Fine, we're both being cynical.

unarmedman wrote:

Linus Van Pelt wrote:He basically used the Democratic Party as much as he could, and when it rejected him, he showed what his real priorities are, which have nothing to do with Party, country, or Connecticut, and everything to do with keeping himself in power.

This is reading between the lines, not his lips. When one has a near 50/50 split of the Democrat-registered electorate vote them out after being pretty handily voted in 3 times by a much larger electorate, one would have to wonder if this opinion is consistent with the larger electorate. Joe Lieberman suspects that's not the case, and so wants to run on. He's said as much.

What's the big deal?

It's shitty. It's backstabbing. It's telling the Democratic voters of Connecticut, "Thanks for participating, but I think I know what you want a little better than you do." It's taking money from Democratic contributors and using it to campaign against the Democratic candidate. And it's doing it while still pretending to care about the Democratic party - still pretending to be a Democrat.

If you're arguing against primaries, that's fine. Let's get rid of primaries. Let's get rid of parties! It's all good. We'll have long lists of candidates, and run-off elections. Or those instant run-offs, like I think they have in Australia or whatever (although they still have parties, obviously). I honestly think this would be a good thing - let's do it. But don't make a mistake: Joe Lieberman has nothing against primaries as a concept. He just doesn't think that this one that he lost should apply to him. It's bullshit.

I'd love a viable third party. For some reason, I don't think "devotion to George W. Bush" is the best basis for one

I doubt Joe Lieberman thinks that either.

Well, I was being snarky, obviously, but what do you think Joe Lieberman has to offer in terms of starting a third party?

A vote for Ned Lamont is thisclose to a vote for al Qaeda:

Cheney characterizes 'disturbing' Lieberman loss as sign Democrats weak on terror

RAW STORY Published: Thursday August 10, 2006

Vice President Dick Cheney has continued the Bush Administration's push to characterize the primary loss of Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) as an indication that the Democratic party is weakening on security issues, RAW STORY has learned.

In a telephone conference late yesterday, Cheney praised Lieberman as a "good man," that the Vice President has "a good deal of respect for."

"The thing that's partly disturbing about [Lieberman's loss] is the fact that," Cheney told reporters from Jackson, Wyoming, "our adversaries, if you will, in this conflict, and the al Qaeda types--they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task."

I can't believe Lamont was able to defeat the mighty AIPAC.

It's like the US over Russia at Lake Placid.

AlBStern wrote:I can't believe Lamont was able to defeat the mighty AIPAC.

I think both of your current wars and the Wars with Syria and Iran are safe. The crusade will be re-sold with new terror attacks before year's end.

Excerpts from an interesting article in today's Forward on the Lieberman/ Lamont outcome:

the forward wrote:Lamont has voiced repeatedly his support for Israel during the current fighting with Hezbollah, telling the Forward that he disagreed with the European Union's declaration criticizing Israel's actions as a "disproportionate" response, and with calls for an immediate, unconditional cease-fire.

the forward wrote:The Republican Jewish Coalition, a Washington-based group, announced Wednesday that it would mount a national advertising campaign in Jewish newspapers that would attempt to paint Lamont's victory as a troubling loss for Israel.

"Joe Lieberman was a voice of support for Israel," the RJC ad says. "That voice has been silenced by the Democratic Party. America and Israel are worse off for it."

full article from today's Forward

Linus Van Pelt wrote:It's taking money from Democratic contributors and using it to campaign against the Democratic candidate.

Now with THAT I see where you're coming from. I hadn't thought about campaign contributions. Good point. Wasn't there someone in 2004 that switched from Democrat to Republican mid-race and pissed off a bunch of people? I can't remember who, or where that was.

I guess what it really boils down to is whether or not Joe Lieberman's supporters have been really voting for Joe Lieberman the man, or just Democratic candidate X, whoever's running on that side. If they really like Lieberman, they won't care if he's running as an independent or Democrat. It'll be interesting to see how this all goes down over the next few months.

As far as a third party, I've been telling my wife (and others who feel so inclined to be entertained by my political prophecy) that I believed a Centrist party was going to be created sometime in the next few years. The Republican party has already been taken over by the far right, and some have speculated this primary is a good indicator that the Democratic party has been taken over by the far left. I have no idea if that's true, but suppose it is.

I think the Centrist party will be more hawkish, or "strong on National Defense" as they all like to say. They will be more willing to negotiate with allies, and work through NATO. They won't be unilateral by nature. They'll be fiscally conservative, not cutting on defense spending, but cutting subsidies for oil & energy companies. They'll be socially liberal, and may be for universal healthcare. They'll be pro-choice - not necessarily because they are pro-abortion, but because they don't believe its their place to legislate.

The only problem I see with a party like that surviving is that those sorts of positions they'll probably come up a bit short on campaign cash. They'll need some jumpstart candidate that can raise a ton of money or provide it on his/her own.

Anyway, just my thoughts on the third party. Who knows what'll happen.

Rush Limbaugh received his marching orders. Lengthy transcript from his Wednesday show. Read Rush explain that the Democratic Party has been taken over by fringe anti-semitic kooks. This is right in line with William Kristol's recent meltdown in the Weekly Standard.

Expect to hear opposition to the War in Iran or to the War On Terror in general characterized more and more as closet anti-semitism as game time approaches.

rush limbaugh 8/9/06 wrote:You know, there are some people saying this, but they're dancing around it, but one of the little -- or not often discussed aspects of the kook fringe base of the Democratic Party, I'm just going to put it out there, is anti-Semitism. There is so much anti-Semitism today in the Democratic Party.

full transcript, including the rants from the plant callers Rush uses to deliver the more extremist version of Karl Rove's message

Fuck. Lieberman gets to stay as an Independent.

Oh well.

Salut, Ned Lamont! You got so close!

unarmedman wrote:But are opinions on the war in Iraq the only thing that differentiates Democrats from Republicans?

Not really. Most of the Democratic leadership is completely in favor of the war, they just think they can do a better job. I read something describing the stands of all the Democratic congress candidates, and only one was actually in favor of getting out. Yeah, they talk about it, but mostly they just feed off anti-war feeling, without actually addressing it, at all.

legpuppy wrote:Not really. Most of the Democratic leadership is completely in favor of the war, they just think they can do a better job. I read something describing the stands of all the Democratic congress candidates, and only one was actually in favor of getting out. Yeah, they talk about it, but mostly they just feed off anti-war feeling, without actually addressing it, at all.

Interesting how this election is turning out so far. Bob Casey Jr., a pro-life Democrat in PA, has handily (and thankfully) unseated Rick Santorum. Lieberman has retained his seat in the Senate. Harold Ford Jr., a socially conservative Democrat, is getting closer to taking the lead against Bob Corker. Somewhere close to 40% of Republicans have said they are going to vote for a Democrat because they feel they better represent their views. This number is over double what it was in 2004.

Democrats are demanding a fiscally conservative government that will focus on national security rather than proxy wars. Republicans are touting the economy. Hillary Clinton is moving into presidential mode.

These trends are pretty fascinating to me.

Looks like someone else saw the same trends.


Very interesting indeed.