Happy to see Lieberman go, but...

Hishighness

Scholar
Hishighness
Joined
Aug 14, 2006
Messages
86
It pains me to agree with Joe Lieberman on anything, but based on what I know about his position on Iraq I have to agree with him. Iraq is a royal mess, no doubt about it, and Dubya should never have gone there in the first place because it destabilized the whole region. (Look what wonders taking away Iran's biggest enemy has done in that country) but simply picking up and leaving is definatly DEFINATLY not the right course of action. In fact, it would be almost exactly the same thing the U.S. did to piss off Bin Ladin in the first place! The U.S. used Afghanistan to give the Soviets their version of Vietnam, but when they were done they just up and left. Not even bothering to help rebuild the country they helped destroy.

I don't like Lamont's stance on this, but I'll still be rooting for him to win just because the Senate is really the Democrats only hope in the midterms and pretty much anything's better than a Republican.
 
Welcome to the forum! Sorry to open on a downer, but there's a good chance right now that Lieberman's not going anywhere. Big Mo seems to continue rolling even after the primary. Too early to guess, of course, but as of now it seems that principle outranks party in Connecticut. And that means one less Dem in the Sentate.

Mission Accomplished, eh, Lamont?
 
Well, I live in Canada and here we have vote splitting. i.e. Lieberman and Lamont combined get more votes than the Republican but neither gets a plurality so the Republican wins.

Something like
Republican 37%
Lieberman 35%
Lamont 28%
 
Hishighness said:
Well, I live in Canada and here we have vote splitting. i.e. Lieberman and Lamont combined get more votes than the Republican but neither gets a plurality so the Republican wins.

Something like
Republican 37%
Lieberman 35%
Lamont 28%
Click to expand...

If I understand you, this is exactly the way it is done in the US. It is not exactly rational but more complicated voting schemes that deal with this irrationality don't seem to be getting anywhere in the US.

As to your support for Lieberman's position over Lamont.
It seems like a rational view that is supported by at least a minority on this forum. It is also likely to be wrong, IMHO. Iraq seems to be moving in the direction of civil war. This seems to be more true today than it was 3 years ago. Does the US have the troops and the will to prevent it. I doubt it. It may be the case that while the US is there the parties are just not motivated to make the kind of concessions that can prevent a civil war.

There was an artilce in the LA Times a few days ago to the effect that partition is beginning to be discussed openly. There are great difficulties with partition but it seems to me to be exactly the kind of thing that needs to get on the table to move this conflict in the direction of a peaceful settlement. I don't think it is a coincidence that the Iraqi government would be floating this kind of idea just as the American anti-war movement is showing significant signs of political power. The fact is that the US and the UK are going to get out and the Iraqis will have a civil war or they won't. Having the US and the UK driving around Iraq providing moving targets for the insurgents doesn't seem to be moving the resolution of the Iraq conflict any closer to reality.

And by the way, welcome to the forum.
 
Hishighness said:
Well, I live in Canada and here we have vote splitting. i.e. Lieberman and Lamont combined get more votes than the Republican but neither gets a plurality so the Republican wins.

Something like
Republican 37%
Lieberman 35%
Lamont 28%
Click to expand...

Republicans have no chance for Lieberman's Vermont seat.
According to the article, he's only at 6% of the vote with Lieberman at 46% and Lamont at 41%. This is moderate versus Democrat. It'll be interesting to see how many registered Republicans cross the line to vote for Lieberman.
 
davefoc said:
I don't think it is a coincidence that the Iraqi government would be floating this kind of idea just as the American anti-war movement is showing significant signs of political power.
Click to expand...

Just curious: what do you see as signs of the anti-war movement's political power? Lamont beating Lieberman seems like one. Is there any other signs I'm missing?

FYI- this isn't a loaded question or anything. I'm just seriously interested.
 
shemp said:
True, but neither does Lieberman. He's from Connecticut.
Click to expand...

Doh! These weren't the senators you were looking for.

And I'm not going to go edit it. I'll let my ignorance stand on it's own.
 
According to a poll (albeit pre-primary) by rasmussen reports, the actual percentages in Conntecticut would be something like this:

Lieberman (I): 40%
Lamont (D): 40%
Schlesinger (R): 13%
Other/Undecided: 7%

This is not good news for Lieberman. As the poll was taken pre-primary, it is possible that some voters will be swayed by Democratic Party backing for Lamont, which will temper his biggest drawback as a candidate in Connecticut: his lack of experience.
 
marksman said:
According to a poll (albeit pre-primary) by rasmussen reports, the actual percentages in Conntecticut would be something like this:

Lieberman (I): 40%
Lamont (D): 40%
Schlesinger (R): 13%
Other/Undecided: 7%

This is not good news for Lieberman. As the poll was taken pre-primary, it is possible that some voters will be swayed by Democratic Party backing for Lamont, which will temper his biggest drawback as a candidate in Connecticut: his lack of experience.
Click to expand...

Check Jocko's post. He links to a more recent August rasumussen which is where we're getting the numbers quoted in this thread.
 
senorpogo said:
Just curious: what do you see as signs of the anti-war movement's political power? Lamont beating Lieberman seems like one. Is there any other signs I'm missing?
Click to expand...

It is being sold this way by some breathless pundits, but a Democratic primary in a very blue state is probably not good enough on its own to show much of anything, either way.
 
Okay I have a problem here. Living in Canada, it should not pain any of us to agree with certain members of the US political system.

Yet...

It pains me to agree with Joe Lieberman on anything,
Click to expand...

And...

Well, I live in Canada
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the pain caused by Lieberman is immense. :rolleyes:
 
senorpogo said:
Just curious: what do you see as signs of the anti-war movement's political power? Lamont beating Lieberman seems like one. Is there any other signs I'm missing?

FYI- this isn't a loaded question or anything. I'm just seriously interested.
Click to expand...

With apologies I'm just going to answer this off the top of my head and not look up actual facts. But here is what I think in general about this.

Polling has generally been against the war, although a precipitous pullout is probably not favored (I stand to be corrected) but a fixed date for a pullout probably is.

Polling has been strongly in favor of the Democrats for awhile. My guess is that of the swing from Republican to Democrat, the War and/or the handling of the war is about 50% of the explanation.

My guess is that political insiders expect the Republicans to lose control of the house in 2006 but hold onto the Senate. But the Republicans will only hold on to the Senate because of the slower turnover of the Senate. The 2006 trend will be decidely anti-Republican and a Democratic majority in the House plus a sinking Republican majority in the Senate will result in very strong pressure for the establishment of a pull out date before 2008.

So, if I was some Iraqi leader who was hanging on by his fingernails to stay alive and to hold the country together, I'd be scheming mighty hard on how I was going to accomplish that after the Americans and the British get the hell out.
 
Hishighness said:
In fact, it would be almost exactly the same thing the U.S. did to piss off Bin Ladin in the first place! The U.S. used Afghanistan to give the Soviets their version of Vietnam, but when they were done they just up and left. Not even bothering to help rebuild the country they helped destroy.
Click to expand...
I pointed out to you in the SLC forums that you are way off base on this. OBL was a bit player in the Soviet/Afghan conflict, and he frankly didn't give a damn about US support or lack of for what followed there. What pissed him off was the presence of infidel troops in the holy land of Saudi Arabia during and after Gulf War I.
 
WildCat said:
I pointed out to you in the SLC forums that you are way off base on this. OBL was a bit player in the Soviet/Afghan conflict, and he frankly didn't give a damn about US support or lack of for what followed there. What pissed him off was the presence of infidel troops in the holy land of Saudi Arabia during and after Gulf War I.
Click to expand...

Ah I love that attitude, you're completely right and I'm completely wrong. No discussion or anything, You couldn't possibly be wrong about anything. I loathe people like you.

Anyway, say helloooooooooooo to my ignore list! (thank god for that thing)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom