Democrats & Liberals Archives

So Long Joe, Been Good to Know Ya

If there was any question that Joe Lieberman is headed for trouble in the August 8th Democratic primary, it was dispelled when Lieberman filed papers enabling him to run as an Independent. Way to be a team player, Joe. This Democrat says, “Good riddance.”

Lieberman's primary opponent, Ned Lamont, was reportedly inspired to run when he read Lieberman's op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal last November. Looking back, his words sound probably sound even loonier and more delusional now than they did at the time.

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

Wow, Lieberman describes the current civil war in Iraq so well it is almost prophetic! Not only did he think things were going swell in Iraq, he is probably the only Democrat in the country who actually believed that the war was well run.

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... Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do… The administration's recent use of the banner "clear, hold and build" accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week.

Even if he sounds like a White House spokesperson, Lieberman is entitled to his opinion. Connecticut Democrats, however, are very much entitled to vote against him in their own primary.

To conservative critics, the fact that Lieberman is in trouble at all is evidence that Democrats have essentially gone crazy. David Brooks notoriously described the campaign against him as a “liberal inquisition”. Far from being burned at the stake by a fanatical priesthood, Lieberman is simply facing the democratic process.

If Lieberman goes down, many conservatives will no doubt announce that the Democratic Party can no longer tolerate moderates. The Dems have plenty of room for moderates; the problem is Lieberman’s blind support for Bush’s comic book version of foreign policy. You can believe in aggressive foreign policy without waking up every morning to a glass of BushAde.

GOP Senator Lincoln Chafee is facing a rather similar problem, with a more conservative opponent challenging him in the Republican primary. (Notably, Chafee was the only Senate Republican to vote against the Iraq war resolution.) There is an important difference, however: Rhode Island Republicans who vote against him would likely be handing the seat to the Democrats. In Connecticut, however, it is unlikely that the seat will switch parties under any scenario.

So which, I ask you, is crazier, replacing the incumbent with someone else from the same party you find more agreeable, or venting your spleen by letting the other party win?

Posted by Woody Mena at July 23, 2006 4:17 PM
Comments
Comment #170004
The fact that you are Jewish makes it that much easier for the left to let you go.

Is is against the rules to say, “Kiss my kosher tuckus”? Most Jews tend to liberal end of the political spectrum.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 23, 2006 4:48 PM
Comment #170006

Ah, so Lieberman is the “Right” kind of Jew. Gotcha.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 23, 2006 4:52 PM
Comment #170010

Woody,

The fact that Joe Lieberman voted with the Democratic caucus 90 percent of the time and really only supports the war in Iraq leaves me to believe that you would sacrifice anything and anyone who doesn’t bow to your alter of Bush hating. You have no room for dissent. Your party of inclusion is an illusion. Name any prominant pro-life Democrat. I can name several pro-choice Republicans. Name any prominant ex KKK member Republican. Oops I’m sorry, it’s the Democratic party that harbors them. Well, I guess I was wrong, you guys are inclusive.

Keith

Posted by: keith at July 23, 2006 5:01 PM
Comment #170012

Pro-life Democrats: Harry Reid, Ben Nelson.

The “H word” as usual. It’s impossible for liberals to actually principled — we just hate people.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 23, 2006 5:09 PM
Comment #170017

“Most Jews tend to liberal end of the political spectrum.”

Yes, and (based on history alone) Jesus was a Jew.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 23, 2006 5:26 PM
Comment #170021

Good op-ed piece by Joe Klein:

Joe Lieberman is, without question, one of the finest men I’ve known in public life. I could never imagine myself voting against him. But he was profoundly wrong about the most important issue of the past five years…

KD and Coonyjay,

I was puzzled by the Jesus reference too. But didn’t he have some harsh things to say about Israel circa 1 AD?

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 23, 2006 5:40 PM
Comment #170023

Woody,

I don’t fault Lieberman for following the course he feels he should, but in actuality Joe’s a “poster boy” for David Remer’s “VOID” or for d.a.n.’s venture regarding incumbents. These career politicians seem to possess (or acquire)some level of self-importance that is at the very least downright egotistical.

Humility is undoubtedly in just as short of supply among our elected officials as honesty is. Where’s the next Harry S. Truman? Or Dwight D. Eisenhower?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 23, 2006 5:43 PM
Comment #170027

We’ll never see another Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, John Kennedy, or even a Lincoln.

These guys all had skeletons in their closets and today’s media would rip them to shreds. They’d never survive the primary!

Posted by: ulysses at July 23, 2006 5:54 PM
Comment #170028

The third party guys should be happy if Lieberman bolts. He has a decent chance of winning in a three way race. Dems should be nice to him. He may well be the swing vote.

I am not sure you have to be a team player if the team fires you. Lieberman is doing what he considers right for America. If you are talking about duty, he owes a higher duty to his country (and the people who elect him statewide) than to the party activists who run the primaries.

Posted by: Jack at July 23, 2006 6:00 PM
Comment #170029

Jesus backs Israel?

Hmmm.

Is this blog going to be on South Park?

Posted by: phx8 at July 23, 2006 6:12 PM
Comment #170031

coonyjay,

The death we read about every day between Israel and Lebanon, and the death we read about in Iraq, etc, etc, etc, are all due to someones belief in “their” god. Please keep your god to yourself, I don’t care to have anything to do with some imaginary entity which serves no purpose other than to forgive me for killing someone who’s beliefs were different than my own.

I prefer to not kill anyone unless they’re intention is to kill me or those I love, then I need no forgiveness. The two greatest reasons for killing others have always been “religion” and “ownership” neither of which actually exists.

Religious “belief” exists and people have killed and died for centuries to achieve some religious goal. Try this shoe on for size: religion is “learned”! If you’d been orphaned and then adopted by followers of Islam you’d now believe in Islam! WOW!

“Ownership” is based on the belief that human beings can “own” a piece of land. Well, ashs to ashs, dust to dust, we’re all part of the “dust” and we’ll all return to the “dust”. We don’t own the land, if we’re wise we’ll care for the land in order that the land will care for us.

