I think this is what is wrong with politics...
Lieberman has stood for what he believes in, and he will now get punished for it, because he didn't follow the liberal playbook page for page...
I understand that liberals have the right to vote him out if they don't agree with what he says...
It just rubs me the wrong way to see one of the few politicians who seems to say what he thinks, doesn't just read the talking points of the day...
MOST politicians are gutless turds...both sides...and they get rewarded the more gutless they get...
Monday, July 03, 2006
Lieberman Weighs Campaign As Independent
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
18 comments:
No kidding, look at the president.
So you will never again describe a moderate Republican who doesn't vote with the party as a RINO? OK?
Jim, nice to see you make a point besides name calling and the word liar and joke as the main themes...
You make a very good point...
I think the difference is that RINO's pretend to be republians to get elected, and then vote as moderate or regular Democrats...
There are a few Republicans that vote with RINO's sometimes but they don't take the heat because they run as moderates, usually do to the make up of their districts...but not always...
Make sense???
But I'm sure there is a time or two where someone gets called a RINO and does not deserve it...but most of the time they do
Activists on both sides of the aisle call candidates they don't like _INO's.
What makes Lieberman's case interesting is that he is being singled out for his position on defense, even though he is a reliable Democrat on most other issues. That indicates that the hate-America Mcgovernites are consolidating their power within the Democratic Party.
The good news is that if the war is a litmus test for most Dems, 2008 will be an absolute disaster for them. The candidate will either have to pander to the wackos and lose the center, or stay reasonable and get Nadered.
Should be fun to watch, provided my own party doesn't self-destruct on immigration.
Game, when have I ever engaged in name calling? Don't lump me in with your other posters.
So are you saying that a moderate Republic is a RINO? No such thing as a true Republic with moderate views? How would you characterize Chuck Hagel?
The problem with Lieberman is not his views on defense. The problem is that he acts in a way that hurts the party. When a Republic does that, the party can exert a tremendous amount of power to bring him in line because the Republic party has control of both houses of Congress. That is why Hagel and Specter may disagree with the president, but the party brings them into line on every vote because they can threaten them with committee assignments etc.
Democrats can't do that because they are not in power. So their leverage is to support or not support re-election efforts.
So is it wrong for the Democrats of Connecticutt to vote against an incumbent who they feel does not support their party's goals? I guess it's wrong if that incumbent supports YOUR president's policies.
why are you so damn blind Jim...that is NOT what I said..
what is the point of even talking to you...you have a template and you use it every day...
I said that SOME republicans RUN as conservatives and then VOTE as moderates and sometimes dem....
When a republican is a MODERATE from the get go...they get more slack because they didn't lie to get elected...so they might be wrong in a vote...but they are not a RINO because they have never pretended to be true conservatives...
and I said that I understand if liberals don't vote for Lieberman...
clean the liberal template out of your brain and think for yourself...
you wrote your post as if you didn't even read mine...
Game:
And you are not listening to me. You seem to think that if I don't respond to your point exactly the way you think I should, then I'm not paying attention to you. If a Republic ran as a moderate to get elected and then voted conservative all the time, would that make him a dishonest MINO? Would that be bad, or is it only bad if it is the other way around?
All politicians lie to some degree to get elected. George W. Bush ran in 2000 saying he didn't believe in nation building, while at the same time he was being advised by people who would become his vice-president and highest officials who were all about nation building. If you haven't read about PNAC, then you are not informed.
And lest you think I am responding ONLY to you, remember that there are other posters on this site that I am responding to. I guess I'll have to make it more clear who I'm "talking" to.
I wanted to tell jim that his last post was well thought out, and maybe even right for the most part...
but then you have to put in the line:
If you haven't read about PNAC, then you are not informed.
I don't know, maybe I am being sensitive, but I was reading what you wrote, agreeing, nodding my head...then I read that...and I get pissed and don't care what you are saying...but like I said, maybe I am being sensitive...
and you are answering my question with another question about moderates...
there are no moderates who run that way then vote conservative all the time...
so there is no need to debate that...
This is not meant to be some kind of insult. Have you read the PNAC website? Are you aware of PNAC and it's goals? If you haven't, then you do not have the proper context for what has been going on for the past five years. The PNAC site is not some kind of conspriracy theory site. It is the website of the PNAC group which constists of Cheney, Kristol, Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Libby, Wolfowitz and others.
It's simple. If you don't know about PNAC, you are uninformed.
I read it awhile back...
Jim--
Enough with the conspiracy theories.
Conservatives today are discussing intervention in the Sudan to end the ethnic cleansing. If the next president sends forces there, the socialists will proclaim: see! see! There is a cabal of Jews, ahem, "neo-cons" controlling our foreign policy for Israel, I mean greedy Jews, I mean "capitalists!"
Go to the PNAC's website.
" The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.
The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world."
Sounds good to me. Socialists hate it because they see America tainted by original sin.
And you guys are *still* puzzled why people say Democrats hate America.
Jason,
Enough with accusing me of something I specifically disavowed. It's dishonest.
I specifically said that this is not a conspiracy theory. My point is that understanding what PNAC is all about and who are members provides great context to what has been happening under the Bush administration since 2001. I made no explicit judgement about the policies of the group in that post.
If you aren't aware of PNAC then you are missing a key part of the puzzle of American actions in the past 5 years.
So thanks for at least reading the front page. You might want to go a little deeper, though.
From the PNAC 2000 Rebuilding America's Defenses report:
"...the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" and "Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region".
This statement alone demonstrates that the administration intended to get forces and permanent bases into the Middle East and Iraq before 9/11 so to say that 9/11 "changed everything" and that's why it was necessary to attack Iraq is not true.
The way 9/11 "changed everything" is that it gave the members of PNAC the cover they needed to justify their intentions. Again from PNAC's Rebuilding America's Defenses report:
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor."
Jim--
Fundamental change in the Middle East is a great idea. I think the PNAC is simply ahead of the curve on this.
If there was a sinister conspiracy, Bill Clinton, who signed the Iraqi Liberation Act, would have had to be in on it too. Also note that a majority of Democrats supported removing Saddam Hussein in 2003, and we entered with a huge international coalition.
Those who mumble the PNAC stuff usually fall into two groups. One group is explicit-- they correctly state there are a lot of Jews affiliated with the PNAC, so we entered Iraq to create a security region for Israel. The other group (that would be you) merely insinuates it, but then backs off when called on it, content with the innuendo.
If you have an explicit argument about Republicans taking down the WTC, or war for oil, or war for Jews, please make it. Otherwise, stfu.
Jason, stfu? Are you learning impaired or simply an a**hole? I am not suggesting and I have never, ever suggested any conspiracy regarding the WTC at all. Nor do I regard PNAC as some conspiracy. Nor do I consider PNAC a bunch of Jews with ulterior motives. You are trying to somehow paint me as a conspiracy theory buff, and I am no such thing.
I am merely saying that to understand the actions and goals of the current administration, one should read about PNAC. It explains just about everything. And it shows that 9/11 didn't "change everything". It justified everything.
Game, sorry. I called somebody a name (sort of). I didn't like being told to shut the fuck up. It's not his job.
Post a Comment