Home > Uncategorized > One down . . . . . .

One down . . . . . .

One by one, we will take this country back from the neo-cons. This is a GREAT first start.

Lieberman loses in Democratic primary

Three-term Sen. Joe Lieberman fell to anti-war challenger Ned Lamont in Connecticut’s Democratic primary Tuesday, the first major election-year test of sentiment over the conflict that has claimed the lives of more than 2,500 U.S. troops in Iraq.

“Tonight we voted for big change,” a jubilant Lamont told supporters. Unbowed, Lieberman vowed to fight on, announcing plans to run as an independent this fall.

“Of course I am disappointed by the results, but I am not discouraged,” Lieberman said. “For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot and will not let that result stand.”

Lamont won with 52 percent of the vote, or 146,061, to 48 percent for Lieberman, with 136,042, with 99 percent of precincts reporting. Turnout was projected at twice the norm for a primary.

Lieberman’s loss made him only the fourth incumbent senator to lose a primary since 1980, and came just six years after he was the Democrats’ choice for vice president.

  1. Anonymous
    August 9, 2006 at 10:33 am

    I think Lieberman’s downfall was his Op-Ed piece on Iraq, about six months ago, in the Wall Street Journal, or something like that. He gave such a glowing review of life in Iraq and Hannity even read it on his show.

    Personally, I’ve never had much use for the guy and his holier than thou routine. I thought he pulled his punches with Cheney in the debate back in 2000 when he should have been all over the guy.

    Go Lamont!

  2. JerryDinAZ
    August 9, 2006 at 2:47 pm


  3. Anonymous
    August 9, 2006 at 6:51 pm

    It’s great having Jerry back in the discussion. Let’s hope all the other Republicans share his narrow-minded focus. They have no idea of how the country is deserting this Republican, conservative, rightwing agenda.

    Just wait until November and we can all say Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi!!!!!!!!!!

  4. Rich from Paso
    August 9, 2006 at 7:41 pm

    No anon, all you libs proved was that the Party of FDR is dead and the Democratic party is more than willing to cannabalize itself in its desparate, pathological desire to beat Bush anywhere they can. Since Dems haven’t been able to beat Bush at the ballot box, you’ve all resorted to defeating yourself. Face it, Joe was 95% liberal on everything but the war in Iraq and that 5% was enough for you and Dave and the rest of the Kooky Left to want him out. Joe is going to split your vote and may enable a Republican to win Joe’s seat. Oh, but you’ve all scored such a big victory! Do you punch yourself in the face and claim you won a fight, too?

  5. Mud
    August 9, 2006 at 8:43 pm

    We all can agree the current leadership committed this country to a war of choice based on bad or faulty intelligence. This war continues to loom as a bigger disaster then Vietnam. In his book “Fiasco”, Tom Ricks calls the Iraq war the biggest profligate foreign policy blunder in US history. And he is actually pro winning the war. The statistic tossed around is the majority or close to 60% of American citizens think the war was a mistake. I believe this Lieberman/Lamont vote says the country has seen what the Bush administration and Republicans do when in control of all three branches of government. No, things need to change … now.

    Newt Gingrich, remember him? He offered up a new Democrats’ slogan recently. It is two, simple words. “Had enough?”

  6. Adam Hill
    August 9, 2006 at 10:43 pm

    For those of you still enamored with the neo-con ideology, I’d like to know what you think of Francis Fukuyama’s AMERICA AT THE CROSSROADS. Now you actually have to read it, rather than Googling up someone else’s opinions. It’s a short book, and it’s powerful.

    (Surely you know that, until this disatrous war in Iraq, Fukuyama was perhaps the most respected neo-con intellectual–not a poseur pundit like Bill Kristol or Charles Krauthammer–but a real thinker who’s books have always been taken seriously by people on the left and the right.

  7. Kirk in SLO
    August 9, 2006 at 11:33 pm

    I’m loving this “neo-con” label that’s been thrust upon me. I’ve seen it thrown about, but only by libs who are attacking conservatives. A quick visit to wikipedia shows that it is typically used slanderously by libs.

    In keeping with tradition, I will no longer call liberals “libs” for short, and will instead use an objectionable label to further incite them. Hence, they shall now be referred to as “dumbass liberals.”

    Have a nice day.

  8. Dave Congalton
    August 10, 2006 at 3:51 am

    Hey Kirk,

    “Dumbass liberals?” That’s the best argument you can come up? You can’t respond intelligently to the issues being presented?

    George W. Bush’s days are numbered. The American people are wising up to what’s been going on in this White House. Iraq is now in civil war. We’ve blown it, pure and simple. We all know who the dumbass in this case is and history will never let him forget.

