| CBS News | 0 | |
| WaPo | 0 | |
| Zogby | North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan Trails in Potential 2010 Senate Match-up |
0 |
| SF Chron | 0 | |
| KDVR | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Disgruntled Dems are considering challenge to Lieberman
He’s not anti-war, so he must go:
WASHINGTON — Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman may be some Republicans’ idea of a good Democrat, but a growing number of fellow party members in his home state couldn’t disagree more.
“It’s at the point where he’s no longer interested in his own party’s opinion, he’s really out of touch with reality,” said Mitchell Fuchs, chairman of the Fairfield Democratic Town Committee in Connecticut. “For me, he’s crossed the line a number of times.”
Passions flared after Lieberman’s recent trip to Iraq. Upon his return, the three-term senator pointed to what he views as progress on the ground there and suggested that Democrats should avoid harsh criticisms of President Bush’s Iraq policy.
In turn, Republicans and administration officials, including Bush, used the senator’s comments to bolster their case for war and underscore Lieberman’s differences with other Democratic leaders on the issue. Republicans have since charged that Democrats lack a coherent, unified message on Iraq.
The series of events has sparked petitions and protests outside of Lieberman’s district office in Hartford and prompted a potential challenge from a former and formidable political foe.
In an interview with FOXNews.com, former U.S. senator and Connecticut Gov. Lowell Weicker said he will challenge Lieberman in 2006 if no credible anti-war Democrat or independent jumps into the race first.
“I’m not going to let [Lieberman] get a free pass on this. And that’s what’s going to happen if no one steps up to bat,” said Weicker, who as a Republican lost his Senate seat to Lieberman in 1988. In 1990, Weicker went on to become governor, elected as an independent.
Weicker, 74, said he would run for Senate against Lieberman as an independent, not a Democrat. He said he has been against the war in Iraq “from the onset,” and doesn’t take lightly the notion of coming out of retirement to challenge the incumbent.
I can see see the chant now: “Joe, Joe, he must go, now that he’s become a foe!”
Related Toldjah So posts:
RSS feed for comments on this post.
73 Responses to “Disgruntled Dems are considering challenge to Lieberman”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
Ill stand bhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-03-bush-troops_x.htmy what i said earlier..its simple really..are you gonna vote for someone who is going to gut the military
like most libs do?Who start whing about defeat at the fist sight of trouble?..FDR
is rolling over in his grave about now..
just read the article..non scientific, but telling.
Part of the population that doesn’t agree with the president’s handling of the war want more troops. Part of that population is like me, I wish that the borders were sealed from illegal immigrants. I don’t think the president has done everything that I would’ve done or has been as tough as I would’ve been in this war on terror.
Just because some of the population doesn’t agree with Bush, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have gone to Iraq. It just means that percentage of people agree with him. I think you look at the polls wrong and are a perfect monday morning quarterback.
Nice name calling by the way. I don’t approve of your way of handling the conversation.
Your condescension is awful.
Your last paragraph at 3:29 is the way you chose to handle someone interpreting data differently than you. People see things differently than you Adam. There is no need to act childish. We are all grown adults who see data and interpret them a little differently.
It seems you didn’t agree with the decision to go to Iraq. WHy can’t a liberal just say that instead of making all of the inaccurate accusations as well. You disagreed and you didn’t want us to go to Iraq. Say it.
And then envision Saddam still in power…..
BTW, it took us 10 years and over 10,000 soldiers AFTER WW2 to rebuild Germany.
As did the British, French and for that matter, the Russians. However,I don’t think they were being blown up every day by “deadender” Nazis and religious fanatics.
As for the regime change/nation building the authorization was for the use of force as a threat to compel disarmament of what was believed by many (but not all) as an imminent threat, not a blank check to go to war at the earliest possible opportunity.
I believe that the intelligence was not only flawed, but intentionally spun, or as it was said in Britain “sexed up” in order to make the rush to war seem more urgent and necessary than was in fact the case.
The management of the post-military phase of the conflict has been an abysmal failure. Establishment of the CPA (possibly next to disbanding the Iraqi army) was perhaps the worst mistake of all. Sistani wanted elections ASAP, but as did the Kurds… and really, would the result have been much different than the situation that exists now where there are deep sectarian rifts along totally predictable lines?
andrew, as usual, you don’t believe in personal responsibility. You want someone to stop your friend from being in debt. You think it is someone else’s job, not your friend’s.
Red, “rush to war”? That is one of the most overused and incorrect phrases of the left. There was no rush. If I were Bush, I’d have bombed Saddam and invaded a year earlier. Then, I’d have gone after Saddam’s supporters here.
Your arrogance is not a fact that refute any argument. You don’t believe… That isn’t a fact, but a supposition on your part. Diehard Nazis were killing people well into 1949. One of their favorite tricks was stringing piano wire across roads to decapitate motorcycle riders and the occasional driver of a jeep or other topless vehicle.
Sir, you don’t learn from history and are trying to get others to have to relearn the same bloody lessons.
“You want someone to stop your friend from being in debt. ”
Sure. Just like I want someone to stop the crackheads from getting crack. I look at whats the good policy. It takes a crack dealer and a crackhead. Same with credit: it takes an irresponsible lender as well as a borrower.
What do you think a lender’s job is? to give out money? or to evaluate the people who are applying for money? Do they have no responsibility?
And will you answer the question: do you think there ought to be bankruptcy at all?
andrew, unlike you, I don’t push all the responsiblity on others for your friend’s actions. How do we know he didn’t lie on his apps? While there is some responsibility on the lenders, you just want the lenders to be stiffed because your friend is irresponsible. Is your friend you?
There is bankruptcy laws for a reason, but not so the irresponsible to escape their responsibilities.
“How do we know he didn’t lie on his apps?”
Because your creditworthyness is recorded by credit bureaus. Its not on your credit card apps. Should lenders not be responsible for things different than whats on the apps? Should borrowers not be responsible if the terms of credit change from that which was on the application?
“While there is some responsibility on the lenders, you just want the lenders to be stiffed because your friend is irresponsible. Is your friend you?”
No, I don’t have any credit card debt but lots of educational debt, which bankruptcy won’t allow me to discharge. Interestingly, I’ll bet the credit card companies would alllow me to transfer all my educational debt to them. Which is not quite the result the law wants.
“There is bankruptcy laws for a reason, but not so the irresponsible to escape their responsibilities.”
Why do you ignore the lenders in this? They can do irresponsible things too.
Andrew, you are dodging. I am not ignoring the lenders. I am putting it to you why do you think the lenders should be stiffed? This is the crux of your argument. It is also the hallmark of a Liberal to say that those with the deep pockets should pay for everything whether or not they have any responsibility.
“I am putting it to you why do you think the lenders should be stiffed?”
Because they lent money to people who can’t pay it back. Lenders take risks that they won’t be repayed sometimes. That’s why credit card rates are so high: because they’re risky loans. Why should they be stiffed? Because they took a risk and it went sour. Why should they profit from when the risk doesn’t go sour?
“It is also the hallmark of a Liberal to say that those with the deep pockets should pay for everything whether or not they have any responsibility.”
If they don’t want to lose money, they don’t have to give away money to risky creditors. I’d say they’re in the better position (and more efficient, from society’s perspective) to determine who is a credit risk or not. Not the borrower, but the lender.
I think its innefficient to move the responsibility over to borrowers who have little or no access to sophisticated credit scoring and forecasting capabilities.
So in the end, I think the responsibility argument is a wash: there are 2 sides to this transaction, one with obviously more information and capabilities — the lender. But there are efficiency and policy concerns too.
andrew, dodging again. You just want people to be able to stiff their creditors anytime they don’t feel like they have to pay back what they borrow.
Also, many lawsuits have been filed by poverty advocates demanding that lenders lend to people in minority communities when they aren’t creditworthy even under your definitions. Again, this is Liberals making the deep pockets share their wealth.
“andrew, dodging again.”
I told you what I think of the responsibility arguments, and I told you that there are other arguments that convince me. I addressed your question.
“You just want people to be able to stiff their creditors anytime they don’t feel like they have to pay back what they borrow.”
That’s not how bankruptcy works. They look at your ability to pay, not how you ‘feel’ about paying.
“Also, many lawsuits have been filed by poverty advocates demanding that lenders lend to people in minority communities when they aren’t creditworthy even under your definitions.”
They’re asking that no proxies for race be used in the creditworthyness determination. Which is different than what you claim.
I suggest you read this article PCD:
http://www.slate.com/id/2087768/
Better than spinning fairy tales…
Red, “rush to war”? That is one of the most overused and incorrect phrases of the left. There was no rush.
Well considering that planning for the invasion was started in 2001 and the US invaded several months later, I’d say that was a “rush” — after all, it does take some time to mobilize and deploy all of the military equipment and troops in the area required to undertake the invasion. Bush used this time to defuse objections from the international community and pretend to co-operate with the U.N.
…I’d have bombed Saddam and invaded a year earlier.
Clinton tactically bombed Saddam (Operation “Firefox”) and that wasn’t terribly effective now was it?
Then, I’d have gone after Saddam’s supporters here.
Do you honestly believe that anyone who thinks the war was a misadventure is perforce a “supporter” of Saddam Hussein? That’s just ridiculous.
Red shows another inaccurate accusation by saying, “Well considering that planning for the invasion was started in 2001 and the US invaded several months later
Yes. 14 months later (in March of 2003) is called a RUSH to war. Did you say that about Yugoslavia’s much shorter than 14 month RUSH to war? One lie after another with you. And no personal responsibility for your words afterwards…(yep. I’m on that drumbeat these past two days)
Is the 10,000 U.S. soldiers killed in Germany AFTER WW2 a fiction also Red?
Did the Jews not really go through a holocause?
Did the National Socialist party of Germany really not burn books and round up Jewish people and put them to death?
Are you really that Red?
Sorry I mispelled holocaust
Is the 10,000 U.S. soldiers killed in Germany AFTER WW2 a fiction also Red?
Can you provide a source for this figure?
And by the way, I’m not denying that the Holocaust took place or anything of the sort. Don’t be so ridiculous.
Red, you do a lot of spinning yourself. BTW, Slate is not a source of fact.
I never said that Slate was a source of fact, but the article summarizes the situation in post-WWII Germany as it is conventionally regarded by most historians and as was my understanding at least. So I’d like to know where this other information about the 10,000 casualties is coming from, that’s all. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. I have no problem admitting that.
I never heard that number either. I knew there were a bunch of terrorist attacks in the Black Mountains area around Munich, but I thought they were largely unsuccessful.
If the 10,000 number is right, it would be very pertinent information!
Well I’m sure we’ll hear stunning silence from our friend Baklava in this regard because I suspect there is little supporting evidence for it. When I did a bit of Googling myself I did run across posts from WWII vets that said it was rubbish. Still, I could be wrong.