I think it shows weakness in the Democratic Party, as wel as the left in general. Stupid libs.
2006-09-20 15:31:53 · 14 answers · asked by Jason 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Very simple - the majority of Democrats just don't take the threat of Islamic terrorism seriously.
Lieberman's down fall was the direct result of his honest assessment of the war in Iraq.
2006-09-20 15:39:42 · answer #1 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Personally, I think the Democrats made a mistake on this one. First, the Democrats are not in control of the White House or Congress. That means they must include more people to get more votes. Instead, they vote out a Democrat that has voted straight Democrat, with one exception (the War in Iraq). Democrats at one time were the most inclusive party, that had the working class on up. However, take a look at the results on this election. Lamont carried the upper middle class white people, while Lieberman still carried the working class. It's beyond weakness. It's political suicide.
http://politicalarithmetik.blogspot.com/2006/08/ct-sen-results-by-ses-and-race.html
2006-09-20 22:47:54 · answer #2 · answered by MEL T 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It shows Lieberman's stance on the war isn't acceptable to voters in the democratic primary.
There's a real disconnect between the democratic rank and file activists and the party leadership. The activists hate the war with a passion, but most of the leadership is pro-war. They talk in terms like "we shouldn't have gone in, but now that we're in, we have to stay" - and the bottom line is that they won't bring the war to an end. The activists don't like it much, but they'll hold their noses and vote for candidates that take that stance.
Lieberman's stance is different. He says Bush was right to go in, he's right now, he's been right all along, and we need to stay the course. That stance is unacceptable to democratic voters. Lieberman has stepped up his criticism of Rumsfeld since losing the primary, but everyone knows that's just to attract as many democratic voters as he can.
Interestingly, Lieberman's loss made a lot of republicans wake up. A lot of pro-war republicans are now much less rah-rah about the war, and that's especially true of republicans in tight races.
Personally, I'm glad Lieberman lost the primary, and I hope he loses in the general election. He's one of the senators I like the least, and not just because of the war - he's on the opposite side from me on virtually every issue.
2006-09-20 22:42:57 · answer #3 · answered by Bramblyspam 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
it's the same thing you guys are doing to McCain? (except that will probably cost you the presidency, instead of just a senate seat)
I need to borrow your rose colored glasses sometime... the world must be really different when you're looking through those?
and, let's rememer.. .it's only one very blue state... that hardly is the view of all democrats everywhere... the Lieberman primary was not a national election..
2006-09-20 22:43:26 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Jason, what about democracy do you not understand. Joe Lieberman may be a good man but he was not representing the people of Connecticut and the people VOTED and their voice was heard, that is the way it is suppose to work. He was not living up to the expectations of the democratic party in that state.
2006-09-20 22:36:12 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
I think it shows his true nature. He is a sore loser like the GOP called him back in 2000. He didnt have the fortitude to run just for VP back then and hedged his bets by running for Senate at the same time. This time he lost the Primary and ignored the results and is running as an independent. He needs to step down graciously or be remembered as a bad loser.
2006-09-20 23:00:09 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think it is great. He and the democratic nominee will split the democrat vote. He is one of the few liberals that I don't mind. Too bad we don't have a few more of him in Mass so that Kerry and Kennedy would be out of jobs.
2006-09-20 22:40:06 · answer #7 · answered by de19952 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Lieb has been slobbing GWB nob, he realized that dems aren't gonna seel out when it comes to civil liberties, the very thig that idiots like you take for granted, but will blame the liberals on once thier gone. The dems may not have a plan, they may suck, but what's it say about the *ssholes you vote for that HAVE BEEN IN POWER and still cannot get it right EVEN WITH UNLIMITED SPENDING at the cost of the american people. STUPID CONSERVATIVE!
Go to school Beee otch!
2006-09-20 22:39:14 · answer #8 · answered by ragajungle 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think it shows how much liberal democrats hold people accountable for supporting Bush and his decisions. Bush has enraged many voters besides the democratic base. Its why you see some dissent nowadays from the republican senators or congressman, most dont wanna go back to their district labeled a Bush crony.
2006-09-20 22:35:40 · answer #9 · answered by ll_Zodiaco.Piton_ll 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Actually I'm glad. I would feel much better voting independent than democrat. I like Joe and he will get my vote before RINO McCain does.
2006-09-20 22:36:49 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