...
Instead of a political corpse, the Democratic Party is about to get its own version of John McCain--a shrewd and independent maverick. By the accounts of friends and associates, Joe Lieberman feels "liberated" and "unshackled."
Back in 2000, as Al Gore's running mate, Joe Lieberman did what the party asked him to do. He threw over some of his core beliefs, as on affirmative action and school vouchers, and swept left in a way that made his bipartisan admirers cringe. After the Lamont defeat, he could have slicked together a campaign that threw sops to Greenwich's liberals and held his Democratic base (he got 48% in the primary).
Didn't happen.
...
13 comments:
I don't totally agree with all of Leiberman's positions (e.g. abortion, although his position is tempered compared to most Dems and liberal Republicans), but one has to admire the guy.
He took a stand for what he believes even though it wasn't popular at the time, but will now likely be rewarded with a re-election. This outcome was far from certain when he broke with his own party.
Considering the weak-kneed "conservative" Republicans from the east coast, he'd likely get my vote (were I living in Connecticut, of course).
So you would vote for a baby-killer?
Way to stand by those principles.
Lieberman should stand by the principle that if you lose your party's primary you step down and let someone else take your place.
I hope that sore loser, loses again...
So you would vote for a baby-killer?
way to satand by those principles.
Lieberman should stand by the principle that if you lose your party's primary you step aside.
There is something fundamental wrong and unfair about him trying to get two bites of the apple and I've lost a lot of respect for him...
Israel
Israel,
1. Lieberman is spelled incorrectly :-)
2. I don't agree with Leiberman's postion on abortion. His postion is still less radical than the other options I'm likely to have in Connecticut (lesser of two evils on that one...see?)
3. To say Leiberman should not run as an independent on the principle that he lost his party's nomination goes against every free principle on which this country was founded. More, there is great precident in our history for breaking party affilication, starting your own party, running as an independent, etc. (Federalists, Democratic-Republicans, Whigs, Republicans, Progressive party, Teddy Roosevelt, etc.)
*sheepish*
You're right, it's Lieberman (i before e except blah blah blah)
I don't agree with Lieberman on abortion. That said, at least he says where he stands on it, unlike Republicans who say, "Vote for me and I'll work to overturn Roe v. Wade," then never do anything about it.
I find Democratic opposition to Lieberman amusing. Libs claim to pride themselves on encouraging free-thinking. Yet when a free-thinker emerges, they oppose him. I guess the key is you can only be a free-thinker if your free thinking agrees with their free thinking.
They don't want free-thinkers. They want a country of parrots. It's intellectual hypocrisy.
While I am no longer a "Republican," most of the candidates I will be voting for in November are Republicans. I am fortunate in Ohio because two of the Republican candidates (Ken Blackwell for governor and Jim Jordan for 4th dist. congressman) are truly principled men who aren't afraid to stand up to the Republican establishment when it turns its back on conservative principles.
As far as some of the other races, I'm not exactly sure where I am going to place my vote. In the senate race, DeWine (R) has spent the past 12 years turning his back on conservatives (voting for gun control and higher taxes, etc.). But Brown (D) is a far left wacko who scares the bejeebers out of me.
By running in your party's primary, aren't you at least promising that you will abide by the will of the voters in that election?
I would have no problem with him declaring himself an independent before the primary doing it after isn't independent thinking, it stinks to high heaven in my book.
I wouldn't be surprised if he were being paid off by Republicans to split the Democratic vote (much like they paid off Ralph Nader.)
Election-fixing Republican scum!!
Israel
Unless fixing elections is more of that "independent thought" that Republicans prize.
Israel
Wow.
By running in your party's primary, aren't you at least promising that you will abide by the will of the voters in that election?
No. The "voters" in this case are an extreme sub-set - democrats that vote in primaries (what? 9% of the populace?).
More, Theodore Roosevelt split the Republican party in this manner (1912 - Progressive Party). You're entitled to your opinion, but there is precedent for this.
Finally, I somehow doubt Democrats and liberals were quite so bothered by the actions of Jim Jeffords, who switched from Republican to independent AFTER a _general_ election, swaying control of the senate to the Democrats. Intellectual hypocrisy indeed.
(and yes, we already know the Republicans are hypocrites too...)
"No. The "voters" in this case are an extreme sub-set - democrats that vote in primaries (what? 9% of the populace?)."
Dude! You crack me up!! I guess everyone who votes in any primary Republican or Democrat, is "extreme."
Please keep posting, because I find your arguments ridiculously funny!!
That's not the meaning of "extreme" in that context (extreme subset...as in very small)
But still, that's it? That's the counter-argument/comeback?
Does that mean I win the argument by default? :-)
I'm not getting into the political stuff with you guys, (the way you guys discuss these issues are all over my head...) but I will say LOL, PMB, and not in the degrading way Israel would imply!! I think you make a very good argument.
Post a Comment