Democrats & Liberals Archives

Is Lieberman a Republican?

Joe Lieberman claims he is a Democrat at heart, even though he is challenging Ned Lamont, who won the Democratic Connecticut primary. Lieberman feels good because he is now ahead in the polls: He has 53% to 41% for Lamont, with Republican Schlessinger getting only 4%. Since primarily Republicans are rooting for him, Lieberman has essentially become the Republican candidate. Is Lieberman a Republican?

If so, he picked the worst time in history to say so. The Republicans have so messed up the Iraq war, the Middle East, homeland security and the rights of Americans, that the nation is on the threshold of a huge upheaval in political power. Lieberman may be high in the polls now, but it will not last.

Here are but 2 of the latest incidents to show the need for kicking out Republican miscreants and incompetents:

  1. DEMOCRACY IS DEAD IN IRAQ - Many of us knew that establishing a democracy was not the reason for invading Iraq. But now comes official confirmation:

    “'Senior administration officials have acknowledged to me that they are considering alternatives other than democracy,' said one military affairs expert who received an Iraq briefing at the White House last month and agreed to speak only on condition of anonymity."

  2. HOMELAND SECURITY IS A MESS - A liquid mess. You saw what happened recently at airports when each passenger was asked to come an hour earlier so that he or she could have time to dump soda, toothpaste and other dangerous liquids. Maybe the extra time would allow each to use his laptop before he checked it as baggage. How do you suppose recent airline passengers feel when they hear that the White House and the U.S. Supreme Court already have machines that check for liquid explosives? Unbelievable. This is what I picked up at AmericaBlog:

    "Joe Reiss, AS&E's vice president of marketing, said his company's SmartCheck systems are used at the White House and the US Supreme Court. But they're not widely used in airport security. TSA agreed last year to conduct tests of the system. But Reiss said those tests had not yet begun."
Everything about the Republican Party that Lieberman holds dear - fighting the Iraq war and enhancing homeland security - are going down the drain. This is a terrible time to switch to the Republican Party. In addition, the Republicans got another smackdown with reference to snooping on citizens. I know that Lieberman came out against snooping without a warrant. Does he now want to associate himself with the party that promotes unconstitutional activity? Here is what a federal judge ruled:
"U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution."

The Republican Party is headed toward a collapse this November. The polls will soon change. When they get into the voting booth, Republicans will vote for a Republican, not a Democrat. Lieberman, if he stays with the Republicans, is headed in the same direction.

Posted by Paul Siegel at August 17, 2006 7:47 PM
Comments
Comment #176209

Paul:

As I think I have said in other posts, I believe any further discussion of JL is self-defeating for Democrats. The Party should focus on the six years of Bush economics, foreign policy, domestic policy, and the Republican Party’s policies in dealing with health care costs, national defense, public education and other important issues.

JL should not be the focus—retaking Congress should be.

Posted by: Tim Crow at August 17, 2006 8:16 PM
Comment #176210

I don’t know if Joe thinks he is a Rebublican, but I certainly think George thinks he is one. He might as well come out and endorse Lieberman since he won’t do it the candidate from his own party.

Posted by: mark at August 17, 2006 8:17 PM
Comment #176211


Good point Tim Crow. The Repubs sure do like to bring him up for discussion.

Posted by: mark at August 17, 2006 8:19 PM
Comment #176212

I thought JL was running as an independent? Did I miss something? Just because conservatives and independents will vote for him in larger numbers than if he hadnt switched his party doesnt make him a republican. Im not sure where you are going with this post?

There was a pretty good dialogue going on the previous blog (when i say pretty good, I mean having some substantive value - discussing issues, predicting outcomes…etc). It looks as if this is a thinly veiled attempt to bash republicans again. Is anyone else tired of this? It sounds like a rusty squeezbox every time someone picks up the “i hate george bush” mantle. Here is a clue. We all know you hate bush Paul. We further know that you hate capitalism and by and large most republicans. I have seen a few other posts from you that had merit (namely the environment and defense issues). I just feel that this post is a lot like your other ones.

Care to talk about something besides how much you cant stand bush, his policies, the administration…etc.

Posted by: b0mbay at August 17, 2006 8:24 PM
Comment #176213

“It looks as if this is a thinly veiled attempt to bash republicans again. Is anyone else tired of this?”

Nope.

“It sounds like a rusty squeezbox every time someone picks up the “i hate george bush” mantle.”

Sounds like music and truth to me.

“I just feel that this post is a lot like your other ones.”

Your criticizing him for consistency?

Posted by: Observer at August 17, 2006 8:29 PM
Comment #176215

Sorry if this seems rube - but I think the Joe Lieberman thing has been drilled in to the ground. I’d rather start discussing the NSA Spy program being ruled Unconstitutional today. So many people have stated that no one should say anything - jump to any conclusions until the program has it’s day in court. OK - AND WE WERE RIGHT! (again.)

And before people start blustering about being SOFT on terror or wanting to terrorists an easy time… read the court’s decision. All of that crap was dismissed immediately. No one has to be soft on terror - it’s a matter of being STRONG on the Constitution. (Repeat after me: FISA, FISA, FISA…)

(Or we can go back to Joe… but I’d like to forget about him.)

Posted by: tony at August 17, 2006 8:53 PM
Comment #176217

Joe Lieberman was chosen to the Democratic Party’s Vice-Presidential candidate a short six years ago. I think he got on the wrong side of the most important issue for Democrats. If one was to look at his voting record in the Senate I don’t think you can consider Lieberman a conservative Republican or even a moderate. Joe Lieberman took a stance counter to that of a majority of voters in his state’s primary, and paid for it by losing his party’s nomination.

Americans have traditionally supported popular wars which are short and victorious. Americans will not support a war where American troops are fighting and holding the same piece of realestate constantly. When American troops are deployed and fighting under such circumstance morale and discipline in the field falters and voters at home become increasingly disheartened with the scenario. That is what has actually happened in Iraq. Americans are used to question the judgment of their leaders and voice their opposition to a long, protracted engagement - history bears this out.

The whole idea that War on Terror can be completely fought from a military prespective is impossible. Right from the beginning on this conflict there has been no ideological or theological measures to counter that of the enemy. We hear it from President Bush occasionally but he aims his rheotric at the American people and not at the Middle East. I believe everyone has missed the boat on this one, including Senator Lieberman!

Posted by: Danny L. McDaniel at August 17, 2006 9:14 PM
Comment #176218

Tim,

> foreigh policy he weak because of Iraq
> domestic policy no better or worse that Clinton
> health care, after reading this point I could not recall the last Republican that talked about healthcare
> national defense, above average we have not been attacked
> public education, No Child Left behind was exactly what everyone wanted and is only a failure because the wrong party instituted it

How about the economy? Tax cuts seem to have worked, How about diversity in government? This Administration seems more committed to diversity than any previous.

There must be some things that can be acknowledged as success and staying the course.

Posted by: Edge at August 17, 2006 9:15 PM
Comment #176221

Democrats are so funny. You still act like Republicans are the only ones who did support and continue to support the Iraq war, now granted a higher percentage of Republicans support the war than Democrats that do. But the point is that Lieberman is not the only Democrat who has supported the war. Do you not remember in 2004 when Kerry campaigned, partly, on beefing up the war? Now I know that since that time Kerry has changed his stance at least in part, but there still exists Democrats in Congress other than Lieberman who support the war.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at August 17, 2006 9:38 PM
Comment #176223

“How about the economy? “

The economy is balanced on a knife right now. Jobs are good, but home sales and new homes are starting to drop. The economy is being dragged down by the high price of fuel and the expense and worries in the middle east. We’re also going to face serious financial issues due to the drastically increased deficit.

The tax cuts have done whatever good they can do (as far as stimulation) and we still face paying for them. If things do not go well in the Middle East, I expect some serious downturns in the economy in the near future. Also, there are no superstar markets or new technologies that can help keep the economy moving, any slowdown can turn into a downturn very rapidly… The housing market and consumer spending were all that kept the past recession for being a major depression - and those are in jeopardy.

If we do not find someway to stem the massive bleeding with regards to energy expenses and the military costs in Iraq… we will becoming up short, and all of our credit will be tapped.

This is not a partisan issue - it’s a national disaster waiting to happen.

Posted by: tony at August 17, 2006 9:42 PM
Comment #176225

Tony:

“This is not a partisan issue - it’s a national disaster waiting to happen.”

Well framed—unfortunatly.


Posted by: Tim Crow at August 17, 2006 9:49 PM
Comment #176226

“But the point is that Lieberman is not the only Democrat who has supported the war.”

Lieberman might not be a result of a politician simply supporting the war… Lieberman might very well be the first of many incumbents who get sent home. It’s not simply a single party that has failed the American people, it is the collective government that has failed us. (The White House, The Senate & The House.)

Iraq, Katrina, obscene levels of corruption and the complete lack of any substantial accomplishments are the driving forces behind this election. NO ONE deserves to stay in DC.

Incumbency should be a right afforded by exceptional talent and service - not something given simply by being elected once.

Posted by: tony at August 17, 2006 9:49 PM
Comment #176227

Of course, it’s not just that Lieberman supported the war; as folks have said, many Democrats did. Lieberman was way out of line, in my opinion when he continually criticized members of his own party who spoke against the war and the President.

Also, Lieberman was not “chosen by his party” to be the 2000 Vice-presidential nominee. He was chosen by Al Gore. In 2004, Lieberman tried to become his party’s nominee for President, and was very soundly rejected.

But mostly, I think Democratic voters who oppose Lieberman grew tired of his incessant criticism of his own party and his abandonment on many hot-button issues, like Terri Schiavo and Justice Alito.

Posted by: Arr-squared at August 17, 2006 10:01 PM
Comment #176229

“No one has to be soft on terror - it’s a matter of being STRONG on the Constitution.”

In the history of the FISA law, 18,000+ warrants have been requested by the US government.
5 have been denied.
Bypassing the court is either an act of arrogance, or they are hiding some nefarious purpose.
Your choice.

Posted by: Observer at August 17, 2006 10:03 PM
Comment #176231

Paul is obviously a Liberal Democrat. First he calls for changes in policy in Iraq and then he criticizes the administrtion when they consider tweaking the policy. Bravo!

Homeland security is a mess? Hardly, it needs to make adjustments but since an attack has not occured in 5 years I’ll give the adminstration the benefit of the doubt over your opinion. One big change is to remove FEMA from under their control.

Democrats dumped Joe Lieberman, because he supports the war on terrorism. This is the same Joe Lieberman who voted against the Bush tax cuts, against banning same-sex marriage, against banning partial-birth abortion, against the confirmation of Judge Alito, against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in favor of the Kyoto accords.

Despite all this, Democrats preferred anti-war candidate Ned Lamont, great-nephew of Corliss Lamont, WASP plutocrat fund-raiser for Stalin. Lamont’s main asset is that he is a walking, argument in favor of a massive inheritance tax. His plan for fighting the terrorism: enact a single-payer government health plan and universal pre-K education programs. His goal is to unite the “cut” and “run” wings of his party into one liberal coalition.

Dems don’t hate Bush because they oppose the war, they hate him because he is fighting the war on terrorism. They would hate him for fighting terrorism even if he had a “D” after his name.

Hillary Clinton has anti-war protestors whining at her events. That’s why she has been challenged by another anti-war opponent, who appears to believe that Israel is a terrorist state. It seems the Hezbollah - DNC merger is true. Buckle down it could be a long couple of years.

Posted by: Jason at August 17, 2006 10:12 PM
Comment #176233

Tony,
Another huge story which has received zero attention from the national press:

“A nondescript grass discovered in the Oregon countryside is hardly an alien invasion. Yet the plant - a genetically modified form of a grass commonly grown on golf courses - is worrying the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) enough that it is running its first full environmental impact assessment of a GM plant.

It is the first time a GM plant has escaped into the wild in the US, and it has managed it before securing USDA approval. The plant, creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera, carries a bacterial gene that makes it immune to the potent herbicide glyphosate, better known as Roundup.”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125643.100-escaped-golfcourse-grass-frees-gene-genie-in-the-us.html

Oh, and on the economy: the yield curve is becoming more deeply inverted, with the 10 year T-Note now 30 basis points lower than the Fed Funds rate. Prior to the First Bush Recession, the inversion maxed out at 50 basis points.

There is no balancing on a knife edge, too late for that. With less than 3 million non-farm payroll jobs created in over five years we have no “fat” to cut from businesses, no excess. The economy never recovered enough to benefit working people. The recovery only helped the richest of the rich, & large corporations, and now the time is rapidly approaching where the bill is coming due. It is not a pretty picture.

Great opinion written on FISA by the federal judge.

Iraq keeps getting worse and worse. It is not a pretty picture either. The only certainty is that it will end badly for all concerned.

Posted by: phx8 at August 17, 2006 10:16 PM
Comment #176234

I’d have to say enough with the Lieberman talk. In the big picture Lamont won’t be that different. The more we talk about what’s his name, the more opportunites we create for Republicans to lie about the extremism of the left.

In the coming months we Democrats must force the political dialog to be about the failures and corruption in Washington.

Heed the Warning: The Republicans will not talk about issues they will simply put all their efforts into painting Democrats to be cowards and terrorist supporters.

We connot give them any extra opportunities. Without researching, thinking, or even batting an eye they will scream about the EXTREME left.

Posted by: darren159 at August 17, 2006 10:25 PM
Comment #176235

darren159

Amen

Posted by: mark at August 17, 2006 10:29 PM
Comment #176236

Paul:

From what I can see, Lieberman wins in November, Democrats retake the house, and the Republicans keep the senate.

I have a hard time calling that a democratic landslide, or a shlacking. It sounds to me like a normal sixth year election.

For all of the “republicans are going to get clobbered” talk, this fall looks pretty routine. Dems should pick up about the normal amount of seats out parties do in the sixth year.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 17, 2006 10:29 PM
Comment #176246

Paul:

The Republican Party is headed toward a collapse this November. The polls will soon change. When they get into the voting booth, Republicans will vote for a Republican, not a Democrat. Lieberman, if he stays with the Republicans, is headed in the same direction.

This is what should happen. The Republicans have really messed things up. What you don’t understand is that your Democrats right now look like the bar scene on Star Wars. So this golden opportunity (once in a generation) is going to pass you buy. Instead Democrats will pick up what is normal in a sixth year.

What would really be smart of Democrats would be to straighten up their own house so that you look ready to lead. Right now, it looks like your only policy is Bush hatred.

As for Lieberman, he is simply a victim of your small tent philosophy. You are saying he is a Republican only because it suits your aims to demonize him. Lieberman was, is and will be a democrat in his heart.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 17, 2006 11:42 PM
Comment #176250

Democrap’s agenda 101- Throw Lieberman to the tigers and than they won’t question the many other Democrap candidates who support the war.

On a side note how come we have nicknames for the Republicans like Repugs, Rethugs, etc etc and not for the Dems. I propose Democraps.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at August 18, 2006 12:15 AM
Comment #176254

b0mbay-
I would think you would be disturbed by the fact that your party’s own candidate is so weak, you’re throwing your weight behind Joe Lieberman and not your own candidate.

And for what? A man so politically craven he wouldn’t take the chance of running independent in the first place? The Conservative movement has degenerated into a group of political survivalists, of which Joe Lieberman is only the most recent addition.

The trouble is, America doesn’t really have a strong far left, so the Right has to make one up, accusing people it doesn’t like of being communists, terrorist sympathizers, and all that other junk. I believe if some new negative comes on the scene, you’ll through that at us.

Truth is, Bush has earned much of the hatred directed at him. You may think he walks on water (I think you have to practically think that well of him to ignore his screwups), but I think the man is one of the most incompetent people ever to be handed the job.

Danny L. McDaniel-
I agree with you on nearly everything but this: Nothing has been short about the last six years.

Edge-
Tax cuts have yet to bring revenues back up to their 2000 levels.

Richard Rhodes-
Lieberman is what you want Democrats to be. Unfortunately Lieberman is not who Democrats want to be. This president has gone far beyond trying our patiences. He has endangerered our national security because his paranoid methods of determining the next threat are so out of touch with evidence and hard reality that our efforts and our attention is being squandered on erroneous reports.

Jason-
1)In the Eight years after the first WTC attack, most Republicans were complacent about terrorism, but all too ready to combat political threats at home. Tell me, what faith should I have in the GOP now that’s business as usual again? Five years is three years less reprieve than we had last time.

2)The War on Terrorism has become your shorthand for the Iraq war. In short, a domestically divisive war which has been unable to curtail violence, but more than able to train terrorists for future assignments is the war on terror for the Republican party.

3)Ned Lamont is an entrepreneur who built up a business that made him millions. What part of the definition of capitalist does he lack for? Let his relatives answer for their own conduct. Lamont has more than proven his credentials in the market.

4)Bush failed to fight the war on terrorism. He drifted off into a foreign policy that only tangentially involves terrorism.

Go on believing what you will. Then you can rationalize why most Americans think he’s led this country astray.

Craig-
Lieberman left the tent of his own accord. 87% of his fellow Democrats want a different direction on policy He believed differently.

The guy should have had the guts to run as an independent.

In general-
Something occurs to me here: There is a Republican Candidate here who is getting screwed because the national party wants to make a pro-Bush martyr of a man who didn’t even know whether he wanted to remain a Democrat until the end of the recent primary. This is the state of the modern Republican Party. Do these Republicans even care about this man’s politics or loyalties, outside of his loyalty to Bush and his policies?

The Republican Party has become a Cult of Personality, centered around Bush, and even the best conservatives stand second in line to those who bow to the Bush idol.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 18, 2006 1:10 AM
Comment #176256

Richard Rhodes-
Action should follow the best possible evidence, not outdated, discredited information. If you wish to be behind and off target, that’s your business. I for one would rather see my government and my nation confront the realities of the world, not the fantasy of a small minority of its inhabitants.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 18, 2006 1:19 AM
Comment #176259

Stephen Daugherty said—
Richard Rhodes-
“Lieberman is what you want Democrats to be. Unfortunately Lieberman is not who Democrats want to be. This president has gone far beyond trying our patiences.”

Ok yeah great research, real great. I am a Green so I don’t support this war it isn’t about that it’s about Democrats trying to target one pro-war person than rather target all pro-war people in their party.

I personally researched and wrote the original copy of “Impeach Bush! Write Congress Today!” available at http://gp.org/action/index.shtml

So now that I have done your research for you do you want to say I am pro-Bush, huh? Do you? No I really doubt you want to.

I may be a Green but I support Senator Russell Feingold and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, but Democraps would rather talk about Lieberman than talk about their two greatest, Feingold and Kucinich, politicians.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at August 18, 2006 2:26 AM
Comment #176264

darren159-

You’re so right.
With the republicans, it won’t be about the issues. It will be about attacking the democrats. So the democrats have to stay on point and discuss the failures of the republicans, and how they have failed this country and the world.
The republicans can have all of the hate-speak on their side that they want, but all we have to do is point to the truth. That should be easy, as long as we can frame the debate.

Posted by: Cole at August 18, 2006 4:33 AM
Comment #176268
From what I can see, Lieberman wins in November, Democrats retake the house, and the Republicans keep the senate.

I have a hard time calling that a democratic landslide, or a shlacking. It sounds to me like a normal sixth year election.

Craig,

What you call a normal election would have huge practical consequences. Democrats would control all of the House committees. Bush would not be able to pass any laws without their support. Many Republicans claim that Bush would be impeached.

On the Senate, the Republicans will certainly lose some seats. If a Supreme Court justice retires, it will not be practical to threaten the “nuclear option”.

Basically, under your scenario, Bush is toast.

Lieberman winning is inconsequential. He’s an incumbent.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 18, 2006 7:21 AM
Comment #176296

“This is the same Joe Lieberman who voted against the Bush tax cuts, against banning same-sex marriage, against banning partial-birth abortion, against the confirmation of Judge Alito, against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in favor of the Kyoto accords.”

Jason,

Great points! Here is Joe, the DEMOCRATIC VP candidate from just six years ago, and they claime HE is the one who has changed. The only thing that change is this. Dems supported the war, and now are to cowardly to stand behind their vote. They want America to believe that Bush took us to war when any thinking American knows it was a joint effort.
What a mess! Dean is the Republicans best friend (maybe he is one…hhhmmm). It is hard to say who they will throw to the wolves in 08 but at this point the Reps have a number of candidates who would hammer anyone they have (imo). That is the REAL elction that really matters.

Joe has made the party look bad by standing behind his decision….therefore they had to get rid of the guy. Joe has shown moxy and honsety that a majority of other dems have not shown. He is thoughtful, reflective, avoids war cries and doesn’t play politics. Essentiall, he is an anti-dean.
Admittedly, I do not agree with him on a number of policies, but as an Independent, Joe could could be the jump start our movement needs.

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at August 18, 2006 10:09 AM
Comment #176297

Jason said, “Dems don’t hate Bush because they oppose the war, they hate him because he is fighting the war on terrorism.”

You can’t be serious. My contempt for Bush’s policies (and I’m sure others will agree) is that resources that should’ve been used to fight terrorist threats were committed to an unnecessary war in Iraq. (I also have issues with deficit spending to provide tax breaks—especially to the wealthy—but let’s focus on your “war on terrorism” claim.)

Why is cargo not inspected? Why isn’t there greater emphasis on border and port security? Where the heck is Bin Laden, anyway?

Posted by: Mc at August 18, 2006 10:18 AM
Comment #176302

Woody:

What you call a normal election would have huge practical consequences. Democrats would control all of the House committees. Bush would not be able to pass any laws without their support. Many Republicans claim that Bush would be impeached.

