Ned Lamont defeats Lieberman in Democratic Primary

[ishigakisensei]

This is good news ofor everyone, not just those from Connecticut. Lieberman is just an AIPAC GOP controlled puppet pretending to be a Democrat. One Middle-Class killing war-monger down....hundreds in government more to go.

Republicans in the US are scared shitless and none want Bush to campaign for/with them. I always thought that the Chimp would do more for gay rights and destroying the Republican Party....and he's proving me right.

 

[jayjaya29]

I think its a good sign, hopefully it is the beginning of the "shift" for the upcoming midterm elections.

 

[ESPNSTI]

All depends on how you look at it.
I bet there are plenty of people who will support Lieberman as an independent because they'd view him as a centrist.
A lot of centrist Independents, Democrats and Republicans are sick of the growing political polarization.
The apparent trend of the political extremes gaining control and the center being ignored doesn't sit well with them.
(And by them I mean me. )

 

[Jay]

Im a Libertarian. This two party cock and bull show bickering is quite entertaining.

 

[ishigakisensei]

Im a Libertarian. This two party cock and bull show bickering is quite entertaining.

Especially since there is no bickering. Democrats have for long had a go along to get along mentality. Anyone who sees partisanship in Washington is projecting it from withint their own mind as it does not exist in reality. Lieberman is so wrong as to why he lost. People are WANTING partisanship, not a rubberstamp Congress who kowtows to the fearmonging of bible-thumping extermists.

Lieberman is not a centrist - he is a sellout and had to finally pay the price. Republicans are swarming to his aid and that is most telling - because Lieberman has been an AIPAC Republican for a long long time. He cost Gore the election in 2000 as people in the South are simply not going to elect a Zionist Jew into the White House even as VP.

 

[ESPNSTI]

Anyone who sees partisanship in Washington is projecting it from withint their own mind as it does not exist in reality.

:shock: What are you on about? :?
In general any time a party member doesn't vote along the party line, they get a swift kick in the balls from their party.
That's why you tend to see a lot of party members that have a very high percentage of voting the party line.
Instead they should vote for what they believe in, and not out of fear of their party and interest groups.

If however you're referring to the Democratic party being rather mild and meek in the opposition to the Republicans, then that is another matter.
In my opinion that isn't due to the lack of partisanship, but rather due to the utter incompetence of the party leadership, and it's high profile members who seem unwilling to rock the boat, or come up with a clear stance.
To me the fact that they lost the 2000 and 2004 elections, which in all intents and purposes should have been won by a land slide by the Democrats is proof enough for me that they're mismanaged.

 

[cvrefugee]

It's funny how the Democrats treat their own when they aren't partisan enough. Nice.

 

[gtrietsc]

Its because he didnt appear on The Colbert Report, I am sure...

 

[ishigakisensei]

What are you on about?

You simply don't get it. There is very little partisanship in Washington. the Democrats have for too long had a go along to get along mentality. Joe lost because he stopped being a Democrat and representing his claimed constituancy just like Al Gore lost Tennessee. Joe lost because he was not being a partisan, instead choosing to be an enabler to the absolutely worst regime in US history.

DINOs who continue to roll over will do well to read the results in the Connecticut primary as it was not only about the Iraq War.

 

[ESPNSTI]

What are you on about?

You simply don't get it. There is very little partisanship in Washington. the Democrats have for too long had a go along to get along mentality.

Perhaps you should re-read my previous post, in it I attempted (apparently unsuccessfully) to explain that:

The go along to get along mentality is not the same as very little partisanship.

Also I'm not specifically limiting myself to just the Democrats.
The republicans are just as bad as far as partisanship is concerned.

FYI, I'm not a Lieberman supporter, nor am I a Democrat or a Republican, or view myself as affiliated with any party for that matter.
My political views tend to be libertarian.

 

[ishigakisensei]

The go along to get along mentality is not the same as very little partisanship.

The reality of it proves otherwise. Again, you're not getting what heppened in Conn. Democrats have seen very little partisanship because of the reason stated above. When another group is fucking you over you very much want "your guys" to fight them tooth and nail. Hasn't happened under Bush.

My political views tend to be libertarian.

I'm a Liberal Libertarian, if I had to choose a label, who tends to vote Democrat - at least for real Democrats. Cannot stand DINOs and Lieberman is a prime example of one and thus lost the Democratic primary.

Lamont is far from Leftist. In fact, he's quite mainstream while Lieberman chooses to remain an extremist.

 

[ESPNSTI]

I think we're arguing over semantics here.

What I mean by partisanship here is that when Democrats have a position and Republicans have a nearly identical position, then still almost no Democrat will vote for the Republican position and vice versa, and little effort is made to compromise. That's partisanship.

If I understand you correctly, by the low level of partisanship and the go along to get along mentality you mean that Republicans and Democrats tend to have nearly identical positions while large portions of the public that affiliate with them have much stronger and diverse positions. That's not partisanship, that's the political portion of the party having a different position than it's constituency.

To me these are two different things, but they both apply to the Connecticut situation.
I understand that Lieberman lost because he isn't positioned where the majority of the public is.
What I was trying to say is that some people would at least perceive that this situation is a step towards political polarization (and I'm not judging whether that is correct or not), even though it is a step towards the majority position of the public as far as the war is concerned.

 

[cvrefugee]

I should create a Mad Libs for the, well, libs! It would include these words:

illegal war
neo-con
facist
religious right
war-monger
pro-Israel
cronies
oil
chads (older one, hehe)

I'm really getting tired of liberal demagogues who use at least one or more of the above words in their arguments. It's getting old, no wonder you're losing.

 

[ishigakisensei]

What I mean by partisanship here is that when Democrats have a position and Republicans have a nearly identical position, then still almost no Democrat will vote for the Republican position and vice versa, and little effort is made to compromise. That's partisanship.

That's not been happening.

If I understand you correctly, by the low level of partisanship and the go along to get along mentality you mean that Republicans and Democrats tend to have nearly identical positions while large portions of the public that affiliate with them have much stronger and diverse positions. That's not partisanship, that's the political portion of the party having a different position than it's constituency.

No, that's not what I mean at all. What I mean is that the Democrats don't have any position other than to just stay in power. There is very little to no fighting with the Republicans and thus the Democrats in the real world are pissed off at the constant rolling over by the Democrats in Congress.

I understand that Lieberman lost because he isn't positioned where the majority of the public is.

Partly true. Not only is he not positioned with the majority of Connecticutt voters - he actively works against them. This is why there is so much animosity by real Democrats against him. It's one thing to just do nothing and it's another thing entirely to join the opposition in all attempts at suppression.

What I was trying to say is that some people would at least perceive that this situation is a step towards political polarization (and I'm not judging whether that is correct or not), even though it is a step towards the majority position of the public as far as the war is concerned.

A lot of people also want to see more gridlock. Again, partisanship and gridlock are not by themselves bad things. Democrats in the real world want to see some backbone in Washington and we just haven't since Bush was installed as president.

I should create a Mad Libs for the, well, libs! It would include these words:

illegal war
neo-con
facist
religious right
war-monger
pro-Israel
cronies
oil
chads (older one, hehe)

I'm really getting tired of liberal demagogues who use at least one or more of the above words in their arguments. It's getting old, no wonder you're losing.

Hahahahahahaha! The cold hand of death slips around the necks of Cons and people like you become even more desperate to project your failings onto your betters. The public is waking up to your lies, incompetence, and endless failures so much so that your pathetic temper-tantrums no longer have any effect. Cons can win elections but you people are simply not smart enough to GOVERN - and that is the whole point of winning.

You bible-thumping christo-Fascists are heading for a day of reckoning and no, I'm not talking about November but rather Judgement Day where you have to account for living a life totally anithetical to your own claimed beliefs.

 

[cvrefugee]

What I mean by partisanship here is that when Democrats have a position and Republicans have a nearly identical position, then still almost no Democrat will vote for the Republican position and vice versa, and little effort is made to compromise. That's partisanship.

That's not been happening.

You're completely full of shit. Proof? Here's an example of what has "not been happening". I'm not sure which U.S. you're living in.


EDIT: Check out this report by Nancy E. Roman:

The Author

Nancy E. Roman is vice president and director of the Washington Program of the Council on Foreign Relations. Before coming to the Council, Ms. Roman was president of the G7 Group, a political consulting firm that advises Wall Street on the economic implications of political developments as well as legislative and regulatory policy in the G7 regions, China, and Latin America.

Ms. Roman also spent ten years as a journalist covering politics, Congress, foreign policy, and economics. She was a congressional correspondent and legal affairs reporter for the Washington Times before becoming congressional bureau chief. She also worked for several years as a political reporter for the Fort Lauderdale News and Sun Sentinel. She came to Washington in 1988 as press secretary and legislative assistant for Representative Clay Shaw Jr. (R-FL), a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Ms. Roman holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in journalism and French from Baylor University and a Master of Arts degree in international economics and American foreign policy from the John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.

Council Special Report No. 9

People naturally disagree about who is responsible for the partisan tone and tactics in Washington, DC, these days, but most agree on this: It's worse, it's more intense, and it's nastier. And few on either side are enjoying it much.

This report will not pine for a golden age of brotherly love that never existed in Washington. The capital city has always been a partisan place full of rough-and-tumble political brawling. However, this report will suggest it is better to work with all?not half?of our collective foreign policy brain. Today, like at so many significant moments in history, much is unsettled. Policymakers are seeking to understand the Muslim world, anti-Americanism is intensifying, the White House is attempting new policies in the Middle East, and the United States is embroiled in a war testing all those policies. So this is a time for asking questions, not pulling down the blinds. Yet, fewer opportunities exist for the two parties to deliberate on foreign policy issues. The big foreign policy issues, both regional and topical, that currently dominate the agenda?Iraq, Iran, North Korea, China, nuclear proliferation, trade, and immigration?will benefit from a process that engages the wisdom from both sides of the aisle.

 

[ishigakisensei]

Wow! You have ONE EXAMPLE of Democrats finally getting a spine, but only after 60% of the public is against this war. Where was this backbone for the past 5 years?!?! You have added nothing of merit and what I said still stands.

The imperial GOP is coming to an end and one of it's enablers, Joe Lieberman, is paying for his traitorous actions. Ned Lamont is as mainstream as one can get and he will not sell out the Middle Class just to go along to get along.

 

[cvrefugee]

Wow! You have ONE EXAMPLE of Democrats finally getting a spine, but only after 60% of the public is against this war. Where was this backbone for the past 5 years?!?! You have added nothing of merit and what I said still stands.

The imperial GOP is coming to an end and one of it's enablers, Joe Lieberman, is paying for his traitorous actions. Ned Lamont is as mainstream as one can get and he will not sell out the Middle Class just to go along to get along.

So you're saying that Congress isn't split over major issues like abortion, Iraq, gay marriage, immigration, welfare programs, etc.? Seriously, what are you drinking? Our Congress has been getting progressively more partisan on such issues.

 

[ishigakisensei]

No they are not as divisively split over those issues at all - well, except Iraq. Some Democrats may talk tough, but Harry Reid (Dem Minority Leader is anti-choice), many Democrats are for amnesty just as are many Republicans, welfare hasn't been an issue since Clinton. Get a calendar. Just because you are buying into the hype does not make it a reality.

You will continue to be confused as to why there are so many new Democratic contenders this year at the local, state, and even national levels. You will never understand why Joe lost. You will never understand why the acrimony that has been growing is not so much over specific issues as much as it is the thumpers on the Right want unfettered power (because they think that they know what's best for us) and despise being constrained by the US Constitution

 

[cvrefugee]

The majority of the Congress still votes along party lines when it comes to crucial issues.

H.R. 5970: Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act of 2006

H. J. Res. 88: Marriage Protection Amendment

Senate Vote 163: Jun 7, 2006

 

[ishigakisensei]

No, those may be issues that matter to you, but they are bullshit hot-button issues to whip up the christo-fascist bible-thumpers. My "Democrat" congressman is a an absolute whore for the GOP. For too long there has been a go along to get along mentality with your side winning. Naturally, you're fretting now that November is approaching and REAL Democrats are standing up and demanding accountibility from Congress, whether typical GOP traitors or the sell-out DINOs who are also cashing in.

You're oblivious as to ahy Lamont won and it's clear that you will remain so.