NationStates Jolt Archive

"I hesitate to say anything nice about him, for fear that it would be used against him. And that’s a terrible commentary on the state of politics and the political climate today." - SENATOR JOHN McCAIN, Republican of Arizona, on Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut.

What about this quote? To me it speaks volumes about the quality of Senator McCain's character, but then I like him. What do you think?


For the purists among you, here's the full quote and a link:

Senator John McCain (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/16/washington/16lieberman.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin), Republican of Arizona and one of Mr. Lieberman’s closest friends in the Senate, called him “one of the most decent men I have ever known” and simply shook his head when asked about his friend’s situation. “I hesitate to say anything nice about him, for fear that it would be used against him,” Mr. McCain said. “And that’s a terrible commentary on the state of politics and the political climate today.”


Senator Liberman appears to be in the political fight of his life in his bid for re-election, and is under massive assault from the far-left wing of his own party.

Here's a wild thought: what about an independent party with either McCain or Liberman at the top of the ticket? Hmmm? :)

McCain has done alot more that says alot about McCain's character, which is why I don't like him.

McCain has done alot more that says alot about McCain's character, which is why I don't like him.
Well, like my own views, yours are pretty well-known on here. :)

"I hesitate to say anything nice about him, for fear that it would be used against him. And that’s a terrible commentary on the state of politics and the political climate today." - SENATOR JOHN McCAIN, Republican of Arizona, on Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut.

What about this quote? To me it speaks volumes about the quality of Senator McCain's character, but then I like him. What do you think?

I have recently lost all respect for John McCain and most so called Republicans lately.

I have recently lost all respect for John McCain and most so called Republicans lately.
Agreed. There's only a handful of sitting politicians that I'd even consider voting for.

What caused your break with them? For me it was three things, spending like Democrats, inaction on immigration, support for the State's Rights Suppression Act, also known as the Voting Rights Act extension.

Well, like my own views, yours are pretty well-known on here. :)
Well if I see McCain for what he really is, it's not my fault.

Agreed. There's only a handful of sitting politicians that I'd even consider voting for.

What caused your break with them? For me it was three things, spending like Democrats, inaction on immigration, support for the State's Rights Suppression Act, also known as the Voting Rights Act extension.

The first two are what did it for me. I re-registered as an Independant and sent the RNC a letter with my old voter registration card attached.

Well if I see McCain for what he really is, it's not my fault.
Oooo! Nasty! Tsk! :p

The first two are what did it for me. I re-registered as an Independant and sent the RNC a letter with my old voter registration card attached.
So, would you support an independent party? Who would you want to see on the ticket?

Lieberman is a douche.

Agreed. There's only a handful of sitting politicians that I'd even consider voting for.

What caused your break with them? For me it was three things, spending like Democrats, inaction on immigration, support for the State's Rights Suppression Act, also known as the Voting Rights Act extension.


Oh. c'mon. Those Republicans are standup guys who alwys fight for their base. That's why it is only during this election year they finally concentrate on all the really, really important things - like abortions, gays, and flag burnings!

Of course, even with control of the house, senate, and oval office they can't actually PASS anything on these issues.

You can just decide if they are simply incompetent.... or if they understand that passing them would remove the only thing they have left to motivate their base...... the promise to apply new moral legislation to cure all the evils in the land.

Lieberman should just join the Republican party. I can't believe that if he loses the primary that he's decided to run as an independent but stay a member of the Democratic party.

We don't want you, Joe, you Cheney-kissing buttmunch!

Lieberman is a douche.
Aaand ... your reasons for saying so?

Lieberman should just join the Republican party. I can't believe that if he loses the primary that he's decided to run as an independent but stay a member of the Democratic party.

We don't want you, Joe, you Cheney-kissing buttmunch!
All or nothing, eh? Not very political of you.

So, would you support an independent party? Who would you want to see on the ticket?

Damn straight. I'm tired of professional politicians who are more interested in getting re-elected than doing what we the people sent them to Washington to do. Who do I want to see on an Independant ticket? I'm looking and haven't decided yet. Hell I might even vote Libetarian, I just don't know. I'd even consider voting for Lieberman, but I doubt he will run for president.

Damn straight. I'm tired of professional politicians who are more interested in getting re-elected than doing what we the people sent them to Washington to do. Who do I want to see on an Independant ticket? I'm looking and haven't decided yet. Hell I might even vote Libetarian, I just don't know. I'd even consider voting for Lieberman, but I doubt he will run for president.
I was a "yellow dog" Libertarian until the election following the attacks of 9/11. I voted for GWB because he had the only solid plan that even had a chance to deter terrorism in the United States. [Yes, liberals, I believe that Islamist terrorists are a greater threat to our freedom than GWB.] Depending on who the nominees are for any party, I might slide back into that pattern.