What we should be concerned with is “life”! All life! No life should ever be taken other than to defend life or support life. “Man” in that regard is probably the least civilized of most species.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 23, 2006 6:20 PM
Comment #170032

“These guys all had skeletons in their closets and today’s media would rip them to shreds. They’d never survive the primary!”

ulysses,

I know I’ll get bashed by my own liberal friends, but what are Mitt Romney’s “skeletons”?

I hope we Dems can find a Romney on our side that wants to take on the current mess.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 23, 2006 6:24 PM
Comment #170034

Kansas Dem

Evan Bayh

Posted by: mark at July 23, 2006 6:38 PM
Comment #170035

coonjay

I thought God created everyone, not just Joe’s people.

Posted by: mark at July 23, 2006 6:39 PM
Comment #170037

Keith

Lieberman also supportes Bush on Guantanamo and favored congress getting involved in the Terri Schiavo fiasco.

It’s not the Democratic Party that Lieberman in trouble with, it’s his constituence in Conneticut. When 90% of your campaign money comes from outside your the state you represent, you might be in trouble.

He is being supported by the Democratic establishment(Clinton, Gore, Clinton, etc.), it’s the voters of Conn. that are having a problem with how he represents them in Congress.

Posted by: mark at July 23, 2006 6:50 PM
Comment #170043

Either way,

Lieberman loses. Lieberman doesn’t get any love from far left. If Lieberman bolts as an independent he won’t get any love from the Democrats. Lieberman may end up becoming a Republican if he still wants to stay in politics and that’s not an impressive sign of a strong political leadership quality.

Lieberman may statistically vote Democrat a majority of the time, yet the reality is, Lieberman never voted Democrat on the issues the Democrats care about the most.

Posted by: benjifromtheDNC at July 23, 2006 7:39 PM
Comment #170048

6 Years ago Mr Lieberman was a poster child for good, hard moderate Liberals. So much so that he was nomiated as the VP.

Today, because of *1* single issue where he disagrees with the left of the party (notice that he is not much different in his view of the war than say, Clinton or Bayh) his own party has funded an opponent and cut his own funding. *1* issue. The message that they are telling the world is that in order to be a ‘Good Democrat’ you have to disagree with the resumption of the Iraqi war, nothing else of your opinion matters.

Is this their right to do? Yes, of course it is. But it is his right to feel that he is still a better candidate than the puppet that is being propped up against him. His opponent has no experience and no voice of his own. He refuses to debate Lieberman on the issues of Lieberman’s record, instead he tries to label him a as a republican and tie all of the ills associated with Bush to him.

I don’t see how he is ‘crazy’ for wanting to return to Washington and represent his constituents which, as I understand it, he has done very well with the exception of *1* single issue, one that I’m sure a good (though I doubt majority) percentage of democrats who support him agree with him on. This notion of ‘lockstepping’ against the war by the democratic party is a facade, the reality is that some in the party agree, some don’t, it’s a very strong and divisive issue and to assume that because someone is ‘for’ the action in Iraq they are ‘crazy’ just points those other fingers right back at yourself.

I disagree with many positions by the liberals, and conservatives, but I understand their reasoning and what shaped their view and while I still disagree with them I don’t begrudge them their own mind.

So yes, please, go ahead and kick what I can only say was a good strong respresentative of the democratic party that could have been president someday to the curb in order to present the view to the world that the Dems are 100% against the war, I’m sure my democrat friends who were for it will love the sentiment. I’m sure that they won’t see what this means to them as a future in their party as the far left siezes more and more of the party power, including the Chairman, away from the sane center.

Soon you will find that you and the Green party have little difference between you and will probably come together in an all encompassing ‘suck the life out of what this country was founded on’ way. I personally think that it will mean an end to any chance of regaining power, but perhaps that is a good thing, hmmm?

As for the attacks on him, I think that the real issue is that people are afraid that if he does run, he will get enough of the DEM vote by people who see what their party is turning into and effectively give the seat over to the republican candidate in the process. That’s the REAL issue here, isn’t it?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 23, 2006 7:59 PM
Comment #170051

Rhinehold,

I don’t think there is anything wrong with voting someone out because you disagree with him on one issue, especially if that issue is the most important to many people. What if that issue were abortion, say, or civil rights in the 1960’s? I’m sure many voters in both parties have voted against a candidate they otherwise agreed with over abortion.

And there is no way Lieberman was ever going to be president. He would leave people from both sides of the political spectrum equally cold. You hear a of conservative and Republicans say what a great guy he is, but how many would actually vote for him? He is the person that conservative think liberals should support. Pretty lousy endorsement, eh? Why don’t Republicans nominate Lincoln Chafee for president? He seems like a reasonable guy to me! ;)

I’m not sure why you put the word ‘crazy’ in quotes. Who said he’s crazy? Opportunistic, maybe.

Jack,

I say Lieberman isn’t a team player because he preemptively threatened to bolt the party before they had a chance to reject him. When is the last time heard someone in a primary threaten to be a spoiler in the general election? That kind of ultimatum does not inspire loyalty.

Nobody “runs” the primaries. People go to polls, and they vote. If they still like Lieberman, he’ll win.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 23, 2006 8:29 PM
Comment #170052

Rhinehold,

that’s a nice try but anyone who has been watching this from situation from it’s inception knows that lieberman/lamont is not a one-issue campaign.

whether it’s iraq or whether lieberman is a carpetbagger who can only serve himself by posing as a Democrat for a Congressional salary or whether he may split the vote and give the seat to a republican out of spite for a party he has forsaken and/or among other reasons…

lieberman/lamont is an accumulation of lieberman stances and positions.

conservatives are worried because the backlash is getting stronger and anything can still happen in November.

Posted by: benjifromtheDNC at July 23, 2006 8:33 PM
Comment #170054

Woody Mena,

Couldn’t agree with you more. In California (a blue state) a Democratic governor was recalled at the risk of a republican governor (Arnold) taking his place.

Democrats aren’t afraid to take their leaders and representatives to task.

The Democratic Party is still a Party of the people. Whether the Democrats win in November is another issue.

But those who support the Democrats know that they have a voice.

Posted by: benjifromtheDNC at July 23, 2006 8:37 PM
Comment #170056

As for the “REAL” issue, according to this poll it is unlikely that the Republican candidate Schlesinger could win even in a three way race.

If Lieberman does run as an Independent, he should be pressed to promise to “caucus with” the Democrats like Jim Jeffords. If he doesn’t promise this, I don’t see how he could beat Lamont in a 3-way race.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 23, 2006 8:47 PM
Comment #170058

Get real Rhinehold

The republican candidate stands no chance regardless of what happens with Lieberman. With Democrats like Hilary and Bill, Dodd, Boxer, Reid, Gore(the list goes on and on)supporting and actively campaigning for good old Joe it’s ridiculous to say the Dem Party is supporting Lamont and not Lieberman. As for as money goes they are on their own until after the primary. That Lieberman is getting 90% of his funding from outside of the state shows where he is not getting support from. It is the voters of Conneticut who will decide who their candidate for the Senate will be and that’s the way it should be. After the primary we will know if joementum continues as a Democrat or an independent. My prediction is he will win the primary.

Posted by: mark at July 23, 2006 8:57 PM
Comment #170059
lieberman/lamont is not a one-issue campaign.

Well, you must have watched a completely different debate than I…

SO, what are these other issues that are near and dear to the hearts of his constituents? And how does Lamont, a basic political nobody with no agenda of his own that I’ve seen, best meet those issues?

If it’s that obvious I’m sure you can provide many many examples here…

Mark,

You’re right, Lieberman will most likely win the nomination. But it’s hatchet jobs like this one that make me sad for my old party… How far has it gone astray.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 23, 2006 9:09 PM
Comment #170062

Rhinehold,

You Libertarians have not yet had to really deal with such a thing as “primaries” but just imagine if two Libertarians wanted to run for the same Congressional seat. If the majority of that states Libertarian Party decided to shift their capitol towards supporting the other candidate and he said, “I’ll go green” would you feel at all betrayed.

Actually, I think it may have been David Remer, but someone recently brought up the whole thing about having no parties at all. I’d somewhat go for that. Geeze, a candidate could just state their opinion and then if they failed to deliver we could run ‘em out of town on a rail.

Lieberman is subject to the electoral process. If his electoral base finds him less desirable than another candidate and he then say’s, “I’ll run as an independent” so be it. But, in my book that’s “sour grapes”.

I don’t vote a straight party ticket and I’d really hope that those I do vote for don’t just tow their Party Line because it’s what everyone else is doing.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 23, 2006 9:17 PM
Comment #170063

goddamn traiter

Posted by: Sonny at July 23, 2006 9:20 PM
Comment #170068

Sometimes I wonder whether it’s possible to have a discusion on POLITICS without bringing religion into the debate.

Somehow, I doubt it…

Posted by: Linda H. at July 23, 2006 9:53 PM
Comment #170069

One unstated assumption people defending Lieberman seem to make is that he is somehow entitled to the Democratic nomination this term. He was nominated for one term, not a lifetime job. He isn’t getting fired; it is more like his contract is up for renewal.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 23, 2006 9:58 PM
Comment #170070

Rhinehold,

lieberman/lamont is not a one-issue campaign.
Well, you must have watched a completely different debate than I…

SO, what are these other issues that are near and dear to the hearts of his constituents? And how does Lamont, a basic political nobody with no agenda of his own that I’ve seen, best meet those issues?

If it’s that obvious I’m sure you can provide many many examples here…

First of all, is said it wasn’t a one issue-debate.

I’ve already stated more than one-issue, Iraq, and the sour-grapes/run as an independent if you don’t get your way/lieberman’s undying love for the republican agenda

I can understand why you wouldn’t think those issues to be near and dear to your heart because a Connecticut Senator doesn’t represent any of your interests.

Yet Lieberman represents a lot of the republican agenda. I don’t care who endorses Lieberman though.

The fact is unless your a Connecticut Voter (and I’m not) it’s all just speculation for the politically involved.

I will say that I tend to empathize with Lamont supporters more than I do with Lieberman. Ultimately, I don’t have a vote in Connecticut. Neither does Bill nor Hillary.

Posted by: benjifromtheDNC at July 23, 2006 10:01 PM
Comment #170071

man that last post is a mess.

sorry.

Posted by: benjifromtheDNC at July 23, 2006 10:03 PM
Comment #170072

Nothing is more indicative of how out of touch the dem party has become than Libermann esentially being forced out. The party is going further left which will lead them to run more candidates in the Dean-Peloski mold. How long before they say good-bye to Hillary? What a mess. You would think the DNC would have learned SOMETHING from San deigo, put obviously idealogy is more important than Ws. FDR! JFK!, where have you gone?

I relish the fact Libermann is now an Independent, this may be the jump start America needs to eventually field a competitive third party.

As a side note. Libermann’s assessment of Iraq is exactly how our soldiers report the situation as they are returning…..at least to me. But, hey, we would not want FACTS get in the way of politics. Libermann knew the party line and now he must pay for his transgression.

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at July 23, 2006 10:10 PM
Comment #170075

curmudgeon

Who do you believe is forcing Lieberman out?
What evidence do you have to back up your opinion?

Posted by: mark at July 23, 2006 10:19 PM
Comment #170080

coonyjay,

Don’t let the religous bigots kill your love of a God. Not a religous person, but I do believe in a God. Actually, from the evidence I see , God is a FACT and only a blind man could look past the evidence and remain unconvinced.

Communism is responsible for God only knows how many deaths, but the political commentary continues as if somehow if is not in itelf as fnatical as religion. It is truly laughable how some blame religion for death and war. Any thinking man knows all war is a result of greed and fantaticism.

A few Islamic zealots is nothing more than an excuse for the religous bigots to carry on with their…..well….bigotry and present themselves as somehow superior. Give us all a break. I’ll take my chance with a legitimate Christian over a legitimate politician any day.

Did I hear an Amen?

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at July 23, 2006 10:25 PM
Comment #170082

If Lieberman runs as an independent, it will only end up spliting the moderate right of center Democratic vote if not the republican vote, but it won’t have an effect of the die-hard Democratic vote and their the only ones who care that Lieberman would even consider abandoning his Party because he thinks he knows better than his own constituents in a Primary.

Posted by: benjifromtheDNC at July 23, 2006 10:27 PM
Comment #170088

“goddamn traiter”

Sonny,

Who’s a traitor?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 23, 2006 10:37 PM
Comment #170102

Here is an interesting list of reasons why Democrats do not like Lieberman:


Interference in the Schiavo matter

Support of Nafta/Cafta

Support of the Bush energy policy

Willingness to deny rape victims emergency contraception

Support of someone from the International Arabian Horse Assocation to run FEMA

His unwillingness to demand censure on wiretapping

Support of No Child Left Behind’

Support of School Vouchers

Support of a non-provoqued attack on Iran

Interest in privatizing Social Security

Posted by: benjifromtheDNC at July 23, 2006 11:00 PM
Comment #170105

“It is truly laughable how some blame religion for death and war. Any thinking man knows all war is a result of greed and fantaticism.”

Curmudgeon,

What pray tell creates greed? Obviously the desire to own, uh what, oh yeah property. All property in one way or another rises from the earth, whether it be gold, silver, or even the pearls that are plucked from the ocean (no earth, no ocean). Greed at least is an honest response, you see that in nature when two predators fight over the same game. I’d think humans could think beyond that, but “oh well”.

Most importantly what creates “fanaticism” if not some religious or superstitious belief? Oh yeah, there’s skin color, eye color, sex, etc. Fanatics are what they are because of “beliefs”, never because of facts. The greatest measure of fanaticism is when someone proclaims their beliefs to be facts. After that anyone that doesn’t accept your “facts” of life is either “less human” or possibly not human at all.

Sorry all but I didn’t start this debate. I just couldn’t bite my tongue anymore. It hurts already.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 23, 2006 11:06 PM
Comment #170110

First and foremost, nobody has a right to hold on to a seat, and nobody could force Joe from it. The people of his state had to be persuaded to abandon him. Nobody put a gun to folk’s heads.

See, the trouble here is that Republicans like Lieberman for the exact same reasons Democrats have come to dislike him: he continues to stand with a president most liberals and Democrats strongly dislike. Call it hatred, or call it a matter of loyalty to party principles, but we really don’t want to re-elect a Bush supporter to a Democratic office. You can bluster about freedom of speech, but we’re free to have this bad opinion of him.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 23, 2006 11:24 PM
Comment #170119

>>but we really don’t want to re-elect a Bush supporter to a Democratic office. You can bluster about freedom of speech, but we’re free to have this bad opinion of him.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 23, 2006 11:24 PM

Hear, Hear! and for coonyjay…Amen!

Posted by: Marysdude at July 24, 2006 12:00 AM
Comment #170125

What’s so peculiar about the hatred for Lieberman is that when you look at his votes on Iraq, he’s actually no different from all but a very small number of fellow Democratic Senators. So why so does he take so much blame while the others get a free ride?

All I can figure out it is that Lieberman actually wholeheartedly believes in his position, while the others are just cynically “triangulating,” supporting the war with their votes on one hand while winking at the liberal base.

Posted by: M P at July 24, 2006 12:51 AM
Comment #170142

Keith,

“Name any prominant pro-life Democrat?”

Ever heard of a guy named Murtha?

thomas

Posted by: Thomas at July 24, 2006 4:28 AM
Comment #170147

——I believe some have forgotten Zell Miller
( Democrat xtrordinair )
During the Republican National Convention zell miller on national television, made a personal
denunciation on John Kerry, was in my view
one of the most low class an undignified act I
have ever witnessed. I personally do not want to
show the world that we may have any one else,
even think about going through that scene again!
even the Bush family had enough class to remove
miller and his wife from the First Families
Box during the Inauguration! !

Posted by: DAVID at July 24, 2006 5:32 AM
Comment #170148

——should read, the millers names were removed from
the list of invited guests.

Posted by: DAVID at July 24, 2006 5:41 AM
Comment #170161
What’s so peculiar about the hatred for Lieberman is that when you look at his votes on Iraq, he’s actually no different from all but a very small number of fellow Democratic Senators. So why so does he take so much blame while the others get a free ride?

Actually, 21 Democratic senators voted against the Iraq War resolution.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 24, 2006 7:41 AM
Comment #170164
See, the trouble here is that Republicans like Lieberman for the exact same reasons Democrats have come to dislike him: he continues to stand with a president most liberals and Democrats strongly dislike.

Yep.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 24, 2006 7:50 AM
Comment #170176
he Bush family had enough class to remove miller and his wife from the First Families Box during the Inauguration! !

That would be a great New York Post headline,

GEORGE TO ZELL: STAY OUT OF LAURA’S BOX

Nyuk nyuk nyuk.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 24, 2006 9:14 AM
Comment #170191

“Most importantly what creates “fanaticism” if not some religious or superstitious belief?”

KansasDem

You missed my friend. Power and self are at the center of fantacism. That is a fact. What was communism all about? Religion? I can accept that, but most atheist would fight that tooth and nail. Atheism is a religion (imo).
Power my friend creates fanatics to the point of and past a religous zealot. Nothing mystical here. If you can’t see this truth throughout history, you need to hit the books.
When the secular fanatics will admit to their own short comings and stop blaming religion for all the worlds ills, we can put this to rest.

Posted by: Curmudgeon-at-large at July 24, 2006 10:04 AM
Comment #170207

HK,

You are wrong about so many things I don’t know where to begin. First of all, Jews are not leaving the Democratic Party. Kerry got 76% of the Jewish vote, about the same as Clinton and Gore. Secondly,
Jews only make up about 2% of the US population. We are proud but few. Finally, there many are other moderates who aren’t in trouble.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 24, 2006 11:08 AM
Comment #170224

I appreciate any politician (democrat, republican or independent) who stands by his beliefs and princibles and does not bend to the polls or political winds.

I cannot stand an individual who stands for everything and nothing at the same time. They are completely worthless.

Lieberman may go down in flames, but at least he’ll have his integrity. That’s more then can be said for most of the jokers in congress.

Posted by: Cliff at July 24, 2006 12:13 PM
Comment #170226

HK,

There you go, let’s compromise all our principles to win an election.

No wonder the Dems can’t win a damn thing! Even if they win the voters still lose. So why the hell should the liberal base be motivated to vote!

Coward! Stand up for your beliefs!

Christ, I might not stand the political view of conservatives but at least they aren’t too afraid to stick to their guns. (pun intended)

Posted by: Metacom at July 24, 2006 12:27 PM
Comment #170230

The “liberal base” will always vote for the left candidate.
Its the moderate Dems who you need to convince to vote Dem.
As hk said, the Dems have moved to far left and by doing so, they have forgotten the moderate Dem and have left him with only one real option when it comes to who to vote for.

Moderate Dem = landslides and return to power.
Liberal Dem = more confusion, doubt and “hoping” you win in close elections.

Posted by: kctim at July 24, 2006 12:51 PM
Comment #170235

kctim and HK,

You are both overgeneralizing from one example.
Every race has to be taken in context.

Connecticut is a blue state. The Democrats there are playing on home turf, so they can afford to be selective. Democrats still support moderates in the south and west, because they know they are in less friendly territory.

If anyone is misreading their position, it is the Republicans in Rhode Island. They are in a solidly blue state, but they are still striving for ideological purity.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 24, 2006 1:09 PM
Comment #170238

Curmudgeon,

“What was communism all about? Religion? ….. Atheism is a religion (imo).”

Communism (circa; USSR) was certainly about much more than religion (see: totalitarianism), but Atheism was basically the Soviet sanctioned “religion” from which sprung such groups as The League of Militant Atheists and later on The Knowledge Society. Atheism was force fed in the USSR just as some Christian zealots now try to force feed us Christianity in the USA.

“Power my friend creates fanatics to the point of and past a religous zealot.”

And what is the driving force behind “power” if not greed? I stated two simple reasons for “most” social unrest and “most” wars as being (1) religion and (2) ownership. Those who seek “power” are also seeking riches and a special place among society.

“When the secular fanatics will admit to their own short comings and stop blaming religion for all the worlds ills, we can put this to rest.”

Fanatics? I don’t think I’m a fanatic. I’m agnostic and I don’t appreciate being assailed by the Religious Right to “get right with their god” every time I turn around. I don’t profess to have the answers to all of the worlds woes but my beliefs are mine and mine alone. I don’t seek to change anyone elses religious belief or non-belief and I simply request the same.

Coonyjay said, “Good news, there is still time to get right with God. How much time? God knows, KansasDem.”

So he opened this can of worms, OK?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 24, 2006 1:20 PM
Comment #170240

This is somewhat of a pointless argument. One side is saying that Dems are betraying Lieberman because they aren’t supporting him, but they have found a better candidate. Thats how this process works. Being incumbent does not guarantee you will win your party’s primary.

Further, no one is questioning Lieberman’s integrity. Cliff, I totally agree with you. However, if I had a choice I’d take a politican with integrity who also saw things the way I do.

As far as this being a one-issue campaign by Lamont, there is some truth to that. Not that he is running on one issue, but in that if there wasn’t the 800 lb. gorilla that is Iraq, Lieberman would probably be able to fend off the challenge with more ease. A decent breakdown of the issues is available at ontheissues.org. They differ on a lot more than just Iraq.

Posted by: David S at July 24, 2006 1:22 PM
Comment #170251

“Every race has to be taken in context.”

Woody,

That is exactly right. In the “Red” states a “liberal” candidate doesn’t stand a chance. For instance John Doll is running as a Democrat against Republican incumbent Rep. Jerry Moran here in Kansas which is about as red as a red state can get. Doll is extremely moderate, IMO he’s downright “conservative” on many issues.

The mid-terms are a “state by state” battle. A “one size fits all” strategy won’t work. It’s always interesting to see a democratic strategy win in a red state and it does happen. Kansas is generally 70% to 80% Republican but we have a Democratic Governor: Kathleen Sebelius who’s also up for reelection this year.

KansasDem
PS: sorry I got so far off-topic with the religious nonsense.

Posted by: KansasDem at July 24, 2006 1:51 PM
Comment #170254

Kansas Dem

How did that happen? A Dem guv in Kansas?

Posted by: mark at July 24, 2006 2:01 PM
Comment #170255

And what is the driving force behind “power” if not greed?

Delusions of grandeur? A legacy? Rarely religous in nature. You are unique KansasDem, most atheist will not agree atheism is a religion. I do agree with you on that point.


“Atheism was force fed in the USSR just as some Christian zealots now try to force feed us Christianity in the USA.”

I certainly don’t see any Christians killing off enemies of the state because they don’t believe and profess faith in God. Very bad comparison. Most Christians are genuinely attemting to protect our heritage. Like it or not, that is the heritage. I find some historical revisionist (the zealots) attemting to change that point. (Zealots everywhere not just religion)


“I don’t appreciate being assailed by the Religious Right to “get right with their god””

KansasDem,

I have never understood why folks believe the religous right is forcing them to listen to their message? I believe they are suppose to do so. The same folks who make this claim, I see, attemting to force their message of Agnosticism, Atheism, Humanism, etc on everyone else. Often, under the guise of separation of church and state. EVERYONE has a message and EVERYONE believes they have the correct message.

So, what is the difference? If you don’t like their message, turn it off. This is the very heart of the problem in postmodern America….this belief that we have the right not to be offended.

Personally, I don’t appreciate being called a “Fool” by many loud atheist/agnostics who claim I am weak minded because I believe in a God. In retrospect, I consider the source and my anger vanishes quickly. Then again, I don’t hear the religous right whining about such attacks. I guess they turn it off.

Posted by: Curmudgeon-at-large at July 24, 2006 2:04 PM
Comment #170257

——Woody Mena——
GOP backs away from Miller’s blast
Democrat ‘speaking for himself’ Bush
aide says
MSNBC and NBC News updated 10:06 9/3/04
MSNBC Home Page (Millers names Removed
from guest list) Your response YAHK YAHK YAHK? something like that,
By what the polling shows of Joe Lieberman’s job performance had slipped, an some one else should take his place. I am sure the voters are doing what is best for their own. On a personal note I
do not believe any one should inject Race into
political debate, an do so at their own Pearle!

When you started your post about Joe Lieberman
in the manor you did was a confrontational lead, and quiet sure you knew what responses would incur, so I ask you, what your motivation was knowing what could happen??? Was Joe Right or Disengenious in discussing switching parties?

Posted by: DAVID at July 24, 2006 2:13 PM
Comment #170259

These career politicians seem to possess (or acquire)some level of self-importance
Posted by: KansasDem at July 23, 2006 05:43 PM and in my book that’s “sour grapes”. Posted by: KansasDem at July 23, 2006 09:17 PM

ITA with KansasDem. Lieberman was a good democrat. If the democrats in CT want someone else, he should bow out instead of running as an independent. He could be a visiting professor at any number of Universities. We had some kind of a clash here this weekend between pro-Israel vs peacenik demonstrators. We might be seeing more of that.

dust to dust, Posted by: KansasDem at July 23, 2006 06:20 PM
Dust meant garbage or refuse when that was written, and still does in England.

but what are Mitt Romney’s “skeletons”?
Membership in the LDS church usually disqualifies anyone form the Rpblcn nomination, in spite of all the missionary work they do among wealthy suburbanites. I started laughing this weekend when I saw a shiny new LDS church in the wealthiest part of community where I spent much of my childhood. I went there to photograph the Dutch inscription on an old church which was superceded by a newer UCofC building in the 1960s, and upset the Unity church people now conducting services there.

GHWBush and the WFBuckley strategy to change the Rpblcn party into the conservative party, has not served us well in every state. Not all Democrats have ever been liberals, but I think we need to agree on GWBush, at least.

Posted by: ohrealy at July 24, 2006 2:33 PM
Comment #170260


Notice—-Critical Missouri Statewide Race

A school teacher dropped out of the race against Dan Clemons so BARBIE KREIDER filed to run on 6-15-06 for the State Senate seat.

This will be likely the most important and exciting race in southwest Missouri. Clearly having her on the ballot will bring more Democrat vote which should help U.S. Senate candidate Claire McCaskill.

Jim Kreider is working on a website for his sister and plans to launch it soon. He wants people to consider writing letters to the editor. Please consider writing letters to the editor for all local papers and the larger papers. We want to build as much initial excitement of the fact she is running. More letters will be needed as the campaign goes through November.

For more info on helping e-mail:

citizensforkreider@yahoo.com

_______________________________________________________________________

On another note—-we are continuing to get petition signatures through the early part of August to be able to vote on a possible Technology Park: Paid or Volunteer

www.technologypark2006.org

technologypark2006@yahoo.com
We used to be the leader in developing innovative products, and ways of making life better and easier for the people while creating jobs. With the evolving Technology market we seem to be stuck in neutral. China, India, and other countries are becoming the world economic leaders and leaving the US in the dust.
With little or no direction from the federal government the states are starting to step up to the plate and develop economic plans in the United States. In Missouri a grass roots group is working to let the people vote on developing a Technology Park www.technologypark2006.org
The ultimate form of Democracy would be to allow the people to decide their economic destiny. We need to shift into high gear and start creating the good high paying jobs of the future.
417-849-4279
Steven L. Reed
1441 S Estate Ave.
Springfield Missouri
________________________________________________________________________


Mark Wright is term limited and he even says that Northwest Springfield slants Democrat. Clearly it is a working person district and Richard Napieralski relates to, understands, and can talk with on a level of real understanding. This State Representative seat is the most likely PICK UP for Democrats in southwest Missouri.

Richard has worked to help the people for Northwest Springfield for 10 years and now is the time someone like him can win. Please consider helping him on his race—-time—-door to door—-contribute—-etc.

To help call 417-832-1657
e-mail: PeopleFirst137@yahoo.com

www.137rep.blogspot.com


THANKS

###

www.lincoln2008.com


Posted by: Steven Lloyd Reed at July 24, 2006 2:34 PM
Comment #170261

CAL - Not EVERYONE has a message. Everyone may have set of beliefs, but you’re incorrect in saying everyone with a set of beliefs has a message. Some that “Do” have a message, are wise enough to understand the capacity in which that message should be shared, and then some just plainly don’t. Seperation of Church and State is not a new idea, it is “Tradition”. I find it as disturbing to stand for constitutional tradition and be labeled a secular fanatic, as you must holding the Bible being labeled a fool.

Posted by: DOC at July 24, 2006 2:46 PM
Comment #170264

Atheism can be a religion, as can using a Mac, or being a Vegetarian, or Feminism, or belonging to the NRA. That is when we use the term “religion” to indicate fanaticism and unswerving belief without the ability to see more than one viewpoint. Any of those ideas can be otherwise as well.

I know a lot of atheists who do not treat it as a religion, but who simply do not think the concept of god makes any sense. I would count myself among them. I am also Jewish. I embrace the culture, but do not believe in a god, and I know many others who feel the same way, none of whom are fanatic or loud about it.

Joe Leiberman is a Jew, but that does not mean all Jews like him. (I have relatives I wouldn’t vote for either.) When he was nominated for VP, the reaction was very mixed; nice that a Jew was nominated, but him??? It is a mistake to assume that American Jews are a monolithic group.

Questioning, arguing and holding differing opinions are a part of the culture. Have you ever heard the expression, …two Jews, three opinions…?

If Leiberman loses the nomination in his state, it is simply clear evidence that he has stepped out of the mainstream Democratic party by going to the right. Or the Democratic party has progressed beyond him. That is what a primary election is about.

Posted by: dana at July 24, 2006 2:55 PM
Comment #170272

It’s ironic that the same people torching Dems for voting on one issue are the same people screaming to take out any GOP Senator who isn’t pushing for the House of Representatives’ version of the Immigration Reform Bill. Then again, myopic hypocrisy and GOP voters are good good friends.

Posted by: Grubbery at July 24, 2006 3:24 PM
Comment #170282

“If you don’t like their message, turn it off.”

I usually do, and “click”, it’s off again.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 24, 2006 3:50 PM
Comment #170305
I was puzzled by the Jesus reference too. But didn’t he have some harsh things to say about Israel circa 1 AD?

How harsh could he have been at age four or five?

Posted by: etdefender at July 24, 2006 4:57 PM
Comment #170310

“How did that happen? A Dem guv in Kansas?”

mark,

The Republicans basically blame it on the divide between moderate repubs and the far right. I’d go as far as to speculate that women vote in greater numbers than men, but also she’d previously served as State Insurance Commissioner and the commission had greatly fallen under the control of insurance companies and she managed to largely cut off the insurance company influence of that agency.

As governor Kathleen Sebelius has been downright ruthless in achieving balanced budgets. She was among Time’s Magazine’s “Top Five Governor’s” of 2005 and she’s currently “viewed favorably by 68% of likely voters”: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/April%202006/Kansas%20Governor%20April.htm

Not shabby for a Democratic Governor in a Red State!

It just goes to show that reports of the demise of the Democratic Party are premature at the very least. The Republicans just hope to create voter apathy.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 24, 2006 5:17 PM
Comment #170311

“I find it as disturbing to stand for constitutional tradition and be labeled a secular fanatic, as you must holding the Bible being labeled a fool.”

Doc,

One problem with your analysis. When did I claim I ever hold a Bible? I find it silly how people like KD “click” jump to religous right accusations because someone states they believe in God. How narrow minded, but then again I consider the source.

I simply stated I believe in God and that this nation’s heritage is one founded upon the belief in God. That truth is peppered throughout the founding of our nation. Is that all it takes to be the religous right? (LOL) They wouldn’t have me, I assure you. If anything, I’m no more than a Theist.

I believe in that tradition as well. I have never seen seperation of church and state in ANY of our founding fathers documents. Its just not there and the myth of the wall lives on.

Our entire nation must of had it wrong for about 175 years with prayer being allowed in schools not to mention Bible study and God & Jesus references throughout the day. Its all over our money, historical documents, history books and culture. How did this nation make it until 1960 until all of the smart folks finally saved us from ourselves and got the interpretation correct?

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at July 24, 2006 5:21 PM
Comment #170312
If you don’t like their message, turn it off.

When I can great. But when you start LEGISLATING your ‘message’ is when I stand up and say no.

Just here in Indiana we are not allowed to purchase Alcohol or sign contracts on Sunday. I wonder WHERE the notion that Sunday was some ‘special day’ came from, so much to the point that the power of government to use a gun to tell people what to do is employed to make sure that EVERYONE keeps it ‘holy’?

So many many examples, way too little time, of how ‘religion’ is pushed upon those who do not ‘believe’. It’s for our own good, we’re told. Like we can’t think for ourselves. How is this different than what the DEMS are doing with their ‘nanny society’? HMMM? Reps are no better than the Dems, both using the power of government to control and maniuplate people, not protect them and their rights.

*sigh*

Please peddle your imaginary friend’s existence somewhere else. Leave it out of the one body that has the legal power to force me to do something at gunpoint.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 24, 2006 5:24 PM
Comment #170313
have never seen seperation of church and state in ANY of our founding fathers documents.

Try reading more of them…? I’ll point you to Thomas Jefferson who coined the phrase while he was president. The ideals are there within their papers for everyone to see. Or James Madison.

The phrase “separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution, but rather is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, Jefferson uses the term “wall of separation between church and state” to show the Danbury Baptists that in both Connecticut and the entire United States, religious freedom is an inalienable right that government cannot take away.
James Madison, the father of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, wrote in the early 1800s, “Strongly guarded … is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States.”
Ulysses S. Grant also called for Americans to “Keep the church and state forever separate.”

(these are from Wikipedia).

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 24, 2006 5:30 PM
Comment #170320

“How did that happen? A Dem guv in Kansas?”

Other “Red” states with Democratic governors include Montana, Wyoming, Arizona, Louisiana, Tennessee, North Carolina, and both Virginias.

And of course they are GOP governors in Blue states also.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 24, 2006 5:56 PM
Comment #170341

Rhinehold,

Yes we know all about Jefferson’s letter and we also know about Grant. Grant? a founding father? Do a little more reading. Do you know why Jefferson wrote the letter to the Danbury Baptist? Fear on the part of the Baptist that the government would attempt to control religious expression. Turns out, they are. See an alternate anlysis below.

Everyone wants to run to this letter when it is not a part of the Constitution. But you ignored my most important point.

Rhinehold, why did Jeffereon, Adams, Grant and any other founding father you would like to name not remove prayer and Bible from the schools? Why did they allow prayer and Biblical reading BEFORE congressional sessions? What happen to this WALL? God was all over our government for the fist 150 years. Surely, that would of bit a LARGE part of the agenda if Jefferson really did intend for a wall to exist. Why did he not write this “wall” into our historical documents in the first place? The answer:…….because that was not the intent.


“The ideas which lead to this oft-cited phrase came from a sermon given by Baptist Roger Williams, entitled “The Garden in the Wilderness,” in which Williams explains that the purpose of civil government is to allow religion to flourish, not to be regulated. Thus, Jefferson’s use of the phrase “a wall of separation” was an idiom with a particular meaning to the Baptists to whom the letter was adressed.”

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at July 24, 2006 8:03 PM
Comment #170350

crumudgeon
Good one couldn’t have said it better. I’ll bet our four fathers are turning over in their graves over what this country has become.

Posted by: KAP at July 24, 2006 8:53 PM
Comment #170355

KAP

Which four?

Posted by: mark at July 24, 2006 9:15 PM
Comment #170356

curmudgeon

When was God put on money? When was God added to the Pledge? Our forefathers had nothing to do with either.

Posted by: mark at July 24, 2006 9:20 PM
Comment #170360

Mark
2 cent piece in 1864. I guess you don’t do typos. I guess Dems are perfect. Thank God I don’t claim either party.

Posted by: KAP at July 24, 2006 9:27 PM
Comment #170363

KAP
I do plenty of typos. Sorry, couldn’t resist.

Posted by: mark at July 24, 2006 9:34 PM
Comment #170371

curmudgeon,

Looks like Rhinehold met your challenge — he found the separation of church and state in one of “our founding father’s documents”.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 24, 2006 10:02 PM
Comment #170398

Sir,


I recently watched Real Sports with Bryant Gumble.It made me sick and angry watching young men/women disabled by what you call a pusuit for “Democracy”.I think maybe you voted wrong and would like to hope something good can still happen for Mr. Bush.

Posted by: chuck at July 24, 2006 11:46 PM
Comment #170418

Rhino and Curmudgeon,

Let’s not forget that there were actually church services held in the U.S. Capitol Building every Sunday, which the immortal Jefferson regularly attended.

Posted by: Duane-o at July 25, 2006 12:35 AM
Comment #170440

CAL - The Bible reference “was” not intended literally, but as a metaphore for “Belief in God”. I’m sorry if that was confusing.

No one has been able to prove to me that Christian prayer in schools or Bible reading before congressional sessions have ever done anything but alter the perception of the listeners and skew the topic at hand toward a solution based on Christian dogma.
There has never been evidence given that prayer leads to clearer or more rational thinking. No one has shown that belief in God causes widespread increases in the ability to reason.

I’ve not read “The Garden in the Wilderness”, but you yourself catagorize it as a sermon. If your quote is accurate, Mr. Williams in no uncertain terms, suggests that governments’ purpose is to serve the church, and in this particular case the Christian church.

“We the Christians of the United States of America …”

“… with liberty and justice for Christians.”

“Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled Christians … “

It just doesn’t have the same impact, now does it?

Posted by: DOC at July 25, 2006 1:47 AM
Comment #170454

——Woody Mena——I appreciate your trying to keep
the postings on track with your challenging post,
which is a very important challenge for the voters
of Connecticut, and the ramifications that could
become wide spread throughout the country. We might
have debated where an who this debate could have affected! By the way I did get Nyuk nyuk, about Laura’s
Box. It’s probably better than Pandora’s
Too bad we can’t get the Bible thumpers off their
Spinning podium long enough to at least show some
respect to the post with most. That’s a snickerrr.

Posted by: DAVID at July 25, 2006 3:26 AM
Comment #170473

“There has never been evidence given that prayer leads to clearer or more rational thinking.”

DOC,

Clear thinking? I could as easily argue the opposite. That really is not the point. I can personally point out some pretty “foggy” thinking for either side. I don’t like the fact that historical revisionist attempt to rewrite our heritage and culture to serve their own agenda.

My point is being made on this post by many of the comments. The fact that I stick up for what our nation was founded on has labeled me as a Bible thumper and the religous right. Some like to use “Christian” rather than God to once again slant my intent.

It is as simple as this. God was at the foundation of our nation in every capacity even in 1960. The Wall (Thanks Pink) was never intended and is not in our constitution. We have a freedom of religion but what we have today is an attempt to make us free from God.
Our nation is becoming the “United States of the Offened”. No wonder much of the world sees us as bunch of spoiled rotten brats.

Posted by: Curmudgeon-at-large at July 25, 2006 8:29 AM
Comment #170507

DAVID,

Yeah it’s like herding cats around here sometimes. Maybe we need a rule about discussing religion and politics at the dinner table.

By the way, this is officially the 10,000,000th web thread about where the phrase “separation of church and state” originated.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 25, 2006 10:10 AM
Comment #170514

Wood,

Thanks man we all need MORE rules.

Coonjay….Way to fight the System.

Posted by: Curmudgeon-at-large at July 25, 2006 10:59 AM
Comment #170527

Woody
“Every race has to be taken in context”

Agreed. I kind of got off on the national race coming up. I should have been more clear.

Posted by: kctim at July 25, 2006 11:53 AM
Comment #170533

“Yeah it’s like herding cats around here sometimes. Maybe we need a rule about discussing religion and politics at the dinner table.”

Woody,

I’m ashamed to say that I was the “cat” that started this “kitty stampede” with my response to Coonyjay and once again I apologize. One simple observation though, it certainly was much easier to start the stampede than it is to stop it.

I would also like to add that I was in violation of the “rules of participation” which clearly state: “Comments are expected to remain on the topic of the published article.” I allowed emotion to overcome common sense and as a result detracted focus from Woody’s article. It’s always easier to break stuff than it is to fix it.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at July 25, 2006 12:25 PM
Comment #170575

Woody - KansasDem - CAL

I will add my apologies as well. This is rather a hot button for me, and I once again allowed my input to inadvertently redirect the thread.

Woody - Your comment about discussing religion at the dinner table quite eloquently describes my point. Thanks.


Hey! How ‘bout that Joe Lieberman?! Whaddaya think of him?

Posted by: DOC at July 25, 2006 2:42 PM
Comment #170591

Stephen nailed it with this:

First and foremost, nobody has a right to hold on to a seat, and nobody could force Joe from it. The people of his state had to be persuaded to abandon him. Nobody put a gun to folk’s heads.
See, the trouble here is that Republicans like Lieberman for the exact same reasons Democrats have come to dislike him: he continues to stand with a president most liberals and Democrats strongly dislike. Call it hatred, or call it a matter of loyalty to party principles, but we really don’t want to re-elect a Bush supporter to a Democratic office. You can bluster about freedom of speech, but we’re free to have this bad opinion of him.

Exactly. In many ways (most importantly his unwavering support for the president’s illegal and incompetently waged war in Iraq), Lieberman has been showing Democrats that he’s been abandoning the principles of his party. And the moment he registered to run as an independent and possibly against his supposed party, he further proved that the opinions of those who had given him the opportunity to sit in power, no longer truly play a role in his thinking. These are the actions of a man to whom holding onto power is PARAMOUNT. Above and beyond loyalty to the people of his state, or to the people who once voted for him when he ran for the vice presidency.

It seems a joke to me the way so many of Lieberman’s supporters (both left and right) are claiming that we Democrats aren’t being civil enough toward him! For some reason they expect us to maintain some sort of a bizarre illusion of bipartisan courtesy by not demanding an honest challenge to this administrations numerous failed policies. It’s totally ridiculous.

Benji, good list. Here are a few more that also belong on the list:

Voted yes to the credit card-company-written Bankruptcy Bill.
Voted for Rice, Gonzales, Chertoff.
Voted to prevent a filibuster on Alito’s Supreme Court confirmation.
Supports everything about the administration’s operations at Guantanamo.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 25, 2006 4:10 PM
Comment #170592

—-Woody Mena—What will the affects be, now that
the Clinton’s have joined the Liberman camp?
—-Good—Bad—Indifferent- or consequence’s

Posted by: DAVID at July 25, 2006 4:11 PM
Comment #170608

DAVID,

I really don’t know… Suppose it will help him a little bit, but it won’t change the fundamental rift between Lieberman and most Democrats.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 25, 2006 4:56 PM
Comment #170615

—Woody, Guess you right, I haven’t got a Crystal
Ball either.

Posted by: DAVID at July 25, 2006 5:11 PM
Post a comment