What is Lieberman's angle?

[salin]

What does he hope to gain from his outspoken allegiance to bush on this issue? I understood, but greatly objected, to his Rose Garden appearance with bush before the IWR vote. If you recall in the week prior to the vote there was frantic action in the senate with a number of senators from both parties working to develop amendments that would attach some strings to the resolution (notable republican participation was: Hagel, Lugar, and Spector). Then on the eve of the vote - Bushco pulls a PR coupe.... get three leading dems (all with presidential aspirations) to stand aside him in a RoseGarden speech (replete with rhetoric - that is now known lies), on the dire need for action now. Within hours of the speech all of the negotiations on amendments on the IWR collapsed.

At the time it was clear that in a post 911 world - some dems feared that if they were not on the "winning" side, and in the worse case scenario if there were another attack ala 911 - their careers would be over. That explains, for some, the vote. But it doesn't explain taking action to collapse legaslative negotiations to temper the blank check about to be given to bush... in the name of putting the force of threat behind "forcing Saddam to let in inspectors and disarm". THe vote wasnt for a war - remember that point - it was to force disarming via inspectors (or so we were told at the time.) Lieberman - could stake out his terroritory as leading dem hawk for the next presidential campaign season... that, from a political strategy standpoint, was clear. Rather than vote against any amendments - he took a more visible role.

So now what? He clearly isn't going to get any democratic nomination for president. He went into the last primary season with the most recognition and, initially, the most $ - but his Joementum wouldn't take him far.

He is up for reelection in Conn. Reports suggest that he is still very popular in Connecticut. However, unless Connecticut is strongly pro-bush and pro-endless war (which I doubt), wouldn't this work to make him a tad bit more shakey in his reelection bid? So what is his angle, political-careerwise speaking?

Lieberman bashing aside, I really don't get what he is angling for. Any (serious) ideas?

[ananda]

1. Secy of Defense

nt

[salin]

3. but, why?

I don't recall, prior to this action, that he was a leading figure in defense issues. What does he hope to gain from this?

[havocmom]

8. We've been wrong to call him a DINO or a Republican in hiding

He seems to be more a Likud kinda guy. Much as I have always supported Isreal, I have no fondness for Sharon and his ilk. Especially resent what looks like RW hawks in Likud having so much sway over US policy.

Go ahead, flame me. I gotta go out today, so I can't resond anytime soon.

[salin]

11. below someone asks if he has just put on rose-colored

glasses (my term) and accepted the Neocon utopian vision. I really do not, in my heart, believe that he is pro Israel/Likkud over the interests of the US. I do believe that he could naively believe that stability in the ME is in the best interest of the US AND (unbelievably - in face of current evidence that suggests otherwise) that the Iraq policy is really the path to such stability. Same poster wonders allowed, if there might also be a bit of war profiteering in the portfolio... perhaps...

[havocmom]

16. Nah, I am old and sad enough to know with some, you do expect the worst

Hoping others are more like ourselves just isn't realistic. How many others helped get US into Iraq? Not all did it for $$ I fear.

[LaurenG]

2. I think he believes he is doing the right thing

I also think he is attempting to keep Israel safe by keeping anti Israel "forces" busy. He only see's the small picture, those that involve him and his wants and needs. He is not serving the public, only himself and those who believes as he does.

As an aside I really feel betrayed by him so it was difficult NOT to bash him.

[salin]

5. He does seem to believe he is doing the right thing...

he has that tone, about him. However, I don't think he really believes in the use of American troops as "fly paper" (if you will) to protect Israel from anti Israel forces (presuming you are refering to militants in Iran and Syria). As much as I dislike and don't trust Joe - that just doesn't ring "true" to me... and I have become quite cynical over the years. I get the sense that there is something else driving him - and that it has to do with a mix of self-righteousness and of personal ambition. I just can't figure out what the ambition is, and what he is seeking to gain. I also don't quite get the valence of his self-righteous belief in the "nobility" of intentions of the WH with regards to this war (and trying to silence criticism and oversight thereof)... Unless he has really bought into that criticism hurts the troops abroad meme.

[DrRang]

17. Policy? But emotionally he's a weenie who wants to look macho. n/t

[leftchick]

4. war profiteer?

I would love to see his stock portfolio. Or perhaps he has just totally bought into the neocon/PNAC fantasy and truly believes the Utopia in the ME shit.

[salin]

6. Perhaps either, or both....

but I don't buy into the belief that he is putting the interests of the security of Israel over that of the US, as some seem to believe. More likely that he really believes the security of the US is tied to stability in the US. THough the disconnect between that ideology - and the reality on the ground remains to be astounding to me.

[kentuck]

7. My read on Senator Lieberman:

He has figured out a way to guarantee himself victory in general elections. Notice that I say general elections and not primaries. But, he has cultivated a voting bloc that includes a large number of Repubs as well as most Democrats in his state. In general elections, it makes him almost impossible to beat. If he is to be defeated, it would have to be in a primary. But, right now, I think he is playing to his Republican base in next year's election, because he assumes he has the Democratic vote sewn up.

[salin]

9. Very interesting theory...

given that he is "popular" ... and there is no democratic opposition... the only thing that could (in this theory) topple him would be a hard-right candidate appealing to the knee-jerk appeals of the Rovian rightwing. If he peals enough of the repub coalition off, now - that becomes less likely of a scenario.

Put into the context of 'not feeling much love' from the dems (and no, I don't think that he is likely to defect - he is no Zell, and still votes dem on a number of traditional dem issues) - running straight as a dem for the general doesn't make sense... running to peel off potential opposition voters, does.

As much as I still admire Weicker (I thought he was great in the Senate, in my DC days, and his race against Lieberman is the only time I have ever supported the repub in a race, as Weicker was more liberal than Lieberman), his stint as Gov (he had gone Independent by then) - where he implemented a tax (a state income tax, if I recall) - wasn't viewed as wise (e.g., state shouldn't run deficits - if we are going to provide services, then we ought to pay for them) but as BAD (ala ALL taxes are BAD). I believe he is still fairly unpopular based on that point alone. Yet he is touted as the best (on the left or center left) competition to Lieberman. Thus on this point, as well, your theory makes sense to me.

[greyl]

10. Obtuse.

It may be in error to believe that he has intelligent reasons.

[salin]

12. lol, so in otherwords, perhaps tyring to figure out the angle

is futile ;-)

[greyl]

14. Yes. Even though kentuck's theory reads well,

the fact that it adds up to selfishness means Joe ain't really thinking straight. ;)

[terrya]

13. I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see him switiching parties.

Like it was mentioned here, he's never going to get the Democratic nomination for President. I'm not sure if he's comfortable being a Democrat anymore. Maybe he thinks his true allegiances are to the Republicans.

[salin]

15. Can't quite buy that...

he is blinded on this issue, but still finds some dem company for his pro-corp leanings. On other issues, he is far more dem than republican. Heck, I would venture to say that until this current season, he is to the left of my dem senator with pres aspirations (Bayh). I see no party-jump in the near future.

[MrBenchley]

18. Assuming you want a serious answer....

Connecticut voters have historically always responded strongly to bipartisanship--you might recall that the "Connecticut compromise" allowed North and South to unite and actually form the US.

"He is up for reelection in Conn. Reports suggest that he is still very popular in Connecticut."
Yeah, he is. The voters there see his record on issues like reproductive rights, the environment, racial equality, stem cell research, health care, gun control, etc., etc., as being of equal importance to the war in Iraq. Connecticut is sometimes called the "arsenal of democracy" because many defense industries are headquartered there and have historically been based there.

The Democrats in Connecticut are in the middle of reforming the state legislature and are trying to unseat a popular Republican governor--they have no interest in ripping up their entire ticket and unseating a candidate who is wildly popular just to please out of state leftists or the Connecticut Green party. Even before Joe's muddle-headed "war cabinet" proposal, he was such a shoo-in for re-election in 2006 that the Republican party wasn't going to try to mount much of an effort to unseat him. (Can anybody name his Republican challenger without google? I can't...and I've actually looked him up a couple of times in the last month.) In 2000, the GOP trotted out Philip Giordano to run against Joe, and Giordano was convicted of felony child molestation a couple months after the election.

Simply from a practical point of view, you firebreathers ought to consider this--if things go well for the Democrats as I'm sure we all hope they do, and we regain control of the Senate, the margin will only be one or two seats. Why anybody sane would want to piss one seat away is beyond me....and after we take control, we will still need people who can reach across the aisle to make bipartisan compromises with moderate Republicans like Snowe if we want to get anything real accomplished.

[salin]

19. Thank you per the post, save the insult

of "you firebreathers" - that is.

Given the safeness of his seat, and regardless that I am not a fan, I have been trying to get an angle on where he is coming from - esp given that his is a safe seat, and given that the war is increasingly unpopular - so on the surface it doesn't seem to be necessary per the election.

You give good context per the other statewide race, and the location of defense related industries. It isn't just his support for the war, but the rather strong rhetoric per dissent that made me scratch my head. I really don't buy this is just a "he wants to be sec of defense" thing... I can not see him serving in the bush admin - given his opposition to them on so many issues, just as I find the idea that he would jump parties laughable (for the very issues that you cite above per appealing to the general electorate in Connecticut.) {For the record: I also think that as much as I respected Weicker in the senate when I worked on the Hill, that his chances of running against Lieberman and winning are nil - due to his taxation policies (regardless of the wisdom behind them) when he was governor. Unlike you, I do think were Weickekr to be in the senate that he would caucus with the dems, ala Jeffords, so there wouldn't be a net loss. However, that is a moot point, as he wouldn't win. }

We are in agreement in desiring taking control of the senate, and were that too happen that the margin would be exceptionally small. However unless the republican attack/money/power machine were seen as broken, I don't know that reaches across the aisle would do much... for example the Sens from Maine objected loudly to the cutting of heating support to lower income families - but in the end voted along with the leadership - as has increasingly been the case. Then again, perhaps being in a minority (even if just a slight minority) might embolden a few of these moderates to vote in opposition to the bullying of their party's leadership :shrug: (We can always hope.)

[MrBenchley]

23. Geeze, I thought "firebreathers" was complimentary

given the tone of the rest of the thread.....

"I really don't buy this is just a "he wants to be sec of defense" thing...
Actually, I thought that was Chris Matthews in a nutshell...he has a"bombshell revelation" that he pulls out of his ass...he discusses it with other pundits on his show....they discuss it elsewhere....and then a week or two later he has another "bombshell revelation": "contrary to popular opinion" the thing he pulled out of his ass isn't going to happen! Tweety pulled that shit all the time during Monicamania...

"I don't know that reaches across the aisle would do much... for example the Sens from Maine objected loudly to the cutting of heating support to lower income families - but in the end voted along with the leadership"
Because the outcome they wanted was impossible to get--we and they didn't have the votes to overturn the lunatic hardliners. If the Senate shifts power, that will not be the case.

It disturbs me to see the "no compromise" crowd not offer an alternative. I can't see, for example, how we "get out" of Iraq WITHOUT bipartisan compromise until we get both a Democratic President AND a Democratic Congress...which means the earliest date for action is January 2009.

[salin]

24. Sadly

with BUsh at the helm, I can not see any effort, bipartisan or not, changing the current policy. He seems to buy into this as a larger - almost religious - mission and seems to have an inability to admit any mistake (which current framing by the GOP leaves any form of withdrawl as a "cut and run and admit it was a mistake")

Please, one can be liberal - and can dissent from some dem senators - without being completely knee jerk; or bouncing from one extreme to another (per believing a statement from Matthews - who I never watch btw as it is all fluff in one direction or another.) I understand your frustration with the "label everyone DINO" crowd. And while I am a Lieberman critic - and a Bayh critic (and was outraged at the whole Rosegarden speech; and btw, I voted for Bayh this fall... still a dem and a realist), I try to give credit where credit is due - and try to keep an eye on policy as well as figuring out where some folks are going when it makes no sense to me on the surface - hence this thread... on the surface (all of the knee jerk responses on other threads aside) it made no sense to me.

For those of us who differ on the left/center axis - who can also hold intelligent discussions of policies, possible political realities and outcomes - shame on us if we never have those discussions - as in my mind there are valid points across the divide and through such discussions greater insight (and possible strategic positions that can get passed along) can occur.

Thanks for engaging in this discussion, despite your lack of trust of my motivation (which I understand from where it comes, and don't mind... as long as at least you and I can abstain from the name calling...)

[MrBenchley]

25. But again, what IS the alternative plan?

While agreeing that is IS a national tragedy of epidemic proportions that the worst president in history (as a panel of conservative historians somewhere recently decided) is at the helm, the even more tragic fact is that he IS at the helm....and without a bipartisan effort of epic proportions, he can't be dislodged until January 2009.

I'd love to muscle the son of a bitch out of the White House, as he deserves to be in jail; but I don't see anyhting but wishful thinking as the plan to do so before the 2008 elections, when he leaves anyway. I think we've got a shot at taking back control of the Senate, but we'll need a few lucky breaks to do so. Sad to say, unless things break 100% perfectly for the Party (and how often does THAT occur in real life) I don't see us grabbing the House away from the GOP this cycle, although we can cut the margin to the point where we can build a successful bloc with moderate Republicans.

By the way, the reason I became a Lieberman defender is not so much because I support him or everything he says (although he is solidly liberal on most issues) or even particularly care for him. It's because I don't see any reason to piss away a Democratic seat that is all but certain. It's also because I find the many of the attacks on him here are childish, dishonest and disgraceful and I've always think it's important to go against mob rule.

[salin]

30. like you, I don't see bush slinking into the sunset until 08.

I also can't see an end to this war because of it.

I actually think a house shake up, while much more rare, *might* be more of a possibility than in the senate. That is ONLY due to the very dynamic and tumultous climate - one ironically (or not) completely created by the GOP - that includes outrageous corruption; arrogance pushing a religious agenda that is NOT shared by the country (I doubt the Schaivo antics are the last that we will see) that alienates all but the hardest core repubs; and the growing distrust for the Bush WH - (did you read that the public now believes that bush lies about all sorts of policies - not just iraq - in order to get his way politically? that is a HUGE shift in public sentiment. When things are volatile (which is not often) I think the house races are more prone to shifts than are senate seats (still unbelievable that a sitting speaker of the house was defeated in a house race - but 1994 was highly volatile).

I am not sure that we will takeover either house of congress - I am sad to admit. There is an article by Kutner from a year ago about the tactics of the right that have made the incumbency rule even stronger than it has traditionally been; however that was written before the current era of extreme political volatility.

What I now want to see... is the implosion of the GOP. I no longer just want a bush out... I want him to take down the party, so that they can not just quickly rebuild and replace one set of arrogant bullies with no allegiance to this country and its long-term health/sustainability for another group. Call me vindictive - but I want that party demolished in the public opinion. I want the reality of the sick use of people of faith for political power for issues that have NOTHING to do with faith to strike those voters (the reality, that is) between the eyes. I want the reality of the devastation to the economy wrought by wreckless fiscal policies and an aversion to any public regulation to hit the bankers and financiers - so that they realize that when the economy is in peril due to massive loads of debt from the federal to the municipal to the corporate down to the individual - risks their own interests solvency... and to recognize which policies (and party) let greed guide all - for short term gain with no eye towards long-term investment and solvency. I could go on and on.

This is why there are two important - and divergent - trends I want to see in the midterm elections: seats taken over from repubs (and if these need to go to moderate centrists... so be it - I am throwing money to my former moderate - and very respectable - congressman Baron Hill... putting my money where my mouth is so to speak); and two - some very emboldened outspoken critics of the GOP - who are able to garner media attention- and push the critiques into the public psyche. If Hackett has a chance to win in Ohio (I don't know the dynamics there per his chances - but if he has one...) than he should be supporteds - his is a loud and critical voice that due to the highly publicized race earlier this year - amplified by the ridiculous antics of she who beat him - he could get media coverage from a senate position from which to voice critique of GOP policy. We need both - centrists to get control of seats where they can... and some media savvy firebrands to force the dialogue in this country to continue to change as has happened in the past 11 months.

Follow that with two more years of disasterous policy pushed by this avericious white house... and supported blindly by the congressional GOP (including the armtwisted and bullied moderates who have increasingly supported rove/delayco)... and I think the 08 elections will have the potential to be truley historic in the proportion of changes both in Congress and in the presidential race.

