NationStates Jolt Archive

Joe Lieberman has conceded defeat in the Democratic primary. In an almost unheard of event, a powerful, influential, senior senator lost his primary.

So what does everyone think of this?

Are the Democrats destroying their party?
Are the Dems going to finally start standing up to Republicans lest they be cut off from below?
Does it mean Jack Shit in the big picture because few Dem politicians were as bad for the party, or their state, as Joe Lieberman is?

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-senate0809.artaug09,0,3365524.story?coll=hc-headlines-home

A three-way? This is gonna be hot.

Down with Joe Lieberman!

Now if they can trim Zig Zag Zell and the other Republicans-in-Democratic-Clothing that might be the start of a separate Democratic party identity and platform.

Hurrah! I actually hate him more than I hate Republicans - at least the Republicans don't even try to disguise the fact they're screwing you over.

Now if they can trim Zig Zag Zell and the other Republicans-in-Democratic-Clothing that might be the start of a separate Democratic party identity and platform.

Which will be their downfall.

Well, I think it's a good thing. I mean, regardless of what party someone is from, if they're not agreeing with my views and opinions, I don't want them to get anywhere close to a position where they can hurt me.

And to think, he was very nearly VP.

Lieberman was one of the politicians in America who still stood for what he believed was right, and not what was expedient or what his special interests liked. The man didn't take orders from anyone, and genuinely cared about the future of our country. I disagree with him on a lot of things, but the man is genuinely a good guy, and America needs more independent thinking men like Joe and less ideological hacks like Lamont or DeLay.

Lieberman was one of the politicians in America who still stood for what he believed was right, and not what was expedient or what his special interests liked. The man didn't take orders from anyone, and genuinely cared about the future of our country. I disagree with him on a lot of things, but the man is genuinely a good guy, and America needs more independent thinking men like Joe and less ideological hacks like Lamont or DeLay.

Where pray tell have you divined that Lamont is an "ideological hack"? Most of what I've heard from him is fairly staunchly in the middle of where most of America is. In case you haven't noticed, the staunch majority of Americans don't like the war, the staunch majority of Americans don't like the administration, the staunch majority of Americans don't like where the country is headed, and the staunch majority of Americans feel that the current Congress and Executive is manifestly unresponsive to their needs. It isn't courage to insist that your voters follow your brave lead if you're going off a cliff.

I will agree with you that Lieberman is probably a fairly decent man, but to be quite honest, the man lost any possible support from me the day he said that Democrats who don't support the President in a time of war were being unpatriotic. Any man who says that doesn't deserve office, and definitely isn't going to get my vote.

Lieberman was one of the politicians in America who still stood for what he believed was right, and not what was expedient or what his special interests liked. The man didn't take orders from anyone, and genuinely cared about the future of our country. I disagree with him on a lot of things, but the man is genuinely a good guy, and America needs more independent thinking men like Joe and less ideological hacks like Lamont or DeLay.

Well said. If the Democrats want to take down those who are independent thinkers and do not vote with them 100% of the time (which is stupid anyway), the democratic party is going to have a very hard time in the near future as no one will run with them.

And no the Democrats are not taking back their party. The democratic left are taking over the party which is not good.

Which will be their downfall.
This is giving the Republicans exactly wat they want. You guys are always complaining that the Democrats don't have a message. Well now they're making one.

And no the Democrats are not taking back their party. The democratic left are taking over the party which is not good.
Why is it always assumed that centre-left policies will be profoundly unpopular with Americans?

Lieberman was one of the politicians in America who still stood for what he believed was right, and not what was expedient or what his special interests liked.
And not what h is constituents wanted, which is why he lost.

Why is it always assumed that centre-left policies will be profoundly unpopular with Americans?

Lamont is a one issue person. Lamont also distorted Lieberman's record and twisted anything remotely implying that he is loyal to the Democratic Party. Luckily, Lieberman is not down and out like McKinny is for he will run as an independent and Lamont is not going to have an easy time trying to convince the entire state to elect him.

To quote Lieberman: "The old politics of partisan polarization won today. For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot, I will not let this result stand."

And not what h is constituents wanted, which is why he lost.

Only the Democratic party is his constituents? I thought he represented all of Conn. and not just the democratic party. :confused:

To quote Lieberman: "The old politics of partisan polarization won today. For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot, I will not let this result stand."
What a crybaby.

You people have a two-party system. Deal with it.

If you complain about party politics or polarisation, you're asking for a one-party state.

Why is it always assumed that centre-left policies will be profoundly unpopular with Americans?

They're quite popular. The pricetags aren't.

If you complain about party politics or polarisation, you're asking for a one-party state.

What? :confused:

Are you saying that politics is not polarized?

Luckily he is still running so why would he be a cry baby if he is still running?

What a crybaby.

You people have a two-party system. Deal with it.

If you complain about party politics or polarisation, you're asking for a one-party state.

*AHEMCOUGHCOUGHHAGCOUGHHRMMMAH* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_Law)

Only the Democratic party is his constituents? I thought he represented all of Conn. and not just the democratic party. :confused:
Some one doesn't understand our party system I see.

Which will be their downfall.
Forgive me if I decide not to listen to advice from someone who has repeatedly shown little but disdain for may party. In short, if you think it's bad for my party, so much the better.

They're quite popular. The pricetags aren't.
Says the person whose party has led us into deep fiscal crisis while simultaneously trying to slash those programs. :rolleyes:

Are you saying that politics is not polarized?
No, I am saying that your system is one that fosters total polarisation and total partisan behaviour.

Whenever one person deviates from the party line, they must be kicked out. The system cannot tolerate people who don't tow the line.

He should have known and understood that. And getting himself that sort of voting record was his choice - it was the logical conclusion that he was removed. The only person he can blame is himself, he should've joined the other party officially.


*AHEMCOUGHCOUGHHAGCOUGHHRMMMAH*
Point being? :confused:
The system (whatever the reason) is a two-party system. It doesn't have to be.

But it is, and therefore no one who doesn't pull the party line can be tolerated.

Says the person whose party has led us into deep fiscal crisis while simultaneously trying to slash those programs. :rolleyes:

Since when was I a Democrat?


Or a Republican. I'm not sure which you're talking about.

They're quite popular. The pricetags aren't.
Only because the majority of people are ignorant and uninformed.
And some asshat Republican convinced America that increasing taxes to pay for things is bad so money should be pulled out of thin fucking air and convinced people that they shouldn't have to care about other people and should only care about themselves.

Since when was I a Democrat?
You think you are funny, the rest of us remotely intelligent people understood he was referring to you as a Republican in support of the trickle-down style of fiscal irresponsibility.

Only because the majority of people are ignorant and uninformed.

Welcome to America. You just noticed?

No, I am saying that your system is one that fosters total polarisation and total partisan behaviour.

Whenever one person deviates from the party line, they must be kicked out. The system cannot tolerate people who don't tow the line.

He should have known and understood that. And getting himself that sort of voting record was his choice - it was the logical conclusion that he was removed. The only person he can blame is himself, he should've joined the other party officially.I can understand why you'd think this givent he official media narrative, but the fact is that Lieberman got tossed for larger reasons. Look, if you put his voting record up against that of the other 43 Democratic Senators, there are 17 other Dems who vote against the party more often than Lieberman did, and yet none of them are facing serious primary challenges. Why is that? Because when Ben Nelson of Nebraska, for instance, strays from the reservation, he doesn't go on Fox News and blather about how his party is destroying the country by not giving Bush what he wants. LIeberman did that all the time--at least until the primary got close; then Fox News couldn't get him on tv.

My point is that the Democratic party is far less ideologically rigid than either the media or the Republican party would have anyone believe. We don't just kick out 18-year incumbents on a whim, and we certainly don't require the kind of ideological adherence you find in the Republican party.

Says the person whose party has led us into deep fiscal crisis while simultaneously trying to slash those programs. :rolleyes:

Most likely I'll regret this, but what fiscal crisis?

Most likely I'll regret this, but what fiscal crisis?
Nearly ten trillion dollars in debt, and an average of three-hundred-fifty billion dollars a year in deficit for starters, all while staring at increased future government spending and doing jack diddly squat about it. I call that a crisis.

Most likely I'll regret this, but what fiscal crisis?

Near record deficits.

More foreign borrowing than all prior administrations put together. Loans that gather interest, meaning our tax dollars are paying for the operation expenses of foreign governments (primarily China.)

Stagnation and even regression of real wages among typical Americans.

Greater Rich/Poor divide.

Record gas prices.

it's official, Harlesburg sleeps!

Nearly ten trillion dollars in debt, and an average of three-hundred-fifty billion dollars a year in deficit for starters, all while staring at increased future government spending and doing jack diddly squat about it. I call that a crisis.

The federal government debt is lower now as a percentage of GDP than it was for most of the 90s. The external debt is around 40% of GDP, much lower than pretty much any other large industrial nation except the UK. The deficit in 2005 was around 2.6% for 2005, far lower than france, japan, germany, italy.

It's hardly a crisis. Fairly healthy numbers if anything. Doubly so when compared to growth in GDP.

I can't speculate on the future. It hasn't happened yet.

Most likely I'll regret this, but what fiscal crisis?
You know, national saving rates are ultimately the most important factor determining investment, capital accumulation and economic growth.

Americans aren't saving, they're living on borrowed money. The government could try to do something about that, and one part of that would be to save some money itself.

As it is, they're only adding to the all-pervasive debt.

More foreign borrowing than all prior administrations put together. Loans that gather interest, meaning our tax dollars are paying for the operation expenses of foreign governments (primarily China.)


What are you talking about?

Americans aren't saving, they're living on borrowed money. The government could try to do something about that, and one part of that would be to save some money itself.


That's true. But that has bugger all to do with the government and everything to do with the federal reserve. That trend started when Greenspan started to pump to much liquidity into the economy because the fed panicked about the asian financial crisis and the failure of LCM in the late 90s.

The federal government debt is lower now as a percentage of GDP than it was for most of the 90s. The external debt is around 40% of GDP, much lower than pretty much any other large industrial nation except the UK. The deficit in 2005 was around 2.6% for 2005, far lower than france, japan, germany, italy.

It's hardly a crisis. Fairly healthy numbers if anything. Doubly so when compared to growth in GDP.

I can't speculate on the future. It hasn't happened yet.

But your numbers don't include all the expenses for the Iraq war. Furthermore, in times past, the deficit was almost entirely money owed to ourselves, meaning interest payments were kept in house. In the current circumstance much much much more debt is owed to foreign countries, meaning interest payments pretty much get flushed down the toilet, as far as Americans are concerned (though it's great for China's economy.)

That's true. But that has bugger all to do with the government and everything to do with the federal reserve. That trend started when Greenspan started to pump to much liquidity into the economy because the fed panicked about the asian financial crisis and the failure of LCM in the late 90s.
Well, Greenspan is one of those divisive characters. Presidents liked him, because he was responsible for their good economic records. :p

Whether he followed the modern doctrine in economics about how a central bank is supposed to function is another matter entirely. And one thing is pretty certain: Ben Bernanke (he wrote my 1st year textbook :D ) will see his role in a much more narrow way than Greenspan ever did.

What are you talking about?

I think what I wrote is pretty self-explanatory. The Bush administration has borrowed more money from foreign governments to make up for the budget shortfall than every single prior administration put together.

But your numbers don't include all the expenses for the Iraq war.

Yes they do.

Furthermore, in times past, the deficit was almost entirely money owed to ourselves, meaning interest payments were kept in house. In the current circumstance much much much more debt is owed to foreign countries, meaning interest payments pretty much get flushed down the toilet, as far as Americans are concerned (though it's great for China's economy.)

I'm discounting intra-governmental loans. I'm only talking about public debt. Anyone can buy a treasury and they've long been popular overseas because the dollar has been the world's reserve currency since the bretton woods agreement in 1945. The arabs bought a lot of them in the 70s-80s.

China buys treasuries to keep its currency pegged at a fixed rate to the dollar. Meh. Given the discount they bought them at compared to now, that deal screws them. Also, it's not like they can go sell them in the secondary market anytime soon, not without hurting their exports to us at least.

Also there are no interest payments on them. They only pay par value at maturity. It's our way of exporting inflation. Doesn't hurt us.

Some one doesn't understand our party system I see.

On the contrary. I understand the Democratic Party just fine. I know that they are not the only party in the stat of CT, and I also know that they are not the only par of Lieberman's constetuency.

Whether he followed the modern doctrine in economics about how a central bank is supposed to function is another matter entirely. And one thing is pretty certain: Ben Bernanke (he wrote my 1st year textbook :D ) will see his role in a much more narrow way than Greenspan ever did.

I was suprised when the Fed paused its rate hikes yesterday.

I think what I wrote is pretty self-explanatory. The Bush administration has borrowed more money from foreign governments to make up for the budget shortfall than every single prior administration put together.

Well it isn't. Mostly because administrations don't borrow money from foreign governments. The deficit is financed through the Bureau of Public debt with the sale of T-bills and such.

And I have yet to have the crisis explained.

No, I am saying that your system is one that fosters total polarisation and total partisan behaviour.

Whenever one person deviates from the party line, they must be kicked out. The system cannot tolerate people who don't tow the line.

And that is my biggest complaint.

He should have known and understood that. And getting himself that sort of voting record was his choice - it was the logical conclusion that he was removed. The only person he can blame is himself, he should've joined the other party officially.

And this is another one of my pet peaves. Because they disagree they should belong to a different party? No wonder our political system is screwed up. When people digress from the "party line" they are called the other party in sheep's clothing. Not only is that false for most of the politicians, but is disingenious to their lifetime loyalty. I guess party loyalty means 100% acceptance these days.

Point being? :confused:
The system (whatever the reason) is a two-party system. It doesn't have to be.

I would tend to agree with you but there is a third party called the independent party.

But it is, and therefore no one who doesn't pull the party line can be tolerated.

He has 90% of the time.

Record gas prices.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Sorry but we had worse than this. When factored with inflation, this is not so bad compared to other time periods we had.

They didnt take back their party, they crippled it. Lamont and Lieberman are going to spilt the democrat vote giving the Republicans yet another seat in the senate. Thats why the democrats won't win, because they are retarded.

It's not necessarily a "good" thing that a party (Democrat or Republican) goes all the way to the left or right - it's been proven time and time again (by Clinton especially) that sitting in the middle gets you a win.

Sure, you can win a primary by being more to the left or right - primaries generally have very low turnout, and are dominated by the people who are the core of the party in question. But a general election is not a primary.

In certain places, like the city of Washington DC and Connecticutt, you only have to win the primary to win the election, because the other party is effectively moribund in that state.

Being further to the left obviously didn't help McKinney.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CONGRESS_MCKINNEY?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-08-08-23-26-26

Thats why the democrats won't win, because they are retarded.

That never stopped the republicans

They didnt take back their party, they crippled it. Lamont and Lieberman are going to spilt the democrat vote giving the Republicans yet another seat in the senate. Thats why the democrats won't win, because they are retarded.

There could be some truth to this.

I would tend to agree with you but there is a third party called the independent party.

Independent isn't a party. That's why it's called Independent....It's independent...from parties.

I miss Jerry Brown.

That never stopped the republicans
The Republicans arent retarded, whether you disagree with politics or not at they have a plan and are organized.

I was suprised when the Fed paused its rate hikes yesterday.
To be honest, I don't look at the US data too much. I've got plenty of other stuff on my mind usually.

But here in Oz it's quite funny to watch Howard try and wriggle his way out of the mess he made...he ran a campaign appealing to the mortgage belt, on low interest rates. He actually told people that under Labor the rates would rise.

And people bought it (which destroyed my belief in Australian democracy).

Well, he gets what he deserves. (http://www.rba.gov.au/ChartPack/interest_rates_australia.pdf) :D

And people bought it (which destroyed my belief in Australian democracy).


Why does that destroy your belief in democracy only now?

As soon as people believe they have the right to vote themselves the treasury (or any other monetary benefit or property gift), that's the end of democracy, because simple greed will outweigh any truthful consideration of the situation.

Why does that destroy your belief in democracy only now?
Oh, I've always believed that people will generally tend to vote for whomever makes them better off. To a certain extent, the system depends on it.

But promising low interest rates was like promising sunshine. It just isn't in the power of the government.

And no one cared.

Only the Democratic party is his constituents? I thought he represented all of Conn. and not just the democratic party. :confused:
Gather 'round children! It's time for a tale about the American electoral system! I'm going to tell you today about primaries! A Primary is when a state runs an election to determine who appears on a ballot. Primaries are either "closed", meaning that only Democrats can vote on what Democrat candidates appear, Republicans for Republicans, etc. or "open", meaning independents vote also, but they can only select the candidates of one party, they can select who runs as a Democrat for all offices, or who runs as a Republican, but only one. So Lieberman lost in the primary (Conn. does theirs late, by the by. We in Oregon had ours in March!). He can only appear on the ballot as an Independent.

Oh, I've always believed that people will generally tend to vote for whomever makes them better off. To a certain extent, the system depends on it.

But promising low interest rates was like promising sunshine. It just isn't in the power of the government.

And no one cared.

It isn't in the power of the US government to "create jobs" other than government-subsidized do-work programs that pay very little and help very few people (no real career there).

How many times have I heard Presidential candidates from BOTH sides promising that THEY can deliver jobs?

If you consider the amount of money that moves every DAY through Wall Street (just the NYSE, not including NASDAQ), it's more than the US government spends in an entire year. So, conceptually, that one exchange has more power (and its brokers wield more power) than the entire US government - by several orders of magnitude. Especially when it comes to job creation, since the stock market translates into investment in companies - who hire people.

I'm more likely to believe the head of a brokerage firm when he says, "there will be job growth in the following sector" because he's steering the money that way. The government, by comparison, is completely impotent.

I miss Jerry Brown.

He's still around.. running for Attorney General here in California, unopposed I think. :p

I'm a Democrat and I'm glad he's going independent and taking a stand. Joe Lieberman has a good head on his shoulders and what he says makes sense. Sometimes I'm embarrased to be a Democrat with people representing me like fat ass Kennedy, bassethound Kerry and that socialist bitch Clinton.

I am sad that he is leaving because he was the last of the John F Kennedy and FDR type Democrats. I think he is doing the right thing though and if he runs for president in 08, he's got my vote.

*snip*

Oh brother. Let me tell you something Kapsilan! Lieberman is taking his re-election to his constituency. Therefore, the Democratic Party, in this case as he represents the whole state of Conn., is not his sole constituency as he is going to be running as an Independent in the general election. He has the 7500 petitioners as required by Conn law to run as an independent.

So tell me again how the Democratic party is his constituency when he is going to run as an Independent?

I'm a Democrat and I'm glad he's going independent and taking a stand. Joe Lieberman has a good head on his shoulders and what he says makes sense. Sometimes I'm embarrased to be a Democrat with people representing me like fat ass Kennedy, bassethound Kerry and that socialist bitch Clinton.

I am sad that he is leaving because he was the last of the JFK and FDR type Democrats. I think he is doing the right thing though and if he runs for president in 08, he's got my vote.

To be honest, I don't look at the US data too much. I've got plenty of other stuff on my mind usually.

But here in Oz it's quite funny to watch Howard try and wriggle his way out of the mess he made...he ran a campaign appealing to the mortgage belt, on low interest rates. He actually told people that under Labor the rates would rise.

And people bought it (which destroyed my belief in Australian democracy).

Well, he gets what he deserves. (http://www.rba.gov.au/ChartPack/interest_rates_australia.pdf) :D

I don't really follow Oz politics. Did he actually make out that interest rates would stay the same under him? Because that's silly.

I am sad that he is leaving because he was the last of the John F Kennedy and FDR type Democrats. I think he is doing the right thing though and if he runs for president in 08, he's got my vote.
Hehehe, you call Hillary a "socialist bitch", but you think FDR was a good guy.

Your country is silly! :D

I'm a Democrat and I'm glad he's going independent and taking a stand. Joe Lieberman has a good head on his shoulders and what he says makes sense. Sometimes I'm embarrased to be a Democrat with people representing me like fat ass Kennedy, bassethound Kerry and that socialist bitch Clinton.

I am sad that he is leaving because he was the last of the John F Kennedy and FDR type Democrats. I think he is doing the right thing though and if he runs for president in 08, he's got my vote.

Well thought out. Thank you Mac World. If Lieberman runs for President in '08, I could also very well vote for him.

He's still around.. running for Attorney General here in California, unopposed I think. :p

I loved that guy. The man was an independant thinker.

I don't really follow Oz politics. Did he actually make out that interest rates would stay the same under him? Because that's silly.
Well, as you'd expect, they're now splitting hairs (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20066633-2702,00.html). Fact of the matter was that his party was playing TV spots saying (and I'm paraphrasing): "Under Labor, interest rates were very high. Now, under us, interest rates are very low. So vote for us if you want to keep riding the housing bubble!"

Hehehe, you call Hillary a "socialist bitch", but you think FDR was a good guy.

Your country is silly! :D
I don't think the country is silly at all, the only thing silly are those in it who are more liberal leaning. They say crazy things like you have just seen and quite frankly the country might go south if they ever regain control. Im not saying the Republicans have been good, Im just saying its not as bad as it could be.

Ned Lamont is a one-issue ideological hack supported by the 'netroots' commies at nut-job sites like Daily Kos, Democratic Underground et al. On every other issue, he's either opposed to the Republicans for the sake of being opposed (not a good thing for a politician, putting partisan politics above the good of constituents/the nation) or following Joe Lieberman's policies. I really believe that if Joe Lieberman stands as an Independent he will beat Ned Lamont.

Until the Democratic party can sort its life out and stop the far-left idiots from taking it over and turning it into the new Communist party it has no chance against the Republicans. Until the Republicans can go away from the ridiculous Christian Fundamentalist socialist party they are under George Bush, and back to true Reaganistic conservatism (ie small Government, focus on independence and personal responsiblity, strong military etc etc) then voter turnouts will continue to be low as more and more grassroots conservatives feel ignored by the GoP and either stop voting, or vote Libertarian.

What America needs is a 'stalemate'. Either a Democratic President and a Republican Senate/Congress or vice versa. That provides good growth without either side being able to go out of control and screw over the people.

...true Reaganistic conservatism (ie small Government, focus on independence and personal responsiblity, strong military etc etc)...
See, Soviestan? It's not just the lefties. ;)

Well, as you'd expect, they're now splitting hairs (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20066633-2702,00.html). Fact of the matter was that his party was playing TV spots saying (and I'm paraphrasing): "Under Labor, interest rates were very high. Now, under us, interest rates are very low. So vote for us if you want to keep riding the housing bubble!"

Gotcha. What are they going to do if commodity prices drive up inflation (or some other factor)?

I believe the Labour government in the UK has the same type of threat, though they call it "economic stability."

Politicians in the US rarely, if ever, mention interest rates.

See, Soviestan? It's not just the lefties. ;)
Whats wrong with that? I think he brings up some good points about how both parties arent great or even good for that matter but at least the Republicans have ideas and direction. I think it was Lewis Black who said "the Republicans are the party with bad ideas, the democrats are the party of no ideas" its about right.

EDIT: the stalemate thing might be a bit off. Theres needs to be unity so that things can get accomplished.

Whats wrong with that? I think he brings up some good points about how both parties arent great or even good for that matter but at least the Republicans have ideas and direction. I think it was Lewis Black who said "the Republicans are the party with bad ideas, the democrats are the party of no ideas" its about right.

He also said that at elections we get a choice - a choice between two steaming bowls of shit.

Oh brother. Let me tell you something Kapsilan! Lieberman is taking his re-election to his constituency. Therefore, the Democratic Party, in this case as he represents the whole state of Conn., is not his sole constituency as he is going to be running as an Independent in the general election. He has the 7500 petitioners as required by Conn law to run as an independent.

So tell me again how the Democratic party is his constituency when he is going to run as an Independent?
Haha. Because the post to which you responded was about him losing the election due to him not serving his constituents. Connecticut has a closed primary. The Dems might as well be he constituents. He has to get their vote to even appear on the ballot. Plus, his state went heavily to Kerry in 2004. By kissing Bush, do you think many of the Kerry-supportnig majority will vote for him in November? So yes, I would say that the Democrats were his constituents in this primary.

Haha. Because the post to which you responded was about him losing the election due to him not serving his constituents.

You mean his democratic constituents. One party does not make up one's entire constituency.

Connecticut has a closed primary.

Yes I know. So does Pennsylvania.

The Dems might as well be he constituents. He has to get their vote to even appear on the ballot. Plus, his state went heavily to Kerry in 2004.

So it did.

By kissing Bush,

You mean when they embraced at the State of the Union? Come on. That really is the most lamest excuse for voting against someone I have ever heard.

do you think many of the Kerry-supportnig majority will vote for him in November? So yes, I would say that the Democrats were his constituents in this primary.

And now...he's going to his entire constituency which I applaud and therefor, point stands :p

Whats wrong with that?

it was completely delusional?

Where pray tell have you divined that Lamont is an "ideological hack"? Most of what I've heard from him is fairly staunchly in the middle of where most of America is. In case you haven't noticed, the staunch majority of Americans don't like the war, the staunch majority of Americans don't like the administration, the staunch majority of Americans don't like where the country is headed, and the staunch majority of Americans feel that the current Congress and Executive is manifestly unresponsive to their needs. It isn't courage to insist that your voters follow your brave lead if you're going off a cliff.

.

Staunch majority? What does that even mean? Anyway that bizarre term aside Lamont seems to mostly be a candidate who runs against current powers-that-be and not particularly for anything specific. Just running away from the ebil republicans isnt good enough. There are a thousand different directions that are away from the current Congress. Most of these are even worse. Newer is not better, just more interesting. Better is better.

You mean when they embraced at the State of the Union? Come on. That really is the most lamest excuse for voting against someone I have ever heard.

Oh, it's lame. Haha. I've got a friend who lives in Hartford. According to him, it sold the whole "Lieberman supports Bush" thing that Lamont had pretty damn well.

And now...he's going to his entire constituency which I applaud and therefor, point stands :p
Yes... But he's either going to split the vote, or Lamont will win. He's got no hope. So by holding no confidence in his state other than some janky pro-Bush Dems, I'd say he's lost his constituency.

Oh, it's lame. Haha. I've got a friend who lives in Hartford. According to him, it sold the whole "Lieberman supports Bush" thing that Lamont had pretty damn well.

Why does that not surprise me? Did you know that Lieberman has voted with the Democratic Party 90% of the time? Does your friend know that? Lieberman does not support Bush.

Yes... But he's either going to split the vote, or Lamont will win. He's got no hope.

Care to back up your assertion that he has no hope?

So by holding no confidence in his state other than some janky pro-Bush Dems, I'd say he's lost his constituency.

We shall see come November will we not?

There are a thousand different directions that are away from the current Congress. Most of these are even worse.

i think you'd find it hard to be worse

assume that there were literally a thousand different dirctions away from the corrupt proto-fascists. i'd estimate that only about 58 of them would be worse. many of the remaining 942 would only be marginally better or about on par, of course, but these fucks have set the bar pretty damn low.

Haha! Looks like Stella, the Democratic senator, and all her pals have gotten their respective grooves back!

Haha! Looks like Stella, the Democratic senator, and all her pals have gotten their respective grooves back!

And they will look foolish when the Democrats do not take CT.

Why does that not surprise me? Did you know that Lieberman has voted with the Democratic Party 90% of the time? Does your friend know that? Lieberman does not support Bush.

hi and welcome to the current political realignment going on. you may be confused for awhile - actually, you're probably just inherently so, but other people might be too - but what we are seeing in american politics is a shift in priorities and definitional distinctions. in the respects that matter in the current political climate, lieberman has become allied and identified with the most extremist loonies of the proto-fascist 'neoconservative' movement he adopts their positions on the things that matter and provides cover for them in the media. he's pro-imperialism, pro-torture, pro-authoritarianism, etc. that makes him not of the same party as those that oppose the fascists. it doesn't matter what his positions are on other matters - with fascists such things never have.

Why does that not surprise me? Did you know that Lieberman has voted with the Democratic Party 90% of the time? Does your friend know that? Lieberman does not support Bush.

Man, I don't know what friend knows. That's what he told me, and that's what I'm inclined to believe. But you should know that facts have no power in this country over video clips and sloganeering.

Care to back up your assertion that he has no hope?

Eh, not really. All I have to go off of out here on the opposite side of the country is what coverage there is in the national media. I'm not deeply connected with the zeitgeist of Connecticut.

We shall see come November will we not?

Yeah. I mean, all I have to go off of is what I'm told Connecticut residents care about. I have no first-hand experience with it. Also, this isn't even remotely close to the most important thing to me this election year. We've got a really close gubernatorial race here in Oregon, and California's is going to be good too. By November, I'll be surprised if this is even on my radar.

hi and welcome to the current political realignment going on. you may be confused for awhile - actually, you're probably just inherently so, but other people might be too - but what we are seeing in american politics is a shift in priorities and definitional distinctions. in the respects that matter in the current political climate, lieberman has become allied and identified with the most extremist loonies of the proto-fascist 'neoconservative' movement he adopts their positions on the things that matter and provides cover for them in the media. he's pro-imperialism, pro-torture, pro-authoritarianism, etc. that makes him not of the same party as those that oppose the fascists. it doesn't matter what his positions are on other matters - with fascists such things never have.

I actually had to laugh when I read this. Especially the fascist part. That really tickled my funny bone. I see that no one bothers to look at voting records. If they did, they would see that Lieberman has voted 90% of the time with his party. The only places he broke away from the Democratic Party is in the realm of Defense and National Security. Something that the Democratic Party seems to have forgotten that we still must be able to protect ourselves from those who want to do us harm. To borrow a quote "Let him who desires peace prepare for war."

Man, I don't know what friend knows. That's what he told me, and that's what I'm inclined to believe. But you should know that facts have no power in this country over video clips and sloganeering.

Here I will agree with you but on the flip side, one must have facts before stating something to be true.

Eh, not really. All I have to go off of out here on the opposite side of the country is what coverage there is in the national media. I'm not deeply connected with the zeitgeist of Connecticut.

In retrospect, that makes two of us and I am closer to Connecticut than you are.

Yeah. I mean, all I have to go off of is what I'm told Connecticut residents care about. I have no first-hand experience with it. Also, this isn't even remotely close to the most important thing to me this election year. We've got a really close gubernatorial race here in Oregon, and California's is going to be good too. By November, I'll be surprised if this is even on my radar.

Probably will not be on mine either but I do have a tendency to watch all the races even if they do not concern me that much.

Did you know that Lieberman has voted with the Democratic Party 90% of the time?
hi and welcome to the current political realignment going on. you may be confused for awhile - actually, you're probably just inherently so, but other people might be too - but what we are seeing in american politics is a shift in priorities and definitional distinctions. in the respects that matter in the current political climate, lieberman has become allied and identified with the most extremist loonies of the proto-fascist 'neoconservative' movement. he adopts their positions on the things that matter and provides cover for them in the media. he's pro-imperialism, pro-torture, pro-authoritarianism, etc. that makes him not of the same party as those that oppose the fascists. it doesn't matter what his positions are on other matters - with fascists such things never have.I see that no one bothers to look at voting records. If they did, they would see that Lieberman has voted 90% of the time with his party.

your talking points appear to be skipping, perhaps the cd is scratched

your talking points appear to be skipping, perhaps the cd is scratched

Then yours must really be skipping because the only one using talking points is you.

Why does that not surprise me? Did you know that Lieberman has voted with the Democratic Party 90% of the time? Does your friend know that? Lieberman does not support Bush.
Entirely irrelevant. He supports what his constituents do not; he is a lame duck. He can get out of office and run for a different office or on a different platform. Or he can stay out of politics.

Entirely irrelevant. He supports what his constituents do not; he is a lame duck. He can get out of office and run for a different office or on a different platform. Or he can stay out of politics.

Well apparently he is going to his constituents to get re-elected as is his right and I applaud him and hope he actually wins because he is one of the few democrats who actually care about national security and defense.

Then yours must really be skipping because the only one using talking points is you.

wtf are you talking about?

Well apparently he is going to his constituents to get re-elected as is his right and I applaud him and hope he actually wins because he is one of the few democrats who actually care about national security and defense.
You mean national security and defense through an incorrect and heavy handed offense?

You mean national security and defense through an incorrect and heavy handed offense?

He seems to have been a strong proponet of National Defense and Security even before the Iraq War.

The cool part of all this will be when Lieberman beats the Democrat in the general election. Then we will see that, for Connecticut anyway, voters are ready to abandon party politics and that the Democrats are really controlled by activists that don't represent a majority of voters that consider themselves Democrats.

The cool part of all this will be when Lieberman beats the Democrat in the general election. Then we will see that, for Connecticut anyway, voters are ready to abandon party politics and that the Democrats are really controlled by activists that don't represent a majority of voters that consider themselves Democrats.

Some analyists believe this is precisely what is going to happen.

I applaud him and hope he actually wins

funny, people like bill kristol, seah hannity, bill buckley, rush limbaugh, etc express the exact same sentiment. and that is exactly why large sections of the democratic party base don't see him as being part of the same party as them. it's also why i said this is part of a political realignment.

funny, people like bill kristol, seah hannity, bill buckley, rush limbaugh, etc express the exact same sentiment. and that is exactly why large sections of the democratic party base don't see him as being part of the same party as them. it's also why i said this is part of a political realignment.

Could it also mean that those people (and I do not even know who Bill Kristol is) see that Lieberman has been backstabbed by his own party?

You mean national security and defense through an incorrect and heavy handed offense?

the best defense is a good, torture-filled, failure of an imperial adventure and an authoritarian police state at home

Could it also mean that those people (and I do not even know who Bill Kristol is) see that Lieberman has been backstabbed by his own party?


you don't know bill kristol? weird.

and no. they honestly support him because they see him as one of them. what the fuck would they care about the democrats 'backstabbing' one of their own?

you don't know bill kristol? weird.

and no. they honestly support him because they see him as one of them. what the fuck would they care about the democrats 'backstabbing' one of their own?

Could it be perhaps that they do not want a one party system? Could it be that they do care about what happens in this country? Could it be that they actually see through the lies of what the Democratic left is saying about him?

Oh and back up your assertion that they support him because they see him as one of their own.

the best defense is a good, torture-filled, failure of an imperial adventure and an authoritarian police state at home


*FS said as he types on his expensive computer on an internet service unfettered by speech restrictions*

*FS said as he types on his expensive computer on an internet service unfettered by speech restrictions*

authoritarianism does not require active censorship

authoritarianism does not require active censorship

*Says FS, as the point whooshes over his head*

Could it be perhaps that they do not want a one party system? Could it be that they do care about what happens in this country? Could it be that they actually see through the lies of what the Democratic left is saying about him?

no

Oh and back up your assertion that they support him because they see him as one of their own.

"There is a political opportunity for the Bush administration if the Democrats reject Lieberman. If he's then unable to win as an independent in November, he would make a fine secretary of defense for the remainder of the Bush years. If his independent candidacy succeeds, it will be a message to Bush that he should forge ahead toward victory in Iraq and elsewhere. Either way, the possibility exists for creating a broader and deeper governing party, with Lieberman Democrats welcomed into the Republican fold, just as Scoop Jackson Democrats became Reaganites in the 1980s. Is it too fanciful to speculate about a 2008 GOP ticket of McCain-Lieberman, or Giuliani-Lieberman, or Romney-Lieberman, or Allen-Lieberman, or Gingrich-Lieberman?"

bill kristol in the new issue of 'the weekly standard' (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/537qsphp.asp?pg=2)

when william 'crazy neocon mothafucka' kristol starts openly speculating about making a democrat into the fucking secratary of defense in the bush administration we've moved a bit beyond some sort of general sense of niceness or whatever.

my favorite part was when Leiberman was giving a speech -

"Right now, Lamont is leading in the polls"... *his crowd of supporters cheers*

lol

I'm glad Lamont won and hope to see more far right Dems pwnd - maybe then I could think of the Dems as a decent party again.

my favorite part was when Leiberman was giving a speech -

"Right now, Lamont is leading in the polls"... *his crowd of supporters cheers*

lol

I'm glad Lamont won and hope to see more far right Dems pwnd - maybe then I could think of the Dems as a decent party again.

So those who are far-right democrats are those who are strong on Defense and strong on National Security? If we follow that logic then Hillary Clinton should also be removed from power by the Democrats.

So those who are far-right democrats are those who are strong on Defense and strong on National Security?

haha, you think being utterly incompetent in war and illegally and unjustly spying on americans is strength. that's so cute.

So those who are far-right democrats are those who are strong on Defense and strong on National Security? If we follow that logic then Hillary Clinton should also be removed from power by the Democrats.


what? did you respond to the wrong post? I never said the far right Dems were the ones strong on defense and national security. I believe the far right politicians who are pro war are the ones who are undermining US security.

And yes we should boot Hillary. I can't stand her. She's too authoritarian for my tastes plus she approves of the idiotic Iraq war.

haha, you think being utterly incompetent in war and illegally and unjustly spying on americans is strength. that's so cute.

Care to point where I said any of those things?

what? did you respond to the wrong post? I never said the far right Dems were the ones strong on defense and national security. I believe the far right politicians who are pro war are the ones who are undermining US security.

In that case, you should take out all the Democrats who voted to go to war in the first place. Good luck with that.

And yes we should boot Hillary. I can't stand her. She's too authoritarian for my tastes plus she approves of the idiotic Iraq war.

Seems to me she has changed her views on the Iraq War but I will agree with your statement.

Joe Lieberman has conceded defeat in the Democratic primary. In an almost unheard of event, a powerful, influential, senior senator lost his primary.

So what does everyone think of this?

Are the Democrats destroying their party?
Are the Dems going to finally start standing up to Republicans lest they be cut off from below?
Does it mean Jack Shit in the big picture because few Dem politicians were as bad for the party, or their state, as Joe Lieberman is?

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-senate0809.artaug09,0,3365524.story?coll=hc-headlines-home

It actually means that as the democrat party moves farther and farther left they will enjoy less and less success when the general elections come around and entire American population gets to vote. I'm all for it keep going left dems!!!

It actually means that as the democrat party moves farther and farther left they will enjoy less and less success when the general elections come around and entire American population gets to vote. I'm all for it keep going left dems!!!

In national races, I tend to agree in general. In local races however, they have just about an equal chance as anyone else.

Down with Joe Lieberman!
Lieberman was one of those 'Appeal to the Soccer moms by trying to ban video games' guys right?

In that case, you should take out all the Democrats who voted to go to war in the first place. Good luck with that.



Seems to me she has changed her views on the Iraq War but I will agree with your statement.

Well I'm not a Democrat but I do think that those who voted for the war but now admit they were wrong have regained a tiny bit of respect. I don't read minds so I can't tell you if they did it to pander to the majority or if they really believe they were wrong for supporting the war but at least they are pushing for somethign I believe in.

Hillary has not changed her stance on the war... she merely admonishes those who are for an open ended war. I think that is a big difference.

It's kind of sad that the Democrats have just thrown away their biggest supporter of environmental protection. If Lieberman loses the General election I'm sure that neither other candidate will continue his continuous push to improve CAFE standards, protect endangered species or reduce emissions. I'd go so far as to say that no other member of Congress has accomplished nearly as much as Lieberman on the environmental front and losing him would be a setback. On the other hand if Lieberman wins the election it will show that the Democratic party is incredibly weak and will probably lead to '08 losses and a continuation of Republican domination. As an environmentalist and a pacifist I think that either option is extremely negative at this point.

*Says FS, as the point whooshes over his head*
Speaking of points going astray...

Only the Democratic party is his constituents? I thought he represented all of Conn. and not just the democratic party. :confused:
Which is why Lieberman will still win. He is consistently ahead in all 3 way polls. The Dems really lost here. Lieberman keeps his seat, but he doesn't count towards a majority since he's an Independent.

Which is why Lieberman will still win. He is consistently ahead in all 3 way polls. The Dems really lost here. Lieberman keeps his seat, but he doesn't count towards a majority since he's an Independent.

Sad but true.

In national races, I tend to agree in general. In local races however, they have just about an equal chance as anyone else.

It is the local races where they enjoy their successes, on a national level liberalism (@ least most people who wear the liberal badge proudly)is/are looked down upon. People are still open to democrats, but the far left will have to be content in their moronic adolescence and drug induced daze for the time being.

Where pray tell have you divined that Lamont is an "ideological hack"? Most of what I've heard from him is fairly staunchly in the middle of where most of America is. In case you haven't noticed, the staunch majority of Americans don't like the war, the staunch majority of Americans don't like the administration, the staunch majority of Americans don't like where the country is headed, and the staunch majority of Americans feel that the current Congress and Executive is manifestly unresponsive to their needs. It isn't courage to insist that your voters follow your brave lead if you're going off a cliff.

You didnt get the memo. If a slight majority disagrees with the republicans, its a lunatic fringe. If a slight majority agrees with the republicans, its a mandate.

Staunch majority? What does that even mean? Anyway that bizarre term aside Lamont seems to mostly be a candidate who runs against current powers-that-be and not particularly for anything specific. Just running away from the ebil republicans isnt good enough. There are a thousand different directions that are away from the current Congress. Most of these are even worse. Newer is not better, just more interesting. Better is better.

Newer is better if anything is preferable to the status quo.

Look, I hate to break it to you, but if you weren't aware by now that a clear majority (last time I checked, it was hovering around 57%) of Americans thought that the war was not worth the effort and that we should find a way out, you need more airholes in that bubble you live in. The president's approval rating is hovering around 37% right now. Congress' approval rating is hovering around 20%. Clearly, people don't like the status quo, and they don't like it because it isn't representing what they clearly seem to think ought to be the proper course of action. Even more clearly, a majority of Democrats in Connecticut didn't think that Joe Leiberman represented their interests. Hence, they are finding someone who will. In a democracy, that is in the end the only real metric of what constitutes "better".

I suppose this is good, in a "one tiny step forward" sort of way. Lieberman's awful, it's nice to see him beaten.

I suppose this is good, in a "one tiny step forward" sort of way. Lieberman's awful, it's nice to see him beaten.

May have lost a battle but the fight to keep his Senate seat is still going strong.

Newer is better if anything is preferable to the status quo.

Look, I hate to break it to you, but if you weren't aware by now that a clear majority (last time I checked, it was hovering around 57%) of Americans thought that the war was not worth the effort and that we should find a way out, you need more airholes in that bubble you live in. The president's approval rating is hovering around 37% right now. Congress' approval rating is hovering around 20%. Clearly, people don't like the status quo, and they don't like it because it isn't representing what they clearly seem to think ought to be the proper course of action. Even more clearly, a majority of Democrats in Connecticut didn't think that Joe Leiberman represented their interests. Hence, they are finding someone who will. In a democracy, that is in the end the only real metric of what constitutes "better".


The question is, if people don't like the way the war is going, is that the key issue for them? Or is it the economy, which is doing rather well? And if the war is the key issue, do they see the Democrat's solution (abandon Iraq and Afghanistan immediately) as a viable solution?

That's the question in a democracy. Just because people don't like the current option doesn't mean they will vote for ANY other option.

May have lost a battle but the fight to keep his Senate seat is still going strong.

He's bypassed the legitimate institutions of the party in favor of an egotistical independent run. Win or lose, he's finished as a Democrat.

He's bypassed the legitimate institutions of the party in favor of an egotistical independent run. Win or lose, he's finished as a Democrat.
So is McKinney, and she's further to the left than most Democrats.

He's bypassed the legitimate institutions of the party in favor of an egotistical independent run. Win or lose, he's finished as a Democrat.

And yet he is still proud to be a democrat which is why he is still fighting because he sees which direction the Democratic party is going and is trying to do them a favor by heading it off. Can not blame him for that.

So is McKinney, and she's further to the left than most Democrats.

McKinney is running as an independent or finished as a democrat?

I seriously hope Lieberman wins, for two reasons:

1.) He was absolutely hosed by things out of his control - specifically, the utter failure of Bush's subordinates to properly plan the war in Iraq. If the war had been properly planned, it wouldn't have been a campaign issue, and Lamont would have been squashed (a 4% loss is not that much of a repudiation of Lieberman).

2.) The primary system is broken beyond belief. Of course the Democratic leadership turned to back Lamont and dumped Lieberman to the wolves - they benefit greatly from the primary system, especially in the House. The Republicans sure as hell don't want Lieberman to win for the same reason - no one wants to give up a system that leaves over 80% of the seats in the House and well over half the Senate seats being utterly safe.

And hell, at least he's willing to take his own stand, right or wrong. The world needs less party hacks, of all stripes.

McKinney is running as an independent or finished as a democrat?


C. Politically finished

And yet he is still proud to be a democrat which is why he is still fighting because he sees which direction the Democratic party is going and is trying to do them a favor by heading it off. Can not blame him for that.

The Democratic Party's slight shift leftwards is a good thing; about time, really. People like Lieberman, who back imperialist wars of aggression and support some of the most disgusting policies of the reactionary gang dominating this country, deserve to be excluded.

The Democratic Party's slight shift leftwards is a good thing; about time, really. People like Lieberman, who back imperialist wars of aggression and support some of the most disgusting policies of the reactionary gang dominating this country, deserve to be excluded.

It is so nice to see that you choose to ignore his entire record in the Senate. It is also nice to see that you are 100% objective in your vindictiveness of a Senator who has done quite well in representing his state. A shift leftward is not all that good for the Democratic Party at all. In fact, I have come to the realizations that they have indeed been shutting out Conservative Democrats. Do you think it is wise policy to ignore the Conservative portion of the Democratic Party?

The question is, if people don't like the way the war is going, is that the key issue for them? Or is it the economy, which is doing rather well? And if the war is the key issue, do they see the Democrat's solution (abandon Iraq and Afghanistan immediately) as a viable solution?

That's the question in a democracy. Just because people don't like the current option doesn't mean they will vote for ANY other option.

Rather than get into a long and tedious refutation of why the economy isn't going well, at least if your income isn't in the 80th percentile or above, I'll simply refer you here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14251360/

Get back to me when you can find some way of working around that.

What you are missing, though, is the question of "what alternative does the Connecticut voter have?" If you are a Democrat and you oppose, say, Social Security privatization, or the war, or the President turning the country into a police state, or Congress chipping away at Roe v. Wade, what alternative to Lamont do you have? Clearly you can't vote Republican, as they're the ones starting the whole mess. Clearly, you also can't vote for Leiberman, as he is not only an accessory to all those things, but then he gets on Fox News and calls you unpatriotic because you dare to disagree with the President in a time of war. The only options, then, are to vote for Lamont or vote for some third-party goofball who will 1) not possibly win in the general, and 2) would continue to cement Republican control of the Senate even if he did win. Really then, there is only one clear choice.

Rather than get into a long and tedious refutation of why the economy isn't going well, at least if your income isn't in the 80th percentile or above, I'll simply refer you here:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14251360/

Get back to me when you can find some way of working around that.

What you are missing, though, is the question of "what alternative does the Connecticut voter have?" If you are a Democrat and you oppose, say, Social Security privatization, or the war, or the President turning the country into a police state, or Congress chipping away at Roe v. Wade, what alternative to Lamont do you have? Clearly you can't vote Republican, as they're the ones starting the whole mess. Clearly, you also can't vote for Leiberman, as he is not only an accessory to all those things, but then he gets on Fox News and calls you unpatriotic because you dare to disagree with the President in a
time of war. The only options, then, are to vote for Lamont or vote for some third-party goofball who will 1) not possibly win in the general, and 2) would continue to cement Republican control of the Senate even if he did win. Really then, there is only one clear choice.

Yep. Joseph Lieberman who is not a Democratic Party hack but actually has a brain and uses it.

1.) He was absolutely hosed by things out of his control - specifically, the utter failure of Bush's subordinates to properly plan the war in Iraq. If the war had been properly planned, it wouldn't have been a campaign issue, and Lamont would have been squashed (a 4% loss is not that much of a repudiation of Lieberman).


Given that the rate of incumbancy return is 98% currently in the House and Senate, and the rate of dumping an incumbant in the primary is almost unheard of, the fact that 52% of Democratic voters disapproved of Leiberman enough to get rid of him is in fact a substantial repudiation.

Given that the rate of incumbancy return is 98% currently in the House and Senate, and the rate of dumping an incumbant in the primary is almost unheard of, the fact that 52% of Democratic voters disapproved of Leiberman enough to get rid of him is in fact a substantial repudiation.

When broken down via turn out which (take the high end of 50%) only 27% of the Democrats who voted, voted for Lamont whereas 23% voted for Lieberman. That still leaves the rest of the Democratic Party who decided not to turn out to vote. So really...is the Democratic party really unhappy or they waiting?

We shall see when the General Election rolls around on just who is going to represent CT in the US Senate.

Yep. Joseph Lieberman who is not a Democratic Party hack but actually has a brain and uses it.

Those who have a brain don't usually go on the opposition propaganda network complaining about how people who hold views identical to the majority of the people who voted them in are in fact ruining the country. I could check my political 8-ball for you, but I'm thinking that if you asked it "Does Leiberman lack a brain", the response would be "Signs are good."

It is so nice to see that you choose to ignore his entire record in the Senate.

Oh, like his support for the Iraq War? That alone is a disqualifying factor in my view. His strong backing for the general ideological and policy framework of the "war on terrorism," both domestically and abroad, is similarly vile.

It is also nice to see that you are 100% objective in your vindictiveness of a Senator who has done quite well in representing his state.

It's an opinion. I don't have to be, and really couldn't care less about being, objective.

A shift leftward is not all that good for the Democratic Party at all.

I don't care about what's good for the Democratic Party. I am much more concerned about what's good for the country, and serious left-wing opposition in Congress is essential.

In fact, I have come to the realizations that they have indeed been shutting out Conservative Democrats. Do you think it is wise policy to ignore the Conservative portion of the Democratic Party?

I don't think that notion is accurate at all. Both the presidential and vice prisdential candidates the Democrats ran last time voted for the war in Iraq. The current party is cowardly and opportunistic, and the efforts that are being made to change that are, despite their highly limited scope, deserving of support.

Get back to me when you can find some way of working around that.


No problems where I live. In fact, it hasn't been this good in over ten years here.

What you are missing, though, is the question of "what alternative does the Connecticut voter have?" If you are a Democrat and you oppose, say, Social Security privatization, or the war, or the President turning the country into a police state, or Congress chipping away at Roe v. Wade, what alternative to Lamont do you have? Clearly you can't vote Republican, as they're the ones starting the whole mess. Clearly, you also can't vote for Leiberman, as he is not only an accessory to all those things, but then he gets on Fox News and calls you unpatriotic because you dare to disagree with the President in a time of war. The only options, then, are to vote for Lamont or vote for some third-party goofball who will 1) not possibly win in the general, and 2) would continue to cement Republican control of the Senate even if he did win. Really then, there is only one clear choice.
I don't see the place turning into a police state (especially when compared with changes in laws in the UK).
Roe v. Wade isn't something that Lieberman can affect, since they don't have enough ability to stop most appointees.
And point of fact, the majority of people in Connecticutt are completely unaffected by the war in any direct manner.

When broken down via turn out which (take the high end of 50%) only 27% of the Democrats who voted, voted for Lamont whereas 23% voted for Lieberman. That still leaves the rest of the Democratic Party who decided not to turn out to vote. So really...is the Democratic party really unhappy or they waiting?

We shall see when the General Election rolls around on just who is going to represent CT in the US Senate.

The fact that 50% of Democrats voted in the primary when only around 15-20% typically vote should in fact tell you that Democrats were highly mobilized on the issue, and the fact that this was even a contest should tell you how unhappy with Leiberman they were.

Those who have a brain don't usually go on the opposition propaganda network complaining about how people who hold views identical to the majority of the people who voted them in are in fact ruining the country. I could check my political 8-ball for you, but I'm thinking that if you asked it "Does Leiberman lack a brain", the response would be "Signs are good."

This post is not doing your political credibility any good. All you are doing is making me ignore your posts further because they lack objectivity. All I am hearing from you is the same crap that I hear from the left wing portion of the Democratic Party. What are the moderates saying? Or how about the Conservatives?

No problems where I live. In fact, it hasn't been this good in over ten years here.

And is your experience the statistical norm? Apparently, if things are going swell for you, DK, it ain't.


I don't see the place turning into a police state (especially when compared with changes in laws in the UK).
Roe v. Wade isn't something that Lieberman can affect, since they don't have enough ability to stop most appointees.
And point of fact, the majority of people in Connecticutt are completely unaffected by the war in any direct manner.

I'm completely unaffected by child molestation in any direct manner, but somehow I feel obligated to do my part to stop it, primarily because I think it is wrong. Similarly. . .

The fact that 50% of Democrats voted in the primary when only around 15-20% typically vote should in fact tell you that Democrats were highly mobilized on the issue, and the fact that this was even a contest should tell you how unhappy with Leiberman they were.

I could point out to what has made it out in the press here, that the negative ads that Lamont ran (despite his promise not to) had an effect in that regard. The fact that Lamont only got 27% of the actual vote does says alot.

Since this was only a primary and the fact that Lieberman is still running for Senate makes things rather impotent as the General Election will prove once and for all what the voters of the State of Connecticut really want.

And is your experience the statistical norm? Apparently, if things are going swell for you, DK, it ain't.

http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.us.htm

That looks pretty good. If you have access to data from the Social Security Administration, you can find out that if you have a college degree or higher, your wages in real dollars adjusted for inflation are only going to go up over time - if you have less of an education, you're screwed - no matter who is President. In fact, for high school graduates, the best money most will make is when they are 18 - it goes downhill from there.

This post is not doing your political credibility any good. All you are doing is making me ignore your posts further because they lack objectivity. All I am hearing from you is the same crap that I hear from the left wing portion of the Democratic Party. What are the moderates saying? Or how about the Conservatives?

And by what standard do you measure objectivity? I for one measure it by "conformity with that which is true about the world", in which case, my posts are completely objective: every political indicator indicates that the party, especially what is generally thought of as the more liberal wing of the party, was deeply unhappy with Leiberman's performance and booted him for it. The fact that the primary was contested at all is an indicator of it. The fact that Lamont won is an indicator of it. The fact that two-and-a-half times as many voters as normal voted in this primary is an indicator of it. If the moderates or the conservatives have some different narrative, then adding it to the discussion would do nothing to enhance the "objectivity" of my posting, because they would be what we typically know as "wrong": their views don't correspond with available data.

Now, if you are criticizing my own particular views on whether the liberal wing was right, the point of fact is that I'm not a moderate or a conservative member of the Democratic Party, or at least, by the standards we've set for what constitutes "conservative", "moderate", and "liberal", I fall in the "liberal" category. I have no obligation to espouse views I don't believe are true, nor do I have some mystifying duty to lay out what every person believes and allow you a smorgasbord to pick from. Factually, I'm telling you what is the case. Editorally, I'm telling you that I think this was a good move. Exactly from where have you intuited that I'm somehow supposed to do any more than that?

I could point out to what has made it out in the press here, that the negative ads that Lamont ran (despite his promise not to) had an effect in that regard. The fact that Lamont only got 27% of the actual vote does says alot.

Since this was only a primary and the fact that Lieberman is still running for Senate makes things rather impotent as the General Election will prove once and for all what the voters of the State of Connecticut really want.

Okay, you missed the point, so I'm going to rephrase and try again.

Your criticism of the fact that Lamont got only 27% of the Democrat vote is not, in fact, a criticism of Lamont; it's a criticism of the primary process in general. The primaries typically only draw about 20% of the total party in any election; any politician is then susceptible to the claim that "the silent majority of the party doesn't support them", because most only get about 10-12% of the party voting for them in the primary. The fact that Lamont got a whopping 27% support is not an indictment but a fairly ringing endorsement in this case.

http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.us.htm

That looks pretty good. If you have access to data from the Social Security Administration, you can find out that if you have a college degree or higher, your wages in real dollars adjusted for inflation are only going to go up over time - if you have less of an education, you're screwed - no matter who is President. In fact, for high school graduates, the best money most will make is when they are 18 - it goes downhill from there.

Given that currently 75% of the American public does not have a college degree and 66% have no college experience at all, let me restate exactly what I said earlier: unless you are the statistical norm, your experience is atypical. In point of fact, it's atypical to the very high end. The average American is suffering from all angles. Their mortages are going up, they are paying more for gas, their car leases are increasing, their credit card bills are going up, their power bills are going up, and their wages are stagnant or declining. Put together, it means that something is rotten in the state of America.

Okay, you missed the point, so I'm going to rephrase and try again.

Your criticism of the fact that Lamont got only 27% of the Democrat vote is not, in fact, a criticism of Lamont; it's a criticism of the primary process in general. The primaries typically only draw about 20% of the total party in any election; any politician is then susceptible to the claim that "the silent majority of the party doesn't support them", because most only get about 10-12% of the party voting for them in the primary. The fact that Lamont got a whopping 27% support is not an indictment but a fairly ringing endorsement in this case.

Turnout in the Democratic primary was 40 to 50 percent. Pretty high, for a primary. But that is all the energized Democrats.

The others couldn't be bothered to vote in a primary, and thus are not energized.

So 27 percent of the vote in the primary is actually 13 to 14 percent of the Democrats in the state.

And by what standard do you measure objectivity? I for one measure it by "conformity with that which is true about the world", in which case, my posts are completely objective: every political indicator indicates that the party, especially what is generally thought of as the more liberal wing of the party, was deeply unhappy with Leiberman's performance and booted him for it.

The part I bolded is the part I have a problem with. Because he does not conform 100% of the time to the liberal portion, he is seen as someone he is not. Did he support the Iraq War? Yes he did. As did numerous other Democrats who were not targeted at all. Did he stand by his vote? Yes he did which was quite brave of him. Does he believe in National Security? By golly he does. He also believes in a strong military as well. By trying to get rid of one of their own who believes in a strong military and in national security issues, that makes him a liability to the liberal wing of the party that believes in neither.

The fact that the primary was contested at all is an indicator of it. The fact that Lamont won is an indicator of it.

Actually it goes to show who actually votes in the Primary. It is a closed Primary after all. What if Independents where allowed to vote in the primary? Do you think they would have voted for Lamont?

The fact that two-and-a-half times as many voters as normal voted in this primary is an indicator of it. If the moderates or the conservatives have some different narrative, then adding it to the discussion would do nothing to enhance the "objectivity" of my posting, because they would be what we typically know as "wrong": their views don't correspond with available data.

In other words, you do not have an answer. What are the Moderate democrats saying about Lieberman? What are the Conservatives saying about Lieberman?

Now, if you are criticizing my own particular views on whether the liberal wing was right, the point of fact is that I'm not a moderate or a conservative member of the Democratic Party, or at least, by the standards we've set for what constitutes "conservative", "moderate", and "liberal", I fall in the "liberal" category. I have no obligation to espouse views I don't believe are true, nor do I have some mystifying duty to lay out what every person believes and allow you a smorgasbord to pick from. Factually, I'm telling you what is the case. Editorally, I'm telling you that I think this was a good move. Exactly from where have you intuited that I'm somehow supposed to do any more than that?

So you do not want a strong military? What about national Security? These are the two things that are major weakspots for Democrats and by trying to get rid of Lieberman, it does not bode well for them in the future on these two issues.

So 27 percent of the vote in the primary is actually 13 to 14 percent of the Democrats in the state.

Thank You.

Given that currently 75% of the American public does not have a college degree and 66% have no college experience at all,

Got the links to back that up?

Given that currently 75% of the American public does not have a college degree and 66% have no college experience at all, let me restate exactly what I said earlier: unless you are the statistical norm, your experience is atypical. In point of fact, it's atypical to the very high end. The average American is suffering from all angles. Their mortages are going up, they are paying more for gas, their car leases are increasing, their credit card bills are going up, their power bills are going up, and their wages are stagnant or declining. Put together, it means that something is rotten in the state of America.

Note that I said "regardless of who is President".

Democrats aren't going to change that either. The figures were just as true during the Clinton Adminstration as they are now.

Or am I supposed to believe you'll wave some magic wand, and we'll all have college degrees, and we'll all have high paying office jobs, and no one will do manual labor, and no one will make less than 100,000 per year...

If you aren't making it in America, don't blame the government. I made it just fine without anyone's help, and I'm a minority who didn't get any minority benefits.

Bill Cosby is right. The problem is not white people. The problem is not the US Government. The problem is the people who believe they are "entitled" to a lifestyle for which they are completely unwilling to study for, work for, or earn in any way.

Perfect voters for a party that tells them they will vote the treasury for them.

Lieberman was one of the politicians in America who still stood for what he believed was right, and not what was expedient or what his special interests liked. The man didn't take orders from anyone, and genuinely cared about the future of our country. I disagree with him on a lot of things, but the man is genuinely a good guy, and America needs more independent thinking men like Joe and less ideological hacks like Lamont or DeLay.

Problem is, a Senator's job isn't to fight for what hebelieves. It's to fight for his State and it's people. He wasn't doing that. So he's gone.

Okay, you missed the point, so I'm going to rephrase and try again.

Your criticism of the fact that Lamont got only 27% of the Democrat vote is not, in fact, a criticism of Lamont; it's a criticism of the primary process in general. The primaries typically only draw about 20% of the total party in any election; any politician is then susceptible to the claim that "the silent majority of the party doesn't support them", because most only get about 10-12% of the party voting for them in the primary. The fact that Lamont got a whopping 27% support is not an indictment but a fairly ringing endorsement in this case.

Simply put, more votes were cast for Lamont than are typically cast in the entire primary election. [/Happy Dance]

The part I bolded is the part I have a problem with. Because he does not conform 100% of the time to the liberal portion, he is seen as someone he is not. Did he support the Iraq War? Yes he did. As did numerous other Democrats who were not targeted at all. Did he stand by his vote? Yes he did which was quite brave of him. Does he believe in National Security? By golly he does. He also believes in a strong military as well. By trying to get rid of one of their own who believes in a strong military and in national security issues, that makes him a liability to the liberal wing of the party that believes in neither.

1) He believes in, say, Social Security enough to compromise endlessly on it purely in the name of compromise. Look, the fact that he, according to the specious claims of conservative thinkers votes 90% of the time with the Democratic Party is irrelevant if the other 10% of the votes are votes that endlessly concede what his own voters deem crucial to the well-being of the country purely for the sake of being bipartisan. Bipartisanship is not a virtue if it hurts the country in the process; extreme partisanship, by contrast, is not a vice if you are standing for what will make the nation a better place for its citizenry. This kind of strategy, where you agree to split the difference with people who are not doing what is in the best interests of the country purely so that you can say that the other guy in the primary is an ideological hack seems not to be an effective campaign strategy, given that seven of the last ten presidential elections have been won by Republicans. It's bad for the country. It's bad for the Democratic Party. Leiberman doesn't understand that; that's why he lost.

2) The "liberal" wing of the country apparently cares enough about the security of our state to try and stop it from doing, and continuing to do, something that is both monumentally stupid and a colossal waste of resources. Tieing our military down in Iraq does nothing to solve our security problems; instead, it exacerbates them. Other countries like Iran and North Korea have only become emboldened since we went into Iraq, because they are both threatened by the prospect of an America attacking the axis of evil and overjoyed that we've stretched ourselves so thin that we cannot fight them. Other countries that could have been our allies are instead forming a counterbalancing alliance against us. We are spending money we don't have, and borrowing from our strategic opponents the Chinese to do it.

Far be it for me to be the realist here, but to cite Sun-Tzu, you attack only when it is advantageous, and you cease when it ceases to be advantageous, and at no time should you become personally invested in fighting a war. We have failed all three of those mandates. The "liberal" wing that you cite apparently has a better understanding of that fact than the hawkish conservatives.

3) I'm going to ignore the insinuation that I don't care about the country or the security thereof for now. For the time being, allow me to assure you that I do care deeply, and in fact I've probably sacrificed a lot more than you have to make sure that you sleep well at night.

Simply put, more votes were cast for Lamont than are typically cast in the entire primary election. [/Happy Dance]

Hell dude, more votes were cast for Lamont than in some general elections.

Problem is, a Senator's job isn't to fight for what hebelieves. It's to fight for his State and it's people. He wasn't doing that. So he's gone.

Actually, he is not gone.

1) He believes in, say, Social Security enough to compromise endlessly on it purely in the name of compromise.

Welcome to politics.

Look, the fact that he, according to the specious claims of conservative thinkers votes 90% of the time with the Democratic Party is irrelevant if the other 10% of the votes are votes that endlessly concede what his own voters deem crucial to the well-being of the country purely for the sake of being bipartisan.

And yet you have no idea really what the voters of Connecticut actually want. Remember that this was only a primary. This was not the General Election. If this was the General Election, I would be more inclined to agree with you. However, since Lieberman is still indeed running, this really has no weight whatsoever.

Bipartisanship is not a virtue if it hurts the country in the process;

No wonder nothing of grave importance gets done in Congress. Thank you. You proved a point.

extreme partisanship, by contrast, is not a vice if you are standing for what will make the nation a better place for its citizenry.

I wish both parties will take this advice. :(

This kind of strategy, where you agree to split the difference with people who are not doing what is in the best interests of the country purely so that you can say that the other guy in the primary is an ideological hack seems not to be an effective campaign strategy, given that seven of the last ten presidential elections have been won by Republicans.

Well maybe that should tell you something about how the Democrats are viewed nationally by the people. Lieberman is not an Ideological hack at all. He stands up for what he believes is right and I would have to look at that when I cast my ballot if I was in the state of Connecticut.

It's bad for the country. It's bad for the Democratic Party. Leiberman doesn't understand that; that's why he lost.

Prove that Lieberman does not understand that.

2) The "liberal" wing of the country apparently cares enough about the security of our state to try and stop it from doing, and continuing to do, something that is both monumentally stupid and a colossal waste of resources.

Prove that they actually care.

Other countries that could have been our allies are instead forming a counterbalancing alliance against us.

What other countries would that be? I snipped the rest of your post because this was more relevent to respond too. What other countries are forming a counter balance? You mean leftist Venezuela who has a person who is nationalizing industry? North Korea and Iran are being dealt with diplomaticly. If anything should come to pass, the USN and the USAF can do quite nicely alot of damage to both nations. Also remember that if North Korea starts a war, it will be several nations fighting them and not just the United States. With Iran....that is a different situation.

We are spending money we don't have, and borrowing from our strategic opponents the Chinese to do it.

Hate to break this to you but even the Clinton Administration spent money we did not have. Even FDR spent money that the US did not have. Every president spent money that we just do not have come to think of it.

Far be it for me to be the realist here, but to cite Sun-Tzu, you attack only when it is advantageous, and you cease when it ceases to be advantageous, and at no time should you become personally invested in fighting a war. We have failed all three of those mandates. The "liberal" wing that you cite apparently has a better understanding of that fact than the hawkish conservatives.

Apparently, they do not have a grasp of reality is what is happening. They have no idea what will happen if they get their wish and we pull out of Iraq. None. They do not realize the tedious position that nation is in right now. We can not pull out now which is what the Liberal wing of the Democratic Party wants. Luckily, there are people in congress who do know what will happen if we pull out and Lieberman is one of them.

3) I'm going to ignore the insinuation that I don't care about the country or the security thereof for now. For the time being, allow me to assure you that I do care deeply, and in fact I've probably sacrificed a lot more than you have to make sure that you sleep well at night.

Oh I highly doubt that.

Turnout in the Democratic primary was 40 to 50 percent. Pretty high, for a primary.

ah, understatement

So 27 percent of the vote in the primary is actually 13 to 14 percent of the Democrats in the state.

who got 27% of the primary vote?

Prove that Lierberman does not understand that.
He is a Congressman arguing that his ideals are more important than those of his constituents.

You can continue to argue whatever irrelevant drivel you want over and over, it does not negate the fact that he is a Congressman, not an independent person. He represents a group of people and if he cannot represent their ideas in Congress, he doesn't deserve to be there. If he wants to be president fine, but Congress is not the White House and if he can't differentiate, he should stop running for Congress.

Note that I said "regardless of who is President".

Democrats aren't going to change that either. The figures were just as true during the Clinton Adminstration as they are now.

Or am I supposed to believe you'll wave some magic wand, and we'll all have college degrees, and we'll all have high paying office jobs, and no one will do manual labor, and no one will make less than 100,000 per year...

If you aren't making it in America, don't blame the government. I made it just fine without anyone's help, and I'm a minority who didn't get any minority benefits.

Bill Cosby is right. The problem is not white people. The problem is not the US Government. The problem is the people who believe they are "entitled" to a lifestyle for which they are completely unwilling to study for, work for, or earn in any way.

Perfect voters for a party that tells them they will vote the treasury for them.



Oh sir...

Entitlement is a funny word to use for the desires of people working to make ends meet. Democrats don't give away money, they fund programs to help people get on their feet. You see, we believe the government can (and SHOULD) help those who stumble, get back up. This is not asking for (as you conveniently exaggerated) $100,000/year, but a living wage that doesn't put them one accident away from absolute ruin. Living wage? Well, in this country that means you need quite a bit. You can't get a job unless you can get to work, which means transportation (public transportation is, to say the least, lacking), which means car payments, gas, insurance, and maintenance. We need to pay for food, rent, and, dare I say it, health insurance. You don't need $100,00/year to stay afloat with these needs, but you will need more than $14,000/yr---which is roughly what a minimum wage worker, working TWO full time jobs will earn. Your elitist attitudes in demeaning the poor/working class as unwilling to work or study are completely out of touch. I don't know what lifestyle you believe our ever-growing lower class believes they are "entitled" to, but if we do not invest in social programs (education, health care, housing assistance, etc), and simply expect that everyone get as lucky as you've apparently been, we will be denying hard-working citizens even the very basics to continue to survive.

It is a trajedy that many cannot afford to go to school to earn a degree and the higher paying jobs that often accompany it. It is a trajedy that people in our country can work 80+ hrs/wk and still not be able to afford to go to the doctor when they get sick. It is a trajedy that the people like you who make money off a subsidized capitalist system (where did the infrastructure for our economy come from?--that's right, tax dollars and social programs), seem to feel entitled to every bit of fat on your plate...that somehow, because you made it, the ones who didn't deserve their lot. And you know what...Democrats will change these things, because we don't believe in kicking people to the curb.

If he wants to be president fine, but Congress is not the White House and if he can't differentiate, he should stop running for Congress.

he couldn't even tell the difference back in 2000

Oh sir...

Entitlement is a funny word to use for the desires of people working to make ends meet. Democrats don't give away money, they fund programs to help people get on their feet. You see, we believe the government can (and SHOULD) help those who stumble, get back up. This is not asking for (as you conveniently exaggerated) $100,000/year, but a living wage that doesn't put them one accident away from absolute ruin. Living wage? Well, in this country that means you need quite a bit. You can't get a job unless you can get to work, which means transportation (public transportation is, to say the least, lacking), which means car payments, gas, insurance, and maintenance. We need to pay for food, rent, and, dare I say it, health insurance. You don't need $100,00/year to stay afloat with these needs, but you will need more than $14,000/yr---which is roughly what a minimum wage worker, working TWO full time jobs will earn. Your elitist attitudes in demeaning the poor/working class as unwilling to work or study are completely out of touch. I don't know what lifestyle you believe our ever-growing lower class believes they are "entitled" to, but if we do not invest in social programs (education, health care, housing assistance, etc), and simply expect that everyone get as lucky as you've apparently been, we will be denying hard-working citizens even the very basics to continue to survive.

It is a trajedy that many cannot afford to go to school to earn a degree and the higher paying jobs that often accompany it. It is a trajedy that people in our country can work 80+ hrs/wk and still not be able to afford to go to the doctor when they get sick. It is a trajedy that the people like you who make money off a subsidized capitalist system (where did the infrastructure for our economy come from?--that's right, tax dollars and social programs), seem to feel entitled to every bit of fat on your plate...that somehow, because you made it, the ones who didn't deserve their lot. And you know what...Democrats will change these things, because we don't believe in kicking people to the curb.


The study by the SSA shows that no matter what you do, it won't change the graph for the next 50 years.

The study by the SSA shows that no matter what you do, it won't change the graph for the next 50 years.
So thus nothing should be done and the idea of inferiority of those not making enough to get by on is and that they are lazy good for nothings should be advanced?

So let's not bother?

And they will look foolish when the Democrats do not take CT.

The Dems had lost CT when Lieberman was in the seat. Even if the Repubs take CT in the general election, that will simply be the recovery scar from removing the benign tumor that is Joe Lieberman. Worst case scenario... Repubs win because of a split Dem vote and then lose to a united Dem vote in 2012 and Lieberman is finally out of the party for showing how willing he is to sabotage it for personal gain. It's either Dems finally win CT now, or in 6 years. Either way, they don't have it now, so it's not a step backwards.

The Dems had lost CT when Lieberman was in the seat. Even if the Repubs take CT in the general election, that will simply be the recovery scar from removing the benign tumor that is Joe Lieberman. Worst case scenario... Repubs win because of a split Dem vote and then lose to a united Dem vote in 2012 and Lieberman is finally out of the party for showing how willing he is to sabotage it for personal gain. It's either Dems finally win CT now, or in 6 years. Either way, they don't have it now, so it's not a step backwards.

So I take it then that you are a liberal?

It is a trajedy that many cannot afford to go to school to earn a degree and the higher paying jobs that often accompany it. It is a trajedy that people in our country can work 80+ hrs/wk and still not be able to afford to go to the doctor when they get sick. It is a trajedy that the people like you who make money off a subsidized capitalist system (where did the infrastructure for our economy come from?--that's right, tax dollars and social programs), seem to feel entitled to every bit of fat on your plate...that somehow, because you made it, the ones who didn't deserve their lot. And you know what...Democrats will change these things, because we don't believe in kicking people to the curb.

'k, this is where politicians lose the plot.

Are we hemorrhaging blue collar manufacturing jobs, causing current account deficits, trade imbalances and threatening the country with real wage stagnation and fiscal crisis?

Or,

is that problem that there are insufficient higher educational opportunities, stopping people from getting college degrees and taking high paying white collar service jobs?

Which is it?

The Dems had lost CT when Lieberman was in the seat. Even if the Repubs take CT in the general election, that will simply be the recovery scar from removing the benign tumor that is Joe Lieberman. Worst case scenario... Repubs win because of a split Dem vote and then lose to a united Dem vote in 2012 and Lieberman is finally out of the party for showing how willing he is to sabotage it for personal gain. It's either Dems finally win CT now, or in 6 years. Either way, they don't have it now, so it's not a step backwards.

i think lieb's slightly more likely to split the republican vote than the dem one at this point

Actually, he is not gone.

He lost. He clearly has no idea how to run a campaign. He has stated his willingness to alienate the Democratic party, and for some reason won't just join the Republican one. His dismal showing in the presidential primary shows you how piss poor his general support is, and his behavior now shows that there may actually have been some merit to the whole "Sore Loserman" slogan, but then again, it was Lieberman who convinced Gore to give up the fight. So he's not so much a sore loser as a selfish bastard. And now that's widely enough known that except for a handful of stubborn holdouts (who may in fact be enough to split the vote in November) that his future is pretty much a dead end in national politics.

The stink of losing a presidential bid is pretty bad. The stink of losing your Senate seat in the primary? That's almost as radioactive as getting a Bush endorsement.

i think lieb's slightly more likely to split the republican vote than the dem one at this point

A Dem with an endorsement from GWB, Bill O'Reilly, and Sean Hannity? Yeah, you're probably right.

He lost.

He did? Funny! Seems to me that he is still running for the US Senate. So pray tell, how did he lose when the General Election has not yet occured?

'k, this is where politicians lose the plot.

Are we hemorrhaging blue collar manufacturing jobs, causing current account deficits, trade imbalances and threatening the country with real wage stagnation and fiscal crisis?

Or,

is that problem that there are insufficient higher educational opportunities, stopping people from getting college degrees and taking high paying white collar service jobs?

Which is it?

Well, as much as I love "either/or" loaded questions, I'm going to sidestep and answer you with this:

There are many problems that we must deal with to shrink the growing gap between rich and poor, between the "have's" and the "you-aren't-worth-crap-because-there's-nothing-in-your-bank-account's"...some of these include:

1.) As you stated--the hemoraging of blue collar jobs. Due in large part to trade policies that are wonderfully free to be inequitable.

2.) The rising costs of schools/health care/utilities --take a guess which Party has been more of a party to these problems--which lead to economic stagnation (i.e. can't get a job because you can't finish school because you can't afford to because you're in debt for medical bills and your heating costs from the previous winter) for the lower class.

3.) We're also spending a heck of a lot on subsidizing industry and a war that could be reinvested in things like...oh, I don't know....Firefighters, Police, Teachers...you know, the petty stuff.

So, in answer to your question...YES.

He lost. He clearly has no idea how to run a campaign. He has stated his willingness to alienate the Democratic party, and for some reason won't just join the Republican one. His dismal showing in the presidential primary shows you how piss poor his general support is, and his behavior now shows that there may actually have been some merit to the whole "Sore Loserman" slogan, but then again, it was Lieberman who convinced Gore to give up the fight. So he's not so much a sore loser as a selfish bastard. And now that's widely enough known that except for a handful of stubborn holdouts (who may in fact be enough to split the vote in November) that his future is pretty much a dead end in national politics.

The stink of losing a presidential bid is pretty bad. The stink of losing your Senate seat in the primary? That's almost as radioactive as getting a Bush endorsement.

I've bolded the bit I agree with. The whole webhosting deal shows him in a lacklustre light.

He should get together with ted stevens so as to bitch about the clogged internets tubes.

He did? Funny! Seems to me that he is still running for the US Senate. So pray tell, how did he lose when the General Election has not yet occured?

He lost the primary. His chance of winning the general is remote. The real contest was yesterday, and he lost it.

He lost the primary. His chance of winning the general is remote. The real contest was yesterday, and he lost it.

It is remote? Seems to me that he is leading in the polls. Not by much since it is a three way race but leading none-the-less.

Well, as much as I love "either/or" loaded questions, I'm going to sidestep and answer you with this:

There are many problems that we must deal with to shrink the growing gap between rich and poor, between the "have's" and the "you-aren't-worth-crap-because-there's-nothing-in-your-bank-account's"...some of these include:

1.) As you stated--the hemoraging of blue collar jobs. Due in large part to trade policies that are wonderfully free to be inequitable.

2.) The rising costs of schools/health care/utilities --take a guess which Party has been more of a party to these problems--which lead to economic stagnation (i.e. can't get a job because you can't finish school because you can't afford to because you're in debt for medical bills and your heating costs from the previous winter) for the lower class.

3.) We're also spending a heck of a lot on subsidizing industry and a war that could be reinvested in things like...oh, I don't know....Firefighters, Police, Teachers...you know, the petty stuff.

So, in answer to your question...YES.

I think a mixed economy is the right thing. But I was highlighting the problem with political rhetoric on both sides. There seems to be this collective fantasy that if only the republican/democratic (delete as appropriate) platform is followed we will enter this magical land where everyone will have advanced degrees, and there will be a strong blue collar sector with manufacturing exports. It's not realistic. (And frankly, this constant banging on about college doesn't help matter either, as it devalues blue collar work, which I would imagine is no small part of the problem).


Both parties are shit on healthcare because they are held hostage by the senior vote. The US needs a nationalized system, but of course that would mean that some people would have to cut back on their health care consumption. No-one has the balls to do it. I imagine some type of fiscal crisis would be needed before anything can be done about that. (Though actually the number of unisureds now is lower that a few years ago, it is still far too high however).

I think a mixed economy is the right thing. But I was highlighting the problem with political rhetoric on both sides. There seems to be this collective fantasy that if only the republican/democratic (delete as appropriate) platform is followed we will enter this magical land where everyone will have advanced degrees, and there will be a strong blue collar sector with manufacturing exports. It's not realistic. (And frankly, this constant banging on about college doesn't help matter either, as it devalues blue collar work, which I would imagine is no small part of the problem).


Both parties are shit on healthcare because they are held hostage by the senior vote. The US needs a nationalized system, but of course that would mean that some people would have to cut back on their health care consumption. No-one has the balls to do it. I imagine some type of fiscal crisis would be needed before anything can be done about that. (Though actually the number of unisureds now is lower that a few years ago, it is still far too high however).

I do not believe the Democratic Party's Platform contains all the answers...I believe the Platform is the only one working on answers. We have repeatedly seen Republicans forsake the middle and lower classes to instead help the industries that line their pockets. College education does need to be spoken to, as does the loss of jobs in the blue collar sector; the two need not be mutually exclusive. We can work to keep production jobs here and to educate more of our populace at less cost. And this is where I become deeply partisan. The Democrats are working to change these problems...in fact they are willing to call them problems. The Republicans believe our lower class is doing just fine, that the invisible (magic) hand of our free market will eventually stem the rising costs of higher education, and that health care costs are simply what we must deal with for a quality medical system (though I will concede that the Dems are equally hamstrung on the issue). Those are not acceptable perspectives. The first step in fixing a problem is recognizing its existence.

I am sad that he is leaving because he was the last of the John F Kennedy and FDR type Democrats.
Those socialist bastards!

Until the Democratic party can sort its life out and stop the far-left idiots from taking it over and turning it into the new Communist party it has no chance against the Republicans. Until the Republicans can go away from the ridiculous Christian Fundamentalist socialist party they are under George Bush...
The Democrats are communists and the Republicans are socialists? This is ridiculous.

Something that the Democratic Party seems to have forgotten that we still must be able to protect ourselves from those who want to do us harm. To borrow a quote "Let him who desires peace prepare for war."
You must be one of these people who thinks that the Iraq war is one of defence.

