Why don't you like Joe Lieberman?

[happywaffle]

I'm pretty ignorant of all the current disdain for Joe Lieberman, though I find it especially interesting considering the guy was a few chads away from being our (current?) VP. Anyway, for those who aren't so ignorant, I was wondering what you hate about him.

I don't consider it valid criticism that he's "switched sides" and joined up with the GOP on so many issues. ...Okay, I DO think it's valid criticism, but if he's simply following his beliefs, then it's no reason to degrade him any more than any other politician whom you disagree with.

So what specific opinions or actions have gotten ol' Joe on your nerves? Besides his voice, that is? Why should I be mad at him?

[BrainGlutton]

The Neoconservative wing of the post-Goldwater conservative movement is entirely committed to support for Israel under any and all circumstances; and so is Lieberman for all relevant reasons good and bad; and under current circumstances. that is good and sufficient reason to hate him even and especially if you're Jewish.

[XT]

Some liberal types think he's too conservative and that he doesn't vote the party line. Many don't like him because he supported (and afaik still supports) the war in Iraq, and they see that as a betrayal or some such.

Personally, I'm neutral about ole Joe myself...but that's those are the main reasons folks around these parts generally don't like Jumpin Joe.

-XT

[madmonk28]

I don't like him because he claims to be a Democrat, but behaves like a Republican including campaigning for the Republican presidential candidate. If that is the way he feels, he should switch parties and try to run for his seat with an R by his name instead of a D (good luck).

[Little Nemo]

I'll credit Lieberman with the fact that he's genuinely following his beliefs - it's not like many people are supporting the war in Iraq to increase their popularity. But nonetheless, many people now oppose the way Iraq is going and disagree with Lieberman on that issue.

As for party loyalty, Lieberman was a Democrat up until very recntly and he still caucuses with them. Despite this he is actively trying to get a Republican elected President.

Most people feel that if you're going this far in the direction of the Republican platform the honest thing to do would be to openly switch parties.

[The Second Stone]

I despise the man's politics for the following reasons: He runs as a Democrat, but is not with us on important issues such as the war.

He is a neo-conservative and he acts as if his state is Tel Aviv and he is a Likudist, and not a Dem from Connecticut. Lowell Weicker was a more loyal Dem when he was a Republican. It is not his job to represent Israel in the U.S. that is the job of Israel's ambassador. We have a lot of Jewish Senators and Congresspersons who do not have this bizarre perspective. As someone who supports Israel, I think neo-conservatism in America is the biggest danger to Israel's existence. I put America before Israel, and neo-conservatism is the biggest threat to America in my opinion.

Joe acted all sanctimonious about Bill Clinton's infidelity. I can't help it if Joe has never strayed, and yeah for that, but it caused Gore to use Joe to try to distance himself from that. Joe should have got us Florida, but his debate with Cheney was a lay down, and his public demand for Gore to concede was a rank betrayal. Joe was never loyal to Gore in that election or he would have delivered another 1000 votes in Florida. Joe has since shown that he prefers Bush and Cheney and there is no reason to believe that he didn't at the time. In short, I think he deliberately did everything he could to throw the election.

He whines constantly.

[thelurkinghorror]

He is the number 1 anti-video game Senator. This criterion may be simplistic, but it still distinguishes him. Everything else is shared with many politicians, and are somewhat secondary.

[Onomatopoeia]

What I can't stand about him is his insatiable desire, as though he's convinced his legacy will be fondly defined by it, and rationalized with tortured logic, to begin preemptive military strikes on Iran. The man is freaking nuts, but he has power, and the ear of others who also wield it, which makes him dangerous.

Holy Joe just needs to retire already before he, and the current cadre of neocon crazies, gets us into another war without end....freaking chicken hawk.

[Lakai]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

The Neoconservative wing of the post-Goldwater conservative movement is entirely committed to support for Israel under any and all circumstances; and so is Lieberman for all relevant reasons good and bad; and under current circumstances. that is good and sufficient reason to hate him even and especially if you're Jewish.

Why should Jews hate him for his unequivocal support of Israel?

[The Second Stone]

Originally Posted by Lakai

Why should Jews hate him for his unequivocal support of Israel?

Because the hawkish policies, such as bombing Iran, threaten the existence of Israel in the judgment of some thinking people. But hate is too strong a word, despise his policy positions is better.

[XT]

The irony is of course that Democrats are SUPPOSED to embrace diversity. I don't recall that to be a 'good Democrat' you HAVE to be a liberal....or that being against the Iraqi war is part of agenda. I guess though if you aren't in lock-step with the left wing (does the irony burn for those of you who think the same thing about the conservative wing of the Republicans? It should...) you aren't a REAL Democrat, no matter what your voting record is.

I'm actually a bit repelled by some of the sentiments expressed here...and I have to admit I'm damn glad I'm NOT a Democrat with such narrow minded attitudes. I guess this is why I don't vote for either of the big two parties in national elections.

What is amusing to me is to hear some Democrats try and claim that their party isn't about being liberal (party of diversity and all that happy horseshit), or having a liberal agenda...while attempting to disassociate itself from a guy who WANTS to be a Democrat (despite being torpedoed by his own party in his re-election bid) but is 'conservative' (I actually think he's pretty moderate all things considered...but I can understand how folks around these parts see being moderate as equal to conservative). What comes best to my mind at the moment is 'A pox on both your houses'...that rather nicely sums up my thoughts on both Democrats and Republicans.

At any rate, carry on.

-XT

[Little Nemo]

I think Lieberman has gone past the point of just being out of the Democratic mainstream. He's run against actual Democrats (admittedly he was also running against a Republican) and he's endorsed and is supporting a Republican Presidential candidate over the Democratic one. Diversity is one thing; but the Democratic Party doesn't have a GOP wing. As I wrote above, Lieberman should do the honest thing and join the Republican Party if that's where his beliefs have led him.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Lakai

Why should Jews hate him for his unequivocal support of Israel?

Judaism is a scirptural religion, which means a goy familiar with the relevant scriptures has as much right as any rabbi to pass moral judgment, and on that basis I say what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians is immoral and indefensible by (contemporary, not Biblical, Og forbid) Jewish moral and spirirual standards. And I've known many Jews who felt the same way.

[mswas]

It's funny how in the thread about electing a Jewish President no-one understood why I thought that a Jewish President would have a hard time because he would be not Zionist enough for some and too Zionist to others. And yet, here we have a brand new thread, illustrating precisely my point.

[The Second Stone]

Originally Posted by xtisme

The irony is of course that Democrats are SUPPOSED to embrace diversity. I don't recall that to be a 'good Democrat' you HAVE to be a liberal....or that being against the Iraqi war is part of agenda. I guess though if you aren't in lock-step with the left wing (does the irony burn for those of you who think the same thing about the conservative wing of the Republicans? It should...) you aren't a REAL Democrat, no matter what your voting record is.

I'm actually a bit repelled by some of the sentiments expressed here...and I have to admit I'm damn glad I'm NOT a Democrat with such narrow minded attitudes. I guess this is why I don't vote for either of the big two parties in national elections.

What is amusing to me is to hear some Democrats try and claim that their party isn't about being liberal (party of diversity and all that happy horseshit), or having a liberal agenda...while attempting to disassociate itself from a guy who WANTS to be a Democrat (despite being torpedoed by his own party in his re-election bid) but is 'conservative' (I actually think he's pretty moderate all things considered...but I can understand how folks around these parts see being moderate as equal to conservative). What comes best to my mind at the moment is 'A pox on both your houses'...that rather nicely sums up my thoughts on both Democrats and Republicans.

At any rate, carry on.

-XT

Why is it that people not in the party are always defining what they want of that party. Very respectfully, you aren't a member of the organization, which is a private, non-governmental organization, and you are certainly entitled to your opinion on what the members of the organization should be like, but we have the right to differ with your opinion. I think only liberals and moderates should belong to the party of which I am a member. That's my opinion. We are partisans, not fence sitters. That's part of our heritage of liberty, to espouse a position and associate with whom we want and not associate and accept into our confidence those we disagree with.

We are partisans because we support particular policies and oppose others, and we organize to further our ends. If you find that distasteful, I don't blame you. But as Winston Churchill once observed: democracy is the worst form of government in the world, except fo all the others.

[Mosier]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

Judaism is a scirptural religion, which means a goy familiar with the relevant scriptures has as much right as any rabbi to pass moral judgment, and on that basis I say what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians is immoral and indefensible by (contemporary, not Biblical, Og forbid) Jewish moral and spirirual standards. And I've known many Jews who felt the same way.

Keeping the people who are shooting rockets at your house and blowing up busses and resteraunts out of your goddamned country is defensible by contemperary moral standards. Whether you personally agree with the defense is irrelevant.

In America, nobody says it's morally indefensible to screen people entering the country from Columbia more thoroughly than people entering the country from Canada. The only difference between what Israel is doing and what everyone else does is that the stakes are higher there than they are here.

[Revtim]

Lieberman didn't like me first. I'm an atheist, and hence the Constitution wasn't meant for me, and I am incapable of morality.

"John Adams, second president of the United States, wrote that our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.... George Washington warned us never to indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion." -Joseph Lieberman

[Dinsdale]

In addition to what the others have said, I'll toss out another. Orthodox Judaism is - IMO - too irrational of a philosophy for me to support an individual holding such views.

I would no longer vote for an Orthodox Jew than a Scientologist, Mormon, or adherent to other religions I consider "extreme."

That is, of course, if the person in question did not closely match my positions on other key issues - which Joe (and most religious extremnists) does not.

I understand that in our current culture, in order to be elected president a candidate must at least profess some acceptance of a mainstream christian faith. But I place a huge value on "clear thinking" and rationality in a president. And if a candidate claims to believe a faith that I consider especially irrational, well, I question whether that will carry over to his handling of other matters.

[davidw]

Originally Posted by xtisme

The irony is of course that Democrats are SUPPOSED to embrace diversity. I don't recall that to be a 'good Democrat' you HAVE to be a liberal....or that being against the Iraqi war is part of agenda. I guess though if you aren't in lock-step with the left wing (does the irony burn for those of you who think the same thing about the conservative wing of the Republicans? It should...) you aren't a REAL Democrat, no matter what your voting record is.

I say if you're going around campaigning for the Republican nominee and attacking the Democratic nominee, then you aren't a REAL Democrat.

Originally Posted by xtisme

What is amusing to me is to hear some Democrats try and claim that their party isn't about being liberal (party of diversity and all that happy horseshit), or having a liberal agenda...while attempting to disassociate itself from a guy who WANTS to be a Democrat (despite being torpedoed by his own party in his re-election bid)

He wasn't "torpedoed," he lost an election. This attitude bugs the hell out of me. He's been chosen as a representative of the people of Connecticut. When they decide that they'd rather have someone else representing them, that's called democracy.

[Bridget Burke]

Originally Posted by xtisme

The irony is of course that Democrats are SUPPOSED to embrace diversity. I don't recall that to be a 'good Democrat' you HAVE to be a liberal....or that being against the Iraqi war is part of agenda. I guess though if you aren't in lock-step with the left wing (does the irony burn for those of you who think the same thing about the conservative wing of the Republicans? It should...) you aren't a REAL Democrat, no matter what your voting record is.

I'm actually a bit repelled by some of the sentiments expressed here...and I have to admit I'm damn glad I'm NOT a Democrat with such narrow minded attitudes. I guess this is why I don't vote for either of the big two parties in national elections.

What is amusing to me is to hear some Democrats try and claim that their party isn't about being liberal (party of diversity and all that happy horseshit), or having a liberal agenda...while attempting to disassociate itself from a guy who WANTS to be a Democrat (despite being torpedoed by his own party in his re-election bid) but is 'conservative' (I actually think he's pretty moderate all things considered...but I can understand how folks around these parts see being moderate as equal to conservative). What comes best to my mind at the moment is 'A pox on both your houses'...that rather nicely sums up my thoughts on both Democrats and Republicans.

At any rate, carry on.

-XT

Embracing diversity within the Democratic party does not involve embracing Republicans. And Leiberman's betrayal of Gore during the Florida debacle still haunts me. Too bad it doesn't haunt him.

By the way--the correct quotation is "A plague on both your houses." Spoken by the dying Mercutio.

[Cluricaun]

Because deep down inside I'm almost 100% sure that Joe Liberman is actually this guy.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by xtisme

What is amusing to me is to hear some Democrats try and claim that their party isn't about being liberal (party of diversity and all that happy horseshit), or having a liberal agenda...while attempting to disassociate itself from a guy who WANTS to be a Democrat (despite being torpedoed by his own party in his re-election bid) but is 'conservative' (I actually think he's pretty moderate all things considered...but I can understand how folks around these parts see being moderate as equal to conservative).

He's not even moderate, at least compared to the rest of the senate. This ranking (and most others I've seen) puts him more or less in the middle of the Dems as far as a ranking of his "liberalness" goes, and thus more liberal then 75% of the senate, more or less. I can't find it now, but there was one page that ranked people in the same way, but allowed one to seperate votes by type of issue (economic, social, foreign policy). If you take away his foreign policy votes, he's even more liberal realative to his peers.

