Thank God for that. We're trying to get as far from the mainstream as possible.
Thank God for that. We're trying to get as far from the mainstream as possible.
Tony
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2003
- Messages
- 15,410
Hard left?
senorpogo
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2006
- Messages
- 2,100
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
I thought frogs were to the left? They always seem that way to me.
Didaktylos
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2004
- Messages
- 400
Heh Heh - carry on like that and Dubya will soon be saying to Putin: "Behave yourself Vladi - or we'll give Alaska back to you"
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2001
- Messages
- 14,870
I don't believe Lieberman has lost support of many democrats just on one issue.
There is the war, yes... but it's not just his support for the war, it's his apparent lip service to the idea that the President should not be criticized during a war, and being an apologist for torture. There are REPUBLICANS that had the spine to say "This is wrong." Not to mention he is of a wing of Democrats that actively supports more media censorship--which gives him a weak position even before the war started. The same Democrats that can't stand Tipper Gore, for example, weren't too keep on Lieberman's VP run.
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
Radical Left Democrats?
The movement to the "wee smidge left of center" (from their previously staked out territory "a little more than a wee smidge left of center") of the Democratic Party was a direct reaction to losing the "Reagan Democrat" vote and the assumption that the marginally left would always vote Democrat, and thus, it was safe to go after that that center ground where elections are won and lost.
When Che and Malcom and I were hanging out at The Hip Bagel in the sixties, we used to bemoan the right wing neo-cryptic fascists at the Democratic Party, New York Times, CBS, et al. Now we have Fox News to enlighten us that all of those organization are radical left wing socialists looking to destroy what's good and right in this world.
If you graph the ideological differences of something larger than Springfield, you get Pol Pot and Kruschev over on the left, Hitler and Atilla over on the right. The last two presidential elections had an ideological split of about the breadth of a nose hair if you place them on that line. "Which stuffed suit representing his/her particular interests do you prefer, Millie? Oh, that Gore, he's just too radical, I'm voting for George."
The movement to the "wee smidge left of center" (from their previously staked out territory "a little more than a wee smidge left of center") of the Democratic Party was a direct reaction to losing the "Reagan Democrat" vote and the assumption that the marginally left would always vote Democrat, and thus, it was safe to go after that that center ground where elections are won and lost.
When Che and Malcom and I were hanging out at The Hip Bagel in the sixties, we used to bemoan the right wing neo-cryptic fascists at the Democratic Party, New York Times, CBS, et al. Now we have Fox News to enlighten us that all of those organization are radical left wing socialists looking to destroy what's good and right in this world.If you graph the ideological differences of something larger than Springfield, you get Pol Pot and Kruschev over on the left, Hitler and Atilla over on the right. The last two presidential elections had an ideological split of about the breadth of a nose hair if you place them on that line. "Which stuffed suit representing his/her particular interests do you prefer, Millie? Oh, that Gore, he's just too radical, I'm voting for George."
Polaris
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2006
- Messages
- 11,396
Perhaps the climate wasn't as polarized as it has become in the last 14 years.
Would that be he willingness to work with republicans on Social Security deform, his denounciation of criticism of the president, his backhanded support of the Alito nomination, his backhanded support of the odious bankruptcy bill, or his general willingness to provide bi-partisan cover for whatever unpopular bill the GOP wants to push through this week? Don't know what else it could be...
The fact is that Lieberman has been moving rightward for a while now, and the people of Connecticut haven't. He's been covering up for it with weasel votes and relying on his status as an incumbent senator to keep him in office. Lamont put forward a good primary challenge and won the nomination.
Rather than exiting gracefully, Lieberman wants to keep swinging.
Rob Lister
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,504
Interesting. Rather than debate you on the many issues which each deserve (and have received) their own thread, I'll just ask...
If the people of Connecticut haven't been moving along with Lieberman, why does he enjoy the lead he currently has (which, my crystal ball sez will be reduced to three)? Seems to me, they're right there with him.
Don't you know all elections are rigged? If Lieberman wins, it'll be another clear example of the "Republicans" stealing the election.
Rob Lister
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,504
That's not helpful. I'm amused! But this deserves serious debate because it represents something that so very rarely happens in today's politics.
I'm willing to debate it seriously, and hopefully try to forecast the outcome.
I'm saying Lieberbman by 3.
I'm willing to debate it seriously, and hopefully try to forecast the outcome.
I'm saying Lieberbman by 3.
Rob Lister
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,504
Wow.
A lot of the lead that he has comes from Republicans who realize that their candidate (whoever he is), isn't going to win. His Democratic supporters seem to be buying into the "Lamont is a moonbat" meme that the Lieberman camp has been pushing. Keeping his Democratic supporters is what Lieberman has to worry about, as I don't see any reason for a Lamont supporter to switch to Lieberman. Lieberman's lead is definitely going to drop in the coming weeks, as it really doesn't have anywhere to go but down. Will it drop low enough for Lamont to win? I have no idea.
As for polls and political views, we could talk for a while about how they really don't match up like people think. It the weeks after 9/11, Bush had approval ratings in the 90's, but that didn't mean that Democrats had changed their minds about Social Security. I don't know anybody who thinks Bill Clinton was right to have an affair, but that didn't drop his approval ratings like conservatives wanted. Heck, it's always been my contention that if all voters were truely informed and voted for their own interests, the GOP as it stands now would cease to exist.
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2001
- Messages
- 14,870
In truth, I don't want people voting only their own interest. It would just become a power play to see who could get more resources directed their way.
I think it's a good thing that there is at least some talk of what's good for America instead of what's good for "me".
I think it's a good thing that there is at least some talk of what's good for America instead of what's good for "me".
Actually, that's not the case. Check Americans for Democratic Action's website and look at his voting record for the last half-dozen years. He's consistently in the 75% - 80% range (the higher an ADA score, the more liberal). That puts him to the right of such stalwarts as Teddy Kennedy, to be sure, but he has a lot of Democratic company with that voting record; it is far from making him a stealth Republican. I published his record here on an earlier Lieberman thread, and even hgc, who is quite annoyed with Lieberman, had to acknowledge the stats bear me out.
His voting record was far more liberal when he satarted out though. Also this is just his voting record. His sinking of the Alito filibuster with the other "gang of fourteen" weenies, followed by his pointless no vote makes his voting record look liberal, even as he was instrumental in getting Alito on the bench. Weasel votes like that make his scorecard look more liberal than he actually is.
Also, while there are Democratic senators more conservative than Lieberman, most of them come from Red states, while Connecticut is blue.
Evidence? And I mean evidence by some objective standard, not anecdotal evidence of the "he voted for Alito before he voted against him" variety.
Evidence that the "scorecard" is not an accurate measure?
Since you reject the ADA scores as a measure, what objective measure do you use to determine whether someone is more liberal or less?
Why does there have to be some sort of "objective" measurement of this? How do you "measure" liberalness anyway? Do you just count up the number of votes and try to determine if they are liberal or not? Do we include speeches? How many votes is a speech denouncing Democrats worth as opposed to one praising Republicans? Is a vote to renew a law that is about to expire worth more or less than a vote for a law that has never existed before? Is a "no" vote on a close bill worth the same as a vote against a bill with broad support? Is a vote to eliminate Social Security more or less valuable than a vote in favor or making a certain day national banana day?
Politics is not one of those things that loans itself to simple numbers and definite results. There is a whole lot of fuzzy and vague stuff in there that you can't just assign a number to, especially when politicians of all stripes are trying to convince people with various conflicting interests that they should support them.
Here in the US, I am a shameless liberal. I just came back from a trip to the UK, and over there, I am a moderate. My politics didn't change as I crossed time zones, but the shift was very noticable to me.
I hate to say that I am abandoning objective standards, but I just don't see how you can objectively measure something as incredibly complicated as politics.