The Lieberman Question

Parent Cafe
1

<p>An exceptional commentary by Wm. F. Buckley Jr. Timely, succinct, no big words. Worth a read,especially for those who profess a yearning for “bi-partisanship.”</p>

<p><a href=“http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZDIyY2M1NzNmNTI0ZmY1NmFlMmVmZmE3NGJhOTdhOGQ=[/url]”>http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZDIyY2M1NzNmNTI0ZmY1NmFlMmVmZmE3NGJhOTdhOGQ=&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

2

<p>I guess the closer to election day the more outrageous the crocks become.</p>

<p>Comparisons of Lamont to Henry Wallace in 1948 are laughable. Roughly 60 percent of the country is against Bush’s Iraq policy and those strongly disapproving of Bush outnumber those strongly approving by a 2:1 margin. </p>

<p>At this point, Lieberman is probably going to win the election as an “Independent,” largely on the back of support from more than 2/3 of Republican voters…a voting pattern which suggests the truth.</p>

<p>Lieberman’s highest principle “me first.” He says that he’ll caucus with the Democrats to preserve his seniority. He can be bought by the GOP and I bet he will be. If so, he better enjoy the fruits quickly. If the Democrats don’t take the Senate on Tuesday–and I think they’ll fall short–then they will in 2008. And Lieberman will be toast with all his former colleagues.</p>

3

<p>By the same token, I’ve looked at a lot of Republican candidates and said to myself, “He’s no Teddy Roosevelt, that’s for sure”.</p>

4

<p>I, for one, still have memories of Schumer and Clinton, eyes moist, declaring support for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and I am sure some Connecticut Democrats have similar memories. I ‘hoped’ the Bush crew were telling the truth about the WPMD, but when I discovered otherwise, I didn’t delude myself into thinking the Bush cabal (Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz) was clueless. </p>

<p>They had another agenda when they invaded–take the fight to the enemy’s sacred backyard. That agenda has been very successful to date. Was there another non-violent agenda which could have accomplished the same goal? Too soon to tell, in my opinion.</p>

<p>As for the career decapitation of a long term Democratic senator with global name recognition, all I can do is shake my head. The toothless Democratic party is finally able to bare it’s fangs–on one of it’s own? Say what? It won’t just be Republicans voting for him, Dad. I’d vote for him too–just to send a message to the Democratic party to get their priorities straight; ie develop visible liberal leadership, support and develop potential leaders, support and develop grass roots vote gathering (turn that some of that red back into blue).</p>

<p>This election may go the way of the Democratics but only because the Republicans shot themselves in the groin–rather spectacularily.</p>

5

<p>That pendulum always has a way of swinging too far in one direction, and laws of physics just ensure that it will swing back again, unless, of course, the Diebold machines block the swing.</p>

6

<p>

Right. If I don’t get my way, it must be because the other side cheated. Not because my message is wrong…</p>

7

<p>The other side has been known to cheat, to lie, to steal.</p>

<p>We’ve come to expect it, actually.</p>

8

<p>Buckley’s remarks are a bit like Pete Carroll giving Notre Dame advice on how to play the Trojans.</p>

9

<p>Cheers, the thing is, Democratic support was on the basis of cherry-picked information. Instead of honest bi-partisanship, BushCo have used a manipulative and partisan approach every step of the way.</p>

10

<p>Maybe someone could explain what, at this point, are the differences between Democrats and Republicans? </p>

<p>And what makes Lamont more qualified to be the Senator who will represent Connecticut? His vast political experince? His wealth? His ties to Howard Dean? Perhaps he is close to John Kerry, the standard-bearer for the Dems? Or is that Dean or maybe Clinton? </p>

<p>And didn’t Senator Clinton, the bastion of Democratic Party so-called values, support the actions in Iraq? Didn’t she just distance herself from Kerry? So what is the distinction between the parties?</p>

11

<p>Last time Nutmegers voted for a rich guy from Greenwich, they got an income tax. Wonder what Ned has in mind?</p>

12

<p>You are a genius, Eddy. This leads to yet another great column by WFB Jr., containing perhaps the finest single paragraph of political commentary ever written. FountainSiren, are you paying attention? Print this out and hang it on your wall:

<a href=“http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n24_v47/ai_17955382[/url]”>http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n24_v47/ai_17955382&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Boy does that last sentence strike a chord, here.</p>

13

<p>And what does this quote have to do with Lieberman? I am not sure what relevance your quote has to either side of the election? Lieberman has been in the Senate for years, with the emphasis on Senator, not Governor. He has experience. Ned Lamont, I believe, is trying to buy an election and has no experience whatsoever in politics. He does have ties to both Howard Dean and John Kerry, both of whom seem fairly useless at this time in terms of political influence.</p>

<p>Evelyn Waugh was quite clever, but this is an election, not a novel.</p>

14

<p>This quote from Josh Marshall a few weeks back is appropriate:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The most important lines to me are the last two sentences in the first paragraph. It explains the obsession with Kerry this week and the general attitude of Bush supporters on this site. Try to keep in mind that it was the Republicans that got us into this mess. </p>

<p>Sure Dems have been adrift and rudderless but they also aren’t in power.
Deciding to vote against Dems because they haven’t offered up any leadership within a restrictive, divisive, overpowering administration is as ridiculous as starting a war in Iraq to go after the perpetrators of 9/11.</p>

15

<p>The Democratic leadership voted for Iraq. They are no different, only a bit looser with their tongues.</p>

16

<p>And specifically to the Buckley link: What a crock. Lamont won in the Democratic primary with Dems, not just the left. The main reason “sore loser” Joe will win is because the Republicans don’t have a viable candidate.</p>

17

<p>Yes, Democrats are different collegialmom, they are not in power and they didn’t instigate the war or cherry pick the phoney documents to support it. Plus I’ll take a wild guess that there were at least more Dems who voted against it than their were Republicans - that shows more strength to me than a bunch of moderate wimpy Republicans who go along with their party in order to win favor and funding from their party.</p>

18

<p>CM, this thread abounds with karma. I even think that you, I, Eddy, and WFB are on the same side. The thread began with a WFB column in support of Lieberman. Eddy pointed out that it was another wealthy Democrat Greenwicher (like Lamont) who imposed the income tax on nutmeggers. Which reminded me of yet another, older, column, in which WFB castigates the CT tax-imposer–Lowell Weicker–who was defeated in his bid for the senate–by Lieberman. Just an interesting confluence of commentary. Lamont is unqualified, Lieberman should (and will) win, and supporting Lamont should disqualify anyone from voting in national elections on competency grounds.

Lamont <em>barely</em> won the Democrat primary, and he did so with the help of obsessively leftist single-issue nutcases. The fact that the majority of actual Democrat voters are uniting with the puny number of CT Republicans to support a fine political figure such as Joe Lieberman should be cause for satisfaction among those who purport to yearn for bi-partisanship.</p>

19

<p>“Yes, Democrats are different collegialmom, they are not in power and they didn’t instigate the war or cherry pick the phoney documents to support it. Plus I’ll take a wild guess that there were at least more Dems who voted against it than their were Republicans - that shows more strength to me than a bunch of moderate wimpy Republicans who go along with their party in order to win favor and funding from their party.”</p>

<p>Please check the votes. H. Clinton, who is supposed to be the next Democratic presidential candidate supported the war at every turn. </p>

<p>The Dems offer very few alternatives. They are as funded by big interests as the Republicans, check the donation records of your favorite Democrats. There is now very little difference between the parties, and anyone who thinks that the Dems are not as bought out by special interests needs to really examine the donation and voting records of candidates and the DNC and RNC. That is the only way to track candidates, not emotional ties to one party versus the other.</p>

<hr>

20

<p>We aren’t going to get bi-partisanship by electing Joe to the Senate, Driver. We’ll only get it from this administration when the balance of power in the two houses is restored.</p>