Lieberman – A Defense of the Connecticut Senator

[stevenleser]

June 25, 2006 at 11:45:44

Lieberman – A Defense of the Connecticut Senator

by Steven Leser

This article is another one that will win me few points with my friends on the left. I like Senator Joseph Lieberman and I always have. I am not happy that he has become one of the favorite whipping boys of the progressive press and electorate. I am also unhappy that a campaign has been waged by progressive groups such as Progressive Democrats of America to find and support a candidate to run against him in the Democratic primary. I do not think these are positive things for the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party should be a big tent in which people all the way from the Progressive Left of the party to the DLC right should be able to coexist, share ideas and come up with the best solutions for the country.

Joseph Lieberman has always been and has always voted exactly like who he is. Whether you have agreed with his votes or not (and to be sure, I have disagreed with many of his votes) you cannot say about him that he has pandered or compromised his beliefs. It is not as if he campaigned one way, then turned around and became a completely different senator then the one that the Connecticut voters elected. Knowing him and his belief system, you can usually predict how he will vote on an issue. Lieberman is a Modern Orthodox Jew (those unfamiliar with this brand of Judaism should check this Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/modern_orthodox_judaism ). People familiar with my articles know that I am Jewish as well, but more on the reformed side, but I am very familiar with the branches of Judaism and their beliefs. In general, Jews are overwhelmingly Democrats, but those who are more observant and tend towards religious orthodoxy tend towards political conservatism. Put more succinctly, most Orthodox Jews are Republicans. While I cannot quantify what I am about to say from any empirical sense, I believe that of the various sects of Orthodox Jews, only the Modern Orthodox have a large amount of Democrats in their ranks. Knowing what Modern Orthodoxy is this is not surprising. Modern Orthodoxy attempts to reconcile the biblical laws with the secular world achieving the best possible harmony with both. However, where there are significant conflicts, the Modern Orthodox Jew will select biblical over secular. A good example of this with Lieberman along with an example of a conflict between Modern Orthodoxy and other sects of Orthodox Judaism can be seen in this article http://www.cnsnews.com/viewpolitics.asp?try=no&page=\politics\archive\200008\pol20000814k.html, where a traditional Orthodox rabbi lambastes Lieberman for some of his views while a Modern Orthodox rabbi defends him.

There are many dangers in Progressive Democrats intentionally trying to run Lieberman out of his senate seat. For one, those who support the ouster of Lieberman are saying the Modern Orthodox Jewish beliefs have no place in the Democratic Party. It is putting a line in the sand and saying that if your beliefs are past this certain point you cannot be a Democrat. What we should be doing is to put forth a consistent set of values that typify the Democratic Party belief system, educating the public about why this belief system is best, and trying to influence all of our candidates and elected officials to adopt these values. Each branch of the Democratic Party should do this and fight for their particular views in the overall party platform. Progressives should understand that large segments of the country do not agree with them on the issues. It is much more important and effective to deal with this by using dialogue and education. Kicking people out of the party and such is not an effective means to accomplish the ultimate goal of a progressive country. It is an effective way of alienating people and shoring up the opposition and presenting the Democratic Party as out of touch with more and more people. The Republican Party already uses the line "The Democrats are out of touch with most Americans" frequently in their interviews and stump speeches. Shrinking the tent by kicking people out at the fringes only will reinforce this viewpoint.

I believe that having Senator Joe Lieberman in the party and in the Senate as a Democrat is a big plus for the Democratic Party. It shows our strength and the ‘bigness' of our big tent. We still should articulate our displeasure to him for various votes or stances with which we may not agree but attempting to run him out of the senate is not the answer.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. Argumentum ad misericordiam

Lieberman's orthodoxy has nothing to do with the attempt to unseat him. While one with a persecution complex may decide that unseating Lieberman is some secret communication to Modern Orhtodox Jews, the simple fact is that Lieberman was MORE CONSERVATIVE than the Repulican (Lowell Weicker) that he replaced. While he has been a decent Democrat in many ways in the PAST, he has consistently sided with Bush in matters that are antethema to ALL Democrats including the misguided bankruptcy bill.

If Lieberman is getting a run for his money now, he should look at who brought that on himself. His religion has nothing to do with it.

[yurbud]

55. I have a Jewish friend who said he wished the first Jew on a presidential

ticket had been someone else.

This is not about religion, and it's a sign of desperation that they are throwing this up.

Joe could start dressing like a Hassidim and it wouldn't protect him.

People see through him. His sin isn't his stated religion, but his real one--corporate America.

[Bucky]

112. His religion is fine. His politics suck. WWMD?

What would Madison do? He'd probably (a) be proud of any state that could look past religion and elect a religious minority to high office, and (b) smack this writer around (verbally) for trying to drag religion into politics. Of all the critiques I've heard against Lieberman, not one has touched on his religion.

[MurrayDelph]

117. I AM a Jewish friend who wishes the first Jew on a presidential

ticket had been somebody else.

This is as much about Joe being Jewish as Tom Delay's problems were about his being Christian
(which was one of Delay's attempted deflections).

[still_one]

2. let me understand this, "progressive Democrats" are the enemy

Maybe the tide against liberman has to do with how he STANDS ON THE ISSUES?

He goes to Iraq, and LIES about the progress

If a woman gets raped, sent to a hospital, and the VICTIM WANTS the morning after pill to prevent conception, he believes the hospital has the right to deny her request, if they are against contraception, and send her down the street. Keep in mind this is a hospital that serves the public

He believes that prayer in schools is OK, and believes in voucher schools

I could go on, but perhaps the writer of the article should take a look why the "evil progressives" are not happy with liberman.

With his logic Democrats should have embraced George Wallace, a racist and a segregationist

[MADem]

3. Excuse me???

There are many dangers in Progressive Democrats intentionally trying to run Lieberman out of his senate seat. For one, those who support the ouster of Lieberman are saying the Modern Orthodox Jewish beliefs have no place in the Democratic Party.

Gee, I didn't know that the tenets of Modern Orthodox Jewish beliefs include sending kids off to die on a lie in a war for oil....wow, learn something new every day!!!!!!

But for some reason, I have a feeling that many modern Orthodox Jews might take exception to that characterization!

[patdem]

4. I know this is not a popular stance, but I agree with this person.

I think the Democratic party should run the gamut from Liberal Progressives to Conservative Democrats. I do NOT agree with Lieberman, but I think he is a conservative DEMOCRAT. We have one running in Pennsylvania against Santorum...We are not calling for HIS ouster? In fact we were AGAINST the woman who we KNEW could not win. Sorry...I do not agree with Casey either, and neither do I agree with Liberman..but they are BOTH Democrats!

[still_one]

9. is he really a conservative democrat?

murtha is a conservative democrat, lieberman actions follow more the Project For a New American Century, than conservatism

Barry Goldwater was a conservative who would be rolling in his grave if he saw what was being done to our constitution, yet alone this illegal war.

With your argument Zell Miller was also a conservative democrat. I say nonesense, he is more atuned to what the republicans are today

[depakid]

27. Financial corruption is an acceptible part of the Democratic Party

You do realize of course that the financial scandels of the 1990's and the early 2000's were in no small part due to Lieberman's influence?

Sorry- but far right enablers like Lieberman are why the party loses- and until we manage to muzzle or get rid of them, and stand up as a group for traditional Democratic values- the party will never even regain relevancy in national politics.

[skipos]

30. What is wrong with challenging someone in a primary?

CT dems should get to decide who represents them. Do you disagree?

[applegrove]

40. I agree he is a hawkish Democrat. And that he mostly votes democrat

on social issues.

[charlyvi]

41. It's perfectly understandable.

Casey, whatever his faults, is preferable to Santorum, the greatest mind of the 14th century. Would we like a pro-choice Democrat? Certainly, but Casey is what we have. And he is better than Santorum. In Connecticut, however, there is a better choice. On one hand there is Lieberman, the opposing party's favorite Democrat. On the other hand there is Lamont, anti-war, much more progressive. Possibly a better choice. But, that alone has not stoked the fire of the anti-Lieberman inferno; Joe himself has done that by siding with repubs on some of the core issues of the Democratic party. Not only siding with them, but siding with them very publicly. These issues are posted throughout this thread, so I won't repeat them, but the salient fact is Joe "we undermine the President at our own peril" Lieberman actively undermines his own party frequently. Not good. So, in Connecticut there is a better choice. As I said, it's pragmatism. Pennsylvania, Casey is a better choice than Santorum. Connecticut, Lamont is a better choice than Lieberman. If the people of Connecticut don't agree, Joe will be sent back to the Senate. But at least they will have a choice--a point which both Lieberman and the media seem to be missing. It's called democracy.

[beltanefauve]

56. If Lieberman is

such a Democrat, then why is he threatening to run as an Independent if Lamont beats him in the primary?

[Ken Burch]

59. Er...Casey isn't IN the Senate yet, so we CAN'T technically call for his

ouster. Some are supporting a more progressive candidate in the primary.

I accept those who argue that moderate voices have a place in the party. What I and the majority of DU'ers, the majority of progressive Democrats and, I sincerely believe, a growing number moving towards or already at a majority of Democratic party members do not accept, however, is that this means that those who are unacceptably conservative must be given unchallenged renominations for as long as they choose to run. Renomination is not a divine right. It must be earned.

And what is wrong with saying that, once you reach a certain rightward point, you AREN'T deserving of being renominated as a Democrat?

If we don't say that, don't we pretty much give up on having our party stand for anything?

What good is having the party declare its principles if our party's elected officials show contempt and disrespect for those principles? If Republicans don't let their leaders escape accountability on the issues, why the hell should we?
How is victory in name only ever worth anything?

[K-W]

109. No the party should represent the people

not some mythological political spectrum.

If the people of CT think Lieberman represents them, he should win, if they dont, he should lose. If Lieberman wants to represent more conservative voters than the people of CT he can move.

[applegrove]

114. I agree that shrinking the tent is what the GOP wanted out of Lieberman

the whole time. Another reason why * wanted to go to war. None of the reasons we thought.. but they had reasons anyways.

[yorgatron]

5. so,everybody hates him because he's Modern Orthodox?

i thought it was because he's an asshole that's in bed with republicans.

[still_one]

11. not only in bed with the republicans, but also spreading the same LIES

that they have in their talking points

[Cha]

106. Yeah, I don't even

think about lieberman being Jewish except he's a big putz.

[Vincardog]

6. OK I get it. If we want a progressive to replace a right winger we are

to blame for not allowing for differing opinions. When the Reich wing nutz insist on blind obedience they are just being their own crazy selfs.

How do you make the leap that by not wanting a Democratic seat to be held by a republican voting Senator the same as saying the Modern Orthodox Jewish beliefs have no place in the Democratic Party?

If they believe in Democratic principals and believe our party better represents them than the RepubliCANT party they are welcome.

If they believe the RepubliCANT better represents them let them be RepubliCANTs.

[Warpy]

7. Some constituencies will insist on electing conservatives

or corporatists, or an unholy combination of both. I would rather the fools they send to Washington have that "D" behind their names, but I would also hope they get defeated often enough and replaced with other wrongheaded Democrats that none of them manages to gain the kind of power Lieberman has.

"Not as bad as those bums in the other party" doesn't translate well to the country as a whole, I'm afraid.

[still_one]

8. and I also resent the author bring up his Jewishness in this article

it is irrelevent to how liberman STANDS ON THE ISSUES. Incidently, I am Jewish, and I am insulted by the author bringing it into the subject

As far as his big tent argument is concerned, should we have a big tent to embrace ideas that are contrary to the Democratic party?

[Behind the Aegis]

12. Why?

Why do you resent the author's bringing up Lieberman's religion? As the author pointed out, it is a mitigating factor in how he votes on things....basically trying to 'balance' religion and secularism. Also, why do you resent the author's bringing up Lieberman's religion, especially in a more positive light, as opposed to those here at DU who CONSTANTLY make it an issue?! Perhaps you also address those posts when you see them, I am not certain.

As far as embracing ideals contrary to the Democratic party, I agree. There has to be a line and Lieberman has crossed it many times. However, he still votes better than Republicans on MANY issues.

[still_one]

15. because it has nothing to do with the positions Lieberman takes

I also disagree with those that bring it up in a negative way. It is NOT pertainent to his positions

They tried to do the same crap with John Kennedy, and how his allegence was to the church before the country. That represents both anti-Catholic, or in Joe Lieberman's case anti-Jewish sentiment in my view

It is a fair question to ask a candidate if the country comes before his religious beliefs, but that is as far as it goes with me

[Behind the Aegis]

19. It does have relevance!

Lieberman bases his decisions, rightly or wrongly, based on his religious views. (This does not mean that he places his religion over the sancity of the country.) It is probably why he is a Democrat in the first place, as the author pointed out, almost three-quarters of Jews are Democrats. This is probably because the Democratic platform most closely matches our sense of "rightness." (On a snarky note: it could be because most Jews are well-educated, therefore the logical outcome is to be a Democrat. ;))

What they did with JFK was try to smear him as being loyal to the Catholic Church and claimed he would take his orders from the Vatican. Those smears were from the "right." Now, we have similar smears about Lieberman, the difference? They are coming from the "left!!!"

[still_one]

23. If that is the case, then the Iraq war is based on a lie

and he is bearing FALSE WITNESS to it

[Behind the Aegis]

25. I DON'T disagree with that!

But, have we become so cynical that a senator must ALWAYS vote the "correct" way or "die?!" Lieberman and a HOST of others voted the wrong way about the war. And, his continued support is also wrong-headed. However, why must we join the ranks of the Republicans to "oust" him?

[still_one]

32. I know you don't disagree on that

Incidently, most republicans with the likes of Hannity are voicing support for Joe

If Lieberman wins the Democratic primary, then of course it is better he wins against the republican, on the other hand if Lamont wins the nomination, it would NOT be a good thing if Liberman changes to independent for the run

[Bucky]

113. No one is smearing Lieberman over his religion. It's about his politics

"Lieberman bases his decisions, rightly or wrongly, based on his religious views."

I'd like to see the quote from scripture that says it's cool to start a war based on lies and attack a country that isn't threatening yours. I mean, besides something from Exodus. :)

No one, repeat, no one on the left is attacking Lieberman for being Jewish. Your JFK analogy doesn't work. as you said, "What they did with JFK was try to smear him as being loyal to the Catholic Church and claimed he would take his orders from the Vatican."

That is true. But what serious person on the left has made a parallel claim in attacking Lieberman? He's been pegged for taking his orders from Republicans and enabling the neocons, not for bringing religion into politics. The only people trying to do that, it seems, are his supporters.

[Behind the Aegis]

51. Just an FYI...

"because it has nothing to do with the positions Lieberman takes."

So how is it that an article that DOESN'T mention his religion OR Israel those very issues are brought up in this thread about him?! Why is this acceptable here?!

[Ken Burch]

60. As another poster pointed out, there is NOTHING in Modern Orthodoxy

that OBLIGATES Lieberman to back Bush's foreign policy like a robot. Their is nothing in ANY religious tradition that sanctifies keeping troops dying endlessly on the field of slaughter when everyone knows the war they are fighting is unwinnable in military terms.

The hidden agenda in the OP is to set up an arguement that all anti-Lieberman progressives are antisemites.

[Cha]

107. A scarecrow if you

will.

[JeffR]

10. Sorry, sl, this is beneath a person of your intelligence

What on earth are you smoking?

[MrBenchley]

13. Would that the far left was putting forth

the sort of effort to defeat Republican imbeciles like racist George Allen, Trent Lott, Orrin Hatch, Kay Bailey Hutchinson or Jim Talent that they are putting forth trying to defeat Lieberman.

[Behind the Aegis]

14. AMEN!

If only! Seems people are MORE concerned with getting the party to look exactly the way they want it to look, as opposed to getting back the POWER!

The far left has become MORE of a problem to the Democratic party than the Republicans, or their fifth column, the far right.

[MrBenchley]

18. Exactly so....

Meanwhile, you'll notice that what had been the Democrats' safest seat is now in play, with a GOP candidate having a chance...

And we're supposed to listen to the far Left for electoral advice? Fuck THAT noise, as they say in Brooklyn.

[Behind the Aegis]

24. Again...AMEN!

The far left has become the "enemy within!" They spend more time wailing and bitching about Democrats then they do about Republicans! They are trying to "fix" the party. Why question is: are they trying to 'fix' it for the better?

[MrBenchley]

26. Their model seems to be Stalin's Russia

complete with the purges....

[still_one]

35. nonesense

the far left in our party is just as inane as the far right in the republican party. The only difference is that the far right controls their party, and the far left does NOT control the Democrats

Also, terms such as far left or far right, or calling on group communists, and another group nazis also detracts from the issues

[MrBenchley]

37. No, it's right on the money

The far left does little except howl for party purges...

[still_one]

42. I don't call Ned Lamont's challenge to Joe Lieberman a party purge

and like I said in other threads if Lieberman wins the nomination I will support his victory, but if Lieberman loses the primary, and runs as an independent I won't have any kind words to say for him

In a similar way I was NOT too happy with the pressure the Democratic leaders used to pressure Paul Hacket out of the race with Brown. Yes, I will support Brown since he is the nominee, and I have even contributed to his campaign even though I was for Paul Hacket, but I do NOT appreciate many leaders in the party pushing candidates out of running in primaries, or EVEN saying things like what Chuck Shumer has said, that if Joe Lieberman went as an independent, he would consider supporting him rather than the nominee, if it were Ned Lamont

On those points we better speak with one voice, and support the nomination, unless that nominee is so radical or racist

[MrBenchley]

70. And who gives a fuck what YOU call it?

The plain fact is there have been howls for a purge long before the Unknown Millionaire was dredged out of obscurity.

No such effort from the far left is visible toward actually defeating Republicans.

"I was NOT too happy with the pressure the Democratic leaders used to pressure Paul Hacket out of the race with Brown"
Deport 'em all Paul? Good riddance, as far as I'm concerned.

[Ken Burch]

92. The Hackett thing is old news. Progressives are enthusiastically backing

Sherrod Brown, AND YOU KNOW IT. There is no reason to keep dredging that one up.

The fact is, Connecticut is a progressive antiwar state, and will elect any Democrat as U.S. Senator.
And, once the primary is over, progressives will work hard to elect a Democratic governor there as well. There is no reason for them to be involved in that race at present, as it won't matter until after the primary. And you STILL haven't told us what magnificent Democratic saint is being shortchanged by the focus on ousting Lieberman.

Go back to Virginia, Al. We're on to you.

[MrBenchley]

95. Pout louder, Kenny

And I didn't bring up Deport 'em all Paul.

[Ken Burch]

96. Why did my last response sound anything like POUTING?

And someone whose posts usually sound like tantrums is a fine one to say that anyone else pouts.

Also, you may not have brought up the Hackett thing, but you did slur him on immigration and there was no reason to do that to someone who isn't running anymore.

Lighten up already, Al.

[Ken Burch]

64. Get over yourself.

wanting the party to disagree with Republicans on the issues that matter is NOT Stalinism.

What good has not disagreeing with them ever done us?

[Ken Burch]

63. Basically you're saying that a conservative Democrat is different than a

Republican. And that we should shut up and settle for anyone you tell us to settle for, and principles be damned.

A progressive who votes for Lieberman against Lamont in the primary has given up his or her dreams.

[Behind the Aegis]

66. ...

"Basically you're saying that a conservative Democrat is different than a Republican." YES!


"And that we should shut up and settle for anyone you tell us to settle for, and principles be damned." NO!

"A progressive who votes for Lieberman against Lamont in the primary has given up his or her dreams." Perhaps. But a person who votes for a Republican (or doesn't vote), is disconnected to what is really happening.

Personally, I don't care one way or the other if he is defeated in the primary.

[Ken Burch]

68. Nobody in this thread is ADVOCATING voting for a Republican

No one has suggested THAT at all. OK?

[Behind the Aegis]

74. I didn't say THAT, did I? n/t

[Ken Burch]

77. In the post I responded to, you essentially did.

read your own post again.

[Behind the Aegis]

80. No, I didn't.

You said: "A progressive who votes for Lieberman against Lamont in the primary has given up his or her dreams."

My response was, "Perhaps. But a person who votes for a Republican (or doesn't vote), is disconnected to what is really happening."

So you are telling me that you have not seen posts stating things along the lines of "if Lieberman wins, I am staying home!" or "I'd vote for a moderate Republican before I'd vote for Holy Joe!"? If you haven't seen those posts, you need to look for more Lieberman threads and you will the two above statements in a few different forms. THAT is what I was addressing.

[Ken Burch]

81. Well, I'd join you in condemning anyone who voted Republican.

And, while I'd vote for Lieberman against a Republican, and would say others should do so too, I can't really condemn those who'd stay home. It would be comparable to the peace Democrats who stayed home in the fall of '68 after their voices were unjustly ignored and silenced at the Chicago convention. It was bad that Nixon won, but the party made it as hard as it could for those people to feel they should show up and vote. Yes, they should have voted, but none of those who did really had the right to ASK them to.

[Behind the Aegis]

86. I am with you...up to a point.

While I 'condemn' those who would vote (R) over a (D), I cannot excuse anyone who doesn't vote! We have the right and privilege of voting. Anyone who chooses not to do so, should STFU! I lived in Oklahoma, not a bastion of Democratic principles, but I always voted!

As for Lieberman, as I said, I abhor his continued stance on Iraq (and a few other things), BUT I will not sit by, at a self-proclaimed Democratic/liberal/progressive site, and watch him be bashed because of his religion or the lie that he is more liberal to Israel! Don't let the "star" fool you, I am a Jew and I support a safe, secure Israel, but I am an American Jew, a fucking proud of it! I will join you in attacking right-wing Jews for their positions, but if you (collective, not personal) attack their religion, I will come for YOU (again, collective, not personal)!

[Ken Burch]

88. OK, let me respond very carefully here...

1)Lieberman isn't being "bashed for his religion". He is being honorably opposed because of his conservative positions(especially is mindless support for the war, a position we can assume will never change).

It is legitimate to be offended by the fact that Lieberman has a tendency(which people like the editors of COMMENTARY no doubt encourage in him and others)to use his religion as a kind of theological human shield. Lieberman often implies that because 1)he takes positions many in the party find unacceptable and 2)he happens to be a practicioner of Modern Orthodox Judaism, that therefore 3)he is being attacked not because of 1), but because of 2).

I am not Jewish, but I have relatives who are Jewish or of a Jewish heritage(these include some of my stepchildren and grandchildren). I hate antisemitism and oppose it with every fiber of my being. Equally, I hate the use of false accusations of "antisemitism" as a method of silencing debate and discussion. It was unacceptable, for example, for Howard Dean, whose candidacy I did NOT support, to be attacked in the primaries simply for saying that U.S. Middle East policy should be more evenhanded. He was not taking an anti-Israeli position and everyone knew it.

(For the record, on the Israel/Palestine solution, I favor a two-state solution with a secure and safe Israel and with Palestinian state comprising ALL the lands seized in the Six Day War. I believe this solution also requires the demolition of all settlements, the removal of the checkpoints, and the end of all retribution against non-combatant Palestinians, such as the periodic shutoff of Palestinian water supplies, the refusal of Israeli troops to allow Palestinian ambulances to take Palestinian wounded to Palestinian hospitals, and the cutting down of Palestian olive trees. I hope my position is not antisemitic or anti-Israeli in your eyes. I firmly believe it is neither.)

[Behind the Aegis]

102. I will do the same....respond carefully...

"1)Lieberman isn't being "bashed for his religion". He is being honorably opposed because of his conservative positions(especially is mindless support for the war, a position we can assume will never change)."

In this thread. In others, not so much!

"I am not Jewish, but I have relatives who are Jewish or of a Jewish heritage(these include some of my stepchildren and grandchildren). I hate antisemitism and oppose it with every fiber of my being. Equally, I hate the use of false accusations of "antisemitism" as a method of silencing debate and discussion. It was unacceptable, for example, for Howard Dean, whose candidacy I did NOT support, to be attacked in the primaries simply for saying that U.S. Middle East policy should be more evenhanded. He was not taking an anti-Israeli position and everyone knew it."

I AM Jewish, and I have relatives who are Jewish...etc... Which is why I said, the only time you see me on "Lieberman threads' is because someone decided to attack his religion or state that he is more loyal to Israel.

As for your I/P solution...meet me in DU I/P, PM me, or understand that, while close to having the same position, they are not identical! Your opinion about I/P, and about Joe, I do not see as anti-Semitic...and to be honest, I don't see as anti-Israeli!

You'd thunk it...a "pro-Israeli" with a vision for safe, sane, Israel! :P

[Ken Burch]

103. I know there are some, and I know that, in Israel especially

such people have a tough time of it, often being accused of being "self-loathing" and all that shit.

As do those, such as Hanan Ashrawi and Mubarak Awad, who support progressive, democratic alternatives to Hamas and Fatah within the Palestinian spectrum. All such people should be given whatever support that we can.

[still_one]

16. perhaps there is a reason why the Democrats have been losing

elections. Zell Miller comes to mind, and frankly Joe Lieberman ALLOWED himself to be used as a tool of the republicans. He didn't have to. He could have distanced himself. He choose this stand. There are 2500 hundred PLUS AMERICANS DEAD, over 18000 wounded, and over 50000 Iraqii civillians DEAD because of THIS LIE, that Senator Liberman supports

[MrBenchley]

21. Perhaps it's because the far left is busy sabotaging the Democrats

Now go pout and posture to somebody else.

[still_one]

33. Right, it is the far lefts fault for why the Democrats have been losing

why don't you go and pout and posture to somebody else, instead of trying to engage in a conversation or exchange of ideas, why a person is wrong or right with his views?

Your logic would support Zell Miller, or perhaps a George Wallace when the South used to be racist and Democratic

[MrBenchley]

38. They sure haven't been much help....

Now go pout and posture to somebody who gives a shit.

[still_one]

43. LOL, I love your method of trying to convience someone to your

point of view. If nothing else, you have at least given me a good laugh

[MrBenchley]

72. Why the fuck would I even try to convince fanatics?

The plain fact is the far left is making a shitload of effort to defeat Joe Lieberman...and comparatively none at all toward defeating Republicans.

[Fovea]

57. does this mean

that if Joe goes indy, and tries to sink Lamont, you will be stepping outside the Democratic ticket to vote?

If so, your rhetoric about the left might have an irony deficiency.

[Ken Burch]

65. What help have YOU ever been?

Just WHAT have you, Benchley the Infallible, ever done for the party that was of such massive importance? Who are you to look down on anyone else here?
You always act like you're the only one here who has ever lifted a finger for the Democratic cause. How do you know that?

And no, the Republicans still have no chance in CT. the fall. The only thing that would give them a chance would be if Lieberman were to betray the party and democratic principles in general and stay in the race as an independent if he loses the primary. Will you join us here and demand that, if Joe is rejected by Connecticut Democrats in August, he should do the right thing and endorse Ned Lamont? If not, you AREN't a loyal Democrat and have no right to question anyone else's loyalty.

[MrBenchley]

73. Pout louder, Kenny.....

"the Republicans still have no chance in CT"
Who's the front runner for Governor? (Republican Jodi Rell) And where is the far left's effort to defeat her? (Nonexistent)

[Ken Burch]

75. Why is the governor's race more important than electing a REAL Democrat to

the Senate instead of a bloodsoaked right-wing militarist?

And you didn't answer my question about why we should see you as the person who works harder for the party than anyone else and is automatically entitled to determine who is and who is not a loyal Dem?

And no, I've NEVER pouted about you. You aren't worth it.

[MrBenchley]

93. Little Kenny...unable to figure out why a Democrat should be elected

because he hates Democrats.

Now pout louder.

[Ken Burch]

97. Your mommy should put you on time out, Benchley.

Democrats haven't won the Ct. governorship in years. They weren't ever that likely to win it this year. And you still haven't said what living Democratic saint we are denying the governorship to by not giving Lieberman renomination by divine right.

Is there a worthwhile electable Democrat even running for the governorship in Ct?

[MrBenchley]

98. Pout louder, Kenny

[Ken Burch]

99. Oh, I get it, you're now posting on "auto response"

Good one, Al.

[Ken Burch]

100. By the way

is your avatar New Jersey, or a gangrenous appendix?

[Moochy]

101. wheres your joe liebermann boostery now?

Jackhole

[eridani]

84. Lieberman is the pouter

He'll take his ball and go home and run as an independent. Lamont has pledged his support to Lieberman if Lieberman wins.

[charlyvi]

39. Far Left?

I voted for McGovern/Carter/Carter/Mondale/Dukakis/Clinton/Clinton/Gore/Kerry; no Naders for me. I am what I always believed was a moderate Democrat and Lieberman does no good at all for the Democratic Party--he only serves to blur and dilute our message. And our message has a difficult enough time trying to get past the media snark. Of course, the way this country has been pushed to the right, I might very well be a "far lefty" these days; so be it. But Lieberman, whatever his qualities as a person, is not helpful to the party. If we want a repub we can vote for the real thing, not a facsimile thereof. Sorry MrBenchley, but I think you're defending the indefensible here.

[still_one]

44. your voting record looks very similar to mine

I guess because I voted for McGovern I might be considered a lefty, but what is funny, he was right about Viet Nam

and Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, John Murtha, and others are also right about Iraq

[charlyvi]

46. You know something?

These days, Nixon would have been considered a far lefty. Whoda thunk it?

[Ken Burch]

69. In Benchleyese, "far left" means

Anyone who doesn't think that Joe and Hillary are the earthly embodiments of Democratic perfection.

[MrBenchley]

71. No, Kenny, it means half-assed socialists

with a bunch of Chomskyite horseshit rattling around their pointy little skulls.

[Ken Burch]

76. No, Benchy, it means anyone who doesn't believe that you, and you alone

are entitled to say who is and isn't a loyal Democrat.

(For the record, as to my own politics, I am a democratic socialist and a Democratic socialist and proud to be both. I could say I'm fully assed, but I'm not sure you'd get it.)

And why you think you help the DLC by verbally bullying people is a mystery to the universe. Al From is probably begging you to shut up.

Try, just try, making a coherent arguement for your position, instead of just spewing abuse. Try treating the discussions with respect. It certainly couldn't hurt your position more than the tactics you prefer to use instead.

[WyLoochka]

89. Benchy is Al From

One of the most offensive things about the DLC is that is headed by a bully. Benchy either does a good imitation of From or he IS From.

[Ken Burch]

90. Hadn't thought of that...hmmm

nt

[MrBenchley]

94. No, it means half-assed socialists

Now go whine about being bullied to somebody who cares.

[Ken Burch]

116. It means people Benchley disagrees with who don't know their place.

And once again, how many signatures have you gathered for Lieberman the Conservative Independent today?
You haven't denounced his admission that he's going to betray the party if he loses. Which means we can assume you're collaborating with him on it, as far as I can see.

Peddle THAT walking, bozo.

[MrBenchley]

121. It means half assed socialists

with a bit of chomskyite rubbish rattling around their pointy little skulls....

Now go pout to somebody else, Kenny.....

[Ken Burch]

122. Nothing I've ever written to or about you has ever been "pouting"

You need to face the fact that your wing of the party, the war loving right wing, has lost the arguement and is losing control of the party. You don't dominate anything anymore, Benchboy, and you've got nothing to gloat and bray about.

[MrBenchley]

123. All you ever do is pout, Kenny....

[Ken Burch]

62. We are. There's no conflict between opposing them and opposing Lieberman

nt.

[eridani]

83. Don't we have to wait until the general election for that?

Lamont and his "far left" supporters will support Lieberman if he wins the primary. Still waiting for a similar commitment from Lieberman.

[Webster Green]

17. It ain't about Holy Joe's religion...

Being completely detached from reality certainly pre-disposes one to be religiously insane, but this not about religion. It is about Joe carrying water for BushCo Inc.

That is unacceptable to many dems.

[still_one]

20. exactly

zell miller did the same thing

I wonder how many here would like to come to the defense of zell miller

How about if Joe Lieberman runs as an independent if he loses the primary, would they still be so inclined?

[Behind the Aegis]

22. If not about his religion, why the title: "Holy Joe?"

[still_one]

34. I don't mean to speak for the idividual who started that thread

but I think the word "holy Joe" came about during the 2000 campaign, when he invoked God in almost every speech he was giving

You are correct that the same argument isn't always the case when the other side invokes God in their speechs

The issues the republicans would like to frame are God, Guns, and Gays. It is up to the Democrats to bring up the real issues that will affect Americans

[Webster Green]

47. Heh,.....because he IS religiously insane....

Anyway, I didn't make up the name.

[Ken Burch]

61. "Holy Joe" is a reference to Lieberman's tendency towards sanctimony

it has NOTHING whatsoever to do with his religious convictions, convictions that many of us have already demonstrated do NOT obligate him to back this war or the upcoming Iran invasion.

No one is against Lieberman because of his Judaism, and stevenlesser and all the rest of the Lieberman's apologists know it. So that shouldn't be invoked at all.

[IndianaGreen]

79. I call Lieberman Holy Joe a lot

and is not about his religion, which happens to be the same as mine, but because he is a pompous self-righteous asshole that had the audacity to attack Democrats for refusing to accept Bush as Commander-in-Chief.

[stevenleser]

28. As always I appreciate everyone's comments and have read each one...

carefully. As I expected, a lot more people disagreed with me than the other way around. The only thing I can promise as a journalist is that I will write exactly what I believe and that I will always read the comments that come back and factor that in into what I believe going forward. I place additional weight on comments from fellow DUers.

I do want to respond to a few comments in particular. Someone wrote that I should not have brought up Lieberman's religion. For a non-observant person, I might be inclined to agree. For someone who has embraced observance to the point of orthodoxy in any religion, I would say that in an article that attempts to explain who someone is, why they do certain things, and whether or not someone is true at least to themselves, it might be hard not to mention it, if that makes sense.

On the central question of whether or not Lieberman belongs in the Democratic party and whether it makes sense to run someone against him in the primary, I think this is a healthy debate that should continue. Obviously, as Democrats, we havent really been getting this right for quite some time. We won with Clinton on the strength of his personality. But if you take him out of the picture, we have been on the defensive and steadily losing support for a while. The best brains in our party should be trying to figure out why and come up with a strategy to address this. To me, the Lieberman argument is a small part of this discussion.

[still_one]

45. True, we won with Bill Clinton, but at the same time

it was because of what Bill Clinton did with the telecommunication act of 1996 that helped seal our fate

what reagan did in 1988 by abolishing the equal time doctrine, Bill Clinton sealed it with this

Look who controls the airwaves?

[muriel_volestrangler]

67. Here's what's wrong with your OP

For one, those who support the ouster of Lieberman are saying the Modern Orthodox Jewish beliefs have no place in the Democratic Party. It is putting a line in the sand and saying that if your beliefs are past this certain point you cannot be a Democrat.

That's complete bullshit. Give us a quote from someone saying its his religious beliefs that are the reason they want a different Democratic candidate (note, they are saying there is a better representative of the party, not that he can't be counted as a Democrat). If you can't, and you don't seem to have tried yet, then admit that it's his voting record that the Democrats in Connecticut don't like. And, as pointed out, there's nothing in Modern Orthodox Judaism telling him that an invasion of Iraq under false pretences was a good thing, or that the president cannot be criticised.

Being devout doesn't get Lieberman a pass for his actions as a senator. You seem to think it does.

[stevenleser]

78. The facts are not as you would like...

...but incorrectly restating my points to set up a straw man doesn't help the debate.

[muriel_volestrangler]

87. OK then, you try giving us some facts

How is quoting what you said 'a strawman'? But your remark was a strawman - that it's Lieberman being a Modern Orthodox Jew that it getting him rejected. You haven't shown that in any way - you've just taken his religion, the fact that many Democrats don't want him as a senator, and falsely put the two together. Again, I ask you to point out who these Democrats who are against him for religious reasons are. Go on, this is your chance to convert your earlier strawman into a real argument.

'The facts are not as you would like'? Which facts are they, then? Are you claiming there is something in Modern Orthodox Judaism that told him to support an illegal invasion? That tells him to support the president even if the president has non-Democratic views?

[Ken Burch]

85. The tragedy of Clinton is, with his abilities as an orator and his

charisma, he could have fully stood up to the right and MADE THE CASE FOR PROGRESSIVE POLITICS. He never had to lead a fight to drive the left out of the party and to make the Democrats a white man's club(or a near white man's club, since if you are a African American or Hispanic American politician who embraces the DLC agenda, you've essentially deracinated yourself, and if you're a female politician who has done so, you've spat on Bella Abzug's grave). Clinton would have won as a real Democrat. He didn't have to be a "centrist" globalist with a Scoop Jackson fixation.

Clinton COULD have spoken up for the poor and defended them on the false accusations that they were poor because of their lack of personal morality. Clinton could have used his own life story to refute that. Instead, he let all of Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich's lies stand unchallenged, and allowed social welfare in this country to be destroyed with nothing positive put up in its place, like, say, real jobs training and federal jobs programs. Why any low-income voters voted for him after that will always be a mystery, since they showed him a loyalty he never showed them.

Clinton COULD have defended the protest tradition and could have spoken up for a new foreign policy that was not based on putting corporate interests first. Instead, he repudiated his own ideals and listened to Reaganites like Ben Wattenberg.

Clinton COULD have fully defended and articulated the idea that ALL of America's cultures deserve equal respect. Instead, he indulged the worst white suburbanite fantasies of inherent Anglo Protestant superiority.

None of this was necessary. The Democrats didn't need to surrender to what Robert Kennedy once called "the darker impulses of the American spirit". Clinton could have been elected as his best self.

[Demeter]

29. There's Nothing Wrong With Keeping Your Mind Open....

as long as your brains don't fall out.

You can like a person for who he is, and realize that he's exactly the wrong person for a job.