You know what I love? The fact that people across the country, and really, around the world, seem to think that they know what the people from Connecticut want. No, I don't support the war. But that is hardly the only thing that Lieberman has done for us.
Actually, the biggest problem I have is that people, esp. Ned Lamont, are saying that Lieberman isn't loyal to the democrats, and Lamont states that he will stay loyal to the party. Well, you know what? I don't want someone who is loyal to a party. I want someone who is loyal to the state that they represent. No, Lieberman hasn't voted the "democrat" stance on alot of bills these past eighteen years. And that is exactly the reason he will keep my vote. Lamonts one stance is that he doesn't like the war, and that he will be loyal to the party. That isn't enough to get my vote.

[/rant]

Lieberman should just join the Republican party. I can't believe that if he loses the primary that he's decided to run as an independent but stay a member of the Democratic party.

We don't want you, Joe, you Cheney-kissing buttmunch!
are you from CT?

Aaand ... your reasons for saying so?

He's anti-gaming. Which makes him the devil.

are you from CT?
Being out of the district has never made Europeans or Canadians shy about telling us how to govern ourselves. Why should Connecticut be any difference?

He's anti-gaming. Which makes him the devil.
To my knowledge, he's really only for enforcing the ratings on the game. What a damn concept.

Being out of the district has never made Europeans or Canadians shy about telling us how to govern ourselves. Why should Connecticut be any difference?
That irritates me aswell. "'We' don't want you" is bullshit if he isn't from Connecticut, as he has no say in what we do or do not want.

Senator Liberman appears to be in the political fight of his life in his bid for re-election, and is under massive assault from the far-left wing of his own party.

Here's a wild thought: what about an independent party with either McCain or Liberman at the top of the ticket? Hmmm? :)

Eut, let's be blunt. Joe Liberman is under attack from the middle of his party. It's simple. If you want to be on the ticket for a party, you don't oppose it's most basic beleifs. If he wants to be a Republican, he can run as one. Until then, he's answerable to Democrats in the primaries, and they will make him answer for his actions. When over 40% of Dems oppose the guy, it's quite difficult to imagine a "Far left" attacking him.

I know, I know, that doesn't jive with the Eutrusca fantasy world in which only the far left dares to oppose the chance for the American government to order things to be blown up and every lefty lives to spit in a soldier's face, but you'll have to deal with that. Just like the Republicans hounded McCain (don't let him fool you, he's no moderate, he just doesn't get along well with the christian coalition) when he stepped out of party line.

Joe Liberman is the president's bitch, through and through, and it's up to Democratic voters to make him answer for his actions. This is a clear statement to Democrats that "We the voters" control them and their talking points and not "They the Senators" and that they answer to the voters, and not to the purseholders.

Eut, let's be blunt. Joe Liberman is under attack from the middle of his party. It's simple. If you want to be on the ticket for a party, you don't oppose it's most basic beleifs. If he wants to be a Republican, he can run as one. Until then, he's answerable to Democrats in the primaries, and they will make him answer for his actions. When over 40% of Dems oppose the guy, it's quite difficult to imagine a "Far left" attacking him.

I know, I know, that doesn't jive with the Eutrusca fantasy world in which only the far left dares to oppose the chance for the American government to order things to be blown up and every lefty lives to spit in a soldier's face, but you'll have to deal with that. Just like the Republicans hounded McCain (don't let him fool you, he's no moderate, he just doesn't get along well with the christian coalition) when he stepped out of party line.

Joe Liberman is the president's bitch, through and through, and it's up to Democratic voters to make him answer for his actions. This is a clear statement to Democrats that "We the voters" control them and their talking points and not "They the Senators" and that they answer to the voters, and not to the purseholders.
The problem is, the state overall still strongly supports Lieberman. Lamont hasn't made any of his stances clear to the general public...I only know them because I am friends with one of his interns...and his policies are paper thin and easily torn to shreds. Even if I don't agree with Lieberman, atleast he can make his points clearly, intelligently, and support them.

The problem is, the state overall still strongly supports Lieberman. Lamont hasn't made any of his stances clear to the general public...I only know them because I am friends with one of his interns...and his policies are paper thin and easily torn to shreds. Even if I don't agree with Lieberman, atleast he can make his points clearly, intelligently, and support them.

Its a matter of making Liberman answer for his actions. He can't just run rampant on important core issues. He needs to toe the line, and not just run as a Republican in sheep's clothing. It is my hope that Lamont loses the primary, but that Joe is cowed into adressing issues correctly by a rise in support for a third party candidate.

I don't like Lamont, but at this point I despise Liberman. It's a matter of principal, you don't let the lawmaker tell you what to think, you tell the lawmaker what to think.

Its a matter of making Liberman answer for his actions. He can't just run rampant on important core issues. He needs to toe the line, and not just run as a Republican in sheep's clothing. It is my hope that Lamont loses the primary, but that Joe is cowed into adressing issues correctly by a rise in support for a third party candidate.

I don't like Lamont, but at this point I despise Liberman. It's a matter of principal, you don't let the lawmaker tell you what to think, you tell the lawmaker what to think.
The problem I have with that is that Lieberman is the representative person of Connecticut. His concerns should be for the state of Connecticut first, and maybe the democrats if that happens to work out. Lieberman has never just voted the party line, and he used to be loved for it. Now that there is the war, he is demonized for the same actions.

Even if Lamont were to win the primary, Lieberman would win the general election as an independent, and would still be a democrat in the senate. And despite my disagreements with Lieberman, I still trust him to vote what he thinks is best for the state. I trust Lamont to take a stance that seems decent, but has no strong, or even mediocre, backing.

Mr. Lieberman makes the calm argument that he voted for giving President Bush his unvarnished and unreserved support for Iraq out of concern for national security and terrorism. Yet anyone with any real national security policy experience knows and has made it very clear that Iraq posed no significant threat to the United States and it's neighbors.

It is only since the US invaded Iraq that it has become a breeding ground of terrorism. Once again, anyone with any real knowledge of security issues in the Middle East knows that the nations there do not react well to long term occupation, however benign the intent. Al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations are also not going to let the status quo stand. They are going to react much like the Mujaheddin did to Russian occupation.

So Mr. Lieberman's Foreign Policy and security credentials are pretty well tarnished in my book, and while I admire a sense of independence in elected officials, they still have to justify to me the rationale for their actions. Joe Lieberman simply cannot justify this break with the party with any real credibility.

Unlike many here, I don't think Ned Lamont will win the CT primary, I think Lieberman will win. The power of the incumbency in American politics is just too big a mountain for a political novice like Ned Lamont to climb. Yet, I think this whole thing is good for Lamont and Lieberman both. It's a wake up call to Lieberman (if he has any sense at all, that is), and Lamont will gain some experience in the political process and become a better candidate the next time he runs for something.

John McCain...I would support anyone over that guy. He's been in bed with the Bushies ever since they took him to the woodshed in South Carolina. He is no more a straight talker than Bush himself and would be no better as President.

Its a matter of making Liberman answer for his actions. He can't just run rampant on important core issues. He needs to toe the line, and not just run as a Republican in sheep's clothing. It is my hope that Lamont loses the primary, but that Joe is cowed into adressing issues correctly by a rise in support for a third party candidate.

I don't like Lamont, but at this point I despise Liberman. It's a matter of principal, you don't let the lawmaker tell you what to think, you tell the lawmaker what to think.
So, you are saying that a politician should "toe the party line" before doing what he feels is the right thing to do?

A politician should have, regardless of his party affiliation, a set of beliefs/standards and that is what the people should vote on. Vote for a person for what he believes in and will fight for, not simply because he has a (R) or a (D) after his name.

So, you are saying that a politician should "toe the party line" before doing what he feels is the right thing to do?

A politician should have, regardless of his party affiliation, a set of beliefs/standards and that is what the people should vote on. Vote for a person for what he believes in and will fight for, not simply because he has a (R) or a (D) after his name.\

Yes, I am. I'm saying that if you run on a party's ballot, you need to be prepared to answer to what it's voters want. We call that democracy, you see.

A representative is answerable to his party. If he fails to live up to it's standards, then he will not be elected to his post again.

Joe Liberman is answerable to his party as long as he runs with a (D) beside his name. If he wishes to be free of the Democrats, he needs only to renounce that (D), and he make take whatever stance he wishes. That (D) has been his protection in Connecticut. If he chooses to shuck it away, then he will lose an election. That's called democracy too, because people vote for the ideas they want in their government. The party simply unites people of similar opinion so that they may use their resources together, rather than seperately. If Joe Liberman wants access to those resources, then he needs to recognize that he pays a price for that.

\

Yes, I am. I'm saying that if you run on a party's ballot, you need to be prepared to answer to what it's voters want. We call that democracy, you see.

A representative is answerable to his party. If he fails to live up to it's standards, then he will not be elected to his post again.

