Fox
To start with the most egregious bit:
Foxfyre wrote:The point is that Republicans can openly challenge the President and their party and stand with the Democrats on a particular issue.
Democrats are not allowed to do that.
This is simply absolute tosh.
Look up the votes of Salazar, Baucus, Conrad, Ben Nelson. Look up the votes of a host of Democratic House reps from their like - for example the 18 Democratic Congressmen who were elected in white, rural or mixed constituencies that in the Presidentials voted for GW Bush (twice). Look up the votes of the
"Blue Dog Democrats".
Either you are ignoring these names because they dont suit your meme, or you actually just dont know what you're talking about here, which would be as disturbing. Either way you're just plain speaking untruth here.
Foxfyre wrote:Really splitting hairs Nimh. You haven't said anything materially different than what I said
I'm glad that you found something to agree with in my post, but I cant imagine what it was.
Your whole point was that Lieberman's fate shows that - stray from the party line on Iraq and the "war on terror", and the Democrats will backstab and discard you!
Thats nonsense, as evidenced by the fact that there's a bunch of senators as conservative as Lieberman on these issues that have not been bothered, let alone "backstabbed and discarded", in the least.
What you didnt specify is whether your accusation of "backstabbing and discarding" was meant for the Dem leadership or the grassroots.
If you meant the leadership then that is patent nonsense, considering the Dem establishment tried its utmost best to stop Lamont.
If you meant the Dem grassroots, you are overlooking the fact that the primary campaign they waged against Lieberman, focusing on Iraq, is resounding in the state's overall electorate. That they are merely expressing the opinion of a huge chunk of CT voters.
I mean, you write that
Quote:If you have the notion that everybody in Connecticutt is liberal, you don't know as much about the United States as you think you do. Certainly it is not wild-eyed left wing antiwar fanatics who are keeping him pretty even in the hunt against Lamont now.
But this is just weird.
First, Lieberman is a former VP-candidate and a long-standing incumbent. For someone with that stature and those incumbency advantages to drop to where he is no more than "keeping even" with a Dem grassroots challenger out of nowhere - among the CT electorate overall, not just Dems! - is hardly anything to boast about. It certainly is not a sign of his
strength among the electorate. It suggests he had clearly gotten out of touch with the CT mainstream.
Second, CT voters dont like the Iraq war. Saying so is hardly a sign of my ignorance "about the United States". Hell, the US population
overall now pretty consistently polls 60% to 40% that the war wasnt worth it. Among Connecticutians (who went for Gore over Bush by an 18% margin) it must be significantly higher still, which by definition brings you close to two-thirds (!) of 'em. So if I point out that "Connecticut voters do not share [Liebermans] preference for sabre-rattling in Iraq", thats merely a duh-statement, like it or not. Now, if you feel a sense of bewilderment that so many of your countrymen feel that way, I'd suggest that
you perhaps dont know quite as much about your own country as you think you do.
I mean - third - by ways of case in point. Consider your description of Lamont's opponents as "wild-eyed left wing antiwar fanatics". What? Foxfyre, like it or not but a
majority of Americans by now thinks the war wasnt worth starting in the first place - and hasnt made the US any safer. "Wild-eyed left wing antiwar fanatics", all? Wild-eyed left wing antiwar fanatics the over 40% of voters of Connecticut who are planning to vote Lamont?
That just doesnt even make any sense.
