Rejection of Dissent Is Dems’ Weakness
The IntelligencerThe McCain campaign undoubtedly is delighted to have the open, active support of Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Democrats' 2000 vice presidential nominee. On a critical issue facing the nation - the continuing war against Islamic extremism - Lieberman and McCain largely agree.
Yet it is a sad state of affairs that a leader of Lieberman's stature clearly would not have been welcome at his own party's convention. For Joe Lieberman is officially an independent because his own party would not tolerate his refusal to endorse surrender during the lowest point of the war in Iraq.
The supposedly liberal Democratic Party has become the party of intolerance toward anyone who does not toe the party line. The GOP, on the other hand, now has as its standard-bearer a senator who has frequently irritated his party, most notably with his misguided advocacy of ever more complex campaign finance rules.
The McCain camp would be wise to highlight not just Sen. Lieberman's agreement with McCain's approach to security, but also, just as important, the Democratic Party's inability to abide disagreement within its ranks - its fear of open debate of issues. Americans expect political parties to have a reasonably coherent philosophy that can be predictably applied to a wide range of issues; yet most Americans also expect parties to fulfill their civic role as mediating bodies by allowing robust dissent within their ranks.
|
Georgetwin
|
|
|---|---|
|
09-11-08 10:32 AM
|
WonderWhy, what is Obama changing? EVERYTHING he proposes is in The Communist Manifesto. THIS IS NEW? LMAO!
|
|
wonderwhy
|
|
|
09-10-08 12:00 PM
|
now mccain vows to bring change? change to what? he is going to stop voting with the current administration to shake things up? really, what is he going to change. he changed his campaign slogan of the straight talk express to obamas 'change' slogan. because it seemed to be working for obama, now that is Rovian politics.
|
|
Georgetwin
|
|
|
09-10-08 11:08 AM
|
Wonderwhy, President Bush went to Yale AND Harvard, but is CONSTANTLY called stupid by Far Left Loons. By YOUR STANDARDS, who are the stupid ones in this scenario?
|
|
Destroyallmonsters
|
|
|
09-10-08 1:50 AM
|
RedDish, I'm pretty sure Ned Lamont funded most of his campaign by himself. In fact, he used 12.7 million of his own money. Moveon donated 251,156. And as I said, most of the Democrats supported Lieberman in the primaries.Only when he lost did they support Lamont, who as we know was elected to be the Democratic Nominee. Not that it matters, just saying.
|
|
RedDish
|
|
|
09-09-08 10:35 PM
|
Destroyallmonsters--The Democrat Party threw Joe Lieberman under the bus for one issue, and one issue only. His backing of the Iraq war. His challenger in the primary was funded by moveon dot org, the Daily Kos and George Soros. They tried and failed (thank heaven) to buy this Senate seat. In the general election, when all the ballots were totaled, including Republicans, Sen.Lieberman was re-elected. It was a one issue election to the Democrat party. To the entire state, more mattered than the party line.
|
|
Destroyallmonsters
|
|
|
09-09-08 4:35 PM
|
"For Joe Lieberman is officially an independent because his own party would not tolerate his refusal to endorse surrender during the lowest point of the war in Iraq." Joe Lieberman chose to leave the Democratic party after he was defeated in the primaries. The only people that forced him off the ticket were his constituents. Not the Democratic party and if I remember correctly most Senate Democrats supported him in his primary, until he was defeated. "The supposedly liberal Democratic Party has become the party of intolerance toward anyone who does not toe the party line." Lets face facts here, both parties vote down ideological lines. Both parties should be disbanded and barred from politics. This two party system we have in place has kept our country in gridlock for many, many years. They should both be ashamed.
|
|
RedDish
|
|
|
09-09-08 1:55 PM
|
Continued "I'm pleased to announce the next step forward in our policy of "return on success." General Petraeus has just completed a review of the situation in Iraq -- and he and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have recommended that we move forward with additional force reductions, and I agree. Over the next several months, we'll bring home about 3,400 combat support forces -- including aviation personnel, explosive ordnance teams, combat and construction engineers, military police, and logistical support forces. By November, we'll bring home a Marine battalion that is now serving in Anbar Province. And in February of 2009, another Army combat brigade will come home. This amounts to about 8,000 additional American troops returning home without replacement. And if progress in Iraq continues to hold, General Petraeus and our military leaders believe additional reductions will be possible in the first half of 2009." What the President said. Not what the talking heads spun
|
|
RedDish
|
|
|
09-09-08 1:52 PM
|
NancySI--"President Bush announced Tuesday (today) that he will keep the U.S. force strength in Iraq largely intact until the next president takes over" What was said was "Here's the bottom line: While the enemy in Iraq dangerous, we have seized the offensive. Iraqi forces are becoming increasingly capable of leading and winning the fight. As a result, we've been able to carry out a policy of "return on success" -- reducing American combat forces in Iraq as conditions on the ground continue to improve. We've now brought home all five of the Army combat brigades, the Marine Expeditionary Unit, two Marine battalions, that were sent to Iraq as part of the surge. I was proud to visit with some of those troops at Fort Bragg earlier this year. They are among our nation's finest citizens, and they have earned the gratitude and respect of the American people."
|
|
NancySI
|
|
|
09-09-08 1:16 PM
|
Lorenzo--"These editorials are inflammatory, resemble right-wing extremist blogs and are feeding bad comments. Some of these comments deserve to be removed from view due to ad hominem attacks, low insults and disrespect of decent American citizens. Such comments debase and corrupt the editorial process. I start to wonder if Intelligencer staff are contributing anonymously." Thanks for a breath of fresh air. I wanted to see those comments written again. Personally I suggested a long time ago, some commentators are force fed by N/R.
|
|
NancySI
|
|
|
09-09-08 1:11 PM
|
Red "The surge has met all requirements and the draw down has begun. EXACTLY AS WAS STATED IN THE GOALS OF THE INITIAL SURGE.WASHINGTON" WHAT? President Bush announced Tuesday (today) that he will keep the U.S. force strength in Iraq largely intact until the next president takes over, drawing rebukes from Democrats who want the war ended and a bigger boost of troops in troubled Afghanistan.
|
|
wonderwhy
|
|
|
09-09-08 1:08 PM
|
bravo lorenzo!
|
|
Lorenzo
|
|
|
09-09-08 1:06 PM
|
The entire Hillary controversy (another person that this newspaper relentlessly attacked) proved that there is much dissent and room to disagree in the Democratic Party. These editorials are inflammatory, resemble right-wing extremist blogs and are feeding bad comments. Some of these comments deserve to be removed from view due to ad hominem attacks, low insults and disrespect of decent American citizens. Such comments debase and corrupt the editorial process. I start to wonder if Intelligencer staff are contributing anonymously. Time to apply some standards, clean up the comments, or just lose more credibility.
|
|
wonderwhy
|
|
|
09-09-08 12:33 PM
|
wow, again namecalling, and sorry to correct you , but libitard has been used on these blogs.
|
|
wonderwhy
|
|
|
09-09-08 12:27 PM
|
nanc, they get their info from bill o'reilly, come on, you know the moral high road guy with the sexual harrassment case against him with 'the loofa and vibrator tapes' that fox and o'reilly paid andrea mackri milliions to shut her up. dancing with these guys will get you no where. and i would also like to point out that their name calling 'libitards' is a play on words suggesting that dems are retarded. hmmm. that is way politically incorrect . since people with learning disabilites should never be referred to as such. just an observation
|
|
RedDish
|
|
|
09-09-08 12:22 PM
|
I also find your comments regarding the surge and President Bush "surrendering" the height of ignorance. The surge has met all requirements and the draw down has begun. EXACTLY AS WAS STATED IN THE GOALS OF THE INITIAL SURGE. How was that received by you *** holes? Remember Gen.Petraus' reception when he was discussing what was happening in Iraq to Congress? Wasn't he lying then? Now when the success of the surge is evident, you claim surrender. Get you head out of the sand.
|
|
RedDish
|
|
|
09-09-08 12:19 PM
|
NancySI--You just proved the editorial's point. "Did I miss all the applause and gratefulness for all the fine work done by bush/cheney during their appearances at the repub convention" I guess you did, because I saw ovations and applause on my live stream from the floor at the convention. Because it was a satellite message, you didn't hear the response from the floor because the audio went to the speaker. "As we well know, republicans spread fear among their ranks to those who dont march in lockstep." Yeah. Because Sen.McCain has never gone against the wishes of his own party, ever. That's why we nominated him! "Fear of having their families, themselves and their careers maliciously attacked with smears if they ever disagreed or went up against bush/cheney." Kinda like Gov.Palin received?
|
|
NancySI
|
|
|
09-09-08 12:17 PM
|
Katey, read a freaking book before you criticize me for facts."He is listening to the commanders on the ground and now you say he is surrendering. What a f ing Libiot!" "Pace, Schoomaker and Casey found themselves badly out of sync with the White House in the fall of 2006, finally losing control of the war strategy altogether after the midterm elections. Schoomaker was outraged when he saw news coverage that retired Gen. Jack Keane, the former Army vice chief of staff, had briefed the president Dec. 11 about a new Iraq strategy being proposed by the American Enterprise Institute, the conservative think tank. "When does AEI start trumping the Joint Chiefs of Staff on this stuff?" Schoomaker asked at the next chiefs' meeting.
|
|
wonderwhy
|
|
|
09-09-08 12:10 PM
|
so are you saying that bush is dumber than a sack of hammers?
|
|
Blackrock
|
|
|
09-09-08 11:49 AM
|
Wonder, Bush and Yale?
|
|
Blackrock
|
|
|
09-09-08 11:43 AM
|
Wonder, Bush and Yale?
|
|
Blackrock
|
|
|
09-09-08 11:40 AM
|
Wonder, Bush and Yale?
|
|
Blackrock
|
|
|
09-09-08 11:36 AM
|
Kt, you are correct. He knows he cannot be elected on a Loonie platform, therefore he decieves.
|
|
wonderwhy
|
|
|
09-09-08 11:04 AM
|
saying a havard law graduate is 'dumber than a sack of hammers' is a brilliant statement. who is the dumb one here?
|
|
Blackrock
|
|
|
09-09-08 9:17 AM
|
Obambi continues to change his tune on every position he established in the primary. Now Oreilly has him backing off on capital gains taxes. I wonder what the far left is thinking on Obambi backing off of his far left opinions. I thinks that his "backing off" is all for show to try to gain votes. Look at his brief record, tax, spend, more tax, more spend. But, hey, maybe he is seeing the light. Let's just hope that it continues to erode his other far left loon opinions, for the good of all, including himself.
|
|
NancySI
|
|
|
09-09-08 7:12 AM
|
Will this paper ever write any factually based editorials on the issues facing Americans or just continue to ignore and refuse to talk about issues in lock step with the McBush campaign?
|







