Lieberman Defiant In Defeat

gwhunter69

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jun 10, 2002
Messages
13,215
Reaction score
2


Lieberman Defiant In Defeat

12:25 AM EDT, August 9, 2006

By MARK PAZNIOKAS, The Hartford Courant With the nation watching, Connecticut Democrats thronged to the polls in unexpectedly high numbers Tuesday to reject Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman and endorse his anti-war challenger, Ned Lamont.

Unofficial results showed Lamont winning 52 percent of the vote, defeating a three-term incumbent who had come to be defined by his defense of the war in Iraq despite an advertising blitz begging voters to judge him on a progressive labor and environmental record.

Link
 



gwhunter69

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jun 10, 2002
Messages
13,215
Reaction score
2
DICK MORRIS: JOE WILL RISE AGAIN
Wed Aug 09 2006 09:15:38 ET

August 9, 2006 -- Reports of Joe Lieberman's political death are (as Mark Twain once said of rumors of his own demise) "premature and grossly exaggerated." Lieberman has lost a battle, but he can still win the war running as an independent.

While Ned Lamont will clearly have a bounce after yesterday's primary victory, the Rasmussen Poll of July 20 showed Lieberman and Lamont tied at 40 percent each in the general election (with scandal-plagued GOP nominee Alan Schlesinger at 13 percent).

Those who would consign Lieberman to the dustbin of history need to realize that the Democratic primary in Connecticut is an affair that could be conducted in a good-sized phone booth. About 140,000 people voted for Lamont. But the state saw 1,575,000 votes cast in the general election of 2004. Assume a lower turnout in 2006 (an off year), say 1 million votes, that still leaves 860,000 that can vote for Lieberman.
Link

Link #2
 

gwhunter69

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jun 10, 2002
Messages
13,215
Reaction score
2
Win for the wackadoo wing

by Michael Goodwin

Leftward, march! The sucking sound you heard from Connecticut last night was the air going out of the war on terror. At least among many Democrats.
The party's voters have spoken - and they are wrong to try to fire Joe Lieberman after three distinguished terms in the Senate. Now we know what a nutmeg really is. It has something to do with a nutty decision.

Don't buy the baloney that Lieberman lost his primary race because he had lost touch with his home base on a range of issues. Rich upstart Ned Lamont was all about Lieberman's support for the Iraq war and coziness with President Bush. That's what this election was about, period.
Link
 

beastslayer

Banned
Joined
Apr 15, 2004
Messages
2,861
Reaction score
0
GW - I envy you, you have an exclusive thread. Oops, sorry I broke the pattern.

Anyway, association with Bush and the Iraq war is more toxic than I thought. Well, understandbly, Bush and Iraq war has 62% and 63% disapproval ratings respectively.

I wonder even if Republicans will invite him for campaigning and endorsements.
 

gwhunter69

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jun 10, 2002
Messages
13,215
Reaction score
2
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
I wonder even if Republicans will invite him for campaigning and endorsements.
[/b]
If they were smart, then they would. The Pro-Terrorist/Anti-War/Anti-US cowards would not vote for a Republican if he were the only name on the ballot, so there is no loss there in Republican votes. This election or the aftermath really does not affect Republicans, but it is extremely bad news for Democrats especially if you live in a Democrat leaning state. Democratic candidates now have no choice but to be anti-Iraq War (extreme left) if they want to win their party's nomination, then they have to run to the middle in the general election. These elections results proves that Democrats are almost evenly split anti and pro Iraq War. If the pro-Iraq War Democrats vote on that issue, then you will see at least a portion of them more than likely voting Republican in the general election. Democrat crossover voters are death for Extremist Democratic candidates in virtually evenly split districts, counties or states.
 

beastslayer

Banned
Joined
Apr 15, 2004
Messages
2,861
Reaction score
0
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gwhunter69 @ Aug 9 2006, 11:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
The Pro-Terrorist/Anti-War/Anti-US cowards...[/b]
Shades of an Ann Coulterism? I did know that could be contagious.

Simple question, what happens to the anti-war Republicans? If 62% of Americans are against Iraq war, would that mean they are all Democrats? That should worry you, that would be a lot of people who changed their party affiliation from being Republican into Democrat.

And simple logic, if 62% of Americans are anti-Iraq war and there is an anti-war candidate, who do you think will win?
 

gwhunter69

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jun 10, 2002
Messages
13,215
Reaction score
2
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Shades of an Ann Coulterism? I did know that could be contagious.[/b]
So, you are saying I am speaking the blunt and abrasive truth.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Simple question, what happens to the anti-war Republicans? If 62% of Americans are against Iraq war, would that mean they are all Democrats? That should worry you, that would be a lot of people who changed their party affiliation from being Republican into Democrat.[/b]
No, there are anti-Iraq War Republicans. I know a couple myself. But there is a world of difference between the two. The anti-Iraq War Republicans are still supportive of our military and would not give aid and comfort to the enemy, and by and large the anti-Iraq War Democrats "loathe the military" to use Bill Clinton's words.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
And simple logic, if 62% of Americans are anti-Iraq war and there is an anti-war candidate, who do you think will win?[/b]
Simple logic tells me that 62% appears to be too high. I am curious what slanted poll you dug that number up from.
 

beastslayer

Banned
Joined
Apr 15, 2004
Messages
2,861
Reaction score
0
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gwhunter69 @ Aug 9 2006, 12:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
The anti-Iraq War Republicans are still supportive of our military and would not give aid and comfort to the enemy, and by and large the anti-Iraq War Democrats "loathe the military" to use Bill Clinton's words.

Simple logic tells me that 62% appears to be too high. I am curious what slanted poll you dug that number up from.[/b]
Then these anti--Iraq War democrats should be lined up against the wall for treason. By the way, do you suppose they are also supporting Bin Ladin? I think Hillary is "giving aid and comfort" to some terrorist in her house in New York. Coward, right? I remember Kerry went to war. Bush did not even complete his basic training. Rumsfield or Cheney had multiple deferments. Define coward again please?

That's the poll from ABC as of Aug. 6, 2006 Sorry, I know you only believe Fox but they stopped taking polls when Bush's numbers went south.
 

gwhunter69

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jun 10, 2002
Messages
13,215
Reaction score
2
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Define coward again please?[/b]
coward adj.

1: a person who shows fear or timidity 2: English dramatist and actor and composer noted for his witty and sophisticated comedies

Word History: A coward is one who “turns tail.” The word comes from Old French couart, coart, “coward,” and is related to Italian codardo, “coward.” Couart is formed from coe, a northern French dialectal variant of cue, “tail” (from Latin cda), to which the derogatory suffix -ard was added. This suffix appears in bastard, laggard, and sluggard, to name a few. A coward may also be one with his tail between his legs. In heraldry a lion couard, “cowardly lion,” was depicted with his tail between his legs. So a coward may be one with his tail hidden between his legs or one who turns tail and runs like a rabbit, with his tail showing.


In other words, if you are attacked like we were on September 11th and your reaction is to run, then you are a coward. Funny that the word coward is derived from a French word.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
By the way, do you suppose they are also supporting Bin Ladin?[/b]
Some people in this country do support Bin Laden, do not fool yourself into think otherwise. But, most people giving aid and comfort just hate this country, thus, anyone fighting us is a hero to them. Alec Baldwin pops into my mind...Sean Penn is another.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
I remember Kerry went to war.[/b]
I applaud him for that, but then he comes back and trashes this country??? Not exactly a guy I would be highlighting to make your point if I were you.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Bush did not even complete his basic training.[/b]
Wow, this is a new DNC lie. Interesting. I had not heard that one before. Funny how, George W. Bush serves in the National Guard as a pilot and suddenly he is a deserter and now allegedly never finished basic training. I see you have no idea how the military works or you would not be repeating that BS. Common sense should tell you that it is pure BS.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Rumsfield or Cheney had multiple deferments.[/b]
Actually, this is also an inaccurate statement. I know that Cheney was in fact drafted, but got declared 4F (medically unfit to serve) due to a childhood knee injury. I believe the same went for Rumsfeld. Geez Beast, I never had you pegged as a blind follower and spewer of incorrect DNC propoganda. I thought you had your own brain.
 

gwhunter69

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jun 10, 2002
Messages
13,215
Reaction score
2
For the record, Donald Rumsfeld is too old to have been drafted...but he did serve in the Navy.

RUMSFELD, Donald Henry, a Representative from Illinois; born in Chicago, Cook County, Ill., July 9, 1932; A.B., Princeton University, Princeton, N.J., 1954; received a commission in the United States Navy and served as a naval aviator and flight instructor, 1954-1957; administrative assistant to United States Representative David Dennison of Ohio, 1957- 1959; staff of United States Representative Robert Griffin of Michigan, 1959; investment broker in Chicago, Ill., 1960-1962; elected as a Republican to the Eighty-eighth Congress and to the three succeeding Congresses (January 3, 1963-May 25, 1969); resigned May 25, 1969; Assistant and Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity in the Cabinet of President Richard M. Nixon, 1969-1970; Counsellor to President Richard M. Nixon, 1970-1973; Director of the Cost of Living Council, 1971-1973; Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 1973-1974; White House chief of staff in the Administration of President Gerald R. Ford, 1974-1975; Secretary of Defense in the Cabinet of President Gerald R. Ford, 1975-1977; member of President Ronald W. Reagan’s General Advisory Committee on Arms Control and advisor to the government on national security affairs, 1983-1984; Special Presidential Ambassador to the Middle East, 1983-1984; Secretary of Defense in the Cabinet of President George W. Bush, 2001-present.
 

gwhunter69

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jun 10, 2002
Messages
13,215
Reaction score
2
And I was wrong about Cheney deferrments...I must have gotten him mixed up with another person.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Cheney and the draft

There continues to be some controversy involving Dick Cheney and the draft, due in part to Cheney's five draft deferments. In January 1959, when Mr. Cheney reached age 18 and was classified as 1-A — available for service — he was doing poorly at Yale. At that time, however, the military was taking only older men, and like most others who were in college at the time, Cheney had little concern about being drafted. In June 1962, Cheney left Yale to return home to Casper, where he worked as a lineman for a power company. In 1962, only 82,060 men were inducted into the service, the fewest since 1949. While Cheney was eligible for the draft, as he said during his confirmation hearings in 1989, he was not called up because the Selective Service System was taking only older men.

By January 1963, with the US actively advising South Vietnamese forces, Cheney enrolled in Casper Community College and turned 22 that month. At that time, he sought his first student deferment which was granted on March 20, according to records from the Selective Service System. After transferring to the University of Wyoming at Laramie, Cheney sought his second student deferment on July 23, 1963. On August 7, 1964, Congress approved the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which allowed President Lyndon B. Johnson to use military force in Vietnam. From that point on, American involvement in Vietnam began to escalate rapidly.

After graduating from the University of Wyoming in 1963 with a Bachelor's degree in political science, Cheney stayed at the U of W to complete an MA in political science, graduating in 1965.

On August 29, 1964, 22 days after the resolution, Cheney married his high school sweetheart, Lynne. He sought and was granted his third student deferment on October 14, 1964. In May 1965, Cheney graduated from college and his draft status changed to 1-A. Since he was married, however, he had somewhat better protection from being drafted. In July, 1965, Johnson announced that he was doubling the number of men drafted. The number of inductions soared, to 382,010 in 1966 from 230,991 in 1965 and 112,386 in 1964. Cheney obtained his fourth deferment because he started graduate school at the University of Wyoming on November 1, 1965.

On October 6, 1965, the Selective Service lifted its ban against drafting married men who had no children. Nine months and two days later, Cheney's first daughter, Elizabeth, was born. On January 19, 1966, when his wife was about 10 weeks pregnant, Mr. Cheney applied for 3-A status, the "hardship" exemption, which excluded men with children or dependent parents. It was granted. In January 1967, Cheney turned 26 and was no longer eligible for the draft.[/b]
 

beastslayer

Banned
Joined
Apr 15, 2004
Messages
2,861
Reaction score
0
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gwhunter69 @ Aug 9 2006, 02:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
There continues to be some controversy involving Dick Cheney... he was doing poorly at Yale.[/b]
What a combination! No wonder we are in this kind of mess.

A president who was seen as "unremarkable" student at Harvard. A vice president who "...(did) poorly at Yale". The highest person in the defence department who was a "...flight instructor..." (that's a little bit higher in prestige in the service than a desk job for us civilians).

What else you got there GW?
 

gwhunter69

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jun 10, 2002
Messages
13,215
Reaction score
2
Oh Beast, do you really want me to trot out the credentials on the Clinton Administration????
 

IBAfoo

Inactive
Joined
Feb 27, 2002
Messages
464
Reaction score
0
First. GWhunters posts that the Katherine Harris race in FL is "50-50." !!!!!

Remember this gem???????

"Personally, I think Harris has about a 50/50 chance of beating Nelson at this point."

And this one, that Harris has been running an "adequate" campaign.

"Contrary to your belief Foo, Harris has been running an at least adequate campaign. In politics, your goal is to keep your foot out of your mouth. She has done that AND she has been getting some respectable press to boot. "

Really? Respectable press? From who?????? How many campaign staffs has she been through now, 3 or 4? How many people have walked from her campaignDo you read before you say this things? That campaign is a joke.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:2eJFSN...t=clnk&cd=8

Or wait, this one, from July 31 06, AP is too choice not to reproduce in full!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The state Republican Party bluntly told Rep. Katherine Harris that she couldn't win this fall's Senate election and that the party wouldn't support her campaign, a letter obtained Monday by The Associated Press shows.

Party Chairman Carole Jean Jordan made a last-ditch attempt in the confidential May 7 letter to force Harris out of the race for the nomination to challenge Democrat Sen. Bill Nelson. But the next day, Harris turned in paperwork to get her name on the Sept. 5 Republican primary ballot.

The letter came as Gov. Jeb Bush was trying to get state House Speaker Allan Bense into the race. Bense announced later that week that he would not enter the race.


Despite all that GW Hunter has the courage to be at odds with the Conventional Wisdom and the Governor of the state and the Chair of the Republican Party in Florida who is trying to FORCE her out of the race!!!!!!!!

"Therefore, it is my opinion that she has at least a 50/50 chance of being Florida's next Senator."


Yes, GWhunter, I am laughing you. You don't know whereof you speak on this issue. I politely suggest you read one article from the last month on that race and you may decide your analysis is flawed. lol.



Now this one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes the "simple logic" of our moderator, GW hunter.....

"Simple logic tells me that 62% appears to be too high. I am curious what slanted poll you dug that number up from."


It may be simple, but it ain't logic GW. And yes, for the record, Beast may have a poll that is one or two points different than this one, which has a + - of 3% anyway....


8-7-06
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Sixty percent of Americans oppose the U.S. war in Iraq and a majority would support a partial withdrawal of troops by year's end, a CNN poll said on Wednesday.

It was the CNN poll's highest number opposing the war since fighting began in March 2003, a figure that has risen steadily since then, according to the Opinion Research Corp. survey conducted last week on behalf of the cable network.

The poll showed 36 percent of respondents said they were in favor of the war -- half the peak 72 percent who supported the war as it began, said the poll of 1,047 Americans.

The telephone survey, which had an error margin of 3 percentage points, showed 61 percent believed at least some U.S. troops should be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of 2006.




Here is another one....

8/2-3/06 Favor the war 36 Oppose the war 62 No opinion 2



Well America, do you support Bush and war like GW?



Approve Disapprove Unsure
% % %
ALL adults 32 62 6
Republicans 64 33 3
Democrats 7 89 4
Independents 29 63 8


Yep, there is GW hunter. Hanging in there with the 32 to 36% of the country that have faith in Bush II and the war. But give them credit, 64% of team Red is hanging in there with Bush and GW.



But then, there is this the unedited "wisdom" of GW hunter......


"If they were smart, then they would. The Pro-Terrorist/Anti-War/Anti-US cowards would not vote for a Republican if he were the only name on the ballot, so there is no loss there in Republican votes. This election or the aftermath really does not affect Republicans, but it is extremely bad news for Democrats especially if you live in a Democrat leaning state. Democratic candidates now have no choice but to be anti-Iraq War (extreme left) if they want to win their party's nomination, then they have to run to the middle in the general election. These elections results proves that Democrats are almost evenly split anti and pro Iraq War. If the pro-Iraq War Democrats vote on that issue, then you will see at least a portion of them more than likely voting Republican in the general election. Democrat crossover voters are death for Extremist Democratic candidates in virtually evenly split districts, counties or states."



First, I would point out that that entire analysis is at odds with the most recent polls, reality, and the most recent election results. I could take it apart on line at a time, but it is not worth the effort.

But, Second, this need to be said loud and clear GW....

You will appreciate that this language is inflamatory and inaccurate.....

"Pro-Terrorist/Anti-War/Anti-US cowards...."

Don't you dare equate opposition to this war as cowardice. Don't you dare equate being against the war with being "Anti-US." Don't you ever refer to people who oppose this war as "Pro-Terrorist."

I don't care who you are, that is not OK. It is not funny and you would never say that to anyone's face. You are not a civil person and there is no need, therefore, to treat you in a civil manner. Don't try to claim that you used that language tongue in cheek. I am quoting you in context, and that sort of language is not acceptable in reference to your fellow citizens, not in this climate.
 

beastslayer

Banned
Joined
Apr 15, 2004
Messages
2,861
Reaction score
0
Pls do GW. I am a student of politics and history.

But that would be moot and academic since Clinton is one of the most successful presidency in U.S. history ... "eight continous years of unprecedented economic expansion" that Bush and his team has squandered; $400 billion in surplus that turned into $421 billion in deficit; a war on a misidentified enemy; political allies and high ranking party official associated with convicted public official briber (?) Abramoff, etc.
 

gwhunter69

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jun 10, 2002
Messages
13,215
Reaction score
2
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
First. GWhunters posts that the Katherine Harris race in FL is "50-50." !!!!!

Remember this gem???????

"Personally, I think Harris has about a 50/50 chance of beating Nelson at this point."

And this one, that Harris has been running an "adequate" campaign.

"Contrary to your belief Foo, Harris has been running an at least adequate campaign. In politics, your goal is to keep your foot out of your mouth. She has done that AND she has been getting some respectable press to boot. "

"Contrary to your belief Foo, Harris has been running an at least adequate campaign. In politics, your goal is to keep your foot out of your mouth. She has done that AND she has been getting some respectable press to boot. "

Really? Respectable press? From who?????? How many campaign staffs has she been through now, 3 or 4? How many people have walked from her campaignDo you read before you say this things? That campaign is a joke.[/b]
Whatever Foo, I am trying to figure out what this has to do with Joe Lieberman. I think you are on the wrong thread. But since you broach the subject, aren't you calling the Harris race a little early??? Last time I looked the primary was not until September 5th and the general was not until November 7th. I guess you got some insider information there. Glad to hear you are so wired into FL politics.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Yes, GWhunter, I am laughing you. You don't know whereof you speak on this issue. I politely suggest you read one article from the last month on that race and you may decide your analysis is flawed. lol.[/b]
Laugh away Foo...does not bother me a bit. I call them the way I see them. Quite frankly, I do not see a 50/50 chance of winning a ringing endorsement. If you were intelectually honest, which you have proven you are not, then you would see my comment for what they are. Is Harris going to lose? Who knows? I think she has an even chance to win at this moment. Things could easily change after the primary and Nelson focuses his guns on her...that is politics. Unfortunately, you are too narrow-minded to admit simple facts. Politics is volatile business and if you start believing everything thing you read, then you might as well decide by throwing darts. So laugh away, but remember the person who laughs last laughs the hardest. A little too early to gloat Foo, don't you think?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
Don't you dare equate opposition to this war as cowardice. Don't you dare equate being against the war with being "Anti-US." Don't you ever refer to people who oppose this war as "Pro-Terrorist."

I don't care who you are, that is not OK. It is not funny and you would never say that to anyone's face. You are not a civil person and there is no need, therefore, to treat you in a civil manner. Don't try to claim that you used that language tongue in cheek. I am quoting you in context, and that sort of language is not acceptable in reference to your fellow citizens, not in this climate.[/b]
Always letting me get under your skin...always with the name calling...always with the personal attacks....and you call me un-civil. Hmmm? I smell another liberal hypocrite. Quite frankly, if you thought it was wise to run away after the September 11th attacks, and you think that they terrorist have a legitimate beef against the US, thus, are justified in their actions, THEN Foo under those circumstances you would be a Pro-Terrorist coward. Only you can determine if you are a Pro-Terrorist coward, not me. So, take all of your huffing, puffing and insults and walk away. If your only purpose in life is to worry about my comments and attack me, then you have a sad, sad life.
 

gwhunter69

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jun 10, 2002
Messages
13,215
Reaction score
2
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
But that would be moot and academic since Clinton is one of the most successful presidency in U.S. history ... "eight continous years of unprecedented economic expansion" that Bush and his team has squandered; $400 billion in surplus that turned into $421 billion in deficit; a war on a misidentified enemy; political allies and high ranking party official associated with convicted public official briber (?) Abramoff, etc.[/b]
Oh geez Beast, you want to compare scandals and bribes? Christ, you are sitting duck on that subject. The Clinton are still involved in scandals. I was talking about the quality of the personnel since you took a jab at the Bush Administration. I was referring to that fact that a large percentage of the Clinton Administration could not even pass the FBI background check. Or that a former nightclub bouncer was in charge of top secret FBI files, which somehow found there way over to the campaigns. But, if you want to talk scandals, then let's talk scandals. Jim and Susan McDougal...Whitewater...Chinese spies and campaign contribution...Buddist Monks...Rose Law Firm...Turning a small amount of money into $100,000 in the market in a short time...shredded records...missing records...missing and suddenly re-appearing records with Hillary's fingerprints all over them...Gov. Jim Guy Tucker...can I stop now, my finger are getting tired.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
a war on a misidentified enemy[/b]
Oh Beast, I am going to let that one slide. I strongly suggest that you rent Celcius 41.11. If you still decide that you want to defend that statement after seeing that documentary, then I will level both my guns at you...but at the moment you are unarmed and it would not be fair. I think you are an honest and straight-forward person, so I think you will see facts as facts unlike some people on this board.

BTW: I suggest that you find out who Abramoff was associated with before you lay that one on the Bush Administration. You might be shocked who he gave money too...I wonder why the press is not throwing Abramoff at W anymore.
 


Top Bottom