Jim Jeffords, Lincoln Chafee and Joe Lieberman are all senators from the NE, where the vast majority of voters are liberal Democrats. "Republicans" from the NE would be moderate to moderate/liberal Democrats in the South. Chafee and Jeffords were brave to EVER run as Republicans, as Republicans generally lose in that region. And I think you know that. But that's neither here nor there. The difference between Lieberman and these other guys -- apart from the fact that Joe is a DINO and the others are RINO's, each in liberal Democrat territory -- is that NONE of them but Lieberman ever tried to run in their party's primary with the insurance of running as an independent if they lost. Lieberman is out for number one. There is no greater example in our modern politics of someone placing himself above all else - above party, above ideology, above principle - than Lieberman running simultaneously for the Democratic Party nomination and the general election. You try, as Joe does, to portray this as a principled act -- as though it makes sense that he makes himself available to all voters and not just Dems. Fine. Then he should do that. Why not go straight to the general if he doesn't trust the Democratic Party primary? Why is he still running in the Democratic Party's primary? Why is he running twice? Why should he get two go's? You've mentioned Jeffords and you've mentioned Chafee. When did either of them do what Lieberman's doing? Answer: never. Answer: NO ONE HAS. If Lieberman is a Democrat, if he is still a Democrat, he should abide by the choice of the Connecticut Democratic Party. If he isn't, he should run as an Independent. HE'S DOING BOTH. He's doing both because it's not about principle -- it's about Joe Lieberman. Chafee could have run as an independent and won easily. He refused to do that. He said that he wanted to stand up for the Republican Party he believed in. He made no threat to run as an Independent if Republicans in RI disagreed with him. Jeffords believed the Republican Party had abandoned the principles he grew up with as a Republican so he left the party. Neither tried to have it both ways. Joe Lieberman is trying to have it both ways. Do not compare him with principled men like Chafee and Jeffords. Do not even compare him with Zell Miller who insists he is still a Democrat even while he rails against the party. Zell Miller, even, never pulled what Lieberman is pulling now. Neither Miller nor Chafee nor Jeffords ever put themselves above our democratic process like Lieberman is. What Lieberman is doing is, in fact, unprecedented. You're smarter than this, Sishir Chang. Act like it. Beyond all I've posted above, you have a lot of nerve comparing Lieberman's cult of personality "bravery" to principled stands such as were taken by the likes of Wellstone. Paul Wellstone voted his conscience always and had no problem leaving it to the voters of Minnesota to decide whether or not they wanted him representing them. He took principled stands, popular or not, and he stood up to the consequences. Lieberman is the opposite of that. He wants to have it both ways. Wellstone would never do that. Wellstone was a Democrat, so he ran in the Democratic Party primary. Would you suggest he would ever abandon his principles such that he'd hedge his bets and run in both the primary and the general, even if he'd lost the primary? Right. Didn't think so. As for you, crazy giddyup, it's well known why Clinton is stumping for Lieberman. There are a few reasons. Chief among them is that Joe cornered Hillary on the Senate floor and asked for this favor in specific and she said yes. Secondarily, she's scared to death that the DLC position of backing a stupid, unnecessary war is about to backfire on her and she knows that a Lieberman loss is very, very, very, very bad for her 08 prospects. Thirdly, regardless of bad blood over Monica, Clinton and Lieberman are old DLC buds. But it's not for nothing that both Bill and Hillary have committed to supporting the winner of the Democratic Party primary. And that won't be Joe Lieberman. It'll be Ned Lamont. Why? Because, in the Northeast and in Connecticut in particular, Democrats prefer to vote for actual Democrats. Furthermore, like voters all around the country, they prefer to vote for a Senator that represents their interests. It's become very plain that Lieberman does not represent the interests of Connecticut voters. Here's another tip. Lamont will win the general too. There are many reasons for that, but the main one is that Connecticut voters overwhelmingly oppose the Iraq war (like 70% to 25%) and they have had it up to here with Lieberman. When I got home and saw giddyup's post, as much as I've wanted to talk here about this primary, I thought no way I'm going down that road with him tonight. But I was just so freaking appalled by the bogus comparisons cited by a usually reasonable poster like Sishir Chang that I just couldn't help myself. Sishir: redeem yourself. Your posts in this thread are your worst work yet. I'll look forward to your replies in the morning.
What I see here is people blindly assailing the Republican Party and Bush in particular. I doubt you know the particular tendencies of millions of conservatives. Your scorn for them smacks of elitism.
Yeah, I know. I saw it on TV. The point is that a few weeks ago, Lieberman was painted by you guys here as someone the Democratic Party was distancing themselves from... and deservedly so. And now he has the iconic bagman at his side. Do you have more than one gall bladder or is yours just the size of your ego?
I'll explain it to you, in terms you can understand: Bill Clinton is the greatest campaigner/politician the Dems have had in decades. He and Lieberman were close during Clinton's presidency, even though Lieberman bashed Clinton (rightfully so) for the Lewinsky incident. Bill Clinton continues to raise cash for the Democratic Party. He is supporting Lieberman in the primary, but has publicly stated that he will support the Democratic nominee, regardless of who wins the primary. His preference, however, is that Lieberman wins. In other words....It's all about the cheese.
I don't see anything at all hypocritical in what Lieberman is doing. He believes the majority of the people in his state want him to be their Senator. The most straight forward way to do that in our system is to win the primaries of one of the two big parties. If he tries that route, is not successful, but still believew the majority of the people want him to win he is going to use the only other avenue he has to get his name on the ballot. It's still up to the people to vote for him or not. He is just trying to make sure that the people have the choice he believe they want. What's hypocritical? I don't want to vote for anyone that blindly follows a party line.
So, in other words, two weeks ago in the other Lieberman thread... you all were dead wrong? Wow, Clinton is going to support whichever Dem wins the primary. Big news. I'm not understanding why Clinton is not supporting the future Democratic senator from Connecticut rather than Lieberman-- that's what was said here that was happening... Lieberman on a fast train out of town proverbially-speaking. I didn't know that Clinton put sentiment above party politics...
CG, no one is asking him to. As I mentioned in an earlier post, partisan politics, you know, political parties and such, are an inconvenient truth for those uncomfortable with the foundattion of the American Republic. The fact remains that our system is based on political parties, and usually two political parties, at that. Google independent members of Congress, and tell me how many you find. A handful. As distasteful as that fact may be, and it's been promoted, especially, by the GOP, during the last several election cycles, for their "divide, frighten, and conquer," strategy, the strategy that's worked so well for them (Classic Rove... just classic), up 'til now. It is our political process. As Batman (nice post, Batman, although I think you and giddy should have you're own sticky! ) and I have been saying, what Lieberman is doing is an attempt to circumvent that process. He wants it both ways. Joe is not Wellstone, Chafee, or Jeffords. Wellstone, sadly, is dead, but Jeffords and Chafee are two Senators I have more respect for than Senator Lieberman, who is breaking new ground in the art of the hypocritical politician trying to cover his own backside at the expense of his own party. Again, it's not about the stands on the issues taken by Lieberman. I respect his breaking with most of his own party for what I look at as his sincere stand on issues like Iraq. It's the hypocrisy of Lieberman to turn his back on those who put him where he is today, politically, and deciding that the will of the people of that party, who's decisions he's largely embraced for decades, suddenly counts for nothing when he decides he might actually lose his own primary. It's really a very straightforward concept. Not nearly as confusing as why CD signed Bowen to a 2 year contract. Keep D&D Civil.
Lieberman, Gore, Clinton1, HClinton2, Bush, Powell, Condi, Kinky... If any one of them would do all of the following- 1. Get rid of the Fed 2. Stop borrowing money- (not one more red cent) 3. Restore sound money- backed by gold or silver 3. End the dept. of Education 4. Stop chasing oil with bombs and soldiers 5. Get rid of Nafta Gafta afta afta afta and all the other so called free trade laws. 6. Cut the size of govt. enough to pay off the debt 7. Eliminate the IRS and the income tax and return us to a Constitutional tax 8. Get us out of the New Global politics 9. And support the Houston Rockets I would vote for that politician in a heartbeat. link
It obvious why Clinton is supporting Lieberman. Clinton is a DLC guy and so is Leiberman. Interestingly the neoconns and the DLC have a common lineage. So its not surprising that Bush I would call Clinton son. Or that Lieberman was rumored to be in line as secretary of defense under Bush II.
If someone did 1, 2, and especially 3, the world would soon enter a depression that would make the Great One look like child's play. 6 is impossible unless you whack all discretionary spending, cut our defenses down to the equivalent of the Coast Guard, and throw lots of folks who rely on SS and Medicare out on their keysters. You could do it over the long term by reducing the yearly budgets enough so that we don't have a yearly deficit... oh wait, Clinton tried that didn't he? There's no way to do 7 without many of the consequences of doing 6. While the appeal of 8 is great, particularly for the next 2.5 years, it is unrealistic that the world's economic and military power could abide... unless you follow through with your other suggestions and we become a 3rd world country. I do agree with 4 and 9.
Well, I didn't say it was a good idea just said I would vote for that platform. We lived just fine as a nation up until 1913 with everyone of those I listed. So for over a hundred years we didn't seem to need all the debt, bankers and the complex global landscape today doesnot negate sound policy with all the debt bubbles collapsing and global tension tweaking soon their will be more screams for a return to it. There are smart enough economists that could transition this country back to sound fiscal government, we could get on our Google horses and find some answers if we wanted them. Most Americans are quite content to let Central Banks run the government and whats the difference in being a third world country and a dictatorship with a very rich class and a very slave class?
I have seen you brought it up several times, what's the rationale behind your rage against Department of Education, rhester?
I'm not feeling the rage yet... It was just the first federal agency that came to mind that is a waste of money and I would rather go back to total financing, control and responsibility at the state, local county, city and then individual district level. Most fed agencies have only been around long enough to be a wrong solution to a problem- they are treated like they are the only solution. I am not for big federal spending that bankrupts nations, I am for brilliant and creative people coming up with better answers. I don't think the federal government should be the default answer for every problem in the nation. I appreciate all those federal workers who work so hard to control the way our children are educated, but I am more of a root cause analysis and pay for performance type.
BTW- politically I am just a blow hard that scratches his head every time I vote and I am fast losing faith in politics as far getting the most bang for the buck.
Ah, so your problem is more with "wasting tax payers' money" by the federal government, not really on the "Education" part per se.
not sure. I am for brilliant creative people coming up with better solutions than huge debts, failed programs and big central government. I would rather find out why someone who could read by candlelight and educate himself can become one of America's most important statesmen and leaders than borrow 100 billion dollars and give it to an agency in Washington, DC. Like I said, I would like to clearly understand what the root cause of the problem is prior to borrowing billions and spending it all up so that you don't lose your next appropriation. I don't like big central government. I like smart decent people working together to solve local problems on a local level. that's just my preference- I don't have the answers, just my opinion.
A lot happened in 1913 besides the 16th Amendment and the creation of the Federal Reserve, most notably... Wilson becomes President Romanovs celebrate 300 years of ruling Russia The first flight across the Mediterranean Panama Canal is completed Neils Bohr develops the quantum model of the atom It was also the year before 1914. All those things had a huge influence in changing the world. Sorry, but you can't turn back the clock... We have to fight World Wars and undertake huge science projects... those in turn led the US to the position it had in 2000... you don't do that on the gold standard or without an income tax. And I really don't understand the whining about the income tax... you're lucky enough to live in the wealthiest society in the history of the world. Taxpayer funding of schools, universities, student loans, small business loans, highways, water systems, electric systems, aircraft control, pollution controls, etc. have made this possible. There's no way some local group, no matter how talented is going to be able to do anything about acid rain or fund the Erie Canal or allow elderly to maintian some semblance of respect, or any of the many things made possible by the combined efforts of all citizens through Federal and sate governments. Quit whining and make things nbetter instead of trying to tear everything down. The gold standard, really now.
