what are Liebermann's positions that the democratic base doesn't like??

[bobbieinok]

The media, including NPR, says it's all about Iraq.

I've read at DU about his position on SS.

What was that about hospitals and women??

Where was he on the bankruptcy bill??

What are other positions that seem to be Bush-lite????

[Clarkie1]

1. My understanding is he's against S.S. privatization.

He was very clear on that during the debate with Lamont. He said he looked at it in the 1990s, and decided against it. So, I don't see how that can be an issue now with "the base."

I think people are unhappy with his support of supreme court nominees, although that can be said of a lot of Democratic senators.

This is a good question you raise. I think really the opposition to Lieberman is one-issue (Iraq), although those who are passionately against him will try to argue otherwise.

[w4rma]

2. He said that primary voters were "terrorizing" him. He has zero respect

for the Democratic base. And he uses his sizable microphone to disrespect Democrats all around the country.

[Clarkie1]

3. Actually, Lieberman strikes me as someone who has respect

for people of many divergent positions. During the debate, he was trying to be respectful of Lamont's position on Iraq, except it was seemed uncertain that Lamont was certain what his position on Iraq was himself. It's hard to respect someone's position when they keep changing their position all the time, and that's how Lamont came across to me. While I disagree with Lieberman, I respect his position and convictions. He seems to be a man of high integrity to me. What makes you say he has no respect for those of other views? Just curious.

[calico1]

4. I am curious. Are you from CT? n/t

[Clarkie1]

5. No. California. nt

[ihelpu2see]

86. Living in CT and seeing Joe as he is, a power grabbing opportunist, I

would much rather see Mr. Lamont in that chair in the Senate. Joe was against the morning after pill as a part of all rape kits in ALL Hospitals. Joe has been for the Cheney energy policy, radical SC nominee and for the Iraq war. These are not moderate or main-stream! I have met Mr. Lamont and he has never wavered on the Iraq war. He has always been against it. And as far as this stuff about voting with republicans 80% of the time on the city council..... Well I'm on the board of finance and guess what we have not had one Nay vote in 2 years so I guess I vote 100% with the republicans on the board of finance!!!! big deal, these guys are good guys, there not trying to teach creationism or ID and we are not planning on taking back Southwick Mass. in a WMD type of war, At least I have not heard anything....

[Jai4WKC08]

104. Did you happen to notice...

Lieberman tried to pull the exact same shit on Lamont as he did on Wes Clark back during the 04 campaign (altho I don't recall that he ever had the balls to do it to Clark's face). Every time Lamont made a statement about any various aspect of the Iraq War, what we should do there, or what we should have done in the first place, Joe claimed Lamont was taking a different position. I think he had Lamont up to six or seven different positions by the end of the debate, which if I recall was about the number he had Clark up to as well. As tho anything other than regurgitating the simple-minded resolve of Bush's "stay the course" sloganeering is a flip-flop or a change in position.

Sorry. I have never been one to trash Lieberman. I've always given him the benefit of the doubt about his support for the Iraq War (disagreeing with him, but assuming he was sincere in his beliefs). And I was initially against the primary challenge on the basis that we need as many Democrats securely in the Senate as possible, even if they aren't the best Democrats around. But that debate brought back every memory of what a ugly campaign Lieberman ran in NH when only he and Clark were concentrating there. Combined that with his crap about not supporting Lamont if he wins the primary, and it's pretty obvious that he's just another politician who will do or say ANYthing to stay in office, even if it means telling the Party and all his constituents to fuck off.

I don't accept that "all's fair" in love, war, OR politics. So I have had it with Joe Lieberman. To the point that, IF we end up with a Repub-controlled Senate in November anyway (which I think fairly likely), I hope Lieberman's not a part of it, even if it means the Repub beats him. I don't guess that counts for much, since I don't live in CT. But I will probably send Lamont some money, which is about the most I can do but not something I was planning on.

[madfloridian]

6. Lieberman does support Bush on Social Security privatization.

So does the DLC. They just recommend doing it in steps.

Here is an article about Lieberman and his stance.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0307-01.htm

"In recent weeks, he has angered Democratic activists nationwide for expressing a willingness to work with President Bush to change Social Security. Critics say that is just his latest act of disloyalty to the party. He already had supported the war in Iraq and Mr. Bush's cabinet choices - and received a televised presidential smooch at the State of the Union address."

[madfloridian]

8. More: he is trying to have it both ways and waffling.

"Some lawmakers and senior party aides say that Mr. Lieberman remains in good standing. But they say that could change if he broke ranks and gave Mr. Bush a prominent Democratic ally on Social Security. "I think that Joe understands that, at this point in time, unity is the most important card Democrats have to play," said one Democratic senator, who like others, would only speak about Mr. Lieberman without being identified because of the sensitivity of his position. "He is sympathetic enough to that need that he is not going to bolt the reservation."

Republicans, however, see Mr. Lieberman as a potential partner and say Democrats are resorting to pressure tactics to hold members in line.

