Cynical Nation

Those translations are priceless...and actually right on the money.

Both Parties NEED Lieberman, but the Dems DESPARATELY NEED him. Still, Lieberman is, as many around here have correctly pointed out, a Liberal Democrat...a Liberal Democrat who just happens to support the U.S. Military policies in the Mideast (including Iraq) and has an unflagging support for Israel.

Now all those who claim those last two positions "made Lieberman a Republican," TAKE IT BACK!

Take it back right now, or you'll risk pisssing him off and driving him...to drive YOU nuts, which for most Liberals is a pretty short ride anyway.

As I posted here , thats what happens when voters have no idea what they are voting for. The 31% of the democrats who voted for him voted against what they really believe without knowing why. All these democrats and the vast majority of the state is anti-Iraq war, and they still elected an opportunist warmonger who does not care about anything or anyone. As I said before, I prefer a senate democratic minority without Lieberman than a majority with him, but, unfortunately, I am not Harry Reid.

> The 31% of the democrats who voted for him voted against what they really believe without knowing why.

Are you sure it's okay to cop such an elitist attitude toward Northeastern Democrats? I think maybe it's only rural Republicans you're allowed to do that to.

"Are you sure it's okay to cop such an elitist attitude toward Northeastern Democrats? I think maybe it's only rural Republicans you're allowed to do that to."

I just expanded the field :)

Wow, changing the subject a little, there is an MSNBC internet survey on whether Bush should be impeached. I just voted myself. Out of 331,606 votes, 87% (!!!!) think he should be impeached. And I agree fully of course. Here is the link.

Joe Lieberman will be 70 years old in 2012 and the one thing he has shown is that he likes his Senate seat. As much as he may hint at jumping, I think he is going to stay right where he is, as an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats. For him to do otherwise would seriously endanger his chances of re-election. (Jeffords went from red to blue in a blue state and the Democrats who became Republicans did so in conservative states. Conneticuit has some red in it, but far more blue and Lieberman would've lost if he announced that he was going to caucus with the Republicans, in my view.)

As far as impeachment goes, it is a dumb idea. I hope that Speaker Pelosi keeps her word and does not pursue impeachment, but rather pursues the truth regarding what has happened, as well as where Iraq is currently and where it is heading. (Bush did mislead the American people, in my view, but I do not think that what he did comes close to impeachable crimes.)

"As far as impeachment goes, it is a dumb idea."

Why? They impeached Clinton for a blowjob and you think they should not impeach someone who might have deliberately lied to start a war that has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths? I dont say they should impeach him for sure. But they should investigate whether there was deliberate deception from this administration. If that seems to be the case, they should definitely impeach him.

"They impeached Clinton for a blowjob..." (BW)
(BW)


Uhhhh, they impeached Clinton for Perjury & Obstruction of Justice Blue...for lying over having had sex with a subordinate (that act alone is considered "sexual harrassment" in the workplace, because of the imbalanced "power dynamic" involved).

Regardless, that sole act of sexual indiscretion in the WH (one among many) spoke volumes about Bill Clinton's judgment at hat time.

The current war against Islamo-fascism and the rogue states that harbored, supported and assisted it, was a war that had been relentlessly waged against the U.S. since 1992 without response until 9/12/01.

Hussein was "THE leading state sponsor of international terrorism" between 1992 and 2003...he had to go.

Why we involved ourselves in all this nation-building, etc post-Saddam is questionable, BUT the wars against what Santorum rightly calls "the gathering storm of Islamic fascism" in the Mideast...are unfortunately INEVITABLE, as they as unavoidable.

"Joe Lieberman will be 70 years old in 2012 and the one thing he has shown is that he likes his Senate seat. As much as he may hint at jumping, I think he is going to stay right where he is, as an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats." (PE)
in the catbird seat, more a problem for the Dems than anyone else.

Same is sort of true for the "New Democrats" (mostly Conservatives, Right-to-Lifers and evangelicals) like Heath Schuler and others.

What leverage do the Dems have over them?

"We won't nominate yo next time?"

It's THESE Conservative Dems who won in the heartland, where Liberals always fail, so it's they who are the "Founders of the Feast."

It 's how the Dems work out these wide ideological discrepancies that'll say a lot about which direction that Party is headed.

As I posted here , thats what happens when voters have no idea what they are voting for. The 31% of the democrats who voted for him voted against what they really believe without knowing why.

That's not at all surprising.

Take a look at my Congressman, Frank Lobiondo (NJ, 2nd). He is a 6-term (soon to be 7-term) conservative Republican that among others was endorsed by the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Sierra Club, the AFL-CIO, the Teamsters, UNITE, the United Auto Workers and received an "A" rating from the National Education Association (teachers union). He would think that with those credentials he would win 90% of the vote.

Yet his opponent managed to collect almost 1/3 of the vote. Her campaign platform was "well, someone has to run against him". No, I am not kidding.

Lieberman will be in the catbird seat on some issues because he is a swing voter in a closely divided Senate. I don't see him, however, jumping where he will vote with Republicans regarding who will chair committees and who will be the majority leader.

Lieberman will be in the catbird seat on some issues because he is a swing voter in a closely divided Senate. I don't see him, however, jumping where he will vote with Republicans regarding who will chair committees and who will be the majority leader.

Lieberman will be in the catbird seat on some issues because he is a swing voter in a closely divided Senate. I don't see him, however, jumping where he will vote with Republicans regarding who will chair committees and who will be the majority leader.

Deja vu all over again. And again. ;-)

"It's THESE Conservative Dems who won in the heartland"

JMK,
Please stop repeating Fox News's and Mary Matalin's lines. The only conservative democrat that was competitive for the senate was Harold Ford in FL who lost. The ones who run for the senate and won are progressives and some of them very very liberal.

Damn, PE, did you have a hiccup seizure when posting? LOL!

Of course Lieberman will vote for the Dem chairs. Hell, even Linc Chaffee voted for the Republicans during that exercise.

More important will be when Chris Dodd or John Kerry sponsor anything. Joe will find a way to vote against them every time.

And I won't blame him at all.

Every Democrat who ran and won in places like Kentucky & Indiana was a Conservative. Nancy Boyda who won Jim Ryun's KS seat is also a social Conservative...Heath Schuler in NC is an evangelical Christian and a social Conservative, Casey in PA is a pro-life, social Conservative, Tester and Webb are "rabid Right-wingers" compared to the likes of Dean, Gore and Kerry.

And don't go giving Mary M credit for my astute analysis...I've been saying this since election night. Mary M's GOOD, she's very, very gooood...but she's no JMK.

Why do you Left-wingers always seek to credit ""Conservative" pundits for the thoughts of "the people?" Perhaps it's projecion, as most Liberals don't seem to know what to think until they see it on CBS, or read it in the NY Times.

Rahm Emanuel did America a great favor this elecion year, by fielding Conservative candidates...candidates "who could win" in the heartland, he's changed the Democratic Party, swinging it strongly to the Right..."back to the center," from where it was.

That's good for the Democratic Party, real good for the two Party system and very GOOD for America!

Moreover, the American people, themselves spoke out Tuesday, LOUD & PROUD, voting AGAINST "gay Marriage" by better than 2 to 1, AGAINST race/gender preferences in Michigan, no less, by 60 - 40, AGAINST Eminent Domain in 9 of 11 states and in favor of strict border enforcement and against coddling/welcoming illegals in places like Arizona.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, "If that agenda is "Liberal," than we're in complete sympatico Blue, if it's not, than YOU'RE the one who's out of step."

We all know JMK lives in a Rush Limbaugh hillbilly heroin haze fantasy land.

Lieberman is moderate. Most of the winners were moderates, although most of them ran against the war, unlike Lieberman.

Lieberman votes with the Democrats some 92% of the time.

The ONLY two issues he didn't vote with the Dems are (1) the war in Iraq and (2) ESCR.

In every other VOTE he took the hard Left Democratic line.

Harold Ford is a "Moderate" Democrat, though unfortunately he voted against the Bush tax cuts and that, among other things cost him in TN.

After Tuesday, with all the Conservative, pro-life and evangleical Dems elected, it looks like we'll have a much more moderate Democratic Party in the near future.

How much of Lieberman's voting record was party discipline rather than conscience?

I met Joe almost 30 years ago when I lived in Hartford and was active in Connecticut politics. For the first time in 30 years I can say Joe is an intersting guy...without snickering.

"How much of Lieberman's voting record was party discipline rather than conscience?" (WF)
(WF)


I HAD (past tense) a lot of respect for Lieberman BEFORE 2000.

Before he surrendered nearly every principle he claimed to hold dear.

For a long time he had been a minority voice among Democrats opposed to race/gender based preferences, but to get the nod from Gore he was forced to, in effect, "unconditionally surrender" those principles to Maxine Waters in a very public mea culpa.

I've never respected him since.

Same with McCain's inane clami a few months back that "Americans wouldn't do the jobs our (illegal) immigrants do for $20/hour...for $50/hour, they just COULDN'T do them."

On illegal immigration McCain's a god-damned idiot and a guy willing to spew even anti-American worker rhetoric to attempt to ratioalize and unjustifiable position.

Yes, Lieberman was a better choice than Lamont (for a number of reasons), AND McCain could become a better alternative than whomever he's running against next time (hopefully for the Senate, NOT President), but that makes NEITHER of them any good, merely the "lesser of two evils."

I'd take Giuliani over McCain, and at heart, I'm none to fond of Giuliani either.

I'd happily vote for a Heath Schuler over a McCain and I'm not in favor of much of the evangelical agenda, hell I'd vote for a Tester, or a Webb over McCain at this point.

If the Democratic leadership is "hard left" to you JMK, then the Repug leadership, a bunch of faux-religious power mongers, should be considered "hard fascist" ... which is the way I see them. You call them conservatives.

The evangelicals (those "faux religious power mongers) you deride now have a beach-head in BOTH major Parties, with the election last Tuesday of a slew of pro-life (ie Bob Casey), socially Conservative (ie. Tester, Webb, the KY & IN Congressional delegation) and even evangelical (ie. Heath Schuler) Democrats...and why not?

That movement is huge!

Some FIFTY MILLION evangelical Christians form a very powerful voting block.

I don't know...I guess I really don't mind them so much.

There's certainly nothing remotely "fascistic" about those who want to enforce a unified morality upon the country...it's been done before, with little ill effect.