Why Lamont's victory spells Democratic disaster - Page 2

Thorgrim · 08-10-2006, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Hey, I just found the article interesting. I didn't mean to piss you off They guy who wrote this is obviously a Democrat and he seems worried.

Zell Miller is a democrat im sure he's worried too

Listen, Netroots, specifically Kossacks, are all about winning as Democrats first, then about "how liberal are you"

We've debated this back and forth for months and the only bad thing this could mean for the party would be if Lieberman basically does everything the GOP wants him to do...and listen, if he's that bad of a person, we'd rather go through this cleansing now then keep him in the party as a such a spoiled brat

Look at two big examples the GOP loves to point out: McKinney and Jefferson, first one has already been tossed out, second has been stripped of hhis position is going down in the primaries

We take care of our trash, and Lieberman was the single most destructive Senator to the Democratic party, and he was supposed to be working for us

Stylerod · 08-10-2006, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

We take care of our trash, and Lieberman was the single most destructive Senator to the Democratic party, and he was supposed to be working for us

How so? I guess the one issue is it?

When Democrats and Republicans disagreed, Lieberman voted 90.5 percent of the time with his colleagues in roll call votes cast during his third term.

90.5% of the time he voted with Democrats. How destructive can that be? Should he be a 100% voter and never, ever vote any other way. Is that what you are looking for?

Stylerod · 08-10-2006, 03:28 PM

Did Ballz get banned from this thread?

motivez · 08-10-2006, 03:28 PM

If that 10% is on the most important issues to Democrats, then what do you expect?

Should the voters vote for someone who's not going to represent them on the most hotly contested issues facing us right now?

Stylerod · 08-10-2006, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

If that 10% is on the most important issues to Democrats, then what do you expect?

Should the voters vote for someone who's not going to represent them on the most hotly contested issues facing us right now?

Hey, they can vote in/out anyone they want. I just think it's interesting that he has a different view on one topic and he is a villan. I'm guessing he has been an asset to the party since he was picked as a VP to run with Gore.

But from the party that keeps on electing Kennedy's, what else can we expect

motivez · 08-10-2006, 03:35 PM

It's far more than one topic, as has been pointed out numerous times.. why do you keep repeating that mantra when it's been debunked multiple times?

The only people who think it's one topic are people who listen to too many Republican pundits and not enough Connecticut voters.

Stylerod · 08-10-2006, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

It's far more than one topic, as has been pointed out numerous times.. why do you keep repeating that mantra when it's been debunked multiple times?

The only people who think it's one topic are people who listen to too many Republican pundits and not enough Connecticut voters.

To tell the truth, I haven't heard a single thing any conservative or republican pundits have said. I saw Thor's 15+ threads about him today and then saw this article on Drudge and thought it was interesting.

If you READ the article

I think you can see this guy is in no way a conservative or republican pundit.

Thorgrim · 08-10-2006, 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

How so? I guess the one issue is it?

90.5% of the time he voted with Democrats. How destructive can that be? Should he be a 100% voter and never, ever vote any other way. Is that what you are looking for?

Voting is not the entire part of a Senators life in these days

How was he destructive?

During the Clinton years he starts his crusade for censorship, and since he's a "liberal", he gave the entire liberal movement the label of crusaders trying to censor music and video games, even though the vast majority of liberals were against it...indepedents turned away from voting in liberals

He also started the jump on calling Clinton SO IMMORAL for having an affair (something a huge number of his colleauges do multiple times) and for making a false press conference, which started the whole "Gore, stay away from Clinton" which probably cost Gore the election because Clinton couldn't campaign for him in Florida because of Liebermans charge

Also add on to this we shouldn't criticize Bush because he's the commander in chief during war AND REFUSING TO NOTE THAT REPUBLICANS DID THE SAME THING TO CLINTON DURING KOSOVO AND BIN-LADEN AIRSTRIKES

When Social Security came up, the Dems were ready to put the 2004 election momentum to a stop (they did) which caught the GOP completely offguard as they expected a demoralized and resigned Democratic Party which they could pry enough votes away from to advance their agenda, Lieberman continually supported flirting with privitization LONG AFTER the other Dems had drawn a line in the sand, but basically WITHOUT lieberman, the Dems barely pulled it off and it completely ruined the entire GOP legislative motion and thats why nothing has been done and the Dems are looking great for taking back the house

I don't even want to get into Iraq, I could post like 5 pages worth, but he NEVER EVER gave the Dems credit while yelling at them...he treated them like bad children instead of his own party members...he was all high and mighty and the GOP used him to DESTROY the democrats in the 2002 midterm elections

In 2000, he refused to give a real debate (like the one he gave to lamont) to cheney, which again prolly cost gore the election

So in 2006, 2004, 2002, 2000, etc every election HE HURTS THE DEMOCRATS he needed to:
A) Look at the primary, connect with the voters and wise up
B) Be a pompous ass and act better than everyone else

He picked B and nationally democrats are saying "don't let the door hit you on the way out jackass" even if he gets elected we're all going to feel better that he doesn't have a D next to his name, just like we are glad we got rid of McKinney

motivez · 08-10-2006, 03:47 PM

Yeah, but it's the mantra being repeated by people like O'Reilly, Hannity, Rush, hell, even Bush and Cheney have been talking about how this was all about one issue.

This guy might say that, but he's wrong. Thorgrim has illustrated some of the other problems that CT voters had with him, but like I said earlier, I'll readily admit that the war was the issue that motivated people to get out there and actually vote.

But, then again, I think that the war is a big enough issue that it's completely justifable to vote against someone who fails to represent you on it.. regardless of what else they do.

Stylerod · 08-10-2006, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Voting is not the entire part of a Senators life in these days

How was he destructive?

During the Clinton years he starts his crusade for censorship, and since he's a "liberal", he gave the entire liberal movement the label of crusaders trying to censor music and video games, even though the vast majority of liberals were against it...indepedents turned away from voting in liberals

He also started the jump on calling Clinton SO IMMORAL for having an affair (something a huge number of his colleauges do multiple times) and for making a false press conference, which started the whole "Gore, stay away from Clinton" which probably cost Gore the election because Clinton couldn't campaign for him in Florida because of Liebermans charge

Also add on to this we shouldn't criticize Bush because he's the commander in chief during war AND REFUSING TO NOTE THAT REPUBLICANS DID THE SAME THING TO CLINTON DURING KOSOVO AND BIN-LADEN AIRSTRIKES

When Social Security came up, the Dems were ready to put the 2004 election momentum to a stop (they did) which caught the GOP completely offguard as they expected a demoralized and resigned Democratic Party which they could pry enough votes away from to advance their agenda, Lieberman continually supported flirting with privitization LONG AFTER the other Dems had drawn a line in the sand, but basically WITHOUT lieberman, the Dems barely pulled it off and it completely ruined the entire GOP legislative motion and thats why nothing has been done and the Dems are looking great for taking back the house

I don't even want to get into Iraq, I could post like 5 pages worth, but he NEVER EVER gave the Dems credit while yelling at them...he treated them like bad children instead of his own party members...he was all high and mighty and the GOP used him to DESTROY the democrats in the 2002 midterm elections

In 2000, he refused to give a real debate (like the one he gave to lamont) to cheney, which again prolly cost gore the election

So in 2006, 2004, 2002, 2000, etc every election HE HURTS THE DEMOCRATS he needed to:
A) Look at the primary, connect with the voters and wise up
B) Be a pompous ass and act better than everyone else

He picked B and nationally democrats are saying "don't let the door hit you on the way out jackass" even if he gets elected we're all going to feel better that he doesn't have a D next to his name, just like we are glad we got rid of McKinney

Gores wife was also for censorship.

Lieberman was a class guy that thought having Clinton around might not be such a great idea. It's not like he left office with grace and style.

The S.S. plan was a good one. And he wanted it fixed. But if it would have worked it would have made Dems look bad since they have never had a plan or even tried to put one forth. Since he sided with the people of the country instead of the party, he's the bad guy

Iraq, we are good. I understand that one.

I seemed to remember him debating Cheney. Did he not?

Anyway, I just posted a story from a guy on slate.com that I thought was interesting. Your argument should be with him, not me.

motivez · 08-10-2006, 04:12 PM

I think the argument is with anyone who agrees with him that there's only one issue when it's clearly more than that.

You might agree with him on SS, or what he said about Clinton, etc.. but most Democrats in CT dont, and that's who he was supposed to be representing.

Like I've pointed out, he stopped becoming a Connecticut Senator the second he was nominated for Vice President.. and he became a "US Senator" representing the entire country all of the time rather than his state and the interests of his very blue, very progressive constituents.

Ultimately, they decided they'd prefer someone who'd better represent those ideals, and while the war was a major factor, and undoubtedly the main one, it wasn't the ONLY thing the CT voters disagreed with him on.

DosEquis · 08-10-2006, 04:21 PM

Even if it was the only issue thats good enough for me. That mistake cost 300+ billion dollars, 2500+ americans lives, 50,000+ iraqi lives, 17,000+ wounded americans, and has ultimately put the middle east into a pseudo-civil war. The democracy is arguably going to fail there and we are just wasting time, money, and lives.

It has motivated Iran and Hezbulloh, and based upon the thing busted in the UK, has not slowed down terrorism. It has tarnished our appearance to the world and made us look like complete idiots. Made our intelligence look second rate, and made us vulnerable. It has been a failure, other than our military.

Its a pretty massive fuck up and I believe in accountability. On a scale of screw ups a blow job by an intern is probably a 6. This screw up is off the map.

Thorgrim · 08-10-2006, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Gores wife was also for censorship.

Lieberman was a class guy that thought having Clinton around might not be such a great idea. It's not like he left office with grace and style.

The S.S. plan was a good one. And he wanted it fixed. But if it would have worked it would have made Dems look bad since they have never had a plan or even tried to put one forth. Since he sided with the people of the country instead of the party, he's the bad guy

Iraq, we are good. I understand that one.

I seemed to remember him debating Cheney. Did he not?

Anyway, I just posted a story from a guy on slate.com that I thought was interesting. Your argument should be with him, not me.

Who cares what Gore's wife thinks, do you know what Laura cares about? Has that affected your life?

Getting rid of Clinton was stupid, and only done because he led the charge, he is still massively popular

SS has not fallen apart, Lieberman is supposed to be a Democrat, the country did not rally behind privitization that was his own perversion, this is not a debate about policy this is a debate about how he was a BAD DEMOCRAT

And go watch the Cheney "debate" they were seated and told jokes to each other, it was fucking ridiculous

My argument was with that guy after I read his stupid article, you are the one who brought it up so I showed you where you were wrong in believing him

DosEquis · 08-10-2006, 04:28 PM

Not to mention privatization is not fucking FIXING social security, it is getting rid of it. They always spout off at the mouth how bush had a plan to fix it. It was NOT GOING TO FIX ANYTHING. It was going to get rid of it, .

Scrum · 08-10-2006, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Not to mention privatization is not fucking FIXING social security, it is getting rid of it. They always spout off at the mouth how bush had a plan to fix it. It was NOT GOING TO FIX ANYTHING. It was going to get rid of it, .

The fix was to stop raiding it to pay for bullshit.

Nonphixion · 08-10-2006, 06:59 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I mean, the word might be accurate, but in the public mind, you assosciate the word "insurgent" with "terrorist" and "killing our soldiers"

It's a really sad tactic, almost as sad as misusing peoples grief over 9/11 to gain votes

It's what the Republicans do.

GOP Convention 2004, truly -- this makes me sick, who are the real terrorists in this conflict?

YouTube - The Real Terrorists

SpicyMcVoodoo · 08-10-2006, 09:19 PM

The election was about one issue and one issue only: the war in Iraq. Joe Lieberman was an otherwise highly regarded, well-ensconced Democratic incumbent who would never have faced a meaningful primary challenge had he not vocally supported President Bush's invasion in 2003, continued to defend the war in principle, and opposed adopting a timetable for withdrawal.

I disagree with this. Lieberman was previously regarded by lots of Democrats as too conservative. The Iraq issue isn't the sole reason people didn't vote for him. It was merely the straw that broke the camel's back.