Posted on 11/10/2006 10:41:25 AM PST by truthandlife
I honestly can't understand conservatives' support for Joe Lieberman and the name afforded him, "the conscience of the senate" as I've heard him described.
The guys is PRO-PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION. He voted to overturn the ban!!! In my eyes this cancels out ANY support for the war he has. I couldn't care LESS if he's for the war or against it - the guy approves murdering babies. In my eyes he's no honourable man. Period.
I was hoping that he would recover some of the dignity he lost when he ran with Gore and pretended to be far more liberal than he used to be. It is a sad thing to see, because I think he is a good and decent man, for a politician.
If he had lost, he could have been Chancellor Palpatine's stunt double in a new Star Wars movie. He looks and speaks so much Chancellor Palpatine before Palpatine burned himself up with the dark side while killing Mace Windu that I thought Lucas might have had him in mind.
How do YOU know I didn't volunteer or send $$ to Talent, Steele, Santorum, Burns, Allen, et al campaigns?
Also, you're in Illinois, I live here in Connecticut where this election between Lieberman and Lamont took place. Lamont (with his own and Moveon.org's funding) swept onto the national stage and took Connecticut by storm... I've never seen anything like it before. The choice was awful, but simple: Choose Lieberman or Lamont.
See that photo on my profile page? That's my husband (with the horn), and I'm right behing him holding a giant Sore-Loserman 2000 sign, although you can't see my face. We were in New Haven, on that frigid day on December 2, 2000 in front of Joe's house (although he was in Washington DC that day most likely). We spent every weekend during the 2000 Recount period out in the cold in either Connecticut, NYC or Washington DC, protesting on behalf of George W. Bush, insisting that the military votes be counted.
That was the situation in 2000. The situation - in Connecticut - in 2006 is that we had to choose between Lieberman and Lamont. I've said it 10,000 times now... the GOP candidate we had (Alan Schlesinger) was not even remotely viable. Votes for him would have come from the JOE column, thus we would have ended up with Senator Lamont. George Soros would be happy.
I'm not "happy" that Joe was re-elected, but I am sure as hell relieved that Ned Lamont wasn't elected.
I really hope NUTMEG considers a run against Chris Dodd! Dittos on everything you've said here today - you tell 'em, girl!
This needs to be on every freeper's required reading list. Thanks for putting it together. So glad that you seem to be doing so well!
"I never understood all the enthusiasm for Lieberman by conservatives/Republicans in this Senate race anyway."
Lamont was a commie, a serious real commie, that is why.
CT, reasonable analysis, but I think you miss a few points in it:
1. gerrymandering is more precise these days, leading to fewer competitive house seats (less turnover overall). so it was easier, theoretically, for the GOP to defend seats, however, specific (corrupt?) Republicans got taken out in conservative districts, and swing districts turned bluer.
2. the losses in off years are usually following comparable gains in the previous presidential elections. (eg FDR and Eisenhower blowouts). However, Bush didnt have great coattails - most of the 2004 GOP increase in the House was due to Texas redistricting! If you look at FDR, the Democrat majorities that were created in 1930 endured throughout his term. Yet for Bush we are in the worse position since before 1994. The main good news is that GOP numbers are still higher than they were before 1994.
3. The biggest underlying trend is the state houses. we were at parity before the election and are now behind. State houses determine redistricting options and help be the farm team for Congress. Consequently, there is a big chance
4. The country was split 50/50 in 2000, in 2002 and 2004, the needle moved about 3% to the right. In 2006, the needle moved about 6% to the left, giving the Dems a slight but distinct edge. That alas is enough for a thin majority.
the question is whether that will endure or not.
Right from the horse's ASS
I knew we could not trust this pr*ck as far as we could toss a battleship.
"The race was interesting because it was direct evidence that Iraq was _not_ the deciding factor in 2006. Votes in Conn had a clear choice between a pro-War and an anti-War candidate that was untouched by the Congressional Republican scandals, spending, earmarks and just plain bad bills.
And they went for the pro-War candidate."
The also happened in Chris Shays' Congressional District, CT-4. He did not back away from his support for the war. His opponent, Diane Farrell, ran exactly as Lamont did: all anti-war, all the time.
Shays beat her by a much bigger margin than he beat her two years ago.
In Connecticut, anyway, being anti-war was not enough to win, and being pro-war certainly was not enough to lose.
Then how do you explain that Reagan won 58 percent of the vote in 1984 while the Democrats in 1984 still held the house.
The Democratic gerrymandering from 1960 to 1990 took at least a 62 percent of voter support for Republicans to regain the house. Precise Gerrymandering has nothing to do with it.
If a state like Ohio was evenly divided between the parties as it was in 1994 the best that Republicans can do is Gerrymander 6 seats as 70 - 30 Democrat and 12 seats as 54 to 46 Republican and a six point swing against them can cost them the house. But history says the 6 democrats in 70 to 30 districts would rather keep their safe districts than retain control of the house.
Roosevelt had a blow out.. Eisenhower did not. The Republicans only gained 22 seats in 1952, and Republicans only ended up with 221 seats after the Eisenhower victory. That is just 3 seats more than needed to have a majority. Democrats had a total of 213 seats after the Eisenhower won the election in 1952.. just 5 seats short of a majority.
The Democrats won the house back in 1954. The Democrats had the house 232 to 203. They Democrats added two seats in 1956 to give them 234.
There is a chance that Democrats will hold most or all of the state houses until after the 2010 redistricting. But there is a good chance they will lose at least some of the state houses in 2010. But in several states like in Ohio the State legislature is still in Republican hands. They can at best gerrymander some of the house seats. They have to get the existing Democratic members of the house to go along with their redistricting. If the 6 seats that are 70 to 30 Democrat have to be kept certain Democrat seats, they can at best make the remaining seats equal. But that is sometimes hard. The six Democrats in 70 to 30 democrat seats are not anxious to make 6 sure Republican seats so that the remaining 12 seats are 54 to 46 in favor of Democrats. As it happened in California in 2000 those sure seat Democrats demanded they keep their sure seats. So they will have to make about 5 seats sure Republican seats... and perhaps 7 seats 54 to 46 Democrat. Often times Democrat Congressmen will pull a lot of strings to hold onto their 70 to 30 districts.
It is quite rare for a six percent negative shift in the 6th year of a presidency to remain or be greater than that in the 8th year... especially if the Presidency is open for both parties.
It is obvious that Bush is going to involve the Democrats in making a new policy for Iraq. If they refuse to join him in a compromise it would not surprise me if he asked the Democrats to give him their plan for victory and he would tell the nation that he would implement it. There is no way the Democratic party divided between cut and run and more troops can come up with a single plan.
The voting public will support Bush's call for a Democratic plan that will ensure victory. But how could Democrats come up with such a plan.
In any event Bush will find a way to make sure the Democrats have a known stake in the new Iraq policy. If it works then Bush will get the credit. If it fails then the Democrats will get the blame. If they can't even agree on a Democratic plan, the will be in a world of hurt for Democrats no matter what happens on the ground in Iraq.
Bush is a student of history. He knows how Truman demanded that the Republicans adopt a policy to cut taxes to fix the economy in 1948. Dewey was calling for a tax cut. Truman proposed to sign what ever tax cut the Republican congress passed. When Truman called the Republican controlled House and Senate into special session they recessed with out passing anything. It won Truman the election.
The Democrats said time for a change this year and the voters gave it to them by a slim margin. If they fail to come up with a changed policy the Democrats are in a world of hurt. If their change in both domestic and foreign policy is a failure.. then they are in a heap of trouble as well.
Democrats will undoubtedly raise taxes. If they do the stock market, the economy, and jobs will tank. The Democrats will have to take the blame. Even if a number of Democrats understand the consequences of raising taxes they dare not re-pass the bush Tax cuts. Republicans have zero incentive to try to pass the Bush tax cuts. In fact Democrats don't have to do anything to raise taxes and they won't.
I don't see how any of these points cam be a positive for Democrats if Bush does what it looks like he is going to do.
ping
Damn glad I didnt vote for him!
Damn glad (and greatly relieved) that Commie Red Ned Lamont didn't end up as our Senator! :o)
All of that venom from DNC because of one solitary act: Sen. Lieberman went to Iraq to visit the troops, then returned and gave his stunning "If the sound of the trumpet be weak, who will follow?" speech, just right at the time the Democrats were on a steamroller for immediate pullout. Joe poked a hole a mile wide in that balloon by simply making that one speech. His bravery was breathtaking. Can you imagine the hell he has endured up on the hill?
Joe Lieberman is a fine Senator, and a Statesman if there ever was one. If we're going to have opponents, may they all be of his calibre.
I am so glad he got the last laugh. I still remember Hillary's warning when he mentioned he was 'contemplating running as an independent' ... she said he should be mindful of his concience. What a laugh Joe must be having now.
Simple! He is a chameleon. He is a likeable guy, even though he is a staunch liberal democ rat. He was likeable before 2000 and then changed his stripes to team up with none other than Big Al Gore. That failed so Joe moved to the right again? Hannity drools over this guy. When Lieberman, again changing his stripes, left the democ rat party to run as an independent pubbies saw him, once again, as an OK guy. OK enough to give him 37% of his vote in the general election. Now that he has won and the democ rats have won, Ol' Joe, being the chameleon that he is says, "call me a democ rat"!
Trust him as far as you can throw a bull by his gonads......
Bravo. Your post sums up everything I've said and thought about the "conscience" of the Senate who whined for months about having the election stolen from him.
I don't "like" Joe Lieberman either, and I never bought into the "Conscience of the Senate" title Joe somehow earned. I've always known Joe was a chameleon, and that he would return to his democRAT roots if he won this election. I had no doubts nor illusions about that. I pretty much agree with your post #78, ErieGeno.
That being said, we would be having a VERY different conversation right now about the winning candidate for the Connecticut Senate seat had George Soros' hand-picked candidate, commie Red Ned Lamont had won. FReepers are complaining that Connecticut voted Joe (the "pro-war" candidate) back into the Senate. FReepers would complain even more if we voted in Ned Lamont (the anti-war, Bush-hating candidate embraced by Code Pink, Cindy Sheehan, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, et al).
If the GOP candidate, Alan Schlesinger, had been remotely viable, I would've voted for him. But the way the election played out, a vote for Schlesinger, a little-known candidate with a "shaky" past, would pretty much be a vote for Lamont. Some of us didn't want to take that risk in a time of war.
Interesting background on Alan Schlesinger - aka "Alan Gold" - as of 8/15/06:
Bush Not Yet Endorsing Schlesinger for Sen. in CT
President Bush never ended up endorsing Alan Schlesinger in the CT Senate race, by the way...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.