NationStates Jolt Archive

Last minute effort, Liberman says "I am not Bush Lite"
Tuesday August 8, 2006

Leading Democrat Joe Lieberman, facing a battle for his political survival sparked by his support for the war in Iraq, finally took the advice of his campaign staff and defended his position.

"Look at me folks, I'm not George Bush," he declared on Sunday in a last-minute attempt to persuade voters ahead of today's crucial primary in Connecticut.
...
Throughout the campaign, Mr Lieberman has sought to downplay or ignore the War issue...

On Sunday, however, he addressed his support for the war directly at a campaign rally: "I want to get our troops home as fast as anyone, probably more than most.

Sources: Guardian NEWS/OcceanNEWS©2006

My2cents: Figthing for his political Life.. Last minute effort.. I say too little too late.

Mr Bush Lite.. Go present yourself as a candidate in the Bushite party.
just .. Go.

Im still not really convinced he's going to lose. The concept of "party treason" because of individually held beliefs is on of the reasons I went third party anyway.

I still have mixed feelings about Lieberman. I do believe that he was wrong on the Iraq war, but every time I read his proposals or speeches on the environment I fall in love. For that reason alone I'd like the Dems to keep him around, especially as they start trying to Greenwash their policies.

The value of running Lamont in the primary against Lieberman was an attempt to show him that his constituents expected him to stand for what they elected him for and not for the polar opposite. If Lieberman is scared enough to point these things out, then Lamont has done his job.

We can only hope now that Liberman remembers once he's re-elected.

Im still not really convinced he's going to lose. The concept of "party treason" because of individually held beliefs is on of the reasons I went third party anyway.

Do you realize how stupid that sounds? Seriously...

I am angry because voters expect their representatives to vote the way they want on issues they care about! :rolleyes:

Do you realize how stupid that sounds? Seriously...

I am angry because voters expect their representatives to vote the way they want on issues they care about! :rolleyes:

I suppose I dont. To me it seems far more rational to expect people not to be puppets, and certainly not sacrifice their morals for their party line. Of course voters expect a candidate not to misrepresent himself, Lieberman seems to be doing no such thing. His consituents know if they vote him in, that he is not 100% likely to vote Democrat. Any informed voter knows that just because a candidate has a letter in front of their name, doesnt mean they will vote that way with all consistency. If they vote for the party before the person they deserve a rude awakening.

I suppose I dont. To me it seems far more rational to expect people not to be puppets, and certainly not sacrifice their morals for their party line. Of course voters expect a candidate not to misrepresent himself, Lieberman seems to be doing no such thing. His consituents know if they vote him in, that he is not 100% likely to vote Democrat. Any informed voter knows that just because a candidate has a letter in front of their name, doesnt mean they will vote that way with all consistency. If they vote for the party before the person they deserve a rude awakening.

Not a 100% on Democratic issues? Maybe this isn't peircing your skull. The man stands against an issue that is of critical importance to many people. He did not and does not run on that concept, he runs on the letter by his name. He is now having his ass handed to him for it.

We call that Democracy. Welcome to America, here we don't let stupid old men get away scott free for fucking us over on important issues and then claiming "Well, he doesn't ALWAYS dissagree with us!". (Ok, we do, but that's because people are stupid and willing to support goats like Lieberman.)

Do you realize how stupid that sounds? Seriously...

Actually it is not as stupid as it sounds. Lieberman votes with the Democrats over 90% of the time. The only times he does not vote with them is when it comes *ahem* national security and defense issues.

Actually it is not as stupid as it sounds. Lieberman votes with the Democrats over 90% of the time. The only times he does not vote with them is when it comes *ahem* national security and defense issues.

You mean the issues where he's against the party on an issue critical to members of the party? An issue that has been their greatest critiscism against the people in power?

There are some issues where he could get away with voting for a right-wing issue. His action on Iraq are not such an issue.

Not a 100% on Democratic issues? Maybe this isn't peircing your skull. The man stands against an issue that is of critical importance to many people. He did not and does not run on that concept, he runs on the letter by his name. He is now having his ass handed to him for it.

Care to prove that he does run according to the letter by his name and not on the issues at hand? Also, do you think that Lieberman is actually going to lose? I have my doubts. As I have said before, it does not matter if he loses or not. He is still going to run as an Independent and I bet you that if he is forced to run as such, he will win in a three way race.

We call that Democracy. Welcome to America, here we don't let stupid old men get away scott free for fucking us over on important issues and then claiming "Well, he doesn't ALWAYS dissagree with us!". (Ok, we do, but that's because people are stupid and willing to support goats like Lieberman.)

What is important to one is not important to another.

I can't believe Lieberman refused to appear on the Colbert Report. Untill he does, no one except neo-cons will have any respect for him.

Not a 100% on Democratic issues? Maybe this isn't peircing your skull. The man stands against an issue that is of critical importance to many people. He did not and does not run on that concept, he runs on the letter by his name. He is now having his ass handed to him for it.

We call that Democracy. Welcome to America, here we don't let stupid old men get away scott free for fucking us over on important issues and then claiming "Well, he doesn't ALWAYS dissagree with us!". (Ok, we do, but that's because people are stupid and willing to support goats like Lieberman.)

How "critical" an issue is, is a matter of perspective and opinion. If people dont want to vote for him based on his stance on the war, then they shouldn't vote for him. Thats democracy. Claiming he is a traitor to his constituents because of this stance is nonsense. Once again, if you vote for a person based more on the party than on who the person actually is, you've likely got a screwing coming.

You mean the issues where he's against the party on an issue critical to members of the party? An issue that has been their greatest critiscism against the people in power?

You mean the Democrats do not like to be seen as strong on National Security or National Defense? No wonder the Democratic Party is having troubles. Why are they going after a Democrat who is strong on Defense and Security?

There are some issues where he could get away with voting for a right-wing issue. His action on Iraq are not such an issue.

Did it ever occur to you dear sir, that by retreating (which the DNC Leadership wants) it will make us appear weak to the rest of the world? Did that thought occur to you or are you just touting the party line like a good lap dog?

I can't believe Lieberman refused to appear on the Colbert Report. Untill he does, no one except neo-cons will have any respect for him.

This has got to be the most dumbest statement I have ever heard.

"I want to get our troops home as fast as anyone, probably more than most."Bushite. just add the double L

Bushite.

And, why pray tell did you say "bullshit"? I want our troops home too but not until the job is done. Why is that wrong?

This has got to be the most dumbest statement I have ever heard.

I suppose the incorrect grammar was intended to mock me, and make me feel intellectually inferior? Nice try. Sorry I disturbed your serious political debate with a small ray of triviality. It won't happen again.

And, why pray tell did you say "bullshit"? I want our troops home too but not until the job is done. Why is that wrong?Thats not what he said last sunday.. read the NEWS

http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?p=Lieberman%20troops%20home

Thats not what he said last sunday.. read the NEWS

http://news.search.yahoo.com/search/news?p=Lieberman%20troops%20home

So you provide me a search page with a 175 results on it. Nice. Care to post your proof now.

So you provide me a search page with a 175 results on it. Nice. Care to post your proof now.Ok lazyboy.. lets read the first one

Joe Lieberman's Pathetic Hail Mary Pass on Iraq
08.07.2006

Let's hope Joe Lieberman's Hail Mary toss on Iraq isn't the wave of the future for the Democratic Party.

In their story on Lieberman's desperate, clammy, last-ditch attempt to save his political hide, Times reporters Patrick Healy and Jennifer Medina called Lieberman's verbal retrenchment on Iraq -- a mea culpa without the culpa -- "a new set of talking points for Democratic leaders who are struggling for the right words to reconcile their support for the war initially and the fiery antiwar stance of many Democratic voters today."

Talking points? More like a recipe for disaster. Read John Zogby's terrific post on what Democratic voters are looking for. A hint: it ain't the muddled mush Lieberman was dishing out Sunday night.

After much hand-wringing and midnight oil burning (and, no doubt, poll reading), Lieberman's advisors finally convinced the Senator that in order to have even a shot at breaking his downward Joementum, he'd have to at least soften his bellicose stance on the war.

