Why the Left Is Furious at Lieberman; Iraq is only a part

dyslexia wrote:

actually Possum the only thing that counts is that in a Democrat Party primary Lieberman lost. Can you comprehend that?

By defeating Lieberman, the Democrats may end up being the loser. Can you comprehend that? That remains to be seen of course, but if Lieberman wins as an Independent, the Democrats end up with one less member in the Senate.

0 Replies

Perhaps, I have not been keeping up on my studies of the voting process.I was always under the impression that a "PRIMARY" was utilized in our electoral system to select CONTENDERS that would battle for the ELECTION which would then decide who would be the President, Senator, Representative, etc.

Therefore, at this time, BEFORE THE ELECTION---

In this Lieberman thread there is only ONE thing that really counts:

Rasmussen Reports_______

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

Lieberman 46%, Lamont 41%
August 12, 2006

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Perhaps, I have not been keeping up on my studies of the voting process.I was always under the impression that a "PRIMARY" was utilized in our electoral system to select CONTENDERS that would battle for the ELECTION which would then decide who would be the President, Senator, Representative, etc.

Therefore, at this time, BEFORE THE ELECTION---

In this Lieberman thread there is only ONE thing that really counts:

Rasmussen Reports_______

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

Lieberman 46%, Lamont 41%
August 12, 2006

You wish...

0 Replies

okie wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
actually Possum the only thing that counts is that in a Democrat Party primary Lieberman lost. Can you comprehend that?

By defeating Lieberman, the Democrats may end up being the loser. Can you comprehend that? That remains to be seen of course, but if Lieberman wins as an Independent, the Democrats end up with one less member in the Senate.

Yeah so that's the way it works in our democratic republic, the party chooses it's candidate and takes their chances, you seem to have a problem with that okie, any particular reason? Once upon a time the republicans chose Goldwater and he lost by a HUGE margin, they ended up being the loser, so what? Okie are you a closet communist? Can you comprehend anything?

0 Replies

What makes you think I have a problem with it? I am not a Democrat, so if they lose another seat in the Senate, all the better.

I was pulling for Goldwater when he ran. But of course, the great LBJ won in a landslide. Some of us remember clearly LBJ's tv ad showing the little girl walking in a field of daisies, next picture a mushroom cloud, insinuation was Goldwater was a dangerous war monger. The rest is history.

Closet communist, dyslexia? Are you okay?

By the way, I recall you liked Goldwater? If that is correct, how in the world did you get from there to where you are today, politically? It doesn't make sense.

0 Replies

There is no one who can compare the Goldwater candidacy as a presidential Candidate with the Senatorial candidacy of Senator Lieberman.

GOLDWATER never led Johnson in any poll at any time!!!

Goldwater was steamrollered by Johnson. 61% to 38% in the election of 1964.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

What makes you think I have a problem with it? I am not a Democrat, so if they lose another seat in the Senate, all the better.

I was pulling for Goldwater when he ran. But of course, the great LBJ won in a landslide. Some of us remember clearly LBJ's tv ad showing the little girl walking in a field of daisies, next picture a mushroom cloud, insinuation was Goldwater was a dangerous war monger. The rest is history.

Closet communist, dyslexia? Are you okay?

Some of us also remember clearly that those commercials dealt with reality; that the U.S.S.R. had nukes, and could very well possibly use them. There was no denying that the former Soviet Union was loaded for bear. Also, I don't remember LBJ ATTACKING the Soviet Union, either.

Then there's the pathetic Bush, who in his argument to invade Iraq, bullshitted that "we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." We then invaded only Irag, only to find out that Saddam was toothless.

Why do conservatives endlessly find the most ridiculous anologies in which to further their points? LBJ a war mongerer? You'd have a better argument if you used Vietnam rather than the former Soviet Union in your comparison. But then we'd have to harken back to Iraq, and Bush's failed policies once again.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

What makes you think I have a problem with it? I am not a Democrat, so if they lose another seat in the Senate, all the better.

I was pulling for Goldwater when he ran. But of course, the great LBJ won in a landslide. Some of us remember clearly LBJ's tv ad showing the little girl walking in a field of daisies, next picture a mushroom cloud, insinuation was Goldwater was a dangerous war monger. The rest is history.

Closet communist, dyslexia? Are you okay?

By the way, I recall you liked Goldwater? If that is correct, how in the world did you get from there to where you are today, politically? It doesn't make sense.