Joe Liberman is answerable to his party as long as he runs with a (D) beside his name. If he wishes to be free of the Democrats, he needs only to renounce that (D), and he make take whatever stance he wishes. That (D) has been his protection in Connecticut. If he chooses to shuck it away, then he will lose an election. That's called democracy too, because people vote for the ideas they want in their government. The party simply unites people of similar opinion so that they may use their resources together, rather than seperately. If Joe Liberman wants access to those resources, then he needs to recognize that he pays a price for that.
A representative is not answerable to his party. At least not in the sense you seem to be using. He/she is answerable to his constituants. The people who actually vote him into, or out of, office.

That is what democracy is supposed to be about. The people voting in someone who's policy platform most represents what they want their government to do for them.

I aint going to judge Liberman, as I have not taken the time to lookup what he's all about.

I know I'll probably vote McCain though. Perhaps the only real Republican left. Everyone talks about Condi, she's a fucking rino, Jeb Bush is NOT running and no amount of rumors is going to change that, and Gulliani can pissoff.. he may as well be a democrat!

...SNIP...Joe Liberman is the president's bitch, through and through, and it's up to Democratic voters to make him answer for his actions. This is a clear statement to Democrats that "We the voters" control them and their talking points and not "They the Senators" and that they answer to the voters, and not to the purseholders.

Yes, every Democratic and Republican politician SHOULD be answerable to the voters. Unfortunatly, it doesn't happen that way. It is the party that gives them money to run for office and it is the party that controls them, not the people.

I say good for Joe. I hope he does run as an Independant if he doesn't get the nomination. That way the people of CT will have a real choice.

Its a matter of making Liberman answer for his actions. He can't just run rampant on important core issues. He needs to toe the line, and not just run as a Republican in sheep's clothing.

He needs to toe the line and be answerable to the people, not the party. What the heck are the "core" Democratic issues anyway? Just what has the DNC defined as the core issues for this election?

\

Yes, I am. I'm saying that if you run on a party's ballot, you need to be prepared to answer to what it's voters want. We call that democracy, you see.

A representative is answerable to his party. If he fails to live up to it's standards, then he will not be elected to his post again.

Joe Liberman is answerable to his party as long as he runs with a (D) beside his name. If he wishes to be free of the Democrats, he needs only to renounce that (D), and he make take whatever stance he wishes. That (D) has been his protection in Connecticut. If he chooses to shuck it away, then he will lose an election. That's called democracy too, because people vote for the ideas they want in their government. The party simply unites people of similar opinion so that they may use their resources together, rather than seperately. If Joe Liberman wants access to those resources, then he needs to recognize that he pays a price for that.
actually, running as a democrat seems to be his biggest weakness right now. Repeated polls have shown that Lieberman will win with a significant majority in a three way race, with himself as an independent. CT, sadly, is not as ravingly liberal as people seem to think we are.

Additionally, in the primary, Lieberman is accountable only to Connecticut democrats, and in the election, to the population of Connecticut. Every democrat in the nation outside of CT could loathe him, and it wouldn't matter. Lieberman is accountable to the residents of Connecticut first and foremost.

Mr. Lieberman makes the calm argument that he voted for giving President Bush his unvarnished and unreserved support for Iraq out of concern for national security and terrorism. Yet anyone with any real national security policy experience knows and has made it very clear that Iraq posed no significant threat to the United States and it's neighbors.

It is only since the US invaded Iraq that it has become a breeding ground of terrorism. Once again, anyone with any real knowledge of security issues in the Middle East knows that the nations there do not react well to long term occupation, however benign the intent. Al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations are also not going to let the status quo stand. They are going to react much like the Mujaheddin did to Russian occupation.

So Mr. Lieberman's Foreign Policy and security credentials are pretty well tarnished in my book, and while I admire a sense of independence in elected officials, they still have to justify to me the rationale for their actions. Joe Lieberman simply cannot justify this break with the party with any real credibility.

Unlike many here, I don't think Ned Lamont will win the CT primary, I think Lieberman will win. The power of the incumbency in American politics is just too big a mountain for a political novice like Ned Lamont to climb. Yet, I think this whole thing is good for Lamont and Lieberman both. It's a wake up call to Lieberman (if he has any sense at all, that is), and Lamont will gain some experience in the political process and become a better candidate the next time he runs for something.

John McCain...I would support anyone over that guy. He's been in bed with the Bushies ever since they took him to the woodshed in South Carolina. He is no more a straight talker than Bush himself and would be no better as President.
Iraq is not the only issue important to Connecticut voters, despite what Lamont would have everyone believe.

