Which is quite the point. Being pro-war, at least at this point, isn’t a conservative issue, its a stupid and stubborn issue.
Partially quoted for increased truth.
Take away the war issue and most of his positions are reasonably within the Democratic mainstream. But it seems to me that he thinks the “war on terror” trumps all other issues combined when choosing a president. I disagree with that approach and I think even a marginal Democrat like he is shouldn’t be endorsing a Republican for president before the first vote is even cast in the primaries. I for one would love to see the Dems pick up enough Senate seats to tell Joementum to go suck eggs. But for the moment, he suits the purpose of keeping the majority in the Senate.
Thing is, though, it’s not just the war.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein opposes that war, and had a 2006 ADA ranking of 90%. It’s hard to find people in the Senate more in line with what liberal Democrats believe as a whole.
That didn’t stop a bunch of activists from launching an attempt to censure her at a California State Democratic Party meeting.
I made comments above about the Democrats eating their own - well, here you go. In this case it was over appointments. Nothing to do with the war.
Activism is a cussword on the right, isn’t it?
We have our share. Trust me. And we herd cats as well.
I just wonder if you see a censure motion directed at Dianne Feinstein as silly posturing or a necessary corrective. And keep in mind - these kinds of things can badly split a state party and make it hard to win certain races.
“Governor” Cruz Bustamante and “Governor” Phil Angelides can probably fill you in on this, hmm?
Both parties have activists, though, and "true believers, and their actions in trying to bring a censure motion (which, if you notice, never even got to a vote) doesn’t neccesarily reflect the views of the party as a whole. And, of course, a lot of the criticism of Feinstein in the Guardian article (the other one requires registration) came from groups opposed to the specific positions she took…groups like the ACLU opposed to her vote for allowing the government to eavesdrop and support for a nominee who won’t call waterboarding torture, and groups like the Congressional Black Caucus opposed to her support for a racist nominee. If a Republican Senator, for instance, voted for a bill making abortion easier or supporting a pro-choice nominee, you can bet that National Right to Life would criticize them too.
Cite?
I mean, I know she voted for his confirmation. That’s different than supporting him, I’d guess. Plus, do you have proof that he is racist? The only thing I ever saw was that he supported the decision by a state employment agency that an employee shouldn’t be fired after using a racist term once. In this, he was joined by the agency, the majority of his own court, and the target of his slur, who had accepted the apology of the employee who said the offending term.
In all fairness, you are right. Lieberman is a moderate democrat, but, like most of congress, he is making a fortune supporting corporations gone mad. His former top aid was a lobbyist for Enron, and Lieberman led the fight to defeat a Financial Accounting Standards Board’s proposal that would force corporations to record stock options in financial statements. Now he supports the war. I am confused.
http://newsmine.org/archive/cabal-elite/corporate/enron/lieberman-enron.txt
Well, according to the article, she cast the deciding vote to send the nomination onto the full Senate (and was the only Democrat on the committee to vote for him). So, in this circumstance, when voting against the guy could have stopped the nomination, voting for him could be seen as support.
As far as whether Southwick is a racist or not, I don’t know (I had just skimmed the article when I wrote the response, and had thought it said that Southwick had called an employee a “nigger”, not just ruled on a case involving the word.
Nevertheless, whether the man is racist or not, the groups condemning Feinstein for voting for him certainly believe he is, so from that standpoint, their condemnation makes sense.
What are you confused about?
I am confused by the Lieberman dichotomy. Is he a democrat or a republican? I know. He is an independent. It is his support of the war and bombing of Iran that really puzzles me. Maybe he is a covert member of the Bush Administration, an elephant disguised as a donkey.
He is/was a Democrat who’s a hawk. I was pro-war and I’m a Democrat. Where’s this stereotype come from that Democrats are doves?
Ehh… They’re not quite on the outskirts, but they’re certainly more conservative than many of their colleagues – which is not surprising with Senators from NE, LA, WV, and AR, respectively. They represent their constituents, who are in many ways emotionally Southern.
I believe in self preservation. If war is a necessity to protect this country, then it’s clearly justified. I am sure the vast majority of Americans believe in national defense. I am against preemptive wars based on faulty intelligence. I am against the sovereign president and his top secret torture and spying policies. By supporting the war, Lieberman is supporting the Bush Administration and the unprecedented expansion of executive powers exploited for political gain.
The fact that Lieberman is a corporate ally is not exactly earth shattering. It seems to be a pandemic on Capitol Hill.