2006-08-09 00:39:23 · 19 answers · asked by rayess00 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Lieberman just doesn't get it. He turned his back on his state and now his state has spoken. He is going to try to run as an independent but keeps calling himself a democrat. These people just hate to give up power.
Honestly, everyone should get off their sofas and vote. We need a major change in government, and it is time to take part.
2006-08-09 00:56:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it means that the democratic party has become dictatorial, that is if a politician doesn't listen to the party line, he'll loose support.
This is typical of the democratic party: don't think, we'll do the thinking for you, just repeat what we say...
There are various democrats that support the war, but DNC did not dare go against them; Lieberman's fault was supporting Bush, and that sin cannot be forgiven.
My prediction is Lieberman will win the election in November or will pull enough votes from the democrats to have the republican candidate will the senatorial seat.
2006-08-09 08:56:06 · answer #2 · answered by Joseph N 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am from Connecticut and the problem with Joe Liberman was he was to busy to bother with the people of this state. I know of many people who tried to contact his office for help,including a young man in Iraq to no avail. I guess he just couldn't be bothered.
2006-08-09 09:20:04 · answer #3 · answered by msjune 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
possibly, but it is definitely a clue that the extreme left hates Bush so much that they will try and run out of office a man that could (should have, some will argue) have been our vice-president. He agrees with Bush more or less on the issue of the war in Iraq that many people that root for the Democrats like they root for their baseball team (as in die-hard, there for their team NO MATTER WHAT) have abandoned him.
2006-08-09 07:52:10 · answer #4 · answered by Richard B 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It sure is a good piece of evidence that Americans think so. The man who beat him was almost an unknown, but he was anti-war. Lieberman was coming out strongly in support of the war. It may not mean that this is universal, since Connecticut is apparently a fairly liberal state, but it does show the tide may finally be turning.
2006-08-09 07:45:03 · answer #5 · answered by cross-stitch kelly 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lieberman was wrong on Iraq, wrong for the Democrat party, good riddance.
Let this be a warning for any right leaning, Republican kiss @ss, your days are numbered.
2006-08-09 08:08:28 · answer #6 · answered by coonrapper 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Liberman was too open with his Zionist support. He should have been more secretive.
Zionism= Nazism.
Same ideology different words.
2006-08-09 08:02:37 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who's Jozef? I think this is a clue that you might be wrong.
2006-08-09 07:50:40 · answer #8 · answered by Slug 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. It means that spineless liberals have won a primary election. The real deal is yet to come.
2006-08-09 07:46:06 · answer #9 · answered by christopher s 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Just shows that Connecticut democrats are wrong and moving farther left.
2006-08-09 07:58:19 · answer #10 · answered by Huevos Rancheros 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