Anybody But Lieberman...

[Memekiller]

I think Democrats have to show there are principles that will not be compromised. I think the best way to do that is to get rid of Lieberman. He does more damage than good for the party right now, and I would rather have a united party that stands for something than have Lieberman there to provide Bush bipartisan cover for any of his proposals.

He muddies our message and undermines the only power we have right now: to deny Bush legitimacy for his policies we don't approve of. Is he up next election, or are we stuck with him until Bush has done his damage?

[shoelace414]

1. Just think.. he should have been the Vice President.

[pie]

37. Absolutely the worst choice for VP candidate EVER!!!

Garbage.

[ProgressiveConn]

41. Yes he was. I'd say 50-50 chance it cost us everything in 2000.

[JI7]

2. i would rather focus on getting rid of Republicans

[atreides1]

4. Joe Enablerman is a Republican

He just plays a Democrat during re-election.

[LittleClarkie]

10. Then why does his voting record on www.vote-smart.org say different

He's a foreign policy hawk, but otherwise he has a reasonably progressive record.

[ProgressiveConn]

40. Except for his rampant support of censorship and his vote OKing torture.nt

[FightinNewDem]

13. Baloney

According to the National Journal's "Liberal on Social Policy" calculations, Lieberman voted more liberal on social policy issues than 82 percent of the Senators during 2004.

Doesn't sound like a Republican to me.

[ProgressiveConn]

30. Umm

You realize that our Republican Governor is calling for civil unions?

We are social liberals up here even if we are also economic liberals. =)

His views on censorship are not acceptable.

His views on aggressive warfare are not acceptable.

His views on torture are not acceptable.

His views on sucking up to Bush are not acceptable.

[dolstein]

59. His views may be unacceptable to YOU

but if polls are to be believed, Lieberman remains popular with the overwhelming majority of Connecticut voters.

The last time I checked, a relative handful of left-wing bloggers and their amen corner on DU didn't get to decide who represents Connecticut in the United States Senate. You're certainly welcome to cast your own vote for whomever you want. But you might want to think twice before you claim to speak for Connecticut voters as a whole.

[ProgressiveConn]

68. Joe Lieberman has a higher approval rating from Republicans than he does

from Democrats. Sounds like you're speaking for the GOP here to me.

[Renew Deal]

6. Then you shouldn't have a conflict

;)

[Melodybe]

3. have you been to this yahoo group?

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DumpJoe/

I signed up just to make their number go up, but it is full to be around that hate him too.

[Memekiller]

5. Looks like I'm not alone...

You know, I wasn't a Deaniac. I'm primarily a centrist. I supported Clark, then Kerry. I think Clinton (with the exception of Lewinski) is the ideal President, not just in ability but policy. I was for the DLC then.

But this is a different political climate. Dean's the future. Lieberman should be history.

[HockeyMom]

7. I agree

I am not even a Democrat but a life long Independent. Lieberman is just a Yankee, kinder, gentler, version of Zell Miller.

Even Hillary, who I voted for, is starting to get on my nerves.

We don't need anymore Bush Lites. You cannot fight them when you BECOME THEM.

[FightinNewDem]

16. Reality Check #3,486

"Lieberman is just a Yankee, kinder, gentler, version of Zell Miller".

AFL/CIO (lifetime rating)

Lieberman: 84%
Miller: 42%


Network: The Catholic Social Justice Lobby

Lieberman: 80%
Miller: 20%


Americans for Democratic Action (2003)

Lieberman: 70%
Miller: 10%

ADA (2002)

Lieberman: 85%
Miller: 30%


American Conservative Union

Lieberman: 0%
Miller: 96%

Sorry, but facts are stubborn things.

[ProgressiveConn]

38. And both Miller and Lieberman

are militant hawks who support aggressive offensive warfare.

Joe is fine when it comes to Labor or Environmental issues. I'd have no problem with him if he was interested in those things. He wants to be Secretary of Defense. This is unacceptable. Further he caves into corporate interests WAY to often.

[Larkspur]

51. Do these percentages include sneaky tactics like

voting against cloture on the bankruptcy bill, which is the only parlimentary tactic the Dems had, and then voting against the full bankruptcy bill, knowing full well that your vote against cloture guarenteed the bill's passage.

Lieberman is Repuke-lite in his rhetoric and in his voting tactics.

[dolstein]

60. I'm afraid your realiance on facts will be lost on these people

NT

[Capn Sunshine]

67. Reality, Take two:

Joe's Voting record of late:

Boxer Rebellion (Electorial Ballot Count). Joe voted WITH the Republican Majority

Confirmation Condoleeza Rice (she who lied about 9/11), of California, to be Secretary of State. Joe voted WITH the Republican Majority

Confirmation Alberto R. Gonzales (he who approved torture and thinks the Geneva Convention is quaint and antiquated) to be Attorney General. Joe voted WITH the Republican Majority

Senate Bill 5 - Class Actions. Joe voted WITH the Republican Majority

Confirmation Michael Chertoff, of New Jersey, To Be Secretary of Homeland Security. Joe voted WITH the Republican Majority

Cloture Motion on Senate Bill 256 - Bankruptcy Bill. Joe voted WITH the Republican Majority

Senate Bill 256 - Bankruptcy Bill. After joing the GOP and saying that the item couldn't be debated, DINO Joe was too confused to understand the reasons for what he did, and in error voted NO (the Democratic position) shocking his GOP handlers. (matching this vote with the last one makes NO SENSE! He stops debate, which could have changed peoples minds, and then votes NO? The two votes don't go together. The first vote gave the GOP what they wanted, a fast track to approval of a bad bill, this just looks like he was covering his ass.)

This type of voting benefits the Democratic party HOW?

[BlueInRed]

8. Most importantly, he doesn't represent his constituents

I firmly believe his state would easily elect a "regular" Democrat in his place if he were beaten in the primaries.

If anyone deserves to be ousted, it's conservative Democrats who represent constituents who are more liberal than they are. I view him and a few others as doing a huge disservice to their own constituents.

I think it is essential that the few highly populated blue states we have in this country be represented by Democrats who share the views of their constituents. And it's high time people like him worry more about ticking off their constituents than ticking off their contributors.

[LittleClarkie]

11. I dunno

It has been said that Connecticut is quite full of Conservative Democrats. For all we know, he does indeed represent them.

And I'd feel better about this thread, in that it wouldn't remind me of GOP targeting techniques, if there were some Connecticut folk piping up saying they want him gone, rather than New Yorkers and Texans and such.

Any Connecticuttians (? what the hell do y'all call yourselves?) feel like putting in their two cents?

[JerseygirlCT]

18. Well, I'm in CT and less than thrilled with Lieberman

In fact, that's been my take on him from the beginning. He's a waffler and someone who waits to see which way the wind is blowing. His recent votes on the bankruptcy bill are illustrative: having it both ways. I think he probably truly believes this makes him a "moderate" -- when what it makes him is a guy with no principles.

BUT, I don't think there is much of a chance of unseating him. He appeals to the moderate GOPs in the state (lots of fiscally conservative-moderate and socially liberal voters up this way), and who else are the Dems going to vote for? He's got lots of financial support. If you check out a quick look-see on the who's who of the state, I'd bet you'd find most of them supporting Lieberman financially.

And as much as I dislike Lieberman, there are truly bigger battles to be fought. I would prefer we focus on ousting Republicans -- and let's start with the really odious ones, too.

[BlueInRed]

23. I piped in b/c he's doing more damage

than most of the other conservative Democrats and because he is in a state that consistently votes "blue" in presidential elections. Also because he is so notoriously "corporate" conservative, rather than just socially conservative.

Lieberman seems to get a kick out of undermining the party at just the right moment and also of throwing support to Bush whenever the Democrats are making headway against Bush. That really bugs me.

[ProgressiveConn]

36. Not conservative Democrats. Corporate DLCesque Democrats.

Even our Republicans here are social liberals. Hell our Republican Governor is calling for legalized civil unions.

Facts:

1) The only reason Joe was elected is because actual fascists disliked Lowell Wieker (Republican Senator) because he was to liberal and would brake ranks with Republicans anytime he felt it was the right thing to do

2) Joe has a higher approval rating amongst Republicans in the state than Democrats.

3) The general thought is that as a Republican incumbent Joe would be attacked for his unacceptable stances but as a Democrat he basically flies under the radar. The Republican who ran against him in 2000 is a convicted child molester. Do you really think the Republicans wanted Lieberman to lose?

- A Connecticutter who is very unhappy with his Senator from Aetna

[FightinNewDem]

12. Oh, really?

According to a poll conducted by Quinnipiac University, Lieberman has a 73% approval rating:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11362.xml?ReleaseID=639

Maybe he isn't kissing the collective ass of the Perpetually Disgruntled Wing of the Democratic Party, but it looks like his constituents think he's doing a good job.

[BlueInRed]

21. I disagree

I bet most of his voters have no idea how many times he goes against core Democratic principles. If he had a good challenger and some adverse publicity on many of his controversial votes, I bet that rating would go through the floorboards.

The problem is he is entrenched, like many others are. I'd love to see all his votes publicized for a 4 or 5 month period and see what that poll says.

[leftynyc]

71. So you think you're more tuned in to his

constituency than he is?

[Cuban_Liberal]

63. "Perpetually Disgruntled Wing of the Democratic Party"

LMAO!

:thumbsup:

[Freddie Stubbs]

17. Yet the voters in his state keep reelecting him

When is the last time he has had a close race? When is the last time that he has had a constested primary? :shrug:

[BlueInRed]

20. once people get established, they don't get primary challenges

and I think if he got a popular Democrat against him in the primary, he'd lose. He's entrenched and lost touch with everyone except his contributors IMO. And he's by no means alone in that category.

Lots of people stay in office so long that they no longer serve their constituents. But he is IMO one of the worst offenders. I'd love to see all his votes (not just the final ones) publicized and see how he'd fare with a little sunshine on his voting record.

[Freddie Stubbs]

22. Alren Specter came within a wisker of losing in the primary last year

after 24 years in the Senate.

[BlueInRed]

24. exactly, and if Bush hadn't saved him, we'd probably have won

that seat away from Republicans.

I think when we can keep a seat on our side AND find someone who better represents the constituents, it should be considered, especially when it's someone like Lieberman who takes such pleasure in undermining the Democratic leadership at the most inopportune moments.

It was an extraordinary thing that he got a challenge. It should happen more often. It makes people more responsive to their voters.

[ISUGRADIA]

47. Just a note about CT primaries; up until 2004

there was no real way to get on a primary ballot unless a candidate received 15% or more of delegates at the party convention. Even this number was a tough threshhold and primaries were rare. The Courts struck down this law as too restrictive. So 2006 will be the first real chance for Lieberman to have a primary candidate.

[Freddie Stubbs]

50. So you're saying that Lieberman had strong support from delegates

at the state party convention? If these people (party activists who are likely more liberal than the general population) like him, he should have no trouble winning the nomination next year. ;)

[ISUGRADIA]

56. I don't think he had any convention oposition in 88, 94, or 00

I don't know enough about CT politics to confirm that the delegates there are more liberal than the primary electorate (though I know in most states this is generally the case: example Miles' showing in CO in 2004). From what I have read the convention process in CT favored the "establishment" candidates and it was hard for insurgents to gain enough delegates to make a primary possible. Someone from CT might detail how delegates are elected there.

I will go out ona limb and say that if Lieberman is a candidate in 2006, he will win his primary with at least 60% of the vote and more likely 70%.

[applegrove]

9. I don't think we can afford to start alienating everyone. Joe has other

needs right now. Do we want a party where people vote against there own needs? That would make us no better than Repukes.

Joe represents a big wing of the party which is why he made the Gore ticket. Because the man means something. And it is not for us to understand what is going on with him right now - but we can empathize with him that Israel may be weighing high on his mind. And in actual fact.. a real, strong peace for Israel which is not so structurally weak that war erupts in 5 years will benefit us all.

Unfortunately Lieberman has to deal with the devil. Bono says it best: he'll get along with whoever he has to - to help Africa get away from the death of debt... that he will do and say whatever he has to. Joe is in the same boat.

Big Tent!

[hansolsen]

14. The roof of the big tent is caving in because the pillars are collapsing.

Joe Lieberman has put his views on Israel at the very top of his personal agenda in the Senate. The war in Iraq in the long run will rebound to be a great disaster for Israel, and poor Mr. Lieberman will regret having sold his soul to George Bush to get what he wanted in 2003.

So say I.

[applegrove]

27. I think the opposite is true. As a liberal who has been against the

American Right Wing interference in foreign nations at the expense of democracy... I always saw Saddam Hussein as their worst example of this USA policy(strong men are better than democracies that actually really represent people in resource rich countries ). So to me the invasion of Iraq is the neocons running around and saying to themselves...oh - O! We really fucked up the ME and now we have to deal with virulent Islam. Oh-O! We created virulent Islam. Oh-O! We better do something about that.

Funny how as soon as the USA allows democracy it beginings to break out all over the place.

Not that I think this WH is anything but sociopathic... but if America got to take the PRIZE FOR CREATING FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAM... then America would have gone down in history is the final villain. That is what everyone was saying the day after 9/11: America has to change how they treat people. And now with smoke and mirrors the Repukes have stolen a plank from the Liberals and tried to undo all the damage 40 years of right wing predatory policy in the ME has done.

The Right Wing in the USA failed totally and completely in their foreign policy. They extended the life of communism. They created virulent fundamentalist Islam. Bush is filling up the holes and patching 50 years of mistakes and doing it while banging big pots and pans together to make it look like an American Idea: democracy.

The goodwill that not fixing the ME would have cost the USA is huge. America prostituted itself to big oil and big military for two generations and created monsters out of people who should have been middle class the whole time. The sad thing is that as the USA tries to 'cap the fires' of the fires they set in the ME, they do the same exploitative thing in the USA and encourage tribalism and discourage democracy. And they get away with it by keeping the focus on Democracy in the middle east.

IT is as if the two have to be switched: America domestically has to become an oligarchy while the middle east has to become democratic. The hope is to mire the newly democratic countries in plurality and the give and take of election cycles while erasing that plurality in the USA. USA becomes more fascist so as to have control over emerging tribal movements the world over... outside the USA, by controlling the army of the USA and indeed space. So corporations have their own army, and by promoting democracy reduce tribalism and making any trans-national tribal movement immediately illegal as it would threaten the wonderful workings of the many democracies.

The only trans-nationals will be the corporations. Even the UN is discouraged and any uber-multinational groups.

Just as corporations keep coercing human beings into believing humans are not allowed to use the efficient markets as means of delivering public goods, and that the markets only belong to corporations... so too will transnationality be a tool that is solely the prerogative of corporations.

IMHO. My guess today of what is going on with that "big ole pile of snakes ****ing".

We need our big tent so that we can stop America from turning into the only fascist regime - while the rest of the world goes democratic (and easier to keep from organizing into anti-corporate entities with any strength).

[hansolsen]

33. You're high, aren't you? Great rant. Flow of consciousness flowing.

One small quibble -- we haven't brought democracy to the middle east at the point of a gun -- we have simply transfered power from one Arab tribe in Iraq, to another Arab tribe in Iraq. What happens next is anybody's guess.

Meanwhile we have lost Russia and set back democracy at home about 300 years. What a nightmare.

[applegrove]

43. Yes it is a nightmare. But as to tribes in Iraq it used to be policy

of USA a Britain & France to support one tribe over another... and keep the tribes separate (tribal) so as easier to rule through them. Lugard was the 'thinker' who taught the Brits that. And wherever you go in the world where Britain was... the tribes are going at each other... because they never were encouraged to mix & be as one.

So USA & Britain were for Shiites until Shiites overthrew the US in Iran. Now all of a sudden.. nobody is allowed to be tribal - eh? Except inside the USA.

And I am not high - but that is how it looks to me. Democracy is definitely under attack in the USA as are the emotions that go with democracy (empathy).

I hope I am wrong. It is a horrid thing that is happening in the USA.

[JerseygirlCT]

19. Well, I disagree with a couple of things you said:

first that he represents a big wing of the party. I don't think that's really the case. He sticks out now simply because he's so out of step with the party. That's one of the reasons his anemic presidential campaign got any attention, too -- he was over here and everone else was somewhere else.

I also disagree that it is not for us to understand... I think it's his job to explain to us. If he cannot do that, he's in the wrong line of work. He needs to explain everything behind why he votes as he does -- he's answerable to us, after all.

I'm also not convinced that what's driving Lieberman is simply support for Israel. I'm sure that's important, and it's important to plenty of his constituents, too. I really think the guy is incapable of not trying to play every last thing both ways. He wants to appear independent and resolute, but he's anything but. IMO, he's weak and a waffler. And, to be fair, from all I've heard, one heck of a nice guy.

Unfortunately, when playing with the evil thugs in the GOP, nice guys finish last -- and take us with them.

[BlueInRed]

25. you hit a lot of nails on the head

Especially about him wanting to have it both ways. I've noticed that in the way he handles a lot of votes, looking at both the amendment process and the final vote. Just like on the bankruptcy bill, against cloture, but then against the final bill. I bet you've been watching a lot longer than I since you live there.

[applegrove]

28. I agree he could be playing with evil and I will say that you will make

deals with the devil if the welfare of those you love is in the balance. And you do not know what that is like. And you could no more understand where an Israel hawk is coming from than you could an African American who wanted to impart to you the cultural difference they have with the court system in the USA (before the OJ trial). The stories one hears from the time you are a child are much more powerful than we often give credit for. Think of the stories those OJ jurors heard... about the law and being AA in America. From their grandparents,etc. Then think about the stories of the Lieberman family.

We do not know exactly but we can empathize enough to say - "Okay, I do not know exactly but I do expect things to be quite different between us when Israel and lasting peace are on the agenda". And then you just separate for a while. But you fully expect Lieberman to come back. And he will have voted his heart the whole time. And who knows... a real lasting and permanent Peace in Israel may be the difference between your take on Israel and his. And that lasting peace may help you in the end... normalization of relations and lasting peace in the region.

And voting your heart is the big difference between the Democrats and the Repukes. Repukes get the poor in the South to vote against their own good needs and they likely laugh about it & stand up and take accolades if you are Karl Rove. We are not like that. And we should not make it our policy to start coercing people to vote against their own hearts.. because then we have not only given up our big tent... but we gave up our centre too.

IMHO

[JerseygirlCT]

44. I still think you're heading into some dangerous territory here

in the first place, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your "you" is meant to be "one" -- that is, meant generally and not directed at me personally. Since you don't know me personally, you can't know that any of that is not within my experience.

I am not, for example, opposed to Israel. I'm quite supportive, in fact. They've done plenty wrong (as have we), but I do believe in their right to exist and I do believe they're the best democracy in the middle east -- perhaps honestly the only one. So please don't make too many assumptions -- it's simply counter-productive.

As is the simplistic analysis that Democrats vote from the heart and Republicans from the head. The GOP benefits from this old and inaccurate stereotype.

I assure you that as a Democrat, I use both my empathy and my intellect when making my voting choices. I find far more that is intellectually accurate and satisfying in Democratic positions. I don't think people should vote for us because it feels good, but because we offer the best positions for the most people. Likewise, I don't find much that makes intellectual sense in the Republican party -- particularly as it is currently constituted. So while I understand your impetus, I have to disagree. Because Democratic positions take into consideration our obligations to those with less than us, that doesn't make us feeling, but unthinking.

[applegrove]

53. Tearing the USA apart and remaking it into a tribal society is how

the Rovbots want to control the nation. I don't want to fall into their game plan.

The British ruled the world using indirect rule. They used tribal elders and where there were no leaders.. they made them up. Where there was no tribalism... they made it up (Rwanda the differences were exaggerated among Tutsi & Hutu). Then people all over the world were kept busy with customary law and disliking anyone slightly different than them. The things Britain wanted from their colonies (resource wealth) was easily taken. The important governance issues never left the hands of the British while the unimportant issues were left in the hands of tribal elders.

I do not want to see the Democratic Party sliced & diced. There have always been Israeli hawks and fiscal conservatives. Do not react with anger & in our wounded states and push this part of our Democratic Party away. How many Blue Dog Democrats are their? 15? We need them all - that is why the Party had built fiscal conservatism into the Big Tent Party.

Don't fall into the Karl Rove trap of breaking into smaller and smaller groups. That is what I mean and it is very important that we do not let the Repukes 'create' smaller tribal groups within our Party and encourage 'leadership' of these smaller Democratic groups.

[JerseygirlCT]

55. That's the problem, though

My problem with Lieberman has nothing to do with Israel, and I don't think he's a fiscal hawk. He's a waffler, afraid to take any principled stand, and all too willing to CREATE dissension in the Democratic ranks by continuing to woo Bush and company.

[applegrove]

58. Don't you think his close relationship with Bush has to do with Israel

and the permanence with which any peace reached today may have? Just like with the OJ trial and how shocked White people were that African Americans had a different culture in relation to the police (what stories do you think their grandparents told them about the law) ... we can safely say that an Israeli Hawk has heard different stories from grandparents too. And if the security of your family is at stake... you will walk right up to the devil and try and make deals (trust me you will). So I think we can look at Lieberman and many other Hawks on Israel (perhaps Maher) and say: "okay bye-bye for now I see you feel you have no choice but to deal".

As to Lieberman being a flip-flopper you must be aware at the way laws have been packaged under the Repukes? They put 15 different things in a bundle and if you want 7, 11 and 14 really bad you have to vote for the same thing. It is a way to wedge and make people look like flip floppers. If it was all about straight votes - or if the Democrats had control of the house and how the laws were packaged... it would not be so flip-floppy. That is the whole point of the Republican tactic... to cause separation & confusion and wedging.

Please let us not give up on our heroes. Even if Lieberman never was your cup of tea.. do not give up on the big Tent. If we change our behavior and mirror the brown-shirting of the Repukes, or we get rid of our big Tent... we are playing into their hands. And it will be so very hard to get that Big Tent back. A Big Tent is truly a miracle of democracy. It is the most threatening thing to long term Repuke power.

[JerseygirlCT]

65. I'm not giving up at all

I think those who would sell short the very core ideals of the Democratic party for some amorphous sense of "bi-partisanship" are the ones doing just that.

I've watched Lieberman in action for many years now. He's my senator. So while I know exactly what the GOP is up to now, and think it's thoroughly despicable, I don't think Lieberman's behavior is anything new for him. I've just never been impressed with the man.

A big tent is a good thing, but what does that mean when those inside aren't working toward the same goals?

Let's be clear here, though -- priorities matter. My priorities would definitely be to rid ourselves of as many GOP senators and reps next time around as is possible. Unseating Joe takes a far back seat. But I surely wouldn't cry if it happened. And I'll continue to take my senator to task for representing his constituents so poorly.

[ProgressiveConn]

39. it is not for us to understand what is going on with him right now?

Unbelievable. What kind of statement is that?

Purple Dems are fine as long as they are from Purple or Red states. Blue dems for blue states or we'll just have Liebs keep on stabbing us in the back and sucking face with Bush.

[AP]

15. Anybody (including Joe) But a Republican! (Especially when we only have 44

Dems in the Senate!)

[BlueInRed]

26. And yet I agree with that too

I wouldn't support ousting Joe IF I didn't believe a different Democrat could be elected.

The worst thing would be to lose the seat. But if that can be avoided, I'd like to see him gone (or at least quieted down). I'd be less unhappy with him if he'd pipe down and support the leadership instead of giving ammunition to the Rs.

[applegrove]

29. I'm with you!! Do not copy the Freeper behavior and start with

attacking & coercing. Then you have inherited the Karl Rove meme from them and learnt and will pass it on to others.

We will win by being adults and thinking about strategy and not knee-jerking.

[BlueInRed]

31. So, are you saying that if

we elect someone and are unhappy with their performance, we must stick with them forever just because we are all Democrats? Isn't that what elections are for -- accountability on both sides? If someone is not performing and is apprised of that, and still persists, do they get a free ride because they are in office?

I don't support the wholesale attacks on conservative Dems. I think many of them do a good job representing a moderate or conservative constituency. I also think you have to keep an eye on the numbers and not cut your nose off to spite your face; we do need 2 Democratic senators from Connecticut.

But there ought to be some accountability. If Joe had even an inkling that he might face a primary opponent, I bet he'd be a whole lot more reluctant to get on Fox and agree with the Rs.

[applegrove]

42. Did you elect Lieberman?

[BlueInRed]

46. Did you either?

A pretty transparent diversionary tactic.

And you wholly failed to address the simple question of whether a person elected to office is entitled to be reevaluated based on their performance in office, regardless of their party. This bit about never questioning the performance of elected Democrats as "freeperish" is basically saying we can't reevaluate Democrats based on their performance. And I think that is just plain wrong and un-American, as that is the entire purpose of elections.

[applegrove]

52. I am not saying you broke a law - I just do not want to see us

broken down into tribes. It seems to be the neocon plan. And indirect rule was how the British ruled in Africa, Quebec, India, Scotland. They ruled all things they considered un-important through local tribe elders (priests in Quebec) using customary law and giving the 'elders' policing duties,etc. And where they didn't have small tribal groups... they made them and made up leaders.

Then all the important things the British wanted was taken by way of a uber-level of government where all the important things were. That is what the rovbots want?

Democracy is promoted in the ME and changed into tribalism in the USA? Why? So that their can be that 'double layer' of power in the USA and neocons & hawks can be quick and completely in control.

I do not want to see the Democratic party purposely torn into shreds. That is the neocon plan!!!

[BlueInRed]

54. huh?

I'm not sure if you attached this to the wrong post or if this is a response to my post. I think you were discussing tribalism with another person.

[applegrove]

57. Indirect rule is how the British ran their empire. Looks like the USA

will be running its empire using the slow decision making process known as democracy (which encourages mixing of differences) while in the USA the new method of government is Tribalism.

The British created indirect tribal rule by making up tribes where the differences were not there or not strong. They also made up the leaders of each small tribe they needed to rule from above. That is the way the USA is going. If we think that going after Lieberman is not going to shatter the Democratic Party (that once accepted differences) we are naive indeed. The smaller pieces the democracy can be cut into... the easier it is to rule from above.

The GOP have wedged Christians, gays, elites from their souls, repukes from paleocons, and on and on. It is so predictable that slicing the Democratic Party up into smaller groups that hate each other is the next step. I see people not empathizing with Israeli hawks (Okay - they may have another agenda at this time in history but we will have more in common soon). So perhaps Jewish will be another tribe.

That way the elites in the USA can rule - while keeping us all busy going after each other. And the only ownership Americans will have will be over little powerless things.

That is what tribalism being promoted within the US has to do with Lieberman. It is about indirect rule for Americans. So Hawks, elites, and corporations in the USA will not have their agendas held back by the slow cycles of democracy.

The result is an American Empire where the decision making speed of the USA is 10 times as fast as the decision-making speed of all the true democracies in the world. And tribalism will not be allowed in all the other democracies (Islamist fundamentalism, labour unions, the UN or transnational tribalism which could result in bigger more powerful democracies ... which could compete have power over transnational corporations).

And the democracy of the USA no longer represents the needs of the people. The needs of the people will have to be met by churches like they were in the 19th Century. Universal Health care will never happen in the USA - even though it is the most efficient and effective way of delivering health care for all. The vote & stake does not belong to the American Middle Class. The true vote is permanently in the hands of elites who will use the might of American Wealth to benefit their narrow needs.

All so that America does not have to deal with its lack of power in the coming century. An exercise in vanity as it destroys multinational tools and powers. Undoing the multilateral non-proliferation treaties is right up there.

I do not see what is so hard to understand: if we Democrats attack people who formerly belonged in our big tent... if we can no longer tolerate difference... then the neocon masters have taught us well. Time to hate anyone different that you. Time to give up your democracy so that elites have a place to start wars from. Don't let ourselves be wedged into become tribal and weaker and easily ruled.

[BlueInRed]

62. I don't see how what you say relates at all to my comments

It's not that I don't understand what you say; it has nothing to do with my comment that officials who don't perform up to par should be subject to reevaluation in elections, including primaries.

And I don't agree at all with your basic premise.

As for me breaking a law, I know perfectly well that expressing my opinion that an official is not performing up to par, and is in fact damaging the party, is not illegal. It's odd you'd bring it up.

[applegrove]

64. I guess we disagree on what hurts the Dems. I say we do not 'react' by

tearing down our Big Pluralistic Tent. Since a win in a democratic election is called a plurality ... I find it frightening when we ourselves attack what has always made Democrats win elections.

[PassingFair]

32. Right you are!

And the best strategy would be to run a real progressive against his faith-based, war loving a**!

[MoonRiver]

34. Agreed, as long as he's replaced by a REAL Democrat.

I really, really want this DINO to go. And I believe that CT is smart enough to a good Dem alternative in his place.

[caligirl]

35. I so agree wiuth this. Get Looserman out of office ,

[Hippo_Tron]

45. I'd prefer outsting Santorum than Lieberman

But hey, you find me an unlimited source of money and we can do both.

:eyes:

[Memekiller]

48. The Democrats only power is unity...

Lieberman undermines it for the entire party. The entire party is weaker every time he undermines us by giving Bush bipartisan cover by pimping his talking points. His votes don't matter if he's out there giving credibility to Bush's dishonest lines of attack. It's because he's a Democrat that he does so much damage to us. If he were a Republican, he'd just be one more hack towing the party line.

[Lone Pawn]

49. Do you want the Republicans to have a filibuster-proof majority?

[Q]

61. We've been hearing this same BS since Clinton...

...and it's the same kind of march in lockstep fearmongering rhetoric the RWingers used to convince GOPers to vote against their own interests.

Since Clinton and the DLC took control of the party...we've been told that we were going to lose everything if we didn't move to the right and compromise our values. Every election cycle it's the same thing: move to the right or else we lose the majority...lose the house...lose the senate...lose the White House. Well...the party moved to the right and theyr'e STILL LOSING.

And now we're told that we have to vote for GOP-lite, warmongering, corporate whores or we'll have a Republican fillibuster proof majority'.

Here's a clue: the 'new' Democrats will vote with the other side on certain issues no matter who has the majority.

For how long should we vote against our own interests before we finally realize that we're hurting the party and the country?

[ProgressiveConn]

69. The last Republican Senator from Connecticut not counting the one that Joe

ran to the right of to get elected was elected in 1963 (which happened to be Dubya's grandfather the Nazi collaborator).

If Lieberman is ousted in a primary there is not going to be a Republican Senator. Richard Blumenthal should challenge Joe for what Joe pulled in 2000 running for both VP and Senate...

Blumenthal wants the seat. He has always wanted that seat. He just needs to take it.

[JerseygirlCT]

72. I have to say, I'm not much of a Blumenthal fan, either

sigh.

There's got to be a better choice out there!

[ProgressiveConn]

73. He is better than Joe.

And no Republican in the state could beat him. =)

[bling bling]

66. Yeah. Lieberman is worse than all other Dems.

My new motto: ABJ. Anyone but Joe. He cost us ANWAR. Oh wait, that was three OTHER democrats in our party that we NEVER see threads started about to "oust" them from our party. But ho-hum, environment enschironment.

Besides, I'm not one to let petty details like voting records get in the way of my witch-hunt.

Suck it Joe. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. What fun. Well I'm off now, I think I'll go start another ABJ thread. They're always so popular and lively...not to mention totally productive.

[ProgressiveConn]

70. You don't see other solid blue state Senator's voting like he does.

I like some of what Joe does. Environmental and Labor issues are fine.

But I refuse to not do anything about his warmongering.

Democrats should have higher approval ratings from Democrats in their states than from Republicans.

I'd rather have him in office as a Republican than a Democrat because at least then we would have a shot at ousting his warmongering ass.