# Conn Dem Primary as Bellwether



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

https://bullmooseblogger.blogspot.com/2006/07/liberalism-of-fools.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/2006/07/lieberman_going_down_in_connec.html

Thoughts?


----------



## tew (Oct 30, 2005)

Bellwether of what?

In a representative democracy, the people are entitled to elect someone who shares their views. Lieberman's gotten pretty ideosyncratic over the years, and probably doesn't fit in with the mainstream of Connecticut Democrats anymore. And he's WAY outside the mainstream of Connecticut Democrats on the war issue. It's not just that he has some unpopular views, but that he seems petulant and offended that he has to defend them to the people he's supposed to represent. I imagine any trouble he's having in winning his primary is due to Lieberman owing loyalty primarily to himself and his quixotic pursuit of some imagined "moderate" middle that no longer exists, if it ever did.

The feeling I'm getting is that he's a pretty good Holy Joe Lieberman, but he's not a very good Connecticut Democrat. Then again, I live in Illinois, what do I know.

This picture doesn't help, either. I have no idea how a Democrat could defend this kind of behavior to Democratic primary voters in today's political climate.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

tew said:


> Bellwether of what?
> 
> ]


Bellwether of the battles going on in the Dems. Substitute the word transition if you prefer.

IMO, the primary is a example of the broader changes in the Dem Party.


----------



## reubencahn (Mar 28, 2006)

A more accurate view of the "left's" anger at Lieberman:

https://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-black18jul18,1,3234568.story


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

It's a bellweather for just how lefty the dems have become. Think about it:
Lieberman only six years ago was the VP candidate along side Al Gore. I can't think of two people more diametrically opposed as those two. 

The voters do have the privilage of electing those who represent their interests and if they vote JL out then so be it. As a republican, I would sort of like to see it because it would only strengthen the image of the Dems as a group of lefties controlled by the lefty fringe.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

reubencahn said:


> A more accurate view of the "left's" anger at Lieberman:
> 
> https://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-black18jul18,1,3234568.story


Thanks for the link. That is a good example of the rage.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Interesting conundrum... 
In 2008 I don't think we'll see a centrist presidential candidate because no centrist is going to make it through the primaries.

It is the base of the party who determines primaries, it seems clear that the left has decided that they went wrong by not running far enough to the left last time and will run a 'real liberal'. Yes, the esteemed Senators from Massachusetts and New York are too 'far right' for the base.

Meanwhile, over here at the grownup's table (wink) the predictions of John McCain being a frontrunner are mainly made by such neutral parties as the NY Times but there is no way the base goes with him.

Wouldn't it be nice in 2008 to see two guys (or gals) go head to head and argue on the issues.... won't happen, we'll just see more vitriolic rhetoric than we did in the last one and lots of 'well, sorta' answers but it might be a busy season for mods on the Interchange.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I think pt4u67 has the right of it, namely that Joe is a moderate to conservative Democrat and the party is requiring further shifts to the left or at the very least, one must espouse the proper hatred of Bush. From one of the links, the writer was not happy Joe expressed comments of friendship with a right wing talk radio person; it is quite apparent that the left expects personal animous between the parties now, philosophical political differences are not enough. Also, referencing the WSJ as "ultraconservative" is quite telling.

I have to say, remembering the 2k election cycle, I felt Joe renounced most of his long term views in favour of supporting Gore's, and I lost respect for him at that point. After the loss, he went back to the old Joe and apparently with the further fracturing of the US body politic, is paying the price for reinstating his more moderate views.

I fear that the increasing vitriole between the parties, and an increasing need for party candidates to adopt a complete set of platform planks or risk backlash, the US is headed for even more illogical culture wars. I feel that more and more politics is breaking down to a choice between religion driven neo-cons (who at least usually cut my taxes) and radicalized bitter left wingers that feel my paycheque belongs to everyone but me.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

I wouldn't call it a bellwether. It's a state election. Bill Bradley barely won reelection to his Senate seat in 1990, yet was confident enough to challenge for the Dem nomination for president in 2000.

I've never liked Lieberman. I've always thought, "Just go ahead and change parties and get it over with."


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> I've never liked Lieberman. I've always thought, "Just go ahead and change parties and get it over with."


Odd, that's what I always think about McCain.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Odd, that's what I always think about McCain.


I could see that. I like McCain less for political reasons, more for the fact that I like his persona. Like Bradley with New Jersey, though, I've always wondered if it's possible that any politician coming out of Arizona could not be dirty somehow.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> I could see that. I like McCain less for political reasons, more for the fact that I like his persona. Like Bradley with New Jersey, though, I've always wondered if it's possible that any politician coming out of Arizona could not be dirty somehow.


Well, the Dems will say it is possible just about any time. They have big hopes for our current Dem governor. I like her as she really makes me laugh. She can veto legislation designed to stop illegals from voting and obtaining social services on the tax payers' dime while being on the phone to Time magazine stating the President is not tough enough on illegal immigration and should pay for care of illegals from the Federal trough. Anyone with hutzpah like that you have to admire.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

I visit family there, Wayfarer, but I am not up on the current Gov. I worked on the larger Tucson paper in the early 1980s, though, and my lasting impression is that it is a bizarre political place in both parties, almost as weird as here in Jersey.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> I visit family there, Wayfarer, but I am not up on the current Gov. I worked on the larger Tucson paper in the early 1980s, though, and my lasting impression is that it is a bizarre political place in both parties, almost as weird as here in Jersey.


Hehe, you would fit right into Tucson media/politics I think crs. I have only been here since '98 so your stay was before my time, but let us just say I refer to the Daily Star as The Red Star and do not subscribe to it.

I agree, very odd politics here, I think the last two out of three Repub governors are now convicted felons!


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Hehe, you would fit right into Tucson media/politics I think crs. I have only been here since '98 so your stay was before my time, but let us just say I refer to the Daily Star as The Red Star and do not subscribe to it.
> 
> I agree, very odd politics here, I think the last two out of three Repub governors are now convicted felons!


They called us the Red Star then, too. They won a Pulitzer just before I was hired, for a series that pretty much nuked the University of Arizona athletics department. There were bomb threats. It is telling that while I was there, the paper was a Pulitzer finalist for a series exposing vast overcharges on government contracts by a local company, and people were angry at us but did not threaten to blow us up. They know what matters, I guess.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> They called us the Red Star then, too. They won a Pulitzer just before I was hired, for a series that pretty much nuked the University of Arizona athletics department. There were bomb threats. It is telling that while I was there, the paper was a Pulitzer finalist for a series exposing vast overcharges on government contracts by a local company, and people were angry at us but did not threaten to blow us up. They know what matters, I guess.


Hey, just glad to see we agree government should spend as little as possible and keep tax rates low. Finally, common ground!


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I agree, very odd politics here, I think the last two out of three Repub governors are now convicted felons!


One of our governors recently resigned after admitting that he was having a homosexual affair with a foreign citizen that he put in charge of New Jersey homeland security. Oh, if only we could have him back instead of the yutz we have now.


----------



## reubencahn (Mar 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I think pt4u67 has the right of it, namely that Joe is a moderate to conservative Democrat and the party is requiring further shifts to the left or at the very least, one must espouse the proper hatred of Bush. From one of the links, the writer was not happy Joe expressed comments of friendship with a right wing talk radio person; it is quite apparent that the left expects personal animous between the parties now, philosophical political differences are not enough. Also, referencing the WSJ as "ultraconservative" is quite telling.


Joe Lieberman is not a conservative Democrat. He is perhaps a moderate Democrat but more properly a liberal with hawkish defense views. Lieberman's problem with the base is not solely Iraq. (Look at Hillary who will probably be the nominee.) It's that he constantly pokes his finger in the eyes of the base and gives cover to the right wing. It's not that he's friends with Sean Hannity. It's that the cozies up to Hannity and others on the right in a way that undermines liberal and centrist Democrats. The problem is not ideology but politics. The Democratic base is tired of losing elections because their leaders are unwilling to play the same type of hardball as Republicans. To many Lieberman exemplifies those failings.

Incidentally, for anyone who is a liberal or moderate Democrat, the WSJ editorial page is not merely ultraconservative but far right wing. This is distinct from the news reporting which is admirably free of cant.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

reubencahn said:


> Joe Lieberman is not a conservative Democrat. He is perhaps a moderate Democrat but more properly a liberal with hawkish defense views.


No such thing as a liberal with hawkish views. Oxymoronic these days. 


reubencahn said:


> It's not that he's friends with Sean Hannity. It's that the cozies up to Hannity and others on the right....


In other words, as I said, he expresses words of friendship. Difference without a distinction. I think you are manufacturing a reason to disagree with me.



reubencahn said:


> The Democratic base is tired of losing elections because their leaders are unwilling to play the same type of hardball as Republicans.


You mean like when Al Gore dug up the Willie Horton thing? When Dubya's DUI was broadcast as a most opportune moment? The phony documents that cost a certain newscaster his career? When certain politicians say, "All Republicans hate blacks" or "All Republicans hate hispanics" (big bru-haha in my town over that a month ago)? That type of hardball?



reubencahn said:


> Incidentally, for anyone who is a liberal or moderate Democrat, the WSJ editorial page is not merely ultraconservative but far right wing.


'Nuff said.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

reubencahn said:


> The Democratic base is tired of losing elections because their leaders are unwilling to play the same type of hardball as Republicans. To many Lieberman exemplifies those failings.QUOTE]
> 
> That view is exactly why they keep losing elections. They think that if they slay enough of their own that eventually people will come around to their way of thinking. I would argue that it really is not the base that is running the show anymore. Politicians follow the money. Right now the money is with the Moveon/Michael Moore/Cindy Sheehan/Babs crowd. Some fit right into this and that's why a political moron like Howard Dean is running the show for them. While not a Dem myself this crowd is creating a virtual brain drain from their party. Where is the intellectual talent in the DNC? There really is none. Lieberman is probably the last real heavyweight after the death of Daniel P. Moynihan. Clinton can't even pull them in anymore and his wife is a lightweight as we've come to see over the past year. If the DNC is to have any success they need to shun the lunacy of the left and go back to their roots. They need to have the courage to turn away from the quick buck in order to assure themselves a future.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

tew said:


> This picture doesn't help, either. I have no idea how a Democrat could defend this kind of behavior to Democratic primary voters in today's political climate.


This photo is obviously doctored!!


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

If Lieberman cannot win the Democratic nomination, he will run as an Independent and likely win. But it would be a real loss for the party and the Democrats would really be relagating themselves to a niche party. I have many issues with my GOP but we are far more a Big Tent party than the Democrats.

I can't speak for the rest of you but I like McCain and think he is the only Republican who can win the nomination and the general election. I would vote for Rudy but he would never last through the primaries. McCain-Rice anyone?

Karl


----------



## reubencahn (Mar 28, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> reubencahn said:
> 
> 
> > The Democratic base is tired of losing elections because their leaders are unwilling to play the same type of hardball as Republicans. To many Lieberman exemplifies those failings.QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Reubencahn,

If Moynihan voted the way he spoke, and what I think he really believed, he would have been the best Republican Senator ever.

Karl


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Gents,
> 
> I have many issues with my GOP but we are far more a Big Tent party than the Democrats.
> 
> Karl


This is just plain wrong. As one example of that fact, take a look at Hastert's determination that he will not allow any bill to come to the floor for a vote unless it is supported by a majority of Republicans, not just a majority of the House. In other words, he is decidedly opposed to bipartisanship, and values party discipline over legislative accomplishment.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> This photo is obviously doctored!!


Sadly, no. Pucker up, Jo-mentum!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> I have many issues with my GOP but we are far more a Big Tent party than the Democrats.





jackmccullough said:


> This is just plain wrong....In other words, he is decidedly opposed to bipartisanship....


I do not think he was referring to bipartinship. The term "Big Tent" means that they allow for divergence of opinion within the party, not bipartisanship. However, if you want to beef that Repubs are not really that Big Tent, I think you would have a good leg to stand on. Then again, I think the same about the Dems; neither party is Big Tent anymore, they both have a few core litmus test planks you have to hold or else you are an apostate.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> neither party is Big Tent anymore, they both have a few core litmus test planks you have to hold or else you are an apostate.


This is why I'm not a member of either party and why I vote based on the credentials of the candidate as an individual. I've voted across party lines depending on the candidate and have no reservations about doing so. For example, I voted for Kerry (Dem.) for President and I voted for Doug Forrester (Rep.) for NJ Governor. Unfortunately, my choices seem to lose all the time. Ah, if only everyone listened to me. I hope Guilliani gets the Republic nomination, that's a Republican that I can stand behind. Nobody can do the job better in a no non-sense way than an Italian from Brooklyn.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

odoreater said:


> This is why I'm not a member of either party and why I vote based on the credentials of the candidate as an individual. I've voted across party lines depending on the candidate and have no reservations about doing so. For example, I voted for Kerry (Dem.) for President and I voted for Doug Forrester (Rep.) for NJ Governor. Unfortunately, my choices seem to lose all the time. Ah, if only everyone listened to me. I hope Guilliani gets the Republic nomination, that's a Republican that I can stand behind. Nobody can do the job better in a no non-sense way than an Italian from Brooklyn.


Well first, I cannot vote as I am not a citizen. However, I feel the way you do theoretically, but usually end up backing a Repub as one of *my* core litmus tests is tax policy. I have some more, such as trade, national security, etc., but I am a firm pocket book voter. So why I say "theoretically" is I have yet to spot a big player in the Dem party since I started paying attention in about 1990, that wants to cut taxes. In fact, even though so many Dem pols are ultra wealthy, one would think they hate you if you make over 40k per year. I think if the Dems put up a candidate that clearly stopped the class wars and verbalized a clear position of balance between business and employees, they would make a lot of hay. Not likely though with the radicalization of the party power structure.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

I don't really have a core litmus test because it depends on the situation in the area where I am voting. For example, in New Jersey, we have some of the highest taxes in the country and it's getting to the point where a lot of people who grew up here have to leave the state once they're on their own because they can't afford to buy houses here. I blame a lof of this on the rampant corruption in this state from the democrats who are in power. That's why, instead of voting for a democrat who was firmly in the pocket of the democratic political bosses I decided to vote for a Republican - who I think can shake things up a bit. When it comes to national issues though, I think the most important issue to me right now is civil liberties. I feel that our civil liberties are being taken away by the present power stucture in a very slow, but methodical way. That's why I vote democratic in almost all national elections (though, I have voted for a Republican for the House seat from my district, but this is really academic because no Democrat has any reasonable chance of ever winning a seat in the House from my district). Even though I feel that Menendez, our Democratic senator, is as much of a crook as the rest of them, I am probably going to vote for him because I wouldn't risk giving another seat in Congress to the Republicans. I find the fact that Republicans control all three branches of government to be very dangerous.

I guess, if I had to pick core issues, I would say that taxes and corruption are my core issues in state politics, and civil liberties is my core issue in national politics. I would say that taxes are important in national politics, but I don't really believe that either party is fiscally responsible, so the issue is kind of moot.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Wayfarer,

How many pro-choice Dems are there? There are far more liberal Republicans than there are conservative Democrats - the main reason why the Dems have lost Congress and are 3-7 in Presidential elections since 1968.

Would I like the GOP to have an even bigger tent? Sure, as I count myself as a moderate to liberal Republican (though I am pro-life) but I think there is far more diversity of opinion than in the Democratic Politburo. Lets not forget that the Dems refused to let pro-life Democrat Bob Casey speak at their convention.

I don't like what I call the Big Dummy (usually Southern but not exclusively) element in the GOP that panders to the extreme Right (though in fairness the extreme Right is more often correct than not) and I don't like GOP corruption but I just can't take the Dems seriously. I am hoping that Newt and McCain spark a GOP renewal but sadly a tired, dare I say moribund, GOP is better than anything that Howard Dean's party has to currently offer.

And Odoreater, while I share some of your concerns, I think Tom Kean, Jr. would be a good choice. Vote for Kean and donate money to Bob Casey, Jr.'s efforts to unseat Santorum in PA.

Karl


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Wayfarer,
> 
> H Lets not forget that the Dems refused to let pro-life Democrat Bob Casey speak at their convention.
> 
> Karl


I would have hoped that people would have learned that this canard is just plain false by now. Casey was not allowed to speak because_ he would not support the nominee of the party._ Maybe his position was based on his opposition to abortion, but his opposition to abortion is not why he didn't get to speak.


----------



## reubencahn (Mar 28, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Wayfarer,
> 
> How many pro-choice Dems are there? There are far more liberal Republicans than there are conservative Democrats - the main reason why the Dems have lost Congress and are 3-7 in Presidential elections since 1968.
> 
> ...


Presumably, a party should have a point of view and should try to advance that point of view. Having a big tent is a means to electoral victory, not an end in itself. That is why Democrats will support anti-abortion Bob Casey in Pa. and Republicans will support pro-choice Arnold Schwarzenegger in Ca. As for liberal Republicans, they are a dwindling species whose habitat encompasses only the Northeast. They will be extinct in a few more years. Lincoln Chafee may well be gone this year. How much longer can Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins remain RINOs, members of a party with which they agree on practically nothing. They have no real role in the Republican governing coalition and have been frozen out of the power structure. Only Arlen Specter might be considered an exception to this. Of course, he had to genuflect before the altar of Republican political correctness to avoid being stripped of his chairmanship. And look at McCain's craven behavior as he seeks to ingratiate himself with Jerry Falwell and likeminded members of the Republican base. Similarly, with the departure of John Breaux and party switches of others, there are few/no real conservative Democrats left.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Karl89 said:


> And Odoreater, while I share some of your concerns, I think Tom Kean, Jr. would be a good choice. Vote for Kean and donate money to Bob Casey, Jr.'s efforts to unseat Santorum in PA.
> 
> Karl


Then I would be supporting two guys whose views on national politics I do not agree with. I like Tom Kean Jr., but I have a feeling that he would tote the party line on a lot of issues that I disagree with if he were to get into offce. I would definitely vote for him if he ran for state office. As for Casey, I disagree with his position on abortion.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Gents,
> 
> If Lieberman cannot win the Democratic nomination, he will run as an Independent and likely win. But it would be a real loss for the party and the Democrats would really be relagating themselves to a niche party. I have many issues with my GOP but we are far more a Big Tent party than the Democrats.
> 
> ...


I can't say I agree with your predictions regarding Lieberman. However I do hope your "gut sense" regarding McCain is correct. In my book, he is by a wide margin, the most candid member of Congress...on either side of the House. I'll have to give the "Rice" half of your proposed ticket a bit more thought, though she is a very smart, very tough lady.


----------



## Sir Henry Billingsgate (Dec 14, 2005)

The current effort against Lieberman is for the Democrats what Ronald Reagan's 1976 challenge to Gerald Ford was to the Republicans.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I do not think he was referring to bipartinship. The term "Big Tent" means that they allow for divergence of opinion within the party, not bipartisanship.


Right. If you won't let something bipartisan through it removes any pressure to move closer to the center to obtain support from the other party. Hence, he's assuring both partisan and doctrinal purity.


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I have to say, remembering the 2k election cycle, I felt Joe renounced most of his long term views in favour of supporting Gore's, and I lost respect for him at that point.


My partisan Democrat friends were already saying how much respect they lost for Liebs during the 2000 election cycle, wherein he showed so much confidence in his ticket's ability to win that he...simultaneously ran for Veep and CT Senator. Even if he had become Veep, he thus guaranteed that the Senate would remain Republican, as CT's Repub governor wouldn't have nominated a Dem to replace him. He then shattered whatever respect was remaining by supporting the Bush tax shift, the decision to turn Medicare into a giant subsidy package for Big Pharma, and even coming out in favor of Bush's aborted plan to hand America's pensions to the crony capitalist class.

As for me, I couldn't have lost respect for him in 2000 because I never had any to begin with. His consistently virulent pro-Apartheid stance in the Israel-Palestine situation precluded me from voting for the better presidential choice in 2000 (I voted Bush/Cheney, and didn't realize what a gigantic mistake I made until shortly after 9/11 when the post-Trotskyites' long daggers came out) because Gore could've died in office.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

SGladwell said:


> He then shattered whatever respect was remaining by supporting the Bush tax shift, the decision to turn Medicare into a giant subsidy package for Big Pharma, and even coming out in favor of Bush's aborted plan to hand America's pensions to the crony capitalist class.


One of the funniest sentences I have read in a long time  Probably not funny how you meant it though.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Whatever the Democrats are, it isn't far left. I joined the Green party for all it's many silly positions because it addresses issues Democrats are supposed to champion. The DNC on the other hand fought a largely ignored war on Ralph Nader with Howard Dean in command. Dickie Gephardt promised 'revenge' on Nader, and Arrianna Huffington, who looks like a drag queen mimicking all the Gabor sisters at once tried to promote legislation further curbing third party participation. I will never forget, nor forgive the unsolicited phone call from the DNC trying to change my vote, or the local polling station who tried to claim I wan't properly registered, as if one Nader vote would pollute my local democratic enclave. It's rather disturbing to think my vote 'belongs' to one party by default and without their earning it. The Democrats know very well how to play hardball, are not dominated by lefties and will continue to implode. Sometimes I look for a candidate who is right for the time regardless of his politics. I look over this flock of fools and see only one- McCain


----------



## Sir Henry Billingsgate (Dec 14, 2005)

Given the sartorial emphasis of this website, what is the judgment on Lieberman? Does he dress well or poorly? What sort of makeover might improve his presentation? Is there any connection between his clothing habits and his current polticial difficulties? Does the Lamont challenge portend any future fashion trends?


----------



## Sir Henry Billingsgate (Dec 14, 2005)

Just to follow through on my prior post, I really do think Lieberman could use a haircut.


----------



## reubencahn (Mar 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> No such thing as a liberal with hawkish views. Oxymoronic these days.
> 
> In other words, as I said, he expresses words of friendship. Difference without a distinction. I think you are manufacturing a reason to disagree with me.
> 
> ...


As to no liberals with hawkish views, try reading The New Republic. You might also consider that the liberal tradition in this country includes, FDR, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson, all hawks by any estimation.

If you want a distinction as to friendship vs. cozying up, take a look at Lieberman's WSJ editorial arguing that those who disagree with Bush on Iraq are undermining security.

