Lieberman is out...

The party slides even further from the mainstream. ;(

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/09/democratic.primaries/index.html

Was really hoping folks would work towards the middle, but a particularly ugly cycle of campaign mudslinging really muddied the waters.

Fandros

Lieberman hewed too closely to Bush on the issue of Iraq, and people are tired of it. He also made a few dumb statements and ran a poor campaign, but with opposition to Iraq high and his viewpoint on the matter questionable (to be kind), the time was ripe for a strong challenger to take him out. Lieberman may run as an independent, and may yet maintain his seat.

This hardly swings the Democrats over the left precipice, and if you want to discuss far from the middle one only has to look at the Brownbacks, Frists, Santorums and the like on the Republican side of the aisle.

Lastly, no one seems to have paid any attention to Cynthia McKinney's difficult primary contest, but she also lost.

Not to mention people really like Lamont.

Lots of good things about this man. He isnt out of the mainstream at all. Joe became too much of Senator of the United States than a Senator of Connecticut and his repeated runs at higher office and his coziness with GWB hurt him. Lieberman is showing exactly why he needed to be voted out with his declaration of his independent run even before the final vote was counted.

You lost Joe, fair and square. The Democratic Party has been very good to Joe Lieberman for 18 years, and he repays that loyalty by acting like his senate seat is some birthright or Feudal title. I started not liking this guy when he softstepped in the Cheney debate.

Lieberman is showing exactly why he needed to be voted out with his declaration of his independent run even before the final vote was counted.

While accurate at face value, he didn't announce that he was going to run as an Independant until he'd already conceded the Primary to Lamont. Not quite a fair reason to say that's why he needed to be voted out. People concede elections that aren't fully tabulated all the time.

Anyway, to quote to a friend I was talking to this morning...

"Anyone who thinks that everything to left of Joe Lieberman is "extreme", needs to have their definition of extreme examined"

Joe was a conservative democrat, now he just a conservative.

I've always thought Joe as more Liberterian.
He's hawkish when it comes to the defence of our country and he believes that government should stay out of the bedroom.
A Conservative would be saying "Dem gays is holdin hands!!! GIT A ROPE!"

Lastly, no one seems to have paid any attention to Cynthia McKinney's difficult primary contest, but she also lost.


While I have a lot of respect for Joe, I am going to raise a glass and toast the voters who ousted McKinney for their show of intelligence.

Really, just the flap with hitting the security guard for not recognizing her and stopping her was enough to toss this ego-driven lady to the curb.

The party slides even further from the mainstream.

Yeah, but the Republicans will continue to distance themselves from the worst president ever and slide back toward the mainstream again........

you were referring to Republicans, right? :p

Both sides actually, and I'm a Lieberman fan so was sad to see someone who worked both sides of the aisle outted.

Fandros

Was just joking with ya....I still like McCain for pretty much that reason...he could be a uniting influence on this country.

The only thing I don't like about Lierberman is his stance on the war...and I'm not sure that matters any more, let me explain. Oppossed from the beginning, opposed to it now or in favor always, we have it...and it needs to be solved. Whether you admonish or applaud Bush for his handling of the war, the war is still there....and it needs to be solved. We need to do what's right there...though the answer there still seems to elude us.

Both sides actually, and I'm a Lieberman fan so was sad to see someone who worked both sides of the aisle outted.

Fandros

The one plus I see, and only one, to Joe losing the primary is that if he chooses not to run as independent he will have more time to devote to stumping for the McCain-Lieberman ticket. :D

While I have a lot of respect for Joe, I am going to raise a glass and toast the voters who ousted McKinney for their show of intelligence.

Really, just the flap with hitting the security guard for not recognizing her and stopping her was enough to toss this ego-driven lady to the curb.


Right on, she was a complete knit-wit and should have been gone ages ago.

Another loser in the 2006 primaries, Republican Rep. Joe Schwarz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Schwarz). A moderate, he was defeated by fundamentalist preacher Tim Walberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Walberg), who had the backing of Michigan Right to Life and the Club for Growth.

Further polarization, indeed.

God speaking of Right to Life people....

Yesterday in York PA some group arranged to have a plane towing a picture and sign of a 8 week aborted fetus and some verbiage about Right to Life fly over the area. It was huge and clearly visible and disgusting IMO but free speech at work nonetheless I suppose.

I worry about people who invest in a candidate solely b/c of his/her stance on abortion. I think it's a silly thing to care about when there's so much else that needs focus.

I worry about people who invest in a candidate solely b/c of his/her stance on abortion. I think it's a silly thing to care about when there's so much else that needs focus.

While I agree that voting in a candidate based on 1 issue isn't very smart, abortion happens to be a pretty big issue.
It might come as a suprise to many of you, but I'm for a woman's right to chose.
Abortion is perfectly natural in the animal kingdom if the mother's life is in danger, or the unborn baby is deformed in some way.
However, I don't think abortion should be used as birth control. A perfectly fine baby, and a healthy mother isn't the right formula for an abortion. I think if either or both are in danger, then it should be an option that is explored.
Given that, it's still the mother's right to chose. I don't have the right to impose what I believe on others.
To some people, however, it's the most important issue on the table. Just because it isn't important to you, doesn't mean its not important.

I think it's a woman's body and she has a right along with her partner/parents to choose the right path. I'm not in favor of just wontonly aborting babies after slutting around but this issue only won't make me vote for or against a person running for office. And finatics on both sides scare the shit out of me.

See, I don't care if a person is Republican or Democrat anymore.

I care if they are so far out they should have their own newly designated party title.

Maybe Extreme right should be the Religious right (Pat Robertson)
Maybe Extreme left should be the Shadow Party aka George Sorus (sp)

With the majority of America actually falling well inbetween these two it's going to fall down to who has the most money/media influence.

Look for increasing voter apathy imho.

Fandros

FYI. Ned Lamont voted with Republicans 80% of the time during his 8 years as Selectman of Greenwich, CT

Lamont grew up in Syosset, NY and is the heir to the fortune of his great-grandfather, Thomas W. Lamont, who was a partner of the banking and finance firm J. P. Morgan & Co. After graduating from Phillips Exeter Academy in 1972, Ned Lamont earned a bachelor's degree from Harvard University in 1976 and a Masters of Public and Private Management from what is now known as the Yale School of Management in 1980. He began his career working for a small newspaper in Ludlow, VT.[3]

Lamont then entered the cable television industry, managing the startup of Cablevision's operation in Fairfield County, Connecticut. In 1984, he founded, and is currently president and chairman of, Lamont Digital Systems, a builder and operator of advanced telecommunications networks for college campuses and residential gated communities, with over 150,000 subscribers. The company's finances are private, though it currently has 35 employees, down from 100 in 2001.

Before running for the U.S. Senate, Lamont was elected and served as selectman in the town of Greenwich, Connecticut, for eight years (two terms), chaired the state investment advisory council, and served on many civic boards.

His father, Ted (Edward M. Sr.), was an economist who worked with the Marshall Plan which helped reconstruct Europe after World War II.[8] He later served in the Nixon administration in Housing and Urban Development. Ted Lamont is now an unaffiliated voter, having last voted for a Republican in 1988. Since then he has voted Democratic. He told The Hartford Courant that "Eastern Moderates no longer have a place in the GOP."[9]

Also he was an organizer of debates with the Brookings Institute, a VERY centrist Think Tank.

What makes this guy extremist? What makes him "George Soros"? I dont get it.
His key issues that he focused on in his campaign were not radical at all.
1. Lamont supports getting the troops off the front line in Iraq and letting the Iraqis take over security for their own country. Hardly an extreme position.

2. Lamont supports Gay Marriage rights. This is in direct opposition to Liebermans stand. Controversial, but hardly fringe.

3. Progressive Tax Code. Higher incomes pay higher percentage of tax. You may not agree with the economic benefits/detrimients of this policy, but it is pretty mainstream democratic in basis.

4. Energy Independence.. Uhh Hello? Why are there still people who are AGAINST this?

With the majority of America actually falling well inbetween these two it's going to fall down to who has the most money/media influence.
For the time being, it's going to fall down to how many Americans in that majority regard as disastrous the Republican control of the Executive and Legislative branches over the last few years and choose to give the Democrats a chance to improve the situation.

Nah, sadly the Democratic machine is forcing more voters into an apathetic state.

When are you going to hear this, you being the Dems, you cannot run on a damn platform of "We're not Republicans but we have no plan either".

It's not going to work for this this time either....a party of no vision is not a party.

Fandros

I wish the party thing would just die, it's becoming more and more ridiculous. My father is the type of voter I fear - He will always vote the Republican candidate, because that candidate is Republican, no other reason. He's 100% Bush just because Bush is a Republican. We recently discussed how I don't care for Arizona's governor - she's an idiot - and he explained that all of her problems are because the government is run by Democrats. Yes dad, that's exactly the problem. :rolleyes:

The idea of being able to identify people by party is a nice idea, but it's obvious that candidates from every group don't stick strictly by their party lines. We're continuing to stray farther from, heaven forbid, judging a candidate by their issues and character, and focusing more on party lines. The Democrats may do very well in the election with their platform of, "At least we're not Republicans," and that really worries me because we're even more likely to get some new goobs in office.

The extreme desire to relate to a party, and be against the opposing party, is a poison in this country.

Nah, sadly the Democratic machine is forcing more voters into an apathetic state.
Not at all. If voters grow more apathetic it's because a) both parties have had their share of problems with corruption over the years (right now it just happens to be the Republicans who stand out most in that regard); and b) they are frustrated by increasing polarization and the nastiness of political campaigning over the years. The Lieberman-Lamont race was nothing compared to every presidential election since Willie Horton. Blaming it all on the Democratic "machine" (which is nothing compared to the Republican apparti -- especially support channeled through extreme groups) completely ignores the greater reality.
When are you going to hear this, you being the Dems, you cannot run on a damn platform of "We're not Republicans but we have no plan either".

It's not going to work for this this time either....a party of no vision is not a party.
"Stay the course" isn't vision. Even some Republicans are seeing that now. Democrats do have ideas, perhaps too many of them too over-analzyed. In today's soundbite culture, it's far easier to say, "omg no cut and run," than to actually spell out the intricacies of a given problem. Dems have a message to sell, they're just not good at the packaging (something at which the Repubs excel).

Dems have a message to sell, they're just not good at the packaging (something at which the Repubs excel).

Maybe they need to recruit some of the RINO candidates like Schwartznegger, to help them with that....

Right on, she was a complete knit-wit and should have been gone ages ago.


No, no, no, it was the Voting machines that were to blame....
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,208467,00.html

AUGUSTA, Ga. — Rep. Cynthia McKinney (http://javascript<b></b>:siteSearch('Cynthia%20McKinney');), in her first public appearance since losing her re-election bid last week, said Tuesday that the black community needs to oppose electronic voting (http://javascript<b></b>:siteSearch('electronic%20voting');) machines, which she warned can be used to steal elections.

On an interesting note it would appear Lieberman has a real shot at winning via an Ind tag. That would speak volumes for folks sick of the two party bs going on atm.

Might be a nice check and balance or a wake up call for those swinging wide of where most of America resides.

Fandros

On a tangent here, electronic voting machines DO need to be opposed until they can be properly secured. They are not currently reliable enough to be trusted.

Bruce Schneier's thoughts: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2004/11/the_problem_wit.html

Unfortunately, electronic voting machines -- although presented as the solution -- have largely made the problem worse. This doesn't mean that these machines should be abandoned, but they need to be designed to increase both their accuracy, and people's trust in their accuracy. This is difficult, but not impossible.
Computer security experts are unanimous on what to do. (Some voting experts disagree, but I think we're all much better off listening to the computer security experts. The problems here are with the computer, not with the fact that the computer is being used in a voting application.) And they have two recommendations:

1. DRE machines must have a voter-verifiable paper audit trails (sometimes called a voter-verified paper ballot). This is a paper ballot printed out by the voting machine, which the voter is allowed to look at and verify. He doesn't take it home with him. Either he looks at it on the machine behind a glass screen, or he takes the paper and puts it into a ballot box. The point of this is twofold. One, it allows the voter to confirm that his vote was recorded in the manner he intended. And two, it provides the mechanism for a recount if there are problems with the machine.

2. Software used on DRE machines must be open to public scrutiny. This also has two functions. One, it allows any interested party to examine the software and find bugs, which can then be corrected. This public analysis improves security. And two, it increases public confidence in the voting process. If the software is public, no one can insinuate that the voting system has unfairness built into the code. (Companies that make these machines regularly argue that they need to keep their software secret for security reasons. Don't believe them. In this instance, secrecy has nothing to do with security.)

Computerized systems with these characteristics won't be perfect -- no piece of software is -- but they'll be much better than what we have now. We need to start treating voting software like we treat any other high-reliability system. The auditing that is conducted on slot machine software in the U.S. is significantly more meticulous than what is done to voting software. The development process for mission-critical airplane software makes voting software look like a slapdash affair. If we care about the integrity of our elections, this has to change.

(Bruce Schneier is a highly respected cryptologist and computer security expert. A few years ago an NSA employee commented to me that Schneier's book Applied Cryptography is considered "the Old Testament of cryptology" within the NSA. I'm only bringing this up because I'm not sure how well known he is outside of computer science circles. Maybe people have heard of him because of Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon?)

Heard of Schneier both through the excellent Cryptonomicon and through looking into the voting machine issue. Yeah, they're terribly insecure. Democracy > convenience.