| Author |
Message |
    
Billy Jack
Citizen
Username: Kendalbill
Post Number: 198
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 9:53 am: | 
|
Dr.- Are you suggesting that there is overwhelming support for a timetable based on this poll? I don't see it. I see 49% say either take as long as needed or send more troops. Did I miss something?
Look, I disagree with Lieberman on many things including Iraq. But I think we fool ourselves in thinking he is "radical" or from another planet. He represents many Americans- probably more than I would. I think the question is why- why do so many americans still believe this line of BS on Iraq after all that we have found out. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5620
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 9:57 am: |
|
Stephen Colbert sums up the Connecticut situation nicely -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzGulQFQYyc&eurl= |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2239
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 10:36 am: |
|
In that poll, 50% say withdraw within a year, which is essentially an immediate pullout, given how long it would take to get 130,000 troops home. And that's just one poll - others show a lot more support for withdrawal if you include other timetables, like 18 months or two years. I never said Lieberman is "radical," but for anyone to suggest that mainstream American agrees with his "stay the course" support for the war is crazy. Look at that same Gallup poll. A solid majority of Americans call the war a mistake. Lieberman still says the war was not a mistake. That doesn't make him "radical," but it puts him out of step with most Americans. And that's my point - anyone who says Lieberman represents the majority of Americans is the one who's out of touch. And in CT, you can be sure he's even more out of step.
here's a good summary of how Americans feel about the war, and not surprisingly, it doesn't reflect the Lieberman position:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002726568 |
Billy Jack
Citizen
Username: Kendalbill
Post Number: 199
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 12:13 pm: |
|
It seems we are debating numbers in the margins, doc. I agree that many Americans oppose the war and Bush's conduct-- I am one of them. But I think you paint Connecticut with too broad a brush. I include a Quinnipiac Poll from 6/8/06:
All Connecticut voters approve 56 - 32 percent of the job Lieberman is doing. Democrats approve 49 - 38 percent, down from 60 - 31 percent May 2.
Connecticut Democrats say 56 - 34 percent that Lieberman deserves to be reelected. Among those who want him reelected, 23 percent point to his overall record as the principal reason. Among those who do not want him reelected, 20 percent list his support for the war in Iraq as the main reason.
And interestingly--
The U.S. should withdraw all troops from Iraq, 31 percent of voters say, while 29 percent want the U.S. to reduce the number of troops; 19 percent want to maintain the current number of troops and 14 percent want to increase the number of troops.
(You can see more at http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11362.xml?ReleaseID=922 )
I am not saying they are right, wrong or otherwise. Its just that Lieberman represents a certain type of voter I grew up with in CT, and I think he is generally represntative. Yeah, he has problems with Iraq and support of Bush, but he will beat Lamot and get reelected.
|
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2240
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 12:45 pm: |
|
that's a different argument entirely from the one that some people are putting out which is basically that Democrats in CT are nuts for opposing Lieberman. the critics are saying Lieberman's opponents are extremist wackos leading the party to ruin, while Joe is the standard bearer for most Americans. that argument is nutty. maybe overall CT voters don't believe Lieberman's stand on Iraq is enough to vote him out. but that's not what those criticizing Lamont are saying. |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 997
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 1:05 pm: |
|
Billy Jack-
Thank you for the well reasoned and supported post.
Establishing Iraq as the litmus test for electing democratic members of Congress is likely to be a failed venture from the get-go.
Most incumbents were in favor of it, based on the same intelligence as the here-on-MOL-detested Bush got.
"One issue" politics generally doesn't work, unless it is the economy. I think the figures for opposition to the Vietnam war were more overwhelming and starker than you have presented on Iraq.
People vote on local as well as national issues and the poll numbers can change dependent upon any successes that may occur in Iraq and any intervening US withdrawals. Snow is doing a relatively good job with Bush's p.r. as well, which may affect figures in the future. Circumstances change, as well as voter priorities.
Democratic incumbents can cloak themselves in the statesmanship and national interest cloth (the flag) by "staying the course" and can ironically use the repubs " cut and run" argument as well. I see their constituents may be angry with " the other guy" in Congress for Iraq, but not them.
Madden 11, I am not carrying the repubs water here by my posts, just suggesting your dreaming big political dreams that won't bear fruit.
But if you want to be Don Quixote, and Nohero your Sancho Panza, well what more can I say?
|
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2241
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 1:12 pm: |
|
your argument might hold water if this was the general election, but it's a Democratic primary. This is in fact the venue for the party to hash out such issues. And if the Iraq issue is a non-starter for Democrats in CT, Lieberman will be re-nominated and likely go on to reelection. If it's Lamont, and Lieberman runs as an independent, the entire state of CT gets a say.
so what's the problem? would it just be better for Lieberman to run unopposed and have his Senate seat just handed back to him? what's small-d democratic about that? |
Billy Jack
Citizen
Username: Kendalbill
Post Number: 200
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 1:45 pm: |
|
Doc, we agree. Get it? We agree. My original comments:
Quote: Unfortunately, Lieberman is very in touch with a large group of Americans who still believe Bush's statements on Iraq and Bin Laden. He is out of touch with Dems in Connecticut and the wider population of blog driven pundits. But I think his views represent a large share of Americans.
If Lieberman loses to Lamont, so be it. I would reluctantly vote for Lieberman in the primary if I still lived in CT. And I think he will win in the end. We'll see.
|
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1000
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 1:45 pm: |
|
O'Boogie-
Lieberman as an independent is a big problem for your party.
|
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1650
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 2:38 pm: |
|
Quinnipiac had Bush leading in NJ 56 to 44. Then admitted using a 60% "R" sample. Short story, when your sample rate is 60% "R", & the "R" candidate (Bush) gets only 56%.... thats a 8% lead for Kerry. Which is close to election day results.
Didnt Quinnipiac have Corzine in a tight race, which he won by 12%, IIRC.
I have difficulty, taking seriously, Quinnipiac Polls, which has a right leaning bias, when they are polling DEMS/LIBS. Being off be 8% & then 12%, averages 10%. Its like having Straw polling Libs in Essex County. Well sort of....
I would like to emphasize: The DNC will support the CT Primary Winner. If it is Lamont, Lamont will recieve big time resources from the DNC. That will help even the playing field. SO Joe would have to go it alone as an Indie. You can bet that behind closed doors, the DNC and Howard Dean are looking to see Joe lose. If Lamont is the next Senator from CT, DNC support in the General ELection probably will be the major reason.
|
Billy Jack
Citizen
Username: Kendalbill
Post Number: 201
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 3:46 pm: |
|
No problem, Foj. I don't live and die by the Quinnipiac polls- they just are a local poll dealing with a local issue in Connecticut. I kinda thought they might have more to say about how people think up there than we do in Maplewood.
And the impression I was getting here is that everyone thinks of the average Connecticut voter as a Westport Democrat. I know- and from Stratford, you know- that Connecticut is as much Bridgeport and Waterbury as Greenwich and Westport. And if I think of the Dems I grew up with in Monroe, Lieberman represents them pretty accurately.
But you're right- I think the national DNC would like to replace Joe if they can do it without losing the seat. And that Quinnipiac poll seems to indicate Lamont can beat the Republican Schlesinger (37-20). |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1275
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 3:59 pm: |
|
I love how the Dems are so worried about replacing one Dem with another. Hey guys, I know you are tired of losing to the Varsity squad, but I hope you at least show up on game day. We are still saving our best attacks and talking points for much closer to the election. I don't want you guys limping across the finish line. When we crush you I don't want you to be numb, I want you to really feel it. |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1988
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 4:03 pm: |
|
Southerner: That was your most desperate cheerleading post to date. Hard to believe, but true. You're getting angrier. But if I lived where you do, I'd be angry, too. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2242
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 4:12 pm: |
|
Billy,
I should make it clear when I'm addressing FVF, not you. so I "get it," and I "got it."
FVF - it's not "my party," first of all. but Lieberman has said he would caucus with the Dems, so a victory by him wouldn't hurt the party. And the idea of the Republican Schlesinger winning, even in a 3-way race is a very long shot. No poll shows him with more than about 15% of the vote, under any set of circumstances. If anything, a Lieberman independent candidacy hurts Schlesinger most. It puts him in single digit territory. |
Billy Jack
Citizen
Username: Kendalbill
Post Number: 202
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 4:31 pm: |
|
Sorry doc. No offense, eh? |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1863
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 4:37 pm: |
|
Nothing worse than mixed sports metaphors. |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1003
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 5:31 pm: |
|
Foj-
May I suggest you, as a democratic power broker and pooh-bah, address your OWN little democratic problems closer to home?
Consider this a suggestion box of sorts:
1) Joe "D" and the Essex County Crowd- While I appreciate the inumerable recycling days captioned " Putting Essex County first", the concentration on parks that don't effect me in the least ( SMR should have been done years ago given the number of adjoining municipalities) and his concern for creating a well-funded outreach program with a well-paid director for helping vendors figure out how to do business with Essex County, rather than just apparently creating a cheap web site for that end, my county share of the taxes is still higher than my municipal. Is it possible to investigate how to get rid of the unnecessary county workers and PATRONAGE jobs?
2) Frank Lautenberg and Bob Menendez- While you are beating the bushes for votes for Bob, can you ask him and Frank to do some creative thinking on how we can get more of our federal tax dollars paid back to NJ,and actually get us some more? While I have always had a fondness for Lautenberg in his younger days, of late he has become a bit too fixated on this "chickenhawk" thing. And please get the man a better, bigger office too FOJ, he deserves it.
3) Governor "Florzine"- No I didn't make that one up, I heard it on the radio. Might catch on though.
Rubbing elbows with the high and mighty in the state as you probably do, could you please remind him is not dating Ms. Katz anymore, and some residents might have preferred state workers use their sick days to defray their one week "vacation" rather than paying them salary for it? Plus, maybe people might object to another 1% sales tax raise next year because he allowed the legislators to use a good portion of it this year on their pork projects. I am sure he is going to hang REAL TOUGH next year on negotiating with the state workers too, with all kinds of givebacks, pension reform, and layoffs. Even if they are the people he needs in order to re-elect him I am sure he wants to pull a John Kennedy style "profile in courage" deal.
I look forward to you helping facilitate some REAL government reform.
Thanks in advance, from one of the little people in this state,
Factvs |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1004
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 5:36 pm: |
|
O'Boogie -
It creates a national impression, usable by republicans, that the extreme left has taken control of the party by pushing out a centrist like Lieberman.
His being forced to run as an independent is validation for this argument. Look at how the challenge to him has been portrayed in the conservative media so far. |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 987
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 5:37 pm: |
|
Madden 11, I am not carrying the repubs water here by my posts, just suggesting your dreaming big political dreams that won't bear fruit.
Listen, you're more than welcome to suggest whatever you want, as am I. Believe me when I say I'm far from convinced that Lamont will win the primary, let alone the general...but to me he represents the possibility of an actual opposition party, something no democracy can survive without. And that's something that I want to support.
There's no question that Americans of every political stripe are concerned about what Bush and the hard right wing have done/are doing to this country. I see a revitalized and emboldened Democratic party (which will come with it's own flaws, to be sure) as the only way to start repairing some of this damage.
So when you make the baseless claim that I'm supporting Lamont as part of a single issue purge, or an ideological purity test, or because a website told me to, you're not only doing me a disservice, you're making yourself look foolish in the process. And it equates to right wing water carrying as far as I'm concerned. |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1006
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 5:56 pm: |
|
Madden 11
And are you and Nohero going out to tilt at any windmills this weekend too?
Better to elect the electable, and then try to influence them, rather than try to elect the undigestable that Karl Rove will use to hack you to death nationally.
Ah, for the good old dem pols who understood things. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5269
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 6:43 pm: |
|
Some news on Schlesinger:
Quote:"I was in politics. I used a pseudonym just for this reason, this stupidity we're going through now," Schlesinger said.
Schlesinger said he did nothing wrong, other than try to keep his name off Foxwoods' marketing list. . . .
Schlesinger said he has gambled only once a year at Connecticut casinos over the past five years, though he visited Foxwoods and the Mohegan Sun more frequently in the 1990s, typically to play blackjack. He said his card-counting skills have limited his losses, but he never made money gambling.
"I never had a year when I won," Schlesinger said, but he said he has been spotted as a card counter and confronted by casino officials. "At various times, I've been asked not to play blackjack."
Schlesinger said casinos are oversensitive to card counting, even when the gambler is losing. Banning him from a blackjack table made no sense, he said.
"I've given them a lot of money. They should love me," Schlesinger said.
The thrust: he's a card counter; he's been barred from casinos; he goes in anyway under a fake name; and despite counting cards, he still loses.
If Joe runs independent, watch for Schlesinger to finish third. |
Billy Jack
Citizen
Username: Kendalbill
Post Number: 203
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 6:12 am: |
|
Last time this type of decision was made, the Democrats split on Humphrey in 68. McCarthy faded, RFK was shot and Humphrey was only able to get lukewarm support for the general election. The result- Nixon.
Or maybe it was more recent-- 2000 and Gore- Nader- Bush. All that talk of principle seems lost now that we know the outcome...
Yeah, there are differences but if we don't work to defeat the big bad we won't even be able to discuss the rest. I agree the Iraq war is a big deal but getting a Democratic majority is bigger. I know it might seem safe the a dem woul;d hold on to CT, but you never know. Lieberman will definitely win in November- |
Spinal Tap
Citizen
Username: Spinaltap11
Post Number: 52
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 7:53 am: |
|
http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/07/14/bill_clinton_de fends_liebermans_iraq_stance/ |
Spinal Tap
Citizen
Username: Spinaltap11
Post Number: 53
Registered: 5-2006
| | Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 7:56 am: |
|
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/JonahGoldberg/2006/07/14/whats_liberals_big_i dea_who_cares?page=full&comments=true |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 988
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 9:35 am: |
|
Whatever Bill Clinton's talents (and he has many) fostering Democratic majorities in the House and Senate is obviously not one of them.
Jonah Goldberg, on the other hand, has no discernible talent at all. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1653
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 5:20 pm: |
|
Madden 11: Spot on about Clinton caring only to win the WH. He did almost nothing to help the DNC in Congress. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1655
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 5:34 pm: |
|
Wes Clarke takes a shot at Joe:
I am a proud member of the Democratic Party, and I believe it is our party’s responsibility to support the will of the Democratic primary voters in Connecticut. I personally look forward to supporting the candidate CT voters elect as the Democratic nominee. Though, as an aside, I must say I find it ironic that Senator Lieberman is now planning a potential run as an independent after he continually questioned my loyalty to the Democratic Party during the 2004 presidential primary.
http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/07/14/wes-clark-writes-a-thank-you-note/
I get the impression Wes may not, in any way, support Joe as an Indie. Seems like folks are takin sides here....Lets see if more DEMs come out and draw a line in the sand for Joe to see........ |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1656
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 5:37 pm: |
|
I get the feeling that Lamont would not run in the general election against Joe, if Joe wins the Primary. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2243
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 6:36 pm: |
|
he has already pledged to support Lieberman if Joe wins the primary. Yeah, that Lamont is really some radical wacko.  |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1661
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 6:58 pm: |
|
There ya go...... |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1289
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 9:39 pm: |
|
This is a lot of freakin energy for a seat that will stay Democratic regardless of which swarmy northeast lib gets the nomination. |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2854
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 10:19 pm: |
|
You consider Lieberman a swarmy northeast lib? Most Republicans, including George W. Bush, don't feel that way at all. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2244
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 10:43 pm: |
|
two things. first - do you suggest it's a waste of energy for the conservatives in PA to challenge Arlen Specter in a primary every six years?
and second - what the hell is "swarmy?" |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1663
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 9:15 pm: |
|
I aint heard too many boys from the sticks, use the word "swarmy". Must be that hi falutin liberal Educational system. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2246
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 10:50 pm: |
|
 |
Factvsfiction
Citizen
Username: Factvsfiction
Post Number: 1042
Registered: 4-2006
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 2:35 pm: |
|
lemming convention
 |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1301
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 17, 2006 - 7:41 pm: |
|
Foj,
I'm not from the sticks. |
mjh
Supporter
Username: Mjh
Post Number: 687
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 - 8:19 am: |
|
Why the Left Is Furious at Lieberman
A blogger's blast at the embattled Connecticut senator. Hint: It's not just Iraq.
By Duncan Black, DUNCAN BLACK writes the blog Eschaton www.atrios.blogspot.com under the pseudonym of Atrios and is a senior fellow at Media Matters for America.
July 18, 2006
SOME TIME AFTER having lunch in Iraq with the junior senator from Connecticut, Time magazine Baghdad bureau chief Michael Ware told an interviewer, "Either Sen. Lieberman is so divorced from reality that he's completely lost the plot, or he knows he's spinning a line."
Although Ware was referring specifically to Joe Lieberman's observations about Iraq, his characterization perfectly summarizes the former vice presidential candidate's whole political approach, and it explains why so many Democrats are eager to see him lose in a primary election next month.
Many political observers have tried to paint the candidacy of Lieberman's challenger, Ned Lamont, as merely a referendum on the invasion of Iraq, which Lieberman supported. This newspaper's editorial board declared it "disturbing" that the senator has been "targeted for defeat by national fundraisers based on his foreign policy views." The reason for Lamont's popularity, explained the Washington Post's David Broder, "is simple: the war."
The war is certainly a reason — and given how events continue to devolve in Iraq, a perfectly sufficient one — but those who focus only on that miss the broader opposition to Lieberman and the kind of politics he represents.
For too long he has defined his image by distancing himself from other Democrats, cozying up to right-wing media figures and, at key moments, directing his criticisms at members of his own party instead of at the Republicans in power.
Late last year, after President Bush's job approval ratings hit record lows, Lieberman decided to lash out at the administration's critics, writing in the ultraconservative Wall Street Journal editorial pages that "we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril." In this he echoed the most toxic of Republican talking points — that criticizing the conduct of the war is actually damaging to national security.
Lieberman has a long history of providing cover for the worst of Republican actions while enthusiastically serving as his own party's scold. After the Senate acquitted President Clinton on all impeachment charges, Lieberman called for his censure. More recently, he rejected a call by Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.) to censure Bush over the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping program, calling the attempt "divisive."
Lieberman looks happiest when playing a "Fox News Democrat," as he did in a February appearance on Sean Hannity's radio program, during which the two exchanged compliments and expressions of friendship and Hannity offered to campaign for him. The senator seems to enjoy Sunday talk shows more than actually doing his job. New Orleans could have been spared the hacktastic performance of Michael Brown, the unqualified former director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, had Lieberman not shooed him through the confirmation process in a breezy 42-minute hearing.
Lieberman's relationship with the Democratic Party has been one of convenience, not principle, as was proved definitively in late June when he declared his intention to run as an independent if he loses the Aug. 8 primary. Proclaiming that he had loyalties "greater than those to my party," he decided he would deserve a do-over if rejected by Connecticut Democrats. In what could be the final tragic act of his political career, Lieberman might soon discover that Republicans don't love Democrat-bashing Democrats enough to actually vote for them.
Much of the interest in this race is not because of Lamont but rather his perceived base of support from bloggers, including me. One prominent pundit claimed that Lamont's online backers were practitioners of "blogofascism"; another called the campaign an "inquisition." Online political discourse can indeed be caustic and combative, like talk radio. But too many in the Lieberman wing of the party have elevated civility and the illusion of bipartisan comity over challenging Republicans' failed policies. In the process, they have echoed GOP jargon in dismissing critics as "angry" and "hate-filled."
Politics is a contact sport. Those who would paper it over with a veneer of false propriety are pretending it's something that it is not. More than that, loud and raucous debate is a healthy part of our democracy.
Lieberman's problem isn't bloggers, it's the voters of Connecticut, who seem to be increasingly tired of his support for some very uncivil policies, including federal intervention into the Terri Schiavo case, the administration's operations at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay and, yes, that disastrous invasion of Iraq
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page