rjpieces
Posts: 6849
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:58 am

What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Fri Aug 11, 2006 11:37 pm

I don't usually enjoy Fred Barnes (mostly because of his arrogance practically every time he is on Fox) but his observations about the defeat of Lieberman were spot on...I especially agreed with his thoughts on the implications for the 2008 Presidential election.

Thoughts?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...cles/000/000/012/563wmply.asp?pg=1

Key Points:
DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN HERE BEFORE. In the early 1970s, they rejected their hawkish tradition on national security with the nomination of George McGovern for president. The resulting weakness on national security issues has haunted them ever since. Democrats didn't recover until the 1990s when the Cold War was over and national security was no longer the paramount national issue.

Now, after 9/11 and with Islamic jihadists still threatening America, Democrats are purging the hawkish remnants in their party. That's the meaning of the primary defeat in Connecticut yesterday of Senator Joe Lieberman to Ned Lamont, an antiwar Democrat. Lamont is the epitome of a peace Democrat: force averse, naively trusting in diplomacy, and firmly opposed to a strong national security policy.

Nonetheless, Republicans were quick to jump on the Lamont victory as evidence that Democrats had jettisoned the FDR-Truman-JFK tradition of a strong national security policy. Lieberman has pointedly described himself as an heir to that tradition. The last thing Democrats need in 2006 is a highly visible Democrat zinging the party for tilting to the left on national security.

In any case, the lesson from the 1970s and 1980s may well apply in the 2000s with America facing a serious terrorist threat. And that lesson is unequivocal: Softness on national security is a ticket to defeat.

The question for 2008 is whether or not the party that dumped Lieberman--its most celebrated hawk on defense and defender of Israel--is likely to nominate a presidential candidate who favors an aggressive national security policy. The answer is no. And would a peace Democrat be likely to defeat, say, a Republican hawk like John McCain or Rudy Giuliani? No, again.
"Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon"
 
deltadc9
Posts: 2788
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Fri Aug 11, 2006 11:46 pm

Quoting RJpieces (Thread starter):
The question for 2008 is whether or not the party that dumped Lieberman--its most celebrated hawk on defense and defender of Israel--is likely to nominate a presidential candidate who favors an aggressive national security policy. The answer is no. And would a peace Democrat be likely to defeat, say, a Republican hawk like John McCain or Rudy Giuliani? No, again.

The answer was made obvious by the DNC actions before Iowa in the 2004 race. The pretty much demanded that Evan bayh not run, and the loyal Bayh went along with it. He is not a dove and they know it. Nothing has changed.

It will be interesting in 2008 because he has been quoted in the Indiana papers as saying he will not go along with any such demand this time.

I have said this many times, why in the world would you reject a Democrat that has a proven record of getting republicans to vote for him in a state as conservative and republican as it could possibly be, Indiana.

It is almost like the DNC WANTS to lose.
Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Fri Aug 11, 2006 11:48 pm

Please tell me what the (chicken)hawks have actually done for America's safety.

At least for me as an outsider it looks a lot as if they've plunged the US into a major military malaise, with a drastically increased threat level as a consequence and a next-to-nonexistent strategy or foreign policy to actually get anywhere.

Sure, the american voters may see it differently, but it seems the reality distortion bubble is in the process of weakening...
 
rjpieces
Posts: 6849
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:58 am

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Fri Aug 11, 2006 11:53 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 2):
Please tell me what the (chicken)hawks have actually done for America's safety.

At least for me as an outsider it looks a lot as if they've plunged the US into a major military malaise, with a drastically increased threat level as a consequence and a next-to-nonexistent strategy or foreign policy to actually get anywhere.

Sure, the american voters may see it differently, but it seems the reality distortion bubble is in the process of weakening...

Klaus, please save this for another thread...I don't want this to be about American foreign policy, but rather domestic political implications...
"Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon"
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Sat Aug 12, 2006 12:16 am

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 3):
Klaus, please save this for another thread...I don't want this to be about American foreign policy, but rather domestic political implications...

Quite right - but the essence of being perceived as a "hawk" should have been that one was actually competent in security matters. I may be mistaken, but my impression is that that aspect is gaining traction in the US domestic debate - empty bluster isn't enough any more. People have had plenty of that to little positive effect...
 
777236ER
Posts: 12213
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2001 7:10 am

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Sat Aug 12, 2006 12:18 am

Considering you feel the need to stop all immigration to the US of people with the 'wrong' skin colour, I don't think your comments on the article will really be taken into account.
Your bone's got a little machine
 
mbmbos
Posts: 2566
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 4:16 am

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Sat Aug 12, 2006 12:21 am

Sounds like you're buying the right-wing media's line - that the defeat of Lieberman is the result of Democrats punishing members of their party who don't toe to liberal line. McGovern, peace-nik talk is merely a variation on that theme.

But the facts show differently. Firstly, Connecticut's Democrats aren't exactly screaming pinkos. Look at the demographics. They're wealthy, educated and moderate. The Democratic party can run any campaign they want in the state of Connecticut, but bottom line is it's the citizens who vote.

Furthermore, exit polls indicate that anti-war sentiment between those who voted for Lieberman or Lamont were pretty similar. The difference had to do with their feelings about the current administration. Judging from the polls, this was a referendum on our president. Those who are most disgusted with GWB voted against Lieberman, as he has been closely associated with the president.

It's the Republicans who are in trouble, and they know it. How do I know they know? Because they are painting any Democrat who is successful as a LI-BRUL (God forbid!). That's all they've got and I don't think it's going to work for them during the next election cycle.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Sat Aug 12, 2006 3:40 am

"What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats ?"

Shouldn't the question be What Lieberman's Defeat Mean For Lieberman?
It's really no big deal other than the fact that a sitting Senator lost his party's nomination over several major issues.
Joe Lieberman was out of touch with his state and got too cozy with the wrong people and he got booted out for that reason.
If he had any class he would bow out and go home.
Bring back the Concorde
 
AeroWesty
Posts: 19551
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:37 am

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Sat Aug 12, 2006 6:25 am

"The last thing Democrats need in 2006 is a highly visible Democrat zinging the party for tilting to the left on national security."

Lieberman has resigned himself to being a yankee Zell Miller. Perhaps he'll show up at a convention or two to challenge someone to a duel.
International Homo of Mystery
 
GuitrThree
Posts: 1940
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:54 pm

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Sat Aug 12, 2006 7:30 am

Humm.

I look at it this way.

The Democrats couldn't, and still can't beat the Republicans. They got tired of losing, over and over again. Bush twice. The 2002 Midterms. The 2004 years. Etc, Etc, Etc. So they finally got smart and decided to run against themselves to remind them of what it feels like to actually win.
Problem is now that they STILL can't win a real election, and Joe will clean up come November.

BTW, boy, do the voters of CT look plenty stupid by voting this one issue ultra rich white male liberal in, and just 24 hours later, after Blair, with a little help from Bush, stops thousands of American and other Nationalities deaths.


Once again. The liberal left on the wrong side at the wrong time.
As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
 
SFOMEX
Posts: 1602
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 8:55 am

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Sat Aug 12, 2006 7:43 am

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 9):
Once again. The liberal left on the wrong side at the wrong time.

Very true. Michael Moore should make a documentary about this!  Wink
The only thing worst than the GOP is the Democratic Party, think about it!
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:14 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 8):
Perhaps he'll show up at a convention or two to challenge someone to a duel.

...or his new buddy (Dubya) will invite him down to Crawford for a barbeque.  Silly
Bring back the Concorde
 
AirCop
Posts: 5553
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:39 am

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:22 am

Actually, my feeling is "What Lieberman's defeat means for the incumbents". This should be a red light for both parties. Just curious no one had mentioned the Republican Congressman from Michigan losing his party primary, so it is cutting both ways.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:50 am

Quoting AirCop (Reply 12):
Actually, my feeling is "What Lieberman's defeat means for the incumbents". This should be a red light for both parties. Just curious no one had mentioned the Republican Congressman from Michigan losing his party primary, so it is cutting both ways.

You are correct.
The Republicans and there allies in the media are making a big stink about Joe Lieberman getting tossed out and trying to make the Democrats look bad as a result.
Bring back the Concorde
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Sat Aug 12, 2006 10:30 am

Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 6):
But the facts show differently. Firstly, Connecticut's Democrats aren't exactly screaming pinkos. Look at the demographics. They're wealthy, educated and moderate. The Democratic party can run any campaign they want in the state of Connecticut, but bottom line is it's the citizens who vote.

 rotfl  Goes to figure someone from Massachusetts would characterize CT democrats as moderate. You really don't see how left the new england area is regarded by the rest of the country, do you?

Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 6):
It's the Republicans who are in trouble, and they know it. How do I know they know? Because they are painting any Democrat who is successful as a LI-BRUL (God forbid!). That's all they've got and I don't think it's going to work for them during the next election cycle.

Yes, they are. Every republican in VA who has sent me campaign literature as of late conveniently fails to list their party affiliation.

But while disaffection with Bush will probably result in a handoff of the House to the democrats in 2006, to say that painting democrats as liberal won't work in 2008 is wishful thinking - at this point. The democratic party at the national level is held captive by the extreme left, just as the republicans are captured by the extreme right.

The best thing the democrats have going for them right now is that they aren't republicans. But they have precious little else to offer in the way of ideas for enacting real change. For example, so far in the VA senate race, Jim Webb - former republican running as a democrat - has gotten no traction running against George Allen, the incumbent republican, who is a very popular former governor of the commonwealth. Had former governor Mark Warner run against Allen, it would be a dead heat.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 9):
The Democrats couldn't, and still can't beat the Republicans. They got tired of losing, over and over again. Bush twice. The 2002 Midterms. The 2004 years. Etc, Etc, Etc. So they finally got smart and decided to run against themselves to remind them of what it feels like to actually win. Problem is now that they STILL can't win a real election, and Joe will clean up come November.

Disagree. I predict a democratic house - maybe even senate - come November. Problem is, the current democrat leadership in both the House and Senate - is just as inept as their republican colleagues.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
AirCop
Posts: 5553
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:39 am

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Sat Aug 12, 2006 10:48 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 14):
Had former governor Mark Warner run against Allen, it would be a dead heat.

 idea  I think you and I know what office Mark Warner is gearing up to run for. Could be the next southern Democrat to be elected to the nation's highest office since the mid 70's.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Sat Aug 12, 2006 10:57 am

Quoting AirCop (Reply 15):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 14):
Had former governor Mark Warner run against Allen, it would be a dead heat.

I think you and I know what office Mark Warner is gearing up to run for. Could be the next southern Democrat to be elected to the nation's highest office since the mid 70's.

Would be a real smart move for the democrats to make Warner their candidate. He was an excellent governor, able to work well with the republicans in Richmond. Unlike his successor.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
AirCop
Posts: 5553
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:39 am

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Sat Aug 12, 2006 10:59 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 16):
Would be a real smart move for the democrats to make Warner their candidate

I agreed 100%. He would be a very attractive candidate to get cross-over votes from the moderate republicans, and I suspect would do well in the south.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Sat Aug 12, 2006 11:12 am

Quoting AirCop (Reply 15):
Could be the next southern Democrat to be elected to the nation's highest office since the mid 70's.

You forgot Bill Clinton.
He is from Arkansas.
Al Gore is from Tennessee and he was elected to but we all know what happend to that.
Bring back the Concorde
 
VonRichtofen
Posts: 4260
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2000 3:10 am

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrat

Sat Aug 12, 2006 2:31 pm

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 9):
and just 24 hours later, after Blair, with a little help from Bush, stops thousands of American and other Nationalities deaths.

Which was actually initiated by Pakistani authorities  Wink

And it is the police that should get credit, not the politicians.

If you actually think Bush's policies have made America safer then you're out to lunch. Maybe if the resources devoted to invading Iraq were instead used to hunt down the real enemies (Al Qaeda) then America might be safer.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Sat Aug 12, 2006 4:35 pm

Quoting VonRichtofen (Reply 19):
If you actually think Bush's policies have made America safer then you're out to lunch. Maybe if the resources devoted to invading Iraq were instead used to hunt down the real enemies (Al Qaeda) then America might be safer.

 checkmark 
Bring back the Concorde
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Sat Aug 12, 2006 5:17 pm

Quoting VonRichtofen (Reply 19):
If you actually think Bush's policies have made America safer then you're out to lunch. Maybe if the resources devoted to invading Iraq were instead used to hunt down the real enemies (Al Qaeda) then America might be safer.

It's all debatable, but those who like to summerize complex performance in one word don't like to hear it.

Iraq will go down as GWB's greatest failure. Not necessarily the decision to go to Iraq, but the refusal to do everything it took toget that place under control. On the other hand, he does have a significant success in which he deserves an A+ (so far), which is the fact that since 9/11 there has been no successful attacks on America. The American intelligence community has been revamped and redirected towards the threat, and has so far gotten the job done.

But this is not a success that helps in elections, as success simply means that disasters don't happen. And things that don't happen go unnoticed. The events of this week only got attention because the enemy got pretty close, but all the other plots where the CIA, FBI, NSA, MI5 and 6 and all the other agencies did an even better job and foiled dozens of plots before they got close to getting off the ground, we never hear about it, apart from, maybe, a 2-inch story on page 36 next to the ad for adult diapers.

So while you have a pretty good argument about Iraq being a classic FUBAR, you can't say that he has failed to keep America safe from attack.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:22 pm

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 21):
Iraq will go down as GWB's greatest failure.

Finally you admit it 3 years later and 2000+ dead US soldiers later.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 21):
On the other hand, he does have a significant success in which he deserves an A+ (so far), which is the fact that since 9/11 there has been no successful attacks on America. The American intelligence community has been revamped and redirected towards the threat, and has so far gotten the job done.

Ummm, they don't need to considering the terrorist have won. Everytime some has to take off there shoe before boarding a flight and/or compromise on the 4th Amendment to the Consitution, the terrorist wave won.
Go ahead and eat your free-dumn fries thinking Bush is some sort of sucsess.
Bring back the Concorde
 
cfalk
Posts: 10221
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:38 pm

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:41 pm

Quoting Superfly (Reply 22):
Ummm, they don't need to considering the terrorist have won. Everytime some has to take off there shoe before boarding a flight and/or compromise on the 4th Amendment to the Consitution, the terrorist wave won.

If you find that a significant loss for us, or a win for them, I feel sorry for you.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:14 pm

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 23):
If you find that a significant loss for us, or a win for them, I feel sorry for you.

Well would you like salt or pepper with your free-dumn fries?  dopey 
Bring back the Concorde
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12393
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:22 pm

What it means is very simple - that enough Democrats in CT want a representitive that will say no to the policies of GWB and most Republicans as to the Middle East and their failing policy in Iraq. That is further supported by a wide range of Americans rejecting in significant majorities those policies of the Bush Administration. Lamont offered an alternative to Sen. Lieberman on those and related issues. It will mean that most Democrats running for office will believe in such opposition too, and to be a strong balance and opposition as to those policies, even if they do not get majorities in the House and Senate.
I am a proud 'card carrying' member of the Democratic Party and I despise those Republicans that spew their hatred toward Democrats calling them tratiors and in bed with terrorists for their considerations of civil rights of all Americans and to have a more measured policy in the Middle East. This election is a reaction by Democrats for those offensive opinions.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:37 pm

LTBEWR:
Now this is a first.
I agree with you. Perhaps I need to put down my drink and go to bed because this aint natural. Big grin
Keep in mind, Ned Lamont was an unknown the last time we switched our clocks foward and defeated a powerful three term Senator that was the VP choice in 2000.
Amazing!
Bring back the Concorde
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Sat Aug 12, 2006 10:50 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 2):
Please tell me what the (chicken)hawks have actually done for America's safety.

Exactly, you would suppose that the CHs policies have been so woeful that it would not be difficult to put forward a program that looked attractive as FDR did in different times following spectacular Reps blunders. But between the attack dogs and the opposition having difficult tying their shoelaces, it seems more difficult this time around. Even in Aus where the opposition did have the wit to oppose invading Iraq for the heck of it (no better reason has been given that stands up!) our opposition still cannot make a reasonable case for alternative methods of sorting out Anarchists II. Which is what they really are since Islamists they ain't.

Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 6):
But the facts show differently. Firstly, Connecticut's Democrats aren't exactly screaming pinkos. Look at the demographics. They're wealthy, educated and moderate. The Democratic party can run any campaign they want in the state of Connecticut, but bottom line is it's the citizens who vote.

Even the atheists among the rest of the world are praying for you to be close to be correct MBMBOS!
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Sun Aug 13, 2006 6:37 am

Quoting Superfly (Reply 22):
Everytime some has to take off there shoe before boarding a flight and/or compromise on the 4th Amendment to the Consitution, the terrorist wave won.

The Fourth Amendment - indeed all of them - are alive and well, despite all the handwringing from people like you who can't seem to back up your complaints with any factual support.

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 25):
I am a proud 'card carrying' member of the Democratic Party and I despise those Republicans that spew their hatred toward Democrats calling them tratiors and in bed with terrorists for their considerations of civil rights of all Americans and to have a more measured policy in the Middle East.

Do you likewise despise your fellow democrats when they spew their hatred towards republicans?

I used to be a proud democrat, but left the party years ago and registered independent because I saw that the only real difference between both parties was the tone of their rhetoric. Peel off the facade of each party, and all you really have are people who want power for the sake of power, and how it can be used to line their own pockets.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
GuitrThree
Posts: 1940
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:54 pm

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Sun Aug 13, 2006 6:38 am

Quoting VonRichtofen (Reply 19):
If you actually think Bush's policies have made America safer then you're out to lunch. Maybe if the resources devoted to invading Iraq were instead used to hunt down the real enemies (Al Qaeda) then America might be safer.

Yea, you're probably right. Because everytime Bush and crew come up with a new anti-terror plan, the New York Times feels that it's in our best interest to aid the terroists and disclose it.
As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
 
777fan
Posts: 2256
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:09 pm

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Sun Aug 13, 2006 7:53 am

Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 6):
But the facts show differently. Firstly, Connecticut's Democrats aren't exactly screaming pinkos. Look at the demographics. They're wealthy, educated and moderate. The Democratic party can run any campaign they want in the state of Connecticut, but bottom line is it's the citizens who vote.

Everyone is wigging out about Lieberman getting bounced but it's really as simple as this: he lost the D primary by a 54-48% tally. Presuming his supporters continue to support him as an independant (very likely since his policies won't change just because he has an "I" in front of his name instead of a "D"), it will only take a small majority of non-affiliated voters, or even *gasp* moderate Republicans to vote for him and, in essence, vote him back into his seat! The bottom line: party affiliation shouldn't change the man, something I think the Dems are counting on. Their shortsightness in throwing their support to Lamont (granted, party members more or less have to in an effort to avoid undermining the legitimacy of the party as a whole) may turn out to be a classic case of cutting off one's nose to spite their face.

An independantly elected Lieberman could turn out to be a nightmare as he'd no longer be bound by party loyalty to vote on certain issues. I'm not a CT resident, nor am I registered with either party but think that Lieberman's ability to think independantly and stand alone (if need be) on a multitude of issues says a lot about his character, convinction and determination to vote for what's right versus what the party apparatchik thinks is right.

Quoting MBMBOS (Reply 6):
It's the Republicans who are in trouble, and they know it.

I think they're both in trouble. Lieberman might be on to something (see above). I believe I speak for a lot people when I say that both parties and a slew of Congressmen/women are failing the people they purport to represent.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 7):
Joe Lieberman was out of touch with his state and got too cozy with the wrong people and he got booted out for that reason.

What you probably meant to say is that he fell out of favor with a portion of CT democrats, yes?!

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 14):
The best thing the democrats have going for them right now is that they aren't republicans. But they have precious little else to offer in the way of ideas for enacting real change

Well said, although I wouldn't exclude republicans from the group with few ideas. Over the last few years, they've held, in essence, a rubber stamp to enact legislation but to this day, spending is out of control, the border is a joke and the government is actually bigger than its ever been!


777fan
DC-8 61/63/71 DC-9-30/50 MD-80/82/83 DC-10-10/30 MD-11 717 721/2 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 741/2/4 752 762/3 777 A306/319/20/33 AT
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Sun Aug 13, 2006 8:51 am

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 21):
So while you have a pretty good argument about Iraq being a classic FUBAR, you can't say that he has failed to keep America safe from attack.

I can't say that he has, but attacks on America were few and far between prior to 9/11 anyway. While Bush may be the one in power while the changes (which were necessary) after 9/11 took place, it is my opinion that had Gore been president, similar changes would have been made. And then we'd be saying that Gore had succeeded in keeping America safe from attack.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
777fan
Posts: 2256
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:09 pm

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Sun Aug 13, 2006 9:11 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 31):
but attacks on America were few and far between prior to 9/11 anyway

Hmmm, I seem to remember the WTC being bombed in 1993. What happened as a result of that? Not much in terms of identifying, tracking and mitigating the threat from manifesting itself.

Oh yeah...then there's the USS Cole, the Embassy attacks in Africa all of which, presumably according to Clinton and Co., were random acts of violence conducted by individuals.

I see your point Mir, but am more or less teeing off on those that criticize Bush's actions while simultaneously forgetting to identify that Clinton did absolutely nothing to combat terror when the problem was nearly as prominent then as it is now.


777fan
DC-8 61/63/71 DC-9-30/50 MD-80/82/83 DC-10-10/30 MD-11 717 721/2 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 741/2/4 752 762/3 777 A306/319/20/33 AT
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Sun Aug 13, 2006 10:23 am

Quoting 777fan (Reply 30):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 14):The best thing the democrats have going for them right now is that they aren't republicans. But they have precious little else to offer in the way of ideas for enacting real change
Well said, although I wouldn't exclude republicans from the group with few ideas. Over the last few years, they've held, in essence, a rubber stamp to enact legislation but to this day, spending is out of control, the border is a joke and the government is actually bigger than its ever been!

Didn't mean to exclude the republicans from my criticism. Their failure to control spending has been a disgrace, and their cowardice on immigration policy is scandalous.

Quoting 777fan (Reply 32):
I see your point Mir, but am more or less teeing off on those that criticize Bush's actions while simultaneously forgetting to identify that Clinton did absolutely nothing to combat terror when the problem was nearly as prominent then as it is now.

Clinton's anti-terror efforts were abysmal.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Sun Aug 13, 2006 10:50 am

It means, that the democrats can't stand a moderate in their ranks that might decide to vote against them on occasion . . . all they want is a es man that'll get in line with the rest of the lefties and preach hate and discontent against the republicans.

Watch, the same crap might happen to McCain . . . God forbid any politician these days be "allowed" to think for themselves and do the will of the people.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 33):
Clinton's anti-terror efforts were abysmal.

Clinton had anti-terror efforts?  faint 
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Sun Aug 13, 2006 11:20 am

Quoting 777fan (Reply 32):
am more or less teeing off on those that criticize Bush's actions while simultaneously forgetting to identify that Clinton did absolutely nothing to combat terror when the problem was nearly as prominent then as it is now.

Clinton was certainly not very good at dealing with the problem, and thus there were holes that were exploited. But I think it's unfair to glorify Bush alone as being able to enact the necessary reforms when anyone in his position at that time would do pretty much the same thing.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Sun Aug 13, 2006 12:38 pm

Hillary Clinton, Mark Warner, Dianne Feinstein and others all either voted for the war, or were in favor of it.

None of these Democrats will lost any of their elections.

But unlike Lieberman, all these Democrats see the mess we're in, and don't adopt an obnoxious militant attitude against anyone who dares criticize the fiasco the war has become. Many elected leaders - unlike Lieberman - are also quick to realize that they voted for a war based on faulty (or cooked-up) evidence.

And that's what people find so obnoxious about Lieberman. That, like the President, he insists on parroting some fantasy line about Iraq.

Fred Barnes and Bill Kristol and all the DC punditocracy just don't get it, much in the way that back in the '80s the liberal punditocracy didn't get it. Liberals and Democrats in general have pretty much had it with the GOP, their own party and the press for rolling over and playing dead while this travesty unfolded. The mostly right wing pundits in DC today think that its some sort of bizarre moveon phenom, much in the way that many liberal pundits thought that the social conservatives who flocked to the GOP in the '80s were a marginalized noisy group who were powerless against the old line fiscal Republicans. The pundits and the politicians are always Johnny come latelys.

Lieberman got as many votes as he did in CT because of his tenure and his incumbency. But his crass comments in his vitriolic "defeat" speech in which he crudely stated that "he would not let the decision by which he was booted out stand" made a lot of CT voter's stomachs curdle. Isn't that what democracy is all about? You stand by the voters decision, and gracefully leave when you've been told you're not wanted anymore. Lieberman's arrogance will lose him many voters who voted for him in the primary. This is something the pundits don't get. They - like Lieberman - are so drunk on their own self-annointed importance that they're pooh poohing what the voters want.

There is a VERY good chance that Lincoln Chaffee of Rhode Island will lose in the Republican primary against a very conservative opponent. I doubt if Chaffee will display the ill tempered tantrums shown by Lieberman when GOP primary voters show him the door, although he is the ONLY Republican who can probably win Rhode Island. I also doubt if the GOP and all its talking heads will issue public invectives against those primary voters who tossed him out.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 14):
Goes to figure someone from Massachusetts would characterize CT democrats as moderate. You really don't see how left the new england area is regarded by the rest of the country, do you?

Give me a break.
These are the same voters who will vote for Kennedy and Bill Weld or Mitt Romney, and who will vote for Dodd and a Republican for Governor.
The notion of New England being some leftist bastion has been perpetrated only because the power brokers in the South are so extremely conservative. Those who preach that beliefs in evolution and scientific rationalism are the signs of moral rot will, of course, fear the NE and attempt to demonize it. The day that Texas or Mississippi or Kentucky or Idaho can create and nurture institutions even a hundredth as good as MIT or Harvard or Yale or Smith is when their idiocy can be taken seriously. Until then, its just all politics of the dirtiest kind.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Sun Aug 13, 2006 12:58 pm

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 36):
Give me a break.
These are the same voters who will vote for Kennedy

Which should tell the tale right there . . .

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 36):
The day that Texas or Mississippi or Kentucky or Idaho can create and nurture institutions even a hundredth as good as MIT or Harvard or Yale or Smith is when their idiocy can be taken seriously. Until then, its just all politics of the dirtiest kind.

http://main.uab.edu/show.asp?durki=94659
http://www.mc.uky.edu/
http://docjt.jus.state.ky.us/history.html
http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...p?term=Eastern+Kentucky+University
Located in Richmond KY, this is the nation's premier Law Enforcement, Emergency Medical Care, Assets Protection and Security college in the world.
(Yes, I am an alumi of EKU)

The day that MIT or Harvard or Yale or Smith turns out someone that can maintain a degree of commeon sense next to their PhDs, ten years of School, etc, is when their snooty, left wing bleeding heart intellect can be taken seriously.

Every school has it's forte . . . for you to summarily dismiss any one over the other is - well, ridiculous.

By the by - where'd you get your degree?

[Edited 2006-08-13 06:11:09]
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
FlyingTexan
Posts: 2998
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2003 8:30 am

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Sun Aug 13, 2006 1:36 pm

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 36):
None of these Democrats will lost any of their elections.



Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 37):
By the by - where'd you get your degree?

nonGrammar school
"Wouldn't your boss like to fly home nonstop at 4:30 on a Friday afternoon?" -Airline Exec to Congressional Staffer
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Sun Aug 13, 2006 1:40 pm

Quoting FlyingTexan (Reply 38):
nonGrammar school

Ha Ha Ha . . . .

Touche, but the point is made . . . his post is BS . . .
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Sun Aug 13, 2006 9:01 pm

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 37):
Located in Richmond KY, this is the nation's premier Law Enforcement, Emergency Medical Care, Assets Protection and Security college in the world.

Ah, the land that was transformed by the turnpike (Ferm, J, pers comm).
 
seb146
Posts: 13917
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Mon Aug 14, 2006 1:49 am

Conservatives are quick to point out the Liberals are soft on national security while, at the same time, Conservatives are running around talking about how we are safe because of the American forces in Iraq. In my mind, keeping the homeland secure means pouring resources into agencies like the C.I.A. F.B.I. and the newly formed Department of Homeland Security instead of handing out multi-million dollar no-bid contracts to build perminanat bases and a large embassy complex in Iraq.

But the Conservatives don't see that. They see "The terror plot is broken up because of Conservatives security conserns so you must vote Conservative!"

What does Lieberman's defeat mean for Democrats? It means we have sent a clear messege to anyone who lables themselves as Democrat but has a proven track record of being on the side of Conservatives: We need party unity now more than ever. We need to run on solid issues instead of fluff like gay marrige and stem cell research.

GO CANUCKS!!
Patriotic and Proud Liberal
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: What Lieberman's Defeat Means For The Democrats

Mon Aug 14, 2006 6:25 am

Quoting Jaysit (Reply 36):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 14):Goes to figure someone from Massachusetts would characterize CT democrats as moderate. You really don't see how left the new england area is regarded by the rest of the country, do you?
Give me a break.
These are the same voters who will vote for Kennedy and Bill Weld or Mitt Romney, and who will vote for Dodd and a Republican for Governor.
The notion of New England being some leftist bastion has been perpetrated only because the power brokers in the South are so extremely conservative. Those who preach that beliefs in evolution and scientific rationalism are the signs of moral rot will, of course, fear the NE and attempt to demonize it. The day that Texas or Mississippi or Kentucky or Idaho can create and nurture institutions even a hundredth as good as MIT or Harvard or Yale or Smith is when their idiocy can be taken seriously.

 rotfl  thank you for proving my point!!!
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: avi, brendows, moo, scbriml and 17 guests