Connecticut Primary will be the vote heard 'round the world

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Connecticut Primary will be the vote heard 'round the world

Postby Wolfmoon Lady » Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:25 pm

I just saw Chris Matthews talking with a local news anchor about the importance of tomorrow's Democratic Senate primary b/w Joe Lieberman and challenger Ned Lamont.<br><br>Matthews, who will be commentating tomorrow night as the results pour in, said it's <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>the first time the American people have been able to vote on the Iraq War</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> as the main issue in a political race, and that people will be reading about the outcome of this vote in Hong Kong. That's how important it is.<br><br>No kiddin! I'm in Connecticut, and emotions are HIGH. I'll be voting tomorrow for Ned Lamont. Today's Quinnipiac polls shows the lead between the two has narrowed dramatically, from 13 to 6 %. We shall see what we shall see. It's time the Democratic voters sent a message to Washington - and I'm proud to be part of it. <br><br>FYI: Firedoglake has some good posts:<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/08/04/party-on-garth/" target="top">Party on, Garth</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> (8-4)<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/08/07/tickticktick/" target="top">Tick Tick Tick</a><!--EZCODE LINK END-->(8-7)<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/08/07/down-to-the-ground/" target="top">Down to the Ground</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> (8-7)<br><br>If you didn't catch Sunday's Meet the Press, here is a must-see Crooks and Liars link, <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/08/07/lanny-davis-explains-joe-lieberman/" target="top"> Lanny Davis Explains Joe Lieberman </a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> where Lanny Davis attempts to explain Joe Lieberman's admonishment to Democrats not supportive of Bush's war:<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>SEN. JOE LIEBERMAN (D-CT): It’s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>See the QT video (from December 6, 2005)(<!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://movies.crooksandliars.com/MTP-Davis-Lieber.mov" target="top">video link here</a><!--EZCODE LINK END-->)<br><br>Well, here's to Ned Lamont winning tomorrow's primary! Wish us well, World.<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Edited by Wolfmoon Lady at 6:32 pm</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=wolfmoonlady>Wolfmoon Lady</A> at: 8/7/06 5:30 pm<br></i>
Wolfmoon Lady
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Connecticut Primary will be the vote heard 'round the wo

Postby StarmanSkye » Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:36 pm

Lieberman spake thus: " ...and that in matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril."<br><br>****<br>Oh yeah, THAT thing, the War ...<br><br>What a memorably astonishing bit of audacious Rah-Rah flim-flam hocus-pocus faux-Patriotic idiocy.<br><br>It isn't like the president's (sic) credibility wasn't already esp. noteable for it's not being readily apparant, without any cause on the part of democrats needed.<br><br>Good Luck trouncing this 'people's candidate' pretender, Conn.!<br>(Assuming the vote-fraud mechanism doesn't work as intended; Crossing fingers meta-theoretically ...)<br><br>Starman<br>(JaYsUs, save us from our 'saviors'!) <p></p><i></i>
StarmanSkye
 
Posts: 2670
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:32 pm
Location: State of Jefferson
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Connecticut Primary will be the vote heard 'round the wo

Postby chiggerbit » Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:42 pm

Similar Lieberman quote, Starman, from Taegan Goddard's Political Wire:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://politicalwire.com/">politicalwire.com/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>What a Difference Nine Months Makes<br>"I understand that many Democrats in Connecticut disagree with me and are very angry about the war... What I will say is this: I not only respect your right to disagree or question the President, I value it."<br><br>-- Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT), <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>8/06/06</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br>"It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation’s peril."<br><br>-- Lieberman, <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>12/6/05</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br><br><br><br>From the same link:<br><br>"Lieberman Will Go Forward if He Loses<br>Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) told Fox News that he's likely to go forward with his independent bid if he loses Tuesday's Democratic primary." <br><br><br> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 8/7/06 6:48 pm<br></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Go Ned !

Postby heyjt » Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:10 pm

Go Ned!<br>I got pissed off today when so-called "progressive" radio host Ed Schultz slighted Lamont on his show today.<br> This vote sets the stage for November... <p></p><i></i>
heyjt
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 11:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Go Ned !

Postby HMKGrey » Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:59 pm

They'll steal it. You watch. First clue: "It's too close to call." <br><br>Then you know the fix is in. <br><br>GrandmaGrey had it all sussed out years ago: "If voting changed anything, they'd have abolished it by now." <p></p><i></i>
HMKGrey
 
Posts: 666
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 6:56 pm
Location: West Coast
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Connecticut Primary will be the vote heard 'round the wo

Postby StarmanSkye » Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:00 pm

'Nother good commentary/overview from Bristol, Conn. via the Guardian (go figger!): Clarifies what a turncoat traitor Lieberman is to his party (to the extent the Dems haven't been coopted/inflitrated/perverted by the PTB/Repubs) and his constituency -- AND what the stakes are (or shaping up to be).<br><br>Starman<br><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1838736,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/commen...36,00.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Democrats who oppose illegal wars and torture want to reclaim the party <br><br>A grassroots revolt by voters has sparked a struggle for the party's soul, and a New England senator is in the firing line <br><br>Gary Younge in Bristol, Connecticut<br>Monday August 7, 2006<br>The Guardian <br><br><br>In 1998, Connecticut's senator, Joseph Lieberman, broke ranks with his Democratic colleagues and railed against the "premeditated" deception of the commander-in-chief. Back then the enduring legacy of this presidential deceit could be found on the dress of a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky. And Lieberman, who went on to be Al Gore's vice-presidential running mate, was hopping mad. "Such behaviour is not just inappropriate," he told the Senate, referring to Bill Clinton's affair. "It is immoral."<br><br>Recently, Lieberman has been struggling with some infidelity issues of his own. Last year, he was caught in a tender embrace with one other than his wife. Worse still for Lieberman, an opponent of gay marriage, it was another man - George Bush. Bush planted "the kiss" as he worked the Congress floor after his state of the union address. But for Democratic voters of Connecticut it might as well have been the Garden of Gethsemane.<br><br>In tomorrow's Democratic primary, Lieberman may well pay for that kiss with his job. Polls suggest he will lose the fight against a previously unknown anti-war candidate, Ned Lamont. Last week's Quinnipiac survey showed Lamont drubbing him 54% to 41% with only 5% of voters undecided. It has been a dramatic turnaround. Just three months ago, 91% of Democrats did not know enough about Lamont to make up their mind.<br><br>As one of the wealthiest and best educated states in the union, Connecticut is no bellwether. The Senate seat is so reliably Democratic that when the Republicans nominated their candidate earlier this year some in the convention bleated to signal a lamb to the slaughter. Lieberman, meanwhile, is no regular Democrat. That incriminating smooch didn't come from nowhere. He was the only New England Democratic senator to support Bush's energy policy, one of only a few Democrats who thought the government should intervene in the Terri Schiavo case, and a rare Democrat who said he was willing to work with Bush's failed plan to overhaul social security.<br><br>Indeed, it is the very presence of this unreliable Democrat in this reliably Democratic seat that has transformed this primary into a national race, for it tests just how much betrayal Democratic voters are prepared to accept before they assert their electoral clout. The big guns have been pouring in. Recently a forgiving Clinton came to back Lieberman; last week Jesse Jackson was down to support Lamont. Liberal-left bloggers backing Lamont have been in overdrive.<br><br>Some have described it as a struggle for the heart and soul of the Democratic party, but a more accurate portrayal would be a battle to establish whether the party should have a soul at all. It raises not only the question of what does the party stand for apart from office but also whether it is prepared to adopt an agenda that could actually win office. This race could set the tone for the 2008 presidential elections.<br><br>Less then half of those backing Lamont cite the war as the main reason. "It's mostly about the war but not exclusively," says Christine Koskoff at a Lamont meeting at Bristol's Clock and Watch Museum. "It's about Senator Lieberman articulating the agenda of the rightwingers who run this country. The war sums up everything that's wrong."<br><br>In this Lieberman, like his kiss, is more symbol than substance. He was one of 29 Democratic senators who voted for the war. Some have since expressed their regret; most, like him, haven't. Some, like Hillary, face token challenges. Only Lieberman is in serious trouble. For he went one step further, arguing that when it comes to the war the opposition had no right to oppose. "It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander-in-chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril," he wrote in the Wall Street Journal last November.<br><br>Lieberman's colleagues duly rounded on him. But his real crime was to give explicit voice to their spinelessness. In truth, only a handful had expressed anything but token opposition to the war and even fewer had set out a clear alternative for fear of being branded unpatriotic. They were mad because Lieberman blew their cover. What this race has really exposed is not a rift between him and the Democratic establishment, which has now closed ranks to back him, but between the establishment and both its base and the nation at large.<br><br>Once again, this is not just about the war. Thanks to money and name recognition, the best guarantee that you will be elected in the US is to be elected already - more than 90% of incumbents are usually returned. Being a congressman is the closest thing to tenure you can get outside of academe. If Lieberman, who has served for three terms, can be ousted by a restless party then who's next? Such is his sense of entitlement that Lieberman has vowed that if he loses the primary he will run in November as an independent - at that point the establishment will probably turn against him.<br><br>But the war is central. The partisan divide over Iraq is greater than over any other war in living memory bar Grenada. Democrats are overwhelmingly opposed to the war and in favour of setting a date for troop withdrawal; Republicans are the opposite. According to the non-aligned Pew Research Centre, the difference in how the two parties viewed the Vietnam war never exceeded 18 percentage points. The most recent poll on Iraq suggests a partisan gap of 50.<br><br>Yet while the Bush administration gives full throated expression to its supporters' pro-war sympathies, Democrats rarely find their views echoed by the party. A Quinnipiac poll last month showed 93% of Connecticut's Democratic voters disapprove of Bush's handling of the war; 86% think the war was a mistake. On this key issue their representative does not represent them.<br><br>This could be, as most of the media and Democratic establishment has painted it, a militant grassroots being restrained by a pragmatic, moderate leadership. But the truth is the views of the Democratic membership chime more closely with the rest of the country than those of its leadership. Polls show more than half of Americans disapprove of Bush's handling of Iraq, support either setting a timetable for or immediate troop withdrawal, and believe Congress is not questioning the president enough about the war. This gives the lie to the claim that Lamont's challenge represents a bid by radicals, urged on by the blogosphere, to hijack the party. If only.<br><br>Bloggers can appeal to an ideological constituency, but they cannot create one out of thin air. Addressing the meeting in Bristol last weekend, Lamont, a millionaire and heir to great wealth, could have been a candidate for social secretary at a country club. If this is the face of US radicalism, then it will reassure some to know that it is evenly tanned and neatly coiffed. Those who follow it are similarly respectable. Of the 200 or so who cheered him most were middle-aged white professionals and retirees.<br><br>The joke is not on Lamont or his followers, but on those who brand them insurrectionists. Opposing illegal wars and torture are not radical positions. These are ordinary people, indignant at the "premeditated" deception of their commander-in-chief. And, like Lieberman eight years ago, they think it is time to speak up.<br><br>g.younge@guardian.co.uk<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
StarmanSkye
 
