Joe Lieberman goes independent

[Serenity]

If you love them, let them go....

[GreatCarouser]

There are other Republicans on the board, Cat. I don't remember Shap getting this worked up when the Republicans suggested/forced/allowed that Senator from Vermont to leave their 'large tent'...you know....the 'big top' that it requires to encompass that large spectrum of political thought and opinion that makes up the Republican Party of the 21st Century? The party that encourages dissenting voices from within as well as from without. The same folks who will obviously hold their next National Convention atop The Big Rock Candy Mountain?

Shap usually doesn't get this worked up. Someone must have pasted a 'Claire McCaskill for Senator' bumper sticker on his riding mower...

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

I'm still looking for both the "dead horse" and the "hairball" icons. For the time being, I'll stick with .

[GreatCarouser]

I'm still looking for both the "dead horse" and the "hairball" icons. For the time being, I'll stick with .

I enjoyed the barfing smiley the other day...wonder where it is from?

Until then I guess I'm stuck with

[Shapley]

GC,

No, my riding lawnmower it parked in Illinois.

I'm 'worked up' because of what I see as abandonment of a commitment we made to Iraq. The defeat of Sen. Lieberman is symptomatic of that. The Liberals chant "no more Vietnams" (The title of a book by Richard Nixon, BTW), yet they're doing everything in their power to turn Iraq into one. We didn't lose Vietnam over there, we lost it here at home.

V/R
Shapley

[Nicole Marie]

Love when people NOT from my state think they know what is going on... I think the media has greatly distorted why we voted the way we did.

Yes there were some who voted against Lieb because of the war. (See Shos posting, he really outlines it best.)

But most (including myself) voted against him because (as jamie said) he lost us. He really stopped paying attention to CT. For example he voted for the Bush Energy Policy. Currently CT, all New England states and a few others are suing the Bush admin along over this policy. We are suing because we feel it is not best for CT and favors energy companies and not those living in our states. But Lieb went against the state and the lawsuit.

He also lost me when he was unwilling to nail Alito and not take a stand against that dork. (Dodd did.) He also lost me on Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid policies.

Listen, I was against the war but we are there. I'm of the opinion we have to stay until it's over. We broke it and now we have to fix it.

Will Lieb win in Nov? Only 34% of Republicans turn out to vote in CT during an average election. Lieb may get their votes plus the 49% of Dems who voted for him in the primary. He may very well win in Nov. Both will do some heavy campaigning in the state until then. I'm still open to Lieb. He may still get my vote in Nov. Time will tell...

[Shapley]

GC,

RE:

I don't remember Shap getting this worked up when the Republicans suggested/forced/allowed that Senator from Vermont to leave their 'large tent'...you know....the 'big top' that it requires to encompass that large spectrum of political thought and opinion that makes up the Republican Party of the 21st Century?

The situation with Jeffords was entirely different. He wasn't forced out by the Republicans, he left the party of his own volition in order to hand majority control back to the Democrats. Republicans urged him to stay with the party, despite his liberal leanings. His goal was to prevent a Republican majority in the Senate, and his departure provided that (for two years, until the next election cycle cemented that majority). That is far different than the situation the Democrats have shown us with Sen. Liebrman's rejection. Sen. Lieberman has been persona non grata in the Democratic party for some time, because he has shown an unwillingness to help polarize the Congress. It is indeed interesting that this is the man the Democrats supported as the #2 man in the country just six short years ago.

Shos attempt to blame Nader points up another issue with Democrats. They say the President is unwilling to admit a mistake, yet they cannot come to grips with the fact that they simply lost the election under the rules that are in place. It's always somebody's fault. Somebody cheated, somebody lied (besides them), somebody else is to blame. Even after six years and another electoral loss, they cannot accept that they did not win in 2000, or in 2004. The lost the Presidency, the lost the Congress, they lost the Senate, they lost a great number of Governorships, they lost a great number of State houses. All of this, but it is somebody elses fault. The Republicans cheated. Karl Rove. Election fraud. Voter suppression. (despite the fact that most convictions regarding proven instances of this have been Democrats).

V/R
Shapley

[Haggis@wk]

First of all I don’t have a dog in this hunt so I really don’t care who wins, Lamont or Lieberman. Having said that I will venture an opinion. I know, you’re shocked, SHOCKED that I might have an opinion!

First you have to consider the point that Lieberman was the party’s vice presidential standard bearer just 6 years ago and would probably still be VP if Gore (shudder) had won.

That leads me to believe that the real news here is the direction of the Democratic Party finds itself going. It appears to me that the Dems are already pinging 75% on the McGovern meter and the throttle is being revved up.

This election in CT revealed the nasty truth at the heart of the modern "Party of Jefferson": You have to embrace the entire Democratic catechism (abortion on demand, racial preferences, etc.) or risk banishment.

This is not good for the moderate Democratic base or, for that matter, the American people.

As an aside, It also shows that it is still possible to buy a primary. I've read some of the things that Lamont proffers and all I can say is that I would be embarrassed to have this man represent me in the world greatest deliberative body but that seems to be what the voters of CT want so let them have it.

[Shapley]

Haggis,

On the bright side, at least Georgia Democrats were sufficiently embarassed by Cynthia McKinney to dump her (again).

V/R
Shapley

[piqaboo]

hey Haggis, good to hear from ya, lad!

[Haggis@wk]

Thanks Piq. After I quit my job I apparently was suffering from a self inflicted case of ennui. Fortunately, it hasn't proved fatal.

Shapely,

Re: McKinney

I think it is very instructive to look at what voters will stand for and what they will resist. McKinney was an embarrassment to the voters in the district and they turned her out.

The same argument can be said for Lamont/Lieberman although I think the anti-war rhetoric hid any careful analysis of Lamont’s position on anything else but the anti-war angle. The guy is really a one trick pony. Once he votes against a war related bill then he has used up all the tools...well "tool" in his toolbox. I personally think the voters of CT are going to be poorly served if Lamont wins the election in CT, but here again, it was their choice.

Just as the Palestinians are suffering now for having elected Hamas into office, the citizens of CT will probably experience the unintended consequences of their action. At least the CT voters will realize and accept that they shot themselves in the foot while the Palestinians still refused to accept the consequences of their actions.

As for all this prattle the Lamont/Lieberman race was some kind of precursor to the national election and a showdown between Liberalism ideals and Conservative “brashness” is jut that; prattle. Especially the prattle that Lamont represents some kind of “moderate” groundswell in America, did you see his acceptance speech? He was flanked by those other two “moderates” Jesse Jackson and AL Sharpton!!

Apparently, these “moderates” are now laboring under the impression that 7% of CT voters casting ballots in a blue state party primary provides them with a foreign policy mandate.

Americans like to win and being told incessantly that the only way out of Iraq is to cut and run just won’t resonant with the electorate. Liberals lose when they refuse to stand for something. And they have been doing that so much these past few years its hard to see how anyone is going to put them back in the White House.

[OperaTenor]

Of course there's absolutely no connection between the Palestinians electing Hamas and our invasion of Iraq...

Totally isolated instances, those...

Welcome back, Haggis.

[BigJon@Work]

Did you miss the news that Arafat died?

[piqaboo]

Arafat dying pre-ordains a general election choosing Hamas?
I question the logic.

[BigJon@Work]

More logic than OT's statement. Just change pre-ordained to leads to.

[piqaboo]

Whatsisface (Ive been drinking too many of those beersh) dying definitely opened up a space.
Our invading Iraq added a little emotional "lets make a statement" impetus to the elections, almost certainly.

Now where'sh my beer?

[BigJon@Work]

Now where'sh my beer?

Right here!

[piqaboo]

Gee! Thanksh!

[BigJon@Work]

I still think we could have been sitting home snug as a bug in our rugs all this time and Israel's actions alone would have generated the same outcome. Sorry this election victory was about Israel and the perceptions of their actions, not Iraq.

[BigJon@Work]

Gee! Thanksh!

Or was it here?