Goldwater was honest, most likely the last honest republican presidential candidate, makes sense to me. But that's ok Okie I understand you would prefer a dishonest republican to an honest anyone else.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Two Days After Primary, Lieberman Ahead by 5

Lieberman 46%, Lamont 41%
August 12, 2006

Since the Democratic primary is over, what really counts is the polls for the ballot. I remember somebody posting a poll showing that it's basically a two-way race between Lieberman and Lamont, where Lieberman has a pretty solid lead and the Republican receives but a few token percentage points. I was trying to find the source so I can post a a link, but somehow I don't manage to. Does anyone remember where this poll came from?

0 Replies

Here are a few things Joe Lieberman could do if he wishes to renew his standing as a Democrat:

1. Campaign with your fellow Democrats for Connecticut's House seats. That means campaigning against your good buddies Shays, Simmons, and Johnson. You've talked about how Lamont's candidacy hurts those downticket races, so here's your chance to save the day. Campaign for Joe Courtney, Diane Farrell, and Chris Murphy.

2. Pledge now that you will vote for Harry Reid for Senate Leader if the good people of Connecticut choose to send you back to Washington.

3. Stop being the tool of the GOP by demanding that they stop using your race as a talking point.

4. Stop the divisiveness, charges of anti-Semitism, and race-baiting that your spokesperson Dan Gerstein promotes. Fire Dan Gerstein.

But I seriously doubt that's gonna happen, because:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14334681/page/2/

Quote:

A Republican campaign fund-raiser based in Washington, who spoke on condition that he not be identified by name, said, "There's a definite sense among a significant number of the Republicans who I deal with that Joe Lieberman is a man of principle and a man we should support." This fund-raiser said he'll contribute money to Lieberman's campaign and raise money for him.

If Joe were to accept this money, and not follow the suggestions from above, then he is a worse piece of **** than I could ever have possibly imagined. And he will be a traitor to this party. Imagine if the tables were turned. Imgine if Chuck Hagel was in a similar position, but was supported by Demorats because of his anti-war stance regarding Iraq. Republicans would have a field day.

Republicans in every shape and form are going to endorse Joe Liberman, a DEMOCRAT.

And perhaps those who insist on referring to the poll showing Lieberman ahead in a 3-way race should consider that Lamont was a nobody back in February. And the trend continues. Joe Lieberman will be burned at the stake by his own party, and the damage he will have incurred will force him to become a Republican. Assuming, of course, that he stays in the race and actually wins the general election come November.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Goldwater was honest, most likely the last honest republican presidential candidate, makes sense to me. But that's ok Okie I understand you would prefer a dishonest republican to an honest anyone else.

Implying what, that Democrats are honest, dyslexia? You must live a sheltered life in Wolf Hole is all I gotta say about that. Wow! Which still does not explain your allegiance to Goldwater and apparently Democrats now. It can't be based on honesty. And as far as the politics, it still does not add up. This after enduring the biggest bunch of lying crooks ever to inhabit the administration through the 90's.

0 Replies

Thomas- Try Rasmussen Reports for a poll on Lieberman at this time!!!

Here it is and the most interesting part of it is in the details_-

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

Lieberman 46%, Lamont 41%
August 12, 2006

Senator Joseph Lieberman Senator Joe Lieberman's decision to run as an Independent sets up a lively campaign season for Connecticut voters. In the first General Election poll since Ned Lamont defeated Lieberman in the Connecticut primary, the incumbent is hanging on to a five percentage point lead. Lieberman earns support from 46% of Connecticut voters while Lamont is the choice of 41% (see crosstabs).

A month ago, the candidates were tied at 40% each.

Republican Alan Schlesinger earns just 6% of the vote, down from 13% a month ago.

Nationally, interest in the race has been strong among political junkies but modest among the general public. Most (57%) Americans have no opinion about Lamont. However, Democratic strategists may have cause for concern about perceptions of Lamont among independent and unaffiliated Americans.

In Connecticut, 57% of the state's voters view Lieberman as politically moderate while 51% see Lamont as liberal.

Half (52%) of Lamont voters believe Bush should be impeached and removed from office. Just 15% of Lieberman voters share that view.

Overall, 55% of Connecticut voters trust Lieberman more than Lamont when it comes to the War on Terror. Thirty-one percent (31%) trust Lamont.

Thirty-one percent (31%) have a Very Favorable opinion of Lieberman, 18% Very Unfavorable.

For Lamont, the numbers are 19% Very Favorable, 23% Very Unfavorable.

Lieberman still attracts 35% of votes from Democrats. Lamont will have to find a way to trim that number without alienating unaffiliated voters. Lieberman is viewed at least somewhat favorably by 65% of unaffiliated voters compared to 49% for Lamont.

************************************************************

LIEBERMAN STILL ATTRACTS 35% OF VOTES FROM DEMOCRATS AND IS VIEWED AT LEAST SOMEWHAT FAVORABLY BY 65% OF UNAFFILIATED VOTERS.

That, Thomas, if true, is highly significant!!!

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
That you are not calling for Lieberman to be jailed does not mean your way of thinking is not dangerous.

Glad to see you Republicans are not getting carried away with yourselves.

I'm simply saying that the voters should take into account the fact that when Lieberman won primary after primary in the Democratic Party, the loser congratulated him and threw his support to him in the general election. But then, when it was Lieberman's turn to lose, he refuses to do the same.

As Edgar Blythe pointed out, it's like the kid in the neighborhood who tells the other kids, "I'll play with you as long as I win. As soon as I start to lose, I'm taking my ball and going home."

Such a youngster is referred to as a "stinky kid" by the other youngsters in the neighborhood. But when Lieberman acts like a stinky kid toward his party and is called on it, Finn tells us that kind of "thinking is dangerous"!

So it's gotten to the point that we can't call a stinky kid a stinky kid? Sorry, Finn, but I and the other Democrats refuse to submit to your totalitariansim. A stinky kid is a stinky kid, and Lieberman is acting like a stinky kid. And the voters would be well advised to take that into account in November. Whether Finn and his ilk decide to let them do so or not.

Totalitarianism? Now who is getting carried away?

If it makes you feel better to call someone (anyone) a "stinky kid," then have at it.

You are, of course, free to think however you wish, but your thinking regarding the relative power of party versus candidate would be dangerous if it should spread to others.

No ideological platform is capable of or has ever been capable of totally transcending the individual. Ultimately the will of an individual or a small group of individuals transcend the ideology and seize it as a means to their own personal ends. The degree to which a system based on an ideological platform requires conformity of thought and action only aids the transcendent individual(s) to impose his will.

Communism has never existed outside of treatises and coffee house debates. Instead we have been presented with Maoism, Stalinism, Castronistas etc.

Sublimation to a Party is sublimation to the individuals who control that party.

This is the inherent flaw in religions as well, but ironically, you and "your ilk" seem incapable of drawing the connection between religion and ideological movements.

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

This reporter misses the point, too:

It's exactly BECAUSE Democrats currently in DC have gone along with every failed policy that the voters are angry. There's been no no backbone among Democrats. There's no "bipartisan cooperation." It's just been let 'em do whatever they want even when it means majorly screwing the country / citizens.

There's been no bipartisan agreement on bills over the past 6 years. For it to be bipartisan, each side would have to make concessions and reach a middle ground. All of the "give" has been by the woosey Democrats.

What is this "stalemate polarization?" Not in DC where the Democrats have been letting the stinky kid cheat and claim to win fair and square when it's THEIR ball.

Where has this reporter been since 2000? Obviously, he hasn't been paying attention. Either that, or the Republican talking points delivered to his laptop indicated he needed to paint the current DC situation as one of cooperation, (see how nicely we play together? Please don't send any one here that might upset the apple cart) when it's clearly Republicans running roughshod through the streets of DC doing any damn thing they please.

No, the voters in Connecticut do not want the kind of bipartisanship we've been seeing. And, neither do the majority of Americans. One party rule, by majority seats or by having one party allow themselves to be trampled, is not representative of the populace nor is it good for the country.

That's what the politicians better figure out.

The reporter may miss your point, but he has a legitimate one of his own.

You are not advocating bi-partisanship of any sort other than that of Democrats having their way. That's fine, but call it what is is.

The Democrats are currently the minority party, and cannot expect to wield an equal share of power with the Republicans if for no other reason than they will never cede an equal share of governance to the Republicans should they assume a majority position in the government.

Presidential candidates (who win) run on centrist themes. What they do when they come into power is often something else, not necessarily because they have lied to the electorate during their candidacy, but because they cannot ignore the activist bases of their parties.

All this partisan squabbling and tension is ugly and drags at the engine of the nation, but perhaps it's for the best.

A certain degree of nostalgia has already developed for the times immediately after 9/11 when the country seemed completely unified, but we can't ignore the fact that this sense of unity was the product of one of the most traumatic events in our history.

It takes a lot to elevate the sense of the American tribe above all of our many and diverse factions, and yet, let's face it, we like it when it happens. Of course no one would hope for another 9/11 to trigger it, but the sense of loss for that period of unity is real.

We seem to need enemies. The notion of paradise on earth is a cruel joke.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

LIEBERMAN STILL ATTRACTS 35% OF VOTES FROM DEMOCRATS AND IS VIEWED AT LEAST SOMEWHAT FAVORABLY BY 65% OF UNAFFILIATED VOTERS.

That, Thomas, if true, is highly significant!!!

Ah -- so Rasmussen was ihe poll about the three-way race, and you had simply omitted the part about Schlesinger in some of your posts. Now I get it. Thanks!

0 Replies

Yes, Thomas, as you can see, in the Rasmussen Poll, Schlesinger gains 6% of the vote( down from 13%), this means that many Republicans will be voting for an Independent in Connecticut>

You have a sharp eye, Thomas!!!

0 Replies

"Lieberman leads Democratic candidate Ned Lamont among registered voters 49 percent to 38 percent. Republican Alan Schlesinger gets support from four percent. "

http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=5292211&nav=3YeX

0 Replies

It's to be expected; Lieberman is getting all of the Republicans and some of the Dems. But the number of Dems he is getting will go down significantly as time goes along and most of the party turns against Lieberman.

Simultaneously, as Republicans embrace him to a greater degree, Lieberman will effectively become the 'de facto' Republican candidate in the region as Republican money starts to flow into his coffers. This will also serve to alienate Lieberman from the Dems in Conneticut.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

A fairly safe prediction is that moderate Democrats combined with Republicans will easily defeat Lamont. Who knows, as only a couple of weeks in politics is a very, very long time, but that is my prediction. Lamont will try to triangulate to appear less extreme, but I don't think it will work. It will be tough for voters that have grown to love and respect Lieberman to turn their back on him as the Democratic Party machine has done.

And this from my above link does not seem to bode well for Lamont either:
"Meanwhile, the same poll shows the Governor Rell, a Republican, with a large lead over her Democratic opponent in the gubernatorial race. The poll shows Rell leading New Haven Mayor John DeStefano by a 64 to 32 percent margin among likely voters."

0 Replies

okie wrote:

"Lieberman leads Democratic candidate Ned Lamont among registered voters 49 percent to 38 percent. Republican Alan Schlesinger gets support from four percent. "

http://www.wtnh.com/Global/story.asp?S=5292211&nav=3YeX

To add -

In this poll (newer than the Rasmussen one that Bernard has posted 27 times), results are given both for all registered voters and for the more specific selection of likely voters.

The numbers Okie gives are for the registered voters sample. The numbers for the likely voters sample are comparable, except that each candidate gets a bit more because the numbers of dont knows is lower:

Lieberman 53%
Lamont 41%
Schlesinger 4%

It's interesting to compare three polls that have appeared sequentially on the outcome of a three-way race: the one by Rasmussen of last month, the newer one by Rasmussen last week, and now this one of Quinnipiac. Interesting because there is a clear trend:

Lieberman 40% > 46% > 53%
Lamont 40% > 41% > 41%
Schlesinger 13% > 6% > 4%

Lamont is holding steady. Lieberman is sucking the failed Schlesinger campaign empty, and taking most of the remaining undecideds.

Its a fair prediction, therefore, to say that Lieberman won't be going up much further still. There's no more Schlesinger supporters left to cross over, and no more undecideds.

Its also fair to say that he wont need any more. Like I said a coupla days ago: if Lieberman would win the Independents and Republicans, he doesnt even need many Democrats. He'll win even without them.

And that appears to be what is happening.

In the new poll, Lieberman polled best among likely Republican voters, leading the others with 75% to Lamont's 13% and Schlesinger's 10%. "Senator Lieberman's support among Republicans is nothing short of amazing," said Quinnipiac's polling director.

And among unaffiliated voters, Lieberman had 58%, to 36% for Lamont and 3% for Schlesinger. (He still has 35% of the Dems too, against 63% for Lamont.)

Overall, according to this poll, 53% of likely voters polled said he deserves to be re-elected. And while 76% said Lieberman has strong leadership qualities, 74% that he's trustworthy, and 63% that he cares about their needs and problems, the numbers for Lamont were 40%, 39% and 41%.

Lamont is still very clearly the underdog in this race.

See New poll shows Lieberman leading Lamont, Lieberman leads opponents in new poll and Poll: Lieberman ahead, high favorability.

0 Replies

Why the Left Is Furious at Lieberman; Iraq is only a part

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know