Posts: 2670
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:32 pm
Location: State of Jefferson
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Connecticut Primary will be the vote heard 'round the wo

Postby chiggerbit » Tue Aug 08, 2006 12:30 am

Much is being made about how the anit-war element is going to hurt Lieberman, but here's a good summary of Lieberman's other "unusual" positions..unusual for a Dem:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/03/greenfield.lieberman/index.html">www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS...index.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>NEW YORK (CNN) -- If the latest Quinnipiac University Poll is right, three-term Sen. Joseph Lieberman is headed for defeat Tuesday in Connecticut's Democratic primary, and Iraq -- more specifically, his steadfast support for that war -- is the big reason.<br><br>But it's not the only reason, which is something those looking for broader lessons from this primary campaign might keep in mind.<br><br>Yes, of course rival Ned Lamont would never have mounted so daunting a challenge to Lieberman without the Iraq issue, but take a look back to the key "use of force" resolution passed by Congress in October 2002.<br><br>Of the Democratic presidential wannabees who were in the Senate back then, just about all of them -- Sens. John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Evan Bayh, Chris Dodd -- also voted for the resolution empowering the president to use force against Iraq. Among presidential aspirants, only Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold voted "no."<br><br>But Lieberman's backing was different: It lasted far longer and was far more full-throated. As late as last November, with conditions in Iraq producing a massive dose of second thoughts from one-time war-backers, he wrote an op-ed piece for The Wall Street Journal hailing "visible and practical" progress, and celebrating the spread of satellite TV and cell phone use.<br><br>President Bush often quoted Lieberman as evidence of bipartisan support of his policies. Most memorably, at the 2005 State of the Union speech, Bush embraced Lieberman -- a moment known scornfully as "the kiss" to the senator's foes.<br><br>But it's important to remember that Lieberman's problems with Democratic constituencies go back further. He has often taken positions at odds with his party's base. For instance, he supported vouchers for public school students so they might attend other schools -- a position public school teachers' unions strongly oppose. This year, both Connecticut teachers' unions have endorsed Lamont.<br><br>In the past, Lieberman has questioned the value of affirmative action. Ten years ago, he said: "Affirmative action is dividing us in ways its creators could never have intended."<br><br>It's not exactly a coincidence that prominent African-American politician Rep. Maxine Waters of California and the Rev. Al Sharpton are supporting Lamont.<br><br>And last year, he supported federal intervention in the case of Terri Schiavo, a brain-damaged woman at the center of a long legal battle over whether she could be taken off life support, thus aligning himself on that issue with religious conservatives. Schiavo's husband is campaigning for Lamont, and those Democrats generally unhappy with the power of the "Religious Right" gained another reason to oppose the incumbent.<br><br>Then there's lingering unhappiness over Lieberman's decision in 2000 to run both for vice president and his Senate seat. Had Al Gore won the White House, Lieberman's replacement would have been chosen by a Republican governor -- costing Democrats control of the Senate and fueling the idea among some that Lieberman cared more about his career than his party.<br><br>And his promise to run as an independent if he loses the primary might complicate Democratic efforts to take two or three House seats in his state from vulnerable GOP incumbents.<br><br>So though a Lieberman loss will be interpreted as a signal that the party's base will demand an anti-Iraq presidential candidate, don't forget the special circumstances that Lieberman is facing.<br><br>One more question: Although polls suggest Lieberman could win in November running as an independent, wouldn't that course be a lot harder for him to follow if he loses the primary in a landslide?<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Go Ned !

Postby Wolfmoon Lady » Tue Aug 08, 2006 2:18 am

Most all of the coverage emphasizes Lamont's 'billionaire' status as well as his lack of experience. It's very slanted toward Lieberman, but rememeber, this is the MEDIA, not the voice of the people. You never know what will happen.<br><br>Whether or not the fix is in, I've got to vote. It's the only weapon I have. Eventually, the Neocon bubble will burst. I'd be thrilled if my little state had something to do with it. <p></p><i></i>
Wolfmoon Lady
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Connecticut Primary will be the vote heard 'round the wo

Postby Wolfmoon Lady » Tue Aug 08, 2006 2:43 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Of the Democratic presidential wannabees who were in the Senate back then, just about all of them -- Sens. John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Evan Bayh, Chris Dodd -- also voted for the resolution empowering the president to use force against Iraq. Among presidential aspirants, only Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold voted "no."<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Feingold is a good man. Lots of progressive I know are looking for him to run in '08.<br><br>As for the rest of it, Lieberman has always been against the party's base and it may be time he paid the proverbial piper.<br><br>I always thought Al Gore made 2 critical errors in the 2000 campaign: 1) distancing himself from Bill Clinton because of the Lewinsky scandal and 2) chosing Lieberman as a running mate. Both errors made 2000 a very close election. Many people voted for Nader because of Gore's decisions. None of us wanted a GOP-lite ticket. We never, of course, imagined how far the sh*t would fly that night, nor did we forsee the 9/11 'trifecta' that Bush crowed about after the Towers fell.<br><br>Well, I've gotta go to bed. I'm working tomorrow until 9 pm and won't get online until late. Let's hope this thing goes the way it should and Lieberman will be ousted. <p></p><i></i>
Wolfmoon Lady
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 10:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Connecticut Primary will be the vote heard 'round the wo

