| Author | Message | ||
     themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 3167 Registered: 12-2001  |
I have mixed feelings about the Lieberman thing. Truth is, a real primary where someone gets thrown out every now and then is a healthy thing. And Lieberman, though not a bad guy, has been using a sort of wedge issue strategy against his own party. I think he has been almost deliberately indiferent to major questions about the war. My take on the war: It was a risky idea, and only a good idea if it works. I think at this point it isn't going to work - not for anything like the advertised price in American life and dollars. I think it was presented dishonestly and planned unrealistically. And I think that the culture of the WH has prevented any honest insight into the problems. Like, come on, let's get Rumsfeld out of there already. Even the Neo-cons admit he screwed up. I don't even think it would have hurt Bush to move Rummy out last year. Lieberman partook of the air in that bubble, and thought it would make him a national figure. OK, but he is also a true believer, and acted on principle. There are principled arguments for the Iraq war, but there is no principle in hiding a disaster, especially if you hide it by questioning the partriotism of war critics. Lieberam ran a little too close to that crowd. The presidents favorite democrat. That being said, I want to see how Kerry will handle this whole thing. It isn't going to do him any good, whatever he chooses. And I find the frantic Lieberman hatred on site like firedoglake.com strange and distasteful. As for the hacking, here's an update: http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001304.php I think it will turn out to be a hack. Someone is going to get in trouble - just like those Republican phone-jamming officials in New Hampshire. I don't think these folks will be affiliated with Ned Lamont's campaign in any way, however. | ||
| Lydia Supporter Username: Lydial Post Number: 2111 Registered: 5-2001 |
Lieberman ran on what he believed in - and he was a Democrat who supported the war. OK, that's cool, but when he lost the election at least partially because of his support of the war, he should take the loss as a lesson and gracefully concede defeat. Now he's an independent? Lieberman's (failed) opportunistic grab for the Democratic nomination says a lot about his character, sure, but I wonder how many politicians would switch parties if they could stay in office? I suspect a majority of incumbents would jump ship to any welcoming party if it guaranteed re-election for them. Is the 2-party system really representing the voting Republicans and Democrats or are they dinosaurs more interested in holding office than public service? I think it's the former, I don't see a lot of altruism these days. | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1359 Registered: 4-2006 |
themp- My deal has been I would not have invaded Iraq. I understand the rationale and the reality of why we need to stay there now. War is never quick or easy and our society, which has become totally consumer-oriented rather than nationalistic and self-interest oriented, has gotten used to instant gratification. Our enemies there think in the long term, centuries, and place a different value on human life than we do, giving them the short term advantage. Our founders didn't intend to create a permanent class of office holders, and our country being able to resolve major issues has become paralyized due to how our system has created permanent office holders and two hidebound parties. The money involved in running political campaigns has created the impossibilty of new parties or true independents running. Only rich men like Bloomberg or Lamont can run unless the candidate generates a lot of money from special interests, which of course, defeats the purpose of electing them. I will contribute money to Lieberman's independent run because I believe he does have principles and as a religious man has certain unshakable ethics that transcends our sick political system. Lamont will probably lose, but push the party into the hands of the bloggers and left to whom most of the country doesn't relate. I sadly am beginning to believe our religious right friends who think we are living in the end times, our country so lacks unity and mutual respect,and our enemies have no moral or ethical constraints. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1415 Registered: 2-2004 |
themp, We finally reach common ground. Your above post is excellent and honest. I wish more libs were honest. You may not like most of my positions but you can't say I ain't honest which is why I often get ganged up on. Lydia, You make a good point as well. My take is the the 47% plus who voted for Joe deserve him to keep fighting for them. Remember, these Democrats agree with him and not Lamont. If Joe's numbers were in the teens then I'd agree he should hang it up. But they weren't and his supporters deserve a candidate who will fight. If it means he has to change the moniker after his name then who ultimately cares. And as I've mentioned before, most of the Dems loved Gore's tenacity after the 2000 campaign and called on him to fight to the bloody end which he did. I even respect Gore for doing this. It will be interesting to see who ultimately claims the seat. I'll be watching. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12362 Registered: 5-2001 |
I saw Ken Melman (GOP Chairman) on Hardball last night. He refused to endorse the GOP candidate, what is his name? You know the guy with 9% support. I don't know if this means the GOP is going to support Joe or if they are going to get a stronger candidate to run on the GOP line. The Dems have lined up behind Lamont. | ||
| Billy Jack Citizen Username: Kendalbill Post Number: 222 Registered: 6-2002  |
Southerner: you have an interesting threshold. If a candidate loses but gets 47% of the vote it means they should run as an independent? 52-47 isn't all that close and as I said elsewhere seems very different than Gore/Bush. And what does he seek to do? Represent disenfranchised voters of CT.? And if he runs as an Independent and wins by taking Republican votes and independents, doesn't that say volumes about the disarray in the CT Republican party? If the groundswell Joe is seeking to tap is so overwhelming, why didn't the Republicans have someone ready to run other than Schlesinger? As Republicans chuckle about the issue, I wonder about the fact that a state with a historically strong Republican party and a hugely popular Republican Governor couldn't find a single viable candidate to run for Senate. And, this really breaks my heart, can't support two of the most honest, decent Republican congressmen in the country: Shays and Johnson. Lieberman has every right in the world to run if he wants. But I have the right to call it undignified. Its like the time George Costanza kept coming to work after he was fired. The whoile thing is sad. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1417 Registered: 2-2004 |
Billy, We aren't so far apart. You bring up some good points. Let me address. If this were the general election I would totally be in agreement with you. If you lose, you lose and should slump off and join that lot of losing candidates, something Gore was loathe to do. However, Joe didn't lose the general election and obviously he wants to continue as Senator. I understand your view as a Democrat that you'd wish Joe would just go away and that his current position is undignified. However, he is simply playing by the rules. Once again, it appears the Dems don't like rules and want to change them when they don't suit their needs. Isn't the goal of any election to find a person who will represent the views of the people? Therefore, you should be thrilled that the people of Connecticut will have more options to choose from. They will now have 3 candidates to choose from instead of 2. And again I must ask, if Joe has no chance why do you appeared annoyed? It's just crazy Joe being crazy Joe. As for the Republicans, you are right on. The Republicans in Connecticut are in shambles as far as I can see, I won't disagree with you. However, you can't get blood from a turnip. Electing a Repub in the northeast in this climate is like electing a Dem down here any time. It's hard. Besides, why would the RNC waste time/money/effort on a seat that we are all convinced will go Democratic or now Independent? It doesn't make macro-political sense. I'd much rather the RNC put its efforts into other races that are up for grabs. And BobK, hinted at the plan. If the Senate is so close to being 50/50 leading up to the election, the Repubs would be foolish not to push for Joe. This would take a seat away from the Dems and one seat could be huge. I don't have a dog in this fight but like every election cycle this is one of those political anomalies that has all political geeks intrigued. As for the Constanza comparison, Joe was only fired by half the Board. Joe is simply going to the other half and asking their opinion. George was fired by the one man board and had no where else to turn. | ||
| Duncan Supporter Username: Duncanrogers Post Number: 6873 Registered: 12-2001  |
Wow and look at all the flack at the local level when one of our own TC members changed parties. Interesting. | ||
| 3ringale Citizen Username: Threeringale Post Number: 341 Registered: 1-2006 |
I have to respect the Democrats on this. The Iraq war is very unpopular with the grass-roots and Lieberman paid the price, even if he is sincere. Amnesty for illegal immigrants is not a popular issue with the Republican grass roots. I think 22 Republican Senators voted for the Hagel-Martinez amnesty bill. I wonder how many up for re-election will even face a primary challenge. No wonder its called the stupid party. Cheers | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1420 Registered: 2-2004 |
3, It's not called the stupid party, it's called the majority party. The stupid party is the one that just elected an independent and took away a seat from themselves. | ||
| themp Supporter Username: Themp Post Number: 3172 Registered: 12-2001 |
I think if people are serious about this "new enemies, endless war" concept, then we need to consider changing to a buttoned up, socialist parliamentary system like Israel's, where citizenship carries obligations and advantages, and there is less economic striation. Yeah, didn't think so. We have this sprawling, rural, country-bumpkin government system that is now incapable of functioning well. The level of irresponsibility and waste connected to this war, and our budgets is absurd. Randy Cunningham times one thousand. No national ID cards, for crying out loud. Several thousand police forces. We are still operating in a rural mode. I think the big change in our country - toward agressive nationalism and war - is a mix of true believer and con artists (Bernie Kerik types). Lots of folks are going to make a bundle, and we will be throwing away millions of dollars a year on poorly thought out but political strategic earmarked security measures. We are screwed. Pe4rsonally, I think we can continue to function in our traditional American mode, and not enter an endless cycle of war. But too late. Kiss it goodbye. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 12366 Registered: 5-2001 |
Actually Lieberman has said, and I believe him, that he will caucus with the Democrats if elected. This is what Jeffries of Vermont does. I don't think there will be much of a change if Lieberman gets re-elected. I also suspect that the GOP is looking high and low for someone to replace the current candidate. How about the Governor? He apparently is very popular in Connecticut. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro  Post Number: 3712 Registered: 5-2004  |
Bob, I wonder, however, what will happen to his positions on the various committees on which he sits as a Democrat. If he wins as an Independent, does that mean that he should be removed from his committee seats by the Dems? And Southerner, which party was this, and where? "The stupid party is the one that just elected an independent and took away a seat from themselves." | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5787 Registered: 8-2003 |
Southerner -- I think you're wrong that Repubs would control the Senate if it was a 50/50 split. Like Jumpin Jim Jeffords, it all depends on who you caucus with after you call yourself an independent, and I highly doubt that Lieberman would caucus with the Republicans and give them the operating majority. Craven Dems would likely promise Lieberman a prominent committee chairmanship to get back the guy they kicked out. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2325 Registered: 8-2003  |
losing a primary isn't getting "kicked out" of the party. did the Republicans kick Joe Schwarz out of the party? are they about to kick Lincoln Chafee out of the party? if Chafee loses his primary, will the Repubs strip him of his committee memberships? I don't think so. endorsing the legitimately nominated Democratic nominee in CT isn't kicking Joe out of the party. Lieberman left, he wasn't thrown out. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1944 Registered: 5-2001 |
cjc, No need for Dems to beg. He's already said he'll caucus with the Dems. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 5788 Registered: 8-2003 |
OK....kicked out was too strong. More like tossed under the bus, but still has a ticket. Now, will the same Move.On types be consistent and go after Hillary who holds the same position? The NY Times op-ed calling the Lieberman defeat the "revenge of the moderates" was hiliarious. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2326 Registered: 8-2003 |
wrong again. not tossed by the Senate leadership, by voters. In case you missed it, all the major Dem senators endorsed Lieberman. No one else except Lieberman held the position he did on the war. Others supported it, but only Joe told Democrats not to criticize Bush, and implied they were unpatriotic if they did so. How many other Democrats were with Joe on Terri Schiavo? Who was the first to cave on the Alito filibuster attempt? Nope, Joe's unique, and that's why he lost. He almost seemed to be purposely picking fights with his own party, and it cost him. | ||
| Robert Livingston Citizen Username: Rob_livingston Post Number: 2010 Registered: 7-2004  |
 | ||
| Lydia Supporter Username: Lydial Post Number: 2112 Registered: 5-2001 |
Southerner -
Lieberman's 47% is a huge loss. He was a 3-term respected Senator, a VP candidate, he's got instant name-recognition, he's been on the cover of national magazines, had thousands of hours of television time. Lamont was "What's-His-Name rich guy who's running against Lieberman" So now Lieberman is playing a numbers game. He'll lose some of that Democratic 47% to "good" Democrats who support the party, but he's gambling that he'll pick up the loss from, I can only assume, Republican votes. He says he'll make nice with the Dems after he wins. That's integrity? If the man had any integrity he'd take his loss gracefully like millions of other politicians have before him - maybe he's even use this low point in his political career to gain some insight and perhaps re-define what he has to offer CT and the USA as a former politician and still-viable public servant. | ||
| S.L.K. 2.0 Citizen Username: Scrotisloknows Post Number: 1853 Registered: 10-2005  |
Liberman's loss is just another glowing example of the left's "diversity" practices. [choke] -SLK | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1422 Registered: 2-2004 |
Lydia, I don't disagree. However, your statement that losing with 47% is a huge loss is interesting. Weren't the Democrats saying something different when Gore and Kerry lost? My point is no different than the point all the usual Dem posters made over the last 6 years. And that is just because one side wins doesn't mean the other side has to completely cave. You Democrats sure haven't done this on the national level. The 47% of Democratic voters in Connecticut who voted for Joe have a right to have him keep fighting the good fight to push their agenda within the framework of the Connecticut election law. What I don't understand is why Connecticut and I'm sure many other states allow this loophole? In my humble opinion, I think primaries are a joke anyway. I'd much rather have 10 candidates on a general election ballot than the usual 2. That would definitely force the candidates to really listen to the people rather than simply chase the money. But thats dream world so I won't waste my time. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2328 Registered: 8-2003 |
47% is a huge loss when you have the ovewhelming advantages of incumbency that Lieberman had - endorsements from every major Democrat and every major Democratic consituency, a 3-1 spending advantage, 100% name recognition, not to mention the Democratic GOTV effort. With all that, he still lost. As one pundit said, this wasn't David beating Goliath, it was an ant defeating the shoe. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1225 Registered: 6-2001 |
Does anybody know if the have open primaries in Connecticut? TomR | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2329 Registered: 8-2003 |
they do not. and the deck is stacked against even getting on the primary ballot. Lamont needed at least 15% support at the Democratic state convention in the spring to contest Lieberman. He got over 30% to force Lieberman to face him in the primary. | ||
| tom Citizen Username: Tom Post Number: 5455 Registered: 5-2001 |
There's of course a big difference between losing a primary and losing a general election. The comparison to Gore and Kerry is apples-and-oranges. A better comparison would be a sitting President losing his nomination for re-election -- something that I think hasn't happened in some 120 years. As for your 10 candidates idea, for once I agree. The two-party system is looking like a bust, as both parties' candidates head for what the other side perceives as the margins. You guys think the Dems are loonies for ditching a pro-war candidate; we think you guys are neanderthals for dumping a pro-stem cell research guy in Michigan, as well as for harassing Arlen Specter every six years. Which of course leads to the biennial debates over really really pressing issues like flag-burning and gay marriage.
| ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1424 Registered: 2-2004 |
tom, I couldn't agree more. As for Lieberman, I want to make it clear I don't care that the Democratic voters in Connecticut kicked him to the curb. They have every right to get a Democrat candidate who wins the majority of the votes in their primary. I am simply a fan of politics and am commenting on the entire process. And that process allows this loophole Joe is taking advantage of. I don't know who will win nor do I care, but the process is interesting. I would like to think the Connecticut Democrats are strong enough to back the chosen candidate from their primary, but we won't know until election day. As for our agreement on number of candidates I'd love to see this. I would rather the electorate have more choices than fewer choices. However, we have to play with the hand we have which we agree sucks. I simply say, good luck to all candidates and may the person who best represents their district win. And then let's all accept the results and work to better our nation. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2330 Registered: 8-2003 |
the ballots do have a mulititude of candidates already. it's just that almost no one votes for the Libertarians, Reform, Green, etc. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1427 Registered: 2-2004 |
Dr., Maybe in your area that is the case. But all I see is Dem and Repub except for the national stuff. I'd love to see 4 Repubs, 4 Dems, and 4 Libertarians. We don't have Greenies down here because they don't do well outside of their comfort zone which is why they run to their liberal bastions to protest and march. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2331 Registered: 8-2003 |
why do you need 4 people representing the same parties? that's what primaries are for. and if no one is voting for alternatives like Libertarians or Greens, why do you need more choices on the ballot? this makes no sense. just putting lots of names on the ballots won't guarantee anyone will vote for them. and if no one is voting for them, what's the point? and if anything, a plethora of choices will even futher cement incumbents in place because they'll enjoy even bigger advantages over mulitiple challengers with regard to $$$ and name recognition. | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 10430 Registered: 4-1997  |
JL is in a tough corner. He has to be against the war to attract D and I votes and for the war to get R votes. He may need to supercharge his wishy-washy, two-sided face superpowers. He should us Janus as his campaign logo. | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2332 Registered: 8-2003 |
he also has to attack Lamont as partisan and polarizing without appearing as though he's making partisan polarizing attacks. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1230 Registered: 6-2001 |
Casey, Thanks for the quick response. In reply to your last query, the reason to let the "marginal" candidates on the ballot is to allow the electorate to hear the viewpoints which might otherwise be overlooked; and hopefully, to force the mainstream candidates to address those issues. It will allow the occasional fringe lunatic to get on the ballot, but I doubt that a "serious" candidate will have to address issues like repeal of Amendment XIX, or some similar spurious issue. Getting the "serious" candidates to address things like the enviroment or gorvernmental intrusion into our privacy? I, for one, am glad the Greens and the Libertarians are there. But, of course, that's just one man's opinion. TomR | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2335 Registered: 8-2003 |
I'm not saying don't allow them, I'm saying they already are allowed, but no candidates appear because no one is likely to vote for them. I think southerner's question is a silly one. he acts as though there are limits on the number of candidates who can appear on the ballot. I'm all for anyone who can get a nominal amount of signatures appearing on an electoral ballot (I'm not sure of the # in NJ, but it can't be that many - we get plenty of independents on our ballots). but you can't force any voters to pay attention to them. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1429 Registered: 2-2004 |
DR., I'm not asking you to agree with me so relax. This started when I said I think party primaries are ridiculous and the general election should be open to whomever wants to run. In my opinion it shouldn't be limited to one of each party. tom agreed with me and stated why. I know it's not going to change so don't get any heartburn over my silly idea. It's similar to the silly idea of Democrats regaining the majority in Congress. It won't happen, but Lord we have plenty of posters who dream about it. | ||
| ffof Citizen Username: Ffof Post Number: 4822 Registered: 5-2001  |
I detect a prediction with "It won't happen." | ||
| Lydia Supporter Username: Lydial Post Number: 2113 Registered: 5-2001 |
Southerner - I'm not really up in arms about Lieberman's defection from the Democratic party. It's his timing that really brings up the question of what our major parties and elected representatives of those parties stand for at all. It isn't even that Lieberman says "you can't fire me I quit" - it's his enormous hubris to announce "If you fire me, I'll quit and hang around and see if the new bosses fire me too" Someone said it's like when George Costanza went to work after the let him go - good analogy. It all comes down to "What Would George Do?" then do the opposite | ||
| Costanza Supporter Username: Vandalay Post Number: 1744 Registered: 8-2004  |
Good question , Lydia. I always preferred Independent George over Realtionship George, so I am in favor of Independent Joe. | ||
| argon_smythe Citizen Username: Argon_smythe Post Number: 888 Registered: 5-2001 |
I'm not a Lieberman fan but I am supportive of anyone's right to run for office outside of the two leading parties. If you don't like the guy don't vote for him, but the idea that he shouldn't run is, to me, strange and intrusive. It goes beyond "this guy is not my choice" to "I don't think other people should be given the chance to choose this guy." | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1368 Registered: 4-2006 |
Bad move for the "Kos'ies". Short term it scares the dem pols into moving far left, and gives the repubs great fund raising potential for the fall. Longterm if Liebeman wins the general, it makes them look like a bunch of clowns. Sad to see the party being held hostage by a bunch of a##hats. | ||
| Lydia Supporter Username: Lydial Post Number: 2114 Registered: 5-2001 |
Argon -
Um, Lieberman did run, and not enough Democratic voters liked the guy.  | ||
| Factvsfiction Citizen Username: Factvsfiction Post Number: 1371 Registered: 4-2006 |
How do you say minorityparty? | ||
| Hoops Citizen Username: Hoops Post Number: 1854 Registered: 10-2004  |
Lieberman is welcome to run as an independent. He just should not expect to have the Democratic party support him. He is not their candidate. If he wins then the people of Connecticut have spoken and they would like to continue with him as their senator. If he loses likewise. I have no issue with his going independent. It shows a lot of desire to hold on to the power he has. It doesnt make him in touch with his constituents. Any ideologue that thinks it does anything to dems in terms of moving left or right is just plain wrong. The guy is out of touch with the mainstream. | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1236 Registered: 6-2001 |
Casey, If I read more into your post than intended, so be it. I misunderstood when you posted: "...and if no one is voting for alternatives like Libertarians or Greens, why do you need more choices on the ballot? this makes no sense. just putting lots of names on the ballots won't guarantee anyone will vote for them. and if no one is voting for them, what's the point?..." Again, mea culpa. TomR | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 2336 Registered: 8-2003 |
no prob. I was just commenting on southerner's lament that there aren't enough candidates on his ballot down South. the problem isn't the lack of candidates per se (at least as I see it). the problem is no voters care enough for those potential candidates to make an effort to get on the ballot. and that complaint seems silly to me. it's like saying "I want more candidates to choose from, so that I can continue to vote for Republicans or Democrats. I won't vote for anyone else, but it would make me feel good if they were on the ballot." | ||
| argon_smythe Citizen Username: Argon_smythe Post Number: 889 Registered: 5-2001 |
Lydia, my point is directed towards the people who are criticizing him for deciding to continue to run, not as a Democrat (now that he lost the primary), but as an Independent. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1430 Registered: 2-2004 |
Hoops, We finally agree. What I think a lot of you are missing is that you actually believe politicians are good people out to serve the public good. I don't have this view, which is why I'm not shocked that Joe is showing such hubris or lack of integrity to his Democratic roots. All politicians want power regardless of how they get it. If a pretty decent guy like Joe can show this to be true then you gotta readjust your views. All these guys are scumbags so this doesn't surprise me in the least. Ffof, I'm not predicting anything, but in my opinion I think the Repubs will maintain Congress. I'll leave the predictions to the usual posters who are generally wrong. | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1947 Registered: 5-2001 |
Southerner, These are your words on the prospect of Dems regaining a majority: "It won't happen." That's a prediction. (n) 1: the act of predicting (as by reasoning about the future) [syn: anticipation, prevision] 2: a statement made about the future [syn: foretelling, forecasting, prognostication] | ||
| Billy Jack Citizen Username: Kendalbill Post Number: 224 Registered: 6-2002 |
I'm beginning to think anything can happen in November in CT. As distateful as Joe Lieberman's strategy is, come November the anti-incumbent fever could make HIM the outsider, bravely fighting against the mainstream parties to do what he believes in...unbelieveable. And the Democrats best wake up quickly as well. More than anything, this whole thing feels more and more like an anti-incumbent move more than a referendum on Iraq. Might help in red states, but watchout in the blue. By the way, if you haven't heard it, here is the best Republican spin of the last three days: "In Connecticut, a vocal Bush supporter got 47% of the vote in a Democratic} primary". Looks like there is a lot of delusion going around. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1434 Registered: 2-2004 |
dave, Good catch. I don't see that as a prediction as just my opinion. If you take an opinion as a prediction then I guess you got me. I stand by my opinion otherwise it wouldn't be my opinion. Billy, I could have used your insights over the past few years. You are totally accurate when you say there is a lot of delusion going around. It's been that way on MOL since 2000. And it still is going on every day. However, I find it interesting that you only point out the delusions on the right and not the left. When I heard Mehlman talking the other day, I was laughing my back side off. The Repubs are in full spin/delusion mode which I sure want them to be in. However, the left has been living in delusion mode for the good part of a decade. You probably recall after the 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections how the Dems were claiming to still be the majority after they got completely waxed on a national level. I still recall with great fondness seeing Rather and Jennings almost in tears having to report not only another Republican Presidential win, but the picking up of Congressional seats. However, on MOL the next day it was as if this was part of the Democratic Plan. I'm with you on delusions but let's keep it fair on both sides. However, I do agree that a Repub operative making that statement is pretty funny. It only goes to show we are starting the full campaign. Football and politics. It will be a great fall! | ||
| dave23 Citizen Username: Dave23 Post Number: 1949 Registered: 5-2001 |
Southerner, Not to engage in semantic games, but you are speaking the language of expectations (and predictions), not opinions. | ||
| Hazel Motes Citizen Username: Howardt Post Number: 2378 Registered: 11-2004  |
From today's NY Times. I'm not endorsing it or agreeing, I just thought it was very interesting reading. Your thoughts? August 11, 2006 Nonsense and Sensibility By PAUL KRUGMAN After Ned Lamont’s victory in Connecticut, I saw a number of commentaries describing Joe Lieberman not just as a “centrist” — a word that has come to mean “someone who makes excuses for the Bush administration” — but as “sensible.” But on what planet would Mr. Lieberman be considered sensible? Take a look at Thomas Ricks’s “Fiasco,” the best account yet of how the U.S. occupation of Iraq was mismanaged. The prime villain in that book is Donald Rumsfeld, whose delusional thinking and penchant for power games undermined whatever chances for success the United States might have had. Then read Mr. Lieberman’s May 2004 op-ed article in The Wall Street Journal, “Let Us Have Faith,” in which he urged Mr. Rumsfeld not to resign over the Abu Ghraib scandal, because his removal “would delight foreign and domestic opponents of America’s presence in Iraq.” And that’s just one example of Mr. Lieberman’s bad judgment. He has been wrong at every step of the march into the Iraq quagmire — all the while accusing anyone who disagreed with him of endangering national security. Again, on what planet would Mr. Lieberman be considered “sensible”? But I know the answer: on Planet Beltway. Many of those lamenting Mr. Lieberman’s defeat claim that they fear a takeover of our political parties by extremists. But if political polarization were really their main concern, they’d be as exercised about the primary challenge from the right facing Lincoln Chafee as they are about Mr. Lieberman’s woes. In fact, however, the sound of national commentary on the Rhode Island race is that of crickets chirping. So what’s really behind claims that Mr. Lieberman is sensible — and that those who voted against him aren’t? It’s the fact that many Washington insiders suffer from the same character flaw that caused Mr. Lieberman to lose Tuesday’s primary: an inability to admit mistakes. Imagine yourself as a politician or pundit who was gung-ho about invading Iraq, and who ridiculed those who warned that the case for war was weak and that the invasion’s aftermath could easily turn ugly. Worse yet, imagine yourself as someone who remained in denial long after it all went wrong, disparaging critics as defeatists. Now denial is no longer an option; the neocon fantasy has turned into a nightmare of fire and blood. What do you do? You could admit your error and move on — and some have. But all too many Iraq hawks have chosen, instead, to cover their tracks by trashing the war’s critics. They say: Pay no attention to the fact that I was wrong and the critics have been completely vindicated by events — I’m “sensible,” while those people are crazy extremists. And besides, criticizing any aspect of the war encourages the terrorists. That’s what Joe Lieberman said, and it’s what his defenders are saying now. Now, it takes a really vivid imagination to see Mr. Lieberman’s rejection as the work of extremists. I know that some commentators believe that anyone who thinks the Iraq war was a mistake is a flag-burning hippie who hates America. But if that’s true, about 60 percent of Americans hate America. The reality is that Ned Lamont and those who voted for him are, as The New York Times editorial page put it, “irate moderates,” whose views are in accord with those of most Americans and the vast majority of Democrats. But in his non-concession speech, Mr. Lieberman described Mr. Lamont as representative of a political tendency in which “every disagreement is considered disloyal” — a statement of remarkable chutzpah from someone who famously warned Democrats that “we undermine the president’s credibility at our nation’s peril.” The question now is how deep into the gutter Mr. Lieberman’s ego will drag him. There’s an overwhelming consensus among national security experts that the war in Iraq has undermined, not strengthened, the fight against terrorism. Yet yesterday Mr. Lieberman, sounding just like Dick Cheney — and acting as a propaganda tool for Republicans trying to Swift-boat the party of which he still claims to be a member — suggested that the changes in Iraq policy that Mr. Lamont wants would be “taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England.” In other words, not only isn’t Mr. Lieberman sensible, he may be beyond redemption. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1438 Registered: 2-2004 |
dave, You can engage in whatever you like. No problem. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2952 Registered: 6-2002 |
I hate to explode everyone's analysis but years ago I read a statistical analysis on a Senator's chances of re-election to successive terms. Once someone is elected to the Senate his chances of being re-elected to a second term are extremely high. His chances of being elected to at third term are astronomical, almost a definite win, but his chances of getting elected to a third term go way down. After 18 years the voters just get tired of the same person. Remember Al D'Amato? Remember Tom Daschle? Maybe the folks in CT. just got tired of Joe's face. | ||
| Billy Jack Citizen Username: Kendalbill Post Number: 225 Registered: 6-2002 |
Very interesting anon. A lot of the feeling about Lieberman seemed to follow a personal theme and had less to do with Iraq than his sanctimony. Southerner: I'll pledge to be evenhanded as I point out the delusions-- but I suspect we will see more from the repubs than the dems in the next few months. | ||
| Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1444 Registered: 2-2004 |
Billy, It all depends on your initial starting point. When you hear a Demcrat in the next few months say they are the majority then please let them know they are delusional. If they take control of Congress then of course they can say this because it will be shown to be true. However, if until that point, no one can make that claim. And if the Repubs hold on I hope you are willing to say you were calling the wrong side delusional. I believe the Repubs will be re-elected because the majority of Americans don't want the Democrats in charge. | ||
| Foj Citizen Username: Foger Post Number: 1733 Registered: 9-2004 |
On Joes new website: There's not much scouring of his website to do - no issues page, no contact page - only two links for volunteering and donating money. It's hardly something that proactively makes people want to volunteer for the campaign. Additionally, it seems that Lieberman is having great difficulty finding a Democratic vendor who will work on his website. Leave it to those in the business to tell it like it is: -One firm, Media Mezcla LLC, which produces Campaign Engine, a Web site management platform, has been running online ads highlighting Lieberman's site outage as a way of drumming up business. "If Joe Lieberman had used Campaign Engine, his site would still be up," the ad reads. -Would Media Mezcla work for Lieberman's independent campaign if approached? "My firm works with Democrats and progressive candidates," said President Ben Schaffer. "Joe Lieberman is neither." The Wolfson addition to the Lamont campaign. It sends a clear message to the moneybags in New York that Hillary's taken a side - and they had better not cross her. Wolfson is probably the one person in Hillary's operation I actually respect, besides Peter Daou. He helped Chuck Schumer into the Senate and is a pro. Dan Gerstein is a boy compared to him. What this means is that Hillary is firmly in the Stop Joe camp. More importantly, this sends a signal to the New York money people that she's committed to Lamont and they might want to not feed Joe money. Lamont has a very large base of small donors who will probably be willing to donate again if called upon. In addition, big names within the Democratic Party, such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. With a campaign stop with John Edwards under their belt and one upcoming with John Kerry, you can expect that more money will begin to flow into Lamont's coffers. It's only a matter of time until Lieberman's $2 million - an amount he raised as a Democrat - will dry up, while Lamont will have more money flowing in than before. http://www.stevegilliard.blogspot.com/ |
