Wednesday, August 9

OK, so maybe there's a little hope.

So long, kids, and don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.


Anonymous said...

Lieberman and Mckinney are night and day different people. One was an ally of Bush on some issues, the other was a Bush hater who blamed him for all the world's problems from foreign policy to cancer.

One was a person with some common sense, the other a certified idiot!

The Democratic Party won and lost on Tuesday night. They ousted someone who was more a moderate for another left-wing fringer. They also ousted an example of what their party's problem has been over the last 20 years.

If you think there's hope, many Republicans would agree with you.

Anonymous said...

Joe Lieberman is not a moderate, unless he pulls off the Democrat mask and joins the Republican party. It's come to something when a moderately liberal millionaire is labelled as a member of the fringe; don't know whether that says more about anonymous or the parlous state of politics in this country.

Anonymous said...

The "Moderate" label is subjective.
I would say Joe L. is moderate when comparing him to McKinney and others demos have elected.

Are abortion, gay rights, tax increases, fringe issues? Certainly there is a majority concensus on these issues.

Would you consider people who believe that Bush was responsible for 9-11 as being on the fringe?

Anonymous said...

Interesting that the demos would jettison a guy that they went to the mat form in '00 over a single issue. Here's a guy that has a better liberal voting record than 17 of his peers. Yet they would replace him with a demonstrated hypocrite (Wal*Mart) who will say anything to get elected. The dems have defined themselves as a one issue anti-war party: anti-war. We were all wondering when they would get around to telling us what their vision was. Now we know. Now, about Social Security. education, energy and healthcare....

Anonymous said...

Well whatever Liberman is, moderate, liberal, conserevative, he has proved beyond doubt (if there was any) that he is not a Democrat. If he runs as an independent he should be thrown out of the party. I would prefer the approach from my old junior high fav "Branded". Rip the buttons off, have Ned Lamont snap weeping Joe's sword over his knee, and send him out in the wilderness to wander around trying to figure what the hell happened, just like Chuck Conners. Sing it with me, "All but one man died here at Bitter Creek ..."

Anonymous said...

Democrats are the party of blame. They are very good at finding problems and assigning blame. They don't have a plan to fix anything.

Their solution to every problem is to hold an investigation mainly to assign blame.

Michael said...

democrats=admit problem, assign blame.

republican=ignore problem, pretend its not there, continue to claim there is no problem hoping it will just go away.

Which is worse?

zombie rotten mcdonald said...

Lieberman's voting record is deceptive.

his votes, when they don't matter, have sided with Democrats. But when there's an issue that he may have adeciding vote on, he has invariably sided with republicans.

It's not moderate, it's not independence; it's coldly calculated to do the most damage while providing political cover. Good bye Joe.

It's very interesting, and telling, that republicans are much more upset about Joe's loss than, you know the actual Democrats who are affected by this supposed disaster Ya think maybe the R's are frightened by the loss of one of their most useful idiots?

Anonymous said...

Most Demos are idiots, not just Joe. And, I think the Republicans revel in the Demos infighting. Republicans have a much better chance in Conn. now than before.

Astronaut Mike Dexter said...

Yeah. Before, they had a snowball's chance in hell; now they have a slightly larger snowball's chance in hell.

As for the first anonymous comment, no, I'm not trying to equate McKinney and Lieberman. But I'm glad neither one of them will be representing me in Congress much longer.

By the way, completely separate from the issue of who some of his supporters were, can anyone explain to me how Ned Lamont is a "fringe lefty"? Which position has he given that seemed particularly wacky to you?

Anonymous said...

Lamont, "lets cut and run", bring all the boys home and give them a heros welcome.

And, in a few months we can welcome all the terrorists over here and they can blow up our schools, malls, daycares, etc.

That's a hell of a plan. We can be the Israel of the west.

Anonymous said...

coolschool/dc trojan.

Since 2000, Joe Lieberman has voted with Demos 813/898 or 90.5% on roll call votes.

In other words, you two can't back up your thoughts with facts.

Anonymous said...

anoymous-Here is a fact-when you announce before the primary results that if you lose you will run as an independent you have no business in the Democratic Party reguardless of your voting record.(Cue Lilly Tomlin as the little girl on Laugh-In-And that's a fact-followed by satisfying raspberry.)

Anonymous said...

I think that statement was made by Lieberman because, he knew that he was not going to get support. He made that statement in an effort to scare the party. If he runs as an independent, the Dems will probably lose that election. Just my opinion.

Anonymous said...

Cynthia looks like she's talking to a guard at the Capitol.

Anonymous said...


I don't think Cynthia ever represented you, or anyone else, in Congress.

Anonymous said...

I don't think Lamont is a exactly a wacko leftist. That comes by way of his being embraced by the wacko leftists a dKos for his McGovernesque appeal. In fact, I believe that Lamont was a Republican earlier in his political career on the local level? Truth is anyone with a million bucks and a bring the troops home now message would have won this face-off in CT. Next, question: what are you going to do when the troops are home? Continue to avoid the SS solvency problem?

Anonymous said...

The thing I find funny about all this is that the Democrats couldn't defeat an idiot from Texas, who got us into a stupid war, is cutting taxes for his rich buddies while the poor and middle class suffer, is spending the country into bankrupcy, is probably a racist, wants to control women's wombs, prevent the cure for every disease and disability from being found and will probably go down as the worst president in history, TWICE. Yet, these same folks are gleeful about defeating their own Vice Presidential candidate 6 years ago. I think Joe was added to the ticket in 2000 just to make it look like the Democrats had balls. He's always been a hawk and everyone knows it Suddenly that very quality is what gets him kicked. The message was "We won't cut and run!", yet that's the message that won this one.

Anonymous said...

Couple of thoughts based on various anonymous comments.

1) The thing about Joe Libermann is not his overall voting record, it's the consistency with which he has both sided with the Bush Administration against *any* discussion of the rationale for / conduct of the war in Iraq, and used the same sort of rhetorical devices as Rove. Liebermann is the one who claimed that the Democrats should not discuss the war at all during the election run in 04 -- essentially undercutting the rest of the party. He can think what he wants, but he's left behind being a "man of principle" and become a shill for the opposition in a defining national political issue. You think Bill Frist could / should do the same thing and get away with it?

2) Liebermann wasn't on the ticket in 2000 because he was a hawk -- this was before 9/11, he was there because he's socially conservative and had been a major voice against Clinton in the impeachment debacle. Liebermann threw Clinton under the bus for political gain, the equivalent of which in the Republican party would get you blackballed.

3) All this nonsense about the Democratic party shifting to the left because of one primary result is the bleating of the Washington establishment -- both sides -- who won't accept that the general public isn't buying their bullshit about the way any longer.

4) I don't like Liebermann, never have, but the only thing worth celebrating in his defeat is that his arrogance as an incumbent was not rewarded. More people should feel that sting. But it's the perogative of the Connecticut voters to vote as they see fit and should they return him to the Senate as an independent, well that's their business.

5) Saying that withdrawing from Iraq will turn the US into the Israel of the west demonstrates a breath-taking lack of understanding of geography, demography, transportation, counter-terrorist strategies, and god only knows what else. It's crap, just like the argument that going into Iraq is keeping the terrorist busy. It's created a freaking vacuum of power in the mideast that the Iranians are stepping into, which in turn is forcing the Israelis into proxy wars against Iran and outsourcing regional nuclear deterrence to Israel... The US makes headway against terrorist by making it hard for them to fight here through counter-intelligence and disrupting funding, not building the modern equivalent of a hill-fort in Baghdad.

Anonymous said...

He's no shill for the opposition. Lieberman has always been for the war in Iraq. In 1998 he, Bob Kerry and McCain fashioned the resolution to remove Saddam from power - regime change. The wacko left's "kiss" campaign misrepresented him as Bush's lapdog.

I don't remember him saying the war couldn't be debated. He objected to the shrill rhetoric, the Moore and Dean "Bush is a liar" BS. If you are as informed as you think, I am sure that you have heard of Sawahiri's recent references to Bush's political weakness and our weakening resolve to win the war on terror. That's what he was concerned about.

Yes, he is the "man of principle left behind." It's a damn shame because the unprincipled man who railed against Wal*Mart while holding their stock, was advanced by the righteous, wingnut left. An unfortunate shift in the democratic party has occurred.

One primary tells us alot about democrat leanings. Can you say "McGovern?"

Counter-intelligence and disrupting funding? You mean surveillance of terrorist telephone conversations and banking transactions? LOL Well, we know where the left stands on that now, don't we?

Anonymous said...

Ignoring SS solvency? Social Secuity is solvent until 2052. What you mean is "ignore the opportunity to drain social security and give it all to our buddies on Wall Street"

If the republicans wanted to fix Social Security all they would have to do is eliminate the cap on contributions so that the rich are paying the same percentage of their income in as the rest of us... But of course you guys would never ever expect the wealthy to pony up would you?

And I don't have a problem with monitering phone calls and bank transactions, just go to FISA and get a warrent within 3 days like the law requires. Do you have a problem following the law or is Bush above it?

zombie rotten mcdonald said...

Actually, he didn't actually say the war couldn't be debated.

He said that Democrats shouldn't debate the war. So that makes him deserving of Democratic

Ps. Bush's polticial weakness is entirely his own friggin' fault, you loon!!!!

PPS. Bush IS a liar. Always has been, long before being installed as President. Liar and elitist mama's boy with power issues.

zombie rotten mcdonald said...

Oh, and regarding HoJo's voting record? It's camouflage.

He votes with the Democrats when the Republicans have enough votes to ram through whatever odious piece of authoritarian tripe they are currently hawking.

When there's a close vote, or when the vote gives him the political leverage to scold another couple of Democrats on rightwing hot button issues, Joe invariable comes down on the side of his boyfriend George.


Of course you conservatives love him.

Astronaut Mike Dexter said...

Here's my question: What, specifically, is Bush doing in Iraq that we should all be supporting?

And don't just say "fightin' terrorism." I want specifics. Are we helping to rebuild the government over there? Are we getting the oil flowing again? If there are still terrorists there, how are we fighting them?

I mean, does anybody still have any idea what we're doing over there? From what I've read, even our own soldiers are starting to wonder.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous: I was aware of Zawahiri weighing in on inciting Muslims re: Lebanon but I'm having a hard time finding a cite for your quote about Bush being weakened - can you point me in the right direction on that?

Anonymous said...

Doug, you sound like and, look like Cynthia McKinney. All you liberal pusses do. What the hell do you people stand for? What's your damn plan to fix problems? You believe everything you hear on CNN, CBS, NBC, and the NY Times. Media that praises terrorists and downs our country.

If we do not defeat the terrorist in their own backyard, we will be fighting them here at home! They believe that GOD has instructed them to kill Americans and Jews. What should we do about that? Give em money, land, negotiate and, make a tready? What's your plan to deal with Iran. You do know that they are behind all the violence and killing in Iraq and Israel don't you?

Quit pointing fingers and blaming Bush and the Republicans, that's very easy. You be specific. Tell me what we should be doing. What Democrat has a plan, Hillary? Teddy? Barney? Real Americans!

Anonymous said...

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, a Socialist "safety-net" started by that jerkoff FDR. You want to know hy the Great Depression lasted so long? FDR's administration's policies make W's look brilliant. Of course, the reason why the Depression happened in the first place was the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank- the largest counterfeiter in the world. FDR and all of his friends kept pushing the Fed to create money out of thin air, something that still occurs today, and is responsible for every economic boom our country has. Evntually all of this "worthless" money gets missallocated, and the economy goes bust. If money isn't "worth" something, then it will always lead to inflation. Always. Always has, always will.

Anonymous said...

I could say the same thing about you believing whatever you hear -"liberal pussies, what do you stand for," just substituting Rush, Hannity, Fox, etc.

Here's the deal, we went into Iraq for dumb reasons. Actually, it was a poorly thought out intellectual exercise the neo-cons came up with years ago. You knock off Saddam, get a democracy in there and the rest of the middle east will see what a paradise democracy is and they will follow suit, kicking out their mullahs and religious nuts, thus making us safer.

Well, after three plus years, is Iraq a safe democracy? Are there more or less religious zealots than there used to be? Does anyone in the middle east look at us more favorably so that would embrace democracy? The answer to all those questions is NO. We've screwed up nearly everything we've touched over there, mainly b/c Bush neglected to learn the difference btwn a sunni, shia, and Kurd. He also forgot that there's never been an Age of Enlightenment in the middle east, meaning reason and science still take a backseat to whatever some nut says Allah says. Until that happens, there will continue to be religious terrorists coming out of that area.

Other than a very few pacifists in the Dem. party, dems want to fight this war. I want to take the war to the terrorists. I really believed in Bush when he stood up with that fireman at the towers, and when we went into Afgan. That was the right thing to do.

Saddam was a bad guy, but we had bigger fish to fry at that time, like finding OBL, finding and destroying other terrorist cells, and keeping an eye on N. Korea, Syria, and Iran, which we have failed to do miserably for three years.

I don't know how to fix Iraq. I think what we did was put our foot in a pile of red ants. Now they're swarming all over us, and there's not much we can do to put their country back together for them. I think there will a short, but very bloody civil war in Iraq as soon as we leave, whether we leave tomorrow or in three years.

It's not that I don't want to fight--I just don't want to fight stupid anymore.

Anonymous said...

I can go for most of what you said but there are more than a "few" pacifists in the dem party. What do liberals stand for? I hang out at dKos for laughs every now and then. Today they are trying to plumb the impact of the thrawting of the latest terrorist event in the UK. Most are pissed that it will benefit W. What a sick bunch of fuckers. Another is pissed that a federal judge ruled that the "reporters" who published classified info are not protected by the first amendment and have violated the Espionage Act. There's your liberal and what they stand for. Just makess you want to run out and turn national security over to them, doesn't it?

SS is fucked and raising taxes or raising the age limit is not the answer. Want the solution? Look at Galveston County and their pension plan.

Anonymous said...

The further left the Democratic (sic) Party floats, the more they distance themselves from the clear-thinking majority.

First, they lost power.

Then, they desperately tried to get it back by becoming more radical.

Eventually, they got so used to their new schtick that it became their permanence.

Classically sad story.