When Joe Lieberman had a challenger for his Senate seat, I thought at the time it was going to be no big deal. Lieberman was ahead by 40 gazillion points, and who in the world knew who Ned Lamont was. Well, after getting slimed by the left wing blogs, and having his record lied about, and Lamont winning the race, Joe Lieberman finds himself in the fight of his life, and I, for one, will be right there to back him 100%
Let’s get one thing straight right off the bat. Anyone who doesn’t think Lieberman is a soild Democrat, is just fooling himself. According to the Almanac of American politics, Lieberman has a solid, if not spectactular liberal rating record of 82% That is higher than Evan Bayh, Ben Nelson, Joe Biden, Mary Landrieu, and others, so that stale arguement of Lieberman being a Republican has been blown right out the window.
Yes, Lieberman voted for the war, but so did 24 other Democrats, including the Democratic presidential candidate in 2004 himself, John Kerry. The only thing Lieberman hasn’t done, is gone back on his word like every other Democrat. He hasn’t flipped-flopped on this issue, because he firmly believes that going into Iraq was the right thing to do.
And for all his loyalty to the party, he has been slimed beyond the pale from people like David Sirota, Russ Feingold, Howard Dean, (Who’s brother is one of Lamont’s supporters), Jane Hamsher, (who disgustingly painted Lieberman in blackface, and to this day, has not apologized for it), Markos Moulitsos, Chris Bowers, Arianna Huffington, and others, simply for supporting the war.
For all the talk about how Democrats are the “big tent” party, it, sadly, is not!!! They claim to preach tolerence for dissent, but talk a different game. Joe Lieberman was Al Gore’s running mate in the 2004 election, and two short years later, they are ready to roast him on a spit, and drive him out of the party. No wonder Lieberman is running towards the Republicans. The Democrats elites have made it quite clear, they have no love for a perceived “turncoat”. But I argue that liberals drove Lieberman out of the party, not the other way around.
Joe Lieberman is a solid moderate Democrat, just like I am. Their malicious attitiude, and attacks towards him, and others who don’t subscribe to the liberal way of thinking, simply amazes me. If the Democrats are truly the party of FDR, Truman, Kennedy and Clinton, they should embrace differing views. But sadly, the Democrats are acting like Republicans. No wonder America is fed up, and doesn’t vote like it should. George Bush is the enemy, not Joe Lieberman, and the sooner the Democrats realize that, the better off they will be.
This is not about Lieberman being a conservative Democrat (although there is a valid point in one arguing that in a deep blue state, it’s unnecessary to be as moderate as he is). It’s about his inability to be a team player. He has demonstrated a consistent need to undercut the Democratic Party over and over again.
Wrong!!! Lieberman has worked across party lines to try to get things done. Putting the country before party is what we need more of, not less. If the party suffers for the overall good of the country, then so be it!!!
Wrong!!!
I’d like too suggest that multiple exclamation points and repetition of DLC talking points isn’t effective as a debate technique.
A good many of us do not think of Lieb’s work as ‘Putting the country before party’, we think of it as selling the country and his former constituents down the river for personal benefit. we would prefer to see the Senate Democrats function as an opposition party rather than watch Lieberman embrace the invasion and occupation of Iraq and the torture of it’s citizens, the takeover by the religious right of our justice system and legislatures. He’s become an embarrassment and he represents the past.
We’re also somewhat disgusted by his inability (and that of his apologists) to recognise that he lost the election.
If the party suffers for the overall good of the country, then so be it!!!
Spoken like a true Republican.
Wrong!!! Lieberman has worked across party lines to try to get things done. Putting the country before party is what we need more of, not less. If the party suffers some for the overall good of the country, then so be it!!!
The things he has worked on across party lines are the very exact same things I stand extremely opposed to, and I do not believe that they are in the best interests of the country, the party, the people in general, or me and mine. Thank you for providing us with the list of other Democratic politicians we need to focus on replacing.
What the heck is so wrong about working across party lines to try to get something done?? I know you want to see tons of Republican blood on the floor, but the rest of us would find it quite good to once in a while to stop all the political theatre, and grandstanding and work together. It has been known to work.
Who’s this “rest of us”?
And please name one good thing that the republicans have done for this country in the last 10, 12, 25 years that would warrant democrats crossing party lines to support on a regular basis like Lieberman has with this criminal administration.
One more thing. Your contempt for the voters of Connecticut is almost as disgusting as Lieberman’s. Are you saying that the primary voters made their decision to fire Lieberman based on smears? Do you consider them that ignorant and shallow? Or are you just sore because your guy lost?
Lieberman lost simply because the people of Connceticut bought into the lies, and slander. I live in the state, so I ought to know pretty much how they vote.
The fact that you live in the state makes your contempt for it’s voters even more disgusting.
It is not de facto wrong to work across party lines. You are confusing my specific criticism based on the specific issues that your candidate has chosen to work across party lines on with your own expanded and conflated victimized martyr viewpoint. I have no bad feelings towards candidates who work across party lines to do GOOD things, but I have only contempt for those who jump way over the line on important issues to embrace wholeheartedly the BAD policies of Republicans. Right is right and wrong is wrong, no matter how much you would try to confuse the issue by raising compromise to the level of godliness.
Also, I STRONGLY OBJECT to you putting your own thoughts into my mind. Particularly when you suggest that I would like to see anyone’s blood on the floor. If you knew me AT ALL, you would know that I object to the use of violent imagery totally and completely. Keep your insinuations of my motivations to yourself, please, as your characterization of me is just plain ugly and totally incorrect.
It is not political theatre to demand that women’s rights be respected, in word and deed. It is not political theatre to demand that the most efficient method of providing retirement benefits not be bastardized even one tiny bit by corporatization. YOU are engaging in the political theatre here, not me. Go stick your head back in the sand and take your violent imagery with you, please.
Uh…
Lieberman was Gore’s running mate in 2000, not 2004.
Among the reasons that I oppose Lieberman in addition to his vote on the war:
there are many more beefs that I have with Lieberman, including his undermining Harry Reid’s attempt to get to the bottom of pre-war intelligence. But I do not oppose him simply because of his position on the war. You don’t see me bashing Ben Nelson. Ben Nelson isn’t a media hog that goes out of his way to help Republicans with their message.
Boo-Man, name a person in either branch who isn’t a media hog?? All of them want their 15 minutes of fame, and Lieberman isn’t any different.
I said 2004, and I meant 2000, sorry for the Boo-Boo.
Lieberman isn’t undermining anything. It’s other Democrats who have undermined Lieberman.
I admit what Lieberman said about rape is wrong, but one quote, and you’re ready to turn on the man for life??
Let’s talk about Ned Lamont. For ten years, he belonged to an all-white country club in Fairfield county. He was forced to quit, not because the club was racist, but because it could have negatively affected his campaign. Talk about a man with no morals!!!!
Here are some Senators that I have almost never seen on cable news or heard on the radio:
Akaka
Bingaman
Murray
Reed
Mikulski
Sarbanes
Kohl
Jeffords
Wyden
the Nelsons
There are many Republican Senators I almost never see showboating, including:
Thomas of Wyoming
Crapo if Idaho
Isaakson of Georgia
Voinovich of Ohio
Gregg of New Hampshire
It is simply not true that any other member of the Senate is known for going on the opposition’s media outlest and hammering their own party.
Every once in a while you will see Chafee or Snowe or Specter makes critical comments. Chuck Hagel is the most strident and the most Liebermanesque of the Republicans. However, he at least has the virtue of being right, unlike Joe.
Boo-Man, just because they’re not on TV, all of them never met a microphone they didn’t like. They like the sounds of their own voices. Maybe those guys you mentioned aren’t on TV simply because they don’t make great guests. Who would you rather hear, Herb Kohl or Joe Biden??
So I take it with your comment about Hagel being right, you will now support him for president if he runs??
I agree with Psi’s 0-rating, but will not rate. I think this comment should remain visible in all it’s stupid glory.
ask, I gave you a four. There are two parts to the original comment that I would like to differentiate:
“Anyone who doesn’t think Lieberman is a soild Democrat, is just fooling himself.”
Um, Joe is a member of “Connecticut for Leiberman,” not a Democrat.
Unless you had a Freudian slip and meant “soiled” Democrat. That I could go with.
Joe a moderate Dem? I disagree. The party has moved so far to the right as a whole that there is little distinction between the two parties anymore which is very dangerous imho.
we just turned on the lights. And didn’t much like what we saw scurrying around, looking all Republican like, going kissy kissy with Georgie Georgie . . .
If Nobody slimed him, then obviously, you haven’t been watching TV or reading the liberal blogs.
I think you will find little support for your position here. Though I don’t agree with Lieberman on the war, I must admit I find kos’s daily rants and personal insults again Joe’s mentum tough to take. I just tune it out. In fact, I often find myself tuning all of dkos out. Too much noise, very little signal.
It really doesn’t matter that almost no one will agree with my position about Lieberman. If they want to be wrong, let them.
Well, now there’s a statement I disagree with. Those who rant against Lieberman are pissed at the dude for promoting policy positions they disapprove of. Well, what’s one to do? Vote in the opposition.
It’s an internal party fight. But those who oppose Joe are not “wrong” — per se — they simply have different priorities than you.
Me: I’m happy to see Joe tossed off the boat as long as another Democrat wins in his place. Unfortunately, I doubt Lamont will win, and as such that’s another lost Senate seat. Somehow, after this pissing match, I think an Independent Joe will be unlikely to caucus with the donkey.
*sigh*
Twenty years ago I proudly and truthfully claimed that I was a moderate. Now, ALL of the positions that were once considered moderate are now considered to be to the left of center. I am not a ‘moderate’ anymore. Don’t expect me, for one, to compromise with today’s ‘moderates’. Further ‘moderation’ is not the answer.
If you can’t see that the political spectrum has been changed since the days of Clinton/Gore by the Bush administration, then I’d say its time to have your eyes checked. If you and Joe want to keep tacking to the right with the Republicans, then I say go for it. But don’t expect the rest of us to go with you or to avoid shinning the spotlight on where you’re going.
I gather you believe that speaking out against someone’s positions equals sliming.
I gather that you think supporting a politician whose positions are closer to your own is sliming.
The majority of voters in Connecticut disagreed with Lieberman. The majority voted against him. It is too bad that his hubris is such that he will not accept the will of the voters.
Loserman slimed himself when he did not accept the will of the people. He LOST and should accpet it gracefully and step out of the race.
but I am extemely disappointed the Dems couldnt find a more liberal candidate than Ned Lamont. But at the end of the day it is up to the people of Connecticut. Shame they have a choice of three uninspiring candidates imho. Still maybe they will like one of them.