Speaking of principles (or lack thereof)... http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001208.php So, McCain passes anti-torture bill, Bush signs but with a statement he can ignore the law if he wants, and McCain is OK with this?
McCain has sold his soul to run for President. He can do what he likes, but I'll never vote for him. Keep D&D Civil.
Man the "maverick" became such a sellout. And to think I thought he might be one of the few principled brightspots of American politics. Man... was I wrong
rhester, you must be completely flipped out by the Bush Administration and the GOP Congress. Totally insane spending, without a rational that makes sense, not to this Democrat. I agree with rimrocker that governments, government employees, and government spending are vital, despite the fact that they are an easy target. Too easy a target, if you ask me. Being married for over 25 years to a state government executive, one with intimate knowledge of how government works, that knowledge being part of her job description, has certainly been an education for me. I've seen, "from the inside," both the good and the bad at the state level, and because state government is intimately connected up to the Federal level, and down to the county/local level, I've heard a lot about them as well. In Texas, state employees have gotten such a raw deal. Politicians run for office here claiming the state is full of, "wasteful government spending," when the overwhelming majority of state government functions here are very, very underfunded and understaffed. Texas state employees have seen few raises for the last several years, yet have had their insurance premiums raised and benefits cut, the benefits always being a major reason people take less money to work for the state than they could make in the private sector. Another reason people work in state government, and other levels of government, believe it or not, is a desire to serve the public. Where the desire to serve the public will come from in the future? Certainly not from the example set today by the Federal government, as represented by Bush and the Republican Congress, and the state government of Texas. Keep D&D Civil.
He's such a maverick that he's being a maverick against maverick's, and going so far away from the herd that he came out the other side right in the middle of it. He's uber maverick.
Yep And I don't want all the 'good' done by the federal government to go away. I want us out of debt and the bankers who own the Federal Reserve to go away. And I also know it isn't going to happen so it is fun for me to come in here and post crazy ideas that will never see the light of day. Don't you all enjoy the addiction of D&D?
No offense Batman Jones and Deckard but I think both of you are getting way to emotional over partisanship. What Lieberman is doing isn't unique. Remember John Anderson who ran as an independent in 1980 after failing to run as a Republican in the primaries. Or Bob Smith who briefly left the Republican party in 2000 to run as an independent to oppose what he saw as GW Bush's coronation. Would you consider those two traitors? Further you act as though choosing to run as an independent if he loses the primary he is somehow evading his responsibility to the voters. In the end Democratic voters will still get a say on Lieberman and can vote for the Democratic candidate if Lieberman is an independent. Both of you are acting as if the Democratic party is the end all of politics in Connecticut when it isn't. In regard to Wellstone I can't speak for him since he is dead but would it surprise you that in his first election he wasn't the endorsed DFL (Dem.) candidate in MN? In fact much of the DFL leadership didn't like him and thought he was a light weight. Wellstones loyalty to his party wasn't as absolute as people portray it and I personally believe that Wellstone would've had no trouble pulling something like Lieberman in 2002 if he if most of the DFL opposed his view on the war in Iraq and easily could've seen him running as a Green, in fact there were some in MN that encouraged him to do so in protest against what they saw as a complicit Democratic party. I find it ironic for the two of you who often criticize how the Republican party deals with those who don't support their leadership are so upset about party loyalty in regard to Lieberman. As far as Lieberman making a principled position I think it is because I don't see him getting any political benefit out of it. Even if he runs as an independent he still very well might lose since his vociferious support of the occupation of Iraq isn't even shared by the Republican Senator of CT. As I said I don't agree with his position but he is making a principled stance. Its not a principle I share but I don't see him benefitting from it. Frankly I believe that your belief is that if you don't share the view it isn't principled.
New poll shows Lieberman losing ground to Democratic challenger. Fox News is a cool retirement destination for you, Lieberman. South Lebanon at this time of the year isn't too shabby either, if you are looking for real workout.
wnes (thanks!) brought this thread back, and I saw your post, Sishir, which I'd missed. I'll simply repeat what I posted earlier in the thread, which somehow you didn't "get." 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.
McCain is a fake maverick/ moderate. He started out as a conservative who was ethically challenged and nearly indicted in the Keaton Five scandal. Maybe he learned a lesson or maybe he is still trying to distance himself from his ethically challenged past. He has a few big time attention bringing maverik postureing positions. Aside from that he is just another GOP guy who kisses up to the Relgious Right and Dubya. Pretty humiliating really. Sort of reminds me of Hilary in his desperateness to be President.
Oh I got it which is why I responded why Lieberman's situation is much more similar to those other than you think, including Wellstone. But feel free to repeat yourself.
No problem... I luv repeating myself for emphasis! (and I still think you have blinders on re Lieberman) Keep D&D Civil.
Loser Joe tries to backpeddle on his cheer leading for the war in a desperte attemtpt to save his seat. This is for conservatives who love Joe. **** Lieberman rips W's war plan BY HELEN KENNEDY DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER Embattled Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman - facing a possible primary defeat Tuesday because of his strong backing for the Iraq war - yesterday launched a Hail Mary attack on the Bush administration's handling of the war. "I supported our war in Iraq but I have always questioned the way it was being executed," Lieberman said. "This administration took far too many shortcuts. We continue to suffer the consequences, as do the Iraqi people." Lieberman, an 18-year veteran of the Senate and a former vice presidential nominee, has been stunned by polls showing anti-war challenger Ned Lamont might win the Democratic primary. "It sounds like he's finally starting to wake up," said Lamont spokeswoman Liz Dupont-Diehl. The Rev. Al Sharpton, campaigning for Lamont yesterday, repeated the main charge against Lieberman: that he's an overly enthusiastic cheerleader for the war. "I was disappointed that every time we came out of the huddle, it seemed like my friend Joe had [on] the other team's uniform," Sharpton said. Lieberman's campaign said the senator's attack on the administration was nothing new. "This is one of those great myths that the Lamont campaign have been able to peddle," said spokesman Dan Gerstein. "He's been critical [of the handling of Iraq] since the war started." But the cheerleader image was cemented last year when Lieberman chided Democratic Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) for suggesting a troop pullout. "We undermine the President's credibility at our nation's peril," Lieberman said last year of war critics. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/story/440252p-370892c.html
Too late, and the voters have grown wiser. Everyone knows where he stood on the issue when it counted. People won't forget, and they won't be snowed over by his lame attempt that comes years too late.
The funny thing is that many, many of those voters probably felt the same way on the war issue at that time, too. Automatic nobility in rolling?
Move evidence od angry folks in Connecticut: Connecticut Democrats lose faith in Lieberman By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent Reuters Sunday, August 6, 2006; 12:11 PM MERIDEN, Connecticut (Reuters) - Jocelyne Hudson-Brown says she no longer trusts Sen. Joseph Lieberman. John Reardon calls it a loss of confidence. Bob Walsh says Lieberman turned his back on his party. For all three Connecticut Democrats, all one-time Lieberman supporters, the former vice presidential nominee's staunch advocacy of the Iraq war was the final straw that convinced them to back Lieberman's anti-war challenger Ned Lamont. "I have no more confidence in Lieberman," said Reardon, an 83-year-old retired truck driver from Meriden. "He doesn't tell the truth. He goes to Iraq and says everything is great and I'm supposed to believe him? What am I, stupid?" Said Hudson-Brown, a public relations adviser from New Haven: "The war in Iraq has changed everything. Lieberman was always with us before, we knew him and trusted him -- but not anymore." After decades in Connecticut and national politics, Lieberman faces his biggest political test on Tuesday when state Democrats decide whether to renominate him for a fourth six-year term or turn to Lamont. Lamont, a millionaire former cable television executive, opened a double-digit lead on Lieberman in a poll last week after hammering the senator for his support of the war and his willingness to work with President George W. Bush. Lamont tapped into a wave of anti-war anger by casting Tuesday's vote as a referendum on the war and on Bush. He frequently urges voters to send an anti-war message to the Bush administration and establishment Democrats ahead of November's elections to decide control of Congress. That message resonates in Connecticut, where polls show large majorities oppose the war and many Democrats said in interviews last week they were willing to forgive Lieberman for much -- but not his support for the war. "I've had issues with Lieberman and disagreements with him on a variety of things," said Jim Eckert of Hamden, a research scientist at Yale University who said the senator's support for the energy bill and free trade agreements had angered him. "But the war in Iraq was the tipping point, the last straw," he said. 'THE KISS' Lieberman has annoyed Democrats for years on issues beyond Iraq, from his early condemnation of President Bill Clinton during the 1998 Monica Lewinsky scandal to his refusal to support a filibuster against conservative Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. Last week's Quinnipiac University poll found 65 percent of Lamont supporters were primarily casting their vote against Lieberman, and nearly half cited the war as the top reason. "Joe Lieberman has become more and more conservative the longer he has been in Washington, and the Iraq war brought it all home," said Walsh, a Bridgeport city councilman. He said Lieberman, who was Al Gore's running mate in the 2000 presidential election, "turned his back on Democrats" by announcing he would run as an independent if he loses the primary. Lieberman is trailed to most campaign events by a pickup truck carrying a huge depiction of Bush and Lieberman locked in "The Kiss," the president's now famous peck on Lieberman's cheek after the 2005 State of the Union address. Lamont has highlighted the image on buttons and ads, while Lieberman's campaign responds with buttons depicting "The Hug" -- Lieberman and former President Bill Clinton in an embrace. Clinton campaigned for Lieberman last month. Ben Maxwell, a retired civil service worker from Bridgeport and a longtime supporter of Lieberman, said he could not vote for the senator again because of his relationship with Bush. "I don't have faith in him as a senator any more," he said. "With George Bush and Republicans controlling government, we need someone to stand up to them, not go along with them. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/06/AR2006080600252.html?nav=hcmodule Keep D&D Civil.
