Lieberman concedes
- Thread starter rhatsaruck
- Start date
Don Vito Corleone
Elite
- Feb 10, 2000
- 30,029
- 66
- 91
Because he's not a Republican. He is a center Democrat in a party that is killing centrists right and left.
The L man has been a profoundly loyal Democrat and has a score of 90% or so progressive, I believe. One can hope therefore only that those who are truly worthless and voted for the war also go down in flames. That would include most all other Democrats and every Republican now in office.
because he just lost to the person he'd be running against if he were a republican?
at least as a democrat, he can get some spiteful justice by splitting the democrat vote and giving the republican canidate the edge (that is, if he splits the democratic vote)
I like joe. Just because he thinks we shouldn't rush out of Iraq doesn't mean he thinks the war is a good idea.
I wonder what his political future will be, though.
I wonder what his political future will be, though.
Without party support, he loses a lot of money backing him. I can't imagine him sticking around for long as an independent (or whatever he chooses to call himself), and will eventually bow out.
ThePresence
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 27,730
- 16
- 81
Moveon and their ilk continue radicalizing the Democratic party... they are obviously hurting the party much more than they help it.
The Democrats haven't been loyal to Lieberman. Why would he be loyal to them?
Not necessarily. Can registered Republicans vote in the Democratic primary?
Originally posted by: loki8481
because he just lost to the person he'd be running against if he were a republican?
at least as a democrat, he can get some spiteful justice by splitting the democrat vote and giving the republican canidate the edge (that is, if he splits the democratic vote)
Not necessarily. Can registered Republicans vote in the Democratic primary?
If that had been Lieberman's position, he would have won . . . in a cakewalk.
My take is that Lieberman was FOR the war since Bush41/Powell stopped short of Baghdad. Lieberman wanted this war under any terms. But he forgot that he represents CT not TX.
I don't think it's Lieberman's support for the war that killed him. other canidates that supported the war are doing fine.
I think the nail in the coffin was when he said that it's unamerican to criticize the president in a time of war.
I think the nail in the coffin was when he said that it's unamerican to criticize the president in a time of war.
When you are cutting higher education, healthcare, and research funding to support an unpopular war started by a moron . . . I would imagine that hurts a party too.
What's Bush's approval rating? How about the GOP Congress?
Lieberman earned his loss. Most of his wounds were self-inflicted just like Bush and the GOP Congress.
meh. a supremely small percentage of the visitors to the anti-lieberman blogs were actually from CT.
as much as bloggers like to tout their own importance, I think this would have happened with or without them.
A good Nazi like that will just get recycled back into an evil Corporation and then later be recycled back into politics.
Such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.
Like I said . . . thoe other candidates aren't Joe Lieberman and they aren't running in CT.
Hilary . . . well she's Hilary. The hardcore libs may boo her but everybody else (that cares) is giving her money and cheering her on for 2008.
Nelson . . . is in FL. A Florida Democrat is essentially a CT Republican.
If Lincoln Chafee was a Democrat, he would be re-elected in landslide. Did he vote for the Bush debacle resolution?
ehhh... he doesn't want to rush out of iraq, true; he thinks the war is a good idea, definitely yes.
ThePresence
Elite Member
- Nov 19, 2001
- 27,730
- 16
- 81
So what? This is not just about Joe and if he deserved to lose or not. Radicalizing a party does not help it in the long run. Sure, it may seem fun right now to knock anyone that supported Bush and the war, but most people would not classify themselves as radicals, and won't normally vote for one. The Dems hurt themselves today. Lamonte is an inexperienced political lightweight who only won because the radicals rallied around him.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
No, I think Lieberman lost because he was clueless---and worse yet was a pandering fool. And now he paid the forfeit for betting on the wrong horse. He was decent senator and had 18 fine years---and its off to the clueless politicians retirement home for him---where he will have much company if Iraq goes civil war before 11/06.
But now Joe is at the crossroads---the direct route to the retirement home--with the occassional stop to pick up some hugs from some fellow democrats
Or the indirect route to the retirement home--by playing the spoler in a independent run he is sure to lose--and possibly then hand his old Senate seat to a republican. While revenge is a dish best eaten cold---Joe is now hotly vowing to run as an independent---------please say it ain't so Joe---please say it ain't so.
But earth to Joe ---earth to Joe---de voters have spoken---and you lost---and playing the role of spoiler will only burn all your bridges---and no one but no one will even speak to you at the clueless politicians retirement home---but then again---there is no fool like an old fool.
But now Joe is at the crossroads---the direct route to the retirement home--with the occassional stop to pick up some hugs from some fellow democrats
Or the indirect route to the retirement home--by playing the spoler in a independent run he is sure to lose--and possibly then hand his old Senate seat to a republican. While revenge is a dish best eaten cold---Joe is now hotly vowing to run as an independent---------please say it ain't so Joe---please say it ain't so.
But earth to Joe ---earth to Joe---de voters have spoken---and you lost---and playing the role of spoiler will only burn all your bridges---and no one but no one will even speak to you at the clueless politicians retirement home---but then again---there is no fool like an old fool.
I don't think that's a good analysis. Is Lamont a radical?
Lieberman sealed his fate when he sided with the disaster that is Bush on issue after issue. Sure, he's a good Connecticut senator, but he was also running for a national seat.
It's not exactly smart to side yourself with an unmitigated disaster, and Lieberman has paid the price of loyalty. He hasn't been a good Democrat, he's been a Republican dream, and the Democrats distanced themselves further from the GOP by doing this. To say that's 'radicalizing' the party is short-sited. For so long people have been saying how they can't see the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. Lieberman is a perfect example of this. The Democrats are becoming Democrats, and that is what the nation wants to see, not "GOP-lite".
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
-
-
Discussion Zen 5 Discussion (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 8000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 4K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram