Briefly, About Mr. Lieberman,(R)

[CrackpotAmerica]

Let us all today and from this day forward refer to Mr. Lieberman in the context he has proved to be rightfully held.

REPUBLICAN.

If you are concerned about a split in our party, you can quell it by making the distinction for yourselves and moving on. I GUARANTEE that he WILL SWITCH TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AFTER 2006. He will be either set to run against someone like John McCain or to be part of his ticket.

Let's do it for him so that we can better define the TRUE VALUES OF OUR PARTY.

From now on, whenever I use his name in a thread, I shall write it as "Joe Lieberman, (R)."

I beg of all of you who agree with my opinion to do the same.

THX!

[joeybee12]

1. You're right--he is planning a switch...

...another reason to dump him in the primary.

[OKNancy]

2. Sorry, no

First Lieberman will not switch. He is a Democrat...a hawkish Democrat, but in every social vote that I care about, he's a Dem. He wouldn't fit in with the Rebubs on any issue except the war.

I can't stand him, but he is not a Repub, and he will win his Senate seat next year. I'll give DU $100.00 if he does change parties.

[Bob3]

13. He'll switch - only real explanation for his actions these days

he's been walking around behind * kissing his ass and telling all in the press how much *'s farts smell like flowers quite a bit lately. He's said people should stop criticizing the president in time of war (He had no problem hurling flaming jarts at Clinton however).

He may vote well - but on issues other than video games his silence is deafening - On Alito (sp), the culture of corruption in DC all is quiet all is still.

I expect him to jump and to jump damn soon. His social positions will quietly fade away once he settles in.

edit words elude me.

[onenote]

17. me too. I'm in for $100

Are those who say he's going to switch willing to put their money up as well?

onenote

[blm]

3. I disagree - I believe the 80% part of Lieberman that is D won't let him

switch.

[punpirate]

6. Somehow...

... I think that "80%" was rather arbitrarily chosen. :)

One has to look at his actions and his votes. Yes, he's rather a Dem on safer social matters, but he's a war hawk and is in the pocket of the insurance and accounting industries. He's a lot more `pug than not. That's the reason why he has Republican support in his state to a considerable degree.

[blm]

10. By his voting record historically combined with recent positions.

Not arbitrarily, at all. In fact, Lieberman had a very strong Dem record on civil liberties, reproductive rights, and the environment which was to the left of many of the primary candidates considered liberal here at DU.

[punpirate]

14. Right now...

... he's a war and big business candidate, and he's quite unrestrained in his enthusiasm for this current president in many, many ways.

I don't trust him a bit. He's very conservative on economic policy, very supportive of big business, and for me, the last straw was jumping into bed with Lynne Cheney with the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, which was, quite simply, creating a blacklist of college professors.

Oh, since we're quoting voting approval of groups, I wonder why this is, from the National Journal: "Fall 2004, Senator Lieberman supported the interests of the 'Conservative Index - The John Birch Society' 40 percent in Fall 2004."

Cheers.

[blm]

15. True, but I was just explaining my overall percentage rating.

.

[CrackpotAmerica]

16. I agree with that, bim.

Again, at this time, there is not and cannot be a middle.

[NewJeffCT]

11. Lieberman on the issues

While I despise Lieberman's stance on Iraq, he is rated 100% by NARAL and the AFL-CIO and 0% by the Christian Coalition. (I had a LTTE published on him the other day here in CT - here is the link to my DU post about it - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5540832&mesg_id=5540832)

Chuck Hagel, whom many on DU seem to orgasm over, is a flip-flop on those numbers - 0% NARAL and 100% Christian Coalition, and a whopping 8% by the AFL-CIO.

He spoke out against an amendment banning flag burning, which puts him to the left of Hillary and has called for a moratorium on the death penalty.

http://www.issues2000.org/Joseph_Lieberman.htm

While he is way off base on Iraq, he is decent on most other issues.

[punpirate]

12. And those are the very social issues I describe...

... it does not change his attitudes toward business or war. It was Mr. Lieberman who threatened to defund the SEC when in 1996, the SEC proposed tougher accounting standards, the likes of which might have prevented the wholesale meltdown of companies like Enron. And, he has been a hawk with regard to this war from the very start.

Lieberman isn't accountable to the Christian Coalition, but to his state--Connecticut, in which he enjoys close to 70% approval by Republicans. If he were to be challenged by a rather liberal independent who was against the war (which Weicker is), and if anti-war sentiment is reasonably strong in Connecticut, it's difficult to predict what he might do.

You can call him a Democrat and you can quote NARAL, but his open fawning over this shitheel of a president turns my stomach--it tells me what he truly respects.

Cheers.

[NewJeffCT]

21. Lieberman's approval

It's pretty close to 70% for Democrats & independents, too. Though, I think it's like 72% for Republicans and 69% for Democrats.

[Walt Starr]

4. I fully expect him to switch after the 2006 elections

I expect him to switch more for revenge than anything else. The Democratic Party would have nothing to do with the idea of running him against Georgie, so he'll take it out on the party after his re-election to the Senate.

[rucky]

18. eggzactly - he doesn't have the guts to switch before then. n/t

[Norquist Nemesis]

5. Ignore Lieberman

Honestly, and sincerely, I mean that. Ignore what he says, what he does, and whoever wants to hoist him up as a "moderate" Democrat (big D).

