Connecticut
 

anybody else watching the Lamont-Lieberman showdown? Lamont was a nobody 6 months ago and now is on the verge of taking out one of the pillars of the Democratic party - as well he should. Lieberman is a textbook example of the kind of Dem who oughta be tossed out for 5 years of letting the GOP walk all over him.

the prospect of a Lamont victory has the political establishment of both parties scared shitless. Lieberman has the whole Dem establishment and many GOP heavies (which, of course, is part of his political problem) rooting for him, but if Lamont pulls it out, it will send a couple of strong messages to the entire political establishment:

1) ending the occupation of Iraq is a viable and resonant political message for 2006.(this should be a no-brainer, with some 55% of the population supporting withdrawal, but establishment Dems have been weenies up to this point.)
2) online political activism is maturing and becoming a significant player in the political process, which by defnition, means a weakening of the power of the party establishments.

the Lamont candidacy is democracy with a small d - the way it should be.

It's actually just a repetition of the same self-deluded irrationality the dems have been exhibiting for years - "We're not losing because we're wrong but because our party is contaminated by impure members who aren't liberal enough and must be expunged."

the talking heads and pundits (left and right) have been peddling this meme for the last few weeks - since they're terrified of the alternative scenario: Connecticut voters are just fed up with the direction of the country and Lieberman is the first, but by no means the last, victim of this sentiment.

It's politics knife, get your adrenal gland out of hyperdrive, we normal people don't overreact like that.

Seems your kind doesn't like the direction and just want yank the steering wheel without any further thinking. Typical.

If the dems keep getting more radical they'll become even less appealing to sane americans. It's seems evident that the conservative dems were the ones winning elections in the last cycle.

So kick them out. :tu:

an excellent suggestion, since thier views do not represent those of mainstream Americans.

since most Americans disapprove of Bush, think the Iraq war was a mistake, favor withdrawal within the next 12 months, and generally think the country is headed in the wrong direction, then mainstream America is "radical". so be it. let them vote accordingly.

Lieberman need to be ousted since he did claim he had greater alligence to some other agenda than his own party. That guy is a Zionist period, no wonder he support Bush views in this whole mess and I have no doubt that he would be jubilant with joy if the Dems did indeed split up, old age tactic, divide and conquer.

Is ann coulter albed's mother?

Good question RD!

Three-term Sen. Joe Lieberman fell to anti-war challenger Ned Lamont in Connecticut's Democratic primary Tuesday, a race seen as a harbinger of sentiment over a conflict that has claimed the lives of more than 2,500 U.S. troops.

Unbowed, Lieberman immediately announced he would enter the fall campaign as an independent. Only six years ago, Lieberman was the Democrats' choice for vice president.

"As I see it, in this campaign we just finished the first half and the Lamont team is ahead. But, in the second half, our team, Team Connecticut, is going to surge forward to victory in November," Lieberman said after congratulating Lamont.

Lamont, a millionaire with virtually no political experience, ran on his opposition to the Iraq war. He led with 52 percent of the vote, or 144,005, to 48 percent for Lieberman, with 134,026, with 98 percent of precincts reporting.

"They call Connecticut the land of steady habits," a jubilant Lamont told cheering reporters. "Tonight we voted for a big change."

Lieberman's loss made him only the fourth incumbent senator to lose a primary since 1980.

Turnout was projected at twice the norm for a primary.

Link

Video

Who^ dont get fooled again??
 

good ridance, although he said he would run again as an independent

i sure hope americans can wake up and see through this repuglicant / democrap bullshit and not just vote for a party, anyone affiliated with the CFR, Bilderbergs, Tri-Laterals, WTO, IMF ect. need to be voted out. That is if diebold allows it ;)

Since when was the government meant to represent only the views of "mainstream" Americans?

Define mainstream Americans. Such a group never existed before polls showed that a majority of Americans agreed with your "Get out of Dodge" opinions, isn't that true?

At this moment I agree with floyd. We need something like a 7 party system, just for a little while to teach us all how damaging political party affiliations really are.

Most "mainstream americans" probably couldn't find the mid-east on a map and their knowledge of history ends with the Beatles era, so why in the fuck should they be running U.S. foreign policy? They just squawk what the parrots around them squawk and all the democrats ever do is start them squawking against republicans without even trying to provide their own coherent plan or even a qualified candidate. Lamont is just another peabrain squawker without a clue and putting him into office will make Connecticut a laughingstock.

Leiberman lost because, like the administration, his stand on key issues no longer makes sense. Connecticut voters clearly don't mind putting a political novice into play when the "experts" are determined to cling to failed policies. perhaps there's a lesson in there for you two as well.

Yep.

Let us not vote for any incumbents.

There you go again with your 'doesn't make sense' squawk, what the fuck doesn't make sense about making Iraq a liberal democracy? Do you think people are better off being repressed by facism? Then why aren't you moving to Saudi Arabia? What does make sense to liberals anyway? Try coming up with a strategic vision that makes sense in today's world. I haven't heard a single fucking thing from the left as to how they'd run world affairs. Their only concern is grabbing power for themselves by inciting the moronic masses.

because it can't be done by the US militarily. got it?

The U.S. military ended nazism in Germany and facism in Japan and made them liberal democracies. Why can't it be done again? ...ummm Panama too.




Next stupid bullshit statement...

The U.S. military ended nazism in Germany and facism in Japan and made them liberal democracies. Why can't it be done again? ...ummm Panama too.


yep, pretty stupid and complete bullshit.

you don't know much about recent history, do you?

ok, i'm off today - i can play with you for a bit

it can't be done again because iraq is not germany or japan. um, haven't we done this before? oh yeah, there it is: it's been a year since that post and over three years since the Prez declared "mission accomplished" and "the end of major combat operations". by 1948, were the streets of Berlin or Tokyo a civil war zone, with most major government functions barely operational, and 50-100 people getting killed every day (not to mention an ongoing US body count)?

Oh yeah, and Germany wasn't Japan and Japan wasn't Germany so it couldn't be done at all. That makes perfect sense in a warped, liberal kind of way.



http://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/...ad.php?t=21838




Your resistance to learning anything at all about Iraq is notable; but how else could you cling to your ignorant, bigoted views?

it's easy to cling to my ignorant, bigoted views of iraq - because they've been generally accurate :tu:

Now knife, you're just pushing albed's buttons. What are you hoping to accomplish with this line of belligerant idiocy?

you're new around here, aren't you? go back and read, say, just about every thread in this forum, then come back and tell me who the belligerent idiot is around here.

Oh come on knife...we know perfectly well everything you say about Iraq here is completely false - advanced, industrialized, educated, and holding free elections - twice now.

So in this thread you're just adding belligerent idiocy to your ignorant bigotry.

Of course only idiots could foresee something as unimaginable as an impending civil war in Iraq , how fucking ignorant can people be ? Oh wait..now we have Lebenon to occupy the tiny brain spaces of the conservative mind.

Stay tuned as bunches of eager christians team up with gutter mouthed atheist republicans and boatloads of jews to scream 'arab lover' and 'anti-semite'
any time anybody says anything against the current administration.

Yippie i A
 

If U can't see to vote liberitian,

shame on U.

so why is a Connecticut Democratic primary in August so high on the White House radar screen? the White House is going well out of it's way to trash Lamont, with the VP even holding a highly unusual teleconference with reporters:
from the begninning, Cheney and the rest of the GOP have sought to blur the war in Iraq with the war on terror - it obviously worries them that the voters are no longer buying this. Lieberman et al pounced on the news of the airline terror plot that was announced yesterday and attempted to tie it into his loss to Lamont on Tuesday.
this is patently silly - Connecticut voters knew on Tuesday that the iraq war has little connection to the war on terror, and a plot in London, hatched by Brits with Pakistani connections, announced on Wednesday, doesn't make one. but at this point, Lieberman is using the Karl Rove playbook and he's looks a little desperate. in fact, so does the White House - perhaps this Fox News poll is causing them some distress?
an 18 point spread preferring the Dem candidate is pretty big - no doubt it will tighten considerably before November, but it still must causing the GOP some anxiety. the Lamont victory is being taken as a sign of general disgust with the incumbent by the voters, and the White House is forced to go back the only card they really have left to play - the terror card. they don't have a lot of choice here - if the Dems take back Congress, they're fucked and they know it.

edit: this is pretty crass, even by White House standards:

They don't want Lamont to win the election....duh.


