Journal pudge's Journal: Huffington On Lieberman 16
So Huffington is on Reliable Sources saying Lieberman is selfish and that what he is doing by continuing to run after losing the nomination is "unprecedented."
First, wasn't she similarly selfish by hurting Bustamante's chances for governor a few years ago? But it's OK because she is not a Democrat (she is not a Democrat, she just hates Republicans!).
Second, no, it is not nearly unprecedented. As I noted before, Teddy Roosevelt -- the favorite Republican of many liberals -- lost the Republican nomination for president in 1912 to Taft, and then decided to run under the Progressive/Bull Moose label. If he had not done this, Taft would have won, and not Wilson.
This is not the only example, of course, just one of the most prominent. The only real difference with the TR example is that a. it was at convention, not primary (a distinction without a difference in this case), and b. it was of far more importance to the country, and to the party, both because it was the Presidency and not a Senate seat, and because Lieberman is not likely to actually help lose the seat to the other party.
You can perhaps forgive her ignorance of U.S. history, since she's not a native (but it's a good example of why you should take her broad statements with a big grain of salt). But to forget her own history is pretty funny.
Lieberman (Score:2)
This may not be unprecidented, but it is certainly very rare. However it does appear to be legal under CT law.
Lieberman is free to do what he wants within the law, however the rest of us are also free to attempt to convince him that dropping out of the race might be best for everyone involved. His former party is also free to cut him off from any privli
Re:Lieberman (Score:3, Insightful)
What strikes me as almost hilarious is how the big complaint with Lieberman is the support for the War on Terror. I mean, he did vote against a ban on partial birth abortions, and against tax cuts, and against drilling in ANWR, repeatedly. Why does that strike me as funny? Because if I had a nickel for every time I, as a voting republican, have been called a single issue voter because of my pro-life stance, I could probably afford to buy a p
Re:Lieberman (Score:2)
No moreso than Lamont is being selfish by asking Lieberman to drop out. Why should the Democratic Party determine who else runs for the office? This is the part that I just do not comprehend. Fine, the Democrats are backing Lamont. They let Lieberman go. So why should that have any bearing on Lieberman being on the ballot, as long as he is not listed as being endorsed by the Democrats?
essentially he is asking for a 'do-over' rather than acc
Re:Lieberman (Score:2)
Pudge is right, but please everyone keep their eyes open for Weicker, who might show up at any time on the national level and defecate all over the country.
Lieberman has already shown he has no class. Running for the Senate and the Vice-Presidency in the same year was just shameless.
Umm, Pudge, you might know this... why are my paragraph markers no longer working to provide clear ne
Re:Lieberman (Score:2)
It seems to work just fine, except maybe the first paragraph. If you put a <p> at the top, that should make it work, though.
Like this.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, pudge; there's still something wonky about the paragraph markers. Check out the source at this comment [slashdot.org].
Not only did I have to start out with one before the 1st paragraph, before the last one I needed to use two to get my vertical whitespace.
I hope this isn't an inappropriate place to report this. It's certainly off-topic about Lieberman, but...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Lieberman (Score:2)
Re:Lieberman (Score:2)
Still nothing wrong with people trying to convince Lieberman to drop out of the race, his decision to do so or not.
Well, only if they are willing to ignore the clearly expressed will of the party, and of the people. He was nominated by the Democrats in Connecticut, and elected by the voters of the entire state, and there's little, if any, justification for cutting him off.
The will of the party is Lieberman is not the party nominee for 2006 Senate canidate in CT. Being a member in good stand
Re:Lieberman (Score:2)
I agree. I just don't want it to be done on false pretenses (like Lamont saying Lieberman was violating the rules).
The will of the party is Lieberman is not the party nominee for 2006 Senate canidate in CT. Being a member in good standing usually involves supporting your party's nominees for office particularly in your own state.
Well, whatever "usually" means, it is the expressed will of the p
Also (Score:2)
Roosevelt term limited out. While it was never a constitutional mandate until Franklin Roosevelt, the parties enforced a two term limit.
Whether that is simular or not, is up to the reader.