namelesstavern.net

Let's see if the new face of the Democrats shines through with Lieberman in Connecticut.

The problem with the Demo Party is that it is being / has been hijacked by the extreme left. I hope Lieberman DOES lose so he can run as an independent. I think as an indy he'll win for sure.

Too much left = bad.
Too much right = bad.

Moderation = good.

How long before the presidential election do the parties usually make their nominations?

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the primary, caucus and convention phase will run from Jan to Sep 2008. The election will be Nov 4, 2008 and the winner will take office January 0f '09.

Mind explaining to me what happens at the primary, cacaus, and convention?

Lieberman is unelectable and should give up. Noone will vote for him.

Why? Because he dared dissagree on one issue with the wacko ultra lefties who've taken over the party?

Diekan wrote:Let's see if the new face of the Democrats shines through with Lieberman in Connecticut.

The problem with the Demo Party is that it is being / has been hijacked by the extreme left. I hope Lieberman DOES lose so he can run as an independent. I think as an indy he'll win for sure.

Too much left = bad.
Too much right = bad.

Moderation = good.

CT is a very liberal state. The media is overblowing the race there, and making out going from Lieberman to Lamont as some big deal. It isn't.

Going from a 90% liberal guy to a 99% liberal guy is hardly a big change.

I'd be a much happier fish if incumbents had to fight as hard as Joe in every election, and didn't have such an easy time of it.

Change is good in politics, be it the same party or a different one.

Lamont wins in CT and moves the party left. Hank Johnson wins and ousts Cynthia Mckinney in the house and moves the party right. Seems balanced to me.

Markarado wrote:Mind explaining to me what happens at the primary, cacaus, and convention?

Let's see if I remember all this...

The primary is a way for the American people to choose who they want to run. It's how the public chooses a nominee.

The caucus is more or less an event in which local party members select a nominee.

The convention is a huge "party" with the nominees standing on a stage in front of thousands of party supporters telling us all what they're going to do if they win.

Change is good in politics, be it the same party or a different one

Truer words never spoken

Hank Johnson is fairly liberal too. The difference here is... as Bortz put it on his show... is that at least with McKinney you know you're getting someone who is incapable to get anything done - at least in terms of her agenda (which mirrors the far left's agenda of course). Who knows how effective Johnson will be in office.

As I've said before - I AM a moderate, however, I do tend to lean a little more toward the left. McKinney is too far left for my taste, yet I'm not quite sure how left Johnson is.

Diekan wrote:Why? Because he dared dissagree on one issue with the wacko ultra lefties who've taken over the party?

First of all he is a jew which most likely hurt the democratic ticket when he was the VP. A lot of ignorant people hate jews and there are a hell of a lot of ignorant people in the US.

Second, he is ugly and women don't like to vote for ugly presidential candidates.

Markarado wrote:Mind explaining to me what happens at the primary, cacaus, and convention?

Primaries and Caucauses are the same thing depend on the state. Each state hold these to select representatives to send to the convention. In primaries and caucuses, you only vote for your register party.

When all these are finish, each party hold a convention usually 4 to 6 weeks before the presidential election. This is where the party candidate for president and vice president is nominate.

There has been a lot of talk about who is going to run for the Democrats. I really haven't heard much about who might run for the Republicans. Any thoughts?

Hell who knows.

Maybe Frist, Guiliani, Gingrich, McCain... there's a laundry list I'm sure...

I like McCain, but he may not have much a chance. I just hope he doesn't screw the goat again and run on campaign finance reform, or some other issue the average American doesn't give a shit about.

I wish the Greens would go pro-gun. They have no idea the resource of voters they're squandering by taking the general leftist stance. 95% of their platform is agreeable to 90% of gun owners views, and we don't have a party that gives a shit about us. Just pandering politicians who give and take.

Minrott wrote:I wish the Greens would go pro-gun. They have no idea the resource of voters they're squandering by taking the general leftist stance. 95% of their platform is agreeable to 90% of gun owners views, and we don't have a party that gives a shit about us. Just pandering politicians who give and take.

Or you could just not make that one issue such a big deal, vote for a candidate that represents 90% of your other views and we can get these other horses asses out of office.

Can't do it. I believe it to be that important. That's like asking Arlos not to vote for environmental beliefs.

Believe me, I've thought long and hard about that very suggestion. It's not with any light decision that I cast my votes with a single issue mindset. It's also why I jump at the chance to vote for pro-gun Democrats most of the time. (Yes there are more than you think.)

Don't you see? The politicians in the last 10 years have tried their damndest to make it a non-issue. The Democrats laid off the anti bills. The Republicans laid off trying to repeal or reform current law. They simply don't want to talk about it. If it's such a nonissue to them, or they're so scared to take a stance since 1994, then it leaves a huge vaccum for a 3rd party to pick up votes.

There are between 70 and 80 million gun owners in the US. They're not Republicans. They feel betrayed by the Republicans for the most part. If *I* were a left of center independant candidate, I would most certainly try to cater to their interests.

Lamont won.

Proof positive that the Democratic Party has been hijacked by utra leftists.

Take note that even Hillary is moving more left to stay within the good graces of the party's hijackers. While she is and has always been fairly liberal - she wasn't near as leftest as Pelosi and co. It's obvious now that if she is going to make a serious bid for a run in '08, she's going to have to lean even further to the left than she already is.

Oh, I didn't know Lamont was married to a wood elf.

I think the Ct primary IS a big deal. Granted, the results may or may not affect those of us living in different states directly, but it clearly shows the direction the Democratic party has gone. That in itself IS why it's important on a national scale.

On a side note - I can't wait till that baboon is evicted from the White House. He and his war birthed from lies and deceit. God I can't wait for '08.

Opps! I better not speak out to loudly against W or I wont be a "Great American."

Lamont sucks the cack.

He'll lose in Nov.

Diekan wrote:He'll lose in Nov.

Maybe his website and get out the vote mailing list will be hacked the day of the election again, screwing him over.

Again, not sure why anyone cares. Especially people who hate W and are against the 'evil' war. Given this post:

Diekan wrote:I can't wait till that baboon is evicted from the White House. He and his war birthed from lies and deceit. God I can't wait for '08.

It seems like Lamont and you are on the same page. Joe agreed with the war, and it seems you are less moderate than you pretend to be.

Next, you'll be calling Cheney soulless and evil, while again saying you are moderate and complaining about partisanship.

He thinks Liberals are evil too though, Lyion. It's not so much he supports one side more than another, but he hates both sides equally.

Plus seeing you harp on someone for claiming to be a moderate is pretty funny to me.

The US lacks good, moderate leadership like Canada, unfortunately.

Indeed!

Lieberman really is the best choice for senate in CT, I may be a dem but I hope Lamont loses.