He pisses me off to no end. And every time he starts popping up on my TV screen, it gets switched the same as Dana Rohrbacher, Tom DeLay, Dave Dreier, Bill Frist, John Cornyn, Kaye Bailey Hutchison, and the (R)est of them. But I refuse to fall into Bush's trap.

I refuse to let Bush and the GOP use him as a distraction. I refuse to give Bush and the GOP ammunition to say "Democrats are a mess and can't agree on anything. See? They won't even listen to what Joe Lieberman is saying!" I absolutely, positively, unequivocally refuse. The best way to handle Joe Lieberman's behavior is to ignore it. If he wants to crawl into bed with Bush, so be it. I can't stop it.

What I CAN do is make my voice heard with my state and federally elected representatives (with copies to the Democratic Leaders, of course) to stand firmly against Bush's arrogance and reckless policies...and by extension, Joe Lieberman. In addition, I can let the DNC know that as a card carrying member and financial supporter, I do not want a single penny going to support a campaign to re-elect Joe Lieberman. I will, however, support a REAL Democratic candidate to replace Joe Lieberman.

Other than that, Joe Lieberman does not exist.

[CrackpotAmerica]

8. I agree. And Classifying and Dismissing him as (R) is the first step. NT

[CrackpotAmerica]

7. I respect that many of you may disagree with me..;

however, I strongly believe that there is more to his "support" for the President. Further, his statements, in my opinion, are indicative of the methods of the GOP to covertly question my patriotism.

And thus, the (R)


Any value I share with Mr. Lieberman, (R) is secondary to my belief that he is wrangling and has ulterior motives that benefit the President, whom I oppose to the cost of my life.

There is no middle when a political party is infected with fascism. History will decide whether I was correct, and if I am wrong, I shall promptly apologize.

[aura]

9. Where do Lieberman's loyalties really lie?

He seems more concerned with Israel's security than with a prudent political course for his own country - the US of A. Someone needs to inform him that Israel won't be more safe by waging war, but by promoting peace. Now Netanyahu is promoting an attack on Iran. Where will it all end? What a bloody mess.

[onenote]

19. getting my popcorn out

:popcorn:

[SoCalDem]

20. McCain-Lieberman in "08..The "unity" ticket

"Can't we all get along?"... They will position themselves as experienced,tough on terrorism, and "ready to lead"..
:puke:

Joementum will not officially switch, but the two of them together can claim to cover the whole spectrum, and try to convey the message that everyone can compromise, and create a harmonious ticket..
Hell.. their theme song could be "A Little Bit Country, a Little Bit Rock & Roll"..and the official candy could be reeses peanut butter cups..chocolate in peanut butter..or peanut butter in chocolate>? you decide

[CrackpotAmerica]

22. The Grifter Ticket! NT

[Rowdyboy]

23. There have been conservative Democrats as long as there has been a

Democratic party. We Democrats don't march in lockstep like mindless conservative dittoheads. In 1970 I despised Scoop Jackson's stand on Vietnam and his support of the Nixon administration, but that didn't make him a Republican. Back then there were other conservative Democratic senators-not a single one of whom was a Republican. John Stennis, Russell Long, Howell Heflin, David Pryor, David Boren-all were moderate conservatives with whom I disagreed on policy, but that didn't make them Republicans. And being a Democrat doesn't necessarily guarantee a senator will vote to please the left-wing of the party base.

It does mean, however, he will vote for a Democrat for senate Majority Leader, which is where ALL senate Democrats become invaluable. You could have nothing but leftist Democrats in the senate and if you lack a majority of 51, you don't have any power. Thats why I don't understand why people take so much pleasure in bad-mouthing and tearing down Democrats.

Lieberman is a conservative Democrat and will remain one as long as he holds elective office. And I'll be glad to join the others and donate $100 to DU if he jumps parties. Its not going to happen.

[CrackpotAmerica]

24. I believe that he will leave this party.

Well put, but I disagree, my friend!

As I said before, I'll admit I was wrong if he doesn't.

... still love you though!

:grouphug:

[Rowdyboy]

25. I thought I was wrong once, back in 1993, but it turned out I was mistaken

Seriously, I WISH he would switch parties because that way we could probably beat him in Connecticut. Still, I just can't see it happening. We shall see, now won't we.... :grouphug:

[liberalpragmatist]

26. I completely agree. Every party has its lone wolves

And if the party is strong, we can certainly handle a few outspoken lone-wolf types. Even in FDR's time there were prominent Democratic pols who didn't back him on a couple party-line issues. Actually, some of those people were as good as Republicans or hardcore-ultra-regressive Dixiecrats. Lieberman is neither of those things.

Now, I would be quite happy if he were replaced by a more liberal, less corporatist Democrat. But on the bulk of party-line issues, and plenty of social issues, he is well to the left, only slightly to the right of Bill Clinton.

If we want to keep him from having influence on this, we're already there. Just ignore him on the war. He is CLEARLY speaking for himself. Virtually no other prominent Democratic pol is on his side on this. He is in the same position as Hagel is for the Republicans, only I would venture to guess that Hagel is MORE influential than Lieberman is on this issue. Let him speak out and do whatever he wants. Otherwise we accept for ourselves the idea of a lock-step party-line purity-bloc, not a coalition. If we accept a big-tent philosophy we're going to have to recognize that that occasionally means having a couple people who break with us on one or two major issues. So long as that isn't an across the board rejection like Zell Miller, we're better off as a party and a voting bloc with them than we are without them.