Liebeman can't have it both ways. He can't be nostalgic for the days when incumbents did not face challenges from within their own party, yet also take a strident position on an important issue which many within his party disagree with.

Lieberman ought to retire.

Lieberman Laments Primary Challenge: Translation, "I am entitled to win, how dare these anti-war people challenge ME!"

Loserman is going to be kicked out after the Democratic primary.

I guess he just can't get any Joementum.

Lieberman will not and should not be kicked out of the party. He has every right not to walk in lockstep with others in the party. However, he therefore must be prepared to defend his positions in a Primary against another democrat who disagrees with him.

Joe loses big points for these remarks. Nostalgia for the old days of smoke-filled rooms when the bosses chose who ran?

If he loses to Lamont in the primary, he should bow out gracefully. An independent run throws the seat to the GOP in the general election.

Lieberman should win again.

that the Dems are going to get rid of one of the more powerful senators, with a decidedly liberal track record, over one issue is almost unbelievable.

But if true, that kind of short term "closed minded" thinking bodes well for the GOP

Lieberman is a turncoat time for him to go

jackass, so you are saying that by supporting the United States mission in Iraq and wanting to 'stay the course" Lieberman is a traitor to the entire democratic party?

Interesting.

Lieberman is an excellent example of a conservative Democrat....I hope He wins re-election.You gotta admire anyone who won't bend to the will of the extreme left.

Lieberman's problems are emblematic of the entire Democratic Party's. Six years ago he was the Vice Presidential nominee on a ticket than won the general election. Two years ago he was considered Presidential material. Now--because he won't bow to hardline pacifism, his seat is in jeopardy, an enviable Senate career in question.

Reasonable people can disagree about Iraq, about immigration policy, about government spending, about how to reform Social Security, about abortion. On almost every major issue Dems pretend to care about, Joe Lieberman is indistinguishable from other far-Left liberals. Doesn't matter--he agrees with Bush on something, so he has to go.

This is a good lesson for the Republicans to keep in mind: as sorry as this Congress as been, and in some ways as sorry as Bush has been, it's not enough to deserve to lose. Someone else has to deserve to win. And Democrats don't.

Republicans will hold both houses in November.

America has no room for the culture of corruption, or those who are enablers of it.

Sorry, RisR, your lapdog Democrat is getting thrown out with the rest of the trash. Get used to it.

'America has no room for the culture of corruption, or those who are enablers of it.'


November will tell the tale. The true COC,or COCLight,aka the GOP.I personally think the people of the USA have ,and are,awakened/ing to the truth.

"Me thinketh thou protesteth too much"

The democrats need to stand for something. I think one of the party platforms should be anti-war. If you support the war you should choose a different party. Its like a republican who supports high taxes. It just shouldnt exist

The republicanss need to stand for something.

There. I fixed that for you.

Joe should just go
We don't want him no mo'.
He's a chickenhawk bitch
and a neo-clown ho'.

In Spuds considered opinion.

More realistically, his unflinching support of BushCos war efforts prolly have more to do with his ties to the Israeli lobby than those of Big Oil or the military industrial complex but as Spud sees it...

wrong is wrong.

He backed too many of the wrong ponies and it's time to leave the track.

Having name recognition in DC may soon be a trait that is not in particularily high demand, Spud reckons.

Be Well.

"Joe should just go
We don't want him no mo'"

A bit of a stretch for a Canuckistanian,don'tcha think?It's not like YOU got a dog in the hunt,is it?

Americanista,

"It's not like YOU got a dog in the hunt,is it?"

Nawwww! It's not like American Policies have any influence wotsoever on us Canuckistani types.

In Canader it is a well known truth that we are in bed with a 500 pound gorrilla.

Gotta kinda sleep with one eye open in order to avoid getting rolled over in middle of the night.

Luckily fer Spud sleeping with one eye open is no big hardship.

We have saying up here in Canada...

"If America sneezes Canada catches cold."

Is all one big hunt.
The dogs belong to everyone.

Be Well.

"The dogs belong to everyone."


Hahahahahah!!!!


You're dog barely made it off the porch,Mashy

'Your'

"Lieberman is an excellent example of a conservative Democrat"

He and Tausig threaten action against the SEC when it wanted to investigate illegal practices on Wall Street. In the end these abuses caused a severe devaluation in the mutual funds and cost many people (millions) their savings, much of placed in IRAs.

Liebermann is not a conservative. He is pro-business to the point of allowing the unscrupulous to profit at the expense of working Americans.

You want a true conservative Democrat? Look up Ike Skelton D-MO.

Happy Father's Day.

"If America sneezes Canada catches cold."

Every winter I hear the weatherman saying, "...temperatures are dropping due to a cold front coming out of Canada."

So every time you catch cold we end up freezing our asses off.

Ozzie & Harriet,

""...temperatures are dropping due to a cold front coming out of Canada."

So every time you catch cold we end up freezing our asses off."

Okay, Okay. ya got Spud.

In truth we do that deliberately.

There's a big switch hidden in central Manitoba just outside Winipeg that sends cold air swooping down onto the American plains every year.

It's turned off right now.

It was originally s'posed to be a joke but it got out of hand and now you guys kinda expect the cold weather every years so...

Be Well.

And here I'd thought that switch had been disabled years ago.......and Mother Nature decided it was a good practical joke to keep playin' on us..

This is a good lesson for the Republicans to keep in mind: as sorry as this Congress as been, and in some ways as sorry as Bush has been, it's not enough to deserve to lose. Someone else has to deserve to win. And Democrats don't.

Republicans will hold both houses in November.

Posted by rightisright at 2006-06-18 03:51 PM | Reply


RIR "as sorry as Bush has been, its not enough to deserve to lose" is one of the most amazing posts I have ever seen here.
I'd be falling about if I didn't find it so depressing as well.

And Lieberman deserves to be soundly beaten by Lamont- he is way too busy lamenting- AND supporting Bush

This thread is proof that democrats are completly un-american.

Look what they are saying here. "If you support the President of the United States then you are not wanted in the democratic party"

Bunch of un-American assholes who put partisanship above their own country.

This is a great example of how far out the opinions of the dems have become...If the dems would move just a little bit toward the center ala Bill Clinton, they would sweep the upcoming elections...however they have no real leadership, and continue to fracture...The Dems, party of special interests...unreal
jpd

Sorry, RisR, your lapdog Democrat is getting thrown out with the rest of the trash. Get used to it.

Posted by justsomeguy

* * * *

ROTFLMAO. He's not my "lapdog Democrat"--I've never voted for him. This November will mark the first time I'll ever vote for a Dem in my life, for County Sheriff. I don't even know who he is, I just know the present Sheriff, a Repub, is a crook.
I just find the whole issue kind of funny. It's unlikely that a Republican can take this CT seat--so what do I care for? It won't make a difference in the Senate at all. It's just amusing that you believe that Lieberman should be Vice President, right now--had the 2000 election not ended the way it had--but that you don't believe he should sit in the Senate representing one of the most liberal states in the Union.
Funny.

ROTFLMAO. He's not my "lapdog Democrat"--I've never voted for him. This November will mark the first time I'll ever vote for a Dem in my life, for County Sheriff. I don't even know who he is, I just know the present Sheriff, a Repub, is a crook.

Welcome to reality, pal. It's like that all over.


I just find the whole issue kind of funny. It's unlikely that a Republican can take this CT seat--so what do I care for? It won't make a difference in the Senate at all. It's just amusing that you believe that Lieberman should be Vice President, right now--had the 2000 election not ended the way it had--but that you don't believe he should sit in the Senate representing one of the most liberal states in the Union.
Funny.

Posted by rightisright at 2006-06-18 07:56 PM

Please point out a single time I ever said one positive things about Leiberman.

And RisR, I like your statement about how "The Republicans may be corrupt, inept, and working against America at every turn... but we need a REASON to vote Democrat" speech.

Very profound. Very... what's the term... Helsinki syndrome? Battered wife syndrome? Something like that.

"The Republicans may be corrupt, inept, and working against America at every turn... but we need a REASON to vote Democrat" speech.


* * * *
Didn't say that. I believe the Dems DO have an agenda, and a plan: higher taxes, higher spending. The Republicans suck. But the Democrats suck worse. When I vote, I want it to be for a conservative--that's why no Washington Republicans will be getting my vote this year. But that doesn't mean I'll be voting for the Dem alternative, which will be for MORE spending, shutting down the WOT, and increased taxes. We need less government, not more. Democrats promise more.

Rightiswrong vote for socialism this year you will be pleasantly suprised what high taxes can do for you.

Very profound. Very... what's the term... Helsinki syndrome? Battered wife syndrome? Something like that.

* * * * *

Not exactly. It's like if you're in a lousy, abusive relationship--your wife spends all your money she gets as an allowance, then spends an additional 20% besides, but as a small consolation does the things that you consider important.

Then I get a phone call from an uglier woman who says, marry me because your wife is a bitch. All I ask for is a much bigger allowance, but I'll still be borrowing as much as your wife does now. But you should marry me, because, as I said, your wife's a bitch.

Not a very good sales job.

