Forums | MacLife

bratboy wrote:

Your repeated, disingenuous squawking that this is all about "democracy" is beyond tiring.

This is about Lieberman's ego.  Members of a political party have every right to insist that a party member who loses a primary election back down gracefully and throw their support behind the victor.  That's what being a member of a political party is about.

It may not matter in this particular case because there isn't a huge threat of them splitting the ticket.  In principle, however, it is a selfish act. 

Something tells me that if moderate, pro-choice "independent Republican" candidate threatened to split the ticket of the conservative Republican primary victor (leading to the election of the democrat in the race), Res wouldn't be so excited over the proposition.

Your repeated, disengous squawking that this all about Liebermans "ego" is beyond tiring.

Like it or not - what Lieberman is doing is perfectly legal.
Like it or not - lieberman lost the democrat primary by a very small margin, a small margin of what is just a subset of voters in his state. Therefore, he does have a good chance at winning.

If he loses, then clearly the people of his state do not want him to represent them.
If he wins, then clearly the people of his state want him to represent them.

That's what democracy is all about, is it not?

You can speculate how I would respond in a similar situation with republicans.
That does not change the fact that this is NOT a "vote splitting" situation, the republican doesn't have a chance in hell. What this is - it is an opportunity for all the citizens in the state to choose between two candidates - and that is democracy.

You might have a point if this was a vote splitting situation, but it clearly is not. If Lieberman only gets one more vote than the democrat candidate, the republican has still lost the race.

This is about the people of the state being able to choose who they want to represent them, and no accusations about Liebermans ego can change that simple fact.

bedstuy wrote:

Like Steve Laffey?

What about him?
I don't see how that race is comparable, I'm not aware of either candidate intending to run as an independent.

bedstuy wrote:

resedit wrote:

bedstuy wrote:

Like Steve Laffey?

What about him?
I don't see how that race is comparable, I'm not aware of either candidate intending to run as an independent.

Yeah, Lieberman is a moderate Democrat in a liberal state.  One could make the argument that there should be a liberal Democrat in a liberal state.

What there should be is the person the people of that state legally elect to represent them.
Someone ALL of the people of that state elect, not just the democrat party in that state.

But Chafee is a moderate Republican in a liberal state.  The fact that the Club for Growth is funneling money into the race and conservative base is out for blood illustrates that their all on crack.  Pass that glass pipe baby... now who is looney?

That situation is not comparable to the Lieberman situation.
The republicans are pouring a lot of money into that race, which may not be the best thing to do - I think they could spend it better in other ways, especially since the primary hasn't happened yet.

Wait for the primaries to finish, then look at where to spend your money. But it is their party to run, and if they want to spend a dumpload of money to support a particular candidate in a primary election, so be it. If that candidate loses, it's been a waste of money, but oh well.

bedstuy wrote:

color me unconvinced

Because all right wingers are the way NPR portrays them to be.

resedit wrote:

bedstuy wrote:

color me unconvinced

Because all right wingers are the way NPR portrays them to be.

NPR is the most evenhanded and in-depth news source that I come in contact with on a daily basis.

Unless you can provide specific evidence to the contrary, kindly STFU.

Can ya feel the Joementum?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiLA6me-u6s

Excuse me while I take a nap.

From the conservative Insight magazine:

GOP secretly channeled millions to Lieberman

The White House funneled millions of dollars through major Republican Party contributors to Sen. Joseph Lieberman�s primary campaign in a failed effort to ensure the support of the former Democrat for the Bush administration.

A senior GOP source said the money was part of Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove's strategy to maintain a Republican majority in the Senate in November. The source said Mr. Rove, together with Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, directed leading pro-Bush contributors to donate millions of dollars to Mr. Lieberman's campaign for re-election in Connecticut in an attempt that he would be a "Republican-leaning" senator.

"Joe [Lieberman] took the money but said he would not play ball," the source said. "That doesn't mean that this was a wasted investment."

DEMOCRACY IN ACTION++++++

Lieberman is increasingly incoherent.     Try and make sense of the next paragraph where Lieberman compares his attendance record in the Senate with Lamont's political attendance.

There is a moral equivalence between Ned Lamont more than a decade ago missing 6 votes on an unpaid town council while he was running his business full-time, and me as a full-time, senior U.S. Senator being paid $160,000 a year to show up to vote, and instead heading to political fundraisers and thus missing almost every single vote three years ago on legislation costing $1 trillion and enacting the most destructive changes to the most important health care program in American history. Ned's six missed votes on the part-time, unpaid town council that he simultaneously served on while running his business full-time is also equivalent to me, a full-time, $160,000-a-year Senator skipping more than half of all U.S. Senate votes on the Iraq War - the most destructive national security blunder in modern American history, which I championed.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/9/19/17041/6825

Daily Kos and I agree this is the sign of a man being backed into a corner.