HYPOCRITICAL DEMOCRATS offer Lieberman commitee chair.

Joe L seems like a pretty nice guy, certainly nothing wrong with going back to the Democratic party, they party he's spend plenty of time invested in, but you'd think that he'd rather stay Independent and let them know that he isn't thier bitch, rather then be so ready to jump back into the sack with those guys that turned their back on him.

Reply By: Dan Greene(Anonymous User)Posted: Friday, November 10, 2006 Joe L seems like a pretty nice guy, certainly nothing wrong with going back to the Democratic party, they party he's spend plenty of time invested in, but you'd think that he'd rather stay Independent and let them know that he isn't thier bitch, rather then be so ready to jump back into the sack with those guys that turned their back on him.

My thoughts exactly.

Moderateman: The Dems didn't hand pick Lamont--the voters in the CT primary did. That's how the process works. The democratic party could not run Lieberman as a D after he lost the election. My understanding is that prominent Dems stayed out of CT--no matter what, the seat was a win for them so it didnt' matter who actually won the seat.

Lieberman has always said that he would serve as a Democrat--there was no chance that he would switch parties so the Rs wooing him would be in vain.

(Citizen)shadesofgreyNovember 10, 2006 13:38:22

Moderateman: The Dems didn't hand pick Lamont--the voters in the CT primary did. That's how the process works. The democratic party could not run Lieberman as a D after he lost the election. My understanding is that prominent Dems stayed out of CT--no matter what, the seat was a win for them so it didnt' matter who actually won the seat.

and JUST how did Lamont decide to run for the Senate? He was encouraged to run by the leadership of the party shades, that's how.

Then the Democratic part of Connecticut picked Lamont after Joe was betrayed.
Then all the voters of Connecticut picked Lieberman.

and JUST how did Lamont decide to run for the Senate? He was encouraged to run by the leadership of the party shades, that's how

Do you have any evidence to support that--because as far as I can tell, Lamont was on his own until after the primary? Once he won the primary the Democratic leadership supported him (they had to, that's what a primary is all about)--but I see no support before the primary.

Nah, Lamont was a netroots candidate.  Most of the dems in the Senate never really abandoned Joe. 

The amusing thing about you, though, and this post, is that this is the same guy you used to say all that "Sore/Loserman" stuff about, and now, even though he lost his primary and ran anyway, he isn't a "sore loser" anymore, he's a frickin' victim.

You are the biggest partisan hack on this site.  Democrats could cure cancer and you'd write an article about how the poor cancer cells were victims of liberal bias. 

I despise Lieberman.  So did most voters in the CT primary.  But the general election showed that a majority of folks wanted him to stay, so fine, I have to respect that.  Joe may be a crappy Democrat, but he's still better than any Republican. 

I hope you'll write Senator Lieberman a letter and apologize for all that "Sore/Loserman" talk after the 2000 election, though.  Because really, it seems like the main hypocrite here is you.

shadesofgreyNovember 10, 2006 14:15:43

Do you have any evidence to support that--because as far as I can tell, Lamont was on his own until after the primary? Once he won the primary the Democratic leadership supported him (they had to, that's what a primary is all about)--but I see no support before the primary.

Now I need evidence? geez shades, no one just runs without some kind of tacit support from leadership.

(Citizen)MyrranderNovember 10, 2006 14:19:26

your poison mouth is not welcome here myrrander. Period, till you can learn to expound your views without making it some kind of personal attack on me.

Now I need evidence? geez shades, no one just runs without some kind of tacit support from leadership.

That's not true--plenty of people run in the primary without support from leadership. Leadership can't possibly support everyone running in the primary, now can they?

I have searched, and I can not find any evidence that showed that the leadership of the Democratic party supported Ned Lamont prior to him winning the primary. If you have evidence otherwise, I'd love to see it.

If you have evidence otherwise, I'd love to see it.

well then I have no hard evidence shades so you win ok? the democrats did not really betray Lieberman, it was all in my mind. The anti-semetic remarks all in my mind, the lack of support from long time friends all in my mind.

Do you have any evidence to support that

Do you have any evidence to refute that?

Do you have any evidence to refute that?

Usually it's the person making the argument that needs to support it, not the other way around. I've searched and the first time I can find a quote of someone from Democratic leadership supporting Ned Lamont is the day after the primary. I've done my research, Dr. Guy. But I missed it, did you have something to add to this conversation?

well then I have no hard evidence shades so you win ok? the democrats did not really betray Lieberman, it was all in my mind. The anti-semetic remarks all in my mind, the lack of support from long time friends all in my mind.

I didn't realize that this was a "win or lose" thing. You read hostility into my post when none was intended. I never said that Dems didn't betray Lieberman. I said they didn't do it until after the primary--and then, really what choice did they have? They had to go with the results of the primary--that's the whole reason they are held.

I don't find the "angry and mean and cantankerous" persona to be any fun to discuss things with--and frankly, I was a little stunned at your comment about me on Parated's blog a couple of weeks back.

your poison mouth is not welcome here myrrander. Period, till you can learn to expound your views without making it some kind of personal attack on me.

Actually, Myrrander has quite well defined the positions of many people on this forum. Even if the Dems would manage to do all the good possible in america, you guys would still criticized them. Republican supporters are the more populist, by far.

Reply By: CikomyrPosted: Friday, November 10, 2006 your poison mouth is not welcome here myrrander. Period, till you can learn to expound your views without making it some kind of personal attack on me. Actually, Myrrander has quite well defined the positions of many people on this forum. Even if the Dems would manage to do all the good possible in america, you guys would still criticized them. Republican supporters are the more populist, by far.

I am an individual, I do not care to be defined, I voted Democrat for 35 years till I saw the garbage they had to offer for the 2004 Presidential elections. Myrander and I have been nasty to one another for coming up on 2 years. I still vote for the best person, I have never voted a straight Republican ticket, nor will I ever do that,unless the best for the job happens to be all republicans which I doubt.

As for the Democrats doing something good , I await patiently for that to happen, if and when they do I will say < I was wrong they are doing a good job. Unlike SOME here I have no problem saying I was wrong.

All I have to go by the last 6 years is democratic obstruction,  and disrespecting the office of the President. Hard to get behind that.

I didn't realize that this was a "win or lose" thing. You read hostility into my post when none was intended. I never said that Dems didn't betray Lieberman. I said they didn't do it until after the primary--and then, really what choice did they have? They had to go with the results of the primary--that's the whole reason they are held. I don't find the "angry and mean and cantankerous" persona to be any fun to discuss things with--and frankly, I was a little stunned at your comment about me on Parated's blog a couple of weeks back.

Reply By: shadesofgreyPosted: Friday, November 10, 2006 Do you have any evidence to refute that?

Apoligies shades, I have been more than a little angry and you do not deserve to be mistreated.

I am an individual, I do not care to be defined, I voted Democrat for 35 years till I saw the garbage they had to offer for the 2004 Presidential elections. Myrander and I have been nasty to one another for coming up on 2 years. I still vote for the best person, I have never voted a straight Republican ticket, nor will I ever do that,unless the best for the job happens to be all republicans which I doubt.

Hey, far from me to accuse anybody in peticular of wrongs or rights. If you really consider your vote, then you are a true democrat (no the Party, the system!!!).

But you do have to reckognize that many, many of the posters on this forum a one-side minded, and they would always follow the Republican, down to the gates of Hell.

Why didn't they saw their "flaws" up until the last elections?

Was it the Senate Democrats who turned their back on Lieberman, or the Democrat Party of Connecticutt?

Was it the Senate Democrats who turned their back on Lieberman, or the Democrat Party of Connecticutt?

My guess would be the Democract Party of Connecticut, since they decide who will show up during the elections...

But I may be proved wrong... someone?

Reply By: ParaTed2kPosted: Sunday, November 12, 2006 Was it the Senate Democrats who turned their back on Lieberman, or the Democrat Party of Connecticutt?

Hanoi John and drunken ted made a point of saying they would not be campaigning for joe.

Reply By: CikomyrPosted: Saturday, November 11, 2006 I am an individual, I do not care to be defined, I voted Democrat for 35 years till I saw the garbage they had to offer for the 2004 Presidential elections. Myrander and I have been nasty to one another for coming up on 2 years. I still vote for the best person, I have never voted a straight Republican ticket, nor will I ever do that,unless the best for the job happens to be all republicans which I doubt. Hey, far from me to accuse anybody in peticular of wrongs or rights. If you really consider your vote, then you are a true democrat (no the Party, the system!!!). But you do have to reckognize that many, many of the posters on this forum a one-side minded, and they would always follow the Republican, down to the gates of Hell. Why didn't they saw their "flaws" up until the last elections?

Because they thought they were doing the right thing.. and boy how wrong they were, refusing to change the course in Iraq was there death knell. Idiots!

refusing to change the course in Iraq wasn't "wrong" by itself.

however, they SHOULD have kept a closer eye on all of Bush's policies. That is the Congress's job, after all. They should have noticed that Bush's plan in Iraq wasn't holding right after he announced "Job Accomplished". No, I take that back. They should have noticed that the whole war was aiming an impossible goal in the begginning. And EVEN if you though the goal was reachable, nothing was rightly done to achieve it.

After all, they didn't even patched Afganistan up by then (and still haven't). Why did they go break another country?

Reply By: CikomyrPosted: Sunday, November 12, 2006 refusing to change the course in Iraq wasn't "wrong" by itself. however, they SHOULD have kept a closer eye on all of Bush's policies. That is the Congress's job, after all. They should have noticed that Bush's plan in Iraq wasn't holding right after he announced "Job Accomplished". No, I take that back. They should have noticed that the whole war was aiming an impossible goal in the begginning. And EVEN if you though the goal was reachable, nothing was rightly done to achieve it. After all, they didn't even patched Afganistan up by then (and still haven't). Why did they go break another country?

war is stupid in the first place, I did NOT WANT to go to war, but we did and now we are stuck.

Indeed. They managed to link "Invading Iraq" with "Defend against terrorists".

Well, the whole world warned USA, but they didn't listened...

Well, the whole world warned USA, but they didn't listened...

No, the WHOLE world did not. Part of it went into Iraq, a supporter of terrorism (documented so), part were against it because of the graft and fraud, and part warned the US. The part that 'warned' the US was mostly from others who had another agenda, and did not care about Saddam anyway.

Reply By: Dr. GuyPosted: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 Well, the whole world warned USA, but they didn't listened... No, the WHOLE world did not. Part of it went into Iraq, a supporter of terrorism (documented so), part were against it because of the graft and fraud, and part warned the US. The part that 'warned' the US was mostly from others who had another agenda, and did not care about Saddam anyway.

More to the point the Democratic party was frothing at the mouth to go to war.

Somehow they have forgotten that.