BREAKING NEWS: Joe Lieberman urges voters to back Crowley over Ocasio-Cortez in general election
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
"Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s surprise primary victory over Rep. Joe Crowley seems likely to hurt Congress, America and the Democratic Party. It doesn’t have to," Lieberman wrote in an op-ed published Tuesday in The Wall Street Journal.
"Because the policies Ms. Ocasio-Cortez advocates are so far from the mainstream, her election in November would make it harder for Congress to stop fighting and start fixing problems."
Lieberman noted that Crowley's name will still be on the ballot as the nominee of the Working Families Party.
Tags
Who is online
82 visitors
The former 2000 Democratic vice presidential nominee also attacked Ocasio-Cortez’s policies for being “more socialist than Democratic.”
“She has received the most attention for calling to 'Abolish ICE,' Immigration and Customs Enforcement,” he wrote. “This makes no sense unless you no longer want any rules on immigration or customs to be enforced.”
Ocasio-Cortez's campaign declined to comment to The Hill.
Some Democrats often tend to"shoot themselves in the foot" when they have a good chance of winning an upcoming election (In this case I'm thinking of the upcoming race for the House). And Ocasio-Cortez is definitely one of these.
And some of the ideas some of them come up with are really just plain stupid. (Advocating abolishing ICE is one of them. What will these morons think of next-- abolishing all police departments because some individuals-- even some entire departments in certain locales-- have acted inappropriately?).
My fervent hope is that the democrats keep "shooting themselves in the foot"! They can't go far enough to the left to make the extremists happy.
Why would Democrats listen to Lieberman when he is not a member of the DNC?
Exactly. And why wouldn't they vote for the candidate that wants open borders? Sure it would destroy the country, but she is obviously the most opposing of Trumps policies and is the most likely to cause more trouble for Trump and that's all we really care about at this point in time./s I am still not quite sure what it is about Trump that drives some insane.
You are trying to create a very obvious strawman by incorrectly stating that anyone who opposes Trump'sdraconiann and short-sighted immigration polocy wants open borders, but that is not the case.
Cortez does not want open borders because the US didn't have an open border immigration policy before Trump. If we had an open border policy then immigrants would have been issued a green card upon requrest but obviously that doesn't happen.
Even though Lieberman voted most times with democrats, I still kinda liked him. Felt bad for him when the "Mega-Liberal Dems" left him at the door step, Like NPR did with Juan Williams. The Old Dems in the Democrat Party are gone for sure.
I guess the New Dems haven't figured out what got Trump elected in the first place.
I guess the New Dems haven't figured out what got Trump elected in the first place.
I totally agree.
And it wasn't only the "New" Dems-- also some of the regular old tyme "Establisment Democrats" (Hillary being a prime example-- her being so totally out of touch with traditional Democratic voters in the Rust Belt states-- factory workers, even the many who were union members who had been life long Democrats-- is one of the main reasons she wasn't elected.
I disagree. Trump got elected because of fake news, fear, lies about others and an 'immunity' to truth and fact concerning himself.
What I stated in the sentence above, has happened in history before. And it happened again. Putin's influence is deeper than many realize. Putin's power is not in his appeal, of that he has little, but the plundered Russian Treasury is being used to infiltrate and control key components of The Western Democracies.
I disagree. Trump got elected because of fake news, fear, lies about others and an 'immunity' to truth and fact concerning himself.
I seen many debates about why Trump got elected. Interestingly, people on both sides of the argument feel that there was only one reason (although they differ on what that reason was).
It seems clear to me that there were several reasons...
If either Hillary or Trump had done several things differently, the results would've been different. However, regardless of that-- The real determinant was the Electoral College system. Hillary actually did win the election (I define "winning" as getting more votes than your opponent)-- but Trump got the office.
What I stated in the sentence above, has happened in history before. And it happened again. Putin's influence is deeper than many realize. Putin's power is not in his appeal, of that he has little, but the plundered Russian Treasury is being used to infiltrate and control key components of The Western Democracies.
I do agree with that.
But even so, if the Electoral College system didn't exist. Hillary would now be our President....(Trump lost by, IIRC, over 3 million votes).
(P.S: I don't mean to minimize the threat posed by Putin. You make an excellent point-- many people underestimate the very real danger posed by Putin-- not only top the U.S. but to many other countries)
Ain't it funny what happens when someone takes on a persona that really isn't them ?
I've got this feeling Trump voters were the sleeping giant that woke up after bitching about "The Swamp"
for decades.
Wrong again! Hillary lost because was a sickly, corrupt, lying, over the hill alcoholic, out of touch..BITCH!!!
She hadn't had a new idea in decades, and never had a clue as to the mood of the electorate.
Which is just another time eternally grateful to the Founding Fathers for coming up with. The EC was a fabulous idea.
Here we go again! Thank goodness our Founding Fathers had the foresight to plan ahead and created the Electoral College. They must have known that Hillary would rely on popularity to push her over the 2016 finish line. Maybe she can write another what happened book and blame them for both of her major losses.
However Joe Crowley is one who does understand what's going on:
"Because the policies Ms. Ocasio-Cortez advocates are so far from the mainstream, her election in November would make it harder for Congress to stop fighting and start fixing problems."
Crowley a Lieberman type ?
Lieberman. What ever.
Had Lieberman NOT been on the ticket in 2000, Bush would not have won, there would not have been a 911, would not have been The Iraq War and there never would have been $100+ a barrel of OIL.
Everybody trashing Cortez? Why? Isn't it about time the taxpayers got some real benefit from their tax dollars?
No-- everyone is definitely not trashing her. (In fact she won the primary by a large margin).
In addition, I believe that Bernie Snders (and probably his larghe number of supporters) are supporting her.
While it may not be a violation of the CoC, my personal preference would be to stick to factual statements.
Well, allow me to clarify just a bit.
Cortez detractors place her out on 'the fringe.' And that may be true...…...then again, that may not be true.
Steven King detractors place him on 'the fringe' too. That may be true also...…….but for others, not so much.
However, putting Cortez and King side by side, issue by issue, for the extreme vast majority of Americans, the Cortez proposals would, in my opinion, be far more fair and beneficial.
Cortez detractors place her out on 'the fringe.' And that may be true...…...then again, that may not be true
Cortez is a far left socialist agitator...and that is the fringe. She doesn't have a workable plan or a clue about what should be done for the greater benefit. I seriously doubt she will go far. If she does, that's good for the Republicans.
Fine, Cortez is a 'far left social agitator.'
Steve Bannon is a 'far right social agitator.'
Okay. Which one of them will protect your Social Security, Healthcare, Medicare, keep the infrastructure in tip top shape and make sure the Big Banks and Wall Street play by the rules?
Choose wisely.
Falsehood.
Every recount shows that Bush won fair and square, and 9/11 was a planned event by the enemy long before he was even elected. I suspect the democrat who lost would have not let this attack go unchallenged either.
I stated clearly that 'if Lieberman had not been on the ticket.'
As far as 911. I doubt a Gore Administration would have ignored the INTEL concerning bin Laden and the activities taking place in this country at the time. There would not have been a 911, Iraq War, $100+ OIL or the 2007-08 Financial Meltdown.
There also would not have been a Department of Homeland Security or The Patriot Act. Just for starters.
I have yet to see the left come up with one piece- just ONE piece- of definitive evidence that Gore would've stopped 9/11.
And before you go on about memos directed at Rice/ Cheney/ whoever, keep in mind there was no memo that spelled out any specific date or attack. If Bush had ordered all planes grounded for the month of September just to be safe, the left would've accused him of sinking the economy or using terrorism as a distraction. Bill Clinton in his entire term failed to prevent the first WTC attack, the OKC bombing, the embassy bombings, the Columbine shooting.. Hell, if you add Waco, Clinton and Reno actually CAUSED unnecessary deaths with their incompetence.
Ye gawd. The conservative thought mechanism is full disarray.
Yeah well, I would like to see the right wing prove that a Gore Administration would have made the same errors as the Cheney/Bush.
Lieberman is the ultimate establishment Democrat. He kept the policy of warmongering going on long after Clinton, Schumer and Biden gave up and turned on their original votes to authorize war. At least he didn't favor a war then turn his back on it the way most of Democrats who voted for it did.