Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 46

Thread: Joe Lieberman's defeat: Does it spell trouble for Republicans?

  1. #1

    Question Joe Lieberman's defeat: Does it spell trouble for Republicans?

    Anti-war challenger Ned Lamont beat pro-war incumbent Joe Lieberman last night to become Connecticut's Democratic nominee for the United States Senate.

    Lamont, a millionaire with virtually no political experience, beat the incumbent by margin of 51.8 percent to 48.2 percent. Lieberman conceded defeat but decided he'll run as an independent in November.

    The campaign played out on two fronts. There was the routine advertising, speeches, and door-to-door salesmanship common to all elections. And there was the bloggers , the loosely allied liberal and anti-war activists who saw this as a way to punish a prominent Democrat who had repeatedly defended the Iraq war as just and necessary.

    In fact, not only did Lieberman endorse the ongoing military occupation of Iraq, but he frequently made statements that edged toward must-support-the-maximum-leader-during-wartime. That thinking might have been persuasive during World War II, but not during a "war on terror" that might last for the better part of the century and has already been going on for nearly five years.

    So what eventually led to Lieberman's primary loss on Tuesday? Was it the bloggers or Connecticut voters deciding they didn't need any more "Joementum?" It's hard to say. Few Democrats support the war in Iraq anyway (a CBS News poll last month found that 89 percent of Dems disapprove of Bush's handling of it), so it's not a stretch to conclude that Lieberman's aggressive hawkishness doomed him from the start. Then again, turning Lamont v. Lieberman into a national news story didn't hurt.

    But could it be that the politcal winds are decisively shifting in the U.S. and this is the beginning of a mass anti-war movement that keeps gathering momentum. Are the Republicans doomed?

    It's too early to tell but things are getting very interesting on the political front and we can expect the "war on terror" to be front and center in any campaign heading into the November elections.

    GG

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    wishing I was in Montreal
    Posts
    907

    Republicans doomed?

    GG,

    You almost got it right...

    Quote Originally Posted by General Gonad
    Anti-war challenger Ned Lamont beat pro-war incumbent Joe Lieberman last night to become Connecticut's Democratic nominee for the United States Senate.
    Lieberman spent 18 years in the Senate, was the Democratic nominee for Vice President, and the Democrats toss him out for his stance on the war?

    The campaign played out on two fronts. There was the routine advertising, speeches, and door-to-door salesmanship common to all elections. And there was the bloggers
    Don't forget, Lieberman got a personal visit & endorsement from Bill Clinton... the kiss of death!

    a "war on terror" that might last for the better part of the century and has already been going on for nearly five years.
    The problem is, the war on terror has been going on for far longer. Its only recently that the west has responded. Remember World Trade Center I (1993), Khobar Towers (1996), US Embassy in Kenya (1998)?

    a CBS News poll last month found that 89 percent of Dems disapprove of Bush's handling of it
    Yet the Democratic platform doesn't even mention the war in Iraq.

    But could it be that the politcal winds are decisively shifting in the U.S. and this is the beginning of a mass anti-war movement that keeps gathering momentum. Are the Republicans doomed?
    The only other prominent Democrat who supported the war was... Hillary Clinton! See how Democrats see her now -> http://news.bostonherald.com/columni...ticleid=151737

    I think this is the Democrats eating their own. When you have no real solutions (not my opinion, per their party platform), other than "we hate George Bush and we'll do everything different", you allow splinter groups in your party to take over. Lieberman was a staunch liberal, Democrat for 18 years, and they tossed him to the wolves of their own party. That says more about their party than it does about the Republicans.

    Regards,

    Voyager
    "No matter how sophisticated you may be, a large granite mountain cannot be denied—it speaks in silence to the very core of your being."
    -Ansel Adams

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Voyager
    I think this is the Democrats eating their own. When you have no real solutions (not my opinion, per their party platform), other than "we hate George Bush and we'll do everything different", you allow splinter groups in your party to take over. Lieberman was a staunch liberal, Democrat for 18 years, and they tossed him to the wolves of their own party. That says more about their party than it does about the Republicans.
    Voyager,

    Thanks for your feedback and I am in full agreement with most of your points, especially the last one.

    GG

  4. #4

    Its time for him to go

    I careless if he stays or go. When someone has made a life in politics, I feel, that they are no longer in touch with the common man. Half of the democrats supported the war, and like the good politicians that they are, and now that the war in not "polular" are no where to be seen. Most politician regardless of party line or beliefs are selfish and out for themselves. They would do what ever it takes to get the 2 or 3 terms in office. Why would any one pay 10-20 million of dollars to get a job that only pays 150,000k per year.

  5. #5
    Why would any one pay 10-20 million of dollars to get a job that only pays 150,000k per year.
    To get a kiss on the cheek by the president at the state of the union!!!!!
    Of all the worldly passions, lust is the most intense. All other worldly passions seem to follow in its train. Buddha Gotama

  6. #6
    Veteran of Misadventures
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,161
    You guys don't know much about Connecticut politics. I have spent my whole life in Connecticut and know a little bit about the scene here. First of all, Joe Lieberman is one of the most honest and distinguished senators that has ever served in the U.S. Senate. He was the Attorney General here for some years before Dick Blumenthal, graduated from Yale and is an extremely bright man. He has had a very long and distinguished career in the U.S. Senate, and is one of its leaders. Even though I am not a Democrat, I voted for Joe Lieberman in past elections because I liked him as Attorney General, liked him as a U.S. Senator and thought he was honest, decent and always had somewhat moderate views for a democrat, even before the Iraq War arose. He has always been his own man and not necessarily someone who toes the party line.

    Lieberman is Jewish, has close ties with Israel and became a somewhat outspoken and hawkish supporter of the Iraq War. Lamont waged an incredibly negative campaign against Lieberman which pretty much honed in on one issue: Lieberman's stand on the Iraq War. This was really the only issue Lieberman was attacked on, and it was the only issue he was capable of being attacked on. Somewhat unfortunately, Lieberman waged an equally negative campaign against Lamont, which was unlike anything seen in his prior campaigns.

    I think it is very unfortunate that American politics have become one issue soundbites. There is a tendency to focus in on one issue of each candidate and make a voting decision on that issue rather than all of the issues and a whole body of work. There is no way that Ned Lamont is going to better represent the interests of the people of the State of Connecticut than Joe Lieberman did. Lamont knows shit. He made his money on Cable TV. He is a millionaire with no political acumen, and his platform is largely unknown. What he did very effectively was attack Lieberman on one issue. I hope Lieberman does run as an independent, resigns from the Democratic party and defeats Lamont in the general election in November. He probably will, because a lot of conservatives who can't and don't vote in the Democratic primary will vote for Lieberman in the general election. And I doubt the Republican nominee, and I think I know who it will be, has the political cachet to beat Lieberman. Lieberman will win in November.
    Last edited by EagerBeaver; 08-09-2006 at 06:42 PM.

  7. #7
    EB

    You can express your opinions without saying that people are ignorants. As a starter, I'm a CT resident (I vote there) even if I spend a lot of time in the city. Re Lamont, I don't understand what is the problem; the fact that he made big $$$ or the fact he is against the war? I personally have more respect for people that achieve that kind of success rather than "professional" politicians living exclusively from our tax money. BTW I also like politicians to spend their own money for campaign rather than running with big companies $$$. On the war on Iraq, you have your opinions and I have mine, but it doesn't make either one of us an idiot. Generally speaking I don't see why we should seek bipartisanship in political action. Except for really important stuff you need to show your difference. I'm a (light) democrat and I don't want my senator to act as a hawkish republican. I will not vote for Lieberman not because I dislike him (I supported him in his last campaign) but because he does not represent my point of view anymore.
    Of all the worldly passions, lust is the most intense. All other worldly passions seem to follow in its train. Buddha Gotama

  8. #8
    Veteran of Misadventures
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,161
    Dyfre,

    I didn't say anyone was ignorant or an idiot. I said some of the posters here don't know much about Connecticut politics. In fact some of them probably never set foot in Connecticut. You are not going to get too many posters on the Montreal Escort Review Board who know much about Connecticut politics. This is a fact.

    You and I are Connecticut residents and we can differ about Lieberman. I am not a Democrat, but I always voted for him. I don't believe it is appropriate for Democrats voting in this primary to get rid of him because of his stance on ONE issue.

    Regarding Lamont, the problem is nobody knows anything about him or what he stand for, other than that he made money on Cable TV and can run an effective negative political campaign.
    Last edited by EagerBeaver; 08-09-2006 at 08:18 PM.

