Lieberman to consider Iraq pullout plan :bowrofl:

[Stylerod]

I tell you what. This is one funny Democrat!!!

[motivez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

That's what I don't get. The man is liberal. Just because he isn't afraid to agree with the conservatives or criticize his own party doesn't make him conservative. If you look at where he stands on the vast majority of issues, he's a clear liberal. If you just looked at his voting record you'd say "liberal democrat". It's just the fact that he's willing to speak out against Democrats that he's getting the current treatment.

You and so many other people completely miss the point time and time again and repeat this idiotic and false "analysis" of the situation that's been put out there by the GOP.

It's not the fact that he disagrees on one issue, or that he is willing to disagree with his party and be vocal about it. There are plenty of Democrats who don't agree on every issue.

Lieberman is different though. It's not that he disagrees, it's that he's consistantly out of step with the rest of the party on the biggest and most important issues. Social Security. Bankruptcy. Iraq. Judicial picks. You name it, Lieberman has been an enabler for Bush and his shitty policies.

Even when the Democrats were able to defeat Bush, like on Social Security, Lieberman did not hop aboard the train until it was going to start hurting his approval rating at home because it was already 100% dead and everyone knew it.

Him being good on other issues doesn't matter, and neither do his votes, if he's not there to help further the party agenda when it matters the most. His votes are worthless if it's other Democrats who spend the time trying to defeat Republican initiatives and he only hops on board at the last minute. I'm sick to death of listening to people analyize the situation when they fail to take that vital factor into account.

Originally Posted by JaJae

In short, Lieberman is a liberal. Trying to paint him conservative to me is a sign of weakness on your argument. People are trying to find EVERYTHING they can to shit on Lieberman right now, including trying to say he's conservative, which is just absurd. He may side with the GOP on some issues, but really no more than any other Democrat. Clinton is far more conservative than Lieberman and the party through him out for president. This is a man they put up as their VP not long ago. Now that we've gone into Iraq and he's shown support for the military force (which he always has, including Clinton) and he's shown support for some conservative economic ideas (which he always has), he's being booted from the party for now toeing their rhetoric.

I don't even know where to begin with this. You're so wrong it's not even funny.. it's not "weakness of argument", it's the truth. Look at the rhetoric he's issued lately. It sounds like Cheney. It sounds like Bush. It sounds like Rove.

His voting record, again, means shit because of the context in which many of those votes were cast.

Saying that he's "no different than any other Democrat" is factually wrong, as is comparing him to Clinton or suggesting that Clinton is somehow more conservative.

Again, it's not the fact that he disagrees with the party, it's the consistancy of it on the most important issues facing the nation today. It's the fact that he's more concerned with his position of power than anything else. It's the fact that he's hurting the party and helping Republicans potentially keep more control of the House.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by thomez

shows how left the party is now when someone as liberal as he is on 95% of issues isn't liberal enough

that's basically what it boils down to

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

exactly, which is why discussing anything about Lieberman with you is a waste of time

You are just trying to piss off anti-Lieberman Dems (which doesn't work by the way, because everytime we re-check Lieberman we find a new flaw in his character which makes us even more happy that he lost the primary)

/thread

i'm not the one making a big spectacle of him. the dems (and you) are

if he wasn't really a threat, if he wasn't really anything to worry about, then let the people decide, right? there should be absolutely nothing for you and the dems to fear...but wait, there is...

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by thomez

and thomez doesn't like him, but finds the whole debacle quite hilarious

[thomez]

Bill Clinton would be shunned from the Democratic party right now if he was an unknown Gov of Arkansas and tried to run for president. The most electable democrat in many many years would be kicked to the side like a piece of trash and they'd nominate someone like Dean or Kerry or Lamont. Quite amazing.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by thomez

Bill Clinton would be shunned from the Democratic party right now if he was an unknown Gov of Arkansas and tried to run for president. The most electable democrat in many many years would be kicked to the side like a piece of trash and they'd nominate someone like Dean or Kerry or Lamont. Quite amazing.

Funny how moderate Warner is the talk of the liberal blogosphere, who shun Kerry and Clinton because of their inability to win

[motivez]

Originally Posted by thomez

Bill Clinton would be shunned from the Democratic party right now if he was an unknown Gov of Arkansas and tried to run for president. The most electable democrat in many many years would be kicked to the side like a piece of trash and they'd nominate someone like Dean or Kerry or Lamont. Quite amazing.

Why do people talking about this subject continually miss that it's the big issues that he disagrees with Democrats on?

It's not something inconsequential. It's not something that's on "the sidelines" as far as political discussion is concerned.. It's the main issues facing the country today.

Social security was a HUGE push by the President, and he only hopped aboard the Democratic train to success once it was apparent that Bush's plan was going to fail. Why? Because he wasn't going to be able to use it to further promote his position of "bipartisanship"

The Iraq war (according to the majority of Americans) has become a clusterfuck. Almost everyone has lost confidence in the execution of the war, and instead of getting on board with the Democratic opposition to "continue more of the same" and hopefully change to a strategy that will bring us a measure of success, he says we're "undermining the President" by questioning his leadership and abilities.

The list goes on and on.

[Thorgrim]

The SS thing is what totally wrecked the GOP, they came in going "whew!" after their '04 victories and thought they were going to run the place, their first big item of many: SS reform

The democrats did what they thought was impossible...they stood up to a victorious party months after being badly defeated, the GOP was stunned and by the time they knew what hit them, the whole idea was offtrack and done with...the rest of the agenda cluttered behind and around it

it really lead to all the developments we are seeing today and joe lieberman almost destroyed that by trying to give in like the defeated party is supposed to

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

that's basically what it boils down to

No.

As was already pointed out it has nothing to do with how liberal he is.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

No.

As was already pointed out it has nothing to do with how liberal he is.

right. it has to do with how liberal the democrats are.

[thomez]

Clinton would probably support big SS reform and his wife voted for the war and has supported it. Like I said, he'd get laughed at in 08.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by thomez

Clinton would probably support big SS reform and his wife voted for the war and has supported it. Like I said, he'd get laughed at in 08.

his wife very well might

[motivez]

Originally Posted by thomez

Clinton would probably support big SS reform and his wife voted for the war and has supported it. Like I said, he'd get laughed at in 08.

Hillary hasn't supported the war the same way that Lieberman has. Many Democrats voted for it, they can't hide from that. What they can do, however, is be the critical voice of opposition that a minority opposition party is supposed to be.

Not run around singing the praises of leadership that's doing such a poor job.

Hillary hasn't engaged in that and has been critical of many aspects of Iraq, whereas Lieberman has said specifically that we shouldn't be undermining the President.

There's a difference.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

right. it has to do with how liberal the democrats are.

I keep forgetting that that liberal = against the war and conservative = for the war.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

Hillary hasn't supported the war the same way that Lieberman has. Many Democrats voted for it, they can't hide from that. What they can do, however, is be the critical voice of opposition that a minority opposition party is supposed to be.

Not run around singing the praises of leadership that's doing such a poor job.

Hillary hasn't engaged in that and has been critical of many aspects of Iraq, whereas Lieberman has said specifically that we shouldn't be undermining the President.

There's a difference.

liberman has been singing praises of the way it's been handled?! proof?

they both are against a pullout, and that's basically it.

In February 2005 she stated that much of Iraq was functioning well, elections in Iraq had succeeded, and that the insurgency there was failing.[citation needed] In July 2005 she co-introduced legislation to increase the size of the regular United States Army by 80,000 soldiers.[31] By late 2005, with domestic debate intensifying over whether and when the U.S. should remove its forces from Iraq, Clinton stated that immediate withdrawal would be "a big mistake", leading to Iraq becoming "a failed state", but that the Bush administration's open-ended commitment to stay in Iraq was also misguided, as it gives Iraqis "an open-ended invitation not to take care of themselves."[32] This centrist and somewhat vague stance caused frustration among the Democratic party's anti-war activists[33], who have even occasionally protested outside Clinton fundraisers.[34] On June 13, 2006, Clinton was heckled as she restated her long-standing position against setting a timetable for withdrawing U.S forces from Iraq, while speaking in front of liberal activists at the Take Back America conference in Washington. Though she was applauded while speaking on domestic issues and criticizing President Bush's handling of the war, boos, hisses and chants where heard when she spoke against a timetable.[35]

Senator Clinton also became a national advocate for retaining and improving health and other benefits for veterans. By the end of 2005, her standing among the military community was much higher than it had been during her days as First Lady.[36]

oh look, even clinton 'sang praises' of the iraq war last yr.

[Scrum]

This isn't a push to the left by the democrats like those fucking idiot talking heads are saying.

It's a push away from Bush's failed policy in Iraq.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

liberman has been singing praises of the way it's been handled?! proof?

they both are against a pullout, and that's basically it.

oh look, even clinton 'sang praises' of the iraq war last yr.

whats with this "even clinton" crap, like she is some darling of the left?

Take any blogosphere poll and she does horribly

its only non-activist democratic women that are boosting her numbers in Gallup "yeah ill vote...wait there's a senate race in my state? Oh yeah Santorum I heard about him on the Sopranos, and I thought Gov. Bob Casey was dead?"

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

like she is some darling of the left?

basically