Comments on: Lieberman As An Independent? More Likely By The Day http://informedspeculation.com/2006/06/18/lieberman-as-an-independent-more-likely-by-the-day/ Refunds Cheerfully Given To All Who Disagree Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:53:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: megapotamus http://informedspeculation.com/2006/06/18/lieberman-as-an-independent-more-likely-by-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-50893 megapotamus Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:22:11 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/06/18/lieberman-as-an-independent-more-likely-by-the-day/#comment-50893 Indeed, let the votes have the last word. Of course the Democrats have not really adhered to that nostrum lately. They don't seem to like the outcome of elections in Iraq or at home, hey, who can blame them? "the water is a little choppy" hardly describes the events. I'm always suspicious of metaphors when details abound. This one seems to imply that the distance between Joe and other Dems is meager and trivial which is in stark apposition to the End Times vitriol above. Is this division serious or isn't it? Is it reason based or not? What a larf? But for a guy who claims to not like political parties conceptually you sure want some serious party line loyalty from elected officials, no? Oh, it is to laugh. Do you know the Democrats are the longest lived political party in human history? All good things must come to an end. Not that they're any good. Indeed, let the votes have the last word. Of course the Democrats have not really adhered to that nostrum lately. They don’t seem to like the outcome of elections in Iraq or at home, hey, who can blame them?
“the water is a little choppy” hardly describes the events. I’m always suspicious of metaphors when details abound. This one seems to imply that the distance between Joe and other Dems is meager and trivial which is in stark apposition to the End Times vitriol above. Is this division serious or isn’t it? Is it reason based or not? What a larf? But for a guy who claims to not like political parties conceptually you sure want some serious party line loyalty from elected officials, no? Oh, it is to laugh. Do you know the Democrats are the longest lived political party in human history? All good things must come to an end. Not that they’re any good.

]]> By: mikebdot http://informedspeculation.com/2006/06/18/lieberman-as-an-independent-more-likely-by-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-50769 mikebdot Tue, 20 Jun 2006 13:43:21 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/06/18/lieberman-as-an-independent-more-likely-by-the-day/#comment-50769 mega: People can choose to take comments as personal affronts, but that doesn't mean that was the intention. Questioning something doesn't mean a conclusion has been drawn. See: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates" rel="nofollow">Socrates</a>. If the argument goes circular, I have no qualms. Also, for someone that has embraced party support and used the system to his advantage in the past to then say 'to hell with those liberal swine' and run independent and not be expected to be called out (nah, given a cabinet position) is just way too much ask... I don't like political parties the same way I don't like other large groups of people claiming to have the same goals (i.e. religion). However, when someone embraces their political party and then turns their back because the water is a little choppy certainly shows something about their commitment to the people they supposedly represent. Mark: Actually, now that you mention it, I did think you said Defense...I think someone else mentioned Rummy. Yeah, it was Gwedd. My fault. Either way though, rewarding him for being a political whore is exactly what is wrong with the country. Also, Joe has been castigated for a number of reasons. Rape victim plan B pills (can't be too far to a hospital that actually let's you take one), his attitude towards Iran is remarkably similar to Iraq, his involvement in the "gang of 14", same sex marriage, etc. Don't pretend Lamont has support because of one issue. This may explain why you've been wrong about how this election is shaping thus far... Does anyone have a link to an email or blog or some other such item that shows a moderate who is upset that Lamont is challenging Lieberman? Even if there are extreme leftists involved, it's a damned election. Let the people vote. Geez. mega: People can choose to take comments as personal affronts, but that doesn’t mean that was the intention. Questioning something doesn’t mean a conclusion has been drawn. See: Socrates. If the argument goes circular, I have no qualms. Also, for someone that has embraced party support and used the system to his advantage in the past to then say ‘to hell with those liberal swine’ and run independent and not be expected to be called out (nah, given a cabinet position) is just way too much ask…

I don’t like political parties the same way I don’t like other large groups of people claiming to have the same goals (i.e. religion). However, when someone embraces their political party and then turns their back because the water is a little choppy certainly shows something about their commitment to the people they supposedly represent.

Mark: Actually, now that you mention it, I did think you said Defense…I think someone else mentioned Rummy. Yeah, it was Gwedd. My fault. Either way though, rewarding him for being a political whore is exactly what is wrong with the country. Also, Joe has been castigated for a number of reasons. Rape victim plan B pills (can’t be too far to a hospital that actually let’s you take one), his attitude towards Iran is remarkably similar to Iraq, his involvement in the “gang of 14″, same sex marriage, etc. Don’t pretend Lamont has support because of one issue. This may explain why you’ve been wrong about how this election is shaping thus far…

Does anyone have a link to an email or blog or some other such item that shows a moderate who is upset that Lamont is challenging Lieberman? Even if there are extreme leftists involved, it’s a damned election. Let the people vote. Geez.

]]> By: Andy Vance http://informedspeculation.com/2006/06/18/lieberman-as-an-independent-more-likely-by-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-50155 Andy Vance Tue, 20 Jun 2006 00:44:49 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/06/18/lieberman-as-an-independent-more-likely-by-the-day/#comment-50155 <i>He is routinely castigated as ‘Holy Joe’ because he is an orthodox Jew</i> You left out a <a href="http://www.answers.com/sanctimonious" rel="nofollow">word</a> before 'orthodox.' He is routinely castigated as ‘Holy Joe’ because he is an orthodox Jew

You left out a word before ‘orthodox.’

]]> By: Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » The Democratic Party On The Road To Nowhere http://informedspeculation.com/2006/06/18/lieberman-as-an-independent-more-likely-by-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-50144 Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » The Democratic Party On The Road To Nowhere Tue, 20 Jun 2006 00:40:17 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/06/18/lieberman-as-an-independent-more-likely-by-the-day/#comment-50144 [...] Decision '08 [...] [...] Decision '08 [...]

]]> By: megapotamus http://informedspeculation.com/2006/06/18/lieberman-as-an-independent-more-likely-by-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-49965 megapotamus Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:30:38 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/06/18/lieberman-as-an-independent-more-likely-by-the-day/#comment-49965 So, party above all? That is the paragon of ethical conduct? You must have really had a mad on for Jim Jeffords. The not-so-sad truth is that political parties have NO recognized place in our Constitutional order and Adams, Madison and Jefferson would certainly have said that they had done all they could to PREVENT parties from even forming. Parties are a vehicle merely. Certainly there is much to be said for loyalty but that is AFTER consideration of the merits. Has Joe failed in this? Maybe so but you can't tell from anything any Democrat has said. Is there no truth in Zell Miller's complaint that he did not leave the Dems but they he? He did produce a book length treatment of this subject. It was a bit vitriolic for my tastes but was fact based and honestly reasoned. That is no small part of why it is ignored by frankly partisan Democrats. And Mark, I don't know why you go out of your way to give "no offense" as you enjoy no such scruple from the other side. So, party above all? That is the paragon of ethical conduct? You must have really had a mad on for Jim Jeffords. The not-so-sad truth is that political parties have NO recognized place in our Constitutional order and Adams, Madison and Jefferson would certainly have said that they had done all they could to PREVENT parties from even forming. Parties are a vehicle merely. Certainly there is much to be said for loyalty but that is AFTER consideration of the merits. Has Joe failed in this? Maybe so but you can’t tell from anything any Democrat has said. Is there no truth in Zell Miller’s complaint that he did not leave the Dems but they he? He did produce a book length treatment of this subject. It was a bit vitriolic for my tastes but was fact based and honestly reasoned. That is no small part of why it is ignored by frankly partisan Democrats.

And Mark, I don’t know why you go out of your way to give “no offense” as you enjoy no such scruple from the other side.

]]> By: Mark http://informedspeculation.com/2006/06/18/lieberman-as-an-independent-more-likely-by-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-49921 Mark Mon, 19 Jun 2006 20:49:05 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/06/18/lieberman-as-an-independent-more-likely-by-the-day/#comment-49921 mike, Joe Lieberman has been targeted by a group of activist progressives for one reason only: because he supports his president in his decision to go to war in Iraq (and he is your president, and Kos's president, and my president - we only get one at a time). He is routinely castigated as 'Holy Joe' because he is an orthodox Jew, and all sorts of abuse is heaped upon his head - because he stands by the principle that a man should vote his conscience. If you find that worthy of ridicule, you had better check your premises. My admiration for this man, and my opinion that he would make a fine cabinet member (and you'll note I didn't say Secretary of Defense, I said cabinet), has absolutely nothing to do with 'my commitment to national security'. Again, I won't attempt to defend myself from such a ridiculous charge, no offense to you... mike, Joe Lieberman has been targeted by a group of activist progressives for one reason only: because he supports his president in his decision to go to war in Iraq (and he is your president, and Kos’s president, and my president – we only get one at a time). He is routinely castigated as ‘Holy Joe’ because he is an orthodox Jew, and all sorts of abuse is heaped upon his head – because he stands by the principle that a man should vote his conscience.

If you find that worthy of ridicule, you had better check your premises.

My admiration for this man, and my opinion that he would make a fine cabinet member (and you’ll note I didn’t say Secretary of Defense, I said cabinet), has absolutely nothing to do with ‘my commitment to national security’. Again, I won’t attempt to defend myself from such a ridiculous charge, no offense to you…

]]> By: mikebdot http://informedspeculation.com/2006/06/18/lieberman-as-an-independent-more-likely-by-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-49875 mikebdot Mon, 19 Jun 2006 20:16:07 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/06/18/lieberman-as-an-independent-more-likely-by-the-day/#comment-49875 I'm not saying I'm right about national security or that the democrats are right. I'm saying that if someone uses Democratic Party funding for a number of years (including this year), then, when realizes he won't win in a primary, switches to become an independent and then loses he should be publicly ridiculed, not granted a cabinet position to make a political statement, especially one so important at this time. Say what you want about Rummy's policies, but he did have experience in the area, something which Joe lacks. Why, hypothetically should they be publicly ridiculed in this instance? Because it is obvious they care not about what the party they represent (or have claim to represent) wants, they care about retaining power. If they are so ego-driven that they think the very voters that would have voted him out of office (had he stayed democrat) are incorrect, why should any of the people that actually want him out of office trust him in a cabinet position? It's basically a slap in the face at the hard left (who would be the ones supposedly voting Lieberman out?), not a bipartisan move. Also, if he lost as an independent, especially by a large margin, there is no ground to claim moderates would even consider giving him a cabinet position a good idea. It would also show they think he is to the right of them, further discrediting the notion that it would be seen as a "bipartisan" move. It would be just the opposite. Mark, I'm very serious about my comment. On what basis would he deserve that cabinet position after showing such contempt for his party? I have nothing but disgust for people that change political parties during an election. I mean, it's all well and good for someone to "play politics", but to be so blatant as to say "I want the moderate vote on both sides so I'm changing parties, and by the way, I know better than you who should be elected" is not only comical, but sad. Also, saying that I'm questioning your commitment by no means implies that I came to the conclusion you are not committed. I just had to question it upon reading such a statement. Only trying to let you know how strongly I feel about this particular issue. I'll be the first to tell you it's a logical fallacy (emotional appeal), but I don't care in any event. I'm not trying to argue the point per se, but just commenting. :) I wasn't calling Lieberman a basketcase, just trying to use an example of a dismissive comment that one might use. I could just as easily have said "Oh, well, big deal", but I like the word "basketcase". I haven't come across many moderates in CT that really like him. Could you point me to a link with emails or comments from people living in CT who are moderates/liberals that think Lieberman being challenged isn't a good thing or that really think Lamont is awful? Aaron: True, but it's something to consider nonetheless, especially claiming a 5% boost from someone who shares his views on Iraq (and apparently Iran). I’m not saying I’m right about national security or that the democrats are right. I’m saying that if someone uses Democratic Party funding for a number of years (including this year), then, when realizes he won’t win in a primary, switches to become an independent and then loses he should be publicly ridiculed, not granted a cabinet position to make a political statement, especially one so important at this time. Say what you want about Rummy’s policies, but he did have experience in the area, something which Joe lacks.

Why, hypothetically should they be publicly ridiculed in this instance? Because it is obvious they care not about what the party they represent (or have claim to represent) wants, they care about retaining power. If they are so ego-driven that they think the very voters that would have voted him out of office (had he stayed democrat) are incorrect, why should any of the people that actually want him out of office trust him in a cabinet position? It’s basically a slap in the face at the hard left (who would be the ones supposedly voting Lieberman out?), not a bipartisan move. Also, if he lost as an independent, especially by a large margin, there is no ground to claim moderates would even consider giving him a cabinet position a good idea. It would also show they think he is to the right of them, further discrediting the notion that it would be seen as a “bipartisan” move. It would be just the opposite.

Mark, I’m very serious about my comment. On what basis would he deserve that cabinet position after showing such contempt for his party? I have nothing but disgust for people that change political parties during an election. I mean, it’s all well and good for someone to “play politics”, but to be so blatant as to say “I want the moderate vote on both sides so I’m changing parties, and by the way, I know better than you who should be elected” is not only comical, but sad. Also, saying that I’m questioning your commitment by no means implies that I came to the conclusion you are not committed. I just had to question it upon reading such a statement. Only trying to let you know how strongly I feel about this particular issue. I’ll be the first to tell you it’s a logical fallacy (emotional appeal), but I don’t care in any event. I’m not trying to argue the point per se, but just commenting. :)

I wasn’t calling Lieberman a basketcase, just trying to use an example of a dismissive comment that one might use. I could just as easily have said “Oh, well, big deal”, but I like the word “basketcase”. I haven’t come across many moderates in CT that really like him. Could you point me to a link with emails or comments from people living in CT who are moderates/liberals that think Lieberman being challenged isn’t a good thing or that really think Lamont is awful?

Aaron: True, but it’s something to consider nonetheless, especially claiming a 5% boost from someone who shares his views on Iraq (and apparently Iran).

]]> By: Mark http://informedspeculation.com/2006/06/18/lieberman-as-an-independent-more-likely-by-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-49712 Mark Mon, 19 Jun 2006 18:10:40 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/06/18/lieberman-as-an-independent-more-likely-by-the-day/#comment-49712 Well, mike, I'm going to ignore your comment about my 'commitment to the actual security of the nation' as beneath contempt and below your standards. You've been a good contributor to the comments, so I'll assume you were in a bad mood and didn't really mean to suggest something so heinous of me. In any event, I certainly won't try to defend myself from such a ludicrous statement... Well, mike, I’m going to ignore your comment about my ‘commitment to the actual security of the nation’ as beneath contempt and below your standards. You’ve been a good contributor to the comments, so I’ll assume you were in a bad mood and didn’t really mean to suggest something so heinous of me.

In any event, I certainly won’t try to defend myself from such a ludicrous statement…

]]> By: Aaron http://informedspeculation.com/2006/06/18/lieberman-as-an-independent-more-likely-by-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-49676 Aaron Mon, 19 Jun 2006 17:15:00 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/06/18/lieberman-as-an-independent-more-likely-by-the-day/#comment-49676 I'd also add that popularity, or lack thereof, in 2000 means nothing in 2006. I’d also add that popularity, or lack thereof, in 2000 means nothing in 2006.

]]> By: megapotamus http://informedspeculation.com/2006/06/18/lieberman-as-an-independent-more-likely-by-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-49660 megapotamus Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:52:09 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/06/18/lieberman-as-an-independent-more-likely-by-the-day/#comment-49660 Mike, what is disgusting in your eyes is of no consequence. Lieberman is a basketcase? How? Why? No hoss, it is the Kossacks and their ilk who are the basketcases and the baskets are woven and beckoning. The foundation of your statement (to the extent one is discernible) is based on the rectitude of the Dems position on the war apposite Lieberman and the Bushies. Sorry, that just doesn't work. First off we have to have a coherent position from the Dems and that we have awaited since pre-Kerry days. Maybe you can elucidate. But that is just the first step. THEN we have to contest the two positions. You presume you are right on security, right on the politics and right on the "merits" of Lamont v Liberman. Mere presumption it is, perpetually wrapped in dire denunciations as lacking in fact as the "merits", never described. You question "commitment to the actual security of the nation." on Mark's part and I dare guess, many others? I question yours and the basic seriousness, if not decency, of anyone who votes Democrat today, knowing what we know. Don't like it? Don't do it. Mike, what is disgusting in your eyes is of no consequence. Lieberman is a basketcase? How? Why? No hoss, it is the Kossacks and their ilk who are the basketcases and the baskets are woven and beckoning. The foundation of your statement (to the extent one is discernible) is based on the rectitude of the Dems position on the war apposite Lieberman and the Bushies. Sorry, that just doesn’t work. First off we have to have a coherent position from the Dems and that we have awaited since pre-Kerry days. Maybe you can elucidate. But that is just the first step. THEN we have to contest the two positions. You presume you are right on security, right on the politics and right on the “merits” of Lamont v Liberman. Mere presumption it is, perpetually wrapped in dire denunciations as lacking in fact as the “merits”, never described. You question “commitment to the actual security of the nation.” on Mark’s part and I dare guess, many others? I question yours and the basic seriousness, if not decency, of anyone who votes Democrat today, knowing what we know. Don’t like it? Don’t do it.

]]>