FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Democrat US Senator Joe Lieberman booted for war-hawk stance





The Philosopher Princess
(Any needed Moderating here will be done by someone other than myself, so there’s no conflict of interest.)

I have said elsewhere on these forums that anti-war people shouldn’t just rail on the warmonger Bushiite CON-serve-va-tives, but should also pay attention to any of the LIE-ber-alls who support such massive aggression against other human beings. And, war-hawk Joe Lieberman was one person I’ve mentioned. Who knows if anyone listens to me at Frihost, but at least LIE-ber-all LIE-ber-man has gotten the boot from his constituents.

This is all around the news but here’s one source: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Lieberman_loses_to_Lamont_in_Connecticut_primary

Wikinews wrote:
August 9, 2006

Three-term US Senator Joe Lieberman has conceded defeat to challenger Ned Lamont in Tuesday's Democratic Party primary election in the U.S. state of Connecticut. With 98% of precincts reporting, the Associated Press reports that Lieberman has 48% of the vote compared to 52% for Lamont. The winner of the primary faces the Republican Party candidate in the November 7 general election but Lieberman confirmed tonight his intention to petition to run as an Independent against both the Democratic and Republican nominees. The polls closed at 8 p.m. local time (UTC-5).

The final result is highly anticipated due to the feud between Lieberman and Lamont. The major issue in the primary has been Lieberman's support for the US war in Iraq. Lieberman, who was Democrat Al Gore's running mate in the 2000 US presidential election, opposed criticizing US President George W. Bush during wartime and was famously kissed on the cheek by Bush following his 2005 State of the Union address. Lamont has challenged President Bush's handling of the Iraq conflict.

The campaign leading up to the election became increasingly acrimonious, with numerous "attack ads" used by both sides.

Because of the nature of the candidates and the marginality of the seat, the race has been seen by some as a "referendum" on the Democratic party or a "proxy vote" on the entire 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent war.

Lieberman says he’ll now run for the seat as an Independent (even though he’s anything but independent). Here’s a little more background by one journalist. Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/07/AR2006080700250.html

The Washington Times wrote:
Lieberman's Troubles Go Beyond War
Some Voters Felt a Disconnect Long Before Today's Primary

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 8, 2006; Page A01

FARMINGTON, Conn., Aug. 7 -- Exactly six years ago Tuesday, on a sweltering day in Nashville, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) was introduced to the nation as Al Gore's vice presidential running mate. Lieberman called his selection "a miracle" and described himself as part of an "American Dream Team."

From the pinnacle of that 2000 campaign, Lieberman has seen his support crumble with astonishing swiftness. Six years after making history as the first Jew chosen for a national ticket and being hailed as one of the most respected politicians in the country, Lieberman is in the last hours of a battle to avoid a humiliating rejection by his own party at home. A poll Monday showed Lieberman behind but gaining ground in a tight race.

Lieberman's plight, according to Democrats here and in Washington, is two stories in one. The first is a metaphor for politics in the era of President Bush and how an unpopular war in Iraq has divided the electorate, inflamed the public debate and intensified an already partisan political climate.

For more than a decade, Lieberman has stood as one of the most prominent representatives of the moderate Democratic Leadership Council wing of the Democratic Party, a leading advocate of a robust and muscular foreign policy and a proponent of values-based politics in a party often seen as struggling to find its voice in the culture wars. His instincts for collegiality and bipartisanship, once regarded as virtues, are now seen as virtual disqualifications by his critics here and nationally.

"I haven't changed," Lieberman explained in an interview aboard his campaign bus Friday. "Events around me have changed."

The other part of the story here is a familiar tale in politics, that of an incumbent who, as he gained national prominence, gradually lost touch with the voters and politicians who first sent him to Washington. Long before Iraq, there were signs of erosion in Lieberman's standing in Connecticut. "There was a personal sense among Connecticut Democrats that his national agenda is what matters to him.....

A politician who lost touch with his constituents!? Is that possible!? Wink Why do people put their faith in politicians in the first place? Why do they voluntarily give away to Government their own responsibility as mature adults to make their own decisions?

It’s too much to hope that primary winner Ned Lamont is particularly principled (being a full-fledged politician), but at least there’s cause for a speck of celebration when a big-named political aggressor is brought down a notch.
S3nd K3ys
Damn you make it hard to read your posts. Better than they used to be, but Christ, tone it down a bit. Rolling Eyes

Ok, without reading the entire thing, (it's giving me a headache), let me suffice it to say that the dimwit dems bit off their noses to spite their faces. Lieberman was axes simply because he backs the war on terror, as you're likely aware. The dems don't care that lieberman was pretty much their only hope of getting power back, and the shot themselves in the foot.

I've said it before, the dems are fading out quick.
The Philosopher Princess
Thanks for stopping by with your comment, S3nd K3ys. (I’m sorry that you have trouble reading my posts. I’m not sure why you think they are “Better than they used to be” since I haven’t changed anything to my knowledge, but, okay, that’s good. While my first post was not intended for you in particular, this one is; therefore it has no rainboxing.)

I can empathize with your wish for it to be true that “dems are fading out quick”, but, looking at the big picture, there doesn’t seem to be any logical reason to actually believe that. I also wish the Demos would fade out quickly -- along WITH their counter-politico-aggressors, the Repos -- but no trends point towards that happening anytime soon.

The Repos and Demos may seem opposite at one level, e.g., with Demos being somewhat less favorable to invasions and occupations of other countries. But the Demos support aggression against humans in other areas. So, at the main level, the Demos and Repos are exactly the same: they both support initiation of force again humans. They both support aggression. They both support the gazillion-a-dollar maintenance of the political machine, the monopoly of government, the monopoly of force, the worship of collectivism, and the disrespect of human individuals.

What’s on the other side of the Demos, Repos, and the others who support monopolies of force and collectivism? The other side has the people who respect the sovereignty of human beings. The people who support force against particular humans ONLY when force has already been initiated by those particular humans.
JoeFriday
if you wanted to boot all the senators and congressmen who supported the war, you'll be cleaning out most of Congress.. nearly every politician was in support of it when they voted on going to war

it would seem that the LIE-berals that you refer to are the hypocrits who now oppose what they voted to approve
S3nd K3ys
JoeFriday wrote:
..

it would seem that the LIE-berals that you refer to are the hypocrits who now oppose what they voted to approve


Shocked

It's not about the war. It's about (and this becomes very clear when things like what happened to Lieberman happen) hating Bush.

It doesn't seem to matter the cause, the effect, the outcome, nor does it matter how idiotic they look, they will do what ever they can to hate Bush and discredit or demonize the administration.

Even in a time when politics should be shelved, the lieberals will have none of it.
The Philosopher Princess
JoeFriday wrote:
if you wanted to boot all the senators and congressmen who supported the war, you'll be cleaning out most of Congress.. nearly every politician was in support of it when they voted on going to war

it would seem that the LIE-berals that you refer to are the hypocrits who now oppose what they voted to approve

Very good point!

I’ll state it more generally: All politicians at that level CON and LIE to us, whether they happen to be LIE-ber-alls or CON-serve-va-tives.
~~~~~~~~~~
S3nd K3ys wrote:
It's about (and this becomes very clear when things like what happened to Lieberman happen) hating Bush.

I think it’s less about hating Bush than loving themselves and their own power.

If they truly hated Bush, they would have been doing things differently all along.

And if they were truly against war, they would have been doing things differently all along.

And if the NeoCONS truly wanted Freedom for other countries and their own, they would have been doing things differently all along.

To get the sheeples to believe that provoking and perpetuating wars in foreign lands is pro-freedom takes more than a pack of LIEs; it takes one of the biggest CON jobs going. Those Bushiites have succeeded very well with lots of little NeoCON helpers. Who knows if such religious faith by the multitudes can ever be broken, but getting rid of one Bushiite leader might at least be a small step in the right direction.
lyndonray
Joe Lieberman should just quit! what the hell is the old goat doing? doesn't he see that his day in the sun is pretty much over? Not that he has much of a tan to show for it? but that's neither here nor there!

The tide is turning and its really difficult to tell which way its going! U.S. politics is at a interesting point right now: Republicans aren't as secure as they used to be - with white house scandals, mal-administration and botched wars compromising them. The Dems are in a state of mass confusion with no clear message, clear leadership and clear direction - they are a mess! When you have guys like Lieb! trying to be on both sides of the fence they risk alienating everyone on each side of the fence!

i think we will get a clearer idea of what direction America is moving after the mid-terms. Those should spring up a few surprises and a few high-profile upsets. Lieb! is probably just the first of a few!
S3nd K3ys
lyndonray wrote:
Joe Lieberman should just quit! what the hell is the old goat doing? doesn't he see that his day in the sun is pretty much over? Not that he has much of a tan to show for it? but that's neither here nor there!

The tide is turning and its really difficult to tell which way its going! U.S. politics is at a interesting point right now: Republicans aren't as secure as they used to be - with white house scandals, mal-administration and botched wars compromising them. The Dems are in a state of mass confusion with no clear message, clear leadership and clear direction - they are a mess! When you have guys like Lieb! trying to be on both sides of the fence they risk alienating everyone on each side of the fence!

i think we will get a clearer idea of what direction America is moving after the mid-terms. Those should spring up a few surprises and a few high-profile upsets. Lieb! is probably just the first of a few!


Lieberman is (was) a democrat with clear vision. And he was kicked out of the party for it. That says a lot about the party.
The Philosopher Princess
lyndonray wrote:
Joe Lieberman should just quit! what the hell is the old goat doing? doesn't he see that his day in the sun is pretty much over?

Laughing Good one!

Too bad you’re not going to get your wish. [Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/16/nyregion/16conn.html]

New York Times wrote:
New Lieberman Retooling Race as Independent

By PATRICK HEALY and NICHOLAS CONFESSORE
Published: August 16, 2006

Just one week ago, national Democrats united to try to nudge Senator Joseph I. Lieberman out of his race for re-election after his defeat at the hands of his antiwar rival, Ned Lamont, in the Connecticut Democratic primary.

More in the Election Guide The Race for the U.S. Senate The Race for the U.S. House Governors' Races But today Mr. Lieberman appears to be in the race to stay, running as a retooled independent candidate who is taking on both political parties, and Connecticut is already seeing a full-throated re-enactment of the men’s blistering primary battle.

Far from sulking in defeat, Senator Lieberman has fired most of his senior aides, energized his broad base of donors from his campaigns for president and vice president, produced a new television advertisement explaining his political intentions, and attacked Mr. Lamont over the London terror plot.

The senator appears so emboldened that in spite of the Democratic unity around Mr. Lamont, some Washington Democrats are now acknowledging that a Lieberman victory in November is a distinct possibility.
...

~~~~~~~~~~
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Lieberman is (was) a democrat with clear vision. And he was kicked out of the party for it. That says a lot about the party.

Yes, I think his vision is so clear that he probably can’t see anything, but, no, he’s still a Democrat, and, no, he wasn’t kicked out of the party. But, never fear, you can still recruit him into your party sometime down the road. Maybe the Repos could trade Schwarzenegger for Demos’ LIEberman. If, hypothetically, that were a choice, would you support that? Or, would you want to keep the Terminator even though he’s quite Demo-like?
S3nd K3ys
The Philosopher Princess wrote:

Yes, I think his vision is so clear that he probably can’t see anything, but, no, he’s still a Democrat, and, no, he wasn’t kicked out of the party. But, never fear, you can still recruit him into your party sometime down the road. Maybe the Repos could trade Schwarzenegger for Demos’ LIEberman. If, hypothetically, that were a choice, would you support that? Or, would you want to keep the Terminator even though he’s quite Demo-like?


Clear and correct are not the same. So let's not assume that's what I meant. Thanks. And who's to say what's 'correct' and what's not? Certainly not you as an individual.

Yes, he was, essentially, kicked out of the party because he didn't conform to the party line in a subject that clearly is pivitol, and clearly is a big (albeit unsucessful) crutch holding the dems up; Iraq and terrorism.

You also take shots at a repug who refuses to act acording to party lines. It seems you're hell bent on keeping only hardliners in control (by ommition, of course, but still very obvious). Both have more clear vision than the majority of hard-lining stooges on either side, yet you mock them for standing up for what they believe in.

Heaven forbid one should stray from the party lines, else the colorful princess will mock you. Wink
The Philosopher Princess
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Heaven forbid one should stray from the party lines, else the colorful princess will mock you. Wink

Dancing You made my day! S3nd K3ys rainboxing for me! Wow! I will treasure this! Very Happy

S3nd K3ys wrote:
Clear and correct are not the same.

That is clearly correct!

My statement (“Yes, I think his vision is so clear that he probably can’t see anything”) was a context-switch on the word “clear” (i.e., changing its definition).

(When a context-switch happens in a serious conversation, the switch should be challenged before more serious talk is added; otherwise, the serious talk is no longer serious, but off-topic. You actually did this quite well with your “Clear and correct are not the same. So let's not assume that's what I meant.” statements.)
S3nd K3ys
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Heaven forbid one should stray from the party lines, else the colorful princess will mock you. Wink

Dancing You made my day! S3nd K3ys rainboxing for me! Wow! I will treasure this! Very Happy


You are easy to please. What a wonderful wife you'll make, (if you're not already) Wink

Quote:
(When a context-switch happens in a serious conversation, the switch should be challenged before more serious talk is added; otherwise, the serious talk is no longer serious, but off-topic. You actually did this quite well with your “Clear and correct are not the same. So let's not assume that's what I meant.” statements.)


Unless the conversation involves an individual who is familiar with the likelyhood of having humor injected into a serious conversation, I see no reason to challenge the uncontextual quoting of words and phrases when it's more appropriate to reply in a manner which will remove any misconception (accidental or intended) and still keep the conversation on topic.

Stopping in the middle of a conversation to challenge an obvious attempt at distraction is only allowing the distraction to take place, and puts you in a position to try to justify a change of topic, or worse, distract from the train of thought. All bad scenarios for in-experienced debators. Wink

(Note: parenthetical statements are for reference only)
HDirtwater
And, BTW, Lieberman has a 13 point lead in the general election right now. The people of CT like him, and 53% of them feel he should be reelected.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060817/ap_on_el_se/connecticut_senate_2
palavra
if monarchy comes to USA and you be the princess ,administration of the state will be better. Very Happy

you explained the situation very well
The Philosopher Princess
{...from off-topic to on-topic, well sort of...}
~~~~~~~~~~
palavra wrote:
if monarchy comes to USA and you be the princess ,administration of the state will be better. Very Happy

What a wonderful world it would be! Very Happy (You did say “THE princess” not just “A princess”, right?)
~~~~~~~~~~
S3nd K3ys wrote:
You are easy to please. What a wonderful wife you'll make, (if you're not already) Wink

Well aren’t you the charming one! It’s even better than that. I’m easily pleased and dis-easily dis-pleased. (Not disease-ily but dis-easily.) However, my standards for such a position are so extraordinarily high that..........! But once someone meets such standards.....AngelAngel.....!
~~~~~~~~~~
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Stopping in the middle of a conversation to challenge an obvious attempt at distraction is only allowing the distraction to take place, and puts you in a position to try to justify a change of topic, or worse, distract from the train of thought. All bad scenarios for in-experienced debators. Wink

Yes, except that if there were “an obvious attempt at distraction” then it would no longer be a serious conversation -- using my definitions, anyway. A truly serious conversation (which rarely happens on public forums because, frankly, it takes a lot more discipline than most people are usually interested in) includes all participants being sincere with what they offer. If someone purposefully changes context (without making it known that it was intended humor) then they are not being serious (again, using my definitions).

S3nd K3ys wrote:
Unless the conversation involves an individual who is familiar with the likelyhood of having humor injected into a serious conversation, I see no reason to challenge the uncontextual quoting of words and phrases when it's more appropriate to reply in a manner which will remove any misconception (accidental or intended) and still keep the conversation on topic.

From what I understand of your overall meaning: very good! For an interesting side issue, notice your use of “when it's more appropriate”. Yes, don’t challenge when it’s more appropriate to do otherwise. The question though is WHEN? is it more appropriate.

Just as an example, when someone is really trying to be serious, but changes context, then (by my definition) they didn’t do it on purpose. If the context-switch is not challenged, the switcher could continue on with misconceptions which makes much of the rest irrelevant. In my model of serious conversations, the person who catches a context-switch not only is being courteous to challenge the switch, but if she doesn’t do it, then she is the one who has veered off from being serious (because she is the only one who realizes the switch).

From seeing how you understand this subject, I wouldn’t expect you to disagree with me. I just wanted to add a little more.
~~~~~~~~~~
HDirtwater wrote:
And, BTW, Lieberman has a 13 point lead in the general election right now. The people of CT like him, and 53% of them feel he should be reelected.

Thanks for that link. This contest is almost like watching a football game. On your way home you think, well that was fun, but does it really matter?
palavra
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
{...from off-topic to on-topic, well sort of...}
~~~~~~~~~~
palavra wrote:
if monarchy comes to USA and you be the princess ,administration of the state will be better. Very Happy

What a wonderful world it would be! Very Happy (You did say “THE princess” not just “A princess”, right?)


of course "the" unique and mine

Laughing
smalls
JoeFriday wrote:
if you wanted to boot all the senators and congressmen who supported the war, you'll be cleaning out most of Congress.. nearly every politician was in support of it when they voted on going to war

JoeFriday's right on the money. This wasn't just about his stance on the war. If it were, then the Dems would have to get rid of their precious Hillary too.....and I don't see that happening anytime soon. The real problem the Dems have with Lieberman is that he doesn't bash Bush very often. Now that's a dangerous position to take in the Democractic party.
The Philosopher Princess
smalls wrote:
This wasn't just about his stance on the war. If it were, then the Dems would have to get rid of their precious Hillary too.....and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Yeah, I can’t see the LIE-ber-woman being booted by the LIE-ber-alls like the LIE-ber-man was, at least, like you say, anytime soon.



Yeuchk!

(Hey, S3nd K3ys, does she fit the décor of your party? Razz)
S3nd K3ys
If she wasn't such a twit in so many other areas, she could to a good job of fighting the war. That bitch has bite! It's like she's constantly cycling.
The Philosopher Princess
Yes, I understand, but, well, politics is all about compromise, right? Twits of a feather can’t always flock together. Hypothetically, if she vigorously promised to keep supporting your cherished foreign wars and your beloved U.S. border wars (even if she didn’t meet your standards on other issues), couldn’t you see yourself shouting, “Heil Hillary!”?
S3nd K3ys
The Philosopher Princess wrote:
Yes, I understand, but, well, politics is all about compromise, right? Twits of a feather can’t always flock together. Hypothetically, if she vigorously promised to keep supporting your cherished foreign wars and your beloved U.S. border wars (even if she didn’t meet your standards on other issues), couldn’t you see yourself shouting, “Heil Hillary!”?


No. Neutral

My biggest beef's with the likes of GW are the border and stem cell research. The border issue is huge. The war is huge as well. The war is progressing. The border issue is not. I won't sacrifice everything else to get Hillary in just because of the war. I think that any person that realizes what GW realized when the info was given to him (something we're not privvy of knowing), then the war effort will continue.

Wars are not cherished, either, they're necessary evils if the US and Western (modern) Civilization are going to survive this onslaught of hatred and death from Islamofascists because of our freedom and our democracy and our capitolism.
The Philosopher Princess
Oh, no, we’ve got us a copydog on our hands! It’s in the shape of a politician trying to copy Lamont, only this is littler doggy going after a much bigger doggy. What’s a good doggy to do!?

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/23/nyregion/23challenger.html?hp&ex=1156392000&en=b92c4bdb6d28f19a&ei=5094&partner=homepage

NYTimes wrote:
Clinton Rival Tries to Make Most of Liberal Anger
[...]

As Ned Lamont basks in his Democratic primary victory in Connecticut, another antiwar underdog is trying to assume the same role of political giant-killer in next month’s elections in New York, though against much bigger prey: Hillary Rodham Clinton.

But while Mr. Lamont united liberals and used $4 million of his own money to win his primary, Jonathan Tasini is struggling on a shoestring campaign to rise above his 12 percent standing in the polls, even as he hawks a message of left-wing anger over Iraq to an electorate that is more liberal than Connecticut’s.

Mr. Tasini has qualified for the Sept. 12 primary ballot against Mrs. Clinton, and his positions on the Iraq war, the death penalty and gay marriage are in step with the progressive groups and liberal bloggers that contributed volunteers, money and buzz to Mr. Lamont. Yet some of these partisans say they are deeply reluctant, and in some cases scared, to criticize or abandon Mrs. Clinton, who supported the invasion of Iraq.

They cite her power in the Democratic Party and her careful positioning that has made her, if not antiwar, then a sharp critic of the administration’s handling of Iraq, Hurricane Katrina and the economy.
[...]

Even if we disagree with the particular politics and goals, it’s cool what blogger doggies can do, isn’t it?
Talk2Tom11
I feel it is horrible what happened to Lieberman and democrats should really pay attention to history... America is Conservative... get over it. in order to win an election in america you can not be so liberal. Bush Won two terms. Clinton won two terms... the only reason clinton won was because he ran as a "New Democrat". He would never consider himself "Liberal". Before him, Bush 41, conservative. Before him Reagon.... Possibly the most conservative president... And he won more states then any other president. All I am saying is that maybe the democrats should realize that having a moderate on their side is not a bad thing... but in face... it is a good thing for them.
simp
The collaborator got what he deserved. How ironic that he got the "kiss of death" from Junior Bush.

"You broke my heart, Fredo"
Related topics
What did Bush lie about?
Forget...
Urban Legends About the Iraq War
Backtracking? ...Of Course Not!
Oh, the evil that Bush has done to this world...
Enemy Press
SEARCHING FOR MR. GOOD-WAR
More front page news NOT on the front page..
Civil war? What civil war?
John Kerry's Comments are a Cheap Shot at US Troops!
Is your country on THIS map?
Democrats to increase tax burden over $5,000 per taxpayer
Dems/BP introduce Cap & Trade
Is the battle in Libya a tribal war? Should the US engage?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.