I left the end of the title blank because I don't want to be accused of flaming the individual in question. But I had to address a VERY hyperbolic statement by one of our JU regulars. This individual wrote, in response to one of my blogs:

Your apparent fixation with Soros is making me start to question your sensibilities. It seems lately every post you make has something to do with Soros. I gather you just got done reading that "Shadow Party" book?

My "fixation" with Soros has been largely limited to TWO articles, both on the Connecticut Senatorial race, in which Soros has a hand. In fact, of the last 20 articles I have written, those have been the only two where Soro's name has entered the picture (ok, make this article three). Two articles out of twenty constitutes a "fixation"? I think the word needs to be redefined if we define inclusion in 10% of one's content to be a "fixation".

I am simply presenting the facts as they appear. I DO believe in following the money trail, and Soros' investment in Ned Lamont's campaign is as relevant, at least, as Enron's involvement in George W. Bush's first presidential campaign. More so, in fact, because, you see, Enron's name showed up on Bush's campaign finance report; Soros' name shows up by proxy through such organizations as moveon.org. By hiding behind the "527's", Soros doesn't show up immediately unless diligent observers point out his involvement.

But go ahead and call it a fixation. The more easily your lies are discredited, the more quickly your entire position appears suspect.