|
Joe Liberman
|
View this Thread in Original format
| igottaknow |
| went down, down, down into a ring of fire :happy2: |
|
|
| Q5echo |
do you not realize what this does to the race as a whole in Nov?
but hey you finally won one. your 1 and 18...
YEEEEEAAAARRRRGGGHHHH!!!!!! |
|
|
| Renegade |
His concession speech:
| quote: | Thank you so much for standing by me in this tough race, for your all work, for all your confidence. Your support has sustained my family and made this a much closer race than the pundits would have predicted.
Just before coming out to see you, I called Ned Lamont and congratulated him on his success today …and let me tell you where I see where we are now. I am a sports fan, so I am going to use a sports comparison. As I see it, in this campaign we just finished the first half and the Lamont team is ahead. In the second half our team - Team Connecticut - is going to surge forward to victory. Look, I am of course disappointed by the results, but I am not discouraged.
I am disappointed not just because I lost, but because the old politics of partisan polarization won today. For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot and will not let that result stand.
I expect that my opponent will continue to do in the general election what he has done in the primary … partisan polarizing instead of talking about how we can solve people's problems, insults instead of ideas. In other words, more of the same old partisan politics that has assailed Washington today.
I will continue to offer Connecticut a different path forward. I went into public service to find solutions, not to point fingers. To unite, not to divide. To lift up, not to tear down. To make my community and country a better place to live and work.
People …and not just the Democrats are angry at the direction of this country - so am I. People are fed up with the petty partisanship and angry vitriol in Washington.
Let me tell you, I have been there, and I am fed up too. … Every disagreement is considered disloyal. And every opponent it is not just an opponent but is seen as evil. It is time for our elected leaders to stop playing political games, so we can get things done for the people who are good enough to send us to Washington to serve them. That's exactly what I am trying to do.
Tomorrow, our campaign will file the necessary petitions [to secure a place on the November ballot] so that we can continue this campaign for a new politics of unity and purpose.
If the people of Connecticut are good enough to send me back to Washington as an independent Democrat, I promise them I will keep fighting for the same progressive new ideas and for stronger national security. That's who I am.
I will never hesitate to work with members of the other party if it helps me achieve solutions that will build a better life for the people of Connecticut. …I will always do what I think is right for my state and country, regardless of what the political consequences may be.
Tomorrow is a brand new day and tomorrow we launch a new campaign to unite the people of Connecticut - Team Connecticut - Democrats, Republicans and Independents so we can go forward together to solve our most serious problems together. That is what this campaign will be about.
And let me say to the people outside of Connecticut, if you are disappointed with the ugly tone of our politics, if you are fed up with the nasty partisanship in Washington, then I ask for your help, too. You can go to my Web site, joe2006.com - when it is unhacked - to send me your ideas about how we can build this new politics of unity and purpose. Come to Connecticut to help, and don't hesitate to send a campaign contribution.
I believe tonight, more than ever, in America's greatness in its values, in its promises of opportunity equality. Together. I am confident that we can find common ground and secure a better future… that and nonpartisanship is what politics should be about. That is exactly the mission I ask you to join me in tonight. Will you join me? |
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/n...ptliebermn.html
Could that be the most ungracious concession speech ever? It also looks like he's going to be running as an independent in 2006 and he's already playing up the "unity" angle (apparently voting with the Republicans while you're a Democrat makes you "bipartisan"?). News flash, Joe: you weren't forced out by fringe-dwelling radicals within the party, you were forced out by the rank-and-file. Taking swipes at those who are prepared to criticise the current administration and who engage in "partisanship" may win you funding from the GOP and sympathy from the Democrats who don't mind losing elections, but it's for exactly that reason that you're out of a job. Now watch as he mounts his new campaign built on the foundation of mythologising himself as a martyr, with the all-to-eager help of the Republicans and the right-leaning media.
