General discussion

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Thanks, AV

by maxwell edison In reply to Good call on Joe Lieberma ...

That was one of my better predictions, especially when most people were writing him off after his own Democrat Party hung him out to dry. I wish I could make another prediction about him changing parties, but that's not much more than wishful thinking. I will say this, however. If he were to switch parties and join the Republicans, not only could he justify such a move (see note below), but he could get just about any committee position he wanted in that Republican controlled Senate. The way it is now, he won't get any committee position, at least not a significant one, in a Democrat controlled Senate.

Note: His justification for changing parties could be two-fold. First of all, much of his own Democrat base -- and all of the Democrat Party -- abandoned him. He owes his reelection to Connecticut Republicans who voted for him in droves; and President Bush even spoke out in support of him. Secondly, his position on the war in Iraq (see the article that I posted in a different message), which certainly could be advanced as the most important issue facing the nation, is right in-line with the Republican position, not the Democrat position.

It's a move that would make perfect sense to me, but I won't hold my breath.

Perhaps a letter to the good Senator is in order...

Dear Senator Lieberman, ......

Collapse -

I think he's enjoying his independent status

by AV . In reply to Thanks, AV

He's more powerful that way, actually. I just can't think of him as a Democrat. I know he said he would vote in line with the Democrats, but I see him as more of a wildcard. Prior to that, I thought of him as a Democrat that wanted to be a Republican.

Maybe he could one day be the first viable independent to run for President. I know thats probably far-fetched, but it would certainly shake up the status quo. The problem with most independents is that they don't have backing or name recognition to compete with the Democrats and Republicans. Joe Lieberman might be able to pull it off.

Collapse -

Single handedly

by onbliss In reply to A day of shame?

I agree with you that there are several factors in play. But, there are scenarios where a leader of a nation or state can make/take decisions that have a huge impact.

P.V.Narasimha Rao the Prime Minister of India, in 19** provided the will and support for the economic liberalisation of India. With his two crucial appointees in the ministries of Finance and Commerce he tackled the economic crisis in 19**. The domestic and foreign industries took advantage of the liberalisation.

State and National leaders are always supported by their Cabinet and bureaucracy. Yes there is always a team work, but the leader's action will have its own consequences that can be perceived either in short terms or long terms.

Collapse -

The relevant question

by JamesRL In reply to Single handedly

Is could he have done it, if all the support from his party and the public were not with him? If he was doing something against the wishes of the people and the business leaders in the economy, all his work could have been undone when he left.

And I would bet that India's economy did not show significant effects of liberalization until years later.

To me the appropriate metaphor is that the President changing the economy is like turning the Titanic, its very slow and takes the involvement and co-operation of the entire ships crew to make it happen. Some presidents inherit a ship thats already in the right direction. Some inherit a ship that needs some adjustments. But if the ship is in the wrong direction, it may not even do a 180 degree turn during the terms of the president.

And of course, there are differences between Communist countries, socialist coountries, and primarily capitalist countries. The more capitalist, the less able the president is to influence the economy. A communist leader like USSR or Cuba can easily ruin the economy.

James

Collapse -

Not all supported

by onbliss In reply to The relevant question

He had mixed support from his party, and the public were largely indifferent. Just like anywhere else in the world, some party men supported him while others opposed him. He had to take some decision. He is especially known for his procrastinations. Yes, things could have been undone, and still can be. But what he did was let the dam break or set the ball rolling so to speak. The Finance Minister whom he chose is the Prime Minister now, the Commerce Minister that he chose is the Finance Minister now. They are politicians and have their own pet agendas but so far they are managing the Leftist parties. Ofcourse lot more can be done.

I am not debating that all decisions have immediate effects, infact I agree with you. In my view sometimes the brilliant decisions are so brilliant that the public does not even know about the decision makers and processes.

Even in your analogy, even as the ship is sailing in the right direction; one needs the right person to keep the ship sailing correctly.

Collapse -

Everything you say is true, and I'm amazed. . . . . .

by maxwell edison In reply to The relevant question

....that there are people who actually believe that one person (the president of the USA, for example) can directly and unequivocally affect the outcome of domestic issues. Moreover, anyone who actually believes that the outcome of their life will be determined by who's elected into any particular position is an absolute fool. Those people may as well believe that the outcome of their life is determined by the weather!

MY GOD, PEOPLE!!!!!! Get hold of yourselves. Take control of your own lives! My GOD, if you don't believe you have control over your own life, you are the epitome of a friggin' loser! And guess what. You will ALWAYS lose!

Collapse -

Why the Democrats stabbed Joe Lieberman in the back

by maxwell edison In reply to Prediction Update

(A cut-and-pasted article from the Wall Street Journal)

Our Troops Must Stay

America can't abandon 27 million Iraqis to 10,000 terrorists.

BY JOE LIEBERMAN
Tuesday, November 29, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there. More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the
primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood--unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn.

Progress is visible and practical. In the Kurdish North, there is continuing security and growing prosperity. The primarily Shiite South remains largely free of terrorism, receives much more electric power and other public services than it did under Saddam, and is experiencing greater economic activity. The Sunni triangle, geographically defined by Baghdad to the east, Tikrit to the north and Ramadi to the west, is where most of the terrorist enemy attacks occur. And yet here, too, there is progress.

There are many more cars on the streets, satellite television dishes on the roofs, and literally millions more cell phones in Iraqi hands than before. All of that says the Iraqi economy is growing. And Sunni candidates are actively campaigning for seats in the National Assembly. People are working their way toward a functioning society and economy in the midst of a very brutal, inhumane, sustained terrorist war against the civilian population and the Iraqi and American military there to protect it.

It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists or al Qaeda foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern. The terrorists are intent on stopping this by instigating a civil war to produce the chaos that will allow Iraq to replace Afghanistan as the base for their fanatical war-making. We are fighting on the side of the 27 million because the outcome of this war is critically
important to the security and freedom of America. If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and progress in the Middle East, which has long been a major American national and economic security priority.

Before going to Iraq last week, I visited Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Israel has been the only genuine democracy in the region, but it is now getting some welcome company from the Iraqis and Palestinians who are in the midst of robust national legislative election campaigns, the Lebanese who have risen up in proud self-determination after the Hariri assassination to eject their Syrian occupiers (the Syrian- and Iranian-backed Hezbollah militias should be next), and the Kuwaitis, Egyptians and Saudis who have taken steps to open up their governments more broadly to their people. In my meeting with the thoughtful prime minister of Iraq, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, he declared with justifiable pride that his country now has the most open, democratic political system in the Arab world. He is right. In the face of terrorist threats and escalating violence, eight million Iraqis voted for their interim national government in January, almost 10 million participated in the referendum on their new constitution in October, and even more than that are expected to vote in the elections for a full-term government on Dec. 15. Every time the 27 million Iraqis have been given the chance since Saddam was overthrown, they have voted for self-government and hope over the violence and hatred the 10,000 terrorists offer them. Most encouraging has been the behavior of the Sunni community, which, when disappointed by the proposed constitution, registered to vote and went to the polls instead of taking up arms and going to the streets. Last week, I was thrilled to see a vigorous political campaign, and a large number of independent television stations and newspapers covering it.

None of these remarkable changes would have happened without the coalition forces led by the U.S. And, I am convinced, almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if those forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country.

The leaders of Iraq's duly elected government understand this, and they asked me for reassurance about America's commitment. The question is whether the American people and enough of their representatives in Congress from both parties understand this. I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November's elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead.

Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they ere under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.

The leaders of America's military and diplomatic forces in Iraq, Gen. George Casey and Ambassador Zal Khalilzad, have a clear and compelling vision of our mission there. It is to create the environment in which Iraqi democracy, security and prosperity can take hold and the Iraqis themselves can defend their political progress against those 10,000 terrorists who would take it from them.

Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do. And it is important to make it clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still but has changed over the years. Mistakes, some of them big, were made after Saddam was removed, and no one who supports the war should hesitate to admit that; but we have learned from those mistakes and, in characteristic American fashion, from what has worked and not worked on the ground. The administration's recent
use of the banner "clear, hold and build" accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week. We are now embedding a core of coalition forces in every Iraqi fighting unit, which makes each unit more effective and acts as a multiplier of our forces. Progress in "clearing" and "holding" is being made. The Sixth Infantry Division of the Iraqi Security Forces now controls and polices more than one-third of Baghdad on its own. Coalition and Iraqi forces have together cleared the previously terrorist-controlled cities of Fallujah, Mosul and Tal Afar, and most of the border with Syria. Those areas are now being "held" secure by the Iraqi military themselves. Iraqi and coalition forces are jointly carrying out a mission to clear Ramadi, now the most dangerous city in Al-Anbar province at the west end of the Sunni Triangle.

Nationwide, American military leaders estimate that about one-third of the approximately 100,000 members of the Iraqi military are able to "lead the fight" themselves with logistical support from the U.S., and that that number should double by next year. If that happens, American military forces could begin a drawdown in numbers proportional to the increasing self-sufficiency of the Iraqi forces in 2006. If all goes well, I believe we can have a much smaller American military presence there by the end of 2006 or in 2007, but it is also likely that our presence will need to be significant in Iraq or nearby for years to come.

The economic reconstruction of Iraq has gone slower than it should have, and too much money has been wasted or stolen. Ambassador Khalilzad is now implementing reform that has worked in Afghanistan--Provincial Reconstruction Teams, composed of American economic and political experts, working in partnership in each of Iraq's 18 provinces with its elected leadership, civil service and the private sector. That is the "build" part of the "clear, hold and build" strategy, and so is the work American and international teams are doing to professionalize national and provincial governmental agencies in Iraq.

These are new ideas that are working and changing the reality on the ground, which is undoubtedly why the Iraqi people are optimistic about their future--and why the American people should be, too.

I cannot say enough about the U.S. Army and Marines who are carrying most of the fight for us in Iraq. They are courageous, smart, effective, innovative, very honorable and very proud. After a Thanksgiving meal with a great group of Marines at Camp Fallujah in western Iraq, I asked their commander whether the morale of his troops had been hurt by the growing public dissent in America over the war in Iraq. His answer was insightful, instructive and inspirational: "I would guess that if the opposition and division at home go
on a lot longer and get a lot deeper it might have some effect, but, Senator, my Marines are motivated by their devotion to each other and the cause, not by political debates."
Thank you, General. That is a powerful, needed message for the rest of America and its political leadership at this critical moment in our nation's history. Semper Fi.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007611

Thank you, Senator Lieberman, for reminding us of all the good things we are doing in Iraq.

And a personal note to Senator Lieberman: I've often said that I would never vote for a Democrat. But in your case, if I was ever faced with such a choice, I might make an exception. You are indeed a man who puts principle before politics. You have my utmost respect.

And where was this message in the recent election coverage?

Collapse -

Has he written anything more recent?

by jdclyde In reply to Why the Democrats stabbed ...

Any links would be welcome.

thanks in advance for sharing!

Collapse -

That was only 12 months ago, not really outdated at all

by maxwell edison In reply to Has he written anything m ...

I've not seen anything else, and I might assume he's been busy campaigning to write more articles. But if I see anything, I'll post it.

Collapse -

I know that it is still consistant with what he is saying

by jdclyde In reply to That was only 12 months a ...

He has been on some of the talk radio shows. Caught him on Hannity yesterday, and he was on Glen Becks show last week.

He doesn't have the personality to get elected as president, and is still a liberal loon on many issues, but it is nice to see someone that stands up for what they believe. He is a man of character. No wonder others in his party wanted him out.

Related Discussions

Related Forums