Attn: Democratic Party and Affiliated Members

Subject: Connecticut Primary

Congratulations! You've succeeded in further cementing your alienation from the rest of the nation!

By erasing one of the last remaining (arguably THE last) nationally elected moderates within your own party, you've managed to silence moderation and cooperation. You've managed to utterly entrench your public image as that of obstructionists hell-bent on promoting theatrical and farcical goals.

And in the process, you just burned off the last fringes of conscientus voters who once called themselves Democrats.

Do you enjoy shooting yourselves in the foot? I won't deny it, party fracturing makes for some pretty good entertainment.

Thanks for helping Conservatives and Moderates win the upcoming election...again.

Y'r Obd't Srv't,
The Conservative Base

The Democrats need to get their act together. Canning Lieberman wasn't a bright move, that's for sure. Bipartisan voting isn't a bad thing.

quote:

Originally posted by bluedemocrat:
They are backing the canidate whom the Democrats of CT chose to represent them in the Senate race. That's nothing new.

You apparently fail to see the utter hypocracy in this. If your going to support one canadate then you should continue to support that person because of their beliefs and what you feel is best for the party. The facts are that the majority of CT is going to choose leiberman as their senator. He's going to split the dem and rep. vote. he's going to come out on top, and the republicans abandoned their nominee (big difference here is that the republicans never supported their canadate to begin with) and have put their support behind Leiberman, I think the dems should have done the same. Rather than throwing their support at whoever looks like their winning for the time being.

quote:

How am I crossing my arguements? I was arguing that there are very few liberal extremists in the Senate. I provided you 2 situations that indiciate that the number of so-called liberal extremists is very low.

By saying that Kerry pretends to be be ultra liberal? He votes that way... dont believe me, go look at his voting history on Megavote. Pelosi is the wench that has gotten respectable dems to denounce their original beliefs in exchange for campain money aka Murtha. Hillary mysteriously changed her position on the war last year too, around the same time Murtha did. Barbara Boxer as well from where else Cali, Tom Harkin, Durbin, Kennedy, Menendez, Lautenberg, Wyden, Leahy, Jeffords, Feingold, Levin, need I go on... look up their voting records, incredibly liberal, they only come together on the things that are written in such a way that would make them look stupid if they disagreed with it. (another thing in common these are all the people on the democrat side that want to immediatly pull troops out of Iraq.)

Happy reading and education.

http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm

quote:

If they were such Leiberman supporters why did they all come out and denounce him after the election rather than support him in his independant run

They are backing the canidate whom the Democrats of CT chose to represent them in the Senate race. That's nothing new.

quote:

your crossing your arguments, you are no longer even making any sense, grasping for straws etc...

How am I crossing my arguements? I was arguing that there are very few liberal extremists in the Senate. I provided you 2 situations that indiciate that the number of so-called liberal extremists is very low.

If they were such Leiberman supporters why did they all come out and denounce him after the election rather than support him in his independant run... your crossing your arguments, you are no longer even making any sense, grasping for straws etc...

quote:

Originally posted by Rasmussen Poll: Lieberman Ahead
Senator Joe Lieberman’s decision to run as an Independent sets up a lively campaign season for Connecticut voters. In the first General Election poll since Ned Lamont defeated Lieberman in the Connecticut primary, the incumbent is hanging on to a five percentage point lead. Lieberman earns support from 46% of Connecticut voters while Lamont is the choice of 41%

quote:

Obviously seeing how the majority is Republican to begin with, then you have 4 or 5 moderate democrats, an independant, then the rest is liberal.

Not that many extremists liberals supported immediate withdrawal from Iraq. In fact, only 6 Senators did.

Not that many voted against the Patriot Act. Only 1 the first time, and maybe 11, the second time. Not very extreme.

quote:

How is it that the extremists like Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry and Hillary Clinton can influance the party to a level where moderate democrats are outcast and belittled?

For one thing, Clinton is a moderate. In what way is she an extremist? Kerry is an idiot and he thinks that he'll activate the liberal base for '08 by prentending to be liberal. Really, he's a desperate moderate. Pelosi is someone whom I admire, but I hardly think that she dominates the party. All 3 supported Lieberman before the primary, mind you. They did not outcast and belittle him. Liberman was done in by his constituency.

Obviously seeing how the majority is Republican to begin with, then you have 4 or 5 moderate democrats, an independant, then the rest is liberal.

But the issue here isn't how many, but why is it that the fringe has the money and the power? How is it that the extremists like Nancy Pelosi and John Kerry and Hillary Clinton can influance the party to a level where moderate democrats are outcast and belittled?

The fact that so few congressmen support immediate withdrawl is evidence that there are very few extreme liberals in Congress. That was my point...that congress is not very liberal.

Yes, so why would moderate republicans support a view of the fringe left?

Your logic is beyond me.

quote:

Thats because the immediate withdrawl of troops from Iraq is a belief only held by the fringe left such as Kerry and Pelosi.

Aren't we talking about the fringe left?

Thats because the immediate withdrawl of troops from Iraq is a belief only held by the fringe left such as Kerry and Pelosi.

What about the House's failure to pass a comprehensive immigration bill? What about the fact that nearly 2/3 of the Senate supports a consitutional amendment to prohibit flag burning? What about the approval of Alito? What about the passage of rather large tax cuts? What about the passage of the Patriot Act? Many of these bills were supported by moderate Democrats.

I don't see very many moderate republicans jumping up to support bills calling for withdrawal from Iraq.

I love how you try using the conservatives against me, do you not realize that I dont care for either party? Or that I hate partisan politics to begin with? Hell the republicans have many times this year gone against the presidents neo-con campain promises. Congress passed a bill that allows funding for stem cells, the president just happened to veto it. They also passed a bill that would limit signing statements. Which the president added "bite me" in a signing statement and passed it. There has been quite a bit this year that congress has gone against the traditional neo-con revolution. I've been very pleased, so your argument about the lack of conservative moderates is obviously lacking in substance.

quote:

the country wouldn't work if there wasn't two or more parties, so it seems pretty god damn retaded that each party would try to make theirs have such a majority that they can control everything.

Well, look at which party is in control now. The Republican Party. The conservatives. They control the presidency, Congress, the supreme court. And, they deserve to. They were smarter campaigners and fundraisers. Right now, all three branches of government are dominated by republicans/conservatives. Is it so wrong that the democrats are trying to regain the balance of which you speak by electing a *gasp* liberal?

It's not as though Republicans elect very many moderates, either.

quote:

Thats a pretty messed up conscience then. How concieted can they possibly be to think that the world would be so better off in their liberal paradise

As if the conservatives don't think the same thing...

quote:

Not necessarily true.

Yes, the middle class does get shafted. I'm not going to deny that. But what I'm talking about is the very, very low class..people that are denied first-class treatment for diseases like AIDS and TB. It's awful when a person cannot afford to pay for the ambulance that brought them to the hospital and then they can't get potentially life-saving treatment when they get to the hospital.

I just finished Mountains Beyond Mountains by Tracy Kidder. It's about this amazing doctor, Paul Farmer, who has been extremely successful at controlling and treating TB and drug-resistant TB in various TB hotspots. Anyways, Farmer has a clinic in Haiti where, basically, he treats people for free. I wish that there were more available options for very, very poor Americans. The poor and desolute, in this country, go ignored.

quote:

It strikes me unfair that the people who need the most help, get the least.

Not necessarily true. My family is anything but rich, yet we get a fair deal on health insurance. The difference is that my dad supports five people on a low-paying job, as opposed to leeching off welfare or something. Often, the people that need the most help need to help themselves.

Thats a pretty messed up conscience then. How concieted can they possibly be to think that the world would be so better off in their liberal paradise... everything is about balance, it goes back to ancient times. Everything in moderation, give and take, yin and yang... every thing has an equal opposite. Politics are no different, the country wouldn't work if there wasn't two or more parties, so it seems pretty god damn retaded that each party would try to make theirs have such a majority that they can control everything.

quote:

The will of the democrat voters in CT is that of sheep... The liberal way or the highway.

Is it so awful that they're voting their conscience?

Thank you for proving my point... Party loyalty which you apparently dont like, is the reason Leiberman is not running on the D ticket. The will of the democrat voters in CT is that of sheep... The liberal way or the highway. Thats an awful frustrating thing, especially when Lieberman got 48% of the vote. Which according to liberals is not a mandate. think about it this way, Leiberman will split the democrats vote, and he will split the republican vote.

The reason all the dems want leiberman to drop is because their poster child Lamont is going to get his ass handed to him in November by Leiberman.

quote:

You would ratehr have someone that is completely loyal to one way of thinking, rather than have someone who can see another point of view every once in a while.

No. I would rather have someone with whom I agree. Wouldn't you? Lieberman has been a staunch supporter of the war and has refused to admit that mistakes have been made. Lieberman is "completely loyal to the way of thinking" that the war was justified and beneficial.

quote:

Your a god damn sheep.you've proven it over and over.

How am I a "sheep"? Yes, I am liberal, but not rabidly so. I support Israel. I do not support Kyoto. I believe in global warmings but think that scientists are exagerating it beyond belief. Plenty of Dems still support the war. I have been against it from the beginning. That's not a very sheeplike position.

You're right. Unless the GOP gets its act together in CT, either Lamont or Lieberman will win.

quote:

Party loyalty is the reason we have all these problems.

I am all for independence from the party. There needs to be more of it. However, Lieberman was rejected by his party. I wish he wouldn't be so bitter about it and respect the will of the voters. In most primaries, the loser bows out of the race and backs the winner. It happens all of the time. Why not in CT?