It seems like the Old Lion Liberals are lamenting the rise of the New Liberals --yesterday on Fox News it was Leon Panetta and today on MSNBC it was Ed Koch. Both said they are deeply disturbed that Lieberman was turned out by Connecticut Democrats. Both predicted Lieberman would win in November. Panetta and Koch have some pretty stout Democratic credentials. Their opinions do instill some wonderment, at least on my part.
I don't know what you are trying to refute here in direct response to the straightforward statement in my previous post: ".001 is the same as 1 thousandth, which is 1 tenth of 1%." You are sniffing your own stinky rear, giddy. I hope your age didn't get the best of you, but then again, as the evidences thus far have shown, you were probably just as boneheaded when you were younger. Well, explanation like that may help now but it's belated. It's your own fault you didn't make it clear in the first place that you were using "1" as the shorthand for "1%," something unbeknowth to everybody else who uses the standard connotations. LOL ... you demonstrate you are not only deficient in math concept but also incapable of verbal and logical reasoning. Illustratively, A-B-C means A is directly related to B, which in turn is directly related to C, or A is indirectly related to C via B. Using the vote advantage as an example, the size of mandate is directly related to the magnitude of net vote gain (which mathematically is itself a function of total votes obtained by one side), which is related to the gain in percentage. On the other hand, "subject to interpretation" means a premise upon which conclusion(s) can be drawn may be non-deterministic, hardly the same thing as "indirectly". You are making a fool of yourself again. Look you still don't get it. The actual numerical size of the victory is irrelevant -- whether it's 2 votes or 2 million votes -- as long as Cheney's claim that Bush had the mandate based on 2% of vote count difference, the fact remains Lamont's victory margin in % is almost twice of the Bush's. In case you forgot, this whole "debate" started when I declared "if 51% was a mandate, 52% is 2xmandate." If when Bush got 51%, Kerry only had 40% or something similarly low, then my claim of 2xmandate would indeed be baseless as well as ridiculous. But it's not, my claim is perfectly valid since it is 1) firmly based on the margin of victory in % vote difference, 2) permanently attached to Cheney's claim. Your continously pathetic attempt to deny otherwise only underscores the frivolousness of your arguments throughout. Now "Virtually all" would be a fuzzy usage.. lol. You don't need to care, but the poll results leading up to the election day from different souces were anything but certain. The early exit polls, however, actually showed Kerry/Edwards were winning. You may or may not be a delibrate revisionist, but judging by your confusion of the 2004 election with the 2000 election earlier in this thread, I do have a concern for your memory, besides your other mental capacities. Be my guest if you prefer the rough and tumble style, but don't act like a kid who cries "mommy he started it" to the mods.
Enough of this percentages foolishness! Lieberman lost. We all get it. But it was only by 10,000 votes. That's close in a statewide vote, even for a Democratic primary in Connecticut. I remember the 110% debate that ran for 20 pages when I was a rookie member. The gist of the argument was whether 110% effort was possible. Some said it was but only if you liken it to a baseball average, .110, which translated is an 11% effort. It was a silly thread, but the heat generated could have warmed Connecticut for an entire winter.
You've already forgotton your expressed love for deckard? That was your reference not mine. I used ".01" to represent 1% in my math. Like what? Indirectly, yes. But you are positing this authoritative that a 2% margin is a 2xmandate as compared to a 1% margin. Cheney is entitle to his opinon and you to yours and me to mine. I don't think that a 2% margin as compared to a 1% margin grants a 2Xmandate. You do, I guess. I may check on it. I remember differently. I didn't start anything and I seldom do. You stooped to assholdom two or three times in this response. Man, I FEEL BETTER.
Disagree. Both Panetta and Koch deem themselves liberals. But the term Conservative Democrat does seem to be anachronistic -- but then again so does the term Liberal Republican. That's a shame because two wings in each party lead to moderation and compromise.
^ You may want to consider throwing a party in D&D when your post count reaches 3650 -- the same as your member #. Hopefully this day does not have other extraordinary event(s) going on.
Although I appreciate the sentiment, that milestone would not merit any recognition. Besides my post count has long since more than doubled the number of my original ClutchCity nickname. Now, if I were the first to reach 50,000 posts, that would be something. However, that's not likely since I am content with my current posting pace.
Today's Wall Street Journal has published an Op-ed piece by Ned Lamont that basically serves as his opening statement for the general election. The Democrats Mean Business Washington needs an entrepreneurial approach. BY NED LAMONT Wednesday, August 16, 2006 In the past week, my victory in the Connecticut Senate primary has been labeled everything from the death knell of the Democratic Party to the signal of our party's rebirth. Beneath all of this punditry is a question that I want to face directly: how the experience I will bring to the U.S. Senate will help Connecticut and the Democratic Party during this time of testing for our country. I ran at a time when people said "you can't beat a three-term incumbent," because I believed that President Bush, enabled by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, had weakened our country at home and abroad. We're weaker economically, because we're more dependent on foreign energy and foreign capital. Our national security has also been weakened, because we stopped fighting a real war on terror when we made the costly and counterproductive decision to go to war in Iraq. My confidence that Connecticut was ready for a real debate and a real choice this year was founded not only on current events but also past experience. It was my career in business that shaped my outlook, and helped prepare me to run the race I did. In 1984, with a loan from People's Bank, I started Campus TeleVideo from scratch. Our offer was unique: Rather than provide a one-size-fits-all menu of channels, we let the customers design their cable system based on the character of the community being served. From the moment I filled out that loan application, I've been in every part of the business--pulling cable, hiring workers, picking a good health-care plan, closing deals, listening to customers and fixing problems. It's been profitable, and it's been instructive, a quintessentially American experience. Here, entrepreneurs have the freedom to be successful in ways the rest of the world admires. These defining lessons of my business experience are central in my campaign: identifying the challenges that face our state and offering real solutions. Something clearly worked, because the voters decided to do what our Founding Fathers envisioned; they put their trust not in a career politician but in a concerned citizen and experienced businessman who promises to rock the boat down in Washington. Here are the four lessons of my business life that I talked about every day on the campaign trail, and that have resonated with Connecticut Democrats: • First, entrepreneurs are frugal beasts, because the bottom line means everything. In Connecticut, voters are convinced that Washington has utterly lost touch with fiscal reality. We talked about irresponsible budget policies that have driven the annual federal deficit above $300 billion and the debt ceiling to $9 trillion. Meanwhile, the government is spending $250 million a day on an unprovoked war in Iraq while starving needed social investment at home. I am a fiscal conservative and our people want their government to be sparing and sensible with their tax dollars. • Second, entrepreneurs invest in human resources. Our business strives to pay good wages and provide good health benefits so that we can attract employees that give us an edge in a competitive marketplace. Well-trained and well-cared-for people are essential for every business these days, particularly in a global economy. It's getting harder and harder for American businesses to compete on price, but we innovate and change better than any economy on the planet. The quality of our work force is one of America's competitive advantages--if our education system fails our children and our employers, we'll lose the future. That's why I talked about my work as a volunteer teacher in the Bridgeport public schools, which can't afford to be open later than 2:30 p.m., schools that send children home to an empty house. That's why my campaign offered a strong alternative to standardized tests and No Child Left Behind. That's why I believe in an employer-based health-care system that covers everyone, and providing tax benefits to small businesses so they can provide insurance without risking bankruptcy. • Third, in a market-driven economy, entrepreneurs can never lose touch with what customers, suppliers and workers are saying. A great strength of our campaign is that we embraced the grassroots and netroots, suburbs and inner cities, and used the most advanced technology to empower our door-knockers and activists. We listened hard and respectfully to what voters told us, and gave them the confidence to trust someone new. • Finally, entrepreneurs are pragmatic. Unlike some politicians, we don't draw a false strength from closed minds, and we don't step on the accelerator when the car is headed off the cliff. By every available metric, the "stay the course" strategy in Iraq is not a winning strategy. Changing course is neither extreme nor weak; it is essential for our national security. We start with the strongest, best-trained military in the world, and we'll keep it that way. But here's how we'll get stronger by changing course. We must work closely with our allies and treat the rest of the world with respect. We must implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and put in place real protections for ports, airports, nuclear facilities and public transit. Good judgment is an essential part of good governance. But we're bogged down in Iraq, and hamstrung in the war against terror, by leaders who lacked judgment, historical perspective, openness to other cultures and plain old common sense. We offer something different. But in the final analysis, the results of this election say less about me, and more about the people of Connecticut. They turned out in record numbers; they spoke every day with a simple eloquence and urgency about the country we love. They oppose the war and the fiscal nightmare crafted by President Bush and his allies. But their vote, finally, was one based on pragmatism and reality, on optimism and hope. And it is to these ideals and values that we plan to address my campaign in the months until November. http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008801
McMark he sounds pretty reasonable.-- not at all like the Al Qaeda loving guy Lieberman and his guy Cheney try to make him out to be.
Just thought I'd update the continuing saga: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060817/ap_on_el_se/connecticut_senate
I heard that Lamont is considering ousting his campaign team in favor of a more moderate approach. Anybody confirm that?
Hilarious. Lamont is already a moderate. The only supposedly "extreme" position he's taken is favoring an end to the war and bringing the troops home. And that too, by definition, as expressed in national and Connecticut polls is also a moderate position. In fact, there is not one single issue where Lamont is out of touch with the wishes of Connecticut voters. Find one - just one - I dare you. Can't? Didn't think so. In Lieberman's case, there are several. If you compare the latest Quinnipiac poll to the previous one, you'll see that Lamont has trended up significantly with Democrats and Independents. Lieberman has only gained support from Republicans. In fact, he enjoys about 75% approval from Republicans in a very blue state. If anyone needs to move to the center, it's Lieberman.
Oh, okay. So you acknowledge that Lamont is already the moderate in the race. Cool. Have you heard the "rumor" (not really a rumor, since it's pretty well substantiated) that Lieberman "fired" his primary campaign staff because they'd all told him they were quitting in protest if he went forward with his independent bid? Now, that's comedy.
