Can Lieberman win in 08?

[New Ager]

It's precisely because of THAT comment that he'll never get my vote. He comes across as Republican-Light and not a real thinker by any stretch of the word.

Yeah, if you disagree with liberals, you're not a real thinker.

Like some of those big liberal thinkers like Howard Dean, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan and Barbara Streisand.

LOL!!!

 

[SezMe]

Ya know, New_Ager, that sort of mud-slinging is just gratuitous crap. And, my gawd, look how far you had to stretch to come up with Streisand. How 'bout you making a substantial contribution to the thread with some big thinking on your own part or just go outside and play in the mud pile with the rest of the kids.

 

[hgc]

Ya know, New_Ager, that sort of mud-slinging is just gratuitous crap. And, my gawd, look how far you had to stretch to come up with Streisand. How 'bout you making a substantial contribution to the thread with some big thinking on your own part or just go outside and play in the mud pile with the rest of the kids.

Don't be so hard on him. Everyone contributes according his abilities.

 

[d_goddard]

Lieberman/Rice 08

I like that combo so much, it's kinda scaring me!

They're both Remocrats. I mean, Depublicans.
But, they are some of the least offensive their party has produced, er, I mean, that the news media and sheep of the country are likely to vote for.

 

[SezMe]

I tells ya, we are so fortunate to have independent thinkers like d_goddard around here to keep us sheep from falling asleep. Where would we be without him?

 

[Khalid01]

Screw him and his censorship.

Hear, hear!

If he renounced all of his censorship campaigns and said "violent video games aren't really all that bad and my campaign to censor them was ignorant and wasteful" (he doesn't have to admit it helped him gain some political capital), then maybe, maybe he could get my vote. But considering that he very likely won't and I generally don't like his position on other issues (although I was surprised to find he supports protection of the ANWR; I was sure he wanted to drill there), I doubt I'd ever vote for him.

 

[hgc]

Primary is tomorrow! Bumped for last-minute trash talking.

I see that Lamont is still ahead, but lead is shrinking (51-45) in latest Quinnipiac University poll. Who thinks Lieberman is going to pull this out tomorrow?

 

[HeavyAaron]

Reps will win again. America will go further down the "Collapsing Empire" road.

At least you've restrained yourself from partisan hyperbole.

Aaron

 

[davefoc]

I'm a person that has generally voted Republican that plans to vote for Democrats at least until they control the house and senate. The principal reasons are:
1. Neocon militaristic foreign policy
2. Republican party Corruption
3. Control by social conservatives of Republican party

I am going to vote for Democrats who I expect to disagree with on economic issues and maybe environmental issues.

But Lieberman is a candidate that I would disagree with on foreign policy, social issues, economic issues and maybe the environment.

When I decided to vote for Democrats pretty much no matter what for awhile I never considered the possibility of a Democrat like Lieberman. I suppose putting the best spin on it, he is less corrupt than your average national Republican but I'm not sure I'd vote for him under most circumstances. Perhaps, instead of Lieberman, the Democrats should run Al Sharpton to really test my resolve to vote for them.

 

[BPSCG]

Scratch that. Misread the poll question - thought it said '06, not '08.

 

[Ziggurat]

He had the nerve to say that to criticize the president during war is harmful to the nation!

Is this in reference to your later quote below?

Try for comparison, this quote from last December

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.

Because if it is, you've engaged in rhetorical sleight-of-hand: criticizing someone is not synonymous with undermining their credibility. It is possible to do the former and not the latter. It doesn't look to me like he actually said what you first claimed he said.

 

[Ziggurat]

America will go further down the "Collapsing Empire" road.

But we're not an empire, we're a hegemony. So it's travelling down the "Collapsing Hegemony" road we need to worry about. Jeesh, why do so many people get this wrong?

 

[Almo]

But we're not an empire, we're a hegemony. So it's travelling down the "Collapsing Hegemony" road we need to worry about. Jeesh, why do so many people get this wrong?

Because it's semantics, and most people know what I mean anyway.

 

[hgc]

Is this in reference to your later quote below?

Because if it is, you've engaged in rhetorical sleight-of-hand: criticizing someone is not synonymous with undermining their credibility. It is possible to do the former and not the latter. It doesn't look to me like he actually said what you first claimed he said.

Sure, that's the reference.

I reject the notion that I've engaged in a sleight-of-hand. I can't imagine what else he meant by that. How are Democrats supposed to be "undermining Presidential credibility" in "matters of war," in Lieberman's imagination, if not by criticizing his performance or rationale for the war? I submit that that's the only thing it could mean. I would be interested to hear alternative hypotheses.

 

[Ziggurat]

Because it's semantics, and most people know what I mean anyway.

But words matter, and I contend that a lot of people really DON'T know the difference, and mistakenly believe that we are an empire.

 

[Ziggurat]

I reject the notion that I've engaged in a sleight-of-hand. I can't imagine what else he meant by that. How are Democrats supposed to be "undermining Presidential credibility" in "matters of war," in Lieberman's imagination, if not by criticizing his performance or rationale for the war? I submit that that's the only thing it could mean. I would be interested to hear alternative hypotheses.

The claim that Bush deliberately lied to the world undermines his credibility, and qualifies as something Lieberman's statement opposes. The claim that he made an error in judgment in going into Iraq does not undermine his credibility, and does not qualify as something Lieberman's statement opposes. That difference in two possible criticisms of Bush, and how Lieberman's statement relates to them, wasn't hard for me to imagine at all, and matches up with the actual words he actually used (I cannot but think that he specified undermining credibility, NOT simply criticizing, for a reason).

 

[Rob Lister]

Ya know, ALL, I was kinda hoping to keep this thread focused on Lieberman and his potential for the 08 election. While the 06 election plays an important role in that debate, the [continuing ad nasum] debate about 'bush lied!'/'did not!' is a bit too tangental, dontchathink?

Stay focused gang. Let's see if we can put our left, right and middle brains together and near perfectly predict his/their strategy for both elections.

 

[hgc]

The claim that Bush deliberately lied to the world undermines his credibility, and qualifies as something Lieberman's statement opposes. The claim that he made an error in judgment in going into Iraq does not undermine his credibility, and does not qualify as something Lieberman's statement opposes. That difference in two possible criticisms of Bush, and how Lieberman's statement relates to them, wasn't hard for me to imagine at all, and matches up with the actual words he actually used (I cannot but think that he specified undermining credibility, NOT simply criticizing, for a reason).

Actually, any criticism of Bush on the war, whether about the deliberateness of the factual incorrectness of his justification, or the competence of the execution, could conceivably be seen within Lieberman's parlance as undermining Bush's credibility.

A couple of points:

Bush is responsible for his own credibility. And his critics are responsible for theirs. As for external forces, our nation's credibility rests with the president for the most part, and with the president's internal critics hardly at all. He's not credible in the eyes of the world because he was damn certain Iraq had WMD, and turned out to be damn wrong. This stands regardless of his intent.

Lieberman shouldn't have any problem understanding what I pointed out in the first point, and his lack of understanding on so basic a concept pisses me off no end. I could easily say, yeah sure, just playing politics, but then if Lieberman claims to be a Democrat, just whose political playbook is he reading from?

 

[hgc]

Ya know, ALL, I was kinda hoping to keep this thread focused on Lieberman and his potential for the 08 election. While the 06 election plays an important role in that debate, the [continuing ad nasum] debate about 'bush lied!'/'did not!' is a bit too tangental, dontchathink?

Stay focused gang. Let's see if we can put our left, right and middle brains together and near perfectly predict his/their strategy for both elections.

Not too tangential. Lieberman, if he wants to run as a Democrat, will have to answer for that -- especially if he loses this primary tomorrow.

If he runs against the Democratic nominee this year, I think he'll have no chance at all as a Democrat. That leaves him a 3rd party run, which will get him ... another footnote in history.

 

[Lurker]

I don't think Lieberman would stand a chance in '08. First off, I don't think he could win the primary. He is not all that charismatic and although he has plenty of liebral credentials, his stance on the war is too close to Bush's for Democrats to elect him.

Even if he won by some odd chance, all his liberal positions (pro-choice etc) would come to light and he would hardly get any Republican support. That plus anemica Democratic support means no chance.

If he ran as an independent he would stand no chance of winning.