T Nation

Goodnight Joe

The wolf in sheep’s clothing has been run out of the party…I might just call myself a Democrat again.

Goodbye Lieberman. Good riddance.

Yes, fantastic.

The man who was a couple of thousand votes away from being Vice President is now not liberal enough for the party.

And, for all the whining we heard that Bush and Co are partisan ‘dividers’, the Democrats excommunicate one of their experienced and well-liked moderates on the basis of failing the ideological litmus test.

The GOP - on its heels lately and quite vulnerable - will have a field day with this.

The Democrats shriek that they want centrists, and then they boot one of their centrist lions. And as the other Democrats distance themselves from Lieberman, turning him into a political pariah, the case is easily made that the Democratic party is nowhere near the mainstream.

Bad move for the Dems, but you make your bed, you lay in it.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
The wolf in sheep’s clothing has been run out of the party…I might just call myself a Democrat again.

Goodbye Lieberman. Good riddance.[/quote]

Irish,

I too was quite pleased when I saw Lieberman booted from office. However, I think our reasons differ, as you may have imagined.

Lieberman represented the voice of moderation in a party that is being increasingly pulled to the left by many democcrats who by any standard would be called “fringe.”

In this case we are seeing the fringe element actually gain more power. If this continues it could translate into less votes in November for the democratic party.

I was concerned that the republicans were going to lose seats in both houses of congress prior to the Lieberman loss. Now I have great hope that the republicans will keep control. As the democrats continue to veer left the country could very well punish them for this most recent turn.

Yes…it was good news indeed.

little irish:

When did you stop calling yourself a liberal democrat?

If you did, no one believed you.

Anyway, this was a bad move on so many levels for the dems. Anytime you have al sharpton and jesse jackson standing behind a winning candidate, you know there are serious problems.

Lieberman will now run as an Independent. Money will pour into his coffers from the Republicans. If he wins as an Independent, not only do the Democrats lose a Senatorial seat, but, they have an extremely hostile Senator they used to be able to count on.

Further, anyone listening to Mr. talking-points lamont, will be instantly reminded of his lack of experience and subordination to the whims of the looney lefty fringe.

The worst outcome would have been Lieberman losing by 15-20% points. He can rightly claim that he was repudiated by less than 1/6 of the registered voters in Conn.

Watch him win!!!

I’m looking forward to this fall more and more.

Let’s do it!!!

JeffR

little irish:

I appreciated this rare moment of candor:

dems=sheep!!!

Nice!!!

Jeffr (WOLF)

I thought this might be interesting to add to the topic.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2006/08/george_stephano.html

Hey al,

Thanks for the article. I have to admit, I only could manage to stomach about half of the responses to this article.

I’m not surprised an abc site is dominated by the smelly, little, dems.

Hey, if they had Repulicans on they wouldn’t stay dems for long!!!

It’s a mistake for the Republicans to distance themselves from W. They should forcefully reiterate their committment to winning the War on terror (wherever the battlefield).

I have to agree with your pals who say that Lieberman shouldn’t publically receive support from Rove.

al, do me a favor, please trumpet some of the nonsense spouted by the people in your article. I’d be happy to refute it!!!

Thanks!!!

JeffR

Irish,

What do you think of Lieberman’s chances as an independant?

I realize that we will most likely differ on this issue, as I view democrats such as Lieberman and Zell Miller as moderate democrats. I also don’t think this is a good indicator of where the democratic party is going. The more they drift towards the kook left, the more they remove themselves from mainstream america.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Yes, fantastic.

The man who was a couple of thousand votes away from being Vice President is now not liberal enough for the party.

And, for all the whining we heard that Bush and Co are partisan ‘dividers’, the Democrats excommunicate one of their experienced and well-liked moderates on the basis of failing the ideological litmus test.

The GOP - on its heels lately and quite vulnerable - will have a field day with this.

The Democrats shriek that they want centrists, and then they boot one of their centrist lions. And as the other Democrats distance themselves from Lieberman, turning him into a political pariah, the case is easily made that the Democratic party is nowhere near the mainstream.

Bad move for the Dems, but you make your bed, you lay in it.[/quote]

I agree on all points, except as I wrote in aother thread, I couldn’t help but dislike Lieberman. He wasn’t very charismatic, and he tended to jump on all of the silly nanny issues that come along, ie Schaivo and Grand Theft Auto.

I think it was a mistake for the Democrats, but I think Joe’s record looks better on paper than against all of his Fox News appearances.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
little irish:

I appreciated this rare moment of candor:

The wolf in sheep’s clothing

dems=sheep!!!

Nice!!!

Jeffr (WOLF)

[/quote]

Hey Jeff hows that powerlifting meet coming?

Squatting lots of weight?

LOL.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Irish,

What do you think of Lieberman’s chances as an independant?

I realize that we will most likely differ on this issue, as I view democrats such as Lieberman and Zell Miller as moderate democrats. I also don’t think this is a good indicator of where the democratic party is going. The more they drift towards the kook left, the more they remove themselves from mainstream america.[/quote]

This is easy to say, but it’s untrue.

60% of the people don’t support the Iraq war, and the Repubs are, as Thunder said, on their heels.

Rooting him out of the party was essential in my eyes. This “Stay the course” stuff is open ended, and will keep us there for years and bleed us dry, only so they can fall into chaos as they have been doing so far.

Lieberman was far too close to Bush on this issue, and the Democrats are going to use an anti-war stance to define this election.

I don’t think its going to the wingnut left so much as responding to the will of the people. Its a big fucking thing for an incumbant to lose a primary like this, especially when he’s been around as long as Lieberman.

I think it will bode well for November.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Irish,

What do you think of Lieberman’s chances as an independant?

I realize that we will most likely differ on this issue, as I view democrats such as Lieberman and Zell Miller as moderate democrats. I also don’t think this is a good indicator of where the democratic party is going. The more they drift towards the kook left, the more they remove themselves from mainstream america.[/quote]

It seems like the kook left to you guys I guess, but it isn’t. It’s an anti-war candidate winning a primary when he was facing a pro-war candidate.

You guys act like he wants to redistribute all the wealth in the country and nationalize the oil fields. C’mon- he ran on an anti-war platform, and pulled off a big victory.

Mainstream America is tired of this war. They’ll vote for who they think will get us out.

Not too mention that Lieberman is not going to have the funding to keep this campaign up - the Democrats are rallying behind Lamott. That war chest shrinks by the minute…

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
C’mon- he ran on an anti-war platform, and pulled off a big victory.

[/quote]

You know he most likely only won due to Republican support, don’t you?

Not even Conn. democrats are insane enough to have voted him into office.

Bad for the Dems and bad for the country.

If the Dems start trying to appeal to the lonney left they will lose a lot of support.

If they can portray themselves as centrists they may do well.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Yes, fantastic.

The man who was a couple of thousand votes away from being Vice President is now not liberal enough for the party.

And, for all the whining we heard that Bush and Co are partisan ‘dividers’, the Democrats excommunicate one of their experienced and well-liked moderates on the basis of failing the ideological litmus test.

The GOP - on its heels lately and quite vulnerable - will have a field day with this.

The Democrats shriek that they want centrists, and then they boot one of their centrist lions. And as the other Democrats distance themselves from Lieberman, turning him into a political pariah, the case is easily made that the Democratic party is nowhere near the mainstream.

Bad move for the Dems, but you make your bed, you lay in it.[/quote]

Actually, he was booted for being out of the mainstream. I mean let’s face it, his position on Iraq is kooky (as far as americans are concerned) and his refusal to condemn the president is way out of the mainstream, and it was those positions that lost the race for him despite the huge sums of money he spent. And by the way the democratic base is not shrieking for centralism (DNC does not equal base).

There seems to be this wierd dissonance with some on these boards that when you have the same opinions as a majority of americans that you are far left. Normally a politician wants to be with the majority…thats how you win. And Ned Lamont did just that. Didn’t he?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Bad for the Dems and bad for the country.

If the Dems start trying to appeal to the lonney left they will lose a lot of support.

If they can portray themselves as centrists they may do well.[/quote]

I don’t see how a democratic primary is bad for the country…Actually checking this and as it turns out democracy still a good thing in the USA.

Now please explain how appealing to this “looney left” (in this case those who disapprove of Iraq and the president or in other words a MAJORITY of the country) would lose a canidate support?

"WASHINGTON (CNN) – Sixty percent of Americans oppose the U.S. war in Iraq, the highest number since polling on the subject began with the commencement of the war in March 2003, according to poll results and trends released Wednesday.

And a majority of poll respondents said they would support the withdrawal of at least some U.S. troops by the end of the year, according to results from the Opinion Research Corporation poll conducted last week on behalf of CNN. The corporation polled 1,047 adult Americans by telephone."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/09/iraq.poll/index.html

go back to Mass 100Meters.

