Lieberman the Independent

WindNoSail

Ok, maybe this is the time that we all start seriously considering backing independent candidates to help unravel the current political situation. I have seen many a comment here stating that we need more independent thinking and candidates in order to free up our political system from special interests and the two parties. Is it time to put up or shut up? I think so.

I am considering changing my registration to independent this year, and maybe if a whole bunch of other people do the same, it will leave the parties scratching their heads and wondering exactly who are they representing. Right now, they got us all bagged based on party line issues. I used to think that people in the middle or independents were just people who hadnt made up their minds on important issues and so why should they be catered to. But now, I think that we must all move to the unafilliated middle just to throw the whole thing into a bit of chaos. We need fresh ideas, fresh faces, and a new approach. Lieberman now is not bound to anyone, and that could be quite healthy for Conneticut and our country.

If you are Conn resident, I would like to know if you think he has a better chance in the general election as an independent than Lamont does as a democrat.

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/state/hc-09193352.apds.m0223.bc-ct--liebaug09,0,3316969.story?coll=hc-headlines-local-wire

acroyear

It's a blessing for the Republicans that Lamont won. Lieberman leaves the party, becomes an Independant. There are more Independants in that state than there are registered Democrats. If Lieberman wins (probably with the aid of the Republicans) in the fall, the looney left is going to have a fit. I'm loving it.

Milhouse VanHouten

He's not really an independent. He's running as an "independent Democrat", actually. Of course, the only reason he's running as a so-called independent is that his own party voted for someone else.

stupidcorporatewhore

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

He's not really an independent. He's running as an "independent Democrat", actually. Of course, the only reason he's running as a so-called independent is that his own party voted for someone else.

there's no space on the ballot for the

"socalleddemocratactuallyneoconbush'sbitchboysoreloser" party

WindNoSail

stupidcorporatewhore wrote:

there's no space on the ballot for the

"socalleddemocratactuallyneoconbush'sbitchboysoreloser" party

Come on, he is a neo con? It is hard to take some of you Bush bashers seriously, seriously.

RockinInCanada

How is Lamont whacky?

WindNoSail

Rockin'InCanada wrote:

How is Lamont whacky?

Who said he was?

Kraven

I voted for Lieberman in the primary. I couldn't justify voting for Lamont at all. He was a one issue politician. The war is bad, get em out blah blah. He never said how he was going to do it, no plan or anything. Lieberman also never said he wanted to stay the course. He wants the troops out of there like everyone else, you can't just leave the area though. You can't be like "Yo dudes, were booking in like 6 months, think you can get your shit together by then?"

Lieberman had it right when he said that the problem with this country is the polarization of the parties. There needs to be more people in the center, who can agree on most of the issues, and what is truly right for the people of this country, not their business lackeys. More will get done. It shouldn't be about the party's stance on something, thats just conformity in the wrong place.

I am not saying that the war is good for the country, its not, but if we immediately take the troops out of there, then it becomes a complete failure and a complete waste of billions of dollars. I am all for ending this war, but at least get stuff better established, and don't say, hey we're leaving soon, have fun in the craters we left in your country.

The war is also not the biggest issue in this country. The four Es are much more important, economy, education, energy and the environment. We need more jobs, an education system not based on who can memorize shit the best, money for that education system, a new source of energy thats not dependent on foreign countries and of course what effects, do we, as humans have on the environment and what can we do to help prevent adverse effects. If not for the war we would have more money to spend on those, which some could argue make it a more important issue.

fragileblake

I think its pretty funny that hes running as an independent. There was alot of evidence that hes been behind the anti-nader sentiment that ran through the left. I know he fought hard to keep nader out of the 2000 debate. What a douche

WindNoSail

Kraven wrote:

I voted for Lieberman in the primary. I couldn't justify voting for Lamont at all. He was a one issue politician. The war is bad, get em out blah blah. He never said how he was going to do it, no plan or anything. Lieberman also never said he wanted to stay the course.

Lieberman had it right when he said that the problem with this country is the polarization of the parties. There needs to be more people in the center, who can agree on most of the issues, and what is truly right for the people of this country, not their business lackeys. More will get done. It shouldn't be about the party's stance on something, thats just conformity in the wrong place.

.

I see Liebermans loss as an attempt by the Dems to mandate one issue .... no war. Problem is we got Iran, N Korea, Iraq, and Isreal issues we can't avoid dealing with.

If we just pull out of Iraq, anyone think Iran isn't going to jump all over it? Remember the Iraq Iran war? Seems like a disaster either way these days.

Back to Lieberman, isn't is kinda of sad to see his party just distance themselves immediately from Lieberman? Yet, he has been a liberal all along, served his party, been loyal but also has shown the ability to think for himself. The message I see is if you aren't running as a Democrat, then you are out. Seems to me this is good evidence that the parties are corrupted.

kenny olav

It has nothing to do with Lieberman, but I am changing my party status from Green-Rainbow to 'unenrolled'. I no longer have faith in political parties.

kenny olav

fragileblake wrote:

I think its pretty funny that hes running as an independent. There was alot of evidence that hes been behind the anti-nader sentiment that ran through the left. I know he fought hard to keep nader out of the 2000 debate. What a douche

Good point!

sponger

Kraven wrote:

I couldn't justify voting for Lamont at all. He was a one issue politician. The war is bad, get em out blah blah. He never said how he was going to do it, no plan or anything.

That's exactly the problem with the current anti-war stance. Kerry is the same way. It's ironic to see someone with so much war experience be so naive when it comes to the situation in Iraq. I think maybe the problem is that he only sees Iraq as another Vietnam, which it couldn't be more different from.

stupidcorporatewhore

WindNoSail wrote:

Come on, he is a neo con? It is hard to take some of you Bush bashers seriously, seriously.

fair enough, it even works without the neocon part...

yeah, being a Bush supporter makes a lot of sense.

unless you are in the oil, bomb making, or coffin industries.

RainDog

sponger wrote:

That's exactly the problem with the current anti-war stance. Kerry is the same way. It's ironic to see someone with so much war experience be so naive when it comes to the situation in Iraq. I think maybe the problem is that he only sees Iraq as another Vietnam, which it couldn't be more different from.

Interesting. So someone who, if I'm correct in my assessment, has never been to war believes that someone who has simply doesn't understand the complexities involved. Unless he speaks in complexities - then I'm sure it's "the dude can't articulate himself. All these gray areas. Jeez, doesn't he know this is all black and white."

What's also interesting - overall of course, not you specifically - is that with all the talk about voting out incumbents and changing out the crooked lifetime politicians, one state actually tries it and gets blasted. And now Lieberman is an independent. I guess that makes him not an incumbent somehow? I guess now he is fresh and new?

The third interesting thing will be looking into who will actually support Lieberman. I'm guessing he'll be a Republican by Default candidate.

Milhouse VanHouten

sponger wrote:

That's exactly the problem with the current anti-war stance. Kerry is the same way. It's ironic to see someone with so much war experience be so naive when it comes to the situation in Iraq. I think maybe the problem is that he only sees Iraq as another Vietnam, which it couldn't be more different from.

Kerry and other Senate/House Dems did have a plan for a staggered withdrawal of forces.

You don't see similarities between Iraq and Vietnam?