Would continuing to Support Lieberman now make one a bad Democrat?

[bryant69]

Poll question: Would continuing to Support Lieberman now make one a bad Democrat?

Just out of curiousity.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Freddie Stubbs]

1. Yes

Democrats, especially elected officials, should support fellow Democrats.

Will the same standard be applied in the Vermont Senate race?

[mcscajun]

8. Jeffords is retiring. What's your point about Vermont? n/t

?

[Freddie Stubbs]

23. Will the Democratic party support the Democratic nominee, or

will it support the independent, Bernie Sanders?

[Solon]

There is no Democrat running...

false comparison.

[Freddie Stubbs]

63. Not true

Party shuns Vermont Democrats in race
Seeks to clear way for independent in US Senate bid
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | July 13, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Vermont's Democratic Party is maneuvering to keep the Democratic candidates for the state's open US Senate seat off the November ballot, as party leaders seek to clear the way for independent Representative Bernard Sanders in his bid for the Senate.

State Democratic leaders are spearheading efforts to gather signatures to put Sanders on the ballot as a Democrat, even though Sanders has repeatedly said he would turn down the party's nomination if he wins the primary. At least three other candidates have announced their intention to run for the Democratic nomination in the Sept. 12 primary, but party leaders prefer Sanders to any of them.

more: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/07/13/party_shuns_vermont_democrats_in_race/

[wicket]

72. Further down the article

Moss, 77, lost the Republican Senate primary in 2004, and acknowledges that he is running as a Democrat this year because it's the easiest path to the November ballot. The other Democratic candidates include Larry Drown -- a plumber who has run for previous offices under the Republican and Reform Party banners -- and Craig Hill, who helped found the Vermont Green Party.

Sanders has done more for Democrats than these 3 combined.

[Solon]

75. So basically, they are all literally DINOs...

All members of other parties that only joined the Dems because of electability, one Repub, oneReform, and a Green, this is a laugh. Talk about indefensible.

[wicket]

81. You got that right!

They all switched to Dem because of the opportunity, not because they are lifelong Dems or anything!

[Solon]

83. I have much more respect for those who switch parties...

Out of principle, like Jim Jeffords than those who do it for opportunity like Lieberman or these three assholes.

[wicket]

84. Agreed!

Mr. Jeffords is still quite popular in VT (I'm from there originally). He saw the disaster that was coming and did everything he could to stop it, whereas Lieberman decided to become part of the disaster.

[Solon]

73. OK, that seems rather interesting...

OK, first things first, whatever happens, Sanders will win in a walk, this is a given, he has served in the House for years, and is practically giving that seat to the Dems in this next election, going so far as to discourage his own party from running a challenger. The biggest problem, which so many people talk about is this, electability. Bernie Sanders is a WINNER, and the Dems know that anyone they run in the General against Sanders will lose.

Now, it would be interesting if Sanders won the Dem primary in Vermont, even if he doesn't accept it, it does send an interesting message, that Democrats in Vermont prefer Sanders, period. The thing is this, the reason its a false comparison is that Sanders isn't trying to have it both ways, he's an independent Socialist, not a Democrat, and will run on the ticket as an Independent, period. The DNC has already endorsed him, and is trying to discourage Dems from being on the ticket, for that would split the vote. Sanders caucuses with Dems, always have, we can't be so sure of that with Lieberman.

[Imperialism Inc.]

39. What Democratic nominee?

There is none. If there was the answer is pretty obvious who the party would support.

For me personally, I would support Sanders, but I am not against Lieberman because of his no longer being affiliated with the Democratic party. I am against him because he is a schmuck.

[Freddie Stubbs]

64. Someone will be nominated in the primary on September 21

[mcscajun]

52. Bernie Sanders already has Democratic support

Howard Dean, Harry Reid, and Chuck Schumer are all backing Sanders. The only open question at the moment is who will emerge victorious from the Republican primary in September.

Bernie Sanders is an Independent who caucuses with the Democrats in the House and is counted as a Democrat for the purpose of committee assignments, the same as Jeffords (for the time being) in the Senate.

[Freddie Stubbs]

65. And if Lieberman were to promise to caucus with Democrats?

[Solon]

74. How are we to trust his word? n/t

[mcscajun]

76. That's neither here nor there. He's the one turning his back on the party.

No one should believe anything he might have to say about caucusing, if he ever says such a thing. The independents I mentioned remain Independents; comparing them to LIEberman is apples and oranges.

If you are a member of a party, your obligations are different than if you never were. If I were an Independent all my life, I owe no party allegiances, I can support and vote for whom I please, take whatever position I like, and nobody gets to say "boo" about it.

If I say I'm a Democrat but haven't gotten actively involved with the party at the local, state or national level, but I vote Democratic all the time, that makes me a Democrat of sorts, but I can change my mind and vote for a Republican and all I'll take for that is some flak from my Democratic friends and family, because all I am is a voter, nothing more. I take nothing from the party, and I owe nothing to it beyond my vote if I choose.

However, when I do get involved and publicly claim to be a member of the Democratic Party, take support from it, run under its banner, then my obligation is support other Democrats against all comers, whether Republican, Green, Independent, Socialist, whatever. The only time Democrats get to legitimately fight each other in the electoral area is during primary season, where nearly anything goes. Once that primary is over, our obligation is to close ranks behind the candidate, period.

Joe LIEberman has abandoned this process to further his own personal needs, nothing more. He made his choice long before the results were in, that he would not abide by the results of last night's primary, unless of course they went his way. That is not a party position; that's self-interest, not the actions of a party member. The few voices that are suggesting that Joe return to the fold after his self-serving MY Party run, should look again at that idea.

[skooooo]

2. Lieberman belived in the Dem. party...

....only as long as he could use it to win office.

[Bonhomme Richard]

3. It would be like supporting Benedict Arnold after..........

Major Andre was caught.

[LostinVA]

4. It would make one no longer a Democrat, imo

[MercutioATC]

11. Exactly. Joe's no longer a Democrat (assuming he continues his bid)

He's a member of the "Connecticut for Lieberman Party".

If he's going to run as a member of a different party (that he started), supporting him would disqualify one from being a "good Democrat".

[LostinVA]

27. Exactly my thoughts on the matter

He is calling himself an "Independent Democrat." There's no such thing. He's a loose cannon...

[Cha]

36. That should read..

"lieberman for lieberman party and no one better stand in my way".

[meegbear]

5. Yes ...

walking away from one's party is one thing. To lose and then walk away so you can still be in the election is just plain wrong. If you can't back the person who beat you, you deserve no support.

QED

[livvy]

22. Kind of reminds me of a "do-over" by a sore loser...

in a kid's playground game. Unfortunately this isn't a kid's game, and the stakes are too high. It has the potential to divide the Dems giving a victory to the Republican. Now what kind of good Dem would do that to their party?

[LostinVA]

31. Such as Cynthia McKinney's doing n/t

[Clark2008]

87. Cynthia's not running as an Independent.

She may have spouted off about the lousy Diebold voting machines they have in Georgia (and made several true statements about their flaws in the process), but I don't see that she's going to run as an "Independent Democrat" to split the party vote in November.

Provide a link to that if you've seen it.

[etherealtruth]

6. He lost the primary

He is not the Dem candidate.

"Good" Dem's vote for the Dem candidate.

[bigwillq]

7. We need to support the DEM nominee

I wouldn't go as far as saying a bad Democrat but they wouldn't be a loyal one.

[NewSpectrum]

9. Hell NO.........

It would show some spine.

[bryant69]

10. Explain, please

How would supporting Joe as an independnista show some spine?

[MercutioATC]

16. Joe's NOT running as an Indy...he formed his own political party.

"Connecticut for Lieberman"

He did it to get his name closer to the top of the ballot.


If he's willing to go so far as to form his own political party, I think it's safe to say that he's no longer a Democrat.

[bryant69]

20. OK

He's running as a species Connecticutus Liebermanious.

I don't know - it's harder to make jokes about that party. too many words.

Bryant

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LostinVA]

34. Hey, Joe -- how you doing this morning!

[bryant69]

37. Smear tactics being defined here as telling the truth about joes record

I assume?

Bryant

[NewSpectrum]

44. Smear tactics such as overblowing......

a few unfortunate episodes.

[bowens43]

48. Telling the truth is a smear tactic now?

[NewSpectrum]

53. Focusing on his record is not a smear tactic.......

the smear is overblowing his relationship with Bush by focusing on a few small episodes.

[im10ashus]

69. Shall we FOCUS on his record then?

Because it's very GOP friendly. Care to show us how we are focusing on "small episodes" as opposed to the whole picture?

[Donnachaidh]

41. smear tactics?

Oh yeah -- we're waiting on his *proof* that his site was hacked.

Oh yeah, it was really classy the way the Lieberthugs started disrupting Lamont groups.

No, no smearing there...

[bowens43]

46. Ultra left?

You're kidding right? Or do you support the continued slaughter of Innocent men , women and children like the ultra right?

You do realize don't you that 60% of americans oppose the war. So in your twisted logic, 60% of Americans are 'ultra left'.

Pathetic.

[NewSpectrum]

58. No I mean the ultra left that will rally behind groups like ANSWER

and make heroes out of men like Fidel Castro, while saying they are against the slaughter of innocent men, women, and children.


Do you need some links?

[Donnachaidh]

78. NeoCon bloviation from a LeiberThug

Hey hun -- don't have any rallies to disrupt? Tell me, just how many Pharma lobbyists did Joe have as *group leaders*?

[NewSpectrum]

90. Rallies to disrupt?

On the contrary, I do my best not to alienate the turnout.

I suppose you enjoy when the far far left comes out with insane hypocritical positions to discredit the anti-Bush movement.

[mcscajun]

56. Is it too early for popcorn?

I don't think so.

:popcorn:

[never_get_over_it]

57. Well he'll only be able to vote with the Dems until Jan 07

Because put a fork in him HE IS DONE - he will never get elected from the LIEberman for LIEberman party....

[H2O Man]

13. Ha!

Supporting Cheney might impress some people, but not democrats.

[jobycom]

15. So would a grisly car accident. nt

[bunkerbuster1]

17. Whatever. You're no longer voting "Democratic" if you support Joe.

Period. end of story.

Just as Zell Miller ceded any right to call himself a "Democrat" after he gave that Republican Convention Speech supporting the Chimp and slamming Kerry.

[NewSpectrum]

25. Except Joe won't slam Democrats.......

I'm pretty sure even as an Indy Senator he would continue to vote Democrat 85-90% of the time.

[Lerkfish]

26. He has made a cottage industry ALREADY of slamming democrats

wtf are you smoking?

[Donnachaidh]

32. Joe would continue to vote for Joe

he's no democrat. Hasn't been for years. That's why he LOST. He should get over himself and go home. He's lost all credibility with this crybaby stunt.

[charlie]

Turn on your TV, chuckles

Joe's at it right now.

[LostinVA]

38. He already is slamming Dems

And, there are some GOP Senators that vote more Dem than Joe.

As transparent as glass, you know....

[calico1]

47. Excuse me?

He already has slammed Democrats! Where the heck have you been?

[NewSpectrum]

77. "He already has slammed Democrats!"

Relax, he didn't really mean it, he was trying to score points with swing voters and broaden the base a bit...... he's only one Senator, if you don't like him there are plenty of other Democratic Senators who may share your views.

[Donnachaidh]

79. Joes' new battle Cry -- *Relax! I didn't really mean it!*

Taken directly from his minion's post.

You gotta love the doublespeak employed.

[NewSpectrum]

91. Since your are so pleased with Joe's defeat.

I suppose your new battle cry is to help unelect another good Democrat like Hillary Clinton.

[DemonFighterLives]

59. He will continue to follow the pRetzeldunce

and dive ever deeper into war.
He sucks!- get over it

[dogday]

67. bwa-hahahahahah

:rofl: that is one of the funniest statements I have heard on ole Joe....

[katsy]

18. Showing some "spine"...

would be respecting the will of the people and having the ability of rising above one's own PERSONAL feelings of friendship towards joe.

[LostinVA]

33. No, it would show you're turning your back on your party

And trying to split the vote.

Good try, though.

[NewSpectrum]

49. The repub that is the opposition now barely has 15% of the vote

so unless repubs find someone else it's not splitting the vote.

[Donnachaidh]

80. keep spinning LieberKid

tain't workin...

[Donnachaidh]

35. Joe seeks revenge

so he signs on as an Independant. It's nice to know that he's willing to screw Connecticut with this temper tantrum party of his. Way to go Joe!

[im10ashus]

12. It would make one a traitor to the party.

Joe has abandoned the democratic process and chooses to circumvent the choice of Democrat's in CT. For shame.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[im10ashus]

42. He LOST the primary.

There was no runoff so he is circumventing the process by becoming "independent" because he is a career politician who can't handle the truth.

BTW, welcome to DU!

:hi:

[DemonFighterLives]

51. Now that's fuzzy

I would be willing to bet that a fair majority of those that supported lieberman will now do the right thing and support the nominee. Of cours the righties will support Lieberman.

[mmonk]

14. It would make some hypocrites.

[kentuck]

19. Would still supporting Nader make one a "bad" Democrat?

Same difference.

[bryant69]

40. Interesting point

Perhaps a seperate poll might be "would supporting Lieberman make one a bad liberal. But it seems like the answer to that one would be even more one sided than this one.

Bryant

[adriennui]

21. he should bow out gracefully

it isn't very attractive seeing a grown man grovel.

[Lerkfish]

24. It would put a lie to the admonition from DLC DUers to "hold your nose"

and vote for a dem, any dem that won the primary.

[DemonFighterLives]

30. yes of course

He took this party for a ride and clearly double-crossed us.

He was once picked to be or vp nominee and now he has turned his back on the party.
He is another Normy Coleman. No self- respecting dem would ever vote for either of them.

Can you feel the knife in your back?
:freak:

[calico1]

43. A good Democrat supports the Democratic

Party's candidate. It's one thing to work to replace a bad Democrat with a better one by way of the primary. That's what we accomplished in CT. But once the winner has been declared by the majority of voters then good Democrats stand behind and support the winner, not the sore loser who doesn't accept the will of the voters and decides to run as an Indy and split the party. So yes, it would make a person a bad Democrat to support the loser who bolts the party, because they would no longer be supporting the Party.

[The2ndWheel]

45. This isn't Russia Danny

This isn't Russia, right?

If we're still individual human beings with individual thoughts, you can support whoever you want to support. If we're just Party members, then obviously going against The Party is cause for a visit to Room 101.

[bryant69]

55. Interesting response

But actually this is Russia, you poor American Fool. Ha ha ha ha! We conquered in the night and haven't gotten around to telling everybody yet. So your comment is meaningless!

Actually the real response is that I can't strip anybody of their right to be a Democrat, but one can certainly judge the worth of a Democrat. One Democrat constantly sells out his party, criticizing them in exactly hte same language as the Republicans, while another fights hard for Democratic values and supports Democratic causes. ONe can decide that one is a better Democrat than the other.

[The2ndWheel]

61. Love Caddyshack

I thought you were talking about the rabble that vote for the millionaires. Not that you can't make a judgement about one of our fellow peasants, but I guess I read your poll question wrong.

[bowens43]

50. Of course it would

ands it would also disqualify you from supporting your candidate here on DU. If you support JOe, keep it to yourself.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

54. Would voting for Bush's policies make one a "bad" Democrat?

An awful lot of Democratic politicians have, and do. Lieberman was only one of far too many.

I'm a Democrat, and though I'd rather put my fingers in a blender than vote for Holy Joe, I feel no cumpulsion to vote for Democrats who I disagree with on basic principles.

“I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to Heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.” - Thomas Jefferson

[PRETZEL]

60. I voted Not at All

Maybe I'm misinterpreting the question but as I understood it if you voted for Lieberman and he lost should you then support Lamont solely because he won. And I disagree with that. I've always believed in supporting candidates as opposed to parties. While I'm a Democrat and proud of it I don't believe blind loyalty is always best. When I vote for a particular candidate it's because that candidate is the one who I believe best represents me and what I believe in. If my candidate lost then so be it. But to turn my back on someone who best represented my views solely because he lost I think is wrong.

Lieberman running as a independant is his choice. If he turns his back on the Democratic Party and continues bad mouth it's at his own risk. From everything I've heard this morning tells me he's turned his back on the party. But that's his decision, not mine.

[DemonFighterLives]

62. Of course, blind loyalty is not good

Look at the freeper sheep.
In this case the choice is clear, Lieberman has betrayed his party and his country and no one should follow him like Jim Jones the koolaid peddler.

[cynatnite]

66. The bad democrat is Lieberman...

Those who vote for him are misguided, IMO.

[Liberal Veteran]

68. Joe running as an independent makes HIM a bad democrat.

He's basically saying, "I don't care what the voters of the party I ran under think!"

[Jacobin]

70. NO. It would make you a good republican

[Iniquitous Bunny]

71. Yes, it does.

Lieberman does not support the will of the voters at such a level that he is willing to leave his own party that he has been a member of for more than 30 years for his own personal gain. Connecticut Democrats have spoken. Joe, we expect you to listen.

[ProfessorGAC]

82. The Poll Is Biased, Bryant

It's a push poll in which you're trying to make a point using other people as the tools.

If Liebermann is not running as a democrat, how could one be a good democrat and support the person who isn't, unless the democratic candidate is a criminal, or known badguy is some other way?

So, you've biased the question against any open contradiction of the basic premise.
The Professor

[bryant69]

85. And once agian you saw through it.

Will none of my fiendish polls succeed in pulling the wool over your eyes?

I suppose it would depend if you believed in what we might call Democratic Ideals which existed independently of the party. some might believe that holding to those polls might be more important than holding to the party. For example, many democrats described Clinton's Welfare Reform as a betryal of Democratic Party Principals, even though those changes were initiated by a Democrat.

Bryant

[ProfessorGAC]

88. Cleverly Done

I tend not to be too locked into ideological purity. Must be too much of a pragmatist to believe in utopia. A fault to which i'll readily admit. Continuous improvement is one thing. Achieving perfection seems a fool's errand. So, i think we agree.
The Professor

[mmonk]

86. They will be a third party voter

just as dems that vote Green. Vote your conscience. My conscience says stay with the democrat as he is right on the issues facing America right now unlike those that have capitulated on bad policy and a bad Supreme court lately.

[Ganja Ninja]

89. If the situation were reversed and Lieberman had won ...

Ned Lamont would have not only conceded he would have given his support to Joe. Joe's vow to run as an independent shows he's not a real democrat.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

92. I would think it would make you a foolish one.

I don't think bad is the right word necessarily. Foolish feels more applicable, don't you think?