It's a republican thing knife, not the white house.


Wow, you could almost suspect that Lieberman doesn't want a Lamont win either. This political stuff must have you baffled.


Hmmm, a poll predicting a republican loss... why does that sound so familiar?

Lamont on Fox News Sunday...it's not hard to see why he connects with Connecticut voters:

Connecticut Senate: Two Days After Primary, Lieberman Ahead by 5

Survey of 500 Likely Voters
August 9-10, 2006

Election 2006: Connecticut Senate
Joseph Lieberman (I) 46%
Ned Lamont (D) 41%
Alan Schlesinger (R) 6%

yup, i saw that...be interesting to see how that holds up over the next few months. any predictions?

Three-term incumbent Sen. Joe Lieberman lost in the Democratic primary to as the media like to call him, the antiwar candidate Ned Lamont. Some would portray Lamont's victory as a sign that the Democratic Party has moved farther to the left. I would make the point that it is not the Democrats that have moved farther to the left but Lieberman that has moved farther to the right. Lieberman has always been in favor of school vouchers, a Republican plan to give public money to private schools. Like many of his former party he voted for the Iraq War but unlike many in his former party he agrees with President Bush to stay the present course even as current conditions in Iraq worsen. Those are issues that you can give some leeway to as far as bipartisanship goes. But and it is a big but, Joe Lieberman sided with the conservative Republicans on the Terri Schiavo legislation to prevent a doctor from doing what a doctor and the state felt was appropriate, letting a brain dead person die. That proves Lieberman has shifted to the right, whether he sees it or not, the Democratic Connecticut primary voters saw it and removed him. Bush publicly kissed Joe Lieberman on the cheek because he knew he could depend on Lieberman. Connecticut Democrats symbolically told Lieberman he could kiss a cheek a little lower down the body. Losing the Democratic primary didn't stop Lieberman he immediately started his campaign as an independent candidate. Not exactly what one would expect from the last vice presidential candidate, too have total disregard for the democratic process and run against the people's choice for his senate seat. Joe Lieberman is the new Zell Miller, a Republican pretending to be a Democrat. Joe Lieberman has gone from a man one could respect to an angry, bitter man trying to cling to power, it's pathetic really...

Republicans are trying to spin Lieberman's loss into a positive for themselves. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said, "I know a lot of people have tried to make this a referendum on the president; I would flip it, I think instead it's a defining moment for the Democratic Party, whose national leaders now have made it clear that if you disagree with the extreme left in their party they're going to come after you." That is a very interesting comment. Consider the following and then reread Snow's comment...

As it turns out Joe Lieberman wasn't the only incumbent to lose his primary. Republican Rep. Joe Schwarz also lost. Schwarz is a moderate; he lost to ultraconservative Tim Walberg, who was supported by the Michigan Right to Life and the conservative Club for Growth. There is one common element between Joe Lieberman and Joe Schwarz other than their first name, they both supported Bush's Iraq War, and Schwarz was even endorsed by Bush and Sen. John McCain. Tony Snow is vilifying the Democratic Party's national leaders for supporting the winner of the Democratic Party primary. Lieberman is now not just a disgruntled former Democrat but a stooge for the Republican Party. By running an independent campaign against the Democratic Party primary winner he is hurting the party that would have made him vice president in a selfish power grab that only helps the Republican Party. Joe Lieberman will be now known as a sore loser and a disgraceful politician...

As mentioned, Tony Snow said, "I know a lot of people have tried to make this a referendum on the president; I would flip it, I think instead it's a defining moment for the Democratic Party, whose national leaders now have made it clear that if you disagree with the extreme left in their party they're going to come after you." Lets flip it again. The president endorsed Joe Schwarz and Joe Schwarz lost. Schwarz supported abortion rights and embryonic stem cell research. It may be a defining moment for the Republican Party because it is clear that if you disagree with the extreme right in their party they're going to come after you. Of course I am using Tony Snow's words to show that one could spin Schwarz' loss just as easy as Snow spins Lieberman' loss for his party. One thing that is clear is that both Joes, Lieberman and Schwarz were linked to Bush and both lost. Maybe the extremes in both parties are taking over or it is a referendum on the president, the public being tired of a failed Bush Administration and want change. Either way, change is coming and change is good...

What applies to your diapers doesn't automatically apply to everything.

I think it's both. Since Clinton's impeachment we've seen the two major parties become more and more extreme in their platforms. Both parties understand that when it comes to nominating a presidential candidate they have to choose moderates from within their respective parties, and that explains why the last two elections have been so evenly split. But in local districts they're nominating more extreme candidates. For the past decade votes in Congress have almost always broken down along party lines, and both houses are so self-involved that they don't notice what the president is doing unless they have a politically expedient reason to do so. The extreme right indicts Bush for not being a neo-conservative, while the extreme left indicts Bush for employing neocons in his administration. Both extremes are consolidating their power and both are using Bush as their whipping boy.

i think it's more a referendum on the war, and then by extension, a referendum on the Prez. far from the "moving to the extreme", the country shows signs of moving to the center. Lamont's victory reflects this, since his views on the iraq war are in agreement with most of the American public, as evidenced by recent polling data. also, look at Georgia last week, where far left wing-nut incumbent Cynthia McKinney got righteously trashed (59%-41%) by a moderate Democrat - no extremist movement there. this summer , we have also seen rejection of ID-promoting school boards and support for stem-cell research legislation - additional rejection of extremist positions.

normally, primary campaigns tend to sound extreme because they are designed to appeal to single-issue voters and party die-hards - usually the only ones who turn out to vote in primaries. but the Connecticut Democratic primary had an record-breaking 46% turn-out...unheard-of for an August primary. these numbers suggest that it may be the center, not the fringe, who are driving the electorate.

If that's the case, knife, then I hope to see more of it. I was about to say that the reason that extremists seem to be increasing in numbers is because voter turnout is low, and the only people who bother are the ones with extreme views. The silent majority are apathetic, especially during primaries, and the result is sharp division among our leaders in Washington. However, I can't concieve how Connecticut's nominaiton of Lamont could possibly be considered moderation on the part of Democrats there. They nominated a man who is more liberal than Leiberman, not less, and what happened there was preciesly the opposite of what happened in Georgia.

Populism and moderation are not necessarily the same thing. The promotion of stem cell research and the banning of ID curriculua in public schools are examples of popular opinions, but you ought to understand that many people still consider those policies to be extreme measures. (I myself think science should be left to the scientists and politicians shouldn't be allowed to interfere. If people want to teach ID in their own school districts, let them. If the corpses of unborn babies have already been harvested for stem cells, let scientists use them.) Don't pretend to be a moderate just because in the past year a majority of Americans have begun to agree with your opposition to the war. The war isn't the only issue people care about, and you're still far left of the majority of Americans on most issues.

it's quite simple: Lieberman went right - not just on Iraq, but on the Terry Schiavo case and the Alito nomination. therefore, Lamont's positions became more attractive to the Democratic moderates.
sure - "many people" on the extreme right. but the ID issue was particularly telling because that issue was decided directly by the voters. that's moderate popular opinion, as held by the majority of voters.
let's indulge your inevitably personal finale here: you're on - what is my "far left" position on which issues?

You're asking me to tell you what you believe so you can tell me that I have no clue what your personal beliefs really are. knife, you don't need to trap me to persuade me that I may be wrong. But what I can tell about you, without naming specific political issues, is that you honestly believe that the slim majority of voters who chose Bush the last time around are either stupid or evil. And now that some of those voters have gradually begun to question their choices, you wish in your heart of hearts that the presidential election were being held now rather than two years ago. I'm telling you that sharing the popular opinion is not what makes one a moderate; the fact that the majority of Americans are curently moderate is only coincidence. Give us a couple more decades of the one-issue politics we're witnessing now and extremists on both sides will become the majority. It is your predictability that betrays your left-wing beliefs, knife. On every issue that comes up in this forum we all know before ever reading your posts what position you're going to take because you always take the progressive or the Democratic position. Take that as a compliment if you like, be proud that you're not a moderate. But don't try to tell me that when the majority of Americans move left of center that it means Democrats are becoming moderate. It only means that more Americans are becoming more extreme in their political views, and that doesn't bode well for this country.

you don't have to tell me what i believe - you can quote me. if you'd like to illustrate my many beliefs that are far left of most Americans, use the search function. but if you look carefully, you will find my position is largely that the Republicans have governed so very badly over the past six years that they have managed to make the Democrats look attractive in comparison. you're an idealogue, so it's understandable if you can't make that distinction. i am not - so if the Dems regain power in November, then my position is subject to change. :W:

So you're saying that because Republicans are making Democrats look like moderates by comparison that means the Democrats are actually becoming moderates? I can believe that the fence riders are starting to lean left, but that doesn't mean that the Dems will lean right to meet them in the middle. The core constituency of both parties are perfectly matched, so in this election year the Dems will make populist campaign promises to win the moderates. But after they increase their seats in Congress, possibly taking contol, you won't see them pandering to the middle anymore.

I look at both parties and I see politicians among both of them doing what they do best, acting selfish and playing games. You look at both parties and you think one of them is better or less evil than the other. It isn't; they're both equally bad and the current system sucks. That's my ideology. The reason I can't make a distiction between Democrats and Republicans is becasue there is no distincion. In the end I vote Republican, not because I have any delusions that they actually care what I think, but because the occasional tax cut is part of their political strategy, and it's the only benefit I recieve from the games they play on Capitol Hill.

oh my
 

from today's NYT:darn White House and their ignorant, bigoted views.

I'm just curious, knife, but I wanna ask you what you think is the difference between westerners and middle easterners that makes us capable of fostering liberal democracies and them incapable of doing the same, considering it was the Muslims who preserved through the dark ages the history and writings of the classical philosophers who created democracy and republics. Is it something in the water?

well, i have no idea what the Muslims preserved centuries ago about democracy and republics, but if so, they have clearly chosen to live otherwise.

i suppose your question is a rhetorical device to showcase this bit of trivia, but i'll answer it anyway: at some point in a society that evolves into a republic or democracy, a people have to decide to put aside tribal and religious affiliations as thier primary allegiances in favor of allegiance to a common government. for whatever reason (and obviously there are many complex reasons why), most of the Middle East has not done that yet.

that's thier choice as a people and i take no issue with that - we're all responsible for our own destiny. i take issue with our decision to attempt to force them, by military occupation, to choose otherwise. i regard it as an unwise and impractical use of my country's limited resources.

It was not a rhetorical question, and thanks for answering. :)

I came across an article called Christianity, Islam, and Science today. Together with Wikipedia's article on the Islamic Golden Age it paints a picture of a Muslim world that could have entered into it's own Renaissance centuries before Europe, had circumstances been a little different. Muslims are demonstrably capable of practicing national-scale democracy, but it's only been in the last century that they've had the opportunity to try. Your doubts that military action will make them more liberal are reasonable, but your doubts that they are simply incapable of self governance probably aren't.

i don't think i ever said they are incapable of self-governance, per se, and if i did, it was a poor choice of words on my part. what i think said is that, under the current social structure of muslim society, they are incapable of Jeffersonian-style democracy.

edit: btw, i've also read that muslim society had produced many great leaps of scientific, technological, and intellectual advancement in it's heyday - obviously the potential is, or was, there for further greatness. what happened along the way to derail that progress, i have no idea, but i would suspect that it had something to do with the introduction of great oil wealth into the culture, and the subsequent consolidation of that wealth into the hands of particular groups (just a guess on my part,with no data to back it up). at any rate, here we are.