Right if you pay a lot of taxes I wont have to work. I can live off people like you. So please vote socialism.

This thread is proof that Democrats should not take advice on how to win from rightnuts.

The primary challenge to Lieberman is a healthy thing.

The GOP is out of ideas and discredited. All they have left are attack ads and calling people "traitors" or 'un-American."

The GOP has a six year record of failure to defend. Slinging mud only gets you so far.

This November is going to be so funny.

House stays GOP.

Senate stays GOP.

Dems wonder how they lost, blame electronic voting machines.

The same old same old.

This thread is proof that Democrats should not take advice on how to win from rightnuts.


* * * * *

As a rightnut myself, I wouldn't presume to speak for anyone else, particularly a Dem.

But I'm curious, just whom are you taking advice from? The same people who managed to LOSE the House, the Senate, and most of the governorships in the past 10 years?

And one other thing: it's hard for this rightnut to see how, if there is a Dem revolution under way, the first casualty should be . . . . your VP candidate that won a popular vote in a national election.

Guess Lieberman's not liberal enough for today's Democratic Party. Maybe there's more room for him as an Independent. Wouldn't that be something?

Right if you pay a lot of taxes I wont have to work. I can live off people like you. So please vote socialism.

Posted by jackass

* * * *

If the Dems win, what will be the difference?

Right Im kidding Id be disowned if I didnt work. My parents are republicans Im a democrat which they dont like but they tolerate because I work and pay my bills. My family owns a farm nextdoor to tony snow on the eastern shore of Maryland.

And when all your leaders let you down, and steal from you, than just create strawmen to convince yourself that 'teh libr00lz' are worse.

Even though, if you look at the record, the only people who have cut heavily into deficit spending were Republicans (at least for the past 40 or 50 years).

So keep voting for "Deficits Don't Matter", and keep convincing yourself that "Fiscal Conservatives" are telling the truth when their lips move. Sure, they haven't for the past six years... but as long as you can convince yourself they were protecting you from the "more worser" Democrat Libr00lz who were going to raise taxes, take away your guns, and move crack addict minorities into your house, than everything gonna be AWWWWWLLLL right.

Go Republitards...
making the same mistake over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, but expecting a different result each time.

Lieberman just doesn't get it. The purpose of a "party" is to get its members to toe the line on major issues. If the party can't enforce discipline on major issues, then it isn't much of a party.

That said, I believe that political parties are part of the problem. People that we don't get a chance to vote on are calling the shots. The only chance that we have of getting our pols to represent the interest of the people and not that of business, is to vote for non party candidates. The other option, is to substantially expand the use of initiative and referendum.

"Bunch of un-American assholes who put partisanship above their own country."


Alfred is more of an idiot than Lokisfur.

We are talking about the worst president in History, not "our country"

Bush/Cheney has made the world hate America. We still love the America our Constitution describes. It's the Bush/Cheneyites who profess patriotism - that's the easy way to scare people.

Lieberman just doesn't get it. The purpose of a "party" is to get its members to toe the line on major issues. If the party can't enforce discipline on major issues, then it isn't much of a party.


* * * *

You're right. And in that case, you don't have much of a party. What is the Democratic Party position on Iraq? I still don't know. Is Hillary in the party? Apparently not--she got booed last week giving her speech to the faithful. How about Reid? Or is it only the Kennedy-Murtha-Kerry-Byrd opinion the only ones that matter? If I can assume that the Democrats want an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, why doesn't their voting reflect this?

I personally don't care if Lieberman wins or not. He's a liberal who's been in Congress since I was in Middle School. If the Dems want to put him out to pasture, that suits me. I just find the reasons a little amusing.

You know, I am absolutely opposed to term limits. I believe that's what elections are for.
But then, you have no right to complain because someone is running against you, even in a primary. That's what voter's choice is all about, and NOTHING should limit it.

I think that the strategy of the Democrats is to avoid, if possible, for as long as possible, taking public positions on National issues. I think that they want to fight the upcoming elections purely on local issues. The problem of course is if they are successful this fall, pols that won on local issues that have national implications are not likely to toe the line. In that case, Democrats will be just as fractured as the Republicans.

The Republicans can't employ such a strategy because they are the governing policy.

Hawk, would you support reversing the Constitutional ban on the President being elected more than twice?

I understand fully why the Presidential position is restricted under term limits. That reasoning actually extends to the entire Congress. Power and the corruption of that power.

There is so much that is done in Congress by life-timers that keep things under wraps and secrecy because they will be forever in that position.

Imagine if the Congress had to have new members, constantly. The Assassination of Kennedy, 9/11, Iraq, and many other issues would be thrown wide open as new members of Congress would find the disgusting details of the prior members.

There is so much we don't know.

If Lieberman runs as an Independent and the fear is that he'll steal votes, doesn't that say something about the base and who they want?

"Hawk, would you support reversing the Constitutional ban on the President being elected more than twice?"
Posted by Petrous at 2006-06-19 12:52 PM | Reply

Yes, Pet, I would.
(Nope, upon further review, that nickname still doesn't work)
I believe we have the most intelligent and informed electorate on the planet and in history. I further believe that any time you limit the choices of who that electorate can vote for, you are undermining democracy.
We don't have a say in the day-to-day running of our government; our only voice (besides tilting at windmills on Drudge, of course) is on election day. That's why we cannot have term limits, or anything else that cuts down on who we vote for.
Can the voters make better choices? I certainly think so, but this is a democracy, and that's what you get.

How wonderful. the Democratic Party...the party of the big tent...champions of diversity and free speech want to dump Joe overboard becaues he refuses to walk lockstep with the Surrendercrats. I suggest they run a true Democrat aginst him...that hero of the anti war movement, Cindy Sheehan.And if she won't run, how about Benedict Murtha?

but this is a democracy, and that's what you get.

Hawk

The problem is, when one side has big money corporations, the wealthy, and members that are willing to lie, cheat, and steal to win elections elections, your choices do tend to be dimished.

Think about it, if the Republicans could swing it, they would make being a member of the Democratic party against the law.

I see your point, Hawk. But the Term Limits are intended to prevent the aggregation of power by one individual in government. Most states have governors that are term-limited--would you be in favor of overturning all those laws too?

My two biggest sources of disappointment with Republicans in Congress have been the spending, and the fact that they ran on a Term Limits platform then, upon becoming the majority, decided it wasn't such a good idea after all. Not what I thought we were signing up for.

Pols do whatever is necessary to get elected: lie, steal, cheat, etc. The ONLY solution is initiative and referendum.

"Pols do whatever is necessary to get elected: lie,steal, cheat, etc."
sounds like a discription of a televangelist.

"Most states have governors that are term-limited--would you be in favor of overturning all those laws too?"
Posted by rightisright at 2006-06-19 01:39 PM | Reply

Yeah, Right, every single one of them. The only term limits we should have are elections.
Believe me, I see the flaws in our system. For one thing, it is imcumbent on the parties to give us a choice for candidates. We need better choices; anyone who doesn't believe that just needs to look at the 2004 Presidential race.
Problem is, I really don't see a single flaw that term limits solve. It just makes the people who are too lazy to vote happy; they get to see the bums thrown out every now and then without leaving their chairs.

The Dem strategy is to improve America. That is obviously what the Republifundies are so dead-set against them: why would they want the Democrats improving something the Republicans have been working so hard to destroy?

The Dem strategy ought to be to stop smoking whatever they're smoking and realize that the self delusional bullshit that you're spouting is just that :BULLSHIT!

Yes, that's right. The poor little Conservative Movement is getting flushed, so it's the end of the world. GWB has been crying wolf for years, and now you chicken littles are telling us the sky is falling, and nothing in the world matters.

Boo hoo. The end in nigh. Yawn.

The defeatocrats have no strategy at all.

The Dem strategy is to improve America. That is obviously why the Republifundies are so dead-set against them: why would they want the Democrats improving something the Republicans have been working so hard to destroy?

Posted by justsomeguy at 2006-06-19 07:01 PM

The defeatocrats have no strategy at all.

Posted by Derfla5 at 2006-06-19 08:31 PM | Reply


You'll notice that when the liberals and democrats have no real argument to make because so often their position is indefensible, they instead attack headlines, or they namecall and start ruminating on screenames, or they just dismiss the entire story as bullshit.

Posted by Derfla5 at 2006-06-19 05:58 PM | Reply

Larry

"or they namecall..."

Good call on Lokiderfl, Larry!

Hans

Lieberman imagines himself the Vandenburg of his party. His problem: Truman was right. He surrounded himself with the Wise Men who understood that the US needed a new foreign policy paradigm. And that's what the Truman administration gave us: a new paradigm: containment: backed by alliances, the UN, etc. Truman left office knowing that his vision was the vision that would guide us through the Cold War. Li'l Bu$shie, guided by his NeoCon know-nothings, can't hack it. His new paradigm, "pre-emptive war," won't survive his administration. He has no vision. He is a failure. Our allies are repelled by him. Lieberman has hitched his star to a failed vision, a failed presidency, a RubeOcracy. Even if he wins in this election, he fails in history.