Joe Lieberman voted out of party, running as an Independent

[bobobrazil1984 0]

Good riddance to Joe "captain censorship" Lieberman.

 

and as far as Iraq goes, it has shown to be such a gigantic strategic fuckup, probably the worst foreign policy decision since vietnam, that I have no problem with people voting hardline supporters out. but Lieberman's really small fries, i can only hope everybody who dragged us into this nonsense and are keeping it going gets voted out.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Dick Morris is the Sean Salisbury of political analysis.

 

Without him Bill Clinton would never have rallied to be re-elected in Arkansas after he got booted out after his first term and never would have been president. I don't know how that doesn't give him some credence to talk about the political climate especially since his predictions in the last presidential cycle proved pretty well founded about Howard Dean peaking too early, etc.

 

What pisses me off about this race as well is that if the MoveOn.Org people would spend half of the damn time they spent against Lieberman in CT fighting incumbent Republicans elsewhere they might actually have a chance help the Democrats retake control of Congress. Instead, they are messing around in a blue state purging one of their own from the ranks. Big strategic blunder in my opinion.

 

Also, if Lieberman loses do you think he might get a cabinet post from Bush? I thought there was talk last year or so of him becoming the new Defense Secretary. With Rumsfeld on the outs he might fill that job....you never know.

[Guest JustPassinBy]

Good riddance to Joe "captain censorship" Lieberman.

 

and as far as Iraq goes, it has shown to be such a gigantic strategic fuckup, probably the worst foreign policy decision since vietnam,

 

LOL...

Yeah compare Iraq to Vietnam. Good one.

When exactly did North Vietnam surrender? I cant recall them ever surrending, and that war went what, 12 years?

 

Iraq fell in like 20 days.

 

And if you cant see the good in having a democratically elected govt in the Middle East, then I'm just going to have to judge you as a near sighted tool that cannot possibly comprehend a bigger picture.

[snuffbox 0]

Stay clear of the Angry Gimmick!

[Guest JustPassinBy]

Dick Morris is the Sean Salisbury of political analysis.

 

Without him Bill Clinton would never have rallied to be re-elected in Arkansas after he got booted out after his first term and never would have been president. I don't know how that doesn't give him some credence to talk about the political climate especially since his predictions in the last presidential cycle proved pretty well founded about Howard Dean peaking too early, etc.

 

What pisses me off about this race as well is that if the MoveOn.Org people would spend half of the damn time they spent against Lieberman in CT fighting incumbent Republicans elsewhere they might actually have a chance help the Democrats retake control of Congress. Instead, they are messing around in a blue state purging one of their own from the ranks. Big strategic blunder in my opinion.

 

Also, if Lieberman loses do you think he might get a cabinet post from Bush? I thought there was talk last year or so of him becoming the new Defense Secretary. With Rumsfeld on the outs he might fill that job....you never know.

 

Morris is extremely savvy.

He was like the Karl Rove of the Democractic party.

 

Once the Dems moved power to the lunatic fringe, cough..Howard Dean...cough

 

Well, its almost hard for the GOP to lose when the Dems have no ideas of their own, and have no candidates that can win.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Dick Morris is the Sean Salisbury of political analysis.

 

Without him Bill Clinton would never have rallied to be re-elected in Arkansas after he got booted out after his first term and never would have been president. I don't know how that doesn't give him some credence to talk about the political climate especially since his predictions in the last presidential cycle proved pretty well founded about Howard Dean peaking too early, etc.

 

What pisses me off about this race as well is that if the MoveOn.Org people would spend half of the damn time they spent against Lieberman in CT fighting incumbent Republicans elsewhere they might actually have a chance help the Democrats retake control of Congress. Instead, they are messing around in a blue state purging one of their own from the ranks. Big strategic blunder in my opinion.

 

Also, if Lieberman loses do you think he might get a cabinet post from Bush? I thought there was talk last year or so of him becoming the new Defense Secretary. With Rumsfeld on the outs he might fill that job....you never know.

 

Morris is extremely savvy.

He was like the Karl Rove of the Democractic party.

 

Once the Dems moved power to the lunatic fringe, cough..Howard Dean...cough

 

Well, its almost hard for the GOP to lose when the Dems have no ideas of their own, and have no candidates that can win.

 

Oh yea, I also forgot that it was Morris's idea of "triangulation" that Clinton used to pound Bob Dole's ass in 1996 whereby Clinton adopted centrist positions between the extremes of the right and the left and always appeared to be the compromising figure and voice of reason. This stance ended up giving us welfare reform in 1996 which really hurt Dole.

 

What really hurts Morris today is that he's a BIG anti-Hillary person so he appears like a partisan hack. However, I'd recommend his book "Rewriting History" to anyone regardless because of all the Clinton stories good and bad from Arkansas to the White House (including one where Bill tackled him one time).

 

All I'd say is that if I were running a political campaign I'd be giving Dick Morris a call to help manage it.

[Dr. Zaius 0]

Good riddance to Joe "captain censorship" Lieberman.

 

and as far as Iraq goes, it has shown to be such a gigantic strategic fuckup, probably the worst foreign policy decision since vietnam,

 

LOL...

Yeah compare Iraq to Vietnam. Good one.

When exactly did North Vietnam surrender? I cant recall them ever surrending, and that war went what, 12 years?

 

Iraq fell in like 20 days.

 

And if you cant see the good in having a democratically elected govt in the Middle East, then I'm just going to have to judge you as a near sighted tool that cannot possibly comprehend a bigger picture.

 

No one ever said the two were exactly alike, but your knowledge of the Vietnam War seems to be limited. The purpose of the Vietnam War wasn't to make North Vietnam surrender, but to stop the Viet Cong insurgency on the behalf of the South Vietnamese government. You don't think there's any resemblance to Iraq whatsoever?

 

But, hey, big picture, right? The continuation of the war is only making the problem worse because the elected Iraqi government is only seen as more and more of a pawn of the U.S. the longer we stay over there helping them. We've done so much damage over there that the Iraqi people will never accept a government that they think favors the U.S., even if they voted for it.

[snuffbox 0]

Gimmicks don't know history.

[Dr. Zaius 0]

Time magazine is parroting the RNC's party line.

 

Wednesday, Aug. 09, 2006

Why the Republicans Are Loving the Lieberman Loss

At a time when the GOP should be back on its heels, Connecticut voters' rejection of a centrist Senator gives the party a potentially powerful new weapon to use against the Democrats this fall

By MIKE ALLEN/WASHINGTON

From Washington State to Missouri to Pennsylvaina, Democratic candidates found themselves on the defensive Wednesday as the Republican Party worked ferociously at every level to try to use the primary defeat of Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut to portray the oppposition as the party of weakness and isolation on national security and liberal leanings on domestic policy. Doleful Democrats bemoaned the irony: At a time when Republicans should be back on their heels because of chaos abroad and President Bush's unpopularity, the Democrats' rejection of a sensible, moralistic centrist has handed the GOP a weapon that could have vast ramifications for both the midterm elections of '06 and the big dance of '08.

 

One of the nip-and-tuck Senate races this year is in Missouri, and backers of Sen. Jim Talent are preparing an attack on his opponent, State Auditor Claire McCaskill, that is emblematic of the sort that will be seen all over the country within 24 hours. "Does Claire McCaskill support the wishes of the angry left by endorsing Ned Lamont's candidacy or will she support the man who was chosen by Al Gore as the Democrat's 2000 nominee for Vice President?" Republicans ask in a statment that will force McCaskill to talk about messy party business instead of her favored issues of government accountablity and affordable health care.

 

House candidates planned a similar tack, and the National Republican Congressional Committee issued a memo this morning playing up the potential distraction of Lieberman's independent candidacy in a state where three GOP incumbents — Reps. Rob Simmons, Chris Shays and Nancy Johnson — are perennially endangered. The memo said Connecticut Democrats "will now continue to train their attention on vanquishing Senator Lieberman when their three House candidates need all the help the can get."

 

Some senior Democrats hoped Lieberman would bow out to avoid underscoring party divisions. But Dan Gerstein, a strategic communications consultant who is a senior adviser to Lieberman, tells TIME that the independent campaign — formally called "Connecticut for Lieberman" — is "full steam ahead" and that the Senator's remarks on election night were "a point-of-no-return speech." Lieberman was doing a series of interviews, mostly with Connecticut reporters, and plans some campaign stops on Thursday with Democrats who supported him and will continue to do so. Organizers shied away from calling it a kick-off tour, instead saying it is a new phase of the campaign. "He's committed," Gerstein said. "He feels liberated and he feels very strongly it's the right thing to do." Gerstein said the Senator is prepared to have some tough conversations with senior Democrats, perhaps even former President Bill Clinton, who may pressure him to withdraw. "He feels there's something much larger at stake," Gerstein said.

 

Gleeful Republicans across the country mocked their opponents as isolationist "Defeat-ocrats," and even some Democratic officials said they can already imagine the ads in November races saying that Lieberman, once within a few hundred votes of being Vice President of the United States, is now "not liberal enough" for the Democratic Party. Republican officials, who have had little but bad news for months as Iraq festered and U.S. voters showed increasing signs of pessimism and discontent, said the Ned Lamont victory gave them a chance to paint Democrats as a party that had become captive to the liberal wing symbolized by the MoveOn.org civic action group. Mary Matalin, an outside adviser to the White House, signaled the message when she said on Fox News Channel shortly after the polls closed: "MoveOn is not fringe. They're the heart of the party."

 

On television and in speeches in coming days, party officials and strategists plan to talk about their respect for Lieberman as a distinguished public servant and argue that Lamont's victory represents the end of the long tradition of strong-on-national-defense Democratic leaders in the mold of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy. The GOP plans to try to broaden the argument beyond Connecticut, a liberal stronghold, and work to convince viewers and voters that Democratic nominees across the country have more in common with Michael Moore and liberal bloggers than Main Street America.

 

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, speaking to the City Club of Cleveland this morning, said the rejection of a well-liked Senator who was strong on national defense showed that Democratic candidates must embrace "defeatism and isolation" or "risk being purged" for their party. "For those of us who follow politics closely, who work in politics, and who know that there can be good and honest people on the other side of the political divide, it is a shame," he said. "It is also a sign of what the Democratic Party is has become in the 21st century. It reflects an unfortunate embrace of isolationism, defeatism, and a "blame America first" attitude by national Democratic leaders at a time when retreating from the world is particularly dangerous."

 

Trying to look on the bright side, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean issued a statement this morning pointing to strong turnout in the primaries and declaring that Democratic voters "are energized." The challenge for Dean, and his party, is to channel that energy in a direction that makes victory more likely, not less.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/printout/0...1224692,00.html

 

I'm still scratching my head wondering why the Republicans think running on an issue 60% of the country disagrees with them on is a plus. Democrats are out there talking about how the war was a mistake and we need to withdraw to save lives, and all the Republicans can do is point there fingers and say, "Dirty Liberal!" over and over again.

 

Even more hilariuos is how, when asked by Chris Matthews if he'd do, the head of the RNC declinded to endorse CT's Republican nominee. And I am to believe that my own Senator wants to make a campaign out of who his opponent wants to see win the CT race?

[spman 0]

I'm still scratching my head wondering why the Republicans think running on an issue 60% of the country disagrees with them on is a plus. Democrats are out there talking about how the war was a mistake and we need to withdraw to save lives, and all the Republicans can do is point there fingers and say, "Dirty Liberal!" over and over again.

 

Even more hilariuos is how, when asked by Chris Matthews if he'd do, the head of the RNC declinded to endorse CT's Republican nominee. And I am to believe that my own Senator wants to make a campaign out of who his opponent wants to see win the CT race?

 

I believe Sideshow Bob said it best

 

"You need me, Springfield. Your guilty conscience may force you to vote Democratic, but deep down inside you secretly long for a cold-hearted Republican to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king. That's why I did this: to protect you from yourselves."

[Dr. Zaius 0]

Is that why RNC Chair Ken Mehlman declined to endorse Alan Schlesinger's campaign yesterday?

[Art Sandusky 0]

Well, its almost hard for the GOP to lose when the Dems have no ideas of their own, and have no candidates that can win.

Sooo... loads of polls, real-life events, and reprecussions of the last five and a half years lead you to this conclusion.

 

Honestly, this is the Republican "idea" for the war:

 

"It's hard work, but we're going to be right in the end."

 

It doesn't address loss of life in all involved parties, political instability in the region resulting from our incursion, a seeming endless string of destructive conflict, and that we ended up in this mess under false pretenses. It reads like a quarterly earnings report that never delivers.

 

Don't give me some bullshit about Saddam being a super-duper threat to the United States, because it's a fucking fallacy and you know it. Before you go on with some sarcastic "oh yeah, because he was the most peaceful guy, like, ever" response, he was a danger, yes. But not so much that we had to go and invade the country pre-emptively. It eats at the right-wingers in this country that they were fooled, but many still stick with it until the comapny goes bankrupt/they're voted out of office. You know very well that we should be engaged militarily with those who actually attacked us, you know, al-Queda. "Oh, but we are! We're fighting them off every day in Iraq!" WHAT WERE WE DOING IN IRAQ IN THE FIRST PLACE?

 

How anyone can still support such shallow, corporate sorts of philosophies as a method for running a country that is not only the most powerful in the world (something people loooooove talking about), but can do the most for the world in other, positive ways (something people don't talk about).

 

BUT THE TERRORISTS ARE COMING... ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO THEM... THERMONUCLEAR WEAPONS COULD BE SMUGGLED INTO THIS NATION AT ANY MOMENT TO KILL YOU AND YOUR FAMILY AND YOUR DOG... WE ARE DOING ALL WE CAN TO KILL THESE BARBARIANS IN THE NAME OF FREEDOM...

 

Man, fuck that. There's far more important shit that needs to be addressed, and 80% of it was highlighted over a week between August and September last year. More and more people are realizing what's truly deserving of attention, and shaping the Middle East to our desires is simply not something we care about. We want to avenge 9/11 (look up a recent survey where 30% of people couldn't remember what year the 9/11 is tied to) and make ourselves as safe as possible though. Fucking up another region of the world is not what Americans feel is necessary to be safe and prosperous, and no amount of sticking your fingers in your ears and grandstanding is going to change that.

[Special K 0]

And if you cant see the good in having a democratically elected govt in the Middle East, then I'm just going to have to judge you as a near sighted tool that cannot possibly comprehend a bigger picture.

 

Yeah, and I can see how cold fusion would be fucking stellar, but it's not going to happen.

 

The isn't going to be like the fucking sneetches you dumb son of a bitch. The second we leave the Sunnis and Shiites are going to start killing each other.

 

We know that. So we, the most powerful country in the world, our stuck with our thumbs up our asses, with most of our military in a quagmire.

 

Meanwhile, it's costing hundreds of billions of dollars, it costs me 45 fucking dollars to fill up my 4-door car, and we are unable to deal with REAL ACTUAL agressors like Hezbolah.

 

You dumb shit.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

(look up a recent survey where 30% of people couldn't remember what year the 9/11 is tied to)

 

Bwahahaha. That's fucking hilarious and pathetic at the same time.

 

9/11/2002 is a date I'll NEVER forget.

[2GOLD 0]

look up a recent survey where 30% of people couldn't remember what year the 9/11 is tied to

 

So either 30% of those people are stupid, or surveys tend to be much like exit polling. Completely worthless and horribly unreliable.

[snuffbox 0]

Its the 30% that think Iraq attacked us as well.

[2GOLD 0]

Its the 30% that think Iraq attacked us as well.

 

That is one stupid bunch of people. I was for the war at the start (still sorta am, just pissed at the handling), and even I knew Iraq didn't attack. Iraq didn't have the balls to attack anyone bigger than them.

[NoCalMike 0]

Its the 30% that think Iraq attacked us as well.

 

...and think we found WMDs.... (and no not Rick Sanitorum-brand WMDs)

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

look up a recent survey where 30% of people couldn't remember what year the 9/11 is tied to

 

So either 30% of those people are stupid, or surveys tend to be much like exit polling. Completely worthless and horribly unreliable.

 

Amen. I hate polling data because it is usually very unreliable. This is a major qualm I always had with Clinton because he governed on polling (ex. Somalia pullout) instead of sticking to his own guns. Like him or hate him Bush governs the opposite way and that of course has its pros and cons.

 

As far as the WMD in Iraq argument goes a recent study showed that 50% of Americans believe that Iraq actually had it even though we still haven't found significant armaments of it. Personally, I think it might have been shipped out of the country pre-invasion but my gut tells me Saddam isn't smart enough for that so they probably didn't have it to begin with.

 

Either way, I put the fault of the Iraq debacle on the CIA because think of it in reverse: if Bush had not invaded and Iraq one day did something nutty to the US with these "slam dunk" WMDs the Congress and the American public would be calling for his impeachment. George Tenet is the real enemy here that gets overlooked. However, Bush does deserve blame for not planning what to do post-invasion which should have been the focus anyway since we knew we'd take over Iraq in a short time anyway.

[Art Sandusky 0]

What the hell did George Tenet do wrong? All he could do was present intelligence in briefings and whatnot. The CIA director isn't even supposed to supply policy recommendations. He wasn't out there making speeches and trying to drum up support at home and abroad using handpicked evidence. I suggest you read Plan of Attack, if you're able to get past the usual "oh, but that writer's a dirty liberal!" cry that insulates all these newly minoritized stubborn neo-cons.

[Dr. Zaius 0]

Its the 30% that think Iraq attacked us as well.

 

...and think we found WMDs.... (and no not Rick Sanitorum-brand WMDs)

In an recent taste test, 4 out of 5 Fox News anchors preferred Rick Santorum Brand WMDs to other leading brands.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

What the hell did George Tenet do wrong? All he could do was present intelligence in briefings and whatnot. The CIA director isn't even supposed to supply policy recommendations. He wasn't out there making speeches and trying to drum up support at home and abroad using handpicked evidence. I suggest you read Plan of Attack, if you're able to get past the usual "oh, but that writer's a dirty liberal!" cry that insulates all these newly minoritized stubborn neo-cons.

 

The CIA director does have the responsibility, though, to oversee the agency and make sure the right intelligence is getting to him and to the president. The least Tenet could have done is verify the validity of the intelligence he was obtaining before he told the President it was a "slam dunk." I just think Bush gets way too much of the blame when he was relying on the CIA to feed him important data. You could call it one of the faults of the "pyramid model" of a presidency where a president relies on advisors (the same happened with Reagan over Iran-Contra).

 

I guess Lieberman is wishing that terror scare in the air had happened about a week ago. If it had I think he might have been able to win that election.

[NoCalMike 0]

I am just curious as to where the notion that Saddam was just itching to attack the US came from in the first place...!?!

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

look up a recent survey where 30% of people couldn't remember what year the 9/11 is tied to

 

So either 30% of those people are stupid, or surveys tend to be much like exit polling. Completely worthless and horribly unreliable.

 

Amen. I hate polling data because it is usually very unreliable. This is a major qualm I always had with Clinton because he governed on polling (ex. Somalia pullout) instead of sticking to his own guns. Like him or hate him Bush governs the opposite way and that of course has its pros and cons.

 

The Bush Administration actually uses polling extensively.

 

A Washington Monthly analysis of Republican National Committee disbursement filings revealed that Bush's principal pollsters received $346,000 in direct payments in 2001. Add to that the multiple boutique polling firms the administration regularly employs for specialized and targeted polls and the figure is closer to $1 million. That's about half the amount Clinton spent during his first year

 

via the Washington Monthly

[Dr. Zaius 0]

Joe Lieberman has officially lost his damn mind.

 

Senator says rival's Iraq policy would give terrorists a victory

[Art Sandusky 0]

Big ol' swan dive into the cushion-y right wing camp. Maybe he's going to let his inner Republican come out now.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

I just think Lieberman is going on the offensive because during the primary campaign he was way too subdued. Plus, I guess he's banking on getting lots of GOP votes in this primary since he figures a lot of Democrats might back Lamont.

[Dr. Zaius 0]

look up a recent survey where 30% of people couldn't remember what year the 9/11 is tied to

 

So either 30% of those people are stupid, or surveys tend to be much like exit polling. Completely worthless and horribly unreliable.

 

Amen. I hate polling data because it is usually very unreliable. This is a major qualm I always had with Clinton because he governed on polling (ex. Somalia pullout) instead of sticking to his own guns. Like him or hate him Bush governs the opposite way and that of course has its pros and cons.

 

The Bush Administration actually uses polling extensively.

 

There are plenty of examples of Clinton going against polls. The health care plan, gays in the military, GATT, and the Balanced Budget Amendment all come to mind.

[snuffbox 0]

And I'm sure that the polling numbers told Clinton not to kill 40-something people and burn down Waco in cold blood...but he did anyway.

[Guest DRH 502]

Joe Lieberman eats fish tacos.