|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
 Posted - 11/28/2008 : 17:20:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
And it takes plenty of Democrats to elect a Republican president. It wasn't his endorsement of McCain that riled most Democrats. That was just annoying. It was his campaigning for Republicans in close races with Democrats for congress that pissed us off. You know, he endorsed some people he didn't even know, as opposed to McCain who is his friend. If he did it because of his friendship for McCain, he deserves our contempt.
Perhaps he should explain himself? If he has, I missed it... |
Do you think it may have something to do with how his own party stabbed him in the back by not nominating him for reelection to his own seat in 2006? |
 |
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 11/28/2008 : 18:12:11 [Permalink]
|
You're talking about Rush Limbaugh, right? I agree, that was way out of line.
|
Limbaugh, O'Reilly and the rest of faux news...
As for Lieberman being considered for VP, I think that it got closer than you might think.
It certainly was fitting with the theme of McCain's campaign (experience, reaching across the aisle, being a maverick) at the time.
I think that Palin was a last minute choice to appeal to the religious right, which come to suggest that, until the last minute, McCain was considering another candidate, one that would not have please the conservative as much. Lieberman would definitively have fit that description. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2008 : 00:20:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Mycroft
Originally posted by Kil
And it takes plenty of Democrats to elect a Republican president. It wasn't his endorsement of McCain that riled most Democrats. That was just annoying. It was his campaigning for Republicans in close races with Democrats for congress that pissed us off. You know, he endorsed some people he didn't even know, as opposed to McCain who is his friend. If he did it because of his friendship for McCain, he deserves our contempt.
Perhaps he should explain himself? If he has, I missed it... |
Do you think it may have something to do with how his own party stabbed him in the back by not nominating him for reelection to his own seat in 2006?
|
He lost in the primary and then ran and won as an independent. But he continued to caucus with the Democrats. So saying it was his own party that stabbed him in the back is pushing it. Also, when he spoke at the GOP convention, he identified himself as a Democrat. And when he campaigned for GOP down ticket nominees he identified himself as a Democrat. If he is really an independent he should have said so.
Let me put this another way. I think his behavior was disingenuous during the last elections. He is going to get his seat anyhow. But as I said earlier, I would put a whoopy cushion on his seat whenever he stood up and wasn't looking. I think he's a dick... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2008 : 01:00:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
He lost in the primary and then ran and won as an independent. But he continued to caucus with the Democrats. So saying it was his own party that stabbed him in the back is pushing it. |
Given that it's virtually unheard of for an incumbent to even be contested in the primary, I don't think it's pushing it at all. He was stabbed in the back.
Then given that he was able to run a successful campaign against a Democrat and a Republican should be an indication that his support at home is rock solid. The Democratic Party was wrong to challenge him.
Originally posted by Kil
Also, when he spoke at the GOP convention, he identified himself as a Democrat. And when he campaigned for GOP down ticket nominees he identified himself as a Democrat. If he is really an independent he should have said so.
|
Whenever the issues of labels came up, Lieberman chose to label himself as a Democrat. The rift between Lieberman and the Democrats was started by the party. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 11/29/2008 : 02:53:20 [Permalink]
|
And I choose to label him as an opportunistic pig willing to do anything to further his personal career, the country be damned. He did pretty well when he was re-elected in '06 as an Independent, after the D. voters rejected him, but didn't fare so well when he thought the Republicans would win this one and his star would rise higher. Incidentally, if I remember correctly, a fair percentage of Republicans rejected their own candidate (who was that, anyway?) to vote for him. Now he's back in the Senate, fences mended, he thinks, and ready to turn his coat again at any auspicious moment.
It is not his party or that he's a conservative that puts me off, but that he's not at all to be trusted. History is filled with such, so it's nothing unusual.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2008 : 10:38:08 [Permalink]
|
Mycroft:
Given that it's virtually unheard of for an incumbent to even be contested in the primary, I don't think it's pushing it at all. He was stabbed in the back. |
First of all, nonsense. It's not unusual at all for an incumbent to be challenged if there are significant issues that make the incumbent vulnerable to a challenge. In Lieberman's case, it was his support of the Bush policy in Iraq, and the Bush doctrine in general. I can't find a single reference anywhere that the Democrats put Ned Lamont up to it.
And if you think the Democrats in his state should have voted for him simply because he was the incumbent Democrat, (which of course, would have demonstrated a lack of independent thinking on their part) and you equate that with "stabbing him in the back" then perhaps you need a few lessons in how our democracy works. The fact is, he won as an independent and didn't lose any of his standing when he returned to the Senate.
As for his support for McCain and other Republicans, Lieberman was not really punished. He kept is chairmanship of a major committee and only lost his membership for the Environment and Public Works Committee, which he did not chair. Is that the big back stabbing that you are referring to?
If there was a backstabbing, it was Lieberman campaigning for down ticket Republicans. He put his eggs in the wrong basket and received barely a slap on the hand for it.
Joe Lieberman
On November 7, Lieberman won re-election with 50% of the vote. Ned Lamont garnered 40% of ballots cast and Alan Schlesinger won 10%.[116] Lieberman received support from 33% of Democrats, 54% of Independents, and 70% of Republicans.
Following the election, Lieberman struck a deal with Democratic leadership allowing him to keep his seniority and chairmanship of the Governmental Affairs Committee. In return, he agreed to vote with the Democrats on all procedural matters unless he asked permission of Majority Whip Richard Durbin.[citation needed] He is free to vote as he pleases on policy matters.[citation needed] Along with Bernie Sanders, Lieberman's caucusing with the Democrats gave them a 51-49 majority in the Senate, leaving a slim one Senator majority to control the Senate in the 110th Congress. |
Snip:
Many Democrats wanted Lieberman to be stripped of his chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs due to his disloyalty.[128] Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell reached out to Lieberman, asking him to caucus with the Republicans.[129] Ultimately, the Senate Democratic Caucus voted 42 to 13 to allow Lieberman to keep chairmanship (although he did lose his membership for the Environment and Public Works Committee). Subsequently, Lieberman announced that he will continue to caucus with the Democrats.[130] Lieberman credited President-elect Barack Obama for helping him keep his chairmanship. Obama had privately urged Democratic Senate majority Leader Harry Reid not to remove Lieberman from his position. Reid stated that Lieberman's criticism of Obama during the election angered him, but that "if you look at the problems we face as a nation, is this a time we walk out of here saying, 'Boy did we get even'?" Senator Tom Carper of Delaware also credited the Democrats' decision on Lieberman to Obama's support, stating that "If Barack can move on, so can we."
Liberal members of the Democratic caucus were reportedly angry at the decision to not punish Lieberman more severely. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont (who is also an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats) stated that he voted against Lie |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2008 : 14:07:56 [Permalink]
|
| Honestly, Mycroft, I sometimes get the feeling that you just like to argue and are perfectly comfortable with being unencumbered by such things as facts. |
But, he certainly is good at getting his point across. And it always is good to be exposed to dissenting opinions, keeps you open minded. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2008 : 19:23:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Honestly, Mycroft, I sometimes get the feeling that you just like to argue and are perfectly comfortable being unencumbered by such things as facts.
|
I don't see anything in these "facts" you bring up that contradicts anything I've said. Perhaps I should have said "uncommon" instead of "unheard of", but that's just a matter of degree.
If Lieberman didn't feel betrayed by his own party when he didn't get his parties nomination, then it may have been when Hillary Clinton said publicly that he shouldn't run for reelection out of party unity.
In any case, reconciliation between Lieberman and the Democratic party is a two-way process. |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 11/29/2008 : 19:27:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
But, he certainly is good at getting his point across. And it always is good to be exposed to dissenting opinions, keeps you open minded.
|
It's all in fun. What's the point of arguing politics if you don't enjoy debate with people who disagree with you? Talking politics with people who already agree with you is boring. :)
The trick, I think, is to always try to understand why the other guy is saying what he's saying, to assume he means well and is of reasonable intelligence, and to keep an open mind to your own misconceptions and fallacies. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Spineless, sniveling Democrats & Lieberman
