The New Responsible Political Thread

[Der Mike]

Hell, supporting this war should be the biggest no-brainer ever. "Yeah, it's a war against a major terrorist group. It doesn't involve US troops AT ALL. Yeah, let's OPPOSE it."

WTF?

Anybody who says that Israel should "negotiate" is a pathetic collaborator, ala Vichy France, who will sell its soul to militant Islam because they truly buy into that idiotic crap about how evil the West is.
-=Mike

[frulad]

Will someone please tell Joe Lieberman to shut the funk up and sit down?

[Karachi Vyce]

Why should he? If he runs in November, he'll likely win. A good half of Connecticut voters (or MORE, as he'll probably draw support from the conservatives / Republicans in the state who don't want Lamont to take the seat) are likely to vote for him.

Which is why the liberals want him to stand down. Which is why people like Kos are crying for Lieberman to be PUNISHED by the Dems, through such measures as kicking Lieberman off committees and otherwise marginalized. Because the liberals know that if Joe runs, their liberal circle-jerk candidate will likely go down in flames.

But that's liberals for you. There is nothing quite so funny as reading the papers / blogs this morning, and seeing them cry so shrilly about Joe being a "sore loser."

Ha!! Motherfuckers, are we forgetting the 2000 AND 2004 elections?! People in glass houses, shitdicks.

[AaronB]

Will someone please tell Joe Lieberman to shut the funk up and sit down?

Personally I think that no one should tell him to be quiet. Did I miss the law being passed that a person can't run as an independent? Or does that type of thing only work when someone like Jeffords decides to be an independent?

[frulad]

Why should he? If he runs in November, he'll likely win. A good half of Connecticut voters (or MORE, as he'll probably draw support from the conservatives / Republicans in the state who don't want Lamont to take the seat) are likely to vote for him.

No, Republican voters are likely to vote for him because their candidate Schlesinger is a gambling addict plagued with scandal trailing a three-way race with single-digit poll numbers. If the state GOP could ditch him, they most assuredly would in an instant.

A primary is supposed to be a party choosing who they wish to represent their interests in a general election. Guess what? Conn. dems don't want Lieberman representing them this November in the race for a senate seat. (Lieberman by the way became only the 4th incumbant to lose a Senate primary in the history of our country.)

If Lieberman wants to run as an indie, that's fine. He's barely in line with a majority of the Dems views on things lately. But he needs to shed his party affiliation. Of course, he would lose his senority, prime committee appointments, etc. He wants to have his cake and eat it too.

[frulad]

[A]re we forgetting the 2000 AND 2004 elections?!

Ah yes, the 2000 election. That reminds me, how's Catherine Harris's campaign doing down in Florida? Is she getting lots of support from her party as a thank you for her double duty* of acting as both head of elections and working on one of the candidate's campaign?



*Triple duty, if you count "convieniently forgotting the definition of the term 'conflict of interest'."

[AaronB]

If Lieberman wants to run as an indie, that's fine. He's barely in line with a majority of the Dems views on things lately. But he needs to shed his party affiliation. Of course, he would lose his senority, prime committee appointments, etc. He wants to have his cake and eat it too.

Define "barely in-line" because beside his continues support for the war (wow! the man sticks to his beleifs! Imagine that, what a concept) he is in line with the democratic party. In fact, he actually changed his opinion on school vouchers so he could get the VP nod in 2000. Which I was very disappointed that he did btw.

[Jan]

(Lieberman by the way became only the 4th incumbant to lose a Senate primary in the history of our country.)

The article I read said 4th since 1980. Big difference...very big.

Jan

[Karachi Vyce]

Define "barely in-line" because beside his continues support for the war (wow! the man sticks to his beleifs! Imagine that, what a concept) he is in line with the democratic party. In fact, he actually changed his opinion on school vouchers so he could get the VP nod in 2000. Which I was very disappointed that he did btw.

Don't let the facts get in the way of frulad's [EDIT] ramblings.

Outside of ONE issue - national security - Lieberman votes, largely, with the Democrats on the majority of issues. Hell, he often votes with the liberal wing of the party. It's just that he's an actual Democrat with balls when it comes to the war on terror, which is why a lot of liberals want to throw him to the wolves, because, as I pointed out earlier, all of their rhetoric about being tough on terror (just opposing Iraq) is absolute, complete bullshit. They can talk about the poisoning of the political discourse all they want, but they ARE weak on the war on terror. Not just Iraq, but in regards to Israel and elsewhere.

It's really rather disgusting how some of the hardcore lefties - you know, Lamont's supporters - have treated Joe as well. Virulent, anti-semitic remarks seem to be all too common.

A few examples:

"Ned Lamont and his supporters need to [g]et real busy. Ned needs to beat Lieberman to a pulp in the debate and define what it means to be an AMerican who is NOT beholden to the Israeli Lobby" (by "rim," posted on Huffington Post, July 6, 2006).

ò "Joe's on the Senate floor now and he's growing a beard. He has about a weeks growth on his face. . . . I hope he dyes his beard Blood red. It would be so appropriate" (by "ctkeith," posted on Daily Kos, July 11 and 12, 2005).

ò On "Lieberman vs. Murtha": "as everybody knows, jews ONLY care about the welfare of other jews; thanks ever so much for reminding everyone of this most salient fact, so that we might better ignore all that jewish propaganda [by Lieberman] about participating in the civil rights movement of the 60s and so on" (by "tomjones," posted on Daily Kos, Dec. 7, 2005).

ò "Good men, Daniel Webster and Faust would attest, sell their souls to the Devil. Is selling your soul to a god any worse? Leiberman cannot escape the religious bond he represents. Hell, his wife's name is Haggadah or Muffeletta or Diaspora or something you eat at Passover" (by "gerrylong," posted on the Huffington Post, July 8, 2006).

And it's the conservatives who are supposed to be the bigots. I can't help but laugh.

[Der Mike]

Will someone please tell Joe Lieberman to shut the funk up and sit down?

You mean the party that espouses inane conspiracy theories about how they had elections "stolen" from them is supposed to tell somebody who lost to shut up?

Will you ask Gore and Kerry first, please?

A primary is supposed to be a party choosing who they wish to represent their interests in a general election.

And ONLY two parties, eh?

Man, if you people were around when Perot got Clinton elected...

Conn. dems don't want Lieberman representing them this November in the race for a senate seat. (Lieberman by the way became only the 4th incumbant to lose a Senate primary in the history of our country.)

And, ironically enough, Joe isn't going to run as a Democrat.

Or should the two parties be the only ones allowed to field candidates at all?

He's barely in line with a majority of the Dems views on things lately.

Outside of Iraq, feel free to name one thing he's not in line with the Dems about. Heck, he even voted to not impeach Clinton.

But he needs to shed his party affiliation. Of course, he would lose his senority, prime committee appointments, etc. He wants to have his cake and eat it too.

So, he just leave office before his term is up?

Got it.

Man, where were you when Clinton was pardoning people for exact change after Bush won the WH?

Ah yes, the 2000 election. That reminds me, how's Catherine Harris's campaign doing down in Florida? Is she getting lots of support from her party as a thank you for her double duty* of acting as both head of elections and working on one of the candidate's campaign?



*Triple duty, if you count "convieniently forgotting the definition of the term 'conflict of interest'."

Hmm, who said in this thread:

"Will someone please tell Joe Lieberman to shut the funk up and sit down?"

Or is whining OK for those you agree with?

I could give you a rather concrete defense of Katherine Harris' actions if you wish, but I imagine you don't really want to hear reality right about now.

I could easily argue -- and defend, mind you --- the belief that Lieberman lost because the Democrats have been hijacked by their racist and anti-Semitic nutroots.
-=Mike

[David Panzer]

So does the term "Anti-Semitic" now include "disagreeing with actions of a country called Israel?"

[AaronB]

So does the term "Anti-Semitic" now include "disagreeing with actions of a country called Israel?"

Let's turn the question around. Does anyone who agrees with some of the President's policies now become a neocon, warmongering, zionist, chicken hawk?

[Karachi Vyce]

Let's turn the question around. Does anyone who agrees with some of the President's policies now become a neocon, warmongering, zionist, chicken hawk?

If that "anyone" is happened to be named "Joseph Leiberman", than apparently the answer is yes, no matter how liberal they may be on the vast majority of other political issues.

[Der Mike]

So does the term "Anti-Semitic" now include "disagreeing with actions of a country called Israel?"

Considering that the lefties who "disagree" with Israel would not mourn if the country ceased to exist --- yeah, pretty much. There is a startling rise of anti-Semitism in Europe and amongst American intellectuals.
-=Mike

[David Panzer]

Guess I fell asleep when the dictionary was re-written