Democrats & Liberals Archives

A Letter to Joe Lieberman

Hi Joe:

Since your hard-to-take loss to Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary, you have been getting sympathy and advice from all sorts of people, especially from your colleagues in the Republican Party. After 18 years in the Senate, I’m sure you realize that these Republicans are not as concerned about your welfare as they are about their own vulnerable hides. By working with Republicans, you will destroy your legacy of a productive career as an icon of the Democratic Party.

It's amazing how many Republican politicians are decrying what happened to you. Think about it. Why would extreme-conservative Republicans, such as Sean Hannity and Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh and Fred Barnes and Bill Kristol be weeping for you? Why would weirdo Ann Coulter, who calls all Democrats traitors, ask you to join the Republican Party? Why would Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York say:

"This country needs nonpartisan elected officials who think that doing the right thing for the public is more important than supporting some party."

Do you think these Republican pols give a damn about you? Or bipartisanship? Or the state of the Democratic Party, as some of them claim? No. They are doing everything they can to stay in power. Power is all they care about.

Don't be a Shmo, Joe. These guys are not your friends.

We hear that even Karl Rove called you and offered help. What kind of help would the most corrupt and sleazy political operative in the country give? Do you think Rove wants an Independent, who claims he is also a Democrat, to win in the general election?

No way. To Karl Rove you are nothing but a pawn on a political chessboard. He - and his Republican mafia - will play with you for as long as you are useful in propaganda against not just Ned Lamont, but against the Democratic Party as a whole. Then he will throw you aside. Is this what you want?

Joe, you decry the excessive partisanship in the senate, and are eager to exercise bi-partisanship with the purpose of getting things done. I agree that bi-partisanship is great in some cases. However, the Republicans in power today thrive on knocking Democrats and almost daily announce to all that Democrats are not eager to fight the war on terror. How on earth can you work together with such cynical politicians?

Besides, election time is not the appropriate time to be bi-partisan. This specific election is a huge battle of Democrats against Republicans, who have corrupted our government, reduced our civil liberties, transferred wealth from the poor to the rich, reduced the wages of American workers, killed off about 2600 young Americans in an Iraqi war of choice, increased the number of terrorists eager to kill Americans, and through neglect, made Hezbollah the powerful Middle-East terrorist organization that it is.

Being an Independent will not get you anywhere. Since your loss, your popularity has decreased. If you continue, your popularity will decrease further. Both Republicans and Democrats will attack you. In the end, you will be welcome in neither party.

The worst scenario, from your point of view, is that you will become a second Ralph Nader. Nader was so focused on his ego, he helped elect George W. Bush. As an Independent you may divide the Democratic vote, thus enabling Connecticut to elect a Republican senator. If this happens your name is Joe Mud.

Joe, don't be a Shmo and don't be a pawn. Do what is honorable. Withdraw from the race and endorse Ned Lamont. This will assure that you remain an icon of the Democratic Party, and it may lead to a prestigious job in the Democratic administration that will begin in January 2009.

Respectfully from a Fellow Democrat,

Paul Siegel

Posted by Paul Siegel at August 11, 2006 3:11 PM
Comments
Comment #174877

Given that Lamont won by less than 3.5% of Democrats, it is safe to say, Paul, that your opinion of Joe Schmoe is not representative of all Democrats by a long shot.

I respect Lieberman for working on solutions in a bipartisan manner. Our Congress and nation need far, far more of that approach. I too think Joe should drop it, but, I respect his integrity to his beliefs and his long career of service.

To demonize him is awfully Republican of you, don’t you think?

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 11, 2006 3:43 PM
Comment #174881

You demonized him before the election, but now see that your choice may have cost you a seat in the senate. Now you’re all nicey to get him to drop out? Why the hell should he listen to you?

Run, Joe, run!

Posted by: G.K. at August 11, 2006 3:54 PM
Comment #174883

“Why the hell should he listen to you?”

Cause it’s what the votes said… it’s called democracy.

Posted by: tony at August 11, 2006 4:07 PM
Comment #174886

“Cause it’s what the votes said… it’s called democracy.”

News flash: this was not an election; it was a party primary and running as an independent is completely in concert with a democracy.

Posted by: Charlie at August 11, 2006 4:28 PM
Comment #174888

Joe went to the center because he thought that would get him re-elected. Unfortunatley, he underestimated the passion of anti-war Democrats. It doesn’t surprise me that he is running as an Indy because his middle of the road mentality would obviously cause him to land there. Joe is a Democrat who supports the Republicans. HUH? One thing you can say for the Republicans, they are loyal. Too bad Joe won’t fit in there either.

Posted by: Kathy at August 11, 2006 4:36 PM
Comment #174898

David:
“I too think Joe should drop it, but, I respect his integrity to his beliefs and his long career of service.”

Integrity to his beliefs?!!! The way I see it, Lieberman has very visibly relinquished his supposed beliefs, by putting: 1. His power and influence, and his ability to vote on behalf of corporations who have heavily greased his (and his wifes) palms. And 2. this pre-emptive war and occupation based on faulty intelligence and cynical lies as well as the resulting bloody quagmire, total breakdown of Iraqi society into sectarian violence, and now, civil war, before EVERYTHING else.
Think about that for a moment — his abandoning his party and all it’s goals, for those reasons.
As far as his long career of service goes, it seems to me that this is exactly what: 1. caused him to turn his back on the liberal goals of the Democratic Party, 2. inflated his ego to the point where he’d stab Democratic voters and his collegues in the Senate in the back rather than give up his power, and 3. turned him into the kind of guy who more often than not now votes on behalf of corporate interests, because they pay his wife’s salary as a lobbyist, and because they’ve put an enormous amount of campaign money into his political coffers.
Integrity to his beliefs? I think NOT. Joe Lieberman is a perfect example of the very worst kind of political sell-out.

Democrats who are voting for Ned Lamont not only like what Lamont has to say, and the honest, straight-shooting way he has of saying it, but they are rejecting everything that Lieberman has come to stand for — weakness in the face of a radical and dangerous opposition, corruption and an acceptance of the corporate takeover of America, and power that has become too long entrenched within our government.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 11, 2006 4:56 PM
Comment #174899

Tony,

Sorry, but if you really believe in democracy then allow the rest of Connecticut the opportunity to vote him in or out - not just the nuts, right?

Posted by: G.K. at August 11, 2006 4:59 PM
Comment #174900

If you actually listen to talk radio you would understand that most of the cited people are only pointing out how far left the dems have become. That they would throw to the wolves a real democrat. Look at Liebermans voting record he is just as liberal as the next dem. The only difference is he supports the war. My thought is how could a party who placed this man on thier presidential ballot abandon him?

The Republicans are backing Lieberman becuase he is a man of principle and weather you agree with him or not he has not changed his position over and over like most dems.

Posted by: Anthony at August 11, 2006 4:59 PM
Comment #174903

Anthony:
“The Republicans are backing Lieberman becuase he is a man of principle”

No, they are backing him for one reason only: because he has not been critical of their Iraq war — an unprincipled war that had and has no discernible reason, waged by men with no principles, and who possess no discernible reason.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 11, 2006 5:17 PM
Comment #174904

So voting for the war but being liberal is ok but one vote against the war makes you extreme left? That political slope sure is slippery.

When what happened to Lieberman happens to many others, will the whole country be out of touch with ‘murika?

Posted by: Loren at August 11, 2006 5:22 PM
Comment #174906

If Ned takes the anti-war vote and Lieberman splits the pro-war vote with the Republicans, it will all work out just fine.

Posted by: peacenik at August 11, 2006 5:31 PM
Comment #174907

Lieberman votes mostly to the left - so why would republicans “court” him???

Hint - Its not because he makes kissey faces to the president. It is because his alternative is another anti war wacko. When the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Chucky Schumer and Ted “gimme another shot” Kennedy come out with their Lamont Pom Poms, it should cause anyone with half a functioning brain to take pause.

Lamont didnt win. Dems are scared that if Lieberman wins as an independant he will become a de facto middle of the road conservative. Two reasons for that:

1. He is no longer accountable to the democratic party base (since they abandoned him at the primaries).
2. He gains more political jutzpah by working in tandem with the party in power (ie the republicans).

I hope he retains his seat so he can give the proverbial thumb and nose to those that abandoned him.

Posted by: b0mbay at August 11, 2006 5:32 PM
Comment #174909

Why would Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York say:

“This country needs nonpartisan elected officials who think that doing the right thing for the public is more important than supporting some party.”

Paul, your triade against Joe doesn’t make any sense in light of your question above. I hear you and other “kiderals” shouting, in nearly every post, about the need for our political leaders to be exactly what Mayor Bloomberg espouses in your quote.

I believe the readers on this blog deserve some consistency…don’t you? Jim

Posted by: Jim at August 11, 2006 5:43 PM
Comment #174911

I wish more professional politicians were like J. Lieberman. Most are too concerned about the party dogma and their own free ride with eventual retirement benefits as a lifelong politician. This applies to both Republicans and Democrates. Moderation is what we need more of. Lieberman may have been a Democrat, but his concern and loyalty was for the people of this country and not the Democratic Party dogma. And he had the courage to stick to his guns. You have to admire that.

Posted by: earle at August 11, 2006 5:56 PM
Comment #174910

I wish more professional politicians were like J. Lieberman. Most are too concerned about the party dogma and their own free ride with eventual retirement benefits as a lifelong politician. This applies to both Republicans and Democrates. Moderation is what we need more of. Lieberman may have been a Democrat, but his concern and loyalty was for the people of this country and not the Democratic Party dogma. And he had the courage to stick to his guns. You have to admire that.

Posted by: earle at August 11, 2006 5:56 PM
Comment #174916
My thought is how could a party who placed this man on thier presidential ballot abandon him?

Possibly the same way the Repugs don’t want to be reminded of Nixon? Times change.

Posted by: Taylor at August 11, 2006 6:08 PM
Comment #174915

bombay:
“Lieberman votes mostly to the left - so why would republicans “court” him???
Hint - Its not because he makes kissey faces to the president.”

Ummm, actually it was the president who initiated that make-out session.

“It is because his alternative is another anti war wacko.”

You do realize you’re now talking about 60 percent of the American public, right?
No, it is the Iraq war itself that is wacko. Along with the men who lied about the reasons for the war, didn’t plan for the war, and think that losing is a reason to “stay the course” in the war — they’re all a bunch of wackos.

“When the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Chucky Schumer and Ted “gimme another shot” Kennedy come out with their Lamont Pom Poms, it should cause anyone with half a functioning brain to take pause.”

You know what I think should give pause? The nonsense that Tony Snow proclaimed regarding Lamont’s nomination: that it was going to “encourage terrorists”, “lead Iraq to become a failed state”, “damage American credibility”, and offer up a “white flag” to the “war on terror”. He also tried his best to link Lamont’s primary win to threats to America from Iran, North Korea, and terrorists worldwide.
Cheney agreed. He said “The thing that’s partly disturbing about it [That Lamont won and Lieberman lost the Connecticut Democratic Primary] is the fact that, from the standpoint of our adversaries, if you will, in this conflict, and the al-Qaeda types, they clearly are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task.”

Brother, those are some seriously wacko and bullsh*t-laden remarks.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 11, 2006 6:08 PM
Comment #174923

“News flash: this was not an election; it was a party primary and running as an independent is completely in concert with a democracy.”

news flash - people who good intentions run as an IND from the start. Those who choose to as PlanB because they’ve already lost their primary (called a Primary Election…???) should have the intentions questioned, as well as known conservatives who are so excited to divide their opponent’s party.

SO, you’re OK with candidates wasting tax payer dollars to hold primaries if the loosing cadidate ignores the results?

“Sorry, but if you really believe in democracy then allow the rest of Connecticut the opportunity to vote him in or out - not just the nuts, right?”

No one is asking me if this is OK, so I’m sure they will vote as things are now… and how does 50+% of turnout in a off-month primary only allow for the nuts to have their say..???

Posted by: tony at August 11, 2006 6:26 PM
Comment #174924

Btw, here is a link to Lamont firing back to all that nonsense spewed by the administration and Joe Lieberman.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 11, 2006 6:30 PM
Comment #174926

“My thought is how could a party who placed this man on thier presidential ballot abandon him?”

Because DEMs actually respond to what their elected leaders do. Are you suggesting that we fully support Jefferson simply because he’s a DEM? (I mean, I can completely understand if you should choose to dump Delay, Ney, Cunningham…)

Posted by: tony at August 11, 2006 6:33 PM
Comment #174928
Possibly the same way the Repugs don’t want to be reminded of Nixon? Times change.
Reminded of Nixon? Heck there are plenty of Republican Congressman these days who don’t want to remind their constituents that they’re in the party of Bush. Posted by: Walker Willingham at August 11, 2006 6:38 PM
Comment #174930

Adrienne -

Are you amazed as I am at all of the Conservatives here supporting Lieberman? I mean, not their support for him(that’s a given), but being here telling us how we should feel about an election and how we should really support poor Joe?

The primary ELECTION that selected Ned seemed to be democracy in action - but that never seems to be enough for these critics. They want democracy and freedom, but on their terms. I’m also amazed that they contest “so, just because Joe was for the war, that means he’s against the party?”

DOH! Yea… it does. Maybe Joe was just “experimenting” with being a Neocon… but if you think like them, even only on occasion, you are far too Neocon for this party.

Posted by: tony at August 11, 2006 6:46 PM
Comment #174931

Earle:

“And he had the courage to stick to his guns. You have to admire that.”

Lieberman’s sticking to moronic policies are why he lost. A war that is a bloody failure, refusing to vote against far right-wing SCOTUS nominees, supporting that horrendous Bankruptcy Law,not supporting Social Security when obviously it’s on the Republican hit-list, having the unmitigated gall to lecture Dems when they call Bush on his ridiculous Iraq policy, insisting that this baby-sitting a civil war should be supported—and if you don’t, you’re aiding the terrorists.

He then smears the winner of the Democratic primary by insinuating that he and his supporters are left-wing crazies, unwilling to partake of Joe’s particular brand of bipartisanship, which for all the world (and especially to Democratic voters in CT) look like turncoatship.

Lieberman’s hot-dog move to run as an ‘independent’ detracts from what the fall elections should really be about—failed neo-con policies, from Iraq, to fiscal irresponsibility, to corruption, to undermining the Constitution, to a total muddle in foreign affairs, the Katrina tragedy, the Terri Schiavo nonsense, and a jobless recovery that accentuates the wealth gulf in this country. This is about failed Republican policies, and any energy expended on a three-term Senator that doesn’t know when he’s not wanted is an absolute delight for the Republicans.

For them, winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing, especially when losing may bring Congressional investigations and a real hard look at the seamy underside of Republican governence.

Posted by: Tim Crow at August 11, 2006 6:47 PM
Comment #174939

Wow Paul One can tell by your hysterical hate blog that you are deathly afraid that Joe will win the election completly smashing Lamont. Boy would that be a slap in the face of the left crazys. Joe is the only guy on your side of the isle who has the balls to stand up for America against the Islam swine in Iraq.

