Debunking the Top Eight Myths about Joe Lieberman.

[TheVirginian]

I'm sure there will be many more myths for me to debunk following the posting of this thread, but we'll start with the eight that seem to be the most repeated on this board.

1. Joe Lieberman is a Republican who calls himself a Democrat.
(other versions of this include: Joe Lieberman is in lock-step with the Bush Administration, Joe Lieberman is a DINO, et al.)

Unlike most candidates for Senate, Joe Lieberman has a very long public record, which includes public statements, endorsements, and most important, votes. Before he was elected to the Senate in 1988, Joe Lieberman served for ten years in the Connecticut state senate, serving the last six years as Senate President. In 2000, he was the Democratic Party nominee for Vice-President, and through the course of the primary and the general election, his position on most major issues were made known throughout the nation. He ran again in 2004, though he didn't make it past the primaries. Strange, then, with over twenty-five years in public service, his loyalty to the party he's always belonged to is being questioned.

Sure, there are many issues with which to disagree with Joe Lieberman on. Most glaring of these is his support for the Iraq War, which is an unforgivable offense to many here on this board. But Joe Lieberman is far from the only Democrat to support the war, even now. Yet, it seems, he's bearing the full brunt of anti-war activists' wrath. Consider this, though. Joe Lieberman made his full support for the war known after he travelled to Iraq unaccompanied. He made his decision on his own accord, and following no agenda other than his own. Yet because his opinion coincides with most Republicans and a handful of other Democrats, he's accused of being in lock-step with the Bush Administration. This is the inevitable dangerous result of the combination of group-think and embellishment that runs absolutely rampant in the far-left blogosphere, and on this board.

There are other issues, too. Lieberman supports trade agreements with other countries. And while many on this board don't, a wide array of premier economists and foreign affairs specialists have repeatedly said that free trade is a pivotal, crucial step in working towards harmony. Perhaps you disagree with them as well; that's fair. But while the Iraq War becomes harder and harder to justify, the debate over free trade is, at its base, a question of balancing interests. And there has been much hay over his decision not to filibuster Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court--nevermind that the filibuster cause was started three days before the vote was supposed to take place, and the entire caucus was split on the vote. In the sport of piling on, there is no detail too large to ignore.

But since I've no doubt inspired the anger of the majority of people reading this thread, perhaps my words aren't the best way to convince you. Perhaps these two links would work better. The first is a link to interest group ratings of Senator Lieberman. While they're broken down by general topic, two areas in specific will give you what you want to know: "Conservative" and "Liberal".

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0141103

The second vote is a link to his voting record.

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=S0141103

In conclusion: Joe Lieberman is no Ted Kennedy or Tom Harkin, but he's no Ben Nelson, and he's certainly no George W. Bush.

2. By gathering signatures to run as an Independent if he loses the primary, Joe Lieberman is screwing/ignoring/de-frauding the primary voters.

This is just a case of people not the definition of simple concepts. Primaries are not a part of the democratic process. They are a part of the party process. The sole purpose of a primary is to determine who runs as a candidate for a specific party on Election Day. If Ned Lamont wins the Connecticut primary on August 8th, then he will be the only Democrat on the ballot in November. The primary's purpose was achieved, and the wish of primary voters are fulfilled.

Some people try to take this even further and state that he's destroying the primary process, or even democracy, by running as an Independent. This is just absurd logic. By going in front of all of the voters, Lieberman is giving the chance of all of the state's voters the ability to judge him as their elected representative, regardless of party.

There is nothing in any state law, nor in any party platform, nor in any unwritten rules of politics, that say that the loser of a primary must drop out of a race. Generally, they do, in order to prevent splitting the vote. Which leads us straight into...

3. By running as an Independent, Joe Lieberman will split the Democratic vote, allowing the Republican to win.
(A similar argument/attack is to compare Lieberman to Ralph Nader)

By all accounts, Connecticut is a blue state. Its solid blue. Though the majority of voters Independent (as is the case in most states), the state is a Democratic Party stronghold. In addition to this, the CT Republican Party is in roughly the same condition as the Mississippi Democratic Party: weakened and unimpassioned. Finally, there is a world of difference between a Connecticut Republican and a South Carolina Republican, for example.

This is not to say that the Republican Party is non-existant. Jodi Rell is the popular Republican Governor of CT and is on her way to being re-elected this fall. Three of the five Congressional seats are represented by Republicans. But the Republican Party is in no shape to attempt to overthrow a state stalwart like Joe Lieberman. No big name in the party would dare commit political suicide by challenging the state's biggest political star. That's why the Republican in race, Alan Schlesinger, has a public service only a little bit longer than mine, or yours. The only claim to experience he has is as a former state representative. If Joe Lieberman were a pro-ball player on the All-Star Team, Alan Schlesinger would be a second-string Single-A shortstop.

Alan Schlesinger stands no chance of being elected. Contrary to public statements, his best chance for election occurs if Lieberman opts not to be on the ballot in November. Even then, he's a long-shot against Ned Lamont. However, he is almost a non-factor with Joe Lieberman in the race, as either a Democrat or an Independent. A Quinnipiac poll released found that over 70% of CT Republicans and over 60% of CT Independents think that Joe Lieberman should be re-elected. In a one-on-one race with Alan Schlesinger, Lieberman would capture 60% of the Republican vote. There is no hope for Schlesinger to win, even in a three-way race.

In fact, if Lieberman were to run as an Independent, he would likely bolster his support among Independents and Republicans, adding them to a strong cadre of Democratic voters who would remain loyal to him. This debunks the notion that Lieberman would "split" the vote. If anything, he would bring the vote with him.

This also goes a long way in debunking the next one...

4. Joe Lieberman will lose if he runs as an Independent.

This one isn't as strong a talking point, nor as common, but it comes up. Some note how sad it is that Lieberman would end his career on a desperate exercise of vanity or an act of revenge. It simply isn't true. While no one can say for certain that Lieberman will win as an Independent, no one can say with certainty that he'd lose, either. And all availible evidence points towards his victory, not his defeat. Certainly, Lieberman wouldn't entertain the idea of running as an Independent if he thought he'd lose.

5. Joe Lieberman's first obligation should be towards the Democratic Party.

Recent media stories have Lieberman saying, as quoted, that he serves a higher obligation than the Democratic Party. This has earned him the label of a traitor by some (which I'll get to in a second), but first its important to qualify the Senator's remarks. Political parties are not mentioned anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. The oath that every Senator takes when swearing in is not to represent a party, its to represent the people of his state. When voters vote for someone, they're not voting for him to represent a party, they're voting for him to represent them, the voters. In Connecticut, Joe Lieberman has strong support from the entire political gamut: from Democrats, from Independents, and from Republicans. Even beyond his support, every citizen of Connecticut is his constituent. Howard Dean is not. The majority of people on this board are not. Joe Lieberman's first obligation should be towards the people of his state that he was voted in to represent, period.

6. Joe Lieberman is betraying the Democratic Party.
(other versions include the specific label of "traitor")

There are different reasons that people use to support this claim, most of which are covered in this thread. The most repeated is that he jeopardizes a Democratic seat by splitting the vote, which we now know is untrue. Others include his support for some Republican policies, which, if this truly makes him a traitor, then the entire Democratic Party is full of traitors.

The reason I listed this as its own item is because people like to think that this is one swift motion with which Lieberman is driving a knife into the back of the Party. This is not true. Indeed, it is neither Joe Lieberman who's doing any moving, and its not one motion. Joe Lieberman has been the same person for the last eighteen years. How, then, to explain his sudden base problems in the last couple of years? The answer is easy: the liberal blogosphere. Never before have party activists been as vocal and unified in their voices, and suddenly a state-wide race in Connecticut has people as far away as Hawaii on the verge of taking to the streets. The overwhelming chorus of complaints against Joe Lieberman has nothing to do with any recent action on Lieberman's part, but has everything to do with the increased strength and viability of this party's far-left wing.

7. Our resources are best put in kicking Joe Lieberman out of office.

This is the part that gets me the most. In an political environment that's hostile towards Republicans, we're targeting Democrats. In a Senate where we need six pick-ups to regain control, the most talked about race will have no effect on the final make-up of the chamber. There's some talk of Pennsylvania, of Montana, and of Ohio, but almost nothing out of Missouri and Rhode Island, and very little in Tennessee and Arizona. Meanwhile, we're staring down the gun in Minnesota, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington State, and the only race in that bunch that gets any attention is the level of discontent with Democratic incumbent Maria Cantwell. Where are the threads on these races that will most assuredly have an impact on the make-up of the chamber? Where is the interest and the hype? The netroots and activist support was instrumental in the campaigns of Jon Tester and Jim Webb, but where's the support when the candidates need it the most? Imagine if all the energy that was focused on kicking out Joe Lieberman was focused on kicking out Jim Talent. What if that was exactly what was needed to send that race over the edge?

Even in Connecticut, it boggles the mind. While there's no hope of ousting Jodi Rell, three of the five Representatives are Republican, and by virtue of being in a blue state during an anti-GOP environment, they're vulnerable. Why are state activists spending so much time and energy shouting at the wind about Lieberman when there are races to be won, with serious national implications. We need a 15-seat flip in the House to take control. Would that be harder or easier if we had three pick-ups in Connecticut?

8. People who defend Joe Lieberman are opposed to Ned Lamont/progressives/the Democratic Party.

The final resort (or in some cases, the first resort) of many spirited debators here is to assign personal motive to a poster. If you can establish that the poster's viewpoints are in the wrong, then there's no need to bother addressing any of the legitimate points they raise. For the record, I wish Ned Lamont is elected the next Senator from Connecticut. However, I don't hate Joe Lieberman. I think he does an excellent job of representing the people of Connecticut, and the majority of people in Connecticut agree. I think he is the model of a statesman, both in his representation and in the Senate. I have had the extraordinary opportunity to not only hear the man talk, but also to speak with him (albiet briefly) during my time on Capitol Hill, and from my own personal experience as well as those who have known him well (including DU favorites such as Barbara Boxer and Barack Obama), Lieberman is intelligent, engaged, honest, and full of conviction. I have a great deal of respect for the man, and not only do I oppose the intra-party fighting aimed solely at Lieberman, I disagree with the majority of criticism he gets.

Personally, it boggles my mind why there is so much animosity towards Joe Lieberman on this board when far greater culprits like Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu escape scrutiny. Joe Lieberman is far from the most conservative Democrat in the Senate. In addition to the ones from Nebraska and Louisiana, Tom Carper (D-DE), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Robert Byrd (D-WV), Blance Lincoln (D-AR), Mark Pryor (D-AK), Max Baucus (D-MT), and Kent Conrad (D-ND) all have more conservative voting records than Joe Lieberman.

Finally, it occurs to me that the only way that Ned Lamont has a hope of being elected in November is if Joe Lieberman is not on the ballot. Lieberman simply has too much in-state support. So its easy to see the transparency of those who say that, by not dropping out of the race, Lieberman is betraying the party. In reality, Lieberman is chosing to go in front of all of his constituents, not just his party's voters, and there is no chance that the party activists can win against that. So they twist words and focus their sights on Lieberman in an attempt to pressure him out of the race. From where I'm sitting, it looks an awful lot like the Democratic Party, or at least a sub-section of it, is betraying Joe Lieberman.

[Kagemusha]

1. So your point is... the Democratic Party left is betraying the country?

Because members thereof choose to oppose the great American hero Joe Lieberman during a time of war?

Am I reading this right?

[TheVirginian]

2. No, you're not.

Try again.

[Kagemusha]

22. Okay, Lieberman is more loyal to Democrats than Democrats themselves

therefore he must run as an independent for their own good to save them from themselves?

I'm trying...

[TheVirginian]

27. A better idea

Would be to read my post from start to finish, instead of taking random guesses.

Since you posted your first comment within thirty seconds of me posting it, it is obvious that you didn't take the time to read my post before commenting.

[Kagemusha]

57. I'll just quote the last line in the article.

"From where I'm sitting, it looks an awful lot like the Democratic Party, or at least a sub-section of it, is betraying Joe Lieberman."

Betraying. Joe's not betraying the party - it's betraying him.

How am I supposed to read that?

[TheVirginian]

60. Within the context of the rest of the post, I suppose.

I understand that sometimes that's too much to ask for.

[Kagemusha]

79. The context is Lieb's right and defiance of his will is selfish and wrong

and I would simply submit that such selfishness is allowed by the democratic process, and should be.

[TheVirginian]

80. The context is that supporting Lamont doesn't have to unduly criticize

Lieberman.

[Kagemusha]

98. Then why should ANYONE support Lamont?

If there's no reason to criticize Lieberman, why the hell would any responsible Democratic Party member support Lamont against him?... the only reason to do so is unless there's something wrong with Lieberman, and therefore grounds to criticize. And without criticizing him, it's a bit hard to win against him, isn't it?

Supporting Lamont to help him lose is not what I would consider to be "supporting" in the common usage of the English language.

[TheVirginian]

101. You missed a key word... "unduly".

Criticize Lieberman for policies you disagree with. However, the embellishment and cries of murder aimed at him simply go too far. In the course of two weeks debates, I've recognized eight oft-repeated falsehoods about this situation that I wished to state my disagreement with.

[Kagemusha]

104. But he calls opponents "jihadists, zealots, crusaders"

And his staff calls them insurgents and terrorists for good measure.

Frankly, I dislike Lieberman more for that than for ANY of his policy decisions.

[TheVirginian]

108. And that's perfectly fair.

Its just those eight things in my original post that I took specific issue with. This was not, by any means, a "Vote Lieberman" post.

[Kagemusha]

110. Betrayal of Lieberman as opposed to betrayal by Lieberman's strong stuff

If you did NOT mean that as a "Vote Lieberman" post, you were too subtle about making that clear for your own good. If so, then this is indeed a misunderstanding. So be it.

Because it sure sounded like one of those "ingrate grassroots peons" posts, put bluntly...

[TheVirginian]

112. It wasn't meant to.

My points about the blogosphere are its critical flaws, not that they are useless or unknowledgable. I think it has the potential to be one of the greatest resources in political history, but it is severely dampened by groupthink, which leads to embellishment.

[Name removed]

117. Deleted message

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

[TheVirginian]

135. Its campaign rhetoric, nothing more.

No different than Webb's camp constantly referencing "glass dude houses" in the Virginia race. Its just an attempt to get ahead of public perception.

As far as Lieberman and the party goes, I thought this was supposed to be a big-tent party. I don't consider Joe Lieberman vastly out of step with the rest of the party. His voting record certainly doesn't justify it, and certainly doesn't justify targeting him but leaving a great number of Congressman and Senators unscathed. Simply put, if Lieberman is out of step with the party and deserves to be kicked out, then by the same standard, up to 30% of the party has to go as well.

It is the right of the people to vote for someone else, and that's not what I consider to be a betrayal of Lieberman. What I consider to be a betrayal is the uprising on the Internet, in blogs and on this board (and others) aimed solely at Lieberman for having convictions that differ than the far-left of the party. As I mentioned in the OP, I have a great deal of respect for Lieberman, stemming from my personal interactions with the man as well as his public record, and the mud-slinging campaign against him is absolutely appalling. If Connecticut votes him out, that's nothing more than democracy in action. But the verbal lynching Lieberman has recieved is unbecoming of this party, and in my opinion is a far larger threat than any potential Independent bid by Lieberman.

[The Magistrate]

170. Just Campaign Rhetoric, Sir?

Then on what grounds do you stand to complain of the "verbal lynching" of Sen. Lieberman here and elsewhere? What are such expressions but campaign rhetoric, only campaign rhetoric aimed the other direction? One must employ a unitary standard in such things, if one expects one's complaints and charges to be taken seriously as emanating from someone concerned over a wrong. Sen. Lieberman's characterization of his opponents as "jihadis" is a deliberate smear aimed at producing an emotional surge in an audience that will identify his opponents with the enemies of our country, and see them classed as traitors and murderers. It is precisely analagous to the old tactic of "red-baiting" employed in the Cold War, and precisely as foul as that. It demeans the man who employs it.

[TheVirginian]

174. You've got a point.

Though, two minor technicalities. First, it was not Lieberman who said that, but someone advising him. Second, the intent was not that Lamont supporters are murderers, just highly emotional zealots.

[The Magistrate]

180. A Man Is Resposible For His Agents, Sir

They speak with his mouth, and their words are his if he does not repudiate them and dismiss the man who spoke out of turn.

The idea that a communications professional employed in a political campaign would use a word without full awareness of all its implications, and without intent to exploit those implications to their fullest emotional impact, Sir, is nonesense, and impugns the man's professionalism and competence at his trade. His intent was not the limited one you have suggested, but rather the full measure of causing hearers to identify Sen. Lieberman's opponents with the murderous enemies of the country, in a surge of emotional heat triggered by the term. It is all part and parcel of the standard technique of claiming persons who oppose a war are traitors aiding and comforting the enemy, and even in active alliance with the enemy, and hence interchangeable with the enemy, and deserving of the same treatment properly meted out to the enemy.

[TheVirginian]

182. I wasn't disagreeing with you

I was just qualifying two minor points.

[The Magistrate]

196. Points Too Minor To Notice, Sir

The larger point you accept is, further, an indication of the underlying problem with the man that inclines persons ardently opposed to the war to such vitriol against him.

Those who opposed the invasion of Iraq, and oppose the occupation of the place currently maintained, are not allies of the fundamentalist Moslem jihadis in arms against our country. They are persons convinced, and for damned good reason, that the venture in Iraq is something that harms our country, and wish to mitigate that harm, at least, having failed to prevent it. To seek to portray them as enemies of the country is profoundly wrong, and hostile to the ideals of liberty of conscience on which this land is found: it is hard to think of anything more un-American.

[Zhade]

264. "Unduly" is your OPINION, not a fact.

You are, of course, welcome to it.

[sendero]

126. I'd have to buy..

.. a set of hip waders to get through all that. You are wasting your time here, you are trying to intellectualize a fundamentally emotionally-based feeling.

Lieberman has pisssed a lot of people off, and he did it with temerity. To come here now and tell us our feeling are "wrong" is frankly stupid.

[TheVirginian]

137. Not "wrong", per se, but "unfounded".

While emotions and gut-feelings are important, I think its important to look at elections through the cold lens of reality. Why? Because if more people thought this way, perhaps we'd see a greater effort on this board and in the blogosphere to affect races that will actually have an impact on our national landscape.

[Zynx]

143. Cold lens of reality:

Lieberman not only voted for the IWR, he has routinely given the Republicans the ability to show a Democratic Party divided by supporting the reasons for going to war and also supporting its conduct with an undying commitment. He has even gone so far as to say that we shouldn't question Bush's credibility because it hurts us abroad.

Elsewhere, he has supported the privatization of Social Security, business deregulation, disgusting energy bills, many of Bush's nominees, etc.

We can do a lot better in Connecticut than Lieberman.

[TheVirginian]

146. Then do better than Lieberman, and disagree with his policies.

This isn't what I have a problem with. What I have a problem with is people dragging his name through the mud.

I do disagree, though, that its not Lieberman who has shown divisions within the party, its the base, and specifically the blogosphere that has made those divisions very public. In their zeal, they throw caution to the wind and attack a three-term Senator who dares disagree with them. Make no mistake, this war against Lieberman was started by the activists, and not by the Senator from Connecticut.

[fishwax]

394. actually, that war was started when lieberman sided with bush against the

base. So yeah, I blame Lieberman for that one. He could have said that there was room for disagreement in the Democratic Party about the war, etc. But instead, he echoed the administration's "you're with us or against us" rhetoric, talking about how the base's opposition to the war and the president undermined national security.

[sendero]

144. Here's the thing..

... if your brother in law shoots your dog, you really don't give a damn that he mowed your lawn a few times.

Lieberman's problem is NOT his support of the war per se. Lieberman's problem is siding with Bush against other Dems. He could have had his opinion about the war, acted on it a different way, and he would not be in (nearly as much) trouble right now.

I live in TX but I've contributed to Lamont's campaign and will again if he wins the nomination. If Joe has "loyalties more important than the Democratic party", then he should follow his bliss and act on them. Just don't expect Dems to foot the bill.

As for the blogosphere, I know it just scares the hell out of politicians. Used to be, it was very hard to track how they voted, what they said, etc, etc, etc. They want to claim it is a bunch of tails wagging the dogs but the fact is it is people who care about our country and are tired of getting nothing bu filtered news and slanted commentary. The pols should be scared of the blogosphere, because people are going to lose their office becuase the blogosphere shined a light on who and what they really are.

[TheVirginian]

147. But the blogosphere is a two-edged sword.

One on hand, it can rally the base and force politician's feet to the fire in a productive and meaningful way. On the other hand, it can accuse a Democratic Party stalwart like Joe Lieberman to face rampant accusations of shooting his brother-in-law's dog.

I don't find Lieberman's transgressions to be that particularly heinous, especially relative to other Democrats serving in the House and Senate, or campaigning therefore.

The blogosphere is on the right track, it just often (too often, IMO) goes overboard and goes too far. Campaign to get the man out of office, yes. But this constant mud-slinging and exaggeration of his record is uncalled for and it damages its credibility.

[sendero]

168. I'm not so sure..

... that his transgressions have been exaggerated that much. Sure, in individual postings here people (myself included) go overboard all the time.

But I really think Lieberman has richly earned the situation he finds himself in. And frankly I'm tired of the sense of entitlement that most members of congress seem to have. As though, because he is a "3 term senator", he gets to shit all over his base in a most in-your-face way. And then call them "terrorists" for questioning him. Like I said, he's campaigning like a Republican and he should be treated with commensurate derision.

To an extent, I'll admit that I want to see him made an example of. I want it really badly :)

[TheVirginian]

179. He's not "shitting over his base"...

For starters, his base was never the left-wing of the Democratic Party.

But even then, he's not waking up in the morning and thinking, "What can I do to piss those idiots off today." He's not shitting over anybody, he's forming his opinion based upon his convictions, and the base is shitting all over him for doing so. And if that's enough for him to lose a primary, so be it. But the brunt of DU's anger in the last two weeks hasn't been on any Republican, its been on Lieberman. The brunt of the attention on the 2006 Senate races that the liberal blogosphere has focused on in the last two weeks has not been any race that will affect the make-up of the chamber, but has been the Connecticut race.

[sendero]

192. Hey...

.. we don't expect much of Republicans, we know what they are up to. We hold Dems to a higher standard.

Lieberman and his ilk are a cancer on the party (he's certainly not the only offender, just the most vocal) and I hope we can excise him.

[Zhade]

268. You can't have it both ways.

If the left is betraying Lieberman via the blogosphere, that would mean Joementum's base is the left.

But here you're saying they're not. (Duh!) Therefore, logically, this ISN'T a betrayal of Lieberman by the left and the blogosphere (as if exercising one's right to vote for someone other than the incumbent in a primary were akin to betrayal - a laughable argument, and a quasi-fascist one at that).

I think the only things getting debunked in this thread are YOUR arguments.

[TheVirginian]

277. Those aren't my arguments.

Joe Lieberman is a Democrat. You're a Democrat. Dianne Farrell is a Democrat. Farrell would love it if the attention payed towards the CT Senate race were paid toward her bid to unseat Chris Shays in the same state. That would also have the added bonus of leading towards a majority in Congress.

My argument is that the criticism that Joe Lieberman recieves is well-founded, but more often than not goes too far. He's been a Senator for 18 years and has had the same convictions for that time, yet sometime between 2000 and 2006 he switched from the Democrat's VP candidate to the Democrat's public enemy #1. If Joe didn't change in that time, then what did?

To vote for someone else in a primary is not betrayal. To disagree with Lieberman's positions and opinions to the point where you actively work to kick him out of office is not betrayal. But dragging his name and reputation through the mud, inventing transgressions and excuses why he shouldn't run as an Independent, and assigning false motives to his actions, all in the name of ideological purity, is a betrayal, and its a fucking waste of time.

[Zhade]

370. I'm not a Democrat, first off.

And yes, that WAS your argument, though you'renow backing away from it.

[TheVirginian]

377. My argument was never that voting against him in the primary is betrayal.

[Zhade]

398. Okay, Sunshine.

I think we should part ways amicably - I find your declared position unlikely. I don't believe you actually support Lamont, and thus I don't wish to speak with you on this matter again, because I fear I may become cross and start snarking at you.

It's not worth it. IMHO, Lieberman is going down, flat-out. We disagree on this, of course. No matter. Let's just say "thanks for the debate" and leave this subject alone, because we're never going to convince each other.

Salut.

[TheVirginian]

399. Salut.

[fishwax]

395. so the base is shitting all over lieberman, not the other way around

the public is not beholden to their representatives. Representatives are beholden to their public. And when a large segment of Lieberman's public became critical of them, he accused them of all but treason.

[Zhade]

265. Likewise, "unfounded" is YOUR OPINION ONLY.

Feel free to hold that opinion, but don't demand others share it by basing your argument on the arguable premise.

[wordpix2]

151. check this out re: the senator who's "saved 31,000 jobs in Groton"

How could Lieberman have saved 31,000 jobs here if they only have 7,900? :crazy:

Also, what good does it do to save jobs one year when they only disappear the next? :wtf:


http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-eb-layoff,0,1319894.story?coll=hc-headlines-local


Layoffs Today At Electric Boat

The Associated Press

July 10 2006, 10:36 AM EDT

GROTON -- Electric Boat said it issued pink slips to 440 employees today.

Most were at the Groton shipyard, where 368 hourly production and production-support workers and 48 salaried employees were laid off, a company spokesman said. Twenty-four employees at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Washington state were also laid off.