So I don't think it makes sense to say he's disliked because of his "conservativeness". Rather I suspect its a mix of his support for the war, McCain, and his poor performance as a VP candidate.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Mosier

Keeping the people who are shooting rockets at your house and blowing up busses and resteraunts out of your goddamned country is defensible by contemperary moral standards.

It is. Keeping your troops all over their country is not. Nor is colonizing it with settlements.

[Orual]

Originally Posted by thelurkinghorror

He is the number 1 anti-video game Senator. This criterion may be simplistic, but it still distinguishes him. Everything else is shared with many politicians, and are somewhat secondary.

This.

Originally Posted by Revtim

Lieberman didn't like me first. I'm an atheist, and hence the Constitution wasn't meant for me, and I am incapable of morality.

"John Adams, second president of the United States, wrote that our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.... George Washington warned us never to indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion." -Joseph Lieberman

And this.

I find his views on censorship and religion to be morally abhorrent, and, to my mind, thoroughly un-American.

[RTFirefly]

Can't forget his lies during his Senate campaign. He made it sound like he was almost as much of a war skeptic as Lamont was...until he got elected. Then so much for that.

Also, he was in favor of investigating the Federal response to Katrina - which was in the jurisdiction of the Senate committee he chairs. After the election, he decided there was no point in digging up that ancient history.

FWIW, I too object to the notion that Lieberman was 'torpedoed' by his own party. Primary challenges happen all the time, and are part of the process of deciding what the party should be like. The netroots slogan is 'more, better Democrats,' and since you're not going to get too many strong progressives representing conservative states or districts, the best way to get 'better' Dems is through primary challenges to conservative Dems who represent liberal states or districts. If you have conservative Democrats representing both conservative and liberal states and districts, you get a party whose representation is more conservative than the people it represents, and as a result, the party is less inclined to oppose the GOP when it needs opposing than might otherwise be the case.

Finally, a major problem with Lieberman specifically was that the networks inordinately loved to book him on their political talk shows. Before the last midterm, he was pretty much the most visible representative of the Democratic Party, yet his positions on many issues - not just on Iraq, but on other foreign policy issues, and domestic security as well - weren't at all representative of the Democratic Party.

[XT]

Originally Posted by Bridget Burke

By the way--the correct quotation is "A plague on both your houses." Spoken by the dying Mercutio.

Yes I know....I meant to say 'To paraphrase, "A pox on both your houses"', but I was writing that on my phone and didn't get it all in. Apologies.

Originally Posted by Bridget Burke

Embracing diversity within the Democratic party does not involve embracing Republicans.

Well...yeah, it does if you mean that as a Senator he wanted to reach out to work with them on key issues. After all, if you are refering to the Gang of 14, Republicans embraced Democrats as well...though I'd say 'embraced' is putting it a bit strongly.

Or maybe you are refering to his endorsement of John McCain in this race...if you are then all I can do is laugh and point out that the man is no an Independent (though he generally votes with the Democrats). And of course I can point out WHY he's an Independent now, instead of a Democrat...but you already know that answer.

Originally Posted by Bridget Burke

And Leiberman's betrayal of Gore during the Florida debacle still haunts me. Too bad it doesn't haunt him.

Could you refresh my memory...what 'betrayal of Gore' are you speaking about?

-XT

[XT]

Originally Posted by davidw

I say if you're going around campaigning for the Republican nominee and attacking the Democratic nominee, then you aren't a REAL Democrat.

If your party stabs you in the back and allows/encourages the running of a real viable candidate for a Senate seat THEY ALREADY HAVE, and you are forced to go Independent in order to continue to run...well, at that point you can pretty much campaign for whoever you want, ehe? Also, Lieberman has a rather close relationship with McCain from working with him on the Gang of 14 and other such bipartisan things so it's not that unusual.

The irony here is that people are throwing this in his face as if it's a betrayal...after the Dems tried to fuck him over. I just wish I could have seen the looks on the faces of the party big shots that allowed/encourage that situation to happen when Lieberman won anyway. Of course, because Lieberman is pretty much an honorable man I suppose the Dems are getting their cake and eat it to, so to speak, as they can disavow him, revile him and say he's not a real Democrat (that part is certainly true...now), while counting on him to usually vote right along with them, epecially when it counts.

Originally Posted by davidw

He wasn't "torpedoed," he lost an election. This attitude bugs the hell out of me. He's been chosen as a representative of the people of Connecticut. When they decide that they'd rather have someone else representing them, that's called democracy.

