Why does the Lieberman defeat Freak Cons out so much?

C

Cypress

Well-known member
Its bizarre, really. Personally, I pay very litle attention to GOP congresional or local primaries. Its not my party. I frankly don't give a shit which wingnut they elect. Especially in states I don't live in.

But on this board and the other, Cons have been wiggin' for days and days about lieberman. Post after post, thread after thread.

Possible theories:

1) Lieberman's loss freaks them, because he's the first prominent delusional war-apologist being held accountable - is it a trend?;

2) Its extremely rare for incumbent senators to lose primaries. Is this the beginning of an anti-incumbent mood in the electorate. An anti-incumbent mood is obvioulsy more dangerous for the GOP;

3) Lieberman could be counted on to vote for Terri Schiavo Amendments, lame so-called "free" trade bills that gut the middle class, and various other theocratic agendas. Is his loss a trend that the electorate is fed up with lame, failed policies that don't promote the common good?
 
Cypress said:
Its bizarre, really. Personally, I pay very litle attention to GOP congresional or local primaries. Its not my party. I frankly don't give a shit which wingnut they elect. Especially in states I don't live in.

But on this board and the other, Cons have been wiggin' for days and days about lieberman. Post after post, thread after thread.

Possible theories:

1) Lieberman's loss freaks them, because he's the first prominent delusional war-apologist being held accountable - is it a trend?;

2) Its extremely rare for incumbent senators to lose primaries. Is this the beginning of an anti-incumbent mood in the electorate. An anti-incumbent mood is obvioulsy more dangerous for the GOP;

3) Lieberman could be counted on to vote for Terri Schiavo Amendments, lame so-called "free" trade bills that gut the middle class, and various other theocratic agendas. Is his loss a trend that the electorate is fed up with lame, failed policies that don't promote the common good?
Click to expand...

(4) All of the above.
 
All of the above and they are afraid a majority anti war group will get elected and end their reign of terror!
 
What we have here is some kind of left wing psychic meeting? I maintain its not because it freaks me out .. it was an assinine move on the Democrats part ..thats all ... no skin off my nose ...
Ive been waiting for you all to start going after Kerry, Biden and Hillary for the same reasons ...
 
And come to think of it .. the more I read into Liebermans voting record ..lol ... the more I am glad he was voted out ..
 
Kerry, Biden and Hillary have not had to stand for election since the great awakining...., they dont represent areas as liberal as CT, they are not as unapologetic as Lieberman was about the war, and not one of them voted on the wrong side of the Terri Schiavo debate!
 
Well said Jarod.
However I do not like Kerry or Hillary very much. Biden, I am not sure about.
Of course if GWB could run again I would vote for Peewee Herman before I would him.
 
Kerry has apologized for the war, and said it was a huge mistake. I'm forgiving him.

Just like I forgave republicans who came to the same conclusion. That freedom-fried republican congressman, Walter Jones (R-North Carolina) has apologized for his war vote. And I'm cutting him slack. He's forgiven.

As for hillary or biden, I will never support them in a democratic nomination, and I don't think they can even win the democratic nomination.
 
huh? I was laughing the whole time. Lamont is a rich republican in dems clothing. He's going to double cross all you CT libtards. Sorry to bust your bubble, but most repubs I spoke to were laughing about the axe Lieberman is pulling out to splinter the dem party in CT. It's really good news for repubs in CT. The majority party is now fractured and moderates don't like how Joe was run off the lot.
 
tinfoil said:
huh? I was laughing the whole time. Lamont is a rich republican in dems clothing. He's going to double cross all you CT libtards. Sorry to bust your bubble, but most repubs I spoke to were laughing about the axe Lieberman is pulling out to splinter the dem party in CT. It's really good news for repubs in CT. The majority party is now fractured and moderates don't like how Joe was run off the lot.
Click to expand...


Hmmm....deja vu. the republicans keep making these kind of claims, over and over - "the destruction of the Dem party!" - but, it never seems to come true.

-I remember when Howard Dean was elected chairman, that was supposed to destroy the Dems. Yet oddly, the polls keep getting better and better for the dems.

-Russ Fiengold amendment to censure Bush was supposed to destroy the Dems. For some odd reason, it never did.

-Having a San Francisco-liberal in charge of the House Dems, (Pelosi) was supposed to annihilate the Dems. Doesn't appear to have done so.

-Having Al Sharpton run for prez in the Dem primaries, was supposed to destroy the Dems. Oddly, it didn't.

Put down the kool aid stirfry, and turn off the Fox News talking points.
 
The Republican party is the best reason the demoncratic party is not falling apart. Like Bin laden has been Bush's best political friend, bush has been a benefactor of the Democratic party.
 
It doesn't freak me out that Lieberman lost. He is, after all, a northeast liberal who is pro-Iraq. It is mildly disconcerting that George Soros and MoveOn.org, was able to put enough influence and money into the initiative to make it happen, but ol' Joe has not been defeated just yet. It's a shame that one of the most respected Democratic statesmen of our time, was railroaded out of the party by radical leftists for the sole purpose of fundraising. That's really unfortunate, but not a big concern for Conservatives or Republicans. We actually are amused by the democratic strategy of having your senior Senators defeated in the primaries, and are curious to see how this will ultimately lead to taking control of Congress... but it's indeed fun to watch.
 
Last edited:
We actually are amused by the democratic strategy of having your senior Senators defeated in the primaries...

Right, I understand that to a repbublican like you, its all about strategy, winning, and party loyalty.

For patriotic american who put country above party, its about holding incumbents accountable, and putting fresh faces in congress. No money-grubbing politicians should be "entitled" to a senate seat, no matter their seniority.
 
Cypress said:
We actually are amused by the democratic strategy of having your senior Senators defeated in the primaries...

Right, I understand that to a repbublican like you, its all about strategy, winning, and party loyalty.

For patriotic american who put country above party, its about holding incumbents accountable, and putting fresh faces in congress. No money-grubbing politicians should be "entitled" to a senate seat, no matter their seniority.
Click to expand...


Good, so you plan to elect only candidates who do not accept any outside money and are not part of the current political establishment? I think that is a great idea! You guys keep knocking off your incumbent leadership in the primaries and calling it "victory", mmmk?
 
-Dixie, on Fullpolitics.com:

I'm really quite moderate. I'm neither republican nor democrat. I'm a registered independent, and I vote for a lot of democratic candidates


LMAO
 
Cypress said:
-Dixie, on Fullpolitics.com:

I'm really quite moderate. I'm neither republican nor democrat. I'm a registered independent, and I vote for a lot of democratic candidates


LMAO
Click to expand...


Yep, that's actually true. I am a registered Independent. I even went on to list the numerous democrats I've voted for, did you miss that part? Apparently so!
 
I'm surprised it isn't freaking out more of the Dems, actually. The Rs in CT were likely going to vote for him sheepishly, now they will proudly vote for him along with some dedicated Dems and likely he will still be the Senator from CT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top