PDA

View Full Version : First Senatorial Casualty of Iraq War Falls in Election


Ned
08-08-2006, 10:31 PM
Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman conceded defeat in the state's Democratic primary. The result sets an ominous tone for other incumbents supportive of President Bush and the Iraq war.

Mr. Lieberman, who was seeking a fourth term, lost to Ned Lamont, a 52-year-old businessman with little political experience. With 89% of Connecticut precincts reporting, Mr. Lamont led with 52% of the vote, compared with 48% for Mr. Lieberman.

The Wall Street Journal reported that in exit polls it was determined many Connecticut Democrats, who turned out in record numbers for the primary vote, vented their frustration with an 18-year incumbent who many said had lost touch with the state, particularly on Iraq.

Ships 'N' Trips Travel
08-10-2006, 01:46 PM
He's not really conceding defeat if he's planning to now run as an independent in the November general election. :)

Ned
08-10-2006, 02:54 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ships 'N' Trips Travel @ Aug 10 2006, 02:46 PM) 34073</div>
He's not really conceding defeat if he's planning to now run as an independent in the November general election. :)
[/b]
I can't argue with that, but if he does run it's a mistake in my opinion, and will likely split the vote enough that the Republican will get in. Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy and others have asked him to meet with them. Clearly, they're trying to talk him out of running as an independent.

Ships 'N' Trips Travel
08-10-2006, 03:00 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ned @ Aug 10 2006, 02:54 PM) 34089</div>
Clearly, they're trying to talk him out of running as an independent.
[/b]
I'm sure they are. :) But in Connecticut the Republicans and Independents make up about 2/3 of the voters. Obviously for him to win in the past, a fair chunk of those voters had to have voted for him. And if the Republican/Independent voters don't have an issue with how he has represented the state (and his stance regarding the Iraq war), they may be inclined to vote for him in the general election.

So the question is whether he can beat a marginal Republican candidate if he runs as an independent, and can he siphon off enough Democrat votes to get an overall majority.

The odds won't be in his favor (unless one or both candidates drops dead before the general election), but it will be interesting to watch...

REDJIM
08-10-2006, 03:26 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ned @ Aug 10 2006, 03:54 PM) 34089</div>
I can't argue with that, but if he does run it's a mistake in my opinion, and will likely split the vote enough that the Republican will get in. Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy and others have asked him to meet with them. Clearly, they're trying to talk him out of running as an independent.
[/b]

Question of the day, Ned...

Would you, or me or any other sane American, including Lieberman ever accept the advice and counsel of Howard Dean or Ted Kennedy?

Ned
08-10-2006, 05:06 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(REDJIM @ Aug 10 2006, 04:26 PM) 34095</div>
Question of the day, Ned...

Would you, or me or any other sane American, including Lieberman ever accept the advice and counsel of Howard Dean or Ted Kennedy?
[/b]
NO!, especially Teddy, but Howie's not much better. Be that as it may, based on recent performance over the last couple of years, I wouldn't want Lieberman's advice either. But then again, there are many on the other side of the aisle I even think less of than those three.

But your comment is very very much true.

You should hear what my wife has to say about Teddy, no actually you shouldn't. No person should have to hear that diatribe.

Ships 'N' Trips Travel
08-10-2006, 05:19 PM
Okay, have to relay this story. :)

Back when Lieberman was a VP candidate, the Democratic National Convention was in Los Angeles.

My niece was in ROTC at the time, and got tapped to be part of the color guard on one day of the convention. After finishing their color guard duties, Lieberman thanked them and shook their hands.

A couple of weeks later my niece relates this story at a family dinner. Mind you 95% of my husband's family are die-hard Republicans. My mother-in-law looks at my niece horrified, and says "did you wash your hands afterwards?" My mother-in-law was DEAD serious when she asked this. My niece and I almost wet ourselves laughing...

Ned
08-10-2006, 05:32 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ships 'N' Trips Travel @ Aug 10 2006, 06:19 PM) 34114</div>
Okay, have to relay this story. :)

Back when Lieberman was a VP candidate, the Democratic National Convention was in Los Angeles.

My niece was in ROTC at the time, and got tapped to be part of the color guard on one day of the convention. After finishing their color guard duties, Lieberman thanked them and shook their hands.

A couple of weeks later my niece relates this story at a family dinner. Mind you 95% of my husband's family are die-hard Republicans. My mother-in-law looks at my niece horrified, and says "did you wash your hands afterwards?" My mother-in-law was DEAD serious when she asked this. My niece and I almost wet ourselves laughing...
[/b]
What a fabulous family story. I had my wife read it and I can still hear her laughing.

glorya14
08-10-2006, 06:44 PM
Now, let me see. Another plot has been unveiled! I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that Lieberman has lost the primary and the anti-war sentiment has changed. What better way to control the masses. Use scare tactics.

Ned
08-10-2006, 06:50 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(glorya14 @ Aug 10 2006, 07:44 PM) 34123</div>
Now, let me see. Another plot has been unveiled! I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that Lieberman has lost the primary and the anti-war sentiment has changed. What better way to control the masses. Use scare tactics.
[/b]
Do I detect a hint of cynicism?

Don't you think that within a few days people are going to ask with the billions spent on airport security, why aren't we safe, or at least a lot safer than we are? I also think most American still think we should not be in Iraq.

weblet
08-11-2006, 06:47 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(glorya14 @ Aug 10 2006, 07:44 PM) 34123</div>
Now, let me see. Another plot has been unveiled! I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that Lieberman has lost the primary and the anti-war sentiment has changed. What better way to control the masses. Use scare tactics.
[/b]

So, you don't believe the cause of the current air situation is true?

vacationagent
08-11-2006, 12:35 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(REDJIM @ Aug 10 2006, 03:26 PM) 34095</div>
Question of the day, Ned...

Would you, or me or any other sane American, including Lieberman ever accept the advice and counsel of Howard Dean or Ted Kennedy?
[/b]
Fail to accept the advice and counsel of two of the most influential members of the Democratic party? Fail to accept the advice and counsel of two of the very best voices for liberal causes? Only a Republican would adopt such an attitude.

Ned
08-11-2006, 03:37 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vacationagent @ Aug 11 2006, 01:35 PM) 34213</div>
Fail to accept the advice and counsel of two of the most influential members of the Democratic party? Fail to accept the advice and counsel of two of the very best voices for liberal causes? Only a Republican would adopt such an attitude.
[/b]
Untrue! I'm failing to accept the advice of a drunk and liar, as well as failing to accept the advice of the loosest cannon in the history of the democratic party. Furthermore, I don't agree that they are the best voices of anything. Why anyone would vote for Ted Kennedy is a complete mystery to me.

I am a staunch liberal democrat, as those reading my posts for the last year here at Tripso know. I am a fiscal conservative, however, which is one reason I think Bush is horrendous. The man has no fiscal responsibility whatsoever. Furthermore, in this household we don't just say we're democrats, we work and volunteer for the democratic party.

However, like any informed, intelligent American, I'll vote for the best person running for the office, regardless of party.

REDJIM
08-11-2006, 04:03 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vacationagent @ Aug 11 2006, 01:35 PM) 34213</div>
Fail to accept the advice and counsel of two of the most influential members of the Democratic party? Fail to accept the advice and counsel of two of the very best voices for liberal causes? Only a Republican would adopt such an attitude.
[/b]

OOOH...a nerve touched, perhaps?

Ned
08-11-2006, 04:11 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(REDJIM @ Aug 11 2006, 05:03 PM) 34260</div>
OOOH...a nerve touched, perhaps?
[/b]
Apparently so RJ. Of course she touched one of my democrat nerves, because those two are just, just....oh you know what I mean. B)

vacationagent
08-11-2006, 04:26 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(REDJIM @ Aug 11 2006, 04:03 PM) 34260</div>
OOOH...a nerve touched, perhaps?
[/b]
RJ - Perhaps. But I thought it might be good to point out that there are other viewpoints around. :)

Ned - My opinion is that Senator Kennedy's lifetime of work for liberal causes far outweighs his human frailties. And Gov. Dean absolutely lives what he preaches. Again, these are just my opinions about these men and it is not at all necessary that you and I agree on these matters. :)

Ned
08-11-2006, 04:45 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vacationagent @ Aug 11 2006, 05:26 PM) 34267</div>
RJ - Perhaps. But I thought it might be good to point out that there are other viewpoints around. :)

Ned - My opinion is that Senator Kennedy's lifetime of work for liberal causes far outweighs his human frailties. And Gov. Dean absolutely lives what he preaches. Again, these are just my opinions about these men and it is not at all necessary that you and I agree on these matters. :)
[/b]
Hey VA, sometimes I don't even agree with myself. :lol:

vacationagent
08-11-2006, 08:19 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ned @ Aug 11 2006, 04:45 PM) 34270</div>
Hey VA, sometimes I don't even agree with myself. :lol:
[/b]
:lol: :lol: :lol:

REDJIM
08-11-2006, 10:24 PM
Ya know, Ned, years ago, when term limits were imposed on Michigan state Senators and Representatives, I thought that was a good piece of legislation. That it would draw public minded citizens who could devote their best to the welfare of the state for a few years out of a working career. I thought that this would put the state and its citizenry first in every legislative decision

How wrong I was!

We got rid of the outrageous pension system Pols always award themselves first. But ALL OF THEM found that they could continue at the sweet feeding trough after being term limited, by running for county positions and federal positions!

Here in Michigan we're being governed by selfish nimrods and a PAC system that owns the political processes and enslaves the average resident(like me)with a yolk of taxes that prevents me from building a nest egg for retirement. I DON"T WANT TO BE TAKEN CARE OF BY THE GOVERNMENT! I'm more intelligent than any Health & Human Services bureaucrat. Give me back my taxes and let me take care of myself!

I can't imagine the pain you and others in the east suffer as you watch ever more of your hard-earned wages taxed and squandered locally by untrustworthy public "servants".

MI may be an dramatically, unfriendly state to a wage-earner, but you folks back east are light years ahead of us in being bilked by state and local government.

Ships 'N' Trips Travel
08-11-2006, 10:34 PM
*sigh* I really wonder how bad things would be if more than 35% of the eligible voters would actually take the time to vote INTELLIGENTLY every now and again *sigh*

Ned
08-11-2006, 10:56 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(REDJIM @ Aug 11 2006, 11:24 PM) 34294</div>
MI may be an dramatically, unfriendly state to a wage-earner, but you folks back east are light years ahead of us in being bilked by state and local government.
[/b]
So, in the midwest you think we in the east have corruption, and plain bad public officials eh? Well you're right.

In Philadelphia and the surrounding area we've had a constant flow of public officials going to the "Pen" or the "Farm" for corruption, taking bribes, vehicular homicide, perjury, and other assorted crimes. In addition, we have a lousy mayor should never even have been dog catcher.

We do have a pretty darn good governor, but our legislature, oh my are they bad. These folks voted themselves a huge pay raise last summer. We have a law which says you can't vote a pay raise for yourself in the legislature, so you're supposed to wait until there's another election before you can take the pay raise.

So what did these birdbrains do. They permited themselves to take the pay raise early through the use of undocumented vouchers. There was such an outroar that eventually all but one guy gave the money back, and then the legislature voted to eliminate the pay raise. In the primary, about a dozen incumbents lost, including 5 biggies, and the polls show that we may see as many as 30 more incumbents loose which will turn a substantial republican majority in both state houses into a democratic majority in both houses. It's been about 20 years, if my memory is right, since that happened in PA.

In Philadelphia, by the way, we have plenty of taxes, but at least they are slowly being reduced. We have a state income tax, a city wage tax, a city school tax on unearned income, and a real estate tax, plus we have a state sales tax of 6%, except in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh where it's 7%, as the two cities get the extra percent.

Have a great weekend.

REDJIM
08-11-2006, 11:04 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ships 'N' Trips Travel @ Aug 11 2006, 11:34 PM) 34295</div>
*sigh* I really wonder how bad things would be if more than 35% of the eligible voters would actually take the time to vote INTELLIGENTLY every now and again *sigh*
[/b]

True that!, Ships.

Maybe if state and federal election laws were amended to allow us to vote "None" or "Neither" more of the dis-interested, disenfranchised population would take more interest in the workings of the political process and vote their conscience.

Just one flaw in that wish, though, the pigs at the trough control election law. The tail is wagging the dog.

BarkingLeopard
08-12-2006, 06:22 PM
Ned- you're a social liberal but fiscal conservative? Isn't that the definition of a libertarian?

I'm very fiscally conservative and have become quite dismayed at the fact that Bush 2 is spending so much and violating so many trade agreements (vote-grabbing steel subsidies that were eventually revoked, anyone?). So this is what it comes to: the Democrats spend gazillions of dollars on social programs, and the Republicans spend gazillions of dollars on wars and oxymoronic "homeland security" efforts.

Heaven help the young 'uns; they'll be paying off our debt forever.

By the way, CT had its own recent tale of corruption, as Republican Gov. Rowland got involved in some contract-rigging and kickbacks and was forced to resign (with legal troubles and indictments attached, but hey, he got a nice free hot tub out of it!). The former Lt. Gov. (now Gov.) Rell wasn't really hurt by the scandal, though, and is actually pretty popular now.

As a registered voter (for a not-to-be-named 3rd party that I've never wasted a vote on; go figure) in CT, here's my read on things: Lamont (D) is very liberal, Joe (Indep.) is moderate, and the relatively unknown Republican candidate can be expected to be fairly conservative. Given the tight primary race (it was decided by < 4%), the question becomes whether Joe will grab more of the Republican or Democrat vote. A lot of Republicans respect Lieberman as a moderate and for his support of Bush, and may even vote for him over an unknown Republican candidate.

I honestly think that it might be in the best interests of the GOP to withdraw its own candidate and promote (or at least tacitly endorse) Lieberman. This would leave the election with very liberal and moderate candidates, and would leave many of the more conservative voters (if you could get them to come out to vote for him) to presumably vote for the GOP-leaning Lieberman. The downside to this tactic is that it would amount to making the election a referendum on the war(s), which might not be the greatest idea.

In any event, this should be interesting over the next few months.

Ned
08-12-2006, 07:31 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(BarkingLeopard @ Aug 12 2006, 07:22 PM) 34332</div>
Ned- you're a social liberal but fiscal conservative? Isn't that the definition of a libertarian?

I'm very fiscally conservative and have become quite dismayed at the fact that Bush 2 is spending so much and violating so many trade agreements (vote-grabbing steel subsidies that were eventually revoked, anyone?). So this is what it comes to: the Democrats spend gazillions of dollars on social programs, and the Republicans spend gazillions of dollars on wars and oxymoronic "homeland security" efforts.

Heaven help the young 'uns; they'll be paying off our debt forever.
[/b]
I'm no Libertarian.

This is what the Libertarians say they are: "Libertarians believe that you have the right to live your life as you wish, without the government interfering -- as long as you donít violate the rights of others. Politically, this means Libertarians favor rolling back the size and cost of government, and eliminating laws that stifle the economy and control peopleís personal choices." To me those ideas may be , I repeat may be, utopian, and on the surface may seem great, but we don't live in utopia and their ideas of how to get to utopia just don't work.

I repeat, I'm no Liebrtarian.

Take a look at the record of Bill Clinton, liberal on social issues, yet fiscally conservative. He didn't just balance the budget, he reduced the national debt, only to let the big spenders, the Republicans, obliterate the all time national debt record, and keep breaking that record every day. While the Bush government and the Republican Congress were spending more than the Democrats every dreamed of spending, they cut taxes. Talk about not filfilling your fiscal and fiduciary responsibilites to the American people!

I think your characterization of the Democrats as big spenders, the old Republican charge "Tax and Spend" hasn't been true for years. What is true is that the Dems will attempt to spend money on everyday people and give them a helping hand, while the Reps will spend on things, on toys, and let people fend for themselves except for the rich. who they'll give a helping hand. The Reps will also try to pass laws which interfere in the daily lives of the citizenry, because they think they know better than anyone what's good for us, and what's moral and immoral, and of course they haven't a clue. And the Reps will spend our children into oblivion, while the Dems try to at least balance the budget and reduce the national debt.

To me the government is there to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. The Republican controlled government surely has not remotely tried to accomplish that. The government, contrary to Bush's point of view, is not supposed to help one group of people over another, suppress the rights of some because they don't like who they are, establish arbitrary laws which help a few at the expense of most, pick and choose which laws to enforce and which to ignore, establish a national religion, or rule the world. There is no doubt in my mind that George W. Bush will go down in history as one of the most morally bankrupt, ethically contemptable, fiscally irresponsible, pompous, hurtful, horrific, offensive, ineffective (in the sense he hasn't helped this country move forward worth a damn) national leaders in world history.

I believe you know where I stand, but in case I wasn't particularly clear, the Reps in the Senate and the House and "W" stink.

Ships 'N' Trips Travel
08-12-2006, 07:51 PM
Aw come on Ned, tell us what you really feel. ;)

Ned
08-12-2006, 08:15 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ships 'N' Trips Travel @ Aug 12 2006, 08:51 PM) 34341</div>
Aw come on Ned, tell us what you really feel. ;)
[/b]
I'm much too shy to do that. :lol:

trojan
08-12-2006, 09:34 PM
It is tremendously ironic to me that posters on this site bemoan the lack of informed voters, yet all in this thread refer to Lieberman as a "moderate." This is priceless.

Joe Lieberman ranks at the very top of liberal voting ratings, across ALL domestic issues. The very top. Depending on the organization, he is even ahead of Teddy!

The only "moderation" he displays is in foreign policy, especially as it relates to Israel.

It is a travesty that his party's leadership would not support a man in a vote of conscience. The Dems have laid waste to a time-honored understanding: politics stops at the shore. As much bile and venom the GOP spewed at WJC, there was not a single instance where the official party position, as expressed through the leadership, did not support WJC's acts of aggression against other nations.

A given voter may choose to oust anybody based on a single issue. But for a party to disallow a vote of conscience in matters of war is unprecedented, and utterly digusting.

Do not attempt to make the case that the DNC and other Dem leadership supported JL in the primary. Neutrality was scrupulously observed. In reality, the failure of the national party to openly support an incumbent three-term Senator is to signal opposition to said Senator.

Kairho
08-13-2006, 07:20 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(trojan @ Aug 12 2006, 10:34 PM) 34359</div>
It is a travesty that his party's leadership would not support a man in a vote of conscience. [/b]
And it could well be argued that it is a travesty that an elected official would not follow the wishes of his electorate.

Although I admire Lieberman's spunk, he was not elected to go his own way. Representatives are elected to represent the people who voted for them and when one eschews such directives then there is no choice but to elect someone else.

Ned
08-13-2006, 07:49 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kairho @ Aug 13 2006, 08:20 AM) 34385</div>
And it could well be argued that it is a travesty that an elected official would not follow the wishes of his electorate.

Although I admire Lieberman's spunk, he was not elected to go his own way. Representatives are elected to represent the people who voted for them and when one eschews such directives then there is no choice but to elect someone else.
[/b]
Exactly.

Ships 'N' Trips Travel
08-13-2006, 09:19 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kairho @ Aug 13 2006, 07:20 AM) 34385</div>
And it could well be argued that it is a travesty that an elected official would not follow the wishes of his electorate.

Although I admire Lieberman's spunk, he was not elected to go his own way. Representatives are elected to represent the people who voted for them and when one eschews such directives then there is no choice but to elect someone else.
[/b]
The issue in the primary isn't whether he represented the people who voted for him. In primaries it is party policites, and he's ticked off enough of his fellow party members in Connecticut by steadfastly supporting Bush and the war.

And technically, once elected, one is to represent the whole state (even those that didn't vote and those that voted against him), not just those that voted for him in the general election (Repubs, Indies, and Dems) or just the Democrats within the state. Who is to say that he wasn't representing a majority of the citizens of Connecticut when he supported the war? Well, actually "who is to say" would be the citizens of Connecticut...and the Democrat citizens have spoken...well the ones that bothered to vote in the primary spoke.

The Dems however have every right to vote for a candidate that they want in their primary, and enough anti-Lieberman voters turned out to vote against him.

If Lieberman runs as an Independent, the rest of the citizens of Connecticut can express their opinion of whether or not he was representing them effectively while in office.

Eileen Sellers
08-13-2006, 09:20 AM
Representatives are elected to represent the people who voted for them and when one eschews such directives then there is no choice but to elect someone else.[/b]

This is why everyone in office is up for grabs.

I think Lieberman will win.

Ned
08-13-2006, 09:32 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ships 'N' Trips Travel @ Aug 13 2006, 10:19 AM) 34393</div>
The issue in the primary isn't whether he represented the people who voted for him. In primaries it is party policites, and he's ticked off enough of his fellow party members in Connecticut by steadfastly supporting Bush and the war.

And technically, once elected, one is to represent the whole state (even those that didn't vote and those that voted against him), not just those that voted for him in the general election (Repubs, Indies, and Dems) or just the Democrats within the state. Who is to say that he wasn't representing a majority of the citizens of Connecticut when he supported the war? Well, actually "who is to say" would be the citizens of Connecticut...and the Democrat citizens have spoken...well the ones that bothered to vote in the primary spoke.

The Dems however have every right to vote for a candidate that they want in their primary, and enough anti-Lieberman voters turned out to vote against him.

If Lieberman runs as an Independent, the rest of the citizens of Connecticut can express their opinion of whether or not he was representing them effectively while in office.
[/b]
I disagree with your evaluation of this particular race Susan. The Politico Dems stayed out of this race. This wasn't politics, this was a lack of support for Lieberman's stance on Iraq. He may be Sen. Liberal, as some people contend, but he continues to support a war which most Americans don't agree with. Hence he lost.

Now because he didn't like the fight he was just in, due to a quirk in CT laws he can still run. The voting system we live with in this country is the members of the parties, the grassroot folks, get to choose who runs. He lost, and it wasn't a smoke-filled room loss. He shouldn't run as an independent, he should step down. That's it. And by the way, I don't think he'll win.

trojan
08-13-2006, 05:22 PM
Representatives are elected to represent the people who voted for them and when one eschews such directives then there is no choice but to elect someone else.[/b]
Here we have the crux of our Constitutional Republic. Is Congress to merely vote the majoritarian position, or to vote utilizing other factors, such as classified intelligence to which the ignorant proletariat is not privy?

The Founders were clear that they did not want a pure Democracy. In fact, men like Hamilton were practically royalists in their concept of the nascent Republic. One good reason for this is that at no time of the fighting of the Revolution did a majority of Colonists support the "Americans."

Me? I'm glad that those with more information and education make votes that go against the sometimes tyrannical impulses of my fellow citizens.

Eileen Sellers
08-14-2006, 01:57 PM
I'm glad that those with more information and education make votes that go against the sometimes tyrannical impulses of my fellow citizens.[/b]

More information and more education are two different things. There are a lot of educated people who have no infomation and there are uneducated people with infomation. And I'm not sure what tyrannical impulses of your fellow citizens are... although I would hope that those in elected office would all have the same information. Determining the value of the information, well, that shows up in the speeches and then the voters vote.

He shouldn't run as an independent, he should step down. That's it. [/b]
That's what makes freedom of elections a good thing. Let the people have all the choices they want.

greenearth
09-04-2006, 08:10 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ned @ Aug 10 2006, 06:06 PM) 34111</div>
NO!, especially Teddy, but Howie's not much better. Be that as it may, based on recent performance over the last couple of years, I wouldn't want Lieberman's advice either. But then again, there are many on the other side of the aisle I even think less of than those three.

But your comment is very very much true.

You should hear what my wife has to say about Teddy, no actually you shouldn't. No person should have to hear that diatribe.
[/b]


What has Howard Dean lied about? And as far as Ted and his drinking well there are quite a few of them on both sides including our president so what does that have to do with anything? He is man who has fought for liberal views for more then 40 yrs and there is nothing wrong with that

Ned
09-04-2006, 09:28 AM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(greenearth @ Sep 4 2006, 09:10 AM) 36292</div>
What has Howard Dean lied about? And as far as Ted and his drinking well there are quite a few of them on both sides including our president so what does that have to do with anything? He is man who has fought for liberal views for more then 40 yrs and there is nothing wrong with that
[/b]
Wait a minute. You quoted me, and then you ask me "What has Howard Dean lied about?" Please show me where I ever said Howard Dean lied? Where does it say anywhere in your quote of me that I said anyone lied?

In the quote from this topic which you didn't use, I did say that someone lied. I said, "Untrue! I'm failing to accept the advice of a drunk and liar, as well as failing to accept the advice of the loosest cannon in the history of the democratic party." Clearly, I referred to Ted Kennedy as the "drunk and liar" and Howard Dean as the "loosest cannon in the history of the democratic party." So I repeat, where did I ever call Howard Dean a liar?

Now, I will repeat that I think Howard Dean is a loose cannon. By that, I mean that Mr. Dean speaks before his thinks, and he does that way too often, for my taste as a Democrat. I wouldn't seek his advice because I believe that too often it would be bad advice.

With regard to Mr. Kennedy, however, there is no doubt that he is a drunk and a liar. You asked, "so what does that have to do with anything?" I'll be happy to tell you, because apparently you have pushed Mr. Kennedy's history aside.

Mr. Kennedy got drunk, got behind the wheel of his car, ran off the road and killed his passenger. In his drunken state, by his own admission, he failed to make any attempt to save his passenger, he failed to summon help immediately, or even when he first got himself safely to civilization, he failed to contact the police until 10 hours after the accident, yet he did manage to contact, meet and consult with his attorney in the 10 hours before he contacted the police. I think Mr. Kennedy's actions and drinking call into serious question any credibility the man may have had. Apparently you might, but I wouldn't have interest in seeking the advice of a drunk, liar and killer. How can I have respect for a man who had the wherewithal to save himself and seek legal advice, but didn't make any attempt to see if his passenger was alive, more or less make even a futile attempt to save her life.

I am sure there are other alcoholics in Congress, and the President has admitted he's an alcoholic. I don't like the President and what he stands for one bit. I think Bush is a liar. I don't trust Bush. I think he may be the worst president in the history of our country. I see very little to like about Bush in any way whatsoever. Nevertheless, I don't remember ever hearing about Bush killing someone while driving drunk, and I don't remember hearing about Bush ever leaving the scene of an accident, or worse, having left the scene of an accident, waiting 10 hours to seek help for an accident victim, whose life might have been saved while consulting with his attorney. Yes drinking has a lot to do with it.

jfrenaye
09-04-2006, 10:43 AM
Maybe if state and federal election laws were amended to allow us to vote "None" or "Neither" more of the dis-interested,[/b]

But any citizen can. Maybe it needs to be pointed out, but you can certainly walk into a poll and cast a blank ballot. I am an electon judge and it happens all the time.

bodega
09-04-2006, 12:53 PM
I am glad you said that John, because I have done that. I have walked in, been handed a ballot and then just walked over and handed it to the person who placed it in the ballot box. I have to admit that I was uncomfortable with that and have since gone into a booth, waited a minute and then walked back out with an unmarked ballot and gave it to the person to place in the ballot box. I would rather have a spot on the ballot to mark, like none of the above, then I know my ballot is actually counted. I am not really sure what they do with an unmarked ballot in the final tabulation.

jfrenaye
09-04-2006, 01:14 PM
In MD we are electronic. Before your ballot is "cast" there is a recap screen and there are several warnings up to this point. You have not selected anyone for President, etc. Then you agree and revieew the ballot and it is cast.

The votes are tallied per candidate as expected, but if there were enough people casting blank ballots, you would see it all over the news....60% of the voters turned out and only 30% voted for a candidate. Voting blank does indeed excercise your right to vote. No law tells us we MUST vote for a candidate--write someone in or leave it blank. But when you do that, you at least show that you are NOT apathetic and that you did indeed come out to vote!

bodega
09-04-2006, 02:54 PM
In my area of CA, we have ballots that we mark with a special pen. I know that my ballot is counted, but there is still the small bit of wonder if that is really in the tabulation. I use to work at our county office during elections when computers were first used. We had the dangling chad issue back then and I was one that probably made a few changes to people votes, as we had to remove the chad if the hole had been touched as the chad might get caught in the computer during the tabulation.

I would prefer the box, none of the above, or something similar, as then that would be noted in the same way a candidate's name is noted with the voter count. It would also eliminate the question as to whether a voter missed that part of the ballot, so didn't cast a vote and would send a message that the voter didn't like any of the choices.

Eileen Sellers
09-05-2006, 12:25 PM
Wait a minute. You quoted me, and then you ask me "What has Howard Dean lied about?" Please show me where I ever said Howard Dean lied? Where does it say anywhere in your quote of me that I said anyone lied? [/b]
Anyone need a drink? :)

It is interesting (or not) that the Democrats are most remembered for their personal character flaws, drinking, lying and womanizing and the Republicans are most remebered for their policy.

vacationagent
09-05-2006, 01:03 PM
Nevertheless, I don't remember ever hearing about Bush killing someone while driving drunk,[/b]
It was his wife who did that.

Ned
09-05-2006, 01:49 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vacationagent @ Sep 5 2006, 02:03 PM) 36367</div>
It was his wife who did that.
[/b]
She wasn't his wife when she had the accident. She was 17. She was not drinking. She went through a stop sign. All this according to the police report. This is very old news, and has absolutely nothing to do with the subject diversion that this thread has taken.

I'm a big Bush basher, but I must say (not as a moderator, I repeat, not as a moderator) that any mention of this is a very low and inappropriate blow. Gads, vacationagent, you caused me to say something in support of Bush. That's not fair.

Ships 'N' Trips Travel
09-05-2006, 02:06 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ned @ Sep 5 2006, 01:49 PM) 36369</div>
Gads, vacationagent, you caused me to say something in support of Bush. That's not fair.
[/b]
I feel your pain ;)

vacationagent
09-05-2006, 03:29 PM
This is very old news, [/b]
Just about the same age as the Edward Kennedy incident. And, fyi, Ned, you were no more present on Martha's Vineyard than you were in rural Texas so you might want to rethink what you state so unequivocally. There was certainly speculation as to whether or not Laura Welch was drunk behind the wheel when she blew through that stop sign. I'm guessing that if the Welch's had been as prominent as the Kennedy's, the accident would have been investigated much more thoroughly than it was. By the way, we get it. You don't like Senator Kennedy and you seem to think that an accident, tragic though it was, 35 years ago far outweighs any good he has done in the interim. We get it. Since you also seem to think (though not as a moderator) that mentioning Laura's driving record is a low blow, how about if you lay off Senator Kennedy and I'll lay off Laura Bush?

mtp51
09-05-2006, 03:58 PM
How about another drink? :D

Ned
09-05-2006, 04:55 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vacationagent @ Sep 5 2006, 04:29 PM) 36374</div>
Just about the same age as the Edward Kennedy incident. And, fyi, Ned, you were no more present on Martha's Vineyard than you were in rural Texas so you might want to rethink what you state so unequivocally. There was certainly speculation as to whether or not Laura Welch was drunk behind the wheel when she blew through that stop sign. I'm guessing that if the Welch's had been as prominent as the Kennedy's, the accident would have been investigated much more thoroughly than it was. By the way, we get it. You don't like Senator Kennedy and you seem to think that an accident, tragic though it was, 35 years ago far outweighs any good he has done in the interim. We get it. Since you also seem to think (though not as a moderator) that mentioning Laura's driving record is a low blow, how about if you lay off Senator Kennedy and I'll lay off Laura Bush?
[/b]
VA, first please take a look at the thread here. I started this thread. It was about Lieberman of Connecticut. Later on I mentioned that Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy and others have asked him to meet with Lieberman to try to talk him out of running as an independent. I offered no criticism of either. Later on in the thread RJ turned it quite a bit by asking what I thought of Dean and Kennedy. I answered. Often threads are turned upside down by members and there's nothing really wrong with that, especially in the "non-travel" forums.

While I have spent many happy hours in both Martha's Vineyard and rural Texas over the years, I certainly was not there when either of the incidents occurred. Nevertheless, like many, I have read statements about the 1969 accident, made by Kennedy, who admitted he had been drinking immediately before driving the Oldsmobile, and that he swam free of the vehicle, but Ms. Kopechne did not, and he assumed she was dead. He admitted he went to see his attorney and Ms. Kopechne's parents after the accident before it was reported to the police, and that didn't immediately report it to the police. It is a matter of public record that the accident occurred more than 10 hours before Kennedy reported it to the police.

The police report concerning Laura Bush's 1963 fatal car accident, when she ran a stop sign and crashed into another car, is also a matter of public record. The accident report states that "neither driver was drinking." You are speculating that because Laura Bush's (nee Welch) parents were nobodies, the police in Midland, Texas didn't do their job. That's a pretty bad indictment of them, with which I'm not prepared to agree. I think the police are, in fact, more likely to do their job when they don't have to worry about the hammer of a big name family hanging over their heads. There were all kinds of speculation about both accidents, but I'll stick to the public record.

There is a monster difference about these two accidents which can't be ignored. When Ted Kennedy had his accident, he was 37 years old, an experienced adult, and a sitting US Senator. When Laura Bush had her accident, she was 17 years old, and still in high school.

I don't think you do get my point about Ted Kennedy. I think throughout Ted Kennedy's career there have been major errors of judgment, and a general denial by Sen. Kennedy of his mistakes. While I have agreed with his point of view on many social issues, I think his stance on fiscal issues has been irresponsibly poor for an experienced US Senator, and if we followed his lead, the country would have been at the point of bankruptcy years ago. Couple that with, as an adult, inexcusably getting behind the wheel of a car while drunk, and I repeat, this is a man from whom I don't need advice.

Finally, is the only comeback to my comments concerning Ted Kennedy as a senator, not an adolescent student, to point out that George Bush's wife had a fatal auto accident herself, when she was a teenager still in high school? I don't see where Laura Bush has any place in an argument about the merits, or lack thereof, of Ted Kennedy's life and career.

Finally, I think we're getting too much on the personal side here, and I'll shoulder some blame for that. I've made my points and had my say, so while I certainly invite you to tell me how much I'm all wet in this topic in a reply, I won't be posting in this topic any longer. The last word is yours to take.

Eileen Sellers
09-05-2006, 05:19 PM
Good job, Ned. I'll drink to that! :)

vacationagent
09-05-2006, 08:54 PM
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ned @ Sep 5 2006, 04:55 PM) 36378</div>
VA, first please take a look at the thread here. I started this thread. It was about Lieberman of Connecticut. Later on I mentioned that Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy and others have asked him to meet with Lieberman to try to talk him out of running as an independent. I offered no criticism of either. Later on in the thread RJ turned it quite a bit by asking what I thought of Dean and Kennedy. I answered. Often threads are turned upside down by members and there's nothing really wrong with that, especially in the "non-travel" forums.

While I have spent many happy hours in both Martha's Vineyard and rural Texas over the years, I certainly was not there when either of the incidents occurred. Nevertheless, like many, I have read statements about the 1969 accident, made by Kennedy, who admitted he had been drinking immediately before driving the Oldsmobile, and that he swam free of the vehicle, but Ms. Kopechne did not, and he assumed she was dead. He admitted he went to see his attorney and Ms. Kopechne's parents after the accident before it was reported to the police, and that didn't immediately report it to the police. It is a matter of public record that the accident occurred more than 10 hours before Kennedy reported it to the police.

The police report concerning Laura Bush's 1963 fatal car accident, when she ran a stop sign and crashed into another car, is also a matter of public record. The accident report states that "neither driver was drinking." You are speculating that because Laura Bush's (nee Welch) parents were nobodies, the police in Midland, Texas didn't do their job. That's a pretty bad indictment of them, with which I'm not prepared to agree. I think the police are, in fact, more likely to do their job when they don't have to worry about the hammer of a big name family hanging over their heads. There were all kinds of speculation about both accidents, but I'll stick to the public record.

There is a monster difference about these two accidents which can't be ignored. When Ted Kennedy had his accident, he was 37 years old, an experienced adult, and a sitting US Senator. When Laura Bush had her accident, she was 17 years old, and still in high school.

I don't think you do get my point about Ted Kennedy. I think throughout Ted Kennedy's career there have been major errors of judgment, and a general denial by Sen. Kennedy of his mistakes. While I have agreed with his point of view on many social issues, I think his stance on fiscal issues has been irresponsibly poor for an experienced US Senator, and if we followed his lead, the country would have been at the point of bankruptcy years ago. Couple that with, as an adult, inexcusably getting behind the wheel of a car while drunk, and I repeat, this is a man from whom I don't need advice.

Finally, is the only comeback to my comments concerning Ted Kennedy as a senator, not an adolescent student, to point out that George Bush's wife had a fatal auto accident herself, when she was a teenager still in high school? I don't see where Laura Bush has any place in an argument about the merits, or lack thereof, of Ted Kennedy's life and career.

Finally, I think we're getting too much on the personal side here, and I'll shoulder some blame for that. I've made my points and had my say, so while I certainly invite you to tell me how much I'm all wet in this topic in a reply, I won't be posting in this topic any longer. The last word is yours to take.
[/b]

Thank you for letting me take the last word - I'll happily take it. Let's see if I understand this. Only moderators can take a thread off topic or approve those who do. If the poster doesn't agree with you, then you'll chastise the poster and then take your toys and go home. to wit I responded to RedJim's "question of the day" (to which you had already responded) to point out that there are other opinions around. You were off topic with your Sept 4th post about Senator Kennedy, and again I responded with the remark about different wreck - to illustrate that bad judgement abounds and that it does not solely rest in the hands of one Edward Kennedy. I fail to see where any of my comments were "personal."

Notwithstanding his personal foibles, I happen to think that as a public servant, Senator Kennedy has done a wonderful job; that he will leave an excellent legacy of public service when the time comes for him to leave the Senate; and that his family, since old man Joe made enough money to facilitate it for several generations, has set a very high mark in their many works for social causes. He is an influential senior member of the Senate and junior Democrats would be wise to consider his counsel. Joe Leiberman would be wise to listen to Senator Kennedy regarding what is good for the party. But I've read that Senator Leiberman is expecting to be re-elected handily (as an Independent) come November.

Eileen Sellers
09-06-2006, 07:57 AM
Last words:

Let's see if I understand this. Only moderators can take a thread off topic or approve those who do. If the poster doesn't agree with you, then you'll chastise the poster and then take your toys and go home. [/b]

The world is round.

trojan
09-12-2006, 03:36 AM
I should be so fortunate as to be doomed as Sen. Lieberman appears to be. My, oh my, he's only up 15 pts, which is up from 12 pts in the prior polling.

At this rate, Joe will win by only 21 points. Poor guy is doomed, I tell ya.

:P