Since you referenced my post I figure I should post and possibly give you some answers.
Why are some Republicans supporting Lieberman? In order to understand this its important to know a little bit about the political climate in CT, although any national money coming from Republicans is a separate issue, which I'll highlight on. The R candidate in CT is not a viable candidate, and the Republicans in CT do not want him to run. He has been asked to resign his candidacy but he refuses. The truth is, liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats aren't much different, which is why in the northeast Lieberman is an alluring candidate as an Independant in comparison to Schlesinger. On the topic of the national party in relation to Lieberman, the national R's would support Lieberman minimally if at all, as outside of the Iraq war he has a liberal voting record, which frankly many lefties are refusing to acknowledge because of their blind rage over what the government is doing with the war and Lieberman's support of it. The only pleasure any Republicans are taking out of this is that Lamont is seen as a candidate propped by liberal 527 organizations and any kind of a defeat of a candidate like that is good news in their eyes. Plus, its important to note that if Lieberman was NOT an independant candidate this time around he wouldn't be getting any support from Republicans whatsoever. The fact that Lieberman is technically an "independant" frees Republicans from any so-called "voters guilt" over voting for or supporting Lieberman.
As for your comments about the 2-party system - in general I agree that the 2-party system isn't the best one out there. Stifling choices is a detriment to democracy. However, having multiple parties to choose from ends up completely making a mess of government. Take a look at Europe - Germany in particular, because this just happened recently there. When a party in most European nations do not get 51% of the vote in general elections, coalition governments have to be worked out... which is a worse situation than what we have currently because nothing EVER gets done in governments that are constantly politically gridlocked. Without a clear and established majority, you have chaos in government at worst and status quo at best. This is why, although our system isn't perfect, its still better than what you see elsewhere.
About the "60%" poll that liberals have been talking about quite a bit recently - its important to be precise about the language of the poll to determine what was really said. Here is a breakdown of the results -
What the poll determined was that 60% of the polled participants "oppose the Iraq war" and a majority support at least a limited withdrawal of some troops from Iraq by the end of the year. What this *doesn't* mean is that all Americans want all our troops out of Iraq right this minute, although 26% of those polled suggested that. If you look at the numbers, it can be said simultaneously that a majority want at minimum some troop withdrawal, if not all troops withdrawn (61%), and also that a majority want troop levels to change only minimally, if not at all (69%). If isn't the textbook example of a mixed message, than what is? Regardless, Lamont is a far left wacko because he supports policies that are generally unpopular with the American people - complete troop pullout, nationalized health care, anti Wal-Mart, pro-abortion - he is a walking, talking laundry list of issues that are supported by far-left radicals.
I completely and utterly reject the idea that Joe Lieiberman is a candidate that doesn't speak for the voters of CT, for a variety of obvious reasons. To suggest that he is doing this because of ego, or acting like a spolied brat, etc. is demagogery, pure and simple.
1) You cannot say that Lamont is a candidate that has broad Democratic approval in CT, since he really only won HALF of the votes in the Democratic primary... and that was even after our friends in the liberal grassroots stuffed the Democratic voter base by 20,000 votes since May. Joe Lieberman won roughly half of the votes in the primary in a margin similar to the Presidentiall election in '04. According to liberals, GWB does not have a mandate to govern the way he chooses because 48% of Americans disagree with him. If you libs want to say this, than you cannot say that Lamont has a mandate either because 48% of Democratic voters in CT disagreed. Liberals are treating Connecticut Democratic voters in '06 like they treated Republican voters nationally in '04. How much more insane can we possibly get?
2) The plurality of voters in CT are actually registered Independants. In the lastest poll, 53% of likely voters said that Lieberman deserves to be re-elected and half doubt Lamont's ability to do the job -
So what does this mean? It means that Lieberman, and presumably his politics, are being supported broadly by Democrats, Independants and Republicans - more importantly, his Democratic losses are being more than offset by his support amongst Independants and Republicans. This is proof that a majority of Connecticut voters still support Joe Lieberman despite his party affiliation. It defies logic to suggest that with support like that he shouldn't run.
Its beyond question. Joe Lieberman has broad support in Connecticut amongst its voters. He is not an unpopular candidate in CT when he has half of the Democratic support and a large majority of the support of everyone else. Its foolish to state that Lamont's victory in the primary was a testament to democracy but Lieberman winning a general election degrades democracy. Primaries are important only to the extent that a politician is chosen to represent a single political party, and that if you don't pick the right candidate you will not win regardless of who is running your campaign. It doesn't necessarily say anything about who most of the voters in their particular jurisdiction support - this is extremely important and if more liberals understood that concept (and the point about the virtual split between Demos in CT between Lamont and Lieberman) then a lot of this complaining would cease.
Last point - enough with the complaints about "not being heard" or "being excluded" in government. Believe me, PLENTY of liberal representation in Congress is making your points for you nobody is more loud and outspoken then the liberal Democrats out there. Just because you are not getting what you want doesn't mean that you aren't being heard. Liberals will get their way when they win majorities and are able to set the leglislative agenda. If you cannot win a majority when you are running for office, or trying to introduce a bill, then you simply are not going to have it your way. Interestingly enough, previous to 1994 when Democrats ran the show in Congress for 50 years I never heard of Democrats complaining about the lack of political parity. My advice to Democrats is similar to yours - get out there, speak out, get your votes together and win. Convince other people that you are right. Get more seats in Congress, win the Presidency, then you will be able to get what you want.
Or if you could figure out what an independant thought actually is, which you refuse to admit anybody that is registered as R or votes R is capable of doing... as you once again have proven. Since you brought up "old and tired" after all. Here's a thought - Americans repeatedly have rejected liberal candidates when brought to the ballot box, unless you live in that colossal jewel of naivety known as the People's Republic of California or the infamous northeast. So is everybody else that doesn't agree with you brainwashed? Its so pathetic and laughably wrong to even begin to assume such a thing that for once I'm at a loss for words. I'm insulted that I even have to address this colossal bit of ignorance. Your outlook politically proves that you don't know anything about the country you reside in.
Interesting that you cannot respond to me in any fashion but an insult. You see, when your logic is infallable like mine is, you end up getting that quite a bit. Even more telling and interesting is that you cannot bring yourself to condemn the movie and instead choose to attempt, however poorly, to attack the messenger. Your silence is deafening.
Sigh... same old tired rhetoric. Like the proverbial dog, you're too busy chasing your own tail to stop and think :)
If I could figure out the formula used by Karl Rove to brainwash people like you, I'd be a multi-millionaire (like the Republicans).
Ugh - I hate having to connect the logical dots for you Ajay - its not as if you're Randi Rhodes and are physically incapable of processing information.
What I'm referring to is the mentality that this idiot lib in the UK that made that movie and our own homegrown idiot libs that run, support and vote for an increasingly left-leaning Democratic party share. The movie is intended to stir up debate (also known as cackling and warbling about various levels of Bush hatred) concerning American foreign policy by featuring the assassination of a sitting President. The movie is itself, and was also born out of, obvious contempt of President Bush's policies and from what seems like a heavy, heavy dose of nearly uncontrollable personal hatred and rage. Do you actually think that this movie was made for red-staters?
What I'm suggesting is that the guy that made this movie is no different in basic ideology than any of the Democratic leaders in Congress or the 527 organizations that these politicians are beholden to because of the almighty campaign dollar. You are trying to manufacture a disconnect when you know there is none. I'm not saying that Democratic politicians would like to see George Bush dead, but there certainly has been no outrage or any commentary from any liberal politician to say that this movie crosses a clear line. Sorry, but as an American (no idea actually if you are a citizen Ajay), even if you disagree with the President, if this movie doesn't offend you based solely on the petulence and idiocy of staging a fictional assassination of our sitting President for ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES then its fairly obvious that you're a self-loathing American and unpatriotic (yeah, thats a BAD thing for those who forgot), and it makes you no different in ideology than the guy who made the movie. And as long as you vote Democratic, I cannot. Fairly basic concept.
Wait: someone in *UK* makes an anti-Bush movie, and you blame the Democrats? You do realise that UK is an independent country, regardless of Blair's antics??
"Rational" is not a word I'd use to describe your thought processes on politics, my friend. Try to think for yourself instead of just parroting Rush.
Well, firstly I put up the picture just because I thought it was funny and silly - yeah, for once I did something and without a nefarious second meaning!
On the contrary the sign that he has notes several different categories of liberals, both domestic and international. You have to admit that hippies, the Hollywood crowd and many in France are very diverse outside of their ideology (in a broad sense). Personally I don't see being called a "hippie" a derogatory thing. My father's one, for one thing. I am one in alot of ways too... I embrace hippiedom.
What that man fails to realize is that you don't have to be a "hippie" to oppose the US war in Iraq. In fact, of all those that I know personally who oppose the war, none of them could be classified as "hippie". I think it is safe to say that those who oppose this war in Iraq are fairly diverse.