Lieberman, as an independent, would win in the general election against Lamont and an unnamed Republican 45% to 25% (Lamont) to 14% (GOP). That's about the same as the same poll done with Weicker replacing Lamont. Not bad for a guy with 7% name recognition. Maybe the anti-Lieberman base is bigger than the Q-poll suggests.
It's worth noting that Lieberman is under 50% in both scenarios, at least one of which will almost definitely happen.
It's also worth noting that:
Given the chatter about Lieberman, we asked Connecticut voters whether the incumbent should run for re-election as a Democrat, an Independent, or a Republican. Thirty-eight percent (38%) of the state's voters said he should run as a Democrat, 26% as an Independent, and 17% as a Republican.
The most interesting piece of data on this point is that a plurality of Democrats want Lieberman to run as a Democrat; a plurality of Republicans want him to run as a Republican; and, a plurality of those not affiliated with either major party want him to run as an Independent. (Rasmussen)
Huh. Can't see the crosstabs, so I couldn't say for certain just what these pluralities are.
It's also really worth noting that:
In this match-up, with Lieberman running as an Independent, he leads Lamont by 11 percentage points among voting Democrats. He also wins a solid plurality of Republican and unaffiliated voters against both Lamont and a generic Republican candidate. (Rasmussen)
So instead of, say, a 45% lead, as suggested by Quinnipiac... is that lead really more like 11%? "Voting Democrats" is a much better sample for the primary than all Democrats. And considering who votes in primaries... that lead could actually be down around 5%. Wow.
A much more interesting poll than yesterday's!
Source
Poll. " Connecticut Senate: Lieberman by 20. Conducted by Rasmussen Reports, 15 February 2006.
72 comments:
Genghis
you miss one major aspect of this poll. this poll is making the assumption that Lieberman runs as an independent. however, the q-poll from yesterday ONLY asked Democrats about a primary match up which Lieberman was ahead 68-13. the rasmussen poll deals with a hypotetical, the q-poll was dealing with a real situation. for instance, i will be voting for Lieberman in the primary, however, i would support lamont if he won the primary as he would be the democrat. the important polling information deals with the Primary, not the hypothetical 3 way race.
GC your a self-described moderate...for those of us that are progressives the issue or the War and its attendant derivitive issues like the Patriot Act need to be discussed in an election format..
For me Joe is mainly responsible for the loss of over 2000 american lives and countless other lives...500 billion ( and growing) which could have been used in social programs..
These issues as well as others need to be discussed and a Dem Primary is the best way...
Comments not working in the previous thread.thats why there are none.Thanks
Anon-- Joe is "mainly responsible"? That is simply an idiotic position. I hold a grudge against Dems who lead the charge when it was popular and now lead the retreat when the polls go down.
Joe's position on Iraq is flawed, but at least he is honest.
anon-
Joe is mainly responsible? Um Dodd also voted for the War and for the Patriot Act. So did John Kerry. So did many democrats. How is Joe mainly responsible?
The problem with Lieberman is that he is outspoken about his votes. He doesn't hide from them. I definitly don't agree on the war, and I know a lot of people there fighting it, But if the war is one persons fault its W, not Lieberman.
There is nothing wrong with a primary, its part of democracy. There is something wrong if the the primary results in us sending another Republican to Washington.
For historical reference, see 1992 with Pat Buchannan basically railroading Bush at the GOP convention and breaking up his base thus keeping conservative voters home on an election day with the worst turnout ever in a Presidential year. Perot then ran as an independent, picked up the rest of the disengaged Bush voters and Clinton took the day.
Think about that context in this situation then ask yourself if you want a Senator who supports the War and votes with Dodd and the Senate Democrats on 97% of the issues or if you want a Republican Senator who is going to vote against Democrats 100% of the time.
It's amazing to me that Rasmussen doesn't ask the head to head primary question to D's in the poll. It's one more question, and would of made the poll actually worth paying attention to.
Go back and re-read the Q-Poll. It prejudiced the outcome by referencing Lamont as "businessman Ned Lamont". Nowhere does Quinnipiac refer to Ned as a Democrat.
Now if people haven't heard of Ned, and his Primary challenge to Joe, (which they haven't), they might fairly assume that Lamont is a Republican.
I would bet this is at the heart of the discrepancy between Rasmussen and the Q-poll.
ModDemUnlikeJFK--
Laughable. You assert that Lieberman is in the same camp as all the Dem Senators who supported the IWR?
What a joke. Revoltin' Joe was, and is, the only one hawking Bush's war. Please stop with the intentional deception.
Your other assertion is equally laughable. Let's see, Lamont catches sufficient fire to defeat Lieberman on the August 9th primary. Then some unnamed Republican suddenly appears to snatch the Senate seat?
Which Lieberman office are you out of? Hartford or DC? If the best you can do to defend Joe is spread lies and disinformation, well that says a good bit.
Anon, please read tha actual question, seems pretty clear to me that it says DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY....
20. (If registered democrat)If the 2006 Democratic primary for United States Senator were being held today, and the candidates were Joseph Lieberman and Ned Lamont for whom would you vote?
REGISTERED DEMOCRATS
Tot
Lieberman 68%
Lamont 13
PMD WAS OUTED BY KOS,
You were right on Liebermans talking points in his Email Yesterday and if I had to bet I'd say you Helped Write It.
Come on out into the sunshine PMD.If you ain't a Lieberman Staffer tell us your real name.
Question 17 in the Q Poll refers to Lamont as "businessman" but that doesn't prejudice the head to head, the only discrepancy i can see in the Rasmussen Poll is they assume Lamont wins a D Primary and Lieberman runs as something else (which is a pretty big discrepancy but just something for Rasmussen to poll) and still wins which isn't news because the original primary challenge exists because he's more popular amongst R's and U's then D's.
ctkeith, that was a campagn email sent out to his email list (which i am on) and listed on his website yesterday before the posts. so yes, i was referring to it but it doesnt take dick tracy to get that kind of info, only an internet connection. also, interesting how kos only mentions the rasmussen poll and not the q-poll which is the much more relavent of the two. you know, the one where lieberman is ahead 68-13. as for the rasmussen poll, whats interesting is that even after they identify lieberman as the Independent and Lamont as the democrat, Lieberman still wins among dems (this is especially interesting to me bc i would support the dem candidate and dem ticket, even if it was the nice businessman from greenwich).
I think a primary against DLC Joe is a fine expression of democracy and there should be a discussion regarding the war and other issues of the day.
Joe is a major mouthpiece for this war and always love to bash Democrats.Let him get help from the Republicans, i dont care.
The facts are..we were led into this war by false reporting and " sexed up" evidence..of which Joe was a main player....
Joe Lieberman took the lead for the war and he is one of those responsible for 2,000+ american deaths and thousands of others...he truely has blood on his hands.
Joe is bad on a whole host of other bedrock Dem issues also...he is against affirmitive action,civil unions and universal healthcare.
This primary is coming folks..whether you like it or not and damed the polls and pundits, these major issues need a discussion.
OK, Mr. Swan.
Come on Out in the sunshine PMD,
Isn't t just like a Sleezy Lieberman Staffer to refuse to Identify Themselves.
ctkeith, sorry, not going for your tactics of fear, lies and intimidation. you know, you have more in common with W than you think... disclosed who i wasnt and that's that. now, about those 68-13 poll results....
ctkeith:
You do realize there is no actual competition for Biggest A**hole of the Blogging Community, don't you?
The anonymous Republican racist that was hanging around this week?
Yet you defended his slurs. That says a lot mr. no-different anonymous.
CTKeith-
please post your resume, ss #, home address and telephone #, hair color and name of your favorite song so we can confirm that you are not out of you mind.
Some people on this blog are Democrats who do not work for Lieberman, yet support him. Why do you find this so difficult to believe? Actually, don't answer that, please PDF any and all report cards or transcripts so I can judge your aptitude.
I defended nothing. What I said was the person ranting about racism, and linking it to Republicans without any evidence of political affiliation, wrote and sounded a lot like DeanFan84, whose usual M.O. is to cry racism and immediately assign it to (1) Republicans and (2) Malloy staffers (and, hysterically enough, often both).
Of course, that person was doing so anonymously - as you are, Anon2:41 - which is a tactic DeanFan84 has often decried. Interesting ...
Every thread in here is the same 5 morons squawking at one another. This is a great blog. It's community, however, is another story.
Anon, 2:59, since you are part of this community, you seem to be making an insulting reference to yourself. are to offer anything else of substance?
re: ctkieth
Y'all just need to stop feeding the trolls.
At this point, especially since it's so early in the election season, I don't think these polls are anywhere near definitive. They give us hints, though, as to what could happen in August and November. The Q-poll suggested it wasn't even close. The Rasmussen poll suggests it's a lot closer. Because the Rasmussen poll measures "voting Democrats" instead of all Democrats, I'd say their poll might more accurately reflect the mood of likely primary voters.
But again, it's really early.
Comments are working in the education thread, btw.
My Name is Public.
I'm the owner of DumpJoe.com and my Name has appeared in Numerous Publications Including the NYT and even Bloomberg news Today so you see those that are proud of what they are doing and aren't paid to do it have no reason to hide behind Anonomous posting.
As you all should have noticed by now most Anonomous posting is done By Republicans and DLC Dems.
While it is strange that Ras didn't publish the D-primary results, it really doesn't matter. He polled the two most-likely eventualities after the primary and they reveal a perfectly clear conclusion.
Hardcore R base: ~15%
Hardcode anti-Joe base: ~25%
Joe supporters: ~45%
Undecided: ~15%
GC- are you a premium member for Rasmussen and therefore have the cross tabs because no where in the explanation do I see him specify party data with regard to any of the questions, therefore i assume he's polling all 500 likely voters for each question. Thats why i wrote the 1:17 post. Am i being stupid and missing something in plain site.
P.S. Thats why i don't think the poll means anything.
Genghis, agreed that poll numbers this early are not gospel, but with only 5 months to go to a primary they are a little more telling than usual. i just want to respectfully disagree with you about whose numbers are more useful. the q-poll asks dems about a dem primary. the ras asks dems 'who are more likely to vote'(how they qualify them they do not say) if ned lamont was the dem and joe lieberman the Ind then who would you vote for. all in all, the q-poll has the most accurate snapshot in time.
I apologize for not seeing Anon 3:29's post when i wrote my 3:29, but with all due respect it matters a great deal. First and foremost because those two most likely eventualities after the primary would be impossible scenarios for him (the nominating conventions). If he accepted the R nomination then he would certainly lose democrat primary and the filing deadline to run as independent would have past, making the d primary the only game in time. And as far as your clear conclusion, unless you have the cross tabs, you simply can't make that determination. I can't even find the entire set of questions unless i pay Rasmussen. The Head to Head primary question of likely voting democrats is the single most important question to ask, and the second is how really likely the likely d's are to vote.
I just quoted part of the summary, Anonymous 3:32.
PMD,
I'm trying to think of who actually votes in primaries, and for the most part it's party activists and committed voters. The summary does say that "In this match-up, with Lieberman running as an Independent, he leads Lamont by 11 percentage points among voting Democrats." I'm making a bit of a leap in suggesting that this is an indication of where the primary is going to fall, but it shows a wider split among Democrats than the Q-poll did. The "voting Democrats" part is what makes the poll relevant.
That said, what neither poll could possibly measure is the likelihood of Republicans and independents registering as Democrats to try and save Lieberman. I could see that.
GC, i picking up what you are putting down and to clarify, if the Ras question was to 'voting dems' who would you support in the democratic primary then i would agree with you. but thats not what Ras asked. they asked the question in the reference of a 3 way senate race with a Dem, an I and an R, and identified the Dem as Lamont, the I as Lieberman. the Ras poll is pointless bc it doesnt tackle the primary, it instead addresses the general election and tells the voter that lieberman is running as an I. and even then, a plurality of dems vote for Lieberman instead of the dem candidate.
GC:
... the likelihood of Republicans and independents registering as Democrats to try and save Lieberman. I could see that.
You really think so? I'm not saying it's outside the realm of possibility, but I have my doubts that there are that many people who would actually go through the PITA of changing their voter reg so they could monkey with the Senate primary.
Just my two cents.
I absolutely believe it, different anonymous! Rememeber the 2000 presidential primary? There was a HUGE upswing in Republican registrations in Connecticut (compared with a minor uptick in Dem registrations) in the months ahead of that primary. Why? People wanted to vote for John McCain. And, in fact, it worked--Connecticut voted for McCain.
I could see it happening again. Republicans and independents like Lieberman: the more committed amongh them will absolutely fill out a form for him.
PMD,
I do see your point, but I also see that a significant number (not a majority, yet) of voting Democrats are willing to abandon Lieberman. That suggests to me that they would do the same in a primary.
This is getting very convoluted. Neither poll is perfect.
very true, neither is perfect. to elaborate my point is following your model you arent taking into consideration the percentage of dems who are supporting Lieberman in the Primary but as dems will support the Dem candidate in the general election even if its not Lieberman. i'm one of these types and dont think i am alone. however, it's simply a snapshot in time and after both candidates spend some money and do some legwork the April/May poll will be more telling. have a great weekend genghis and all. even you ctkeith.
GC,
Why not just have the Republican Party endorse Lieberman?
Lieberan has already endorsed McCain for President in 08 and said "Bottom Line,I think Bush Got it right" in referance to Iraq and "Some of my best freinds are Neo-cons"
Those are Liebermans words not mine.
GC, Ed Rendell got a lot of a pro choice R's to re-register as D's in his primary against Bob Casey...and a lot of em never went back and probaly were Kerry's margin of victory in PA
something like this might happen here..but the fairly cosnervative PA dems didn;t mind an influx of soccer moms, will the CT Dems stand for an influx of mod R's in this state pulling their party right?
psst! Moderate R's are as aghast about the Iraq occupation as are mainstream Dems. There is a reason W's poll numbers are so abysmally low in CT.
Based upon what issue are they going to cross-over and vote for Lieberman?
For the record, Lamont is more fiscally conservative than Joe. He has run his own business, and hasn't lived off government paychecks, (and lobbyist money), as have the Liebermans.
I'm going to counter-propose that the cross-over vote will break Ned's way. Plenty of non-Dems are pissed about the war.
anon 9:29 - I am a moderate republican and here's what I think of the Iraq war. The day it started I thought to myself "oh no, what are we doing?" Here's the deal on how I feel:
1. Saddam Hussein is an evil person. He would have continued to exploit, kill and torture his own people and squander his country's wealth at the expense of Iraqi's. And if the UN santions, as weak as they were, were ever lifted, he would have put his WMD development programs into overdrive. It is good thing that he is gone.
2. We probably have would have had to go into Iraq eventually..., BUT, we went in their at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons, without the right support and WITHOUT A PLAN on how to clean up the aftermath. We didn't even THINK what aftermath might be!
3. Had we gone into Iraq, which I maintain we ultimately would have had to, at the right time, for the right reasons, with the right support and with a plan, the Iraqi's would be better off now, many other countries would have gone into Iraq alongside us to help liberate the Iraqi people, and would have been there to help deal with the aftermath. It would have cost us far less money and, more importantly, far less lives (both American and Iraqi).
4. We screwed up with this one. But I think to pull out of Iraq now would make a horrible situation even worse. The reasons are too many to discuss here, but suffice it to say that as much as we've tarnished the American reputation on this one, we would ultimately destroy it if we were to just pull up stakes, high tail it out of Iraq and leave the Iraqi's in absolute chaos and left alone to deal with the mess we created for them.
But I think our government could do more to expedite our exit from Iraq. Helping to rebuild their infrastructure and national defense should be paramount to our efforts. Let the Iraqi's determine their own government. I think their infrastructure and national defense can be built up faster than it has. Employ the skill and labor of more Iraqi nationals to build up infrastructure and provide a more secure environment for the Iraqi national defense to train, even if it means bringing Iraqi recruits outside Iraqi borders so they can train in a safe and secure environment if need be. But get them to a point that they can at least defend their borders and then get the heck out of there!
Do I hate George W. Bush? No. Do I think he is a great president? No. Do I think he is the root of all evil? Certainly not. Do I think Lieberman's war stance is a bit too strong? Yep. Will I re-register as a Democrat to vote for Lamont? Nope. Will I , as a Moderate Republican, vote for Lieberman? Depends on who else is on the ballot.
Oh - and will I vote for Lamont in November if he beats Lamont? Again, depends on who else is on the ballot. I don't know enough about Lamont to say with 100% certainty that I'd definately vote against him.
I mean "will I vote for Lamont if he beats LIEBERMAN?".
pssst...anyone know where osama is?
and why couldnt Bush find him?
Osama slipped out that back door while we conducted our ill-advised and ill-timed liberation of Iraq. Osama is probably in Vatulele sipping Mai-Tias working a treaty out with the French.
Unfortunate that we didn't nab him during the Clinton Administration, especially when Sudan offered to hand Osama to us on a silver plater.
Definately a black mark on both administrations, but true, Bush had the benefit of hindsight and should have known better than to jump into a distracting conflict with Iraq. We would have had more resources available and more support and cooperation from European, Middle Eastern and Islamic 'allies' in hunting down Osama.
No arguement here.
Osama slipped out before the Iraq War, in fact nearly a year before it. (Late 2001, Early 2002) He ran into Pakistan, and being the sh*thole it is, with millions of Osama looking folks, and with Musharraf's fear of going into the tribal provinces, Osama is now protected from us. Its going to take a while to crack open Pakistan and soften up Musharraf without starting an Islamic Coup, so we can get full access to hunt him down, its a shame. If only the Pakistanis had allowed us to back up the Tora Bora Mountains from the Pakistani side, we would have gotten him by now.
Second, Iraq is not a distraction, it is the War on Terror. We went in there to stop a Dictator who was known to have WMD's and ties to Terror (though not 911), and as reports suggested, that he was actively pursueing them. Look from Bush's Perspective, Bush saw info about Iraq pursuing WMD's to give to terrorists. If he ignored the information, and we got hit and millions of people died, Bush would have failed his job. We had to go in there, you can't take that risk, especially after when Saddam avoided the inspectors for 12 years, ignored 17 Resolutions, shot at our aircraft, Gassed his own people, Gave money to Palestinian Suicide Bombers, sent envoys to Niger to go shopping(though he did not buy anything), and pursued a relationship on multiple occasions with Al Qeada (though Osama turned down the alliance often, Saddam's intent of allying with terrorists was there).
And by all means, we cannot leave there now. If we did, Al Qaeda, who we are fighting, would have reign over the country, making it more of a terrorist sh*thole, Civil War with seperatist governments would sprout up, and the situation with Israel and Iran would only spiral down hill further.
There is no doubt that the War was messy, but this part of the world in general is a mess. Too much despotism, and too much deception by Clerics for 1300 years can do that. Its going to take a lot of blood and work, and we should all be mad as hell that we have lost 2000 of America's finest, but if we don't fight the immediate threat and if we dont stop playing Partisan politics all the time, we could be losing millions more Americans, at home. I mean we are dealing with guys that blow up Preschools and cover beutiful women up with thick, ugly veils. These Islamic Fundamentalists are crazy, and will do anything for their screwed up vision of the world.
Wow,
Sanity,Aguy who on his personal blog Says Fox News is fair and balanced and links to some of the biggest haters on the right calls himself a moderate?
Now thats Funny!!
Then Peter from MA comes in and spews Talking points from Rove which have been shown to be lies from the beginning and which even W himself wouldn't dare say in public.
You 2 shoud really stop Reading and Quoting The Moonie Times.You do realize that it's a propaganda tool and Loses 50 millin a yr,don't you?
GC,
You are going to at least explain to Sanity that he is not a Moderate and to Peter that all the talking points he just spewed have long ago been proven to be lies,aren't you?
Anon 1:50 PM, February 17, 2006:
I also like Mark Warner. Does that make me a Warner staffer? I like John Larson does that make me a Larson staffer? I liked Bill Clinton and didn't work in the White House...
It is ok to have an opinion, in support of, or in defense of any candidate...everyone else on the site does. So, no, I do not work out of a Lieberman office. I would imagine that you do not work out of a Lamont office. I'm sure both campaigns have more important things to do than blog.
Peter the Rovian from Mass said ",We had to go in there, you can't take that risk, especially after when Saddam avoided the inspectors for 12 years but the inspectors(Hnas Blix) were back in and Saddam was under the threat of force if he kicked them out this time. Instead W kicked them out because he, who knows why...And now that's history subject to unfortunate death and debate. Tommorrow is about the Pottery barn rule...
And yeah I'm as partisan as anybody can get..
Sanity's Recommended Books. Ann Coulter has two of his top reads.
His Online News Sources.
Sanity regarding Fox News
"We've all heard it - "fair and balanced reporting." I would have to say that this is as close as the major cable and network news outlets get to fair and balanced reporting. Yes, there is a slight right twist to the reporting, but that tends to happen with accurate, fair and balanced reporting."
And on the Hartford Courant:
"The Hartford Courant
I begrudgingly include this selection. I am not happy to admit that I subscribe to this newspaper. It is anything but fair and balanced. Unfortunately, it is the primary newspaper covering activities at the Connecticut General Assembly, even if it is written with a very strong, almost exclusively (save for Laurence Cohen) liberal bias."
And Sanity re Cybercast News Service.
"Cal Thomas said about CNS "...facts that you can print out and share with your friends... and those facts can be used to convert people to the truth." That pretty much describes this online news site."
Finally, besides Sanity also having a lobbyist wife, one should note this page where he decries the decline of the national dialogue. This, from an Ann Coulter fan, has me ROFLMAO.
p.s. Best reason ever to hold your nose and become a Dem partisan?
Even the so-called "moderate" Republicans are reading and recommending Ann Coulter!
Ann Coulter is listed as a read, not because I agree with her. I try to read a broad spectrum of books. I read her books to understand far right thinking and to see what I agree with and what I don't. Just because I reference her books doesn't mean I subsribe to her beliefs. I have also listed a bunch of books, in greater number, that present far more moderate views that are far more consistent with my beliefs. Of course you chose to ignore that.
I'm not going to waste Genghis's bandwidth to explain myself further on this. I'll follow up more on this in my blog.
I'm a Republican who grew up in New Canaan, and hold my beliefs in spite of snarky elitists like Ms. Coulter
Oh what a tangled web we weave,when we practice to decieve.
There are no more moderate Republicans.Anyone who supports W is a radical.
You're a wingnut.Own it!
When I criticize social funamentalists, Ann Coulter is one of the first names that comes to mind. When I read her books, most of my reaction was "I can't believe she just said that" or "what balls she has." I was more gawking when I read those books than actually thinking that her message is the correct message.
I can see why some people might think my including her on my Recommended Reading list would feel I was a proponent and supporter of her views, especially in the absence of any explanation as to why her books are on the list. After thinking about it, including her books on the list is not consistent with the spirit of what I want my web site to be about, so I think it would be appropriate to remove them from the list.
I will also remove various descriptions from resource sections and reviewing each resource that I've listed as to whether it truly is appropriate or consistent with my web site's message. And I must confess, I view CNN online more than FoxNews online primarily because CNN's site is formatted better and easier to find the news I want to read. So I'll add CNN too.
I will not make any changes until tonight at the earliest to give people a chance to see what Anon 12:46 is talking about.
well, calling over 51% of the public in 2004 "radicals" sure sounds like a plan to get back into the majority.
But, then again, there are those who think VT is a "moderate" state...it's the other 49 states that are too radical
Keith,
Aren't you a radical, too? Really, no snark. Aren't you?
Sanity,
I think you're confusing "liberals" and "radicals/extremists" in your post on your site. Liberal is a philosophy, while radicals or extremists follow dogma, and do not deviate from it. Certain conservatives have tried, with great success, to equate the one with the other. It's just as incorrect to treat all conservatives as racist, facist whatevers.
There is nothing wrong with liberalism. In fact, our society is built on the magnificent liberal gains of the 19th and 20th century such as women's rights, civil rights, social safety nets, workers' rights, the withdrawl from imperialism and so on. Liberalism has a long and quite successful history over the past two centuries. An article I read recently suggested that the reason why Democrats have lost their focus is that they have no more big battles to fight: at least none that they can identify.
Radicalism, on the other hand, has a long, violent, ultimately unsuccessful history. Revolutions never accomplish their aims, and radicals can never hold power for long without either losing their radical nature or incurring the wrath of the people. There are exceptions, of course, but in the main this is the rule.
There are radicals who act in the manner you describe on both sides. I remember an ultraconservative who remarked that he was "so right I'm almost left!" and, although he didn't mean it, he was correct. The fringes have more in common with one another than they do with the center.
I do believe that liberals and conservatives, when they can back away from radicalism long enough to actually hear what the other is saying, can work together productively.
Is Preemptive war Radical?
Is Spying on Americans Radical?
Is allowing Big pharma write the medicare bill and inserting a provision that disallows negotiating purchase price radical.
is attempting to privitize Social security radical.
is allowingthe Vice President to amass more power and decide intel matters that should only be made by a president radical.
Is detroying the relationship and trust the USA has had with "old Europe" built over decades radical.
If you don't believe the answer to every one of these questions is Yes you don't understand what the word radical means.
As far as the question to wheter or not 51% of the voters are radical or not I'll just remind you that Hitler was elected too.Fear is an amazing tool and Rove and Goering both new how to exploit.
more rich irony, claiming your opponents use "fear" as a tactic by calling them Nazis.
That didn't answer the question, Keith.
there is a difference between heat and light.
Many of the lefty posters here are really hot and really dark.
You learn nothing but 100 decibel DNC talking poists, that ignore minor details like...
Odd that the "Echelon" NSA system under Clinton was fine and dandy until a Republican president actually used it to fight terrorism.
oooh--
Thanks for the searing light.
So you honestly believe the President should be above the rule of law? (Cuz previously there were laws about what the NSA can, and can't do.)
And I imagine Habeus Corpus to you is like the Geneva Convention. How did Attorney General Alberto Gonzales put it, um, "Quaint"?
That you'll stand for torture, Gitmo, domestic spying etc, really suggests that you'll stand for an "anything goes" America, even though it is an embarassment to those who fought and died for our Country.
Finally, please get off your imaginary high horse. Thanks buddy.
so why did Clinton develop Echelon?
OK, so NSA spying is decades old and its all Bush's problem
(I wasn;t aware about Echelon until Clinton's Commerce Dept was nailed by the EU using it for industrial espionage)
howe about the case where the 4th Circuit approved Jimmy Carter's warrantless wiretaps
Genghis,
I do appreciate what you said. I attempted, rather unsuccessfully, to try and make a distinction between who I was talking about and who I was not at the beginning of what I wrote. I was using the term 'Liberal' as it is commonly, even if incorrectly, used these days by many people, including the MSM, to describe the 'radical/extremist' left. I also use the terms 'Neocon' and 'Social Fundamentalist' to describe the 'radical/extremist' right. Both sides have perverted their respective political parties' basic ideals. Both give bad names to the true definitions of liberalism and conservatism.
So, using the terminology you mentioned, who I was speaking of were the 'radicals/extremists' of the left (as opposed to those who certainly do exist on the right), I still stand by what I wrote. And I think some of the continued reaction to my web site and that particular posting in my blog only helps to support the point I was making.
Genghis, I respect your views and how you present them in a well thoughtout manner, even if I don't always agree with your conclusions. You get me thinking and asking questions. Same goes for several others who post comments on your blog, most notably Aldon Hynes. I find these insights very valuable.
Also, Genghis, I'd like to post your 4:39 comment on my blog. I am probably not going to do anything on my blog or web site until tomorrow. If you decide you don't want me to include your comment, I won't post it or will remove it if I've already posted it.
Echelon began after WWII, it became known during Clinton's Presidency, he certainly didn't develope it. The Federal Gov't has been spying on foreign countries and it's own for 60 years. That's not news.
Radicals on the right seem a lot louder, right now, but I'm not really sure that there are more of them necessarily.
Radicalism to me is not only positions, but a state of mind in which one refuses to believe that anything but one's own opinions (or the opinions of one's group) are the absolute truth. I see that happen here, sometimes, and it's a little scary.
Post what you like, Sanity, you don't need my permission.
Genghis,
Radicalism to me means getting to the root of the problem, not contenting oneself with window-dressing reforms for appearance's sake that don't get at fundamental causes. So I'd like to think of myself as a proud radical, though we usually are limited to modest compromises. To me there is a difference between radicalism and "extremism" or closed-mindedness.
turfgrrl,
That lack of policy and strategy is soley W's. Who cares what Lieberman says about it publicly. He's not part of the administration, he's 1 guy in the senate, which is a republican majority right now. That is the fact that dems should be more concerned about.
This war was bipartisan in its implementation and the majority of Dem politicians were and are active collaborators. Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that we have a genuine opposition party, as this op-ed and this one argue. This is not a partisan battle.
Perfect Mikect,
I'm not a radical at all I just dispise Cowards whether they Be US Senators,Right wing Bloggers or former Greens.
I own the fact I'm a liberal and wear it as a badge.I'll have civil discussions with any Rockefeller or even Goldwater Republican and We'll both walk away better for it BUT those who Support the Radical agenda of George W Bush are not Republican at all. They're way to radical to ever be considered Republican.
The Republicans I grew up with were Fiscal Concervatives, were foreign intervention minimalists, didn't particularly like Social security but admitted it's obvious benifits,were pro buisness BUT didn't believe in Corperate Welfare and thought the rates of corperate taxation of the 1970s weren't out of line at all and Hated the very idea of Defecits.Not one of them would vote for George W Bush.
Believe it or Not Howard Dean was a Republican in his earlier Days as was Ed Meyer when he was in The NY state Legislature.Isn't it Funny that the 2 people I respect the Most in politis are former Republicans yet because I'm critical of GC and I make it personal,which all politics are,He wants to label me a radical and irrelevent.
What I find radical is Owning a blog,Listening to a state of the state speech and without doing a lick of research of the effects endorsing the car tax repeal less than an hr after the speech is finished.This is just the latest example of radical from the owner and only front pager of this site.
"Radicalism" has a long and honored career at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
A few examples of Presidents defying conventional wisdom and charting a new direction sua sponte for the nation
Antitrust laws/T. Roosevelt
The New Deal/F. Roosevelt
Marshall Plan/NAT0/ Truman
Space Program/Kennedy
Diplomacy with PRC/Nixon
SDI/"tear down this wall"/Reagan
The Presidents we remember all did controversial things to change our direction
Perhaps one may find solace the failed status quo had plenty of support in those days too , so if one wishes to emulate WH Taft, Robert Taft, Hoover, McGovern and Mondale by all means call Bush "radical"
Moscow still ain't Madison, but it is far cry from the Evil Empire
Positive change never occurs to those who don't try. I thought even liberals would understand that.Otherwise we would still be in the Lochner era
MikeCT,
I'd be willing to accept that definition, and to differentiate between "radical" and "extremist." I should have chosen my words a tad more carefully.
As for the rest, there's a difference between acting boldly and acting thoughtlessly, cruelly or impulsively.
Keith, I still support the elimination of the car tax. It's a good start, it'll help a lot of people, and it's better than what the Democrats are offering (which is nothing). Show me a better plan.
I'd also like to call on you (and I'll do this, too) to debate honestly, without personal attacks. I think we can do it, and set a better example. Politics may be personal, as you say, but these attacks make sure your message is never heard. The person you attack only hears the attack, and only feels anger.
DeanFan,
I'm not a fan of the Bush Administration, either. They ofyen act like extremists, and they've done things that make my blood boil. They'll be gone in three years, and we'll have a chance to start over. I hope.
Agreed about Bob Dole--he's generally a decent, smart, witty guy. He was also a pragmatist, although his campaign really got away from that side of him. A shame.
GC,
I'll see if I can get the State Dems to See your car tax and Raise you the sales and income tax since you obviously think politics is more poker than policy.
If the debate offered here starts with the assumption that any tax reform that lowers the taxes of anyone is good tax reform would you support a Dem plan to eliminate all taxes and call then geniuses and politically brave.
Every honest assesment of Rells car tax and proberty tax abatement elimination plan shows it raises the tax on the middle and poor class and lowers them on the wealthy and you still suuport it?
Post a Comment