I cannot believe that you actually wonder about this. You have to be trolling here, because you really aren’t this fucking stupid.
Why should the Democrats continue to support and maintain allegiance with someone who clearly no longer reflects the opinions, values and desires they hold? Why should they continue to support someone who undermines their party’s position and supports opposing parties? Who left their party entirely when he was not elected by Democrats in their primary?
Because Democrats don’t want someone in their party who doesn’t represent them, they are no longer independent and free thinking?
Are you independent and free-thinking? Why don’t you vote for Hillary Clinton then? Oh you won’t? Gee, I guess you are not free-thinking and independent.
Why shouldn’t they? What is a political party but a group of people with similar ideas about how to run the country? They don’t have to be in lockstep about everything, but I don’t see why someone who is constantly undermining their efforts on the most important issue of the day should be accepted with open arms.
The Democrats will be much better off next year when they pick up seats in the Senate and can tell Lieberman to get bent. I’m not sure they shouldn’t go ahead and do it now–it’s not like the Democratic leadership is doing that much for us anyway, and we still have the House.
No, no it’s not. Fucking revisionist moron. If you were talking about 2000, you might have a point, but 2004 was never in dispute. Bush won Ohio and also the popular vote. Deal with it.
It’s an open question who won Ohio. I guess you never heard about the whole Diebold travesty. Any time the results are out of whack with the exit polls (which never happens because exit polls are extremely accurate and are, in fact, the method by which the US monitors elections in other countries for legitimacy) there is a huge red flag. The Diebold results are unverifiable without a paper trail, so the results were very suspicious in '04. Maybe Bush won legitimately,. maybe not. Too bad the Republicans made sure we’ll never know.
Because its that important. It is the issue of our time. It is unfortunate that it is so huge an issue, but we didn’t bring us to this place. Partisan jerks like Dio and myself, amongst others, screamed, hollered and threw conniption fits trying to stop it from happening. A lot of folks didn’t listen.
Well, let’s be clear - lots of Democrats voted aye when that bill came up.
Would you stack primary challengers against all of them? Pull their party cards? Read them out of your grand coalition?
Some of you would - witness the overheated demands for Hillary Clinton to apologize, and the Code Pink protests at her office and her events. So it begs the question - should Clinton apologize, as these folks want? Does she deserve to be president because of this vote? Should she run again for Senate, theoretically, should another Democrat oppose her?
And should she beat back any of this, how would Democrats treat her? Like Lieberman, perhaps?
Can I put in my two cents, because I am a Democrat, unlike some of the other people here? What’s more, I agree with him on a lot of issues, and in 2006, I was even hoping he would win the primary. That being said, he lost a lot of my support when he decided to run as an independent after losing the primary. Stuff like supporting the war isn’t that big of a deal to me, but that was a betrayal of the party and shouldn’t be forgiven.
Yes. let’s do be clear. They were lied to. GeeDub, I’m sure you will recall, swore up, down, and sideways that this was not a resolution for war, that he would exhaust every diplomatic means etc. etc. I didn’t believe him, not for a minute.
But it was a deft move, politically, if morally bankrupt. What was there to object to? I didn’t believe him because I thought him a liar, but how to prove it? If he had, in fact, done what he swore to do, I would have been content, the inspectors would not have found what was not there, and war would have been avoided. And Bush would look like a dick. Which is very similar to what did happen, except for all the corpses.
In effect, a Democrat who voted against the resolution was, in effect, saying “he’s lying”. Well, he was. But it would have been a very tough call to make.
Dems like Kerry and Edwards got older and wiser, Joe just got older.
Nah, Motomouth just understands that the Republicans are the party of of lockstep groupthink. See, they don’t even pretend to be tolerant the way the Demmies are.
(Interestingly, Humphrey and Eugene McCarthy demonstrate the wide continuum of Minnesota political personalities, from the placid and cautious to the wild eyed and impulsive radical…)
IIRC, Humphrey wouldn’t speak out against the war because of political ambitions. McCarthy did. The former being so self-centered to not do the “right thing”, speaks volumes, imho. The latter going against the political grain in Washington, but pandering to the citizenry says a lot as well.
I’m not at all sure what to make of your use of the term “pandering”. They are supposed tdo suck up to us, are they not?
As I recall, LBJ is supposed to have remarked that he had HHH’s balls in his pocket, and I entirely believe it. But they weren’t torn from his body, but handed over. Behold, once again, the ugly spectacle of a pretty good man buggered by his own ambition.
Right. And I really don’t know if there was much daylight between Johnson and Humphrey here anyway. Humphrey was very liberal, but also very pro-defense. And he hated commies - his long political career demonstrates that numerous times.
His 2006 ADA record was 75, which puts him in rough company with Nelson, Landrieu, Byrd, Rockefeller, and Pryor, among others. They are all mainstream Democrats from what I can see.
You’re confusing being supportive of morality and being pro-war with being conservative, which is a dangerous thing to do.