Posted by: jc at August 11, 2006 7:12 PM
Comment #174944

“Islam swine in Iraq.”

Wow - we just spend over $350 Billion, and you have nothing better to say for our latest democracy?

Posted by: tony at August 11, 2006 7:20 PM
Comment #174947

I’m rooting for the Dems in ‘08. I hope they take the White House, senate and house.

How about a Gore/Clinton ticket, or maybe a Clinton/Gore ticket?

They could name Ted Kennedy Secretary of State and Dick Durbin, or maybe Howard Dean, Secretary of Defense. All three would be excellent choices.

Now if we could just figure out a way to get rid of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Alito.

Tony

My 2 1/2 year old granddaughter understood that JC was referring to the terrorists. They are Islamic swine who do not represent the majority of Islam.

Posted by: ulysses at August 11, 2006 7:30 PM
Comment #174949

ulysses -

OK, but why does everyone insist on naming their religion as part of the names people call these murderers? Do we have Christian murderers? Jewish murderers? I’m sure most people would call me anti-semetic if I said anything like “Jewish swine in Lebanon” - that’s my point.

The more we continue to harp on their religion as some sort of honest connection to their religion, the further we define Islam as terrorists… and the further away from peace we will stray.

(I’ve already had quite a few discussion here where people continue to insist that Islam is an evil and violent religion, by all it’s followers, not just the terrostists. That’s what this “Islamofascist” and “Islam swine” buys us.

Posted by: tony at August 11, 2006 7:40 PM
Comment #174955

Tony, I agree. And I think it’s amazing that they’re trying to make people believe that if Lamont wins, we’re making the country less safe and more prone to terrorism.
All one has to think about is Katrina when they say these things. If that had been a terrorist attack rather than a natural disaster, they would have failed just as badly at protecting and saving American lives. On 9/11, Bush sat in a daze reading “My Pet Goat”, when Katrina hit, he was still on vaction cutting birthday cakes and playing guitar while our citizens were dying. Condi went shoe shopping. Nobody heard from Cheney for days. FEMA had been rendered completely ineffective.
One can also think about how the homeland security dept is a joke, how none of the 9/11 commissions recommendations have been put into effect, how our cargo containers still aren’t being inspected, how our borders are wide open, how they’ve broken our army, and how they’ve spent us into ruin in Iraq — an unnecessary war — while they no longer care at all about Bin Laden.

It’s really rather amusing in a sick, black-humorous way that they keep harping upon safety and security — because it’s become so crystal clear that they’ve done NOTHING to make America safer — and every step of the way they’ve had Joe Lieberman cheering on their stupidity, incompetence and ineffectiveness.
I honestly don’t think Lieberman or his Republican supporters are going to do very well in November, simply because people can’t be that stupid, you know?

Posted by: Adrienne at August 11, 2006 7:49 PM
Comment #174959

Adrienne -

Do you also find it grotesque that Tony Snow saw fit to launch a 9/11 “invite more attacks” warning on Lamont’s victory - while the White House was quite aware of the imminient arrests in London? Using secret intelligence for a bit of political gain…???

Posted by: tony at August 11, 2006 7:59 PM
Comment #174962

Yes, grotesque, yet so typically Rovian. I heard the RNC was also sending out fund raising e-mails just before the news broke, reminding their sheep, I mean, their supporters, that without their donations, America might be attacked by terrorists again.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 11, 2006 8:05 PM
Comment #174963

Adrienne:

“I honestly don’t think Lieberman or his Republican supporters are going to do very well in November, simply because people can’t be that stupid, you know? “

Gosh, I wish you hadn’t said that outloud. We have too many examples of voter stupidity in the last 30 years to exempt them this November.


Sure, 60% think we should get out of Iraq and that it’s a failed policy. But %50 think there were WMD found in Iraq, and around 33% still think Saddam was in on 9/11.

Over 40% believe in the Rapture—the Christian equivalent of the Easter Bunny. Never mind that the Easter Bunny is a pagan symbol of the rite of Spring, and Christmas was a veiled attempt to induce pagans to Christianity by aligning it with solstice.


Posted by: Tim Crow at August 11, 2006 8:09 PM
Comment #174965

More people are aware that Tom Cruise’s new baby pictures are due out than the recent terror arrestes in London.

can’t say that we won’t win, but i think comes down to which candidate has the prettiest yard sign.

Posted by: tony at August 11, 2006 8:12 PM
Comment #174966

get rid of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Alito. Posted by: ulysses at August 11, 2006 07:30 PM

You are forgetting Scalia, one of the worst, oh heck, they should all get lost, except Ruth B G and our other guy, whatshisname.

On the Lieberman thing, it just goes back to his inflated ego. Get another job, Joe. We like you, but the war in Iraq is another Vietnam, fuggetaboutit. You are going to get a great pension, with health care benefits.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 11, 2006 8:15 PM
Comment #174967

We also live in a world where Pop Tarts need directions… and plastic spoons need warning labels.

DOH DE DOH DE DOH… which level will I pull???

Posted by: tony at August 11, 2006 8:16 PM
Comment #174984

Lieberman lost because most Americans are against the war in Iraq. The majority debate involves just how quickly to get out,yesterday or next week. This is unlikely to change by November. In fact unless there is some real(not spin) improvements onthe ground this majority will increase. There is a reckoning comming.
I just read how the administration is planning “entitlement reform”after the election. That is a code word for cutting Social Security and Medicare. They are hoping for bi-partisan support. Not bloody likely. May I suggest to other Dems out there that we apply the same treatment to Dems that go along with this ripoff as Joe got.

Posted by: BillS at August 11, 2006 10:16 PM
Comment #174995

Tony,

Your posts make no sense. Even if they were coherent, there is no way to reconcile what has happened with Lieberman.

The party of “inclusion” has excluded someone who devoted his life to supporting it. He is now running as an independent to protect oblivious fools even though they stabbed him in the back. It’s a good thing for you he isn’t a quitter.

This war is real. Fundementalists want us dead and will stop at nothing. Voting for Ned Lamont isn’t going to change that. We could elect Mahatma Ghandi president and they will still try to kill us.

I guess to be in the “big tent” party you need to be a clown. That’s okay, we will defend you too.

Posted by: G.K. at August 11, 2006 10:50 PM
Comment #175012

G.K.:
“He is now running as an independent to protect oblivious fools even though they stabbed him in the back.”

You want to see the oblivious fools? Read this article: about how very safe the administration is making us.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 11, 2006 11:52 PM
Comment #175013

GK,
You are out of touch with reality. There was no Hamas, El Quieda, Talliban, or Hezbulla or any other terrorist group in Iraq before we got there. There is now. Iraq had its own army too. It doesnt now, at least one that can opperate without our help. It had National Security forces before we barged in. It doesnt now. It had water, electricity, public works, medical facilities, an infrastructure, and most people were actually employed. Things are much different now.

So, as far as Iraq is concerned…Who exactly is supporting terrorism in Iraq….now? Huh?

Maybe, just maybe if you can use that brain of yours for a moment, you will put two and two together and realise that:

Lieberman =s yes for terror
La Mont =s terror? NO

Stop real terrorists acts, lets stop supporting the terrorists. We need more La Monts and less Liebermans this fall.

Posted by: PlayNice at August 11, 2006 11:54 PM
Comment #175016

GK,

And oh yes, read Adriennes link. That should answer some of your questions as well, about who really is supporting and aiding terrorism in this country.

Good post Adriennes!
(As always)

Posted by: PlayNice at August 11, 2006 11:59 PM
Comment #175027

Where I come from we would call him Joe-Blow

Dirty little traitor kissing Bushes ass

Hang em by the neck until dead

Good riddance

Posted by: DR Engen at August 12, 2006 12:36 AM
Comment #175031

G.K.,

I don’t know where to start. Oh wait, yes I do, I’ve always found Tony’s posts to be quite coherent and IMO you’re attacking Tony and not just what he said.

OTOH you said, “there is no way to reconcile what has happened with Lieberman”. Oh really! How do you, my fine feathered Republican friend, explain the Republican party voting for GW Bush over John McCain in the 2000 Presidential Primary? Did McCain decide to run for President as an independent? If he had would you have supported him and demonized the Republicans as you are now doing to the Democrats?

Elections are won and lost. Those who don’t accept their loss are quite simply sore losers. And before you can fire a Neo-Con shot across my “bow” even Gore conceded defeat sooner than was legally necessary because he obviously loves America!

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at August 12, 2006 12:57 AM
Comment #175035

Paul,

That was a well written letter, I would however have ended with “sincerely” rather than “Respectfully from a Fellow Democrat”. I just can’t muster much respect for Lieberman right now.

I see him at this point being someone who is placing “self importance” above all else. Bottom line is, “if it walks like a Neo-Con and quacks like a Neo-Con it must be a Neo-Con”.

I guess if I wrote Joe a letter it would simply say, “you lost Joe, get over it!”

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at August 12, 2006 1:08 AM
Comment #175047

Adrienne, Joe is principled. And I agree 100% with Tim Crow who said: “Lieberman’s sticking to moronic policies are why he lost.”

He believes in corporate money running government and he believes in the U.S. going after Arab states, (he is Jewish, afterall). He stuck to his principles which gives him integrity. But, integrity is not sufficient to produce security, prosperity, and liberty in America. And Tim Crow is right.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 12, 2006 3:01 AM
Comment #175051

“And Tim Crow is right.”

Absolutely! especially when he said: “We have too many examples of voter stupidity in the last 30 years to exempt them this November.”

The simple fact that the most recent polls show Bush’s approval rating at 33% is mind boggling to me. Just exactly what is better since he took office?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at August 12, 2006 4:42 AM
Comment #175056

Paul,

I agree that Lieberman should drop out, but I wouldn’t be so sure that he is going to lose. Here are the results of the first post-primary poll from Rasmussen Reports:

Joseph Lieberman (I) 46%
Ned Lamont (D) 41%
Alan Schlesinger (R) 6%

The funny thing here is that Lieberman is obviously getting a lot of Republican votes. If you’re Ned Lamont, Alan Schlesinger is your new best friend.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 12, 2006 7:57 AM
Comment #175058

Since we are in open letter mode, here’s some advice for Joe:

Stop talking like Dick Cheney. First Dick Cheney said that al Qaeda was cheering for Lamont, then you went along with this GOP talking point. This is why Democrats don’t trust you.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 12, 2006 8:17 AM
Comment #175061

Adrienne,

You’re goping to point me to some article that proves we need to fight harder in the war on terror? That article bolsters my argument. We can’t be complacent and need for Lieberman to win to help fight the war on terror.

KansasDem,

Lieberman, juct like McCain (or even Buchanan) have a right to run. What I really take issue with is the way the party of inclusion treated him BEFORE the primary. “He was vilified, crucified and yes, he was even criticized”. (My blast from the past) The attacks cost Dems a lot of goodwill may have cost an absolutely certain seat in the senate.

Posted by: G.K. at August 12, 2006 8:35 AM
Comment #175062

“news flash - people who good intentions run as an IND from the start.”

And so Joe switching parties is anti-democratic how? As far as I’m concerned, loyalty to the country is the only thing that matters. Parties do not matter.

“Primary Elections” are not actual elections. A registered Republican cannot vote in the Democratic primary. Legal, binding elections for policital office include the votes of all eligble American citizens. Therefore, “Primary Elections” are not elections.

Posted by: Charlie at August 12, 2006 8:37 AM
Comment #175063

“OK, but why does everyone insist on naming their religion as part of the names people call these murderers?”

If the terrorists were to yell “Coca-Cola is Great!” as they slam the highjacked commercial airliner into the ground then we might be tempted to call them “Soda facsists.” Apparently you haven’t been paying much attention to the speeches made by UBL, Zawahiri et al. Their latest proclamation is to establish a new caliphate from India to Spain. In the Mideast, politics and religion are indistinguishable from each other. You might want to read *anything* by Bernard Lewis. He can explain this to you.

Posted by: Charlie at August 12, 2006 8:40 AM
Comment #175064

Charlie -

First off, Primary ELECTIONS are run by the government, not by the party - so they go beyond party politics. Also, if you would read my posts, you might grasp that it’s not the Joe is doing something illegal… but he is ignoring the election results. Voters chose someone else, but Joe does not care what the voters say.

“Coca-Cola is Great!” - So, it’s what people say before they kill people. OK, so I can call someone a Christian when they kill in the name of God, or Jewish maybe. I’m going to guess that you’re OK with me calling the Israeli army “Jewish fascists” for knowingly killing civilians in the caravan of people escaping their violence (and yes, they had confirmed there were no militants among them before they attacked.) The point is the use of religions to define people who do not follow religious principles.

Do you know the equivalent of anti-Semitic for Islam?

Posted by: tony at August 12, 2006 9:16 AM
Comment #175066

“You’re goping to point me to some article that proves we need to fight harder in the war on terror?”

9/11 Commmission Report

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

Now, tell me how many of their top suggestions have been carried out…

Posted by: tony at August 12, 2006 9:26 AM
Comment #175069

Focused on 9/11, U.S. Is Seen to Lag on New Threats

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/12/washington/12homeland.html?hp&ex=1155441600&en=1d0e4381818a92b4&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Posted by: tony at August 12, 2006 9:33 AM
Comment #175080

You see the fundamental thing about democracy is that it’s ALWAYS right to run for office. That’s how it works. Parties are MERELY organizations that help individuals do so; they are not religions.

The Lamont type dems better have more than a “can’t we all get along” “let’s play nice in the sandbox” foreign policy, or this dem is going elsewhere.

Let’s see some thinking that goes about 5 moves ahead — not everything will be OK if our boys come home. Let’s hear the logic when you game it out for 5+ moves.

Posted by: Greg at August 12, 2006 10:15 AM
Comment #175088

Tony,

How right you are. As these articles point out, we haven’t been doing enough and need to do much more to fight the war on terror. Lamont isn’t going to help - at all. He’ll just make it so that you have MORE of these articles that bolster my argument. Thanks for doing the leg work on this one.

Posted by: G.K. at August 12, 2006 10:50 AM
Comment #175091

“The Lamont type dems better have more than a “can’t we all get along” “let’s play nice in the sandbox” foreign policy, or this dem is going elsewhere.”

“Lamont isn’t going to help - at all. He’ll just make it so that you have MORE of these articles that bolster my argument. Thanks for doing the leg work on this one.”

What wondering leaps from an article on how THIS administration is failing to protect against attacks to “Lamont will only make it worse.” Please add some detail to this… I’d love to see some proof. Or would you simply state that this is your opinion based on personal political bias?

Posted by: tony at August 12, 2006 10:57 AM
Comment #175103

“Adrienne,

You’re goping to point me to some article that proves we need to fight harder in the war on terror? That article bolsters my argument.”

No GK, it bolsters my argument that the Bush administration doesn’t understand that first and foremost the “War on Terror” means we’ve needed to protect our citizens and American soil from terrorism — and that they’ve done NOTHING. Indeed, they either don’t know how to do this, or they just don’t care. They’ve spent so much of our money, but it seems they still aren’t even capable of prioritizing the issue of security.

“We can’t be complacent and need for Lieberman to win to help fight the war on terror.”

When you say the war on terror, you’re talking about Iraq, I suppose. We’ve lost that war, and it wasn’t even necessary in the first place. The country has been destroyed, we’ve killed a lot of civilians without decreasing any of the violence, our presence has grown a huge insurgency who are targeting our soldiers, the people want us gone, and now a civil war is breaking out with our troops right in the middle of it. For some reason, you righties, not to mention Joe Lieberman, have all bought into the idea that winning there is more important than protecting our own people on our own soil. I can’t begin to tell you how confused, illogical and crazy that is to me.

“Lamont isn’t going to help - at all. He’ll just make it so that you have MORE of these articles that bolster my argument.”

Wrong. Since you didn’t read it earlier, maybe you should go look at that link I put up earlier regarding what Lamont had to say in reply to Cheney’s idiotic remarks. He understands exactly what this country needs to do to fight the reality-based war on terrorism, not the fantasyland variety.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 12, 2006 12:05 PM
Comment #175106

David:
“Adrienne, Joe is principled.”

I guess it’s all a matter of perspective. I look at the reasons he was willing to leave his party and it doesn’t seem like he’s principled to me. Instead it seems like ego, greed and a willingness to war indiscriminately in the Middle East.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 12, 2006 12:15 PM
Comment #175118

Libertarians for Lieberman

Lieberman will pick up some Libertarian support too! The Lamonters are slamming him for support Bush’s Tax Cuts, Social Security Reform, School Vouchers, and opposing Affirmative Action.

Well, geez, sounds pretty damned good to this libertarian.

Keep on attacking him Lamonters.

There is a Libertarian Party of Connecticut, and they regularly poll 2% in statewide races. That 2% could be critical in this race.

Posted by: Eric Dondero at August 12, 2006 1:16 PM
Comment #175122

wow- sounds like you guys are all scared. If Joe runs as an independent and is elected, doesnt that mean that the people in Conn CHOSE him??? Quit yer whining and let democracy run its course. BTW if Joe is elected, the whole argument about voters voting against the administration and the war in Iraq kinda comes crashing down - doesnt it???

Also, I didnt see you Libs sqwaking when Jim Jeffords changed his affiliation from Republican to Ind…

So hypocritical.

Flame away.

Posted by: b0mbay at August 12, 2006 1:24 PM
Comment #175146

b0mbay -

Wow, so you automatically assume fear out of a discussion about the integrity of honoring the votes of common people? I’ve heard you speak of being pro-American, yet you see nothing wrong with people having their votes ignored in the pursuit of power. Honestly, Lieberman can run on IND ticket in the NOV election, and I’m pretty sure he will remain a DEM if elected. Now, you might look at the possibility of the REP in CT winning - hardly. The other option is that Lamont wins. No fear, just disappointment in someone I thought had more commitment to his base, and those are the people who voted last Tuesday.

“Thanks for the support for the past 18 years., but I want to be in office some more, so I’m going to ignore you and go find another way to get elected.”

“Also, I didnt see you Libs sqwaking when Jim Jeffords changed his affiliation from Republican to Ind…”

That was an issue between him and President Bush… I think there’s a very clear difference between changing parties because an election does not go you way and changing parties because your President acts like an ass.

I know all this centers around the politics of the party, but in this case it is the voters who ignored the wishes of the party to pick the candidate the wish to lead. I might ask that you look at the issue in Texas with Delay on the ballet. He’s there at the choice of the voters, but it’s the party who wants to remove him. Delay knew what he was facing before he decided to run for re-election and before he won his primary… yet the REP party feels it knows best because the good of the party (nationally) outweighs the will of the voter (locally.)

Posted by: tony at August 12, 2006 3:24 PM
Comment #175156

Tony,

Unfortunately this comment highlights your blind hate of Jews and your blind belief in Hezbollah:

“and yes, they (Israel) had confirmed there were no militants among them before they attacked (that convoy).”

How would anyone confirm that Hezbollah militants were or were not in the convoy? Militants who, let’s see, protect themselves in the actual homes of civilians, wear no uniforms, and are unaccounted for. There’s no roster of Hezbollah personnel, there’s no accountability for a unit’s actions. They disperse a bunch of Irani weapons to various hideouts and wah-lah! You get a bunch of wild terrorits running around Lebanon.

And was it Israel’s fault 2 of their soldiers were kidnapped. Was Israel just the big ole meanies liberals protray them to be when they moved out of Gaza?

See this website for heinous and verifiable anti-Israel photo fraud: http://www.aish.com/movies/PhotoFraud.asp

… and root for those who foresee a future viable for human life & freedom; root for the side which doesn’t want to globalize Islamic Fascism.

Posted by: Ken Strong at August 12, 2006 4:57 PM
Comment #175162

Ken:

What a crock of ??? ignorance.

1 - “your blind hate of Jews and your blind belief in Hezbollah:” You have absolutely no idea what goes on my head, so get over it. Deal with the argument and stop trash talking everyone. Name calling is the last resort of a weak mind.

2 - “How would anyone confirm that Hezbollah militants were or were not in the convoy?” If you had done anything other than blatantly ignore previous posts, news stories, etc. you would already have your answer. The Israeli army physically checked the convoy as it fled north - they ACTUALLY WALKED AMONG THE CARS AND PEOPLE, and then they gave them permission to travel. And then they killed them. http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=1173702006

(second source) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5638206

So - you’ve lashed out with insults and baseless assumptions. I see your blantant disreguard for all non-Christian life, and I think it shows serious character flaws. (Read up before you attack.) Or maybe just hatred and blind acceptance os Israel? (Or should I start calling them Jewish Fascists… since you love to be so racial against Islam…)

Posted by: tony at August 12, 2006 6:10 PM
Comment #175169

Tony

I understand your point and, after giving it some thought, I mostly agree with you.

Throughout history, Christians and Jews have murdered untold numbers of people in the name of their god, but we have never attached the word Christian or Jew to the word murderer.

Maybe we should.

Posted by: ulysses at August 12, 2006 7:19 PM
Comment #175196

Or maybe we should leave people’s religion and murder separate.

Posted by: tony at August 12, 2006 9:53 PM
Comment #175310

I thought we were talking about joe lieberman???

By the way - the crusades are over - and the jews arent attacking lebanon because they are trying to evangelize their religion. The jews are trying to exterminate a foe that would like to see the jewish people wiped off the face of this earth. Think about that in context to “disproportionate force”

Posted by: b0mbay at August 13, 2006 1:50 PM
Comment #175356

b0mbay

We certainly heard the rebublicans sqawking when Jeffords left the rebublican party.

Posted by: mark at August 13, 2006 9:19 PM
Comment #175360

The people have spoken. Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for you; “you” being all the of the misguided, malevolent supporters of the BUSH agendas, be they republican or democrat.Soon the small hole in the dam will become a raging torrent that will free us from the madness that has been the George Bush imperial presidency.

Posted by: hulk at August 13, 2006 9:55 PM
Comment #175419

Joe Lieberman is nothing more than human refuse. I’m glad the connecticutt democratic party threw his bum and corrupted behind out.

Posted by: Anthony Mason at August 14, 2006 10:25 AM
Comment #175463

Lieberman reminds a lot of Mexico right now. The loser will scream and shout and stir up discontent amongst the people until he either wins a revote or someone shuts him up for good. Being Mexico, I’m surprized it hasn’t happened yet (the shutting up for good).

Texas has a Repub, a Demo, and two Indeps running for Governor. Strayhorn, mother to Scott McClellan and that handy dandy drafter of world-class Medicare Drug Plan phenomena, was Republican, but knowing she can’t win that fight against the incumbent, crossed to Indep. “Kinky” Friedman running also as Indep. for….who knows? As he says, “Why the Hell not?”

Lieberman is a hardcore politician who got way too comfortable that he could not be beaten, ad way too comfortable with the Republican regime and their warped agenda. He got to liking those pats on the head from Rove and Cheney. The people have spoken, and he needs to listen, whether it was a loss by 3.5% or 35%. Otherwise, he’s just a sore loser on a revenge agenda.

Posted by: Kathy at August 14, 2006 3:10 PM
Comment #175465

Joe,

You ran against an empty suit who the leftists on the outer fringe of the party thinks will propel them to victory in November. Please stay in the race and show the nation the Democratic party is not a haven for appeasers, defeatists, soft realists and nitwits. These are they same people who felt safe before 9/11 but they feel less safe now? Let the real people of Conn. make a choice. I think when all is said and done, it will be Michael Moore who feels a twinge running down his spine, what little he has of it.

Posted by: Phil at August 14, 2006 3:15 PM
Comment #175468

Phil -

You’re not related to Ann Coulter, are you?

Posted by: tony at August 14, 2006 3:28 PM
Comment #175471

See me in November after we see who is elected by the overwhelmingly Democratic state of Connecticut. The fringe supporting Lamont are not Democrats but rather the extreme left that want to hijack our party. It might be time to throw out the trash.

Posted by: Phil at August 14, 2006 3:52 PM
Comment #175581

“The fringe supporting Lamont are not Democrats but rather the extreme left that want to hijack our party.”

Have you actually listened to this guy? Seriously? Come on, this guys makes Lieberman look like a Liberal.

Posted by: tony at August 15, 2006 6:56 AM
Comment #175640

Old Joe Lieberman is showing his true colors. By running as an Independent, he will split the Democratic vote so his Republican friends will win his seat.

It’s about time for an Anti-Incumbent Party:

http://uscaip.blogspot.com/

Posted by: pete at August 15, 2006 12:53 PM
Comment #181365

Dondero does not speak for libertarians. He represents Republicans who pretend to be Libertarians while supporting George Bush and the neo-cons.

Discount his nonsense.

Posted by: James Landrith at September 14, 2006 10:46 PM
Post a comment