09 Aug 06
Originally posted by DelmerIt's not very different at all, but he's been more outspokenly in support of the Bush policies. The others have pretended to be critical of the execution of the war while still supporting it (except Kennedy of the ones you mentioned; he voted against the war).
Lieberman is/was the best hope the Dems have/had. I think a Lieberman/Gore ticket (instead of Gore/Lieberman) would have won in 2000.
If it's Iraq that defeated him, how is his stance on Iraq fundamentally different than Kerry, Clinton, Schumer, Biden, maybe Kennedy and a host of other Dem senators?
Maybe it is fundamentally different but it hasn't seemed that way to me.
09 Aug 06
Originally posted by no1marauderDon't forget Kerry .. he managed to vote both ways .. a true Democrat.
It's not very different at all, but he's been more outspokenly in support of the Bush policies. The others have pretended to be critical of the execution of the war while still supporting it (except Kennedy of the ones you mentioned; he voted against the war).
09 Aug 06
Originally posted by no1marauderThanks, N1M. Seems like it will be difficult for many Dem senators to honestly distance themselves from Lieberman if he runs as an independent in November.
It's not very different at all, but he's been more outspokenly in support of the Bush policies. The others have pretended to be critical of the execution of the war while still supporting it (except Kennedy of the ones you mentioned; he voted against the war).
10 Aug 06
Originally posted by treetalkEven those who use CBS ...
Impossible to reason with those who get their news from Fox in nice soundbite portions.
......................................................
"In September 2003, Kerry implied that voting against wartime funding bills was equivalent to abandoning the troops.
"I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running,” he said.
Then, in October 2003, a year after voting to support the use of force in Iraq, Kerry voted against an $87 billion supplemental funding bill for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He did support an alternative bill that funded the $87 billion by cutting some of President Bush’s tax cuts.
But when it was apparent the alternative bill would not pass, he decided to go on record as not supporting the legislation to fund soldiers.
Kerry complicated matters with his now infamous words, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”
On Wednesday, he acknowledged that his explanation of his Iraq war votes was "one of those inarticulate moments."
................................................................
That from: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/29/politics/main646435.shtml
10 Aug 06
Originally posted by jammerI don't care about this election year nonsense; I was clearly discussing the initial vote to authorize the war before the invasion. Kerry voted for it. What's more he has never supported a withdrawal like the majority of rank and file Democrats have for many months.
Even those who use CBS ...
......................................................
"In September 2003, Kerry implied that voting against wartime funding bills was equivalent to abandoning the troops.
"I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and runn ...[text shortened]... ........
That from: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/29/politics/main646435.shtml
09 Nov 06
Originally posted by no1marauderYou're right, that Kerry, he's a pansy.
I don't care about this election year nonsense; I was clearly discussing the initial vote to authorize the war before the invasion. Kerry voted for it. What's more he has never supported a withdrawal like the majority of rank and file Democrats have for many months.
09 Nov 06
Originally posted by xsIt was the Republicans who returned him to office. They voted overwhelmingly for Lieberman, in preference to their own candidate. Collaboration is never needed. What IS needed is to finish the Republicans off once and for all.
Not quite.
And collaboratoration is badly needed.
11 Nov 06
Originally posted by rwingettTell the truth. Would not life be boring for you without Republicans to complain against? I guess I should put Republicans and evangelical Christians in the same boat.
It was the Republicans who returned him to office. They voted overwhelmingly for Lieberman, in preference to their own candidate. Collaboration is never needed. What IS needed is to finish the Republicans off once and for all.