Conneticut Democratic Primary

Sort of like NH's old governor...Good ole Craig Benson. He sure seemed to come out wealthy of the Cabletron disaster...
 
you know, of course that if lieberman looses, that things are just gonna be tougher for the democrats... well, if we base things on the past... the republicans can go all out with the anti-america anti-war commie euro stuff they used in 04, and then some... so this could be a real shot in the foot for the lefties. just making themselves look futher out there.
 
Well, the Democratic Party could serve themselves well if they actually had campaign platform. Any strategy is better then the "We're A Not Bush Catch All Party!"
 
Look, the fact is, a guy who says this to Democrats:

"It’s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril."

Doesn't deserve to represent them. The opposition is supposed to... well... oppose. And i don't give a crap what Holy Joe thinks of the war, you don't tell your own party to shut up and let the other guys do what they like. Joementum needed to stop.

And Wilkes, "further out there"? As if the Dems are the communist party 10,000 leagues out of the mainstream because they're against the war? Wake up... Do I need to show you polling numbers on how many Americans agree with them?
 
wont that be the portrayal? correct me if im wrong, but i would fully expect that to be the line out of whoever the republican canidate is. dont you? whether it is or is not the case, thats whats going to happen. you cant doubt that. look at the reasoning thats been used in the past. theyll probably be cast as anti semites and israel haters as well... well, maybe not in so many words.
 
Let them go with that and see where it gets them... polls just keep rolling out, week after week, about how many people are opposed to the war or the way the republicans are handling it. 56% against, 59%, 63%... there's never a single one of them with favourable numbers except for the sudden jump in the number of people who believed Iraq had WMDs after Santorum's little bullshit peddling episode with the degraded weaps. You want to see an angle? The right has to lie about the war in order to get anyone to take their side on it. And you think they'll have success in making it the central campaign issue? In CONNETICUT?

It ain't gonna happen.
 
tell me where i said theyd be successful at it. all i said is that the dems would have an easy time with liberman, as it would effectivley eliminate the biggest and most played upon angle that republicans have. youre getting a little bit hyper over things that i havnt said.
 
Oh, you're saying we'd be better off with Lieberman because it'd be easier to get him re-elected? Sure... and not just because of the war thing; hell, he's the incumbent. But what's the point of electing a democrat who abandons the values of his base and rubber-stamps the president's decisions without a second thought? Winning a seat that way is hardly a victory for democrats. So screw it, let them play whatever angles they want, and if Ned loses, well, at least he represented his political base.
 
ill be clear about what im saying, since you keep reading into things that arent there. ready? with liberman you have less of a chance loosing that seat to a republican. thats it.
 
Yeah, like I said in the last post, I get that. Maybe you're right, but even so, there's no point in winning if you have to run a candidate like Joe, who doesn't represent democrats, to do it.
 
Don't get me wrong. I find that a completely reasonable thing to say. I just wonder if people like Clinton and Dean would agree. Let's face it, the Democratic Party is ruled by the extreme left at the highest level. Hopefully we could be facing a tipping point for a more moderate left. Though the cynic in me thinks the US is in for a far left backlash.
 
How do you figure, the extreme left? How is Clinton "extreme left"? Because she's a woman? Look, that comment, which you say you find completely reasonable, is about the least democratic thing you could say. Don't undermine the leader's credibility by questioning him and his judgment? Are you fucking kidding me?

Anyway, Lamont won... and Lieberman is running as an independent. Hooray for party loyalty. Whaaaaaatacock.
 
If it is reasonable to give up all the control and have nobody to keep the President and the Republican Party in line then yeah, that comment sounds pretty good to me. But who is going to prevent him from screwing up even more if we all decide to shut up and march off the cliff with him?
 
Hardly. It's more that fact that I find her to be a passive/aggressive idiot.

I didn't think that quote was referring to questioning the administration. I figured it was more towards the context of crying over a rigged election (which can't be proven) and calling for impeachment (witch won't amount to anything right now).

Both of you interpreted the quote differently. But it would help to see the full context of it to know for sure.

If the Democrats want to take Washington back, they need to have an actual plan. There is no consistency in the party's philosophy. They only thing they do right now is just disapprove everything the other party does. They need to refocus their energy, and thats the rhetoric that I thought was buried in that quote.
 
But... it clearly says we shouldn't question the president "In matters of war". There's nothing about elections or impeachment. I'm not sure where you found your interpretation.
 
Not sure where you found your part either. It seems to me all he's saying is that they're stuck with him for 3 more years and thats not going to change.

Clearly? Please divulge if you have the full context of the quote, that would settle the whole thing.
 
I live in CT, Im a republican, and I'm voting lieberman in november. The republican candidate doesnt impress me much and I dont think he has a chance to win even if lieberman and lamont split the democratic vote. The only real stance that Lamont took was that he was anti-war. I also saw a couple of interviews with Lamont and the guy simply does not carry himself well. Lamont has almost zero chance to win in november.
 
But it says "in matters of war"... what am I missing here? When I said clearly, I meant explicitly. Like those are the words he uses. In matters of war. Not elections, not impeachment issues, but "matters of war". I figured I'd just go on the words he used... that was my angle... am I wrong here?
 
"Undermine presidential credibility" is a softball phrasing, for sure, but essentially all it means is "cast doubt on the credibility of the president in war matters". So... everything the administration says about the war is supposed to be held as credible without a second thought? It isn't okay to go, "Hey, maybe they're painting a slightly rosier picture of things to suit their political interests"? You know, especially given how incredibly dishonest they are, and what an incredible slant they put on events and circumstances, that's utterly ridiculous. If anything, the administration has only itself to blame; it's undermined its own credibility by being consistently wrong about how things would go in Iraq. How can anyone, upon hearing another "No, don't worry, everything will be okay, civil war is just a hypothetical", not say "... Didn't you guys say pretty much the same thing about there not being any real chance of a long-term insurgency?"

Why SHOULDN'T we look for reasons doubt their credibility?
 
Thats hardly clear or explicit, but I'll let you have it. In any case I agree that there is no reason to not question the president, thats how the system should work. It was just my felling that the quote was implying that the party needs to refocus instead of simply being counter productive. Though seeing the context of the quote would help a great deal.
 
"Democrats fear Lieberman and Lamont could split the November vote and hand the Republicans a Senate seat in a three-way runoff." Booya! Lamonts a trust fund baby anyway.
 
ok, heres what i think, the republicans planted lemont, and paid him off to say all the right things so he would win the primary, this way, leiberman would run as an independant, and hand the election to the republicans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top