Liberman Must Beat Lamont and Liberal Media

[jillian]

Admit what?

Here is a prime example of a Democrat who will lie to get her way.

A couple of months old, but I think it makes my point:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5439605

And for more:

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/International/story?id=1537040

But don't let the facts get in your way. :happy2:

 

[dilloduck]

A couple of months old, but I think it makes my point:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5439605

And for more:

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/International/story?id=1537040

But don't let the facts get in your way. :happy2:

It's a lie Jillian----A bald faced lie ! You're one of them !

 

[Gunny]

Interesting. Too bad it's both vituperative and wrong. Contrary to your assertion, the numbers all prove that the country has had it with the republicans and their agenda. You guys will be lucky if you hang on to the seats you have in the mid-terms. And it's funny how there was no "mess" in Iraq, Iran and North Korea until the cowboy called them the "axis of evil". Then they decided to thumb their nose at him. You still haven't figured out what more than 2/3 of the country has, that Iraq is a misadventure that is doing nothing but bankrupting this country and killing our troops.

As for the "fractured" Democratic party. Democrats are NEVER unified, because the party has always been "constituent-based", rather than "party-based", hence Roy Rogers saying "I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat". We don't march in lockstep like the Bush brigade (except on immigration, of course...) But in the case of Lieberman, I love how the media has made it about the war. It ISN'T just about the war, it's about vote after vote on major issues. It's about not saying when the administration messes up. It'a about not standing up against Alito's nomination. It's about thinking Congress had any business whatsoever to interject itself in a private family matter in the case of Terry Schiavo.

Until the republicans stop selling the party to the radical right, no one is going to flock to it in a "massive surge", although that did make me laugh since it shows someone who is absolutely out of touch with the mainstream.

Keep on dreaming your little dream.

 

[Gunny]

Interesting. Too bad it's both vituperative and wrong. Contrary to your assertion, the numbers all prove that the country has had it with the republicans and their agenda. You guys will be lucky if you hang on to the seats you have in the mid-terms. And it's funny how there was no "mess" in Iraq, Iran and North Korea until the cowboy called them the "axis of evil". Then they decided to thumb their nose at him. You still haven't figured out what more than 2/3 of the country has, that Iraq is a misadventure that is doing nothing but bankrupting this country and killing our troops.

As for the "fractured" Democratic party. Democrats are NEVER unified, because the party has always been "constituent-based", rather than "party-based", hence Roy Rogers saying "I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat". We don't march in lockstep like the Bush brigade (except on immigration, of course...) But in the case of Lieberman, I love how the media has made it about the war. It ISN'T just about the war, it's about vote after vote on major issues. It's about not saying when the administration messes up. It'a about not standing up against Alito's nomination. It's about thinking Congress had any business whatsoever to interject itself in a private family matter in the case of Terry Schiavo.

Until the republicans stop selling the party to the radical right, no one is going to flock to it in a "massive surge", although that did make me laugh since it shows someone who is absolutely out of touch with the mainstream.

BTW ... I find it extremely hard to believe that someone as "moderate" as yourself would cast even one vote for the radical nitwits that control the Democrat Party.

Not to mention the fact that as usual, they will self-destruct by beating each other down. Been happening since 1980. I don't see it changing, but getting worse.

 

[dilloduck]

BTW ... I find it extremely hard to believe that someone as "moderate" as yourself would cast even one vote for the radical nitwits that control the Democrat Party.

Not to mention the fact that as usual, they will self-destruct by beating each other down. Been happening since 1980. I don't see it changing, but getting worse.

LOL--ya--"Moderate"-- Jillian's coming out of the closet!

 

[Gunny]

LOL--ya--"Moderate"-- Jillian's coming out of the closet!

HEY! She said she was .......:scratch:

 

[dilloduck]

HEY! She said she was .......:scratch:

LOL---Jillian's a scary example of what liberalism can do to an apparently intelligent person.

 

[Stephanie]

If Liberman lost because he supported Iraq and the war on terror.

And the MAJORITY of people are fed up with the Republicans....

Funny how he got 48% of the vote in a Democrat primary

 

[dilloduck]

If Liberman lost because he supported Iraq and the war on terror.

And the MAJORITY of people are fed up with the Republicans....

Funny how he got 48% of the vote in a Democrat primary

:teeth: :teeth: :teeth:

 

[CockySOB]

I know you like this "lock step" thingy but for being on this board should have taught you that Conservatives disagree all the time. For another thing the Democrats are now ALL in lock step when it comes to cutting and running. They have made it a one issue election. Iran, Iraq and N. Korea were all in great shape before Bush was elected?? What planet are you living on?

It should be interesting (and entertaining) to watch the Democrats this fall. Will the "netroots" movement try to oust ALL pro-war Democrats, or will they take a few sacrificial lambs from the DNP and be happy? If the "netroots" go to war with all the pro-war Democrats, then I could see the Republicans gaining a super-majority in one or both houses of Congress.

You are correct that the kool-aid crowd at the KOS and DU are making the upcoming election cycle a referendum on isolationism and appeasement. Of course, they are simply magnifying the pre-existant feelings of most Democrats, but this gamble could backfire on them fairly easily.

Anyway, grab the popcorn and soda, it'll be interesting to watch.

 

[Stephanie]

It should be interesting (and entertaining) to watch the Democrats this fall. Will the "netroots" movement try to oust ALL pro-war Democrats, or will they take a few sacrificial lambs from the DNP and be happy? If the "netroots" go to war with all the pro-war Democrats, then I could see the Republicans gaining a super-majority in one or both houses of Congress.

You are correct that the kool-aid crowd at the KOS and DU are making the upcoming election cycle a referendum on isolationism and appeasement. Of course, they are simply magnifying the pre-existent feelings of most Democrats, but this gamble could backfire on them fairly easily.

Anyway, grab the popcorn and soda, it'll be interesting to watch.

I've got mine....

This should be great entertainment for the next three months...

 

[dilloduck]

I've got mine....

This should be great entertainment for the next three months...

Damn Steph----now you made me hungry. It is gonna be a hell of a show--good post Cocky !

 

[dilloduck]

It should be interesting (and entertaining) to watch the Democrats this fall. Will the "netroots" movement try to oust ALL pro-war Democrats, or will they take a few sacrificial lambs from the DNP and be happy? If the "netroots" go to war with all the pro-war Democrats, then I could see the Republicans gaining a super-majority in one or both houses of Congress.

You are correct that the kool-aid crowd at the KOS and DU are making the upcoming election cycle a referendum on isolationism and appeasement. Of course, they are simply magnifying the pre-existant feelings of most Democrats, but this gamble could backfire on them fairly easily.

Anyway, grab the popcorn and soda, it'll be interesting to watch.

Well, "netroots" got us Dean and he's pretty damn entertaining. Maybe they can outdo themselves.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Never? He won 60% of the vote to win the Arkansas Governorship.

oppps, forgot to mention on a federal level.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

:rotflmao: :rotflmao:

Who said that? McKinney? She's crazy anyways... How she got voted in is beyond me... Shes done. Thank God.

 

[red states rule]

Lieberman got skewered on the war in Iraq. The polls are consistent with democrats. If you voted for the war in Iraq, you had better be prepared to lose your seat...

There is a huge upswelling of anti-Republican sentiment right now... The polls all show it... Why are you afraid to admit it?

The liberal media is taking great delight in attacking Sen Liebermen. It is sick how libs destroy anyone who dares to speak the truth on the issues

http://newsbusters.org/node/6874
CBS Links Lieberman Loss to 2,600 Killed, 'Infamous' Kiss Now 'Kiss of Death'
Posted by Brent Baker on August 9, 2006 - 20:43.
In leading Wednesday's CBS Evening News with how Senator Joe Lieberman lost the Democratic primary in Connecticut, fill-in anchor Harry Smith highlighted the number of U.S. servicemen killed in Iraq. Smith announced: “The war in Iraq, which has cost nearly 2,600 Americans their lives, has just taken its first major political casualty here at home.” And a day after CBS's Trish Regan described as “infamous” the embrace, derided as “The Kiss” by supporters of Connecticut Senate hopeful Ned Lamont, between President George W. Bush and incumbent Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman in the well of the House after Bush's 2005 State of the Union address, reporter Jim Axelrod dubbed it the “kiss of death.” Over video of the embrace, with “KISS OF DEATH” on screen, Axelrod asserted: “President Bush's embrace of Joe Lieberman gave Ned Lamont the perfect image to hang around his opponent's neck in a Democratic primary." (Partial transcript follows)

The Wednesday stories on neither ABC's Word News or the NBC Nightly News mentioned “The Kiss.”

Smith opened the August 9 CBS Evening News:


“The war in Iraq, which has cost nearly 2,600 Americans their lives, has just taken its first major political casualty here at home. Joseph Lieberman, once one of the most popular members of his party, still a much-respected member of the Senate, was defeated in Connecticut's Democratic primary in what became a referendum on his support for the war. Lieberman lost to anti-war candidate Ned Lamont and will now run as an independent...”
After a story from Trish Regan, Jim Axelrod began his report on the political impact, a story in which he did note that a majority oppose pulling out of Iraq if it means the insurgents will take over:

Jim Axelrod, over video of the embrace: “Call it the 'kiss of death.' President Bush's embrace of Joe Lieberman gave Ned Lamont the perfect image to hang around his opponent's neck in a Democratic primary.”

Ned Lamont at victory rally: “We have 132,000 of our bravest troops stuck in the middle of a bloody civil war in Iraq and I'd say it's high time we bring them home to the hero's welcome!”

Axelrod: “After months of indecision, Lamont's victory could well embolden more Democrats to call for troop withdrawal...”


An August 8 NewsBusters item recounted:

Twice on Tuesday, CBS News correspondent Trish Regan labeled as “infamous” the embrace, derided as “The Kiss” by supporters of Connecticut Senate hopeful Ned Lamont, between President George W. Bush and incumbent Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman in the well of the House after Bush's 2005 State of the Union address. Regan didn't attribute the characterization to Lieberman's opponents. She stated it as fact. On the Early Show she explained over brief video of the event: "Ned Lamont has used this now infamous kiss to his advantage on campaign buttons and television ads, suggesting Lieberman is just too cozy with the President." Then on the CBS Evening News, Regan asserted over the same video: “His campaign has used images like this now infamous kiss."

 

[Told you So]

I dont know what all that BS Jillian was spreading, was about...? Oh well. The Dems screwed up by getting rid of one of the most moderate, forward-thinking, compromising leaders of the Party, Joe Lieberman, in exchange for another Dean/Clinton/Kerry-brainwashed Democrat. Joe wasn't supported because he agreed with the President... "Oh No! That backstabbing A-hole AGREED with the man we all love to hate?!?! No, no. We can't support that" they said. Interesting...

The polls that are going around are garbage anyway. For instance: a Survey asking 5000 people if they would vote for a woman president, namely Hillary Clinton, yielded a 67% positive outcome, but on a similar written (rather than face-to-face) survey of a similar target group, she had only a 41% positive outcome. On surveys, people dont want to sound like assholes, especially if they're being interviewed, or asked in person. However, in reality, their feelings vary from what they say.

I don't think the American public are "fed up" with Republicans, I think CNN, and the New York Times are "fed up" with Republicans, so they blast out headlines saying that 50% or more of Americans dislike the President (while in fact the survey is 50% of the staff in the building at the time)... BS like that.

The next elections will show that the people know Republicans will get things done, as opposed to Democrats that will just: remove the troops, remove any hope of Democracy in Iraq, remove the borders, and remove any security that we have (which already needs help). North Korea will end up scaring us with Nuclear weapons, and we'll do what they want. Iran will gain nuclear weapons because we'll trust the UN to do a good job (just like the wonderful job Koffi Annan and the UN did with the OIL FOR FOOD SCANDAL), China will attack Taiwan, and Israel will be blown to bits by it's Islamo-fascist neighbors. And the Democrat-run US will stand idle, loving our high taxes and environmentally friendly/biodegradeable currency with the words "Under God" replaced by "Under Karl Marx".

WOO HOO, cant wait for all that!

 

[Bonnie]

The only things conservatives disagree on is immigration, though to be fair, true conservatives, as opposed to the radical loony-toon right, actually have issues with the way their government is spending money.

I love that "cut and run" garbage. Our troops were never meant to stand by and get blown up by terrorist roadside bombs. That isn't their job. They achieved the objective they were sent for...

And if y'all are so worried about "cut and run". Why did Bush cut and run from Afghanistan? He diverted our resourses from the real WOT.

Where's OBL? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm?

Oh right. He "doesn't spend much time thinking about him".

Jillian we're not fighting a war against one man OBL, we're fighting against millions of Muslim lunatics. What almost happened over the Atlantic today had nothing to do with OBL. It's nice how the liberals use that though everytime they want to divert attention or belittle the efforts in Iraq. I laugh when I hear the Libs say "I was all for the war in Afghanistan, but certainly not for Iraq" That's ridiculous!!!

 

[red states rule]

Jillian we're not fighting a war against one man OBL, we're fighting against millions of Muslim lunatics. What almost happened over the Atlantic today had nothing to do with OBL. It's nice how the liberals use that though everytime they want to divert attention or belittle the efforts in Iraq. I laugh when I hear the Libs say "I was all for the war in Afghanistan, but certainly not for Iraq" That's ridiculous!!!

Do not waste your time with Jilly. She probably thinks this is another Karl rove trick to "distract" the people from the world's problems

 

[red states rule]

If Liberman lost because he supported Iraq and the war on terror.

And the MAJORITY of people are fed up with the Republicans....

Funny how he got 48% of the vote in a Democrat primary

WashPost Reporters Switch Quick: Establishment Lamont, Outsider Lieberman
Posted by Tim Graham on August 10, 2006 - 22:31.
It's fascinating how fast the roles have switched in the DNC Media's take on Ned Lamont. Today's front page in the WashPost printed the headline "Democratic Leadership Welcomes Lamont." Next to that, a promotional headline: "Will Lieberman Hurt or Help Democrats?" They're not asking whether Lamont as a Democratic poster boy will hurt or help Democrats. Overnight, Lieberman has gone from party stalwart to independent pariah in the wilderness. You might expect the Democrats to switch horses like they're changing socks like party politicians. But it ought to be more surprising that the "objective, mainstream media" follows suit (or sock) so slavishly.

The front-page article by Shailagh Murray and Dan Balz began typically by using "antiwar" as a stalking-horse adjective for liberal: "Democratic leaders embraced their new antiwar Senate nominee Ned Lamont on Wednesday, but his defeated rival, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) vowed to wage an independent crusade to save his seat and prevent the party from being captured by forces he said are out of the political mainstream."

Lieberman wants to tag Lamont as an ultraliberal, but reporters refuse to cooperate. They're still covering Lamont in ideological camouflage. Murray and Balz continued, in the classic style: "Also laying on hands for Lamont were such powerful party figures" as Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi, and not a liberal to be found and labeled anywhere. Oh, and then, here's another blown chance for an L-word:
When he announced his candidacy earlier this year, Lamont was a lonely figure in the party, enjoying the backing of so-called Net-roots activists and bloggers but little else. His campaign tapped into grass-roots antiwar, anti-Bush sentiment in the state and the race became a national symbol of the debate over the war.
In reviewing the "Lieberman effect" on the fall elections, Murray and Jonathan Weisman start with a lot of good-for-Dems happy talk: "by keeping the state's electorate focused on President Bush and the war in Iraq, the Lamont-Lieberman rematch will keep voters energized, and may ultimately bolster the House challengers, Democrats and some independent analysts said."
Not everyone agreed: "Even Democratic partisans said the rematch would distract activists' attention from the House races, including the opinion "blogger Markos Moulitsas wrote on his liberal Daily Kos Web site." Bing-a-ding-ding! We have a liberal label, people!

PS: You have to shake your head at the Democratic Tower of Jello that incredibly squishy GOPer Chris Shays is facing: "In no contest will the political lines be as scrambled as in Diane Farrell's House race against Shays, a moderate Republican who has also run into trouble because of his support for the war. Farrell endorsed Lieberman in the primary, then switched to Lamont after he won." Oh yeah, here for the voters is the sterling image of opportunistic indecision.

http://newsbusters.org/node/6903