Ned Lamont v. Joe Lieberman

[IndianaGreen]

Ned Lamont v. Joe Lieberman

Here's an excerpt from Lamont's announcement speech.

Let's have the debate.

Three years ago politicians with years of political experience rushed our troops off to war; they told us the war would be easy; we'd be greeted as liberators.

Now three years later, America is no safer, Israel is no safer, the Middle East is even less stable, Iran is on the prowl, Osama Bid Laden is on the prowl, and we have 130,000 valiant troops stuck in the middle of a violent civil war in the heart of Iraq.

Those who got us into this mess should be held accountable.

In Washington they give you a medal; in my world they say: "You're fired."

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=68530

[Totally Committed]

1. "In Washington they give you a medal; ....

.... in my world they say: 'You're fired.'"

Bingo!

Thanks for posting this. Recommended.

TC

[BlueManDude]

2. I'd rather lose the seat to the GOP than have Lieberman re-elected.

His voting record on many issues is good but his knee-jerk defense of everything Bush does regarding "foreign policy" damages the party in a major way.

[Totally Committed]

3. The thing is, with Joementum....

whether he wins or loses, there will be a Republican Senator in that seat. The only "Democratic" thing about Leiberman is the "D" he cynically keeps beside his name, imo. He's as Republican as McCain as far as I'm concerned -- at least in every way that counts -- right down to the hugs and tonsil-hockey with W. It's sickening. He's sickening.

TC

[MurrayDelph]

9. Better to risk letting an admitted Republican get the job

than this Uncle Shamos, who plays the role of undercutting any Democratic efforts.

[skipos]

4. That logic keeps dems in the minority and able to accomplish nothing.

If we and dem majorities, there would be so much more confidence in the way they vote, and knowing they could actually win with their vote they would vote much more in unity. If we had majorities, senators who tend to vote status quo would be voting more often with democrats. People like Lieberman and the Nelsons wouldn't much of a difference.

I never understand the logic of some DUers "Our democratic minorities are accomplishing nothing, I am so mad that I am not going to vote for them anymore." If we all had that approach, they would stay the minority party and not be able to do anything ever.

Take a look a Lieberman's TOTAL voting record, and you wil see he is better than any republican. Personally, I don't understand why Connecticut can't do better than him, but if he is the nominee, he should be supported. When we have majorities back, it will be much easier and much more timely to try to replace people like him with more preogressive democrats.

The "this democrats isn't any better than a republican" logic worked really poorly with Nader 2000 voters. They learned their mistake the hard way, let's not make the same mistake with Connecticut.

[Larkspur]

5. The "Anybody but Bush/Repke" didn't work in 2004

Democrats need to stand on Democratic principles, not just incumbancy. Polls show most Americans favor progressive and Democratic positions, so Dems should not be skittish about promting Dem principles.

I'm not voting for Lieberman period in 2006. He's a war criminal and it would be immoral for me to vote for him.

[Clarkansas]

6. Former Nader voter here

I thought there wasn't a big difference between Al Gore and GW Bush, and I thought vote for Nader was more "moral." After a term of Bush, I began to realize how less moral it was to let Republicans win. While someone like Lieberman may be off on the issues 30% of the time, even the most moderate Republican is off about 99% of the time. Then again, I am not as single issue (Iraq) oriented as many here. I remember a thread about Chuck Hagel on the democratic ticket!

I am guessing this is falling on deaf ears, as calling Lieberman a "war criminal" is pretty melodramatic.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

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

[IndianaGreen]

13. I expect a lot of Republicans to cross over and vote for Holy Joe

in the Democratic primary. The Republicans want to keep that seat in GOP hands!

[BlueManDude]

8. Lieberman is bad for the party

his negatives far outweight his positives. his incessant defenses of bush give cover to the gop.

[IndianaGreen]

12. Lieberman opposes censuring Bush for his wiretap law-breaking

That makes Lieberman an enemy of the Constitution and the rule of law.

Fuck him!

[BlueManDude]

10. Lieberman on emergency contraception

"Lieberman said he believes hospitals that refuse to give contraceptives to rape victims for "principled reasons" shouldn't be forced to do so. "In Connecticut, it shouldn't take more than a short ride to get to another hospital," he said."

Ok Joe.

[Capn Sunshine]

11. This is what the primary is for

IMO Lieberman has strayed from his party base's viewpoints. If he can defend his actions, fine, let him do so in debate with Ned LaMont. Our democratic system says the guy with the most votes after the primary is the candiate.

So let's have at it!

[blue4barb]

14. My 85 year old mother just said, "Why doesn't Lieberman

turn republican and get it over with?"

[MurrayDelph]

15. Because then he would be one in 56

he gets so much more attention by being a spoiler.