|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Sep 11th, 2006 03:37 AM | ||||||||||||||
| kahljorn |
I didn't even notice you responded to me here :O I was busy at the time. For example, Donna Brazile, a Dem strategist, found Lieberman's indy bid "troubling," and "when you lose you lose." lol yea cause never in the history of man has somebody been so treacherous as to switch political parties ;( Is lieberman becoming a piñata candidate? |
|||||||||||||
| Sep 10th, 2006 11:06 AM | ||||||||||||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=5386910&nav=3YeX While critical today, Lamont lauded Lieberman's rebuke of Clinton in e-mail in 1998 (Hartford-AP, Sept. 9, 2006 9:00 PM) _ Democratic Senate candidate Ned Lamont, who recently denounced Sen. Joe Lieberman for his public scolding of President Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, lauded the senator at the time for his eloquence and moral authority. Lieberman's staff on Saturday called Lamont's recent criticisms hypocritical in light of a 1998 letter sent by e-mail. However, Lamont said he stands by his position that the public rebuke exacerbated the situation. The Lieberman Senate office released copies of the letter, which Lamont sent to the senator shortly after Lieberman took to the Senate floor to chide Clinton in September 1998. "I supported your statement because Clinton's behavior was outrageous: a Democrat had to stand up and state as much, and I hoped that your statement was the beginning of the end," Lamont wrote. Lieberman's rebuke made him the first prominent Democratic lawmaker to openly criticize Clinton's conduct with Lewinsky, once a White House intern. The boost to Lieberman's national profile helped him to secure the party's nomination for vice president in 2000. Lieberman, an 18-year incumbent, is running as an independent candidate after losing the Democratic primary in August to Lamont, a Greenwich businessman critical of Lieberman's support of the Iraq war and perceived closeness to the Bush Administration. Lamont criticized Lieberman earlier this week for his handling of the Clinton matter, telling reporters and editors at The New York Times that Lieberman should have discussed the matter privately with the president rather than creating "a media spectacle." "You go up there, you sit down with one of your oldest friends and say, 'You're embarrassing yourself, you're embarrassing your presidency, you're embarrassing your family, and it's got to stop,"' Lamont said. Lieberman was unavailable for comment Saturday because he was observing the Jewish sabbath. His campaign manager, Sherry Brown, said in a written statement that Lamont's hypocrisy "knows no bounds." "He has run such a negative campaign up until this point that he had to reach back eight years to find something new to attack Joe Lieberman about -- and in this case, he was so desperate to lash out that he didn't seem to care that he was completely contradicting himself," Brown said. |
|||||||||||||
| Aug 21st, 2006 06:26 PM | ||||||||||||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Yeah, some of the comments undemocratic comments I've seen in regards to Lieberman's indy run are just baffling. For example, Donna Brazile, a Dem strategist, found Lieberman's indy bid "troubling," and "when you lose you lose." Imagine that.....apparently about 150,000 primary voters should decide for an entire state who their senator should be. |
|||||||||||||
| Aug 21st, 2006 12:50 AM | ||||||||||||||
| kahljorn | I don't know at the very least lately there's been a wave of rash politics in america. This isn't necessarily bad, though. Nothing is ever really going to change for the better without such a rash causing enough fluctuation and change. Maybe more independents will be elected post 2012. | |||||||||||||
| Aug 20th, 2006 02:14 PM | ||||||||||||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
And maybe you can tell me where your junior senator gets off attacking Lieberman for using the "rhetoric of Dick Cheney." Apparently Kerry doesn't support the rhetoric of Cheney, he only votes that way. This is my favorite part from this article: Quote:
Maybe if Lieberman had simply paid lip service to these issues the way Kerry did, he'd still be running as a Democrat today. |
|||||||||||||
| Aug 16th, 2006 10:00 PM | ||||||||||||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Since you're selectively responding to my points, I will return in-kind. You said the ideal Democrat would both vote against this president's agenda, and also vocally oppose it. You then listed what you belive are the numerous problems with his agenda. I detailed for you, in great length, how Joe lieberman not only voted against the president's agenda, but also vocally opposed it. So he voted like a liberal Democrat,and voted for a war that 28 other Democrats voted for. Several of those Dems. are currently enjoying easy re-election races, with nothing even close to the challenge Lieberman faced. So can you tell me what makes Lieberman a bad Democrat, and/or a bad senator? |
|||||||||||||
| Aug 14th, 2006 10:45 PM | ||||||||||||||
| KevinTheOmnivore | Ok, just don't bother. | |||||||||||||
| Aug 14th, 2006 08:46 PM | ||||||||||||||
| mburbank |
Kev, your post is far too loongt and I'm on vacation. I'll respond to two things. You can't concieve of a defense hawk who'd think Iraq caused more problems than it solved, and be hawkish on defense while wanting out of Iraq. I can. Iraq and defense are noy synonymous. Also, I think it's very convenient that Iraq is nothing like Iraq unless you're looking at Democratic infighting, in which case it's iddentitical in every way, shape and form. I think the Key difference between Iraq and Vietnam is that Vietnam, while ill advised, was an existing conflict, as opposed to a war of choice based on a policy of pre-emption. |
|||||||||||||
| Aug 13th, 2006 01:47 PM | ||||||||||||||
| ziggytrix |
Quote:
But we aren't for that anymore cuz "we can't have a smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud". So pretty much, all we are left with is deciding when we're going to invade the people we are quite reasonably sure want to kill us. Fight madness with madness. It's the only way to go. |
|||||||||||||
| Aug 13th, 2006 01:13 PM | ||||||||||||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
The fact I was pointing out was that no Democrat in the last century has ever won national election as a dove. If you think a Democrat will win the presidency on a withdraw from Iraq/uh, I'm not so sure we're at war platform, you may be in for a shock. Quote:
Let me rephrase the question for you-- Is there room in the Democratic Party for defense hawks who still vote with the party 90% of the time? In the new DNC Politburo, is there any room for a diversity of thought? Now, I'll be fair. My concerns may be a bit inflated. There was a good piece in Slate last week that pointe out how if the Dems. take the Senate, it'll require Red states, thus the party will maintain its moderatism. I have my doubts. Lieberman, for all intents and purposes, is a liberal. Since everyone in the Democratic Party is a "progressive" now, I wonder if there is a place anymore for even the dreaded liberals. Quote:
And, uh, the vietnam War in total went on for close to twenty years (including French involvement). Nearly 60,000 people died, and over 1 million Vietnamese. i know the Left loves to draw this comparison, but it's not quite there. The level of success we have had in Iraq in just three years is remarkable. I'm not going to address everything on your laundry list, and for a couple of reasons. One, I happen to agree with you on several of them. Secondly, I want to keep it on topic. If Lieberman were as loud, vigorous and demanding of attention as Kennedy in addition to his voting record, it would have been enough, obnoxious ass or otherwise. Quote:
"Until middle class Americans and those working hard to get into the middle class get their jobs back, the 3.5 million that they lost under Bush; until they begin to be able to afford their health insurance or get it back--2 million lost their health insurance under Bush; until they have some sense of ability to send their kids to college without coming out with an enormous burden of debt, then we don't have an economic recovery."-- Sen. Lieberman LINK * Voted against the horrible Bankruptcy Bill LINK "This is not a balanced bill. I voted against this bill because it failed to close troubling loopholes that protect wealthy debtors, and yet it deals harshly with average Americans facing unforeseen medical expenses or a sudden military deployment. The Senate simply rejected out of hand many worthwhile amendments that would have protected these and other working Americans who find themselves in dire financial straits through no fault of their own. As a result, I believe this is a seriously flawed bill and I am disappointed at its passage.” -- Sen. Lieberman * Voted against all of the Bush tax cuts LINK "I have come out for genuine tax reform, not only to protect the middle-class tax cuts that middle-class families did get in the last three years, but to pass a tax cut for 98% of the income tax payers and to pay for it by raising taxes on the [other] 2%. That may make some of the higher-income people unhappy, but it's the right thing to do for the middle class and for our economy." -- Sen. Lieberman LINK Quote:
Quote:
“The US can not drill its way out of this bind. Oil is a commodity that trades in a global market. Any modest amount of oil produced by new wells in the US would be merely a trickle in the stream of global production, and thus would not have any appreciable effect on the price we pay for oil.” “The only permanent solution to high fuel prices is to end our oil addiction. The Set America Free Act would do just that. What is more, in the process of making our cars, trucks, and busses more efficient and increasing the use of fuels derived from crops, the act would reduce greatly the amount of global warming pollution that our vehicles add to the atmosphere.” -- Sen. Lieberman * Voted against Bill Frist's Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 “I cannot vote for an enterprise that falsely suggests we can drill our way out of this energy crisis and that willfully ignores bipartisan solutions to our oil addiction,” said Lieberman. “This bill is a wasted opportunity and a disservice to the American people.” LINK *Supported raising CAFE standards "My 'Declaration of Energy Independence' calls for CAFE standards to be set at a level that will save 2 million barrels of oil per day by 2015. According to estimates provided during last year's energy debate, this would require CAFE standards to be raised to 40 miles per gallon. In addition, the fuel efficiency standards should apply to SUVs as well as to passenger automobiles."-- Sen. Lieberman LINK *Opposes drilling in Alaska LINK Quote:
Quote:
"The unemployment that continues to burden so many families is a grave reminder of how far we are from realizing our promise of hope to the proud people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast,” said Senator Lieberman. “Extending the limited federal unemployment assistance by13 weeks, just as we did after September 11th, is the least we can do to help these families still suffering from this terrible storm."-- Sen. Lieberman *Was one of the loudest critics of FEMA's incompetence, and helped draft a proposal to completely restructure the agency LINK "These failures of leadership and government cost lives and multiplied the anguish of the storm's survivors."-- Sen. lieberman Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But this isn't because the Democrats are so fucking wonderful, and have so many wonderful ideas to improve the miserable state of ohio. People disapprove of the government's performance, and it may be a throw-the-bums-out election this November. So, the Democrats have two options with that discontent, in my view. They can simply ride on it, campaign against those in power, and fight against the "culture of incumbency" that the DNC and the DFA types are pushing. That strategy will bite you in the ass, and there is a better way. Maybe, I dunno, they could piece together a national plan to protect America and improve things at home? Now, candidates runing against incumbent Republicans are of course doing this on their own, but where does the national agenda stand? Would you say it's a viable one with broad appeal, or is it one that simply latches on to discontent and runs with it? Quote:
Quote:
And the war on terrorism, or more specifically, Islamic extremism. What's your take on that? Is it a problem? Ar we even at war with a real threat, Mr. not on the fringe guy? I guess I couldn't blame you for not taking it terribly seriously, since even the leadership of the Democratic party like nancy Pelosi and John Kerry have also raised the question. |
|||||||||||||
| Aug 13th, 2006 01:02 PM | ||||||||||||||
| mburbank | Some prominent Democrats supported each candidate. | |||||||||||||
| Aug 11th, 2006 02:24 PM | ||||||||||||||
| Abcdxxxx | You're right. The Democrats FULLY supported him during the primary. Nothing undermining going on, nope. Think happy thoughts. | |||||||||||||
| Aug 11th, 2006 09:37 AM | ||||||||||||||
| mburbank |
Abcdxtrainenthusiast; The Democrat party 'oficially' did not retract their support until AFTER Lierberman lost. It would be damn odd to support his run as an independant after he lost as a Deomcrat. Prior to his loosing Bill Clinton, the last sitting Democratic president campaigned for him. |
|||||||||||||
| Aug 10th, 2006 09:19 PM | ||||||||||||||
| Courage the Cowardly Dog | i think the donkey pic represents the green party better. | |||||||||||||
| Aug 10th, 2006 08:43 PM | ||||||||||||||
| Abcdxxxx |
OKay Ziggy. If I'm a jerk with a hobby, at least I'm a jerk who has read books. What's your excuse? When I first started posting on this board I must have repeated a billion times to "get an education", or to "do the research yourself, don't take my word for it" in every post I made - I think it's pretty clear who took my advice. If you were qualified to refute the things you disagree with, you would, but instead you just resort to some 5th rate insults. Way to "derail the thread" and take this conversation off topic though. You bonehead. |
|||||||||||||
| Aug 10th, 2006 06:13 PM | ||||||||||||||
| ziggytrix |
Quote:
As far as anyone knows, you're just some jerk with a hobby, like some model train maker who drags people down to his basement to see his latest addition. But then what'd really make him a jerk is if he thought he was the only man in town who knew jack shit about trains. |
|||||||||||||
| Aug 10th, 2006 02:18 PM | ||||||||||||||
| mburbank |
Kev, you post a pic like that and what am I supposed to think but that your brain is watery? A hippie donkey with a flower and a peace t-shirt? You seriously think that sums up, even jokingly, what anybody except a handful of very fringy idiots think? That would be like me saying I think the Republicans are thinking of what's going on right now as the lead in to the rapture. Sure, a few do, but enough that it's worth thinking in terms of? "But the message must be sent that if you act out on those impulses violently, or if another state supports those actions, then you will be stopped" Fair enough. Not a bad message at all. But do you think that can ever actually be accomplished? I think that we should absolutely work dilligently toward that, but if that's your goal, then we are at war from now on, I think. I guess that's a legitimate way of looking at it. However, I think that if we are now in a permanent state of war, the President expecting expanded 'war powers' is very dangerous to our constitutional democracy. |
|||||||||||||
| Aug 10th, 2006 02:06 PM | ||||||||||||||
| Abcdxxxx |
Well, I'll use a little moral equivalency, since that's the language of love around this place and say that whitewashing the issue with the whole Islam is peace mantra is just as much of a disservive to Muslims as saying Islam if evil. Both mindsets are inaffectual responses. It's the( lack of) admission from moderates that will really make a difference in saving the world. If the Democrats want to swing further away from that moderate middle in order to reinvent their party it signals the intentional alienation of moderates on some issues - like the war on terror. Burbank - the topic is the Democratic Party officially retracting their support for one candidate. You're the loony fuck talking about their personal ideals for how they'd vote. At least I have an area of expertise. You just type a lot. |
|||||||||||||
| Aug 10th, 2006 01:25 PM | ||||||||||||||
| kahljorn |
Yea, I don't really know what to say beyond this. I mean: it would lapse into a sociological/psychological conversation on why people don't want to co-exist. Then somebody fills that hole in with, "ISLAM IS EVIL". Then beyond that it goes back into culture and culturizatization which is redundant of sociology anyway  I actually think the wars are going pretty good, as far as wars go. I agree that more could definitley be done- and some of the extremeties should be mediated- but regardless of that it is still progressive. These wars have been conducted very well, with not too many deaths. I think they are an improvement to past wars, but maybe I'm misinformed. |
|||||||||||||
| Aug 10th, 2006 01:02 PM | ||||||||||||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Perhaps just saying terrorism is too pc of me. I think the debate is between those who see vilent, radical Islam as a problem worth fighting, and those who just don't think it's a big deal (or worse, think it's all our fault that they hate us). This doesn't mean we need to kill all arabs, "stop islam", or whatever other ridiculous responses this discussion will result in. People can think and believewhatever they want. You wanna hate the West? Awesome. You don't like Jews? Super. But the message must be sent that if you act out on those impulses violently, or if another state supports those actions, then you will be stopped. Your freedom to be ignorant and hateful stops at my nose, so to speak. This is the crucial debate in my mind. I think this is what the Democrats are thinking: 
|
|||||||||||||
| Aug 10th, 2006 11:59 AM | ||||||||||||||
| kahljorn |
I guess that depends on how you define a terrorist. If you define a terrorist as a muslim who will kill themselves to kill others Americans and allies then someday there may be an end to terror!!!! If, however, you define a terrorist as someone(or a small group of people) dissatisfied with something trying to change it forcefully or by sabotage, then yes, we'll always have terrorism. One could even argue that force and sabotage are not necessary to be a terrorist, in which case terrorism becomes such a loose term it could even describe the american government(not that we don't create terror in other places forcefully because we are dissatisfied with something). If terrorism is simply a political term it becomes so ambiguous... it becomes a political tool, really. One that our government isn't guiltless in using, and I can't imagine any others that are guiltless either. "..is the person who has a "progressive" plan" Considering the word progressive means moving forward I think that would be a good trait for any president to have on any issue. Regardless of if the administration wants to stand still, the rest of the world still moves, you know? PS I've used this word in alot of exchanges with preechr and meant it in this light, exactly. I don't think liberals are the only ones who can be "Progressive" either. |
|||||||||||||
| Aug 10th, 2006 11:27 AM | ||||||||||||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Kahl, I would agree with you completely. I think voting against Republicans, or voting against a Democrat who is perceived to be too close to the Republicans, is sloppy and poorly informed democracy. I think the person who deserves votes, be them Democrat, Republican, or whatever, is the person who has a "progressive" plan (i mean that word in the literal sense, not the twisted, scared-to-call-myself-liberal sense) for how to deal with Iraq, as well as the overall war. I don't think this administration has handled this war perfectly, and as I've said before, I'd love to see a Democrat step in and handle it better. But right now what you have are Republicans who generally believe that the war on terror is a war we need to fight, and then you generally have Democrats who don't really seem so sure that terrorism is even something that exists (see John Kerry in '04, who argued that it was just something we'd always have to live with). Max, I'll answer your stuff later. |
|||||||||||||
| Aug 10th, 2006 11:06 AM | ||||||||||||||
| kahljorn |
Voting because you dislike a war or dislike a person is just as bad as voting for religion and "Morals". I mean, I've heard some people argue that the Clinton sex scandal is basically what gave Bush his 'in'. I don't know if morality was a big issue in the first bush election since I didn't pay much attention to it, but there you have a little bit of a connection if so. Voting reactionarily rather than reasonably could potentially cause us to have an even worse president than Bush. Bush isn't running for president again. not that I'm accusing you guys of being that stupid, I just thought I should throw it out there. |
|||||||||||||
| Aug 10th, 2006 10:34 AM | ||||||||||||||
| mburbank |
"My "theory" is pretty well supported by history. Show me a Democratic president in the 20th (I'll even grant you the 19th) who won national election based off of retreating and surrendering from a war." Thank god you found the upside to war! I'd missed it. Weren't you burbling about about concience for poor ol' joe a few posts back. What if, what if it turns out that the majority of Democrats, and good lord, maybe even the majority of americans thinks this war is wrong? And you don't have to win an election to end a war. McGovern lost in a land slide, but we go out of vietnam. Even if someone cpuld prove in advance that being against the war would mean loosing the election, I'd vbote for the anti war candidate. And I think a fair number of other voters might feel the same way. But I'll tell you what, I think getting out of Iraq may well turn out to be a winning idea, when combined with the gross incometence and corruption of the party in power. I don't have an ostrich policy. Show me a decent moral human being who'd agree with your rabid wolverine policy. don't mean anything much by that except to point out that when you define an oponents terms, you aren't arguing anymore. It's just a way of saying, okay, what person who's right woud be wrong like you are? In adittion, it ain't my policy on the 'war on terror' it's my ploicy on the war ion Iraq. I'm fine disagreeing with you, but hows about you let me decide what I disagree with you on, Johnny Sophist? Mcgovern lost an election. Nixon campaigned on 'staying the course' and ended up 'cutting and tunning' in Vietnam. Oh, and resigning in disgrace for petty crimes, which seems almost gentlemanly in light of current events. ""The way the country is going" is always a funny argument. i know you have this end of days thing going on, like today is the worst day America has ever seen, and look out for tomorrow! I know that plays well in partisan party politics, but it isn't in line with reality. " Worst gap between rich and poor since the robber barrons. Millions more people below the poverty line. A president who believes he stands above the law and that seperation of powers should be on hold for the duration of a war on terror which by deffinition can't end. Global energy