Looks like Lieberman has lost the primary

Parent Cafe
121

<p>But you must admit, the majority of the country (I think one survey said 80%) thinks there is too much partisanship in congress. Most voters do end up voting democrat or republican though becuase they feel they have no other choice. But guess what, now voters in Conneticut have a viable candidate that is free of either political party, and I believe that they will make the choice of Liberman. Its not like voters have never voted outside of the two main parties before with sucess (think Minnesota Gov. Ventura). And I feel that Liberman has a much better chance of winning than Ventura did.</p>

122

<p>“He wins a narrow election and then claims a mandate, governing as if he had won by 20 points. What goes around comes around and most of us are in no mood to play “nice” when the tables do turn; Bush has forfeited any right you have to expect so.”</p>

<p>Mandate, or not, the winning party has the right to govern according to its principles. There is no need to share this right according to the size of the victory. Your side lost and have no claims to an illusory right to co-govern. Why is it so hard accepting that, even two years after the decision. Republicans had to live eight years with an almost similar situation. </p>

<p>As far as playing nice, I do not see any chance between now, then, or in the future. You NEVER have played nice, and I fully expect you to be as vindictive in the future as you have been since you had to accept to your estival predictions of victory had evaporated in the colder autumnal climate. Actually, before that, your vindictiveness was only tempered by the blinding lull of a Kerry’s -or Edwards’- victory. </p>

<p>PS While it is obviously more convenient blaming the hired help, shouldn’t you question why Kerry HAD to run almost solely on his military record? Had he had a better record as a politician, the unveiling of his military embellishments would have a mere hiccup in the campaign. Even the best expert could not have filled Kerry’s empty suit, especially with a spine.</p>

123

<p>Almost two years later, we still have similar arguments. Parts of this thread were … interesting.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.collegeconfidential.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?68281/82337[/url]”>http://www.collegeconfidential.com/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?68281/82337&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Here’s the original post.</p>

<p>

</p>

124

<p>

</p>

<p>This was an election within a party. It won’t mean anything unless Lamont wins in november</p>

125

<p>Xiggi, about vindictiveness: I spent three decades, about fifty percent longer than you’ve been in existence, being a voice of moderation. Many of my most energetic battles were with the anti-military zealots in my own party. And I’m enough of a centrist that I was on paid field staff for John Anderson in 1980 and was one of those at the table when he met with a few of us in Los Angeles a couple of years later to discuss another possible third-party bid. [Verdict: no. He’d ****ed away two valuable years doing nothing.]</p>

<p>The 2002 election was a turning point, with its constant equation of disagreement being “soft” or “unpatriotic,” followed by the sustained equivalence of 9/11 with Iraq, continued to this very day, with Dick Cheney saying that Lamont’s victory is a win for Al Qaeda. All while absolutely trashing this magnificent country of ours, inflicting damage that will take generations to repair and the cost of which will be borne by my daughter’s children. No, I’m not inclined to be “nice,” the circumstances don’t call for it. And maybe when you’ve lived half as long an adult life, fought extremists in your own party for half as long, and seen the arrogance and hubris of Democrats do half the damage to the United States that Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rumsfeld have done, then I might condescend to listen to your thoughts about vindictiveness. Until then, go and pound sand.</p>

126

<p>

In one sentence, you explain why Democratic candidates may lose in November and for some time to come. The turning point was 9/11/2001. Since 9/11, liberal rhetoric has swayed polls but it hasn’t won elections.</p>

127

<p>Geez, if a state is allowed to send a Ted (Bridge to Nowhere) Stevens to the Senate, another state should be allowed to send a Ted Lamont.</p>

128

<p>well, if conneticut votes in Lamont, its their right. I just think Liberman will win.</p>

129

<p>It was a wonderful day here…sun shining…air was actually quite cool. My baseball team lost, but that’s O.K. because we’re still doing fine. We’re going to the Series.</p>

<p>George Bush is still our President…life is good.</p>

130

<p>And Newsweek poll just out: 55% of Americans are happy with the way Bush is handlng our national security…</p>

131

<p>I hope the rathole does not fill too quickly while I wait for your condescending call.</p>

132

<p>But Bush’s overall approval rating is almost at its lowest again…an AP poll has it at 33 percent</p>

<p>so 67 percent don’t approve</p>

<p><a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060811/ap_on_el_ge/republicans_ap_poll[/url]”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060811/ap_on_el_ge/republicans_ap_poll&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>and for some more poll information, that 55 percent doesn’t tell the whole story</p>

<p><a href=“http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-08-12T185959Z_01_N12403691_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-BUSH-POLL.xml[/url]”>http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-08-12T185959Z_01_N12403691_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-BUSH-POLL.xml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>interesting when several questions are asked, that a poster will just share the one poll that supports their postion, while ignoring many other question in the same poll that go the other way</p>

<p>but read the articles and maybe you can see what I mean</p>

133

<p>" Mandate, or not, the winning party has the right to govern according to its principles. There is no need to share this right according to the size of the victory. Your side lost and have no claims to an illusory right to co-govern. Why is it so hard accepting that, even two years after the decision. Republicans had to live eight years with an almost similar situation."</p>

<p>Are we talking about a monarchy or a democracy here? This statement by Xiggi reflects clearly the arrogant partisanship of the current administration. It is amazing that two years later, the republicans do not moderate their position in light of the mistakes their leaders have made. I know you all like to pretend that all is well in the world, which it may very well be in your own, but it is not for a vast majority of Americans.</p>

134

<p>

I completely agree that Connecticut voters should elect the candidate of their choice and if it’s Lamont, that’s our system and I applaud it. I don’t want a country with only one political party but I wish the leaders of the Democratic Party were more serious about waging war on terrorists instead of treating terrorism as a crime and punishment issue. </p>

<p>I also wish Alaskan voters would replace Ted Stephens but that’s their choice, too.</p>

<p>

Count me as one of the 67% who disapprove of President Bush’s performance but who will vote Republican unless the Democrats get serious about terrorism. My disapproval stems primarily from Bush’s immigration policies. That’s the problem with some of these polls: Expressing disapproval doesn’t equal anti-war.</p>

135

<p>

</p>

<p>Lizschup, nice TRY to reverse the identities of the truly arrogant and vindictive in this thread? Can you roll back and read the posts by TheDad that prompted my reply, including his latest opus that reeks of arrogance and uses a rare condescending tone. Did you miss the rejection of a conciliatory tone and the promise of “payback” -whatever such puerile and hollow rethorical threat might entail.</p>

136

<p>I am strongly anti- Iraq war, but I am not sitting cozy with the far left of the Democratic party, who are so whacked out they ought to be sitting with the far right wing. </p>

<p>Although we have stirred the hornet’s nest in Iraq (but good), the threat of terrorism is real, and I don’t think that the Democrats (my party), have a strong platform for dealing with it. No way am I throwing my vote away on Green, so my votes for the future are undecided. There is no slam dunk for me with Democrats anymore, and I look to see what moderates on either side have to say.</p>

137

<p>Xiggi, you as an individual are a pimple on an elephant’s butt as far as payback goes. But don’t howl when the Democrats employ some of the same approaches the Republicans have used on House and Senate rules, on judicial appointments, on legislation, on staffing of the government departments and turn it everything that Bush has built up. Even in payback mode, I’d stop short of Republican practice, e.g., I wouldn’t consider political background and ideology for appointments to international scientific panels and the like. You think it’s puerile? I call it tearing down an ugly edifice with the same tactics with which it was built. And I don’t care a rat’s ass about concillatory tone…the substance and actions of the Bush administration speak far louder. Yes, I suppose we’re all supposed to be “nice” and “understanding” and not call the administration to account. Ain’t happening.</p>

<p>AllMusic & DRJ, the equivalence of Iraq with the war on terror is a counterfeit cause that has consumed real blood, dollars, and focus. I agree that 9/11 was a turning point. But what do 140,000 American soldiers in Iraq have to do with tracking down Osama bin Laden? With determining how/what/when/where AQ Khan distributed nuclear technology? With tackling the train bombings in Madrid? The subway bombings in London? The latest plot to blow up planes? Not a G d thing.</p>

<p>Look at Afghanistan. We won the military part of the campaign and have given the political/cultural/ethnic/religious combo benign neglect and let it fester and now opium production (that funds terrorism) is up, control of the central government extends barely to the city limits of Kabul (see what percent of the budget is foreign aid, where the government can raise taxes from, and what warlord militias are under its control), and the Taliban is tenacious and slowly growing in influence. </p>

<p>Pakistani’s ISI is playing a double game, sometimes busting suspects, sometimes aiding in giving sanctuary in the tribal zones. Musharref is in an unsteady position and Pakistan itself is one coup away from Islamists having nuclear weapons. And don’t underrate the Pakistani-supported Kashmiri connection to the terror groups. And yet the U.S. tiptoes around Pakistan and virtually ignores it.</p>

<p>The stupid “we’re fighting them over there [Iraq] so that we don’t have to fight them over here” slogan is one slick bit of counterfeit coin…our occupation of Iraq not only hasn’t put a crimp in terrorism but it’s provided radical Islamists with a nifty new training ground and created net instability in the are.</p>

<p>Fortunately, the majority of the American people are getting it: Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror and saying stupid things like “a vote for Lamont is an Al Qaeda victory” [Dick Cheney] is just cynical manipulation.</p>

138

<p>Hey TD, you’re preaching to the choir here. I am well aware of the folly of the war in Iraq as a part of the “War on Terror”. You should know from my posts that I have never ever supported this loss of blood and treasure.</p>

<p>However, I think Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Quaeda, Mr. Ahmadinejad, etc. mean business. I take them at their word, and do believe that they present an existential threat to the West. Do I believe we should have bombed to smithereens and destroyed a sovereign nation in an effort to stamp out that threat? No. But it doesn’t change the fact that there is a real threat, and pretending it doesn’t exist won’t make it go away (not saying you’re doing that Dad, but I read a lot of such rhetoric…that the threat is not really a threat).</p>

<p>Neither party has offered a way to deal with this threat in a way that makes any sense.</p>

139

<p>Hi! Back from vacation. Sorry, but it seems like a good time to revive this remarkable bellwether thread. </p>

<p>When I first began posting here nearly 3 years ago, barely a handful of us dared post in disagreement with Abu-al-TheDad and his “celebrity CC clique harem” (I include you male remora-type CC posters in Abu-al-TheDad’s harem). As “-Allmusic-” notes, there is a large choir here, to whom he preaches). </p>

<p>I’m glad there are so many more voices now. What a boring echo chamber it used to be, once things veered into the ditch of politics. The swarm would…well, swarm. Hive-think. Still too much of that here, but it’s good to see that a long vacation can be taken–with many other enthusiastic anteaters to take up the “ZOT!” role (see: Johnny Hart; “B.C.” comic strip). </p>

<p>Nothing much to report–I was on a strict diet of striped bass, Ipswich Ale (and Ipswich clams) and lots of exercise. No computer, no blogs, no CC. Didn’t gain an ounce. Let’s roll.</p>

140

<p>Ah, Driver. You’ve been missed, although FS and Xig have been rallying on in your absence.</p>

<p>How were the greenheads? Nasty critters, those things.</p>