[charlyvi]

31. Are you suggesting that Connecticut voters should leave Joe in office

solely based on the fact that he has ideals? And not be given a choice between Joe and someone else who might be more in line with their own ideals? The reason Joe is in danger of losing his seat is not lefty intolerance; it's Joe's own brand of unctuous self righteousness. Bush's favorite Democrat; the man who warned us that "we undermine the President at our own peril" for simply expressing disagreement with his policies--we were acting out of partisan interest, whereas Joe was putting the good of the nation ahead of partisan politics. Bad us, good Joe. The man who appears monthly on Hannity's TV show, and who Hannity offered to campaign for; the man who introduced the arguments from the Republican side in the war debate last week; the man who never really came down on the Dem side of Social Security privatization. In short, the man who undermines Senate Dem unity at every turn--filibuster bad, bipartisan cooperation good in a political climate where the ruling party defines bipartisanship as a weakness to be exploited for their base's benefit.

Connecticut voters should be able to elect who they want. That's what primaries are for--it's democracy. To say they should keep Lieberman in office based on an understanding of his religion is being unfair. A politician's religion is his own business and the public is under no obligation to let it influence their vote. As far the "the big tent", calling Lieberman a Democrat (see above paragraph for only a small sampling of his uncanny ability to undermine the core beliefs of the party he claims) is to stretch the tent far beyond any meaningful philosophy.

But finally, what infuriates me the most about Lieberman is his total obliviousness to the fact that the bushies are using him. How in hell can a Democrat let that happen.

[yorgatron]

36. "gimme a kiss,you Modern Orthodox hunk"

[dsc]

48. Just what are we supposed to do when we disagree with a Democrat?

I have been a huge voice on the don't vote third party bandwagon. I feel a vote for a third party is a waste and helps lead to conservative government. Yet, how can one argue that position and the position that one shouldn't support primary challenges? Lieberman has earned this primary challenge. He earned it not by being a religiously observent Jew but by consistently taking hypocritical positions in regards to the issues of the day. The same man who wanted to censure Clinton over Monica tell us that we can't even criticize, nevermind censure, a President who lied to get us into a war. I give Lieberman props for actually believing in this war as opposed to the Democrats who voted for it due to fear, but actually believing in the war only goes so far. He doesn't get a free pass to paint as traitors those who would dare criticize the boy king inhabiting the White House.

Lieberman was the only, as in sole, Democrat who considered breaking on Social Security. That betrayal, had he done it, would have destroyed the most successful government program in the history of the US. His even considering it was monumentally stupid and worthy of a primary challenge.

Incidently, on nearly every issue where Lieberman disagrees with the left the popular position is on the left, not Lieberman. Nearly two thirds of the country opposes the war and about the same fraction opposed changing Social Security.

[charlyvi]

49. Exactly dsc.

We need to put as many Dems in office as possible; however, if they are lousy Dems, we have every right to express our displeasure in the primaries. Dems don't get a free pass if they betray the principles of the people who put them in office. And then for Joe to act offended by it, as though the Senate seat is his by right. WTF? He seems like a genuine kind man, but who is he to think we put his tender feelings above the welfare of the people he represents? He works for the people, not the other way around. I think sometimes he forgets that.

[dsc]

50. I hope he accepts the verdict of the Democrats of CT

whatever it might be. Senator Dixon of Illinois accepted his primary loss back in 1992 and if it comes to that so should Joe.

[ru4truth]

52. The Voters of Connecticut Will Decide.

All the mind bending analysis and thought means nothing. The democratic voters will decide if Lieberman will be their candidate. Although the war is a big reason, it is not the only reason Lieberman is feeling pressure. First of all, the voters haven't had a choice of who would be the democratic candidate for a long time now since there wasn't anyone able to compete against Joe and the democratic machine here in Connecticut for many years. Who really knows what people think of Joe unless there is a viable candidate running against him?

Besides the war, Joe has endorsed what many of us here beleive are illegal, unwise, and immoral policies of the right wing. I disagree with you that Joe is good for the party. He has aligned himself too closely on too many issues with the most corrupt, selfish, greedy, and uncompassionate, and mean spirited group of republicans in my lifetime -which is fairly long. Joe is not critical to the health of the democratic party - on the contrary, I think he hurts it. He long ago lost his ideals and is more interested now in staying in power and feeding his vanity as a well quaffed senator at the center of things.

I think Joe believed his position was unassailable and this encouraged him to do whatever he wanted to do without adequately considering what quite a few of his constituents want. If he runs as an independent it will prove he is not the guy for the democratic candidacy because it is all about Joe more than anything else.

[agio]

53. Red herring, IMHO

Steve Leser writes, "I am also unhappy that a campaign has been waged by progressive groups such as Progressive Democrats of America to find and support a candidate to run against him in the Democratic primary. I do not think these are positive things for the Democratic Party."

Setting aside the Orthodox issue (the relevance of which I am hard-pressed to see), I think you are pointing to a conspiracy that doesn't exist.

Ned Lamont thinks he can do a better job of representing the people of Connecticut, and the Democratic Party, in the Senate. Surely, that is no sin against the party, nor is it anti-democratic in the least. It's not like some star chamber of elite progressives picked him, based on his winning entry in a "Why I hate Lieberman" essay contest.

And I am mystified why you think a primary (gasp!) is a bad thing for the Democratic Party. Primaries, despite the fretting of beltway pundits, are NOT evil. They force candidates to stay in touch with the ideological roots of the party, and to prove that they are doing right by their constituents. I wish every senator -- regardless of their political inclination -- was challenged, every six years, by a vigorous primary opponent.

I am not a Connecticut voter, though I will confess I am rooting for Lamont, and have given him what little I can spare. But in the end, and whatever happens, I will (and I urge others) to follow the lead of Russ Feingold, as he said yesterday on MTP: "If Joe Lieberman wins the primary, I campaign for him. If Ned Lamont wins the primary, I campaign for him. I'll be supporting the Democrat."

[yurbud]

54. ANIMATION: all you need to know about JoeMo (mentum)

I faxed this to him once after some especially painful example of vichy behavior (there have been so many, I forgot which it was).

[Fovea]

58. 'Shrinking the tent by kicking people out at the fringes'

Joe is so far out at the fringe that frankly, he's in the other tent.
For me it is not about his faith, it is about his embracing of Bush's evil
regime.

Oh yeah, and dissing Clinton early in the Gore/Lieberman race.

I wish I could say that I am just more for Lamont's part of the Dem spectrum,
but actually, Joe is an icon for the 2000 nightmare. I am not saying there is no room for the DLC or its
adherents in the party.

But I am saying they have been the architects of our greatest failures,
and maybe they should stop acting as though they were the sole voice of the party
which has moved away from them.

[marmar]

82. If you want to say the Party should be a big tent opinions-wise, fine...

But to suggest that the Progressive antipathy toward Lieberman is saying that Modern Orthodox Jewish beliefs have no place in the party is a non-starter of an argument. You will find plenty of anger toward Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden too - the issue that connects all of them of course is the war and their continued support for it.

[Montauk6]

91. Talking about wanting the whole damned buffet!

So, the Democrats are supposed to stand firm in a consensus on the issues yet have a huge tent that allows for right-wingers and progressives who are polar opposites on almost everything???

And why doesn't the Republican Party get chastised to the level of the Democrats for not doing more to welcome liberals?

Once again, this is just a cheap excuse to move the Dems to the right and excoriate those in opposition as being "out of touch with the majority of Americans." Another form of newspeak, imho.

[bronxiteforever]

104. Lieberman enthusiastically supports an immoral war

His stance on social issues is great-but the rubber meets the road with the war-we are bleeding morally, fiscally and bodily due to Iraq. I have a problem with all of these Senators, who, when Vietnam was in play IN THEIR LIVES THEY LET OTHERS GO AND DIE FOR THEM (Lieberman is in good company with the chicken hawks of the GOP such as Mitch McConnell etc). Here it is the same policy-send some other persons' kid is sent to die-it smacks of royalty-there is no personal risk for these politicians so in a large sense I find this cowardly-the war hasn't been an abstract theory to the thousands Iraqis dead and our troops with PTSD and amputations. The Rethugs enjoy the war card because it makes them look strong but it is so harmful to our country that we could spend hours listing the way this policy has hurt us. Lieberman's failure to see this or admit he was wrong is a policy difference of the highest type.

[Cha]

105. It matters not one

whit to me whether lieberman panders to anyone bedsides the warmongering bush. That's enough for me.

[bemildred]

108. Oh bullshit.

Any voter has a perfect right to vote for or against any politician based on that politician's votes and positions. If Mr Leser likes him, that is his business. If other people don't, that is theirs. All the babble about his religion is particularly annoying, it's not his religion, it's his votes. It is not Lieberman's seat, it is the people of Connecticut's seat, and they have a perfect right to try to give it to someone that represents their views.

[madfloridian]

110. Author totally has no clue of what Lieberman is doing.

Bemildred is right, this is just bullshit.

Lieberman just thumbed his nose at the voters. He effectively said I don't care what you think, I don't care how you vote. He just said it did not matter to him.

This is not about Lieberman. This is about our party, our primaries, and our Democracy.

[madmunchie]

120. Separation of Church and State

Simple, direct and to the point. No matter what religion Leiberman is or is not, should not affect how he performs his job. A job that he was elected, NOT ordained or anointed to.

Take the religious/church issue out of your article, and there would be no article, no position and that is why your argument is fundamentally against the Constitution.

He is supposed to be representing the people of Connecticut, not the temple that he attends....get it straight.

[Stuckinthebush]

111. At issue here is incumbency

The shock among some establishment Democrats that Connecticut Dems are interested in another candidate is very telling. Two Senate seats belong to the people of Connecticut. They decide every six years who should fill the seat. Joe Lieberman happens to have occupied that seat for a number of terms. He has become a "known" entity in the Senate, and is cozy in the club. What is that saying? The Senate is the most exclusive club in America? Once a person is a member, it is hard to get them the hell out of there. So, you find a lot of establishment Democrats wringing their hands over the issue of Joe possibly being replaced by the people of Connecticut because they see this as THEIR seat and not Connecticut's seat.

Joe Lieberman has a long record. It is there for every voter in the State to see. Ed Lamont is challenging that record. He is saying that Mr. Lieberman has not served the people of Connecticut well, or indeed, the people of America well. It seems that many Democrats in the State agree with Mr. Lamont. Clearly, Joe believes that the seat belongs to him. He feels entitled to the seat, and he shows this feeling by declaring that he very well may run as an Independent if he loses the primary. The party be damned!

It has nothing to do with his religious beliefs, but everything to do with his acts. Connecticut voters seem to be ready to say, "Joe, you just aren't for us." Joe should do his best to win the primary, and if he loses, should do everything in his power to help Lamont win in November. That is what a good party member would do. Instead, Joe is acting like it is HIS seat and he will thumb his nose at the party if they don't choose him. Some good Dem there.

Now, if the Dems of Connecticut choose Joe as their candidate, then I think it is important for all Dems to support him. That's the way the system works. We don't have to like him or his acts, but if his fellow State Dems want him there, then we should probably grin and bear it.

[charlyvi]

118. Here, here Stuckinthebush.....

At issue is the political will of the people of Connecticutt. Obviously, if they were perfectly happy with Joe, this primary bid would not have taken off as it has. If some or most of the Connecticutt voters are unhappy, they should have a choice; therefore, they have launched a primary candidate--Ned Lamont. Instead of lashing out at Lamont supporters, the route Joe has taken, he ought to think about why he is being challenged....but Joe is incapable of seeing beyond his bruised feelings.

If Joe wins, we must grin and bear it. If Lamont wins, we must support him. But whoever wins, the people of Connecticutt must be respected. By Joe, Lamont, and the Democratic Party. It's called democracy.

[Bolo Boffin]

115. Let Lieberman move to Texas and run.

I'd be happy to support him in Texas, because hey! I've got Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn! Lieberman would be a vast improvement here...

...but in Connecticut? We can do better, and Lamont's the candidate.

[charlyvi]

119. Let him come to Alabama!

I feel for ya boloboffin. I have Sessions and the turncoat traitor Shelby. Indeed, Joe would be a vast improvement!

[Martin Eden]

124. The "Orthodox Jew" argument makes no sense

If Orthodox Jews are more naturally conservative and Joe Lieberman is merely being true to himself and his religion, then perhaps he is in the wrong party. Democrats are being true to themselves and their beliefs when they support candidates who represent their beliefs. If Lieberman's orthodoxy puts him on the other side of issues important to Democrats, then by all means we should support his opponent in the Democratic primary.

Perhaps the most important issue facing America is its involvement in Iraq, which has been a costly disaster. Joe has been on the wrong side of this issue from the beginning. Hell, there is nothing conservative about the neocon foreign policy that many true conservatives have vociferously opposed. Retired generals (no longer under the yolk of this commander-in-chief) have described the misadventure in Iraq as the worst strategic blunder in our nation's history.

It's a matter of national security, of blood and treasure, of right and wrong. Joe Lieberman may believe he is right. If you agree with him, vote for him. If not, get behind Ned Lamont.