supply in serious trouble. A VP who lobies for torture. A president who signns a statement on an anto torture bill reserving the right to torture. Medal of freedom for a guy who said WMD was a 'slam dunk'. An American city lost to a disatser. A head a Fema who's previous experience was as a horse judge. A presidential advisor on womens health issues who's previous medical experince was as a veteranarian. A strong probability that the President violated the law by spying on perople without a warrant, and no special prosecutor. Justice department lawyers who call the geneva covention 'quaint'. A president who when asked about the rapidly deteriorating situation in the middle east says he's only intereted in questions about the pig barbecue going on that night. A secretary of state who describes what's happening in Lebanon as 'birth pangs'. Pre-emptive war as foreign policy doctrine. I left my party, so it's hard for my viepoint to be 'partisan politics'. If you don't see all that as being the 'wrong direction', okay. I'm not enough of a history student to tell you how this comapres to other periods in American history. I do feel however it's in line with 'reality' to be concerned. I was unaware you held some sort of rights to defining reality. "I don't like a lot of things about the Republican dominated government. I don't believe we'll need to worry much more about that come November, which is why these primary purges are important to me." Why, Kev? Do you think the D's will win a house? Would you then be in favor of investigations, or would that not be 'in line with reality'? What IS your hope for November? That through calm disciplined bipartisan negotiation the Republican party will start playing nice with domestic stuff and the Democrats will realize that birth pangs can be great? "The only Democrats I honestly see offering domestic plans, as well as alternatives to fighting the war on terror, are the DLC/PPI types. They will be purged from the party though, so don't count on Daily Kos saving them." Okay, so, wait. The good dems are going to get purged. Which means either the blinded by Bush hatred lefty blogosphere dems get a house, which would be bad, or the Republicans would maintain control and while 'don't like a lot of things about the Republican dominated government', you also 'don't believe we'll need to worry much more about that come November'. I don't get it. Please clarify. And if I said I said the Liberman loss wasn't about Bush, I apologize. My contention is that it wasn't solely about the war in Iraq. It's all about W. But while I'll cop to personally hating W, I think you can be so against him for actual things he's actually done that you wouldn't want to vote for anyone who wasn't vigorously shouting that W is very, very, very, very bad for the country and the world. I strongly disagree with the President on every single issue I can think of. I want my representatives to represent that. If, as almost always, I'm forced to vote for the lesser evil, I will. But if and when I'm offered an alternative, I'll vote for it. All of which is moot in this case, as I'm not from Connecticut. |
|||||||||||||
| Aug 10th, 2006 09:44 AM | ||||||||||||||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
My "theory" is pretty well supported by history. Show me a Democratic president in the 20th (I'll even grant you the 19th) who won national election based off of retreating and surrendering from a war. Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter, and Clinton. Show me the one who would've supported your ostrich policy towards the war on terrorism, while they were president. (We all know it's really easy now for someone like Carter to say stupid shit with on consequences). How'd it work out for George McGovern? "The way the country is going" is always a funny argument. i know you have this end of days thing going on, like today is the worst day America has ever seen, and look out for tomorrow! I know that plays well in partisan party politics, but it isn't in line with reality. I don't like a lot of things about the Republican dominated government. I don't believe we'll need to worry much more about that come November, which is why these primary purges are important to me. If and when the Democrats take control of the Hill again in November, what is the alternative they offer other than Bush hatred? The Lieberman race was about Bush, period. You've thus far refused to prove otherwise. The only Democrats I honestly see offering domestic plans, as well as alternatives to fighting the war on terror, are the DLC/PPI types. They will be purged from the party though, so don't count on Daily Kos saving them. |
|||||||||||||
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||||||||||||||