The cool part of all this will be when Lieberman beats the Democrat in the general election. Then we will see that, for Connecticut anyway, voters are ready to abandon party politics and that the Democrats are really controlled by activists that don't represent a majority of voters that consider themselves Democrats.
Why are people not "real Democrats" until they start agreeing with Republicans on everything?

Surely they are meant to be the opposition party?

Could it be perhaps that they do not want a one party system?
"The opposition aren't agreeing with enough of our opinions."

Yes, they're all for dissent. :rolleyes:

A shift leftward is not all that good for the Democratic Party at all. In fact, I have come to the realizations that they have indeed been shutting out Conservative Democrats. Do you think it is wise policy to ignore the Conservative portion of the Democratic Party?
How do Conservative Democrats differ from Republicans?


And point of fact, the majority of people in Connecticut are completely unaffected by the war in any direct manner.
They pay for it with their money and lives in some cases.

He did? Funny! Seems to me that he is still running for the US Senate. So pray tell, how did he lose when the General Election has not yet occured?
He lost the chance to run as a Democrat, which is obviously what Domici means.

Are you Corneliu?

You must be one of these people who thinks that the Iraq war is one of defence.

And you came to that conclusion how when I said that Lieberman is strong on defense? I never mentioned Iraq in regards to defense.

"The opposition aren't agreeing with enough of our opinions."

Yes, they're all for dissent. :rolleyes:

Actually, you would be quite surprised that they do care about dissent. I care about dissent.

How do Conservative Democrats differ from Republicans?

Has nothing to do with anything. The Democratic Party is ignoring the conservative portion of their base. Something that Conservative Democrats are worried about.

He lost the chance to run as a Democrat, which is obviously what Domici means.

That is not what he ment. He ment that he was finished as a politician.

Are you Corneliu?

Who?

He lost the primary. His chance of winning the general is remote. The real contest was yesterday, and he lost it.
Every poll says otherwise. He lost an election among Democrats. He still has 40% of the dems and almost every moderate in the state behind him. He wins the general easily.

Has nothing to do with anything. The Democratic Party is ignoring the conservative portion of their base. Something that Conservative Democrats are worried about.
Pandering to the conservative portion of their base desolidies the Democratic vote where as the Republicans have a solid base on conservatism. They don't pander to the liberal Republicans - no. When it comes down to crunch time, they pander to the extreme conservatives. Conservative Democrats can vote Demcorat out of conscience, or can move to Republican and the Democrats should pander to the liberal Democrats and solidify the base. Fuck the conservatives.

You seem to live in a fantasy world, or just can't give up the ghost about the Liberman thing so your arguments get more and more fictional fantastical.

Pandering to the conservative portion of their base desolidies the Democratic vote where as the Republicans have a solid base on conservatism. They don't pander to the liberal Republicans - no.

So you are saying that the conservative democrats do not matter at all to the Democratic Party?

When it comes down to crunch time, they pander to the extreme conservatives. Conservative Democrats can vote Demcorat out of conscience, or can move to Republican and the Democrats should pander to the liberal Democrats and solidify the base. Fuck the conservatives.

Yep. You do not care at all for conservatives even if they are Democrat. No wonder the Democrats are in trouble when they ignore conservative portion of their base.

You seem to live in a fantasy world, or just can't give up the ghost about the Liberman thing so your arguments get more and more fictional fantastical.

Ghost about the Lieberman thing? :confused: I do not live in a fantasy world Teh_pantless_hero. Unlike some people around here, I actually care about what is happening to the Democratic Party and what is currently happening to it is not making it worth my time to vote for them when they do run liberals in hot races. It will come back to bite them in the butt. The Democrats need to run moderates just like the Republicans need to run moderates.

So you are saying that the conservative democrats do not matter at all to the Democratic Party?
I'm saying they shouldn't be pandered to if Democrats want to win.

Yep. You do not care at all for conservatives even if they are Democrat. No wonder the Democrats are in trouble when they ignore conservative portion of their base.
When did you take your vacation down the rabbit hole? Republicans do not win by pandering to the more liberal Republicans. When elections come up, they start sucking up to the most radical sons of bitches they can find to ensure the vote. Demcorats need to start saying "We are Democrats, not Republicans. We are liberal, not conservative so we support this, fuck this, this, and that."

I find it hilarious how all the Republicans are advancing all these bullshit ideas. Maybe that's why Democrats are doing so poorly, they are trying to listen to the Republicans and play to everyone instead of picknig a strength opposite conservative positions.

I'm saying they shouldn't be pandered to if Democrats want to win.


When did you take your vacation down the rabbit hole? Republicans do not win by pandering to the more liberal Republicans. When elections come up, they start sucking up to the most radical sons of bitches they can find to ensure the vote. Demcorats need to start saying "We are Democrats, not Republicans. We are liberal, not conservative so we support this, fuck this, this, and that."

I find it hilarious how all the Republicans are advancing all these bullshit ideas. Maybe that's why Democrats are doing so poorly, they are trying to listen to the Republicans and play to everyone instead of picknig a strength opposite conservative positions.

I couldn't agree more. This is the exact reason why the turnout in the Liberman primary was so much bigger than expected. Lemont showed himself to be in actual contrast to both Liberman, and the GOP. He is a real alternative, not just some stuffed shirt who spews weak sauce about how he "agrees" with everybody.

The saddest thing was how Joe pulled the 9/11 card in the waning hours. Pathetic, just pathetic.

No they should pander to the middle of the road folks and they are not doing that Teh_pantless_hero. They are moving to far to the left to do them any good in any major capacity. What they need is a candidate who is middle of the road and not to the left if they expect to win.

As to advancing ideas and winning elections, could it be that the Republican Party actually has a plan that they actually state in public and not keep it to their candidate websites?

Who?
You share his penchant for nitpicking and circular logic.

No they should pander to the middle of the road folks and they are not doing that Teh_pantless_hero. They are moving to far to the left to do them any good in any major capacity.
Opposition to the war is middle-of-the-road.

You share his penchant for nitpicking and circular logic.

Ok...I am going to let this go because I have no idea what you are talking about.

Opposition to the war is middle-of-the-road.

There is opposition to the war then there is the opposition to bring the troops on home. I do not care if some one opposes the war. I have no problem with that but to bring the troops home before their mission is accomplish is a totally different matter.

There is opposition to the war then there is the opposition to bring the troops on home. I do not care if some one opposes the war. I have no problem with that but to bring the troops home before their mission is accomplish is a totally different matter.
In the name of cleaning up the mess you've made the US troops must stay. But Americans are weak, as is their political will to finish what they started. So I would imagine that "bring 'em home now!" is getting popular now.

In the name of cleaning up the mess you've made the US troops must stay. But Americans are weak, as is their political will to finish what they started. So I would imagine that "bring 'em home now!" is getting popular now.

Not as popular as some would like. Every time it is brought to a vote in Congress, it gets shot down overwhelmingly.

Not as popular as some would like. Every time it is brought to a vote in Congress, it gets shot down overwhelmingly.
Well, much as you might not like to admit it, Congress is to the right of the country as a whole right now. Polls show people overwhelmingly disapprove of the war now, and want a timetable for the troops to come home. The only plan they seem to disapprove of right now is that they be home by the end of the year. But hey, it wouldn't be the first time that Congress had no fucking clue on what the people want. It seems to be par for the course.

Forgive me if I decide not to listen to advice from someone who has repeatedly shown little but disdain for may party. In short, if you think it's bad for my party, so much the better.LOL.. Notice how all the NS Republicans are defending Lieberman...

Well, much as you might not like to admit it, Congress is to the right of the country as a whole right now. Polls show people overwhelmingly disapprove of the war now, and want a timetable for the troops to come home.

I would welcome a timetable if it does not leave Iraq too soon.

The only plan they seem to disapprove of right now is that they be home by the end of the year. But hey, it wouldn't be the first time that Congress had no fucking clue on what the people want. It seems to be par for the course.

Here, I will agree with you.

LOL.. Notice how all the NS Republicans are defending Lieberman...
We'll all be laughing when Lieberman wins in November and doesn't count towards a possible majority in the senate for the Dems. All polls show Lieberman will win as he attracts 40% of CT dems in addition to almost all of the independents and a number of republicans.

LOL.. Notice how all the NS Republicans are defending Lieberman...

Because they do see what direction the Democratic party is going and they do not want the party to drift to far to the left and that is precisely what is going on.

We'll all be laughing when Lieberman wins in November and doesn't count towards a possible majority in the senate for the Dems. All polls show Lieberman will win as he attracts 40% of CT dems in addition to almost all of the independents and a number of republicans.

Which is why I am saying that to say Lieberman is defeated is redicoulous.

We'll all be laughing when Lieberman wins in November and doesn't count towards a possible majority in the senate for the Dems. All polls show Lieberman will win as he attracts 40% of CT dems in addition to almost all of the independents and a number of republicans.
Well, if Lieberman isn't lying, then he'll caucus with the Democrats and will still count toward their possible majority, should he win, just as Jim Jeffords currently does and Bernie Sanders will do when he replaces Jeffords.

We'll all be laughing when Lieberman wins in November and doesn't count towards a possible majority in the senate for the Dems. All polls show Lieberman will win as he attracts 40% of CT dems in addition to almost all of the independents and a number of republicans.

No you won't. He's already said that if he wins he'll caucus with the Dems.

Which is why I am saying that to say Lieberman is defeated is redicoulous.
I'm laughing at the libs here. They think they won. In reality they really lost today. There are so few competitive Senate races. They just gave up a democratic seat. This seat might be the difference between being the majority or minority party in the Senate. If Lieberman wins, he doesn't count towards the Dem's count.

Because they do see what direction the Democratic party is going and they do not want the party to drift to far to the left and that is precisely what is going on.
Again, and I'm saying this with all possible sarcasm, I'm so touched by your concern for the well-being of my party. Tend to your own party of crooks and jailbirds. We'll worry about ourselves, thank you very much.

I'm laughing at the libs here. They think they won. In reality they really lost today. There are so few competitive Senate races. They just gave up a democratic seat. This seat might be the difference between being the majority or minority party in the Senate. If Lieberman wins, he doesn't count towards the Dem's count.

He does if he caucuses with the Democrats as he has already pledged to do.

No you won't. He's already said that if he wins he'll caucus with the Dems.
He may vote with them, but he doesn't count towards who is the majority party in that case. That means the Republicans will still be the official majority party and get all of the committee chairs.

Again, and I'm saying this with all possible sarcasm, I'm so touched by your concern for the well-being of my party. Tend to your own party of crooks and jailbirds. We'll worry about ourselves, thank you very much.

What makes you think that the Republican Party is my party?

I'm laughing at the libs here. They think they won. In reality they really lost today. There are so few competitive Senate races. They just gave up a democratic seat. This seat might be the difference between being the majority or minority party in the Senate. If Lieberman wins, he doesn't count towards the Dem's count.Yeah he does, because it comes down to votes, not to what party they claim. You really ought to study up on stuff like this before you type such foolish posts.

It is entirely possible for votes for things like Majority Leader to be bipartisan--they aren't, in practice, but they are possible in theory.

What makes you think that the Republican Party is my party?

I think he does that often...I'll watch and see.

He may vote with them, but he doesn't count towards who is the majority party in that case. That means the Republicans will still be the official majority party and get all of the committee chairs.

Yes it would. He's already said that he'll vote for democratic leadership in the senate, so it counts.

I'm laughing at the libs here. They think they won. In reality they really lost today. There are so few competitive Senate races. They just gave up a democratic seat. This seat might be the difference between being the majority or minority party in the Senate. If Lieberman wins, he doesn't count towards the Dem's count.
Unless all the Republicans plan to vote for Lieberman, he won't win.

Unless all the Republicans plan to vote for Lieberman, he won't win.

Care to back that up?

What makes you think that the Republican Party is my party?
You seemed to be associating yourself with them in post 193. It's possible I read too much into that post, and if I did, then I apologize. But the basis of the statement stands--to all Republicans who feign concern about the future of the Democratic party because of the Connecticut primary, I say, we'll take care of the direction of our own party ourselves, thank you very much.

You seemed to be associating yourself with them in post 193. It's possible I read too much into that post, and if I did, then I apologize. But the basis of the statement stands--to all Republicans who feign concern about the future of the Democratic party because of the Connecticut primary, I say, we'll take care of the direction of our own party ourselves, thank you very much.

Even if that direction could lead to a possible destruction of the party?

No they should pander to the middle of the road folks and they are not doing that Teh_pantless_hero. They are moving to far to the left to do them any good in any major capacity. What they need is a candidate who is middle of the road and not to the left if they expect to win.
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. No one wins by pandering to the middle? Why? Because they are the middle and can't be counted on. It is impossible to ally with them and keep a strong base. Republicans realise this, as do you, which is why you suggest the Democrats keep trying to court the middle ground and keep their base weak and disunified.

As to advancing ideas and winning elections, could it be that the Republican Party actually has a plan that they actually state in public and not keep it to their candidate websites?
The GOP's public plan? Slander Democrats.

You are pulling out every ridiculous stop to avoid admitting you are wrong on every account. Republicans win because they have real plan and the Democrats don't? Bullshit. Republicans win because the convince weak minded twits of that while having no more of a plan than the Democrats.

Care to back that up?
Let's see. Explain myself to some one who has proven time again that they either are living in Wonderland or refuse to admit they are wrong to the point of self-deception.
Nope.

It is impossible to ally with them and keep a strong base.

Now what makes you say that?

The GOP's public plan? Slander Democrats.

Democrats plan: Slander Republicans

You are pulling out every ridiculous stop to avoid admitting you are wrong on every account. Republicans win because they have real plan and the Democrats don't? Bullshit. Republicans win because the convince weak minded twits of that while having no more of a plan than the Democrats.

Such childish comments. In this type of debate, there is no right or wrong post. It is all on how things are perceived.

Let's see. Explain myself to some one who has proven time again that they either are living in Wonderland or refuse to admit they are wrong to the point of self-deception.
Nope.

So in other words, you have no proof to back up your statement. Just what I thought when I asked the question. Thank you for proving that you cannot back up your statement.

He may vote with them, but he doesn't count towards who is the majority party in that case.

Yes, he does. Like Bernie Sanders does and Jim Jeffords did.

You refuse to listen to any points made but your own. You counter point by going "nuh uh, in my fantasy world that's not how it works despite it happening right now on the national stage."

You refuse to listen to any points made but your own. You counter point by going "nuh uh, in my fantasy world that's not how it works despite it happening right now on the national stage."

Just continue with your personal attacks. It is not helping your argument. Now tell me why Lieberman can not win unless all republicans vote for him.

Even if that direction could lead to a possible destruction of the party?
How would that be any worse than what we have now? We're currently faced with two choices in major parties--Republican and Republican-lite. No wonder half the population doesn't vote--they're convinced, and with some reason, that there's not a nickel's worth of difference between the two parties that run everything. At least if there's a clearer delineation between the two parties, there might be a bit more interest.

But here's the larger issue--Lamont doesn't represent the destruction of the Democratic party. To the contrary, he represents the potential of the party, a party in opposition to the failed policies of the Bush administration, and that's what a lot of people have been waiting for, if polls are to be believed. Bush is still in the 30s in approval ratings--people want something different. The Democrats are giving them that.

Well, if Lieberman isn't lying, then he'll caucus with the Democrats and will still count toward their possible majority, should he win, just as Jim Jeffords currently does and Bernie Sanders will do when he replaces Jeffords.

hey, there will be no facts brought into this discussion. only lies and delusions - reality has a well known leftwing bias.

Now tell me why Lieberman can not win unless all republicans vote for him.

pre-loss polls showed him maybe tying with lamont in a threeway. now, he's acting like a sore loser, his staff is quitting in protest, his funding will dry up, etc. does not bode well. i've got a dollar that says he gets talked out of it within two weeks.

How would that be any worse than what we have now?

We be down to one party. Can not get worse than that.

We're currently faced with two choices in major parties--Republican and Republican-lite.

Oh brother. I really hate it when people start using terms like this to describe the Democratic Party. It really is incorrect and I wish people would stop saying it.

No wonder half the population doesn't vote--they're convinced, and with some reason, that there's not a nickel's worth of difference between the two parties that run everything. At least if there's a clearer delineation between the two parties, there might be a bit more interest.

Either that or they are tired of the petty politics that has infiltrated the electoral system.

But here's the larger issue--Lamont doesn't represent the destruction of the Democratic party. To the contrary, he represents the potential of the party, a party in opposition to the failed policies of the Bush administration, and that's what a lot of people have been waiting for, if polls are to be believed. Bush is still in the 30s in approval ratings--people want something different. The Democrats are giving them that.

And what is he planning short of bringing home the troops at once.

Just continue with your personal attacks. It is not helping your argument. Now tell me why Lieberman can not win unless all republicans vote for him.
I doubt he would beat the guy in the general election that thumped him in the primary which is only between Democrats. So then there is a 3 way competition between Lieberman, the guy that beat him in his own party on a platform of anti-war, and the idealogical difference of a Republican who holds the same pro-war ideals as Lieberman.
Why would Lieberman win without pulling Republican votes?

It really is incorrect and I wish people would stop saying it.
This from the person saying Democrats should pander excessively to conservatives.

Either that or they are tired of the petty politics that has infiltrated the electoral system.
Or realisation the electoral college system disenfranchises a majority of American voters. But that is presidential, and so is yours.

pre-loss polls showed him maybe tying with lamont in a threeway. now, he's acting like a sore loser, his staff is quitting in protest, his funding will dry up, etc. i've got a dollar that says he gets talked out of it within two weeks.

Care to prove that his staff is quitting and funding is drying up please?

I doubt he would beat the guy in the general election that thumped him in the primary which is only between Democrats.

I am sure McKinney said the samething when she defeated her challenger 47-44 and got destroyed 59-41. Never say something is going to happen in politics because the opposite is more than likely to occur.

So then there is a 3 way competition between Lieberman, the guy that beat him in his own party on a platform of anti-war, and the idealogical difference of a Republican who holds the same pro-war ideals as Lieberman.
Why would Lieberman win without pulling Republican votes?

We already know he has some republican voters. What you are missing however, is the Independent voters. What makes you so sure that they will give Lamont the victory?

Care to prove that his staff is quitting and funding is drying up please?
Care to prove that:
a) Democrats would increase votes by moving more conservative
b) Lieberman can win the election as an independent
c) That a move to the left would destroy the Democratic party.

This from the person saying Democrats should pander excessively to conservatives.\

Way to misrepresent what I said. They should keep them in mind when making policy decisions just like the Republicans should keep in mind the liberals of their party in their policy making decisions.

Or realisation the electoral college system disenfranchises a majority of American voters. But that is presidential, and so is yours.

I love the Constitution of the United States. Do you?

Care to prove that:
a) Democrats would increase votes by moving more conservative
b) Lieberman can win the election as an independent
c) That a move to the left would destroy the Democratic party.

The burden of proof is not on me for number two. All I am saying in regards to number one is that they should keep the conservative dems in mind when it comes to policy decisions. As to number three, I am taking a wait and see approach on that one.

Care to prove that his staff is quitting and funding is drying up please?
Google is your friend, but here's a report (http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/08/lieberman_staff.html) from the National Journal.

And there's some question about the staff thing--Lieberman says he asked for their resignations, but some said that they were quitting if Lieberman lost the primary regardless, that they wouldn't work for an independent when there was a Dem in the race. As for the money thing, most of the groups who supported him in the primary only guaranteed their support until the primary, and many are expected to switch to Lamont now, especially the PACs of his fellow Senators and of the DSCC. He'll have to replace that money somehow. Hillary's PAC, for instance, wrote Lamont a check for $5K today.

I am sure McKinney said the samething when she defeated her challenger 47-44 and got destroyed 59-41. Never say something is going to happen in politics because the opposite is more than likely to occur.
In a district she has lost previously. Try again.


We already know he has some republican voters. What you are missing however, is the Independent voters. What makes you so sure that they will give Lamont the victory?
You cannot court independent voters. I see you ignore my repeated allusions to Republicans gonig straight for the extremists conservatives as soon as voting time rolls around to solidify their base.

Google is your friend, but here's a report (http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/08/lieberman_staff.html) from the National Journal.

Sorry but I do not put much stock in blogs.

And there's some question about the staff thing--Lieberman says he asked for their resignations, but some said that they were quitting if Lieberman lost the primary regardless, that they wouldn't work for an independent when there was a Dem in the race. As for the money thing, most of the groups who supported him in the primary only guaranteed their support until the primary, and many are expected to switch to Lamont now, especially the PACs of his fellow Senators and of the DSCC. He'll have to replace that money somehow. Hillary's PAC, for instance, wrote Lamont a check for $5K today.

We are just going to have to see how this all plays out will we not?

i loved how samantha Bee put it on The Daily Show

leiberman used a game analogy ("Lamont is ahead in the first half") so she used a dating analogy

"we dont want to go out with you anymore!"

The burden of proof is not on me for number two.
Yes it is. It is a positive assertion.

All I am saying in regards to number one is that they should keep the conservative dems in mind when it comes to policy decisions.
Been done, isn't working.
See: Joseph Lieberman; Hillary Clinton's popularity chart post video game assault.

In a district she has lost previously. Try again.

She may have lost previously but it had to be pointed out.

You cannot court independent voters.

And why what makes you say that a person cannot court independent voters? There are more indepentent voters out there than there are registered Dems and Repubs in the state of CT.

I see you ignore my repeated allusions to Republicans gonig straight for the extremists conservatives as soon as voting time rolls around to solidify their base.

Because I am not focused on the Republican Party. Have not been in this debate.

Sorry but I do not put much stock in blogs.

Well, it's not exactly some kid in his drawers typing away about the never-ending war over which "saga" is more influential--LOTR or Star Wars. The National Journal is a respected news magazine, and the blog is just an offshoot of that. Most magazines and newspapers have them now. Are you going to ignore them all?

Yes it is. It is a positive assertion.


Been done, isn't working.
See: Joseph Lieberman; Hillary Clinton's popularity chart post video game assault.
Something else to remember here--Lamont is running in Connecticut, not in Texas. The middle of the road is a bit farther to the left there, and people considered conservative there would be considered liberal in other parts of the country, and Texas liberals might be to the right of the Republican in the race in Connecticut.

She may have lost previously but it had to be pointed out.
And the fact kills your point. Try again.


And why what makes you say that a person cannot court independent voters?
Independent voters have no predefined opinion of issues.

There are more indepentent voters out there than there are registered Dems and Repubs in the state of CT.
And how many vote compared to registered Republicans and Democrats.
And back it up then, since you like riding the proof train.


Because I am not focused on the Republican Party. Have not been in this debate.
Forget the fact what I have been saying is in direct relation to what you are talking about.

I am done with you here and now. You go out of your way to prevent admitting you are wrong and when some one manages to put you in a corner such that you can't pull out some fantasy world stuff, you go "wait and see" for plausible deniability.

Well, it's not exactly some kid in his drawers typing away about the never-ending war over which "saga" is more influential--LOTR or Star Wars. The National Journal is a respected news magazine, and the blog is just an offshoot of that. Most magazines and newspapers have them now. Are you going to ignore them all?

I do not read blogs no matter where they appear be it on CNN or Fox news or in respected news magazines.

I do not read blogs no matter where they appear be it on CNN or Fox news or in respected news magazines.
Then you're unnecessarily limiting yourself. No wonder you have no idea what's going on--you're sucking at the corporate media teat.

Independent voters have no predefined opinion of issues.

NOw I am going to call you out here.

And how many vote compared to registered Republicans and Democrats.
And back it up then, since you like riding the proof train.

Somehow I cannot find a break down on of registered voters in Connecticut.

Then you're unnecessarily limiting yourself. No wonder you have no idea what's going on--you're sucking at the corporate media teat.

Thanks for the insult. I will remember the insult too. I do not limit myself whatsoever for I read what I can through various media outlets from a variety of cities and countries.

This upcoming November is going to be a very interesting one in Connecticut.

This upcoming November is going to be a very interesting one in Connecticut.
Should be interesting in lots of places. Republicans are spending money in places they haven't had to spend in years--Idaho and Nebraska, for instance--and they're losing a lot of races they currently hold right now.

I will say this about blogs though, they can be a good way to spread information and as a check but one must becareful about which ones they trust.

Hence why I do not trust blogs 100%.

Should be interesting in lots of places. Republicans are spending money in places they haven't had to spend in years--Idaho and Nebraska, for instance--and they're losing a lot of races they currently hold right now.

Well that is certainly true.

Somehow I cannot find a break down on of registered voters in Connecticut.

http://www.sots.ct.gov/ElectionsServices/election_results/statistics/enrolhst.pdf

http://www.sots.ct.gov/ElectionsServices/election_results/statistics/enrolhst.pdf

Thank you.

I will say this about blogs though, they can be a good way to spread information and as a check but one must becareful about which ones they trust.

Hence why I do not trust blogs 100%.
I'm not suggesting you should. I don't trust any independent blog that's making claims without backup. The best source their work and challenge sources and ask questions about discrepancies between various sources. But they aren't a replacement for the news media, much as people like the idiots at Powerline like to claim--they're media critics at best, and they'd do well to remember that before spouting their triumphalist idiocy.

I'm not suggesting you should. I don't trust any independent blog that's making claims without backup. The best source their work and challenge sources and ask questions about discrepancies between various sources. But they aren't a replacement for the news media, much as people like the idiots at Powerline like to claim--they're media critics at best, and they'd do well to remember that before spouting their triumphalist idiocy.

Well thanks Nazz. I guess I will have to reconsider.

If the dems think its a victory..even if its over the only people they can beat ..themselves..so be it...

They have positioned their party as the cut and run appeasement cowards and surrender monkeys.
Or thats how they will be always be described by anyone who runs against them .

Not a good thing in a war ..or when terrorist are blowing your shit up.

They have gone this route before and suffered some of their worst beatings ever in the general elections.

No one will trust them to defend the US . A perception tthat they already struggle to fight against..( trying to pass Kerry off as a WAR HERO ..:D ..a guy who called his fellow soldiers murderers and rapist...and who's own war record is questioned ) .

Republicans all over the country are cracking open Champaign bottles and celibrating .

Not liking the war in Iraq and not liking the way it is being fought or how long it has lasted should not EVER be confused with not wanting to fight or to win .

the Dems seem not to think so...they have a different view..a Dean view..a Ned Lamont view...the new party of cindy sheehan...I can see the stampede now for new republican registrations ..:D

It will get them trounced in a general election and may even destroy their chances at local elections..depending on how many flip flops you get.
before they decided to eat their young ...and follow the same formula that got Dean to be the favorite for the nomination over Kerry et al ..( we all know how well that worked ) ..the Dems seemed to be set up well to contest for or at least gain seats in the House and Senate.


We will see.

They may have let the extreme left wing take over the party but that will only drive more moderate Democrats to vote Republican or switch registration ...just like the last time it happened...they will never learn .:rolleyes:

Their new battle Cry ..Remember McGovern !:D

Wow, that was so full of trolling, flame-baiting, and general bullshit it should be deleted and you warned.

Wow, that was so full of trolling, flame-baiting, and general bullshit it should be deleted and you warned.

Now where is the flamebaiting at?

Now where is the flamebaiting at?
In the excessive quotation of every Republican slander- I mean talking point he could remember.