You're All Bad Democrats - Says Joe Lieberman

[unfrigginreal]

You lefty liberals are threatening to take our party into the abyss! You moderate Dems that support Dean are just confused. And you conservative Dems that support him should be shot. Then all would be well in the Democratic party.

[poskonig]

1. That's basically it.

There are other candidates who are pro-war (Kerry, Gephardt) who are doing way better than Lieberman. Given Lieberman's record, he should be running on the economy, the Clinton-Gore years, economy, how awesome the Democratic Party is, and the economy. Instead he only bashes his own supporters and won't even put the word "Democrat" on his website.

That is a formula for a primary loss.

[caledesi]

2. Go away Joe, just go away.

[killbotfactory]

3. How low can Joe go?

Pretty low, according to the polls.

You're sinking Joe, keep it up!

[Cha]

5. Just get his flabby face outta here!

[Melsky]

4. Joe, you are a good republican

Now piss off.

[GOPBasher]

6. Did you just put words in his mouth?

Is there a link or something? I don't believe Lieberman said anything like that. Is that a quote or a paraphrase? Either way, could you provide a source, since I don't believe you.

[unfrigginreal]

8. Well, why don't you tell us what you heard?

I'm assuming that you watched the same CNN program that I did. Put your best spin on it and let the masses at DU decide.

[GOPBasher]

13. I meant to reply to this earlier,

but instead I accidentally responded to the original post (your first post in the thread). So, I'm reposting the same thing, but as a reply to your post above.


No, I actually didn't see that interview.

Okay, you do have a source, my fault. I apologize for the "I don't believe you" tone. You probably should've put that in the original post. I honestly thought you just posted that out of the blue, for no reason. I'm sorry.

[sfecap]

14. How about this?

BLITZER: But, you know, some of your Democratic challengers, like Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont, totally disagree with you. I interviewed him, and he suggested that the U.S. might not be better off now in the aftermath of the war with Iraq. He totally disagrees with you...

LIEBERMAN: He does...

BLITZER: ... and he's resonating, as you well know, with a lot of Democrats out there.

LIEBERMAN: He totally disagrees with me. I totally disagree with him.

The fact is that this is the important debate, discussion going on within the Democratic Party for the heart and soul of our party. When you look back to Kennedy, to Clinton, obviously to Roosevelt and Truman, you find the great tradition of the Democratic Party being strong on security.

We're not going to meet the challenges that America faces today with someone who wonders whether the world is better off or not with Saddam Hussein gone.

And I understand the -- you know, I'm not -- I'm in this to win, but...

BLITZER: To win the presidency, not just the nomination.

LIEBERMAN: Yes, but I'm also in this to make the case for what I think America needs in leadership today, and it's leadership that is strong on security, that knows that importance of using diplomacy when that is...

BLITZER: What I hear you saying is that Howard Dean may be able to do well with Democrats, but he's not winnable, he can't win the presidency.

LIEBERMAN: Well, let me put it this way first: He's not the leader based on the record -- weak on defense, raising taxes on the middle class -- not the leader that America needs to meet the dual challenges to our security and our prosperity today, and he could well be a ticket to nowhere. He could take the Democratic Party out into the political wilderness for a long time because his positions, in my opinion, do not even reflect the majority of Democrats, let alone the majority of the American people.

And I'm going to do battle on this, because I feel very strongly about this after 30 years in public service. The Democratic Party stands for strength on security, and it stands for an economy that protects the middle class and grows it, doesn't raise taxes on it.

BLITZER: So you're suggesting he's weak on security.

LIEBERMAN: Yes. I mean, based on his record. BLITZER: Let me show you the covers of new Time magazine and Newsweek this week, and I'll put it up on the screen -- "The Dean Factor." "A feisty ex-governor from Vermont is setting the pace in the race against Bush. Does Howard Dean's renegade campaign stand a chance?"

"Newsweek's" cover: "Howard Dean: Destiny or Disaster?" You're suggesting disaster.

LIEBERMAN: Well, not destiny. That's for sure.

In other words, Howard Dean and some of the other Democratic candidates would take us back on the issues, on the positions of the party to where Democrats were for, the most part, between 1972 and 1992, where Democrats were seen as soft on defense, big taxing, big spending, fiscally irresponsible, soft on crime and a, kind of, anything-goes party...

BLITZER: So he could turn out to be -- are you suggesting...

LIEBERMAN: And Bill Clinton turned that around.

BLITZER: But, sir, Howard Dean, George McGovern: Is that the comparison you're making?

LIEBERMAN: Let's put it this way: I worry about it. And the point I'm trying to make is that Bill Clinton and a lot of us who were so-called new Democrats came into the '92 campaign with a whole new approach. There's an important role for government, but the era of big government is over. We're going to be fiscally responsible. We're going to be strong on security and we're going to be socially progressive.

That reconnected with the majority of the American people and led to eight extraordinarily productive years of security and prosperity.

Howard Dean and a lot of the other Democrats, in one way or another, would take the Democratic Party back to where we were before Bill Clinton and Al Gore won in 1992. That's not the leadership that America needs or wants today and, as I said before, it could well take the Democratic Party into the political wilderness for a long time.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0308/03/le.00.html

So....Joe disses Howard Dean (and blatenly lies about his position on the * tax cut...), then disses "a lot of other Democrats"...

interestingly enough, he parrotts Dean's "fiscal responsible, socially progressive", line. Joe is desperate for someone to listen to him. (Maybe Lynne and Dick Cheney will....)

Yawn.

[blm]

7. Big deal...Dean already said that we were Bushlite...

which comes as some surprise to my socialist leaning self and to those candidates who governed for so many years way to Dean's left.

Lieberman has some ways to go before he catches up in the insult department.

[Cha]

15. not you, though, you don't have any "catching up to do"

in fact you're way ahead. And all to promote that "intellectual kerry" who voted for the war and is now talkin' trash to get out of it.

[oasis]

9. Go to hell Joe L. and take sell out Zell with you.

[Cha]

16. And that creep ben nelson can ride caboose.

[GOPBasher]

10. No I didn't see that.

Okay, you do have a source, my fault. I apologize for the "I don't believe you" tone. :-) You probably should've put that in the original post. I honestly thought you just posted that out of the blue, for no reason. I'm sorry.

[Herschel]

11. This is not true

Joe Lieberman did not say these things.

[unfrigginreal]

12. Same question to you Herschel...

What, in your opinion was the substance of Liebermans interview with Blitzer? Surely you believe that we're a fair bunch, so tell us what you heard and we'll make a decision on whether we agree with it or not!

I'll stand by my interpretation.

[Cha]

17. See post # 14, hershel.