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

That's the sort of twisted logic the far right is counting on to confuse voters into voting Bush's line.

How would a further tilt to the left help the Dems capture the center in 2008?

Quote:

How would a further tilt to the left help the Dems capture the center in 2008?

The Republicans have pursued a strategy of moving farther and farther right, and have used the politics of polarization and dissent to capture the center; why should the Dems act any different?

Cycloptichorn

Gore and Lieberman.

Gore couldn't even win his own home state while running for President, because of the (Tennessee) scandals and his own environmental hypocrisy in his (literal) backyard.

Lieberman will come very close and possibly win a Senate seat for his state without the support of his own party.

This is the gang that Liberals wanted to install in the White House after trying to steal as many votes as they could in 2000. But it didn't quite work.

We would have had a man with (at least) guts and (some) principle as VP, serving under 'the inventor of the internet' ( who also believes the internal combustion engine is the greatest threat to the world), who had not the guts to distance himself from the then-current Prevaricator-in-Chief, and who also vice-presided over the stock market meltdown of 2000 terming the economy of that day 'the best in the last 50 years'.

What will Libs come up with next? And they think they are ready for prime time and can handle national security?

The last time Libs were in the White House , we were attacked by terrorists on at least 4 separate occasions and DID NOTHING substantial.

Attack on the WTC 1
Attack on two embassies in Africa
Attack on the Khobar Towers
Attack on the USS Cole

Liberals in the CT primary voted down one of the few that wore their label who understands the threat to the country that we face. (Ed Koch seems to be another.)

I can't wait to see the result in CT.

It's lose-lose for the Libs.

If Lieberman prevails in blue CT, the party is completely turned upside down and the 2008 Presidential aspirants will have to sprint to the middle.

If Lieberman loses, the 2008 slate shifts so far to the left that John Kerry circa 2004 will look like Ronald Reagan in comparison.

and who also vice-presided over the stock market meltdown of 2000 terming the economy of that day 'the best in the last 50 years'.

If you look at your graph, you will see it peaked out a year or two before Clinton left office, so the downturn was already occurring before Bush took office.

Your graph illustrates when all the rich libs become too giddy and run up the stock prices to unrealistic levels.

In total seriousness, Clinton was lucky to ride the wave. But give credit where credit is due, the Republican Congress in charge of a budget that became virtually balanced.

What the heck are you looking at, okie? The chart clearly shows no downturn of any description, and certainly no "meltdown" that realife seems to mysteriously see.

The whole reason for posting a chart is to illustrate things clearly. When you are given a pictorial representation that stock prices rose several years and then held steady in 2000, it is arrogance in the extreme to post that they were undergoing a downturn or a "meltdown". Christ, you can see right there they did not!

You get that, folks? According to Okie here, only liberals invested in the stock market in the nineties. Presumably, ample-pocketed conservatives stayed away, or did not increase their investments at all during that decade.

Besides which, this business that the nineties were a false economy is a conservative myth, designed to cover the fact that Bush's economic performance is abysmal. Under Clinton, unemployment went from 7.2 down to 4.0 percent. A much greater percentage of people age 25 to 54 were actually working than are now. Those people were bringing in paychecks, buying goods and services, contributing to the economy. The nineties were not a false economy, despite Republicans telling you so.