Why I cannot support Lieberman

[BurtWorm]

``If we nominate somebody who's against all tax cuts, for big government-spending and sends a message of weakness on defense, the Democratic candidate is not going to have a chance in 2004,'' he said.

[cjbuchanan]

1. You might find this interesting

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/printme.php?eid=45466

If any pro-Lieberman folks our here, I would love to hear your reasons.

[BurtWorm]

2. Me too

The media tend to report his participation in Freedom Summer, but they don't breathe a word about his double-crossing of the movement since he's been Senator. Thanks for the link!

[Poll_Blind]

3. I don't think he's the anti-Christ Grand Dragon that article makes him...

...out to be. However, he doesn't need to be to lose my vote. He's betting, certianly more than any other Democratic hopeful, that a right-leaning Democrat is the only way to win, both earning votes from his own party with a more sensible homeland security and, possibly more importantly, luring disenchanted conservatives away from Bush. I think that's a fine strategy. Even well-thought-out one.

But I don't think it's going to work. I reject his conservative leanings and question his ability to understand what the difference between a conservative and progressive needs to be in 2004. In his view, not much. In my view, they're a whole world apart. I think Bush Lite is certainly an overblown generalization but until something better comes along....

PB

[BurtWorm]

5. I will start to believe the conspiracy theories

if Lieberman is nominated. I don't think he's the devil, either, but I do think his "ideas" are ancient and irrelevant entirely to the crisis at hand.

[jiacinto]

8. This is a completely biased article

And given how the writer uses sophomoric phrases it is hardly a credible source.

[iverglas]

9. I'm just curious again

"This is a completely biased article"

I'd think we're all agreed that the bias of an author does not automatically mean that what s/he says is not true. Alleging bias, on its own, accomplishes nothing.

"And given how the writer uses sophomoric phrases it is hardly a credible source."

That's a bit more of the same, mixed up a little more.

Using "sophomoric phrases", like being biased, doesn't affect the truth of what one says.

Nor does the credibility, or lack of credibility, of the source affect the truth of what it is saying.

So all in all, my finding is that you've said precisely nothing!

If something is to be discussed as a "source", I'll assume that we're talking of facts and not opinions. The merits of something as a source of opinion aren't really of much concern -- unless you're talking about the merits of the opinion in the article. I don't know why you would be. Nonetheless, the way to attack an opinion is generally to attack the facts and arguments offered in support of it, not the words used in expressing it.

That would be what I'm wondering about. Are you saying (and I've only skimmed the article, and don't know much about any of it) that there are facts reported in the article that are false? That there is bad argument offered in support of some opinion expressed in it?

What exactly is it "hardly a credible source" for, and what does its phraseology have to do with the truth of its facts and the strength of its opinions?

Dismissing something or someone out of hand without offering any relevant and demonstrated reasons is the kind of thing that *I* don't pay much attention to.

.

[poskonig]

4. plus he stroked Gore in Florida,

jumped on the bash Clinton bandwagon during impeachment, has a very conservative record someone else documented in this forum at length, ditched the NAACP to appear on Bill O'Nazi Factor -- yeah, we can safely say Lieberman is a loser.

[drdigi420]

6. He's a Holy Roller

just like Bush.

Never trust someone that leaves their accountability up to fictional characters in a 2000 year old fairy tale.

[Cha]

7. Like I should listen to anything lieeeeeeeeeeeman says.

holy joe went on further to say .."so elect me, I'm about as republican as you're gonna get"

And get this through your thick pod head lieman...9/11 Happened on bushwatch--that is as about as Weak on Defense as you're gonna get!


I want a Dem in there who will be seriously looking out for my Country's Well Fare..not another repug who believes the end justifies the means. Which the bushwa and you don't even have a pretty ending.

[retread]

10. Number One reason--He can't beat *. He proved he doesn't

have what it takes by abandoning an important, crucial constituency to tape an appearance on a right wing hack's show.