Id rather have him as a president over Bush or Kerry.

I'd rather have him for my congressman than, Durbin, or Obama


thunder wrote:
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 11:32:19 -0400, Harry Krause wrote:


Lieberman might have avoided the primary today had he merely been
"hawkish" on the war and otherwise been non-supportive of Bush and
Bush's conduct of same.

Suggesting he might run as an independent, if he looses, has also cost
him. It's telling the primary voters that their votes don't count, and
that he somehow deserves to be their Senator. If he is going to run as an
independent, he should have at least kept his mouth shut until after the
primary.

Eisboch wrote:
Rightwingnuts have absolutely no influence on my high regard for Joe
Lieberman.

Mine neither.

... And his support of the war and/or perceived support of Bush have
absolutely no influence either.

OK, if you say so.

... I just think he's an honest man with strong
convections.


IMHO he is as honest & conscientious a Senator as is likely
to be found on either side.

*But* let me ask a few leading questions... why does the
Republican publicity machine suddenly want to dabble in a
Democrat election?

I can think of several reasons- by having a lot of blatant
Bush-Cheney Cheerleaders supporting Lieberman, he is more
likely to lose, thereby removing a senior Democratic Senator
with a lot of influence over where the money goes; also
putting in place a more vulnerable Democrat.

Did it not seem odd to anybody else that the rightwingnuts
are suddenly so hot about Lieberman, when just a few short
years ago they were screaming about what a
commie-liberal-fag-traitor he was (almost as bad as
shudder Al Gore).

DSK

On 8 Aug 2006 15:02:25 -0700, "basskisser" wrote:


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

Because I prefer courteous and vigorous debate than mindless robotism
currently in vogue in the left wing of the Democrat Party.

That's a heck of a statement, given that the right wingers would
blindly follow BushCo off of a cliff like lemmings!

Proof? You are awful quick to condemn all.
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John

Oh please - I made a freakin' typo.


Funny kind of typo, you made it two or three times in a row.
Another funny coincidence is that a lot of the rightwingnuts
are making exactly the same typo as a sort of highbrow
insult to the Democrats. George Will explained it a few
months ago.

And I do have the moral high ground. That's because I'm a moral kind
of guy.


Then why are you meddling in a primary election that is not
in your state and not in your party? Because the Rove-bots
and rightwingnuts are suddenly paying it a lot of attention?


It's not curteous to enter a debate under false pretenses.
Vigorous, maybe, but you can't expect anybody but fools to
stand up & salute when you enter flying false colors.


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
I'll pretend to understand that.

Ok, no, I won't.

It's simple. You claim to be a moderate... let's see some
moderate opinons from you. You claim to support Lieberman,
yet in the one instance in your life when you could have
voted for him because, as you say, you "really could support
a moderate Democrat" you did not vote for him because his
running mate was also a moderate Democrat.

In other words, you're not really a moderate. You know that,
I know that, so quit pretending. You're not fooling anybody.

DSK

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On 8 Aug 2006 15:02:25 -0700, "basskisser" wrote:


Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:

Because I prefer courteous and vigorous debate than mindless robotism
currently in vogue in the left wing of the Democrat Party.

That's a heck of a statement, given that the right wingers would
blindly follow BushCo off of a cliff like lemmings!

Proof? You are awful quick to condemn all.

Kevin is projecting again

--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:38:52 -0400, DSK wrote:

Then why are you meddling in a primary election that is not
in your state

Last time I looked Shortwave Tom was very much in Connecticut.

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:03:09 -0400, DSK wrote:


IMHO he is as honest & conscientious a Senator as is likely to be found on
either side.

*But* let me ask a few leading questions... why does the Republican
publicity machine suddenly want to dabble in a Democrat election?

I can think of several reasons- by having a lot of blatant Bush-Cheney
Cheerleaders supporting Lieberman, he is more likely to lose, thereby
removing a senior Democratic Senator with a lot of influence over where
the money goes; also putting in place a more vulnerable Democrat.

Did it not seem odd to anybody else that the rightwingnuts are suddenly so
hot about Lieberman, when just a few short years ago they were screaming
about what a commie-liberal-fag-traitor he was (almost as bad as shudder
Al Gore).

I can think of another very good reason Republicans are interested, fear.
The main issue that brought Lieberman's defeat, was his support for the
war in Iraq. That makes a lot of Republicans, and Democrats, worried.
It's too early to say, how a Democrats defeat, in a relatively liberal
state, will translate to a national election in November, but I would say,
many do have reason to worry.

"thunder" wrote in message
...


I can think of another very good reason Republicans are interested, fear.
The main issue that brought Lieberman's defeat, was his support for the
war in Iraq. That makes a lot of Republicans, and Democrats, worried.
It's too early to say, how a Democrats defeat, in a relatively liberal
state, will translate to a national election in November, but I would say,
many do have reason to worry.


There may be an unexpected backlash in the national elections that does not
favor Democratic candidates.
Democrats everywhere will be taking notice of what happened to Joe Lieberman
and collectively will be moving their respective positions more to the
left, further narrowing voter options. Republican candidates will then have
room to move more to a center "moderate" position and may end up having more
appeal nationwide.

Betcha Hillary starts moving left soon. This is going to be interesting.

Eisboch

On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 06:41:50 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...


I can think of another very good reason Republicans are interested,
fear. The main issue that brought Lieberman's defeat, was his support
for the war in Iraq. That makes a lot of Republicans, and Democrats,
worried. It's too early to say, how a Democrats defeat, in a relatively
liberal state, will translate to a national election in November, but I
would say, many do have reason to worry.


There may be an unexpected backlash in the national elections that does
not favor Democratic candidates.
Democrats everywhere will be taking notice of what happened to Joe
Lieberman and collectively will be moving their respective positions
more to the left, further narrowing voter options. Republican
candidates will then have room to move more to a center "moderate"
position and may end up having more appeal nationwide.

Betcha Hillary starts moving left soon. This is going to be
interesting.

While my politics differed with Lieberman, he did have my respect. You
knew where he stood. He was unlike the gutless wonders you describe
above. Those willing to take any side of any issue to get elected, then
sliding back once they are entrenched. It will be interesting, but I
don't think much will change, regardless of which party wins.
Unfortunately, to me, both parties are much the same. With 300 million
people, I keep thinking we should be able to find better leadership.

Harry Krause wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"thunder" wrote in message
...

I can think of another very good reason Republicans are interested,
fear.
The main issue that brought Lieberman's defeat, was his support for the
war in Iraq. That makes a lot of Republicans, and Democrats, worried.
It's too early to say, how a Democrats defeat, in a relatively liberal
state, will translate to a national election in November, but I would
say,
many do have reason to worry.


There may be an unexpected backlash in the national elections that
does not favor Democratic candidates.
Democrats everywhere will be taking notice of what happened to Joe
Lieberman and collectively will be moving their respective positions
more to the left, further narrowing voter options. Republican
candidates will then have room to move more to a center "moderate"
position and may end up having more appeal nationwide.

Betcha Hillary starts moving left soon. This is going to be interesting.

Eisboch





I dunno. What is it now - 65%-70% of Americans are none too pleased with
the Bush Administration's conduct of its war against Iraq? While the
Repubs will try to paint Lamont and other Dems who oppose their war as
"weak on defense," I don't believe that dog is going to hunt. You'd
think by now that most voters would be able to differentiate between a
failed foreign policy that has drained our national security and a
reasoned approach to getting out of Iraq that recognizes that country is
heading down the toilet.

The Democrats are weak on defense.

The Bush-Republican-Neocon fiasco has done us serious and long-lasting
damage around the world. We have "lost face" everywhere. Central and
South America are turning left. Iran is thumbing its nose at us every
way it can, and because we're bogged down in Iraq, it was able to get
its Hezbollah client to start up serious trouble with Israel.

We are in the initial stages of WWIII. You can choose to bury your head
in the sand if you want but, this war hasn't even gotten started.

The Bush Republicans have failed miserably. It's time to put some
backbone in Congress and make sure our handicapped POTUS doesn't make
any more really serious foreign policy mistakes for the remainder of his
term.

Backone yes, but it is the Democrats that need to stand up and do what
is best for the country not just to regain political power. The biggest
problem with the democrats is that they are power hungry and only power
hungry.