You could almost hear their plaintive pleas: "C'mon, Joe, Hillary just called it a failure -- can't you at least say something like, 'Iraq: it wasn't the best idea America's ever had'?"

But the best they could do was convince Lieberman to play the "let's agree to disagree" card. A shift from his previous criticize-the-president-and-imperil-the-nation rhetoric, to be sure... but a new set of Democratic talking points? Please... how low are we going to set the bar?

sources: yahooNEWS/HuffingtonPost.com/OcceanNEWS

Now for the real news please and not a blog.

Care to post your proof now.I told you.. I do NOT feel I have anything to prove..

specially to you.. and your tirade about the meaning of "most US Foreign Aid goes to the Middle East"

I told you.. I do NOT feel like proving nothing to you.

In that case my friend then you do not have a leg to stand on. By not providing what was asked for, you have automatically forfeited the debate.

You mean the Democrats do not like to be seen as strong on National Security or National Defense? No wonder the Democratic Party is having troubles. Why are they going after a Democrat who is strong on Defense and Security?

No. I mean that unlike the trigger happy morons running the Republican party, Democrats realize that the Iraq war was a useless war which we now cannot win. People who are smart on defense know that minimum effort, maximum result is the only successful tactic to winning a war. Big guns and a lot of use are all fine and nice (and they make stupid people think they are "strong" on defense), but they lose wars.

Republicans are gorrilas with big branches on security issues, Democrats are the hunter with the high powered sniper rifle. Which one has more power?

Did it ever occur to you dear sir, that by retreating (which the DNC Leadership wants) it will make us appear weak to the rest of the world? Did that thought occur to you or are you just touting the party line like a good lap dog?

Did it ever occur to you that when fighting a war you are now incapable of winning, you make yourself not only out to be a foe to the world (who opposed the war from the start), but tie up valueble resources and make yourself seem incompetant while North Korea and Iran continue to become larger threats, or are you too busy touting the party like a good little hawk?

By not providing what was asked for.You can ask whatever you want.. I do not care about your wishes.

You can ask whatever you want.. I do not care about your wishes.
Then we can invalidate and dispose of every post you've ever made, and every opinion you've ever posted, because you're never willing to back any of it up.

Then we can invalidate and dispose ....You can invalidate and dispose of whatever you want.. I do not care.

"Most US Foreign Aid still goes to the M.E."

and

"Lieberman still did not say that Last time."

How "critical" an issue is, is a matter of perspective and opinion. If people dont want to vote for him based on his stance on the war, then they shouldn't vote for him. Thats democracy. Claiming he is a traitor to his constituents because of this stance is nonsense. Once again, if you vote for a person based more on the party than on who the person actually is, you've likely got a screwing coming.

Sorry, buddy, but you're wrong. Party machinery is a form of organization and support. You get it while you do what the party wants. If you are willing to forgo that organization and support, then you need to dump the (D) and be willing to give up the money you're being given. That's why people vote by party, because the party stands for what they want, and they expect that it will keep it's politicians in line.

Democracy means telling him "You fucked up. Shape up or ship out."

That's what this is.

He deserves to be put out on his ass, and I hope he will be.

Go connecticut, get rid of that bad apple.

No. I mean that unlike the trigger happy morons running the Republican party, Democrats realize that the Iraq war was a useless war which we now cannot win.

First off, name calling gets you nowhere in a debate. Secondly, what makes you think that the Iraq war is unwinable? Is that what the Democratic spin machine is telling you? Do you believe everything that the Democrats put out?

People who are smart on defense know that minimum effort, maximum result is the only successful tactic to winning a war.

Actually, no that is not right. You need maximum effort and maximum result to win a war. minimum effort does not win a war.

Big guns and a lot of use are all fine and nice (and they make stupid people think they are "strong" on defense), but they lose wars.

Says who? The democratic party?

Republicans are gorrilas with big branches on security issues, Democrats are the hunter with the high powered sniper rifle. Which one has more power?

You really do not want me to answer that.

Did it ever occur to you that when fighting a war you are now incapable of winning, you make yourself not only out to be a foe to the world (who opposed the war from the start), but tie up valueble resources and make yourself seem incompetant while North Korea and Iran continue to become larger threats, or are you too busy touting the party like a good little hawk?

This entire sentence is gramaticaly incorrect and has two thoughts in one that should be seperated into two different paragraphs. To your first point, what makes you think that the war is unwinnable? It is more than capable of being won but you must have the strength to see it through. It is quite obvious the DNC Leaders do not have the strength to see this through.

As for North Korea, we are in negotiations with them as well as with Iran.

Again, do you believe everything that the Democrats put out?

He deserves to be put out on his ass, and I hope he will be.

Go connecticut, get rid of that bad apple.

Hillary will be next. She backed Lieberman.

Just watch - either moderates will swing hard to the left, or they will be vaporized.

*snip*

Name me one Congressman/Senator who does not want our troops home.

I can't believe Lieberman refused to appear on the Colbert Report. Untill he does, no one except neo-cons will have any respect for him.
hey dont be so judgemental. maybe he just doesnt like coco puffs.

Ned Lamont, Nancy Pelosi, and Hilary Clinton are the reason why the Democratic Party will be voted out of relevance.

For this reason, I love the three of them to death.

First off, name calling gets you nowhere in a debate. Secondly, what makes you think that the Iraq war is unwinable? Is that what the Democratic spin machine is telling you? Do you believe everything that the Democrats put out?

So calling me a lapdog isn't namecalling either? :rolleyes:

The Iraq war is unwinnable because we've created a system in which terrorism is deeply entrenched in a bitter social/civil-war in which American soldiers are meerly the pawns of the groups in power. The Iraq war is a loss because violence levels continue to escalate. The Iraq war is unwinnable because we don't have enough troops there to win the war (one for every 10 civies is the law) and don't have a means of gaining them. The Iraq war is unwinnable because it was a lie that continues to discredit Americans on the world stage, so it has already cost us so greatly that any perceived "victory" is not enough.



Actually, no that is not right. You need maximum effort and maximum result to win a war. minimum effort does not win a war.

The saying means that you need to use the smallest amount of resources necessary to gain a success in war. That's called intelligent tactics. :rolleyes:


Says who? The democratic party?

Let's talk economics. Guns and soldiers cost money. Using them at will, rather than using them judiciously and intelligently is expensive. Spending money like water is BAD for a military, because it then has less money when it needs it even more.

This entire sentence is gramaticaly incorrect and has two thoughts in one that should be seperated into two different paragraphs. To your first point, what makes you think that the war is unwinnable? It is more than capable of being won but you must have the strength to see it through. It is quite obvious the DNC Leaders do not have the strength to see this through.


:rolleyes:


As for North Korea, we are in negotiations with them as well as with Iran.

HA! Are you intentionally being funny? Our "negotiations" are next to totally ineffective! Part of the reason is that Iran and NK know that we have no threat against them because our troops are exhausted and overcommited. The other reason is because they know the US continues to lose credibility on the world stage daily.

Again, do you believe everything that the Democrats put out?

Only when they are right. Now grow up and stop assuming that just because I don't agree with you I must be a zombie subsisting on DNC press releases.

Did it ever occur to you dear sir, that by retreating (which the DNC Leadership wants) it will make us appear weak to the rest of the world? Did that thought occur to you or are you just touting the party line like a good lap dog?

Ah ... the old "retreating will make America look weak to its enemies" line of arguments. Has it ever occurred to you that America has looked weakest to its enemies when it's foreign policy is at its most aggressive? Getting your asses handed to you in Vietnam and Iraq does not exactly strike fear into the heart of your enemies.

To paraphrase the excellent and intelligent columnist:

Why should iran and north korea fear the US and its military when it cannot secure the road between baghdad and the airport?

So calling me a lapdog isn't namecalling either? :rolleyes:

And I have should not have done that so I will say you are right in that regard.

The Iraq war is unwinnable because we've created a system in which terrorism is deeply entrenched in a bitter social/civil-war in which American soldiers are meerly the pawns of the groups in power. The Iraq war is a loss because violence levels continue to escalate. The Iraq war is unwinnable because we don't have enough troops there to win the war (one for every 10 civies is the law) and don't have a means of gaining them. The Iraq war is unwinnable because it was a lie that continues to discredit Americans on the world stage, so it has already cost us so greatly that any perceived "victory" is not enough.

Then it is apparent that no matter how much success that happens with Iraq, you will not be happy and proclaim it lost. Guess what? So far, one whole province has been completely turned over to the Iraqis. And a draw down of American forces is expected to happen either by the end of this year or the start of the next one. The war is winnable and it is being won but it takes a little understanding of why we are winning.

The saying means that you need to use the smallest amount of resources necessary to gain a success in war. That's called intelligent tactics. :rolleyes:

That does not work in the real world dude. Did we use the smallest amount of resources to win World War II? No we did not! Did we use the smallest amount of resources to win the Civil War? No we did not! What about Korea? Nope. In fact it took alot of resources to keep South Korea free from North Korea. To win a war, you must win it decisively. Minimum resources are not going to win you any wars. Any strategist will be able to tell you that.

Let's talk economics. Guns and soldiers cost money. Using them at will, rather than using them judiciously and intelligently is expensive. Spending money like water is BAD for a military, because it then has less money when it needs it even more.

Here I will agree with you but what is the cost of doing nothing? What is the cost for not maintaining a technological edge? What is the cost of not maintaining highly mobile force that we do have? We can go just about anywhere on this planet in less time than any nation on this planet. We still have that capability too come to think of it.

HA! Are you intentionally being funny? Our "negotiations" are next to totally ineffective!

And why is that? Could it be that North Korea and Iran are being pains and not listening to what (in N.K. case) China, Russia, Japan, and South Korea are saying? Could it be that North Korea has a paranoid dictator that does not know that we do not plan on attacking him unless he provokes us? In the case of Iran, they are not listening to anyone. Not Russia, France, Britain, or the rest of the EU for that matter? Did you forget about those nations?

Part of the reason is that Iran and NK know that we have no threat against them because our troops are exhausted and overcommited. The other reason is because they know the US continues to lose credibility on the world stage daily.

Not everything deals with US military personnel you know. It is quite obvious you want to blame America for all the world's problems but we are not to be blamed for everything. Our allies are working hard in negotiating with Iran and the other five nations are working hard in negotiations with North Korea.

Only when they are right. Now grow up and stop assuming that just because I don't agree with you I must be a zombie subsisting on DNC press releases.

I never said that but I am trying to get you to think with your brain.

Mr Bush Lite.. Go present yourself as a candidate in the Bushite party.
just .. Go.

I'm glad this is going to happen.

The Democrats will finally be exposed as the international socialists they are.

Unfortunately, Lamont is the one in the lead with 74% of the precincts in. On another note, McKinney is losing in her runoff with 35% of the pricencts in.

Is it really so wrong for someone to cross party lines every once in a while?

To paraphrase the excellent and intelligent columnist:

Why should iran and north korea fear the US and its military when it cannot secure the road between baghdad and the airport?

Because if shit gets to serious we're going to start dropping A-bombs.

America is holding back. We're basically fighting in Iraq and Afganistan with one hand tied behind our back.

Once things get crazy enough, we'll be forced to lay the smack down good, and Iran and North korea will go the way of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


Also Iran and North Korea are pussies.

Why is it so wrong for someone to cross party lines?

Lamont: Lieberman, in my opinion, has hurt the democratic messege.

I guess by doing so, you go against your party's message. Does not matter that he has voted with the Democratic party over 90% of the time on most of the key Democratic issues. The only he has crossed the line on is National defense and Security. The two weakspots in the Democratic Party. I can see why now.

I feel sorry for the moderates and conservative democrats :(

Then it is apparent that no matter how much success that happens with Iraq, you will not be happy and proclaim it lost. Guess what? So far, one whole province has been completely turned over to the Iraqis. And a draw down of American forces is expected to happen either by the end of this year or the start of the next one. The war is winnable and it is being won but it takes a little understanding of why we are winning.

One whole province!!!! Yay!!!! :rolleyes:

Man, it is sheer blindness to claim that a rapidly degenerating country with rising violence levels being watched and patrolled by increasingly overtaxed soldiers who are begining to crack while it's parliamentary powers are using militants as a proxy for political debate while warning the people that they should not trust members of the Iraqi Defense Force unless they are accompanied by US soldiers is a victory waiting to happen.

It takes a lot of optimism and tomfoolery to claim we are winning.

That does not work in the real world dude. Did we use the smallest amount of resources to win World War II? No we did not! Did we use the smallest amount of resources to win the Civil War? No we did not! What about Korea? Nope. In fact it took alot of resources to keep South Korea free from North Korea. To win a war, you must win it decisively. Minimum resources are not going to win you any wars. Any strategist will be able to tell you that.

Big armies are fine and nice. They won such decisive conflicts as the Vietnam War, and the American Revolution. Why, the largest established armies ALWAYS win.

Clue, dude. In a guerilla war, you don't use mass-power to win, you use well trained troops and subtlety and use them wisely.

Here I will agree with you but what is the cost of doing nothing? What is the cost for not maintaining a technological edge? What is the cost of not maintaining highly mobile force that we do have? We can go just about anywhere on this planet in less time than any nation on this planet. We still have that capability too come to think of it.

Soldiers break too, you know. And we've exhausted ours. How many of them would be at full fighting potential if we had to go to war elsewhere? The answer is not enough. We would win a shooting war with either Iran or NK, but it would come at a high price. Wasting resources is the biggest problem right now.

Not everything deals with US military personnel you know. It is quite obvious you want to blame America for all the world's problems but we are not to be blamed for everything. Our allies are working hard in negotiating with Iran and the other five nations are working hard in negotiations with North Korea.

A) You forgot Poland!

B) Diplomacy is just cleverly showing how you can blow the other guy up in a way that pressures them to do what you want. The only credible threat amongst the "coalition" in the talks is America. GB and the European powers don't have the military power, and Russia and China can't afford to use more than a small portion of their military, or risk losing control of their nations.

I never said that but I am trying to get you to think with your brain.

I am. So are you. Guess what, two perfectly good minds can come to drastically different conclusions.

Well....

Lieberman has conceded his primary candidacy but his work to stay in the Senate is not over as he has indicated that he will run as an independent.

In Georgia, McKinney has apparently lost her seat as she still trails her opponet.

Well....

Lieberman has conceded his primary candidacy but his work to stay in the Senate is not over as he has indicated that he will run as an independent.

In Georgia, McKinney has apparently lost her seat as she still trails her opponet.


+1000 Connecticut, -1000 traitor bastard sonofabitch lieberman

How comes the Clinton female escaped all this ire? She's sort of Lieberman like.

Leiberman, apart from his support for the Iraq war,

Is a sniveling nor'easter democrat.

I am happy Lamont beat him, good riddance.

Leiberman, apart from his support for the Iraq war,

Is a sniveling nor'easter democrat.

I am happy Lamont beat him, good riddance.

So you want a Democrat who is more liberal than Lieberman? A democrat who wants to pull out of Iraq?

+1000 Connecticut, -1000 traitor bastard sonofabitch lieberman

only - 1000?

The snivveling little snake deserves worse than that. :mad:

only - 1000?

The snivveling little snake deserves worse than that. :mad:

Luckily, he is still running for the Senate. I will lay odds now that he wins his seat.

So you want a Democrat who is more liberal than Lieberman? A democrat who wants to pull out of Iraq?

lamont is WORSE than leiberman?

I thought it was the other way.

We're not pulling out of Iraq until it's done, that is settled. Now there's this tricky thing here back in the states to worry about, something Leiberman sucked at and most likely lamont sucks at too.....

Now there's this tricky thing here back in the states to worry about, something Leiberman sucked at and most likely lamont sucks at too.....

What is that tricky thing?

Luckily, he is still running for the Senate. I will lay odds now that he wins his seat.

Heh. Hardly. Lamont is unlikely to win in November. Lieberman has little chance to win at all given the fact that he has shown himself to be such a sore loser.

I expect whoever the Republicans nominate to win. :(

It was a principal thing, I guess.

Well, I kind of knew this was coming when I saw that Tradesports predicted that Lamont would win, but wow. My family actually kind of knows Joe Lieberman, so it's a bit disappointing for me personally. I hope he wins as an independent, which by all indications he will.

Because if shit gets to serious we're going to start dropping A-bombs.

Just like did in Viet Nam?

America is holding back. We're basically fighting in Iraq and Afganistan with one hand tied behind our back.

Once things get crazy enough, we'll be forced to lay the smack down good, and Iran and North korea will go the way of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It's one thing to fight an organized Army.

There will not be any Nuke strikes. Hate to tell you.

Also Iran and North Korea are pussies.

The North Koreans are pussies? And what do you base this on?

hey dont be so judgemental. maybe he just doesnt like coco puffs.

WHAT?!?!?!

If that's true, expel him from the country!

Heh. Hardly. Lamont is unlikely to win in November. Lieberman has little chance to win at all given the fact that he has shown himself to be such a sore loser.

I expect whoever the Republicans nominate to win. :(

It was a principal thing, I guess.

Some analysts think that niether candidate can win in a three way race with Lieberman. We are just going to have to wait and see how it all transpires in November.

Just like did in Viet Nam?

Nukes where used in Vietnam? :confused:

Some analysts think that niether candidate can win in a three way race with Lieberman. We are just going to have to wait and see how it all transpires in November.

I think that it is only fair to point out that current polls haven't taken into account the most decisive (and devisive) period of the election which is yet to come. What happens in November will shock us all, I guess. =/

Leiberman, apart from his support for the Iraq war,

Is a sniveling nor'easter democrat.

I am happy Lamont beat him, good riddance.



Leiberman's an idiot, but at least he's not a neocon. I'm more than a little tired of your immature flamebait nonsense. People in this country are finally getting sick and tired of your precious GOP and its disreguard for the people of this nation and our laws. Limited government? Don't make me laugh. Dubya created the largest bureaucracy in our nation's history. And I can't help but notice that when most Republicans talk about government staying out of people's lives, they mean staying out of business's way. You all don't seem to mind trying to tell us what to do in the privacy of our bedrooms, what women can or can't do with their bodies, who we can or can't marry, and when and how to pray. I think you're in for a shock in November. You've had your turn, and you screwed up. We've had enough of illegal wars and religious fantics.

And find some place else besides New York to have your convention next time. Might I suggest Bob Jones University?

Nukes where used in Vietnam? :confused:

No. Just pointing out the fact that we didn't use them even though we were losing.

I think that it is only fair to point out that current polls haven't taken into account the most decisive (and devisive) period of the election which is yet to come. What happens in November will shock us all, I guess. =/

You know? I agree with you 100%.

Nukes where used in Vietnam? :confused:



wow...i am gonna regret this..lol....but today like yesterday...the most committed wins(and it could be committed in like insane)

thats why i think we should cut all ties with the middle east,and easily become energy free(if not for bush and a load more of shareholders in bp etc.)we could walk away from that nuthouse...let them mutilate their daughters,or whatever 18th century shit they are into..
so we wont be so economically beholden to them(nasty rich arabs...and no not rascist)they just are different then you and i ..i hope.

let them enslave their women,etc.....how is that our problem?

we try to help..we are hated...we do nothing we are hated....so fuck em..leave em be is my solution...guess i am a isolation type person.

what you do across the world..as shitty as it may be...does not affect me...i dont agree...but i certainly do not want to be beholden to scumbags cause they got oil!

alternative fuel is the answer...

then let them sink into oblivion or madness..which ever comes first.

my bet is madness...as they are allready insane!

Dubya created the largest bureaucracy in our nation's history.

Actually, that is not 100% accurate.

And I can't help but notice that when most Republicans talk about government staying out of people's lives, they mean staying out of business's way.

Some of us do think that the government should stay out of both personal lives and business.

...and when and how to pray.

As opposed to Democrats who tell us we cannot spread our faith on public grounds despite the fact that we are supposed to have freedom of speech? Or how about Anti-Abortion rallies that get broken up because they are illegal and organizers charged? Luckily the Supreme Court ended that.

I think you're in for a shock in November. You've had your turn, and you screwed up. We've had enough of illegal wars and religious fantics.

Since no illegal war has been fighting, I am going to call you on that one. As to religious fanatics, we have those who are trying to kill us because we are not Muslim. You are right that we are in for a shock in November. That surprise being a Republican majority in both houses of congress.

And find some palce else besides New York to have your convention next time. Might I suggest Bob Jones University?

Political Parties should be allowed to hold their conventions in whatever city they want.

No. Just pointing out the fact that we didn't use them even though we were losing.

I will disagree in regards to losing but I am not going to get involved in that discussion tonight. But I will agree, in general, with your statement.

Kisses Bush-Lite Good bye...
Don't let it hit you in the arse on your way out. :D

http://bushfordummies.com/img/bush-lite-lieberman.jpg

Kisses Bush-Lite Good bye... Dont let the door hit you on the arse :D

You have a slight problem OcceanDrive. Lieberman is still running as an Independent Candidate. He is not out of the Senate yet so your celebration is a tad premature.

You have a slight problem OcceanDrive. Lieberman is still running as an Independent Candidate. He is not out of the Senate yet so your celebration is a tad premature.I wish he does run.. So I can laugh at him for a second time. :D :D :p :D

I wish he does run.. So I can laugh at him for a second time. :D :D :p :D

And what if Lieberman wins?

How comes the Clinton female escaped all this ire? She's sort of Lieberman like.She is running on Jewishland (NY).. Most Jewish people want US soldiers to stay in the M.E.

As opposed to Democrats who tell us we cannot spread our faith on public grounds despite the fact that we are supposed to have freedom of speech? Or how about Anti-Abortion rallies that get broken up because they are illegal and organizers charged? Luckily the Supreme Court ended that.




No, you were told to keep religion out of science class, and not to force your religion on those who do not share it. Boo hoo, poor baby. Suck it up. How about pro-lifers who harrass people at clinics, often to the point of harrassing their children and threatening people's lives? Yeah, that's real christian. And your lapdog Supreme Court also made it easier for business interests to take homeowners' land. Yep, you're staying out of people's lives alright. Hypocrites.

And what if Lieberman wins?Lieberman is history. Good ridance.

She is running on Jewishland (NY).. Most Jewish people want US soldiers to stay in the M.E.

And yet Clinton wants the troops home from the Middle East.

And yet Clinton wants the troops home from the Middle East.

That's this week. Point is, she runs to the right of Lieberman quite often, yet she doesn't seem to draw as much flak. Doesn't seem fair.

No, you were told to keep relgion out of science class, and not to force your religion on those who do not share it.

As opposed to forcing Christians to keep silent?

Boo hoo, poor baby. Suck it up. How about pro-lifers who harrass people at clinics, often to the point of harrassing their children and threatening people's lives?

Those people should be tossed in prison for harassment or at least have a restraining order preventing them from approaching the clinics.

Yeah, that's real christian.

Actually...its not.

And your lapdog Supreme Court

My lapdog? Where did that come from?

also made it easier for business interests to take homeowners' land.

Something that has united the Democrats and the Republicans against the Supreme Court. Also something that I condemned and condemned publicly.

Yep, you're staying out of people's lives alright. Hypocrites.

How am I a hypocrit?

That's this week. Point is, she runs to the right of Lieberman quite often, yet she doesn't seem to draw as much flak. Doesn't seem fair.

No it is not fair. And that is why I have a feeling that the Democratic party is in for a surprise when they do not win control of the House and Senate this year.

As opposed to forcing Christians to keep silent?

What the Churches have been closed? The religion has been outlawed?

You can preech all you want. Just not to a nice classrom where they have to listen.

My lapdog? Where did that come from?

I am not sure but I think you can pick from Scalia, Roberts, and Alito.

Something that has united the Democrats and the Republicans against the Supreme Court. Also something that I condemned and condemned publicly.


I kind of think it's lip service. Politics follows money and eminant domain is about making money.

Lieberman is history. Good ridance.

And what if Lieberman wins?

What the Churches have been closed? The religion has been outlawed?

No but I would like the ability to speak about my religion anywhere I please.

You can preech all you want. Just not to a nice classrom where they have to listen.

And that is my point. I can not talk about my religion in a classroom.

I am not sure but I think you can pick from Scalia, Roberts, and Alito.

Possibly but he did say my lapdog meaning that I am a die-hard republican which I am most assuredly am not.

I kind of think it's lip service. Politics follows money and eminant domain is about making money.

Now that is true.

She is running on Jewishland (NY).. Most Jewish people want US soldiers to stay in the M.E.

OH NO! NOT THE JOOS!

No but I would like the ability to speak about my religion anywhere I please.

And that is my point. I can not talk about my religion in a classroom.


If you are are a teacher, then yes you can't and that is a good thing.

If you are a student, then you can as long as you don't take away from class time.

A classroom is a dicatorship, it's not a democracy. ;)

If you are are a teacher, then yes you can't and that is a good thing.

If you are a student, then you can as long as you don't take away from class time.

A classroom is a dicatorship, it's not a democracy. ;)

HAHA!! Ok. I will back off. *holds up a beer*

As opposed to forcing Christians to keep silent?
How is expecting you to show respect for other people forcing you to be silent?


Those people should be tossed in prison for harassment or at least have a restraining order preventing them from approaching the clinics.
OMG, we actually agree on something.


Actually...its not.
Agreed.


My lapdog? Where did that come from?
I hope you knew full well I was using the plural you. :rolleyes:


Something that has united the Democrats and the Republicans against the Supreme Court. Also something that I condemned and condemned publicly.
Missed seeing you do so. If that's true, kudos.



How am I a hypocrit?
Again, plural you.

How is expecting you to show respect for other people forcing you to be silent?

Hey now. I always show respect to people even when I start to talk about the Word of the Lord. If people do not want to hear it, they tell me and I thank them for their time. Some of these people actually become my friends. :)

I hope you knew full well I was using the plural you. :rolleyes:

Hehe. Sorry. I saw the word your and jumped to conclusions.

Missed seeing you do so. If that's true, kudos.

Well I was not all over the news condemning it. I do not have that power yet. Maybe one day...

Sorry, buddy, but you're wrong. Party machinery is a form of organization and support. You get it while you do what the party wants. If you are willing to forgo that organization and support, then you need to dump the (D) and be willing to give up the money you're being given. That's why people vote by party, because the party stands for what they want, and they expect that it will keep it's politicians in line.

Democracy means telling him "You fucked up. Shape up or ship out."

That's what this is.

That is a very frightening post. You obviously have no idea what representative democracy means or involves.

You go to the polls and you elect what - a party? No - you elect a representative. You place a cross on the ballot paper next to (or you press the button/code associated with) a person's name. You elect a person.

Now this person who is your representative may, or may not, belong to a political party (following so far I hope). If they do then there is absolutely nothing that means that the representative has to agree with all of the party's policies. Representative democracy does not mean choosing between x partiesw. It means choosing a person to represent you in government, to act for you. If you make the false assumption that because a person is a member of a party that this person will support every policy that the party in question supports, then you have been very stupid. No one supports all of the policies of any large political party. These policies are always compromises.

That is a very frightening post. You obviously have no idea what representative democracy means or involves.

You go to the polls and you elect what - a party? No - you elect a representative. You place a cross on the ballot paper next to (or you press the button/code associated with) a person's name. You elect a person.

Now this person who is your representative may, or may not, belong to a political party (following so far I hope). If they do then there is absolutely nothing that means that the representative has to agree with all of the party's policies. Representative democracy does not mean choosing between x partiesw. It means choosing a person to represent you in government, to act for you. If you make the false assumption that because a person is a member of a party that this person will support every policy that the party in question supports, then you have been very stupid. No one supports all of the policies of any large political party. These policies are always compromises.

Yeah, but this was a primary election open only to party members and they were choosing who was going to represent their party in the next senate race. They weren't actually electing a senator, only selecting a candidate.

It seems perfectly democratic in that case to not vote for someone based upon them not supporting key party policies.

Yeah, but this was a primary election open only to party members and they were choosing who was going to represent their party in the next senate race. They weren't actually electing a senator, only selecting a candidate.

It seems perfectly democratic in that case to not vote for someone based upon them not supporting key party policies.

Fair enough, but primaries have absolutely nothing to do with democratic government as such.

I was concerned with the attitude expressed which implied that the poster thought that a representative in a representative democracy represented the party and not the electorate.

If Lieberman wins the primary, as he did last time around, surely it implies that the local party members approve of the policy choices that he has made. Whether nationally, party members approve or not is irrelevant - he is not representing them, he is representing the local members in the party and the local electorate in government.

That is a very frightening post. You obviously have no idea what representative democracy means or involves.

You go to the polls and you elect what - a party? No - you elect a representative. You place a cross on the ballot paper next to (or you press the button/code associated with) a person's name. You elect a person.

Now this person who is your representative may, or may not, belong to a political party (following so far I hope). If they do then there is absolutely nothing that means that the representative has to agree with all of the party's policies. Representative democracy does not mean choosing between x partiesw. It means choosing a person to represent you in government, to act for you. If you make the false assumption that because a person is a member of a party that this person will support every policy that the party in question supports, then you have been very stupid. No one supports all of the policies of any large political party. These policies are always compromises.

Let's talk about the nature of representative Democracy. In it people organize to form parties. They form these parties out of common beleifs about how their country should be run. They then allow people access to large resources (Money, party support, the support of fellow party members, etc.) in exchange for standing with that common vision. A primary is a chance to decide who stands most with the vision of the members of the party. The Democratic party of Connencticut decided that Ned Lamont was a better candidate for it than Joe Lieberman. That is called Democracy. What happened today was Democracy in action.

Sorry. :)

As I recall, he has stated that he intends to run as an independent. Sweet. Couldn't have worked out better for the Republicans any better if they'd scripted it themselves. Divide and conquer, baby. If his candidacy draws votes away from any party, it would be the Democrats. He stands against all of the core issues that define the Republican party, except for his stand on the war in Iraq.

And Cynthia McKinney lost her bid for re-election today too.

singing "Zip-a-dee-doodah, Zip-a-dee-ay. My, oh my, what a wonderful day!"

Silly Boy. tut tut tut
Silly Jew Lieberman.:(

Let's talk about the nature of representative Democracy. In it people organize to form parties. They form these parties out of common beleifs about how their country should be run. They then allow people access to large resources (Money, party support, the support of fellow party members, etc.) in exchange for standing with that common vision. A primary is a chance to decide who stands most with the vision of the members of the party. The Democratic party of Connencticut decided that Ned Lamont was a better candidate for it than Joe Lieberman. That is called Democracy. What happened today was Democracy in action.

Sorry. :)

Let us talk about the nature of representative democracy. In it people elect representatives to the government to act on their behalf. Nothing about parties or resources etc. That stuff is all incidental and not a necessary part of a representative democracy.

Now let us talk about something else - party politics - it is different to and independent of democracy. Democracy is not necessary for party politics to occur - look at the average theocracy and you will see party politics at work - look at absolute monarchies and you will see party politics are present there too. Party politics layered onto representative democracy is a common political arrangement, but it does not mean that democracy depends on party politics. Electing an independent candidate is just as democratic as electing a party member.
Now parties can be oligarchic or authoritarian in nature - in that either they allow their membership (the oligarchy in this case) to select their candidates or these are selected by the party officials (authoritarian). Technically they could be democratic - by allowing the demos - the people as a whole (not the limited subset that are the party members) select their candidates but I have never heard of or seen this being done.

The Parties in the USA are oligarchic - what happened today was oligarchy in action, not democracy. The people were not asked to decide, the party members were asked to decide.

Note that I am not implying any corruption in using the term oligarchy - I am using it to mean government by the few, where the few are the party members.

I'm so glad that everyone here knows so much about Lieberman and Lamont. Tell me, please, what, exactly, is Lamonts opinion on education? Social security? Healthcare? Please answer those without using the word Iraq.

Right...even his staff can't answer those questions without using "Well, if we wern't in Iraq, we wouldn't have a problem", and then go into the same trite anti-war tirade.

Do I hate that Lieberman voted for the war? yes. Has Lieberman done great things for my state in the last 18 years? yes. There is more to this election than just the war, and Connecticut is not JUST a democrat state. Lamont says pull out right now. Lieberman says that is irresponsible. Lieberman is correct. Lieberman has an actual stance on healthcare, education, etc. Lamont has a view on Iraq. And only Iraq.

Yes, I voted for Lieberman, and will continue to do so. Beyond the war, they are essentially the same person. One bases their campaign on "we shouldn't be there and come home now", the other says "It doesn't matter if we should or shouldn't be there. We are. Now, how do we fix it?"

By the way, most of the state is registered unoffiliated, and therefore, are inelligable to vote in primaries under CT state law.

Fair enough, but primaries have absolutely nothing to do with democratic government as such.

Personally I agree with you. They are however regulated by the government as well as the parties in question, which makes them a quasi official part of the electoral process in the US however. Which is odd, because it really should be solely a matter for the parties if you ask me. (And people wonder why the two party system is so entrenched).

I was concerned with the attitude expressed which implied that the poster thought that a representative in a representative democracy represented the party and not the electorate.

To be fair, a lot of people think that way these days - including many of the people elected representatives. It's what happens when politics revolves around silly wedge issues.

If Lieberman wins the primary, as he did last time around, surely it implies that the local party members approve of the policy choices that he has made. Whether nationally, party members approve or not is irrelevant - he is not representing them, he is representing the local members in the party and the local electorate in government.

He lost. Most likely he will run as an independant and win the general election though. I think he will still caucus with the democrats after that.

Now let us talk about something else - party politics - it is different to and independent of democracy. Democracy is not necessary for party politics to occur - look at the average theocracy and you will see party politics at work - look at absolute monarchies and you will see party politics are present there too. Party politics layered onto representative democracy is a common political arrangement, but it does not mean that democracy depends on party politics. Electing an independent candidate is just as democratic as electing a party member.

While that is true, it is natural for parties to form in a representative democracy. They are not a negative thing, they are an organic and natural outgrowth.

The Parties in the USA are oligarchic - what happened today was oligarchy in action, not democracy. The people were not asked to decide, the party members were asked to decide.

It was internal political descision for a party that would then present it's candidate as an option to the American people. They were not choosing the only person that would run. That would be different. Don't allow a dislike of the parties in existence to make you mistake them for telling people that they had no other option.

Note that I am not implying any corruption in using the term oligarchy - I am using it to mean government by the few, where the few are the party members.

If you don't like it, fight to fix it (yes, I realize that you really can't, being elsewhere, but I'm pointing out the fact that American people don't have to do nothing). That's why it's democracy. No one is holding a gun to your head and telling you who to vote to. The Democratic party has organized to try and choose what it wants to govern America. That is Democracy. Connecticut may choose whoever it wants, Democrats have only chosen the candidate they thing is best.

I'm so glad that everyone here knows so much about Lieberman and Lamont. Tell me, please, what, exactly, is Lamonts opinion on education? Social security? Healthcare? Please answer those without using the word Iraq.


He's for it. I think.

I'm so glad that everyone here knows so much about Lieberman and Lamont. Tell me, please, what, exactly, is Lamonts opinion on education? Social security? Healthcare? Please answer those without using the word Iraq.

Right...even his staff can't answer those questions without using "Well, if we wern't in Iraq, we wouldn't have a problem", and then go into the same trite anti-war tirade.

Do I hate that Lieberman voted for the war? yes. Has Lieberman done great things for my state in the last 18 years? yes. There is more to this election than just the war, and Connecticut is not JUST a democrat state. Lamont says pull out right now. Lieberman says that is irresponsible. Lieberman is correct. Lieberman has an actual stance on healthcare, education, etc. Lamont has a view on Iraq. And only Iraq.

Yes, I voted for Lieberman, and will continue to do so. Beyond the war, they are essentially the same person. One bases their campaign on "we shouldn't be there and come home now", the other says "It doesn't matter if we should or shouldn't be there. We are. Now, how do we fix it?"

By the way, most of the state is registered unoffiliated, and therefore, are inelligable to vote in primaries under CT state law.

Have you seen Lamont's speech yet? If not, please watch it and tell us about his lack of plan on issues. Politics TV should have it. I wanted to watch all of it, but Winamp crashed halfway though, so I don't know what all of it says, but he adressed more issues than just Iraq in the part I saw.

Have you seen Lamont's speech yet? If not, please watch it and tell us about his lack of plan on issues. Politics TV should have it. I wanted to watch all of it, but Winamp crashed halfway though, so I don't know what all of it says, but he adressed more issues than just Iraq in the part I saw.
I've seen his commercials. I've heard his speeches. I've seen him on TV. I've spoken to his senior staff. I've done all but speak directly to him. I have yet to hear a single stance that doesn't somehow come back to "But if we wern't in Iraq". Well, Mr. Lamont, we are, and that is now a fact of history. The little that I have heard about his stances are not any different from Lieberman. I will look for the speech tomorrow when I have more time, but I am not expecting much. Lieberman is accuesd of dodging the issue of Iraq. I accuse Lamont of dodging all issues except Iraq.

He's for it. I think.That is exactly the problem.

First of all, those outside of CT don't get all the stuff we do. You get what the national news deems important...local news and direct contact paints a much different picture.

Second of all, Lamont hasn't made any of his stances outside of Iraq clear. "I think" is the best I could say...but even I'm not sure, and I've been doing my homework for the last four months.

I've seen his commercials. I've heard his speeches. I've seen him on TV. I've spoken to his senior staff. I've done all but speak directly to him. I have yet to hear a single stance that doesn't somehow come back to "But if we wern't in Iraq". Well, Mr. Lamont, we are, and that is now a fact of history. The little that I have heard about his stances are not any different from Lieberman. I will look for the speech tomorrow when I have more time, but I am not expecting much. Lieberman is accuesd of dodging the issue of Iraq. I accuse Lamont of dodging all issues except Iraq.

Watch his acceptance speech today.

Watch his acceptance speech today.
I'll do so when I have the time. Sadly, I was out tonight...I will also be speaking with my friend who is on his staff again soon, and with any luck, I'll come out with better answers. But again, I don't expect much.

I'll do so when I have the time. Sadly, I was out tonight...I will also be speaking with my friend who is on his staff again soon, and with any luck, I'll come out with better answers. But again, I don't expect much.

I don't much like his speaking style (although given his opponent, he wins that contest too :P ), and it was fragmented by the army of bloggers he's had on staff today cheering at every word, but he was pretty clear. The ones I got were: Fix the Deficit, Healthcare for Americans, Adress Lobbying, Out of Iraq (are you suprised), and then Winamp went psycho.

That is exactly the problem.

First of all, those outside of CT don't get all the stuff we do. You get what the national news deems important...local news and direct contact paints a much different picture.

Second of all, Lamont hasn't made any of his stances outside of Iraq clear. "I think" is the best I could say...but even I'm not sure, and I've been doing my homework for the last four months.

'k. I live in the tri-state, so I hear a little bit more about this than most people. I actually feel bad the way lieberman was singled out over this, because from what I know about him he's been a pretty decent Senator for Conn. Better than Dodd anyway, who seems in practice to be more of a unilateralist than Lieberman judging by his recent treaty derailment efforts.

I can't actually figure out what he did specifically to make everyone so angry.

While that is true, it is natural for parties to form in a representative democracy. They are not a negative thing, they are an organic and natural outgrowth.
Being a natural and organic outgrowth, which party politics certainly is of democracy, does not prevent this being a negative factor. I consider party politics to be a cancerous growth on the principles of democracy and as being inherently negative. It eliminates the local issues, the concerns of the community from the political field. It means that politicians forget that they represent a specific group of individuals - their constituency - and they hold themselves distant to and aloof from the intersts of that constiuency. Where this party system is thoroughly entrenched it acts as an effective barrier to the development of new ideas and approaches in the political field. When was the last time that a truly innovative political idea was proposed in the USA by one of the two big parties?



It was internal political descision for a party that would then present it's candidate as an option to the American people. They were not choosing the only person that would run. That would be different. Don't allow a dislike of the parties in existence to make you mistake them for telling people that they had no other option.
I was not saying or implying anything of the kind. I was simply saying that the selection of X by the Democratic party in state Y to be their candidate is not a democratic process, it is a decision made by a limited number of individuals - the few. The next step in the process - the election itself - is democratic.



If you don't like it, fight to fix it (yes, I realize that you really can't, being elsewhere, but I'm pointing out the fact that American people don't have to do nothing). That's why it's democracy. No one is holding a gun to your head and telling you who to vote to. The Democratic party has organized to try and choose what it wants to govern America. That is Democracy. Connecticut may choose whoever it wants, Democrats have only chosen the candidate they thing is best.

The highlighted part is nothing to do with Democracy, it is part of political freedom, but where in this is the demos, the people. Please stop weakening the term and concept of democracy by applying it to oligarchic situations. This is something I have to fight here, where it is often claimed that anything that is voted on - regardless of the limitations on the right to vote - is democratic. (i.e. it is often claimed here that if the directors of a company vote on an issue - that issue was decided democratically :headbang: )

Conneticute may choose whoever it wants - that is democracy, unfortunately it is not true in practice. They cannot choose whoever they want, they get to choose between the candidates selected for them and maybe an independent candidate or two. No no one is holding a gun to their heads, but they are being told who to vote for (that is what campaigning is after all), and from a very limited list of options at that. I know that technically they can write in any name they want, but both you and I know that their real choices are between the declared candidates.

Being a natural and organic outgrowth, which party politics certainly is of democracy, does not prevent this being a negative factor. I consider party politics to be a cancerous growth on the principles of democracy and as being inherently negative. It eliminates the local issues, the concerns of the community from the political field. It means that politicians forget that they represent a specific group of individuals - their constituency - and they hold themselves distant to and aloof from the intersts of that constiuency. Where this party system is thoroughly entrenched it acts as an effective barrier to the development of new ideas and approaches in the political field. When was the last time that a truly innovative political idea was proposed in the USA by one of the two big parties?

When was the last time any politician had a good idea? They are, after all, one step below troglodytes.

The reason we have parties is to allow people with good ideas to work together and organize to express their opinions. That is ultimately a good thing to have happen. It happens in every system. You aren't forced to vote for a person, just because you belong to the same party.

I was not saying or implying anything of the kind. I was simply saying that the selection of X by the Democratic party in state Y to be their candidate is not a democratic process, it is a decision made by a limited number of individuals - the few. The next step in the process - the election itself - is democratic.

It's better than just having the heads of the party choose them. And in that way it is democratic.

Conneticute may choose whoever it wants - that is democracy, unfortunately it is not true in practice. They cannot choose whoever they want, they get to choose between the candidates selected for them and maybe an independent candidate or two. No no one is holding a gun to their heads, but they are being told who to vote for (that is what campaigning is after all), and from a very limited list of options at that. I know that technically they can write in any name they want, but both you and I know that their real choices are between the declared candidates.

I dissagree. It is exactly that thinking that allows the two party system to thrive. Yes, as long people think that way, that is what will happen. It's a vicious cycle. You have a choice. If you choose not to make it, that is your problem.

How "critical" an issue is, is a matter of perspective and opinion. If people dont want to vote for him based on his stance on the war, then they shouldn't vote for him. Thats democracy. Claiming he is a traitor to his constituents because of this stance is nonsense. Once again, if you vote for a person based more on the party than on who the person actually is, you've likely got a screwing coming.

But the war isn't the only thing that's costing him the security of his seat. Biden, Clinton, and other pro-war democrats aren't facing the same upheaval. What's got Lieberman in jeopardy is the fact that he's not doing his job. Connecticut has lost more jobs under Lieberman's representation than almost any other state. It pays out more money in taxes than it gets in federal spending, and that's with Lieberman having seniority and Republican support.

He's not in danger of loosing his job because of the war. He's in danger of loosing his job because he's really really bad at it.

-snip-

'k. I'm not being glib here but you have to remember that the US is not actually a representative democracy, but a republic with some democratic forms. You also have to remember that the two big parties have intertwined themselves somewhat with the machinery of government what with campaign matching funds, state regulation of primaries, laws governing equal access to airtime and such.

Also it's a lot harder to get on a ballot than just collecting a few signatures and paying a deposit.

You are probably right about what you said about parties and the democratic process, but that's just not how people view "democracy" in the US. A.V. Dicey it ain't.

(I even remember reading a declaration by FDR talking about the need for commitment to a 'two party' democracy system during WWII, as if that was the only acceptably form of government).

But the war isn't the only thing that's costing him the security of his seat. Biden, Clinton, and other pro-war democrats aren't facing the same upheaval. What's got Lieberman in jeopardy is the fact that he's not doing his job. Connecticut has lost more jobs under Lieberman's representation than almost any other state. It pays out more money in taxes than it gets in federal spending, and that's with Lieberman having seniority and Republican support.

He's not in danger of loosing his job because of the war. He's in danger of loosing his job because he's really really bad at it.

Connecticut is the richest state in the US (per capita). I fail to see the screw up. In fact if you compare it to NY, and hillary's promises about upstate six years ago, you'd think she would be the obvious choice for a spanking.

I'm so glad that everyone here knows so much about Lieberman and Lamont. Tell me, please, what, exactly, is Lamonts opinion on education? Social security? Healthcare? Please answer those without using the word Iraq.

Right...even his staff can't answer those questions without using "Well, if we wern't in Iraq, we wouldn't have a problem", and then go into the same trite anti-war tirade.

Do I hate that Lieberman voted for the war? yes. Has Lieberman done great things for my state in the last 18 years? yes. There is more to this election than just the war, and Connecticut is not JUST a democrat state. Lamont says pull out right now. Lieberman says that is irresponsible. Lieberman is correct. Lieberman has an actual stance on healthcare, education, etc. Lamont has a view on Iraq. And only Iraq.

Yes, I voted for Lieberman, and will continue to do so. Beyond the war, they are essentially the same person. One bases their campaign on "we shouldn't be there and come home now", the other says "It doesn't matter if we should or shouldn't be there. We are. Now, how do we fix it?"

By the way, most of the state is registered unoffiliated, and therefore, are inelligable to vote in primaries under CT state law.

Well said Sarkhaan. I agree with you 100%.

What's got Lieberman in jeopardy is the fact that he's not doing his job.

Oh bull. He has done wonderful things for CT.

Connecticut has lost more jobs under Lieberman's representation than almost any other state.

Do youknow how the economy works?

It pays out more money in taxes than it gets in federal spending, and that's with Lieberman having seniority and Republican support.

And this is Lieberman's fault how when there are other Democrats in the Senate as well?

He's not in danger of loosing his job because of the war. He's in danger of loosing his job because he's really really bad at it.

Incorrect.

I dissagree. It is exactly that thinking that allows the two party system to thrive. Yes, as long people think that way, that is what will happen. It's a vicious cycle. You have a choice. If you choose not to make it, that is your problem.

It's more the voting system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_Law) than the thinking. If we got people to seriously vote for a third party, then the Dems would disapear.

'k. I'm not being glib here but you have to remember that the US is not actually a representative democracy, but a republic with some democratic forms. You also have to remember that the two big parties have intertwined themselves somewhat with the machinery of government what with campaign matching funds, state regulation of primaries, laws governing equal access to airtime and such.

Just a quick point (US citizens seem to be confused about this)

Democracy - the means by which you select a government
Republic - the form the government takes after being selected.

The USA is a Republic that uses representative Democracy to select its government members.

A

And what if Lieberman wins?I say he wont win.

I am willing to bet on it.

I say he wont win.

I am willing to bet on it.

I do not gamble as it violates my morals. I do ask you to answer my question though. What if Lieberman wins.

I do not gamble as it violates my morals. I do ask you to answer my question though. What if Lieberman wins.
Alleghany: Maybe Pigs will fly tomorrow..
Occean: Pigs do not Fly. :rolleyes:

Alleghany: what if pigs grow wings and..learn to fly?
Occean: LOL.. no chance.

Alleghany: what if pigs grow wings and..learn to fly?
Occean: Not going to happen.

Alleghany: what if pigs grow wings and..learn to fly?
Occean: You are a bit ******, It is a No-can-do.

Alleghany: what if pigs grow wings and..learn to fly?
Occean: ... will you stop that.. you are being childish..

