US Politics (and Transition)

[¡Keith!]

Again - this is why we don't have a viable 3rd party.  One guy decides to go against his party who frankly turned on him first due to a single issue which he believed differently on and everyone starts calling for the guys head.  My great hope a year ago was the McCain/Lieberman ticket that would cause the kind of splinter that is exactly what you were talking about Marty but everyone who could brought pressure and nixed this from happening and you people bought it hook line and sinker.  Why can't a moderate if hawkish Northeast Democrat be on a ticket with a moderate southwest Republican?

I blame Palin on every democrat and republican who ever said a bad word about Lieberman.

[Marbegirl]

Again - this is why we don't have a viable 3rd party.  One guy decides to go against his party who frankly turned on him first due to a single issue which he believed differently on and everyone starts calling for the guys head.  My great hope a year ago was the McCain/Lieberman ticket that would cause the kind of splinter that is exactly what you were talking about Marty but everyone who could brought pressure and nixed this from happening and you people bought it hook line and sinker.  Why can't a moderate if hawkish Northeast Democrat be on a ticket with a moderate southwest Republican?

I blame Palin on every democrat and republican who ever said a bad word about Lieberman.

I want Lieberman's head because he went against the party that helped him get elected when they needed his support. He's not the same Lieberman of the Gore/Lieberman ticket.

If this isn't the empitome of hypocrisy what is?

Lieberman in 2006

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJTJbqKuDDM

Lieberman now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8WyDgn2hXQ

[¡Keith!]

Again - this is why we don't have a viable 3rd party.  One guy decides to go against his party who frankly turned on him first due to a single issue which he believed differently on and everyone starts calling for the guys head.  My great hope a year ago was the McCain/Lieberman ticket that would cause the kind of splinter that is exactly what you were talking about Marty but everyone who could brought pressure and nixed this from happening and you people bought it hook line and sinker.  Why can't a moderate if hawkish Northeast Democrat be on a ticket with a moderate southwest Republican?

I blame Palin on every democrat and republican who ever said a bad word about Lieberman.

I want Lieberman's head because he went against the party that helped him get elected when they needed his support. He's not the same Lieberman of the Gore/Lieberman ticket.

If this isn't the empitome of hypocrisy what is?

The party helped him do nothing? they abandoned him when it was clear he couldn't win the primary election that is systematically flawed so as to allow the most radical members into power.  Once he was free of that he no longer had to toe the party line (as McCain is doing now - and as I still maintain that he will break from again when the dust clears in this election), he could express whatever independent opinions he actually wanted to - that is not hypocritical in the least.  The hypocrisy is people who want to support a 3rd party in the name of "change" but only if that party believes the same as they do - that's not change, its suppression.

[St. Martin the Bald]

He sounds like an ass, judging by his Wikipedia page.  Good to see he grew up, but that doesn't excuse his past.. particularly since he seems to have somehow gotten off scot free.

This is exactly the attitude I was speaking of in my previous post.

At what point is this man allowed to move from his mistakes in the past?
Is he to be considered a pariah because of his past associations and not be allowed in the public arena?
When is a person forgiven for their past and allowed to move ahead?

Personally - I have a stake in these questions. I made some mistakes in my past. I have a felony possession charge on my record but I did my punishment and I learned my lesson - should bar me forever from ever serving the public?
Or do I deserve to be allowed to put this behind me?

[Junior]

I disliked Lieberman since I had any idea of what he was doing. When us Conneticutioners tried to get Ned Lamont to take his place he pandered to the Republican vote so that he could stay in the Senate. That's kinda CINECAST!ed up.

[St. Martin the Bald]

I wish I had more time to participate in this - I will have to catch up later tonight...sigh...I actually have to work right now.

[¡Keith!]

I disliked Lieberman since I had any idea of what he was doing. When us Conneticutioners tried to get Ned Lamont to take his place he pandered to the Republican vote so that he could stay in the Senate. That's kinda CINECAST!ed up.

You aren't elected by a party - you are elected by the people.  When a majority thinks you'd do a better job than some party hack I think its a good thing.  The connecticut democratic party is what was CINECAST!ed up in that election.

[edgar00]

The video clips of Lieberman posted earlier are good example of towing the party line. But when does towing the party line go to far?  I am not terribly familiar with Lieberman but from what I gather he's suddenly turned his back on the Democrats for various (or a few specific) ideological reasons. Was he merely towing the party line back in '06, all the while keeping to himself some ideological positions that would never have gotten him elected? Or is this rather a new Lieberman with a new philosophy?

[Marbegirl]

Again - this is why we don't have a viable 3rd party.  One guy decides to go against his party who frankly turned on him first due to a single issue which he believed differently on and everyone starts calling for the guys head.  My great hope a year ago was the McCain/Lieberman ticket that would cause the kind of splinter that is exactly what you were talking about Marty but everyone who could brought pressure and nixed this from happening and you people bought it hook line and sinker.  Why can't a moderate if hawkish Northeast Democrat be on a ticket with a moderate southwest Republican?

I blame Palin on every democrat and republican who ever said a bad word about Lieberman.

I want Lieberman's head because he went against the party that helped him get elected when they needed his support. He's not the same Lieberman of the Gore/Lieberman ticket.

If this isn't the empitome of hypocrisy what is?

The party helped him do nothing? they abandoned him when it was clear he couldn't win the primary election that is systematically flawed so as to allow the most radical members into power.  Once he was free of that he no longer had to toe the party line (as McCain is doing now - and as I still maintain that he will break from again when the dust clears in this election), he could express whatever independent opinions he actually wanted to - that is not hypocritical in the least.  The hypocrisy is people who want to support a 3rd party in the name of "change" but only if that party believes the same as they do - that's not change, its suppression.

How about when the party helped fund and run his campaign to run again as senator? When Barack Obama campaigned for him when he was up again. And when the entire democratic party nominated him as VP in 2000? Parties don't elect people, but they sure as heck help.

He turned his back on a party that helped him get elected and then bashed their candidate, who was someone key in his reelection as senator and he had praised many times on national TV. I call that hypocrisy.

[Junior]

I disliked Lieberman since I had any idea of what he was doing. When us Conneticutioners tried to get Ned Lamont to take his place he pandered to the Republican vote so that he could stay in the Senate. That's kinda CINECAST!ed up.

You aren't elected by a party - you are elected by the people.  When a majority thinks you'd do a better job than some party hack I think its a good thing.  The connecticut democratic party is what was CINECAST!ed up in that election.

That doesn't stop me from thinking that he just wanted to get back in the Senate any way he could, no matter what any of his original supporters thought.

I have a friend who said that a lot of Republicans voted for him just so Ned Lamont wouldn't win. They didn't care if Lieberman actually had any kind of shared views, they just didn't like Lamont.

I also don't get any kind of warm feeling from him. It seems to me that he just wants to keep his job no matter what the consequences for his state.

[¡Keith!]

Again - this is why we don't have a viable 3rd party.  One guy decides to go against his party who frankly turned on him first due to a single issue which he believed differently on and everyone starts calling for the guys head.  My great hope a year ago was the McCain/Lieberman ticket that would cause the kind of splinter that is exactly what you were talking about Marty but everyone who could brought pressure and nixed this from happening and you people bought it hook line and sinker.  Why can't a moderate if hawkish Northeast Democrat be on a ticket with a moderate southwest Republican?

I blame Palin on every democrat and republican who ever said a bad word about Lieberman.

I want Lieberman's head because he went against the party that helped him get elected when they needed his support. He's not the same Lieberman of the Gore/Lieberman ticket.

If this isn't the empitome of hypocrisy what is?

The party helped him do nothing? they abandoned him when it was clear he couldn't win the primary election that is systematically flawed so as to allow the most radical members into power.  Once he was free of that he no longer had to toe the party line (as McCain is doing now - and as I still maintain that he will break from again when the dust clears in this election), he could express whatever independent opinions he actually wanted to - that is not hypocritical in the least.  The hypocrisy is people who want to support a 3rd party in the name of "change" but only if that party believes the same as they do - that's not change, its suppression.

How about when the party helped fund and run his campaign to run again as senator? When Barack Obama campaigned for him when he was up again. And when the entire democratic party nominated him as VP in 2000? Parties don't elect people, but they sure as heck help.

He turned his back on a party that helped him get elected and then bashed their candidate, who was someone key in his reelection as senator and he had praised many times on national TV. I call that hypocrisy.

they didn't fund his 2006 campaign - the "Connecticut for Lieberman" party funded it

"Connecticut for Lieberman is a new political party that carries on what used to be the ideals of the Democratic Party: A liberal approach to domestic issues coupled with a strong commitment to a robust foreign policy. New members who subscribe to this platform are welcome."

The dems funded the campaign of Ned Lamont.  Obama didn't support him, Hillary didn't support him, Dean didn't support him.  They all all turned their back on him not the other way around. Someone that they praised 6 years earlier for VP. I call that hypocrisy.

[¡Keith!]

The video clips of Lieberman posted earlier are good example of towing the party line. But when does towing the party line go to far?  I am not terribly familiar with Lieberman but from what I gather he's suddenly turned his back on the Democrats for various (or a few specific) ideological reasons. Was he merely towing the party line back in '06, all the while keeping to himself some ideological positions that would never have gotten him elected? Or is this rather a new Lieberman with a new philosophy?

He took a stand on one issue -the conduct of the Iraq war- that was different from the democratic stance at the time.  this lead a collection of anti-war PACs and bloggers to raise support for an anti-war candidate.  Primary rules being what they are - not a gauge of the electorate but of the most vocal (ne radical) members of a party to select who will then run in a general election where you have to win the support of a plurality of the whole constituency, they narrowly selected Lamont.  Lieberman decided that he would press on to the general as an independent candidate where he won the general election over Lamont without the support of the Dems.

I think all politicians do that (toe the line) when they have personal beliefs that conflict with those of their party.  They rarely speak about these issues - unless they are in a position without consequence.  Taking the two current PA senators as an example.  Bob Casey is our junior senator, he is a staunch catholic and pro-life... but he is a democrat.  Thus they tolerate him but he will never rise to prominence in the party and would likely lose a primary campaign to a pro-choice candidate if he made a big deal of pushing this view.  The reason he is in office is name recognition - the Casey's are a very respected PA political institution.  Arlen Spector on the other hand is a classic northeastern moderate Republican who will never be defeated in this state.  He is an institution unto himself and can say what he wants with impunity.  The christian coalition has called for his head over some of his comments on evolution and the fact that he is pro-choice (but also the head Rep on the judiciary committee - who approve judges to the nations courts).  He rarely has to toe anything and can thus differ with them whenever he wishes because they can't defeat him in an election.

Junior - every politician in the end is interested in keeping themselves in office as its is how they earn a living.  Sometimes this means toeing the line, sometimes they can say what they want (Barney Frank is now on the legalize it tip!)  It all depends on many factors.  Whenever you get a warm feeling about a candidate - just pull the opposite lever. Its the safest thing to do. 

[Osprey]

You do realize that Lieberman is an independent because he lost his last primary election to some total nonentity from Greenwich, if I remember correctly, I think largely because of the war.  Lieberamn absolutely walked all over him in the general election as an independent.  If that happened to me, I might not be that thrilled with the Democratic party.

Again - this is why we don't have a viable 3rd party.  One guy decides to go against his party who frankly turned on him first due to a single issue which he believed differently on and everyone starts calling for the guys head.  My great hope a year ago was the McCain/Lieberman ticket that would cause the kind of splinter that is exactly what you were talking about Marty but everyone who could brought pressure and nixed this from happening and you people bought it hook line and sinker.  Why can't a moderate if hawkish Northeast Democrat be on a ticket with a moderate southwest Republican?

I blame Palin on every democrat and republican who ever said a bad word about Lieberman.

I want Lieberman's head because he went against the party that helped him get elected when they needed his support. He's not the same Lieberman of the Gore/Lieberman ticket.

If this isn't the empitome of hypocrisy what is?

The party helped him do nothing? they abandoned him when it was clear he couldn't win the primary election that is systematically flawed so as to allow the most radical members into power.  Once he was free of that he no longer had to toe the party line (as McCain is doing now - and as I still maintain that he will break from again when the dust clears in this election), he could express whatever independent opinions he actually wanted to - that is not hypocritical in the least.  The hypocrisy is people who want to support a 3rd party in the name of "change" but only if that party believes the same as they do - that's not change, its suppression.

How about when the party helped fund and run his campaign to run again as senator? When Barack Obama campaigned for him when he was up again. And when the entire democratic party nominated him as VP in 2000? Parties don't elect people, but they sure as heck help.

He turned his back on a party that helped him get elected and then bashed their candidate, who was someone key in his reelection as senator and he had praised many times on national TV. I call that hypocrisy.

[Marbegirl]

Again - this is why we don't have a viable 3rd party.  One guy decides to go against his party who frankly turned on him first due to a single issue which he believed differently on and everyone starts calling for the guys head.  My great hope a year ago was the McCain/Lieberman ticket that would cause the kind of splinter that is exactly what you were talking about Marty but everyone who could brought pressure and nixed this from happening and you people bought it hook line and sinker.  Why can't a moderate if hawkish Northeast Democrat be on a ticket with a moderate southwest Republican?

I blame Palin on every democrat and republican who ever said a bad word about Lieberman.

I want Lieberman's head because he went against the party that helped him get elected when they needed his support. He's not the same Lieberman of the Gore/Lieberman ticket.

If this isn't the empitome of hypocrisy what is?

The party helped him do nothing? they abandoned him when it was clear he couldn't win the primary election that is systematically flawed so as to allow the most radical members into power.  Once he was free of that he no longer had to toe the party line (as McCain is doing now - and as I still maintain that he will break from again when the dust clears in this election), he could express whatever independent opinions he actually wanted to - that is not hypocritical in the least.  The hypocrisy is people who want to support a 3rd party in the name of "change" but only if that party believes the same as they do - that's not change, its suppression.

How about when the party helped fund and run his campaign to run again as senator? When Barack Obama campaigned for him when he was up again. And when the entire democratic party nominated him as VP in 2000? Parties don't elect people, but they sure as heck help.

He turned his back on a party that helped him get elected and then bashed their candidate, who was someone key in his reelection as senator and he had praised many times on national TV. I call that hypocrisy.

they didn't fund his 2006 campaign - the "Connecticut for Lieberman" party funded it

"Connecticut for Lieberman is a new political party that carries on what used to be the ideals of the Democratic Party: A liberal approach to domestic issues coupled with a strong commitment to a robust foreign policy. New members who subscribe to this platform are welcome."

The dems funded the campaign of Ned Lamont.  Obama didn't support him, Hillary didn't support him, Dean didn't support him.  They all all turned their back on him not the other way around. Someone that they praised 6 years earlier for VP. I call that hypocrisy.

You got me on the funding. But Obama and Clinton did infact support him:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman/

[Osprey]

Yes, I'm sure this grand group of guys and girls making NAIL bombs were really not looking to hurt anybody. In fact, I came up with that sentiment before reading this:

"On March 6, 1970, during preparations for the bombing of an officers' dance at the Fort Dix U.S. Army base and for Butler Library at Columbia University,[18] there was an explosion in a Greenwich Village safe house when the nail bomb being constructed prematurely detonated due to a wiring malfunction. WUO members Diana Oughton, Ted Gold, and Terry Robbins died in the explosion. Cathy Wilkerson and Kathy Boudin escaped unharmed..... An FBI report later stated that the group had possessed sufficient amounts of explosive to "level ... both sides of the street".[19]

The bomb preparations have been pointed out by critics of the claim that the Weatherman group did not try to take lives with its bombings. Harvey Klehr, the Andrew W. Mellon professor of politics and history at Emory University in Atlanta, said in 2003, "The only reason they were not guilty of mass murder is mere incompetence. I don't know what sort of defense that is."[18]"

Just because the FBI was harassing the Weathermen doesn't make what they did less illegal- they're just lucky they had a way to get off.  There are ways of getting people involved that don't involve blowing things up. Also, from what I've read, it's quite questionable how much Ayers really regrets.  Where's the line- what if this guy had actually "accidentally" killed somebody with his Haymarket bomb?  Could he be rehabilitated then?

He sounds like an ass, judging by his Wikipedia page.  Good to see he grew up, but that doesn't excuse his past.. particularly since he seems to have somehow gotten off scot free.

as he continues to be news in the election cycle (much to his distaste), it doesn't seem too outrageous to point folks to a statement of support for one of my committee-persons, the beautifully humane bill ayers

how so?  i zipped through the article and found nothing very assy.  i'm not sure if the article mentioned it, but him getting off "scot free" was due to years of police and fbi harassment and illegal activities.  because i zipped through the article, perhaps i also missed the fact that nobody was ever injured during their bombings - aside from their comrades building a bomb.  their bombings were meant to be symbolic statements against (namely) the Vietnam war-machine.  the bombs were small and always called in to evacuate the area.

frankly, i wish more people today would be politically active like the Weathermen were.  and i don't mean people doing things like killing abortion providers - though at least McSame and Palin stand up for those types.

funny that the Ayers non-issue has become newsworthy whereas the more recent, repulsive, and relevant work of McCain in the Keating Five has gone largely uncommented upon.  perhaps McSame would make the best president as he has the relevant experience in croneyism that defrauds tax-payers for suspect-to-illegal banking practices that the US clearly needs some help navigating.

are you really one of those?  (i guess i had my ayn rand phase when i was in high school )

and what would you call yr current phase?

not sure, i'll let you know in 10-20 years if i'm still around.  clearly, i'm very dis-satisfied with corporate socialism (or whatever one might want to call it) that is aggressively at work here in the states - supported by lap dogs Obama and McCain.

i'll likely vote for the ticket headed by a black person and supported by a woman:



vote your convictions