It really bugs me to that people are SO naive as to not realize that the party has heavy influence over such things. One of the reasons why incumbents don't generally face really stiff competition when running to the nomination of their party in a re-election bid is that the party manipulates such things so it doesn't happen...or encourages it TO happen if they don't happen to like the incumbent in question (like in the case of Lieberman). The fix was definitely in on this one...the funny part is that it backfired on the Dems.

BTW, he didn't lose the election...that's the best part. His party TRIED to torpedo him, they put Ned Lamont up as their candidate...and then lost to Lieberman running as an Independent. SO, it seems that 'the people of Conneticut' in fact DID want Lieberman as their representative over the choice of the Democrats (and Republicans for that matter).


-XT

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by xtisme

If your party stabs you in the back and allows/encourages the running of a real viable candidate for a Senate seat THEY ALREADY HAVE, and you are forced to go Independent in order to continue to run...well, at that point you can pretty much campaign for whoever you want, ehe? Also, Lieberman has a rather close relationship with McCain from working with him on the Gang of 14 and other such bipartisan things so it's not that unusual.

The irony here is that people are throwing this in his face as if it's a betrayal...after the Dems tried to fuck him over. I just wish I could have seen the looks on the faces of the party big shots that allowed/encourage that situation to happen when Lieberman won anyway. Of course, because Lieberman is pretty much an honorable man I suppose the Dems are getting their cake and eat it to, so to speak, as they can disavow him, revile him and say he's not a real Democrat (that part is certainly true...now), while counting on him to usually vote right along with them, epecially when it counts.



It really bugs me to that people are SO naive as to not realize that the party has heavy influence over such things. One of the reasons why incumbents don't generally face really stiff competition when running to the nomination of their party in a re-election bid is that the party manipulates such things so it doesn't happen...or encourages it TO happen if they don't happen to like the incumbent in question (like in the case of Lieberman). The fix was definitely in on this one...the funny part is that it backfired on the Dems.

BTW, he didn't lose the election...that's the best part. His party TRIED to torpedo him, they put Ned Lamont up as their candidate...and then lost to Lieberman running as an Independent. SO, it seems that 'the people of Conneticut' in fact DID want Lieberman as their representative over the choice of the Democrats (and Republicans for that matter).


-XT

Just to be clear, all the party big wigs supported him in the primary. They switched over to Lamont only after Lamont won the nomination-- as well they should have.

Lieberman gets a lot of undeserved grief from the left, IMO. He's a pretty solid Dem, except on the Iraq war. But when he endorsed McCain, he pretty much shut himself out of the Democratic party. That was stepping over the line, if he wants to actually be a Democrat.

[SteveG1]

Originally Posted by Orual

This.



And this.

I find his views on censorship and religion to be morally abhorrent, and, to my mind, thoroughly un-American.

This. He does not know what is best for me, he has no right to decide what is best for me, how dare he even think it.

Then there are the other things, but this is the big one. Who the hell does he think he is?

[XT]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Just to be clear, all the party big wigs supported him in the primary.

Not that I'm doubting you here John, but I don't believe that a serious contender to an incumbent during the primaries without the tacit approval of the party...that way the party usually avoids knock down drag out fights when they already have the seat. While I have no doubt that some (or even most) 'party big wigs' mouthed support for Lieberman, I also have no doubt that there was plenty of back room schnanagans going on in Lieberman's case.

No, I have no real proof...just know how the party(s) generally operate wrt their incumbants and feel it's pretty obvious that someone in the party structure wanted him gone and allowed this to happen. 'Course, many CTists probably equally feel their pet theories are correct, so I condede that I could be wrong. The facts though are that for whatever reasons the Dems chose not to re-nominate a sitting Senator...and said Senator ended up winning anyway, kind of proving that it was a fuck up on the Dems part.

Originally Posted by John Mace

But when he endorsed McCain, he pretty much shut himself out of the Democratic party.

I'm unsure here...did he endorse McCain before or after he became an Independent?

-XT

[suranyi]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

The Neoconservative wing of the post-Goldwater conservative movement is entirely committed to support for Israel under any and all circumstances; and so is Lieberman for all relevant reasons good and bad; and under current circumstances. that is good and sufficient reason to hate him even and especially if you're Jewish.

Actually, as a Jew, that's one thing I do agree with him about.

Ed

[John Mace]

A number of Democratic Senator sactively campaigned for Lieberman during the primary. Lamont got the support of Maxine Waters and Danny Glover.

He calls himself an Independent Democrat. He endorsed McCain afterwards, of course. McCain wasn't even running when he became an I-D.

[suranyi]

Originally Posted by John Mace

Lieberman gets a lot of undeserved grief from the left, IMO. He's a pretty solid Dem, except on the Iraq war. But when he endorsed McCain, he pretty much shut himself out of the Democratic party. That was stepping over the line, if he wants to actually be a Democrat.

This is my feeling as well. I used to feel he was a perfectly fine Democrat -- sure I disagreed with him on some issues, but I agreed with him on a lot as well. And to be perfectly blunt, I kind of liked the idea of having an orthodox Jew in the Senate. Sort of made me proud. A little push-back against those Christian fundamatalists, I thought.

But endorsing McCain is stepping over the line. He's gone too far now.

Ed

[The Hamster King]

Originally Posted by xtisme

Not that I'm doubting you here John, but I don't believe that a serious contender to an incumbent during the primaries without the tacit approval of the party...that way the party usually avoids knock down drag out fights when they already have the seat.

John is right. The party establishment supported Lieberman until Lamont won. Lamont's run was an unsanctioned insurgent action -- not some stealth effort by the establishment to force Lieberman out.

[Kyrie Eleison]

Originally Posted by xtisme

BTW, he didn't lose the election...that's the best part. His party TRIED to torpedo him, they put Ned Lamont up as their candidate...and then lost to Lieberman running as an Independent. SO, it seems that 'the people of Conneticut' in fact DID want Lieberman as their representative over the choice of the Democrats (and Republicans for that matter).

It's a matter of record that the party didn't support his re-election. To characterize this as "torpedoing" makes it seem as if this came out of nowhere. Connecticut democrats thought that Lieberman's very public support for positions with which they strongly disagreed made him an unsuitable representative. In general, Dems didn't dispute his right to hold such positions, but less than half of primary voters felt obligated to continue to support him in spite of them.

Yes, he ran as an Independent and won, in part because the Republican Party essentially disavowed their own candidate, and encouraged its members to vote for him. 33% of Connecticut Democrats voted for Lieberman; 70% of Connecticut Republicans voted for Lieberman. Alan Schlesinger got torpedoed by his party; Joe, not so much.

Does it really come as a surprise that there is some ill-will from Democrats toward a former Democrat that overcame their opposition, and won in large part because he was the de facto candidate of their opponents?

[davidw]

Originally Posted by xtisme

Not that I'm doubting you here John, but I don't believe that a serious contender to an incumbent during the primaries without the tacit approval of the party.

Lamont wasn't considered a "serious contender." He'd never held elective office, he didn't have any connections to any Dem bigwigs. He was a self-financed candidate, and he only got into the race because no CT Dem elected politician was willing to challenge Lieberman.

[XT]

Originally Posted by John Mace

He calls himself an Independent Democrat. He endorsed McCain afterwards, of course. McCain wasn't even running when he became an I-D.

Sorry...I know it was a leading question. Being an Independent however frees him from having to march in lock step with the rest of the Dems though...and allows him to endorse whoever he chooses, in either party. Lieberman and McCain have quite a bit of history (and they are both old and craggy which probably gives them even more in common), so it's unsurprising that he would support McCain in his presidential bid.

It's kind of funny that this 'betrayal' is put at Lieberman's feet though, don't you think...considering what has happened to the man from his own party? Even if I concede that the party had nothing to do with it (which I don't but will accept for the sake of argument), to expect him to STILL be in lock step with the party and only support Democrat candidates now is pretty foolish. The man has been forced to become and Independent against his will...so, why shouldn't he act like an Independent now?

Originally Posted by Pochacco

John is right. The party establishment supported Lieberman until Lamont won. Lamont's run was an unsanctioned insurgent action -- not some stealth effort by the establishment to force Lieberman out.

Perhaps. Perhaps the party really doesn't have a way to quietly get someone like Lamont to back out of such a campaign 'for the good of the party', and that they really did try everything they could to help Lieberman get the nomination that should have been his pretty much automatically. I don't believe it, though I have to admit looking at Hillary's run I'm more apt to accept it provisionally than I was.

-XT

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by xtisme

Sorry...I know it was a leading question. Being an Independent however frees him from having to march in lock step with the rest of the Dems though...and allows him to endorse whoever he chooses, in either party. Lieberman and McCain have quite a bit of history (and they are both old and craggy which probably gives them even more in common), so it's unsurprising that he would support McCain in his presidential bid.

