November 4th, 2008: Campaigning, Early Voting, Election Day, and The Results!

[Marx]

This is so incredibly immature. "Lets punish him because he disagreed with us!" I don't like Lieberman all that much, but I wish more politicans had the balls to stand up to their party like he did. No matter how much I disagree with his views, at least he did what he thought was right.

Lieberman is a democrat in name only. He should be kicked out Matt. It's a little more than 'punish because he disagreed with us.'

 

[redfirebird2008]

Lieberman was not just an advocate for McCain. He also attacked Obama. It's one thing to support someone, but to attack someone in your own party the way he did seemed uncalled for to me.

 

[Kargo Warrior]

According to the latest results Obama has 7,500,147 more votes than McCain which is the biggest margin after Clinton's win against Doll with 8,203,602 more votes since 1984.

 

[Matt]

Was there any truth to the rumor that Lieby was McCain's 1st choice for VP but the Republicans told him he was freaking nuts and made him pick another candidate?

McCain wanted him, Lieberman publically said he would not take it and the Republicans told McCain not to offer it to him.

Lieberman is a democrat in name only. He should be kicked out Matt. It's a little more than 'punish because he disagreed with us.'

So we have to kick him out because he disagrees with us on some issues? Bob Casey, my senator, opposes abortion and is adamantly pro-life. Should he be removed from the party? Group think is a bad thing. To kick someone out for having spoken against them and disagreeing with policy points is absurd. Maybe the Democrats should be more open towards opposing views instead of looking to making someone pay for having them.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Lieberman is a democrat in name only. He should be kicked out Matt. It's a little more than 'punish because he disagreed with us.'

Lieberman sides with the Republicans on foreign policy issues and a few other things, but overall particularly in domestic issues he's a Democrat.

 

[hippie_hunter]

WASHINGTON—African-American man Barack Obama, 47, was given the least-desirable job in the entire country Tuesday when he was elected president of the United States of America. In his new high-stress, low-reward position, Obama will be charged with such tasks as completely overhauling the nation's broken-down economy, repairing the crumbling infrastructure, and generally having to please more than 300 million Americans and cater to their every whim on a daily basis. As part of his duties, the black man will have to spend four to eight years cleaning up the messes other people left behind. The job comes with such intense scrutiny and so certain a guarantee of failure that only one other person even bothered applying for it. Said scholar and activist Mark L. Denton, "It just goes to show you that, in this country, a black man still can't catch a break."

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/black_man_given_nations

 

[Marx]

So we have to kick him out because he disagrees with us on some issues? Bob Casey, my senator, opposes abortion and is adamantly pro-life. Should he be removed from the party? Group think is a bad thing. To kick someone out for having spoken against them and disagreeing with policy points is absurd. Maybe the Democrats should be more open towards opposing views instead of looking to making someone pay for having them.

We're going to have to agree to disagree with regard to Joe Lieberman.

 

[redfirebird2008]

WASHINGTON—African-American man Barack Obama, 47, was given the least-desirable job in the entire country Tuesday when he was elected president of the United States of America. In his new high-stress, low-reward position, Obama will be charged with such tasks as completely overhauling the nation's broken-down economy, repairing the crumbling infrastructure, and generally having to please more than 300 million Americans and cater to their every whim on a daily basis. As part of his duties, the black man will have to spend four to eight years cleaning up the messes other people left behind. The job comes with such intense scrutiny and so certain a guarantee of failure that only one other person even bothered applying for it. Said scholar and activist Mark L. Denton, "It just goes to show you that, in this country, a black man still can't catch a break."

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/black_man_given_nations

LOL, that's great. The Onion is always hilarious. Thanks for posting that.

 

[hippie_hunter]

We're going to have to agree to disagree with regard to Joe Lieberman.

I agree with Matt. I find it silly and childish that the man is going to be punished for having an opinion and standing by it. Last time I checked we have the right to free thinking in this country.

 

[The Senator]

So we have to kick him out because he disagrees with us on some issues? Bob Casey, my senator, opposes abortion and is adamantly pro-life. Should he be removed from the party? Group think is a bad thing. To kick someone out for having spoken against them and disagreeing with policy points is absurd. Maybe the Democrats should be more open towards opposing views instead of looking to making someone pay for having them.

It has nothing to do with Lieberman's support for McCain or his support for the war. Had Lieberman simply served as a McCain surrogate, he would not be in a position to lose his chairmanship or possibly be kicked out of the party. It was his negative, demeaning rhetoric against the future president of the United States, which was summed up by his speech at the RNC, which has cost him his reputation from within the party and may cost him his chairmanship.

If this party was all about group think, then Ben Nelson from Nebraska would have been exiled a long time ago, Casey never would have been pursued to run for his seat, and Jon Tester certainly would have been crushed by Conrad Burns. Lieberman should not have gone as far with his opposition to Barack Obama as he did... otherwise, I don't think he would be in this position.

 

[Marx]

It has nothing to do with Lieberman's support for McCain or his support for the war. Had Lieberman simply served as a McCain surrogate, he would not be in a position to lose his chairmanship or possibly be kicked out of the party. It was his negative, demeaning rhetoric against the future president of the United States, which was summed up by his speech at the RNC, which has cost him his reputation from within the party and may cost him his chairmanship.

If this party was all about group think, then Ben Nelson from Nebraska would have been exiled a long time ago, Casey never would have been pursued to run for his seat, and Jon Tester certainly would have been crushed by Conrad Burns. Lieberman should not have gone as far with his opposition to Barack Obama as he did... otherwise, I don't think he would be in this position.

Exactly, Jman.

 

[The Senator]

Plus... Lieberman only thought it was "right" to endorse McCain because he was friends with him and would most likely receive a high-ranking position in a McCain administration, such as Secretary of Defense or State. This after two failed attempts for national office. Obama wouldn't have offered him anything.

 

[redfirebird2008]

It has nothing to do with Lieberman's support for McCain or his support for the war. Had Lieberman simply served as a McCain surrogate, he would not be in a position to lose his chairmanship or possibly be kicked out of the party. It was his negative, demeaning rhetoric against the future president of the United States, which was summed up by his speech at the RNC, which has cost him his reputation from within the party and may cost him his chairmanship.

If this party was all about group think, then Ben Nelson from Nebraska would have been exiled a long time ago, Casey never would have been pursued to run for his seat, and Jon Tester certainly would have been crushed by Conrad Burns. Lieberman should not have gone as far with his opposition to Barack Obama as he did... otherwise, I don't think he would be in this position.

That's how I feel about it too. Obama has Republicans who like him, but rarely do they speak out AGAINST McCain. Jim Leach spoke at the DNC about the general failure of the government lately, but he did not personally attack McCain and actually spoke highly of him. We know Hagel supports Obama but he did not formally endorse him (his wife did though...Chuck's way of sneaking in the backdoor endorsement I think...LOL) and spoke highly of McCain. Colin Powell spoke out against the demonization of Muslims as well as the vitriol coming from McCain's campaign, but he did not personally attack the man. He spoke highly of him in fact. Bottom line is that Lieberman dug his own grave by attacking Obama instead of ADVOCATING for McCain, which is all he should have been doing in the first place. There's no turning back for Lieberman. This is his Zel Miller moment. Might as well switch parties.

 

[Raiden]

This is so incredibly immature. "Lets punish him because he disagreed with us!" I don't like Lieberman all that much, but I wish more politicans had the balls to stand up to their party like he did. No matter how much I disagree with his views, at least he did what he thought was right.

Well, disagreeing with Dems re: Iraq is one thing, but attacking Obama during his speech at GOP convention and campaigning actively with McCain is something else. Dems don't have to give him the privilege to chair those committees, since he's Independent now, but they have a simbiotic relationship due to Dems' slim majority on Senate. However, I think the Senate Dems just about had enough of him.

 

[The Senator]

That's another good point to make... Lieberman isn't technically a Democrat... so why should the majority party have to forfeit a chairmanship to a man who isn't a member of the party in the first place?

 

[Dr. Evil]

Besides Alaska, Texas may have an empty Senate spot in 2009. John Cornyn (who is not yet a big name in the Senate, but could be within a year or two) won re-election, but the other seat, one currently occupied by Kay Bailey Hutchinson could empty if Hutchinson runs for Governor of Texas in 2010. Of course, seeing as how the Governor of Texas is Republican, the Democrats will not gain Texas when that seat is empty, well not until 2012 at the earliest. By this time next year, Texas will be irrelevant in the Senate for the first time in decades with two little known (at least nationally) Senators.

 

[The Senator]

Hutchison may be defeated soundly if Bill White runs against her... I've been doing a lot of research on Texas lately (trends show that the state could become a swing state by 2020), and the state's immense dislike for Rick Perry may rub off poorly on her...

 

[Dr. Evil]

Hutchison may be defeated soundly if Bill White runs against her... I've been doing a lot of research on Texas lately (trends show that the state could become a swing state by 2020), and the state's immense dislike for Rick Perry may rub off poorly on her...

Perry isn't popular in Texas, and I live here in Dallas. He barely got 50% of the vote when he got re-elected in 2006, going up against Musician Kinky Freedman and former State Comptroller Carole Keaton Strayhorn (who's son is former Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan). Perry says he's running for a third term in 2010 and will have to face Hutchinson in the Republican Primaries. Also, Dallas County has turned into a Democratic region in Texas, voting for Obama instead of McCain.

I think Bill White makes a run for Senate in 2012.

 

[The Senator]

Perry isn't popular in Texas, and I live here in Dallas. He barely got 50% of the vote when he got re-elected in 2006, going up against Musician Kinky Freedman and former State Comptroller Carole Keaton Strayhorn (who's son is former Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan). Perry says he's running for a third term in 2010 and will have to face Hutchinson in the Republican Primaries. Also, Dallas County has turned into a Democratic region in Texas, voting for Obama instead of McCain.

I think Bill White makes a run for Senate in 2012.

Actually, Perry received less than 40% of the vote in 2006...

 

[redfirebird2008]

Actually, Perry received less than 40% of the vote in 2006...

Yep. Democrat Chris Bell was his major competition. Republicans here LOATHE Perry but at the same time it's pretty funny watching them re-elect him.

 

[Dr. Evil]

Actually, Perry received less than 40% of the vote in 2006...

It's not like Kinky or Strayhorn are much better then he was. He was the lesser of three evils.

He won't get a third term in 2010. He will either lose in the primaries to Hutchinson or the general election to Bill White.

I never saw an ad from the Democrat Chris Bell back in 2006.

 

[redfirebird2008]

It's not like Kinky or Strayhorn are much better then he was. He was the lesser of three evils.

He won't get a third term in 2010. He will either lose in the primaries to Hutchinson or the general election to Bill White.

I never saw an ad from the Democrat Chris Bell back in 2006.

Bell received more of the vote than either Kinky or Strayhorn. So, it was 4 evils involved in the race, if you will.

 

[Dr. Evil]

Bell received more of the vote than either Kinky or Strayhorn. So, it was 4 evils involved in the race, if you will.

Not bad. And to think, I did not see any of his ads in 2006. All I saw were ads for Perry, Strayhorn and Kinky.

What did you think of Cornyn getting re-elected?

 

[redfirebird2008]

Not bad. And to think, I did not see any of his ads in 2006. All I saw were ads for Perry, Strayhorn and Kinky.

What did you think of Cornyn getting re-elected?

What do I think? Well I'm not surprised. I think he's a jerk, but otherwise I really couldn't care less. It is Texas after all. One of the largest states in the Union and one of the most expensive to campaign in. Noriega never had a chance. I think Obama, if he does a good job for the next 4 years, could challenge the Republicans here in 2012. The amount of money he will be able to raise during the Republican Primary will be astounding. This was an advantage that Bush had over Kerry in 2004 before both took the federal funding. Obama will have all of that time to rake in the dough, assuming he is still liked/loved by his base. Given how expensive it is to campaign in Texas, that is really the only chance for a Democrat right now. But over time, the demographics are changing and the state could be competitive on a regular basis in the next decade or so, regardless of fundraising.

 

[jaguarr]

This is so incredibly immature. "Lets punish him because he disagreed with us!" I don't like Lieberman all that much, but I wish more politicans had the balls to stand up to their party like he did. No matter how much I disagree with his views, at least he did what he thought was right.

Errrr....his attacks on Obama at the RNC Convention and in the media went far beyond just having a differing opinion from his party. THAT is why he's going to get spanked. He earned it. With his mouth. 'Cuz that's what ****es do. (Was that too much? I can never tell. ).

jag