Alleghany: what if pigs grow wings and..learn to fly?
Occean: :mad: &^%$#@ ... Wanna bet?

Alleghany: I do not gamble as it violates my morals. I do ask you to answer my question though, what if pigs learn to fly?

So are you actually going to answer my question or continue to dodge it?

What if Lieberman wins?

I don't much like his speaking style (although given his opponent, he wins that contest too :P ), and it was fragmented by the army of bloggers he's had on staff today cheering at every word, but he was pretty clear. The ones I got were: Fix the Deficit, Healthcare for Americans, Adress Lobbying, Out of Iraq (are you suprised), and then Winamp went psycho.
Just listened to it...and I have to say...they're very pretty words. But they are just that. Words. He says "fix the deficit", but never says how. I know how Lieberman plans to do that, as I know his record in Congress. Lamont waits untill his victory speech to really mention any of this, but says nothing about how he plans to do so. They are just words, and don't actually look at how he wants to do them.

Just a quick point (US citizens seem to be confused about this)

Democracy - the means by which you select a government
Republic - the form the government takes after being selected.

The USA is a Republic that uses representative Democracy to select its government members.

A

Not all republics are democratic, and not all democracies are republics.

And in the case of the US, it is not a representative democracy in the sense you mean.

Just listened to it...and I have to say...they're very pretty words. But they are just that. Words. He says "fix the deficit", but never says how. I know how Lieberman plans to do that, as I know his record in Congress. Lamont waits untill his victory speech to really mention any of this, but says nothing about how he plans to do so. They are just words, and don't actually look at how he wants to do them.

We'll see if he puts up more plan. They seem to be pretty standard Dem talking points. It's still early in the race TBH.

At least he says these things. Lieberman never would have. He was too much a part of the DC establishment.

We'll see if he puts up more plan. They seem to be pretty standard Dem talking points. It's still early in the race TBH.

At least he says these things. Lieberman never would have. He was too much a part of the DC establishment.
Lieberman has said those things for 18 years now, and has the voting record to back it up. And as I said, they are pretty words...regardless of who is saying them, they mean nothing if you have no plan behind it. Lamont has yet to reveal his plan to back these ideas.

Lieberman has said those things for 18 years now, and has the voting record to back it up. And as I said, they are pretty words...regardless of who is saying them, they mean nothing if you have no plan behind it. Lamont has yet to reveal his plan to back these ideas.

Like I said. It's early in the game. In the primary, Lamont focused on the key difference between himself and Lieberman. Now he has to make himself into a candidate for everyone.

Lamont's "Lack of plan": http://nedlamont.com/issues/67/energy-independence-and-the-environment

I support an overarching plan for clean energy and energy independence: basic research, higher mileage per gallon standards, HOMER appliance and insulation standards, disincentives for high polluting and gas guzzling users and incentives for high mileage, and clean energy alternatives. Energy independence and the environment must be an integral part of every public policy decision. That means no drilling in ANWR (a very short term solution to a very long-term problem), but incentives to produce clean energy and improve efficiency.

http://nedlamont.com/issues/69/infrastructure

Rather than the pork-ridden omnibus transportation bill, which featured more than 6,000 earmarks for favored congressmen, I would work for a transportation strategy which interconnects cities and suburbs, inner cities and jobs and affordable housing, and ports and airports. This is a pre-requisite if Connecticut and the United States are to compete and prosper in the 21st century.

http://nedlamont.com/issues/28/health-care

The list goes on and on.

Like I said. It's early in the game. In the primary, Lamont focused on the key difference between himself and Lieberman. Now he has to make himself into a candidate for everyone.

Something that should be done during the Primaries.

Something that should be done during the Primaries.

No. There was one fundamental difference between the two candidates. That was what the election was about. Now Lamont has to tell people who aren't members of the Democratic party (and therefore already aware of what their party is about) what he is about. A primary is not a general election. Stop expecting it to be.

Like I said. It's early in the game. In the primary, Lamont focused on the key difference between himself and Lieberman. Now he has to make himself into a candidate for everyone.

Lamont's "Lack of plan":*snip*
Well, that was my issue with him. He waited untill now to talk about anything but the war. I'm not picking anyone based off of one issue, and as such, he lost my vote

I also don't claim that he doesn't have a plan. I claim that he doesn't say it. It is great to have it on his website...and yes, I was unaware about that, so thank you...but I would prefer to get that as an answer to "What do you plan to do about education", rather than the answer of "Well, if we pull out of Iraq, we will have more money to fix education. Did I mention we shouldn't be in Iraq?"

No. There was one fundamental difference between the two candidates. That was what the election was about. Now Lamont has to tell people who aren't members of the Democratic party (and therefore already aware of what their party is about) what he is about. A primary is not a general election. Stop expecting it to be.
It should be done durning the primaries. I don't care what the party stands for. I want to know what the candidate stands for on ALL of the issues...not JUST the one that makes them "not that guy"

It should be done durning the primaries. I don't care what the party stands for. I want to know what the candidate stands for on ALL of the issues...not JUST the one that makes them "not that guy"

There are some very clear definitions of what makes one a Democrat. Lamont didn't need to talk about them. What was important was how Lamont was different from Lieberman. They were the only two people running, and Lamont ran on how he was different, not how he was the same.

No. There was one fundamental difference between the two candidates. That was what the election was about. Now Lamont has to tell people who aren't members of the Democratic party (and therefore already aware of what their party is about) what he is about. A primary is not a general election. Stop expecting it to be.

No you see...people who are not voting in eachother's primaries still look at the candidates in the other party. That way, they know what they could be up against and prepare to run against either one of them. In order to that, you still have to prove yourself electable even during a primary. If the other side and independents do not see that you are presenting yourself as the person for the job, you are not going to win. Bill Clinton was a good example of this, he presented himself as the candidate for the White House. That was why he won both times.

Lieberman has already prepared himself for the general election. Lamont has spent most of his time bashing Lieberman and not spending time on how he plans to fix anything. By not doing so, he is already seen in a different light from Lieberman because Lieberman does have plans on fixing things. His record is an indication of this. Lamont has an uphill battle to climb because he has not presented himself as the candidate for the job to other voters because he has not stated his plans to achieve what he wants to achieve.

There are some very clear definitions of what makes one a Democrat. Lamont didn't need to talk about them. What was important was how Lamont was different from Lieberman. They were the only two people running, and Lamont ran on how he was different, not how he was the same.
And there are even more things that aren't cut and dry about what is and is not a democrat. There is also the issue that I don't care what is "democrat". I care about what I think is best for my state and, in turn, my nation, and who I think will bring that about. I don't want someone who will vote on issues because they are "democrat" issues. I want someone who can compromise. Who can read a bill, and vote on its merrit. Lieberman has done that. Lamont gave me absolutly zero impression that he cared about the state of the state of connecticut over the state of the democratic party. I don't want to assume that just because many or most democrats think A that both Lamont and Lieberman also believe A.

There are some very clear definitions of what makes one a Democrat. Lamont didn't need to talk about them. What was important was how Lamont was different from Lieberman. They were the only two people running, and Lamont ran on how he was different, not how he was the same.

Which is what? That Lamont is anti-war? I believe Kerry tried to run on that platform and got kicked in the butt.

anti-war? I believe Kerry tried to run on that platform and got kicked in the butt.Kerry is an idiot.

... he lost my voteYou live in Connecticut?

You live in Connecticut?
yes. Why do you ask?

Which is what? That Lamont is anti-war? I believe Kerry tried to run on that platform and got kicked in the butt.
Kerry was not able to differentiate himself from Bush. And Bush ran on a platform of defaming Kerry. Hmm, didn't you just say Lamont won't win because of that? Republicans have longm ade it a viable strategy.

Kerry was not able to differentiate himself from Bush. And Bush ran on a platform of defaming Kerry. Hmm, didn't you just say Lamont won't win because of that? Republicans have longm ade it a viable strategy.

Republicans and Democrats do it to one another. And people want to know why voter turnout is low. :(

yes. Why do you ask?simply because you said "he lost my vote". I guess you were talking about Lieberman :confused:

simply because you said "he lost my vote". I guess you were talking about Lieberman :confused:
no...I was talking about lamont. I voted for lieberman.