I understand your reaction to the anti-Lieberman sentiment. I have long been a Lieberman critic - I make no bones about it. However I have always tried to shy away from knee jerk criticism (for example, I think my criticism of his and Bayh's appearance at the "Rose Garden" speech before the IWR - is legitimate - but I do not impute the intent of his action or predict further actions based upon falaciously derived intent) - and on policy issues and votes I try to always give Lieberman his due. I have to admit, however, that I do publically return to my one statement that his first senate race is the only time I ever supported the republican (at that time we had regained a safe senate majority, and I respected Weicker and found Lieberman more conservative) ... you can hang me with that one ;-) Going against mob rule is very legitimate... as long as one works not to repeat the same offense of over generalizations (such as "fire breather ;-) )

Btw, I have enjoyed this conversation.

[MrBenchley]

32. I sure would like to see a House shake up....

and among the "lucky breaks " I refer to is Jack Abamoff rolling over, getting whacked, or the like (don't know if you've been following the SunCruz stuff in Florida, but Abramoff partner just accepted a guilty plea in the fraud case and is up to his neck in the murder case connected to it. If Tom Delay gets tied to a gangland hit, it'll be katie, bar the door, even in the safest Republican enclaves.)

"This is why there are two important - and divergent - trends I want to see in the midterm elections: seats taken over from repubs (and if these need to go to moderate centrists... so be it - I am throwing money to my former moderate - and very respectable - congressman Baron Hill... putting my money where my mouth is so to speak); and two - some very emboldened outspoken critics of the GOP - who are able to garner media attention- and push the critiques into the public psyche."
Those are good and I hope we get them. Another encouraging sign is that we have a bunch of people coming back from fighting in Iraq and declaring themselves Democratic candidates. If Tammy Duckworth comes in, which she is expected to do, I think the number is NINE, all in tight races in bellwether states like Virginia, PA, and Illinois.

"Follow that with two more years of disasterous policy pushed by this avericious white house... and supported blindly by the congressional GOP"
Even better....disastrous policy pushed by the White House but ignored by all but the far right wing in Congress due to a moderate/left control bloc that implements beneficial policy...and in 2008, the GOP splits right down the middle between the hardcore crazies on one side, and the people who have turned their back on the center to pander to the hardcore crazies and now have to scramble back on the other.

[salin]

33. to your last paragraph

I would happily take that scenario - as it would still have the end effect of imploding the GOP... but would have the benefit of putting the brakes on some of the disasterous ideas of this crazed administration.

I find the Abromoff story very powerful... especially as it is beginning to overlap on the seams with the DeLay woes... which also seems to overlap a bit with the Duke bribery story.

Also of note is the story, a little quiet right now, in Ohio of the PayToPlay slush fund politics of Mr. Noe, the governor, the GOP (local, statewide and national). The story is bad in Ohio - but imo it opens for sunlight the whole process of graft and kickbacks (to political coffers) that govt contracts have come to be used in the modern GOP era.

A very interesting, yet speculative, line of inquiry is beginning to be pushed growing out of the Duke story... per whether or not some of the govt contracts (from which kickbacks, at least to Duke, were made) might actually be to nonexistent, or shell companies. WHile it is very speculative at the time, some real thought is being given to this line of inquiry (and how it might be something to pursue towards other contract(or)s) is being picked up by some reputable blogs of journalist's including the very knowledgable Laura Rosen of Warandpiece.com

Then the reminder of Enron - aren't those trials expected to come up in the New Year? IF there is decent media digging with the renewal of interest on that front - once again the way the federal government abetted the ambitions of Enron will become part of the public dialogue... but as opposed to the first time - there is much greater public skepticism of all things related to bush - so it would be harder to dismiss as just "anti bush" talk.

I am sure I am missing some things... such as the inevitable disclosure of more cases where the operatives among the religious right were active in getting money and "support" from CC and FOF and the "True Values Coalition" for their personal monetary gain (eg BIG consulting Dollars for delivering letters of support for x or y policy from members of churches for things having NOTHING to do with Christianity) THese are all part of the mix that is creating what should be a very volatile election season - the likes I have never seen in my twenty some years of observation/participation.

[MrBenchley]

34. That's why the "culture of corruption" is such an important meme

And yeah, if all of those broke at once it would probably trigger an epochal seachange...but I don't think there's much to do on those lines except write letters to the editors and cross our fingers while the courts work.

The whole Suncruz mess, as some blogger said the other day, sounds like an Elmore Leonard novel. Coingate and the Dukester are also going to be potent (I have a Republican friend who told ME the other day out of the blue that Cunningham should get the death penalty and that what he did was treason!) There's also the whole Indian casino thing (with racist e-mails). And I don't think we've heard the last of Abu Ghraib and the torture issue.

The whole "it's just Bush hating" meme only worked while the illusion that Bush was liked was working; now that it's falling apart, so is the meme. (And by the way, let's just note that the lose/lose scenario Chimpy's cooked up for himself is illustrative of the way he has mis-governed us all...when he was riding his post-9/11 popularity he chose to appear only to cherry-picked audiences of supporters instead of ordinary Americans...so now when things have gone badly, he appears before only cherry-picked audiences of supporters it gets pointed out, and the question becomes, why can't he go near ordinary Americans. But if he goes near ordinary Americans they're liable to be less than enthusiastic and ask questions that he doesn't want raised, so he can only appear before cherry-picked audiences of supporters and thus cannot gain support by appealing to ordinary Americans directly.)

That's why I'm very disappointed to see threads attacking other Democrats at this time. (And don't tell anyone else (snicker), but I suspect some of this uproar is deliberate ratfucking by the Green party. )

[salin]

35. perhaps

but I think it is also exercising from long-term frustration at being ridiculed over being against the war (such as some DLC spokes folks suggesting that this was damaging to the party) - and an even greater (and shared with you and others across the dem divide) frustration with the whole bushco and GOP congress. Whenever anything has a smidgeon of pulling off that scab (and Sen Liberman's comments have done that) the whole thing erupts again. More likely that some GOP operatives, knowing this dynamic, make sure that there is more msm coverage over public statements from any dem that can play into this dynamic or the other dynamic (eg the Dean vs the Dlc type dynamic). From either direction it is futile expenditure of energy. Granted - from time to time I do give in to my frustration and post a snarky one liner (again... guilty as charged... I just try not to kick stuff up.)

You are absolutely correct about the change in the bush hater meme - and the backfiring of the 'staged' events. The context has shifted drastically and the admin is either unable to recognize it (and thus just does the same thing again and again) or is unable to change the approach because Bush is just that bad in public.

I am going to have to sign off... but I would really like your opinion on an old John Dean article. It is the Findlaw.com site that carries his biweekly column - when clicking his name it allows you to see the titles of previously written articles. THis one was from the summer of 02 - and something in the title was about presidential scandals. He had a really interesting premise that fits with what you have just written. I won't give away the premise - but let me know if/when you have read it... and any speculation that you might have along those lines. I had one line of thought at the time... but would have to probably readjust it for current political climate shifts.

Cheers.

[salin]

36. link to old article

by John Dean:

PREDICTING PRESIDENTIAL SCANDALS:
Looking At Bush's New Vulnerability
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
Friday, Jul. 19, 2002

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/dean/20020719.html

[MrBenchley]

40. Thanks! Those who haven't read it, should (n/t)

[MrBenchley]

38. I don't recall much "ridicule"

There was honest disagreement, but there's always going to be that.

"Granted - from time to time I do give in to my frustration and post a snarky one liner"
You and me both.

Another thing that contributes to the "bush hater collapse" is that while he had his post 9/11 popularity, he avoided speaking to the American public--he appeared moslty behind closed doors to Republicans only, while pundits hailed him as the next Churchill and extravagantly praised his eloquence and homespun "charm."

Now the only way to salvage his popularity is to wheel him out in front of the cameras for all to see though, where no amount of cheering by pundits can keep America from seeing a meanspirited and twitchy frat boy who stumbles through a speech on a teleprompter that he doesn't seem to understand. And each time he pops up, his popularity goes down a little more....

I've often thought the ultimate metaphor for this mis-administration is the old XFL; you'd have an announcer screaming and hollering about what a great play these maginificent athletes were going to execute next, then you'd see a bunch of talentless bozos scuffle while a wobbly pass fell incomplete into the mud, and then you'd endure a lot more screaming about what a crisp, well-designed play by dedicated warriors you'd just seen.

I remember that Dean piece and it WAS excellent.

[Crunchy Frog]

20. He is basically a neocon.

His beliefs in terms of foreign policy line up very well with overall neocon beliefs, and I have even heard him being referred to as such by other well known neocons. I won't go into any speculations as to why that might be, but it is very clear that he's sympathetic overall with their goals.

I seem to recall him very clearly being for the IWR, not simply for leverage to get the inspectors in, but because he was always very much in favor of invading Iraq. He has always defended that invasion as the right thing to do, and has never backtracked on that position as far as I'm aware.

I'm not sure what he's angling for. This may well simply be an expression of his fundamental beliefs (speculation as to why he holds those beliefs left up to others).

I don't live in Connecticut, but I don't think I could bring myself to vote for him if I did. Ideally, I would love to see Lowell Weiker take back that Senate seat, because I believe that even as an independent, he would stand more strongly with the Democrats than Lieberman does. I would not have voted for him if he had gotten the Dem nomination, since I think in some ways he would have been even worse that Bush. An intelligent, articulate, competent neocon could be potentially far more disastrous than the incompetent monkey that we have in there now, especially if it's the neocon ideology rather than the general incompetence that you see as the real problem.

[salin]

21. I have to disagree

had he gotten the nomination, I would have voted for him. We would have different cabinet members, and while we would have an admin sympathetic to corp needs, we wouldn't have one giving away the store. We certainly wouldn't have the voting rights act violations sanctioned by the DOJ because the political appointees wanted it that way, and thus the professionals were ignored; I could go on and on. As much as I do not understand his motivations, and am opposed to some of his views/votes - in no way can I equate him to being as bad as this administration - let alone possibly worse than it.

[Crunchy Frog]

22. I don't disagree with anyone who would have voted for him,

I'm just stating how I personally would have voted. I can definitely understand and respect how others could reach different conclusions than my own. I'm not saying that my position is "right", only that my own concerns about the neocon and PNAC agenda, and my own beliefs about where Lieberman stands in relation to that agenda would have made it impossible for me personally to vote for him. In my opinion, he might have done more to actually advance the neocon agenda, by making it "mainstream" and "bipartisan", than Bush has been able to do, especially since he's handled it so incompetently. Again, only my opinion, and I'm not saying I'm right.

[THUNDER HANDS]

26. attention

his views get his face on tv. That's all he wants now. Love from anyone who'll give it to him, Republican, Democrat or media.

[Totally Committed]

27. He's out to punish the Democratic Party for not backing him

as the POTUS-nom last time out. My guess is he thought he had it in the bag, and feels he got shafted. He's delusional if that's what he thinks, but that's my guess.

TC

[SaveElmer]

28. I think he is sincere...

And that is his problem...he truly believes if he acts in a bipartisan way, that the other side will reciprocate. The fact is the other side will backstab him the first chance it gets.

Lieberman sincerely believes that politics should stop at the waters edge as he says...yet what he does not seem to realize is that politics stops nowhere for the other side.

I am not one of those who thinks an immediate pullout is a good idea, but Lieberman's unwillingness to admit any wrongdoing or incompetence by Bush is just incomprehensible to me. And to say it should not even be talked about is just head in the sand politics.

[salin]

31. I am coming to the view that what you say here

and what MrBenchly describes above (sans the firebreather comment, lol) is probably on the mark. I think there is sincerity there, even if I find it divisive in the tone of "silencing".

[groton]

39. He is Liberman

Im from CT and What I hate more from Joe then his Iraq bleive's is his Stance on Games and Movie'
s TV's
i know that sounds like a small Petty Issule
but im a Big Leave it up to the parents on what Kids should watch,Listan to and play.

and Leberman and Tipper gore and company realy Ekes me.

and the fact that some Democrats buy it up aka my Mother who im starting to turn off liberman :)

realy gets me upset.

iv only voted for him for VP since in 2000 i lived in California.

[donsu]

29. he likes being perverse

nt

[ElsewheresDaughter]

37. his only angle: Israel...remember where he was when he announced his bid

for a run in the presidential race....you guessed it... sitting right next to sharon.