Lieberman concedes

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: daveymark
Kudos to Joe - he's one of the few democrats who actually thinks independently for himself; he's not just a left wing parrot willing to tow the party line just because it's the party line. We need more people like him. Way too much vitriol in the Democratic party though.

can't wait for the showdown in '08 - it's going to be one of the most hate filled, venom spewing, scum sucking races of all time - thanks to the Democratic party.

Rock the vote, indeed.

Kudos to him for losing in his own party's primary, as an incumbent senator? What a world!

 

[nageov3t]

can't wait for the showdown in '08 - it's going to be one of the most hate filled, venom spewing, scum sucking races of all time - thanks to the Democratic party.

I'm not sure the DNC will ever be able to top the "McCain's got a black baby!" campaign that was launched by Karl Rove in the '00 primaries.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

i wouldn't even bother listening to daveymark, he's a troll.

 

[fitzov]

Lamont stood up very well to Lieberman in the only pre-primary debate Lieberman would allow. That debate was very telling, as Lieberman was far more combative and on the attack than he was in the love-fest VP debates with Cheney in 2000 or in any of the presidential candidate debates Lieberman was in during the 2004 primaries.

Yes. Lieb comes-off as the typical do-nothing status quo candidate. Also, he is the most prominent, right-wing, non-Democrat I've seen, and it's high time that he is no longer a contender for the Democratic ticket. His tone of voice and demeanor make him seem a spineless whiny beyatch.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: rhatsaruck
So much for being a loyal Democrat.

So if the Democrats turn into today's Republicans in 10 years would you still be a Democrat for the sake of the name?

I applaud Lieberman. Here is a man who understands that his party has shifted from his beliefs and he is going to stand up for himself as an independent and probably win.

And for those of you calling him a 'traitor'. Give me a break. Do you know what your party platform looked like 10 years ago? 20? Kennedy perhaps? Parties evolve as time goes by. I personally think that both the Democrats and Republicans are so freaking skewed now that there is nowhere for a more central thinking politician to survive.

What I don't understand is why the majority of people, especially evident by those on this forum, are so EXTREME in their right/left thinking. You do realize there is a middle ground and you do not have to walk the party line for the sake of walking the party line.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
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.

Correct, he was a liberal in every way except not antiwar.

Might want to rethink that, lieberman voted FOR the bankruptcy bill which hurt the common man and helped the credit card companies, he's also voted for corporate interests above common man on others as well. Yes he voted 90% with the dem party, but the 10% where he didn't are the big ones, the war, bankruptcy bill, etc...

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: rhatsaruck
So much for being a loyal Democrat.

So if the Democrats turn into today's Republicans in 10 years would you still be a Democrat for the sake of the name?

I applaud Lieberman. Here is a man who understands that his party has shifted from his beliefs and he is going to stand up for himself as an independent and probably win.

And for those of you calling him a 'traitor'. Give me a break. Do you know what your party platform looked like 10 years ago? 20? Kennedy perhaps? Parties evolve as time goes by. I personally think that both the Democrats and Republicans are so freaking skewed now that there is nowhere for a more central thinking politician to survive.

What I don't understand is why the majority of people, especially evident by those on this forum, are so EXTREME in their right/left thinking. You do realize there is a middle ground and you do not have to walk the party line for the sake of walking the party line.

I suggest you take a look at some recent polls. Not only does Lieberman not represent the average voter, he really doesn't represent the average Democrat. 60% of Americans think Iraq was a mistake and support some sort of draw down. 80%+ of Democrats do not support Iraq. So you think Lieberman represents moderate Democrats? He lost because he blindly supported a President that is unpopular and a war that is unpopular. Plain and simple, the voters have spoken and he will lose in Nov to boot.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: rhatsaruck
So much for being a loyal Democrat.

So if the Democrats turn into today's Republicans in 10 years would you still be a Democrat for the sake of the name?

I applaud Lieberman. Here is a man who understands that his party has shifted from his beliefs and he is going to stand up for himself as an independent and probably win.

And for those of you calling him a 'traitor'. Give me a break. Do you know what your party platform looked like 10 years ago? 20? Kennedy perhaps? Parties evolve as time goes by. I personally think that both the Democrats and Republicans are so freaking skewed now that there is nowhere for a more central thinking politician to survive.

What I don't understand is why the majority of people, especially evident by those on this forum, are so EXTREME in their right/left thinking. You do realize there is a middle ground and you do not have to walk the party line for the sake of walking the party line.

I suggest you take a look at some recent polls. Not only does Lieberman not represent the average voter, he really doesn't represent the average Democrat. 60% of Americans think Iraq was a mistake and support some sort of draw down. 80%+ of Democrats do not support Iraq. So you think Lieberman represents moderate Democrats? He lost because he blindly supported a President that is unpopular and a war that is unpopular. Plain and simple, the voters have spoken and he will lose in Nov to boot.

If Lieberman is now running independent then the 80/20 Democrat split does not really matter. What matters is the 60/40 split and that's pretty close to an even push once margin of error is brought into the equation.

I'm not really here to argue so much about Lieberman's stance and why he did what he did. I just have a problem with so many blind followers, on both sides, who have no idea what an original thought is. What blows my mind is that most Dems/Repubs from this forum actually believe in EVERYTHING their party stands for. I'm convinced that if the entire Democratic leadership came out and said 'We are for Israel bombing civilians!' they would probably follow. I'm also convinced that if Republicans said 'We are against the death penalty and pro-choice!' they would probably fall in line as well.

Here's my cheer for Independents. Yay.

*EDIT* I guess I should keep in mind that taking my sample from this community when it comes to the general feelings of Dems/Repubs is like taking a sample from the extreme side of both so maybe I'm going a bit overboard.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Thump553
I'm from CT and have followed this race very closely. The vast majority of the "analysis" you're getting on this race is either superficial, dead wrong or both.

First, let's flash back to last year before the Lamont campaign began. Lieberman had nearly a 70% approval rating in the CT, despite his adamant cheerleading for the war (more below), which was way out of step with most of the CT voters. At that time, there was serious discussion in the state GOP of cross-endorsing Lieberman and not even to bother running a sacrificial lamb against him.

Why did Lieberman lose/ Several reasons:

(1) Most importantly, I think, but rarely discussed (except by Chris Matthews last night on local TV) is that Lieberman has essentially abandoned any pretense of representing CT and has again become a so-called national politician. His contempt for local interests has been very disquieting to many, to say the least. During the current campaign, he repeatedly claimed that it was his single-handed efforts that got the sub base at Groton off the base closure list. Lieberman claimed it was his personal relationship with a federal big shot that made the difference. That's total BS, and nearly everyone in CT knew it. The base was saved through a strong bipartisan effort of many politicians, at the local, state and federal level. By claiming credit for himself, Lieberman alienated many of the local politicians, not a good move.

(2) Lieberman's involvement with the Iraq war is not as an occasional cheerleader/supporter for GWB, but rather he has-since the start-been one of the strongest and most strident voices pushing the war. He has a very deep loyalty to Israel, and this voter at least, feels he was motivated by his perception that this war would help Israel first and secondarily, maybe the US too.

(3) The voters of CT (GOP, Dem or independent-and remember more than half the voters here are unaffiliated) are strongly against the Iraq war, and have been so essentially since the beginning. Lieberman's response has been to lecture us. The USA is a republican form of government, and I'm voting to elect a public official that is most in accord with my wishes. I'm not voting to elect a paternalistic leader who will tell me what is best for my country.

(4) Lieberman touted - loudly and often - that he voted 90% of the time in accordance with the Democratic party. This may be true technically (I haven't checked it) but we CT voters are extremely familiar with his voting pattern-he will support GOP/Bush positions in the negotiations and crucial preliminary votes. Only when an issue is lost would Lieberman cast a show vote along party lines. I voted to select an effective representative, not someone going through the motions to build a voting record.

(5) Many pundits claim Lieberman is being punished for straying from the party line and seeking to compromise with Bush and the neocons. This could not be further from the truth. Many of us who voted against Lieberman this time voted for him repeatedly in the past and like the guy. He just doesn't represent our interests and views any more. CT is not a hotbed of radicals, it is a moderate state. For years, CT was considered basically a GOP state and was a leader of the GOP moderate faction of the party.

(6) Ned Lamont-Lieberman's opponent-comes across very well, in my opinion. Despite being vilified by Lieberman as a rich fat cat playing in politics, and despite all the local TV reporters love affair with Lieberman, Lamont comes across as sincere, intelligent and honest. Perhaps more importantly, he does not come across as a fire breathing radical freak. For many of us, this is like a real life Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. Lamont stood up very well to Lieberman in the only pre-primary debate Lieberman would allow. That debate was very telling, as Lieberman was far more combative and on the attack than he was in the love-fest VP debates with Cheney in 2000 or in any of the presidential candidate debates Lieberman was in during the 2004 primaries.

But don't count Lieberman out yet, not by a long shot. The GOP candidate for senate is a total joke-he has no money, no name recognition and is involved in a personal gambling/false name/gambling debts judgments scandal. Only the most diehard straight party line voters will pick him-my wild prediction is that the GOP candidate will get 10-15% of the vote. Lieberman has a huge campaign war chest ($10M), is one of the best known politicians in the state and is generally highly respected. Lieberman also has the support of essentially all the Democratic party elite, at least tacitly (most said they wouldn't support him -actively-if he didn't get the nomination. CT voters have a strong history of weak party affiliation (the majority of voters aren't affiliated at all) and voting for third parties (Weicker won as governor as an independent about a decade ago). We vote for the person first and party second.

Unless something drastically changes between now and election day, I'm predicting an extremely close race between Lamont and Lieberman.

This primary result should be common in our system, not the rarity it is. When elected officials do not, or will not, represent the interests and wishes of their constituents, they should be shown the door. One of the major reasons our government is in such sad shape today is because this doesn't happen often enough.

Great post, Thump! :beer:

 

[BlancoNino]

This is just more evidence that Democrats of today are yesterday's hippies and Republicans of today are yesterday's Democrats.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
This is just more evidence that Democrats of today are yesterday's hippies and Republicans of today are yesterday's Democrats.

I'm 41, how could I be yesterdays hippy? I was 5 when the flowerpower generation really took off. Guess it was the psychedelic Scooby Doo lunchbox I had back then.. :disgust:

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
This is just more evidence that Democrats of today are yesterday's hippies and Republicans of today are yesterday's Democrats.

I'm 41, how could I be yesterdays hippy? I was 5 when the flowerpower generation really took off. Guess it was the psychedelic Scooby Doo lunchbox I had back then.. :disgust:

I didn't mean that literally, I mean it idealogically.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Nothing wrong with wanting peace, taking care of the earth and having social awareness.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
This is just more evidence that Democrats of today are yesterday's hippies and Republicans of today are yesterday's Democrats.

I'm 41, how could I be yesterdays hippy? I was 5 when the flowerpower generation really took off. Guess it was the psychedelic Scooby Doo lunchbox I had back then.. :disgust:

I didn't mean that literally, I mean it idealogically.

damn you for using logic! some people just need things like this spoon fed to them.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
This is just more evidence that Democrats of today are yesterday's hippies and Republicans of today are yesterday's Democrats.

What does that make you, yesterday's Playstation playing yuppie white boy? Generalizations FTW!

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
This is just more evidence that Democrats of today are yesterday's hippies and Republicans of today are yesterday's Democrats.

I'm 41, how could I be yesterdays hippy? I was 5 when the flowerpower generation really took off. Guess it was the psychedelic Scooby Doo lunchbox I had back then.. :disgust:

I didn't mean that literally, I mean it idealogically.

damn you for using logic! some people just need things like this spoon fed to them.

More of an analogy than logic, but nice try. I'll save this for next time.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: ThePresence
Moveon and their ilk continue radicalizing the Democratic party... they are obviously hurting the party much more than they help it.

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.

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.

I didn't know Lamonte was a radical.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
This is just more evidence that Democrats of today are yesterday's hippies and Republicans of today are yesterday's Democrats.

What does that make you, yesterday's Playstation playing yuppie white boy? Generalizations FTW!

If "yesterday's Playstation playing yuppie white boy" = Supporter of less government and laws, then yes.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
This is just more evidence that Democrats of today are yesterday's hippies and Republicans of today are yesterday's Democrats.

What does that make you, yesterday's Playstation playing yuppie white boy? Generalizations FTW!

If "yesterday's Playstation playing yuppie white boy" = Supporter of less government and laws, then yes.

Newsflash...the current administration has been one of MORE government and laws.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Newsflash...the current administration has been one of MORE government and laws.

Yup...

Did you miss the part where I said this?

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
This is just more evidence that Democrats of today are yesterday's hippies and Republicans of today are yesterday's Democrats.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: feralkid

Newsflash...the current administration has been one of MORE government and laws.

Yup...

Did you miss the part where I said this?

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
This is just more evidence that Democrats of today are yesterday's hippies and Republicans of today are yesterday's Democrats.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Huh? I thought you were saying you were a fan of less government and laws?

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: feralkid
Huh? I thought you were saying you were a fan of less government and laws?

Yes I am. Are you getting the assumption that I agree with everything this administration does?

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: feralkid
Huh? I thought you were saying you were a fan of less government and laws?

Yes I am. Are you getting the assumption that I agree with everything this administration does?

I don't know, did you vote for them?

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: feralkid
I don't know, did you vote for them?

If I did, it's because it was a lesser of two evils...maybe not much lesser.

Our candidates suck.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: feralkid


Huh? I thought you were saying you were a fan of less government and laws?

You have to translate what he really means. He means he is anti-welfare for low income people = small government. What about corporate welfare? Bloated military? Less for laws he doesn't like (drunk driving), what about child labor laws? Prostitution? Marijuana? His bumper sticker ideology would break down fast with a few probing questions I'm sure.