The Civil War Has Begun (Among Democrats)

Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of peace! No matter who wins in Connecticut, the fight between the radical left and the moderate center of the Democratic Party is on. If Lieberman wins, the fighting will go underground. If he loses, expect the heirs of Henry Wallace and George McGovern to unlease their war of peace on the children of Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy. It will be better if the moderates, with a reliable record on security, win but right now the left is ascendant.

Lamont and his supporters come from that group of liberals who thinks they have found the enemy and they are US, as least in terms of security. Listen to what he says about Iran, "We should work diplomatically and aggressively to give them reasons why they don't need to build a bomb, to give them incentives. We have to engage in very aggressive diplomacy. I'd like to bring in allies when we can. I'd like to use carrots as well as sticks to see if we can change the nature of the debate."

How nice. Why don't we all just get along? If not for our aggression, the Iranians would just live in peace growing pistachios and drinking strong coffee. That stuff about the great Satan and genocide? Let's not bicker and argue about who kills whom. Lamont is right. If you appease aggressors by giving them everything they want, eventually they are satisfied. Appeasement is a viable strategy for those who are content being slaves or being dead. For most others, it is just silly.

Let's call the Dems on this and their other statements. We hear that the Dems are going to kick Republican ass. What does that mean? If they do not win the House and the Senate, does that mean that they have lost, that they have been rejected by the voters. What if they do win? We should expect an immediate cessation of all the troubles in the world. After all, according to Democratic statements, everything would be fine if Republicans didn't mess it up. The mere absence of Republicans should fix things up, according to Dems. Fix 'em up good.

I do not recall things being so good in 1994, when democrats controlled everything or during the late 1970s etc, but memory fades. Democratic memory fades even faster. Remember what happened with George McGovern? Nixon barely squeaked by in 1968. But in 1972 in the middle of an unpopular war with a declining economy, Democrats fielded a leftist candidate and gave Nixon a landslide victory. Lean too far too the left and you fall down.

Let me sum up the current Democratic view. "Voter are unhappy with Republicans therefore they love Democrats." That usually doesn't work as your only strategy. Just because my boat is leaking, doesn't mean I prefer to jump into the cold river.

Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy. Democrats should repeat those names before they pull the lever in the voting booth.

Posted by Jack at August 7, 2006 9:46 AM
Comments
Comment #173775

Um, Jack, you don’t like the carrot and stick approach? What is the Bush administration’s approach if not that?

What are you saying?

Posted by: Trent at August 7, 2006 10:15 AM
Comment #173778

You know, I happen to remember what Bush said about the middle east during his debates with Gore. He advocated a “humble” approach; the United States had to allow the parties involved to work out their differences. Gore advocated a more direct approach in which the United States took the lead in getting the parties to negotiate. Of course 9/11 changed political reality, but let’s set that aside for a moment. Did you believe Bush’s approach was correct back then? If not, why not? I assume you voted for him; was foreign policy not an important issue to you then?

I really don’t get your post, at all. Lamont mentioned “sticks” in the quote you provided; how is what he said any different than what any politician would say?

Posted by: Trent at August 7, 2006 10:24 AM
Comment #173777

Jack,

Do your fond memories include the trashing of Thomas Eagleton, or the “Canuck Letter”, or Watergate?

The Republicans had their “dirty tricks” handbook and used it to their great advantage in the campaign of ‘72.

Of course, it didn’t help that the country wasn’t as anti-war as WW2 war hero McGovern, he was thrown under the bus anyway.

Posted by: Rocky at August 7, 2006 10:24 AM
Comment #173779

Trent

It is just silly the way Lamont says it. Imagine that. He has discovered that we are to blame for Iranians building the bomb and wanted to destroy Israel. Besides, do you really think he is interested in any sticks at all. The statement sure implies that we have had enough sticks and now only carrots will do.

Rich kids always think like that. They know a lot about carrots. They are only vaguely aware that other people have to wield the sticks to keep their 24 carot lifestyles safe, and they don’t much like the guys who do it.

Posted by: Jack at August 7, 2006 10:25 AM
Comment #173780

Rocky

Nixon’s landside victory encouraged his stranger tendencies. The Dems fielded a really bad candidate. I am not saying anything about McGovern the man. In fact, I read that he repented some of his liberal ways when he tried to run his own business. But he was too far gone left in 1972.

Posted by: Jack at August 7, 2006 10:30 AM
Comment #173781

Jack, even me with liberal leanings wouldn’t categorize all rich kids the way you just did. I seem to remember another rich kid running for office his dad once held. Does your view of rich kids explain his non-interventionist stance during his campaign?

Posted by: Trent at August 7, 2006 10:38 AM
Comment #173783

“How nice. Why don’t we all just get along?”

So - that’s Bush’s approach so far with Iran and North Korea - who both started up their nuclear programs immediately following the “Axis of Evil” speech. Yet, somehow you find room for critism in this if it’s a Democrat. Again - you make assumptions as to how Democrats feel and what we will do if something happens. You have NO base to make that judgement, yet you automatically assume the worse in people who disagree with you.

Should I start discussing the impact of Delay being on the REP ticket, and why Ney will not? How do you think Cunningham with influence the race in California? Basically, these are your guys - you decide how you feel and react to them. Lamont & Liberman are our choices - we will react accordingly.

“The Civil War Has Begun “

———

“The United States has “no good options” left in Iraq, and the war “is not going to turn out the way that we were promised,” an increasingly outspoken Republican critic of the war said Sunday.

Sen. Chuck Hagel said the United States needs to convoke a regional conference with Iraq’s neighbors and the major players in the Middle East to find an end to the 3-year-old conflict, rather than leave U.S. troops in a “hopeless, winless situation” by trying to reinforce Baghdad.

“Unless you come at it that way, we’re going to be leaving Iraq. And it’s not going to be the way we intended to leave Iraq, because that is the direction this is going,” he told CBS’ “Face the Nation.”
——-
Of course, this is not the cynical/political civil war you are lamenting — but it is probably a closer bet to actually happening.

Posted by: tony at August 7, 2006 10:43 AM
Comment #173784

Jack,

How can you separate McGovern “the man” from his politics?
He was a good man whose time would never come.

The campaign of ‘72 was particularly nasty, and though there was a sizable anti-war sentiment in the country, with the above mentioned issues being pounded away again and again, McGovern didn’t stand a chance in hell of being elected.

BTW, wasn’t it Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz that screwed Nixon after the disarmament talks?

Posted by: Rocky at August 7, 2006 10:46 AM
Comment #173785

Jack,

You guys are so flippin’ hypocritical it hurts my brain. You guys gripe about Democrats waging class warfare, but whenever a liberal Democrat happens to be rich you try to use it to discredit him. In short, you wage class warfare. Do you have to check a box saying “I am oblivious to my own hypocrisy” to register as a Republican?

I know all of you baby boomers think this is 1968 all over again, but it isn’t. This isn’t the Democratic National Convention. This is a primary in ONE state. If you see people rioting during the 2008 convention, then by all means say there is a civil war. This is a minor skirmish in one state.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 7, 2006 10:48 AM
Comment #173788

From a Libertarian….
Here is a joke I got this morning… don’t take it too seriously


THINGS YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE TO BE A REPUBLICAN TODAY…
Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary.
Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush’s
daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him,
and a bad guy when Bush needed a “we can’t find Bin Laden” diversion.
Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade
with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest
national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.
A woman can’t be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-
national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without
regulation.
The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in
speeches, while slashing veterans’ benefits and combat pay.
If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won’t have sex.
A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then
demand their cooperation and money.
Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing
health care to all Americans is socialism. HMOs and insurance
companies have the best interests of the public at heart.
Global warming and tobacco’s link to cancer are junk science, but
creationism should be taught in schools.
A president lying about an extra-marital affair is an impeachable
offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which
thousands die is solid defense policy.
Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution,
which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
The public has a right to know about Hillary’s cattle trades, but
George Bush’s driving record is none of our business.
Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you’re a
Conservative radio host. Then it’s an illness and you need our prayers
for your recovery.
What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but
what Bush did in the ’80s is irrelevant.
If you don’t send it to at least 10 other people, we’re likely to be
stuck with more Republicans in ‘06 and ‘08.
FRIENDS DON’T LET FRIENDS VOTE REPUBLICAN

Posted by: Chris Dukes at August 7, 2006 11:05 AM
Comment #173790
I do not recall things being so good in 1994, when democrats controlled everything or during the late 1970s etc, but memory fades. Democratic memory fades even faster.

Well, maybe my memory has faded faster than yours, but I did great in the ’90s. While some Republicans like to take credit for the economy after ‘94 when they won control of the house, Clintonomics actually started in ‘93. Besides, if it were really Republicans who caused the economic boom of the ’90s, then why don’t we see the same things today with Republicans controlling all branches of government? Instead of smaller government it has expanded. Instead of record budget surpluses we have record budget deficits. Instead of shrinking national debt, the Republicans have had to raise the debt ceiling several times to record proportions. And don’t try to blame the war, that isn’t even included in the budget deficit. Katrina may have caused some of the deficit, but the trend started well before Katrina happened.

Sure, Republicans love to crow about 4.7% unemployment, but this “economic boom” is somehow different than the boom in the ’90s. In the ’90s the labor market was a employee market, not an employer market. Employers were increasing benefits and salaries to remain competitive during a worker shortage. My employer was even paying employees to go back to school to fill positions that they couldn’t find qualified candidates for.

I also don’t recall hearing about too many layoffs back then either. Today, it seems like another company is announcing layoffs almost every other day. If Republicans were truly responsible for the boom of the ’90s then why don’t they get back to those policies that were responsible for it? One of the first things they did when they won control of Washigton was to eliminate the pay-go system, and have refused to reinstate it no matter how many times Democrats bring it to the table. Maybe I am wrong, but it all seems very odd to me.

Listen to what he says about Iran, “We should work diplomatically and aggressively to give them reasons why they don’t need to build a bomb, to give them incentives. We have to engage in very aggressive diplomacy. I’d like to bring in allies when we can. I’d like to use carrots as well as sticks to see if we can change the nature of the debate.”

Oh, so we should just abandon diplomacy and bomb the crap out anyone who does something we don’t like? That is exactly how Republicans weaken national security. Do you think we make many friends by invading other nations? Don’t you think that having a policy that forgoes diplomacy for force damages our image and causes other countries to see us as a threat, thereby becoming a threat to us? Sure there may come a time that diplomacy has been exhasted and the only alternative is force, but shouldn’t war always be the last resort not the first? Shouldn’t we make our case to the international community and gather as much support as we can? Our resources are not unlimited. How many countries can we occupy without damaging the U.S. itself? I don’t understand how Republicans equate war and aggression with national security.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at August 7, 2006 11:34 AM
Comment #173791

Jack-
Physician, examine thyself. It’s your party that’s on the verge of splintering. Lieberman’s troubles are a sign of both the electorate and the party’s difficulty with further accomodation with the Republicans.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 7, 2006 11:37 AM
Comment #173793


Lets take a quick look at Bush’s policy on Iran.

“The United States will take no action that extends legitimacy to the ayatollahs in Iran.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64964-2005Feb4.html

That it, the entire U.S. Policy. We keep it short so Bush can learn to say all the words.

Now lets look at the effect of Bush’s policy on Iran

“Iran’s rise began when the United States took out one of Iran’s major adversaries—the Taliban regime—in Afghanistan. Then the ayatollahs in Tehran received another and even bigger gift: U.S. taxpayers funded the destruction of their principal rival—Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime. Even better for the Iranians, U.S. forces remained to protect what became an Iranian-friendly, theocratically oriented Iraqi government from Sunni insurgents. The quagmire also undermined U.S. leverage in pressuring Iran to forgo its alleged quest for atomic weapons, while the U.S. invasion of neighboring Iraq provided greater Iranian motivation to acquire a nuclear deterrent to a future U.S. attack.”

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1779

“Rich kids always think like that.”
Do you hear yourself Jack?


Lets see when was the last time we had a pull-yourself-up-by-the-boots-straps president. Oh ya …Bill Clinton

Posted by: 037 at August 7, 2006 11:41 AM
Comment #173795

If this is a civil war in the Democratic Party, what do you call the many GOP Congresspersons distancing themselves from President Bush? Dessertion under fire?

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 7, 2006 11:41 AM
Comment #173796
Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush’s daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a “we can’t find Bin Laden” diversion.

I wonder if he was a good guy or a bad guy here:

Rummy is shaking his hand, but I’m not sure if that makes him a good guy or a bad guy. Is that Kim Jong Il in the background?

Posted by: JayJay Snow at August 7, 2006 11:45 AM
Comment #173797

Woody,

I disagree. This isn’t a “skirmish”, this is the way politics is supposed to be. Not the goosestepping GOPers all in a row but a good battle over what is right and what are our priorities, not “how do we get a DemoChimp elected”. Remember, Republicans like Joe because he seems to have a chance at cleaving their “enemy”, the Democrats. What they don’t or can’t understand is that actual discussion of priorities is what Democracy is about.

CL

“Annhole Coulter”? I love it.

Posted by: Dave1 at August 7, 2006 11:48 AM
Comment #173799

Dave1,

Apparently you don’t like the word “skirmish”, but I think we agree. What is happening is CT is within the system of ordinary politics. I only referring to fighting because our political language is so filled with military metaphors.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 7, 2006 11:55 AM
Comment #173805

Hi Woody,

I have nothing against any word :-) but on review, my comment about the word seems petty. I think my reaction was based mainly on it’s implied acceptance of the thread title of “Civil War”. You’re right about the military metaphors in politics. It’s much the same way the currency metaphors are used in morality discussion. Both of which lend themself to GOPer strategy and talking points. Interesting realization (to me anyway).

Posted by: Dave1 at August 7, 2006 12:23 PM
Comment #173810

Since the 60s the Democratic has been split. The radical, hippie Left has been the main voice. Now the original Democrats, who trace their political history back to Thomas Jefferson, have had enough. The original Democrats just wanted bigger state govt over Federal. The Liberals added peace-loving, banning religion, criminal sympathy, extreme environmentalism, communism, and abortion to the original Democrats’ politics.

I respect the moderate, original Democrats. They are worthy opponents. I have no respect for the radical Left. If the Moderates win, there will be 3 major political parties: Democrat, Republican, and whatever the Leftists choose to name their party (probably the Peace Party).

Posted by: stubborn conservative at August 7, 2006 1:04 PM
Comment #173812

“f this is a civil war in the Democratic Party, what do you call the many GOP Congresspersons distancing themselves from President Bush? Dessertion under fire”

Now, that’s funny.

Posted by: tony at August 7, 2006 1:05 PM
Comment #173817

Stubborn Conservative-
Then give me the moderate original Republicans back. Give me folks actually willing to raise taxes when they don’t cut spending to even things up. Bush Sr. did that, so did Reagan. Give me folks who don’t take the John Birch Society/Hal Lindsey line on the UN, and actually let us exercise some leadership in the international community, rather than trying to go it alone all the time.

As for the Democrats themselves, I think you’re getting them back. Only trouble is, you’re getting them back at precisely the point where the consensus is shifting in their direction.

The American people are getting tired of government that consistently falls to its right, and which can’t seem to prioritize their interests ahead of the campaign contributors.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 7, 2006 1:22 PM
Comment #173818

Stubborn-

You are not going back far enough in history.

In 1948 the Democratic Party ran 3 candidates for President:

Wilson (Democrats)

Strom Thurmond (Dixiecrats) Walked out of the convention because of civil rights positions.

Henry Wallace (Progressive Party) Fired by Wilson as Sec. Commerce over position on Soviet Union.

Wallace got 2% of the vote in 1948. Jack has already mentioned McGovern, and you need to add in Mondale’s bid in 1984 to complete the picture of success in running left for a Presidential.

But you don’t need to remind Democrats of this; they know it all too well. Just look how fast they turned on Dean in 2004 on the sole issue of “electability.” If they could have turned to another southern governor that January they would have, but all they had left was Kerry.

Posted by: George in SC at August 7, 2006 1:31 PM
Comment #173821

Stubborn-

You are not going back far enough in history.

In 1948 the Democratic Party ran 3 candidates for President:

Wilson (Democrats)

Strom Thurmond (Dixiecrats) Walked out of the convention because of civil rights positions.

Henry Wallace (Progressive Party) Fired by Wilson as Sec. Commerce over position on Soviet Union.

Wallace got 2% of the vote in 1948. Jack has already mentioned McGovern, and you need to add in Mondale’s bid in 1984 to complete the picture of success in running left for a Presidential.

But you don’t need to remind Democrats of this; they know it all too well. Just look how fast they turned on Dean in 2004 on the sole issue of “electability.” If they could have turned to another southern governor that January they would have, but all they had left was Kerry.

Posted by: George in SC at August 7, 2006 1:34 PM
Comment #173823

My bad, Truman not Wilson. I’m getting older….

Posted by: George in SC at August 7, 2006 1:40 PM
Comment #173824

George in SC,

You offer a mistaken, yet conventional, analysis of the 2004 primary.

There were about ten candidates. The DLC, and the Democratic establishment in general, claimed that Kerry was the “electable” one. (The DLC said if he’s a waffler give us syrup, or something like that.) Primary voters weren’t in love with Kerry, but they went along with the idea that he was “electable”.

So the lesson of the 2004 primary is probably, “Follow your instincts instead of the people telling you someone you don’t like is electable.”

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 7, 2006 1:41 PM
Comment #173828

Jack,

Give me a break! This lie that Republicans are better for national security has got to be among the top 10 in U.S. political history. Right up there with the justification for the Iraq war.

When Clinton was dropping over 800 bombs on suspected WMD targets in Iraq in ‘98, what were the Republicans in congress doing? Oh, yeah they were fixated on a stain on a little blue dress, and acussing the President of “the tail wagging the dog.” Well isn’t that special?!

After the Oklahoma City bombing, how long did it take the Clinton Administration to track down the perps? Not long, and how many laws and Constitutional protections did he have to break to do it? Maybe a few, but nowhere near the assult Bush has waged on the Constitution.

After the first attack on the World Trade Center how long did it take the Clinton administration to track down the perps? Not long.

After the largest terrorist attack in U.S. history how long did it take GW Bush to track down OBL? Oh, wait…that’s right, he hasn’t. He says he doen’t give much thought to OBL. Well, isn’t that nice?!

When violence was on the rise and things started falling apart in Iraq, what was the main concern of our Republican leadership? Non-existant flag burning, and writing their bigotry into our Constitution. Way to go guys!

Posted by: Kick 'em to the curb! at August 7, 2006 2:05 PM
Comment #173829
Just look how fast they turned on Dean in 2004 on the sole issue of ‘electability’. Posted by: George in SC at August 7, 2006 01:31 PM
What exactly is Dean’s job now? Doesn’t seem like they called him a DINO and booted him out, does it? Perhaps it was only a mistaken call of who to promote as a candidate. A far far far far lesser mistake than the GOPer choice of the last 2 elections. Unless of course that mistake led to Bush winning in ‘04, then we can talk. Posted by: Dave1 at August 7, 2006 2:10 PM
Comment #173831

Stephen Daugherty:
“Then give me the moderate original Republicans back. Give me folks….”

Give you? Never knew I was the shadow manipulator running the country. Republicans have always been for smaller overall govt. We have always cut taxes (or tried to). The same goes for spending. I am not seeing the Conservative agenda being filled out entirely. Bush is trying his best, but his opponents are being sore losers and stopping his agenda. As for the original Republican Party subject, you got me thinking. The original Republican Party was colorblind, low-spending, tax-cutting, people-favoring, govt-limiting, and immediately did what it could to eliminate threats to this country whether they are foreign or within. Many of this attributes still stand, but I think my fears may be coming true… that the Left has started to infect the Republican Party as well… It will be harder for the hippies to do that because we are aware of them. The extreme Left wants a divided America. Before the Left took over, when the Republicans or Democrats lost an election, they shut up and let the victor’s agenda be fulfilled. Now it is hard to fulfill any agenda except for the kook Lefts’.

Posted by: stubborn conservative at August 7, 2006 2:18 PM
Comment #173833

stubborn conservative,

Wow, you are very forgiving! The Republicans control the Presidency, the House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court, but it is the fault of the “kook Left” that things aren’t going the way you want.

I don’t even understand why you bother voting (assuming you do). Apparently a “kooky” left-wing cabal controls the country no matter what happens in elections.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 7, 2006 2:26 PM
Comment #173834

Mondale, Dukakis, & Kerry lost not because they were to far to the left, they lost because they were unlikable candidates. Bill Clinton was a very likable guy, who could relate to regular people. Slick Willy could talk his way out of any situation. Despite the fiscal mess Ronald Reagan, The Great Communicator, created he was overall a likable guy, too. You might be suprised at how many people decide their vote not based on any type of platform, but on looks and likability.

Posted by: Kick 'em to the curb! at August 7, 2006 2:27 PM
Comment #173835

Oh, the Humanity!
Jack’s Republican Party is crashing and burning like the Hindenburg — with candidates attempting to distance themselves from the flaming wreck their party, and all he wants to talk about is how bad things look for the Dems!
Hilarious.

Lamont is a progressive. Progressives always look for solutions to problems rather than stick by policies that are clearly failing. We’ve got a sh*tload of problems thanks to this administration, therefore, we need new people who want to offer their solutions. Lieberman is clearly not a progressive (never has been, actually), and he is not looking for any solutions. Not for his state. Not for the nation. Rather than stand up to this administration’s incompetence, he’s “kissed up” to them, and in that process, weakened his own party’s opposition to the serious and glaringly obvious problems they’ve created for America.

It’s time for Joe(s) to Go.
We need Ned(s), instead!
:^)

Posted by: Adrienne at August 7, 2006 2:28 PM
Comment #173839

kick,

Who was the last liberal from the Northeast who became president? And before him?
The sad point is that for a Democrat to win these days he has to come from the south. I still the leave the chance you might be right and a factor in the Kerry loss was the Adams Family resemblance. (Lurch would have been a better Prez than the Chimp, LURCH FOR PRESIDENT!!!) Ungh.

Posted by: Dave1 at August 7, 2006 2:43 PM
Comment #173840

“You might be surprised at how many people decide their vote not based on any type of platform, but on looks and like-ability.”

No - not surprised… disappointed and frustrated, but not surprised.

People do NOT vote with their brains… never have, never will. They want an easy choice, if they even bother to vote - so they will go with a gut reaction once they get in the voting booth. I have no idea what this gut reaction is based on, but it clearly isn’t logic… I think we basically go for the best looking/smoothest speaking candidate. I think it might all be based on primitive instincts we use when meeting people. You never know immediately if someone is smart or qualified, but you can quickly make a decision as to whether you trust someone or not.

The American voter is very similar to the beaten housewife, who always go back for more… just can’t seem to help it. Yea, we can bitch and complain all day long about how things aren’t the way they should be, but does anyone really think that it has any impact whatsoever of the choices we make when voting?

Posted by: tony at August 7, 2006 2:46 PM
Comment #173843
Lets see when was the last time we had a pull-yourself-up-by-the-boots-straps president. Oh ya …Bill Clinton


Not to be snarky, but I think Clinton was a pull-yourself-up-by-the-thong-straps president. :)


Kick- em:

You are right about how looks and likability factor into elections. Television had a large effect on this for the first time in 1960, when Nixon looked old and dissheveled compared to a youthful and beaming Jack Kennedy.

In the last election, Kerry came off wishywashy, while Bush came off as decisive. Since both came from similar backgrounds, that was a big part of the outcome.

Look at people like Jesse Ventura or Arnold Schwarzenegger getting elected—primarily based on their personas, as opposed to their credentials (though Arnold at least had some credentials).

Adrienne:

I think Lamont will win the Dem primary in Connecticut, but I think Joe might just pull of the overall victory. I don’t think there is a Republican with even a remote chance of winning, so Lieberman might pull a lot of non-left Dem voters his way.

Which would you prefer? A Republican win in Connecticut, or a Lieberman Independent win in Connecticut, if it came between those two options (though I doubt it will)?

Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 7, 2006 2:55 PM
Comment #173844
It will be better if the moderates, with a reliable record on security, win but right now the left is ascendant.


Define what is moderate, on the issue of Iraq. The majority of Americans now believe that the war in Iraq was a mistake and that we should withdraw our troops within a set timeframe. This is no longer just the stance of the left. Polls after polls are now indicating that there has been a shift in the attitudes of Americans on this issue. While I personally respect Joe Lieberman and I understand and may even agree with him on the issue of Iraq, evidently the Democratic voters of Connecticut may not feel the same. While Republicans like to say the elections in Connecticut are an example of the fracturing of party unity amongst Democrats, it is actually an encapsulation of the greater problem, the Republican Party faces.

Nixon’s landside victory encouraged his stranger tendencies. The Dems fielded a really bad candidate.

While I have great respect for President Nixon, and I believe without the issue of Watergate, he would have been remembered as a great President. He nevertheless possessed insecurities that required no encouragement. Two examples are his Checker Speech and his 1962 gubernatorial concession speech, “you don’t have Nixon to kick around anymore.”

It seems Jack that you are implying that if the Democrats go too far left, that the Republicans will automatically become more corrupt. While some people wonder how that could be possible, I don’t think that is a natural reaction, as you seem to imply.

Posted by: Cube at August 7, 2006 3:16 PM
Comment #173845

Woody:

America needs to be tough. We are too forgiving and merciful. That is weakness. Our enemies are taking advantage of it. The Left wants us to sent psychologists to talk to the terrorists. If the Democrats eradicate the Left, America can be feared again. If, in the upcoming years, the Leftists take over both parties, we will plunge into chaos and end up like France!

Posted by: stubborn conservative at August 7, 2006 3:20 PM
Comment #173849
Now it is hard to fulfill any agenda except for the kook Lefts’.

I have been reading comments here for while. One thing I have noticed is how conservatives want everything both ways, whichever works to their advantage at any given moment.

When the moment is right they tout that the left and liberalism are on the decline in this country. They claim it’s a dying breed. Then when it is convienant, all of sudden nothing can get done in this country because the left liberals are so powerful that they stop the conservative agenda!

Which is it guys? Apparently, whatever is convienant at the moment.

Posted by: Kick 'em to the curb! at August 7, 2006 3:42 PM
Comment #173850

stubborn,

That is a good attitude you have there. If others won’t do what you command, then bomb ‘em into submission! I feel sorry for your poor neighbors!

Posted by: Kick 'em to the curb! at August 7, 2006 3:45 PM
Comment #173851

Jack

Your party and political philosophy are in disarray, with international efforts deteriorating rapidly, and domestic problems mounting faster than the ruling party can deal with them. What amazes me is that rather than discuss these issues you choose to attack the other side. This is why you will fail. You can’t always win by smearing the other side. At some point you have to face up to your performance.

I would be interested in hearing an intelligent right-wing voice discuss the quagmire in which the Republican party, so dominated now by social and economic conservatives, now finds itself. My opinion is that the Republicans in power have dug themselves a very deep hole, and with the usual huge egos one finds in politics, it is nearly impossible for them to back up and repair the damage. To admit that several wrong turns were made is not in their nature, so they will continue on the tack that you are so bravely taking in their cause, and they might hang on through this upcoming election cycle, but just barely. Then what? Waiting for a miracle in Iraq, or some sign from on high that slashing taxes has actually made the American people better off economically (as opposed to the rich alone), all your party can do is sling mud.

So…what do you think should happen here? Do you think everything the Republicans have initiated is going well? Do you see no areas where another tack might have led to positive outcomes? I really am curious to know.

Posted by: Mental Wimp at August 7, 2006 3:46 PM
Comment #173852
Define what is moderate, on the issue of Iraq. The majority of Americans now believe that the war in Iraq was a mistake and that we should withdraw our troops within a set timeframe. This is no longer just the stance of the left. Polls after polls are now indicating that there has been a shift in the attitudes of Americans on this issue.

I think all these airchair generals should stop acting like a bunch of pussies! Whoever thinks this war is so noble - get up off your asses and go fight it! Stubborn, you can start the line!

Posted by: Kick 'em to the curb! at August 7, 2006 3:58 PM
Comment #173853

You know people, I’ve darn well forgotten why we are still in Iraq. What is it we hope to accomplish now?

On to other questions:

Does anyone remember what the Federalists and Whigs stood for? They were the begins of our two party system. I suggest that we quit assuming that Jefferson was a Democrat. However I’d be proud to claim him - After all he did write the Declaration that is quickly falling out of favor.

Why do we want America to be feared (again)? That simply made us arrogant and hated by the rest of the world, and as far as I can see being almost alone in our pursuit of hasn’t exactly gotten us very far.

Through out history both parties have flip-flopped back and forth, never quiet landing on one definite spot, particularly in recent years, so much that sometimes I’m not even sure which PARTY they claim to represent. I can say strongly that Neither Party represents what I truly believe.

I’ve been voting for almost 40 years, never missed an election - local, state or federal, and just once I’d like to vote FOR someone, instead of the lesser of the two evils.
Sometimes I think that the Green Party might actually win if they didn’t put out such rather narrow-issued people - one that could actually compromise between the Reps,and Dems.
Somehow I doubt I’ll ever actually vote FOR someone.

When and Why did we change the Constitution from electing both the President and Vice President? Seems to me, that maybe we should’ve left that original idea alone.

When did the Executive Branch of government get more important than Congress, or the Supreme Court side only with Big Business? Or take itself so seriously that it feels it can make laws, instead of determine the meaning of a law?

As for how people vote…Unless there’s been a major change in the last 30 years, my Masters’ Thesis (8,547 people asked, 8,000 responding, (I’m afraid I’ve forgotten the margin of error)
still rings true:

Most women vote (1)the way their husbands vote, (2) how handsome or attractive they think the candidates are, or (3) that’s the way their fathers’voted, party wise.

Most men vote(1) the way their fathers’ voted party wise (2) for whomever appears to be the most ‘manly’.

Few voters actually know anything about the issues, the parties, platforms,etc. Most have no interest in knowing what state the candidate is from - but care deeply if he’s perceived as being from the ‘North’ or ‘South’. They presume that a lawyer is probably more suited for the position, however a good-looking specific ‘party’ government type person is probably the best.

Anyone who can explain all these points to me, and make sense out of them, would get my vote, even if I had to right their name in.

Anyone up for the challenge?

Posted by: Linda H. at August 7, 2006 4:43 PM
Comment #173854

Tony

If your side wont write about us, I wont write about you. In fact, if you look at the responses to this thread, you will find lots of advice from putative Dems to Republicans. So, no your leaders ARE my business too.

Woody

Re class warfare. I am not fond of people who don’t work, rich or poor. Ned Lamont has less experience to be Senator than I do (or probably you do) So I figure it must be all the money he inherited. I think it is ironic that the JP Morgan and Rockefeller associates and descendents are liberals now.

You must also know by now that I do soma things just because they are fun and it is fun to pester Dems with their trust fund leadership.

JayJay

0.47%. That is ZERO point four seven. That is the U.S. contribution to Saddam’s arsenal. As I have written hundreds of times, the best case scenario during the Iraq/Iran was that nobody win and nobody did. Do you feel that was a bad choice among the bad choices on offer?

Dave1

I have been searching for Dem priorities. I found a list and posted about it. If it was soup, it would be too thin to fill your belly. The Democrat strategy is NOT to be Republican. Maybe it will work.

Adrienne

What is it you like about Ned Lamont? I mean if he was not the anti-Bush, is there anything else about him that is so appealing?

Cube

I do not like it when either party really squashes the other. The Dem landslide in 1964 led to arrogance and paved the way for Republican victories. The same happened just post Watergate. Republican dominance in the Senate and House races after 1994 and especially after 2002 did the same to Republicans. And Nixon’s landslide did it to him.

Republican hubris probably deserves a kick in the keister. Unfortunately, when the alternative is Democrats like Pelosi, Dean or Conyers, better to keep the Republicans and hope they improve.

Posted by: Jack at August 7, 2006 4:45 PM
Comment #173855

jbod:
“I think Lamont will win the Dem primary in Connecticut, but I think Joe might just pull of the overall victory. I don’t think there is a Republican with even a remote chance of winning, so Lieberman might pull a lot of non-left Dem voters his way.”

Joe, I’ve never heard of a non-left Democrat. And I don’t think Democrats will vote for Lieberman if he loses the primary to Lamont. I think it’ll strike most Democrats as vindictive and desperate if he switches to being an Independent in order to hold onto his seat. Just my opinion.

Lieberman has become basically Republican-Lite in a very blue state. Let’s take a quick look at what Lieberman has voted for, and then look at what Lamont has had to say about those things, okay?

We all know how Lieberman feels about the Iraq War.

Lamont:

Well, the first thing that got me into this challenge was the war in Iraq. I think it was a terrible foreign policy blunder for this country. I think that George Bush had to rush to war and we didn’t ask the tough questions getting in, and Sen. Lieberman cheered on the president every step of the way. We have a go-it-alone strategy, a sense that we don’t need allies, we don’t have to listen to the rest of the world. That’s contrary to the American tradition and it’s really not in our self-interest. We’ve been consistently wrong on the war in Iraq. [They said] we would be greeted as liberators, they thought it would be easy, we turned the corner, there’s a light at the end of the tunnel…it’s been consistently wrong. On his last trip back, the senator said, “Boy, I saw everybody on cell phones, and they are watching DirectTV, this is a happy neighborhood and we have rounded the bend.” He couldn’t be more wrong then, and he’s still wrong. We’ve got 135,000 troops standing in the middle of a civil war, we’re making the situation worse and it’s time to start thinking about our exit strategy.

Lieberman supported Bushco’s energy bill.

Lamont:

9/11 was a terrible tragedy, but also it was a new start for this country, and we missed an opportunity to get serious about energy independence, energy conservation and global warming—they’re all tied together. Instead, Bush passed the energy bill. It was a terrible piece of legislation loaded with tax giveaways to the oil producers and the nuclear lobby. This bad piece of legislation was overwhelmingly opposed by the environmentalists out there and supported by Sen. Lieberman. First and foremost, we ought to be looking at conservation, we ought to have tax incentives for conservation and we ought to make that a national priority. Secondly, we ought to have tax incentives for renewables. That’s how we’re going to free ourselves from, as Tom Friedman said, paying for both sides of the war on terror with our addiction to foreign oil.

Lieberman’s vote on the bankruptcy bill: he knew that the only way to stop it was for him to vote against cloture, but he voted for cloture. He allowed that terrible piece of credit card industry written legislation to go forward.

Lamont:

That sounds a little familiar in terms of the Judge Alito nomination as well. Somebody said about our senator on the Democratic side of the aisle that we can always count on his vote whenever we don’t really need it. Most people that file for bankruptcy do not do it because they are overspending on their credit cards, they do it because they are inflicted with sudden health care expenses that they didn’t anticipate, and they are underinsured and can’t deal with it. We ought to help people through that tragic time in their lives, not penalize them. On the flip side, I look at how the corporations in this country are abusing bankruptcy and using it to walk away from their pensions, to walk away from their obligations to the working people out there. If you want bankruptcy reform, that’s where I’d start.

Lieberman on the Alito vote — as one of the members of the “Gang of 14” he gave us a situation similar to what happened with the bankruptcy bill.
Lamont:

Look, if Ned Lamont was a U.S. Senator from Connecticut, I would have led the charge against the Alito nomination. You really learn how much our country has swung to the right when you see that, moving from Sandra Day O’Connor—who was obviously nominated by that liberal Ronald Reagan—all the way over to Judge Alito. Alito has had a long agenda and part of his agenda is to outlaw a woman’s right to choose and to overturn Roe v. Wade. If you don’t think it’s important, you don’t think these basic rights we have are at risk, look at that bill that just came out of South Dakota, which will outlaw a woman’s right to choose even in the case of rape and incest. That bill’s headed right to the Supreme Court in the next 18 months or so, and it’s going to be a close call—and it won’t be a close call if Judge Stevens isn’t there with us. So, I would’ve opposed Alito, I would’ve supported the filibuster, I would’ve kept that debate going. It’s too crucial to what’s going on.

Education: Lieberman supports a voucher plan.

Lamont:

One of the things I’ve enjoyed doing over the last couple of years is teaching a course up at an inner city high school in Bridgeport, Connecticut on how to start your own business. We get successful entrepreneurs, mentors, folks from the community involved in the school and it gives kids something to dream about, something to inspire them, something to believe that they can learn again. I get a couple of messages out of that. One, I believe in a strong community public school system. Anything that distracts from that is a step in the wrong direction and does a disservice to our kids. And two, we’ve got to get the community involved in our schools. We need more parents, we need more coaches, we need more instructors to help these kids, get them back into the classroom, to get them to believe that they can do it. We really are not doing that right now for our kids, and we really cannot afford to leave them behind.

Lieberman supported federal intervention in the Terri Schiavo case.

Lamont’s reaction to that:

That was really one of the issues that got my blood boiling early on. I mean, we have a federal government that keeps intruding into our private lives in ways that we never had anticipated. Maybe it started with stem cell research, and then, as you point out, the Terry Schiavo case. Tom DeLay [said] the federal government was going to intervene in what was [one of] the most tragic decisions that families have to make. Sen. Lieberman supported that DeLay intervention; I think it was wrong.

Healthcare: Not much action from Lieberman, although he does support stem cell research, and has complained that Bush’s medicare plan is insufficient at meeting the needs of the elderly.
When it comes to women who have been the victims of rape, he thinks it’s all right if hospitals decide to refuse to give the morning after pill, and that they should never be forced to do so. He said: “In Connecticut, it shouldn’t take more than a short ride to get to another hospital.” Yeah, that’s right Joe, a brutalized woman should just stiffen that upper lip and somehow arrange to get a ride to another hospital if she doesn’t want to end up carrying her rapists baby.

Lamont on Healthcare:

First of all, it’s unconscionable that we have 46-47 million people uninsured; we’ve got 15 million-plus who are underinsured. To me, health care is a basic right for all Americans. We’re going to decide as a country that there is a minimum health care benefit that everybody is qualified for. From my point of view, it will be a requirement that you be insured, it will be a requirement that your employer provide a basic level of health insurance, and if you are not employed then you’ll be insured via the federal government or on your own.

Here are some closing remarks that were just reported on as Tuesday’s primary looms ahead with Lamont still holding a lead in the polls:

“Look at me, folks - I’m not George Bush,” Lieberman said, pointing to his 18 years in the Senate. He has vowed to stay in the race on an independent line if he loses the primary. Lamont shot back that Lieberman’s campaign is spending more and attacked Lieberman’s record. “What has that 18 years got us?” Lamont asked at a fire-department carnival in Orange. “I just don’t think Washington should be just for those who are lifetime career politicians. How about a guy who started up a business from scratch?”

Yeah, how about it? Despite what Jack says about Lamont being a rich kid (which he is), he happens to be a rich kid who started his own business, one that had absolutely nothing to do with what his family did, and built it into an amazing success. Unlike Bush, for instance, who had numerous opportunities, most of which had to do with his families connections, but managed to fail every single time.

“Which would you prefer? A Republican win in Connecticut, or a Lieberman Independent win in Connecticut, if it came between those two options (though I doubt it will)?”

To be perfectly honest, judging by his votes and actions, I see very little real difference between a “Republican win” and a Lieberman-as-Independent win. Being a progressive, I’d naturally prefer to see a Lamont win for the state of Connecticut.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 7, 2006 4:45 PM
Comment #173856

Jack, read my answer to jbod. The many reasons to like Lamont are all right there.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 7, 2006 4:48 PM
Comment #173859

Btw, here’s a link to Arianna’s HuffingtonPost article that appeared today regarding: “Lieberman’s desperate, clammy, last-ditch attempt to save his political hide.”

Posted by: Adrienne at August 7, 2006 5:19 PM
Comment #173863

“Let me sum up the current Democratic view. “Voter are unhappy with Republicans therefore they love Democrats.”

Sorry, but you’re just not qualified to make this assessment. Would you like to really know what the current Democratic view is, or are you happy with your delusions?

Posted by: tony at August 7, 2006 5:58 PM
Comment #173865

Democrat civil war? I don’t think so. I think David Remer’s more correct in that he calls it a wave of anti-incumbency

Posted by: Ceazy_joe_divola at August 7, 2006 6:04 PM
Comment #173866

Democrat civil war? I don’t think so. I think David Remer’s more correct in that he calls it a wave of anti-incumbency

Posted by: Crazy_joe_divola at August 7, 2006 6:04 PM
Comment #173868

Adrienne

I can see why you might like Lamont. You can probably see why someone like Joe or me might not. Some of his goals are good (energy conservation), but let’s see how he does achieving them. Others are just bad (fightin Alito) and I wish him no luck.

Most of the time a guy like this would not be a challenge to Leiberman.

Re making fun of rich kid Dems - as I told Woody, that is just too much fun. Of course Republicans also have their rich kids, but Dems always make such a big deal about their party of the working man myth. You know in 2004, Bush was the poorest of the rich guys (Kerry, Edwards and Cheney were all much richer).

BTW - Dems alway also make such a big (and invalid) case about the long reach of capitalists’ dead hands. You know that Tom Lamont is the guy who approved the loans that funded Mussolini. You know, I think this is BS too, but next time the Desm give me a hard time about something that happened a generation or two ago, I will recall that they don’t seem to care at all about these things.

BTW 2 - I actually admire people like Lamont and Morgan. If they were my grandfather, I would be bragging about it.

Posted by: Jack at August 7, 2006 6:10 PM
Comment #173869

Tony

I am happy with my delusions about Dems as they are happy with theirs about Republicans.

Sorry. Got to go. They are sellin’ shotguns over to the church and I have to git me a new houndog to harass people who are not like me.

Sort of like that delusion?

In case you are going to give me the blue/red crap, forget it. I will, however give you one more less serious story. SAT tests are biased in favor of NE urban elites, since they talk about things they know about. Consider this FAIR question for the SAT:

Your uncle bob is building a porch out of yellow pine. It is ten feet wide by twelve feet across. When that porch collapses, how many dogs will be killed?

Posted by: Jack at August 7, 2006 6:16 PM
Comment #173871

Jack -

OK, here’s the reason I’ve been so on your case about assumptions and stuff like that. Our political and global environment has become poisonous.

We assume huge & horrible things about the other side, and no longer check for verification.

“Islam is violent and evil.” (Just to take a recent discussion as an example.) Well, both sides can go find quotes and arguments to prove the other side is evil and the more extreme one side gets, the other will follow. This keeps up in an endless cycle until both sides are so extremely far apart and at each other’s throats that… What is the possible outcome? Peace? Hardly. War without end? OK, but what is the point in that? We’ve reached that point in the Middle East where all sides simply see their hatred of the other - and the violent reactions they will take, but no one is looking to find a solution to getting back to doing what both sides truly want to do, which is live out their lives with friends and family. Both sides now consider it an honor to cut off their own noses to spite their face. They probably have parades to celebrate it.

We are both Americans, and we both study issues and possible solutions, but we happen to come to different conclusions. That’s OK as long as we both realize that both sides have reasons and thought for what they believe AND that both sides are generally trying to head for the same end goal.

Maybe we should start looking at what we want to achieve first, and then find paths to get us all their, rather than the DC way of life. I can guarantee you that the politicians in DC have decided on what they want, and that’s to stay in power… their path is to keep up all divided.

Posted by: tony at August 7, 2006 6:32 PM
Comment #173879

Jack:
“You know that Tom Lamont is the guy who approved the loans that funded Mussolini. You know, I think this is BS too, but next time the Desm give me a hard time about something that happened a generation or two ago, I will recall that they don’t seem to care at all about these things.”

Yeah, well I think it depends, Jack. I don’t really think it’s fair to judge the great-grandson by the great-grandfather. You mentioned Tom Lamont who was chairman of J.P. Morgan & Co. and is the great-grandfather to Ned Lamont, but you’re forgetting Ned’s own father Ted Lamont was an economist working on the Marshall Plan for the reconstruction Europe after WWII, and later worked in the Nixon administration for the Dept. of Housing and Urban development. You’re also forgetting his uncle, Corliss Lamont, who was the director of the ACLU from 1932 to 1954, the president emeritus of the American Humanist Association, and a prolific author of books on the subject of humanist philosophy.
So, I think what his father and uncle managed to accomplish in their lives kinda cancels out that loan approval for Il Duce.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 7, 2006 7:14 PM
Comment #173901

Jack,

What you call “fun” some would call mind-blowing hypocrisy. We have learned from you that Ned Lamont is rich (horrible!), doesn’t work (huh?), and that his grandfather did business with fascists (just like Dubya’s grandfather). We have also learned that he does not have enough political experience for your taste, which Republicans usually see as a virtue.

Have you come up with any substantive problems with Lamont, or should we talk this massive pile of fluff as evidence that he is actually a good candidate?

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 7, 2006 9:25 PM
Comment #173907

Adrienne

I think you missed my point. I really do not care what the grandfathers did. A person is responsible only for what he/she does. I am sure that Tom Lamont did lots of good things too. Many times what seems good to one person is bad to another. And our judgments change with time. You probably have read a few bios of Ben Franklin. His reputation has changed completely several times. Which is “right”.

An even more interesting example in George Armstrong Custer. Currently he is demonized. A generation ago he was glorified. Before that his reputation was mixed. One of my distant relatives served under Custer with Wisconsin troops just after the Civil War. After Little Bighorn the toast at the Wisconsin reunions was always, “Gentlemen, the Sioux.”

The problem I have with heredity rich guys is that sometimes they are out of touch. Since they did not work for what they got, they often forget that most people do. This often moves them to the left, since if you believe outcomes are not primarily the result of effort redistributive policies make a lot of sense.

Returning to the main point, liberals tend look for historical guilt. They believe in appologizing for things that happened before they were born. I am not. But since liberals are affected by such things, I have no problem bothering them about it.

Tony

Let’s not get too reasonable. Yesterday’s enemy is tomorrow’s ally and no conflict ever yields a permanent result. But it is our lot to keep on fighting, sort of like Valhalla, where the sprits of the brave live (and struggle) forever. There was always some dispute whether that was heaven or hell.

Americans agree on most things. I am with you that we should not create such poisonous environments, especially among our fellow Americans. We do have common goals and common dream. Even if the road is rough and steep, we don’t always need to blame each other.

Posted by: Jack at August 7, 2006 9:43 PM
Comment #173909

Woody

He is not a bad candidate, but he is not a particularly good one either. The volume of vitrol unleased in this campaign, which is Dem on Dem BTW, shows the divisions in the party. It does not make me unhappy if I can stir the pot a bit.

Posted by: Jack at August 7, 2006 9:46 PM
Comment #173911
The volume of vitrol unleased in this campaign, which is Dem on Dem BTW, shows the divisions in the party.

That is wishful thinking. The Democratic Party is not that divided on Iraq. The only reason this contest is even remotely close is because Lieberman is a well-connected incumbent. Based on the way the candidates talk about the issues, Lieberman would not have a chance.

I predict that Lamont will win by 10%, and Lieberman will immediately be under a lot of pressure to withdraw. Sooner or later he will. This “civil war” will end with a whimper.

As for the vitriol, you could find that in a lot of primary races. The only thing odd about this one is that Lieberman is threatening to bolt the party.

Oh, and yes, it is Democrat-on-Democrat. The GOP candidate doesn’t have a chance. Funny how you guys are enjoying a loss so much…


Posted by: Woody Mena at August 7, 2006 10:07 PM
Comment #173914

Woody

So Dems are united that we should begin an immediate withdrawal of our fighting troops from Iraq? I thought so.

Posted by: Jack at August 7, 2006 10:22 PM
Comment #173918

“Americans agree on most things. I am with you that we should not create such poisonous environments, especially among our fellow Americans. We do have common goals and common dream. Even if the road is rough and steep, we don’t always need to blame each other.”

“He is not a bad candidate, but he is not a particularly good one either. The volume of vitrol unleased in this campaign, which is Dem on Dem BTW, shows the divisions in the party. It does not make me unhappy if I can stir the pot a bit.”

Two comments, one right after the other, Jack.

Frankly, I think articles such as this one show desperation — Lamont, indeed: you paint him has an ultra-extreme peacenik for rather mild comments about using carrots and sticks. Diversionary tactic? Your own party is going after Bush now: Specter, Hagle, Steele. Years before, McCain, Luger, Buchanan, and many others paved the way. It must be tiring to constantly be apologizing for a failed presidency. You’ve tried, gamely, by bringing up Clausewitz, asserting that Democrats would have done worse, pleading that we forget the past and focus on the present, etc. I admire the perseverance, but sooner or later, one must face facts.

You’ve said before, as justification for over-strident rhetoric, that you are a partisan.

Here is the definition of partisan from Merriam-Webster:

“1 : a firm adherent to a party , faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance”

I’m sorry, Jack. I actually like you. Many of your posts are reasonably presented, and when I encountered one that smacked of over-the-top political rhetoric, I was so disappointed that I commented with anger. Not for the rhetoric itself — we’re all used to it — but because you sunk to that level. I’m not claiming any high ground — I’ve done it too, and felt dirty afterward.

Posted by: Trent at August 7, 2006 10:35 PM
Comment #173924

Trent

I enjoy the politics. You will notice that my posts re energy, environment or foreign policy are (I think) reasonable. Those are things I believe in and thing we should look for common solutions.

Politics is a contact sport. I do not hate my opponents, but I do take advantage of their weaknesses.

We have politics for things we cannot agree about. If we all agree, we have law or tradition, not politics. I think politics can (should) be free of hate. But it must (should) be rough at times.

I actually stay away from retail politics these days because I just can’t take it. But I understand that it is something that needs to be done.

I don’t really have a dog in the Lieberman/Lamont fight. But it seems to me that a Lamont victory would be a big kick in the face for moderation. That is my true opinon. I have had fun pestering the Dems, but they have given me a lot to work with.

Re Politics, you remember Bismarck’s comment about politics and sausage. But there isn’t really much alternative.

Posted by: Jack at August 7, 2006 11:11 PM
Comment #173934

Jack:
“I think you missed my point. I really do not care what the grandfathers did.”

Ha! And yet it was so transparent, Jack. Your point was to disparage Lamont by association by making mention of what his great grandfather did during his career. And my point was to show that the good works his father and uncle have done for this country may well have been a great inspiration to him — enough to lead him into politics.

“The problem I have with heredity rich guys is that sometimes they are out of touch.”

Yeah, sometimes, I’d have to agree. Guys like our president, for instance. But Ned Lamont’s first job was working at a small newspaper in Vermont. Not exactly the kind of first working experience that most silver-spooners go after.

“Since they did not work for what they got, they often forget that most people do. This often moves them to the left, since if you believe outcomes are not primarily the result of effort redistributive policies make a lot of sense.”

Ned Lamont didn’t work for what he’s got? That is just complete Nonsense. Like I mentioned earlier, the man built a successful business from the ground up, in a field that his family had no background in whatsoever. And please, cut the crap with that “not the result of effort” and “redistributive policies” garbage.
It’s so unbecoming the way you righties try to lie and slander the left this way all the time. There are many entrepreneurs on both sides of the political aisle, so just knock it off.
Look, Ned Lamont’s successful business effort stands out because it was in fact successful — just as Bush’s many failures in business stand out because with all the help and connections anyone could possibly ever hope to have, he turned them into failures.

“Returning to the main point, liberals tend look for historical guilt.”

Liberals might well take a brief look at historical guilt if a persons background seems to have had a detrimental effect on their development from childhood to fully grown adult. But that is because progressives tend to look at cause and effect when making most judgement calls — and family background is just one of many things we might attribute a persons lack of character on.

“They believe in appologizing for things that happened before they were born.”

No, not apologize. But we do like to think that by reading about and remembering lessons from history, we can possibly avoid repeating serious mistakes. Republicans don’t I suppose — hence the Iraq quagmire, which as Chuck Hagel said recently is “an absolute replay of Vietnam.”

“since liberals are affected by such things, I have no problem bothering them about it.”

Oh Jack, I do believe you’re giving yourself far too much credit with that comment! :^)

“He is not a bad candidate, but he is not a particularly good one either.”

Really? Hmmm.
Let’s take a look: Before running for the Senate, Ned Lamont graduated from Phillips Exeter Academy, earned his bachelor’s degree from Harvard, and his Masters in Public and Private Management from the Yale School of Management. Started and to this day runs his very successful business. Was elected and served as selectman in the town of Greenwich, Connecticut, for two terms, eight years total. Chaired the state investment advisory council, and has served on whole bunch of civic boards. Aside from all that, he’s extremely articulate and gets his points across both forcefully and eloquently. I’d say he’s got quite a lot going for him, and is more than qualified to be elected as Connecticut’s Senator.

PS to Trent, I agree that Jack is a bright guy, but the truth is, he’s very prone to shamelessly contradict himself whenever he’s trying really hard to jab a sharp stick in the collective liberal eye.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 8, 2006 12:22 AM
Comment #173980

I think we should trade Joe and a player to be named later to the GOP for McCain. Oh no, that’s right, we don’t like him either, nevermind…

Posted by: Rene at August 8, 2006 4:20 AM
Comment #173996
[Lamont] is not a bad candidate, but he is not a particularly good one either.

Tell that to Joe Lieberman!

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 8, 2006 7:43 AM
Comment #174009

“Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right.” H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

Funny how true that is, even today.

Posted by: Matt at August 8, 2006 9:40 AM
Comment #174010

Jack, well, I agree, politics is dirty — if it’s possible to sway the gullible or misinformed with patriotic rah-rahs, distortions, faulty logic etc., then, of course, the less than scrupulous will resort to such tactics and soothe their consciences with the “ends justify the means” rationales.

However, this isn’t TV — to even be here, we had to seek this place out, have at least a minimal interest in politics, make a bit of effort. Because of this, a large number of us are unlikely to be converted by such tactics. (Maybe that is too optimistic, but I guess we all have our fantasies.)

I guess my point is, I’m here to learn as much as anything — but when my “b.s.” detector starts going off, I discredit what I read. In terms of influencing my opinion, you’ve done a much better job in your articles that come across as reasonable. You know, after you wrote about Newt and health care, I went and read all I could about his ideas on the topic and like many of them. But when you just engage in partisan rhetoric, I discredit it, even if you have some valid points. Such posts make the already converted feel justified, harden the opposition, and in general polarize attitudes. And given that the country in general and your own party is turning on the president and his policies, polarizing attitudes at this point is a losing Republican strategy (hmmmm, maybe I should keep my mouth shut!).

Anyway if we see that politics is a filthy business), what is the honorable course? Trying to clean it up or flinging more sh*t?

Posted by: Trent at August 8, 2006 9:59 AM
Comment #174013
I have been searching for Dem priorities. I found a list and posted about it. If it was soup, it would be too thin to fill your belly. The Democrat strategy is NOT to be Republican. Maybe it will work. Posted by: Jack at August 7, 2006 04:45 PM

Maybe it’s just not your cup of soup. But, in any case, “not Republican” has to be good enough given the disastrous results the Republicans have given us the last 5 years.

Posted by: Dave1 at August 8, 2006 10:14 AM
Comment #174038

Chris Dukes
Bravo!!! Someone else sees the FLIM FLAM.
June

Posted by: june at August 8, 2006 12:40 PM
Comment #174042

How’s this for a civil war?

“The rank-and-file members of the Democratic Party are constantly encouraged to sacrifice the long run on the altar of the short and vote for the lesser of two evils; yet voting for the lesser of two evils has never given us better Republicans only worse Democrats.

It is also time to get rid of the myth of the “spineless Democratic leadership”. The leaders of the Democratic Party are not spineless. They are doing just what they are told to do by their corporate paymasters.”

http://counterpunch.com/murphy08082006.html

Some interesting voter tactics by the Dems in Pennsylvania as well.

Posted by: Tim Crow at August 8, 2006 12:57 PM
Comment #174045

Let me try some Jackian jabs at the other side along with some prognostication. The Rs have so obviously screwed up the international scene as well as our domestic economics that the electorate throws them out in the next 2-6 years. Ds regain control of the Congress and maybe the Presidency, but of course the problems are so bad that they can’t be solved in one election cycle, so the continuing deterioration convinces the electorate that the Ds are just as screwed up. People are out of work, the warring in the Middle East grows hotter and US can’t get out because they are still locked down in Iraq. Soldiers are dying at an increasing rate, and since a D can’t be saddled with “losing” a war, we stay, and stay, and stay, without hope of “winning” or even breaking even. Along comes some right-wing demagogue who promises to fix things if given emergency powers articulated by the Bush administration’s unitary executive theory and no strings are attached. The Supreme Court is packed with like-minded justices, and Congress’s power is weakened even more than what we see now.

Voila, the right-wing wet dream of a totalitarian regime that is friendly to business, favors the wealthy, hungrily seeks empire, and enforces a police state through surveillance, intimidation, and economic privation has been acheived with the acquiescence of a majority of the public. With those powers firmly entrenched we never have another free and open election, because only those parties hewing to the administration rules can be elected. Control of the election mechanisms and the Supreme Court, along with a toothless Congress ensures an enduring legacy. American is no more. We are just a large banana republic.

And then I woke up…

Posted by: Mental Wimp at August 8, 2006 1:12 PM
Comment #174049

Yikes, Mental Wimp. That’s damn close to a nightmare I have every so often. Honestly, I think such a scenario is far more likely than that terrorists will ever seriously threaten this country. If we lose our democracy, it’ll be in a way similar to what you sketch. It’s why I place preserving Constitutional freedoms above loyalty to any party or candidate.

I’m not sure if I was blessed or cursed by reading Orwell back in the ’70s.

Posted by: Trent at August 8, 2006 1:45 PM
Comment #174052

Trent,

It’s amazing how KKKarl seems to haven taken his cues from the Orwellian nightmares.

Mental,

You’ve managed an excellent and succinct report of my watchblog ramblings :-)

Tim,

That quote is about the worst crap I’ve heard since the last Slimeboater garbage I didn’t turn off in time.

Posted by: Dave1 at August 8, 2006 2:14 PM
Comment #174063

Kick ‘em:

Me bomb people into submission? I don’t understand. I don’t know when I even talked about bombs. Explain.

Posted by: stubborn conservative at August 8, 2006 3:46 PM
Comment #174069

Dave wrote:
Mental, truly harrowing scenario.

“Tim,

That quote is about the worst crap I’ve heard since the last Slimeboater garbage I didn’t turn off in time.”

I’ve gotta agree with Dave here, Tim. That piece was just a little too over the top. Kind of came off as sour-grapes propaganda for third party consumption.

Getting back to the topic here — good article by Glen Greenwald: Why do neoconservative extremists love Joe Lieberman?
You’ve got to click on his video link to Newt — he’s now calling those who oppose Lieberman in Connecticut “insurgents!”
Can you believe that sh*t?

Posted by: Adrienne at August 8, 2006 4:28 PM
Comment #174071

Argh. Sorry, that “Dave wrote” should have been just above the quote starting with “Tim”.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 8, 2006 4:30 PM
Comment #174077

Adrienne

I am just a simple guy. You are ascribing to me way to much complexity. I went after Lamont’s lineage because I could and because it annoys liberals. The only complexity in my thinking was to draw out Lamont’s defenders so that next time we get some comment on generational guilt on the other side, I can taunt them a second time.

Re building a business from the ground up. It always helps to have capital AND connections. I think it is impossible for someone like Lamont to start at ground level. I mean no disrespect for the man. One of my goals in life was to make sure my kids never had to start from the ground. But it is just a fact that guys like him born on third base sometimes think they hit a triple.

“Phillips Exeter Academy, earned his bachelor’s degree from Harvard, and his Masters in Public and Private Management from the Yale School of Management.” Even in writing that has the posh accent and the sweet smell of privilege. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Re Iraq being the exact replay of Vietnam, I guess if you take away the jungle, the divided country, recent legacy of a world war, the superpower rivalry, the tanks and armor of the north and add in the religious elements, the ethic diversity, the resource base and the deserts, it is a replay.

In Vietnam, however, it depends on which years you are replaying. Is it 1967 when the insurgency was strong? Is it 1972 when the insurgency was defeated leaving only N. Vietnam regular army? Is it 1973 when the U.S. pulled out, or 1974 when North Vietnam conquered the south and the U.S. did not help?

Trent

You should pester the blue side for calling the president a liar, saying we stole the 2004 elections, writing that most people who vote Republican are stupid or duped and insisting that all red state voters are red necks. If I ridicule these things because it is fun and easy to do (but also happens to be true) is that a bad thing?

If in response to someone writing KKKarl Rove, I point out that most KKK members were Dems, Jim Crow laws were passed by Democratically controlled legislatures, proportionally more Republicans voted for the Civil Rights act and that the only former KKK member currently in the Senate is a Dem, is that playing dirty or just pointing out facts?

Posted by: Jack at August 8, 2006 5:10 PM
Comment #174079

Jack, I read the Republican bloggers more because it’s generally true you learn more from people you initially disagree with than from those you agree with. Regardless, I think it’s clear that my comments about reasonable discourse apply across the political spectrum. You may or may not feel flattered to know that I’ve stopped reading some of the other Republican bloggers because all they engage in is empty rhetoric. I guess I pick on you sometimes because you are better than most. I think I’ve commented favorably about your articles numerous times. I truly do not have to agree with a person to respect him or her, but, yes, as a student of rhetoric, I place high value on what I’d term ethical discourse. And, as I think I’ve admitted, I sometimes fall short of the mark too. No hard feelings?

Posted by: Trent at August 8, 2006 5:34 PM
Comment #174080

Jack,

The Viet Cong “insurgency” was essentially defanged as a strategic force during the Tet Offensive. Are you planning to launch another Linebacker on Iran with secret forays into Syria? Where is the MIA (Mohammad Islamofascist Army) and the Sadr trail; or was the comparison supposed to some weird humor?

And the simple guy routine may work for Bushhole, but get real. I used to play Risk with a guy like you in college. It didn’t take long to figure out the -little-‘ol-me- feint. He never won again and quit, as he depended more on not being noticed than for any real competencies. Of course here, you can just act like the thread is over and move on or repeat (r)wingnut nonsense. Must feel awful at 0 - 268.

Posted by: Dave1 at August 8, 2006 5:40 PM
Comment #174081

Trent

I have been in a good mood last couple of days. It is probably ironic that I write my most partisan stuff when I am in a good mood because I think it is fun. While the stakes in politics are high, it is not really a serious endeavor, at least you cannot take yourself seriously when you are playing the game.

My wife’s family is from Norwegian Wisconsin farm stock. They never like to argue and never discuss politics or religion. I figured out the reason is that they get too much ego invested and they get mad at each other when they disagree. This is not my way.

I don’t mind a good attack at my expense, if it is cleverly done. I get tired of some of the endless Bush lied and stole election mantras because they are rarely clever. This ethical discourse of which you speak probably does not apply to politics. As I said on other occassions, I am an advocate. I do not say things I know to be false, but I am not (unlike Fox News) trying to be fair and balanced.

The problem I see with “politics” is when politicans are in a constant campaign mode and when compromise is demonized. I really believe this is happened in Lieberman’s case. The activists want to kick him out because he does not toe the hateful line they have set out.

I also see a problem with “peace candidates”. Most people prefer peace to war, but sometimes you cannot have what you want and often trying to establish peace with the wrong methods or at the wrong time ends up causing bigger and more destructive wars. When to end a war or when to pull back are difficult questions. Often the options are limited. The President has always advocates and advocated today U.S. troops leaving Iraq as soon as possible. I just don’t think “possible” will work to our time table.

Posted by: Jack at August 8, 2006 5:53 PM
Comment #174082

Dave1

Risk is a kids game that depends too much on the roll of the dice.

My point in Vietnam analogie is to ask WHEN. We need to dispel the myth that the insurgency defeated the U.S. Tet and the years after effectively defeated the insurgents. Absent the N. Vietnamese army, the situation would never have ended as it did.

The Vietnamese civil war ended much like ours: with the stronger northern army conquering the south. It is still a defeat, but a very different story. It is like forgetting US Grant in our civil war and believing the war was won by a southern slave revolt. It might be a more compelling story, but it is wrong. If you get the story wrong, you are likely to draw the wrong conclusions and the wrong parallels.

That happens when we compare Vietnam to Iraq. The biggest parallel is that public opinion in the U.S. largely determined the outcome. That one is usually overlooked.

Posted by: Jack at August 8, 2006 6:04 PM
Comment #174083

Jack,

The prime relevency I see between Iraq and Viet Nam was that we didn’t know better before we got into Viet Nam.
I agree that Risk is a good game for teens. However, although it is not as pure as chess nor as developed as S&T style games, it has the added factors of interpersonal relations. Something very applicable in the Mid east and sorely lacking in this administrations planings.

Posted by: Dave1 at August 8, 2006 6:23 PM
Comment #174084
Jack wrote: We hear that the Dems are going to kick Republican ass.

No need.
Republicans are doing pretty good already.
But, it’s really more like shooting one’s own foot.

Jack wrote: I do not recall things being so good in 1994, when democrats controlled everything or during the late 1970s etc, but memory fades

Me neither.
I agree.
The problem is that both parties stink.
Why?

Because 90% of congress consists of INCUMBENT politicians that have been there a long, long time.

Perhaps there is a correlation? Duh !

After all, according to Democratic statements, everything would be fine if Republicans didn’t mess it up. The mere absence of Republicans should fix things up, according to Dems. Fix ‘em up good.

True. That would eliminate half the probem.

But, the fact is, it has less to do with party and more to do with what each party consists of?

Each party has the very same problem.

Each party is merely the sum of its parts, and too many broken parts means that party is broken. The broken parts need to be replaced. In both parties.

Why? Because each consists of INCUMBENT politicians mostly. INCUMBENCY” rates are very high (about 90% overall).

The one common thread to our pressing and worsening problems is NOT because of which party is the current “In Party” or “Out Party”. Both parties just take turns being the “In Party” and the “Out Party”.

No. The common thread IS the numerous INCUMBENTs of both parties that keep getting re-elected, over and over.

If these INCUMBENTs are doing such a great job, why are things so [explicative] up ? (and getting worse).

Why keep re-electing these [explicative] INCUMBENT politicians when most (if not all):

  • vote irresponsibly for pork-barrel, graft, and corporate welfare (while our troops risk life and limb, go without body armor, armor for vehicles, and adequate medical and health care) ?

  • vote themselves cu$hy perk$ and rai$e$ ?

  • ignore problems for fear of risking re-election or defying their big-money-donors ? 83% of all federal donations ($200 or more) come from a mere 0.1% of the U.S. population. That’s right. One tenth of one percent. How can the remaining 99.9% of the U.S. population compete with that. No wornder government is FOR SALE. No wonder bought-and-paid-for politicians carre the water for the big-money-donors.

  • prevent newcomers from passing badly-needed, common-sense, no-brainer, responsible reforms ?

  • tempt, pressure, and threaten newcomers with the loss of party support if the newcomers don’t accept the status quo ?
  • pander ?

  • lie ?

  • peddle influence and accept money from big-money-donors ?

  • fuel the petty partisan warfare that distracts the nation from our many pressing problems ?

  • spend a great deal of time and tax-payers’ money (via allowances) trolling for money for their campaign war-chests ?

  • abuse their allowances (provided by tax-payers) to retain their cu$hy, coveted seats of power ?

  • look the other way ?

  • lile to grow government ever larger, to nightmare proportions ?

  • want to spend more, borrow more, and want the Federal Reserve to print even more money ?

  • reject any campaign finance reform, election reform, tax reform, or any reform that will create more transparent, accountable, and responsible government, even if it diminishes their opportunities for personal gain ?

  • are fiscally responsible ?

  • do not deserve to retain their cu$hy, coveted, and prized seats of abused power ?

It’s a grand experiment.
Let’s start a pool.
How long can we crap in our own nest before the branch snaps?

Posted by: d.a.n at August 8, 2006 6:27 PM
Comment #174087

Dave1

War is always a risk (pardon the use) and we NEVER know what we are getting into. We choose among bad options sometimes. With Iraq there was no zero option. Information available at the time indicated Saddam was a risk. Whether or not the risk was greater if he remained or if we got rid of him was a judgement call. We know all the bad things that have happened since he was removed. We also know some good things. We can only speculate about the good and bad results of leaving him in power.

I really don’t know if the situation in the Middle East would be more or less dangerous if Saddam was still calling the shots in Iraq.

We never know what we are getting into.

Posted by: Jack at August 8, 2006 6:44 PM
Comment #174089

Especially when the CIA can’t connect the dots.
I thought they taught that in Kindergarden.
Lots of blunders

Posted by: d.a.n at August 8, 2006 6:51 PM
Comment #174090

jack,

Glad we agree that we never know what we’re getting into when we go to war. I guess we don’t agree with the idea that it is never a good idea to start a war. (As I’ve posted before, it might be necessary, but it is never right nor a good choice)
The “zero choice” data you refer to was fabricated by Bush who created a nonexistent Saddam—-9/11 connection to justify a war. He knew it, most of the world knows it. Some day even you’ll admit it.

Posted by: Dave1 at August 8, 2006 6:52 PM
Comment #174091

Dave1

War is always a risk (pardon the use) and we NEVER know what we are getting into. We choose among bad options sometimes. With Iraq there was no zero option. Information available at the time indicated Saddam was a risk. Whether or not the risk was greater if he remained or if we got rid of him was a judgement call. We know all the bad things that have happened since he was removed. We also know some good things. We can only speculate about the good and bad results of leaving him in power.

I really don’t know if the situation in the Middle East would be more or less dangerous if Saddam was still calling the shots in Iraq.

We never know what we are getting into.

Posted by: Jack at August 8, 2006 6:53 PM
Comment #174093

d.a.n.

Item 20: Russia is not an allie”

Posted by: Dave1 at August 8, 2006 6:55 PM
Comment #174094

Dave1,
Ally?
Maybe not now?
What about then?
Hell, I’m not sure I’d call France and ally either.
They’re not really our enemies, are they?
The are members of the U.N. (Useless Nations).

Posted by: d.a.n at August 8, 2006 7:01 PM
Comment #174100

Jack:

War is always a risk (pardon the use)

Very true, especially when you start it. When you start it, you have to make things better than they were before. When the other guy starts it, all you have to do is keep from losing or, failing that, frustrate his efforts. Now which did you Reps/Cons choose to do in Iraq?

and we NEVER know what we are getting into.

Although, once again, when you start a war you presumably have scoped things out pretty carefully and have at least a vague idea of what is possible and what is not. Seems to me like at every turn, the Bush administration has been completely caught off guard and made to look foolish in Iraq, from the “slam-dunk” assurance there were WMDs that threatened us, to the prediction we would be welcomed with flowers and candy, to the prediction that the war would pay for itself with oil revenues, on and on and on.

We choose among bad options sometimes. With Iraq there was no zero option.

No, actually there was the option of putting the UN weapon inspectors back in there and letting them finish the job they were doing when they were kicked out. I know, I know: you’re going to say that they were ejected during Clinton’s watch. Well, maybe if you jackasses weren’t impeaching him for lying about consensual sex, he might have had a some time to deal with the weapons inspector problem.

Information available at the time indicated Saddam was a risk.Whether or not the risk was greater if he remained or if we got rid of him was a judgement call.

Well, we’re making some progress if you can (as you have just done) admit that it was bad judgement to go into Iraq and completely destroy any slight amount of stability in the region by taking out the only thing that kept Iraq at bay, freeing them to pursue a proxy war against Israel via Lebanon. So, I salute you for that. None of your Rep/Con allies have admitted that.

We know all the bad things that have happened since he was removed. We also know some good things.

You seem to have neglected to state any of these good things that have happened. Halliburton’s excellent financial results, maybe? You’ll have to help me out on this one, I did attend a state college…

We can only speculate about the good and bad results of leaving him in power.

Well the good that might have occurred if we’d left him in there might be

1) 3000+ US soldiers not dead
2) 10s of thousands of US soldiers not permanently maimed
3) Billions of our tax dollars not poured in the toilet and flushed
4) We could have concentrated on Afghanistan and OBL
5) We could have strengthened our border security

I really don’t know if the situation in the Middle East would be more or less dangerous if Saddam was still calling the shots in Iraq.

Yes, you do. You just can’t bring yourself to admit it. And you know why that is? It’s because you’re a Republican and Republicans are genetically incapable of admitting they or any other Republican could possibly be wrong about something.

We never know what we are getting into.

Yes, you do, especially when you start a war. If you start a war without knowing what you’re getting, what does that say about you as a political party? If you are pulled into a war without starting it, as we were in WWII, that’s one thing. But if you can decide in advance when, where, how and why you’re starting a war, how can you say you “never know what we are getting into.” It sounds like my 10-year-old: “It’s not my fault”; “I didn’t mean to”; “It was an accident”

Posted by: Crazy_joe_divola at August 8, 2006 7:30 PM
Comment #174105

When things go well, the “In Party” and “Out Party” both try to take credit.
When things go badly, the “In Party” blames it on:

  • “THE UNKNOWN”,

  • chance,

  • bad luck,

  • we never know,

  • if only we ever imagined,

  • or blames it on the “Out Party” (if possible).

The number of blunders by this administration is embarrassing.

That’s why we now read things like:

We never know what we are getting into

Now, imagine things had gone much better. You would then be reading:
We succeeded, despite the cut-and-run Democrats.

Needless to say, the partisan motivations shape the words we read.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 8, 2006 7:48 PM
Comment #174110

Crazy_joe_divola,

Excellent post! I don’ think I’ve ever read anything that was so clear and concise. You were well ordered and made your points without being petty or silly.
Job well done.

CONGRATS!

Posted by: Linda H. at August 8, 2006 8:37 PM
Comment #174116

Crazy

I suggest you read some military history a little more carefully. When you find one of these wars where the participants had scoped it out so well that they were not surprised, let me know. Pay particular attention to a well planned operation such as Normandy or maybe the great Robert E. Lee at Gettysburg, maybe Clinton in Somalia.

Decisions always have risks. That is why they are decisions and not simply procedures.

Thanks for calling me a jackass. I can understand your frustration about things you do not understand and forgive you.

I generally supported Clinton, BTW. I thought the impeachment was a mistake. Thought so at the time too. Clinton was a good president. He probably would have been a great president if he had been elected four or eight years later and given time for his judgement to harden and other parts of his anatomy to get softer.

Consider the zero option. WMD was not the only reason to consider Saddam a threat. He had been working to hurt the U.S. many years. Defied 17 UN resolutions. Shot at our planes in the no fly zone. I went over this more than a year ago. The decision criteria have not changed. You can read it here, so I will not repeat it.

BTW -literally millions of people died as a result of him. Peace organizations claimed that 50,000 Iraqi children died each year as a result of sanctions. W/o WMD sanctions would come off. That means no ability to inspect, abandoning no fly zones and Saddam being free to carry on his programs. That is the alternative you are advocating in the BEST case scenario.

We do not know if it would be better or worse today. It may well have come that we would have to fight in Iraq by now anyway and face a better organized response. The western powers avoided war several times in the 1930s. You would have advocated that policy back then and had the allies prevented the invasion of Sudetenland or Czechoslovakia, you would have decried it.

You may also recall that Franklin Roosevelt was essentially in a low level shooting war with Germany BEFORE Pearl Harbor. Had he not done that, the Germans may have won the war against the British. Democrats used to be smarter about these sorts of things.

Posted by: Jack at August 8, 2006 9:27 PM
Comment #174118

It looks like Lieberman lost. We know where the heart of the Democratic Party sits. Moveon.org, Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore are the mainstream of the party. People like Lieberman and his friend Bill Clinton are on the extremes now that the party has moved so far to the left.

Posted by: Jack at August 8, 2006 9:30 PM
Comment #174123

Jack,

Ned Lamont is in the mainstream of the US.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 8, 2006 9:45 PM
Comment #174129

Woody

The mainstream of the Dem Party, including former President Clinton supported Lieberman. If Lieberman runs as an independent, he will probably win.

This is not good news for the country because it is a blow to moderates and it is even worse news for the Dems. Once again it looks like they will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

What do Dems do if Lieberman runs as an independent? Do they spend their time and money to defeat him? I am sure the national party would prefer to use its resources to fight Republicans and not a former one of their own.

Posted by: Jack at August 8, 2006 10:14 PM
Comment #174130

Lieberman doesn’t stand a chance as an independent.
He’ll be raked over the coals by Democrats if he tries that for going against the Democratic party unity.
Remember, those Democrats are who he needs votes from.
The voters have spoken.
Lieberman is out.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 8, 2006 10:23 PM
Comment #174131

Jack,


You guys are apparently too thick to notice this, but the Democrats are going to win either way. Will they national party give money to Lamont? Probably not. It would be pretty silly, seeing that they can’t lose

I think you will see the Democratic politicians who were supporting Lieberman switch to Lamont. The people rule.

Of course I am assuming the results we have seen so far hold up. Otherwise it will be even simpler.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 8, 2006 10:25 PM
Comment #174133

D.a.n.

The voters have not spoken. Democratic activist have spoken. Conn is a blue state, but most of the voters either voted for Lieberman or as Republicans or independents did not vote in this election.

You are right that the Dems will trash Lieberman if he runs.

Here are some of the things they said when he was still one of them:

“Ned Lamont and his supporters need to [g]et real busy. Ned needs to beat Lieberman to a pulp in the debate and define what it means to be an AMerican who is NOT beholden to the Israeli Lobby” (by “rim,” posted on Huffington Post, July 6, 2006).

• “Joe’s on the Senate floor now and he’s growing a beard. He has about a weeks growth on his face… . I hope he dyes his beard Blood red. It would be so appropriate” (by “ctkeith,” posted on Daily Kos, July 11 and 12, 2005).

• On “Lieberman vs. Murtha”: “as everybody knows, jews ONLY care about the welfare of other jews; thanks ever so much for reminding everyone of this most salient fact, so that we might better ignore all that jewish propaganda [by Lieberman] about participating in the civil rights movement of the 60s and so on” (by “tomjones,” posted on Daily Kos, Dec. 7, 2005).

• “Good men, Daniel Webster and Faust would attest, sell their souls to the Devil. Is selling your soul to a god any worse? Leiberman cannot escape the religious bond he represents. Hell, his wife’s name is Haggadah or Muffeletta or Diaspora or something you eat at Passover” (by “gerrylong,” posted on the Huffington Post, July 8, 2006).

• “Joe Lieberman is a racist and a religious bigot” (by “greenskeeper,” posted on Daily Kos, Dec. 7, 2005).

BTW - I copied these from an article by Lanny Davis. Remember him? He worked for the right wing president Bill Clinton.

Posted by: Jack at August 8, 2006 10:30 PM
Comment #174135

Anonymous web postings as evidence. Lame, very lame.

OF COURSE Democrats are going to be mad if the loser doesn’t drop out. That’s why you have primary elections. The guy who loses concedes.

I won’t even respond to you your claim that the “voters have not spoken”, because you are apparently using a different language than English.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 8, 2006 10:37 PM
Comment #174136
I suggest you read some military history a little more carefully.

I read plenty of military history and I understand it just fine, thank you very much. What’s your point?

First, you’re going to have to name the wars that WE, the US, started rather than the ones we had no choice but to fight. There aren’t too many of them. Iraq is practically unprecedented, in terms of us starting a war. Civilized countries such as the US just don’t do that very often. So, first you do that, then we’ll talk.

Pay particular attention to a well planned operation such as Normandy or maybe the great Robert E. Lee at Gettysburg,

It’s interesting that you provide these two examples, because a) they WERE well-planned, unlike Iraq and b) they turned out well, unlike Iraq and c) we did not start those wars. Maybe you need to read your military history a little more carefully.

Things didn’t go perfectly in either Normandy or Gettysburg, but the mission WAS accomplished, unlike Iraq (in spite of the best PR efforts of faux-aviator prince George). What can we learn from this, Jack? Because apparently the Republicans have not learned anything from history.

maybe Clinton in Somalia.

Another good example. Who put us in Somalia? That’s right, daddy Bush did in the waning days of his reign, with little or no planning as to what would be accomplished, or how or why OR most importantly, what our exit strategy would be. Clinton had it dropped in his lap, a lot like Eisenhower dropped Viet Nam in Kennedy’s lap.

I can understand your frustration about things you do not understand

I obviously understand this far, far better than you do (or whoever is feeding you talking points),

and forgive you.

I neither sought nor need your forgiveness, and your patronizing attitude is not at all helpful.

I generally supported Clinton, BTW. I thought the impeachment was a mistake. Thought so at the time too. Clinton was a good president.

How is this relevant? The fact remains that the people whose political position you support spent Clinton’s entire presidency undermining him, when to do so necessarily resulted in reducing this nation’s ability to protect and defend against the very forces which ultimately perpetrated 9/11.

He probably would have been a great president if he had been elected four or eight years later and given time for his judgement to harden and other parts of his anatomy to get softer.

No, he probably would have been a great president if Republicans could have just put the safety and strength of this country ahead of their political ambitions. But they couldn’t, just like (I imagine) the Dems won’t be able to if (and this is a huge if) they regain control of Congress later this year. Chances are the Dems will not regain control of Congress, but my guess is that if they do, Bush will be impeached in 2007.

Consider the zero option. WMD was not the only reason to consider Saddam a threat. He had been working to hurt the U.S. many years.

This is not a reason for the US to start a war with anyone.

Defied 17 UN resolutions.

This is not a reason for the US to start a war with anyone.

Shot at our planes in the no fly zone.

The no-fly zone was a concept put up by the US and Britain, completely outside the UN Gulf war cease fire. Stop and think about this a minute, Jack: let’s say China declared a no-fly zone over Hawaii, what would the US do if Chinese fighters appeared over Hawaii? Shoot at them, would be my guess, justifiably I think. You’re probably one of those guys who think Israel has the right to do anything it considers necessary to defend itself, right? Why don’t you think Iraq has/had a right to defend itself against incursion into its airspace by the US and Britain? Hypocrisy would be my guess…

I went over this more than a year ago. The decision criteria have not changed. You can read it here, so I will not repeat it.

That’s good since I have exactly zero interest in re-reading it. The simple fact is that Iraq was never a threat to us, other than the trumped-up, cherry-picked WMD evidence that was used to fool the Senate into giving Bush blanket authority to do as he pleased to Iraq. You know it, I know it, the entire world knows it. You just won’t admit it.

BTW -literally millions of people died as a result of him. Peace organizations claimed that 50,000 Iraqi children died each year as a result of sanctions.

BTW, if we went to war against all the countries whose rulers kill or abuse their citizens, we would be at war with 75% of the world all the time. You forgot to explain why a) this makes them a threat to the US or b) why I as a native US citizen should care enough to send US soldiers to die or be maimed. And I really don’t understand how Iraqi children dying as a result of UN sanctions makes Iraq a danger to the US at all - seems to me that makes the UN a danger to Iraq, is all.

W/o WMD sanctions would come off.

I have no idea what you’re talking about here. Firstly, HE HAD NO WMDS. Are you still disputing that?

That means no ability to inspect, abandoning no fly zones and Saddam being free to carry on his programs. That is the alternative you are advocating in the BEST case scenario.

No, I’m advocating the scenario where we would have put the inspectors back in without deposing Saddam. How you drag in all the rest of that stuff, I do not understand.

We do not know if it would be better or worse today.

Yes, we do know we would be better off today if we had not started a war with Iraq; I listed 5 ways we would be better off above, you’ve failed to even address them much less dispute them.

I’m still waiting for you to list all the great things that have happened as a result of us starting a war with Iraq, other than Halliburton’s profits, which was a gimme.

We absolutely do know it would be better off, no question. You know it too, you just won’t admit it.

It may well have come that we would have to fight in Iraq by now anyway and face a better organized response.

If we had not invaded, why would their response be better organized? They were under sanctions. Their military fell over like a house of cards in both gulf war invasions. But you’re trying to convince us that somehow they wouldn’t have if we hadn’t started the war.

The western powers avoided war several times in the 1930s. You would have advocated that policy back then and had the allies prevented the invasion of Sudetenland or Czechoslovakia, you would have decried it.

Don’t tell me what position I would have advocated in some situation which quite frankly has nothing to do with the situation in Iraq.

Here again you betray your complete lack of understanding of both military history and the current situation in Iraq. Did Saddam invade another sovereign nation, provoking us to go to war with him? NO Did Hitler invade several sovereign nations? YES, and the nations of Europe should have mobilized to drive him out of the nations he invaded. The interests of the US were not harmed by Hitler’s actions, so WE, the US should have stayed out of it. But Europe should have stopped Hitler, no question. Had Saddam done what Hitler did, so should we have gone to war with him. But he didn’t, did he?

You may also recall that Franklin Roosevelt was essentially in a low level shooting war with Germany BEFORE Pearl Harbor. Had he not done that, the Germans may have won the war against the British.

WHAT are you talking about? We were supplying Britain with war materiel, yes; our merchant ships carrying war materiel to Britain and the empire were liable to be sunk, yes; but our military was in no way, shape or form at war with Germany before December 1941. If you think otherwise, provide a source you don’t have to pay to see.

Democrats used to be smarter about these sorts of things.

Ouch. I’m not a Democrat, so I’m not sure if that cheap shot was directed at me or not.

Posted by: Crazy_joe_divola at August 8, 2006 10:45 PM
Comment #174140

Well, well, well! :^)
What do you know, a Democrat won the Democratic Primary!

Joementum will now have to run Independently, if at all.
Don’t take it too hard that your favorite Democrat didn’t win. And don’t bother getting mad at bloggers saying passionate, over the top things. After all, you only have Rove, and Coulter, and Hannity, and O’Reilly, and Rush, and Malkin, and Ingram, etc. etc. to blame for that new level of anger, and the new low in political discourse.
Thankfully not all of us want to be that nasty, eh?

Ah, how refreshing it is when the winds of change blow in the correct direction!
Slainte!

Posted by: Adrienne at August 8, 2006 11:23 PM
Comment #174144

Crazy

The causes of wars are usually a little vague. Pearl Harbor was the exception, but even in this case as I mentioned Roosevelt was fighting a low level war with Germany in 1940. Let’s look at some others.

Didn’t those Barbary Pirates behave a lot like Saddam?

Do you recall the official reason for the War of 1812? Would you consider this sort of thing a reason for war today?

Was the border really at the Nueces or the Rio Grande?

Beauregard shot at Ft Sumter. Do you recall the number of people killed? So you do not need to waste time looking it up, the answer is NONE. One guy was killed in an accident in the flag lowering ceremony. Wasn’t Ft Sumter in South Carolina? Was it justified to start a war over someone defending his home and being careful not to kill anybody?

Remember the Maine. Need I say more?

Now remember the Lusitania and recall what flag it was flying and what it was carrying.

Countries go to war when they feel threatened. They usually make the decision first and figure out a provocation later. If someone is stalking you, do you wait to give him a first shot?

Re Gettysburg - Lee’s mission was accomplished?

You need my forgiveness. For the jackass comment.

“No, I’m advocating the scenario where we would have put the inspectors back in without deposing Saddam. How you drag in all the rest of that stuff, I do not understand.”

This is the source of your problem. Let’s go through this. Why did we have inspectors and sanctions? Because of WMD. If we put the inspectors back in and they certified no WMD, the justification for sanctions is gone. Sanctions come off. No more inspectors. Saddam in sovereign again. Now you have Saddam out of the proverbial box. What does he do? Recalling how easy it is to make WMD and Saddam’s history, do you feel safer now? Without the no fly zones, Saddam can attack the Kurds and Shiites, as he did after the first war. You have traded the possibility of democracy for stability and got neither. Maybe the U.S. can stay out, maybe not. But you still have a rotten situation.

Re the 1930s, I am just figuring that an appeaser in 2003 would probably be an appeaser in 1938. You can update the arguments and they are the same.

Re Roosevelt and the war. Furnishing war material to belligerents can be considered an act of war. In addition we escorted U.S. convoys with U.S. military ships. Roosevelt wiretapped and spied on Americans and others. You may recall the sinking of the Reuben James. Do you recall what the Reuben James was doing and what year that was? Isn’t a military ship escorting shipments of ammunition usually a warlike thing?

Roosevelt was doing the right thing, BTW. In those days the isolationists were Republicans, who were behaving like Democrats.

I always find it amusing when someone defends a particular line and then claims (gotcha) that he is not of that party. You can call yourself what you like. I don’t know who you are. none of us do. I could claim to be a liberal Democrat. I might even believe I am telling the truth. Would you believe me? On a blog we can judge only by what you write.

Posted by: Jack at August 8, 2006 11:59 PM
Comment #174149

“You are right that the Dems will trash Lieberman if he runs.”

Damn straight. And he deserves trashing. He is now willing to totally ignore the will of Democratic Party voters who voted for him for years by deciding to run as an Independent only in order to hold onto his power. After the presidential race in 04, Lieberman said: “there’s no prizes for second place in American politics.” Looks like now he thinks there might be.
As one of those who have helped enable Bush to implement his idiotically stupid right-wing agenda, he’s now willing to count upon all of you hard-core Republicans and the GOP’s bags of money in a general election. Betrayer. Asshole. Egotist.
What might get lost on you big tax-cut-and-spenders, but isn’t lost on us Dems, is that Connecticut taxpayers just spent an enormous amount of dough holding a democratic primary and he isn’t willing to concede his defeat. He was an 18 year incumbent politician, with a national reputation, and a twelve million dollars to spend — much of it thanks to his buddies in the pharmaceutical (his wife is a lobbyist for the industry) and credit card industry (hence his vote for the bankruptcy bill) and he LOST.
But not graciously.
This from the man who has been telling us that his support for the Iraq War is due to his (alleged) strong belief in spreading Democracy. But it’s a lie. He doesn’t believe in democracy, because he can’t accept it when it comes to him.
He deserves every bit of trashing. Loserman.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 9, 2006 1:08 AM
Comment #174151

Joe lost.

He didnt say he was sorry.
He didnt conceed.
He didnt recognise any fault of his own.

He hasnt recoginsed that his politics are not liked by the people, and its his fault, he lost.
He hasnt recognised that his stance on the war lost him this election.
He wont conceed that in government, its the will of the people, not the will of their elected politicians, that counts.

He doesnt recognise that he, as a politician, is a servant of the people, not the people who must serve him.

The only thing Joe can do now, if he continues to run, is to hurt the Democratic Party. Doesnt seam like this primary has taught him much, does it?

Posted by: PlayNice at August 9, 2006 1:37 AM
Comment #174154

Adrienne, I’m sorry, but since WHEN did ‘Democracy’ = ‘two party system’?

If he runs as an independant he is representing democracy. If he loses in the general election, he will have lost. All he’s done now is lost nomination by a party.

In fact, as close as it was and how he has won the hearts of many republicans, it makes a lot of sense IMO to run as an independant. If he can keep his base that voted for him in the primary AND collect a large percentage of the republican voters, you may find what many people are screaming for, a candidate that represents people on both sides of the aisle.

What’s wrong with that? Is your allegiance to the Party that much more important to you than allowing ALL of the voters the chance to vote for someone who obviously has a good group of support? OR do you think it makes more sense to not allow people who are not supported by a major party from running in general elections?

Who is against ‘democracy’ here???

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 9, 2006 1:47 AM
Comment #174155

Rhinehold,

1) There is just one flaw in your thinking. If Joe is going to run as an independent, and if he keeps his base of Democrats, some 48%, and if he gets a large block of Republician votes … wont he be knocking out the Republician candidate???

2) And, I know that Republicians dont like to pay any attention to polls, but, if 63%-66% (with an accuracy of 2%), of the people in this country are against what is happening in Iraq, (Republicians, Democrats, and Independents), then where is Joe going to get the votes to get him elected anything, come November???

Posted by: PlayNice at August 9, 2006 1:58 AM
Comment #174156

PlayNice,

1) I guess I don’t understand your question… If he wins enough votes from Dems and Repubs he would win. How is that a flaw…?

2) I wouldn’t know what Republicans pay attention to or not but it seems to me that if he can get the votes he got today along with about half of the independants and a percentage of the republican vote, he might just pull out a win.

And what would be wrong with that?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 9, 2006 2:03 AM
Comment #174157

Rhinehold

1)
A) Its a flaw if you are a Republician because your candidate has just been defeated, (technically) by a Democrat.
B) It’s a flaw if you are a Democrat, because now your representitive is someone that you (most likely) voted out, last Aug. And, you now, have the same old thing, namely: A Republician in Democratic clothing.

2)
Whats wrong with that?
See above.

Posted by: PlayNice at August 9, 2006 2:18 AM
Comment #174159

PlayNice,

Or, you have a person who garnered support by those on both sides of the spectrum and represents the largest group of voters.

Sort of the point of an election, isn’t it?

I guess it depends if you are more interested in voting for party or for individual. I think we can figure out which side you’re on.

I keep hearing about how people want to elect those who aren’t worried about ‘party’ politics and just votes his conscious. Well, here you go, a candidate who went from being the VP candidate for a party to being thrown out, because he voted his conscious. If as an independant he can rise above those ‘party’ shackles and run on the merit of his views and ideals, not how those run against the party. In a state that has a very large number of ‘independants’ in it, perhaps it’s time someone represents those people as well?

In fact, I’ve been hearing that there are a larger number of independants than either republicans or democrats in the state, yet they don’t get to vote on who gets nominated from the two major parties. I can’t see anything wrong with him allowing those to have a chance to vote for him too…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 9, 2006 2:24 AM
Comment #174160

Rhinehold,

Then youre forgetting the biggest flaw in your arguement, mainly that 63% of the people in this country is against the war in Iraq. We are tired of it. We are sick of it. And we don’t imbrace it as Joe and George does, at all. And, as Joes stance on the war specifically is the reason that he lost, then the chances of him getting elected to represent anyone, (Dem, Rep, or Ind,) is a real crap shoot.

All Joe Lieberman can do as an independant is to split one party or the other down the middle. And, when that happens, no body has anybody (representing them, their interests), any more.

The only people that WILL gain anything, are those that want this war to go on, and on, and on, just like Bush does.

When that happens, hope you “Independants” (and Republicians), are happy.

Posted by: PlayNice at August 9, 2006 2:33 AM
Comment #174161

PlayNice,

So, you are saying that this election was about the war and the war only? Because I keep getting told it wasn’t…

As for the handling of the war, yeah I’m opposed to it too. But that doesn’t change that I supported the war, those are two different issues.

And I think you’ll also find that Lieberman will not be the only one to succumb to the mob on the left, the DLC and many prominent Democrats are also under attack by the very people who helped defeat Lieberman.

If that is how you want your party represented, fine by me. I just think that you should perhaps examine the long-term repercussions of those actions.

But it doesn’t change at all my premise, if he DOES win, he will have done so by convincing more people to vote for him than for the other candidates. And in my book that’s what democracy is all about.

Whether they agree with you about the war or not.

And as for the 63% who are against the war, 63% were for the war at one point too. And that number goes up and down based on the way the war is running at the time the poll is taken. If you want to shape your party based on war weariness, something all wars encounter, be my guest. Don’t think that entitles those of us who are unhappy with the way the war has been handled from being able to claim some superiority on the subject. The truth is really a different sort of animal on that front.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 9, 2006 2:46 AM
Comment #174163

Yes, thats what Im saying. Sure there are a lot of other things wrong besides the “war”, but the war is a microcosm of all of the problems that we are facing today. And, the “politics” that has brought us the “war”, is the politics, that is to blame.

Joe Lieberman is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

And, Lamont may just be the solution to the problems we are in. Lamont and people like him. (A lot of other people, just like him). Someone has to stop this madness!

Posted by: PlayNice at August 9, 2006 3:10 AM
Comment #174164

and a sell-out Democrat, cant begin to do that!

Posted by: PlayNice at August 9, 2006 3:15 AM
Comment #174165

“microcosm of all of the problems we are facing today”

really.

Wow.

And Lamont is the guy.

Wow.

You’ve shown me some insight, I must say. Unfortunately I have to completely disagree with everything you’ve said, but that’s what makes this country great, isn’t it? Being free to completely disagree with someone without fear.

Hope that works out for you.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 9, 2006 3:32 AM
Comment #174170

Jack, this is entire article of yours is a crock. Both Lamont and Lieberman were moderates on Democratic issues. They just straddled the left-right divide on different issues. Iraq being the preeminent issue at this time, Lamont won. Moderates won. Moderates would have won with either candidate, just with a differerent emphasis.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 9, 2006 5:47 AM
Comment #174172

My Name Is Roger

I JUST HEARD ON THE NEWS LIBERMAN LOST!

W H A T I F ? ? ?

HOWARD DEAN—> PRESIDENT

LIBERMAN —> VICE PRESIDENT

Posted by: ROGER at August 9, 2006 6:24 AM
Comment #174179

Play

You made the usual Dem mistake of thinking because someone is against one thing, they are for another. If you oppose the Republicans, you must support the Dems. This is wrong.

Most Americans, according to polls, are against the current policy in Iraq. But only about 17% want to pull out now or very soon. Every Democrat seems to have his own precise position, but if you aggregate them you come up with a nearly immediate withdrawal on a arbitrary time table. That is a minority view among the American public too.

Re Lieberman - if the majority of the people of Connecticut, ALL the people, elect Lieberman he is the choice of the people. It is very simple. In that case, the choice of the Democrats in Connecticut would not represent the choice of the people of the state.

I wrote a while back about the Dems and who they think “the people” are. Whoever wins the majority is the current choice of the people. It is impossible for an elected American official who wins a majority NOT to be the choice of the people.

Lately Dems have been less happy about elections. They have convinced themselves that somehow those who won the majority of the vote did not represent the people. This is not an argument against Republicans, it is an argument against democracy. The guy who gets the majority wins and deserves to win. A tautology.

Posted by: Jack at August 9, 2006 8:03 AM
Comment #174181

Actually, a majority supports a “timetable”. See below. Even US military leaders were suggesting not long ago that a withdrawal could begin this year.

“Do you think the United States should or should not set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq?”

.
Should Should Not Unsure
% % %
7/21-25/06 56 40 4

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 9, 2006 8:25 AM
Comment #174184

Before you tend to the insurrection in the blue column, my dear Republicans, tend to the civil war in thine own:

From the Associated Press:

“August 09,2006 | DETROIT — Republican Rep. Joe Schwarz lost his party’s nomination Tuesday, falling to a staunchly conservative challenger in a primary race dominated by a struggle over GOP principles that attracted more than $1 million in spending by outside groups.

Schwarz, a moderate who supported abortion rights, was defeated by former state lawmaker Tim Walberg. With 92 percent of precincts reporting, Walberg had 53 percent, or 31,869 votes, to 47 percent for Schwarz, or 28,168 votes.

Walberg, a former pastor, contended Schwarz’s views did not represent those of constituents in the rural southern Michigan district. He vowed to vote against pork-laden spending plans, tax increases and the expansion of abortion and gay marriage.

“We have to believe that we won because the mission was clear, the message was clear and the agenda was clear,” Walberg said.”

Republicans, tend thine own house. Leave the Blue side to grownups.

Posted by: Arr-squared at August 9, 2006 8:31 AM
Comment #174186

Besides the fact that this was a Conneticut race, not a national race, why is this a significant vote?

I don’t think it was. Clearly, Joe was out of step with his constituency.

Iraq is a polarizing issue. It isn’t the sole reason Joe lost. Americans are tired of hearing the lies being spewed by this administration and it’s sycophants.

I think the war against Saudi terrorists may not be best fought in Iraq. Bush has failed as a leader, irregardless.

Posted by: gergle at August 9, 2006 8:56 AM
Comment #174190

Jack Wrote:

It is impossible for an elected American official who wins a majority NOT to be the choice of the people

HOW NIEVE!!!


Posted by: PlayNice at August 9, 2006 10:11 AM
Comment #174191

Jack,

By your logic, John McCain should not have conceded to George Bush in 2000. He appealed to a much broader range of voters. Bush won because he had the Republican “activists” on his side, to use your word. “ALL the people” (again your words) never had a chance to choose between them.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 9, 2006 10:13 AM
Comment #174197

I have to ask, Jack, what you consider a moderate? Is it someone who subscribes to Bush’s statement on September 20, 2001:

“Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated. … Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.”

Shortly after, he labeled Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as the “axis of evil” and virtually promised war against them. Iraq was first, though Bush and company knew the country was not involved in 9/11. I have no doubt that if the war went as the neo-cons predicted, that we would have invaded other countries, and quickly. We were rattling our sabers at Syria big time, if you recall.

This on one level sounds great. No one likes terrorists. But it is unprecedented in our history, to threaten pre-emptive war. Searching for a national mission after the end of the Cold War, the greatest superpower suddenly found terrorism, a perfect enemy. As Bush himself stated, the war on terrorism would never end, and thus he committed our country to permanent war, and all that entailed — loss of liberty, loss of world opinion and influence, morally reprehensible treatment of “combatants” (many of whom were not, of course, but no matter), and more to the point, set us on a collision course that could end in WWIII.

This is how empires fall. Instead of carefully choosing our battles, having limited and clearly defined goals, speaking softly but carrying a big stick, we have overreached in our hubris.

Where did we go wrong? By going after terrorists? No, we have to. We had to go after Al Qaeda; it was a threat to us, it bombed our towers. But when we deal with sovereign nations, threats and ocntainment do work — the Soviet Union and China were contained. Superpowers keep their power by being prepared for a great war, but not fighting it. Great Britain, the largest empire on earth, saw its possessions fall after it got involved from start to end in two world wars. The United States escaped much of the damage by entering the wars late.

Great Britain may have had no choice, but the results were the same. We have a choice. Seek out terrorist organizations and destroy them, but engage with sovereign nations. Iraq was never a threat to us. Iran and North Korea now could be, as other hostile states such as the Soviet Union and China were. IF we press a nation into war, war is what we will get, and even if we win, the price of our swaggering could threaten our very republic. Note that I am not arguing pacifism — rather that we preserve our superpower status by using our influence, and yes, the threat of war. If you back an enemy into the corner, it feels no recourse but to fight. How many battles can we take on?

During Afghanistan, Iran passively supported our efforts. But then Bush announced our intentions — and invaded Iraq, thus removing the principal check to Iran shortly after we labeled Iran our mortal enemy. What influence do we have now?

So, Jack, what is moderate? A follower of the Bush Doctrine? Or those who think American hubris could lead to our downfall?

Posted by: Trent at August 9, 2006 10:36 AM
Comment #174206
By your logic, John McCain should not have conceded to George Bush in 2000.

Perhaps he should have ran as an independant in 2000? I certainly would have liked to have had the chance to vote for him instead of Bush (though I didn’t vote for Bush either).

I just don’t think he wanted to or felt that he had a chance. Lieberman does and he feels passionate about it, I don’t see a problem…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 9, 2006 11:06 AM
Comment #174214

Rhinehold:
“Adrienne, I’m sorry, but since WHEN did ‘Democracy’ = ‘two party system’?
If he runs as an independant he is representing democracy.”

No. Running as an Independent he will not be representing democracy. He will now be representing Joe Lieberman’s desire to hold onto his power at the expense of those who gave him that power in the first place.
Aside from himself, Lieberman will also be representing all the corporate lobbyists he sold out to, as well as the Republican Party, because where else do you think the money for the general election will be coming from now? Certainly the Democratic warchest will be off limits to him now, right?
So, he can’t escape the two party system if he expects to win, correct?
So claiming he represents democracy is extremely naive, Rhinehold.
(Btw, I consider it very telling that Lieberman decided to call his Independent campaign “Connecticut for Lieberman”, rather than “Lieberman for Connecticut” — it’s so indicative of his own power and greed and ego being the things that are truly at stake.)

“If he loses in the general election, he will have lost. All he’s done now is lost nomination by a party.”

Not A party. HIS PARTY. The people within that party who gave him his power and the money to run for office. His own ego is such that he can forget that and undermine the interests of those same people and the party he was supposed to be representing. Rather than be grateful that he was actually given their trust, and that power to hold, he betrays them. Rather than thank them for the opportunity to have been a Senator and be gracious and honorable in defeat — after voting more like a Republican than a Democrat in many key ways — he now gives Democrats his middle finger. Btw, Lieberman in his first Senate run claimed he would retire after three terms — so he lied about that. Maybe he deserves to be called LIEberman now?
I hope Reid will act quickly, and strip him of all the committee positions he’s held as a Democrat. Now that it’s clearly all about Lieberman for Lieberman, and his corporate and Republican friends, he no longer deserves to hold them.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 9, 2006 11:34 AM
Comment #174215

Interesting how the Democrats are whinning and crying about voter turnout and the voting machines messing up their election. Yet, these are Democratic Primaries; all Democrats and they’re still crying about voting problems.


Oh well, this is just pure entertainment…

Posted by: rahdigly at August 9, 2006 11:38 AM
Comment #174216

The defeat of Lieberman by the libs is as expected and is following the kook fringe, extreemist timeline. It’s about time for them to show themselves to the American people for who they are and what they stand for. Coming out of this mindset as I have, as a former flower power, make love not war, don’t trust anyone over 30, expand your mind, ecology now/save the baby whales, free love, anarchist/socialist, if it feels good-do it, baby-boomer hippie, I think it’s a good thing that those still functioning under these same, in many cases, ‘drug induced’ delusions of harmonious utopian grandeur are revealed for who they are and where they are trying, with all their might to drag the culture and the nation. It’s a good thing that they’re finally “coming out of the closet”.
As far as my own evolution from far left liberal to GOP conservative, I take heart from Winston Churchill’s thoughts on the subject. “If your not liberal when your young, you have no heart. If your still liberal when your old you have no brain.”
I suppose there are those who stop questioning and expanding their vision. They get stuck in the past with their ‘rose colored granny glasses’
by now firmly imbedded into their visual field.
The defeat of Liberman, a liberal Democrat in his own right, has been given the thumbs down by the extreemists as a mandate. I say good, and bring it on. Let’s get all the left fringe cards out onto the table. And since they really don’t seem to draw from any pool of historical knowledge, they are simply dividing the party leading only to defeat in our nations past.
I admire Liberman’s guts and firm convictions for filing as an Independant.He gets it. On the largest issue of the nation’s or the world’s forseeable future, Islamofascist Terrorism, he gets it! That’s what makes the difference pure and simple. The difference between liberal, fringe, old fashioned, backward-looking, hippie appeasers and national patriots with vision for the future.

Posted by: Linda at August 9, 2006 11:39 AM
Comment #174219
“If your not liberal when your young, you have no heart. If your still liberal when your old you have no brain.”

Nice, catchy, partisan phrase. Too bad the truth is: both parties are broken, because each consists of too many broken parts that need to be replaced.

83% of all donations to federal campaigns ($200 or larger) come from a mere 0.1% of the U.S. population. How is the remaining 99.9% of the U.S. population supposed to compete with that? Look at the unfair advantages that incumbent politicians have.
There are two classes in this country:

  • One class derives concentrated power from its concentrated wealth.

  • The other class has power only in numbers, and that power is largely ineffective due to their inability to organize or realize the one simple, inexpensive, common-sense, no-brainer, responsible thing voters were supposed to be doing all along, always.

The voters are disadvantaged by money.
Politicians are bought-and-paid-for.
Government is FOR SALE. The only thing voters can do is the one thing they keep overlooking, and the one thing bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians hope voters never discover. Don’t re-elect irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 9, 2006 11:49 AM
Comment #174221
Not A party. HIS PARTY. The people within that party who gave him his power and the money to run for office. His own ego is such that he can forget that and undermine the interests of those same people and the party he was supposed to be representing. Rather than be grateful that he was actually given their trust, and that power to hold, he betrays them. Rather than thank them for the opportunity to have been a Senator and be gracious and honorable in defeat — after voting more like a Republican than a Democrat in many key ways — he now gives Democrats his middle finger.
I agree. Posted by: d.a.n at August 9, 2006 11:53 AM
Comment #174222

Adrienne:

What was your position on Jim Jeffords changing parties? I don’t remember you having a problem with it, but truth be told, I don’t remember you saying much about it at all. Which is why I ask the question.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 9, 2006 11:57 AM
Comment #174223

Wow, Linda, nothing like the sanctimonious of an apostate, eh? It sounds like you mindlessly embraced all aspects of hippie culture in your youth, and now as mindlessly turn your back on all progressive values. And what is it the Republicans are always griping about? Oh yeah, that Dems think Repubs are idiots. Glad to see you didn’t fall into the reverse trap.

I take it you think the Bush Doctrine just rocks ass. Working well, ain’t it?

Posted by: Trent at August 9, 2006 11:58 AM
Comment #174224

Play

It is a tautology. Unless you do not believe in representative democracy, you have to believe that the majority of the voters represent the majority of the people. I am naive enough to believe in representative democracy and I hope I do not become so sophisticated that I don’t. You do not have to agree with the people’s choice, just recognize it.

Trent

I have not thought about specifics, but in the American sense (near the American middle) on the Democratic side are people such as Bill Clinton, Joe Lieberman, Bill Richardson, Tom Vilsack and Mark Warner. Republican moderates are George Bush, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and George Allen.

Re Bush doctrine. It is all about choices. The alternatives on offer are not as good.

Adrienne et al

There is a difference between loyalty and obedience. Lieberman owed his party loyalty until they fired him. He does not have to be obedient.

How would you feel about your employer after he kicked you out the door?

Posted by: Jack at August 9, 2006 12:10 PM
Comment #174226

jbod:
“What was your position on Jim Jeffords changing parties? I don’t remember you having a problem with it, but truth be told, I don’t remember you saying much about it at all. Which is why I ask the question.”

Although I thought that Jeffords change to independent made sense for him personally, I fully understood why it angered Republicans at the time. But the truth is, Republicans from Vermont have always been extremely moderate, and Jeffords had been voting very much like a liberal on many many issues for a very long time.
I think his switch to Independent was ultimately made because he is in no way, shape or form a Neocon, and he deeply detested the policies of the Bush Administration. Indeed, I often wonder if he would have remained in the Republican Party had McCain been the GOP candidate who won, rather than Bush.
Anyway, I see no parallels whatsoever between what Jeffords did, and what Lieberman has just done. Because to me it seems Jeffords became an Independent to express his displeasure with the disastrous Neocon far-right turn of his party, whereas Liberman has just gone Independent simply because he wants to hold onto his power after losing the confidence and the trust of Democratic voters in Connecticut.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 9, 2006 12:18 PM
Comment #174228

Adrienne

The difference is Jeffords was elected as a Republican and then decided to change - bait and switch. Lieberman, if he is elected as an independent, will do so with the complete approval of the electorate.

Posted by: Jack at August 9, 2006 12:26 PM
Comment #174230

What would I do if my company kicked me out for going against all it stood for? Ummm, probably say to myself, gee, maybe I’d better find a new job. I wouldn’t try to undermine the company’s decision by what basically amounts to a childish tantrum. Adrienne, I totally agree. Lieberman’s actions prove that he is being driven by his own ego and his desire to hang onto his cushy job, no matter what.

Posted by: Jackie at August 9, 2006 12:29 PM
Comment #174231

Adrienne:

No offense, but your answer seems couched in all that you want to be true. Seems to me you feel Jeffords was okay because you think he was principled, while you don’t give Lieberman the benefit of the doubt.

That you see no parallels between Jeffords and Lieberman leads me to the belief that you just can’t see, in this instance.

Both men were affiliated with a party. Both men were elected to office as a member of their party. Both men have decided that they no longer fit their party, or perhaps their party no longer fits them. These are the obvious parallels that you couldn’t see.

One difference is that Jeffords left his party AFTER being elected to the position. (Imagine Joe Lieberman being elected as a Dem and then switching party affiliation) Lieberman now is switching affiliation before the election.

I’d have more respect for Lieberman if he simply had said at the outset of the primary that if the Dem party was not going to fully support him, then he was going independent. Wouldn’t have been the prudent political thing to do, but it would sure have been honorable.

You ascribe intent to both men, but you can’t know their minds, nor can I. I could just as easily say that Lieberman is leaving the Dems to express his displeasure with the anti-war stance of his party. The war issue is the hinge on which the Lamont-Lieberman primary turned.

I can only imagine your horror if an elected Democrat turned Republican after being voted in as a Democrat. Too bad you can’t see both sides of the coin.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 9, 2006 12:33 PM
Comment #174232
How would you feel about your employer after he kicked you out the door?
He should pick himself up, brush himself off, and go do something productive for a while. Hopefully, the other 90% of congress that keep getting re-elected over and over will get some of the same. After all, if incubments are doing such a good job, why are problems worsening and Americans so dissatisfied. This does not bode well for the “In Party”.

86% of Democrats are against the Iraq war.
That’s Liebermans’s problem (mostly).
That little kiss on the head by Bush may not have helped Lieberman much either?

Posted by: d.a.n at August 9, 2006 12:35 PM
Comment #174233

Jack, Bush may have been considerd a moderate before 9/11. His main agenda was to cut taxes because of the surplus (yeah, I know; after the deficits cutting taxes was still the plan, surprise, surprise). He toed the line on standard Republican stuff — against abortion, for prayer in schools, etc. All pretty standard pandering to the religious fringe of the party. After 9/11, though, he bought the neo-con line about using our superpower status to change the world through military means — a radical shift from the hands-off, humble approach he advocated during the campaign (which was far more non-interventionist than I thought was wise, btw). There is nothing like the fervor of the recently converted. By swinging so erratically to “force as the primary means to change the world,” he caused the loss of world good will which could have been used to freeze out terrorist organizations more effectively. On the primary issue of our day, Bush is NOT a moderate, though I admit the entirely foreseeable disaster in Iraq (remember what Bush Sr. and Scrowcoft were saying before the invasion?), appears to have curtailed neo-con ambitions somewhat.

A genuinely strong leader would have been able to resist the strong personalities around him. Good grief, Jack, it’s being reported now that shortly before the invasion of Iraq, Bush didn’t even know there were two sects of Islam! No wonder he was unprepared for the aftermath.

So, Bush a moderate? Sorry, that doesn’t wash. He got seduced and now has to lie in the bed his buddies made for him.

Posted by: Trent at August 9, 2006 12:35 PM
Comment #174234

Jackie

Would you take a similar job at a competitor if offered?

Posted by: Jack at August 9, 2006 12:36 PM
Comment #174235

Jack,
I think what Sore Loserman is doing is a bait and switch maneuver too. He was running as a Democrat, telling everyone that his loyalty was with Democrats, then immediately became an independent the moment he lost.

“How would you feel about your employer after he kicked you out the door?”

I think it would depend on the reason why a person was fired. Was the fired person selling business secrets to the competition the way that Joe Lieberman’s been selling his votes to corporate interests and to Republicans because he’s a suck-up constantly following the flow of power? Or was that person loyal to the business, but was fired for some arbitrary or unfair reason?

Posted by: Adrienne at August 9, 2006 12:38 PM
Comment #174237
He was running as a Democrat, telling everyone that his loyalty was with Democrats, then immediately became an independent the moment he lost.
I agree completely. Where’s the party unity adn loyalty? They’re gonna use that over and over to make Lieberman look selfish and hard-headed. They will never let him forget it. They will successfully (and rightly so) portray him as a bad loser, and one who puts his own career and incumbency above the party, and it will tick off more Democrats as time goes on.

That does not mean he doesn’t have the right to run. Of course he does, but he’s most likely wasting his time.

Posted by: d.a.n at August 9, 2006 12:45 PM
Comment #174238

jack,

I love this gem:

Republican moderates are George Bush…Posted by: Jack at August 9, 2006 12:10 PM
I hope you’re refering to the elder. Otherwise, there really is no hope.

re: Jeffords. You insist that this is a betrayal of a state, yet Jeffords approval ratings are at 61% http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2006/100USSenatorApproval060725State.htm
And now for something completely different:
http://www.bettybowers.com/jeffords.html

Posted by: Dave1 at August 9, 2006 12:46 PM
Comment #174241

Jack,

The problem with your “getting fired” analogy is that 99% of the time the candidate who loses a primary gets out of the election.

Elections aren’t really like anything else. They have their own rules and mores. Lieberman has chosen to buck tradition. Maybe it will work, but I doubt it. Sore losers are not attractive candidates. Remember, he is running against someone who has already beat him once.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 9, 2006 12:52 PM
Comment #174242

Jack,
If my job were important enough, I probably would have a non-compete agreement, so the answer would be no. If not, then no one would really care. In Lieberman’s case, he was hired by the voters and fired by the voters. But he has set himself above them. Being elected to an office, while similar, is not the same as being hired by a corporation. I also agree with joebod that the honorable thing to do would have been to run as an independent from the beginning, not say if I don’t get my way, I don’t care what you think. Too much selfishness and ego. We need a lot less of that in government, not more.

Posted by: Jackie at August 9, 2006 12:54 PM
Comment #174244

jbod:
“No offense, but your answer seems couched in all that you want to be true. Seems to me you feel Jeffords was okay because you think he was principled, while you don’t give Lieberman the benefit of the doubt.”

I said I understood the Republicans anger over Jeffords. But if you’ll look at the man’s voting record, you’ll quickly see that this didn’t come out of nowhere. It does seem to be the case that it was sticking by his principles that made him make the switch. Also, you should know that Jeffords is retiring after his term — no doubt because he fully understands that what he did deeply angered many of the Republicans who had voted for him — even though they did vote for him knowing full well that for the longest time a great many of his Congressional votes were extremely liberal.
Lieberman on the other hand, clearly doesn’t care about the people who have always voted for him, nor does he act like he understands that it was their anger over a great many of his Congressional votes which lost him yesterdays Democratic primary. He’s running as an independent ONLY because he lost.
It’s the plain to Democrats as the nose on Joe’s droopy-dog face.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 9, 2006 1:02 PM
Comment #174245

Jackie and Adrienne

Not “the people” - it is the Democratic activists.

One the Dianne Rehm show today they talked re the demographics. Primary voter are more likely to be older, more feminine, more liberal and more anti-Bush. When the full electorate votes in November, we will see what the people think.

It is just not that complicated. If he wins, he is the choice of the people. It will mean he managed to beat the party activists to reach the people. Nice story, actually.

Posted by: Jack at August 9, 2006 1:15 PM
Comment #174246

d.a.n:

So the people in the poll interviewed EVERY Democrat? That is the thing about Polls. The words “people”, “women”, “men”, “Americans”,
“Muslims”, etc. shouldn’t be on the poll results unless they interview EVERYONE of that group. Since people are many, and everywhere. It would be best to say “Of the polled people.” 1000-something people do not represent the total population because each person has a different opinion or belief.

Posted by: stubborn conservative at August 9, 2006 1:20 PM
Comment #174247

jbod,

If Vermonters felt betrayed by Jeffords then why is his popularity at 61%

Adrienne,

I actually liked Lieberman. However, I wouldn’t have voted for him if I lived in CT for many of the reasons that have been stated here. Too much Bush’luvin, not enough indignity over the Bushit.
Having said that, I’m very not happy with his flip to (I). We are at a point where control of the next congress must be wrested from the GOP. His choice wastes time and money best spent towards that goal.

stub,

Learn a little; this site explains why polls have some real validity: http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/

Jack,

Don’t you mean Democratic “voters”?

Posted by: Dave1 at August 9, 2006 1:24 PM
Comment #174249

Dave1

Sorry to bother you about trivia, but I just cannot resist. You write, “much Bush’luvin, not enough indignity over the Bushit.” I think you meant “indignation”, but your use of the word indignity correctly describes the Democratic position.

Voters in the primary are mostly activists. We will see what the voters in the broader sense say in November.

Posted by: Jack at August 9, 2006 1:41 PM
Comment #174250
stubborn_conservative wrote: d.a.n: So the people in the poll interviewed EVERY Democrat?
Never said it did. Is such an assumption merely to cloud the issue?
stubborn_conservative wrote: That is the thing about Polls. The words “people”, “women”, “men”, “Americans”, “Muslims”, etc. shouldn’t be on the poll results unless they interview EVERYONE of that group.
EVERYONE? Nonsense. We can’t even get EVERYONE to obtain an accurate census. Polls attempt to get a representative indication, and never try to poll everyone (obviously, for practical reasons).
stubborn_conservative wrote: Since people are many, and everywhere. It would be best to say “Of the polled people.”
It goes without saying not EVERYONE was polled.
stubborn_conservative wrote: 1000-something people do not represent the total population because each person has a different opinion or belief.
Nobody ever asserted that.
stubborn_conservative wrote: … each person has a different opinion or belief.
Who could argue with that?
  • Posted by: d.a.n at August 9, 2006 1:42 PM
    Comment #174252

    Jack:
    “Voters in the primary are mostly activists.”

    What a load of crap. And how funny it is the way you refer to people who are political activists as some sort of a subhuman species.

    Posted by: Adrienne at August 9, 2006 1:51 PM
    Comment #174256

    Dave1:

    jbod,

    If Vermonters felt betrayed by Jeffords then why is his popularity at 61%

    I never commented on Jeffords’ popularity, nor did I say that Vermonters felt betrayed by his change of party. So I’m not sure where your question comes from.

    What I DID say was that since Jeffords was elected as a member of one party, he should have stayed a member of that party through the duration of his term. Or he could have resigned and run again in a special election.

    Either method would be the right thing to do. What he did was essentially a bait-and-switch, though I don’t think he ever intended it as such. I don’t question his motivation for doing what he did—I simply question the mechanics of how he did it.

    Adrienne:

    You sure know a lot about the inner workings of Joe Lieberman’s mind. I’m amazed, in fact, at how you know it so clearly.

    Perhaps you might consider that Joe Lieberman is unhappy with the Democratic leadership that he feels hasn’t supported him enough? Lets think about a different guy to see how this might work. Think about if Paul Hackett in Ohio, who got absolutely screwed by his party leadership, decided to run as an independent. I wouldnt have a problem with that—-would you?

    Lieberman will be ultimately voted and judged by the citizens of Connecticut. Just because the Democrats in Connecticut voted for Lamont doesn’t mean the citizens of Connecticut will do the same. If Lamont is truly the favored candidate, then he will win in November.

    In sports, Team A might lose in the regular season to Team B, but beat them in the playoffs. Nothing wrong with that. Neither is there anything wrong with Lieberman giving a choice to all the people in Ct.

    The only negative thing about Lieberman is the slight possibility that an indie win could hurt Dem chances to take over leadership. Other than that, his run simply will show the level of partisanship that people have. And showing that is not a bad thing.

    Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 9, 2006 2:02 PM
    Comment #174257

    Here’s another one for the books: “extremely moderate”. Go figure.
    This is in reference to the above by adrienne about Vermont people.

    Posted by: tomh at August 9, 2006 2:03 PM
    Comment #174263

    jbod,

    Sorry, you’re propbably right, my bad. Will you withdraw your “activist” misnomer?

    Anyway, the real quesitons:
    Why should loyalty to a political party become more important than loyalty to ones electorate?
    Why should loyalty to a political party become more important than loyalty to ones beliefs?
    Why should someone stay in a political party that is an antithesis to those of the people who elected him?

    If it were simply a matter of personal conscience, I would agree with you. I.e. if he had become so different than the people who elected him that his conscience prohibited him from continuing in their agenda, it would be time for resignation or a vote of confidence. That was not and is not the case in Vermont. They mostly supported his switch (with some exceptions of course, for example: http://www.bettybowers.com/jeffords.html) That is not the case for Lieberman, who was voted out by his constituency.

    Posted by: Dave1 at August 9, 2006 2:23 PM
    Comment #174264

    jbod:
    “You sure know a lot about the inner workings of Joe Lieberman’s mind. I’m amazed, in fact, at how you know it so clearly.”

    Oh, don’t be too impressed, people who are greedy and power-mad are always so transparent and easy to read.

    “Perhaps you might consider that Joe Lieberman is unhappy with the Democratic leadership that he feels hasn’t supported him enough?”

    Aww! Poor little droopy-dog, is that the way you want to paint this? Get real. He had all the support in the world from the Democratic leadership — he just didn’t get it from the base. The base is tired of the DLC Democrats, and Lieberman is truly the epitome of that faction. Indeed, he has been the chairman of that group of corporate sell-outs. Oddly enough, Sore Loserman is now giving the finger to all those members of the leadership (both DLC and non-DLC) who went on the primary campaign trail with him, too.

    tomh:
    “Here’s another one for the books: “extremely moderate”. Go figure.
    This is in reference to the above by adrienne about Vermont people.”

    Uh, no. Try reading it again — here, I’ll even make it easy for you:
    “Republicans from Vermont have always been extremely moderate,”

    Posted by: Adrienne at August 9, 2006 2:23 PM
    Comment #174266

    Jack,

    How many “Democratic activists” do you think there are in Connecticut? About 280,000 people voted in the primary. A majority of 280,000 is 140,000+. That’s a heck of a lot of activists.


    Or to put it qualitatively, is anyone bothers get off their ass and vote in a primary an “activist” in your book?

    Posted by: Woody Mena at August 9, 2006 2:31 PM
    Comment #174268

    adrienne:

    I guess using cute little names to denigrate those you don’t like (anymore) is what you consider intelligent conversation. I don’t.

    You didn’t comment about your thoughts on Paul Hackett, so I’ll ask a different question. What are your thoughts about the Dems who still are supporting Lieberman?

    Dave1:

    You raise an interesting thing about Jeffords and Lieberman—its who the constituency is. In Lieberman’s case, you say he was voted out by his constituency—meaning Democratic voters as opposed to Connecticut residents overall. But if that’s truly what constituency means, then Jeffords’ constituency (Republican Vermont voters) were never even consulted. Vermonters in general may support Jeffords, but I wonder about Vermont Republicans.

    As I’ve said, had Jeffords gone with his conscience and resigned from the Repub party and his seat, I’d have liked his honesty even while perhaps disagreeing with his choice. But to be voted in as a member of one party and then change to another party midterm, that’s just not right. It shouldn’t be allowable.

    Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 9, 2006 2:41 PM
    Comment #174270

    “extremely moderate”

    How can one be extreme and moderate at the same time no matter what politican persuasion one is?

    Here is a quote to ponder.

    “The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape fiinding oneself in the ranks of the insane”—Marcus Aurelius

    Posted by: tomh at August 9, 2006 2:43 PM
    Comment #174271

    trent
    No, neither my liberal past nor my conservative present were or are ‘mindless’. My liberal past though well intentioned, was grossly niave. The causes of ‘peace and love’, social justice and care toward the environment are noble ones and in which I still believe. Peace is ‘always’ preferrable to war which, in a perfect world, wouldn’t be necessary. Justice and equality, compassion and concern for others, including the unborn, aged, sick and dying as well as our ecology, our place as earthly custodians and members of a cosmic order of creation are all important issues.
    No Trent, none of us should ever think we have all the answers. We’re all on a journey seeking ,learning and hopefully growing in knowledge and understanding. If this all sounds sanctimonious to you, well so be it.
    There are so many issues today for those in both parties to consider. Our young nation is also on
    a journey, and we as individuals need to explore all the facets of concern and controversy that exist today. However, while moving forward, we must keep an eye on the past to ensure the future. Many no-names like LaMont have surfaced in the past and just as quickly sank from view. Who is he? He’s nobody but a name that came out of nowhere to make a point to anyone perceived giving any support to Bush in any capacity. He a nobody going nowhere. He’s going to have his 24 hours in the limelight and be gone. He’s a statement only.

    Posted by: linda at August 9, 2006 2:48 PM
    Comment #174273

    Trent
    O and as for my supporting the Bush Doctrine, though I have disagreement with some, I support my President, my country, and those protecting my freedom.

    Posted by: linda at August 9, 2006 2:56 PM
    Comment #174276

    jbod:
    “I guess using cute little names to denigrate those you don’t like (anymore) is what you consider intelligent conversation. I don’t.”

    I never liked Lieberman — his spinelessness in the face of the opposition has always pissed me off. And I’m afraid you’ll have to forgive me for using names on the man at the moment. I happen to be angry that he’s proving to not have an ounce of honor, integrity, or loyalty toward the party that gave him his power.

    “You didn’t comment about your thoughts on Paul Hackett,”

    I think it was wrong what happened to Hackett — but Hackett didn’t leave his party even after the leadership decided to they wanted to stand by Sherrod Brown, instead. Hackett has been campaigning for Brown. Now that’s a mensch. Hopefully he’ll try to run again in the future.

    “so I’ll ask a different question. What are your thoughts about the Dems who still are supporting Lieberman?”

    I don’t think there are any. After reading today’s news I see that they’re all supporting Lamont now, and many are saying they’ll be glad to campaign for him. Some also seem to be attempting to convince Lieberman to do what’s best for Democrats. For instance, Hillary is now asking Joe to “search his conscience.”

    As for Lieberman’s chances of winning, I think Joe, and far too many of you righties are clearly living in denial — because 60 percent of Americans now oppose the Iraq war. I think it’s clear that the horrific failures we’ve seen in fighting both wars are going to play a very significant role in this election (and possibly the ‘08 election as well).

    Posted by: Adrienne at August 9, 2006 3:18 PM
    Comment #174279
    You raise an interesting thing about Jeffords and Lieberman—its who the constituency is. In Lieberman’s case, you say he was voted out by his constituency—meaning Democratic voters as opposed to Connecticut residents overall.
    In this case, a primary, his constituency was the democratic primary voters.
    But if that’s truly what constituency means, then Jeffords’ constituency (Republican Vermont voters) were never even consulted.
    (a) That’s presumptive. Of course he consulted other people. Neither you nor I know who.(b) Once he was elected, his constiuency is the people of Vermont, not just Republicans.
    Vermonters in general may support Jeffords, but I wonder about Vermont Republicans.
    You can see that here, he’s at 61% positive.
    As I’ve said, had Jeffords gone with his conscience and resigned from the Repub party and his seat, I’d have liked his honesty even while perhaps disagreeing with his choice. But to be voted in as a member of one party and then change to another party midterm, that’s just not right. It shouldn’t be allowable.
    Again. Jeffords is beholden to the poeple of Vermont and his conscience. Not the republican party. The GOP no longer reflected his beliefs nor that of Vermonters so he left that party and went Independent. I think that (I) is not a party in VT. Posted by: Dave1 at August 9, 2006 3:26 PM
    Comment #174280

    d.a.n and Dave1:

    Polls do have some accuracy. Depends on what percentage of the population you poll or the area.

    If you were to poll a Mid-Western state, a majority would favor the war.

    If you poll the west coast or the Northeast, a majority would oppose the war.

    If someone were to poll 100 people in every state (excluding DC and the territories), there would be some accuracy in that.

    Posted by: stubborn conservative at August 9, 2006 3:27 PM
    Comment #174282

    linda - How do you react to today’s Washington Post article describing the third prong in the Bush Administrations attempt to qualify past and future activities involving the inhumane treatment of Guantanamo prisoners?

    US seek to shield its war interrogators.

    If you haven’t read it you can find it under the Politics tab at www.reuters.com

    Prong 1: Remove the right for injured parties to legally retalliate.

    Prong 2: Replace accepted human rights standards with variable standards based on intelligence-gathering needs.

    Prong 3: Reduce the risk of prosecution to the perpetrators for all but the most heinous offenses.

    Those who are protecting your freedom show that they will resort to anything, and while they have your loyalty, I’m certain that if they felt it at all needed, thiers would be put aside.

    Posted by: DOC at August 9, 2006 3:32 PM
    Comment #174290

    tomh:
    “extremely moderate”
    How can one be extreme and moderate at the same time no matter what politican persuasion one is?”

    I wonder why your having such trouble with this? One can be an extremely moderate Republican amongst Republicans. Just as one can be an extremely moderate Democrat amongst Democrats.

    “Here is a quote to ponder.”

    Here is another:
    “On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
    — H. L. Mencken

    Oh, and here’s one for Ned Lamont:
    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you… then you win.
    — Mahatma Gandhi

    Posted by: Adrienne at August 9, 2006 4:07 PM
    Comment #174291

    adrienne:

    We obviously think along different lines.

    Re Paul Hackett: you seem to be crediting him for his singleminded loyalty to his party, even in the face of how they betrayed him. Were he a Republican, you might find time to chastise him for his “stay the course” attitude, or his mindless devotion to party.

    In reality, he is loyal to the party, and that’s not a bad thing. I just find it amusing how in your view an attribute can be such a good thing in a Democrat but such a bad thing in a Republican. I guess it just depends on what lens you view things through.

    Re Lieberman: I think Chris Dodd is supporting Lieberman, and Bill Clinton campaigned for him…haven’t heard what Bill thinks Joe should do now, though. Hillary is simply sprinting to the safest possible position. She can’t afford to not back Lamont, since her war views haven’t sat well with the left side of the Dem party. She can’t afford to align with Lieberman. I suppose she’ll probably cow Bill into joining her in that position.

    Dave1:

    I believe you read your link incorrectly. The graph you cited does shows a red and blue line, but those do not correlate to Rep and Dem, but rather to approve or disapprove. The chart shows the numbers at 61% DISapproval

    Do you approve or disapprove of the job James Jeffords is doing as United States Senator?

    Approve 37% 34% 34% 35% 36% 43% 40% 39% 40% 34% 36% 40% 39% 37% 33%
    Disapprove 56% 60% 56% 53% 62% 53% 56% 55% 55% 58% 53% 56% 58% 59% 61%

    We agree that Jeffords was beholden to the people of Vermont, not just any single party. That bolsters my belief that since the people voted him into office as a Republican, he owed it to the people of Vermont to remain a Republican until the end of his term or his resignation. With a special election, the people could then determine if they wanted Jeffords as something other than what he candidated as.
    Not Sure 7% 6% 10% 12% 2% 3% 4% 6% 5% 8% 10% 4% 3% 5% 6%

    Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 9, 2006 4:08 PM
    Comment #174294

    “O and as for my supporting the Bush Doctrine, though I have disagreement with some, I support my President, my country, and those protecting my freedom.”

    Linda, I believe you are sincere, so I will resist a glib reply. We all support our country; that’s why we bother with politics. To my mind, it is clear that our president is not doing a good job protecting our country or our freedoms.

    Just so we are clear about the Bush Doctrine, here is a Wiki link.

    As you can see, it was intially proposed right after the end of the Cold War when it appeared that the United States would be the dominant superpower with no significant opposition. It is a doctrine primarily based on pre-emptively eliminating potential threats. It is a radical departure from past policy. It was the rationale that was used to attack the sovereign nation of Iraq, even though it had no involvement with the attack on our country and even though it posed no genuine threat to the United States. If you read the Wiki entry closely, you will see that what is being proposed is essentially permanent war.

    In the past, the United States had a policy of no pre-emptive strikes. We did get involved militarily, sometimes for good reasons, sometimes for bad, but we have never attempted anything on this scale. Remember, Linda, before the invasion, Iraq was under severe sanctions and tight military containment. It was not an ideal situation, but it was a controllable one. It was actually in our interests to have a relatively strong Iraq as a counter balance to Iran, which was ruled by a different sect of Islam. (And one of the reasons the attack on Iraq was so inexplicable was that Al Qaeda itself was religiously opposed to Iraq.)

    9/11 had nothing to do with the attack on Iraq except that the terrorist attack on the twin towers fueled American anger which our leaders channeled into support for attacking an Arab country that was ideologically opposed to Al Qaeda. This is why it is so shocking to learn that Bush did not even know Islam had two different sects shortly before the invasion; to me and many others it is very clear Bush had no idea what he was getting into, and was played by the neo-con supporters of the policy Wolfowitz proposed in 1992.

    On the face of it, the policy may sound good. Why not get rid of potential threats and ensure that the United States remain the sole superpower? But in the real world, we have to deal with other countries who can be threatening. We cannot preserve our strength if we are constantly seeking war — military strength is most effective when it is not used! The Soviet Union and China were contained, by and large, by the threat we posed to them.

    Now since the invasion of Iraq, we have learned that North Korea does have the bomb and Iran apparently is on its way to acquiring it. If the invasion of Iraq had been the easy victory our leaders optimistically promised (against, I add, the somber advice of many who knew better, including our president’s father), then we might be in the position to deal with these new threats. But both countries know we are bogged down and have, in fact, become a much less powerful threat.

    What does all this have to do with terrorism? Almost nothing, Linda. The real war against terrorism has been sidelined; when was the last time you heard Bush speak of Bin Laden?

    Enough of that. Now about freedoms. Whenever we are at war, our leaders are tempted to curtail our Constitiontional freedoms. As Jack likes to point out, FDR apparently got into the business, and let’s not forget the internment of the Japanese. Bush’s tapping of Americans phone lines without a warrant is a matter of public record. His willingness to circumvent the Geneva Conventions on a technicaility is a matter of public record. His use of signing statements to claim that laws passed by Congress do not apply to him is a matter of public record. It goes on, Linda.

    Presidents take an oath to defend the Constitution. It is a sacred duty. Iraq and Al Qaeda are not threatening our freedoms; only we can do that. I support those protecting our freedoms, too. That is why I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU.

    Posted by: Trent at August 9, 2006 4:17 PM
    Comment #174300

    Jbod:
    “In reality, he is loyal to the party, and that’s not a bad thing. I just find it amusing how in your view an attribute can be such a good thing in a Democrat but such a bad thing in a Republican. I guess it just depends on what lens you view things through.”

    I think loyalty to ones political party is a good thing for those of either party — as long as the party stands for something, and the loyalty is sincere.
    Obviously Hackett’s was sincere, because what the party stands for clearly means more to him than himself and being elected. While Lieberman’s “loyalty”, on the other hand obviously had more to do with himself and holding power.

    Posted by: Adrienne at August 9, 2006 4:30 PM
    Comment #174310

    Humor, an unfamiliar medium to the literal-minded, ideology-clogged right wing, is used to explain their world-view here.

    Posted by: mental wimp at August 9, 2006 5:11 PM
    Comment #174315

    Trent

    That Wikipedia link was great, and it contained the following:

    Historical critics of preventive war (although obviously not in the context of the Bush Doctrine) include former US President Abraham Lincoln. In an 1848 letter to his law partner, William Herndon, Lincoln criticized then US President Polk’s preventive war against Mexico:

    Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure…. If today he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, “I see no probability of the British invading us,” but he will say to you, “Be silent; I see it, if you don’t.”

    Abraham Lincoln

    Posted by: mental wimp at August 9, 2006 5:33 PM
    Comment #174319

    Mental

    Yet Lincoln invaded Virginia in 1861. There was not much chance that the Confederates would have invaded the North and the governments of those states did represent the people to the same extent those of the North. Good thing he did, BTW, but it was a war of northern agression if you subject it to the kinds of standards you are holding Bush. When faced with real life decisions you sometimes change your mind.

    Posted by: Jack at August 9, 2006 6:00 PM
    Comment #174323

    Jack

    Damn that Lincoln! “Invading” sovereign US land like that. Clearly contrary to his statement. Yes, Jack, you really got us all there.

    Don’t you care anything for the truth?

    Posted by: mental wimp at August 9, 2006 6:10 PM
    Comment #174326

    Mental

    I think you used the Lincoln statement incorrectly. That’s all. This is the same kind of misuse that we always get with Franklin re security and liberty. Historical sentiments need to be put in historical context. You were incorrectly trying to place Lincoln in a modern context. It is ahistorical. I called you on it because I am care a lot for truth.

    Posted by: Jack at August 9, 2006 6:18 PM
    Comment #174340

    Jack

    No, you were trying to debilitate a relevant statement by a Republican icon about giving the commander-in-chief permission to make war at will. This is very relevant to today’s situation and not at all ahistorical. However, it is embarassing that such a vaunted Republican appears to rebuke the present occupant who shares that political party, and I can understand that you would want to undermine any association of that stance with our President’s recent behavior. Nonetheless, any respect for the truth would dictate accepting the obvious implications, and not muddying the water by trying to imply that invading a rebellious state of the Republic is analogous to invading a sovereign nation without provocation.

    It’s not a simple matter of opinion, but rather regard for obvious and simple truth.

    Posted by: Mental Wimp at August 9, 2006 6:37 PM
    Comment #174377
    Yet Lincoln invaded Virginia in 1861. There was not much chance that the Confederates would have invaded the North and the governments of those states did represent the people to the same extent those of the North. Good thing he did, BTW, but it was a war of northern agression if you subject it to the kinds of standards you are holding Bush. When faced with real life decisions you sometimes change your mind.

    I must be getting sleepy. Are you comparing Civil War-era Virginia to Iraq?

    Gee, let’s think about this. How are these places different… Well, for one thing, Virginia was PART OF THE UNITED STATES.

    I think you have come up with the worst metaphor for the current war yet.

    Posted by: Woody Mena at August 9, 2006 8:29 PM
    Comment #174383

    Woody and Mental

    I am just responding to correct a historical analogy. WWII had a clear provocation, although Roosevelt was heavily involved in the war with Germany before Pearl Harbor.

    Most of the other wars we (and others) have been involved in were less clear. I made a list in an earlier post. This profession of shock that Bush did something w/o precedent in U.S. history is unfounded.

    Posted by: jack at August 9, 2006 8:56 PM
    Comment #174389

    Trent
    Yes, I remember well all 17 UN resolutions put in place against Saddam beginning 11-29-90 with Resolution UNSCR 678 after his invasion of Kuwait, up to and including the final Resolution 1441 in November ‘02. So tell me, how long does one give a brutal, aggressive dictator who thumbs his nose at the world community to comply? Ten years - twenty - thirty? How long do we allow a ‘Hitler’ to accumulate weapons and power? How long do we sit by and watch the massacre and terrorization of a people living in abject fear and poverty while he allows Islamofascist terrorists free reign and encouragment to train and prepare for further attacks, having cartblanch freedom to come and go at will, while having and yes, using WMD’s on his own people.
    You say Sadaam was contained? Not hardly. He was defiantly giving the world the finger, while continuing to weild his totalitarian sword at will and causing immeasurable pain and suffering for the Iraqi people. I’m afraid liberals don’t understand that we were attacked, and have a legitimate right to defend ourselves by striking at the heart of terrorism ,which is hell bent on our destruction, wherever the trail leads.
    As far as Club Gitmo, these are terrorists and have no legitimate rights under the Geneva Convention as it is. What about the abuse our military has to endure standing guard over and having to bend over backward to make things comfortable and acceptable to these enemies of our culture? Our own U.S. citizens in our prison system should be provided such privileged treatment. This is not to say that our military is perfect or can do no wrong, not at all. However, it’s well advised to keep in mind the nature and identity of those who hate us.

    Posted by: linda at August 9, 2006 9:21 PM
    Comment #174398

    jbod,

    Yup, you caught me being rovian/slimeboatian. I.e truth is no object:-)
    My point still stands. Only 21% of VT is republican and it took more than 50% of voters to elect him. 61% of Vermonters like Jeffords as an Independent. He has no obligation to remain republican nor any obligation to resubmit to an election. It’s clear he continued to succesfully represent his constituency.

    Posted by: Dave1 at August 9, 2006 10:00 PM
    Comment #174399

    Woody Mena—

    -“You guys gripe about Democrats waging class warfare, but whenever a liberal Democrat happens to be rich you try to use it to discredit him.”

    That would be because YOU GUYS are constantly griping about the nasty old rich guys…so it is a little (no, more than a little) hypocritical to be blasting “rich people” all the time when some of the richest politicians in D.C. are Democrats.

    If these [also] rich liberal Democrats were really anti-rich and pro-poor, then maybe they should lead by example, and give up all that money to the poor to help them. Of course, we won’t hold our breath on THAT one!

    The Democrat way is like the smoking, drinking parent to their young son or daughter who just tried cigs or booze for the first time…”Do as I say, not as I do”.

    DaveR

    Posted by: DaveR at August 9, 2006 10:01 PM
    Comment #174406

    Linda, that’s fine, but do we go after all brutal dictators? How about we focus on the people who attacked our country? Do we try to apply some intelligence? Of course Saddam violated U.N. Resolutions; do you really want to start tabulating all the countries that have done so? Some, you know, are our allies. Of course Saddam was a brutal dictator; I appreciate your humanitarian concerns so I assume you deeply regret the slaughter going on in the country now. If you must invade a country for urgent national security reasons, then for god’s sakes, have a strategy for the occupation.

    Hitler? Give me a break! Saddamn fought a 10-year-old war against Iran to no avail. He got his ass kicked out of Kuwait. His country was bombed repeatededly over the decade since the last Gulf War. You think any country in the middle east was intimidated by Saddam after all that? Pick another villain, Linda, because the old tired Hitler analogy is dead on arrival.

    The true winner here is Iran. We knocked out its historic foe, we gave power to its ideological allies, we gave its hardliners a wonderful rallying cry — we couldn’t have done more for Iran if we tried. So don’t speak about going after “terrorists,” that wonderful term we use to extinguish all differences between militant groups. We should talk about the groups themselves, but that might mean we have to actually learn something about them, and certainly would have made it harder for the American people to blindly assume that Iraq and Al Qaeda are one and the same.

    Club Gitmo — as you very well know, many of the prisoners there are NOT terrorists — just poor schmucks in the wrong time and wrong place, imprisoned indefinitely, subjected to abuse, etc. How dare you defend that! Club Gitmo — that is an obscene phrase — don’t tell me you are a humanitarian if you glibly uses phrases like that, and don’t paint all the prisoners as terrorists. It make soothe your conscience to think so, but it’s simple feel-good delusion.

    This country took a wrong turn, and everyone here knows it. Jack wouldn’t deny it; he’d speak of fog of war and unforeseen consequences, as if many people in the position to know hadn’t warned Bush and company of what they were getting into. This is all a matter of public record.

    Do you think we can destroy every country that hates us? Why do you think the Arab world hates us? Because they can’t stand freedom? Wake up! In the real world, unfortunately, you play your enemies against each other, you knock the teeth out of your foes when it’s smart to do so, you contain others, you negotiate with some. And every now and then, when you can, you try to save a population that is getting slaughtered. You can’t assume that you can shape the entire world through military might into the image you want, especially not overnight. The Bush Doctrine is hubris on a grand scale, and the true conservatives in your party know that. Read PAtrick Buchanan’s “Where the Right Went Wrong.”

    Even a superpower must use force judiciously, or it will cease to be a superpower.

    Bah. I notice you didn’t talk about American freedoms.

    Posted by: Trent at August 9, 2006 11:07 PM
    Comment #174440

    Adrienne,

    Nice Post! I’ve enjoyed all your posts here.

    Linda

    What hogwash! You must be a republician who is running scared. Why else would you be so full of venom?

    D.A.N.

    “Dont re-elect irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for incumbent politicians”. Amen, brother!


    Jack, (RE: your post to…)

    To Me:
    Peoples choice? Majority rules?
    Please, look at the election in 2000, and in 2004. THEN SAY THAT WITH A STRAIGHT FACE!

    If you believe that, then I have a nice DeBolt auto for you. That is if you don’t mind if I take it home with me first, and turn the odometer back?

    To Trent:
    To put Joe Lieberman and Bill Clinton together as “Moderates”, is just plain stupid.
    To put Bush and Mc Clain together as “Moderates”, is just a dang lie.
    (Bush isn’t good enough to shine Mc Clains shoes, —- and everyone knows it!)

    To Adrienne:
    Yea, once youre fired, you dont owe the company any loyalty, any more. But the company doesnt own you anything either.
    Therefore, Adrienne is correct. Hes been fired, so take him off of or out of his committies. When your booted out, you dont get to still
    sit in on boardroom meetings.

    D.A.N.
    Ever look at that ‘little kiss’ as the kiss of death? Kinda like in the “GodFather”, huh? :0)


    Stubborn Conservative,
    You dont like/nor believe, in polls. WOW! What a suprise.

    tomh wrote:

    “The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape -finding oneself -
    in the ranks of the insane” — Marcus Aurelius
    Man, I didnt know that Marcus Aurelius knew Bush!

    Linda wrote: (About La Mont)

    “He’s going to have his 24 hours in the limelight and be gone. He’s a statement only. Yes Linda, and that statement is: “There are a lot of Democrates out here, that are tired of “business as usual”, and that goes for a lot of Republicians as well ,,,, look out, —- next November.

    Trent asks:

    When is the last time we herd about Bin Lauden?
    When Bush spoke in Chicago, in 2003. When asked about Bin Lauden, Bush said, “I dont know where he is. —— I dont spend that much time on him.”

    Posted by: PlayNice at August 10, 2006 2:33 AM
    Comment #174466

    Dave1:

    Lets move away from Jeffords and his support or lack thereof. You still use the 61% support number, though it seems of dubious accuracy.

    ANY politician who is elected by the voters should remain in the party they were elected from. Part of the reason they were elected is due to the party they are a member of. There are many out there who vote for the candidate of their party, simply because they are from their party.

    If a politician elected from one party wants to change parties due to their conscience, they should resign their office and hold a special election. This allows the voters to choose to re-elect them as a member of a different party. Consider a politician from a strongly Democratic district who is elected and then becomes a Republican…would this be a popular choice with the constituency? Maybe or maybe not, depending on the politician, but the voters would have no ability to voice their opinion. Their votes would have been cast, and then possibly ignored.

    If you truly believe that each vote counts, then you should be against politicians being able to change their parties during their term. It subverts the concept. I have no problem with them changing, simply the timing and the mechanism for doing so.

    Adrienne:

    By the way, I forgot to forgive you in my earlier post. I apologize for the delay, and officially forgive you now.

    Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 10, 2006 8:37 AM
    Comment #174473

    jbod,

    …You still use the 61% support number, though it seems of dubious accuracy… ANY politician who is elected by the voters should remain in the party they were elected from. Part of the reason they were elected is due to the party they are a member of.
    A) The 61% support is not dubious, it is 61+/-4%. 61% of GOPers dissaprove of him but GOPers are only 21% of the populace.

    B) You cannot generalize this. A candidate is beholden to the citizens. Period. The official has a far greater moral obligation to his citizens than a political party or their contributors. When the party leaves the citizens behind then the official should leave the party behind, as Jeffords has. If Jeffords choice was against the wishes of the broad citizenry then there should be a citizens revolt. Jeffords was supported in his move by the vast majority of its people and there has been no revolt. The party the candidate belongs to should be an insignificant fraction of why he’s voted for or against.
    You can continue to believe the party is more imporatant than the people, but I don’t.

    Posted by: Dave1 at August 10, 2006 9:35 AM
    Comment #174475

    Playnice
    Bin Lauden wouldn’t still be running around out there and hiding in his caves had your man Clinton accepted the Saudi’s offer to turn him over, the result of which was 9/11.

    Posted by: linda at August 10, 2006 9:37 AM
    Comment #174479

    Trent
    We are not an “occupation”. We are there only as long as the duly elected Iraqi government wants us there and no longer.

    Posted by: linda at August 10, 2006 9:53 AM
    Comment #174486

    Dave1:

    61% of Vermonters like Jeffords as an Independent.

    The 61% support is not dubious, it is 61+/-4%. 61% of GOPers dissaprove of him but GOPers are only 21% of the populace.

    You keep using 61% as an approval number, but I have no idea where you are getting it from. You originally used it saying 61% of Republicans approved of him, now you use it as 61% of Vermonters approved of him. Neither is correct. Your link shows that 61% of Vermont Republicans DISapprove of Jeffords. You’ve given no information about what Vermonters (Dems+Reps) think of him.

    I am specifically NOT saying that party is more important than the people. I’m saying the opposite of that. I’m saying that the people vote both for the man and for the party. Some voted for Jeffords cuz they liked him. Others voted for him because he was Republican.

    By changing his party affiliation after the election, he essentially takes anyone who voted along party lines and discards their vote. So its not the party, but the voter that I am concerned for.

    Perhaps we simply disagree. But your comments indicate that I’ve failed to communicate well enough so that you understand my position.

    Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 10, 2006 10:14 AM
    Comment #174493

    jbod,

    Go to the same page and select the sort bar at the top left of the table, under “trackpoints”. It will let you break the data down to numerous subcategories.

    http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=d9205da4-75df-4a8d-a7d5-3dd74d0223ff&x=0,0

    he essentially takes anyone who voted along party lines and discards their vote.
    Perhaps, but he does so to respect the priorities of everyone else, which in my opinion is more important. Remember, he could not have won with 21% of the vote. Posted by: Dave1 at August 10, 2006 10:29 AM
    Comment #174503
    D.A.N. Ever look at that ‘little kiss’ as the kiss of death? Kinda like in the “GodFather”, huh? :0)

    Well, not until now.
    : )

    I wish Bush should kiss more incumbent politicians ?

    Posted by: d.a.n at August 10, 2006 10:58 AM
    Comment #174514

    Linda wrote
    “Bin Lauden wouldnt still be running around out there and hiding in his caves had your man Clinton accepted the Saudis offer to turn him over, the result of which was 9/11.

    Linda,

    Oh, you mean before 9/11???

    Its about time you Republicians took responsibility for your own s*it. The CIA unit who was in charge of catpturing Bin Lauden was disbanded last week. If your man Bush gave a .#@$. Bin Lauden would be caught by now.

    (But, old friends and family members, of old business partners, are hard to catch and prosecute, aren’t they?

    Its easier to fly them home in private jets after 9/11, (when no one else was allowed to fly), in order to keep his family “save” from us “Americans”, than it is to catch and procecute him, …. now, isnt it?).

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

    Linda wrote to Trent
    “We are not an “occupation”. We are there only as long as the duly elected Iraqi government wants us there and no longer”.


    Linda,
    What an absolute crock! The Iraqi government has asked us to get out. And, its leader said about our being there, and the job we have done there, he has refered to it as “butchery”.
    Get a clue!

    Posted by: PlayNice at August 10, 2006 11:15 AM
    Comment #174533

    Dave1:

    Thanks for the clarification on the data.

    I guess you don’t hold to the idea that every vote counts. You said that you are okay with Jeffords discarding certain votes, if he deems them less important than others.

    I’ll stick with the ‘every vote counts’ standpoint, rather than allowing a politician to decide which votes are important or unimportant.

    As I’ve said, Jeffords could have made every vote count simply by holding a special election. If the voters still liked him as an independent, then he retains office. If they don’t like him because he’s no longer a Republican, then they vote him out.

    But….and this is the key point, that would allow the voters to make the decision, rather than Jeffords. You’ve said that the voters are more important than the party, and I agree. I also say the voters should be more important than the candidate. Your statement that Jeffords gets to decide which votes are important says that you don’t agree with that. Or do you?

    Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 10, 2006 12:22 PM
    Comment #174543

    jbod,

    We will have to disagree. Changing a party does not discard anyones votes. Changing a party does not require another election. Changing a party is un-im-por-tant. In your argument everyone who casts a vote for a losing candidate made a vote that didn’t count.

    Posted by: Dave1 at August 10, 2006 12:58 PM
    Comment #174552

    Dave1:

    If that’s how you understood my comments, then I’d request you do a re-read. Its not even remotely close to what I said.

    If I vote for Candidate A and my reason for voting for him is his party affiliation, then my vote is discarded if he changes party affiliation after the election. You agreed with this opinion when I stated that a candidate who changes party affliation after the election “essentially takes anyone who voted along party lines and discards their vote.”

    You responded by saying “Perhaps, but he does so to respect the priorities of everyone else, which in my opinion is more important.”

    Now you say you disagree with this opinion. By the way, that’s a very good John Kerry impression…you agreed with me before you disagreed with me. I’ll assume you were going for the subtle humor angle.

    Voting for a losing candidate is simply voting for the losing side. Every race with more than one candidate has a winner and a loser. Voting for the loser simply means your candidate was not successful enough to win—it does not mean your vote didn’t count. Bush won more votes than John Kerry—-yet Kerry’s votes were not wasted. Instead, they showed the relative closeness of the election, and they showed that Bush did not, despite his claim, have a ‘mandate’ of leadership. He was voted into leadership, but by a close margin.

    Its clear that we won’t agree on this. But at least try to maintain a consistent viewpoint, rather than changing it.

    Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 10, 2006 1:43 PM
    Comment #174567

    Playnice
    I didn’t see any comment made about the gross miscalculations made by Clinton, who just happened to be in office for the 8 years prior to and leading up to 9/11. Though I suppose that’s due to a selective and clouded memory due to continuing rage over the 2000 election and the subsequent irrational hatred for Bush. It’s just sad that even after what just happened again today, thanks to our British allys thwarting another AlQuada attack upon our nation along with the vigilance of our own homeland security, there will remain those who stick their heads firmly in the Iraqi sand and blame Bush. How sad that we Americans can’t unite in the fight against this common enemy of Islamofascist terror threatening the lives of our children, grandchildren and all our posterity. This nation is entrusted to us - it doesn’t belong to us. The difference between A Liberman Democrat and a LaMont Liberal is that Liberman gets that fact.

    Posted by: linda at August 10, 2006 2:42 PM
    Comment #174573

    jbod,

    I haven’t changed my viewpoint at all. I don’t think a vote is ever for a party, it is for a candidate. If you as a voter do it because of their party, then so be it. That is a ‘reason’ not the ‘vote’. In your argument if I voted for someone because they were for Bill “A” but after conference the candidate no longer agreed with Bill “A”+, then you think they should go ask for a special election.
    But in any circumstance, you voted for the candidate. To me it ends there. The “perhaps” left room for another argument, I didn’t agree with you then or now.

    Posted by: Dave1 at August 10, 2006 2:57 PM
    Comment #174722

    Linda,

    You didn’t see anything about the 8 Clinton years leading up to 9/11, in my post, because they are not relivent. Now, if 9/11 was 1/11, or 3/11, or even 6/11, you may have seen a disclaimer in front of my statements. However, as it was actually “9/11”, and some 8 months after the little change of office up-date, that the out-going President always give to the in-coming President, so why should I mention anything about Clinton, at all? And, why should you?

    9/11, as you remember was 9/11/01. Not 9/11/2000. (Before Bushes Presidency). How long does it take for a new President to get up to speed anyway? Clinton seamed to do just fine after the 12 Reagen Bush years. Bush was warned about El Quida in Jan of 01. But, he was too concerned about finishing the Gulf war from the 90s, to be side-tracked by a little detail like El Quida. Lets face it, 9/11 worked out rather perfectly for Bush, to finally give him a reason to go into Iraq, and do just that, (finish the 1st Gulf War).

    As far as Lieberman is concerned, the only people that are supporting Lieberman are Republicians. If you are so much in favor of him, YOU vote for him. As for Democrats, most of us know that he is, in fact, not a Democrat. But, a Republician, in Democrat clothing. Maybe now Bush will give him another wet willy….. as a consoluation prise.

    Posted by: PlayNice at August 10, 2006 10:50 PM
    Comment #174725

    Linda,

    Oh yes, and my so-called rage over the 2000 election? Hey, it was the very 1st election in U.S. history, decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, and not by “the people”.

    If your an American, then why arent you pissed about that too???

    (Maybe cause your guy won? By any means necessary?

    I guess your just an “ends justify the means”, kinda gal.)

    Posted by: PlayNice at August 10, 2006 10:55 PM
    Comment #174765

    Playnice:

    As a point of fact, since you mention Clinton, do you recall that the WTC was bombed during his tenure. It was a successful plot that killed several people. It was UNsuccessful only in that it failed to bring down the towers.

    But the plan went through to fruition. It was not stopped. It was successfully executed, its just that the plan was a little too small to achieve its fully desired result.

    The point is that Clinton failed to stop it just as Bush failed to stop 9-11. I blame neither man for this failure—terrorist plots are difficult to prevent. We stop many more than we ever hear about. An FBI bureau chief told me once that we rarely hear about successes, but the 1 out of 1000 that we fail to prevent makes the headlines.

    Re the 2000 election: it was undeniably close. It was an anomaly where the guy with fewer electoral votes actually had more popular votes. In our Constitution, we cede the authority to the Supreme Court to make legal decisions, and that election came down to legal decisions. We can agree or disagree with the specific decision, but unless you want to call for a Constitutional change, then you must accept the decision of the highest arbiter in our country.

    The reality is that both sides tried to win at all costs. Only one side can win. The Supreme Court made the decision, as is their right to do so. Some think they should not have gotten involved, yet getting involved is also their decision to make. Its just how our flawed and imperfect, yet better than any other system works.

    Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 11, 2006 8:09 AM
    Comment #174816

    Playnice, here’s an excellent quote:

    “The premise of that ‘Saturday Night Live’ skit was the existence of an alternate universe and there are people who … say now it feels as if we’ve entered an alternative universe.

    “I would not have imagined, for example, that Americans could be routinely torturing helpless captives in the name of the American people and to continue it day after day. It’s going on right now without an ongoing outrage and the demand that it stop.

    “I would not have imagined that the government could routinely eavesdrop on tens of millions of Americans without a warrant and not have an ongoing outrage.

    “I would not have imagined that we, the American people, would tolerate the locking up by the executive branch of American citizens without right to trial, without right to inform their families, to be held in secret, without being charged.

    “These are offenses against the Constitution and the rule of law that I would never have imagined could take place, much less be allowed to continue after they came to light

    — Al Gore interview on NPR’s “Fresh Air,” May 31, 2006

    Instead, we get:

    “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’” — A former defense official who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, on learning that “the White House has ordered plans for “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran (which) will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.”” New Yorker, April 17, 2006 issue
    and
    “I think — tide turning — see, as I remember — I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of — it’s easy to see a tide turn — did I say those words?””— President Bush, answering the question, “Is the tide turning in Iraq?” at a June 14, 2006 press conference. Six days earlier, Bush called Zarqawi’s death “an opportunity for Iraq’s new government to turn the tide of this struggle.” Until Bush was sent to an East Coast boarding school, he was raised in the city of Houston and upscale suburbs of Midland, Texas

    Posted by: Dave1 at August 11, 2006 11:56 AM
    Comment #174826

    jbod:
    “The Supreme Court made the decision, as is their right to do so. Some think they should not have gotten involved, yet getting involved is also their decision to make.”

    What are you talking about Jbod? It wasn’t their decision to get involved, it was Bush who took the case to the Supreme Court. He did so after the Florida Supreme Court ordered the Secretary of State, Katherine Harris (who was Bush’s Florida campaign co-chair in Fla., and who had illegally scrubbed many thousands of legal voters from the voter rolls before the election) to accept the results of the manual recount. The Supreme Court overruled the Florida Supreme Court and said that the recount could to be stopped and that Harris could certify the election for the state — for Bush.
    This SC decision was split strictly along party lines within the SC (5 to 4) and was wrong in every way it could possibly be. Furthermore, the court was clearly aware of this, which is why in their final ruling they included this sentence:

    “Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.”

    This tells us that their decision in this case did not set future precedent in any way and would never be used to justify any future court decision — a complete departure from the stare decisis principle in our rule of law. That sentence is also how we know they knew the decision was unconstitutional because it was actually denying Al Gore equal protection.
    You righties always want to talk about their “right” as justices to have decided the presidency, but never want to acknowledge how utterly WRONG it was.

    Posted by: Adrienne at August 11, 2006 12:20 PM
    Comment #174863

    Joe,

    As a point of fact, I didnt mention Clinton first, Linda did. She wanted to point out that Clinton had an opportunity to turn over Bin Lauden, but didnt. Well, that was before 9/11, and although Clinton recognised him as a threat, there was still no proof yet or anything concrete to “turn him over” for. So, Lindas point was kinda lost on me.

    As to your comment about the WTC, yes, that was on Clintons watch. However, that attack had nothing to do with Bin Lauden. And, if you are compairing the two situations, then please compare them properly. True, no one can foretell a terrorist attack in advance. We dont expect our government to be fortune-tellers. However, the people that were involved in that attack were caught, tried and sentenced. We had our own home grown terrorist attack in Oklahoma as well. Those prople were caught, tried and sentenced as well.

    Bush said he would catch the person in charge of the 2001 WTC attack. He said he would track them down, dig them out of their holes, and “bring them to justice”. Do you remember that speach? I do. Where is Bin Lauden? Anyone know? You got him? Well, neither does George Bush. But, Bin Laudens family is safe. They were safely escorted from the U.S. on 9/12. So, was the Sadi family. They are safe.

    Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11, yet still fully half of the U.S. thinks that 9/11 is the reason we went into Iraq in the first place. WRONG! And, still we ask, “Where is Bin Lauden? As Bush said in 2003, “I dont know where he is, I dont spend that much time on him”. So, Bin Lauden isnt on Bushs top priority list. While the Shake who coriagraphed the first WTC attack is behind bars.

    Now if your going to make a compaireson between the two, at least make it accurate. And, oh yes…..the CIA division in charge of finding Bin Lauden and bringing him to justice? They were dis-banded a week ago !!!!

    As to the 2000 election, its not that the electorial college votes and the popular votes were not in unity, that bothered me. That was bound to happen sometimes. But, the U.S. has standard ways of dealing with that. Using the Supreme Court of the United States to determine the results of an election is unherd of, in the annals of American history. It is not for the Supreme Court to decide. (Especially one, that was packed with Reagen/Bush judges from the 1980s) (Some 8 out of the 12 judges). It is for the people of the United States to decide who is President. That is what, elections are for!

    The re-count was in Florida, where the Govenor is the Presidents brother. You may not see a conflict there? But please, do not even think for one minute that I am that nieve. The ligitimate re-count in Florida was halted and sabataged by the Republician party higher-ups. And, if that leaves a bad taste in peoples mouths, then its not our fault. If you want us to embrace a newly elected President of the United States, then there should at least be a small reason to believe that there is SOME ligitamatcy to that election.

    Im not even going to justify the way I feel about the election in 2004. If you cant see that the machines in Ohio were provided by a high ranking Republician, and broke down several times during that election needing “adjusting”? (Some 13 times, and each time they were re-booted different results were calculated).

    The same company also provided machines in California and they were held in peoples garages, for how long before the votes were counted?

    If you cant connect the dots there, then go back to sleep. Lay your seat back and take a nap. “Daddy Bush” is in the pilots seat, so sit back and relax. We’ll tell you when its time to stow your tray, put your seat back to its up-right position, and prepare for landing. In the mean-time……..

    GO BACK TO SLEEP!

    Posted by: PlayNice at August 11, 2006 2:41 PM
    Comment #174865

    Adrienne,

    EXACTLY!!!

    Good Post

    Posted by: PlayNice at August 11, 2006 2:44 PM
    Post a comment