to witness. To quote Martin Luther King, "A lie cannot live."    

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info /article3281.htm,      

Lies that can't live