Postby wordspeak » Tue Aug 08, 2006 9:17 am

But even if it does go the way it should and Lieberman loses, he's going to run as a general election as an Independent, and Republicans will cross over, and that will be a new ballgame. <p></p><i></i>
wordspeak
 
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:36 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Connecticut Primary will be the vote heard 'round the wo

Postby sunny » Tue Aug 08, 2006 9:41 am

Let's not forget that Lieberman voted for the Bankruptcy Bill and supported the Bush Social Security privatization plan.<br><br>Read this from Glenn Greenwald:<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/why-do-neoconservative-extremists-love.html" target="top">Why do neoconservative extremists love Joe Lieberman?</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br>I found this comment particularly interesting:<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Apart from his neoconservative positions, why is Lieberman so beloved by the Kristols and Hannitys and so forth?<br><br>To be blunt, these people have no trouble at all throwing even the favorites of their own party from the bus or under the bus or wherever out of the way, they do it all the time, and yet Lieberman, who is by all accounts pretty much of a "socialist" (according to the NeoCon lights) except on matters of executive authority and prosecuting wars on Arabs, is loved up so much that Kristol (and Hannity and all the rest) is practically soiling himself as he praises the man. <br><br>What's the deal? Why?<br><br>There are other dems (oh, DiFi comes to mind) who are equally NeoConish who don't get the loveup treatment; indeed, who are ignored by both the NeoCons and the Dem activists. <br><br>My own sense is that the NeoCons really need Lieberman in the Dem fold, <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>because they are getting useful information from him. He's a NeoCon mole.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> Perhaps the only one they've got in the Democratic ranks, though that would be hard to believe given the high number of cryptoRepublicans who go as Dems in office. <br><br>But Lieberman is notorious for backstabbing his colleagues, disputing Party positions, disabling Party unity, and so on. He's very well known, and rightly despised, for all of these things. But there are other Dems who do this, too. No, there is something else that Lieberman has to offer the NeoCons. <br><br>Otherwise Kristol (and the rest) wouldn't be so hysterical about his impending loss in Connecticut and wouldn't be trying to come up with suitable positions for him in the NeoCon regime<br>Ché Pasa | 08.06.06 - 10:33 am | #</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> <br> <p></p><i></i>
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Connecticut Primary will be the vote heard 'round the wo

Postby chiggerbit » Tue Aug 08, 2006 12:53 pm

I think the incumbent herd is really worried about the possibility of us throwing all of them bums out. I see that a current poll shows that how voters perceive their own Congressperson has dropped dramatically recently. <br><br>(See <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://politicalwire.com/archives/2006/08/08/incumbents_at_risk.html)">politicalwire.com/archive...risk.html)</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Voters have looked on Congress as a whole as being unfavorable for quite a while, but this is a drastic change in how the individual voters view their own representatives. This year's primaries may just be the beginning of some big changes.<br><br>Lieberman has prided himself on his "bipartisanship", just like Lee Hamilton did. The problem with bipartisanship since the days of Reagan has been that it has weakened the Dems. That's particularly true with bipartisan interactions with this president. "Bipartisan" usually means giving a little to get a little, but this administration never "gives" unless it's to it's advantage. So the Dems like Lieberman and Hamilton have given and given and given, and gotten nothing back in return. Bipartisanship is dead, and the sooner the Dems see that, the better. It's time for some cut-throat Dem politics.<br><br>Something the Repugs need to keep in mind is that old truism, what goes around comes around. I think they believe that they can count on Dems to not use the same tactics on them that the Repubs have been using all along, to be more fair than the Repubs have been. I'm thinking of the threat on doing away with the fillibuster, as just one example. I say, don't compromise on it, let the Repubs get rid of it. This new compromise makes it worthless anyway, so why bother? And when Dems win back both houses, they should thumb their noses at the Repubs when the Repubs start whining about getting it back. When a groups sees compromise as weakness, do not bother compromising with that group. Nada. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 8/8/06 11:01 am<br></i>
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Connecticut Primary will be the vote heard 'round the wo

Postby sunny » Tue Aug 08, 2006 2:23 pm

MSNBC-<br><br>Apparently, Lieberman is accusing Lamont sabateurs for hacking and taking down his campaign website.<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rollin --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Connecticut Primary will be the vote heard 'round the wo

Postby StarmanSkye » Tue Aug 08, 2006 3:32 pm

Sunny quoting comments by Che' Pasa from Greenwald's blog:<br><br>"My own sense is that the NeoCons really need Lieberman in the Dem fold, because they are getting useful information from him. He's a NeoCon mole. Perhaps the only one they've got in the Democratic ranks, though that would be hard to believe given the high number of cryptoRepublicans who go as Dems in office." <br><br>****<br>Boy, I sure share THAT understanding, Lieberman as a mole AND that there are very likely quite a few other secret cryptoRepublicans who have infiltrated the Dem party.<br><br>Divide and conquer, baby; Discredit and undermine, etc.<br><br>(I can almost imagine the intoxicating set-up proffer by the sharkskin deal-maker, showing the potential turncoat politico-prospect a portion of the world from the luxuriously-appointed cabin of a Gulfstream, "All this, as far as you can see, can be yours," be murmurs mellifluously, honeyed words oozing the seductive charm of promises as good as gold, Oxford-accented syllables mellowed by the suggestive ambiance of countless aged-whiskey toasts concluding similiar previously-brokered deals offering vistas of the good life and easy street, Chairmanships and select Board seats and committee appointments that the prospect is assured can be leveraged by a smart guy like him into stock-options and a multi-million-dollar bonanza, prestige and real, usable, aphrodiasiacal, heady, enemy-crippling, world-influencing, vengeful POWER.<br><br>Hoo Baby, Where do I sign??! he can barely refrain from bursting out. Instead, "Sound's good. Count me in ...")<br><br>***<br><br>Chiggerbit said:<br><br>"And when Dems win back both houses, they should thumb their noses at the Repubs when the Repubs start whining about getting it back. When a groups sees compromise as weakness, do not bother compromising with that group. Nada."<br><br>Right-ON!<br><br>And what IS this tendency by so-called Dems anyway, where does it come from, to (seemingly) always 'make nice' and be quick to 'forgive', let bygones-be-bygones, try to win-over and charm the very same virulent cuthroat back-stabbing ambush-prone dirty-fighting winner-take-all winning-is-everything zealot Repubs who time-after-time have shown they think there is nothing honorable about not kicking a man when he's down, and who can NEVER respect a gracious winner -- who view integrity as a character defect and reluctance to back-stab as a fatal weakness.<br><br>Sure, it's great --even vital-- to have and honor oneself and high principles, to not stoop to the 'other fellas' level and compromise on values and beliefs -- but falling for the same ruse of playing the 'better man' to the Repub's stubborn boorishness and acting as if Repubs can be 'won-over' and encouraged to cooperate on governing responsibly for the best interests of We, The People -- is just plain dumb. Given the stakes, that seems like risking everything on a foregone disaster.<br><br>Is it just foolishness, or deliberate (and pragmatic) idiocy?<br><br>But then, considering the PTB have essentially locked-out authentic citizen self-rule democracy, is it realistic to expect the Democrats can ever redeem themselves and truly act in the best interests of the nation (and not the status-quo, ie. MIC and transnational corporate/oligarchy)?<br><br>Ain't holding my breath ... But I keep expecting The People will one day WAKE-UP, and retake their nation from the thieves and traitors.<br><br>(Oh Happy Days!)<br>Starman <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=starmanskye>StarmanSkye</A> at: 8/8/06 2:12 pm<br></i>
StarmanSkye
 
Posts: 2670
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:32 pm
Location: State of Jefferson
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Connecticut Primary will be the vote heard 'round the wo

Postby sunny » Tue Aug 08, 2006 3:53 pm

Starman, to be clear, the comment I quoted came from the comments section, not from Glenn. Greenwald is so careful of far-out accusations that he would never say such a thing, I believe, even if he felt it to be true. He tries to stick to what he can document, or what he can deduce from iron clad reasoning.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
sunny
 
Posts: 5220
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Alabama
Blog: View Blog (1)

Next

Return to Politics and Stolen Elections

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests