erynthered Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 Thoughts? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1211328068...in_commentaries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 He's really into those Republican talking points, isn't he, implying that Democrats today are not "pro-American" in this comment: "a party that was unhesitatingly and proudly pro-American". He also is very quick to compare previous wars with terrorism, without talking about any of the nuances that make it different (and one of the causes of the ideological split), as well as seeming to embrace a Wilsonian view of foreign policy. Can't say I agree with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 Our band of so-called New Democrats was successful sooner than we imagined possible when, in 1992, Bill Clinton and Al Gore were elected. In the Balkans, for example, as President Clinton and his advisers slowly but surely came to recognize that American intervention, and only American intervention, could stop Slobodan Milosevic and his campaign of ethnic slaughter, Democratic attitudes about the use of military force in pursuit of our values and our security began to change. Translation: When Republicans control the White House, Democrats are doves. When Democrats control the White House they are hawks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 MY TAPEWORM TELLS ME WHAT TO DO! MY TAPEWORM TELLS ME WHERE TO GO! PULL THE TAPEWORM OUT OF YOUR ASS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 Our band of so-called New Democrats was successful sooner than we imagined possible when, in 1992, Bill Clinton and Al Gore were elected. In the Balkans, for example, as President Clinton and his advisers slowly but surely came to recognize that American intervention, and only American intervention, could stop Slobodan Milosevic and his campaign of ethnic slaughter, Democratic attitudes about the use of military force in pursuit of our values and our security began to change. Translation: When Republicans control the White House, Democrats are doves. When Democrats control the White House they are hawks I wouldn't exactly call Clinton or Carter a hawk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 He also is very quick to compare previous wars with terrorism, without talking about any of the nuances that make it different (and one of the causes of the ideological split), as well as seeming to embrace a Wilsonian view of foreign policy. You know when nuances are really hard to recognize? When your head is rolling down a flight of stairs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketch Soland Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 You know when nuances are really hard to recognize? *BOUNCE MOTHER !@#$ER MOTHER !@#$ER MOTHER !@#$ER !@#$ER BOUNCE!* When your head is rolling down a flight of stairs. .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 He will not be in the Democratic Caucus for very much longer. Whether that's by his choice, Dem choice or if McCain picks him as VP (the two have been virtually attached at the hip for quite some time now --- this would be a gross error on JMac's part). This certainly doesn't build him any bridges from the many he's burned in the last few years. With everything that's happened, I just don't see how he wins another term in CT when he'll no longer be able to say "Hey, people, I'm still a Democrat at heart!" Four more years is an eternity, for sure, but that's this board's CT Yankee view. I also think he's a little disingenuous on the 'You don't talk to your enemies' tack. Piss on JFK not meeting with Castro and all that. Perhaps someone should remind him of the red phone on the President's desk? The lines b/w us and our biggest enemy were always open in the Cold War. Not saying that we should talk to AQ, for sure, but there's no harm in a president talking/meeting with adversaries to let them know personally exactly where they stand. Talking with someone does not mean you're capitulating or compromising yourself; it just means you're talking. That's the spirit of the Olympics, as well; every 4 years, the nations send their best athletes to compete in good sportsmanship regardless of politics, and hopefully each begins to see the others as people rather than a blob of land on a map whose citizens they're vaguely (or overtly) told by their govt to hate for reasons that may or may not be valid. Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer. I'm officially registered in the party, but I don't get the Republicanism of saying 'You don't exist in our world' such that there's not even a speck of a chance for improving relations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 .... Everyday I'm hustlin' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 Our band of so-called New Democrats was successful sooner than we imagined possible when, in 1992, Bill Clinton and Al Gore were elected. In the Balkans, for example, as President Clinton and his advisers slowly but surely came to recognize that American intervention, and only American intervention, could stop Slobodan Milosevic and his campaign of ethnic slaughter, Democratic attitudes about the use of military force in pursuit of our values and our security began to change. Translation: When Republicans control the White House, Democrats are doves. When Democrats control the White House they are hawks That's not what I got out of it at all. I read "When Republicans Export Democracy it's bad. When Democrats Export Democracy it's good." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 That's not what I got out of it at all. I read "When Republicans Export Democracy it's bad. When Democrats Export Democracy it's good." Like duh! Of course! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 Joe Biden's response I haven't always liked this guy, but he's dead on in his op-ed. Maybe vying for Sec of State job. President Nixon didn't demand that China end military support to the Vietnamese killing Americans before meeting with Mao. President Reagan didn't insist that the Soviets freeze their nuclear arsenal before sitting down with Mikhail Gorbachev. Even George W. Bush – whose initial disengagement allowed dangers to proliferate – didn't demand that Libya relinquish its nuclear program, that North Korea give up its plutonium, or even that Iran stop aiding those attacking our soldiers in Iraq before authorizing talks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 I wouldn't exactly call Clinton or Carter a hawk. By the reaction of the wingnuts when Clinton sent troops to Kosovo or wherever the freak it was, you'd have thought he was, um, actually invading a sovereign nation with the attempt to overthrow the legal government.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 With everything that's happened, I just don't see how he wins another term in CT when he'll no longer be able to say "Hey, people, I'm still a Democrat at heart!" Four more years is an eternity, for sure, but that's this board's CT Yankee view. You don't need to be a Dem at heart to win in CT, just an independent thinker. I voted for him when he was still a darling of the Dems and again as an outcast Indy and will probably do so again regardless of the letter that comes after his name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted September 3, 2008 Share Posted September 3, 2008 He will not be in the Democratic Caucus for very much longer. Whether that's by his choice, Dem choice or if McCain picks him as VP (the two have been virtually attached at the hip for quite some time now --- this would be a gross error on JMac's part). This certainly doesn't build him any bridges from the many he's burned in the last few years. With everything that's happened, I just don't see how he wins another term in CT when he'll no longer be able to say "Hey, people, I'm still a Democrat at heart!" Four more years is an eternity, for sure, but that's this board's CT Yankee view. So, especially after last night's speechifying, as I wrote this spring, I would be shocked if he remains in the Dem caucus either when Congress reconvenes or January at the latest. Depends on exactly which tack the party leaders and Lieberman choose. I also don't expect he would win in 2012 were he to run again. That was a pretty big bridge he finally burned beyond repair last night. My read is that he's angling for Sec. of State in a McCain admin. To borrow a quote, Lieberman is all in and if the river card doesn't come up, it's essentially game over. If Obama wins and the Dems pick up a seat (or even if they don't), JL is really going to be on a political island. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JK2000 Posted September 3, 2008 Share Posted September 3, 2008 So, especially after last night's speechifying, as I wrote this spring, I would be shocked if he remains in the Dem caucus either when Congress reconvenes or January at the latest. Depends on exactly which tack the party leaders and Lieberman choose. I also don't expect he would win in 2012 were he to run again. That was a pretty big bridge he finally burned beyond repair last night. My read is that he's angling for Sec. of State in a McCain admin. If Obama wins and the Dems pick up a seat, JL is going to be on a political island. To borrow a quote, Lieberman is all in and if the river card doesn't come up, it's essentially game over. Is he chair of any committees now? If he is he'll probably have it stripped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted September 3, 2008 Share Posted September 3, 2008 He chairs Homeland Security & Govt Affairs. Also is in several subs in Armed Services and Environment. One of the arguments made for him in 2006 was that CT would lose important committee seating (read: Groton sub base would be closed). Looks like that's going to take a hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted September 3, 2008 Share Posted September 3, 2008 Our band of so-called New Democrats was successful sooner than we imagined possible when, in 1992, Bill Clinton and Al Gore were elected. In the Balkans, for example, as President Clinton and his advisers slowly but surely came to recognize that American intervention, and only American intervention, could stop Slobodan Milosevic and his campaign of ethnic slaughter, Democratic attitudes about the use of military force in pursuit of our values and our security began to change. Translation: When Republicans control the White House, Democrats are doves. When Democrats control the White House they are hawks You forgot: "and Republicans are Doves" or don't you remember their opposition to the intervention in Bosnia. Both extremes are hypocrites on these issue and both have significant pacifist contingents within their supporters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 3, 2008 Share Posted September 3, 2008 He chairs Homeland Security & Govt Affairs. Also is in several subs in Armed Services and Environment. One of the arguments made for him in 2006 was that CT would lose important committee seating (read: Groton sub base would be closed). Looks like that's going to take a hit. Instead, the site would be relocated to a stalwart Dem state, like, uhm... West Virginia.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts