Lieberman concedes

[estranged4life]

come get another of your lost village idiots, he is contaminating the Independent party pool

[Nixxxed]

Originally Posted by estranged4life

come get another of your lost village idiots, he is contaminating the Independent party pool

I know - it's awful when your trash blows out of the bed of your pickup.

[irishgrl]

I doubt he'll get many votes from anyone

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

I doubt he'll get many votes from anyone

Well, he got a bunch in the primary

Personally, I think it was idiotic of them to oust him in favor a no name who will be powerless in Washington. But, that is the way the chips fell.

[Rickypt]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Well, he got a bunch in the primary

Personally, I think it was idiotic of them to oust him in favor a no name who will be powerless in Washington. But, that is the way the chips fell.

I call it democracy in action. I'd rather have a junior senator with less power than an established one who doesn't represent my viewpoints. I'm sure Lieberman knew his position on the war and his defense of the Bush Administration was out of sync with the majority of his supporters.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

So would this mean the Rs wouldn't run an R?

There is already a Republican candidate. They interviewed him last night but I can't remember his name.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Rickypt

I call it democracy in action. I'd rather have a junior senator with less power than an established one who doesn't represent my viewpoints. I'm sure Lieberman knew his position on the war and his defense of the Bush Administration was out of sync with the majority of his supporters.

With all due respect, the war was one issue of thousands and L has vored against W something like 70% of the time if I remember correctly. Moreover, anyone who voted for Kerry or Gore or Clinton for that matter seemingly is hypocritical as Clinton killed in the name of the phantom WMD and still asserts, as do Kerry and Gore, that W was not wholly in error in Iraq, though the after result they disagree with.

Here is an interesting article from time.com

Wednesday, Aug. 09, 2006
Why the Republicans Are Loving the Lieberman Loss
At a time when the GOP should be back on its heels, Connecticut voters' rejection of a centrist Senator gives the party a potentially powerful new weapon to use against the Democrats this fall
By MIKE ALLEN/WASHINGTON
From Washington State to Missouri to Pennsylvaina, Democratic candidates found themselves on the defensive Wednesday as the Republican Party worked ferociously at every level to try to use the primary defeat of Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut to portray the oppposition as the party of weakness and isolation on national security and liberal leanings on domestic policy. Doleful Democrats bemoaned the irony: At a time when Republicans should be back on their heels because of chaos abroad and President Bush's unpopularity, the Democrats' rejection of a sensible, moralistic centrist has handed the GOP a weapon that could have vast ramifications for both the midterm elections of '06 and the big dance of '08.

One of the nip-and-tuck Senate races this year is in Missouri, and backers of Sen. Jim Talent are preparing an attack on his opponent, State Auditor Claire McCaskill, that is emblematic of the sort that will be seen all over the country within 24 hours. "Does Claire McCaskill support the wishes of the angry left by endorsing Ned Lamont's candidacy or will she support the man who was chosen by Al Gore as the Democrat's 2000 nominee for Vice President?" Republicans ask in a statment that will force McCaskill to talk about messy party business instead of her favored issues of government accountablity and affordable health care.

House candidates planned a similar tack, and the National Republican Congressional Committee issued a memo this morning playing up the potential distraction of Lieberman's independent candidacy in a state where three GOP incumbents — Reps. Rob Simmons, Chris Shays and Nancy Johnson — are perennially endangered. The memo said Connecticut Democrats "will now continue to train their attention on vanquishing Senator Lieberman when their three House candidates need all the help the can get."

Some senior Democrats hoped Lieberman would bow out to avoid underscoring party divisions. But Dan Gerstein, a strategic communications consultant who is a senior adviser to Lieberman, tells TIME that the independent campaign — formally called "Connecticut for Lieberman" — is "full steam ahead" and that the Senator's remarks on election night were "a point-of-no-return speech." Lieberman was doing a series of interviews, mostly with Connecticut reporters, and plans some campaign stops on Thursday with Democrats who supported him and will continue to do so. Organizers shied away from calling it a kick-off tour, instead saying it is a new phase of the campaign. "He's committed," Gerstein said. "He feels liberated and he feels very strongly it's the right thing to do." Gerstein said the Senator is prepared to have some tough conversations with senior Democrats, perhaps even former President Bill Clinton, who may pressure him to withdraw. "He feels there's something much larger at stake," Gerstein said.

Gleeful Republicans across the country mocked their opponents as isolationist "Defeat-ocrats," and even some Democratic officials said they can already imagine the ads in November races saying that Lieberman, once within a few hundred votes of being Vice President of the United States, is now "not liberal enough" for the Democratic Party. Republican officials, who have had little but bad news for months as Iraq festered and U.S. voters showed increasing signs of pessimism and discontent, said the Ned Lamont victory gave them a chance to paint Democrats as a party that had become captive to the liberal wing symbolized by the MoveOn.org civic action group. Mary Matalin, an outside adviser to the White House, signaled the message when she said on Fox News Channel shortly after the polls closed: "MoveOn is not fringe. They're the heart of the party."

On television and in speeches in coming days, party officials and strategists plan to talk about their respect for Lieberman as a distinguished public servant and argue that Lamont's victory represents the end of the long tradition of strong-on-national-defense Democratic leaders in the mold of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy. The GOP plans to try to broaden the argument beyond Connecticut, a liberal stronghold, and work to convince viewers and voters that Democratic nominees across the country have more in common with Michael Moore and liberal bloggers than Main Street America.

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, speaking to the City Club of Cleveland this morning, said the rejection of a well-liked Senator who was strong on national defense showed that Democratic candidates must embrace "defeatism and isolation" or "risk being purged" for their party. "For those of us who follow politics closely, who work in politics, and who know that there can be good and honest people on the other side of the political divide, it is a shame," he said. "It is also a sign of what the Democratic Party is has become in the 21st century. It reflects an unfortunate embrace of isolationism, defeatism, and a ?blame America first? attitude by national Democratic leaders at a time when retreating from the world is particularly dangerous."

Trying to look on the bright side, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean issued a statement this morning pointing to strong turnout in the primaries and declaring that Democratic voters "are energized." The challenge for Dean, and his party, is to channel that energy in a direction that makes victory more likely, not less.



Copyright © 2006 Time Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. Privacy Policy

[markolas]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

With all due respect, the war was one issue of thousands and L has vored against W something like 70% of the time if I remember correctly. Moreover, anyone who voted for Kerry or Gore or Clinton for that matter seemingly is hypocritical as Clinton killed in the name of the phantom WMD and still asserts, as do Kerry and Gore, that W was not wholly in error in Iraq, though the after result they disagree with.

I didn't vote for Gore because I supported him, I voted for him because the alternative was fascism. Clinton, Gore, Lieberman, and Kerry are not real liberals or progressives...and Clinton in particular sold out the GLBT community...Gore, Lieberman, and Kerry probably would too, if they had the chance. I don't trust any of them as far as I could throw my shoe, but look at what the alternative is.

Lieberman is scum.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by markolas

I didn't vote for Gore because I supported him, I voted for him because the alternative was fascism. Clinton, Gore, Lieberman, and Kerry are not real liberals or progressives...and Clinton in particular sold out the GLBT community...Gore, Lieberman, and Kerry probably would too, if they had the chance. I don't trust any of them as far as I could throw my shoe, but look at what the alternative is.

Lieberman is scum.

See, I do not see it that way. Though I disagree with the way W went to war in Iraq and the way he handled the invasion and the after stuff, I do agree that W was correct in putting SH's feet to the fire and forcing him to account for the WMD the world unanimously (though the UN) thought he probably had - remember SH had defied the UN's unanimous orders to account. Like almost all people, I think 9/11 changed the way the world has to deal with people like SH and the possibility that he may have WMD. As an aside, it is interesting to me how no one on the far left is willing to even contemplate that the war in Iraq is all SH's fault. After all, SH orchestrated the corruption at the UN - SH refused to cooperate for 10+ years - and he still refused to cooperate until the very end, when he started cooperating, which IMO was a little to late. I mean if you had a friend that fed you utter BS for years and then when you finally held their feet to the fire, they acted like they were stopping the BS - would you believe them? I suggest most if not all of us would not. But, anyway, here is a site listing L's record, which I submit is pretty good.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Joseph_Lieberman.htm

On edit - I do, by the way, agree with you that we almost have to vote for the lesser of two evils, which sucks.

[strandinthewind]

Here is another article

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ariann...tml?view=print

Also, I am no huge fan of L. I am just saying that his position on the war was shared by the vast majority of D's. Yet, he alone seemingly is being villified.

[markolas]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

See, I do not see it that way. Though I disagree with the way W went to war in Iraq and the way he handled the invasion and the after stuff, I do agree that W was correct in putting SH's feet to the fire and forcing him to account for the WMD the world unanimously (though the UN) thought he probably had - remember SH had defied the UN's unanimous orders to account.

The invasion of Iraq had not one thing to do with WMD or 9/11. These fascists in office want control of the entire Middle East, because they want oil and to make Jesus come back.

Like almost all people, I think 9/11 changed the way the world has to deal with people like SH and the possibility that he may have WMD. As an aside, it is interesting to me how no one on the far left is willing to even contemplate that the war in Iraq is all SH's fault.

9/11 is a smokescreen. But I can't talk about this because it makes me so mad I could spit fire. This entire planet is overrun with greed, greed, greed. It's destroying the whole planet. The human race will be extinct in 200 years, tops.

[markolas]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Also, I am no huge fan of L. I am just saying that his position on the war was shared by the vast majority of D's. Yet, he alone seemingly is being villified.

He alone isn't being villified. He's just the one we happen to be discussing at the moment. I'll be happy to villify the others if you'd like. I'm in a villifying sort of mood, anyway.

[strandinthewind]

Nice to know your outlook is positive

Seriously, 9/11 opened the war on terror. You certainly do not think that capturing OBL would have been enough. If so, then I suggest you are not up to date on how much the entire Middle East, which includes more than Al-Q or OBL, hates us. I think most people correctly agree that 9/11 showed us (as did OKC IMO) that groups of crazy radicals (some state supported) can attack us on our shores to devastating results. Thus, the appeasement policy of Iraq - who previously attacked our ally and therefore us - could not stand. In the end, I hope all this bloodshed, which I agree was unnecessary now but I think would have happened anyway in the furture, will lead to a better place to live for those people. Sadly, W has done realtively nothing to achieve that goal.

On edit - I readily agree the war on terror, while IMO necessary, has been and will forever be exploited by greed.

Also - you do not see that if SH had complied a decade before, the war in Iraq would have been unnecessary. So, while I cannot stand W for truncating the inspections and rushing into Iraq with no plan to win the peace and some trumped up evidence, I have to say that SH's lack of cooperation for 10+ years sure made it easy for W to do so.

[strandinthewind]

Then again . . .
_______________________________________________________________

Control of Congress could change in '06, poll shows

(CNN) -- Most Americans believe the GOP-controlled Congress has been a failure and say they plan to vote for Democrats in November, according to a poll released Wednesday.

Fifty-three percent of registered voters polled by Opinion Research Corp. for CNN said they were supporting Democrats, while 40 percent said they were leaning Republican. The remaining 7 percent either planned to support another party or had no opinion.

As for changing their minds when they get to the ballot box, only 43 percent of those planning to vote for Democrats said that was a possibility as opposed to 54 percent of those saying they plan to support Republicans.

Fifty-four percent said that since 1995, the GOP-led Congress has been a failure. Forty percent called it a success. In a similar 1998 poll, 58 percent of respondents called Congress successful.

Despite the apparent lack of confidence in the GOP, another question seemed to show that the respondents' confidence in Democrats was shaky, too. Asked which party would move the nation in the right direction, 43 percent said Republicans, compared to 41 who said Democrats.

But the national mood may not be as sour as it would appear -- 55 percent of people polled said things are going "very well" or "fairly well" in the United States.

Asked which issues facing Congress this year were "extremely important," the respondents said in order: terrorism, gasoline prices, Iraq, the economy, immigration, the Middle East, the minimum wage, prescription drugs for seniors, the cost of electricity, stem-cell research, and same-sex marriages.

Forty-eight percent of respondents said terrorism was extremely important. That was followed closely by fuel prices, at 47 percent; the situation in Iraq, at 45 percent; and the economy, at 40 percent.

The poll was conducted by telephone August 2 and 3 with 1,047 adult Americans responding.

The sampling error was plus or minus 3 percentage points, except for the questions on congressional success and which party would lead the nation in the right direction. Those questions were asked of a half sample, or about 524 people, and the sampling error was plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/...oll/index.html

[markolas]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Nice to know your outlook is positive

I don't see how anyone could see what I see and come to any different a conclusion. The environment is rapidly disintegrating, the world is becoming more centered around money and greed every minute, and people with very dangerous (and wrong) "religious" beliefs are infiltrating governments all over the world.

Seriously, 9/11 opened the war on terror.

It's gonna take a hell of a lot more than a "war on terror" to fix what's wrong with the Middle East, or the whole bloody world, for that matter. The "war on terror" has just made things worse.

You certainly do not think that capturing OBL would have been enough. If so, then I suggest you are not up to date on how much the entire Middle East, which includes more than Al-Q or OBL, hates us.

You really want to get me started on this, don't you?

Hmm...on second thought, I don't know if it's a good idea to air my thoughts on this in public. I will say that, yes, the entire Middle East hates us, and no, capturing OBL would have solved nothing (assuming we haven't already captured or killed him). But I don't think Bush and his cronies have any interest in protecting America from terrorists. It's all a smokescreen.

I think most people correctly agree that 9/11 showed us (as did OKC IMO) that groups of crazy radicals (some state supported) can attack us on our shores to devastating results.

Crazy radicals have been attacking Americans for decades. And 9/11 wasn't the first time they bombed the WTC. Like I said, if these people were interested in protecting us from terrorists, they would've started long before 9/11. War on terror my @$$.