ruggerson
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-06-06 12:09 PM
Original message |
The rightwing media meme - Lieberman paying for being "bi partisan" |
|
I've seen this now from a number of pundits and it couldn't be more wrong. It's nice rightwing spin, but utterly innacurate.
Lieberman is paying for being a shadow Republican. He has not served as a bridge between the two parties on the top issue of the day (Iraq), he has blindly adopted the neoconservative talking points and consistently undermined the leadership of his own party at every juncture.
That is not "bi partisanship." That is abandoning the principles of the party that elected you.
He left us long before we left him.
|
Tin Man
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-06-06 12:19 PM
Response to Original message |
femmedem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-06-06 01:00 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Another meme from helpful Right wingers: |
|
"A Lamont win will be very very bad for the Democrats, because the liberal lunatic fringe that supports Lamont won't be able to carry him to victory in the general election."
On the other hand, here's how I see it: A Lamont win would be very, very good the for the Democrats in November, because people who would stay home rather than vote for Lieberman will turn out in droves for Lamont, thereby helping Democratic nominees in every other race across the state.
|
JerseygirlCT
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-06-06 01:02 PM
Response to Original message |
3. In GOP parlance, "bi-partisan" means someone from the other |
|
party who agrees to do all we want.
There's no middle ground with these guys -- in Bush's manichean way, it's their way or no way. Giving in to that isn't bi-partisanship, it's surrender.
I have no trouble with true bi-partisanship -- both sides agreeing to compromise a bit in order to move things forward.
That hasn't happened since at least Bush took up residence in the WH.
|
AtomicKitten
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-06-06 01:02 PM
Response to Original message |
4. A Lamont win will articulate the consensus opinion |
|
that the Bush Administration is insane and must be opposed.
|
ruggerson
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-06-06 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
|
I agree with you totally.
The media is going into virtual knots twisting this to fit a predetermined rightwing spin.
The notion that that Lamont winning is BAD for the Democrats is laughable. He's a center-left mainstream Democrat who OPPOSES THE WAR - a position that mirrors something close to 60% of the country.
What a Lamont win tells us where the center of the country is moving. And it's not moving away from people who agree with Ned Lamont.
|
AtomicKitten
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-06-06 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
7. It's bigger than the race itself. |
|
Edited on Sun Aug-06-06 01:55 PM by AtomicKitten
It's bigger than Lieberman and his imminent demise. It's bigger than interparty squabbling vis-a-vis the DLC vs lefties meme.
It speaks to a new direction, a new tact, a new message and that is ...
... We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore.
|
elehhhhna
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Aug-06-06 01:20 PM
Response to Original message |
5. FIne. One less Repub voting congressman. |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 11:50 AM
Response to Original message |