Pryor loyal to Lieberman
U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor is mentioned in this NYTimes article as among the few Democratic colleagues of U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman who are going to support the Connecticut senator regardless of whether he wins next week's Democratic primary.
As Senator Joseph I. Lieberman battles to retain his seat in Connecticut, some factions within the national Democratic Party are quietly preparing to campaign against the three-term senator if he loses the primary on Tuesday and runs as an independent in the general election in November, numerous Democrats said yesterday.
Although Mr. Lieberman has attracted support from several of his Senate colleagues — and former President Bill Clinton appeared with him in the state last week — only a handful have pledged to remain loyal to him if he loses to his antiwar challenger, Ned Lamont, and mounts an independent campaign. ...
A small core of Democrats, including Senators Ken Salazar of Colorado, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii, have pledged to remain with Mr. Lieberman regardless of the primary outcome. But even those people say they expect many other Democrats, including people who feel affection for Mr. Lieberman, to be torn about helping him in the general election.



Comments
Fine. I hope Pryor gets a good close-up look at a Lamont victory. It might be instructive to him.
Posted by: mag | August 2, 2006 08:55 AM
I noticed in a recent press release that Jesse 'hyme town' Jackson is going to campaign against Lieberman even though Lieberman has been a staunch supporter of civil rights. I guess this just shows the true colors of Mr. Jackson.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2006 08:57 AM
I hope Lamont wins
Because he will be CRUSHED in the general election...
For the GOP's sake, the Gop NEEDS a whackjob lamont / 'cut and run' murtha as the face of the pansy dems
Go Lamont go!!! :)
Posted by: raisethewhite flag, murtha-lamont | August 2, 2006 09:00 AM
Wait one minute...I thought Pryor was a Republican?
Posted by: Wait a minute | August 2, 2006 09:02 AM
I like Joe Lieberman. And I hope he wins his primary- he has the courage to stand with his convictions and yes disagree with the president, but also work with bipartisanship. At least he's not jumping ship and changing parties like some people in his shoes would....
Posted by: NEA | August 2, 2006 09:04 AM
Colbert says Lieberman is his favorite Republican on the Democratic side of the aisle.
Moving on......
Posted by: RickBaber | August 2, 2006 09:10 AM
I like Joe Lieberman. And I hope he wins his primary- he has the courage to stand with his convictions....
Posted by: NEA
I don't like Joe Lieberman.
I hope he loses his primary.
I don't see courage to stand with one's convictions as trumping the courage to see one's mistakes and set things right.
Standing with your convictions once you realize you're wrong is just plain stupid. And if he doesn't realize he's wrong, then he needs to be defeated on that count.
Posted by: Spirit | August 2, 2006 09:23 AM
Well, you and Jesse 'hyme town' Jackson have something in common.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2006 09:31 AM
Sens. Pryor and Lieberman have feathered their nests at the expense of over 2,500 U.S. troops, plus so many more who have been maimed for the sake of a stupid, failed foreign policy. And those who advocate continuing with this stupid, failed foreign policy are so cognitively impaired that they are to be pitied, not argued with.
Posted by: Time For You To Go, Joe | August 2, 2006 09:58 AM
More bullshit while the bombs fall. Is this a great country or what?
Posted by: bodybybush | August 2, 2006 10:02 AM
I am NO supporter of Joe Lieberman but I respect his stand on the war at great politcal expense. He is a rarity in this day and age when politicians stick their finger in the wind to decide what position they take on an issue. Unfortunately, he is in a party that cowers at the thought of defending this nation's interest in the world. The democratic party is unquestionably an antimilitary pacifistic entity that will cut and run when the casulties are too high and the enemy is too determined.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2006 10:05 AM
"Failed, foreign policy"
Too bad the Iraqis love us, and love Bush!!!
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2004/11/i-found-this-letter-link-in-arabic-of.html
Yikes, it hurts to have evidence in front of you!!!
Posted by: only dems and arabs hate the progress we've made in iraq (iraqis are NOT ARABS for the last time!!!) | August 2, 2006 10:05 AM
Don't you Bible thumpers out there know that Mel Gibson doesn't like Lieberman? Isn't that enough to make you lose your Passion for the Lieberman?
My wife pointed out a big Impeach Bush sign at one of our bases in Afghanistan to me last night. Our troops get it, it's time we got it. Colbert had Ned Lamont on the other night and hardly opened his mouth, letting Lamont have all the time he wanted to state the reasons that Lieberman has to go.
It's not surprising to me that Mark Pryor supports a man who is willing to leave his own party to keep his seat in Congress. Pryor has no idea of party loyalty either. And hopefully will join Lieberman in the Retired Senator's Lounge after 2008. This is not a time for weak Democrats, the fox is making off with the hen house and the whole damn farm.
If ever there was an administration that needed to be chased from office, the Bush administration is it. We should be like the townspeople after Frankenstein. Cheney should be running thru the dark woods for his life. We're all fed up with this Neo-con Job. America is crashing and burning, driven into the earth by the Bush administration with the help of spineless Democrats like Lieberman, Pryor and Lincoln.
We have to fight them over here before we can bring our troops home from over there. We need to give Lieberman-Pryor-Lincoln a down and down vote. We need to cut and run all weak Democrats out of government. We need to stand back after the November elections and say Mission Half Accomplished! Then we can look at the Bush White House and the Bush Supreme Court and Diebold and say Bring It On! Our children and grandchildren will thank us some day.
Posted by: Deathbyinches | August 2, 2006 10:19 AM
Sen. "73 with the GOP" should just switch parties. I am fed up...this guy claims to be a Democrat, but when (yes, when) Lieberman loses the primary to Lamont he will support his buddy? No matter what the cost to the Party? Way to be supportive, there....
Joe Lieberman is a chump, and anyone who supports or just plain admires him because of his "conviction" or support of the Iraq war, needs to lay off the Kool-Aid.
Wake up...Mark Pryor is no Democrat...unless the Democratic Party has adopted Republican ideals, which last I checked, has not.
This is a good example of why the Democratic Party is perceived as weak and fractious...
I am keeping my fingers that a strong candidate surfaces to take on "73 with the GOP" in the '08 primaries...
Posted by: rosso | August 2, 2006 10:19 AM
The "PROGRESS" we've made in Iraq. That is f*****g hilarious! Keep it coming!
Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2006 10:23 AM
MOON BAT WARNING! MOON BAT WARNING!
Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2006 10:38 AM
Hillary supports the war.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2006 10:39 AM
Blind devotion to political parties is one of the sad and wrong things in this country. I think it is a bit whiney to saddle up as an independent after you've lost your party's nomination, but I have no problem with Lieberman disagreeing with some of the party rhetoric and taking a different stand.
There is a place somewhere between Dems and Goppers where people can co-exist happily. Some day we may even have a party and a candidate, but until then, I will just have to continue weighing the individual attributes of the respective candidates and make my choice. Sometimes it requires me to hold my nose when doing so.
Posted by: Sparky | August 2, 2006 11:03 AM
C'mon Anonymous.
If you're going to use a racial epithet, at least have the courtesy to spell it correctly.
Posted by: Mel Gibson | August 2, 2006 11:30 AM
Jesse Jackson used that racial epithet. However, all is forgiven when he does it but not with Mel. Jesse wasn't drunk so I don't know what his excuse was. Wonder what the difference is?
Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2006 11:32 AM
B/C JESSE IS BLACK!!
DUH!!!!
SAME REASON AL SHARPTON AND CYNTHIA MCKINNEY GET OFF THE HOOK!
D-o-u-b-l-e S-t-a-n-d-a-r-d
Plus, Mel is a WHITE CHRISTIAN!!! (according to the "howard dean formula", there is a 3 in 3 chance he is a republican!! snicker snicker!)
Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2006 11:49 AM
I think the major point here is missed.
If the DEMOCRATS...the voters of CT find that they DO NOT want Lieberman to represent them...and decide another DEMOCRAT falls closer in line with their views and they throw Lieberman to the curb....then every single goddamn Democratic Congressman and Senator should support the candidate that the DEMOCRATS...the people wanted - the Democratic Nominee, if it's Lamont, shut your mouth and hold your nose...it's what the voters wanted.....Jesus.
Who the hell does Pryor and any other elected Democrat think they are...superceding the will of the PEOPLE who elect them?
What, you go to Washington and all of a sudden you turn a blind eye and know more than the Democratic voters, the ones that put your sorry asses on the job in the first place? Senator Pryor...you support the Democratic Nominee - what part of that don't your get?
Posted by: BlueTicker | August 2, 2006 12:34 PM
I wasn't making a comment about the relative hypocrisy of Jesse Jackson or Mel Gibson. Subtlety is lost on you, Anon.
Here's the intended message, shorn of subtlety - You're a frickin' idiot.
Posted by: Mel Gibson | August 2, 2006 12:34 PM
Mel,
Is that the extent of your vocabulary or just an indication of IQ?
Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2006 12:49 PM
hehehehe. Mel said frickin. hehehehe. That's a dirty word. hehehehe
Posted by: Jose | August 2, 2006 12:58 PM
Big surprise. Pryor's a sellout to Bush's War for Oil, too.
Posted by: NYAR | August 2, 2006 01:39 PM
hehehehe. Mel said frickin. hehehehe. That's a dirty word. hehehehe
Everytime I see something like this - I get this visual of very small man in stature and intelligence hunching over his computer as the CRT projects a soft glow around the darkness of the crouching pathetic man.
Can you imagine typing....this?
hehehehe. Mel said frickin. hehehehe. That's a dirty word. hehehehe
And have any self respect or self worth? - that is unless you're in about 3rd grade?
Posted by: BlueTicker | August 2, 2006 01:45 PM
"Failed, foreign policy"
Too bad the Iraqis love us, and love Bush!!!
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2004/11/i-found-this-letter-link-in-arabic-of.html
Yikes, it hurts to have evidence in front of you!!!
Are you retarded?
You're telling us this is the "evidence," when surveys by Iraqi newspapers and the like show otherwise. When anyone with half a brain, including the RNC, admits that there were mistakes in Iraq.
Additionally, is your logic so faulty that you did not notice this letter was written in mid 2004, when Iraq was not in civil war? Also, did you notice that the link has been removed from the Iraqi newspaper?
Please, stick to your day job.
Posted by: JD | August 2, 2006 01:56 PM
Well, I guess that proves it. I could get the same kind of analysis you're giving about Japan and Germany from late 40s editions of the New York Times.
Some people will always sit back and complain while others take action.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2006 01:59 PM
Spot on, BlueTicker...
Pryor needs to support his party or get out. If Lieberman loses, screw him.
This race is shoring up as a moratorium on the Iraq war for the liberal voters in CT...and like in AR, with a different type of voter, it shows just how out of touch Lieberman and Pryor are with their constituents...
There have been plenty of posts about the problems of the two party system...and there are many.
However, in case you haven't noticed, we have a one party problem...rampant abuse of Executive Branch power with no oversight, deficit spiraling out of control, civil war in Iraq...I could go on and on...all under ONE party's control.
Pryor is a sham, people...a total sham coasting on the coattails of his Pop...
Posted by: rosso | August 2, 2006 02:06 PM
You're right, rosso. The democrats didn't have anything to do with the war or the spending. It's all the Republicans fault.
But you're right: Pryor is a sham. He's been screwing you libs from day one.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2006 02:10 PM
Yo! TFM - the majority rules in a Democracy, and you crimminals and war profiteers are the majority of both houses and the executive branch ...need a crayon to understand that>????
so yes... you are responsible for the WAR and the SPENDING .... the buck stops right at the Religious, Right Wing, Shiite, War for Oil, and the United Corparations of America - set upon us, working Americans, by you very own Red Party.
Posted by: BlueTicker | August 2, 2006 02:42 PM
Right... What about the majority of your party's representatives and senators who voted for all the stuff you're complaining about?
Stop passing the buck you whiney little girl.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2006 02:48 PM
You are a TFM. It doesn't matter if every single one in the minority voted for it! The majority, your party carried the day...period.
And as far as the war, they voted on the information they had...not the information they wanted or should of had. See lying sack of Shit Bush and Company on WMD. If the truth would of been told...even the TFM in majority would of done a thumbs down.
Posted by: BlueTicker | August 2, 2006 02:58 PM
Okay. We have found WMD in Iraq, more than enough to kill lots of people if it was given to terrorists.
What a fucking whiner.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2006 03:09 PM
Yo, anon-oramus...are you referring to the WMD that your pal Santorum and Hoekstra touted?!
It really is a good thing you remain anonymous, showing your ignorance as much as you do.
The Defense Dept. quickly disavowed these claims...they were pre-1991 munitions that had degraded too much for use.
The White House knew about them already...the Iraq Survey Group was well informed.
And watch your mouth...you're giving your fellow "Death Tax" buddies a bad name. Although, when one gets frustrated and angry, like you and "Axis" Ann Coulter, profanity is your solace.
Posted by: rosso | August 2, 2006 03:21 PM
I can remember America, before we declared preimptive war on a nation that has done us no wrong and did not have the ability to do us wrong.
I remember America when it was illegal to spy on citizens or put them in jail, without charging them and putting them on trial, where testimony is sworn in to show that one is guilty. It is in the Constitution, and it is relavant to us today. Tho the imperial President wants to sign a statement saying he doesn't have to obey his oath, you know the one he takes on inaguration day.
I remember trade deficits ment corn was going for 2cents less to India than it was selling here at home. But now it means that our Grandchildren would be living like peasants to pay off the Chinese and Saudiaiis.
I remember when there was the possibility of declaring bankrupcy, when you ran out of money during a major illness or catistrophic failure.
I remember when a one job/family paid a living wage. Two jobs/family ment you were secure and had money above the monthly bills and mortgage. The middleclass wasn't a dying breed.
I remember when I trusted what a Republican said, and respected most of them, b/c they were thoughtful and we could talk without calling each other traitors.
Pryor is a DINO (Democrat in name only), that means he votes Republican on every issue.
It was Pryor that came up with the stupid idea that has enabled 2 ultra wingnuts into the Supreme court. Lord help those of us that value the division of Church and State, and a 3 part Federal Government that has checks and balances..
I wish Conneticut well. But I can't wait for Lincoln and Pryor to have to account to those of us that live in this state. Bring it on....................
Posted by: socks | August 2, 2006 03:29 PM
If Pryor supported Leiberman as an Independent under the old Party rules, he would be ineligible to run for reelection as a Democrat in '08.
Posted by: Observer | August 2, 2006 03:30 PM
Any of you Dems on the Party's rules Committee that's convening this month?
Cause this needs to be addressed.
Go get em'
Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2006 04:02 PM
"rosso", I can't find you in the phone book. I guess that makes you more or less anonymous.
"they were pre-1991 munitions that had degraded too much for use." That's true. They are too degraded to be used in a guided missile, such as a scud. But they aren't too degraded to use in a terrorist attack. In fact the chemical weapons they found were ideal for distribution to multiple targets.
But, you're right, I'm the idiot.
P.S. now I'm not anonymous.
Posted by: made up name | August 2, 2006 06:19 PM
Yup you an idiot...because you and about 1 other person believes the horse shit you're saying about WMD and Iraq.
If what you're saying here is that we should invade every country that has potential WMB - that could be used, maybe used for terrorist attacks, then you need to enlist, cause we don't have enough TFM Red manpower to get the job done. And try not to lose sight of the fact that Iraq and Sadaam had NOTHING TO DO with 911 - ask your Red Army Republicans in Washington? They've finally begrudgingly admitted to that much at least.
As well, maybe we should ground every plane, because our own damn airlines were used for terriost attacks.
Or better, since Republican youth don't fight wars, you should just dig caves and hide in them....then again, that might be a good idea. Send all the cowardly Red youth who scream, like you ], that we must stay the course, win the war, yet have other priorities when it's time to serve...relegate them to caves, cowering. This nation might be better off.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2006 06:34 PM
Hey, anonymadeupmous, this from the Iraq Survey Group,
"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible Indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter."
Oh...and from your fellow "idiot"...only the one in charge,
"The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there."
And also from the American people polled in March of this year (Pew),
"Please tell me what one word best describes your impression of George W. Bush."
And guess what, self-described "idiot"?
"Idiot" was the third most common response...congratulations.
And the munitions were too degraded for transport...
Posted by: rosso | August 2, 2006 06:55 PM
Well, that proves it.
Here's a question: how many UN Resolutions does it take before the UN does something? How is it that the UN and every intelligence branch in the world, including the CIA under Clinton, said that Saddam had WMD and somehow Bush is the one who lied about it?
If Saddam had no WMD, why didn't he tell the world? He could have had all the economic sanctions lifted off his country and he'd still be in power today. Heck, we gave him 3 months warning. He knew he'd be deposed if we invaded. So you honestly think that Saddam didn't have any WMD...?
You, my liberal moron, are the idiot.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2006 07:43 PM
TFM and idiot. He knew. He wanted the war and him and that other idiot Sadaam got into a little boy game of Chicken. The sad part is that Sadaam misunderstood our idiot's absolute conviction and determination that he could trade oil for Democracy. Crazy as bat shit our Chimpster and Chief. Seems you've settled into that category on WMD's as well.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2006 08:11 PM
Chew on this for a while. Why would Sadaam think that Jr. would do anything other than Daddy Bush.
Sr. invade - got his 15 minutes of fame and left Sadaam in power...dahhh. Why would Sadaam think for one minute that Jr was any brighter than Sr? If GHWB would of thrown out Sadaam when he had the support of the WORLD we wouldn't be in this deadly and unjustified war. But, there is alway that money and oil to consider.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2006 08:42 PM
Ahhh...it's refreshing to see a 23%r up past bedtime. How many UN resolutions? Don't know...how many cheats does it take to steal an election? I don't know that either...
But more to the point...how many American casualties does it take to yank you out of your Kool-Aid stupor? How many Iraqi civilian casualties does it take? Or are you one of those people of the mind, "nuke 'em and turn the whole place into glass?"
Bush had a boner for Saddam since day one of his presidency..."Nobody takes a pot-shot at Daddy and gets away with it!"
As far as Saddam playing his cards close to his vest...you wouldn't? Iran has been drooling over Iraq's crude capacity for years...we just did their job for them.
Think a little besides watching O'Reilly and listening to Faddict Rush...
Posted by: rosso | August 2, 2006 09:15 PM
I've been thinking a lot today about Lebanon and Hezbollah and should Bush-Diebold steal another election this coming November, we might study up on the situation at hand.
Hezbollah is not the ruling government of Lebanon. Yet, they went behind them to go to war with Israel. Maybe that's been done before when I wasn't looking but that's pretty damn sneaky stuff. At some point in the future should the neo-con religious freak faction of the Republican Party continue down their path of war, ruination of world relations, heaping trillions of debt on our heads, crooks crooking, torturers and such, America may need a reverse mirror Hezbollah of it's own.
The US Hezbollah (for lack of a better name) could launch pre-emptive peace strikes. Form flotillas to sneak our troops back home to safety. Roving bands of inspectors, peace-keepers, negotiators, hordes calling for cease fires all over the globe, when Condi won't do it.
Inside our country the US Hezbollah could ring the White House and Congress keeping out the lobbyists, the big oil reps making US energy policy. Keeping out Dr. Dobson, Farwell and all the other fundie nuts. Making Congress stay and work and work until this country operates smoothly again. Denying Congress access to their pimps will hurt em, and if the ring kept them from the women they keep on the side....whooo boy, would they holler.
You might think I'm nuts. But today they released a report saying US undercover agents with all kinds of fake ID's made another run at the border and this time, they snuck in 18 more times without being detected than they did the last time they staged this drill. Homeland Security my ass!
So, if we can't kill em all, and we can't. And we can't keep them out, and we can't. Someone sure as hell better start making nice with our enemies and keep it up until we have few or no enemies. Laws aren't working, wars aren't working and Bush-Cheney keep jabbing that big ole hive with a sharp stick. We need statesmen! And we just might need an American Hezbollah spreading goodwill over, above and behind this horrid bunch that's governing us today. Think about it.
Posted by: Deathbyinches | August 2, 2006 09:50 PM
DBI:
Here, here!!
Posted by: Anonymous | August 2, 2006 11:14 PM
Don't forget Pryor and Lincoln lobbied the sell out congress to get Leon Holmes on the bench.
Any reporters been monitoring his rulings by any chance? If they're not, they should be.
Posted by: you know it | August 2, 2006 11:17 PM