I don't recall Al Gore digging up any Willy Horton material. I think you're mixing up your elections and your actors. I've also never heard any Democratic politician state "All Republicans hate Blacks" or "All Republicans hate Hispanics". Maybe you'd like to provide a link. In any case, I'd consider that, as well as Dan Rather's reports, idiocy, not hardball. And, in case you are unaware, Dan Rather is/was a newsman, not a Democratic leader.

As to your response to my comments on the WSJ editorial page, I'm not sure what "'nuff said" means. The implication seems to be that if I, or anyone else, views the WSJ editorial page as ultraconservative, my views are worthless. If that's your view, we have little basis for discussion.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

reubencahn said:


> In any case, I'd consider that, as well as Dan Rather's reports, idiocy, not hardball. And, in case you are unaware, Dan Rather is/was a newsman, not a Democratic leader.


Also, I'd bet that if the fake documents had been about Kerry, the same thing would have happened. I believe the agenda was to break a hot story, not to nail a specific candidate. Any place I've been, we'd go after any politician we could find the goods on. Unfortunately, CBS wasn't as cautious and professional as it should have been.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Sir Henry Billingsgate said:


> Given the sartorial emphasis of this website, what is the judgment on Lieberman? Does he dress well or poorly?


I believe he dresses like a wolf in sheep's clothing.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Kav said:


> Whatever the Democrats are, it isn't far left. I joined the Green party for all it's many silly positions because it addresses issues Democrats are supposed to champion. The DNC on the other hand fought a largely ignored war on Ralph Nader with Howard Dean in command. Dickie Gephardt promised 'revenge' on Nader, and Arrianna Huffington, who looks like a drag queen mimicking all the Gabor sisters at once tried to promote legislation further curbing third party participation. I will never forget, nor forgive the unsolicited phone call from the DNC trying to change my vote, or the local polling station who tried to claim I wan't properly registered, as if one Nader vote would pollute my local democratic enclave. It's rather disturbing to think my vote 'belongs' to one party by default and without their earning it. The Democrats know very well how to play hardball, are not dominated by lefties and will continue to implode. Sometimes I look for a candidate who is right for the time regardless of his politics. I look over this flock of fools and see only one- McCain


My wife briefly joined the Green Party some years ago. She found she liked their politics, but couldn't stand most of the people, although the Green candidate for governor at the time lived in our town and she thought he was very cool. Similarly, even if I someday changed my political leanings and became more conservative, I could not join with people I find so distasteful as human beings. I like McCain, but I'm not going to vote for him. It's not him that's the problem, it's the people he'd be likely to employ. Also, the fact that he's already cozying up to people he previously wanted nothing to do with makes me suspect an elected John McCain would not be the John McCain we expected when we voted for him.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

reubencahn said:


> As to no liberals with hawkish views, try reading The New Republic. You might also consider that the liberal tradition in this country includes, FDR, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson, all hawks by any estimation.


You lack historical context I think and you also did not read my post. I said specifically, "these days", did I not? Indicating that possibly in the past, but not today. Further, Kennedy would be considered a conservative Dem or liberal Repub today, certainly not a liberal.



reubencahn said:


> I don't recall Al Gore digging up any Willy Horton material. I think you're mixing up your elections and your actors. I've also never heard any Democratic politician state "All Republicans hate Blacks" or "All Republicans hate Hispanics". Maybe you'd like to provide a link.


You need to pay more attention then. At the very leaste, Gore brought up the forlough program that caused Horton. There is debate if he mentioned him by name or not. https://www.answers.com/topic/willie-horton as one link. Bill Bradley is on record as giving Gore credit for it, I shall let you do that bit of homework yourself.

Now, links for my other statement. Just FYI, this is my every day reality here. It does not always get into the national media as this story did, but this is life here. I will let you do further homework on your own again for more, I am not an enabler.



reubencahn said:


> In any case, I'd consider that, as well as Dan Rather's reports, idiocy, not hardball. And, in case you are unaware, Dan Rather is/was a newsman, not a Democratic leader.


Maybe not in the party power structure, but give someone a public platform as big as his and his bias, you have a de facto national mouthpiece IMO.



reubencahn said:


> If that's your view, we have little basis for discussion.


I think you might be correct. You basically said I was wrong or a liar on every point I raised. If you still feel that way after these links, yes, we have nothing to say to each other.


----------



## reubencahn (Mar 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> You lack historical context I think and you also did not read my post. I said specifically, "these days", did I not? Indicating that possibly in the past, but not today. Further, Kennedy would be considered a conservative Dem or liberal Repub today, certainly not a liberal.
> 
> You need to pay more attention then. At the very leaste, Gore brought up the forlough program that caused Horton. There is debate if he mentioned him by name or not. https://www.answers.com/topic/willie-horton as one link. Bill Bradley is on record as giving Gore credit for it, I shall let you do that bit of homework yourself.
> 
> ...


As a conservative, you believe you have a right to define people out of the liberal tradition. Kennedy is no longer a liberal. Lieberman cannot be a liberal. I guess the editors of the New Republic are not liberals either. (They are alive today and still writing in support of the war in Iraq, at least in concept, while attacking all else that conservatives hold dear.) This is the Republican caricature of liberals as volvo-driving, latte-drinking, blame-America-first cowards. It's not really argument. It's ipse dixit. "If you ever support the use of force, even to obtain liberal goals, you are not a liberal."

As to Gore, I stand corrected--in part. I had always believed Horton was solely Lee Atwater's doing. Apparently, I was wrong. Nevertheless, I don't think Gore's use of Willie Horton against Dukakis is the kind of hardball I was speaking of in my first post. In that post I said Democrats are tired of losing elections to Republicans who know how to play hardball. I didn't say Republicans invented hardball or that only Republicans play hardball. Lyndon Johnson's daisy commercial was/is a prime example of Democratic hardball tactics.

I will also continue to insist that neither Dan Rather nor a UFW spokesman are Democratic politicians or spokespersons--any more that Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin are Republican politicians or spokespersons--and that their idiocy is not political hardball but rather rank stupidity.

Finally, I didn't call you a liar. I disagreed with you. I continue to disagree with you. That's the nature of political discussion--particularly when persons of different views engage.


----------



## Jill (Sep 11, 2003)

SGladwell said:


> ...He then shattered whatever respect was remaining by supporting the Bush tax shift, the decision to *turn Medicare into a giant subsidy package for Big Pharma*, and even coming out in favor of Bush's aborted plan *to hand America's pensions to the crony capitalist class*.


LOL! Where do you come up with this stuff? You're a funny boy.

Seriously, though. I agree with the poster that said, "follow the money". The money is coming largely from Hollywood, East Coast "elites", and Moveon.org-type 527s. As a rule of thumb, these are FAR left-leaning folks. If you want their money for your campaign coffers, you have to preach their far-left rhetoric.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

> I had always believed Horton was solely Lee Atwater's doing. Apparently, I was wrong. Nevertheless, I don't think Gore's use of Willie Horton against Dukakis is the kind of hardball I was speaking of in my first post. In that post I said Democrats are tired of losing elections to Republicans who know how to play hardball.


I always scratch my head when I hear the Horton ad == Racism argument since I don't see it that way at all.

I always saw the Horton issue as...
Do we want as president a man who as governor extend weekend passes to inmates such as Horton who had been guilty of very vicious murder prior to incarceration, skipped out on his pass and then after robbing someone waited several hours for that guy to come home, bound and tortured him in the basement for a few hours and then viciously beat and raped the guy's girlfriend wehn she came home.

Dukakis was not interested in discussing that pet project... it had been originated by a Republican governor oddly enough but was intended to re-integrate non-violent inmates into society gradually. Horton was in jail because AFTER a store clerk gave him all the money he decided to stap him a few dozen times as an afterthought.

I never quite figured out how Horton's pigmentation level had much to do with why letting him out was beyond moronic but that's me, I am irrationally biased and prejudiced against murderers and rapists even so far as to object to them getting minimum wage and cable tv while in prison.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

reubencahn said:


> I continue to disagree with you. That's the nature of political discussion--particularly when persons of different views engage.


I have conservative friends and family, of course they harken back to an era when political differences were accepted as part of being an American, when we could disagree without having to mock and demonize. The other type of conservative, well, we're not going to socialize. The Rove-Limbaugh-Swift-Boaters-Coulter and their followers, these are just not people who would seem likeable even if we agreed politically. They're just nasty and dirty. They'd be nasty and dirty if they turned Democrat. Now there are liberals who demonstrate the same lack of civility and intolerance, but I have to say they got a late start and are fewer in number. And while I wish these liberal loudmouths would lower the volume, they are not as bloodthirsty as their conservative counterparts, and liberals do not seem to assign the liberal slobs the same weight that conservatives assign to conservative slobs.


----------



## Jill (Sep 11, 2003)

More funny stuff. Just curious, CRS. What _specifically_ is it about Limbaugh that you find "nasty and dirty"? 
Swift-boaters " ?


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

crs,

I won't argue any of your points except to say that I have no doubt that you feel this way:

"they are not as bloodthirsty as their conservative counterparts, and liberals do not seem to assign the liberal slobs the same weight that conservatives assign to conservative slobs"

...simply because your particular persuasion. 

I would assert the same feelings, only swap the liberal/conservative labels.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Jill said:


> More funny stuff. Just curious, CRS. What _specifically_ is it about Limbaugh that you find "nasty and dirty"?


I listen to his show when I figure the news of the day will put him in classic form. I do not keep a list -- although apparently some people do if you Google "Limbaugh" and "lies" -- but he ignores facts* and is especially mean-spirited** in his tone. I don't believe his inaccuracies are incompetence, but a deliberate attempt to incite the uneducated for no other reasons but malice and to satiate his greed.

* dirty

** nasty


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Relayer said:


> crs,
> 
> I won't argue any of your points except to say that I have no doubt that you feel this way:
> 
> ...


They may be out there, but I have yet to meet a liberal who admits to listening to Michael Moore daily or to taking him seriously. I've met many conservatives who take the equally buffoonish Limbaugh and his ilk very seriously.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

reubencahn said:


> As a conservative, you believe you have a right to define people out of the liberal tradition.


Who said I was a conservative?



reubencahn said:


> This is the Republican caricature of liberals as volvo-driving....


And I am not a Republican. Further, my wife is on her second Volvo. XC90 dual turbo AWD. Nice safe, classy ride for her.


reubencahn said:


> As to Gore, I stand corrected--in part. I had always believed Horton was solely Lee Atwater's doing. Apparently, I was wrong. Nevertheless, I don't think Gore's use of Willie Horton against Dukakis is the kind of hardball I was speaking of in my first post.


What type of hardball were you talking about then? When you thought it was not Gore, you did not say this was the wrong type of hardball, merely that I was mistaken. _Ad hoc_ rescue?



reubencahn said:


> I will also continue to insist that neither Dan Rather nor a UFW spokesman are Democratic politicians or spokespersons--any more that Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin are Republican politicians or spokespersons--and that their idiocy is not political hardball but rather rank stupidity.


Not valid comparing an Ann Coulter to someone almost on the same level in some circles as Ceasar Chavez. And Ann Coulter never forced high school children to sit through one of her hate speeches.


reubencahn said:


> Finally, I didn't call you a liar. I disagreed with you. I continue to disagree with you. That's the nature of political discussion--particularly when persons of different views engage.


Again, go back and actually read what I wrote. I did not offer "liar" as the only choice, just plain being wrong was the other. I provided proof to such a level that you actually had to admit I was correct on some points. That alone should indicate to you I am not talking through my hat nor a lightweight on issues I will engage on. Please, by all means, do continue to disagree with me. Just on occasion, present some facts, such as I did, to give your disagreement some merit.

Warmest regards


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

SGladwell said:


> He then shattered whatever respect was remaining by supporting the Bush tax shift, *the decision to turn Medicare into a giant subsidy package for Big Pharma*, and even coming out in favor of Bush's aborted plan to hand America's pensions to the crony capitalist class.


You know, when I read this, something went off but I couldn't quite figure it out. I just did. Does anyone know the history of Medicare? Of course not. Go do some research on how LBJ bought off Big Medicine and Big Hospital. In particular, find out the deals made as to payment methodology. Then calculate the *billions and billions* that cost US taxpayers until say, the BBA of 1996.

Damn, twice in one week that Master's in Public Health actually came in handy.


----------



## reubencahn (Mar 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Who said I was a conservative?
> 
> And I am not a Republican. Further, my wife is on her second Volvo. XC90 dual turbo AWD. Nice safe, classy ride for her.
> 
> ...


Sorry you feel my disagreement with you to be without merit. You might, however, reread my posts as they do contain facts, facts that lead to my disagreement with your views. Warmest regards to you.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

reubencahn said:


> Sorry you feel my disagreement with you to be without merit. You might, however, reread my posts as they do contain facts, facts that lead to my disagreement with your views. Warmest regards to you.


I did go back and re-read all your posts in this thread. There is much opinion, i.e. Joe L = liberal, but nothing like my posts where I maintain, "A is true" and you rush in to say I am incorrect and then I provide a link proving A is indeed true.

You called me conservative and Republican also, which just is not true, I am not sure what you based those opinions on. However, each to his own, far lefty people often call me worse. Then again, far righty people usually end up calling me names too. Such is life.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

reubencahn said:


> As for Moynihan, I've always been an agnostic regarding his canonization.


Moynihan was a serious person however. I can't say I always agreed with him but his arguments were well thought out. I don't think he was ever one to chase a headline or shift in the wind like many of todays lot. I must say that Lieberman could make life easy on himself and go the way of Kerry but he is sticking to his intellectual guns. As for Norquist, he is doing what he has always done; holding the conservative's feet to the fire.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> They may be out there, but I have yet to meet a liberal who admits to listening to Michael Moore daily or to taking him seriously.


Oh man, you just are not looking in the right places then! Here is a fool-proof way to meet someone that takes Michael Moore seriously:

Go to a hospital in any large city. Get all the social workers together. Ask for people that take Michael Moore seriously to raise their hands. If the pool is typical of all the similar pools I have dealt with in my career, you should get a minimum of 30% raising their hands. In some cities, you might get 90%.

Sadly, I am honestly not joking here.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> This is just plain wrong. As one example of that fact, take a look at Hastert's determination that he will not allow any bill to come to the floor for a vote unless it is supported by a majority of Republicans, not just a majority of the House. In other words, he is decidedly opposed to bipartisanship, and values party discipline over legislative accomplishment.


Hardball politicing in the House!! I'm shocked! Shocked I tell you!


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Sir Henry Billingsgate said:


> The current effort against Lieberman is for the Democrats what Ronald Reagan's 1976 challenge to Gerald Ford was to the Republicans.


On the surface yes. But I think the dynamics are a bit different. RR's challenge to Ford pitted a revolutionary vision for the GOP against the establishment. It had been formented in the mid 60's with Goldwater and had a solid intellectual base. Whether you agree with the vision or not, you must admit that they did their homework and came up from the grass roots. They did not throw pies at those with whom they disagreed. They did not compare their opponents to Hitler and they did not demagogue. The challenge against Lieberman is coming from an infantile branch of reactionary liberalism. There is no an intellectual base. Their most eloquent spokespersons are Entertainers who have taken just enough of a break from jamming coke up their noses to put together a coherent statement, comedians such as Franken, Garofalo and others. Their "heavyweights" in politics resort to sound bites and cannot make reasoned arguments so they resort to smearing and yelling to get there point across.

I'm sorry but the roots of the Reagan revolution have nothing to do with the shake and bake school of modern liberalism. Once the money dries up it will dissapear because it has no coherent ideology or leader.


----------



## reubencahn (Mar 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I did go back and re-read all your posts in this thread. There is much opinion, i.e. Joe L = liberal, but nothing like my posts where I maintain, "A is true" and you rush in to say I am incorrect and then I provide a link proving A is indeed true.
> 
> You called me conservative and Republican also, which just is not true, I am not sure what you based those opinions on. However, each to his own, far lefty people often call me worse. Then again, far righty people usually end up calling me names too. Such is life.


Okay, facts: Lieberman is a liberal: ADA gives him an 80% rating. Fact: the liberal tradition in the US does not preclude being hawkish on defense or supporting the use of force: FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, the editors of TNR--or for that matter Bill Clinton. Fact: neither Dan Rather nor any local official of the UFW is a Democratic Party official, spokesperson or politician. Fact: Caesar Chavez is not a Democratic Party official, spokesperson or politician. Fact: Ann Coulter, a widely read writer with a nationally syndicated column is analagous to Dan Rather. So is Michelle Malkin. Fact, Joe Lieberman provides cover for Republicans and undermines Democrats by publishing comments that those who disagree with Bush's conduct of the war in Iraq are jeopardizing our security.

However, I have a strong feeling facts just don't matter here. This reminds me of so many arguments I listened to in law school. Clever students could always find something to pick at in an opponent's argument but eventually, the thread, the point, got lost as pursuing those nits to pick took one farther away from the what started the discussion.

In this connection, I'd remind you that my initial post contends that Democratic primary voters are abandoning Lieberman not because he voted for the invasion, and not even because he continues to support the conduct of the war, but because of their perception that, unlike Hillary, his actions have undermined the Democratic party, that he cozies up to the Republican power structure while savaging fellow Democrats.

In that context, the one fact on which you corrected me, and I thank you, Al Gore raising Willie Horton in the 1988 election, only serves to support an argument that Democrats are ineffectual in playing the sort of hardball played so well by Republicans. Fact (?), Al Gore ineffectually raised Willie Horton, while Lee Atwater used him so masterfully as to enter the realm of political legend alongside Johnson's daisy commercial and Nixon's southern strategy.

I apologize if I have offended you by calling you a conservative. If you are, or are not, fine. I'm fairly certain from your comments that you don't consider yourself a liberal. And, in that respect, I stand by my comment that you are not in a position to exclude people from the liberal tradition. I don't think I called you a Republican but rather stated that you were arguing from a Republican canard, i.e., that support of a strong defense and the use of force excludes a politician from being a liberal.

With that, I'll cede the field to you. As I said, I have feeling this discussion is going nowhere fast.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

reubencahn said:


> Okay, facts: Lieberman is a liberal: ADA gives him an 80% rating. Fact: the liberal tradition in the US does not preclude being hawkish on defense or supporting the use of force: FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, the editors of TNR--or for that matter Bill Clinton. Fact: neither Dan Rather nor any local official of the UFW is a Democratic Party official, spokesperson or politician. Fact: Caesar Chavez is not a Democratic Party official, spokesperson or politician. Fact: Ann Coulter, a widely read writer with a nationally syndicated column is analagous to Dan Rather. So is Michelle Malkin.


So cluttered here. I do not remember saying various people were Democratic Party officials. In typical lawerly fashion, you made an incorrect assertion, I did not correct it, hence you started treating it as fact.



reubencahn said:


> Fact, Joe Lieberman provides cover for Republicans and undermines Democrats by publishing comments that those who disagree with Bush's conduct of the war in Iraq are jeopardizing our security.


Well then, if that is what liberals do, I would think the Dems would want less of them!



reubencahn said:


> ...his actions have undermined the Democratic party, that he cozies up to the Republican power structure while savaging fellow Democrats.


Again, it seems incongruous.



reubencahn said:


> I apologize if I have offended you by calling you a conservative. If you are, or are not, fine. I'm fairly certain from your comments that you don't consider yourself a liberal. And, in that respect, I stand by my comment that you are not in a position to exclude people from the liberal tradition.


No offense taken. When some much of the US operates under the logical fallacy of false alternatives, when I do not fall into the liberal lock step, I must ergo be conservative to them. Do not worry, have the topic change and your opposite on the far right will deem me liberal.

I am troubled though by your last comment. Your assertion is that unless one is liberal, one cannot define who is and who is not a liberal? Therefore, you could not deem me a conservative, now could you? Does one need to belong to a class to define and/or identify members of said class? I think we both can see the problems there.

Lastly, I have to draw a distinction between "the liberal tradition" and modern day "liberals". They are not one and the same. No matter what you say, JFK would not be considered a liberal today.

Stick around Ruben, given enough time I can find common ground even with a liberal lawyer....unless of course you are a trial lawyer


----------



## MER (Feb 5, 2006)

*Kennedy as a liberal*



Wayfarer said:


> No matter what you say, JFK would not be considered a liberal today.


Sorry i don't have time to fully get involved in this thread but I thought I would quickly accept your challenge.

First of all your statement is kind of silly, to put a politicians ideas in a time machine and see how they stack up in the present day forgets that those views are products of their times.

But anyway, would we consider someone a liberal if they:

started the peace core, signed the partial test ban treaty, established the alliance for progress, federal funding for public education, medical care for the elderly, federal invention in the states for civil rights purposes...

Honestly, the only thing I can think of that would paint kennedy as anything other than a liberal would be the tax cuts he proposed. But his economic policies taken in general are kind of a wash, he wanted federal intervention to halt the recession which pushes him out of the free-hand crowd. He cut taxes, but didn't cut social programs which pushes him out of the Reagan Republican crowd. He didn't cut government spending so that kicks him out of the fiscal responsibility crowd.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

MER said:


> Sorry i don't have time to fully get involved in this thread but I thought I would quickly accept your challenge.
> 
> First of all your statement is kind of silly, to put a politicians ideas in a time machine and see how they stack up in the present day forgets that those views are products of their times.
> 
> ...


Let me ask you, would a conservative sign Affirmative Action, start the EPA, and withdraw us from a decade long war?

From your opening line though, I will assume then that you are not of the crowd that consider the Founding Fathers racist, even if they were for slavery and/or owned slaves? As you said, we cannot put a politician's views in a time machine, correct?

You wil have to remind me though, what medical care at a Federal level did Kennedy sign into law?


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

Did somebody mention Rush Limbaugh? I find him to be one of the most intellectually dishonest people on the radio. Also, I think it's stupid that people throw around the terms "liberal" and "conservative" like they mean something. To normal Americans these terms are meaninglgess. The fact that politicians and pundits throw them around as insults just goes to show how out of touch they are with the people.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

odoreater said:


> Did somebody mention Rush Limbaugh? I find him to be one of the most intellectually dishonest people on the radio. Also, I think it's stupid that people throw around the terms "liberal" and "conservative" like they mean something. To normal Americans these terms are meaninglgess. The fact that politicians and pundits throw them around as insults just goes to show how out of touch they are with the people.


