PDA

View Full Version : How did Lieberman lie to get elected? Let me count the ways.


hgc
12th January 2007, 09:51 AM
From MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16585614).

When Lieberman was running for reelection, posing as a Democrat, he told his Connecticut constituents that as chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Operations Committee that he would subpoena a bunch of missing documents about Bush's handling of the Katrina disaster. Now that he's in power, he doesn't want to do it anymore. What a turd.

But now that he chairs the homeland panel—and is in a position to subpoena the records—Lieberman has decided not to pursue the material, according to Leslie Phillips, the senator’s chief committee spokeswoman. “The senator now intends to focus his attention on the future security of the American people and other matters and does not expect to revisit the White House’s role in Katrina,” she told NEWSWEEK.

Darth Rotor
12th January 2007, 09:55 AM
From MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16585614).

When Lieberman was running for reelection, posing as a Democrat, he told his Connecticut constituents that as chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Operations Committee that he would subpoena a bunch of missing documents about Bush's handling of the Katrina disaster. Now that he's in power, he doesn't want to do it anymore. What a turd.
Well there ya go: CT gets what they voted for, a politician. :p

DR

davefoc
12th January 2007, 11:49 AM
Could we get somebody in the forum, anybody to defend Lieberman?

hgc seems to be on a real anti-Lieberman toot here and it would be nice if there wasn't somebody that could provide a little balance. It won't be me, I don't know a lot about him, but what I know I don't like.

In lieu of somebody actually defending the guy, maybe somebody could explain why Connecticut voted for him?

Katana
12th January 2007, 11:51 AM
Did they vote for him or did they just not like the other choices?

hgc
12th January 2007, 11:53 AM
Could we get somebody in the forum, anybody to defend Lieberman?

hgc seems to be on a real anti-Lieberman toot here and it would be nice if there wasn't somebody that could provide a little balance. It won't be me, I don't know a lot about him, but what I know I don't like.

In lieu of somebody actually defending the guy, maybe somebody could explain why Connecticut voted for him?
Yes! Please! Somebody make it interesting.

Just thinking
12th January 2007, 11:54 AM
Could we get somebody in the forum, anybody to defend Lieberman?

hgc seems to be on a real anti-Lieberman toot here and it would be nice if there wasn't somebody that could provide a little balance. It won't be me, I don't know a lot about him, but what I know I don't like.

In lieu of somebody actually defending the guy, maybe somebody could explain why Connecticut voted for him?

I believe they simply didn't like the alternatives more than they liked him.

Anyway ... regarding the issue of him not pursuing the handling of Katrina, I think there is a strategy in place not for the Democrats to do much against Bush in that it might create a backlash in 2008's presidential race.

headscratcher4
12th January 2007, 12:00 PM
I'll defend Leiberman....He's got schizophrenia and is no longer responsible for his actions. Thus, he must be aquited of the charge as he can not legaly manifest the necessary intent.

hgc
12th January 2007, 12:09 PM
I believe they simply didn't like the alternatives more than they liked him.

Anyway ... regarding the issue of him not pursuing the handling of Katrina, I think there is a strategy in place not for the Democrats to do much against Bush in that it might create a backlash in 2008's presidential race.
I don't see any reason to believe that. I think that the GOP would like to psych the Dems into thinking that should be their strategy, but how could bringing to light all manner of Bushco malfeasance lead to a backlash against the Dems? The template for this theory is the backlash against the Republicans for the Clinton impeachment. Since Clinton was impeached for something no one cared about, it's not a great analogy. On the other hand, all the other investigatin' the GOP Congress did of Clinton didn't lead to any backlash that I know of.

Lieberman would dearly love for there to be a real backlash so that the Republicans gain control of the senate again so that he can switch parties out in the open rather than sub rosa. If he bought into the backlash theory, he'd be ripping Bush to shreds.

Darth Rotor
12th January 2007, 12:14 PM
Could we get somebody in the forum, anybody to defend Lieberman?

hgc seems to be on a real anti-Lieberman toot here and it would be nice if there wasn't somebody that could provide a little balance. It won't be me, I don't know a lot about him, but what I know I don't like.

In lieu of somebody actually defending the guy, maybe somebody could explain why Connecticut voted for him?
I think I'd be the last guy to defend Joe Lieberman, US Senator, though I can offer a few kind words.

While I always thought his moderate Democrat position was a good one, both when Clinton was Pres and during the Bush years, his short term appeal to me as "a Democrat who isn't annoying" was that he was a reasonably supportive Senator where military matters were concerned. You could, if you like, trace that to the density of defense industries in Connecticut. (Arsenal of democracy indeed!) Between Electric Boat, Sikorsky, Pratt and Whitney, and Colt, not to mention UTC the conglomerate and smaller defense firms like Norden, CT was full of high paying jobs in the defense sector. He was protecting his constituents.

I got to meet him very, very briefly, me and a few dozen others, on one of his "go see the folks tours" where I was stationed. Seemed a decent man, and a polished pol. Gutsy move, IMO, to run as VP, considering some of the hate mail he got for being a Jew. I think he handled it well.

His sense of entitlement, however, when his party held him to account and took him off the ticket, did not sit well with me. That he won the election as Independent anyway says

A Lot More About The People/Voters of Connecticut

than it does about him.

hgc, do you know what Ralph Nader had to say about Lieberman's change of tactics? IIRC, he's still active in CT politics. He reamed the governor (Rowland?) about the Patriot's Stadium deal in Hartford, and pretty handily.

DR

hgc
12th January 2007, 12:23 PM
hgc, do you know what Ralph Nader had to say about Lieberman's change of tactics? IIRC, he's still active in CT politics. He reamed the governor (Rowland?) about the Patriot's Stadium deal in Hartford, and pretty handily.
I wasn't aware that Nader had weighed in on Lieberman. I'm not surprised that Nader opposed any public financing of a sports venue for the benefit of the private owners of a franchise, if indeed that's what he was doing. In any case, Nader's legacy, which might have been so much good he's done in the areas of consumer product safety and related things, will forever be the Bush presidency. If I were a believer in Hell, then I'd say Nader and Lieberman would burn together for all eternity.

Ziggurat
12th January 2007, 12:30 PM
How did Lieberman lie to get elected? Let me count the ways.

So we know you can count to one. Baby steps, baby steps...

Darth Rotor
12th January 2007, 12:35 PM
I wasn't aware that Nader had weighed in on Lieberman. I'm not surprised that Nader opposed any public financing of a sports venue for the benefit of the private owners of a franchise, if indeed that's what he was doing. In any case, Nader's legacy, which might have been so much good he's done in the areas of consumer product safety and related things, will forever be the Bush presidency. If I were a believer in Hell, then I'd say Nader and Lieberman would burn together for all eternity.
Oh, the stadium deal was a brilliant piece of a governor trying to pull a fast one and getting caught at it. Nader ripped him a new one, as did a whole series of folks who exposed the not for public consumption, back door deal with Robert Kraft (Patriot's owner) and even Don Imus got in on the fun (he lives in Westport in a bloody mansion, I think) on his morning AM radio show.

I was under the impression you were from CT, and that is why you posted this. Not so?

DR

davefoc
12th January 2007, 12:40 PM
Isn't it more accurate to think of Lieberman as a neocon than a Republican ideologically?

One of the things that I came to understand in one of these threads is that the original use of the word neocon was to describe Democrats who had more hawk like foreign policy ideas than the typical Democrat. Jeanne Kirkpatrick might have been one of the people the term was invented to describe.

Isn't Lieberman pretty much of a standard Democrat with respect to his non foreign policy views?

Deciding not to investigate Bush over Katrina has the look of quid pro quo. More than any other congressman Lieberman owes his election to actions initiated by Bushco to get him elected. They subsidized his campaign funds and they worked to get the Republican challenger out of the way. If the deal made between Bushco and Lieberman for this support was that Lieberman would be a pro Bush Hawk but he would vote with the Democrats on everything else, no problem. But if part of the deal to get Bushco support for his reelection involved using his seniority and probable committee leadership positions to block investigations, that sounds pretty scummy.

On the other hand I doubt that deal was made because Bushco was going to have its hands full with investigations by the House and heading off a few in the Senate with this scheme probably wouldn't have struck them as worth the effort. But it is certainly possible that Lieberman has decided to bypass some investigations as a way of showing his appreciation to Bushco.

Just thinking
12th January 2007, 01:05 PM
I don't see any reason to believe that. I think that the GOP would like to psych the Dems into thinking that should be their strategy, but how could bringing to light all manner of Bushco malfeasance lead to a backlash against the Dems? The template for this theory is the backlash against the Republicans for the Clinton impeachment. Since Clinton was impeached for something no one cared about, it's not a great analogy. On the other hand, all the other investigatin' the GOP Congress did of Clinton didn't lead to any backlash that I know of.

Presidential elections are pretty much won or lost by how the Independent voters go -- of course, voter turnout counts too, but let's keep all things equal. If the Democrats start tearing down all things established by the Republicans (Bush won't be running in 2008 -- so I think it an error to consider criticisms as merely anti-Bush) they may be seen as weakening too many things, at least by some (perhaps too many) Independents. Also, they are in the driver's seat now -- to just beat down the Republicans with no plans of their own will make many think of them as just sore losers, now being vengeful, and not doers. The Independent voters will go right back to the other side in the thinking that they (Republicans) at least try to do something. And I believe the Clinton Impeachment did hurt the Republicans -- Bush was not majority elected, remember? ... at least not in total votes. Of course, neither was Clinton -- but it was not a 2 man race back then.

Lieberman would dearly love for there to be a real backlash so that the Republicans gain control of the senate again so that he can switch parties out in the open rather than sub rosa. If he bought into the backlash theory, he'd be ripping Bush to shreds.

I don't think Lieberman would switch ... his voting record is not as conservative as one might think.

hgc
12th January 2007, 01:06 PM
I was under the impression you were from CT, and that is why you posted this. Not so?
No, I'm next door in NY, so I don't know much about local Ct stuff. Lieberman is a national problem, nay, global problem. I think hottentots on the veld ought to be screaming their heads off about how Lieberman.

pipelineaudio
12th January 2007, 01:17 PM
Did you see what whackjob Lieberman was running against?

hgc
12th January 2007, 01:18 PM
Presidential elections are pretty much won or lost by how the Independent voters go -- of course, voter turnout counts too, but let's keep all things equal. If the Democrats start tearing down all things established by the Republicans (Bush won't be running in 2008 -- so I think it an error to consider criticisms as merely anti-Bush) they may be seen as weakening too many things, at least by some (perhaps too many) Independents. Also, they are in the driver's seat now -- to just beat down the Republicans with no plans of their own will make many think of them as just sore losers, now being vengeful, and not doers. The Independent voters will go right back to the other side in the thinking that they (Republicans) at least try to do something. And I believe the Clinton Impeachment did hurt the Republicans -- Bush was not majority elected, remember? ... at least not in total votes. Of course, neither was Clinton -- but it was not a 2 man race back then. It's very difficult to determine how various factors affected and election. Perhaps Gore would have won the popular vote by a few million rather than by a few hundred thousand. Who knows?

The "no plans of their own" thing is just a bit of Fox News hot air. Note the legislation making its way through the House as we speak. I would think that uncovering wrong-doing, criminal and otherwise, especially where lots of money was wasted, will damage the Republicans for at least a few election cycles.

I don't think Lieberman would switch ... his voting record is not as conservative as one might think.
True, his voting record is not the most conservative among the Dem senators, but he is the one who continually trumpets Republican talking points and seeks to undermine is own caucus at every turn. He really feels more at home with the other guys. That's why he's so damaging. If he were just a regular Republican, I wouldn't hate him half as much. It's that he's a 5th columnist in the Dem ranks that gets my goat.

hgc
12th January 2007, 01:19 PM
Did you see what whackjob Lieberman was running against?
As usual, your assertion lacks any evidence or argument. They're worth the paper they're printed on.

pipelineaudio
12th January 2007, 01:46 PM
from wiki:

"
On August 9, 2006, Hillary Clinton affirmed her pledge to support the primary winner, saying "voters of Connecticut have made their decision and I think that decision should be respected,"[24] and Howard Dean called for Lieberman to quit the race, saying he was being "disrespectful of Democrats and disrespectful of the Democratic Party."

As if an anti - endorsement from those two werent enough to ensure votes,

from wiki on Ned Lamont:

His campaign was mostly supported by anti-war activists who oppose the Iraq war and are calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, including MoveOn.org, which donated $251,156 from its contributors to the campaign.

still not enough?

Darth Rotor
12th January 2007, 02:13 PM
I think hottentots on the veld ought to be screaming their heads off about how Lieberman.
Why? He can't raise their taxes. :)

DR

hgc
12th January 2007, 02:17 PM
from wiki:



As if an anti - endorsement from those two werent enough to ensure votes,

from wiki on Ned Lamont:



still not enough?
Evidence of nothing whatsoever. But if you're convinced, then good on ya.

Unabogie
12th January 2007, 02:36 PM
His campaign was mostly supported by anti-war activists who oppose the Iraq war and are calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, including MoveOn.org, which donated $251,156 from its contributors to the campaign.


still not enough?

I find this amusing and fascinating. It's as if in some parallel universe, "MoveOn" is an accepted synonym for "far left lunacy", instead of a Center Left organization who specializes in email campaigns and web-based fund raising. But if I were to press you to list positions by MoveOn that were outside the mainstream, I'd bet you couldn't find a single one.



Care to try?

Unabogie
12th January 2007, 02:40 PM
I'll give you a list of their current campaigns:
Save NPR and PBS (again) (http://civic.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/)


MoveOn and the Christian Coalition?
(http://civic.moveon.org/donatec4/save_the_internet.html)

2006 Plan for Victory (https://pol.moveon.org/donate/06match.html)

Positive Agenda house parties (http://pol.moveon.org/event/events/index.html?action_id=39)

An Inconvenient Truth (http://pol.moveon.org/seethetruth/)

Save the Internet (http://civic.moveon.org/save_the_internet/)

Medicare: Stop the "Senior Tax" (http://pol.moveon.org/seniorsfirst/)

Feingold: Censure President Bush (http://pol.moveon.org/censure/)

Stop AOL's "Email Tax" (http://civic.moveon.org/emailtax/)

No Reverse-Robin Hood Budget in '07 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/moveon/sets/72057594089469562/show/)

Insist on a Plan to Get Out of Iraq in 2006 (http://pol.moveon.org/iraq/)

Hold Exxon Accountable (http://pol.moveon.org/exxon/)

Americans United to Protect Social Security (http://www.americansforsocialsecurity.com/)


I'd say the only one of these that wouldn't enjoy 60+% support would be the Censure motion by Feingold. Aside from that, all of these are mainstream positions.

(http://pol.moveon.org/exxon/)


(http://civic.moveon.org/donatec4/save_the_internet.html)

firecoins
12th January 2007, 02:45 PM
I find this amusing and fascinating. It's as if in some parallel universe, "MoveOn" is an accepted synonym for "far left lunacy", instead of a Center Left organization who specializes in email campaigns and web-based fund raising. But if I were to press you to list positions by MoveOn that were outside the mainstream, I'd bet you couldn't find a single one.



Care to try?
I disagree with the context. MoveOn is an anti right wing organization whose main position is to oppose anything right wing. Prove me wrong.

Darth Rotor
12th January 2007, 02:47 PM
I disagree with the context. MoveOn is an anti right wing organization whose main position is to oppose anything right wing. Prove me wrong.
Is George Soros still funding them, or was there a falling out? Thought I saw a piece (Economist, I think) about Soros and Move On bickering.

DR

firecoins
12th January 2007, 02:50 PM
Is George Soros still funding them, or was there a falling out? Thought I saw a piece (Economist, I think) about Soros and Move On bickering.

DR
I think Soros stopped funding them. I swear I read a story where Soros gave up trying.

TragicMonkey
12th January 2007, 02:50 PM
I can't imagine anybody taking Liebermann seriously after he made the evils of video games his hobby horse. All the problems in the country and the world, and that's what he thought needed to be worked on first?

Unabogie
12th January 2007, 02:52 PM
Is George Soros still funding them, or was there a falling out? Thought I saw a piece (Economist, I think) about Soros and Move On bickering.

DR
A short history

MoveOn.org Civic Action was started by Joan Blades and Wes Boyd, two Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. Although neither had experience in politics, they shared deep frustration with the partisan warfare in Washington D.C. and the ridiculous waste of our nation's focus at the time of the impeachment mess. On September 18th 1998, they launched an online petition to "Censure President Clinton and Move On to Pressing Issues Facing the Nation." Within days they had hundreds of thousands of individuals signed up, and began looking for ways these voices could be heard.


In 1998, MoveOn PAC was formed as a political action committee so that like-minded, concerned citizens could influence the outcome of congressional elections, and in turn, the balance of power in Washington, D.C. Now known as MoveOn.org Political Action, this organization provides individuals, who normally have little political power, an opportunity to aggregate their contributions with others to gain a greater voice in the political process, and brings people together to take important stands on the most important issues facing our country.


The MoveOn Peace campaign was founded independently by Eli Pariser, a Maine native and recent graduate of Simon's Rock College of Bard. In the days following September 11th, 2001, he launched an online petition calling for a restrained and multi-lateral response to the attacks, which was quickly signed by more than half a million people. Eli joined forces with MoveOn soon afterward, and is now MoveOn.org Political Action’s Executive Director.

firecoins
12th January 2007, 02:53 PM
I can't imagine anybody taking Liebermann seriously after he made the evils of video games his hobby horse. All the problems in the country and the world, and that's what he thought needed to be worked on first?
Hillary Clinton did the same thing with video games & violence. Hillary even voted for the war in Iraq but did not have MoveOn.org oppossing her in her reelection campaign.

Unabogie
12th January 2007, 02:55 PM
ngI disagree with the context. MoveOn is an anti right wing organization whose main position is to oppose anything right wing. Prove me wrong.

I just did. I linked the latest 10-15 campaigns they're running.

And number two on the list is their collaboration with the Christian Coalition, which is as Right Wing as it gets, hence your statement that their "main position is to oppose anything right wing" has just been proven absolutely, unequivocally wrong.

A true rarity on the Internets.

firecoins
12th January 2007, 02:58 PM
ng

I just did. I linked the latest 10-15 campaigns they're running.

And number two on the list is their collaboration with the Christian Coalition, which is as Right Wing as it gets, hence your statement that their "main position is to oppose anything right wing" has just been proven absolutely, unequivocally wrong.

A true rarity on the Internets.
ok, you got me on that one. Even in your link Move On seemed to be in disbelief that they were teaming up with them on an issue. Just let me know when they give money to a Republican. ;) Internet freedom is hardly a right wing issue either.

Unabogie
12th January 2007, 03:05 PM
ok, you got me on that one. Even in your link Move On seemed to be in disbelief that they were teaming up with them on an issue. Just let me know when they give money to a Republican. ;)

Well, they never will. They are Democrats. But being a Democrat is a mainstream position. Hence, being supported by an organization who supports Democrats is not "far left" any more than an organization who supports Republicans is "far right".

Therefore, Ned Lamont was not a "wacko" because he was supported by MoveOn.org, if indeed he was. You'd actually have to introduce a single opinion Lamont held which could be considered outside the mainstream before his "wackiness" could be demonstrated.

MoveOn.org has just been scratched off the list.

firecoins
12th January 2007, 03:22 PM
Well, they never will. They are Democrats. But being a Democrat is a mainstream position. Hence, being supported by an organization who supports Democrats is not "far left" any more than an organization who supports Republicans is "far right".

Therefore, Ned Lamont was not a "wacko" because he was supported by MoveOn.org, if indeed he was. You'd actually have to introduce a single opinion Lamont held which could be considered outside the mainstream before his "wackiness" could be demonstrated.

MoveOn.org has just been scratched off the list.
Move On is not loony while I disagree highly with them and think they are somewhat inconsistent. Hillary voted for the war and they did not do anything against her because she voted convienance while Lieberman did so out of belief.

I don't know Ned Lamont personally and he did not say anything "extreme" while I think he did say some stupid stuff. The stupid stuff was politically inexperienced stuff usually about Lieberman and not extreme political positions.

Internet freedom is one of those issues that I don't conder liberal or conservative but of course Move On fell on the side opposite Republican politicans. I happen to agree with Move On in this case as well.

Move On was in part created to get Republicans to "move on" from the Clinton sex scandals. They have no intention of decreasing partisan bickering as they are now apart of that.

pipelineaudio
12th January 2007, 03:25 PM
Hillary Clinton did the same thing with video games & violence. Hillary even voted for the war in Iraq but did not have MoveOn.org oppossing her in her reelection campaign.

Lets not even talk Tipper Gore :)

hgc
12th January 2007, 03:36 PM
ok, you got me on that one. Even in your link Move On seemed to be in disbelief that they were teaming up with them on an issue. Just let me know when they give money to a Republican. ;) Internet freedom is hardly a right wing issue either.
There's a lesson in this somewhere. Like perhaps whenever you start with "prove me wrong," you'd better be ready to attach wheels to your goalposts. :)

TragicMonkey
12th January 2007, 04:30 PM
Hillary Clinton did the same thing with video games & violence.

She never made it her primary focus as Liebermann seemed to. The only time he was in the news was for ranting about video games.

And anyway, that was years before anybody had ever heard of Hillary Clinton.

Hillary even voted for the war in Iraq but did not have MoveOn.org oppossing her in her reelection campaign.

So? What's Hillary Clinton, MoveOn.org, or the war in Iraq have to do with Liebermann being nutty about video games?

TragicMonkey
12th January 2007, 04:32 PM
Lets not even talk Tipper Gore :)

Remember Dee Snyder testifying before Congress? That pretty much summed up the eighties. What a mad decade that was!

Just thinking
12th January 2007, 04:46 PM
... The "no plans of their own" thing is just a bit of Fox News hot air. Note the legislation making its way through the House as we speak. I would think that uncovering wrong-doing, criminal and otherwise, especially where lots of money was wasted, will damage the Republicans for at least a few election cycles.

Hardly ... we'll see just how much actually gets accomplished. Minimum wage is not that big a deal, as most make over that amount in all states. There is a huge uphill battle if they choose bigger issues.

True, his voting record is not the most conservative among the Dem senators, but he is the one who continually trumpets Republican talking points and seeks to undermine is own caucus at every turn. He really feels more at home with the other guys. That's why he's so damaging. If he were just a regular Republican, I wouldn't hate him half as much. It's that he's a 5th columnist in the Dem ranks that gets my goat.

Joe strongly supported the War in Iraq, and although that may have cost him brownie points along the way, it certainly didn't stop him from getting re-elected. I don't think many folks are so much against the war as they are against the way it's been handled -- so Joe gets a pass on that one. He seems (to me) to speak from the heart, a trait missing in too many elected officials of late.

Unabogie
12th January 2007, 04:49 PM
Move On is not loony while I disagree highly with them and think they are somewhat inconsistent. Hillary voted for the war and they did not do anything against her because she voted convienance while Lieberman did so out of belief.

I don't know Ned Lamont personally and he did not say anything "extreme" while I think he did say some stupid stuff. The stupid stuff was politically inexperienced stuff usually about Lieberman and not extreme political positions.

Internet freedom is one of those issues that I don't conder liberal or conservative but of course Move On fell on the side opposite Republican politicans. I happen to agree with Move On in this case as well.

Move On was in part created to get Republicans to "move on" from the Clinton sex scandals. They have no intention of decreasing partisan bickering as they are now apart of that.

Do you have some sort of proof that Lieberman holds his views "out of belief?" As far as I can tell, Lieberman is a very dishonest person who likes to stake out positions that give himself the best advantage, not that demonstrates his moral compass. Witness his sudden reversal on the Katrina investigation for an example. Witness his support for the escalation when in the primary he was warning against increasing troop levels.

And that's why he was singled out by Democrats, not for his stance on the war, but for his singular propensity to wag his finger at Democrats while acting as an apologist for Bush. That's what has people working for his ouster from the Senate. And I'd bet those CT voters are probably already regretting their votes, because he presented himself as some sort of moderate Democrat, yet he acts to undermine the Democratic Party.

Can you say the same for Hillary? Can you cite an example of her acting to undermine her party to the benefit of Republicans?

davefoc
12th January 2007, 04:56 PM
firecoins wrote:
...Hillary voted for the war and they did not do anything against her because she voted convienance [sic] while Lieberman did so out of belief.

Is it your view that moveon looked into the minds of the candidates and if moveon decided a candidate voted for the war authorization out of convenience they wouldn't oppose the candidacy?

pgwenthold
12th January 2007, 05:02 PM
Hardly ... we'll see just how much actually gets accomplished. Minimum wage is not that big a deal, as most make over that amount in all states.


If it was not such a big deal, why did the republican controlled congress steadfastily refuse to do it?

"Do what obviously should be done" is most certainly a "plan of their own", especially when compared to the republican "plan" of "stonewall it, even when it obviously should be done."

firecoins
12th January 2007, 05:03 PM
firecoins wrote:


Is it your view that moveon looked into the minds of the candidates and if moveon decided a candidate voted for the war authorization out of convenience they wouldn't oppose the candidacy?
My view is they oppossed Lieberman becuase he supported the war. Clinton voted for the war and her public statments oppossed the Bush strategy for the war but seemingly not the war itself. If Move On was consistent it would have supported canidates who did not vote for the war at all.

firecoins
12th January 2007, 05:11 PM
Do you have some sort of proof that Lieberman holds his views "out of belief?" As far as I can tell, Lieberman is a very dishonest person who likes to stake out positions that give himself the best advantage, not that demonstrates his moral compass. Several points.

I dismiss the notion that just Lieberman would be the only politician that takes positions soley for his advantage. In fact I think that describes every politician whoever existed, ever. If you think just Lieberman is being "dishonest" I suggest looking at the whole estabishment.

In 2000 Bush was against nation building, now he is doing just that.

In 2000 Gore called Huiseen the most dangerous man in the world, since than he took opposition to removing him from power. Seems both men tak positions that are give them an avantage.

Both Clinton's have done it, Kerry did it, various Republicans are now opposing the war they supported up until December, not because they oppose it but because it gives them an advantage in Congress.

Lieberman as being "dishonest" particularly on Iraq is a silly notion. He is an Orthodox Jew who supports Israel and this is where his position on Iraq is born from. He sees Iraq as a place to fight Islamic militancy.

hgc
12th January 2007, 05:14 PM
In 2000 Gore called Huiseen the most dangerous man in the world, since than he took opposition to removing him from power. Seems both men tak positions that are give them an avantage.
These are not mutually exclusive positions. The evidence is in: removing "the most dangerous man in the world" from power has not made is any safer. Gore was exactly right to oppose this war. Why won't he get credit from those who were exactly wrong.

firecoins
12th January 2007, 05:17 PM
These are not mutually exclusive positions. The evidence is in: removing "the most dangerous man in the world" from power has not made is any safer. Gore was exactly right to oppose this war. Why won't he get credit from those who were exactly wrong.
I am not debating whether he was right or wrong but his postions change according to which he sees as an advantage. The Clinton adminstration had no problem bombing Iraq as they did just that. Gore made the same claims about WMD's as the Bush administration than switched saying no evidnece existed.

pipelineaudio
12th January 2007, 05:23 PM
Remember Dee Snyder testifying before Congress? That pretty much summed up the eighties. What a mad decade that was!

And the Mentor's El Duce!!!

Unabogie
12th January 2007, 05:27 PM
My view is they oppossed Lieberman becuase he supported the war. Clinton voted for the war and her public statments oppossed the Bush strategy for the war but seemingly not the war itself. If Move On was consistent it would have supported canidates who did not vote for the war at all.

It may be your view, but it's still wrong. Look, all you have to do is read any lefty blog. They've been more than happy to spell out why they hate "Holy Joe".

In their and my opinion, Joe Lieberman acts to undermine the democratic party.

All you have to do is look at the facts. Other "pro war" Democrats were not ousted. No campaigns run against them. Why is that? Could it be that the reason given is the actual truth? I know it is for me. I hate Joe Lieberman because he acts as a sort of infiltrator in his party. People felt the same way about Zell Miller.

You can hold any view you want, but reality has a way of hurting those who hold views in opposition to all available facts.

Unabogie
12th January 2007, 05:33 PM
I am not debating whether he was right or wrong but his postions change according to which he sees as an advantage. The Clinton adminstration had no problem bombing Iraq as they did just that. Gore made the same claims about WMD's as the Bush administration than switched saying no evidnece existed.

You sound as though you're being deliberately obtuse about this.

Al Gore never said "no evidence existed", nor did he "switch" his position. You're leaving out the huge difference in consequences between saying "Saddam Hussein has weapons" , and saying "therefore we need to wage preemptive war in defiance of our allies, in violation of international law, using deceit and intimidation to force immediate war and deny inspectors the time to make a conclusion." Then following that up with four years of "last throes", "turning the corner", and PR lies designed to mislead the public.

Did Al Gore do that? No. So then they are nowhere near similar.

Does all of your thinking neglect such nuances?

nemo
12th January 2007, 05:43 PM
It may be your view, but it's still wrong. Look, all you have to do is read any lefty blog. They've been more than happy to spell out why they hate "Holy Joe".

In their and my opinion, Joe Lieberman acts to undermine the democratic party.

All you have to do is look at the facts. Other "pro war" Democrats were not ousted. No campaigns run against them. Why is that? Could it be that the reason given is the actual truth? I know it is for me. I hate Joe Lieberman because he acts as a sort of infiltrator in his party. People felt the same way about Zell Miller.

You can hold any view you want, but reality has a way of hurting those who hold views in opposition to all available facts.

I agree wholeheartedly with Unabogie. Lieberman is for all intents, a Republican. Even the Republican Party supported him against Lamont. All he's doing now in ignoring Katrina is returning the favor. I'm not from Connecticut, but as a Democrat, I am disgusted with Lieberman.

firecoins
12th January 2007, 05:46 PM
You sound as though you're being deliberately obtuse about this.

Al Gore never said "no evidence existed", nor did he "switch" his position. You're leaving out the huge difference in consequences between saying "Saddam Hussein has weapons" , and saying "therefore we need to wage preemptive war in defiance of our allies, in violation of international law, using deceit and intimidation to force immediate war and deny inspectors the time to make a conclusion." Then following that up with four years of "last throes", "turning the corner", and PR lies designed to mislead the public.

Did Al Gore do that? No. So then they are nowhere near similar.

Does all of your thinking neglect such nuances?
No I am not being obtuse at all.

The Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 for possible WMDs.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html)

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.


However the pint is not dabate of the Iraq war rather that politicians will change, clarify, alter or come to a different conclusion when it is their advantage to do just that.

firecoins
12th January 2007, 05:52 PM
In their and my opinion, Joe Lieberman acts to undermine the democratic party.

All you have to do is look at the facts. Other "pro war" Democrats were not ousted. No campaigns run against them. Why is that? Could it be that the reason given is the actual truth? I know it is for me. I hate Joe Lieberman because he acts as a sort of infiltrator in his party. People felt the same way about Zell Miller.

You can hold any view you want, but reality has a way of hurting those who hold views in opposition to all available facts.
So other pro war democrats don't undermine the Democratic party but Lieberman but being pro war does? You "hate" Joe Lieberman so obviously this not a position of facts but one of emotions. If Joe Lieberman truly wants to undermine the Democrats, he could easily switch to the Republican party and give the Republicans a majority of the Senate. Why doesn't he?

Darth Rotor
12th January 2007, 05:55 PM
Do you have some sort of proof that Lieberman holds his views "out of belief?" As far as I can tell, Lieberman is a very dishonest person who likes to stake out positions that give himself the best advantage, not that demonstrates his moral compass. ?
With warmest regards, Unabogie. :)

Joe Lieberman -- is -- a -- politician.

All you did was describe that. Did you have a point you wanted to make?

ETA: I hate Joe Lieberman because he acts as a sort of infiltrator in his party. People felt the same way about Zell Miller.
Miller has more integrity.

DR

davefoc
12th January 2007, 06:08 PM
... Lieberman is for all intents, a Republican. Even the Republican Party supported him against Lamont. All he's doing now in ignoring Katrina is returning the favor. I'm not from Connecticut, but as a Democrat, I am disgusted with Lieberman.

I think some of the Democratic partisans here are calling Lieberman a Republican as sort of a way of labeling him with the most terrible epithet they can think of.

If he is cooperating with the Republicans to prevent embarrassing investigations in return for favors in his campaign that makes him corrupt, that doesn't make him a Republican.

If he sides with the Republicans on social issues that puts him ideologically in line with what is often called a conservative Democrat. If he sides with the Republicans on the Iraq war and with middle east policy that marks him roughly as a neocon on foreign policy. As I understand it the neocon movement originally consisted of Democrats so holding foreign policy views that are neocon like doesn't guarantee that one is an ideological Republican. And if he votes with the Democrats on economic issues, as is expected, that marks him pretty much as Democrat. And if he caucuses with the Democrats and votes for Democratic leadership I'd say that he is a Democrat by most ways that the term is usually defined. So without evidence to the contrary it looks to me like Lieberman is a conservative Democrat with some neocon tendencies.

Unabogie
12th January 2007, 06:14 PM
So other pro war democrats don't undermine the Democratic party but Lieberman but being pro war does? You "hate" Joe Lieberman so obviously this not a position of facts but one of emotions. If Joe Lieberman truly wants to undermine the Democrats, he could easily switch to the Republican party and give the Republicans a majority of the Senate. Why doesn't he?

Joe Lieberman does not undermine the Democratic Party because he is pro war. He does it by saying things like "It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation’s peril."

He's basically saying that Democrats shouldn't criticize what Chuck Hagel just called "the biggest foreign policy blunder since Vietnam" unless they want to be seen as undermining our own country. Would any Republican say that Republicans shouldn't criticize Bill Clinton's handling of Somalia?

Are you kidding me?

As for why he doesn't switch parties, I'm not sure. Zell Miller did, but that was when momentum was shifting right. My guess is 2008 sees a bigger majority in the Senate, so Joe may think that's a bad move. I'd guess it has more to do with his network of donors than loyalty to the party. And besides, acting as Bush's favorite Democrat sure helped him in this election, where Karl Rove introduced him to all of his money guys.

pgwenthold
12th January 2007, 06:23 PM
The Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 for possible WMDs.


Clinton did not bomb Iraq because they posessed or possibly had WMDs. It was because they were blatently inhibiting activities of the inspectors. And we aren't talking about things like "they won't let us take their scientists and their families out of the country so that we can interrogate them." It was they wouldn't let the inspectors go where they wanted when they wanted. And the inspectors complained.

Clinton pulled the inspectors, made strategic attacks, and Iraq relented.

As opposed to Bush, where the inspectors were saying, just let us continue.

Unabogie
12th January 2007, 06:25 PM
With warmest regards, Unabogie. :)

Joe Lieberman -- is -- a -- politician.

All you did was describe that. Did you have a point you wanted to make?

ETA:
Miller has more integrity.

DR

Certainly there are politicians who don't act to undermine their own party for their own benefit, aren't there? And there are many pols who I respect for their honesty, even ones I disagree with.

Dennis Kucinich is the antithesis of a lying, conniving pol. He's a person with integrity, who just happens to be a congressman.

Darth Rotor
12th January 2007, 06:26 PM
Clinton did not bomb Iraq because they posessed or possibly had WMDs. It was because they were blatently inhibiting activities of the inspectors. And we aren't talking about things like "they won't let us take their scientists and their families out of the country so that we can interrogate them." It was they wouldn't let the inspectors go where they wanted when they wanted. And the inspectors complained.

Clinton pulled the inspectors, made strategic attacks, and Iraq relented.

PG, with respect, what were the inspectors there to deal with? WMD. Relented? Saddam was still playing the shell game.

DR

pgwenthold
12th January 2007, 06:41 PM
PG, with respect, what were the inspectors there to deal with? WMD.


Right. Clinton was allowing inspectors to handle the issue of WMD. Which they did very well, as has been shown out.

The purpose of the attacks was to allow the inspectors to carry out their work.



Relented? Saddam was still playing the shell game.


No, he allowed inspectors back in, and allowed them to do what they were there to do. After the attacks, they were allowed total access to all facilities, and could go where they wanted, when they wanted. The only issues that arose were the aforementioned problems Iraq had with the attempts to take scientists and their families out of the country.

Simply, Clinton never bombed Iraq because they had WMD, only because they would not allow the inspectors complete access to their WMD facilities.

The bombings did nothing to rid the Iraqis of WMD, nor were they meant to. If you think that is anything like what Bush was advocating or did, then you are painting with way too big of a brush.

Darth Rotor
12th January 2007, 06:46 PM
Right. Clinton was allowing inspectors to handle the issue of WMD. Which they did very well, as has been shown out.

The purpose of the attacks was to allow the inspectors to carry out their work.




No, he allowed inspectors back in, and allowed them to do what they were there to do. After the attacks, they were allowed total access to all facilities, and could go where they wanted, when they wanted. The only issues that arose were the aforementioned problems Iraq had with the attempts to take scientists and their families out of the country.

Simply, Clinton never bombed Iraq because they had WMD, only because they would not allow the inspectors complete access to their WMD facilities.


Interesting spin. As I saw it, Clinton bombed Saddam for the same reason LBJ escalated in Viet Nam, internal politics, to show he wasn't soft on Saddam (LBJ Viet Nam/Communism)

I think my assessment is much closer to the mark than yours.

DR

Just thinking
12th January 2007, 06:48 PM
If it was not such a big deal, why did the republican controlled congress steadfastily refuse to do it?

The raising of the minimum wage is not an issue the Republicans felt was something that needed to be done -- and if done, would not lift anyone out of poverty. Besides, most jobs in all states pay well above minimum wage already, so it won't do much for wage earners.

firecoins
12th January 2007, 07:41 PM
Interesting spin. As I saw it, Clinton bombed Saddam for the same reason LBJ escalated in Viet Nam, internal politics, to show he wasn't soft on Saddam (LBJ Viet Nam/Communism)

I think my assessment is much closer to the mark than yours.

DR
There is something to your assessment. Internal politics did have alot to do with it. I don't know if he was doing it show he was strong or not but considering he was being impeached just before he started, I think there is a good case for that.

firecoins
12th January 2007, 07:46 PM
Joe Lieberman does not undermine the Democratic Party because he is pro war. He does it by saying things like "It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation’s peril."

He's basically saying that Democrats shouldn't criticize what Chuck Hagel just called "the biggest foreign policy blunder since Vietnam" unless they want to be seen as undermining our own country. Would any Republican say that Republicans shouldn't criticize Bill Clinton's handling of Somalia?

I don't agree with Lieberman's statement. Clinton did not fight an ongoing war. He cut and run. I think that is part of it but the real difference here is the "war on terror" is seen as a large ongoing conflict where Somolia in 1994 was seen as small "action".

Unabogie
12th January 2007, 07:53 PM
I don't agree with Lieberman's statement. Clinton did not fight an ongoing war. He cut and run. I think that is part of it but the real difference here is the "war on terror" is seen as a large ongoing conflict where Somolia in 1994 was seen as small "action".

I have to say I find it hard to take you seriously when you glom on to such a trite sound byte as "cut and run". The Republicans were screaming for Clinton to leave Somalia. Did they also "cut and run"? Do you also use "defeatocrats" and "homicide bombers" in your everyday speech?

firecoins
12th January 2007, 08:01 PM
I have to say I find it hard to take you seriously when you glom on to such a trite sound byte as "cut and run". The Republicans were screaming for Clinton to leave Somalia. Did they also "cut and run"? Do you also use "defeatocrats" and "homicide bombers" in your everyday speech?
You get your talking points from Move On? Didn't we just discuss Move On was "mainstream"? Did you point to "lefty blogs" as to where you get your info on Lieberman? You pretty much have stated thats what you read.

SezMe
12th January 2007, 08:30 PM
His sense of entitlement, however, when his party held him to account and took him off the ticket, did not sit well with me.
Boy, that's not how I remember it. Lamont ran against Joe in the primary and won. IOW, the voters took him off the ticket. The party did not. The party simply supported the primary winner - which, IMO, they were obligated to do.

Unabogie
12th January 2007, 08:31 PM
You get your talking points from Move On? Didn't we just discuss Move On was "mainstream"? Did you point to "lefty blogs" as to where you get your info on Lieberman? You pretty much have stated thats what you read.

I read lefty blogs, but I question what I read. I also read righty blogs, if only to see what they're saying. I also read this message board, which seems to skew 75-25 in favor of right wing politics. And I try very, very hard to avoid trite slogans like "cut and run".

And I notice you've failed to name a single position in which MoveOn is outside the mainstream. So yes, they appear to pass that test.

SezMe
12th January 2007, 08:32 PM
However the pint is not dabate of the Iraq war rather that politicians will change, clarify, alter or come to a different conclusion when it is their advantage to do just that.
Are you asserting that every time a politician changes or clarifies his/her position, it is solely out of a political calculation? That there is no principled motive behind the action?

firecoins
12th January 2007, 08:37 PM
I read lefty blogs, but I question what I read. I also read righty blogs, if only to see what they're saying. I also read this message board, which seems to skew 75-25 in favor of right wing politics. And I try very, very hard to avoid trite slogans like "cut and run".And hate Joe Lieberman because he doesn't hold up the party line.

And I notice you've failed to name a single position in which MoveOn is outside the mainstream. So yes, they appear to pass that test.
I did not call Move On extreme, just liberal. Someone else did call them out of mainstream. That wasn't me. I see your parroting Move On's Joe Lieberman opinion. Obviously your not questioning too hard.

firecoins
12th January 2007, 08:38 PM
Are you asserting that every time a politician changes or clarifies his/her position, it is solely out of a political calculation? That there is no principled motive behind the action?
Pretty much.:)

Unabogie
12th January 2007, 08:41 PM
And hate Joe Lieberman because he doesn't hold up the party line.


I myslef did not call Move On extreme, just liberal. Someone else did call them out of mainstream. That wasn't me. I do you parroting Move On's Joe Lieberman opinion. Obviously your not questioning too hard.

Now I'm talking to a wall, so I'll stop this discussion. Please read upthread for the true reason I hate Joe Lieberman, and it's not based on him "not towing the party line." The more you misrepresent what others are saying, the less effective you are in making your argument.

The last part you wrote was a bit unintelligible, but I read it to mean you think I'm parroting something I read from MoveOn.org, which is silly, since I don't read anything from MoveOn.org, since they aren't a blog.

firecoins
12th January 2007, 08:49 PM
It may be your view, but it's still wrong. Look, all you have to do is read any lefty blog. They've been more than happy to spell out why they hate "Holy Joe"..So I have to research lefty blogs to see why they "hate" "Holy Joe"? Holy Joe is in no way trite.


In their and my opinion, Joe Lieberman acts to undermine the democratic party.

You and lefty blogs hold the same opinion hence your parroting. You and they agree that Joe Lieberman acts to undermine the democratic party.

Why? Because he said not to be critical of the Commander in Chief. He said this before the election? This is whay you said in your posts. I didn't make this up.

And "hating" people does not constitute an extreme position?

Hey I am just repeating your posts.

Darth Rotor
12th January 2007, 09:00 PM
Boy, that's not how I remember it. Lamont ran against Joe in the primary and won. IOW, the voters took him off the ticket. The party did not. The party simply supported the primary winner - which, IMO, they were obligated to do.
Good semantic point, but aren't the registered voters in that party, the party? I didn't capitalize Party, but I am glad you raised the matter of "who is the Democrat party?"

Well played.

DR

Darth Rotor
12th January 2007, 09:01 PM
I also read this message board, which seems to skew 75-25 in favor of right wing politics. And I try very, very hard to avoid trite slogans like "cut and run".

Where is that damned laughing dog when I need him!
http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif
Ah, there he is



DR

firecoins
12th January 2007, 09:03 PM
I swear this website leans to the left but maybe its just me.

Unabogie
12th January 2007, 09:04 PM
Where is that damned laughing dog when I need him!

DR

Maybe it just seems that way because you post so much...?

:)

firecoins
12th January 2007, 09:07 PM
Maybe it just seems that way because you post so much...?

:)
I thought you were stopping the discussion or did I not read that right?

Darth Rotor
12th January 2007, 09:12 PM
Maybe it just seems that way because you post so much...?

:)
My friend, I am the duck, and the lefties and libertarians are the witch. I am not that far right of center, brother Unabogie, just passionate on a few subjects.

DR

Unabogie
12th January 2007, 09:12 PM
I thought you were stopping the discussion or did I not read that right?

I'm stopping the discussion with you on this topic. Not with everyone on any topic.

Capiche?

firecoins
12th January 2007, 09:15 PM
My friend, I am the duck, and the lefties and libertarians are the witch. I am not that far right of center, brother Unabogie, just passionate on a few subjects.

DR
Don't you hate childish tactics like Unabogie uses?

Darth Rotor
12th January 2007, 09:37 PM
Don't you hate childish tactics like Unabogie uses?
We are getting along well enough so far, I'll not hold an occasional "nails on board" moment against him, given the number of rocks I have thrown. :blush:

DR

SezMe
12th January 2007, 09:41 PM
You and lefty blogs hold the same opinion hence your parroting.
Chuck Hagel agrees with me on Shrub's strategy. Does that mean he is parroting me? On a slightly more serious note, if I now express an opinion about the surge does that necessarily mean I am "parroting" Sen. Hagel?

firecoins
12th January 2007, 09:54 PM
Chuck Hagel agrees with me on Shrub's strategy. Does that mean he is parroting me? On a slightly more serious note, if I now express an opinion about the surge does that necessarily mean I am "parroting" Sen. Hagel?
Lets see. He attacked my language as being trite and using language I may get from right wing sources. He shares the same exact opinion as "lefty" blogs with the same exact reasoning they used while claiming to "question" them. No different than the usual paritsan bickering. So yes "parroting" seems appropriate too me.

steverino
13th January 2007, 09:34 PM
After the attacks, they were allowed total access to all facilities, and could go where they wanted, when they wanted.

Ah yes. The inspectors/Hussein cat-and-mouse. Thank you for reminding me! This bit of nostalgia buttresses my opinion that Bush acted correctly in invading Iraq.

rockoon
14th January 2007, 12:04 AM
I did not hear these wild left-wing protests when Leiberman was a national issue.

The democratic party did not vote against Leiberman.

The Connecticut democrats (a subset of the democratic party) voted against him. Their declaration was not that Leiberman wasn't a democrat, but rather that he simply wasn't liberal enough for them.

If you didn't know (thats you hgc,) Connecticut democrats are some of the most liberal people you can find in this country.

steverino
14th January 2007, 12:13 AM
If you didn't know (thats you hgc,) Connecticut democrats are some of the most liberal people you can find in this country.

I think you may be correct. Doesn't David Letterman live in Connecticut?