Oh Joe.
This is the best thing you can come up with?
Dude, NO ONE else in the world is George Bush, but you're a fuckload closer than 99.99% of us.
U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman sought to distance himself from the Bush administration during a televised debate with his upstart Democratic primary challenger Thursday, telling him: "I'm not George Bush."
Lieberman's opponent, political newcomer Ned Lamont, has gained in statewide polls by accusing Lieberman of straying from his Democratic roots. Just six years after being his party's nominee for the vice presidency, Lieberman has fallen into disfavor among some Democrats for his perceived closeness to President Bush and support for the war in Iraq.
"I know George Bush. I've worked against George Bush. I've even run against George Bush. But Ned, I'm not George Bush," Lieberman said during the debate, televised nationally by MSNBC and C-SPAN. "So why don't you stop running against him and have the courage and honesty to run against me and the facts of my record."
Dude, NO ONE else in the world is George Bush, but you're a fuckload closer than 99.99% of us.
by MG at 7:28 AM
8 Comments:
This is one of those instances that show the close minded, pompous attitude of the democrat part.
Lieberman is a complete, northeastern liberal. The only way in which he supports Bush is through his support of the war. That is incomprehensible to the party leadership. I am not sure why he is the target, since Hillary herself has the same voting record.
Why is it that differences from the party leadership, which is unfortunately for dems Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry, are not tolerated? Or have dems become a one issue horse?
Of course, he's not George Bush, but is he Ralph Nader?
Remember Conneticut, a vote for Joe Naderman is a vote for the Republicans!
I watched this whole debate and I was struck by how the Republicans are just sitting back and waiting for the Dems to eat each other alive.
Robert: Lieberman is a complete, northeastern liberal. The only way in which he supports Bush is through his support of the war. That is incomprehensible to the party leadership. I am not sure why he is the target, since Hillary herself has the same voting record.
Haven't you noticed how liberals are rejecting Hilary? Didn't you notice back in 1992 when Dems thought that Bill was too conservative? Close-minded indeed.
And it's not just his stance on the war, which is a carbon-copy of Bush's stance, Robert. It's the fact that he has toed the Republican line when it came to Alito, when it came to Social Security, when it comes to social issues...the list goes on and on. There's a reason Al Gore chose the man as his runningmate in 2000 - he was the most vocal critic from the left on Clinton's adultry.
There are a lot of Dems that fall into this category of DINOs, but Lieberman is by far the clearest example. I personally don't like Hilary and Biden as I see them as Democrats who are where they are because they're playing the game. I'm not a huge fan of Schumer's either because he always seems to have a hand in deciding who a state Senate Democrat cadidate is before the voters have a chance to decide. The difference is that at least the others I've mentioned have maintained a clear Democratic position. (Hilary's stance on the war will cost her in 2008, I guarantee you.)
And I find it interesting that you accuse Dems of being a "one-horse issue" Party. The 2004 Republican platform was, essentially, "Vote for Bush, or die at the hands of terrorists."
Nicho, you know I can't defend the GOP on some of their issues. I have some real problems, as I have posted before, about the manner in which they have governed, and the absurd positions thay have taken on some issues.
And I agree that the 2004 election was based primarily on a single issue. It was the driving issue in all of American life at the moment. Not true of the 2000 election, when there was social security reform,and medicare and other issues.
But my point was less about the party issues than how the parties treat those who do not toe the line. Arlen Spector is a RINO, and so is McCain, but they are not going to incur the wrath of the party because they do not walk the line with everyone else. Spector enjoys some powerful assigments in Congress, and despite the nausea of me and some conservative friends, McCain will more than likely be the GOP candidate in 08.
Arlen Specter is a liar - to this I think we can find common ground. We've touched on it before.
As for McCain, I really liked him in 2000. At the time, I would've considered voting for him. Now that he's cozied up not only to the far-right Christian groups and, worse yet, the man who dragged his name and that of his family through the mud - George W. Bush - I wouldn't vote for him at gunpoint. He's as bad or worse than Specter because he's willing to compromise his own personal integrity for a shot at the White House. In doing so, he'll have lost any hopes for Democrats and Independents to vote for him.
Going back to Lieberman; are you still confused as to why Democrats, by and large, are against him? It would seem you have drawn some kind of parallel that would make it more understandable.
Why are democrats opposed to traitor joe?
Loserman supported Bush's social security privatization, and stuck with supporting it until after it was dead in the water and no other Dem would touch it.
He supported the bankruptcy bill, even voted for cloture to stymie a Democratic party effort to stall it.
His opposition to universal health-care during the clinton admin (that's when he lost me) even though more than 70% of Americans still support it, and the US is the only developed country in the world without it.
His on and off support for Bush's school voucher program that would kill our public education system and send our tax dollars to private schools, the majority of which are tax-exempt religious institutions.
He supports other of the president's faith based programs.
He voted for Roberts and Alito
He constantly supports far right positions on women's issues. He said he believes hospitals and pharmacists that refuse to give contraceptives to rape victims for "principled reasons" shouldn’t be forced to do so. He even supports "choose life" license plates which have been ruled unconstitutional. He even falsly claims that planned parenthood supports him but fails to mention they have since rescinded and now support Ned lamont. Same goes for NARAL.
He continues to appear on Faux News on issue after issue to undercut the Democratic party. He even did so to condemn Clinton for the Lewinsky affair. putz
His steadfast support for the war in Iraq is second only to Bush.
video: See Lieberman Jump For Joy at the SOTU
Watch as Bush spins his Iraq message and Lieberman jumps out of his seat faster than anyone else in the place including all of the Republicans.
On issue after issue Lieberman is not a (D) Democrat, and by his announcement that should he lose the primary he will run as an independent, he's not even a (d) democrat.
Remember the Kiss? Never forget the kiss.
Lieberman is a shande far di goyim.
Vote for Ned N Sted :+:
http://nedlamont.com/
Lieberman even supports bombing Iran.
He's no Democrat. He's just one sick bastard.
Post a Comment
<< Home