A university is just a group of buildings gathered around a library. ~Shelby Foote

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Democrat Primary Update

By Special Libertarian Librarian Correspondent John Heeder

Joe Lieberman lost his bid to become the democratic senatorial nominee from the Nutmeg state. To be fair, we have no idea of what kind of candidate, and potentially a senator, that Ned Lamont, victor of the primary will be.

We do know that he ran on one issue, opposition to the war, and that he financed much of the primary with his own wealth. Lamont was most likely elected by the far-left fringe of Connecticut democrats. (Another guilty white liberal? How tiresome is that?) Since he now faces a three-way race for senator (versus Lieberman running as an independent, and the republican sacrificial lamb) he’s going to have to become more than a one-trick pony.

This is going to be great, stay tuned. Lamont is going to be square in the bullseye of national media attention. And as we’ve seen with people like Thersa Heinz Kerry, all sorts of whacky things surface when the light shines. What skeletons lurk in his closet? Does he hate Jews? Does he have bizzaro family? Does he eat rum-soaked raisins to cure various ailments? We’ll soon see. Political junkies, you’re in for a show!

Meanwhile, the country breathes a sigh of relief as Cynthia McKinney rides into the sunset. But, like Dracula or a case of athletes’ foot, she’ll be back. There’s way too much ego and drive in that woman to keep her down. And, for fans of political theatre, we want her back. She’s way too entertaining. Plus every time she commits some outrage, the republicans go up three points in the polls.

Cynthia should take a clue from Lieberman and run as an independent. Georgia democrats, it’s up to you. Put Cynthia on the ballot as an independent. Thousands of entertainment seekers across the country are depending on you.

Labels:

Comments:
First off, nice job for this: "we have no idea of what kind of candidate, and potentially a senator, that Ned Lamont, victor of the primary will be"


Otherwise, Way to recycle those Official Ken Mehlman talking Points

We do know that he ran on one issue, opposition to the war,

Not true. Lamont has well-developed positions on every issue facing the country. What is true is that the Iraq war is one of the most pressing issues facing us, and it is one that Joe Lieberman had shown a marked lack of leadership on.


and that he financed much of the primary with his own wealth.

As opposed to Lieberman, who was massively financed by corporate and pharmaceutical PACs, as well as plenty of support from Republicans. Lamont also benefitted from a large scale grass roots small donor operation. Iin the final analysis, though, he had the integrity and courage to put his own money where his mouth is, and I don't see how that bears on his fitness for senator. Buying the seat? Laughable, as he was outspent 3 to 1.


Lamont was most likely elected by the far-left fringe of Connecticut democrats.

Again, not so. polls, and the turnout, indicate that the voting was representative of a wide range of political stance, but as largely moderate as anything else. Lieberman and the RNC WANT people to believe that 'far-left crazies' powered this challenge, but if there were that many people that far left in CYT and the country, Bush would never have been elected.

(Another guilty white liberal? How tiresome is that?)

Oh please. These kind of strawman- ad hominem attacks are even more tiresome and really not worthy. There is no basis whatsoever for making that claim other than the tired caricature of a Democrat that right wing commenters keep returning to.


Since he now faces a three-way race for senator (versus Lieberman running as an independent, and the republican sacrificial lamb) he’s going to have to become more than a one-trick pony.

Same could be said for Lieberman, although the rapidity with which the Democratic establishment has lined up to support Ned Lamont indicates that Joe maybe has much shallower support than he supposes. He's been running on little besides his eighteen years incumbency, as if that entitles him to keep his seat for life, and has largely refused to debate actual issues.

This is going to be great, I agree. Ned Lamont has been endorsed by the majority of the voters in his state, and beaten an incumbent with every advantage, against all predictions and against the odds. It has sent a clear signal to DC insiders of all stripes that voters want change, and business as usual is not going to cut it any more.

I actually think the pressure from the Democrats will cause Joe to sack up and admit that he lost fair and square, so he can move on the the pundit's chair waiting for him at Faux News.

If he stays, the democratic votes will go largely to Lamont, with a few diehards sticking with Joe; the few Republicans in the state will split between Joe and the R candidate, and since Independents usually break toward the challenger, the majority will wind up in Lamont's column.

It's called democracy, the will of the voters, folks, and it's a pretty, pretty thing.


Cynthia McKinney has more class than Lieberman, not to mention loyalty to the Democratic party. Whacky or not, she'll step aside with good grace.
 
Hey TC! This wouldn’t be the first time you credited me with knowing people I don’t! Mehlman is the RNC chairman, is that correct?

Lamont probably does have positions on the issues of today. That’s not, excuse the phrase, the issue. What you present and how you present it is the issue. Anyone can download the party platform and call that a comprehensive approach to policy. It’s what they talk about in speeches and debates that frame a candidate. Did he talk much about dairy subsidies or transportation corridors?

And, come on, fess up: Joe Lieberman did not have a marked leadership failure on the Iraq war. He had a position you disagreed with.

And I have no information to contradict your claim that Lamont voters were a cross-section. History tells us that primary voters are the partisans and the dedicated. Sooner or later a scholarly review of the primary election will come out, and then the issue will be settled.

The trouble with guilty white liberals is they spend my money to assuage their conscience. Whether it’s through tax hikes, social programs, and various other corrupt boondoggles, GWLs like to piss taxpayers funds away. But all that said, Lamont has yet to prove just what he is, so maybe he won’t be all GWL, if elected.

I’ll admit to being surprised by the evaporation of support for Joe Lieberman. You, as a partisan, should also be concerned. Don’t you think a “purity test” to be a democrat is a bad thing? Is there no room for diversity of opinion in your ranks? We’ve seen how democrats ostracize pro-life democrats. Now you have to be ‘pure’ on your war position (see Hillary Clinton’s evaporating support based on this same cause). This is all well and good – until issues turn away from you, and you find yourself on the outside.

If re-elected, how’s Lieberman going to perform as an independent, after so many of his peers stabbed him in the back? That’ll be something to watch for.

You are probably a bit optimistic to think that a primary upset means voters will enact change. That’s reaching. Besides, the voters *always* want change. But somehow, it rarely happens.

I’m sure Fox News, or any organization, would welcome Lieberman as a contributor. He’d have valuable insights. But your (have you seen Lanny Davis’s take on this?) rude treatment of the man is thought-provoking. It seems like a deep, all-consuming hunger to win. But you don’t win by cutting of your nose to spite your face.

It’s possible that a three-way senator race will strengthen the lower Republican ticket in CN. The demos will almost certainly keep the senate seat, but endangered republican congressmen may benefit from the democrat turmoil and keep their seats. Care to place a bet on any of this?

The following is evidence of your Lieberman derangement syndrome:

“Cynthia McKinney has more class than Lieberman…”

Come on, you have to be joking. Because if you’re not joking, you have a serious discernment problem.
 
You know, here's the thing: conservatives are the ones who are supporting Lieberman, not Democrats. According to a Lieberman staffer, Rove has already made the offer of help to HoJo's quixotic run.

Joe has become a Republican in everything but name, and that's useful for the R's, because they can use him as bi-partisan cover for all their radical initiatives. This hasn't played well with the CT voters, so they used their votes to turn him out.

With the support of Karl Rove, hannity, Limbaugh, and Coulter, why should any Democrats support him? Would you support a Republican who was endorsed by Hillary, Michael Moore, John Kerry and Jane Fonda?

This is no purity test. This is the democratic expression of the population of CT. There's more diversity within the Democratic party than is being allowed in the current incarnation of the Republicans, your examples are specious. As to the war position, Ned Lamont's position (and Hillary's position) are in accord with 60% of Americans; they are hardly being imposed from some radical fringe.

[sarcasm] I am touched by the concern for the future of the Democratic Party being expressed by all of its opponents. [/sarcasm] I mean, The Republican leadership have spent six years calling the opposition traitors and calling for imprisonment, and we're supposed to take their advice seriously? Come on.

Lieberman's classlessness is being demonstrated right now by his eagerness to abandon and badmouth his former party and the voters of CT. He has wasted no time tossing away any goodwill he had been owed; his disdain for his constituents and former colleagues fairly dripped from his contemptous concession speech.

Actually, THAT is the area that I meant to point out that Cyunthis McKinney has more class than Joe. At least loyalty, and the courage to admit defeat.

If Lieberman is such a prize, you guys can have him. Best of luck with that.
 
Joe’s as liberal as they come. Check out this record.

North Korean missiles were provocative, but don't over-react. (Jul 2006)
Adopt an international Marshall Plan for the Muslim world. (Dec 2003)
Preemptive war policy is foolish and provokes the world. (May 2003)
US must not withdraw troops and retreat into isolationism. (Oct 2000)
Cuba Libre, Free Cuba!. (Oct 2000)
Deal with human rights issues with carrot AND stick. (Mar 1998)
Commission on human rights to monitor each Chinese province. (Mar 1998)

Repeal the Bush restrictions on stem cell research. (Jan 2004)
Keep abortion safe, rare and legal; with 24-week viability. (Dec 2003)
FDA’s RU-486 decision stands; it’s made properly by experts. (Oct 2000)
Leave abortion decision to a woman, her doctor, and her god. (Oct 2000)
Rejected partial-birth ban since it ignored maternal health. (Oct 2000)
Supports abortion rights within his faith, not despite it. (Sep 2000)
Parental consent with judicial override; Gore agrees. (Aug 2000)
Supported parental notification for minors; but pro-choice. (Aug 2000)
Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted NO on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)

Flag burning is abhorrent, but not a constitutional issue. (Jan 2004)
Allow driver's license for immigrants. (Jan 2004)
Support reparation legislations. (Jan 2004)
Sunset the Patriot Act. (Nov 2003)
Marched with Martin Luther King in 1963; keep dream alive. (Sep 2003)
Marched with MLK, fought for voting rights in Mississippi. (May 2003)
Opposes laws against gay sex & sodomy; focus on real crime. (May 2003)
Better economy helps blacks: Rising tide raises all boats. (May 2003)
Support Equal Pay Act for women; plus loans & lawsuits. (Oct 2000)
Equalize pay for women; it’s unfair and unacceptable. (Oct 2000)
I do support, and will support affirmative action. (Aug 2000)
Never supported CA Prop. 209 banning affirmative action. (Aug 2000)
Support affirmative action and end all discrimination. (Aug 2000)
Supports affirmative action now; but phase it out by 2010. (Aug 2000)
Affirmative action is “patently unfair”, in 1995. (Aug 2000)
For gay equal employment; against gay marriage. (Aug 2000)
Affirmative action divides us. (Aug 2000)
Expand “Hate Crimes” to include women, gays, and disabled. (Jun 2000)
Participated in MLK’s March On Washington. (May 2000)
Express religious faith in schools, within Constitution. (May 2000)
Voted NO on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
Voted NO on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
Voted NO on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)
Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)
Shift from group preferences to economic empowerment of all. (Aug 2000)
Rated 40% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Increase subsidies for women-owned non-profit business. (Mar 2004)

Enforce existing laws & reduce threats to air & water. (Nov 2003)
Texas is last in social programs; but first in pollution. (Oct 2000)
Religion is the foundation of environmentalism. (Oct 2000)
Continue strong commitment to clean air, water, land. (Aug 2000)
Strengthen CAA; protect ANWR; create more national parks. (Aug 2000)
Advocates for robust environmental protections. (Aug 2000)
Strengthen Clean Air Act & Clean Energy Act. (Aug 2000)
Invest $2.5B in open space preservation. (Aug 2000)
$85M over 5 years for brownfield re-development. (May 1999)
Voted YES on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations. (Sep 2005)
Voted NO on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001)
Voted NO on more funding for forest roads and fish habitat. (Sep 1999)
Voted YES on transportation demo projects. (Mar 1998)
Voted YES on reducing funds for road-building in National Forests. (Sep 1997)
Voted YES on continuing desert protection in California. (Oct 1994)
Voted YES on requiring EPA risk assessments. (May 1994)
End commercial whaling and illegal trade in whale meat. (Jun 2001)
Support UNCED Rio Declaration at 2002 conference. (Jul 2002)
Rated 42% by the LCV, indicating a mixed record on environment. (Dec 2003)
EPA must do better on mercury clean-up. (Apr 2004)
 
Joe Lieberman should have accepted the will of the voters in CT. Running as an independent is childish, and sets a bad precedent. What if everyone who lost a primary ran again?

That doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a case; he does. Chosen as the whipping boy for the Bush-hating liberals, a frenzied mob managed to hang him high. Once sanity sets in, everyone will look around guiltily and slink home, hoping no one noticed that they all helped string Joe up.

You, TC, are just one of the mob. Joe’s a democrat soldier, a solid liberal, and a pillar of the party. Yet you and your homies, wanting to strike at President Bush, hung Joe up from the nearest tall tree.

So Joe has a case to run as an independent. I wish he wouldn’t. But lynch mobs shouldn’t be allowed to win.

As for being in the Republican Party, Joe just won’t fit. He’s way too liberal. His one liberal sin, and one republican virtue, in being strong on national defense. And given the nature of the latest terrorist plot revealed today, the need for defense is as real and as vital as ever.

One thing is certain; lynch mobs don’t defend anything. Which doesn’t bode well for the democrats come November.
 
Amateur Sex

amateure privat

Amateure Cams
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?