Oh well. See ya, Joe! It's been fun!  |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
(apparently voting with the Republicans while you're a Democrat makes you "bipartisan"?). News flash, Joe: you weren't forced out by fringe-dwelling radicals within the party, you were forced out by the rank-and-file. |
whats the problem? the man's on the record 90.4% Democrat on bipartisaned issues. he is a died-in-the-blue-wool liberal. the only thing we are talking about here is the war.>background<
the "rank and file" were on the coast districts where Lieberman got most of his votes. the "rank and file" were the traditional Democrats that had supported him for the last 30 frikken years. union workers, minorities, blue collar. that "rank and file". how the hell can you say he was "forced out by the rank and file" when he got half of the "rank and file" vote?
this "rank and file"?...
was it the "rank and file" that hacked his website with a denial of service attack on voting day?
was it the "rank and file" of the moonbat ranch over at the DailyKos?
>”THE RANK AND FILE”<they're already callin the shots!
| quote: | 1. Push Harry Reid to strip Lieberman of all committee assignments.
2. Let people know what a sore loser Lieberman is.
3. Get all Democrats -- including Bill Clinton -- to publicly back Ned Lamont.
4. Get the Democratic interest groups who backed Lieberman to switch allegiances in the general. |
"he wasn't forced out by the fringe-dwelling radicals" is stupidest thing i ever heard. no offence but how ironic is it that you of all people said that?:haha:
| quote: | | Oh well. See ya, Joe! |
if you lived in Connecticut you would see him real soon. |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| Joe is a fence riding piece of crap. Joe is for Joe. I've known this for years and have been waiting for his duplicity to catch up with him. |
|
|
| DaveSZ |
I followed this race closely and am pleased by the result.
Joe has always been a piece of and an enabler of the destruction of our constitution and running this country into the ground.
The only people supporting Joe are Republicans for the most part.
He had the endorsements of Glen Beck, Hannity, Ann Coulter and Tom Delay going into his primary, and that just didn't fly because rank and file democrats began to catch onto what he stood for - finally.
Also this was not just about the war, though that's one of the main issues. Joe also supported Bush's intervention in the Terri Schaivo case, cleared the way for Samuel Alito's confirmation, supported the corrupt bankrupcy "reform," among many other things.
It's not surprising that Karl Rove has reached out to Joe, his useful trojan horse.
http://abcnews.blogs.com/theworldnewser/
| quote: |
According to a close Lieberman adviser, the President's political guru, Karl Rove, has reached out to the Lieberman camp with a message straight from the Oval Office: "The boss wants to help. Whatever we can do, we will do."
The White House might help Lieberman by putting the kibosh on any move to replace the weak Republican candidate, Alan Schlesinger, with a stronger candidate. And it might be able to convince Schlesinger to drop out of the race and endorse Lieberman in the final week or two, when it's too late for another candidate to fill the GOP slot. A quiet White House effort to steer some money in Lieberman's direction is another possibility. This is a tricky dance for Lieberman. He needs to figure out a way to get the benefits of Bush support -- some votes from loyal Republicans -- without turning off the independents and moderate Democrats he needs to win. The safest course may be a polite "thanks but no thanks" to the White House offer.
|
The Boss? Is this the Sopranos?
I agree with Joe Scarborogh's take on this race.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-s...-t_b_26811.html
| quote: |
Joe Scarborough Joe Scarborough
Bio
Blog Index RSS
08.08.2006
Why Lieberman's Loss is the Democrats' Gain
The conventional wisdom for tonight's Connecticut primary seems to be that a Joe Leiberman loss will yank the Democratic Party so far left as to make other Democratic candidates unelectable this fall. The logic is laughable and similar to what I heard from Republican leaders in 1994.
That was the election year when the most conservative wing of the GOP took over the party and swept into power in the US Congress.
None would have predicted that outcome just two years earlier.
George Bush's loss to Bill Clinton in 1992 had put Republican operatives and strategists in a panic. They feared that Bush had been beaten like a drum because radical conservatives like Pat Buchanan, Phyllis Schlafly and Pat Robertson had hijacked the GOP Convention. So while Bill Clinton spent the next two years moving left, the Republican National Committee desperately sought moderate candidates that would talk, walk and vote like, say, Joe Lieberman. The goal was to blur all differences between Republicans and Democrats.
Because of that logic, I spent most of 1994 fighting Republican bureaucrats on the local, state and federal level who did everything in their power to elect my very moderate opponent in the GOP primary. A week before the primary, the Republican Congressional Committee campaign director let me know that I might as well give up. 1994 would be the year of the Moderate.
Yeah, right.
Within a few months of that conversation, scores of right-wing, knuckle-dragging, spear-carrying conservative barbarians like myself ran through our moderate Democratic opponents like Barry Bonds through a bottle of roids. It was ugly. Darting to the base was the ticket to victory for the Party of Reagan.
Fast forward twelve years and now we find many making the same misguided arguments, except this time they are giving their stupid advice to Democrats generally and Connecticut voters specifically.
Ned Lamont may be a pencil-necked geek, as Imus claims, but he is the type of candidate that will bring out the Democratic base in an off-year election. That is especially true this year because George W. Bush is even more unpopular than Clinton was when the GOP swept into
power.
My advice to Democratic voters this year is "Go left, young man!"
There may be hell to pay in 2008, but for now the only thing that should matter to you is seizing control of Congress. Do that for the first time in a decade and then you can start worrying about swing voters in the suburbs.
|
|
|
|
| DaveSZ |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
whats the problem? the man's on the record 90.4% Democrat on bipartisaned issues. he is a died-in-the-blue-wool liberal. the only thing we are talking about here is the war.>background<
the "rank and file" were on the coast districts where Lieberman got most of his votes. the "rank and file" were the traditional Democrats that had supported him for the last 30 frikken years. union workers, minorities, blue collar. that "rank and file". how the hell can you say he was "forced out by the rank and file" when he got half of the "rank and file" vote?
this "rank and file"?...
was it the "rank and file" that hacked his website with a denial of service attack on voting day?
was it the "rank and file" of the moonbat ranch over at the DailyKos?
>”THE RANK AND FILE”<they're already callin the shots!
"he wasn't forced out by the fringe-dwelling radicals" is stupidest thing i ever heard. no offence but how ironic is it that you of all people said that?:haha:
if you lived in Connecticut you would see him real soon. |
That's quite an offensive picture, but you've got it the other way around. "The Boss" should be standing next to Joe in blackface. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Let's play a game of "Who the Hell Said That?!?!?!"
Here we go:
| quote: | | "It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years. And that in matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril." |
Now before I post the source, let me just post that again:
| quote: | | "It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years. And that in matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril." |
One might think that would be a pretty serious and ardent Bush supporter, a supporter who's consistent with Bush's failed Iraqi policies and would have a very high probability of being a GOP Republican. Pat Roberts, perhaps? Sam Brownback? Tom Delay? DeWine? Kit Bond?
Okay okay, here's the source:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRI...sitroom.01.html
That's right, folks, everyone's FAVORITE Mr. 90's Democrat, Joe Lieberman! Who woulda thunk it? Alright, time for some more quotes to guess at:
| quote: | | "in the interest of our nation's security, and in pursuit of our nation's highest ideals, to stop the bickering." |
That's in reference to debates involving Iraq. In essence, our mystery man wanted to stop the debating because it hurts our nation's security. Got that? Here's another gem from that same speech:
| quote: | | "My point here is that the home front affects the battle front. Politics as usual at home can and will have unusually bad consequences in Iraq. It encourages our enemies to believe they are succeeding in their attempts to influence our policy. They clearly seek by their hostage taking, by their desecration of the bodies of our dead, and by their terrorism to break the will of the people of America." |
Now I'm gonna give you the source, and unfortunately the source itself gives away the name. Give up yet? Alrighty, here it is, everyone's favorite Republican, uhh I mean 90% Democrat:
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroo...cfm?id=220739&&
I really like this game, don't you? Oh, but it doesn't stop there. On the Senate floor in March of 2004, our mystery man stated this:
| quote: | | "questioning how we got into the last war against Saddam ... is not acceptable anymore." |
Must have been Kit Bond.
Nope, sorry Opus, wrong again:
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroo...cfm?id=218677&&
Oh but it gets better, you see the one where he compared Dean to Saddam when Dean questioned whether capturing Saddam has actually made us all safer?:
It keeps coming. About the Iraq War:
And let's keep in mind where the American public believes what the Iraq War has done for us all:
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
Or what Americans think of how Bush is handling pretty much ing anything in general right now:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...poll_080606.htm
And we cannot be exclusive to the Iraq War and the Bush dick-sucking on that war at all. Our dear 90% Joe was initially in support of private accounts on Social Security (though he later flip-flopped):
On healthcare, this supposed "centrist" felt it necessary to say the following:
And that's despite polls that strongly suggest the following:
| quote: | "by 67 percent to 26 percent, the U.S. government guaranteeing 'health insurance for all citizens,' even if that meant repealing most of 'recent tax cuts.'"
and
"the majority was scarcely diminished (67 percent to 29 percent) by referring not to repealing tax cuts but more directly to 'raising taxes.'"
http://www.motherjones.com/commenta...healthcare.html |
Prescription drug prices, our "centrist" was "opposed to price controls on drugs.":
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45c/251.html
But let's not look at Lieberman's record on this one. You know, the one that he was the recipient of more than $400K from pharmaceutical industries:
http://www.opensecrets.org/politici...p?CID=N00000616
that voted against bipartisan legislation to reinstate the law that would have forced drug companies to offer drugs at taxpayer expense at a "fair and reasonable price":
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...on=2&vote=00168
Of course again, we shouldn't look at polls like this that demonstrate what the public really wanted with their "centrist" folk like Joe:
Or this one:
| quote: | "almost two-thirds of the public say there should be more government regulation of prescription drug prices, and 70% of these people continue to support more regulation of prices even it leads to less research and development of new drugs."
http://www.kff.org/healthpollreport/feb_2005/index.cfm |
Or perhaps we could discuss corporate-written trade laws? Who was our favorite "centrist" in favor of on NAFTA, WTO, China PNTR, that were stripped of labor/wage/human rights/environmental protections and thus undermined American jobs, wages, and benefits? In fact, he's gone on the attack of anyone including his dear Democrats who've raised questions about these deals:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/art...14/141645.shtml
Despite what Americans want:
In that poll, 90% want trade deals to include strong labor protections while 93% want strong environmental protections - those same protections that were deliberately removed from the deals our "centrist" fully supported and chided even his own Democrats from discussing.
What else? Ahh yes, our "centrist" loves bigger and bigger Pentagon budgets, spare no expense:
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45c/202.html
Despite what national polls suggest otherwise:
Our centrist also co-sponsored the capital gains tax cut that passed in 1997:
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Joe_..._Tax_Reform.htm
Despite the fact that just 10% of Americans thought that issue was worth jack for Congress to bother with at that time:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/06/30/poll/
But we can also discuss some other issues of importance, such as Lieberman:
| quote: | "sided with Jesse Helms on removing federal money from public schools that counsel suicidal homosexual teens that it's OK (or 'an acceptable lifestyle,' in Lieberman's and Helms' disapproving parlance) to be gay."
http://www.newmassmedia.com/lieberman/joelieb.html |
We can also look at his Media Marketing Accountability Act which essentially treated homosexuality as some strange condition that society by and large had to be protected from:
http://www.policyreview.org/FEB02/rabkin.html
Thank goodness it actually got vetoed.
Some other things to note from the LATimes:
| quote: | "On gays in the military, Lieberman has enunciated the now-discredited canard that 'homosexual conduct can harm unit cohesion and effectiveness.' (Tell that to the dozens of countries, from England to Israel, that permit openly gay troops in their armed forces.) In fact, Lieberman worked with Georgia's Sam Nunn to fashion the destructive 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, which resulted in escalating expulsions of gays from the military every year after it took effect. Its Catch-22 provisions have directly stimulated a rising wave of violent gay bashing and harassment in the military because victims can't complain without 'telling.'
..."This is just part of the record that has made Lieberman his party's most notorious theocrat. The Scripture-quoting Lieberman made God-bothering a staple of his 2000 vice-presidential campaign: That August, Holy Joe told a Detroit congregation never to imagine 'that morality can be maintained without religion.' This position was denounced as 'unsettling' by no less than the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith (ADL), which released a letter to him arguing tartly that 'To even suggest that one cannot be a moral person without being a religious person is an affront to many highly ethical citizens.'
"Prayer in the schools? Holy Joe lined up with the GOP's religious zealots to push it repeatedly in the Senate. Subsidizing parochial schools at the expense of public education? Holy Joe has sponsored
legislation to give parents vouchers to send their kids to parochial schools, draining money from the public schools to which most Americans send their kids. And Lieberman just last year joined with rabid gay basher Rick Santorum-- the Pennsylvania Republican who compared same-sex love to bestiality and incest-- to co-sponsor George Bush's faith-based initiatives, praising Bush's 'leadership' in tearing down the constitutional barrier between church and state."
http://www.madhattersimc.org/module...rticle&sid=5070 |
This is what Professor Marable, Director of the Institute for Research in African-American Studies at Columbia University had to say after Gore elected Lieberman for his running-mate:
| quote: | "Throughout his twelve years in the U.S. Senate, Lieberman positioned himself on the extreme conservative wing of the Democratic Party. He chairs the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the 'centrist' group of elected officials (including Clinton and Gore) who have aggressively pushed their party toward more conservative public policy positions. On a wide variety of issues, Lieberman is clearly to the right of both Clinton and Gore. On gay rights, for example, in 1994 Lieberman supported an amendment offered by reactionary Republican Senator Jesse Helms, which cut off federal funds to any school district that used educational materials that in any way 'supported homosexuality.'"
http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/4/2000/503 |
Our Professor continues:
| quote: | "Lieberman has a long record of hostility toward affirmative action that even his liberal apologists in the Democratic Party cannot hide. Back in 1995, when Lieberman took over the DLC, he declared, 'You can't defend policies that are based on group preferences as opposed to individual opportunities, which is what America has always been about.' Lieberman embraced California's Proposition 209 in 1996, which outlawed affirmative action programs in that state. When President Clinton, after months of hesitation, finally put forward the formulation that affirmative action programs ought to be 'mended, not ended,' Lieberman led the opposition within the Democratic Party. The DLC's Progressive Policy Institute issued a report criticizing Clinton's position, and called for abolishing it for government hiring and contracting, and making it voluntary in private business.
On issues of higher education, Lieberman has again played a conservative role. He was the only Democrat to vote against liberal historian Sheldon Hackney, the President of the University of Pennsylvania, to become head of the National Endowment for the Humanities. He claimed that Hackney was too liberal on campus issues of 'political correctness.' Lieberman then became co-founder of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a five-year-old group that rejects 'racial preferences,' opposes 'political correctness,' and defends 'Western civilization.'" |
And I wonder why the NAACP gave our favorite "centrist" Democrat a "D"?
Strange indeed why MD Congressman Wynn stated that "basically, people were laughing at him" at the Congressional Black Caucus after Lieberman made an ass out of himself:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0715-06.htm
And as I pointed out in the Shakka's thread about the neocon and extremist Right Winger mouthpieces fully endorsing Lieberman at all stops, including this one:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/02/11.html#a7116
I guess it really shouldn't surprise anyone to see none other than our dear friend Karl Rove lending out support for Lieberman's Independent bid:
| quote: | According to a close Lieberman adviser, the President's political guru, Karl Rove, has reached out to the Lieberman camp with a message straight from the Oval Office: "The boss wants to help. Whatever we can do, we will do."
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal....calls_lieb.html |
It really makes one wonder why Connecticut Democrats ridded the man for a man who is such a left-wing extremist that he voted with Republicans 80 percent of the time as a Greenwich selectman.
It really makes one wonder why those DLC consultants have continually supported losing candidates, ones whom were labelled "centrists" but show nothing of the sort. One wonders why people like Marshall Whitman, an ultra-right-wing former Christian Coalition official who is now employed at the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) has done so well peddling Right Wing Talking Points and had Lieberman as one of his favorite little bitches, but for some reason Democrats in Connecticut just don't seem to buy his bull anymore? Any particular reason why the DLC and New Republic is struggling like hell to stay afloat anymore?
All mysterious, I suppose. Very mysterious how those fringe Left winger hate groups could easily demonstrate how our 90% favorite Democrat just happens to be every Winger's favorite neocon, including our dear President. All so strange how such a man could be casted out of the party that opposes this Administration's policies, those policies that are going oh so well abroad.
Strange, indeed. |
|
|
| Temperate |
| Joe always seemed like a nice guy I could bring home to mom. |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| quote: | Originally posted by Temperate
Joe always seemed like a nice guy I could bring home to mom. |
Doesnt mean much really. |
|
|
| Temperate |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sunsnail
Doesnt mean much really. |
:p |
|
|
| Spacey Orange |
 |
|
|
|
|