On the Senate, the Republicans will certainly lose some seats. If a Supreme Court justice retires, it will not be practical to threaten the “nuclear option”.


It is what history calls a normal election. It is normal for the out party to pick up seats in congress.

As for impeachment, I have no fear of that. (Speaking as a Republican).

I do not believe Bush lied our way into the war. I think they believed there were WMD and they were wrong. I also believe that this is such a tremendous mistake that impeachment hearings are not to strong a remedy. There is enough Bush hatred that a “day in court” seems like a fair resolution.

I also think the Impeachment of Clinton was fine. He committed purgery. He was the chief law enforcement officer in the country and was disbarred. I also think the vote in the Senate was correct because the people wanted him to stay on as our President.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. So three years from now the first two baby boomer presidents will be history and both will have been impeached. That should say something about our generation.

The world will move on.

The question for Democrats is what in the world will you talk about after the votes and after Bush? You seem like a pretty messed up party. I don’t see the glue (issues) or the leadership potential to bring you back to majority status. I do think Americans would vote Democratic to have you look into the war, (checks and balances), but in our day, I just don’t see Americans turning democratic to see you lead.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 18, 2006 10:47 AM
Comment #176310

A vote for Lieberman is a vote for the Republician party no matter what “party” he says he belongs to. And, no matter who you think he is. A vote for Lieberman will put a Republician in Congress. And that is that….

Posted by: PlayNice at August 18, 2006 11:37 AM
Comment #176311

Woody:

An after thought. Assuming the dems win the house, and Bush is impeached. I think Lieberman’s voice would be a very important one. I think he is one of the true stateman left of either party.

Craig

P.S. I don’t think Impeachment stands a chance in the Senate, but words are important.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 18, 2006 11:39 AM
Comment #176337

Richard Rhodes-
I’m sorry if I confused you with anybody else on the party spectrum. I usually use the context of what I read, and what I know about the person to determine my angle on a person. Most of the time, it works.

I’m not that familiar with you on this forum. Not having that context, your name-calling of the Democrats and your position regarding the motivations of why the Democrats are kicking Lieberman out were fairly similar to Right Winger’s position.

I wonder if the argument doesn’t still apply, given the position the greens might take against the Democrats. Maybe you want us to be like Lieberman, trying to pretend that we weren’t too far to the right when we really are.

The truth is, in this day and age, things are no longer as simple as pro-war/anti-war. The question is when do we go to war, and why. It’s an essential question, and retreating to a default anti-war position only leaves us without options. If what the Bush administration had said were true, I would have backed this war to the hilt. I believe Bush had an obligation, though, to get it right, to make sure it was right before a soldier ever stepped foot in Iraq to risk their lives for their country. Moreover, whether his evidence was good or not, he had the obligation to give us the capability to work this conflict out, and restore peace. He’s putting us in a position where chaos and disorder may be all we’re capable of leaving behind, and that galls me to no end.

Lieberman, unfortunately, seems not to have gotten the memo on just how you deal with a change of facts. That he’s lagging behind major Republicans and many Soldiers on the ground in his assessment of the war, and that he supports Bush even when his constituents are angered by this, and the nation is at odds with him makes it difficult to reconcile his actions with the rest of his party. Even if their change of heart is political, it is appropriate to America’s change of heart, which they are paid to represent.

Curmudgeon-
As I said elsewhere, Joe was a triangulation candidate, meant to bring in more conservative voters.

We supported the war, but it wasn’t cowardice that changed our tune. Bush gave us the wrong sheet music, you see. We trusted him to give us the full evidence necessary for a debate on the issues. Instead, we got marketing for a war.

Bush only looked for what he believed was there, and he only gave us the facts that would get us to vote what he wanted us to vote. To blame us for changing our minds when we learned the truth is despicable. You can’t lie to us and mislead us and then blame us for not wanting to support your war and your policy anymore. Lies and Failure do not mandate obedience in a Democracy.

Craig-
Clinton was not disbarred. He had to hand in his license temporarily, but he did not lose the ability to practice law altogether.

As for whether he’s a Statesman? I would think a Statesman would have the conviction to choose to run as Independent or Republican if they were dissatisfied with the Democrats, and do it from the start, rather than as a hedge against a lost primary. I would think he would have his own opinion, and not just go “Ditto Bush.”.

A Statesman would not make vicious accusations against his opponent, nor have his people invade a diner where the rival was talking with people and cause a disturbance. By the very sense of the word, a statesman would be stately, a figure who both gave and got respect. I have yet to be given respect by Lieberman, or see others get the same when they don’t agree with him.

So in my opinion, a statesman he is not.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 18, 2006 1:56 PM
Comment #176338

Craig,
In response to comment on the WMD, Saddam submitted documentation to the UN asserting that he had chemical weapons in 2003 prior to the invasion of Iraq. We have not yet found them which to me is the scarier part of Iraq.

Inspections of the ports is nessecary, so is border control, and work to make it harder to attack, but every program done has issues and invades some civil rights so won’t last long once made public.

Bush will not be impeached, the democrats voted for the war in Iraq he had legal approval, he is not required to share everypiece of evidence he does have presidental secrecy, so the impeachment talk is a joke. As for Clinton not really a debate for most disagree with it today, including those who voted for it saying they shouldn’t have including Newt.

Lieberman has voted with the part on many ocasions i believe the number is 90% of the time. He has a differing view on security and international politics, yet he is constantly beraded for his posts. Yes he is human, makes some mistakes, but he is a good man who works hard and has been thrown out like yesterdays news. The republicans have expanded the part to include multiple views, why can we not have that in the democratic party? why must we challenge a man on only one issue? why are we so impatient? and why are democrats so against war, any war?

Posted by: America at August 18, 2006 1:56 PM
Comment #176346

“Bush only looked for what he believed was there, and he only gave us the facts that would get us to vote what he wanted us to vote. To blame us for changing our minds when we learned the truth is despicable.”

Stephen,

I don’t suppose you have proof of these accusations? You don’t, you do have speculation which is why the DNC is floundering. If Bush is intelligent enough to fool all of those democrats in congress, then how big of idiots must they be? Why would you want them back in congress if the unintelligent Mr. Bush can fool these guys so easily.

Stephen, stop buying the party line. Hold your own people accountable for their decisions (as you do Bush) and America may actually get some changes in Washington.

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at August 18, 2006 4:21 PM
Comment #176358

Curmudgeon-
I don’t underestimate Bushes intelligence, but you don’t need intelligence to fool people when you’re keeping the real information secret from them. As for proof? There’s plenty of that. Just read all the articles, books, and watch the news reports and documentaries (especially from Frontline) Dealing with all the crap that’s been shovelled. Try The One Percent Doctrine, Plan of Attack, and work your way back.

What you fail to realize is that we are the party line, and the party line has emerged even despite the efforts of some in the Democratic Leadership, Lieberman included.

As for whether the DNC is floundering, on election day, we’ll see who’s floundering. The best indication will be who’s losing seats, and who’s gaining them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 18, 2006 6:34 PM
Comment #176365

Stephen:

As for whether the DNC is floundering, on election day, we’ll see who’s floundering. The best indication will be who’s losing seats, and who’s gaining them.

I would tweak that a bit. The sixth year itch is something that both parties and each president must face. I think this is going to be a normal year as stated above. With that said, it doesn’t mean the GOP is floundering if you regain the house.

What I think is more important is what is happening to your party. I think you are making a hard turn to the left because of the war. There have been so many analogies between vietnam and Iraq. When the democratic party last did this hard left turn 16 out of the next 20 years produced republican victories in the whitehouse.

America is right of center. You guys are turning away from the political center right when the country needs you to turn to the middle. IF this trend continues, we might see another twenty years before there is another two term democrat in the whitehouse.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 18, 2006 7:42 PM
Comment #176366

Stephen:

I am wondering (this isn’t intended as a jab), if 2008 might look like 1968 in your party, with a real food fight. It’s starting to look that way. Whether it’s 1968 with a divided party, or 1972 with a united but liberal party, either way, it was ugly and handed the whitehouse to the republicans.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 18, 2006 7:45 PM
Comment #176369

Craig-
What I think we’re seeing is a more profound expression of liberals across the board, from center to Far Left. I don’t see where the dividing line is. The Right takes this as a swerve to the left because the left which has been going along with right for some time, and not really making waves has become less cooperative, and more solidified politically.

I don’t see a post-Vietnam syndrome rearing its head again. They don’t like how the President’s running the country, and by a margin of almost 9 out of 10, They have no interest in the president staying the course The shake up is going to come from the bottom up. The split is mainly the politicians, and many politicians will recognize which way the wind’s blowing, and they will start becoming more assertive.

The opposition, though, will not be one constituency against another with the party, rather it will be one power-bas against another. That may disrupt this election (who knows?), but then the next one, the presidential election, would be next.

The Party likely to break itself up is the Republican party, because the aftermath of Bush and the ongoing screwups of the war are going to test people’s ability to remain loyal to the party, loyal to constituents who by and large support the war, etc, etc. Right now, independents are breaking on issues like the war and on Bush’s performance towards the Democrats. There will be losses in the next election, I guarantee it, and that’s going to phase them. So don’t look to Democrats for the next political party’s civil war. What we’re having is a revolution. No, it’s the Republicans who are fighting the next one, and they have plenty to fight about thanks to Bush.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 18, 2006 8:17 PM
Comment #176372

Stephen:

I appreciate your post. I don’t see any republican food fight in our future. Even if there is, the Republcan party has a bigger tent and is closer to the political center of the country. A walk down history lane shows that the only democrats that seem to stand a chance of winning the whitehouse are sountern moderates. Liberals tend to loose.

It makes sense is you look at it analitically. There just aren’t as many liberals around. To be on the winning team liberals need to connect with moderates. (ie Clinton). I think a left candidate in 2008 is likely to be nominated by democrats and defeated in the general.

I think Hillary knows that. Even though I believe she is a liberal, she has presented herself as a moderate (defence for instance). She is a pragmatist and knows that to be elected she must win the middle.

I agree with you that republicans have royally messed things up. But you have to admit that as bad as the republicans have done, they should be swept from power. Right now the odds are a normal election because of democratic weakness.
Democrats appear as idealess Bush haters, who are not ready to lead.

Of course this could change if you fire Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 18, 2006 8:55 PM
Comment #176378

“As for whether the DNC is floundering, on election day, we’ll see who’s floundering. The best indication will be who’s losing seats, and who’s gaining them.

Stephen,

You really must start looking at evidence for yourself and stop letting others interpret the evidence for you. Sure, I have seen the supposed evidence and it is just as easy to argue Bush is guilty of lieing as it is to argue he is completely innocent. In reality, we do not know beyond a shadow of doubt that WMDs did not exist. You have nothing more than opinion and spin, not facts. It is all a matter of what you WANT to believe and whose interpretation you accept.

Last thing, come November we will have exactly what we have right now. Politics as usual and a government that is inefficient and accomplishes little. Which way the seats fall is irrelevant. What a big day that will be….

Posted by: curmudgeon-at-large at August 18, 2006 10:10 PM
Comment #176384

Craig-
The Republican party does not have a bigger tent. Show me the people willing to make tax hikes to get us back in break-even territory. Show me the Republicans who are saying that religion has too much influence in setting policy on the Right. Show me the people who see the need for regulation, who don’t just count on market forces to preserve the morality and justices of the system.

As for the Center, show me a Republican party that can settle for at least partial choice on abortion, like the majority of Americans want. Show me a Republican party that isn’t looking to privatize social security. Show me a Republican party that is for setting a timetable for leaving Iraq. Show me where the GOP flat out states that torturing terrorism suspects and spying on Americans without warrants is wrong.

The GOP thinks otherwise because it exists in a bubble of its own propaganda. For a while, America was caught up in it, too. Now, though, things have changed. People no longer trust the GOP to take things in the right direction.

The fuel for this fire is laid down. All we need is the right spark. I believe we’re going to get it. Americans want pragmatists. It might actually be for the best that we’re not making more promises. Maybe people are sick of promises and want people who deliver results.

Who’s the last president who deliver even marginal results? A Democrat. Quit focusing on Bush hatred. try Bush opposition. Look at things that way, and a majority of Americans agree with us.

Curmudgeon-
You can accuse me of looking hard into the evidence for what I want to see, but you’re still looking into thin air for the WMDs that we invade Iraq to disarm Saddam of, still appealing to ignorance by saying we don’t know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they did exist. I can, on the other hand plainly affirm a fact: No working weapon of the kind and vintage we were looking for has turned up. I have not one but two Weapons Inspectors Reports, a Senate Intelligence committee investigation, and much much more to back me up. I have something more than opinion and spin.

As for what kind of Government we have after this November, I will be damned if I let it be as lazy, as passive, and as irresponsible as this one. As a Liberal, I can promise you that I will not settle for my Government failing to do what I ask of it. I will not settle for second best, like the Republicans did after Katrina. I will not settle for one working branch of government, like Republicans have. I will not settle for irresponsible spending and taxation that burdens the lower economic classes and gives a pass to those who can contribute the most without hurting. Nor will I tolerate deficit spending the way the Republicans have.

The Democrats will succeed because we have no problem with the government doing its job. We will not have wars fought, disasters remediated, deficits and spending reduced by half-assed measures. We sure as hell won’t settle for the politicians willing to let that happen.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 18, 2006 11:01 PM
Comment #176386

Stephen:

The why is this to be a normal election? Why is the Senate safe for republicans? Why is Lieberman ahead? Why is the House of Representatives even close?

I think one of the big stories of this election is the Democratic parties in ability to capitalize.

Take a look at www.intrade.com which shows the futures of the elections to come. These are considered far more accurate than polling data. Futures for the Republicans holding the Senate are over 80%. For Lieberman winning are over 70% and for the Democrats winning the house 56%. (These are considered percentage chance of winning the election, not expected winning margins).

My basic these is that this year is going to be a normal six year election cycle. That tells me that Bush’s failings and the failings of the democratic party balance out in the minds of the electoriate.

Sorry, no revolution, just a normal result. The big story will be the Democrats in ability to capitalize on poor republican performance.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 18, 2006 11:58 PM
Comment #176394

Craig-
You have hit upon the most depressing, most defeatist way to deal with an election. It’s what’s lead over ten years of concerns over electability to get the Democrats nowhere. Fuck electability, we’re just going to try to win!

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 19, 2006 12:42 AM
Comment #176396

Let me elaborate. I look at this intrade thing, and your insistence that it spells out the future, and the very thought is just discouraging. But then I realize that I don’t write up these opinions because I asked permission from polls like this. I write it because I believe in something.

The Democrats of today believe in something, that’s why they can win. As for electability, I think the Democrats should just put the most Charismatic, well-qualified candidates they can into the mix and support them to the hilt tiptoing around eggshells has only gotten us the oft-mentioned criticism for failing to capitalize on things. I think you’ll find we’re getting better at present ourselves best.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 19, 2006 12:46 AM
Comment #176398

Like George McGovern.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 19, 2006 1:08 AM
Comment #176401

Stephen:

The problem is that most people don’t agree with the left. Some of it is cultural.

Sorry for the trip down memory lane. I grew up in the Democratic party when it was the party of family values. Blue coller union town.

Now small town america is Republican.

I know you have beliefs which is wonderful. But there are narrow beliefs and broad beliefs. Sometimes beliefs contradict.

For instance, the Democratic party used to stand for the little guy. Why has the little guy abandoned you? Now you are urbanites?

What is it about democrats that make them appeal to urban little guys but country little guys stay republican? Even when it is against their financial interest? (As in no health insurance republicans?).

I understand passion. Passion can be misplaced. I think the Democratic party needs to really look at their values, and reword them to include more people. It’s not about abandoning them. It’s about wondering why urban poor black americans are almost all democratic, and why rural white poor are republican. Both might have exactly the same religion, (protestant) the same financial income, same education level.

I also thing there is great unity in the democratic party in urban areas over the war and the desire to withdraw from Iraq. The rally’s must look good. Go to small town america. If you win there you win it all.

I am actually talking to you more as an american than as a Republican. I think we need a change in congress. I think Bush’s error was great enough for a huge political price.

But please listen to me. The Democratic party should be getting a message. There is a reason why we are not looking at a democratic landslide this fall. That reason is that sadly the democratic party is ready to lead urban america, but is not ready to lead america. America looks at the Democratic party as only good to keep an eye on the excesses of the Republican party.

Sorry this is long. Think about this Stephen. Bush sent us to war over WMD and there were none. Now it looks like the only cost is going to be a narrow take over of the house of reprentatives. That is so weak. You should be looking at super majorities in each house. There is a reason, but it will take brave democrats to be willing to search for the answer.

I hope you guys figure it out, because the country and world needs a strong democratic party.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at August 19, 2006 1:22 AM
Comment #176461

Craig,

First of all, there may very well be a landslide. A couple of months ago, the conventional wisdom (CW) was that the Republicans would keep the House. Now the CW is that the Democrats will win by a narrow margin, and people act like that was obviously going to happen all along. If there is a landslide (the Dems gaining say, 30+ seats) a lot people will be claiming it was inevitable.

Right now you are predicting how the Democrats will do, and arguing it is far from how you think they should do. And you have theory explaining this discrepancy which so far is only in your head. That’s a long limb.

Another thing to keep in mind: Republicans have the advantage that there are so many safe districts, a lot more than there were in 1994. It is possible for the Democrats to get a large majority of the vote and only get a slight majority of the seats.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 19, 2006 11:55 AM
Comment #176479

Is this what the Dems do to people who don’t fall in lock step with them. Leiberman has been a more than loyal Dem.. He goes against one idea and is thrown out. Is there no room for independent thought in that party? No wonder he is going on his own. 18 years of loyal very liberal service and this is his reward for service?! Reminds me of political parties we’ve gone against in many of the nations we’ve gone to war with.

Posted by: KW at August 19, 2006 2:32 PM
Comment #176478

Is this what the Dems do to people who don’t fall in lock step with them. Leiberman has been a more than loyal Dem.. He goes against one idea and is thrown out. Is there no room for independent thought in that party? No wonder he is going on his own. 18 years of loyal very liberal service and this is his reward for service?! Reminds me of political parties we’ve gone against in many of the nations we’ve gone to war with.

Posted by: KW at August 19, 2006 2:32 PM
Comment #176477

Is this what the Dems do to people who don’t fall in lock step with them. Leiberman has been a more than loyal Dem.. He goes against one idea and is thrown out. Is there no room for independent thought in that party? No wonder he is going on his own. 18 years of loyal very liberal service and this is his reward for service?! Reminds me of political parties we’ve gone against in many of the nations we’ve gone to war with.

Posted by: KW at August 19, 2006 2:32 PM
Comment #176523

Craig-
The Democrats only need one message: things are going to change. Things should change. We are going to be the agents of the change you want.

The American people are losing their patience with the Republicans. I think that’s what’s going to make the difference.

As for your long post, who am I to take exception to that? ;-)

KW-
Maybe Six years of Bush has obscured the point, but Loyalty has to run both ways. Lieberman cannot defy 80% to 90% of his party’s members and not expect efforts to be taken to kick him out of office. I mean, how much damn guff do we have to take from a son of a bitch before we’re allowed to kick him out?

I for one do not see the point of not enforcing some kind of party discipline, though I’d rather not hobble my party with it, like the Republicans have.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 19, 2006 6:57 PM
Comment #176540

Is he a Republican? Is the Pope Catholic? Could Mickey Mantle play baseball? Of course he is a Republican!

Posted by: Ken Juakkuri at August 19, 2006 8:20 PM
Comment #176589

Of course Lieberman is not Republican. Hes with the Democrats on 90% of their left wing litmus test issues. He marched with King and is a huge civil rights man.

The fact that he is not a radicalized progressive does not make him a republican any more than Hillary who you folks will run for president in 08 is a Republican.

This isn’t about Lieberman, it’s about a war in the democratic party with the radicals dragging the party further and further to the left, away from where the bulk of americans are. The more the so called “progressives” in the democratic part “win” the further the democratic party moves from the voters in general. It’s not about Iraq, it’s not about Lieberman and other democrat who are not radical…it’s about the progressive war to dominate the democratic party.

Posted by: Stephen at August 20, 2006 9:06 AM
Comment #176593

Stephen- (whoa, double image)
Being a Democrat is not about fulfill a checklist, or having done great things in the past. As for the Democrats being drug further left? I can’t answer to what some people consider the left. I just think more Liberals are standing up for themselves and not cooperating with the Republicans.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 20, 2006 9:55 AM
Comment #176602

Saying that Liebermans accomplishments are all “in the past” is pure deception on your part, I suspect you are doing it because you are a “passionate Progressive” and have an axe to grind here.

Lieberman has done great things for his state including keeping jobs recently that were slated to be removed.

Of course the democratic party can be drug further to the left. Didn’t you pay attention after Kerrys loss in 04 when the left wing of the party boldy announced they were going to take the party further to the left? They have worked hard at it and removing Lieberman became one of their goals and was seen as a test as to just how much additional power the left wing of the DNC has aquired.

There is no need to be ashamed about it or to hide it. It’s simply fact.

You don’t know the difference between left, right, middle? That doesn’t sound very honest to me.

Liberals have been cooperating with Republicans? Really? Will you now demand HILLARY be run out of the party, voted for the war, supports the war, pro war Hillary? War Monger Hillary? Out of touch Hillary? Out of step with the democratic party Hillary?

Sorry, I’m not buying your line. Anyone who denies the progressive war to take the DNC party to the left and to have more control over the DNC process simply has their head burried in the sand.

You might try reading what the progressives are saying as they discuss how to take the party further to the left….that would open your eyes?

Posted by: Stephen at August 20, 2006 10:48 AM
Post a comment