Simple question for the Prognosticators

[sophia jane]

As for poor Joe, he's a good man not because he supported Bush initiatives but he voted his conscience. And what about his constituents who are in the military doing their duty for us? He shouldn't support them?

I was going to let this slide, but I can't because I'm so sick of people trying to say that Dems don't support the troops. Lieberman or any other politician or person can support the troops without writing Bush a blank check to declare war on a country under false pretenses. In my mind, in fact, it's far more patriotic to stand up for the things this country was founded on, like the Constitution, than to send our men and women over to a country that clearly does not want us there, so that our troops, as well way too many civilians can be killed.

 

[oggbashan]

I was going to let this slide, but I can't because I'm so sick of people trying to say that Dems don't support the troops. Lieberman or any other politician or person can support the troops without writing Bush a blank check to declare war on a country under false pretenses. In my mind, in fact, it's far more patriotic to stand up for the things this country was founded on, like the Constitution, than to send our men and women over to a country that clearly does not want us there, so that our troops, as well way too many civilians can be killed.

This is another difference that UK voters find difficult. All three major parties support the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and there is no doubt about their sincerity.

What they disagree about is whether the troops should have been asked to do what they are doing, whether the current strategy is valid, or what should happen now.

Our politicians see our troops as executing the policy set by our Government. Whether that policy is right is debatable.

The troops should be given the resources necessary to carry out the policy and that the politicians and country should support the troops. That is agreed and common to all parties.

Og

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I was going to let this slide, but I can't because I'm so sick of people trying to say that Dems don't support the troops. Lieberman or any other politician or person can support the troops without writing Bush a blank check to declare war on a country under false pretenses. In my mind, in fact, it's far more patriotic to stand up for the things this country was founded on, like the Constitution, than to send our men and women over to a country that clearly does not want us there, so that our troops, as well way too many civilians can be killed.

I don't recall me saying the don't support the troops...well I guess except for Kerry that is. As I recall they ALL voted for the invasion of Iraq Republican and Democrat alike.

 

[shereads]

I was going to let this slide, but I can't because I'm so sick of people trying to say that Dems don't support the troops. Lieberman or any other politician or person can support the troops without writing Bush a blank check to declare war on a country under false pretenses. In my mind, in fact, it's far more patriotic to stand up for the things this country was founded on, like the Constitution, than to send our men and women over to a country that clearly does not want us there, so that our troops, as well way too many civilians can be killed.

A-freaking-men. I can only imagine how depressing it must be, risking one's life on foreign ground and hearing that a lot of people back home think the war was, is and will be counterproductive. But no amount of cheerleading can make Iraq anything but what it is: a mistake. Pretending it's a good idea isn't supportive; it's psychotic.

By what logic is pouring more lives and money into a bottomless pit 'supportive'? When did unquestioning allegiance become the measure by which citizens show their love of democracy?

Some of us were failing to support the troops - by the definition of Bush's blind faithful - back when the death toll was still at zero. We continued failing to support the troops when there were fewer than a dozen dead..a hundred...a thousand...and long after the death toll ceased to be front-page news. The other side has supported them to death.

If there had been less flag-waving and more thinking; if all that with-us-or-against-us rhetoric had fallen on deaf ears, as it deserved, thousands of men and women might still be alive, whole, and ready to fight where fighting makes sense. Those with the courage to put their lives on the line might be doing so for a cause that had nearly universal support, including in much of the Islamic world: finishing what we started in Afghanistan, which harbored the people who attacked us. As a bonus, we might now have enough troops available and ready to address the presence of WMD in places where no evidence has to be 'shaped.'

With supporters like Bush/Cheney, who needs enemies?

 

[shereads]

I don't recall me saying the don't support the troops...well I guess except for Kerry that is. As I recall they ALL voted for the invasion of Iraq Republican and Democrat alike.

Which part of this is failing to get through: Congress based its decision on 'shaped evidence' (also known as 'partial evidence,' or 'lies.') They trusted the evidence because they trusted the president.

God. I wish we could just draw the border now and forget trying to co-exist. This country is divided along lines that don't just disagree; we use entirely different thought processes. I wouldn't mind the density, if only I didn't have to sink with you.

 

[rgraham666]

Paul Wellstone, God rest his soul, did not vote for the Iraq War.

 

[sophia jane]

As I recall they ALL voted for the invasion of Iraq Republican and Democrat alike.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/liberalleadership/a/IraqNayVote_3.htm

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I've decided I'm not going to worry about the election. I see it this way...

If the Republicans win it will be more of the same... Nothing happens except more tax cuts for the wealthy who don't need it, gas prices will go back up to $3.50/gallon and the Iraq mess will drag on.

If the Democrats win it will gird lock and nothing will happen but Iraq will still drag on, gas prices will remain unstable and the tax cuts for the rich is continue until 2008.

So, what's the fucking difference?

 

[shereads]

Paul Wellstone, God rest his soul, did not vote for the Iraq War.

Once in a while, there is courage.

 

[rgraham666]

Once in a while, there is courage.

Yep.

The paranoid side of me still wonders about that plane crash.

 

[sophia jane]

I've decided I'm not going to worry about the election. I see it this way...

If the Republicans win it will be more of the same... Nothing happens except more tax cuts for the wealthy who don't need it, gas prices will go back up to $3.50/gallon and the Iraq mess will drag on.

If the Democrats win it will gird lock and nothing will happen but Iraq will still drag on, gas prices will remain unstable and the tax cuts for the rich is continue until 2008.

So, what's the fucking difference?

There's probably not going to be a sizeable difference between now and the way things will be under a Democratic Congress because it will take a long time to undo the damage of the last six years. That said- I think there's a possiblity of a HUGE difference between a Republican Congress and a Democratic Congress over the next two years. Putting the Dems in control at least puts some brakes on the president and, in my opinion, there's alot to be said for that right now.

 

[Pure]

remember this 'nuclear option' thing (a way of ramming through appointments). ASSUMING the Reps retain razor thin majority, this becomes not longer assuredly available. Indeed SC nominees would be in a whole different ball game.

I'm sad to hear that Chafee may bite the dust. He doesn't deserve it;

Santorum--fluke of the GWB years-- hypocrite through and through.
Assuming S. loses, anyone want to party Tues night?

 

[Huckleman2000]

First, I have to take you Leiberman supporters to task -
You say that his responsibility is to his constituents, not his party - do you really think that the majority of voters in CT support the Iraq war? Do you think they supported the ridiculous Terri Schaivo fly-by-night legislation? Do you think they supported Alito for the SC? (Joe's vote against confirmation was negated by his cloture vote - the one that actually mattered if he didn't want Alito on the court). Do you think CT is anti-abortion rights? Do you think hiring 'volunteers' to disrupt the campaign of the lawfully elected candidate of your party, and burying those expenditures as a 'petty cash' line item totalling many hundreds of thousands of dollars?

The only people who still view Lieberman as the principled and independent moralist that he poses as are Republicans, who know that he is the best they can do in CT and are the main supporters of his candidacy. The lack of support of Ned Lamont by the national Democratic party power-brokers is glaring, and those chickens will come to roost in the 08 primaries.

Leiberman is the antithesis of a principled politician - he sees this election as a way to personally hold the Senate hostage to his own dictates. If he turns out to be the 51st Democrat in the caucus, Democrats will rue the day they ever trusted his whiny ass.

 

[S-Des]

First, I have to take you Leiberman supporters to task -
You say that his responsibility is to his constituents, not his party - do you really think that the majority of voters in CT support the Iraq war? Do you think they supported the ridiculous Terri Schaivo fly-by-night legislation? Do you think they supported Alito for the SC? (Joe's vote against confirmation was negated by his cloture vote - the one that actually mattered if he didn't want Alito on the court). Do you think CT is anti-abortion rights? Do you think hiring 'volunteers' to disrupt the campaign of the lawfully elected candidate of your party, and burying those expenditures as a 'petty cash' line item totalling many hundreds of thousands of dollars?

The only people who still view Lieberman as the principled and independent moralist that he poses as are Republicans, who know that he is the best they can do in CT and are the main supporters of his candidacy. The lack of support of Ned Lamont by the national Democratic party power-brokers is glaring, and those chickens will come to roost in the 08 primaries.

Leiberman is the antithesis of a principled politician - he sees this election as a way to personally hold the Senate hostage to his own dictates. If he turns out to be the 51st Democrat in the caucus, Democrats will rue the day they ever trusted his whiny ass.

You couldn't be more wrong, Huck. This is not a straight Democracy. Politicians aren't supposed to make decisions by polls (or by who gives them the most money). Lieberman is exactly who he always has been. The voters elect him because they know he's going to do what he feels is right. The second he doesn't, they can get rid of him. He is a moderate, leaning both Left and Right at times (like the majority of the population). Does he make far-left leaning people happy? No. Neither does he make Republicans happy (since he votes against them the vast majority of the time). It worked against him in the primary, because people who disagreed with his war vote (and possibly some of the things you mentioned) voted for change. However, he's going to stomp all over Lamont in the general election because his views are more representative of the majority of Conneticut voters (don't bother trying to prove me wrong...he's going to kick Lamont's ass, so people obviously prefer him).

 

[Pure]

i don't know a lot about Lieberman, but Huck do you have a problem with a 'pro Iraq war Democrat'? with a 'socially conservative [e.g. anti abortion] Democrat?

i agree i'm not overjoyed to see 'fellow travellers' with Bush, Rove, Rummy, Falwell, Haggard, but such people are not *necessarily* unprincipled.

what's odd is that the Republicans are distancing themselves from Bush, to prevent harm. Santorum is in deep shit, as uncritical Bushie. yet Lieberman rides high as a 'fellow traveler.' i suppose some just say, 'he must have balls.' (Santorum's lack is pretty obvious.)

 

[Pure]

well, Reps have held the Tenn. Senate seat--Corker. Lieberman cakewalks.


Tammy is lagging. any news?

OH. SANTORUM IS HISTORY.

 

[S-Des]

well, Reps have held the Tenn. Senate seat--Corker. Lieberman cakewalks.


Tammy is lagging. any news?

OH. SANTORUM IS HISTORY.

Tammy's going to lose. I'm really bummed about that. I was also bummed about Ford. They say people are getting tired of negative ads, but here's a prime example of how the nastiest, dirtiest, most racist ad turned around a losing effort for the scumbag who won (oh yeah, he said he didn't approve of the ad...gee, nevermind ). People suck sometimes. We're going to have shitty politicians until they stop being so stupid. I can't even tell you if Ford was a better candidate, but that ad made me want him to kick Corker's ass.

 

[Pure]

there are a couple good possibilities: Webb is leading in VA, and McCaskell in Missouri. 1:47 EST. The Virginia thing is hard to believe.

 

[Huckleman2000]

What a night!
Webb has opened up about a 12000 vote lead in VA, and MT is about ready to be called for Tester.

Senate Goes DEM!!!

Assuming Joe does what he says and remains a Democrat.

 

[sophia jane]

there are a couple good possibilities: Webb is leading in VA, and McCaskell in Missouri. 1:47 EST. The Virginia thing is hard to believe.

McCaskell won in Missouri, and they're supposed to call Montana soon. It's been an interesting night for sure.

On a more local note, the amendment to ban gay marriage and domestic partnerships in the state constitution passed here in Wisconsin, so we were all really bummed. To say the least.

 

[S-Des]

What a night!
Webb has opened up about a 12000 vote lead in VA, and MT is about ready to be called for Tester.

Senate Goes DEM!!!

Assuming Joe does what he says and remains a Democrat.

Say it with me, Huck. "Joe is good...Joe is good..." C'mon, it'll make you feel better.

 

[wazhazhe]

Did anyone else hear Harold Brown Jr.'s concession speech? I have been impressed with him throughout the campaign and now am even more so. I personally look forward to following his political career in the future.

 

[JamesSD]

Well, it's 1 AM on the West Coast, and time for me to fall asleep. Both CNN and FOX News have the Senate at 50-50. I enjoyed checking FOX's website tonight for a worst case scenario; I figured if FOX called a race for the Democrats, it was a lock, and once FOX said they had one the house, it was guaranteed.

I'll give credit, I think both sites tried hard to be fair and balanced (pardon the bad joke) in calling races, and were rarely far off from each other. FOX called WA a lot later than CNN did, and called NV and AZ earlier, but the gaps weren't huge.

I diidn't expect Missouri to be called by now, but since FOX has it blue, I'll buy it.

Although the Dems have slim leads in both MT and VA a this point, I'm still sticking with the 50-50 tie I predicted last night. Both races are so close that the most likely scenario is one going one way, and the other the other.

It was an exciting election night. I'm sure I'll have plenty of interesting articles to read online tommorrow.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Ok... the elections are over and all I have to say is

SORRY GWB, BUT WE ARE LIVING IN A BLUE COUNTRY AGAIN!!

 

[Guest]

Ok... the elections are over and all I have to say is

SORRY GWB, BUT WE ARE LIVING IN A BLUE COUNTRY AGAIN!!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9c/Smurf1.gif