Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mburbank
Thank god you found the upside to war!
|
You're again twisting my words around. Try to stay on topic. You had accused me of speculating upon theory, and positing it as fct.
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:
|
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?
|
I have no doubt that an increasing number of Democrats feel this way. if you go back and read the first post, it's uh, sort of my primary concern.
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 you don't have to win an election to end a war. McGovern lost in a land slide, but we go out of vietnam.
|
Different for Democrats. This was the point I was getting at before.
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:
|
Worst gap between rich and poor since the robber barrons. Millions more people below the poverty line.
|
“An inappropriately low minimum wage has been a big part of the problem of ongoing working-family poverty for years. This bill insisted on an excessive estate tax give-away for a tiny handful of America's richest families as the price for raising the minimum wage for working families. No one who works for a living should have to suffer in poverty. Unfortunately, Republicans in Congress are more interested in repealing the estate tax benefiting the wealthiest Americans than helping working Americans make ends meet." -- Sen. Lieberman
LINK
"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:
|
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
|
“Frankly I’d prefer to spend our time on figuring out ways to bring this very important program of surveillance of potential terrorists here in the United States under the law…. I disagree with the Bush administration’s legal judgment on this one…. But this is a critically important program to the prevention of terrorist acts here in the United States.”-- Sen. Lieberman
LINK
Quote:
|
Global energy supply in serious trouble.
|
* co-sponsored the Enhanced Energy Security Act
LINK
“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:
|
A VP who lobies for torture. A president who signns a statement on an anto torture bill reserving the right to torture.
|
* Voted for the McCain anti-torture amendment
LINK
Quote:
|
An American city lost to a disatser. A head a Fema who's previous experience was as a horse judge.
|
* Co-sponsored the Katrina Emergency Assistance Act
LINK
"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:
|
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.
|
There are in fact some serious flaws in some of the issues you listed, but that's another discussion. I think others would read your list and take issue with some of your claims, too. But you seem to have it all figured out, but I won't fault you for it. With me it's arrogance, but when you do it, it's merely your ability to see the "wrong direction". Yes.
Quote:
|
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?
|
I've already stated my hope and/or prediction for the Fall, sniffles. I think it's very likely that the Dems will take at least one chamber. So my concern is this-- do they allow Bush hatred and politics to stifle American government? Do they propose a new, agressive vision for America both domestically and abroad, or do they becom the Do Nothing Congress? Do they focus on purging the party of dissent, attempting to form a solid isolationist bloc that prevents the government from winning the war on terror? Is there a war, Max? What plan do Democrats have for the disparity in wealth you brought up? Hmm?
Quote:
|
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.
|
The Democrats, if they win in November, won't win due to anything they've actually presened to American voters. You want a good case study for this election? Watch Ohio. Here is a conservative state that just marginally gave the president a win two years ago. Watch the shift that will happen there.
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:
|
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.
|
okay, so it isn't about the war, whichis really the one contentious issue facing Lieberman. It's really about his level of civility towards the president of our country....? isn't that, I dunno, sort of juvenile?
Quote:
|
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?
|
I wish you fringy types would prove me wrong. But every time there's a serious terrorist threat, you seem to question the need for urgency, without otherwise suggesting how the government
should prepare the public. i don't know that you've even gotten that far though, because to you it's all fear mongering, right?
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.
Linear Mode