Yes, every Democratic and Republican politician SHOULD be answerable to the voters. Unfortunatly, it doesn't happen that way. It is the party that gives them money to run for office and it is the party that controls them, not the people.

I say good for Joe. I hope he does run as an Independant if he doesn't get the nomination. That way the people of CT will have a real choice.
And it's the party that influences commitee placements.

It's a shame, that the Democratic party would feel they need to "punish" Lieberman for doing (at least what I believe) what he feels right for his constituants, yet seem to rally around Jefferson.

A representative is not answerable to his party. At least not in the sense you seem to be using. He/she is answerable to his constituants. The people who actually vote him into, or out of, office.

That is what democracy is supposed to be about. The people voting in someone who's policy platform most represents what they want their government to do for them.

A representative is answerable to his voters. Voters form parties to help promote shared ideals. Therefore, a representative IS responsible to the party he is supported by. If they wish to forego that support, they may stand against what that party beleives. They pay a price for that. Liberman needs to decide on one of the two. He needs to either be answerable to his constituency, and therefore his party, or he needs to leave his party and hope that a sizeable portion of his constituency is willing to follow (they aren't).

Sorry, that's why a party system works. That's why a 2 party system forms in any democracy.

actually, running as a democrat seems to be his biggest weakness right now. Repeated polls have shown that Lieberman will win with a significant majority in a three way race, with himself as an independent. CT, sadly, is not as ravingly liberal as people seem to think we are.

Additionally, in the primary, Lieberman is accountable only to Connecticut democrats, and in the election, to the population of Connecticut. Every democrat in the nation outside of CT could loathe him, and it wouldn't matter. Lieberman is accountable to the residents of Connecticut first and foremost.

Lieberman is answerable to the Democratic party. As long as Connecticut democratic party is connected to the DNC it too is answerable to the larger committee. It too may choose to abandon the ideals of the larger party, but it will lose the financial and advertising support that the DNC provides.

But yes, for the moment Lieberman is answerable to his constituents first.

I'd almost rather have a Republican hawk then Lieberman. At least I could trust them to be what they said they were.

I certainly realize that the whole primary has been inflated by dKos to the point of absurdity, but I agree with the fact that Lieberman has to shape up or ship out.

Lieberman is responsible to his constituants first and foremost. Responsible to his party is way down the list.

The DNC can't prevent him from being elected... although they can try to sabotage his campaign.

Politics shouldn't be the election of someone who the party feels is best for the people, it should be the people deciding for themselves who to elect.

"I hesitate to say anything nice about him, for fear that it would be used against him. And that’s a terrible commentary on the state of politics and the political climate today." - SENATOR JOHN McCAIN, Republican of Arizona, on Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut.

What about this quote? To me it speaks volumes about the quality of Senator McCain's character, but then I like him. What do you think?Why does McCain praising someone slightly more conservative than he is speak volumes about his character?

Senator Liberman appears to be in the political fight of his life in his bid for re-election, and is under massive assault from the far-left wing of his own party.
So those who favor a plan for withdrawing from Iraq are now the "far-left wing" of the Democratic Party? Interesting that conservatives and liberals alike label Hillary Clinton as "far-left", yet she has taken a position similar to Lieberman.

I fail to see how favoring a schedule for troop withdrawment and transferring of full power to the new Iraqi government makes one "far-left", or even how labels like "left" or "right" even come into play in an issue like this.

So those who favor a plan for withdrawing from Iraq are now the "far-left wing" of the Democratic Party? Interesting that conservatives and liberals alike label Hillary Clinton as "far-left", yet she has taken a position similar to Lieberman.

I fail to see how favoring a schedule for troop withdrawment and transferring of full power to the new Iraqi government makes one "far-left", or even how labels like "left" or "right" even come into play in an issue like this.
Billary is triangulating. Look it up. There's not a doubt in the world about her character and politics, but she's trying to win an election.

I like McCain, I don't like Lieberman (for reference, I'm politically libertarian but usually vote Green — you figure it out). McCain's done some good things, but Lieberman scares the hell out of me and that's why I broke from my mostly "vote Democrat" friends back in 2000. Lieberman is a liberal's nightmare. When I read that McCain's friends with the guy, I got a dash of "know a man by the company he keeps" frisson.

Looking around my circle of friends, they seem split on McCain but they're all scared of Lieberman, too. Even my candy-apple red mother hates him.

The other night I got a vision of the 2008 Presidential election ticket: Republicans front Frist, Dems front Lieberman. Whoever won that race, I'd be packing up and heading for die Nederlands, Çesky or Mongolia.

Billary is triangulating. Look it up. There's not a doubt in the world about her character and politics, but she's trying to win an election.
Yeah, no shit, Sherlock. I just brought her up to show how ridiculous it is to label someone "far-left" due to his/her support for a schedule of withdrawl from Iraq. Support and opposition to the war comes down to one's status as a Democrat or Republican due to party politics, but when it comes to political orientation, all comparisons between people of different ideological stripes end there. Support for troop withdrawl comes down to one's ideas about this war and how it should be conducted. It's not an inherently "far-left" position to support troop withdrawl and power transferring; indeed, many moderate Democrats support such measures.

Yeah, no shit, Sherlock. I just brought her up to show how ridiculous it is to label someone "far-left" due to his/her support for a schedule of withdrawl from Iraq. Support and opposition to the war comes down to one's status as a Democrat or Republican due to party politics, but when it comes to political orientation, all comparisons between people of different ideological stripes end there. Support for troop withdrawl comes down to one's ideas about this war and how it should be conducted. It's not an inherently "far-left" position to support troop withdrawl and power transferring; indeed, many moderate Democrats support such measures.
Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman do not share the same views on Iraq, no matter what Hillary Clinton has said. She is certainly in the far-left wing and most certainly would support an immediate withdrawal, but she could never say so and win another election.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. Hillary Clinton and Joe Lieberman do not share the same views on Iraq, no matter what Hillary Clinton has said. She is certainly in the far-left wing and most certainly would support an immediate withdrawal, but she could never say so and win another election.
And yet I still fail to see how being far-left wing is a required attribute in order to support troop withdrawl.

A representative is answerable to his voters. Voters form parties to help promote shared ideals. Therefore, a representative IS responsible to the party he is supported by. If they wish to forego that support, they may stand against what that party beleives. They pay a price for that. Liberman needs to decide on one of the two. He needs to either be answerable to his constituency, and therefore his party, or he needs to leave his party and hope that a sizeable portion of his constituency is willing to follow (they aren't).

Sorry, that's why a party system works. That's why a 2 party system forms in any democracy.
Not all voters are in a party, and not all voters vote by party lines, even if registered to said party. His constituency is the State of Connecticut. That includes the republicans, independents, unoffiliateds, greens, communists, etc. that we have in the state. Not just the democrats.

you are also wrong in thinking a sizeable ammount of the state isn't willing to follow him. There have been surveys that show he will win a three way electionA poll by Quinnipiac University showed Lieberman, who is popular among unaffiliated voters and some Republicans, would win by 56 percent in a three-way race with Lamont and Schlesinger. Schlesinger would earn only 8 percent of the vote.
http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-sa-schlesinger3jul05,0,3682916.story?coll=hc-headlines-local

You are also wrong to state that all democracies are two party systems. To demonstrate that, one must only look outside of the US. I point to Canada, the UK, Australia, Israel, and just about any other democracy.

Lieberman is answerable to the Democratic party. As long as Connecticut democratic party is connected to the DNC it too is answerable to the larger committee. It too may choose to abandon the ideals of the larger party, but it will lose the financial and advertising support that the DNC provides.Nope. At best, he would have to answer to the CTDP. If he wins the primary, then he gets the support of the democrat party. Lieberman is a Connecticut senator, and is therefore answerable to his constituents: the residents of the State of Connecticut.

But yes, for the moment Lieberman is answerable to his constituents first. Hardly for the moment. If he ran for president, then he is answerable to the nation. He has shown little interest, and I doubt he would run against his senior, Senator Dodd.

I'd almost rather have a Republican hawk then Lieberman. At least I could trust them to be what they said they were.Lieberman doesn't misrepresent himself. I've spoken with him. I've read his political stances. I've listened to his speeches. And you know what? They line up perfectly with the way he votes. Amazingly, the party system, particularly the two party system, is not black and white. There can, and are, shades of grey.

I like McCain, I don't like Lieberman (for reference, I'm politically libertarian but usually vote Green — you figure it out). McCain's done some good things, but Lieberman scares the hell out of me and that's why I broke from my mostly "vote Democrat" friends back in 2000. Lieberman is a liberal's nightmare. When I read that McCain's friends with the guy, I got a dash of "know a man by the company he keeps" frisson.

Looking around my circle of friends, they seem split on McCain but they're all scared of Lieberman, too. Even my candy-apple red mother hates him.

The other night I got a vision of the 2008 Presidential election ticket: Republicans front Frist, Dems front Lieberman. Whoever won that race, I'd be packing up and heading for die Nederlands, Çesky or Mongolia.You left friends over who they vote for?
And I'd hate to break it to you, but everyone in Washington are "friends"

The other night I got a vision of the 2008 Presidential election ticket: Republicans front Frist, Dems front Lieberman. Whoever won that race, I'd be packing up and heading for die Nederlands, Çesky or Mongolia.
FRIST??? OMFG!!

We're doomed. :(

Not all voters are in a party, and not all voters vote by party lines, even if registered to said party. His constituency is the State of Connecticut. That includes the republicans, independents, unoffiliateds, greens, communists, etc. that we have in the state. Not just the democrats.

you are also wrong in thinking a sizeable ammount of the state isn't willing to follow him. There have been surveys that show he will win a three way election
http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-sa-schlesinger3jul05,0,3682916.story?coll=hc-headlines-local

You are also wrong to state that all democracies are two party systems. To demonstrate that, one must only look outside of the US. I point to Canada, the UK, Australia, Israel, and just about any other democracy.

Nope. At best, he would have to answer to the CTDP. If he wins the primary, then he gets the support of the democrat party. Lieberman is a Connecticut senator, and is therefore answerable to his constituents: the residents of the State of Connecticut.

Hardly for the moment. If he ran for president, then he is answerable to the nation. He has shown little interest, and I doubt he would run against his senior, Senator Dodd.

Lieberman doesn't misrepresent himself. I've spoken with him. I've read his political stances. I've listened to his speeches. And you know what? They line up perfectly with the way he votes. Amazingly, the party system, particularly the two party system, is not black and white. There can, and are, shades of grey.
Exactly. Not all people who support an issue or way of thinking line up a particular way. In many cases, this is a good thing. For the record, however, I would never vote for Lieberman due to the stance he has taken.

Exactly. Not all people who support an issue or way of thinking line up a particular way. In many cases, this is a good thing. For the record, however, I would never vote for Lieberman due to the stance he has taken.
depends on which stance we're talking about...his stance on the war, I'd never vote for him. His stance on censorship...well, thats been blown out of proportion, but I'd consider him. His stance on education? yep.

Mind you, I'm ragingly liberal. But Lieberman has done many great things for my state, and as such, will continue to get my support. Lamont, on the other hand, can only sit there and say "Well, I'm not Lieberman, so you should vote for me!"

depends on which stance we're talking about...his stance on the war, I'd never vote for him. His stance on censorship...well, thats been blown out of proportion, but I'd consider him. His stance on education? yep.

Mind you, I'm ragingly liberal. But Lieberman has done many great things for my state, and as such, will continue to get my support. Lamont, on the other hand, can only sit there and say "Well, I'm not Lieberman, so you should vote for me!"
Isn't Lieberman a U.S. Senator...?

You are also wrong to state that all democracies are two party systems. To demonstrate that, one must only look outside of the US. I point to Canada, the UK, Australia, Israel, and just about any other democracy.


You mean Canada where parties either fall into the conservative coalition or the liberal coalition? That ain't flying. The UK, where LAbor and the Tories are the only real players in the gamne? Israel, where there were two coalitions until the latest election, where a party was made as a compromise against disaster, and where two party dynamics will form again?

Isn't Lieberman a U.S. Senator...?
he is a US senator from the State of Connecticut. As such, he represents my state, and I judge him on what he accomplishes for the benefit of my state. Conveniently, that usually benefits the nation on the whole.

You mean Canada where parties either fall into the conservative coalition or the liberal coalition? That ain't flying. The UK, where LAbor and the Tories are the only real players in the gamne? Israel, where there were two coalitions until the latest election, where a party was made as a compromise against disaster, and where two party dynamics will form again?Forming a coalition does not equal being a single party.

Iraq is not the only issue important to Connecticut voters, despite what Lamont would have everyone believe.

Trust me, I am well aware of that. That is part of why I think Lieberman will win the primary.

Trust me, I am well aware of that. That is part of why I think Lieberman will win the primary.
sorry if that comment was a bit bitter...I'm just sick of hearing the parroted "Oh, you should vote for Lamont! He's against the war!"
"What are his other stances?"
"Well, why would you vote for Lieberman?"
"Thats what I thought."

yeah...it gets grating.

sorry if that comment was a bit bitter...I'm just sick of hearing the parroted "Oh, you should vote for Lamont! He's against the war!"
"What are his other stances?"
"Well, why would you vote for Lieberman?"
"Thats what I thought."

yeah...it gets grating.

I know, but allow me this one comment. Lieberman and many other incumbent politicians get in office and then get comfortable, set up the rules and system so it's more difficult to pry them out of office than it is to seperate the men from the (legal age) boys in San Francisco.

I do not want my incumbent Senators, MCs and state elected officials to be comfortable. I want them responsive to the needs of their constituency.

Lamont is very green as a politician, but it's a damn sight more comforting to me to see a green as grass candidate than trying to figure out the refined and re-refined horsecrap that the incumbents feed me every election.

Lieberman needs to think about just where his views stand in relation to his constituents. He needs to address his reasoning to the people of CT as to why he is in a very small minority among even his moderate colleagues that unreservedly support this war over the long term and he needs to stop blaming his problems on anti-semitism and disloyalty among prominent Jews in CT.

Just the opinion of an interested, outside observer.

I know, but allow me this one comment. Lieberman and many other incumbent politicians get in office and then get comfortable, set up the rules and system so it's more difficult to pry them out of office than it is to seperate the men from the (legal age) boys in San Francisco.

I do not want my incumbent Senators, MCs and state elected officials to be comfortable. I want them responsive to the needs of their constituency.

Lamont is very green as a politician, but it's a damn sight more comforting to me to see a green as grass candidate than trying to figure out the refined and re-refined horsecrap that the incumbents feed me every election.

Lieberman needs to think about just where his views stand in relation to his constituents. He needs to address his reasoning to the people of CT as to why he is in a very small minority among even his moderate colleagues that unreservedly support this war over the long term and he needs to stop blaming his problems on anti-semitism and disloyalty among prominent Jews in CT.

Just the opinion of an interested, outside observer.I completely agree with politicians getting lazy.
I find that lieberman still lines up with a good ammount of CT in most issues except for the war. And even with the war, he has a good following (sadly). He does need to lose the anti-semitism thing...and despite the fact that he would never say this, I think him being Jewish has a little bit to do with his war stance.
I also understand that I probably have had a few opportunities that most haven't in that I have spoken with the man several times. But it is important that he takes care of his state...for example, him and Senator Dodd just won a DHS contract for 1.1 billion. That is alot of jobs, and the companies are in areas that need the jobs. THAT is what I look for in my senator.

Forming a coalition does not equal being a single party.

Right. Sure. The "parties" of the US are just coalitions as well. A number of factions exist within each one. Neo-cons, theo-cons, paleo-cons, and moderate conservatives are all members of the Republican party. Each has a different basic idea, but they are all forced to work together. The same is true of the Dems, with Environmentalists, New-Liberals, New Deal Democrats, and Moderate Liberals each making up a part of the party.

Right. Sure. The "parties" of the US are just coalitions as well. A number of factions exist within each one. Neo-cons, theo-cons, paleo-cons, and moderate conservatives are all members of the Republican party. Each has a different basic idea, but they are all forced to work together. The same is true of the Dems, with Environmentalists, New-Liberals, New Deal Democrats, and Moderate Liberals each making up a part of the party.
I'd say there is a difference, however, I haven't participated in another nations political process, and so can't really say apart from what people tell me.

I'd say there is a difference, however, I haven't participated in another nations political process, and so can't really say apart from what people tell me.

There is a difference, because it is a bit more obvious who controls a coalition than it is who controls a party, but in the long run primarys do show which wing of a party controls it too.

I completely agree with politicians getting lazy.
I find that lieberman still lines up with a good ammount of CT in most issues except for the war. And even with the war, he has a good following (sadly). He does need to lose the anti-semitism thing...and despite the fact that he would never say this, I think him being Jewish has a little bit to do with his war stance.
I also understand that I probably have had a few opportunities that most haven't in that I have spoken with the man several times. But it is important that he takes care of his state...for example, him and Senator Dodd just won a DHS contract for 1.1 billion. That is alot of jobs, and the companies are in areas that need the jobs. THAT is what I look for in my senator.


I applaud the good Senator for his continued work for his constituents. I am unhappy to say that I have lost a good deal of respect for him due to his stance on the war. Wouldn't it be nice if political campaigns weren't won on one issue?

Look at recent history, Bush won in 2004 on security issues, even if he doesn't know jack about national security on anything other than a "lip service" level. But the key was that he and his campaign convinced voters that he did and that the guy who can debate circles around him on foreign policy was a waffler and somehow his military service was tainted in some mysterious way.

All of this done by an alcoholic rich boy who got into Yale as a LEGACY. He wouldn't know just how difficult it is to survive in the United States because he never had to worry about a bloody thing, it was all fixed up for him by his rich pals. Oh, yes...I'm very bitter...how can a party who manifestly could give a shit less about the poor and middle class of this country have them in such a spell?

I guess I can honestly say I resent Senator Lieberman for siding with that bastard on anything.