Joe Lieberman will run in the general.

[WCSox]

1. His insane belief that music caused the violent events like Columbine and his hardon for musical/television/cinematic/video game censorship of things that he does not like...and going about trying to legislate his morality for the entire country.

 

Nobody believes that music or video games caused events like Columbine. But most people agree that it's not in an 8-year-old's best interest to be listening to gangsta rap. And most people (not just the religious right) also believe in public decency standards. Lieberman is conservative for a Democrat, but he's not exactly Rick Santorum.

 

BTW, the comparison to Zell Miller is ridiculous. Those two have nothing in common.

Edited July 4, 2006 by WCSox

[mr_genius]

I couldn't have voted for Gore/Lieberman or Bush/Cheney.

 

 

 

"you could have voted for me"

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Nobody believes that music or video games caused events like Columbine. But most people agree that it's not in an 8-year-old's best interest to be listening to gangsta rap. And most people (not just the religious right) also believe in public decency standards. Lieberman is conservative for a Democrat, but he's not exactly Rick Santorum.

 

BTW, the comparison to Zell Miller is ridiculous. Those two have nothing in common.

It should be up to parents to monitor what their kids have/use/read/listen to, especially at age 8. I don't think most 7 year olds have the $50 to get GTA or the $18 to an album (aside from even having the ability to get to the store by themselves)

 

Lieberman is quite for censorship -- his proposed legislation while Clinton was in power of the uniform code where music/movies/video games etc. would have a code for 'objectionable' things. Of course those found 'objectionable' would essentially be blacklisted from stores. IIRC, he even tried passing a law where bands would have to get permits (not for venues, but for screening out the "we won't say/do anything that Mr. Lieberman may not like" groups) before they could legally play a show.

 

Take this statement: When speaking about Grand Theft Auto, he said, "The player is rewarded for attacking a woman, pushing her to the ground, kicking her repeatedly and then ultimately killing her, shooting her over and over again. I call on the entertainment companies--they've got a right to do that, but they have a responsibility not to do it if we want to raise the next generation of our sons to treat women with respect."

 

Yeah -- I'm of the mind that a parent should be raising the kid and know when the kid is developmentally ready to distinguish reality from the fantasy land of a video game. There's no need for government to butt into this situation and create a chilling effect that because Mr. Lieberman doesn't like it, it means the game should not be made. I stand by the idea of if you don't like it then don't watch it, play it or buy it.

 

His pro-censorship stance was a joke when it was the PMRC, when they tried to nail Judas Priest for subliminal lyrics and it remains a joke today. Decency standards should be left to parents -- not crusading moralists in government.

 

And regarding Miller and Lieberman -- both are cultural conservatives, both opposed gay marriage (although Lieberman said states have the right to decide individually) and both are incredibly supportive and unquestioning of the Iraq war. They're quite similar.

[WCSox]

Take this statement: When speaking about Grand Theft Auto, he said, "The player is rewarded for attacking a woman, pushing her to the ground, kicking her repeatedly and then ultimately killing her, shooting her over and over again. I call on the entertainment companies--they've got a right to do that, but they have a responsibility not to do it if we want to raise the next generation of our sons to treat women with respect."

 

There's nothing wrong with a politician telling the entertainment industry that desentisitizing children to violence could have very serious repercussions. Lieberman says nothing about banning those games in that quote - in fact, he says that they have "the right" to do so.

 

Yeah -- I'm of the mind that a parent should be raising the kid and know when the kid is developmentally ready to distinguish reality from the fantasy land of a video game. There's no need for government to butt into this situation...

 

And since you were a child at one point, you know that there are all sorts of ways to get around mommy and daddy's rules. My parents never kept pornography in the house, but that didn't stop me of going to my friend's house and watching those movies on Saturday mornings when I was 11.

 

Censorship for all is obviously not the answer but, given the caliber of "parents" in this day and age, some government oversight regarding public decency may not be the wost thing in the world.

 

BTW, agreed about the Judas Priest issue, but I don't believe that Lieberman had anything to do with that.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

The Dems need widely-respected moderates like Lieberman if they want to win back Congress or the White House. If the more liberal wing of their party is going to throw a fit because Joe would rather run as an independent than pander to them via Murtha-esque anti-Iraq temper tantrums, it's their loss.

 

If the liberal wing of the party succeeds in seizing control of their affairs and platform then they are toast come November. Their only shot to capture either house of Congress is to present themselves as a centrist outfit. The Howard Dean wing of the party will lose them seats.

[WCSox]

If the liberal wing of the party succeeds in seizing control of their affairs and platform then they are toast come November. Their only shot to capture either house of Congress is to present themselves as a centrist outfit. The Howard Dean wing of the party will lose them seats.

 

That's true to a certain extent. For example, if Lieberman doesn't get on the ticket, a Republican will take his seat in CT. However, something tells me that Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy aren't going anywhere. But, overall, I agree that they won't win nearly as many seats if they put far-left candidates on the ballots.

 

I'm still dumbfounded as to why the Dems are moving in this direction. The Republicans in a vulnerable position right now, but the strategy of putting nuts like Dean and Pelosi in high-ranking and high-visibility positions is not going to help them take advantage of that.

[kapkomet]

That's true to a certain extent. For example, if Lieberman doesn't get on the ticket, a Republican will take his seat in CT. However, something tells me that Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy aren't going anywhere. But, overall, I agree that they won't win nearly as many seats if they put far-left candidates on the ballots.

 

I'm still dumbfounded as to why the Dems are moving in this direction. The Republicans in a vulnerable position right now, but the strategy of putting nuts like Dean and Pelosi in high-ranking and high-visibility positions is not going to help them take advantage of that.

I agree. If they moved to the center, they would clean house this fall. But, it's not happening.

 

Look, most people in the country fall in the middle, and neither party can move toward it. Representation of the people, my ass.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

That's true to a certain extent. For example, if Lieberman doesn't get on the ticket, a Republican will take his seat in CT. However, something tells me that Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy aren't going anywhere. But, overall, I agree that they won't win nearly as many seats if they put far-left candidates on the ballots.

 

I'm still dumbfounded as to why the Dems are moving in this direction. The Republicans in a vulnerable position right now, but the strategy of putting nuts like Dean and Pelosi in high-ranking and high-visibility positions is not going to help them take advantage of that.

 

 

As the king of the right wing around here this couldn't please me more. All our party needs is a few good wacko's to campaign against and congressional dominance is ours for another 2 years.

[Balta1701]

I'm still dumbfounded as to why the Dems are moving in this direction. The Republicans in a vulnerable position right now, but the strategy of putting nuts like Dean and Pelosi in high-ranking and high-visibility positions is not going to help them take advantage of that.

Because when the Dems did it that way, running guys like Gephardt and Daschle at the top of each house of Congress and big business fundraising guys like Macauliffe at the top of the DNC, the results were a Bush White House and a Republican House, Senate, and Supreme Court. No matter who is at the top for the Dems, the Republicans are going to paint them as out of touch whackos unless they agree with the President on virtually everything. If you're one of the 60-70% of Americans unhappy with the Iraq war or how we got into it, you're an out of touch nut. If you don't want to privatize social security, or you aren't freaked out by the gays, you're an out of touch nut.

 

 

If we're doomed to be losers, I'd rather be a loser standing up for something, instead of losing the way we have been.

[EvilMonkey]

The party's wishes would be reflected in the primary election.

Looks like alot of the Party bigwigs are on Joe's side.

Sens. Joe Biden of Delaware, Barbara Boxer of California and Ken Salazar of Colorado plan to campaign in Connecticut for Lieberman between now and the Aug. 8 primary. Their goal is to reassure the party faithful of the three-term senator's loyalty to Democratic causes, including women's issues, labor and the environment

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060705/ap_on_...crats_lieberman

[Balta1701]

Looks like alot of the Party bigwigs are on Joe's side.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060705/ap_on_...crats_lieberman

Hillary Clinton is on record as supporting whoever wins the primary.

[EvilMonkey]

Hillary Clinton is on record as supporting whoever wins the primary.

I didn't say all................

[Balta1701]

I didn't say all................

I know, but if you're going to point out Biden, then that's only fair. HC is still as far as I know the presumptive nominee in 08, so it's pretty darn hard to get a bigger name than that one, at least right now. Maybe if Bill said the same thing.

 

According to Kos (I can't verify thanks to the government of the country I'm currently in) Kerry also has pledged to support whoever the Dem nominee is.

Edited July 6, 2006 by Balta1701

[kapkomet]

You know why Dems get painted as assmunches? Because most of you all don't ever seem to have a thought of your own, except 'whatever Bush doesn't want, we do'. Come up with an original idea and stick to it, that MOST AMERICANS WILL AGREE WITH, and you'll get the House, Senate, and White House back.

 

I know the 'right wing media' has really made the 'cut and run' crap stick. If a Democrat came up with a plan that said we're staying in Iraq util the job's 'finished' and that's sooner rather then later, he/she would probably get some attention. If they were moderate on taxes (read, I'm going to raise taxes for the 28% bracket and above doesn't work), they would get listened to.

 

Ohhhhhh, but we must have an alternative, and the Dems have to go to an extreme to be different then the Republicans. Somewhere, somehow, someone needs to take a middle ground. If they did, and it wasn't Hillary just doing what polls tell her to do (for example), that candidate would win 65% of the vote right now.

[Rex Kickass]

Here are some ideas that the Democrats have that most people agree with.

 

Women deserve control over their body.

Health care should be affordable.

We should have a balanced budget.

The US should be energy independent by 2020.

The Voting Rights Act should be renewed.

There should be a comprehensive immigration reform package which should address both immediate concerns regarding border security and also stemming the flow of attempts to cross illegally.

 

But I'm sure you're going to say they aren't really ideas. Because you always do, Kap. Every time they come up with an idea - you say they don't mean it, or its not good enough. At least there are debates about what to do in the Democratic Party. The only substantive public discussion about how to change our Iraq policy in a way that's beneficial to the US is in the Democratic Party for example.

 

You know why I like the Democratic Party? It's the only place where you can be pro-choice OR pro-life and be welcomed in by the party leadership. It's the only place where you can be for OR against the Iraq war policy and be welcomed in by the party leadership. It's the only place where you can disagree with the party line and be allowed in, and work to change hearts and minds within the party.

 

By the way, Howard Dean, and a handful of other senators have said that they will only support Lieberman in the general election if he wins in the primary. Which is as it should be, if he bolts the party, he shouldn't expect the party's support.

[samclemens]

im not trying to throw stones, because republicans in d.c. do it sometimes too (but not even as close to as much as democrats- just my opinion), but all of the ideas you are listing are a bunch of feel good issues. who is going to disagree that we need a comprehensive immigration plan? even phil donahue and pat buchanon and probably david duke would agree with that. the point is that there are no details- exactly how do democrats propose this plan work? what requirements/quotas/whatever?? this is a big reason why kerry lost. dems need to stop sitting around and throwing buzzwords out. you cant just say that you support balancing the budget, period and that health care should be affordable, period. try saying HOW it will be done.

 

sadly, i am pretty confident I can answer the how for nearly every single "idea"- raise taxes and make government even bigger. thats just what we need, good god.

 

that isnt working, as the MI economy is proving (the only reason I say that is I live in MI).

[WCSox]

Because when the Dems did it that way, running guys like Gephardt and Daschle at the top of each house of Congress and big business fundraising guys like Macauliffe at the top of the DNC, the results were a Bush White House and a Republican House, Senate, and Supreme Court. No matter who is at the top for the Dems, the Republicans are going to paint them as out of touch whackos unless they agree with the President on virtually everything.

 

Listen to the inflammatory rhetoric coming out of Howard Dean's mouth and tell me who is making him look like an "out of touch whacko." Rush? Fox News? Bulls***. When people like Dean, Pelosi, Durbin, and Murtha do their Michael Moore impersonations on the floor of the House or Senate, they're doing so on their own.

 

 

Ohhhhhh, but we must have an alternative, and the Dems have to go to an extreme to be different then the Republicans.

 

All those years of MTV has rotted their brains.

[kapkomet]

Here are some ideas that the Democrats have that most people agree with.

 

Women deserve control over their body.

Health care should be affordable.

We should have a balanced budget.

The US should be energy independent by 2020.

The Voting Rights Act should be renewed.

There should be a comprehensive immigration reform package which should address both immediate concerns regarding border security and also stemming the flow of attempts to cross illegally.

 

But I'm sure you're going to say they aren't really ideas. Because you always do, Kap. Every time they come up with an idea - you say they don't mean it, or its not good enough. At least there are debates about what to do in the Democratic Party. The only substantive public discussion about how to change our Iraq policy in a way that's beneficial to the US is in the Democratic Party for example.

 

You know why I like the Democratic Party? It's the only place where you can be pro-choice OR pro-life and be welcomed in by the party leadership. It's the only place where you can be for OR against the Iraq war policy and be welcomed in by the party leadership. It's the only place where you can disagree with the party line and be allowed in, and work to change hearts and minds within the party.

 

By the way, Howard Dean, and a handful of other senators have said that they will only support Lieberman in the general election if he wins in the primary. Which is as it should be, if he bolts the party, he shouldn't expect the party's support.

I can write a list of ideas, too. Big whoop. Now you're going to say that your party can't get anything going because they have those bastard, women hating, money grubbing, oil powerful, who-gives-a-s***-about-healthcare, ,immagrant loving, rich ass Republicans standing in the way. Because, you always do, Rex.

 

Seriously. I hear what you're saying, but a lot of these ideas are in the Republican Party, too. It's HOW YOU IMPLEMENT the plan, not just the idea. Give me a centrist Democrat that can get something done, and I'll punch their ticket, happily, I might add. Right now, the party (BOTH parties) are hijacked by extremism, and we get nowhere.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203710,00.html

 

Seeing this article made this thread worth a bump. Seems even Bill Clinton is opposed to a fixed timeline to withdrawing from Iraq.

[Balta1701]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203710,00.html

 

Seeing this article made this thread worth a bump. Seems even Bill Clinton is opposed to a fixed timeline to withdrawing from Iraq.

I believe that the last Congressional attempt the Dems made, which of course the Republicans shot down, asked for benchmarks, specific goals the Administration wanted to achieve which could lead towards withdrawal.

[Rex Kickass]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203710,00.html

 

Seeing this article made this thread worth a bump. Seems even Bill Clinton is opposed to a fixed timeline to withdrawing from Iraq.

 

Which means sadly, that the only substantive Iraq debate is going on in the Democratic Party, and not actually within the government itself.

[EvilMonkey]

It's the only place where you can be for OR against the Iraq war policy and be welcomed in by the party leadership. It's the only place where you can disagree with the party line and be allowed in, and work to change hearts and minds within the party.

Are you kidding? The sole reason that Lieberman is even getting an opponent, and not being backed more by his party is that he dares to AGREE with Bush on Iraq. Show me anyone who has disagreed with the party line in Iraq and has been welcomed by party leadership? It certainly will not be Joe! As for 'disagreeing with the party line', other than 'anything opposite Bush' , what would that be?

[Rex Kickass]

Hillary Rodham Clinton.

[EvilMonkey]

Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Oh, please. She blows whatever way the polls go.

[Rex Kickass]

You asked for an example, I gave you one.

Want another? Fine. Ben Nelson (Nebraska)

He wants goals set. He doesn't want a deadline for troop removal.

His Iraq voting record is identical to Lieberman's in 06.