The 2008 Democratic candidates are beholden to a "hyper-partisan, politically paranoid" liberal base that could endanger the final nominee's chances of winning next year's presidential election, Joe Lieberman, the former vice-presidential Democratic candidate, said yesterday.

 

In his most outspoken attack on fellow Democrats since he was unsuccessfully challenged last year by Ned Lamont, a liberal Democrat, for his Senate seat in Connecticut, Mr Lieberman yesterday said he might not vote for the Democratic presidential nominee next year.

 

He argued that George W. Bush and the Republican presidential candidates remained truer than the Democratic party to its tradition of a "moral, internationalist, liberal and hawkish" foreign policy that was established by presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John Kennedy.

 

"The Democratic party I grew up in was unafraid to make moral judgments about the world beyond our borders," he said.

 

"[Today's Democrats] are inclined to see international problems as a result of America's engagement with the world and are viscerally opposed to the use of force - the polar opposite to the self-confident and idealistic nationalism of the party I grew up in."

 

Speaking at a forum co-hosted by the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and the Financial Times, Mr Lieberman, who is now an "independent Democrat", dismissed speculation that he would consider becoming the running mate of John McCain, the Republican contender.

 

Although reviled by many in the Democratic party's base, particularly among the "netroots" of groups such as MoveOn.org and Daily Kos, Mr Lieberman's comments play directly into the increasingly testy exchange between Hillary Clinton, the party's presidential frontrunner, and her principal rivals.

 

In September, Mrs Clinton voted for a Senate resolution sponsored by Mr Lieberman that called for economic sanctions against the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps for allegedly sponsoring terrorist groups that -target US forces.

 

Mrs Clinton has since been attacked by Barack Obama, her closest rival, who claims her vote implicitly authorised Mr Bush to use force against Iran - a move he seeks to link to Mrs Clinton's vote for the 2002 Senate resolution authorising force against Iraq. Mr Obama did not turn up for the vote.

 

Mr Lieberman, who would prefer Mrs Clinton to become the Democratic nominee, although he did not spell that out yesterday, said the debate was symptomatic of the party's "flip-flop" away from a strong and moral foreign policy. He lambasted all of the candidates for similar stances on a rapid withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. "Even as the evidence has mounted that General David Petraeus is succeeding in Iraq, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in the narrative of defeat," he said.

 

"The Democrats' guiding principle is distrust and -disdain for Republicans in general and for Mr Bush in particular."

 

Mr Lieberman called on Democrats to follow the words of Arthur Vandenberg, the mid-20th century US senator, who said that politics should "stop at the water's edge". Before voting, Mr Lieberman said he would first assess each nominee's platform - "just like any other voter would".

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1f8eee44-8e67-11...?nclick_check=1

 

I

I still laugh at those who thought Ned Lamont had a shot at beating Joe, and was of the right stuff to be a US Senator. I don't always agree with him but their are few that are as loyal to the common man than Joe Lieberman but the coffee shop crowd will not let that be because god forbid he's his own man on foreign policy.

 

I also though still enjoy when Republicans try to prove that their independent thinkers by highlighting their support of Joe Lieberman as proof. Yet, if those same people ever actually looked at his economic record he's not as independent as they'd like.

I disagree with your comment, Fox. I think the disdain exists because Bush has been so incompetent.

I disagree with your comment, Fox. I think the disdain exists because Bush has been so incompetent.

No.

 

If Hillary is the president then it will be the same thing, just for Republicans.

I disagree with your comment, Fox. I think the disdain exists because Bush has been so incompetent.

No.

 

If Hillary is the president then it will be the same thing, just for Republicans.

 

So Hillary can do no wrong?

"The Democrats' guiding principle is distrust and -disdain for Republicans in general and for Mr Bush in particular."

 

wow, ya think Joe?

 

After the last eight years I hardly think this is a shocking statement.

I disagree with your comment, Fox. I think the disdain exists because Bush has been so incompetent.

No.

 

If Hillary is the president then it will be the same thing, just for Republicans.

 

So Hillary can do no wrong?

What?

 

I'm talking about the partisanship that goes on between each party and its supporters. If a democrat is president, the Republicans will do the same thing the democrats and their supporters are currently doing.

"The Democrats' guiding principle is distrust and -disdain for Republicans in general and for Mr Bush in particular."

 

wow, ya think Joe?

 

After the last eight years I hardly think this is a shocking statement.

Doesn't mean it is right or doesn't need to be said. I think it is substantial, especially coming from someone who was nearly Vice President of this country for the party he is now talking about.

 

Also, lets not just focus on this quote and bypass the rest of what he said in there.

I disagree with your comment, Fox. I think the disdain exists because Bush has been so incompetent.

No.

 

If Hillary is the president then it will be the same thing, just for Republicans.

 

So Hillary can do no wrong?

What?

 

I'm talking about the partisanship that goes on between each party and its supporters. If a democrat is president, the Republicans will do the same thing the democrats and their supporters are currently doing.

 

But if Hillary starts doing stuff to piss you off or is screwing things up, a defense of that shouldn't be "oh you just don't like her, what you're saying has no legitimacy."

I disagree with your comment, Fox. I think the disdain exists because Bush has been so incompetent.

No.

 

If Hillary is the president then it will be the same thing, just for Republicans.

 

So Hillary can do no wrong?

What?

 

I'm talking about the partisanship that goes on between each party and its supporters. If a democrat is president, the Republicans will do the same thing the democrats and their supporters are currently doing.

 

But if Hillary starts doing stuff to piss you off or is screwing things up, a defense of that shouldn't be "oh you just don't like her, what you're saying has no legitimacy."

Lets not be stupid, because I know you are not and lets not be contrary just to be contrary. Also, don't just dissolve what I say in to the most basic logic possible because we both know that isn't what I mean. I do not say 'you don't like Bush this argument is pointless' all the time. Many times I know and realize thats what the person actually believes. A lot of times however, people (especially my generation) view politics as a game with a winner and loser and some sort of 'score'. We know it doesn't and shouldn't work like that.

 

Democrats don't like Republicans by and large because lets face it, they are Republicans.

 

Republicans don't like Democrats by and large because lets face it, they are Democrats.

 

Bush takes as much heat as he does not only for poor policy and decision making (which some of it I agree with) but also just because he is a Republican. Also, Bush is the 'common country man' that most 'enlightened' liberals and northerners can't relate to and simply don't like. People will scoff at that most likely, but it is true.

 

The dislike goes far beyond what you deem a bad president. Decision making by Bush that really isn't a big deal or of little significant is blown up and exacerbated simply because he is a Republican and people don't like him.

 

The same thing happened to Bill Clinton. He was the face of what many Republicans despised and it is what has made him a disliked figure for Republicans. I imagine with Hillary it will be worse. By and large people feel Reagan was a good president but left wingers dislike him simply because he was a conservative and right wing and even though his policies were good, they were shot down simply because of the mouth the policy came from.

Lieberman makes me laugh. He claims that the Democrats should take up Bush's 'moral' foreign policy stance. If invading and attacking countries that pose no threat to us, throwing innocent people in jail without any charges, authorizing torture, and creating secret prisons is 'moral', then I don't want to be moral.

 

Lieberman is a bigger hawk than many Republicans. I'm glad he isn't the VP now, or he would be just as bad as Cheney is, maybe even worse. I'm sure that we would be at war with Iran by now.

 

Joe also acts like the Republicans are the victims. They are the ones who refused to allow any hearings when they were in charge in Congress, and threatened that this country was going to be attacked if the Democrats were given a majority in Congress. They also attempted to eliminate the filibuster when the Dems were in the minority in 2003 and 2004, something that they would be regretting now if they had gone through with those threats.

Democrats don't like Republicans by and large because lets face it, they are Republicans.

 

Republicans don't like Democrats by and large because lets face it, they are Democrats.

 

I disagree. Democrats that generally don't like Republicans don't like them because they disagree, and vice-versa.

Democrats don't like Republicans by and large because lets face it, they are Republicans.

 

Republicans don't like Democrats by and large because lets face it, they are Democrats.

 

I disagree. Democrats that generally don't like Republicans don't like them because they disagree, and vice-versa.

You can't honestly think most political contentions result from differences in point of view. In practice, opinions are formed on party lines, when in reality the opposite should be true.

throwing innocent people in jail without any charges, authorizing torture, and creating secret prisons is 'moral', then I don't want to be moral.

Abraham Lincoln, and FDR for the win?

 

I'm not saying it's right the moral righteousness is not right either

throwing innocent people in jail without any charges, authorizing torture, and creating secret prisons is 'moral', then I don't want to be moral.

Abraham Lincoln, and FDR for the win?

 

I'm not saying it's right the moral righteousness is not right either

FDR and Abe were not torturing people, and I don't think they were setting up secret prisons. The Japanese internment camps were not a secret.

throwing innocent people in jail without any charges, authorizing torture, and creating secret prisons is 'moral', then I don't want to be moral.

Abraham Lincoln, and FDR for the win?

 

I'm not saying it's right the moral righteousness is not right either

FDR and Abe were not torturing people, and I don't think they were setting up secret prisons. The Japanese internment camps were not a secret.

What about putting people in jail without any charges? Also on the topic of secrecy, so if Bush set up prisons to put all arabs in prisons but he told us about it, would you all of a sudden support it?

throwing innocent people in jail without any charges, authorizing torture, and creating secret prisons is 'moral', then I don't want to be moral.

Abraham Lincoln, and FDR for the win?

 

I'm not saying it's right the moral righteousness is not right either

FDR and Abe were not torturing people, and I don't think they were setting up secret prisons. The Japanese internment camps were not a secret.

What about putting people in jail without any charges? Also on the topic of secrecy, so if Bush set up prisons to put all arabs in prisons but he told us about it, would you all of a sudden support it?

I didn't mention removing habeus corpus because they did that. However, I feel that they were at least slightly justified (but not by much) considering they were in a real war.

 

No, we shouldn't be throwing people in jail unless you can convict them. Only under EXTREME circumstances should we be throwing people in prison without charges. Otherwise we should be doing everything possible to avoid it.

I love FDR, but his internment camps were much, much, much, much worse than what Bush is doing, although we don't know the details of what Bush is actually doing. The internment camps are an indicment against FDR and the American people. People had no problem going into the homes of their Japanese American neighbors and taking all of their possession while they were gone. The camps actually, in a very clear cut way, violated multiple of our amendment rights. Oh, and then there was the Supreme Court which pretty much endorsed them. Lincoln was pretty bad too.

 

 

I suppose Leiberman would be implicitely defending the internment camps.

I disagree with your comment, Fox. I think the disdain exists because Bush has been so incompetent.

No.

 

If Hillary is the president then it will be the same thing, just for Republicans.

 

So Hillary can do no wrong?

What?

 

I'm talking about the partisanship that goes on between each party and its supporters. If a democrat is president, the Republicans will do the same thing the democrats and their supporters are currently doing.

 

But if Hillary starts doing stuff to piss you off or is screwing things up, a defense of that shouldn't be "oh you just don't like her, what you're saying has no legitimacy."

Lets not be stupid, because I know you are not and lets not be contrary just to be contrary. Also, don't just dissolve what I say in to the most basic logic possible because we both know that isn't what I mean. I do not say 'you don't like Bush this argument is pointless' all the time. Many times I know and realize thats what the person actually believes. A lot of times however, people (especially my generation) view politics as a game with a winner and loser and some sort of 'score'. We know it doesn't and shouldn't work like that.

 

Democrats don't like Republicans by and large because lets face it, they are Republicans.

 

Republicans don't like Democrats by and large because lets face it, they are Democrats.

 

Bush takes as much heat as he does not only for poor policy and decision making (which some of it I agree with) but also just because he is a Republican. Also, Bush is the 'common country man' that most 'enlightened' liberals and northerners can't relate to and simply don't like. People will scoff at that most likely, but it is true.

 

The dislike goes far beyond what you deem a bad president. Decision making by Bush that really isn't a big deal or of little significant is blown up and exacerbated simply because he is a Republican and people don't like him.

 

The same thing happened to Bill Clinton. He was the face of what many Republicans despised and it is what has made him a disliked figure for Republicans. I imagine with Hillary it will be worse. By and large people feel Reagan was a good president but left wingers dislike him simply because he was a conservative and right wing and even though his policies were good, they were shot down simply because of the mouth the policy came from.

 

 

I think it comes in various layers. At the basic level, there are the people who follow political parties the same way they follow sports teams. Yes, those people, dem or rep, are morons. But at the next more important level, there are people base their decisions only on ideology and issues. A lot of times this can be grouped in a very general mismatched way, ie why we have liberals and conservatives. This group is too stuck to their views and often inflexible, but it has a intelligent reason for it. Usually if a president takes policy extremely adverse to that, those people will really dislike him. The next level is people who have visions in mind of what government should be doing, and they will give a leader a chance if they share the same goal, but not the methods. This last group will attack leaders that are disingenuous, or incompetent, or actually have the opposite goals in mind.

 

This explains, at least to me, why Republicans can be enormously popular in blue states and vice versa. Look how quickly Arnold recovered in Cali, a very dem state. Group one obviously must have been pretty small if he can be reelected, right? Group two, at least the liberals, must have also been pretty small. I happen to like Charlie Christ a lot because I think he does a lot to get both sides of the aisle in on issues, and he isn't ideologically controlled. He is better at managment, ie why he had no problem taking the lead on certain liberal concepts that you actually felt may have been right.

 

I think most people here are in the third group. We have our viewpoints, but we want leaders who have a shared vision and won't be disingenuous. We want leaders who rise above ideology, but only so far.

 

Trickle-down economics by Reagan is seen by people with certain viewpoints, such as myself, as being disingenuous, ie just a way to hide tax cuts for the wealthy. Foreign policy wise, Bush had no probelm when he first started. His invasion of Afghanistan was a shared vision of fighting terror in a competent manner. But his invasion of Iraq and then subsequent actions of centralizing executive power were seen both as disingenuous and as having the oppositve goals in mind. Same with his environmental actions.

I don't post much in political Bullpen threads but I thought I would offer my "common man" viewpoint on Republicans and Democrats and George Bush.

 

 

Ive been a police officer for roughly 6 years and Im very pro-death penalty. At the same time, Im pro-choice and the more gun control, the better (yes criminals will still get guns but the penalties will be more severe).

 

So no one would label me as a staunch Repulblican or a sure-thing Democrat.

 

 

I don't dislike George Bush because he's a Republican. I dislike him because it appears to me that he is not very intelligent. He might be the nicest guy in the world but when I hear him speak the only thing I can think to myself is, "jesus, Im smarter than the President".

 

Why do I feel this way? All I have to do is listen to him address the nation. John McCain on the other hand strikes me as a very intelligent man. He's the kind of guy I would like to have lead me into battle.

 

 

I know my post is very simplistic but Im just giving a "common guy's" perspective on liking/disliking political figures.

I don't post much in political Bullpen threads but I thought I would offer my "common man" viewpoint on Republicans and Democrats and George Bush.

 

 

Ive been a police officer for roughly 6 years and Im very pro-death penalty. At the same time, Im pro-choice and the more gun control, the better (yes criminals will still get guns but the penalties will be more severe).

 

So no one would label me as a staunch Repulblican or a sure-thing Democrat.

 

 

I don't dislike George Bush because he's a Republican. I dislike him because it appears to me that he is not very intelligent. He might be the nicest guy in the world but when I hear him speak the only thing I can think to myself is, "jesus, Im smarter than the President".

 

Why do I feel this way? All I have to do is listen to him address the nation. John McCain on the other hand strikes me as a very intelligent man. He's the kind of guy I would like to have lead me into battle.

 

 

I know my post is very simplistic but Im just giving a "common guy's" perspective on liking/disliking political figures.

I find your comment interesting, because I have always heard that a lot of people voted for Bush in 2000 because he was 'a guy you could have a beer with'. I guess they never heard him open his mouth...

I don't post much in political Bullpen threads but I thought I would offer my "common man" viewpoint on Republicans and Democrats and George Bush.

 

 

Ive been a police officer for roughly 6 years and Im very pro-death penalty. At the same time, Im pro-choice and the more gun control, the better (yes criminals will still get guns but the penalties will be more severe).

 

So no one would label me as a staunch Repulblican or a sure-thing Democrat.

 

 

I don't dislike George Bush because he's a Republican. I dislike him because it appears to me that he is not very intelligent. He might be the nicest guy in the world but when I hear him speak the only thing I can think to myself is, "jesus, Im smarter than the President".

 

Why do I feel this way? All I have to do is listen to him address the nation. John McCain on the other hand strikes me as a very intelligent man. He's the kind of guy I would like to have lead me into battle.

 

 

I know my post is very simplistic but Im just giving a "common guy's" perspective on liking/disliking political figures.

I find your comment interesting, because I have always heard that a lot of people voted for Bush in 2000 because he was 'a guy you could have a beer with'. I guess they never heard him open his mouth...

 

He sounds like he's had a few beers already when he talks.

Unfortunately, George Bush has despoiled the general population's view of Republicans in general, simply because he is at the top of the game--the peak of the political sphere--and coming off as mildly ignorant, easily manipulated, and less-intelligent-than-most-presidents (among other striking attributes).

 

I don't know if I, as a moderate Democrat, view Bush as a poor president simply because he's Republican, or due to his relative ineptitude in office and on the center stage of recent natural, domestic and international 'disasters'.

 

But my question is: Has our generation's perspective and views of politics (Republicans, more specifically) been tainted by the past seven years of Bush's tenure? And if so, at what point can we get back on even keel?

 

Maybe it'll take several years of productive executive Republican power sometime in the future to remold my vision and understanding of what Republicans truly stand for. Maybe (probably) I stereotype Republicans nowadays simply because the limited time I've been impacted by politics has been during the entirety of Bush's run. My aunt is a Republican member of the Florida House of Representatives and I actually do get to spend a decent amount of time around her, and evaluate firsthand the ideals and policies of the 'average' Republican. But even then, I'm still more affected and aware of Bush's failures, if only because he's the head hancho.

 

Point is, whether Dems dislike Republicans simply because they are Republican isn't necessarily the issue. Unless people are willing to admit that, you have to assume that as long as people in overwhelming power (such as Bush) warrant poor approval and agreement (at least to me), the group they represent will suffer the stigma that is placed on the individual.

 

I'm probably being very, very, very partial, but that's my opinion.

Bad figures can hurt any party.

 

Bill Clinton- Dems

Tom DeLay- GOP

LBJ- Dems

Nixon- GOP

 

etc....

Billy boy got a bad rap. Nixon made a huge mistake, but he was a really good president otherwise, IMO. He is a true international relations genius. For those of you that adore Regan because he supposedly brought down the Soviets, you should actually be thanking Nixon for laying the groundwork.