"The public is tired of that," said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina. "If this becomes 'You cannot work with Bush to solve Social Security,' then it will be a death blow to the Democratic Party. You will have more Republicans up here than we can handle."

Mr. Lieberman set off alarms within the party even before the State of the Union address. "This is an ongoing problem, and we'd be wise to deal with it," Mr. Lieberman told The Hartford Courant in January when asked about Social Security. "If we can figure out a way to help people through private accounts or something else, great."

So let him not lie and say he does not support private accounts.

[Clarkie1]

13. Seems to me he's kept an open mind, but is against privatization.

"If we can figure out a way to help people throught private accounts or something else, great."

He wasn't saying he supported private accounts, just leaving the door open to discussion, which is always a good thing. "If" means just what it says. If there is a way, but perhaps there isn't a way.

Seems to me Lieberman is a man of integrity with an open mind who wants to be less partisan and more problem-solving by working with everyone. Nothing wrong with that as long as one stays true to their principles. And while I disagree with him that Iraq was the right thing to do, I respect his position. He has been consistent even when it would be politically expedient to change his position. I thought he won the Iraq part of the debate because Lamont never clarified his position.

[madfloridian]

25. What do you think private accounts are?

Perhaps you are not aware that is privatizing it.

Lieberman was smoother last night, but he was unbearably arrogant that someone would dare challenge him. He attacked Lamont, he was snide toward him, and he made himself look bad and whiney.

[Clarkie1]

28. He said "If" it could be made to work, not that it that it could work.

Saying "if we can find a way" opens the door to discussion. That's something a lot of overly partisan politicians forget to do. They refuse to even listen to those on the other side, so nothing ever gets accomplished.

It's like what's happening in N. Korea right now. Bush is refusing to even talk with them. Not talking to the opposition directly is not a sign of strength. Lieberman seems to be willing to at least talk with the other side, and I give him credit for that even I don't agree with his positions on everything. I don't agree with anyone's positions on everything.

[Clarkie1]

9. I'm a little confused....

How does "working with President Bush to change Social Security" translate into supporting the privatization of social security?

The word "privatization" appears nowhere in the article. This is the same tactic Lamont tried in the debate, and I thought Lamont performed very poorly.

I'm not supporting either Lieberman or Lamont (I don't live in CT), but I am finding this process facinating to watch.

[madfloridian]

10. He says different things at different times. This quote:

"Mr. Lieberman set off alarms within the party even before the State of the Union address. "This is an ongoing problem, and we'd be wise to deal with it," Mr. Lieberman told The Hartford Courant in January when asked about Social Security. "If we can figure out a way to help people through private accounts or something else, great."

It is his assuming that the program is in trouble and needs changing, then saying well if Bush wants private accounts, fine.

Sorry, but as Lamont said he is trying to have it both ways.

[Clarkie1]

16. You are twising Lieberman's words.

Look, I'm not taking a position in the CT primary, but like I said I find this whole process facinating.

Lieberman never said as far as I know "if Bush wants private accounts, fine." He said "if we can figure out a way to help people through private accounts or something else, great" and is admitting it is a problem that needs to be dealt with (kudos for that)...if we can figure out a way.

[madfloridian]

That was while Dean and others were saying there was NO

problem with Social Security, and that Bush was trying to fix something that was not broken. He has waffled on this topic a lot. The DLC position is start partial privatization (personal accounts) on the way to total privatization. He is using their rhetoric.

[Clarkie1]

23. Well, I disagree with Dean than if he said there wasn't a problem.

It's a long-term problem that does need to be acknowledged.

Edit: And saying that doesn't mean privatization, partial or otherwise, is the best course of action.

[madfloridian]

27. No, there is not.

They have been preaching that to get it privatized. You must have missed a lot of the discussions last year.

It can be fixed with a few tweaks in a few years, but the corporations want the profit...just like they wanted the profit with the Medicare bill and got it.

[Clarkie1]

34. We just disagree on this one.

I think we do need to look at long-term problems like global warming, overpopulation, the looming energy crises, and funding social security.

Doesn't mean I support privatization, just means I believe it is an issue. I understand that of course those who favor privatization and limited government will try to take advantage and make the issue even bigger than it is for their own agenda, but that does not mean no real problem exists. We have a big, growing debt from misguided policies already, and we need to be realistic and examine all the options (and no, examining all our options is not code for "privatization").

[madfloridian]

41. Yes,it is.

Anything that takes away from our seniors already on the program is wrong, and it is code for privatizing.

Some things need fixing, some don't.

[Clarkie1]

44. Yes it is what, code?

No, sorry, it isn't.

I agree anything that takes away from seniors already in the program is wrong. I don't see how privatization can work, because it would take money out of the program funding seniors now. However, that doesn't mean we should not look at all the options, even the ones that appear unworkable. Perhaps we can show the other side why it is unworkable, from our point of view.

Social security does need fixing in the long-term, or by at the latest the middle of this century there will be funding shortfalls.

[sendero]

68. The best thing..

... that could be realistically done about SS is to stop spending billions of dollars we don't have on a war that is gaining neither us or the Iraqi people anything.

There is no "respecting joe's position on the war" any more than there was "respecting Hitler's position on Poland". The war isn't "kinda bad", it is the single biggest mistake this country has ever made, and we and our children will be paying for it in many ways for generations.

[Clarkie1]

72. Well, the comparison to Hitler destroyed all your credibility.

I'm with you that the war was a mistake, let's leave it at that.

[sendero]

83. Only....

...with the stupid. I was comparing the action, not the person. You do understand the difference, I'm sure. Well maybe not, and I stand by my comparison.

And, should we decide to attack Iran, that will be an error comparable to Hitler's invasion of Russia.

[Clarkie1]

84. The actions are not comparable

except you will argue in the very narrow sense of invading a sovereign state. We are not seeking world domination by invading Iraq, or pursuing genocide. Also, Hitler invaded Poland alone.

The comparisons to Hitler are not helpful because they will stop people from considering other valid criticisms you have of the administration's actions. In short, people you might otherwise persuade to adopt your point of view will not because they will consider you a radical loony, which I am sure you are not.

[itzamirakul]

88. I dont understand the concern with the comparison that was made

I found nothing wrong with it and just seeing Hitler's name does "stop me from considering other valid critcisms...of the administrations actions." I fully understood what the poster meant as I am sure most other readers will do. If Hitler's name makes you unable to understand anything it is mentioned with, then that is quite limiting.

Perhaps you are projecting your own feelings about the post upon the rest of us. I see no reason that the poster might be considered a "radical looney".

I'm just a little tired of this Republican tactic of speaking FOR the Democrats. You may be a Democrat, but you cannot speak for ALL of us, nor can you project how we just might consider another person.

[sendero]

93. That's your opinion...

... and I don't share it. It's not about "sovereign state" either, it is about the magnitude of a mistake, the level of delusion. Although I suppose a valid argument might be that Hitler had a better chance of eventual success with his plans than Bush ever will. The idea that we can fight our way to Middle East Democracy is just ludicrous.

I can stomach someone who says "we're there and we need to do our best to extricate something of value from this" (although I don't agree that it's possible to do so), which maybe you would agree is pretty much what Clark has to say about it. I can and do totally respect Wesley Clark.

But to continue to insist that the war was a good idea is more than I can stomach. It's not Lieberman's support of the war alone that is the problem. It is the fawning, mypoic, "stand by my man (Bush**)" part that sticks in my, and I suspect most people's throat.

This war goes way beyond mistake, it is well into debacle, fiasco, Waterloo territory. I just don't see any argument to the contrary.

[Zhade]

91. Except it wasn't a mistake. It was a premeditated illegal invasion.

FFS, how long have you been following the details on this war crime? Iraq didn't threaten us. The invasion was unjustified. b*s* et al knew this BEFORE they shocked and awed the Iraqi people.

There are literally hundreds of pieces of evidence showing this. You can't NOT know this war was a crime, not just a "mistake", unless you get all your news from FAUX News and Conservative News Network.

For crying out loud, this was not a mistake. This was intentional.

[Zhade]

90. Yes, and you're wrong. THERE IS NO CRISIS.

NT!

[KaptBunnyPants]

63. You are twisting the facts.

For one, you obviously are not an impartial party to this, you are a Lieberman supporter, at least have the courage to take your own stance. I've seen you all over the place defending lieberman, although I have no idea why. Your tactics of feigning ignorance of Joe's sins betray the intellectual weakness of your support, and in fact serves only to obfuscate the debate, which may well be Lieberman's only hope for victory.

If you were politically active during the SS debate, and I suspect you were, you would know that Republicans were twisting arms and cajoling the press into spreading horror stories of how the best run program in our country would default by 2042. Of course, the only way this could be true is if our country went into the worst depression it has every seen and only had a 1% GDP growth rate for the next 40 years, and even if that happened SS would be fine so long as we increased the income cap, so this "crisis" can effectively be considered a scam.

All true Democrats, or even just anyone who gave a damn about the disabled and elderly, saw through this BS and refused to play Bush's crooked game. They refused to give into republican propaganda and advance the story of the SS "crisis". Joltin Joe, on the other hand, couldnt wait to shovel this manure for Bush, just so he and his far right buddies could finally achieve the holy grail of conservative politics and gut SS.

Luckily, despite Lieberman, we progressives were able to finally achieve a victory and stop Bush from attacking the elderly. This destroyed Bush's vaunted "political capital" he kept bragging about, and set up the current electoral situation in which things are actually looking good. Thank God the party leadership listened to us for once...

That's how lieberman operates, he doesn't just vote badly, he undermines his own side in an attempt to make himself look moderate. No matter the issue, Joe can be relied upon to throw his party on the sword as long as it brings a smile to Sean Hannity's face. That's why Joe's gotta go.

[robertt]

26. Meeting Audience Needs is not Unreliability in Office

So what? I don't want to see him run, but the fact that he's on his feet isn't my reason. All good presenters address audience demographics. Such has nothing to do with actual positions.

Robert Eggleton
"Rarity from the Hollow"

[madfloridian]

30. Welcome to DU..interesting comment.

Joe thinks he's entitled. That is a danger sign.

No one is entitled if someone else wants to run in the primary.

[Dr.Phool]

14. You're playing word games here.

Of course the word "privatization" is not in the article. But, if you're working with the chimp to "change" Social Security, you're into privatizing it.

Just like nobody ever said we were occupying Iraq. Just liberating it.

[Clarkie1]

22. I disagree. It think people should have the discussions.

Last time I looked "discuss" and "support" were not synonyms.

[Zhade]

89. You can't POSSIBLY be dumb enough to not realize...

...that b*s* means to DESTROY Social Security.

It IS a long-term conservative goal, after all.

[Dr.Phool]

7. Anytime you need a Dem to vote for the regime

Just call Joe.

Need someone on Sunday talk shows to bash progressives? Call Joe.

Need someone to team up with Lynn Cheney to stamp out academic freedom? Call Joe.

Need the morality police to clean up music and movies in Hollywood? Call Holy Joe.

Ralph Reed, or Pat Robertson need a Dem to legitimize their moral positions? Call Joe. He even sits on different morality boards and Councils with these clowns.

[calico1]

12. Thanks. That, imo is a big part of why so

many in CT are just fed up with him. Its not just Iraq. He has lost a lot of respect including from me. He has basically said that the Democrats in CT just don't know what's good for them. I supported him until a few months ago. But I have had it. To me the last straw was his decision to run as an Independent if he can't win the primary. It shows me he puts himself before the party and before the voters of Ct. He does not listen to his constituents. I want a real Democrat representing me. If Lamont loses and I see that the race is close between Lieberman and Schlesinger then I will hold my nose and vote for him. But I intend to vote for Lamont in the primary and if he wins it there is no way I will vote for Lieberman.

[Clarkie1]

18. How is running as an independent not supporting his constituents.

If the people of Connecticut are his constituents, doesn't he support them best by offering himself as a choice. If he should win by running as an independent, he is the people's choice and supporting the people, right?

I don't agree with Lieberman on a lot of things either, but I'm curious about how running as an independent (if it comes to that) translates into "putting himself before the voters of Connecticut."

[calico1]

31. If Democrats pick Lamont over Lieberman in

the primary they are saying that Lamont speaks for them better than Lieberman, no? And it would not be a good thing to split the Democratic vote by running as an Independent. The loser should support the winner. And that goes for Lamont too. But I have a feeling that even if Lieberman knew that running as an Independent could cost us a seat in the Senate were he to lose the primary, he would do it anyway.

[Clarkie1]

37. What percentage of the people in Connecticut are registered Democrats?

Just curious.

[skipos]

45. Democrats are the largest group

I am not sure of the official numbers. I posted this to you before, as I am under the impression that you think it is OK for Joe to ignore Democratic voters in CT because there are republicans and independents in that state as well.

In this surveyusa poll their sample identified themselves as

24% Republican, and 34% of them disapproved
28% independent, of those 41% of them disapproved
42% Democratic, of those 50% of them disapproved

So he is making the smallest group of people the happiest, and the largest group the least happy. That is how people get voted out of office, just ask Rick Santorum.

And keep in mind this poll was taken before Joe announced that he didn't give a crap about the Democratic voters in CT. His number will only go down from here.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=5b2ae37d-ddb3-43ce-9ef4-f463f260dbe9&x=751,2

[Clarkie1]

61. How would it be ignoring Democratic voters if he ran as an independent?

What about the Democratic voters that vote for him in the primary, and all the rest of the voters in Connecticut, do they not count?

Just playing Devil's advocate here, since nobody else is.

[skipos]

64. First things first, and that is the PRIMARY. Lets just talk about that.

He is 100% absolutely ignoring Democratic voters. He claims that if Democratic voters choose Lamont, they can blow it out their asses, Joe is running anyway. Can you please tell me how he ISN'T ignoring Democratic voters?

Clarkie1, in general are your loyalties to A. Independents and Republicans or B. Democrats
If you answer A there is no point in having this discussion.
If you answer B, don't you think you should support the Democrats in CT and who they choose to be represented by?

What is the point of a primary?

Answer those questions and we can go from there.

[skipos]

67. Another question (you will probably ignore)

In 2000 when Joe was the VP dem nominee, he also hedged his bets by running for re-election in CT even though many didn't want him to. If Gore/Joe would have been elected, the republican Governor of CT would have appointed a replacement. The senate was 50/50 at the time, so the loss of the seat would have been a big deal.

In 2006 when it appeared that Joe might lose the Dem primary, he announced that he would not honor the choice of CT Dems and run as an independent if they didn't choose him.

In these two scenarios was he
A. Looking out for the best interests of Democrats
B. Looking out for the best interests of himself
And if these are to absolute for you, you can pick the one that applies the most.

[Clarkie1]

70. Well, I had forgotten that about the 2000 senate run.

That disturbs me a lot. Clearly, he was looking out for Joe unless he thought there would be no chance of another Democratic nominee winning the senate seat.

Right now, one could argue that he is looking out for himself by running as an independent, but also it's giving the people of Connecticut more choices. What if the majority of people in Connecticut prefer him to any of the other candidates. Shouldn't his loyalty first be to the people of Connecticut first?

I'm getting a little tired of "defending" Lieberman as well, but I think some people have gone over the deep end...he has been compared to Zell Miller on this site.

Just trying to keep things in perspective, he's certainly no Zell Miller. I wish Lamont were a stronger candidate; he did not impress me in the debate. On the other hand, I don't live in Connecticut so it's not my decision to make.

[calico1]

73. In 2000 there were several possible candidates

including the Atty Gen. who is very popular and would have easily won. The Republican candidate was the sleazeball ex Waterbury mayor who is in prison now for molesting two little girls and for embezzlement. It would have been an easy win for the Democrats and a lot of CT Dems never forgave Lieberman for putting us in the possible position of losing a Senate seat because of his refusal to resign.

[Clarkie1]

76. Well, I did not know that.

Definitely lowers my opinion of Lieberman. It does certainly make it look like a self-serving move on his part.

[skipos]

77. Lamont is green, as every senator was at one point

I'd guess that the first televised debate from any of your favorite politicians wasn't mind blowing.

Regardless you keep on bring up Joe's independent run, which he has every right to do. That has nothing to do with the following point I keep on bringing up and you keep on ignoring.

It is all about the primary. It is all about the primary. It is all about the primary. It is all about the primary. It is all about the primary. It is all about the primary. It is all about the primary. It is all about the primary. It is all about the primary. It is all about the primary. It is all about the primary. It is all about the primary. It is all about the primary. It is all about the primary. It is all about the primary.

Democratic politicians should always respect the votes of primary voters. The Democratic party operates from the ground up, with Democrats getting to decide who represents them in primaries. If a candidate doesn't like that, THEN HE SHOULD NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE PRIMARY and he should NOT CALL HIMSELF A MEMBER OF THE PARTY.

Joe is hedging his bets, and DEMOCRATS SHOULD NOT SUPPORT HIM.

"also it's giving the people of Connecticut more choices." If Bush wanted to run for senate there, it would even give CT MORE choices, SO WHAT?

"Shouldn't his loyalty first be to the people of Connecticut first?"
NOT WHEN YOU ARE SEEKING THE NOMINATION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. If he has NO RESPECT for the votes of CT Dems, he should NOT participate in the primary.

[Clarkie1]

78. You expressed your point better that time.

It's not that I wasn't paying attention, but now I understand the point you are trying to make and I think it's a valid one. Yes, a "good Democrat" would respect the primary. I was looking at it from a moral and ethical viewpoint, not a partisan one.

[skipos]

85. If you want to look at it from a moral and ethical point of view

I think America would be better off with the most progressive senate as possible. Lamont would be a step in the right direction. Joe has a right to run, and Democrats have a right to oppose him every step of the way. IMO Joe has such disregard for the Dems of CT that Democrats have the obligation to oppose him every step of the way.

[Clarkie1]

87. I hear ya. nt

[calico1]

46. I don't know the exact number though I do know there

are more than registered Republicans. But what difference does that make? Only registered Democrats get to vote in the primary so even if only 2% of the CT population were registered Democrats only they would get to vote in the DEMOCRATIC primary. This is not anything new. Or do you think Republicans and not affiliated should get to vote in it?

[skipos]

51. I think you are wrong

according to exit polls, 37% of the people who voted in 2004 in CT were Dems, 30% were Repubs.

[calico1]

54. I was using the 2% to make a point.

I know there are a lot more registered Dems than Repubs. My point is even if 2% are Dems, they still are the only ones who get to vote in the primary. I think the other poster was suggesting that if Lamont is chosen by the Dems it means nothing because Repbubs and Indies didn't vote in it. :hi:

[skipos]

58. Agreed! nt

[Clarkie1]

74. No, I'm not saying that.

What I'm saying is if independents mostly support Lieberman, shouldn't they have a chance to vote for him? I don't see anything morally or ethically wrong with Lieberman running as an independent if that is the case.

Anyway, this is certainly an interesting race to watch. I'm getting a little tired of defending Lieberman (eventhough he's neither Zell Miller nor George Bush, as he has been accused of being), just been trying to add some balance and counterpoints to the discussion.

If I were a Connecticut voter I would have been disappointed with Lamont's performance last night, though. Maybe he will improve with time.

[calico1]

75. They should have a chance to vote for him if

he ends up winning the primary and becomes the candidate. The issue I have is not so much Lieberman running as an Independent. It is his running in the Democratic primary but already making plans to run as an Independent if he loses. (Hedging his bets again like in 2000). And in doing that what is he saying to Democratic voters? He should make up his mind. If he wants to run as an Indpendent then he should leave the party and become an Independent. But if he runs in the primary and loses then he should support Lamont. That is how its supposed to work. He shouldn't be wanting to have it both ways. That alone is pissing off a lot of people here, believe me.

Oh and yes, I do agree that he is not exactly a Right winger DINO as some here claim. His voting record doesn't support that assessment. But he has disappointed so many of us in so many ways already stated here. His constant support of Bush and GOP talking points, etc. I have had enough of him.

[dansolo]

99. Then he should drop out of the primary

If Joe wants to appeal to everyone, then he should leave the Democratic party, withdraw from the primary, and run exclusively as an Independant. If Joe wants to consider himself a Democrat, than he should abide by the process.

[madfloridian]

43. Are you serious?

He wants to be a Democrat if he wins, but he is willing to hurt the party if he doesn't.

I would explain it, but we don't seem to be on the same wave length enough today to communicate.

[skipos]

48. Joe doesn't care about Democrats in CT

and who they choose to represent them. How do you feel about that?

How would you feel if Clinton, Feingold and Biden lost the 08 nomination and went on to run as independents?

[jonnyblitz]

24. greetings from the shadow of Mohegan Sun..

:hi:
I'll be at the Montville firestation casting my vote for Lamont on the 8th myself...

[calico1]

32. Hi there!

I vote at the Julia Long School in Gales Ferry. We should get together sometime! :hi:

[jonnyblitz]

65. sounds good.

I never see you on much. I usually am, at the least, lurking and reading if not posting....:hi:

we should go to a political movie sometime. I just saw Al Gore's movie at that "Art" theater in Madison....

that's my idea of an exciting night out except for the Nine Inch Nails Concert I just went to up at "the Meadows" or whatever they call it now in Hartford...

[iconoclastNYC]

11. He gives cover to the right wing

He gets air time on Fox News by selling out the Democratic parties ideals, throwing the media off of our message.

The fact that he's going to bolt the party to me is the nail in the coffin. He's embaressed the party one two many times. The fact that he was the VP nominee tells you how wrong our party was just a few short years ago and how far it has come under Dean.

[last1standing]

15. Let's see......

*Lieberman supports the rights of medical institutions to refuse treatments based on religious, not scientific, grounds.

*He supports restricting the ability of the average person to declare bankruptcy while loosening the restriction on corporations to do the same.

*He supports censoring make-believe violence in movies and video games while supporting real life violence in Iraq.

*He supports the encroachment of religion into our public schools and other governmental venues.

Is that enough or should I keep going? I know there are other senators who support all of these things - they're called republicans, and I don't support them either.

[Clarkie1]

20. Yet there are other Democratic senators who supported

one or more of these things. It seems Lieberman has become a kind of lightning rod, and people forget there is a lot of diversity in the Democratic party. While I don't agree with Liberman on everything, he does support the official Democratic positions 90% of the time (Lamont never challenged him on that figure in the debate).

[madfloridian]

29. Why is everyone so upset over a primary challenger?

That is what is bothering me.

[calico1]

33. Me too.

Lieberman is not owed his seat in the Senate. Seniority means shit to me. He is supposed to earn it every six years. And a lot of people in CT don't think he deserves to keep it.

[Clarkie1]

49. I'm not upset.

I am finding this whole process facinating, because usually primary challengers don't stand a chance. And just trying to add a little balance to the discussion. Maybe even playing devil's advocate here and there.

I will tell you, though, how I see the final end-state at this point for the Connecticut senate seat.

1) Lamont wins primary. Lieberman wins senate seat as independent.
2) Lamont loses primary. Lieberman wins senate seat as Democrat.

Appears to me Lieberman wins either way. We know he will win if he wins the primary. Running as an independent, he will pull more support from indpendents, conservative Democrats, and liberal Republicans than any other candidate can possibly match. Anyone want to challenge my analysis?

[skipos]

57. Sure.

I think former Lieberman defenders like myself are getting more and more pissed off with him everyday. When he announced that he wouldn't honor the votes of Democrats in this primary, that was the breaking point for many Dems. The Quin. poll that everyone likes to site has been followed by a Rasmussen poll that has Joe going from 61% in the general election as the Dem nominee, dropping to 44% as an indie. Remember that at this time the indie run was in theory. Now that Joe has told CT Dems he won't respect their primary vote unless it is for him, those numbers will go down greatly.

The Ras poll (with an admittedly high margin of error) for the CT primary had Lieberman up by 5%, and that was well before he hedged his bets with the indie run. I feel there are many active and eager Lamont supporters, and mostly casual Lieberman defenders. Lamont supporters will flock to the polls, enough so to win the primary.

After Lamont wins the primary, he will have much momentum behind him. People will be very surprised and start paying more attention. He will get many endorsements, much press, and support from almost all Democratic politicians. Hannity, Coulter and O'Reilly will endorse Joe, who will be growing more desperate and angry each day. In the end, Lamont will win.

That is my prediction as of right now. It is subject to change. Two weeks ago, I thought Lieberman was going to easily win the primary, as I didn't expect him to take a giant shit on CT Dems.

[Clarkie1]

69. Well, we'll see.

If Lamont pulls it off, it will be historic. Will be fun to watch. :-)

[Greyhound]

101. He is the canary for the Democratic Wing of the Corporate Party

and they are terrified that the sheep will start to catch on, as he gasps his final breath. For decades he has provided cover for the re:puke:s while voting "the right way" when it doesn't matter so that the faithful can point to various "ratings" and say "see, he's a good Democrat" or "at least he's better than the Re:puke:".

[calico1]

36. The only position that counts

as far as him getting reelected is the position that the majority of Democrats in CT have on Aug. 8. If we decide that he no longer represents us as we think he should then he should bow out.

[Clarkie1]

55. What about the majority of Connecticutians? eom

[calico1]

56. The majority of "Connecticutians"

get to vote for Senator in November.

[Clarkie1]

60. Right. nt

[last1standing]

38. Lieberman has made himself a "lightning rod".

When Lieberman decided to castigate other Dems for not supporting bush he became a lightning rod.

When Lieberman found it politically expedient to personally attack any Dem who didn't agree with his views on Iraq he became a lightning rod.

When Liebermen, in a 2004 primary debate, stated that he had become more conservative over the years then ridiculed his opponents for not following his lead he became a lightning rod.

In other words, the reason we single out Joe is because he singled us out first. Lieberman has proven again and again he has no respect for the average progressive.

By the way, his so called 90% rating for supporting Democratic positions comes from a combination of supporting bipartisan bills and from the earlier stances he once held before deciding to become more conservative.

[satireV]

42. Ahhh got ya!

You used the GOP talking point..

" ...90% of the time..."

You slipped up finally.

I sort of suspected you were a mole.

[Clarkie1]

53. Excuse me? LOL

I'm quoting Lieberman's words in the debate (which were not challenged by Lamont, so I assume they are true.)

Or are you being a wise-ass? ;-)

[Zodiak]

96. Even if Lamont didn't challenge it

It doesn't make it true. I score senator votes every quarter and Joe is consistently 30%-40% with Democrats on bill passage and nominations.

Not 90%.

It is a canard.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Zodiak%20Ironfist/1

[robertt]

17. He's too damn ugly to be president

I like everything else, but "face" it. We need to do it right this time. "Looks" do count with voters. I'm sorry to seem superficial, but it's realism. That's why Kerry lost. Where is another John Kennedy?

Robert Eggleton
"Rarity from the Hollow"

[NJ Democrats]

19. WTF?

This has nothing to do with being President

[Master Mahon]

21. In my opinion

his loyalty to Israel trumps his loyalty to the US.
his loyalty to big business trumps his loyalty to americans.
his need for power and self-importance trumps his loyalty to his party and the people he represents.
Isn't an elected representative supposed to REPRESENT the people that put him in office and the party that supported him???

[Behind the Aegis]

50. .

To your first line: :eyes: That line is getting really old!

[RFKHumphreyObama]

95. This is a common misconception

Lieberman's views on I/P issues are much more even handed and balanced than people tend to assume -his views tend to be quite close to the Clinton-Gore Administration's ideology on I/P issues and even to the left of some of his Democratic counterparts in the party. Whatever his shortcomings on other political issues, he has been quite open minded and even handed when it comes to the Mid-East peace process

[Douglas Carpenter]

35. The biggest cause of resentment is his enthusiastic support for Bush's war

policy and public condemnation of those who oppose Bush's war policy. It's not only that he supports the invasion and and occupation of Iraq. Its the degree what he says about those who disagree with Bush on this issue.


" Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut reproached fellow Democrats for criticizing President Bush during a time of war.

"It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril," Lieberman said."

link:

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/08/democrats.iraq/?section=cnn_latest

and this interesting comment from Sen. Lieberman while in Baghdad

"Time magazine Baghdad bureau chief Michael Ware on Morning Sedition this morning:

I and some other journalists had lunch with Senator Joe Lieberman the other day and we listened to him talking about Iraq. Either Senator Lieberman is so divorced from reality that he's completely lost the plot or he knows he's spinning a line. Because one of my colleagues turned to me in the middle of this lunch and said he's not talking about any country I've ever been to and yet he was talking about Iraq, the very country where we were sitting."

link:

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2005_11_27_atrios_archive.html#113328407009752558

Again, I myself have pointed out on numerous occasions that Sen. Lieberman has a moderately liberal voting record on many domestic issues along with his enthusiastic embrace of neoliberal economic ideology.
His comments regarding the Iraq War must reveal that he is either being disingenuous or seriously delusional.

Sen. Lieberman's very public position on the Iraq War and those who oppose it and what appears to be an embrace of a slightly modified form of neoconservative ideology is not some insignificant wedge issue. It goes to the very core of the direction of the country. Someday America will have to decide whether it wants to continue down the path of ultra-militarism or whether it wants to maintain the social fabric of our own society and some degree of moral authority in the world. It appears that Sen. Lieberman is choosing the very wrong side of history.

Peace Majority – a compilation of scores from a number of different peace groups – see website:

http://www.peacemajority.org/scorecard /

Sen. Joseph Lieberman: Final Score: 15.0/62.0 votes=24%

Sen. Hillary Clinton: Final Score: 59.0/98.0 votes=60%

Sen. Evan Bayh: Final Score: 31.0/99.0 votes=31%

Sen. Russell Feingold: 75.0/99.0 votes=76%

Sen. John Kerry: Final Score: 41.0/70.0 votes=59%

[cornermouse]

39. The first time he made me really angry was when he joined

up to quash the filibuster of nominees. Since then he's only gotten worse.

[skipos]

40. NOT SUPPORTING THE DEM NOMINEE

and threatening to run as an independent. He has no loyalty to CT Dems, and Dems should have no loyalty to him.

[depakid]

47. How about opposing regulation of the financial industry

which (among many other things) led to the corporate accounting scandels- the Enron's Tycos and the like.

Joe Lieberman's record shows unequivacally that he is NO FRIEND to the middle class.

[ulysses]

52. "freedom of religion

doesn't mean freedom from religion."

[ProudDad]

92. IT SURE AS HELL DOES!

The U.S. is a SECULAR nation.

Religion or lack of religion has NO place in public policy.

Lieberman loses on that account -- he's right with the bushie christianists when it comes to handing out tax dollars to religious organizations that are allowed to discriminate on the basis OF RELIGION.

Nearly any DEMOCRAT would be better than DINO Joe...

[Stinky The Clown]

59. For me, its not his positions so much as .... well .... him

He's very 'me' and not too much 'we'.

He's too damned quick to criticize another Dem.

He's too damn quick to endorse Republoican ideas.

Too much aisle crossing.

Too much teevee time spent supproting Repubs and tearing down Dems

This latest gambit caps it for me. He wants to have his cake and eat it, too.

On pure issues? The War

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

62. His remarks about rape victims

I personally found repugnant. Don't tell me that if he were a victim of an assault and was refused treatment at a hospital he'd be content to drive to another one!

[Spaceman Spiff]

66. It's all about the video games!!!

That dickhead wants to regulate the violent, and sexual, content of my video games!! And there are some lines you just don't cross, mothafucka!!

<>

[jenmito]

71. I don't like when he said this...

“It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be commander-in-chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.”

[JerseygirlCT]

79. That was completely unforgiveable. Completely. nt

[jenmito]

80. Exactly...

That's why, when people can't understand why so many of us don't like Lieberman when there are other Dems. who supported the war, I give 'em that quote. That's more than supporting the war. It's being a Repub.

[JerseygirlCT]

81. Well, first it's wrong, and secondly it's highly undemocratic

(small and tall D). The very idea that we shouldn't speak out against policies we find repugnant because, well, there's a war on people! is just shocking to me. Coming from Lieberman it just infuriated me.

Add to that the recent pronouncements on the state's Catholic hospitals and I'm still steamed.

I still don't feel like I know enough about Lamont, to be perfectly honest. The debate really didn't change anything for me either way. But I do know that while I've never been a big Lieberman fan (unrepentant Weicker voter here), his moves in the last several years have just pushed me so much farther away.

[jenmito]

82. You're right...

I live in NY so I don't get to vote against him, but I sure wouldn't want to vote for ANYONE who said what he said! You're exactly right.

[jonnyblitz]

100. I vote in CT and, for me, I am voting against Lieberman

so I am not concerned so much that Lamont wasn't as polished in his first high profile appearance compared to Lieberman who has done this sort of thing a bazillion times. I would pretty much be voting for whomever was running against Lieberman in the primary .

[jenmito]

102. I hope a lot of people do that...

Just like in '04 many people voted against Bush rather than for Kerry. I wanted Wes Clark to win and in the primaries I HATED Kerry. But I learned to respect HIM a lot more than Bush.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

94. He acts all buddy-buddy with Bush

I can understand remaining courteous with one's political opponents, but sucking up to them shows a lack of spine and/or principal.

[dionysus]

97. um, he's a stupid douchebag?

n/t

[LibDemAlways]

98. Besides Iraq, here's the most important

Lieberman "position" that makes me want to puke:

[zann725]

103. It was that "kiss on the cheek" at SOTU address Chimpy gave Joe...

Too reminiscent of certain gangland movies.

That said..."Joe's 'positions' that are NOT Dem? No comment. The obvious needs no explaining to non-sheeple.