  9. #9
    Fair enough EB. On the issues, as far I know (I listened to the guy few weeks ago) he would be more in line with the main stream democratic positions (i.e. against the war effort, the nomination of some of the recent justices, fiscal conservative, etc) without being an ultra liberal. The problem is that when you agree with 75% of the republican policies, then you should become a republican (a moderate one in the case of Lieberman)! Re his lack of experience, I would say this is more of an advantage because he might have a fresher look which might be closer to commoners like you and I. One of the huge positives in U.S. public life is that people from the civil society can make a splash in public life and be successful.
    Of all the worldly passions, lust is the most intense. All other worldly passions seem to follow in its train. Buddha Gotama

  10. #10
    Veteran of Misadventures
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,161

    Connecticut Attorney General, FBI Investigating Crash of Lieberman Website

    Last edited by EagerBeaver; 08-10-2006 at 06:11 PM.

  11. #11

    Lieberman Pays for Flawed Bipartisan Embrace: Margaret Carlson

    Lieberman Pays for Flawed Bipartisan Embrace: Margaret Carlson

    Aug. 10 (Bloomberg) -- If only Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut had listened to my mother. Too much of a good thing, even moderation, is bad for you.

    Lieberman, one of the most decent politicians who ever lived, still doesn't get it, even after his defeat Tuesday by Ned Lamont, a millionaire businessman of meager credentials who benefited from the anger at the incumbent's brand of centrist politics. At a speech to supporters in Hartford on election night, Lieberman said, ``I'm fed up about the partisanship in Washington that stops us from getting things done.''

    One way to read this election is that Democrats are fed up with the bipartisanship that gets the wrong things done. With the Middle East aflame, the economy slowing and the minimum wage held hostage to the wealthy getting even wealthier by cuts in the estate tax, the day of reasonable, centrist politics for most Democrats is over.

    Over because the other side doesn't practice it. Over because this president who launched a war deceitfully and with insufficient planning and troops doesn't deserve it. Over because if you disagree with the president over his disaster in Iraq, you are accused of wanting to cut and run, of not supporting the troops. Over because if you disagree on cultural issues, you're called a baby killer who dishonors the traditional family.

    No Compromise

    Poor Lieberman thought Bush I was still president, or maybe Ronald Reagan, even Nixon.

    George W. Bush's idea of compromise is to stick his thumb in the eye of Congress at the very moment he's signing legislation by issuing a simultaneous ``signing statement'' saying he will abide by the new law when he feels like it.

    Lieberman chose not to fight with a president who prefers the language and the ways of cowboys -- from Bush's pledge to capture the enemy dead or alive to his promise to stay the course in Iraq when Americans are dying for an experiment in spreading democracy to the Middle East.

    The grievances against Lieberman extended beyond the war. Democrats, fueled by bloggers, are angry at just about everything. They never got over Lieberman's speech during impeachment in which he called Bill Clinton immoral (although Clinton got over it, showing up in Connecticut to campaign for Lieberman in his final, desperate weeks).

    The decorous and deferential way Lieberman treated Dick Cheney in the debates in 2000? That still grates. Then there was his reluctance to filibuster the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court and his siding with television diagnostician and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist that Terri Schiavo was not in a vegetative state.

    A Kiss From Bush

    A drive-by kiss that Bush planted on Lieberman as he was leaving the 2005 State of the Union speech was heard round the world and became the iconic symbol for the Lamont campaign of just how cozy Lieberman was with the president.

    By the time Lieberman realized he was seen to be as understanding of Bush as anyone save Laura and paid retainers, it was too late to do much about it.

    He could tick off the ways he differed. He could cite his voting close to 100 percent of the time with his fellow Democrats. He could buy time two days before the election to explain that he did disagree with Bush's conduct of the war and told him so. It wasn't going to work.

    First Casualty

    It's telling that a Democrat would be the first big politician to pay the price for Bush's war. If a Democrat is perceived as too close to Bush in a moderate state like Connecticut with a Republican governor and a near-balanced congressional delegation, Republicans aligned with Bush must be scared out of their wits today. Already, embattled candidates like Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and New Jersey senatorial nominee Tom Kean are suddenly finding themselves too busy when Bush or Cheney comes to town. Soon they'll be saying ``George who?''

    Lieberman has already filed to run as an independent in the November election in Connecticut. That means one of the most gregarious members of the Senate is going to find himself alone, as the party rallies around its nominee.

    Senator Hillary Clinton was the first to announce that she wouldn't support an independent run, making the declaration on July 4 -- the day Lieberman quietly announced he would file papers. Clinton has no strong challenger -- Democrat or Republican -- opposing her Senate re-election in New York, although she's twisting herself in knots to avoid the Lieberman curse before her expected presidential run.

    Search Your Conscience

    Yesterday, she urged Lieberman to ``search his conscience and decide what is best for Connecticut and for the Democratic Party,'' and incidentally, what might be best for her. He filed his signatures anyway.

    Lieberman could well win the general election with Republicans who have no one to vote for. Their candidate, Alan Schlesinger, is about as popular in Connecticut as Katherine Harris is in Florida. Schlesinger has been accused by a former state police casino licensing commander of using a ``Wampum card'' (a frequent-flier program for big gamblers) under an assumed name. Schlesinger responded that he hadn't used it in decades. Governor Jodi Rell suggested he drop out. He hasn't.

    What would a Lieberman victory do to the bloggers' celebration of their first road kill? In 1968, Gene McCarthy's antiwar candidacy in New Hampshire was fueled by college kids and activists; this year, the most important primary in the country was driven by Daily Kos, Howard Dean's brother and MoveOn.org.

    While the war more than the Web drove Lamont's victory, a small New England state has brought the disastrous military conflict to the forefront. It's too bad for Lieberman and the good part of his politics. But it's good for the country.

    (Margaret Carlson, author of ``Anyone Can Grow Up: How George Bush and I Made It to the White House'' and former White House correspondent for Time magazine, is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)

  12. #12
    Veteran of Misadventures
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,161
    As of this morning's polls, Joe Lieberman had a whopping 17 point lead over Ned Lamont in their senatorial race. If as expected Lieberman beats Lamont decisively on Election Day, which is only a couple of weeks away, we will see that the primary was meaningless and this discussion about the supposed ramifications of the primary is also meaningless, as I have been saying all along. The Republicans did not vote in that primary, nor did the Independents. I am one of a legion of indies that will vote for Lieberman on Election Day.

    Nevertheless it was amusing to see some Canadian folks speculating on politics in a State they have probably never set foot in.
    Last edited by EagerBeaver; 10-21-2006 at 01:58 PM.

  13. #13
    Veteran of Misadventures
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,161
    Curious,

    In a nutshell, Schlesinger has made mistakes, has skeletons in his closet which have come out in the media (gambling problem) and is too conservative and wild in his ideas. His mistakes mainly centered around the money per plate he wanted to charge at his fundraisers. $500 per plate isn't going to get it done and it is not realistic, not even in the richest state in the USA. Schlesinger does not listen to what more experienced people are telling him, and thinks he knows what it takes to run a successful campaign. Unfortunately for him, he will have to learn from his mistakes.
    Last edited by EagerBeaver; 10-21-2006 at 03:42 PM.

  14. #14
    Veteran of Misadventures
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,161
    regnaD,

    Schlesinger is a very good debater, there is no doubt about that. But there is more to a campaign than a debate, especially one that was not watched by a whole lot of people.

  15. #15
    Veteran of Misadventures
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,161
    Quote Originally Posted by btyger
    As for Lieberman, don't be so confident in a Lieberman victory, EB. Not this year. I hope he loses, as he, like so many others, should be held accountable for continuing to stand by this president's disastrous foreign policy. America is less safe and more indebted right now, because of things Joe Lieberman did.
    Excuse me but in Connecticut we don't mindlessly select our candidates based on their stance on one issue. Lieberman will win, he will win decisively and it will not be because of his stance on the Iraq War, but despite it - because his body of work over many years serving the people of this State is laudable, and people here remember it.

    Btyger, your post if a joke and it shows how pathetic American politics has become, voting on candidates based on one issue and/or a soundbite. I choose not to stoop to the level of ignorance most our media would have us stoop to, and vote on a candidate based on who he is and what he has done over a career. I would put Joe Lieberman's career up against anyone in our Senate. He is not the only one who supported the Iraq War and I am not going to punish him for it. He was good enough to be Al Gore's running mate in 2000, now you say he is a bum. Give me a freaking break.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •