Connecticut Yankee in Stalin's Court:Painting Ned Lamont Red

BernardR wrote:

No, not as clear as you think--Keltic Wizened--If Lieberman wins(and he will) it will send a clear message that A NORTHEAST LIBERAL can still back the President's stance on the Iraq War and win in the NORTHEAST!!!

A Northeast liberal who is getting major support from REPUBLICANS.

In case you forgot, BernardR, there are still Republicans who support Bush (why, who the hell knows), and now will gladly hold their noses and vote for a presumed "Northeast liberal" Democrat. And you're right, it isn't so simple. Especially when you have a Republican running who only gets 4% of Connecticut votes.

But it's also probably true that many of those Republicans actually do NOT support Bush's war policies, as well as perhaps see something in Schlessinger that they just don't like. Must be all that GOP corruption that's been running rampant through the party as of late, plus Schlessinger's gambling problems.

But calling Joe a Northeast liberal is a little disengenuous when:

Quote:

In 1994, Lieberman didn't support President Clinton's universal health care plan. In 1998, Lieberman was the first Democrat to criticize Bill Clinton publicly over the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

In 2003, he backed the war effort. In 2005, he supported Condoleezza Rice - Bush's choice for secretary of state. Also that year, he voted for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Just recently, in 2006, he wouldn't support a potential Democratic filibuster against Judge Samuel Alito. Like a lot of Connecticut liberals, Lamont sees all of this as too cozy a relationship with the President.

"I think Democrats are going to come to this campaign," said Lamont. "They're going to want somebody who stands up with the Democratic Party willing to challenge President Bush."

In fact, some long-time Lieberman supporters, like former Democratic State Party Chairman George Jepsen now back Ned Lamont.

"Supporting Ned Lamont was not an easy decision for me, but I flatly disagree with Joe on a number of issues of conscience," Jepsen said.

On the Web, Lamont supporters are posting pictures showing him as "Benedict Lieberman," or the President's puppet, even his lap dog.

"When the Republicans need somebody to make an issue that no other Democrat will go along with," Lamont said, "they go to Joe Lieberman, and he carries their water every single time."

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/060713a.aspx

Doesn't sound very liberal to me. But then the Republicans have so thoroughly warped the definition of "liberal" that they have no idea what they're talking about, as is apparent regarding Joe Lieberman.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Last week, Vice President Dick Cheney called Ned Lamont's win in the Connecticut primary "disturbing" because "the al Qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task."

Who the hell are "al Qaeda types"? Friends of terrorists? Figments of Cheney's disturbed imagination, most likely...

0 Replies

D"Artagnan wrote:

Who the hell are "al Qaeda types"? Friends of terrorists? Figments of Cheney's disturbed imagination, most likely...

You don't keep up with the news, do you? Here is a typical bloodthirsty fanatic AlQueda "type"

Title: I slit Pearl's throat twice for video: Pearl's alleged killer
Author:
Publication: Hindustan Times
Date: May 18, 2002
URL: http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/180502/dlfor51.asp

PTI
Islamabad, May 18
An alleged murderer of Daniel Pearl has told interrogators that he slit the US journalist's throat twice because on the first occasion the video camera had failed to catch the shot due to a technical glitch.

"That's why in the video you didn't see the blood oozing out of his neck, I had to work hard to keep the neck together so that it doesn't become obvious in the film that I am slitting an already cut throat," he said.

The revelations were reported in the media here as Pakistan police exhumed a highly disintegrated and disfigured body which they suspect to be that of Pearl.

A month after Pearl disappeared, a graphic video showing his throat being cut was delivered to the American consulate in Karachi.

Four men, including British born Islamic militant Sheikh Omar Saeed, are already facing trial for the kidnap and murder of Daniel Pearl.

According to police officials, the three men who led them to dig up the body suspected to be of Pearl said during interrogation that The Wall Street Journal's Mumbai-based correspondent was driven to a house in Orangi town soon after his abductionon on January 23 and killed seven days later.

The place where he was buried reportedly belonged to Al Rashid Trust, an outfit banned by the US for its links with Osama bin Laden.

0 Replies

If America is so safe because Republicans are in charge, then why is there more violence in Iraq and the Middle East? Why are our ports still poorly secured? Why are we forced to forgo all liquids at major airports?

No, it seems as though while Republicans have been controlling all branches of government, things have gotten considerably worse. Meanwhile, tried and true law enforcement and arguments made time and again by those lucky enough to think point to a level of competency unseen since Bush was placed in office.

This unbelievable nonsense of "if Democrats win, then those al Qaeda types..." blah, blah, blah. It's old, tired and full of ****. We've already seen the track record of the Bush crime family and their rubber stamp Congress.

0 Replies

Dookiestik wrote_

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If America is so safe because Republicans are in charge, then why is there more violence in Iraq and the Middle East? Why are our ports still poorly secured? Why are we forced to forgo all liquids at major airports?
end of quote
Because you know nothing about violence, Dookiestik. I saw more violence in two days than you ever did sitting in the San Francisco bars your whole life. You know NOTHING about violence, patriotism, gratitude toward your country which made it possible for you to live the good life.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Dookiestik wrote_

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If America is so safe because Republicans are in charge, then why is there more violence in Iraq and the Middle East? Why are our ports still poorly secured? Why are we forced to forgo all liquids at major airports?
end of quote
Because you know nothing about violence, Dookiestik. I saw more violence in two days than you ever did sitting in the San Francisco bars your whole life. You know NOTHING about violence, patriotism, gratitude toward your country which made it possible for you to live the good life.

That's nice. Now care to actually answer the question? What makes you think it's only al Qaeda types who are violent?

And how would you know I've spent my whole life in San Francisco bars? Rolling Eyes

My, we're angry today...

0 Replies

Dartagnan wrote:

BernardR wrote:

Last week, Vice President Dick Cheney called Ned Lamont's win in the Connecticut primary "disturbing" because "the al Qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task."

Who the hell are "al Qaeda types"? Friends of terrorists? Figments of Cheney's disturbed imagination, most likely...

Anyone who doesn't agree with Bush, basically...

0 Replies

Question- Is America safer? asks Dookiestik

Answer- We have not been attacked on our shores since 2001, but the British, Spanish, and Indonesians have. And, of course, since you have a high level security clearance, you know that there have been no terrorist attempts on the US homeland since 2001.

And, SanFrancisco. I am sure you are correct, but I find it difficult to believe that anyone named Dookiestik is not born and bred in the very heart of Market Street!!

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Question- Is America safer? asks Dookiestik

Answer- We have not been attacked on our shores since 2001, but the British, Spanish, and Indonesians have. And, of course, since you have a high level security clearance, you know that there have been no terrorist attempts on the US homeland since 2001.

And, SanFrancisco. I am sure you are correct, but I find it difficult to believe that anyone named Dookiestik is not born and bred in the very heart of Market Street!!

Whichi means absolutely nothing other than the hope of scoring worthless political points, as we all have seen how effective that argument is NOW.

I don't have a high level security clearance, and my name is not Dookiestix. That is merely the handle I use in order to remain anonymous.

I was born and raised in Oakland, so I'm amazed how much you got wrong in that last little tirade of yours.

But this thread is about Lieberman and why your claim that he's a Northeast liberal is BS.

http://static.crooksandliars.com/2006/08/CaffertyFile-GOP-Lieberman_0001.jpg

Republicans are supporting Lieberman, not Schlessinger. Therefore, Lieberman might as well BE a Republican. But as is the case when Republicans are desperate to maintain control of the house they will stop at nothing.

0 Replies

Dookiestik- Lieberman is in the Senate, not the House!!!

0 Replies

Am I the only person to notice the double standard here?

The dems/left on here are crucifying Lieberman,claiming he is not a democrat,because he has supported Bush on the war.
Therefore,that makes him a republican,instead of a man doing what he thinks is right.

Yet,when a republican disagrees with Bush,when a republican agrees with the dems,he is called "open minded,fair,and enlightened".

Why is that?
Why is it ok for a repub to disagree with his party,but not for a dm to disagree?

Also,Lieberman,like ALL politicians,will take money from anyone that wants to donate,irregardless of who it is.

I find it interesting that Lamont has taken money from a group called "Democratic Socialists of America"
This is an organization that proudly admits to prefering the socialist political ideals,which are anathema to American values.

FYI,Here is the site that shows where and who Lamont gets his money from...

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_give/S6CT05066

So the charge that Lieberman will accept money from anyone,while true,can also be made about Lamont and every other politician.

0 Replies

Mysteryman-_When the stalwart Senator JEFFORDS( formerly a Republican BECAME A DEMOCRAT in 2001 after he had been elected on the Republican ticket--HE WAS PRAISED AS A MAN OF P R I N C I P L E!!!

Double Standards Anyone???

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Mysteryman-_When the stalwart Senator JEFFORDS( formerly a Republican BECAME A DEMOCRAT in 2001 after he had been elected on the Republican ticket--HE WAS PRAISED AS A MAN OF P R I N C I P L E!!!

Double Standards Anyone???

it is not unheard of for a Senator or Representative to decide that a different party really represents his philosophy. Shelby of Alabama switched from the Democrats to the Republicans, and the Democrats didn't raise a fuss, like the Republicans did against Jeffords.

But if you are going to switch, then switch. Lieberman first tries to win the Democratic nomination, fails, then runs as an independent still claiming to be a Democrat, but taking aid and money from the Republicans. Sounds like he's putting himself out there for the highest bidder.

I think the voters should take note.

0 Replies

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A year after his party gained control of the U.S. Senate, Sen. Robert Torricelli, D-New Jersey, praised the man who made it possible.

The decision by Sen. Jim Jeffords to leave the Republican Party and become an independent tilted the Senate balance in the Democrats' favor and led to the Vermont lawmaker's ostracism by many former colleagues.

"He was willing to risk his career, friendships and relationships in an act of great courage," Torricelli said in the Democrats' weekly radio address.

Democrats have been able to defeat or pass a number of key legislative bills as a result, Torricelli noted, citing the Patients' Bill of Rights as a victory for doctors and patients over insurance companies.

"The difference could not be more profound," Torricelli said.

Hitting on a popular Democratic theme, Torricelli said that "a Democratic Senate prevents Republicans from privatizing Social Security, so that no American has to live with doubt about their retirement."

Torricelli said the Democratic Senate had fought for smaller class sizes and performance accountability in public schools and stopped the Bush administration from authorizing exploratory drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.

"Not every American will have Sen. Jeffords' opportunity to so profoundly affect the agenda of our country and the lives of so many working families," Torricelli said. "But every American has the opportunity to exercise moral courage and join the fight to improve our neighbors' lives and the quality of their communities."

Torricelli challenged listeners to think about how they can better the lives of their fellow Americans and make a difference on the Memorial Day weekend intended to remember the men and women of the armed forces who died for their country.

***********************************************************
stick that where the sun does not shine, Keltic WIzard!!!

0 Replies

Connecticut Yankee in Stalin's Court:Painting Ned Lamont Red

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know