Max, you're just being evasive now. Maybe you got the wrong impression, but I never said this had to do with Lieberman being Jewish. I think his support for Israel was a factor, but Iraq was the crux of it.
I don't care if you support or oppose the war, Max. I think you're wrong, but whatever. My primary point of contention is with the Democratic fringe base, and the degree of influence they are currently holding in elections. As far as
process goes, yeah, it's great. Yay democracy! But when a small group of Democrats suddenly decide what makes a real Democrat, and what was once a big tent becomes increasingly smaller and smaller, then you risk alienating yourself from the bulk of voters.
I'm also concerned about the honesty of the debate they want to have. They championed a one-issue candidate with very little experience, and are pushing him to be a member of arguably the most powerful deliberative body in the world. You should go back and watch the debate they had. Lieberman schooled him, and lamont came across as uninformed, unprepared, and inconsistent on the issues. Hell, Lamont can't even get
his position on Iraq straight, so as far as one issue candidates go, he's pretty eak on that.
Get the troops out. That's what the man who wishes to be senator stands for. That's your fresh new perspective on fighting the war on terror. I asked you to prove to me that Lieberman has consistently voted against the Democrats on other issues, and you can't. But for some reason, you just
know that you don't like Lieberman, and that he must not be very liberal. So why is that?
Threaded Mode