Comments on: Clueless

By: The other Lebowski

The other Lebowski — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:20:35 +0000

Leisure Guy was right!

By: softwear

softwear — Wed, 14 Jun 2006 07:54:52 +0000

The bottom line is that Boxer is part of the top-down hierarchy of the Democratic party. She is a senior Democratic officeholder, so that makes sense. Except for the fact that the grassroots have had their fill of really bad top-down strategies. In fact, we are unwilling to participate in them any more. If the Dem leadership, including Boxer, don’t understand our disgust with their current strategies, so be it.

Meanwhile, we should take a page from the Texas playbook and run reformers to take over the state party system. That, my friends, is how politics is played. You get respect based on winning elections. Period. If Lamont wins, we will get more respect. It’s a process.

I wish Boxer were on our side. She could be a POWERFUL reformer. But she seems content to play the game by the old school rules - been coopted by all that fawning and status I guess. Too bad.

By: I I Butler

I I Butler — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 17:16:53 +0000

To me, the issue with Lieberman is not birth control (although his is the home state of Griswold v. Connecticut), but a question of loyalty. I would like to think of my senator, any senator, as having his/her ONLY loyalties to the United States and the state s/he represents. Unfortunately, with Lieberman, Boxer, Feinstein, Schumer, etc., there is the question of dual divided loyalty to Israel, which may supersede loyalty to the state or the United States. And anyone who says they see no conflict between loyalty to Israel and to the United States really means they expect US policy to bend to Jewish dedication to their tribal religious myth, under which a bunch of slavic opportunists inherit the mideast and displace the locals, who have ten times as much Abrahamic DNA. Oy vecchhh!

By: Arliss Hogwasher

Arliss Hogwasher — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:01:49 +0000

I can’t help but think do OUR Democrat leaders hear us at all?
We have been saying the same things for MONTHS now and it makes me feel like they have not heard a word we’ve been saying!

By: *ilson46201

*ilson46201 — Mon, 12 Jun 2006 12:51:17 +0000

considering Lieberman’s wife is a lobbyist for Big Pharma, one can actually say that Joe is in bed with Big Pharma !

By: mui

mui — Mon, 12 Jun 2006 12:46:01 +0000

The fact is that women in Connecticut are NOT happy with Joe Liebeman on their issues. In fact the head of Connecticut NARAL and Connecticut Planned Parenthood are EXTREMELY upset about Rape Gurney Joe telling rape victims to take a hike (literally) . . .
Women in CT who have heard that are definitely not happy about that. In fact, most Catholic women I know–who have heard– think Lieberman’s statement is disgusting. It just goes to show how Joe likes to swing dangerously with the extremists and is *not* a middle of the road kind of guy.
Heh! Will Boxer be sending constituents a letter on Joe’s “fabulous” record with seniors, while he talks about privatizing social security and tangoes with Big Pharma and all that . . .? I wonder.

By: ornerydad

ornerydad — Mon, 12 Jun 2006 06:08:10 +0000

Members of “the most exclusive club in the world” (the U.S. Senate – 100 members) do not crab about their fellow members. Who among the Club do you think is going to hang out a fellow Clubber to dry? Please cite me one U.S. Senator who has said anything – something – negative about their fellow Clubberion, Lieberman.
Put another way: “You can only sell out your friends.” That’s right folks, we don’t get sold out by our opponents. So please stand by to get sold out in Connecticut, among other places.
Sad, sad, sad…but more than likely true.

By: toys

toys — Mon, 12 Jun 2006 00:32:24 +0000

#299, I see that you are angry at the state of our country right now. On that I agree with you. However, many of us, especially here, including Boxer, believe in what created this country and will continue to fight for the ideals our forefathers believed in and died to create.

You have some bad info for sure. Maybe if you informed yourself you could join in and help in the just cause we are fighting for.

By: hardword

hardword — Sun, 11 Jun 2006 22:09:25 +0000

Boxer is like all the incumbent Democrats. They are seriouosly frightened of what they are up against. They have never seen opposition so hateful, so viscious, so willing to destroy the constitution, so eager to steal elections.

The elected Dems aren’t sure in their hearts that they can beat these people. That’s why they rely on the sorry-ass consultants who will say what they want to hear in soothing tones. “Don’t worry, we can triangulate this. Don’t step out of line, follow the talking points.”

But the people of this country have had enough of that kind of lilly-livered leadership. Either the incumbent Dems stand up and fight honestly for what is right, or they are going to lose their jobs. And I say that as a life-long, major-donor Dem.

I understand why Boxer might be loyal to Lieberman. But I do not accept it. Her loyalty should be to me, her constituent and to the constitution she swore to uphold.

This isn’t a tea party, and I’m not afraid to hurt her feelings. There are serious issues at stake here - hell the whole future of this country is at stake. She and the rest of the Dems need to understand what is going on. Now.

By: Jim H.

Jim H. — Sun, 11 Jun 2006 21:47:10 +0000

Let me think of the ghastly possibility that Ned won’t unseat Lieberman. The netroots won’t be happy about that, and are not going to be knocking on the doors in Connecticuit. Will people urge his defeat? Support a third-party candidate? Sometimes, you have to just focus on the fact, I suggest, that he has a (D) after his name, and in that way, if we take back the Senate by 51-49, say, that “D” is not an ideological mark — if our favorite senators were all we had, there’d be, what, 12 D’s in the Senate? Um, the way you play the game, if there’s 51 of the same party as our favorite 12, we get to run the committees and draft the bills and all that stuff. Sure, work for better candidates. I’m with you 100%. But the moment netroots starts putting everybody to an ideological “test,” then I seen all this before in the ’60s. If a Lieberman votes the right way even 70% of the time, that’s better than if he was Tom Delay.

And yes, Go Lamont!