I'm a normal American and I consider myself a conservative. As for Rush, well yes he is quite a character. The difference between conservatives is that their demagogues are in radio and on TV. The Lib's demagogue mostly hold elected office.


----------



## MER (Feb 5, 2006)

*Fine, I'll play the game once more...but that's it.*



Wayfarer said:


> Let me ask you, would a conservative sign Affirmative Action, start the EPA, and withdraw us from a decade long war?
> 
> From your opening line though, I will assume then that you are not of the crowd that consider the Founding Fathers racist, even if they were for slavery and/or owned slaves? As you said, we cannot put a politician's views in a time machine, correct?
> 
> You wil have to remind me though, what medical care at a Federal level did Kennedy sign into law?


Going in reverse order, was talking about Kennedy's platform, not what he actually accomplished (guy didn't have much time to get things done after all.) Remember he never signed the tax cut either.

Your statement about the founding fathers of course assumes that there was no ongoing discourse about the nature of slavery and the hypocrisy between preaching the importance of freedom while enslaving another race. Before understanding a person as a product of their times you have to fully understand that time period. About the founding fathers: I'm not touching that with a ten foot pole. I will say some of them were more racist then others. Take that as you will.

As far as Nixon I would call him a conservative for his time period. I believe you are overplaying his role in the ending of Vietnam, after all this is the man who actively moved to thwart the Paris peace talks in '68, which, had they been successful, could have prevented the death of 20,000 americans.

I also believe you are overplaying his stance on civil rights as well. He did nothing to enforce the Philadelphia plan, he tried to stop busing (but was thwarted by Mondale's filibuser,) he tried to stop the '65 civil rights extension, etc.

Nixon's view of the EPA was very different from our view today. His view was go ahead protect that environment, but absolutely no regulation whatsoever if it has any chance of impeding some business (sound sort of conservative yet?) Also, Nixon didn't start the EPA because he wanted to, he started it because he had to. The beauty of democracy at work, he didn't have any choice but to reflect the changing attitudes of the people or else be in political trouble. Luckily Train, Ruckelshaus, Alm, and the like were smart enough to do most of their EPA work as far away from the president as possible.

But if one is still confused as to where to put Nixon on the map, it may help to look at his politicking on abortion, red scare, etc. Which are fairly close to what someone might call "values" conservativism.

As I'm sure you've noticed, where a person puts another on the map of liberalism or conservatism depends a lot on where the placer is on the map. So for instance, if a person considers themself a liberal but thinks Roe was horrible and Casey wasn't much better, they are more willing to accept a variance on abortion and still consider the person a liberal. The same is true of fiscal responsibility, foreign intervention, civil rights, gay marriage, social security, etc.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

Democracy is just so messy.

One day, I hope to purchase an island and immediately ask for full nation state recognition. Democracy would not work well seeing as how the girls would vote as a bloc (dog included) and the bird loves Jill and has no sense of partisan loyalty.

No no no... democracy would not suit me. It will be a Poohbate, I will be the Grand Poohbah and it will be a benevolent dicatatorship.

I'll share the rest of my Poohbate plan at some point, I'm pretty sure you'd like it.


----------



## reubencahn (Mar 28, 2006)

*On Lieberman's Current Troubles*

From Jason Zengerle:

From Ezra Klein:

There's also an interesting discussion at TPM.


----------



## odoreater (Feb 27, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> I'm a normal American and I consider myself a conservative. As for Rush, well yes he is quite a character. The difference between conservatives is that their demagogues are in radio and on TV. The Lib's demagogue mostly hold elected office.


To quote a famous comedian:

"Some people see things that are and ask, Why? Some people dream of things that never were and ask, Why not? Some people have to go to work and don't have time for all that ****."


----------



## jcbmath (Jan 11, 2006)

Personally, as a CT democrat, I'm rather offended by Lieberman's decision to run in the election whether he wins the primary or not. If he wants to be a democrat, fine let him run as a democrat IF he wins the primary. If he wants to be an independent, fine. Let him run for Senate without the help of the Democratic Party. But I really resent him playing this game of "well if I win then I'll be a Democrat and if I don't then I'll be an independent."

That's enough for me to vote against him just on general principal. 

(Getting up to readjust Lamont sign in yard that got blown down by wind).


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

jcbmath said:


> Personally, as a CT democrat, I'm rather offended by Lieberman's decision to run in the election whether he wins the primary or not. If he wants to be a democrat, fine let him run as a democrat IF he wins the primary. If he wants to be an independent, fine. Let him run for Senate without the help of the Democratic Party. But I really resent him playing this game of "well if I win then I'll be a Democrat and if I don't then I'll be an independent."
> 
> That's enough for me to vote against him just on general principal.
> 
> (Getting up to readjust Lamont sign in yard that got blown down by wind).


I'm hoping Lamont wins and gives Alan Schlesinger a shot to pull a "Weicker '72" and win the resulting three-way for the Republicans.

The problem for Schlesinger is not so much that the revelation that he was kicked out of the casino for counting cards (I mean seriously, with what Rell and Moody have got going on at the governor's office, a penchant for cheating at gambling is pretty harmless--I planned to vote for Rell and Schlesinger but I'm annoyed at Rell for bringing the "gambling scandal" to the public's attention...at best the pot calling the kettle black) but that too many of my party (ie Shays) have pledged their support to Lieberman, for no really good reason since he is NOT a "closet Republican" just a liberal who supports the war.

Ideally I'd like to see Lamont win the primary, Lieberman go on his own, and the party faithful, with some $$$ help from the national GOP, who will surely take interest, give Schlesinger the 35-40% he'd need to eke out a narrow 3-way.

Of course, some polls show Lieberman beating both of them even if he is out on his own...


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Coolidge24 said:


> The problem for Schlesinger is not so much that the revelation that he was kicked out of the casino for counting cards (I mean seriously, with what Rell and Moody have got going on at the governor's office, a penchant for cheating at gambling is pretty harmless--


Much as I hate to stand up in favor of any Republican, it's important to point out that counting cards is NOT cheating. That is, unless you subscribe to the bosses' view that trying to be good enough to beat the house is cheating.

On the other hand, wasn't he also gambling under a phony name?


----------



## Sir Henry Billingsgate (Dec 14, 2005)

> Whether you agree with the vision or not, you must admit that [Reaganites] did their homework and came up from the grass roots. They did not throw pies at those with whom they disagreed. They did not compare their opponents to Hitler and they did not demagogue. The challenge against Lieberman is coming from an infantile branch of reactionary liberalism. There is no an intellectual base. Their most eloquent spokespersons are Entertainers who have taken just enough of a break from jamming coke up their noses to put together a coherent statement, comedians such as Franken, Garofalo and others. Their "heavyweights" in politics resort to sound bites and cannot make reasoned arguments so they resort to smearing and yelling to get there point across.


Well, that's your opinion, and I bet your mind is made up on this. Suffice it to say that your view of Lieberman's opponents is the same as that which many Democrats held -and still hold- of Reaganites. Suffice it also to say that time will tell whether your predictions come true or not.

Frankly, I am puzzled as to what the conservative Republican Lieberman supporters on this thread think they are accomplishing. One of the best arguments against Lieberman - from the Democrats' perspective - is that they are supporting him. Lamont's camp has already done well by publicizing Bush's kiss of Lieberman. This thread, really, is a similar kiss for Lieberman.

Moreover, as someone has said, the opinions of people who are neither Democrats nor live in Connecticut as to who the Democratic nominee for Senator in Connecticut should be have about as much relevance as their opinions as to who should be the next President of France.


----------



## Chuck Franke (Aug 8, 2003)

> Moreover, as someone has said, the opinions of people who are neither Democrats nor live in Connecticut as to who the Democratic nominee for Senator in Connecticut should be have about as much relevance as their opinions as to who should be the next President of France


The president of France doesn't sit on the Armed Services committee. I don't think he has Lieberman's influence in the Senate either. Whether you live in Connecticut or Kalamazoo, senior senators have an impact.

Besides - if you made up a rule that said something would have to be your business before you could comment on the Interchange about it where would the fun be???

What impact would that rule have on British ex-pats residing in Canada so that they are within range to spit at the USA


----------



## Sir Henry Billingsgate (Dec 14, 2005)

Chuck Franke said:


> Besides - if you made up a rule that said something would have to be your business before you could comment on the Interchange about it where would the fun be???


There's obviously no such rule. Go ahead and comment on who should be the President of France - or even Italy - for all I care.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

The President of France should be the cheesemaker folk hero who singlehandedly dismantled Le McDonalds when it came to his village.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Sir Henry Billingsgate said:


> Moreover, as someone has said, the opinions of people who are neither Democrats nor live in Connecticut as to who the Democratic nominee for Senator in Connecticut should be have about as much relevance as their opinions as to who should be the next President of France.


Actually, no one has said that this thread. What someone did say was that unless you were a liberal, you have no right to define who is and is not a liberal. I would call that typical liberal thinking, but apparently I can not


----------



## reubencahn (Mar 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Actually, no one has said that this thread. What someone did say was that unless you were a liberal, you have no right to define who is and is not a liberal. I would call that typical liberal thinking, but apparently I can not


Well, I had committed myself to not replying, but I'll refer you to what I actually said:

"I'm fairly certain from your comments that you don't consider yourself a liberal. And, in that respect, I stand by my comment that you are not in a position to _*exclude*_ people from the liberal tradition."

If I knew how to italicize, I would highlight the word "exclude."

As you have importuned: "Again, go back and actually read what I wrote."

*Edited by meddlin moderator to highlight exclude - I'm a giver


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

reubencahn said:


> Well, I had committed myself to not replying, but I'll refer you to what I actually said:
> 
> "I'm fairly certain from your comments that you don't consider yourself a liberal. And, in that respect, I stand by my comment that you are not in a position to exclude people from the liberal tradition."
> 
> ...


I have not gone back to re-parse you but will take you at your word. My apologies then, it would seem that I am able in *include* people into the liberal class but not *exclude*.

I think the first person I shall include will be Barry Goldwater.


----------



## reubencahn (Mar 28, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> it would seem that I am able in *include* people into the liberal class but not *exclude*.


 If you say so, but I didn't say that either.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

Not trying to merely bump, but thought Wm F. Buckley's thoughts were interesting.



Cheers


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Much as I hate to stand up in favor of any Republican, it's important to point out that counting cards is NOT cheating. That is, unless you subscribe to the bosses' view that trying to be good enough to beat the house is cheating.
> 
> On the other hand, wasn't he also gambling under a phony name?


There seems to be a technical debate on what he really was doing, way back in 1992.

Apparently, the card that had "Alan Gold" instead of "Schlesinger" on it was a Wampum Card which he insists was a promotional thing at the time and which they said one could put "any name he wanted on it". Schlesinger also noted in his press conference that he was concerned that if it were known he were gambling while casinos were being debated in CT, his constituents at the time might have thought he was biased towards their success.

Who knows if he is telling the truth, but we do know that he did not present a fake drivers license or other real form of ID, just an assumed name Wampum Card.

Which brings me back to where I started...his 1992 actions not really a big deal, compared to, well, just about EVERYTHING else going on.

I hope it gets him on the radar but I am the only person I know with any Schlesinger signage or who even knows who he is. 

Connecticut isn't THAT Blue of a state (plenty of Republican congressmen and the gov)...which is why I think Schlesinger would be electable if only people like Shays and Rell would stop toadying up to Lieberman.


----------



## Coolidge24 (Mar 21, 2005)

JRR said:


> Not trying to merely bump, but thought Wm F. Buckley's thoughts were interesting.
> 
> Cheers


This is why I am voting for Schlesinger. And why Shays should be slapped for offering Lieberman support.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

Chuck Franke said:


> Democracy is just so messy.
> 
> One day, I hope to purchase an island and immediately ask for full nation state recognition. Democracy would not work well seeing as how the girls would vote as a bloc (dog included) and the bird loves Jill and has no sense of partisan loyalty.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, Chuck, but this conflicts mightily with my own plan for world domination.

But if you play your cards right, you can be Minister of Propaganda.

In my neck of the Connecticut woods, Lieberman is hugely unpopular among Democrats for a) his stance on the war and b) running simultaneously for vice-president and the Senate in 2000. And in my chats with local Democratic town committee members I find that while they can agree to disagree with the senator about the former, the latter really ticked them off.

And from my own experience: I found that while a letter (as a citizen, not a reporter) to Sen. Chris Dodd's office prompted an immediate return phone call, not from an intern, but from his chief of staff, a similar letter to the junior senator inspired an uninspiring form letter that arrived several weeks after I forgot why I was mad in the first place.

Lamont is an eminently forgettable candidate, but he's running some very amusing and effective radio ads.

As for the Republican guy, can't they find somebody who doesn't hang around at casinos?

Feh. I'll probably vote for the Joe-mentum August 8, just to be contrary.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Sir Henry Billingsgate said:


> Well, that's your opinion, and I bet your mind is made up on this. Suffice it to say that your view of Lieberman's opponents is the same as that which many Democrats held -and still hold- of Reaganites. Suffice it also to say that time will tell whether your predictions come true or not.
> 
> Frankly, I am puzzled as to what the conservative Republican Lieberman supporters on this thread think they are accomplishing. One of the best arguments against Lieberman - from the Democrats' perspective - is that they are supporting him. Lamont's camp has already done well by publicizing Bush's kiss of Lieberman. This thread, really, is a similar kiss for Lieberman.
> 
> Moreover, as someone has said, the opinions of people who are neither Democrats nor live in Connecticut as to who the Democratic nominee for Senator in Connecticut should be have about as much relevance as their opinions as to who should be the next President of France.


Honestly I don't care about the Lieberman race. I'm only puzzled as to why the Dems have become so reactionary and that the grown ups in the party have been the first to through reason out the window. For me its an exercise in political science. My personal view is quite Machiavellian: In a way I hope Lieberman loses as I hope all moderate Dems lose to left wing libs. This way the contrast will be more stark and I firmly feel that given the two contrasting views of domestic and foreign policy the conservative view will win out. This will assure a hold on the reigns of government much the same way the Dems held the congress from WWII to 1994.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

This just in: Lieberman cuts into lead by 7%. Is "Joementum" making an 11th hour run?


----------



## jcbmath (Jan 11, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> This just in: Lieberman cuts into lead by 7%. Is "Joementum" making an 11th hour run?


I have to say I think Joe still has a good chance. The press has been counting him out since last week's Quinnapiac (spelling?) poll showed Lamont with a double-digit lead; but I suspect the polls are somewhat distorted, especially given the degree of attention the race has gotten. Lieberman probably enjoys more support among those who will actually come out to vote on tuesday.

These elections also tend to go in cycles; Lamont attracts attention and support. His numbers go up. Lieberman hits back with hard campaigning. Lamont's numbers go down ... and so on.

Either way, the weather's supposed to be nice in CT tomorrow afternoon and evening. All you CT democrats get your voting out of the way in the morning, so you can enjoy it.


----------

