Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on December 19, 2005, 09:23:39 AM
-
"It's at the point where he's no longer interested in his own party's opinion, he's really out of touch with reality," said Mitchell Fuchs, chairman of the Fairfield Democratic Town Committee in Connecticut. "For me, he's crossed the line a number of times."
Passions flared after Lieberman's recent trip to Iraq. Upon his return, the three-term senator pointed to what he views as progress on the ground there and suggested that Democrats should avoid harsh criticisms of President Bush's Iraq policy.
full story (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179075,00.html)
Business as usual for the Dems. Deeply divide, then conquer.
-
It was a bad move by the Bush administration using Lieberman's statements to drive a wedge into the democratic party. This is the fundamental cause for the extreme party situation we are seeing right now. Anyone that is even remotely neutral is forced into alienation by both parties leaving only those well away from the middle.
-
Link does not have the story.
-
Delete the <> crap at the end.
-
What MinD said. The US seems so polarised these days, ever since W said "you're either with us, or your against us". Now it's "you're either a neocon, or you're a terrorist".
-
Mini do you really think it was a bad move? They are using leiberman's opinion based on first hand knowledge. WHy wouldnt they use it? The dem's are allways deeply devided. Half their base is the anti-war left wich they have to appease every so often to maintain. The other half hate's Bush just as badly as the others but wants to support the mission and the troops. The dems are doing their best to court both of these groups but to do so just devides their party even more.
There's real progress being made in Iraq right now and the dems are denying it because it doesnt support what they've gone along with for so long and that is the "faild bush iraq policy" A good Iraq is bad for the democrats as a whole. They've played politics with this war for too long and it's starting to bite them square in the ass. :)
-
It has nothing to do with "for us or against us". Partisan politics got bloodthirsty some time ago. Neither side is willing to let an opportunity to increase the divide slip by.
-
Now it's "you're either a neocon, or you're a terrorist, or your badly misinformed"
-
It supports a position that the Bush administration has been stating for a long time. What does using lieberman's statements accomplish other than to alienate someone from their party that holds an oppinion that is aligned with yours?
"I told you so!" isn't going to help anyone's position right now.
It was a stupid move. I can't believe you're defending it.
-
Originally posted by john9001
Now it's "you're either a neocon, or you're a terrorist, or your badly misinformed"
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Heres the deal, Lieberman knew he was making statements and expressing opinions deeply contary to his affiliated parties touted official position. To suggest that Lieberman would not have approved the admins use of his comments is, I think, disingenuous to say the least.
The bush admin was absolutely justified in using the senators comments in their own defense. I suspect that Lieberman might have a hellbetter chance in the next election because of his stance on Iraq.
Iraq is likely going to prove to be a very smart move, albeit a complicated and difficult move, in the future of the middle east and the world. To have bucked his parties position and instead, made the right move, will really give Lieberman a strong advantage going against his parties dogma ladden contenders. Even Hillary seems to sense this, although she is too heavily influenced by the anticons to be of much use to anyone now.
-
I think the statement is "If you are a liberal your an idiot!".
I'm pretty sure that's what I heard.:D
-
My brother is a liberal, and I would never call him an idiot. But that certainly doesn't disqualify him :aok
-
Justified? I don't know where you got the impression that I said they couldn't use it.
I said they shouldn't have. It is minimal gains for them to reiterate what was said. It would have been better if they'd let Lieberman's statements stand on their own. To repeat them as if Lieberman were endorsing them is to make someone that could have been helpfull be rendered effectively impotent. Both sides of the fence are prone to this silliness these days. The fact that so few get it pretty much sums up why.
-
Minni to me it's a matter of perspective.
The political use of leiberman by the Bush administration helps further the cause that we are winning the war in Iraq.....wich is true by most accounts. To finish the job we need public support. Whether using this information/perspective divides the democrats is a side issue and irreleven as far as I'm concerned because it doesn't further the cause one way or another. I don't see the republicans playing politics with this war as I do the democrats (SEE: Dean). Yes there's some exceptions to what I just said but they aren't mainstream exceptions so to speak. AMERICA needs to acheive victory in Iraq....not the republicans and not the democrats. To put one's party ideals above one's country is disgracfull IMHO and I know both sides of the isle do it. I just don't see "deviding the democrats" as the REASON for this usage.....I think it's just a side bonus to some.
Again the democrats are sharply devided as is between the anti-war crowed and others.
-
Lieberman said it himself... there was no need to quote him. It shows a lack of confidence with virtually no upside.
And... I don't need a lecture on the war.
-
Let me put it another way: Is it bigger news that Lieberman said that or that Bush brought up the fact that Lieberman said it? It effectively killed the message.
-
well...there you go then. Your all set.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
It has nothing to do with "for us or against us". Partisan politics got bloodthirsty some time ago. Neither side is willing to let an opportunity to increase the divide slip by.
Yes it did. It happened about a few minutes after they signed the Document in 1789.
At least we don't resort to dueling any longer. (not sure if that's good or bad in some instances)
-
so.....let me see if I understand this. It's perfectly correct for the democrats to quote people like mccain and specter but it is unacceptable for the bush administration to quote democrats? do I have that correct?
-
Originally posted by Mini D
Lieberman said it himself... there was no need to quote him. It shows a lack of confidence with virtually no upside.
And... I don't need a lecture on the war.
I'm not lecturing you on the war I trying to say in a not so simple way that what leiberman said is valid in the debate. The fact that he's not playing politics on Iraq shows great credit to him (from me) and probably give's his statement a little more weight. Eiteher way I'm glad he's at least promoting the truth instead of an agenda. It's too bad his party is going to burn him for it.
-
Perhaps Leiberman is thinking of switching parties and making a run at the Presidency as a moderate republican.
Or perhaps He's thinking as running as a third party candidate.
Orrr perhaps H'es just thinking of switching parties.
orrrrr Perhaps he's just saying what he see's and the Dems just dont like what he sees