Why a Lieberman Victory (in CT Dem. Primary) is Good for America
While left-wing bloggers seem to have made defeating Joe Lieberman, the Democratic Party’s 2000 Vice Presidential nominee, in Connecticut’s Democratic senatorial primary next month, a number of pundits share my view that such a defeat could make it substantially more difficult for the Democrats to take control of Congress this fall. Democratic columnist Mark Danzinger thinks the Democratic Party will be “weaker” with Lieberman’s departure. I agree. As Danziger’s analysis of the impact of Lieberman’s defeat differs a bit from my own, I highly, **highly** recommend you read the whole thing. (H/t Instapundit.)
Last month, I wrote that Lieberman’s loss to anti-war businessman Ned Lamont, a darling of the left-wing blogs would make the Democrats appear increasingly “beholden to the far left” and would help “accent the prominence of the party’s left-wing leaders, Howard Dean, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.” In last Thursday’s OpinionJournal Political Diary (available by subscription), John Fund echoed my thoughts, “a Lamont victory — based as it would be on a purely anti-war message — could help Republicans make the case that the Democratic Party has become intolerant of people with tough-minded views on national security issues.”
As the Democrats become increasingly intolerant of the liberal hawks who dominated the party up until the early 1970s, Danziger fears it could make his party less viable as an opposition party:
I think we need two vibrant parties in this country because neither one is big enough to contain the answers that we will need; it is through robust debate, argument and political tension that the complex problems of the world are solved, not through simpleminded slogans (yes, that’s a slogan …). And what’s happening to the Democratic Party is about to undermine that — as the party is marched over the electoral cliff by it’s “progressive wing” empowered in no small part by bloggers.
He’s right. A party perceived as spineless on national security would have little chance of offering serious contributions to the national debate. And would not fare well at the ballot box.
As a Republican, I should root for a Lieberman loss because it would advance the fortunes of my party. As an American, however, I root for a Lieberman victory because it would indicate that the opposition party refuses to reject a liberal hawk. It would show that their party embraces diversity, rewards smart legislators and is committed to serious debate of the issues of the day.
Moreover, a Lieberman victory would help keep our two-party system vibrant, with both parties offering contributions to the debate on national security. Not only that, Lieberman has, by and large, been a responsible opponent of the president’s domestic policies, even his judicial nominees. We need such sane voices of criticism within the halls of Congress. His victory would thus be a boon for the republic.
I’m a Republican because I love this country and believe that my party can best advance its fortunes. That means that I’m an American before I’m a Republican. And that is why I’ll be rooting for Al Gore’s erstwhile running mate in next month’s Democratic primary in the Nutmeg State — even though a Lieberman victory in Connecticut would make it more challenging for my party to hold onto its congressional majorities this fall.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
UPDATE: (Also via Instapundit). Observing that conservative bloggers have not focused “an inordinate amount of their energy and rhetoric upon defeating” some less-than-conservative GOP leaders and as many leading Democrats fail to stand up to the left-wing bloggers, Jim Geraghty asks, “How could I entrust a Democratic lawmaker to stand up to al-Qaeda, Iran, North Korea or some other angry extremist, if he or she won’t stand up to Daily Kos?“
48 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
You’re to be commended, Dan, for taking this position.
After the late Ed Zorinsky, a conservative Democratic Senator from Nebraska, was elected, he expressed his frustration with the situation in Washington as follows: “We have too many Republican Senators and too many Democratic Senators and not enough United States Senators.”
And that was in the 1970s — before the far right took over the Republican Party and the far left took over the Democratic Party, making it difficult to put politics aside and do the nation’s business.
Yes, we need Joe Lieberman. And a few more like him!
Comment by Trace Phelps — July 10, 2006 @ 10:01 pm - July 10, 2006
My only “issue” with your thoughts on this is that you assume there are marked differences between Lamont and Lieberman beyond their stance on the war in Iraq, and honestly that is the biggest difference and what the race between the two will boil down to because that is how pundits want to define that race. So either you believe that people who are for bringing the troops home/anti-war would not vote on Lieberman simply because he is pro-war or you believe that that is the only issue of any importance in this race and the only one that divides a decent candidate from a poor choice of one, hence your conclusion that Lieberman is the better choice, even if its bad for your party. That isn’t very American if you ask me since the war in Iraq and how to handle it isn’t the only job of a US Senator. Your comments to me basically say if you were against the war in Iraq or think that we need a timeline for getting out means you’re not “American” and would vote for Lamont and no other issues really matter. Here’s to hoping most CT voters have more dynamic views on what being a US Senator entails. If I were in CT, I’d vote for Lieberman and I was against our invasion of Iraq.
Comment by Britton — July 10, 2006 @ 11:02 pm - July 10, 2006
I realize it’s painful for you Repubs to contemplate that Duhbya’s favorite Dem might lose his primary. But after today, Joe Lieberman is no longer really a Democrat – he has officially started his own party: “Connecticut for Lieberman” and of course has begun the process to run under that party’s banner if he loses the Dem primary to Lamont. In so doing, Liberman has shown no loyalty to anyone or anything but himself. Pretty pathetic. But I can see his appeal to Repubs: pro-occupation, anti-SSM, pro big Pharma, and anti-Democrat.
What I’d like to know is why there is not a similar outcry by the pundits over the Club for Growth financed challenge to Lincoln Chaffee in the RI GOP primary. I wonder how much support Chaffee would garner from GPW and the other conservatives here were he to pull a similar stunt to what Lieberman is doing.
Comment by Ian — July 10, 2006 @ 11:32 pm - July 10, 2006
I think you are reading way too much into that post, Britton. Dan quotes a Democrat who states basically the same thing as he is saying. It only makes sense for Dan to support a Democrat, who will win in CT, and shares his view on national security over a Republican, who won’t win.
Comment by John in IL — July 10, 2006 @ 11:39 pm - July 10, 2006
Could he possibly be showing his loyalty to the majority of the people in his state?
Comment by John in IL — July 10, 2006 @ 11:50 pm - July 10, 2006
#5: “Could he possibly be showing his loyalty to the majority of the people in his state?”
That’s fine but he claims to be a Democrat and ought to abide by the results of the legitimate Democratic primary. If he’s not a Democrat, which now seems to be the case since he’s formed his own party, then he shouldn’t go through with the primary. How can one simultaneously belong to two different political parties?
I just know how much you guys would be embracing Lincoln Chaffee were he to try the same trick in Rhode Island. LOL!
Comment by Ian — July 11, 2006 @ 12:22 am - July 11, 2006
I think representing the majority of your state in the Senate is more important than representing any political platform, whether Democrat or Republican. That’s their job. Why does Lincoln Chafee win? Because the majority of the people of Rhode Island feel like he most represents their views. That doesn’t sound so terrible to me.
Comment by John in IL — July 11, 2006 @ 12:36 am - July 11, 2006
#7: “I think representing the majority of your state in the Senate is more important than representing any political platform”
For better or for worse, we happen to have a two-party system where each party through a primary process selects a candidate who then competes in the general election. Joe seems to think it terrible that the riff-raff should have a say on his candidacy in the primary. Well, Joe those are the rules. If you didn’t like them then why have you stayed in ANY party all this time? Poor Joe, he’s really living up to that old nickname “Soreloserman”.
Comment by Ian — July 11, 2006 @ 1:40 am - July 11, 2006
Interesting that you’d use a nickname given to Gore and Lieberman after the 2000 election.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — July 11, 2006 @ 3:16 am - July 11, 2006
Interesting that the choice of the majority of Conneticut should be denied in the name of partisanship. Interesting also is the need to justify such an undemocratic outlook by projecting on others what you are promoting.
Comment by VinceTN — July 11, 2006 @ 8:07 am - July 11, 2006
#10: The choice of the majority is not being denied in any way unless you believe that candidates should be decided by opinion polls and not actual elections. Furthermore, if anyone wants to help Lieberman, they can register as Democrats and vote for him in the primary.
How odd that none of you seem to extend your misgivings about the primary system to the presumably “undemocratic” primary being held in Rhode Island. Do I detect a whiff of partisanship?
Comment by Ian — July 11, 2006 @ 9:47 am - July 11, 2006
I’d almost like to see Lieberman lose his primary and win as an independent. He’ll then be able to stick it to all those members of his current party, i.e., Hillary Clinton et al, who have said they will support whoever the party nominates. I don’t agree with Lieberman on a lot, but he’s a good and honest person who has his head on straight. One would think that some in his party would support him for that reason alone and not just wait for the outcome of the primary just to jump on whatever bandwagon wins.
Comment by PatriotPal — July 11, 2006 @ 10:25 am - July 11, 2006
In the short term, I agree. But in the long term, the more the Democrats become the far-left treason party, the more voters they’ll alienate, and the better it will be for the United States.
So I hope Kos, Dean, Boxer, Pelosi, Reid, Kucinich and all the other moonbats in the party keep running their mouths.
Comment by rightwingprof — July 11, 2006 @ 10:29 am - July 11, 2006
From the post
While left-wing bloggers seem to have made defeating Joe Lieberman, the Democratic Party’s 2000 Vice Presidential nominee…
I hate to have to point it out to you, but the fact it that Lieberman as VP candidate in 2000 was selected by Gore, and ratified by a convention of Democratic apparatchiks–who would probably have approved Bugs Bunny if that is who–or what–Gore would have selected. Lieberman did not go through a vetting of Democratic voters through a primary process, to obtain the VP nomination. Unlike the one he will have to go through on August 8th in the Connecticut primary. There is a difference.
On a slightly different topic, I am amazed that CT law does not preclude someone who has gone through a party’s primary election from having his name on the ballot as an “independent” candidate, since, obviously, he wasn’t an “independent” candidate.” That would not prevent Lieberman from running a “write-in” or “sticker” campaign in the general election if he lost the primary, but allowing his name to be on the ballot after having been rejected in a primary (if he is) seems a bit much. He should either withdraw from the primary (it’s probably too late for him to do that now) and get enough signatures to put his name on the ballot, or run in the primary, and if he loses, try to run a write in/sticker campaign.
BTW, it’s fairly clear why the Republican apparatchiks who infest this web site want Lieberman on the ballot even in an “independent” mode. I need only cite the 1912 election in which, because Teddy Roosevelt ran as a 3d party candidate, the opposition (in that case, the Democrat Wilson) was elected.
Comment by raj — July 11, 2006 @ 10:40 am - July 11, 2006
Well, at least I’m consistent: I support the primary process as it’s playing out in both Connecticut and Rhode Island. I think whoever wins the primary in those states should get the backing of their party as well as the support of the losing candidate. So far, NOT ONE conservative either posting or commenting on this subject has condemned the Rhode Island GOP primary as being “undemocratic” or attempting to deny the “choice of the majority.”
Comment by Ian — July 11, 2006 @ 11:00 am - July 11, 2006
#15 Ian — July 11, 2006 @ 11:00 am – July 11, 2006
So far, NOT ONE conservative either posting or commenting on this subject has condemned the Rhode Island GOP primary as being “undemocratic” or attempting to deny the “choice of the majority.”
No, and they won’t, either. Not here or anywhere. The fact is that most of the Republican apologists accuse incumbent Chafee of being a RINO (Republican In Name Only) even though he has mostly voted Shrub’s line, and they would prefer that he be replaced as Republican candidate by the current mayor of the outwater city of Cranston RI. It is likely that, if Chafee is the candidate, he would win. If he is replaced by the mayor, the mayor will lose. Whether or not Chafee were to run as an independent.
Comment by raj — July 11, 2006 @ 11:39 am - July 11, 2006
The fact is that most of the Republican apologists accuse incumbent Chafee of being a RINO (Republican In Name Only) even though he has mostly voted Shrub’s line
Except for him voting against Bush in the 2004 election…
And against Judge Alito…
And against both of Bush’s tax cut bills…
And against drilling for oil in a desolate hellhole on the North Slope of Alaska…
And against the authorization for military force in Iraq (but he voted in favor of the Levin “cut-and-run” amendment… )
But, he has supported Bush’s spending bills. But then, so do all the Democrats, so…
Comment by V the K — July 11, 2006 @ 12:22 pm - July 11, 2006
#16: Raj, I just find it fascinating how the conservative mind – or what passes for one these days – can operate in such an internally inconsistent manner as so aptly demonstrated by the CT vs RI primary question. It’s why I find it so interesting to participate here in spite of all the invective flung my way. Of course, I try to avoid such discussions in person since I would risk injury from flying debris in the all-too-likely event their heads start exploding.
Comment by Ian — July 11, 2006 @ 1:29 pm - July 11, 2006
#17 V the K — July 11, 2006 @ 12:22 pm – July 11, 2006
I’m sure that you are capable of supplying citations for your assertions of fact. That is, citations to primary sources, of course.
Comment by raj — July 11, 2006 @ 1:45 pm - July 11, 2006
Um, you can look it up on wikipedia, for one thing.
Comment by V the K — July 11, 2006 @ 1:50 pm - July 11, 2006
being anti- war isn’t far left, it’s mainstream. lieberman is getting a kick in the ass because he’s out of touch. and the fact that virtually every republican blog is rooting for him makes it more likely that he’ll lose.
being pro-war is very far right. I don’t know why either party would want someone who can’t even be honest with themselves about this war as their candidate. who knows what someone that delusional will do with their tiny piece of power.
Comment by lester — July 11, 2006 @ 2:08 pm - July 11, 2006
#20 V the K — July 11, 2006 @ 1:50 pm – July 11, 2006
Um, you can look it up on wikipedia, for one thing.
I’m not going to do your research for you. Put up, or shut up.
Comment by raj — July 11, 2006 @ 2:40 pm - July 11, 2006
In other words: raj thinks VK should do raj’s research for raj.
Comment by anonymous — July 11, 2006 @ 2:55 pm - July 11, 2006
No, this is just another attempt by raj to divert from the fact that he made yet another, stupid, dishonest, and inaccurate assertion in his #16. I’m not going to play that game. It’s bad enough that he wants me to describe my body to him… CREEPY!
Comment by V the K — July 11, 2006 @ 2:59 pm - July 11, 2006
What I’d like to know is why there is not a similar outcry by the pundits over the Club for Growth financed challenge to Lincoln Chaffee in the RI GOP primary. I wonder how much support Chaffee would garner from GPW and the other conservatives here were he to pull a similar stunt to what Lieberman is doing.
Actually, Ian, you are misstating the point.
Nary a person here is objecting to the moonbat left’s attempts to swing the CT primary and install their puppet candidate as a concept; it is their right to attempt to do so, even though it is foolish and self-defeating.
Nary a person here is objecting to the Club For Growth’s decision to try to swing the RI primary and install their own candidate; it is their right to attempt to do so, even though it is foolish and self-defeating..
It’s called democracy.
What you are screaming about is Lieberman’s decision to, if he fails to win the Democratic primary, run as an independent.
Everyone here is calling your screaming “undemocratic”, because it is; under our laws, anyone has the right to run for office, regardless of party affiliation.
If Lincoln Chafee loses the Republican primary, he is well within his rights to run as an independent. No less of a personage than Teddy Roosevelt did the same when he was backstabbed by the members of his own party (it seems history repeats itself).
What you are attempting to do is deflect attention from your own patently-unfair and undemocratic views.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 11, 2006 @ 4:34 pm - July 11, 2006
Thank you ND30. That was my point exactly. Myself, I’d rather Lamont win. Its best for America if we get to see some actual honesty on how the Left really feels. Lieberman allows them to hide under a facade of rationality that lets their cancer keep growing.
Comment by VinceTN — July 12, 2006 @ 12:20 am - July 12, 2006
#25: “Actually, Ian, you are misstating the point.”
Actually, I’m not. As I stated in the comment you quoted, the pundits ARE crying out over Lieberman being challenged in the primary but are virtually ignoring Chaffee’s Club for Growth financed challenger on the right. You also quoted me wondering how much support from this blog and its commenters Lincoln Chaffee would get were he to form the Chaffee Party in order to get petition signatures for an independent run if he loses in the primary. I suspect not much and no commenter here has said anything to suggest otherwise. As for Lieberman, it’s apparently legal for him to do what he’s doing. Fine, but unless you and your Dear Leader (Bush not Dobson) have completely repealed the Bill of Rights, Americans like me are still free to criticize Lieberman for his actions.
As is typical for you, your analogy to Roosevelt doesn’t stand up to even cursory scrutiny: he apparently did not form the Progressive Party until AFTER he lost the Republican nomination not before like Lieberman is doing.
Comment by Ian — July 12, 2006 @ 12:53 am - July 12, 2006
#26: “Thank you ND30. That was my point exactly.”
Geez, can you be any more obsequious?!!
Comment by Ian — July 12, 2006 @ 12:59 am - July 12, 2006
Well, somebody has dictionary on their lap as they write. I don’t think my appreciation for ND30′s better explanation of what many really think of the issue is anything to the mutual hand jobs you and raj have been dealing each other on this thread.
Comment by VinceTN — July 12, 2006 @ 1:21 am - July 12, 2006
Fine, but unless you and your Dear Leader (Bush not Dobson) have completely repealed the Bill of Rights, Americans like me are still free to criticize Lieberman for his actions.
Unfortunately, Ian, what you and Raj have made clear is that you want Lieberman banned from the ballot if he loses the primary.
I quote:
That’s fine but he claims to be a Democrat and ought to abide by the results of the legitimate Democratic primary. If he’s not a Democrat, which now seems to be the case since he’s formed his own party, then he shouldn’t go through with the primary. How can one simultaneously belong to two different political parties?
Then you tried to justify that with this statement:
I just know how much you guys would be embracing Lincoln Chaffee were he to try the same trick in Rhode Island. LOL!
My response:
If Lincoln Chafee loses the Republican primary, he is well within his rights to run as an independent.
Hence the difference; I welcome the opportunity for voters to have multiple choices, while you and your fellow liberal Raj argue that voters should be legally prevented from having anyone other than party choices.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 12, 2006 @ 2:20 am - July 12, 2006
#3
But I can see his appeal to Repubs: pro-occupation, anti-SSM, pro big Pharma, and anti-Democrat.
anti-Democrat????
You mean anti-KOSsack, nucking futs, liberal kook dumbass don’t you?
He’s also against pure vitriol, anger and rage against his very voters for dethroning the libs from their birthright of absolute power.
#2
since the war in Iraq and how to handle it isn’t the only job of a US Senator.
Exactly and since Lamont doesn’t seem to be running on anything else, that should tell you something.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 12, 2006 @ 6:25 am - July 12, 2006
Oh yeah.
What’s the win-loss ratio for politicians that the KOSsacks have supported?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 12, 2006 @ 6:26 am - July 12, 2006
#27 Ian — July 12, 2006 @ 12:53 am – July 12, 2006
As is typical for you, your analogy to Roosevelt doesn’t stand up to even cursory scrutiny: he apparently did not form the Progressive Party until AFTER he lost the Republican nomination not before like Lieberman is doing.
This is correct. And it is worth remembering that Roosevelt lost the Republican nomination in an era before most states had preferential primaries. And it is probable that even in those states that did have preferential primaries, people had to register long before the primaries as members of a party before they could vote in that party’s primaries. Allowing one to request a party’s primary ballot on the day of the primary is a relatively recent development.
Regarding Lincoln Chafee, he essentially inherited his seat in 1999, after his father John Chafee died in office. He won the election in 2000, but I would almost be willing to wager that more than a few of the voters confused him with his father when they saw his name on the ballot.
I’d be surprised if the mayor of Cranston RI would win the Republican nomination, but it is interesting that the so-called “Club for Growth” is sponsoring his campaign. The so-called “Club for Growth” was, of course, founded by Stephen Moore, who at the time of its founding was also affiliated with the Cato Institute. Given the Club for Growth’s Republican stances, that makes one wonder just how “libertarian” the Cato Institute really is.
Comment by raj — July 12, 2006 @ 8:44 am - July 12, 2006
#30 North Dallas Thirty — July 12, 2006 @ 2:20 am – July 12, 2006
Hence the difference; I welcome the opportunity for voters to have multiple choices, while you and your fellow liberal Raj argue that voters should be legally prevented from having anyone other than party choices.
I hesitate to again call you a liar, but it really would be nice if you would cite to your source regarding me.
“Liberal”? Yawn.
Comment by raj — July 12, 2006 @ 8:47 am - July 12, 2006
#30: “you and your fellow liberal Raj argue that voters should be legally prevented from having anyone other than party choices.”
I never argued any such thing. I said :
“he… ought to abide by the results of the legitimate Democratic primary. If he’s not a Democrat, which now seems to be the case since he’s formed his own party, then he shouldn’t go through with the primary”
Nothing there whatsoever about him legally being prevented from doing what he’s doing. Once again you are caught in an obvious lie.
Comment by Ian — July 12, 2006 @ 11:33 am - July 12, 2006
Try again, Raj:
On a slightly different topic, I am amazed that CT law does not preclude someone who has gone through a party’s primary election from having his name on the ballot as an “independent” candidate, since, obviously, he wasn’t an “independent” candidate.”
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 12, 2006 @ 11:55 am - July 12, 2006
Without commenting on the issue you raise in this post Dan, I wanted to point out that your opening sentence would have sent my 6th grade English teacher into fits:
“While left-wing bloggers seem to have made defeating Joe Lieberman, the Democratic Party’s 2000 Vice Presidential nominee, in Connecticut’s Democratic senatorial primary next month, a number of pundits share my view that such a defeat could make it substantially more difficult for the Democrats to take control of Congress this fall.”
Seem to have made defeating Joe Lieberman…what? A cause celebre? A moral imperative? Something to do this weekend?
I’ve noticed this type of grammatic slip more than a few times in your writing Dan (not in Bruce’s, though). You seem like an intelligent guy, but you’d seem even more intelligent if you’d take just a minute to proofread your posts before sending them out for the whole world to see. Either that or learn another rule from my 6th grade teacher; K.I.S.S.
Keep It Simple, Stupid.
Comment by Andre — July 12, 2006 @ 2:38 pm - July 12, 2006
Perhaps Lieberman should just withdraw. It is a bit of having your cake and eating it too. Dems are entitled to want him out after his public declaration of running no matter what. They just need to admit their partisan bitterness over it rather than invoke democracy and legal issues.
Comment by VinceTN — July 12, 2006 @ 5:50 pm - July 12, 2006
#36 North Dallas Thirty — July 12, 2006 @ 11:55 am – July 12, 2006
Apparently, you are unfamiliar with the concept of lying by omission. One might seriously ask why you declined to quote the entirety of my paragraph on the matter, which was:
On a slightly different topic, I am amazed that CT law does not preclude someone who has gone through a party’s primary election from having his name on the ballot as an “independent” candidate, since, obviously, he wasn’t an “independent” candidate.” That would not prevent Lieberman from running a “write-in” or “sticker” campaign in the general election if he lost the primary, but allowing his name to be on the ballot after having been rejected in a primary (if he is) seems a bit much. He should either withdraw from the primary (it’s probably too late for him to do that now) and get enough signatures to put his name on the ballot, or run in the primary, and if he loses, try to run a write in/sticker campaign. (emphasis added to indicate the text that NDXXX neglected to copy)
Either you are a liar–by omitting the bolded portion above–or you are ignorant. I wouldn’t be surprised if the latter were the case. Are you truly unaware of what a write-in or sticker campaign is?
Let’s see. You argue by changing the subject. By setting up straw men. By refusing to respond to the question that has been presented to you. And now you have been caught in a lie.
Try again
Comment by raj — July 13, 2006 @ 8:31 am - July 13, 2006
#39: “now you have been caught in a lie.”
For about the umpteenth time. LOL! Sometimes I wonder if NDT isn’t just some parody concocted by a bored high school nerd.
Comment by Ian — July 13, 2006 @ 12:03 pm - July 13, 2006
LOL….poor Raj.
Did you or did you not argue that Lieberman should be legally prevented from doing what he is doing?
I quote:
On a slightly different topic, I am amazed that CT law does not preclude someone who has gone through a party’s primary election from having his name on the ballot as an “independent” candidate, since, obviously, he wasn’t an “independent” candidate.
Were you unaware that your fellow leftist liar Ian said this?
Nothing there whatsoever about him legally being prevented from doing what he’s doing.
And what you advocate would be called “blocking access to the vote” if Lieberman were your leftist candidate. Quit lying and admit that if Lieberman were a leftist, you would oppose any attempts to keep him off the ballot and would whine and cry that a write-in campaign wasn’t good enough.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 13, 2006 @ 2:41 pm - July 13, 2006
#41 North Dallas Thirty — July 13, 2006 @ 2:41 pm – July 13, 2006
Were you unaware that your fellow leftist liar Ian said this?
Why, no, I wasn’t. And I’m not going to do your work for you. The comments are numbered, and you can cite by number. The fact that you don’t more than suggests that you are lying intentionally.
In point of fact, it was I who said what you quoted, as should be clear from my comment #39. (Note carefully the citation.)
You’re a liar. And the rest of your post # 41 (again, note carefully the citation) is irrelevant.
Comment by raj — July 13, 2006 @ 3:57 pm - July 13, 2006
#42: “The comments are numbered, and you can cite by number. The fact that you don’t more than suggests that you are lying intentionally.”
You’re correct, he’s lying again: my statement he quoted had nothing to do with anything you wrote. He had also accused me of wanting to legally prevent Lieberman from running both in the primary and as an independent candidate. I called him on it and proved he was lying about my comments. He’s a proven prevaricator and my only interaction with him now is calling him on his more egregious lies.
Comment by Ian — July 13, 2006 @ 8:52 pm - July 13, 2006
Actually, Raj, we have just now figured out that Ian is your sock puppet.
You see, I quoted this statement in post #41:
Nothing there whatsoever about him legally being prevented from doing what he’s doing
You claimed that that was YOUR statement in post #42:
In point of fact, it was I who said what you quoted, as should be clear from my comment #39.
Unfortunately, that quotation comes from here:
Comment by Ian — July 12, 2006 @ 11:33 am – July 12, 2006
You see, Raj, you slipped up and admitted it was YOUR quotation — in a comment labeled “Ian”.
Making sock puppets again, it seems.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 14, 2006 @ 5:37 pm - July 14, 2006
#44 Still no citation.
No surprise
Try again.
Comment by raj — July 14, 2006 @ 6:15 pm - July 14, 2006
#44: ???
Warning, warning, danger Will Robinson!! Wingnut head about to explode! Avoid yodeling!
Comment by Ian — July 15, 2006 @ 12:12 am - July 15, 2006
Connecticut For Lieberman!
Comment by Joe — July 15, 2006 @ 2:51 am - July 15, 2006
Poor leftist Raj; exposed lying again.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 19, 2006 @ 1:02 pm - July 19, 2006