That exact same statement could be said of every Repub candidate with the exception of Paul.
I don't support Lieberman's war views but he nails this part, TODAY's Democrat party is far left and completely saturated by hyper-Liberalism.
"The 2008 Democratic candidates are beholden to a "hyper-partisan, politically paranoid" liberal base that could endanger the final nominee's chances of winning next year's presidential election, Joe Lieberman, the former vice-presidential Democratic candidate, said yesterday.
In his most outspoken attack on fellow Democrats since he was unsuccessfully challenged last year by Ned Lamont, a liberal Democrat, for his Senate seat in Connecticut, Mr Lieberman yesterday said he might not vote for the Democratic presidential nominee next year."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/1f8eee44-8e6...nclick_check=1
"Don't ever think you know what's right for the other person. He might start thinking he knows what's right for you." – Paul Williams, "Das Energi"
That exact same statement could be said of every Repub candidate with the exception of Paul.
Well maybe then you can explain to me how, when we don’t have one front-runner who will say “I will immediately withdraw all troops from Iraq” the dems are “beholden to their liberal base” who want exactly that?
You guys love Lieberman because he loves blood and in fact is advocating an Iranian war. Take his vampire ass, claim him. But don’t ever try and pretend that he speaks for democrats, that he is a fucking moderate, or that his opinion of the democratic base, who don’t yearn for blood, means jack shit.
He ain’t nothing but a Zionist beholden to the interests of Israel. In other words, a freaking traitor, and if he was beholden to the interests of France, you’d be the second person to say so. Dano would be the first.
Dano - Perhaps you should read the actual remarks of Lieberman wherein the sole basis for his charge that the Democratic Party is beholden to a "hyper-partisan, politically paranoid" base is because they disagree with him on his war stance. That's it. Considering you disagree with his position on the war, perhaps you should rethink you're endorsement of his lunacy.
Lieberman, Lieberman - why do I know that name?
Oh, yeah - isn't that the guy who publicly admitted to a severe form of psychosis prior to the '06 election, and said he still would have invaded Iraq despite everything that happened?
I knew that name sounded familiar. What's he up to, now? Isn't he pushing for a war with Iran?
NO that is completely false. A hyper partisan Conservative base wants repeal of healthcare regulations, repeal of the pill bill, fiscal responsibility, federal government out of education, reduced EPA role, no gun control.
The only thing the current candidates are paying heed to Conservatives on is guns and that's about it.
The worst part of Karl Rove is that in making the Bush strategy one of stealing Liberal positions on spending, we now have a Republican party with a Liberal Repub in the lead in Guillani and a fake Conservative in 2nd place in Romney.
Meanwhile the Dem party far from having any moderates like Bill Clinton and Tsongas, now instead has socialist Edwards duking it out with hardcore Liberals Hillary and Obama.
Political centers move in ONE direction, both parties were more Conservative in the 90's, both are more Liberal now.
"Don't ever think you know what's right for the other person. He might start thinking he knows what's right for you." – Paul Williams, "Das Energi"
Apparently, one thing that 9/11 changed is that the people that are now viewed as "sensible" and "serious" in the foreign policy field are the people that advocate war as the first option not the last. There was a time, the vast majority of the 20th Century, when those people were rightly viewed as lunatics.
"Don't ever think you know what's right for the other person. He might start thinking he knows what's right for you." – Paul Williams, "Das Energi"
Thank you for proving my point. I said nothing in support of Lieberman on this thread. I simply stated that both bases are made up of "hyper-partisan, politically paranoid" base and that their politicians are beholden to them. Yes, you can take one issue and act as though if they disagree with you on one they must not be beholden to you. The Reps could say the same thing. Which was my point. Neither the left nor the right want to admit that they have gone off to the far right (religious nuts) or the far left (just nuts).
The left sees any moderate as a righty and the right sees any moderate as a lefty. From their perspectives that may be true, but those in the middle understand just how wacked out the two parties are right now.
"Don't ever think you know what's right for the other person. He might start thinking he knows what's right for you." – Paul Williams, "Das Energi"
Bookmarks