  9. Kirk In SLO
    August 10, 2006 at 4:20 am

    Dave, I’ve tried to respond intelligently. I’ve asked what the liberals would do if their people had been in the White House when this whole terrorism thing reared its ugly head and hit us all very closely on September 11th (yeah, I’ll save you the jab…Iraq didn’t attack the US).

    I got no response.

    Rich asked that you contact people he knows in Iraq, get a story other than what the New York Times reports.

    No response.

    Honest to God, I feel like I’m listening to Rush Limbaugh. The occasional good point thrown in here and there, but it’s hard to find it hidden amongst all the self-rightous bullshit.

    The left has no clear vision on what to do about Islamofacism. And saying, “Well, I don’t know what I’d do, but this ain’t it.” doesn’t count.

    I was a registered Democrat the first decade or so of my voting years, and I was the first in my family to say “enough” and leave a party that had abandoned me and my ideals. Hell, back then, they could at least tell me what their ideals were. These days, I just get “Well, they’re not the same as the evil/dumb/crazed George W Bush, and that’s good enough for us!” crap.

    I’m not a neo-con, a Christian fundamentalist, or even a die-hard Republican. To be quite honest, I’m not even that fond of Bush. But at least he had a plan.

    The Dems are all about “decision by indecision” and that just doesn’t work.

  10. MysticFire
    August 10, 2006 at 4:36 am


    RE: Dumbass Democrats….if the shoe fits…

    RE this comment posted by you to Kirk: “George W. Bush’s days are numbered. The American people are wising up to what’s been going on in this White House. Iraq is now in civil war. We’ve blown it, pure and simple. We all know who the dumbass in this case is and history will never let him forget.”

    Repeat, Repeat, Repeat, Repeat. Are you ever going to find something new to say about this situation?

    I still haven’t see you come up with an intelligently thought out plans of what YOU would do if you were president. Kirk’s totally right, all you can say is “What GWB is doing is wrong, I’d never do that”. Well put some thought in to it. What would you do? Are you taking Rich up on his offer of talking to a Shia Iraqi? Or are you just going to sit and criticize the government and not offer up any solutions?

    Your repetitive banter is getting REALLY old. Once again…buck up and support the people who are making the tough decisions. EVEN IF YOU DON’T AGREE! You’ll have a chance to change it in ’08. Until then stop bashing and start working toward a better future!

  11. Bob from San Luis
    August 10, 2006 at 6:01 am

    So, what would I do to combat terrorism if somehow I were suddenly the President of the United States? Somehow the right is confused about “terrorism”; as in the front on the war on terror is in Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, no matter what Bush or any member of PNAC would have you believe. So, first we force the political leaders in Iraq to step up and take over “their” nation and national security a.s.a.p., following the plans set forth by Rep. Murtha to redeploy most of the troops in Iraq to a nearby location with the ability to step back into Iraq quickly if the situation devolves to a predetermined point. In redeploying our troops immediately, we also remove the protection for the American contractors who have not fulfilled their obligations for rebuilding; the same contractors who have had their funding cut because most of the rebuilding projects haven’t been completed. By allowing Iraqi firms and other nations to compete for the ability to do the rebuilding and put Iraqis back to work.
    All current contracts related to national security should be reevaluated with the focus on putting those jobs out for competitive bid, then we will see those jobs completed, on time, on target cost wise, and we can have our ports equipped with scanners for cargo containers and our borders secured by manning our Border Patrol agency with the man power needed to due the job.
    We, as a nation, need to come to terms with what is the root cause of terrorism, and work towards eliminating what makes a normal healthy person get so desperate that they willfully want to harm innocent people because they feel some overwhelming need to lash out. How screwed up does someone have to be to strap on a vest loaded with explosives and kill themselves in order to kill others? Look, I’m sorry this is so long but fighting terrorism is not a function that can be reduced to a bumper sticker. There are many other steps that need to be accomplished as well but I think you might get the idea. I also don’t believe that staying the course is not one of them. Staying the course is only converting more desperate souls into terrorists, right now.

  12. Kirk In SLO
    August 10, 2006 at 2:31 pm

    While I couldn’t disagree with you more, Bob, I think you’re at least trying to step up to the question at hand. Unfortunately, you missed it just a bit.

    I’m not looking for an exit strategy. I’m looking for a bit of a rewind. You’re president BEFORE 9/11. No attacks on American soil, no war in Iraq. Then 9/11 happens. What do you do?

    (and Dave, we’re still looking for your response)

  13. Dave Congalton
    August 10, 2006 at 2:40 pm


    It’s a no-brainer. I have said repeatedly that I supported President Bush for the first six months after 9-11. I , like the vast majority of Americans, rallied around the man. We did the right thing by sending troops into Afganistan and wiping out the Taliban and hunting down Bin Laden. Our president was doing the right thing every step of the way.

    But then we took a major wrong turn. We had had a blueprint for invading Iraq since 1996 courtesy of the neo-cons. They took the opportunity of 9-11 to hijack this administration. It’s no secret that Bush deferred to Cheney on matters of foreign policy. It’s well-documented that Bush wanted to be a war time president and assure his place in history. He did not hesitate to go into Iraq.

    That was the mistake, Kirk, one that we will pay dearly for in the years to come. As is witnessed by the news coming out of England, we’ve had minimal impact in combating terrorism. Why? Because all of our resources, financial and military are bogged down in Iraq, in a war we can’t win. We are spending $6 to $8 billion PER MONTH over there. Just think of how much we could use that $$$$ for anti-terrorism.

    Meanwhile, Bin Laden remains on the loose.

    So what should we have done after 9-11? Exactly what we started out to do, what President Al Gore would have done. Wipe out the terrorist cells. Get Bin Laden. Keep your eye on the prize.

  14. Bob from San Luis
    August 10, 2006 at 5:46 pm

    Okay Kirk, you want to know what somebody else would have done that Bush didn’t do prior to 9/11; in other words, rewrite history from the “comfort” of my armchair. Instead of what I would have done, how about like Dave wrote, what would have President Gore have done. First, I don’t think he would have ignored all of the warnings from the Clinton Administration about terrorism, he would have continued to investigate and strengthen our defenses. His Justice Department wouldn’t have dropped the anti-terrorism ball by going after pornographers and draping the exposed breast of the statue of Lady Liberty in the Justice Building. Vice President Liberman would not have had “secret” energy task force meetings in the White House. President Gore would not have approved promotions to positions of power to political flunkies that had no experience and no expertise in the fields that many of the Bush appointees “enjoyed”. If, IF, 9/11 still happened on President Gore’s watch, one thing I can tell would not happen; he would not have gone into a third grade classroom after he was told that a commercial airliner had slammed into the World Trade Center. President Gore would have sent apologies to the class room teacher, excused himself and headed out immediately to take charge of the situation instead of sitting in the classroom for 7 plus minutes after being told that a second commercial airliner had slammed into the second building of the WTC. After that, President Gore would have actually caught bin Laden, and would have not illegally invaded Iraq. I would also bet that our borders would have been strengthened, and security at our airports would have been increased in a meaningful manner, not just having us take off our shoes.

  15. Kirk in SLO
    August 10, 2006 at 6:23 pm

    Well, I’ve typed a response in here about three times now, and each time cancelled it in frustration.

    No matter how hard I try, I just can’t get people to offer up a plan. Bob’s last message is 90% stuff that Al Gore wouldn’t have done. You have no clue what Al Gore would or wouldn’t have done. And you also don’t seem to have a clue about how to solve these problems, other than ranting and raving.

    I’m starting to understand why JerryD does things the way he does. A quick jab, then get out. Clean, simple, and not dragging yourself down into the name calling and muck that the liberals seem to be creating here.

    I was hoping to engage in some insightful debate, but it’s just the same thing over and over again. I’m tired, and I’m done.

    Good day.

  16. MysticFire
    August 10, 2006 at 7:34 pm

    Well…I’ve thought about leaving this blog a few times myself. I’ve definately stopped listening to the show, so I might as well leave here too. These subjects are old and tired, and completely derailed from reality anymore.

    So…on the note. I’m out.

  17. everett in los osos
    August 11, 2006 at 1:56 pm

    So, if Lieberman wins as an independant that means precisely what???
    If that happens ( look up “duh” in wikipediea ) the people who voted for Lamont are a fringe group in Conn. politics. Even if it’s close Lieberman will be a better representative of the people of his state.

  18. Rich from Paso
    August 12, 2006 at 3:44 am

    Kirk and Mysticfire…

    Welcome to my world. I have even been to Iraq and still these guys refuse to accept anything I have to say about the Iraq. Of course, the libs have no plan. It’s because they are about talking a problem to death instead of solving problems. Why is there still a War on Poverty almost 50 years later? Because a liberal has never, ever, ever solved anything.

    Oh, and Dave, You, my friend, are a coward for not accepting my challenge to e-mail an honest-to-God, swear on the Bible (I swear to God that my firend is real and an Iraqi Shia), shia Iraqi that resides in Iraq. If you can say it to us, because you’re so damn right and Kirk, Mysticfire, New Tone and I are so damn wrong, tell it to them, the Iraqi people. You are just speaking to the Bob and Santa Maria Bill choir and you do not have the strength and courage of your convictions to tell an Iraqi and his family that Saddam’s regime would be better than what they have now. You haven’t even mentioned it in the last couple of posts. I have totally smoked you out. I know what you are: all talk, no walk. Com’on Dave, say something on the subject.

  19. Dave Congalton
    August 13, 2006 at 8:13 am


    OK, let’s duke it out. First, I thank you for your service in Iraq, but how long ago was that, my friend? And, with all due respect, simply because you served in Iraq a few years ago does not make you the end-all, unqualified, absolute authority on Iraq. The song gets a little old after awhile. Give me a week and I could probably track down several Iraq vets who would disagree with you.

    Second, I’m not preaching to Bob or S.M. Bill or
    Michele, or anyone like that. I am on this blog to say that I am tired. I am tired of the lies and the deception, points too numerous to rehash here, but you know the routine.

    Go back over everything I have posted on this blog for the last several months. The bottom line is this: We are spending $6 billion a month in Iraq and the country is still sliding into civil war. You were a grunt over there, but earlier this month the top Pentagon generals — the EXPERTS — told Congress that civil war was likely. Civil war, Rich? That doesn’t sound like Mission Accomplished to me.

    Meanwhile, taking Hussein out has emboldened Iran and further complicated matters Bush’s poll numbers continue to drop as more Americans turn against the war. I do not need to defend my opinions to you, or anyone on this subject. I supported this President for the first six months after 9-11. He lost me when he took us into Iraq. Those troops, that money, should all be in Pakistan looking for Bin Laden. What happened in London this week reminds us that they’re still out there and Bush tried to cut $6 million in funds for Homeland Security to develop new anti-terror technology.

    So what would I tell your friend in Iraq? Well, I hope he’s better off now than he was five years ago. He may be. His neighbors may be. But the country is worse off, and so is the region. You refuse to look at the big picture, Rich. You have got to admit that things are not going, as planned in Iraq. We’re sending over more troops, not pulling them out. Troops there now have to stay longer. Age of enlistment has been raised (can Sean Hannity join now and go over?).

    I agree with the blogger who said Iraq in the single biggest foreign policy mistake in modern U.S. history.

    Finally, for you and your Iraqi friends, I turn this question around, Rich: What do we do about Iraq? How do we gain the upper hand? All you people say is that we can’t cut and run. OK, fine. So what do we do to start winning?

  20. Rich from Paso
    August 13, 2006 at 5:21 pm

    Since no liberal wishes to actually answer the “what would YOU have us do since the current plan is so bad” question, I will step up to the plate and answer it for you: We need to push our troops to the borders of Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. If we stop the cash money, weapons and the foreigners training the insurgents they will lack the resources to conduct their operations. Furthermore, before we do that, the United States should take down all of the militias. Give them a time period to disarm and once that period has passed the gloves come off. The Iraqis have control of about 75% of the country right now, it’s just not the 75% that shows up on the nightly news. I will ask the question again: What would you do that would be so totally different (or even a little different) than what is going on today? Come on, Dave, stretch your mind. Michelle thinks you’re so smart you should be able to do it.

    Since you are now getting tired of my “Iraqi veteran” song. You’ve never been and you’ve never seen the country with your own eyes. Hell, I bet that Marilyn is the only Arab person you know. With all of that, if my “song” is old, then you surely don’t have one at all. You are a product of the New York Times and the CBS Evening News or whatever your sources are. You hate Bush, hate the war, but you have nothing to offer as an alternative except that you would allow Saddam to still be running the country. By the way, just because I haven’t been there in a couple of years doesn’t mean I don’t keep in contact with my friends and comrades-in-arms over there to stay up on what’s going on.

    I see the big picture, you don’t and that is what your blinders are preventing you from seeing. I have lived the “Big Picture”; you watched it on TV.

  21. everett in los osos
    August 14, 2006 at 12:33 am

    Dave, please post an exact quote from any testifying general to support your claim that civil war in Iraq is “likely.” I read several articles and they used qualifying words like “could” and “if.”
    Also, if you could, please advise me of any instance where George Bush doesn’t get thunderous applause from active duty troops.

    Dave, people who have been to Iraq are in a better position to know what’s going on there than people who have never been there. I’m sceptical of what Rich says but I’m open to his opinions. I feel the same way about you, Dave. I’ve noticed a marked increase in some people’s gullibility to opinions which agree with theirs and cynicism to opposing views.
    This is not healthy.
    You have one of the finest radio shows I’ve ever heard.
    I’d rather listen to you talk about the Shrededer than Hannity, Rush, O’Reilly, Franken or (shudder) Randi Rhodes (sp?). Please retain an open mind.

  22. Rich from Paso
    August 21, 2006 at 1:12 am

    Wanna hear something funny? Lieberman leads all candidates, including Lamont, by 17 points!! Yeah, the Republican candidate is a turd. Lieberman should just change his party to Republican and fill the role of resident RINO that Lincoln Chaffee used to hold, after Chaffee loses of course.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: