Connecticut

[theknife]

Originally Posted by albed

Your resistance to learning anything at all about Iraq is notable; 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

[Mazer]

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

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Mazer

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.

[albed]

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.

[multi]

Originally Posted by Mazer

What are you hoping to accomplish with this line of belligerant idiocy?

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.

[Nicobie]

Originally Posted by floydian slip

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

If U can't see to vote liberitian,

shame on U.

[theknife]

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:

Mr. Cheney...suggested in his remarks Wednesday that the outcome of a Democratic primary in Connecticut could embolden “Al Qaeda types.”

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.

Embarking on his re-election campaign as an Independent, Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman says the terror plot involving U.S. and U.K. airliners is an example of how his Democratic opponent, Ned Lamont, is out of touch with the real war on terror.

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?

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Aug. 8-9, 2006. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Thinking ahead to this November's elections, if the congressional election were held today, would you vote for the Democratic candidate in your district or the Republican candidate in your district?" [7/11-7/12 results in parenthesis]

Democrat: 48 (42)
Republican: 30 (34)
Unsure: 22 (25)

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:

"Weeks before September 11th, this is going to play big," said another White House official, who also spoke on condition of not being named, adding that some Democratic candidates won't "look as appealing" under the circumstances.

[albed]

Originally Posted by theknife

so why is a Connecticut Democratic primary in August so high on the White House radar screen?

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

Originally Posted by theknife

the White House is going well out of it's way...

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

Originally Posted by theknife

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.

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

Originally Posted by theknife

perhaps this Fox News poll is causing them some distress?

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

[theknife]

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

WALLACE: Mr. Lamont, does your victory show that at least some Americans are weakening in their will to fight the War on Terror?

LAMONT: No, I think on the contrary. What this election showed is that a lot of people in Connecticut think that the invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with our War on Terror. It's been a terrible distraction.

Here you are talking about the failed terrorist plot today. It originated in Pakistan, goes through London, and here we have 132,000 of our bravest troops stuck in the middle of a civil war in Iraq.

I think it was that disconnect that a lot of people focused on in Connecticut.

WALLACE: When Vice President Cheney said that your victory encourages the Al Qaeda types, did you find that offensive?

LAMONT: Yeah, I did find that offensive. I find that terribly harsh and wrong. Look, what's going to — what we ought to be doing is fighting the War on Terror in a serious way. I think we've gotten a little bit complacent, to tell you the truth. Maybe we've had a wake-up call in the last couple of days.

We ought to be focused on homeland security. We ought to be focused on our ports, on our airports and public transportation, a lot of which you were talking about here today.

We also are much stronger when we work in concert with our allies, when we have shared intelligence. And I think that we've taken our eye off the ball there a little bit, and I think it's time to focus.

WALLACE: Let's talk, though, about some of the weapons that President Bush authorized after 9/11 to fight the war on terror.

You say that the NSA warrantless wiretaps are illegal. You've called for President Bush to be censured because he allegedly broke the law. You also have been very critical of the Patriot Act.

Now that we've had word of the terror plots — and we know as we've been discussing today that Britain already has a lot of laws, legal tools that we don't — would you really take away some of the weapons we have now to fight terror?

LAMONT: No, it's not a question of taking away any laws. It's a question of having a president of the United States who follows the law. And if he wants to change some of the laws, if he thinks the FISA rulings were too slow and he needed some help, go back to Congress and change the laws, but don't do it unilaterally.

What I objected to was the fact that we had a president and some of his team that thought they were above the law, and then they said we'll fix the laws after the fact. I thought that was wrong.

WALLACE: You've also been critical of the Patriot Act. Are there some elements of that that you wish had not been passed?

LAMONT: Look, when it comes to the Patriot Act, again, I think it ought to be tightly drawn to respect our civil liberties but also give the American intelligence community all the tools they need to fight the War on Terror. And I think it's a careful balance we have to have there.

WALLACE: Is there any specific measure in the Patriot Act that's in there now that you would like to see taken out?

LAMONT: Well, certainly, there's been an awful lot of talk about going after librarians and seeing what books that, you know, Chris Wallace's kids are taking out and not taking out. That seemed to be casting a net a little too wide, that jeopardizes some of our liberties, sure.

WALLACE: Of course, your big issue is your opposition to the war in Iraq, and you've pointed it out again today. You think that it's a distraction from the War on Terror.

Last week you were asked the following, and let's put it up on the screen, what would you do right now if you were in the Senate about Iraq? Your answer, "I would have supported, you know, the Kerry-Feingold amendment which calls for pulling out all U.S. troops out of Iraq by next July.

Mr. Lamont, what do you think happens to Iraqis who trusted us to protect them from the insurgents? What do you think happens with all the sectarian violence if we pull all of our troops out in less than a year?

LAMONT: Look what's happening now. We've been there three years. We've gone from greeted as liberators to just a few dead-enders to some sectarian violence to civil war. You know, unlike Senator Lieberman, unlike President Bush, I think we've got to look at the facts on the ground.

Things are getting worse, and our very visible front-line presence is making the situation worse in many ways. So let's be clear with the Maliki government. Let's say we have no permanent intentions upon your military bases. We're going to not be here on a permanent basis. It's not unconditional. We're going to start bringing our troops home, and we ought to have them home within a year.

I think that's reasonable, gives them time, their 200,000 troops to step up. But it's a basic message. I mean, President Bush says we'll stand down as soon as the Iraqis stand up. I turn that on its head. I think the Iraqis won't stand up until we stand down.

So let's negotiate a phased withdrawal. Chris, we'll be there. We'll be there for humanitarian support. We'll be there for reconstruction. But now's the time to get the very American face off of this perceived occupation.

WALLACE: But the prime minister, al-Maliki, was here just recently and said we need U.S. troops to continue to be there. What if you're wrong, Mr. Lamont, Senator Lamont? What if you're wrong? You vote for this, to get them out, and there's a blood bath?

LAMONT: There is a blood bath. What if it keeps getting worse? What if it gets even worse? No, I don't think I want to have 132,000 troops back in the middle of a civil war. I think only the Iraqis will be able to solve this for themselves.

We'll be there for support. We've got our troops in Kuwait. We have our maritime presence. We'll make sure that Iran and others don't come in to create any mischief. But I think the big difference between the president and I, the senator and I, is I think it's now time for the Iraqis to step up and take control of their own destiny.

WALLACE: So under all circumstances, all troops out by next July.

LAMONT: I don't know about all circumstances whatever. But right now I think our policy ought to be let's be clear with the Maliki government. We're going to have our troops out within a year. We'll be there for reconstruction, training, everything else in the background. But yes, I think let's set the record straight.

WALLACE: This week you even linked the war in Iraq to what's going on in Israel. Take a look at this, if you will.

LAMONT: Sure.

WALLACE: This is what you had to say. "Hezbollah has been emboldened. They're attacking Israel. I think you can just look around the Middle East right now and you can see just the many factors of how this invasion of Iraq was a disaster."

Mr. Lamont, here's a brief history of Hezbollah, and let's put it up. In 1983, they bombed the U.S. embassy and the Marine barracks, killing 258 Americans.

In 1996, they helped the Iranians blow up the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 servicemen.

They have been at war with Israel for a quarter century. Can you really blame Hezbollah on the war in Iraq?

LAMONT: I'd say the war in Iraq has emboldened Iran. An emboldened Iran doesn't have its historical enemy, Iraq, right there, makes Israel more vulnerable. Iran, Syria, Hezbollah — there is a nexus there.

Yes, I think we've destabilized the Middle East and we've done nothing for Israel's security because of this.

WALLACE: And you think that this Hezbollah attack — you can link it to the fact that we're in Iraq?

LAMONT: Well, what I said was our invasion of Iraq has done nothing for Israel's security and has emboldened Iran. Absolutely.

[daddydirt]

Originally Posted by theknife

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%

[theknife]

Originally Posted by daddydirt

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?

[Repo]

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...

[albed]

Originally Posted by Repo

change is good...

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

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by Repo

Maybe the extremes in both parties are taking over or it is a referendum on the president...

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.

[theknife]

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.

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.

[Mazer]

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.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Mazer

However, I can't concieve how Connecticut's nominaiton of Lamont could possibly be considered moderation on the part of Democrats there.

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.

Originally Posted by Mazer

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Mazer

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.

let's indulge your inevitably personal finale here: you're on - what is my "far left" position on which issues?

[Mazer]

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.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Mazer

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.

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.

[Mazer]

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.