*They abandon Lieberman just because he doesn't hate Bush. The man is a solid democrat on every issue, but he's not lock-step with the progressive side of the party and he's ousted? **Even conservatives have people that don't side with Bush often, and that's perfectly acceptable. Part of the reason why the repubs fail to legislate is because the inner workings of the party are fairly diverse in opinion...ranging from lean-libertarians to neo-cons (which truely aren't that common)...the spectrum is fairly big. The dems are treading on thin ice, because the ultra-progressive views aren't going to go well with the populace. I don't like Bush, but I'm not delusional about foreign policy...anti-bush isn't direction or leadership....it's plain stupid. Every time I watch C-SPAN I realize how lacking in leadership the dems are. They could easily win back congress if they came up with an actual plan of action...not this convoluted anti-bush rhetoric that's all too consume of their time. It's really a shame that they continue to live in a politcal/philosophical backhole of an idealogy...sadly many people continue to do that on this forum. http://news.yahoo.com/fc/us/midterm_elections_2006 HARTFORD, Conn. - Top Democrats on Capitol Hill abandoned Sen. Joe Lieberman one by one Wednesday and threw their support to Ned Lamont, the anti-war challenger who defeated him in the primary. But Lieberman said his conscience demands that he run as an independent in November. "I think it would be irresponsible and inconsistent with my principles if I were to just walk off the field," Lieberman said in an interview with The Associated Press a day after his loss to the political newcomer in a race that was considered an early referendum on the Iraq war.
That's funny, because many of them voted to give him that authority. They could use the stupid excuse they didn't know... Guilible or corrupt....I knew that authority would be used that way. He doesn't sound unreasonable, in fact he sounds sane among the other wackos.. “I want to get our troops home as fast as anyone, probably more than most, and as I have repeatedly said, I am against an open-ended commitment,†Mr. Lieberman said, according to a copy of remarks prepared for delivery. “But if we simply give up and pull out now, like my opponent wants to do, then it would be a disaster to Iraq and to us. We would run a high risk of allowing Iraq to become like Afghanistan when the Taliban were in charge, and Al Qaeda had safe haven from which to strike us.â€
Lamont is an Islamofascist? Do you have an example or source? Or is that another one of those cooky-paranoid-right-wing-nutcase expressions?
I think it's just a matter of how optimistic a person you can be. Iraq Currently = Huge disaster. So you have to decide, will our troops staying there, continuing to die everyday, ever accomplish stability in Iraq, and at how much more of a cost? If you don't think they can, then you would obviously want them sent home now. If you think they can, then you would obviously want them to stick it out a while longer. It's not about wanting to lose or win, it's just about what you believe is possible.
Stability in that region is the only chose. While the methods vary, it's absolutely necessary. Note: Stability is just a relative notion...I know violence will exist for sometime.
In reality, this is just another in a long line of defeats for the (mainstream) democratic party. This one really comes at the cost of their own though. As the party drifts further and further left; its chances of ever putting someone in the whitehouse grow smaller and smaller. The situation here, is probably why the democrats are looking to change up the primary system they have going. The more sane (moderate) voices are weeded out early in the process, while the extreme left candidate is pushed through to the general election, where (save clinton), they have been dismal failures.
Do you guys comprhend that there isn't going to be stability? That the groups in the Iraq have been fighting for like 1400 years? 1400 YEARS, http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/features/archive/news/2005/08/20050831p2g00m0fe042000c.html That should clue you in on how long they might keep fighting Everyone politician who voted for the war should step down, everyone who keeps supporting it should be voted out of office Good riddance to Lieberman, maybe fox can give him colms job Good riddance to that crackpot lady from down south, they should get rid of 75% of the people who are in office now
Don't worry - oil barons with cowboy hats from Texas can solve all of the world's problems and keep America secure
Fools, Leiberman will run as an independant and defeat lamont (is that french?). One less jew voting dem..... I bet republicans will PICK UP SEATS IN 06!!!
My father is an old democrat, and he's rather lost in the political shuffle. Difference is, he actually has views that aren't anti-based....and to some level I agree with him. The new liberals aren't anything like their more reason-minded predessors. It's a shame what they did to a once respectable party.... I'm talking pre-LBJ.
Same with the Jews and the Muslims...but like I said, you must get relative stability in that region. You have too many big boys around there e.g Russia, China, and India, and some of them aren't so kind. The moment any large scale conflict blows up over there, it's world war III. There is no chose but to limit all engagements in that region, so they don't get passed a certain point. The methods vary, but it's not a matter of 'it will happen anyways, so lets just let it be.'
I read some blogs today from democrats saying that this was it for them in the party. Many of the comments echo my opinion of the modern day liberal - juvenile, reactionary opinions on issues, instead of actually thinking about things. Name calling, trivial responses to serious issues. Its kinda sad, really. Not that republicans are much better sometimes, mind you, and in some respects the old party allegiances are both falling by the wayside, just happening a lot quicker that one would have thought.
It is of my opinion, that since 1965, they've been replacing their constituents with mostly uneducated immigrants...whom prodominatly come from central/south America. They vote 80% of the time for democrats. Rather than seeking doctors, scientist,... dems focus primarily on getting cheap votes.....years of having just the poor/uneducated come-in have slowly built their extreme leftist views, and inflated industries/infrastructures of dire need. Leaving Old democrats behind...rather good people in my opinion. I don't like the common Republican....I like conservatives, though. Most are generally level-headed. Some are a bit crazy on foreign policy, and often others aren't really free-market oriented...but given a few exceptions, the conservative base is ten times better than the dems progressive base.