Connecticut Primary will be the vote heard 'round the world

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Lieberman's independent run

Postby chiggerbit » Wed Aug 09, 2006 7:34 pm

Whew, is Lieberman beginning descent into flame and shame the same as Katherine Harris down in Florida? For those who haven't followed Harris' ridiculous comedy routine, I mean campaign, for months now her staff has quit in droves due to her tantrums, her inability to focus on the larger picture while she focuses on the atoms of the campaign with a microscope. It's even worse than I describe, and it is an understatement to say that she has become a laughing stock.<br><br>Meanwhile, in the last 24 hours Lieberman has accused his opponent's campaign for his website going down, has made his wife look greedy by telling us that she reminds him that he could make more money outside of Congress (but of course he is too selfless to cave in to her greed, he seems to say), and now he tells us that he's magnaimously ready to trash his party and the people who rejected him, all for their own good because he cares about them so much. Ho, boy! SELFless, SELFless, SELFless. And today, a rumor has circulated that many of his staff have been prepared to quit if he lost and then foes ahead to run independently. so what did Lieberman do. He fired them.<br><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/08/09/lieberman_braces_for_defections.html">politicalwire.com/archive...tions.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/009350.php">www.talkingpointsmemo.com...009350.php</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/009371.php">www.talkingpointsmemo.com...009371.php</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001304.php">www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001304.php</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/009266.php">www.talkingpointsmemo.com...009266.php</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/009311.php">www.talkingpointsmemo.com...009311.php</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/009284.php">www.talkingpointsmemo.com...009284.php</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001275.php">www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001275.php</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.rollcall.com/issues/52_17/hoh/14644-1.html">www.rollcall.com/issues/5...644-1.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001239.php">www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001239.php</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/08/09/historical_quote_of_the_day.html">politicalwire.com/archive...e_day.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br> <br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 8/9/06 6:15 pm<br></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Lieberman's independent run

Postby chiggerbit » Wed Aug 09, 2006 8:19 pm

As an aside, my favorite Israeli has assured me that most American Jews ( yes, the progressive ones included) are chauvinists at heart. With regards to Lieberman's insult of his wife, well, I'm thinking this friend may be right. <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Lieberman's independent run

Postby chiggerbit » Wed Aug 09, 2006 10:48 pm

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/009373.php">www.talkingpointsmemo.com...009373.php</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>(August 09, 2006 -- 06:55 PM EDT)<br>So Karl Rove puts in a courtesy call to Joe Lieberman. And tonight RNC Chair Ken Mehlman is refusing to endorse the GOP nominee in the race, politician-cum-casino denizen, Alan Schlesinger. Does this mean Joe is now the de facto Republican in the race?<br><br><br><br><br>-- Josh Marshall <br><br> <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Lieberman's independent run

Postby chiggerbit » Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:03 pm

The right-wing media is trying to portray Lieberman's loss as the result of extreme left wing radicals. I think it would be appropriate to consider that during the American Revolution, the Minutemen were probably also considered extreme left-wing radicals, certainly not conservative, for those days. Quite...revolutionary. <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Politics and Parapolitics

Postby StarmanSkye » Thu Aug 10, 2006 12:06 am

Some more things to consider ...<br><br>****<br>Don't be Fooled: Lamont ain't a friend of the anti-war, Social Justice, grassroots, Progressive and Reform crowd.<br><br>Socialism and Liberation - Aug 9, 2006 <br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr005=l7aj4jicu3.app5b&...">www.pslweb.org/site/News2....app5b&...</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <br><br><br>Connecticut Democratic primary winner Ned Lamont is not anti-war <br>By Nick Flynn <br><br>Capitalist candidate firmly supports U.S. imperialism <br><br>Three term Connecticut senator Joe Lieberman, one of the strongest supporters of the racist Iraq war and the colonial occupation of Palestine, just lost the Democratic primary on August 8 to Ned Lamont, a multi-millionaire cable television executive. After he was declared the loser, Lieberman announced that he'll continue his bid for reelection by running as an "independent Democrat" since Lamont won the primary. <br><br>Lamont's victory was largely fueled by his attacks on Lieberman's support of the Iraq war, which isn't surprising. A majority of people in Connecticut as in the United States in general oppose the war. The corporate media has given this race a great deal of attention, often portraying Lamont as <br>Lieberman's "anti-war challenger." But is Lamont really against the Iraq war? <br><br>In short, no. An examination of Lamont's positions and statements reveal a clear support for U.S. imperialism in the Middle East and around the world. His positions are similar to those of Rep. John <br>Murtha--supporting U.S. intervention, but disagreeing on tactics to carry out those policies. Click here to read more from the PSL about Murtha and the war. <br><br>Lamont's web site states "that the war in Iraq has diverted far too many of our dollars, and too much of our attention, from our needs back home." But Lamont stops far short of calling for complete and <br>immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops. Instead, he supports Murtha's plan for redeployment of "frontline troops out of harm's way" and states that U.S troops should "continue to provide logistical and training support as long as we are asked." <br><br>In his victory speech on August 8, Lamont called the U.S. troops in Iraq "brave" and said that, if he gets elected in November, he'll ensure that the United States has "the strongest military in the <br>world." <br><br>Lamont has never spoken a word about the will of the Iraqi people, who are against any foreign occupiers and are courageously fighting back. In fact, he fully ignores their existence. To Lamont, it's as if the occupation of Iraq is all about keeping U.S. soldiers safe--a racist, chauvinist position to be sure. <br><br>At no time has Lamont questioned U.S. imperialism and the many war crimes perpetrated against the Iraqi people, instead presenting minor changes so that a "winning strategy" can be reached. Unlike Lamont's demagoguery, a true anti-war position calls for immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq, followed by reparations paid to the people of Iraq. <br><br>Lamont's support for U.S. imperialism does not stop with Iraq. He stands fully behind U.S. threats against Iran, North Korea, and the Palestinian people. He has stated that since the start of the war in Iraq, "Israel is no safer, Iran is more dangerous," and called North Korea the "most serious threat facing the United States today" in a debate with Lieberman. Lamont also recently reiterated his unequivocal support for Israel, saying on national television that "Israel has the right to defend" itself. He failed to mention the ongoing occupation and war on Palestine and the murderous Israeli bombing campaign on Lebanon. This was no mistake. <br><br>Lamont, just like the Democratic party he belongs to, clearly supports the goals of U.S. imperialism around the world. He's a capitalist politician cut from the same cloth as Leiberman and his politics are hardly different. <br><br>A candidate of and for the capitalist class <br><br>Ned Lamont is himself a member of the capitalist ruling class. Lamont's great-grandfather was chairman of J.P. Morgan and Co. and Lamont's personal fortune is estimated at up to $300 million. He has used these many millions to self-fund his Senate campaign. Lamont and other ruling-class politicians, Republican and Democrat, wholeheartedly support and in fact rely on U.S. imperial domination of the Middle East and elsewhere to maintain their wealth and power. <br><br>In the coming months, liberal anti-war groups and media outlets will call for support of ruling-class politicians like Ned Lamont who supposedly promote "peace" and "a speedy end to the war in Iraq." No progressive person should be fooled. These self-interested appeals keep the progressive movement tied to the capitalist class and its interests. They divert crucial efforts away from building an independent, anti-imperialist anti-war movement and deepening class consciousness. Instead of having to choose between pro-war politicians, who have minor tactical differences on Iraq, it is <br>important to know which side we're on and to confront the ruling class with the power of the working class and progressive movement. <br><br>The ANSWER Coalition (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism), of which the Party for Socialism and Liberation is a member, is cosponsoring a National Emergency March on Washington, D.C. on Aug. 12 to defend stopping the U.S.-Israeli war on Lebanon and Palestine. ANSWER has also <br>initiated a call for nationally coordinated anti-war actions on October 28, days before the November 2006 elections. Tens of thousands of people across the country will demonstrate against brutal U.S. military occupations and their proxy forces on these days. Only by mass struggle can U.S. imperialism be stopped. <br><br>*<br>****<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://sg.news.yahoo.com/060809/3/42of8.html">sg.news.yahoo.com/060809/3/42of8.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <br><br>REUTERS Thursday August 10, 1:58 AM <br><br>Lieberman loss offers signs of angry US electorate <br><br>HARTFORD, Connecticut (Reuters) - U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman's defeat in Connecticut offered tangible evidence of Democratic anger with President George W. Bush and the Iraq war and could be an early sign of a strong anti-incumbent mood before November's election, analysts said on Wednesday. <br><br>Lieberman, a three-term senator and vice presidential nominee in 2000, filed petitions on Wednesday to run as an independent against Democratic primary winner Ned Lamont after falling under a wave of voter anger for his war support. <br><br>Lamont had cast the race with Lieberman as a referendum on the Iraq war. A CNN poll released on Wednesday showed 60 percent of Americans oppose the war in Iraq and a majority would support a partial withdrawal of troops by year's end. <br><br>Lieberman's defeat came on the same night two House of Representatives incumbents, Republican moderate Joe Schwarz in Michigan and liberal Democrat Cynthia McKinney in Georgia, lost in their own primary challenges. <br><br>Each had special circumstances contributing to their losses, but, along with the defeats of more than a dozen incumbent state legislators in Pennsylvania earlier this year, they offered a cumulative warning signal for November, when control of Congress will be up for grabs. <br><br>"America wants change and it's not just the war. Every incumbent in America in both parties ought to be quaking in their boots right now," Democratic consultant Dane Strother said. <br><br>Darrell West, a political analyst at Brown University in Rhode Island, noted opinion polls showed a majority of Americans unhappy with the country's direction and pessimistic about the future. <br><br>"Anytime you have a majority of people who think the country is headed in the wrong direction, it's a bad time to be an incumbent," he said. "Iraq was part of the voter discontent, but it's not the whole story." <br><br>'SOBERING MOMENT' <br><br>Republicans said the Connecticut result reinforced their frequent argument Democrats cannot be trusted on national security issues. Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee, called Lieberman's loss a "sobering moment" without political precedent. <br><br>"It reflects an unfortunate embrace of isolationism, defeatism, and a 'blame America first' attitude by national Democratic leaders at a time when retreating from the world is particularly dangerous," he said in a speech in Cleveland. <br><br>Larry Sabato, a political analyst at the University of Virginia, said the Lamont-Lieberman clash would keep the Democratic debate over the war prominent through the fall and highlight the image of a party fractured by divisions. <br><br>"That's not really the image that Democrats want to send right now," he said. <br><br>But Democrats said high turnout in Connecticut showed the party's rank and file was energized and eager to head to the polls in November, a factor that could boost challengers to endangered Connecticut Republican incumbents Chris Shays, Rob Simmons and Nancy Johnson. <br><br>"It should be a flashing red light to all Republicans in Connecticut about the energy on the Democratic side," said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic campaign committee. <br><br>"Voters are angry about the course we are on, and all Republicans are offering is stay the course," he said. <br><br>Lieberman will have to wait a few weeks to resume his tussle with Lamont and with Republican Alan Schlesinger, a former state legislator. The signatures on the petitions he turned in must be validated by town clerks in Connecticut, which could take two weeks. <br><br>But Lieberman said he was anxious to renew the debate, calling Lamont an example of the polarizing forces that voters were tired of in Washington. <br><br>"I don't want these folks to take over my party or American politics," Lieberman said on CNN on Wednesday. <br>*******<br><br>!!!!!?#@!*&^@!??????<br><br>The Connecticut Democratic voters have spoken -- They don't WANT a mealy-mouthed spineless Repub-toadying PTB bootlicking opportunist like Lieberman representing them and subverting the Democratic Party's historic working-class pro-immigrant/Union/family/Peace & Justice ideals -- to which Lieberman says, "I don't want 'these people' in MY Democratic party."<br><br>WhatheFU????<br><br>G'damn, he oughtta be booted off every democratic committee and return every last cent the Democratic party has given him. The friggin' NERVE of him.<br><br>And apparently, he ALREADY had petition signatures for his Independent bid prepared, anticipating and planning for his loss.<br><br>I wouldn't be surprised if Lieberman was being run by Repub strategists to split and spoil the Democratic congressional election this fall -- perhaps his payoff is being named to a Bush Cabinet position.<br><br>Lower than pond scum.<br>Starman <p></p><i></i>
StarmanSkye
 
Posts: 2670
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:32 pm
Location: State of Jefferson
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Politics and Parapolitics

Postby chiggerbit » Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:34 am

Starman, hon, pond scum floats...to the top, just like Lieberman. <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :( --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/frown.gif ALT=":("><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br>Here's some interesting exit polling factoids (See link for the entire list):<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.strategictelemetry.com/graphics/strategic_telemetry_ct_senate_primary_report.pdf">www.strategictelemetry.co...report.pdf</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>"Given the intense focus on the Iraq war in this race, it is interesting to note that there was<br><br>a divergence in how voters connected to the military voted.<br> <br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>Areas with high concentrations of voters currently serving in the armed forces were more likely to support<br>Lieberman, but areas with high concentrations of veterans were more likely to support Lamont</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->........"<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Sarcasm alert code red

Postby yathrib » Thu Aug 10, 2006 12:22 pm

Chiggerbit, you write:<br><br>"As an aside, my favorite Israeli has assured me that most American Jews ( yes, the progressive ones included) are chauvinists at heart. With regards to Lieberman's insult of his wife, well, I'm thinking this friend may be right."<br><br><sarcasm alert>As opposed to American men generally, who are not? And of course if Lieberman does it, obviously it must be typical of all 14,000,000 other Jews worldwide. It just stands to reason.<end sarcasm alert> <p></p><i></i>
yathrib
 
Posts: 1880
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 11:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

changing the Democratic Party

Postby wordspeak » Thu Aug 10, 2006 6:02 pm

How true is it that candidates need to fall in line of the institution of the Party? I imagine it's more true the higher you go on the political ladder, though still you see some legitimate outsiders get in (and then sometimes get essentially kicked out, such as in the case of McKinney, if they just totally don't play the game at all).<br>I remember a similar thread as this one on this board maybe a few weeks ago, but I think this one is better....<br>It seems you want to keep trying to influence the Dems while (and through) supporting third parties that don't suck. Tools such as cross-endorsement voting ("fusion") and instant-runoff voting can allow the third parties more political leverage while not getting blamed for playing spoiler. <br>I live in an area where the "progressive Democrat" meme is huge, probably the majority, and the group Progressive Democrats of America is based here. But here in Mass. PDA is supporting a candidate for Governor whom I don't support at all. I've considered joining PDA, but they'd want me out supporting (former Texaco executive and Ford Foundation board member) Deval Patrick, and I'm in no position to (even try to) start an internal political battle.<br>What's a person to do in this case? In the long-term maybe you try to change the PDA, or you work with single-issue groups, or you work with a third party, or you do whatever multi-pronged delicate dance you have time/opportunity/resources to do while constantly trying to push the discourse more to the left.<br>Right? <p></p><i></i>
wordspeak
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:36 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: changing the Democratic Party

Postby chiggerbit » Thu Aug 10, 2006 8:10 pm

Actually, yathrib, I've always had this perception that American Jews were quite a bit more progressive and less chauvenist on average, than the average American male. I was then told different, altough I remained doubing. And, I have to say that most progressive American males I know wouldn't have made the blunder that Lieberman did. I'd put his comment re his support of hospitals being entitled to turn away rape victims as falling in the same category. Whether it is due to being a Jewish male or just being a pompous American male, I do't know, but I AM paying attention. <br><br>For the record, I've also been told by someone else that it is pretty much of Jewish custom to leave inheritances only to the eldest sons. True or not?<br> <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: changing the Democratic Party

Postby chiggerbit » Thu Aug 10, 2006 8:55 pm

Wow, he's done it again:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.courant.com/hc-dems0810.artaug10,0,7103970.story?page=2">www.courant.com/hc-dems08...ory?page=2</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>He denied being selfish by continuing after Democrats rejected his candidacy.<br><br>"I must tell you if I was being selfish and listened to my wife, I would accept the results of yesterday's primary, finish my term and go out and make a lot of money," Lieberman said.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Hell, maybe she really is bugging him to get out and make some real money. <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Dunno...

Postby yathrib » Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:46 pm

Actually, to be fair, traditional Jewish culture is supposed to be pretty male-centered. Don't know about the inheritance thing, it could be true of at least some Jews.<br><br>As for Lieberman, I think he's just a pompous ass, and that's pretty much the end of it. He'd be a pompous ass as a Jew, a Pakistani, or a gnome.<br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=yathrib>yathrib</A> at: 8/10/06 9:48 pm<br></i>
yathrib
 
Posts: 1880
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 11:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Dunno...

Postby chiggerbit » Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:56 pm

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"I must tell you if I was being selfish and listened to my wife</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br><br>OMG, doesn't he even realize that he is saying that his wife advises him to be "selfish"? <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Dunno...

Postby chiggerbit » Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:13 am

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>primogeniture</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>Quick definitions (primogeniture)<br><br><br>noun: right of inheritance belongs exclusively to the eldest son <br><br><br>johnny gave me the word in another thread that I was looking for in our above discussion, yathrib. Primogeniture is not what I would consider a modern male American custom. <br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 8/10/06 10:15 pm<br></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

primogeniture

Postby yathrib » Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:22 am

Again, don't know. But the truth is I don't think any generalization can be safely made about the social attitudes/customs of secular American Jews, although everybody seems to think themselves experts on the topic. <p></p><i></i>
yathrib
 
Posts: 1880
Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 11:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: primogeniture

Postby chiggerbit » Fri Aug 11, 2006 12:25 am

Too true, yathrib, but that piece came to me from a second-born Jewish male. <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Politics and Stolen Elections

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests