Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]



This is an archived forum, so it is here for read-only purposes only. We are not accepting new members and members cannot post any longer. Members can, however, access their old private messages. Strawberry Fields was open from 2006 until 2011. There is a Strawberry Fields Beatles Forum on Facebook. If you are registered with Facebook, join us at the group there!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Joe Lieberman in trouble?; Not The Republicans' Favorite Democrat!
Topic Started: Aug 3 2006, 06:26 PM (615 Views)
Deleted User
Deleted User

HARTFORD, CONN. — Millionaire businessman Ned Lamont opened a double-digit lead over veteran Sen. Joe Lieberman less than a week before Connecticut's Democratic primary, according to a poll released Thursday.

Lamont, a political novice, had support from 54 percent of likely Democratic voters in the Quinnipiac University poll, while Lieberman, now in his third term, had support from 41 percent of voters. The sampling error margin was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

A similar survey July 20 showed Lamont with a slight advantage for the first time in the campaign.

"Senator Lieberman's campaign bus seems to be stuck in reverse," poll director Douglas Schwartz said. "Despite visits from former President Bill Clinton and other big-name Democrats, Lieberman has not been able to stem the tide to Lamont."

Lieberman, 64, one of the Senate's most well-known Democrats and his party's nominee for vice president in 2000, has been harshly criticized in Connecticut for his support of the Iraq war and his perceived closeness with President Bush.

Lamont, 52, who owns a successful cable television firm, has been able to tap into rank-and-file Democratic voters' frustration with Lieberman as well as his personal wealth, contributing $3 million to his campaign.



Here's wishing Senator Lieberman good luck! Until the elections, at least! ;)
Quote Post Goto Top
 
john lemon
Member Avatar

beep
Aug 3 2006, 06:26 PM
HARTFORD, CONN. — Millionaire businessman Ned Lamont opened a double-digit lead over veteran Sen. Joe Lieberman less than a week before Connecticut's Democratic primary, according to a poll released Thursday.

Lamont, a political novice, had support from 54 percent of likely Democratic voters in the Quinnipiac University poll, while Lieberman, now in his third term, had support from 41 percent of voters. The sampling error margin was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

A similar survey July 20 showed Lamont with a slight advantage for the first time in the campaign.

"Senator Lieberman's campaign bus seems to be stuck in reverse," poll director Douglas Schwartz said. "Despite visits from former President Bill Clinton and other big-name Democrats, Lieberman has not been able to stem the tide to Lamont."

Lieberman, 64, one of the Senate's most well-known Democrats and his party's nominee for vice president in 2000, has been harshly criticized in Connecticut for his support of the Iraq war and his perceived closeness with President Bush.

Lamont, 52, who owns a successful cable television firm, has been able to tap into rank-and-file Democratic voters' frustration with Lieberman as well as his personal wealth, contributing $3 million to his campaign.



Here's wishing Senator Lieberman good luck! Until the elections, at least! ;)

Good- Bye Bye Joe

Dont let the door hit you when you leave....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

john lemon
Aug 3 2006, 02:32 PM
beep
Aug 3 2006, 06:26 PM
HARTFORD, CONN. — Millionaire businessman Ned Lamont opened a double-digit lead over veteran Sen. Joe Lieberman less than a week before Connecticut's Democratic primary, according to a poll released Thursday.

Lamont, a political novice, had support from 54 percent of likely Democratic voters in the Quinnipiac University poll, while Lieberman, now in his third term, had support from 41 percent of voters. The sampling error margin was plus or minus 3 percentage points.

A similar survey July 20 showed Lamont with a slight advantage for the first time in the campaign.

"Senator Lieberman's campaign bus seems to be stuck in reverse," poll director Douglas Schwartz said. "Despite visits from former President Bill Clinton and other big-name Democrats, Lieberman has not been able to stem the tide to Lamont."

Lieberman, 64, one of the Senate's most well-known Democrats and his party's nominee for vice president in 2000, has been harshly criticized in Connecticut for his support of the Iraq war and his perceived closeness with President Bush.

Lamont, 52, who owns a successful cable television firm, has been able to tap into rank-and-file Democratic voters' frustration with Lieberman as well as his personal wealth, contributing $3 million to his campaign.



Here's wishing Senator Lieberman good luck! Until the elections, at least! ;)

Good- Bye Bye Joe

Dont let the door hit you when you leave....

If they have to elect a Democrat, let it be Lieberman! :P
Quote Post Goto Top
 
modgirl1964
Member Avatar

Hey, just as long it's not Hillary!!!


And that's from a hardcore Democrat! Stupid carpet bagging Republican wanna be, only staying with your husband so you can launch your career........

Did I just say that out loud?
Bridget

Posted Image

Imported from Detroit
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
I don't agree with most of Lieberman's stances, so vote him out.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
maccascruff
Aug 3 2006, 04:46 PM
I don't agree with most of Lieberman's stances, so vote him out.

Yep, OUT. Democrats don't want that Republican either. ;)
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Beep, am I to understand that you want Lieberman to win the primary only to lose his seat to the Republicans come November? What's the point of that?
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Bill
Aug 3 2006, 11:20 PM
Beep, am I to understand that you want Lieberman to win the primary only to lose his seat to the Republicans come November? What's the point of that?

Whoever wins the Democratic primary in Connecticut will more than likely win the general election. Since the conservative candidate won't have much of a chance, Lieberman is the next best choice. For me anyways. ;)
Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeffLynnesBeard
Member Avatar
Administrator & Moderator
We have a Republican disguised as a Democrat in this country - he's called Tony Blair.
...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

JeffLynnesBeard
Aug 4 2006, 12:11 AM
We have a Republican disguised as a Democrat in this country - he's called Tony Blair.

And we like him here. Not as much as we liked Maggie, though! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeffLynnesBeard
Member Avatar
Administrator & Moderator
beep
Aug 4 2006, 05:30 AM
JeffLynnesBeard
Aug 4 2006, 12:11 AM
We have a Republican disguised as a Democrat in this country - he's called Tony Blair.

And we like him here. Not as much as we liked Maggie, though! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Now she was a real bitch-and-a-half, but at least what you saw, you got. Blair and his cronies compromised nearly all of their party's principles to become electable, but ended up being just as bad (if not worse) than their Conservative predecessors. :(
...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
JeffLynnesBeard
Aug 3 2006, 09:11 PM
We have a Republican disguised as a Democrat in this country - he's called Tony Blair.

You mean GW's puppy lapdog?
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mozart8mytoe
Member Avatar

modgirl1964
Aug 3 2006, 11:26 PM
Hey, just as long it's not Hillary!!!

I think there is little chance that she will leave her New York seat and run in Connecticut.

The funny thing about Tony Blair is that American conservatives hated him and American liberals loved him when he was friendly with Clinton, but once he became Bush’s pal, everyone switched sides.

As for Senator Lieberman, he and Senator McCain should run for President on the same ticket. Neither side would know if they should support or oppose them.
Nurse, I spy gypsies. Run.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeffLynnesBeard
Member Avatar
Administrator & Moderator
beatlechick
Aug 4 2006, 06:29 AM
JeffLynnesBeard
Aug 3 2006, 09:11 PM
We have a Republican disguised as a Democrat in this country - he's called Tony Blair.

You mean GW's puppy lapdog?

That's him! ^_^
...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

mozart8mytoe
Aug 4 2006, 06:51 PM

The funny thing about Tony Blair is that American conservatives hated him and American liberals loved him when he was friendly with Clinton, but once he became Bush’s pal, everyone switched sides.

The only surprise is that anyone is suprised. While it's fair to say that Clinton and Blair shared a similar political base around 1996, that's hardly the point.

The bottom line is that whoever's in Number 10 sucks up to whoever's in Number 1600. Party, platform and ideology are neither here nor there. There's been no side-switching. This is just the way it works
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
modgirl1964
Member Avatar

Bill
Aug 4 2006, 03:22 PM
mozart8mytoe
Aug 4 2006, 06:51 PM

The funny thing about Tony Blair is that American conservatives hated him and American liberals loved him when he was friendly with Clinton, but once he became Bush’s pal, everyone switched sides.

The only surprise is that anyone is suprised. While it's fair to say that Clinton and Blair shared a similar political base around 1996, that's hardly the point.

The bottom line is that whoever's in Number 10 sucks up to whoever's in Number 1600. Party, platform and ideology are neither here nor there.

Well said Bill and very true. You do have kiss ass to whoever is residing on 1600 Penn. Ave in the game of free world politics, just how it goes!
Bridget

Posted Image

Imported from Detroit
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

modgirl1964
Aug 4 2006, 11:25 AM
Bill
Aug 4 2006, 03:22 PM
mozart8mytoe
Aug 4 2006, 06:51 PM

The funny thing about Tony Blair is that American conservatives hated him and American liberals loved him when he was friendly with Clinton, but once he became Bush’s pal, everyone switched sides.

The only surprise is that anyone is suprised. While it's fair to say that Clinton and Blair shared a similar political base around 1996, that's hardly the point.

The bottom line is that whoever's in Number 10 sucks up to whoever's in Number 1600. Party, platform and ideology are neither here nor there.

Well said Bill and very true. You do have kiss ass to whoever is residing on 1600 Penn. Ave in the game of free world politics, just how it goes!

And it just eats at the rest of the world, too! :lol: j/k

Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
JeffLynnesBeard
Aug 4 2006, 07:38 AM
beatlechick
Aug 4 2006, 06:29 AM
JeffLynnesBeard
Aug 3 2006, 09:11 PM
We have a Republican disguised as a Democrat in this country - he's called Tony Blair.

You mean GW's puppy lapdog?

That's him! ^_^

I figured! :blink:
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BeatleBarb
Member Avatar

He has p*ssed me off ever since the 2000 debate, when he had the chance to go after Cheney, but didn't....not to mention his support of the war.

I don't want two Republicans to choose from. The Democrats need a credible candidate with some balls.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Samwise
Member Avatar

BeatleBarb
Aug 5 2006, 01:00 AM
I don't want two Republicans to choose from.  The Democrats need a credible candidate with some balls.

Balls, you say?

Posted Image

...well, maybe not. But I'm still waiting for Senator Lieberman to accept Stephen's invitation to an interview on the Report. -_-
Posted Image
My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Miss Mary

Yeah, Joe Lieberman's in trouble. I like him though, he's a smart man, he just made the mistake of being misinformed and voting with the majority, it's sad that he'll have to pay for that.

And Hillary has done alot for upstate NY, she's up here on a pretty regular basis, more than I can say for any other NY politician (except maybe Chuckie). I love her and I'm proud to have her represent me in the Senate!



~Mary~
"Pain throws your heart to the ground, love turns the whole thing around." -John Mayer

"And in the end, the love you take, is equal to the love you make." -The Beatles
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Samwise
Aug 5 2006, 11:12 AM
BeatleBarb
Aug 5 2006, 01:00 AM
I don't want two Republicans to choose from.  The Democrats need a credible candidate with some balls.

Balls, you say?

...well, maybe not. But I'm still waiting for Senator Lieberman to accept Stephen's invitation to an interview on the Report. -_-

Me too! :lol:

How do you think he'll repond to Stephen's standard opening question: "George W Bush, great president, or the greatest president?" :D
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Bill
Aug 5 2006, 01:46 AM
Samwise
Aug 5 2006, 11:12 AM
BeatleBarb
Aug 5 2006, 01:00 AM
I don't want two Republicans to choose from.  The Democrats need a credible candidate with some balls.

Balls, you say?

...well, maybe not. But I'm still waiting for Senator Lieberman to accept Stephen's invitation to an interview on the Report. -_-

Me too! :lol:

How do you think he'll repond to Stephen's standard opening question: "George W Bush, great president, or the greatest president?" :D

I would love to see that.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
mozart8mytoe
Member Avatar

Bill
Aug 4 2006, 03:24 PM
The only surprise is that anyone is suprised. While it's fair to say that Clinton and Blair shared a similar political base around 1996, that's hardly the point.

The bottom line is that whoever's in Number 10 sucks up to whoever's in Number 1600. Party, platform and ideology are neither here nor there. There's been no side-switching. This is just the way it works

Except that it was the point, or at least part of the point that I made. Although it is not the point that you made. I was speaking from the American perspective, where people did change sides. If British leaders are lacking in ideology, that is a separate issue.

But you did bring up an interesting theory, that British Prime Ministers lick the boots of US Presidents, regardless of ideology. While it might be safe to assume that that is true of Tony Blair, is that really true overall? Or is there simply a case of American and British interests often being the same?

John Major was PM for Bill Clinton's entire first term. Other than the sex scandals, did they really have that much in common?

Margaret Thatcher entered office during the last year and a half of Jimmy Carter’s administration. While it is no secret that she and Ronald Reagan were soul mates, could the same be said for she and Carter?

Gerald Ford and Harold Wilson (the second time around) had pretty short tenures in office, but other than that, where did they agree?

Was Harold Macmillan really John Kennedy’s shoe shine boy? How about the lengthy term of Alec Douglas-Home. Did he kiss Lyndon Johnson’s ass for that long year?

Winston Churchill was one of Franklin Roosevelt’s biggest cheerleaders. I will give you that one. But I also think that self preservation was his primary agenda in that regard.

Neville Chamberlain used to p*ss Roosevelt off on an almost daily basis. If he were a proper lap dog, you would think Roosevelt would have liked him more.
Nurse, I spy gypsies. Run.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
I heard last night that Lieberman says he will run as an independent if he loses the primary tomorrrow. The could split the vote in November and elect the Republican.

We have a Democratic Senator in Colorado who is voting as a Republican, too. Wish he didn't have four more years on his term so we could vote him out.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

maccascruff
Aug 7 2006, 09:11 AM
I heard last night that Lieberman says he will run as an independent if he loses the primary tomorrrow. The could split the vote in November and elect the Republican.

We have a Democratic Senator in Colorado who is voting as a Republican, too. Wish he didn't have four more years on his term so we could vote him out.

Why is it that Dems always seem to get stuck in a muddy field? Perot and Nader, and now Lieberman. I never buy into that conservative spin about the "demise" of the Democrats because of their own doing, but sometimes I it does look as if they'll implode because of themselves. (Or from help from Independents.)
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

mozart8mytoe
Aug 7 2006, 06:07 PM
Bill
Aug 4 2006, 03:24 PM
The only surprise is that anyone is suprised. While it's fair to say that Clinton and Blair shared a similar political base around 1996, that's hardly the point.

The bottom line is that whoever's in Number 10 sucks up to whoever's in Number 1600. Party, platform and ideology are neither here nor there. There's been no side-switching. This is just the way it works

Except that it was the point, or at least part of the point that I made. Although it is not the point that you made. I was speaking from the American perspective, where people did change sides. If British leaders are lacking in ideology, that is a separate issue.

But you did bring up an interesting theory, that British Prime Ministers lick the boots of US Presidents, regardless of ideology. While it might be safe to assume that that is true of Tony Blair, is that really true overall? Or is there simply a case of American and British interests often being the same?

John Major was PM for Bill Clinton's entire first term. Other than the sex scandals, did they really have that much in common?

Margaret Thatcher entered office during the last year and a half of Jimmy Carter’s administration. While it is no secret that she and Ronald Reagan were soul mates, could the same be said for she and Carter?

Gerald Ford and Harold Wilson (the second time around) had pretty short tenures in office, but other than that, where did they agree?

Was Harold Macmillan really John Kennedy’s shoe shine boy? How about the lengthy term of Alec Douglas-Home. Did he kiss Lyndon Johnson’s ass for that long year?

Winston Churchill was one of Franklin Roosevelt’s biggest cheerleaders. I will give you that one. But I also think that self preservation was his primary agenda in that regard.

Neville Chamberlain used to p*ss Roosevelt off on an almost daily basis. If he were a proper lap dog, you would think Roosevelt would have liked him more.

I'm talking recent history. The world was relatively calm during Clinton's first term of office. Read into that what you will. Shared interests are one thing but that doesn't mean it's an equal partnership. If it were, then Blair would beckon George over with an "Oi, Bush!" ;)
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

beep
Aug 7 2006, 11:22 PM
maccascruff
Aug 7 2006, 09:11 AM
I heard last night that Lieberman says he will run as an independent if he loses the primary tomorrrow.  The could split the vote in November and elect the Republican.

We have a Democratic Senator in Colorado who is voting as a Republican, too.  Wish he didn't have four more years on his term so we could vote him out.

Why is it that Dems always seem to get stuck in a muddy field? Perot and Nader, and now Lieberman. I never buy into that conservative spin about the "demise" of the Democrats because of their own doing, but sometimes I it does look as if they'll implode because of themselves. (Or from help from Independents.)

By my reckoning, Perot was a big help to the Dems. He split the conservative vote.

Of course, under a preferential voting system, the like-minded candidates would help each other rather than hand it to their mutual opponant. ;)
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeffLynnesBeard
Member Avatar
Administrator & Moderator
modgirl1964
Aug 4 2006, 04:25 PM
Bill
Aug 4 2006, 03:22 PM
mozart8mytoe
Aug 4 2006, 06:51 PM

The funny thing about Tony Blair is that American conservatives hated him and American liberals loved him when he was friendly with Clinton, but once he became Bush’s pal, everyone switched sides.

The only surprise is that anyone is suprised. While it's fair to say that Clinton and Blair shared a similar political base around 1996, that's hardly the point.

The bottom line is that whoever's in Number 10 sucks up to whoever's in Number 1600. Party, platform and ideology are neither here nor there.

Well said Bill and very true. You do have kiss ass to whoever is residing on 1600 Penn. Ave in the game of free world politics, just how it goes!

Someone ought to inform the French - I don't think they know. ;)
...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Bill
Aug 7 2006, 10:15 AM
beep
Aug 7 2006, 11:22 PM
maccascruff
Aug 7 2006, 09:11 AM
I heard last night that Lieberman says he will run as an independent if he loses the primary tomorrrow.  The could split the vote in November and elect the Republican.

We have a Democratic Senator in Colorado who is voting as a Republican, too.  Wish he didn't have four more years on his term so we could vote him out.

Why is it that Dems always seem to get stuck in a muddy field? Perot and Nader, and now Lieberman. I never buy into that conservative spin about the "demise" of the Democrats because of their own doing, but sometimes I it does look as if they'll implode because of themselves. (Or from help from Independents.)

By my reckoning, Perot was a big help to the Dems. He split the conservative vote.

Of course, under a preferential voting system, the like-minded candidates would help each other rather than hand it to their mutual opponant. ;)

That's true about Perot. :blush: Seems I forgot my history for a second.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

maccascruff
Aug 3 2006, 11:46 PM
I don't agree with most of Lieberman's stances, so vote him out.

Linda you always seem to say what I am thinking, stop it! :D
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

beep
Aug 4 2006, 04:30 AM
JeffLynnesBeard
Aug 4 2006, 12:11 AM
We have a Republican disguised as a Democrat in this country - he's called Tony Blair.

And we like him here. Not as much as we liked Maggie, though! :lol: :lol: :lol:

ew just hearing her name made me sick. :rolleyes:
Quote Post Goto Top
 
mozart8mytoe
Member Avatar

beep
Aug 7 2006, 01:22 PM
Why is it that Dems always seem to get stuck in a muddy field? Perot and Nader, and now Lieberman. I never buy into that conservative spin about the "demise" of the Democrats because of their own doing, but sometimes I it does look as if they'll implode because of themselves. (Or from help from Independents.)

Personally, I think the Democratic Party is in trouble because they have no true leaders on a presidential level or much of a platform. But your Muddy Field theory has a few flaws.

One could argue that Ralph Nader took votes away from Al Gore in 2000, but since Gore already had more votes than Bush, would Nader’s 2 million + votes have made that much of a difference? If all of Nader’s votes in 2004 had gone to John Kerry, Bush still would have won.

As Bill already mentioned, Ross Perot took votes away from Republicans. If all of his votes in 1996 were given to Bob Dole, Clinton still would have won. It was only in 1992 that he made a difference.

The most popular third party candidate in 1980 (John Anderson) took more votes away from Reagan than from Carter. Not that that made a difference.

Bill
Aug 7 2006, 02:13 PM
I'm talking recent history.

It read as though you were making a blanket statement about British Prime Ministers as lapdogs to US Presidents. I could be wrong, but I thought you were trying to contradict my post about American conservatives and liberals switching sides regarding Tony Blair. Words like "There's been no side-switching. This is just the way it works" might have led me to that conclusion. If we are only discussing Blair, I am not sure that that is just the way it works. Unless there is some inherent quality to Mr Blair that causes American conservatives and liberals to switch sides.

JeffLynnesBeard
Aug 7 2006, 02:24 PM
Someone ought to inform the French - I don't think they know.  ;)

Peut-être le Français peut penser pour eux-mêmes.
Nurse, I spy gypsies. Run.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

mozart8mytoe
Aug 8 2006, 07:46 PM
I could be wrong, but I thought you were trying to contradict my post about American conservatives and liberals switching sides regarding Tony Blair. Words like "There's been no side-switching. This is just the way it works" might have led me to that conclusion. If we are only discussing Blair, I am not sure that that is just the way it works. Unless there is some inherent quality to Mr Blair that causes American conservatives and liberals to switch sides.

"Contradict" is a strong word, but that is the essence of what I'm saying. I might have misunderstood who you were suggesting was switching sides. I'm sure US Dems loved Tony while he was Bill's mate and now hate him for being W's mate. I must confess, I used to like him, but he has slid greatly, not for going along with Bush as such, but for the depths to which he has sunk in order to keep Washington happy.
Having said that, I think whoever was in No. 10 at the time would have done the same thing.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
tonyhemp
Aug 7 2006, 06:46 PM
maccascruff
Aug 3 2006, 11:46 PM
I don't agree with most of Lieberman's stances, so vote him out.

Linda you always seem to say what I am thinking, stop it! :D

Tony, we've thought alike on other issues, too, haven't we?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Bill
Aug 8 2006, 04:25 AM
mozart8mytoe
Aug 8 2006, 07:46 PM
I could be wrong, but I thought you were trying to contradict my post about American conservatives and liberals switching sides regarding Tony Blair.  Words like "There's been no side-switching. This is just the way it works" might have led me to that conclusion.  If we are only discussing Blair, I am not sure that that is just the way it works.  Unless there is some inherent quality to Mr Blair that causes American conservatives and liberals to switch sides.

"Contradict" is a strong word, but that is the essence of what I'm saying. I might have misunderstood who you were suggesting was switching sides. I'm sure US Dems loved Tony while he was Bill's mate and now hate him for being W's mate. I must confess, I used to like him, but he has slid greatly, not for going along with Bush as such, but for the depths to which he has sunk in order to keep Washington happy.
Having said that, I think whoever was in No. 10 at the time would have done the same thing.

To tell you the truth I did like Blair a little bit whilst Clinton was in office, mainly because Blair was a bit stronger and wasn't always a yes master type of pm like he is now. Right now he is showing some strength in regards to Lebanon and Israel but I think for him it is way to late.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
maccascruff
Aug 8 2006, 08:02 AM
tonyhemp
Aug 7 2006, 06:46 PM
maccascruff
Aug 3 2006, 11:46 PM
I don't agree with most of Lieberman's stances, so vote him out.

Linda you always seem to say what I am thinking, stop it! :D

Tony, we've thought alike on other issues, too, haven't we?

Okay everybody, has anyone EVER seen these two in the same room?? :) ;)
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
Tony and I have never met in person. Tony got in trouble somewhere else for what he said. ^_^ He commented about in on My Space.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
scottycatt
Member Avatar

maccascruff
Aug 8 2006, 06:51 PM
Tony and I have never met in person. Tony got in trouble somewhere else for what he said. ^_^ He commented about in on My Space.

:huh: :huh: :huh:


What'd I miss?? :hmm:




Why?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Peter
Unregistered

Bill
Aug 8 2006, 11:25 AM
mozart8mytoe
Aug 8 2006, 07:46 PM
I could be wrong, but I thought you were trying to contradict my post about American conservatives and liberals switching sides regarding Tony Blair.  Words like "There's been no side-switching. This is just the way it works" might have led me to that conclusion.  If we are only discussing Blair, I am not sure that that is just the way it works.  Unless there is some inherent quality to Mr Blair that causes American conservatives and liberals to switch sides.

"Contradict" is a strong word, but that is the essence of what I'm saying. I might have misunderstood who you were suggesting was switching sides. I'm sure US Dems loved Tony while he was Bill's mate and now hate him for being W's mate. I must confess, I used to like him, but he has slid greatly, not for going along with Bush as such, but for the depths to which he has sunk in order to keep Washington happy.
Having said that, I think whoever was in No. 10 at the time would have done the same thing.

I never liked the t*at i dont trust a salesman always smiling at me never mind a friggin politician. The signs were there before '97 the moon the stars everything was promised me i was looking for solid down to earth policies but no nothing. El Presiente will be going down as the worst Prime Minister of the 20 century the way things are going he'd could win the 21st by a mile.

It is more of a shared common goal and interest arising out of a shared political and economic history. British Prime Ministers do stand upto US Presidents it just does'nt do to have the spat in public. Maggie kicked the crap out of Ronnie on several occasions most notably Grenada, the state department or defense forgot to tell him it was a Commonwealth country and as such we could have gone to war. I would have supported that war though i did vote down a motion that we go on striketo show solidarity, he was a w*nker a junior scargill. Also on the Falklands she'd told him in no uncertain terms it was a democratic ally or a dictatorship take your pick. Ronnie to give him his due was probably totally unaware of both situations and people were giving the boot because of it, Haig if i remember rightly.

Callaghan and Carter shared many of the same view but James thought Jimmy well didn't everyone. Too nice for this world.

Wilson basically told Johnston to f*** off when the latter begged for even just a battalion of men for Vietnam. Nixon was concerned with the US and Vietnam and Wilson with Britians economic crisis so not much happen there.

Thatcher and then Major had problems with Bush Senior over Iraq unfortunatly your general staff learnt stragegy at the Eisenhower military school. Which is war is not politics by another name. Which how we arrived at today's mess.

Major's problems with not so much with Clinton as with his small majority and Europe and frankly hanging on by his fingerknails for three years. He showed up Clinton morally by being in Bosnia and actually wanting to do something about Rhawda. Clinton was posing as the moral leader of the free world while millions were being slaughtered. the both of them in a hundred years time will be judged on that one issue and both found wanting.

Blair has always been a slimy toad so it was no surprise that him and Bill got it together, my opinion both w*nkers wanting a place in history when you dont make history history happens.

Blair and Bush ummm the CIA must have something on him because although the venality of the Blairs knows no bounds i cant believe he's being doing all this for a few bucks on the lecture circuit. What moron spends good money to hear a retired politician speak. He implements a Treaty now a Treaty is a contract and a contract requires two sides that has not been implemented by the United States.

In all truth since the end of the second world war i cant say there is more than one Prime Minister or President of the United States who has been good. In arriving at that one has to take into account the state of the country when they come into office and the state they leave it in, economically, diplomatically and militarily.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
scottycatt
Aug 8 2006, 08:02 PM
maccascruff
Aug 8 2006, 06:51 PM
Tony and I have never met in person.  Tony got in trouble somewhere else for what he said. ^_^  He commented about in on My Space.

:huh: :huh: :huh:


What'd I miss?? :hmm:

When I started the USA thread in the World Tonight forum, Tony said some political things while I was at work. I missed them all and they had been removed by the time I got home. Somebody else, and I know longer remember who, accused me of starting that thread with a political "agenda". That was not true, but I had the mods pull the thread.

I see this morning that Lieberman did indeed lose yesterday and that he is going to run as an "independent Democrat", whatever that is. I would think that will split the Democratic vote.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

maccascruff
Aug 9 2006, 10:26 AM
When I started the USA thread in the World Tonight forum, Tony said some political things while I was at work. I missed them all and they had been removed by the time I got home. Somebody else, and I know longer remember who, accused me of starting that thread with a political "agenda".

I was involved in that. :blush: That was before I knew Tony was a really good guy. I wasn't the one who accused you of starting it as a thread with a political agenda, though.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
I missed the whole thing, Chad. I was at work, but I'm glad to hear you didn't think I had a political agenda. I had gotten permission to start the thread, with the understanding that it wasn't a replacement for Talk More Talk or that it couldn't have political discussions. The very first day it became a political discussion while I was at work, so I PMd the mod who had given me permission to start it and had it removed. I really don't remember any more who I was told said I had a political agenda in starting the thread. It was before this forum started and was when TMT was locked.

Don't go there enough any more and the thread would have died anyway.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BeatleBarb
Member Avatar

Hit the road, Joe!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
BeatleBarb
Aug 9 2006, 09:04 AM
Hit the road, Joe!

We can hope this doesn't split the vote in November.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BeatleBarb
Member Avatar

The Democrats need a serious, take no prisoners (excuse the bad pun) candidate who refuse to support this unwinable war. Although Kerry and a few others have changed their positions, it's too late for them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

While the primary has at least got the Dems debating this between themselves, they really need to decide what the hell they stand for. It seems to me that they are torn between the ones who want to be a genuine alternative and the wants who want to be Republican-lite.

And once they've decided, they need to simplify their message. Most Republican policy can be summed up in a bumper sticker. I'm not saying that to shitcan the Republicans, I'm just pointing out that they know how to stay on message. The Dems may have a great 10-point plan, but that doesn't play well when your opponant is saying, "These guys want the terrorists to win!"

Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Bill
Aug 9 2006, 11:36 AM
While the primary has at least got the Dems debating this between themselves, they really need to decide what the hell they stand for. It seems to me that they are torn between the ones who want to be a genuine alternative and the wants who want to be Republican-lite.

And once they've decided, they need to simplify their message. Most Republican policy can be summed up in a bumper sticker. I'm not saying that to shitcan the Republicans, I'm just pointing out that they know how to stay on message. The Dems may have a great 10-point plan, but that doesn't play well when your opponant is saying, "These guys want the terrorists to win!"

I agree, Bill! The only difference is that I hope the Dems keep doing what they're doing! :lol:
Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
maccascruff
Aug 9 2006, 08:06 AM
BeatleBarb
Aug 9 2006, 09:04 AM
Hit the road, Joe!

We can hope this doesn't split the vote in November.

I don't think it will. Now, if Barack Obama were to do something like that then there would be a chance of that happening.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
I hope it doesn't split the vote in November and I hope the Democrats can get their act together. We have to live through another two years of what we have now. I don't know if I can take yet another four years of this type of so-called leadership in this country.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

I can't say it enough people,

PREFERENTIAL VOTING!!!
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mozart8mytoe
Member Avatar

Bill
Aug 8 2006, 11:25 AM
"Contradict" is a strong word, but that is the essence of what I'm saying. I might have misunderstood who you were suggesting was switching sides.

True, but it is the first word that flowed out of my fingers.

I seem to be illiciting quite a few misunderstandings lately. Maybe I need to take a refresher course in English. I think I communicate rather effectively, but I was wrong once before (it was October 24, 1994).

beatlechick
Aug 9 2006, 01:43 AM
Okay everybody, has anyone EVER seen these two in the same room?? :)  ;)

No, and I see what you are getting at. They are the same person.
Nurse, I spy gypsies. Run.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Not your fault, it was just my reading. This is what happens when we type as we would talk in the early hours.

So what happened on that fateful Monday?
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mozart8mytoe
Member Avatar

I can hardly believe that you actually looked up the date.
Nurse, I spy gypsies. Run.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

A couple of observations:

People are saying that this is final proof that the Democrat party is the looney left party. That's obviously not true. I like to see differences of opinion within parties, but with Lieberman as the Dems' candidate, that offered the people of Connecticut no choice. They had the choice of Lieberman the Bush supporter, or a Republican candidate who would also support Bush. Where's the choice?

Lamont's candidacy offered that choice and the Democrat voters of Connecticut (those who gace a toss at all, anyway) decided they wanted him as their candidate more than Lieberman.

Now if Lieberman running as an independant hands the seat to the Republicans, it will really make no difference because Lieberman will vote with the Republicans anyway. With Lamont and the Dems' candidate, at least there is a clear choice. It's possible that Lieberman as an indepentant will take as many votes from the Republicans as he will form the Democrats.

I'm happy when things don't just go along partisan lines, but the Democrats as a party really need to keep their message consistant. The Republicans' idea of a maverick is John McCain. I have a lot of respect for McCain but he's hardly a radical. It's not like he votes against his party. Lieberman was way beyond that. And of course it's his right and responsibility to give his support to that which he thinks deserves it. It's also the party's and the state's right and responsibility to offer their people some choice.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BlueMolly2009
Member Avatar
LOLcat Freak
Miss Mary
Aug 4 2006, 11:04 PM
Yeah, Joe Lieberman's in trouble. I like him though, he's a smart man, he just made the mistake of being misinformed and voting with the majority, it's sad that he'll have to pay for that.

And Hillary has done alot for upstate NY, she's up here on a pretty regular basis, more than I can say for any other NY politician (except maybe Chuckie). I love her and I'm proud to have her represent me in the Senate!



~Mary~

I swear Mary that Hilary should move here to Buffalo, because she's here a lot. I'm not a huge fan of hers, but she is trying to bring up issues about the rest of New York (especially the Watern NY area) that would be ignored.
Sometimes I wish we could split New York City from the rest of NY because it's sometimes causing major issues here.
Molly
Myspace
My Twitter
My FriendFeed
My Facebook
Posted Image
Boston Chihuahuas (I took this while at a Starbucks)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

The same thing is happening with Lincoln Chaffee, Republican from Rhode Island. He is the most liberal Republican senator, and the Republican party is throwing everything they have at him to get him off the ticket.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Looks like there's less chance of the split ticket handing it to the Republicans now. They're refusing to endorse their own candidate. They want Lieberman to win. And that probably tells us all we need to know about why Lamont challenged.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · Things We Said Today · Next Topic »
Add Reply


"Treasure these few words"