Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   According to this guy, Ned Lamont is like RFK, Lieberman is Nixon and al Qaida is Hanoi. Extra bonus points for the gratuitous "Citizen Lieberman" shot. Hey guys: The '60s ended 40 years ago   (news.yahoo.com) divider line
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

287 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Aug 2006 at 12:01 PM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



31 Comments     (+0 »)
 
2006-08-16 10:44:22 AM  
submitter: The '60s ended 40 years ago

Indeed. Everything comes back into style eventually.
 
2006-08-16 10:47:58 AM  
Isn't time like a wheel? And what happened in the past can come around to the present? Something about history repeating?
 
2006-08-16 11:10:43 AM  
dj4aces: Isn't time like a wheel? And what happened in the past can come around to the present? Something about history repeating?

Seems to me there's a difference between bellbottoms coming back in style and Democrats who keep trying to relive the past.
 
2006-08-16 11:55:41 AM  
Oh geeze. Do you think the article could stretch a bit more for that comparison? It's interesting to see all the Democrat/Liberal commentators come out with full anti-Leiberman prose so early. I guess it just shows that all politicians and commentators are fair-weather friends.
 
2006-08-16 11:59:18 AM  
Scooby's'pawn: I guess it just shows that all politicians and commentators are fair-weather friends.

Or it might show that the voting public is tired of an arrogant ass that feels that he is entitled to his Senatorial office because he's been there for 18 years and should, in turn, give the electoral process the middle finger.

Or it might be your view...who knows?
 
2006-08-16 12:08:03 PM  
Sorry, I don't see the Jets winning a Super Bowl this decade.
 
2006-08-16 12:08:59 PM  
"To confuse the issue, I refer
to familiar heroes, from long ago..."

/knock 'em out John
 
2006-08-16 12:11:00 PM  
The CraneMeister: Seems to me there's a difference between bellbottoms coming back in style and Democrats who keep trying to relive the past.

Wrong. Lieberman is no longer a Democrat. Thus, when he is resuscitating these old tactics it is not evidence of democrats reliving the past. Especially since he is using the same tactics as the GOP per Cheney's similar comments.

The author of the article is just calling them on it.
 
2006-08-16 12:11:25 PM  
The CraneMeister: Seems to me there's a difference between bellbottoms coming back in style and Democrats who keep trying to relive the past.

Seems to me that when someone said "History repeats itself", they weren't talking about bellbottoms.
 
2006-08-16 12:15:35 PM  
Hey guys: The '60s ended 40 years ago

Umm, no they didn't.
 
2006-08-16 12:20:57 PM  
have you check the names of those in power?
other than GW.. It looks very similar..
 
2006-08-16 12:21:04 PM  
How does Ned Lamont resemble Razorfen Kraul?


the piggies?
 
2006-08-16 12:33:32 PM  
Democrats stuck in the past. At least the rank and file.

I do see Republicans and a signifigant portion of the media unwilling to see those that are against the war in anything other than the context the anti-Vietnam war movement. It's a complete fallacy as a vast majority of those who are against the Iraq war debacle are so not because of any sort of "peace at any price" sentiment but instead because of realpolitik.

Republicans are probably being deliberately obtuse but the supposed neutral media has no excuse to continue to try and apply a fifty year old frame to the issue.
 
2006-08-16 12:52:52 PM  
So Joe is going to bring us peace with honor and also grand blocks of great legislation, sweet. And Lamont is going to be shot by a man with this first name and last being the same.

I like where this is going
 
2006-08-16 12:55:20 PM  
submitter

I was inclined to agree with you, then I read TFA.

You fail at reading comprehension.
 
2006-08-16 1:15:57 PM  
Skleenar: Wrong. Lieberman is no longer a Democrat. Thus, when he is resuscitating these old tactics it is not evidence of democrats reliving the past.

Go back and reread the headline, if not TFA. It's not Lieberman who is reliving the '60s here; it's Lamont.
 
2006-08-16 1:19:37 PM  
Technoblake: give the electoral process the middle finger.

Eh? How is running for the Senate thwarting the electoral process? If he wins he'll still caucus with the Dems anyway.

Whatever happened to finding the best person for the job, regardless of party?
 
2006-08-16 1:22:33 PM  
Skleenar: Lieberman is no longer a Democrat. Thus, when he is resuscitating these old tactics it is not evidence of democrats reliving the past. Especially since he is using the same tactics as the GOP per Cheney's similar comments.

The author of the article is just calling them on it.


Lieberman lost the primary. Period. He's still a Democrat and he's still a Senator (nice little sneer at "Citizen Lieberman" in the article, that).

If he can win as an Independent, more power to him. If Lamont can win a primary but not the general election, tough luck.
 
2006-08-16 1:36:11 PM  
The CraneMeister: He's still a Democrat

Technically, he's only still a Democrat through the end of this term. If he wins the election, he'll caucus with the Democrats (he says), but under his independent party. It's not unfair to call him out for abandoning his party.

Whatever happened to finding the best person for the job, regardless of party?

Obviously the Democrats in CT have decided that Lieberman doesn't fit that bill; nothing wrong with them voicing opposition to what they see as a sore loser refusing to accept his base's abandonment.
 
2006-08-16 1:42:51 PM  
Put aside for the moment any value judgements of the mindset of the Connecticut voters, whether you think them hairy hippie tree-huggers or staunch patriots refusing to back down on their beliefs. Take the issues out of it for a second; let's just say that Connecticut Democrats want to redecorate as Candy Land, and Liebermann, well, he don't want no Candy Land.

As a senator, is he not beholden to his constituency? Is he any less obligated to the wishes of his constituency than a House rep? I'm not being rhetorical here, I'm really curious about this. Are there any less expectations on a senator to represent the will of his constituency than those of a House rep?

Our elected officials are supposed to, in the halls of government, represent the will of the voters that placed them there. But the status quo seems to be that the official gets elected and votes whichever way they damn well please. Now perhaps a senator gets more leeway on this than a House rep (I really dunno, but wanna); but it seems to me we're electing people based on how we think they might vote-- as opposed to whether they will vote according to the will of their constituency.

The Connecticut Democrats told Liebermann "we don't like the war". Liebermann told them, "I think you're wrong; I'm voting pro-war." What he SHOULD have said-- it seems to me-- is, "I think you're wrong and I will say so; but I will vote according to your will". From his pulpit he can spout what he believes, he can even say his vote is wrong and he knows it. But the vote he makes should be the people's vote. ...Shouldn't it?

I guess what I'm saying is, if you ran Silly Party, shouldn't you have to VOTE Silly Party..?
 
2006-08-16 1:48:19 PM  
HumbleGod: he's only still a Democrat through the end of this term

If he wins he'll still be allowed to caucus with the DNC.
 
2006-08-16 1:48:30 PM  
Saiga410: So Joe is going to bring us peace with honor and also grand blocks of great legislation, sweet. And Lamont is going to be shot by a man with this first name and last being the same.

I like where this is going



...Equating Nixon with "honor" is so antithetical that it creates black holes when spoken aloud. (I'll skip the part where you wish Lamont would get shot).

You're in your Ford pickup, and you've seen the tree too late.

...I like where this is going.
 
2006-08-16 1:50:16 PM  
Blathering Idjut: I do see Republicans and a signifigant portion of the media unwilling to see those that are against the war in anything other than the context the anti-Vietnam war movement.

You don't suppose articles like this, or the media constantly comparing Bush to Nixon and reminiscing about Watergate, or Kerry running against his Vietnam service record, or the constant comparisons of Iraq to Vietnam might have something to do with it?
 
2006-08-16 3:16:03 PM  
The 1960s never really died...all the big liberal/conservative divisions in the nation are just the festering wounds from that decade's big social rifts.
 
2006-08-16 3:31:17 PM  
If you look at my Boobies there is nothing about the Nixon admin that I took out of context. He got us out of vietnam, he passed legislation for the creation of the EPA, SSI, minimum wage, opened relations with china and slowed the cold war. I take all those as good.

I will give the whole Lamont Surhan Surhan bit was a bit out of taste.

If Joe was like Richard I would relocate to CT to vote for him.
 
2006-08-16 3:31:24 PM  
I see more similarities between the election cycle of 1986-88 and 06-08 than anything esle.
 
2006-08-16 3:43:41 PM  
stupid script. If you read what I put earlier. How about that
 
2006-08-16 3:49:55 PM  
submitter: The '60s ended 40 years ago


Smitty failed 3rd grade math class.
 
2006-08-16 4:33:49 PM  
The CraneMeister: Eh? How is running for the Senate thwarting the electoral process? If he wins he'll still caucus with the Dems anyway.

He lost the Democratic primary and should retire. He is acting as a sore loser candidate and spoiler. He may be up in the polls right now, but he is bringing dishonor by not abiding by his party's rules. In fact, it is predictable that he would do this, as he is a perfect example of a politician that thinks he is entitled to bend any rules in order to remain in power. I don't care if he will caucus with the dems, he is dead to me. It's not about who controls the Senate, it is about who is elected to the Senate and he is undeserving.
 
2006-08-16 4:41:39 PM  
When are people going to understand we elect our representitives to do what is best for our country and not what the constituancy wants at the moment. If they are only elected to be the direct will of the people, then why do we guarantee senators 6 years of employment. The time period is so long to allow them to act right and not as a reactionary in hopes of appeasing the people to keep thier jobs another year.
 
2006-08-16 6:39:18 PM  
Technoblake: The CraneMeister: Eh? How is running for the Senate thwarting the electoral process? If he wins he'll still caucus with the Dems anyway.

He lost the Democratic primary and should retire. He is acting as a sore loser candidate and spoiler. He may be up in the polls right now, but he is bringing dishonor by not abiding by his party's rules. In fact, it is predictable that he would do this, as he is a perfect example of a politician that thinks he is entitled to bend any rules in order to remain in power. I don't care if he will caucus with the dems, he is dead to me. It's not about who controls the Senate, it is about who is elected to the Senate and he is undeserving.


So you don't like him. So you think he's arrogant. So you think he ought to leave politics entirely since he lost the Democratic primary.

Fair enough. Now then--given that there is no law stating a given candidate has to come from one or the other party, I repeat my question:

In what way is Lieberman thwarting the electoral process?

Let's just pretend "electoral process" != "aspirations of the anti-war contingent of the Democratic Party."
 
Displayed 31 of 31 comments


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.