What exactly would get you to believe it?
Evidence…which has been provided by someone I actually trust on these things in the form of John Mace. Kyrie Eleison’s post is also pretty convincing. It’s not like I’ve never been wrong before…and looks like I’m continuing the trend on this point.
-XT
I didn’t say that.
This reminds me an awful lot of the propaganda of bygone communists: no governmental system could possibly work with the people freely expressing their will, and no economic system could possibly work with producers competing with each other; there simply has to be some shadowy people in the background pulling the real levers of power.
Maybe the simplest explanation is the best: Ned Lamont saw that Lieberman was out of touch with his constituency, and went on to win a primary election.
I’d say that the Democratic voters of Connecticut probably thought Lieberman had a shred of integrity and would have recognized that if he lost the primary, he would have dropped his run for office.
I think it is positively dishonorable to run for the nomination of a party, as a member of that party, and then to decide that if you do not get the nomination, to turn around and say that you shouldn’t have been a member of the party anyways, and F.U., I’m now an independent. My belief is that Lieberman views himself as the same sort of indispensable man with whom the graveyards are filled. That’s why I do not respect Joe Lieberman.
Well, then I hate him even more, because he is harboring an illegal alien in his home!
That might have been part of the reason Lieberman lost the primary. Lamont only won by about 10,000 votes (out of 280,000 cast), and in the exit polling, there were a bunch of people who said they would have voted for Lieberman if he had made it clear that he wouldn’t pursue a third-party run.
So, his failure to do that definately contributed to his not getting the nomination.
Why does Joe piss me off?
He’s sanctimonious. He’s the Jewish version of the likes of Santorum. He lets religion guide policy. His stupid anti-videogame stance shows how idiotic and out of touch he is.
He’s completely ungrateful for the Democrat’s help. As was mentioned earlier, Joe had a lot of help from national Democrats in his re-election primary. When they supported Lamont later on, what the hell were they to do? The Democrats hold a primary to allow the people to choose their favorite candidate. How are they going to say, “Well even though Lamont won, we just think Joe’s such a swell guy that we’re going to give it to him anyway.”
For their efforts, Joe has turned on the Democratic party. I can even understand that to some degree. Things change and people don’t always agree.
Joining McCain’s campaign. This is (almost) the ultimate in betrayal. As an independent he is welcome to do as he pleases. But he should remember that his power stems from the Democrats. But even then, if he’s not simply carrying water for the Republicans, I could understand. If he wants to talk about why he likes McCain because his positions jibe with his personal convictions, again, I’m okay with that.
The final straw is of course doing what I said he should not do in the last part. He is mindlessly carrying water for the Republicans now. After Obama gave a very pro-Israel speech to the AIPAC, Joementum comes along (not having heard the speech), and criticizes him out of hand for being soft on terrorism. This is nothing more than helping spread Republican lies. This is the tactic of a tried and true Republican willing to say anything to help their side. And this cannot be excused.
I’m so happy that Obama got in his face yesterday and told him how things were going to happen from here on. I hope he explained to him that come November, some things were going to change. If he’s going to keep any kind of committee membership under the Democrats he better change his goddamned tune and fast. Obama looks like he won’t be the type to put up with any of his shit. I can see him being stripped of everything in November when the Democrats get past 51, and heavily challeneged in 2012 for re-election. Let’s see if he realizes which side his bread is getting buttered on. Let him go to the Republicans for some committee memberships. I bet they give him nothing. They don’t give a shit about Joe, just the fact that he throws it in the Democrat’s face. A Joe Lieberman cut off from the Democratic party is useless to the Republicans.
But then again, Joe has never shown good judgement. So I wouldn’t expect him to realize that McCain will lose. That’s really the only scenario in which this gambit pays off.
Politics shmolitics. I don’t like him because he doesn’t take out his teeth when he sucks dick.
I don’t check the thread for 18 hours and suddenly, bam! 50 posts!
The back story is that my wife is a born-n-raised conservative, which makes my dinner political arguments much more interesting than yours. Anyway, she loves Joe and hopes he’s McCain’s running mate so she can vote for them. (She also likes Obama, so, there’s hope!) Anyway, I’m trying to come up with reasons why she shouldn’t like him. Sounds like the censorship/video game moralizing is the biggest sticking point she’d agree with me on, followed by the religious fervor. As a conservative, she’s not likely to care much if he left the Dems high and dry. 
Israel’s the poison ivy that’s the death of judaism.
I don’t care for his views on foreign policy, and I don’t like his censor’s view on popular culture, but I didn’t really start to dislike him until the 2006 election. He showed that he had that sorta Brahmin attitude that long time Washinton politicians get, where they end up believing they have a right to their position and it’s illegitimate for anyone to question them.
Well, howzabout this?
**
Lieberman to head pro-McCain ‘organization,’ distances himself from ‘Democrat Party’**
Had enough? OK, howzabout
"…Joe Lieberman “is scheduled to headline Pastor John Hagee’s 2008 Christians United For Israel Washington-Israel Summit this July 22. In accepting Hagee’s invitation, Lieberman became the most senior elected representative confirmed to appear at the annual gala…”
You will recall with revulsion that this is the same Pastor Hagfish who was simply too repulsive for McCain to stomach any further. But not too disgusting for “Fightin’ Joe” Lieberman, nosirree, Bob.
How about his relentless effort to boost tensions between Iran and the US? Next to a warmonger, a pimp is Gandhi.
That will have to do for now, I need to lie down for a moment…
I just have a lot of family there; I hope for the best for them.
Ed
His ‘video games and Hollywood are destroying America’ stance was the first thing that turned me off him in a big way (I also lost a huge amount of respect for Hillary when she jumped on the video game bandwagon).
His attitudes toward atheism took out whatever remaining good opinion I might have had of the man.
Lots of reasons being bandied around.
Frankly, I think Democrats would have put up with him for years, grumbling from time to time, were it not for the war. There is a faction of the Democratic Party that is reflexively antiwar and will relentlessly pursue candidates who are not. And these battles tend to be fiercest in Democratic Party primary contests, since the activists are after an ideological purification of their own party, with actual victory a secondary goal at best, if considered at all.
So the antiwar faction fought hard (rioted even) in 1968 - lost the presidential primary contest and the election. They fought hard in 1972 with less rioting and far better organizational skill, won the nomination for McGovern and one state for him in the general election. And in this particular Senate race, they won the nomination and lost the general election. The pro-war candidate kept his seat.
Democrats are creating a party that tolerates little dissent on the topic of the war. Fine and dandy, if that’s what most Democratic rank-and file voters actually want. But if they discover that they don’t want that, as they have before, you might pay a price on election day.
Only one presidential candidate since McGovern has been held to one state in the general election, and his views on defense played a big part in that.
Do you have any recent evidence of this?
Because 1968 and 1972 were a hell of a long time ago, you know.
This is opinion presented as fact.
You got any evidence for that, or is this more opinion masquerading as fact? I believe you’re referring to the 1984 election. Maybe my memory’s failing me, but I don’t remember its having been a big war-and-peace election. It’s just hard to imagine that any Dem could have done a whole lot better against Morning in America.
Perhaps we of the left are a bit strict on ths issue, perhaps we should be more open to the wondrous advantages brought by this catastrophic clusterfuck. Why, think of the advances in prosthetic limbs, just for an example! And who knows what discovery awaits as we rehabilitate young people with half their heads blown away?
Keep in mind, they have spent about a hundred godzillabucks in this futile and dishonorable adventure. The absence of that money will keep twitchy liberals from squandering it on nanny-state programs like roads, jobs, health care. How better to advance the cause of small government than by pissing away any money they might have spent!
And sure, they lied to us. Abundantly, profusely, and shamelessly. But hey! Bless their hearts, they meant well!
Perhaps friend Moto can offer us a proper and fitting way to express our profound gratitude to these men. If there are not enough trees in Washington D.C., surely there are lamposts?
I began losing respect for Lieberman when, shortly after being named the vice presidential nominee in 2000, he began feverishly adjusting his positions to placate important segments of the Democratic Party (for instance, suddenly discovering that he really wasn’t for “school choice”).
Not that I agreed with him on that in the first place, but you’d sort of hope that a Bedrock of Morality wouldn’t jettison his beliefs at the first political opportunity.
And yeah, he’s also a warmonger, cultivates poison ivy and smooches rabbis. Unclean!!!
I see what you mean. I thought he was just a strong supporter for Israel’s right to defend their homeland. I did not know that he won’t denounce some of the more questionable Israeli actions.
Why? Is it because of the immorality again?
Lieberman hates Marilyn Manson, and Manson is awesome, so I think Lieberman is a tool. Also, if he likes Israel so damn much, he should just move there. What the hell is he doing here in America? Also, he’s ugly.