It's kind of funny that this 'betrayal' is put at Lieberman's feet though, don't you think...considering what has happened to the man from his own party? Even if I concede that the party had nothing to do with it (which I don't but will accept for the sake of argument), to expect him to STILL be in lock step with the party and only support Democrat candidates now is pretty foolish. The man has been forced to become and Independent against his will...so, why shouldn't he act like an Independent now?



Perhaps. Perhaps the party really doesn't have a way to quietly get someone like Lamont to back out of such a campaign 'for the good of the party', and that they really did try everything they could to help Lieberman get the nomination that should have been his pretty much automatically. I don't believe it, though I have to admit looking at Hillary's run I'm more apt to accept it provisionally than I was.

-XT

You are confusing the Democratic voters in CT with the Democratic party. And you are absolutely wrong about how the nomination process played out-- it was the netRoots activists that organized against Lieberman, not the DNC. I paid a great deal of attention to that whole race and who was supporting whom. Frankly, his fellow party members in the Senate have been quite good to him since he got re-elected.

And the nomination should not have been his automatically-- the voters of the state decide that.

[Kyrie Eleison]

Originally Posted by xtisme

Perhaps the party really doesn't have a way to quietly get someone like Lamont to back out of such a campaign 'for the good of the party', and that they really did try everything they could to help Lieberman get the nomination that should have been his pretty much automatically.

My impression from the reporting & posturing at the time was that the national Democratic Party was not in favor of opposing Lieberman, but that the Connecticut Democratic State Party was.

And, my personal impression at the time was that a lot of the opposition stemmed from exactly the sentiment you expressed -- Lieberman seemed to think that he should automatically get the nod, regardless of how he chose to represent us. And I think it's informative that he chose to name his newly created party "Connecticut for Lieberman" rather than "Lieberman for Connecticut."

[Two and a Half Inches of Fun]

Originally Posted by xtisme

Perhaps. Perhaps the party really doesn't have a way to quietly get someone like Lamont to back out of such a campaign 'for the good of the party', and that they really did try everything they could to help Lieberman get the nomination that should have been his pretty much automatically. I don't believe it though I have to admit looking at Hillary's run I'm more apt to accept it provisionally than I was.

-XT

What exactly would get you to believe it?

[John Mace]

Here is a list of endorsements for Lieberman in the primary

* Former President Bill Clinton, who campaigned for Lieberman in Waterbury on July 24
* U.S. Senator Chris Dodd
* U.S. Senator and Minority Leader Harry Reid
* CA Senator Barbara Boxer, who campaigned for Lieberman on July 24
* DE Senator Joe Biden, HA Senator Daniel Inouye, CO Senator Ken Salazar, who campaigned for Lieberman on July 31
* NY Senator Hillary Clinton
* IL Senator Barack Obama
* IN Senator Evan Bayh
* NJ Senator Frank Lautenberg
* DE Senator Tom Carper
* CA Senator Diane Feinstein
* OR Senator Mark Pryor
* OR Senator Ron Wyden
* NE Senator Ben Nelson
* CT Representative Rosa DeLauro
* CT Representative John Larson
* CT Lt. Governor Kevin Sullivan
* CT Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz
* CT State Comptroller Nancy Wyman
* CT State Treasurer Denise Nappier
* Former Democratic Party Chair John Olsen
* All of Connecticut's State Democratic Legislators [1]
* All Democratic CT candidates for U.S. Congress [2]
* Both Democratic CT candidates for Governor [3]
* Republican Congressman Christopher Shays.[4]

Note that all of the Democratic state legislators backed him.

[XT]

Originally Posted by Two and a Half Inches of Fun

What exactly would get you to believe it?

Evidence...which has been provided by someone I actually trust on these things in the form of John Mace. Kyrie Eleison's post is also pretty convincing. It's not like I've never been wrong before...and looks like I'm continuing the trend on this point.


-XT

[John Mace]

Originally Posted by xtisme

Evidence...which has been provided by someone I actually trust on these things in the form of John Mace. Kyrie Eleison's post is also pretty convincing. It's not like I've never been wrong before...and looks like I'm continuing the trend on this point.


-XT

I didn't say that.

[Ravenman]

Originally Posted by xtisme

No, I have no real proof...just know how the party(s) generally operate wrt their incumbants and feel it's pretty obvious that someone in the party structure wanted him gone and allowed this to happen.

This reminds me an awful lot of the propaganda of bygone communists: no governmental system could possibly work with the people freely expressing their will, and no economic system could possibly work with producers competing with each other; there simply has to be some shadowy people in the background pulling the real levers of power.

Maybe the simplest explanation is the best: Ned Lamont saw that Lieberman was out of touch with his constituency, and went on to win a primary election.

The facts though are that for whatever reasons the Dems chose not to re-nominate a sitting Senator...and said Senator ended up winning anyway, kind of proving that it was a fuck up on the Dems part.

I'd say that the Democratic voters of Connecticut probably thought Lieberman had a shred of integrity and would have recognized that if he lost the primary, he would have dropped his run for office.

I think it is positively dishonorable to run for the nomination of a party, as a member of that party, and then to decide that if you do not get the nomination, to turn around and say that you shouldn't have been a member of the party anyways, and F.U., I'm now an independent. My belief is that Lieberman views himself as the same sort of indispensable man with whom the graveyards are filled. That's why I do not respect Joe Lieberman.

[NurseCarmen]

Originally Posted by Cluricaun

Because deep down inside I'm almost 100% sure that Joe Liberman is actually this guy.

Well, then I hate him even more, because he is harboring an illegal alien in his home!

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

I'd say that the Democratic voters of Connecticut probably thought Lieberman had a shred of integrity and would have recognized that if he lost the primary, he would have dropped his run for office.

That might have been part of the reason Lieberman lost the primary. Lamont only won by about 10,000 votes (out of 280,000 cast), and in the exit polling, there were a bunch of people who said they would have voted for Lieberman if he had made it clear that he wouldn't pursue a third-party run.

So, his failure to do that definately contributed to his not getting the nomination.

[Merkwurdigliebe]

Why does Joe piss me off?

He's sanctimonious. He's the Jewish version of the likes of Santorum. He lets religion guide policy. His stupid anti-videogame stance shows how idiotic and out of touch he is.

He's completely ungrateful for the Democrat's help. As was mentioned earlier, Joe had a lot of help from national Democrats in his re-election primary. When they supported Lamont later on, what the hell were they to do? The Democrats hold a primary to allow the people to choose their favorite candidate. How are they going to say, "Well even though Lamont won, we just think Joe's such a swell guy that we're going to give it to him anyway."

For their efforts, Joe has turned on the Democratic party. I can even understand that to some degree. Things change and people don't always agree.

Joining McCain's campaign. This is (almost) the ultimate in betrayal. As an independent he is welcome to do as he pleases. But he should remember that his power stems from the Democrats. But even then, if he's not simply carrying water for the Republicans, I could understand. If he wants to talk about why he likes McCain because his positions jibe with his personal convictions, again, I'm okay with that.

The final straw is of course doing what I said he should not do in the last part. He is mindlessly carrying water for the Republicans now. After Obama gave a very pro-Israel speech to the AIPAC, Joementum comes along (not having heard the speech), and criticizes him out of hand for being soft on terrorism. This is nothing more than helping spread Republican lies. This is the tactic of a tried and true Republican willing to say anything to help their side. And this cannot be excused.

I'm so happy that Obama got in his face yesterday and told him how things were going to happen from here on. I hope he explained to him that come November, some things were going to change. If he's going to keep any kind of committee membership under the Democrats he better change his goddamned tune and fast. Obama looks like he won't be the type to put up with any of his shit. I can see him being stripped of everything in November when the Democrats get past 51, and heavily challeneged in 2012 for re-election. Let's see if he realizes which side his bread is getting buttered on. Let him go to the Republicans for some committee memberships. I bet they give him nothing. They don't give a shit about Joe, just the fact that he throws it in the Democrat's face. A Joe Lieberman cut off from the Democratic party is useless to the Republicans.

But then again, Joe has never shown good judgement. So I wouldn't expect him to realize that McCain will lose. That's really the only scenario in which this gambit pays off.

[Cervaise]

Politics shmolitics. I don't like him because he doesn't take out his teeth when he sucks dick.

[happywaffle]

I don't check the thread for 18 hours and suddenly, bam! 50 posts!

The back story is that my wife is a born-n-raised conservative, which makes my dinner political arguments much more interesting than yours. Anyway, she loves Joe and hopes he's McCain's running mate so she can vote for them. (She also likes Obama, so, there's hope!) Anyway, I'm trying to come up with reasons why she shouldn't like him. Sounds like the censorship/video game moralizing is the biggest sticking point she'd agree with me on, followed by the religious fervor. As a conservative, she's not likely to care much if he left the Dems high and dry.

[Sevastopol]

Originally Posted by suranyi

Actually, as a Jew, that's one thing I do agree with him about.

Ed

Israel's the poison ivy that's the death of judaism.