Sen. Lieberman was elected in 2000, so the people of Connecticut haven’t had an opportunity to vote on him for five years. (Not that they won’t re-elect him next year.)
No. Not as far as I’m concerned.
No, it isn’t, not at all.
As a former resident of North Carolina, I offer you my sincere gratitude for your decision.
As a former resident of North Carolina, I offer you my sincere gratitude for your decision, Wake up call.
From CBS News
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/14/opinion/printable1042130.shtml
Mr. Bush, Meet Mr. Taft
Nov. 14, 2005
(The American Prospect) This column was written by Michael Tomasky.
Taft, the conservative Ohio senator who is a hero to many of today’s conservatives, gave a speech at the Executive Club of Chicago in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor. There are a number of paragraphs that are just grand, but here’s the best one, which is worth quoting in full:
Drink in those words. That’s not William Fulbright two years into the Vietnam War. It’s not Ted Kennedy last week. It’s Mr. Republican, speaking — when? Not mid-1943, or even March 1942. Taft delivered this speech… on December 19, 1941
wake up call, I share your feelings about the two senators, but by your logic, how can you tolerate being at the Dope? It is dominated by Americans and, after all, Americans elected Bush to the highest office in the land. If you are an American, how can you stand yourself?
Baby. Bathwater.
I don’t suppose you’d like to provide a cite for Lieberman being A-OK with a form of censorship. So far you haven’t. You did underline the quote “in matters of war we undermine presidential crediblity at our nation’s peril.” That’s not a call for censorship. That’s the truth. Undermining the President’s credibility is obviously dangerous. That’s why it’s usually a good idea to elect a credible president. Unfortunately the American people didn’t do so.
It’s just possible, wake up call, that people in CT are voting for Lieberman because they agree with other positions that he holds, or because he’s been an effective Senator.
To answer the OP: there is nothing wrong with the people in Connecticut.
There are more registered Democrats than Republicans in the state, and so any Democrat running for a State or Federal office has a built-in advantage. Lieberman is slightly left of center on social issues, and in 2000, very few people knew that the U.S. would be fighting a war in Iraq a few years later, so his views on war weren’t relevant.
However, if we’re still in this war in the summer of 2006, he’ll have a very tough time being re-nominated, let alone being re-elected, IMO.
I’m not sure about that. The saying always goes that local issues are more important than national ones.
I’m not sure why Lieberman would have a hard time getting elected.
He’s fairly entrenched now, any democrat trying to defeat him for the nomination would be destroyed because the DNC would be helping Joe out.
Plus, 77 Senators voted to authorize the war in Iraq, it’s not like he’s some sort of looney fringe Democrat, more Democrats voted for the resolution than voted against (I think, I can’t remember the exact composition of the Senate then.)
The great part about Dean’s position in the Democratic party is that the GOP doesn’t have to pay for it. It’s not often you can get a victim to pay for the assault.
Lieberman shot way up on my list when he came out against any attempts to invalidate military votes during his run for VP. If Senator Lieberman wants to change parties he is welcome in mine. Every time he speaks in public it is without the rhetorical crap that Dean flings. I may not agree with everything Lieberman says but I will listen to him with the respect he has earned. And that’s what wins elections. In fact, I would have voted for Lieberman over Bush if he had been the lead on the ticket (minus Gore).
Mr. Lieberman is, in fact, the exact opposite of many of my positions. He represents to me the worst of both worlds, the social restrictions of the conservative, and the financial liberalism of the democrats.
He’s a lot like Bush. That said, he’s closer to a democrat than a republican. Still, he’s got the incumbent advantage, and the entrenched power, he’s done things for his state…
If he were new, he’d be toasty. As it is, he’s good for the long haul.
Well, the guy who ran against Lieberman in 2000 turned out to be a pedophile. He’s now in federal prison.
There’s certainly a backlash developing against Lieberman in the Democratic base–he’ll definitely face a primary challenge. Lowell Weicker is talking about resurrecting himself and running on an anti-war platform. That, to me, is an opening for the Republicans, if they can find a decent candidate.
As for the OP, the answer is “not a damn thing.”
Food for thought then. Censorship is censorship, no matter if it is self imposed, or government imposed. In saying that “underminers” are “undermining something or other”, he is saying “we” need to stop criticising. President Bush’s credibility while the country is at war puts the nation in danger. In short, doubters are “ourselves dangerous???”. Every day, he sounds more and more like Bush and Cheney. Below is a Lieberman flipflop. First, Lieberman argues that anyone who questions is “undermining” or “dangerous somethng or other”. BUT earlier, Lieberman directly questioned Bush’s credibility. Flip flop. Flip flop. If it is the truth now, that no one should undermine or endanger, why was it not the truth, when the opposite tack served Lieberman better? But, there is no danger in undermining the president’s credibility. It will either stand or fall on its own merits (eventually). I personally think his credibility was gone a long time ago. Just like you do. There is no reason to give him a pass on it, just because of a war he instigated. Back the president because we are at war. But he started the war. But we are at war so we gotta back him. That is some sort of circular reasoning, and it makes my head buzz. No thanks, I’ll pass.
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/10...rman-flashback/
Flip flop. Flip flop. Flip flop. Flip flop. Flip flop. Flip flop. Flip flop. Flip flop. It’s hard to take Lieberman’s new found “patriotism” seriously, once you know the other part of the story.
The same way that Bill O’Riley boycotts France!!
The same way that the US Administration enacts economic sanctions against some countries.
The same way you isolate people when you do not want to have anything to do with them, including going anywhere near them, let alone visiting or spending a penny in their state. Just ignore them and leave them alone to vegetate, grow up, evolve, or Wake Up.
By yelling about it on TV?
All that because you disapprove of some of the actions of one of their Senators?
Oh, you threw your own name into your post. That’s… cute.