He won a primary which by its very definition means he wasnt appealing to the center of anything other than his own party which is controlled very much by the far leftist Cindy Sheehan, Al Sharpton, Green Peace, Sierra Club, ACLU side…its not a difficult equation to see that that is far far far from where the middle of the voting electorate is for a full blown election.

This is good news for Republicans, and the new terror plot in england coming on the heels of this shows the dicotomy. I am guessing main stream america doesnt look to highly on the dem party when it kicking out a member who is staunch in his beliefs on fighting terrorism whereever it may lie.

Futhermore, most Americans are not for the democratic plan of cut and run. In fact no one but well left liberals are for that. Most americans, while utterly disappointed in the way the war is going, do not under any circumstances believe we should withdrawal. Thats diametrically opposed to the majority of Democratic leadership except for Hillary who is skirting the issue quite nicely in her bid for presedential main election.

[quote]100meters wrote:

Actually, he was booted for being out of the mainstream. [/quote]

Nonsense - even the ‘Netroots’ clan that helped Lamont win the primary don’t pretend this.

Actually, Lamont won the partisan primary in a liberal state. The Connecticut Democrats wanted Lamont and they voted so - no problem, that is just democracy at work. But that is not the medium term concern. The problem is the very public demonstration of moving Left in the Democratic Party and how that will affect national elections - and just because you keep saying it isn’t true doesn’t mean it isn’t so.

[quote]biltritewave wrote:
go back to Mass 100Meters.

He won a primary which by its very definition means he wasnt appealing to the center of anything other than his own party which is controlled very much by the far leftist Cindy Sheehan, Al Sharpton, Green Peace, Sierra Club, ACLU side…its not a difficult equation to see that that is far far far from where the middle of the voting electorate is for a full blown election.

This is good news for Republicans, and the new terror plot in england coming on the heels of this shows the dicotomy. I am guessing main stream america doesnt look to highly on the dem party when it kicking out a member who is staunch in his beliefs on fighting terrorism whereever it may lie.

Futhermore, most Americans are not for the democratic plan of cut and run. In fact no one but well left liberals are for that. Most americans, while utterly disappointed in the way the war is going, do not under any circumstances believe we should withdrawal. Thats diametrically opposed to the majority of Democratic leadership except for Hillary who is skirting the issue quite nicely in her bid for presedential main election.[/quote]

Firstly I’m back in Mass. becaouse I live here.

Exit polls show that Ned Lamont won because his two stances (different than Lieberman) are EXACTLY in line with mainstream America. 67% dissapprove of the president (same as Lamont) 57 support a timetable for withdrawal (same as Lamont).

You stated emphatically:
“Most americans, while utterly disappointed in the way the war is going, do not under any circumstances believe we should withdrawal.”
That is factually wrong, I’ll assume you meant to preface it with “In my opinion…”, or “I’d be joking if I said…”

57% percent support a timetable for withdrawal (The general democratic/realistic idea). Assuming you never took math…more than 50 percent is majority. Logic would then follow that these ideals are not diametrically opposed to Democratic leadership (They are EXACTLY the same).

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
100meters wrote:

Actually, he was booted for being out of the mainstream.

Nonsense - even the ‘Netroots’ clan that helped Lamont win the primary don’t pretend this.

There seems to be this wierd dissonance with some on these boards that when you have the same opinions as a majority of americans that you are far left. Normally a politician wants to be with the majority…thats how you win. And Ned Lamont did just that. Didn’t he?

Actually, Lamont won the partisan primary in a liberal state. The Connecticut Democrats wanted Lamont and they voted so - no problem, that is just democracy at work. But that is not the medium term concern. The problem is the very public demonstration of moving Left in the Democratic Party and how that will affect national elections - and just because you keep saying it isn’t true doesn’t mean it isn’t so. [/quote]

It’s not me saying so its mainstream america.
Exit polls clearly show Lamont won because of Lieberman’s support of the president and kooky stance on the war. Those are the two things Lamont basically hammered Lieberman on.

Again to explain this slowly…

33% approve of Bush, The majority do not, Lamont did not, Lamont inline with mainstream or center of america on this issue.

60 percent oppose the war, like Lamont, and unlike Lieberman, therefore Lamont and most democrats are incredibly inline with mainstream america here and Lieberman (obviously is not)

We won’t even mention Lamont’s/Dems support for minimum wage increase/ universal healthcare all inline with huge percentages of mainstream america.

And the “netroots” backed Lamont for EXACTLY these positions(again all perfectly inline with mainstream america).

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/09/iraq.poll/index.html