Planned layoffs were announced earlier this year. Officials said between 1,900 and 2,400 jobs could be in jeopardy because of a decline in submarine design, maintenance and repair work. In March, 154 employees lost their jobs in a first round of layoffs.

"To preserve the future of this company, we have to align the size of our work force with the level of our work load," said Robert H. Nardone, vice president of human resources. "Everyone affected should be treated with dignity and respect through their last day at the company."

The company employs about 10,800 people, 7,900 of them in Groton.

The affected employees will be given 60 days notice during which they can use career-transition services provided by the Eastern Connecticut Workforce Investment Board in New London and other programs.
Copyright 2006 Associated Press



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Frances]

3. I think Joe Lieberman is loyal to Joe

and not to the Democratic party.

He's like the kid who says that if he doesn't win the game he'll take his ball and go home.

I don't know what will happen in Connecticut but saying that he'll run as an Independent if he loses the Dem primary doesn't look like a winning strategy to me.

[TheVirginian]

4. I think he's loyal to the voters of Connecticut

And the majority of voters in Connecticut agree.

[kaygore]

15. We'' see about that! I have a lot of friends there and they are fed up

[TheVirginian]

17. Unless you're friends with over half of the state's voters...

Your anecdoctal examples are next-to-meaningless. But thanks for sharing them.

[roguevalley]

88. Joe Lieberman is facing a bitter electorate because he doesn't

support their views. The primary will sort out whether he stays or not but his pissy attitude about being called on his stands shows me he is for himself and nothing more.

[Zynx]

141. He has higher support among Republicans than Democrats by a wide

margin. Who's senator is he? By that standard I guess I should support Chuck Grassley since he gets high marks from the right leaning people in his state too. What does it matter if he's a Republican? He has strong support from the center and right.

[TheVirginian]

148. Its not that wide. Maybe 10% at most.

And to answer your question: He's Connecticut's Senator. I think Joe Lieberman is not going to be offended that the majority of every party in his state supports him. I think he'd consider that a good thing.

[The Magistrate]

171. But It Does Provide A Real Ground, Sir

For the feelings expressed here that Sen. Lieberman is something less than devoted to the Democratic Party at present....

[TheVirginian]

175. Sure, but who can blame him.

If I served in office for 18 years, was nominated by my party to be Vice-President, and then had a small percentage of Democrats, most of whom I do not represent, call for my head on a platter simply for having convictions that they disagree with, I'd be somewhat less than devoted as well. If the party I was a member of said that my attempts to remain the Senator from the state that had elected me three previous times were a betrayal, when it was their actions that forced this in the first place, I'd be something less than devoted as well. When party activists want to see me out of office more than see a Democratic majority in the Senate, then I would take my chances with my state rather than appealing to the base like a John Kerry or a Russ Feingold.

But I don't think the problem is devotion. Lieberman is on the record as saying he'll continue to caucus with the Democrats, despite everybody throwing him under a bus. He's committed to seeing a Democratic majority in the Senate, a goal which seems to have eluded many on this board. I think the "problem", if it can be called that, is that of an identity crisis. Lieberman is without a doubt a well-known member of the Senate. He could be a super-star. But instead of kowtowing to the party base that he disagrees with on some issues, he stands up for what he believes is right and dedicates himself to his state.

[The Magistrate]

184. You Miss The Point, Sir

If he is a stalwart of the Party, in a state the Party dominates, then his actions ought to be and have been such that he is less popular with persons not adhering to the Party, and more popular with those who do adhere to it. They have not been. He is clearly more in step with persons who are not Democrats than he is with persons who are. He is therefore not fulfilling the function assigned to him by our political system, as the Democrat elected to high office.

[TheVirginian]

186. But the function assigned to him was not that,

It is as a representative of the people of Connecticut. The Democratic Party didn't run for Senate in Connecticut. Joe Lieberman ran for Senate. If that's cause enough for him to lose the primary, so be it. That's what primaries are for.

[The Magistrate]

197. Not True, Sir

Perhaps in a high school civics book, but not in the actual practices and mores of our political system in operation. These depend on partisanship and exercise of majority power on party lines.

[TheVirginian]

200. But what you're referring to is general practice, not listed procedure.

For the good of the party, the loser of a primary usually drops out to ensure that the party will win in the general election. But absent any viable candidate, then this custom becomes meaningless and unneccesary.

[The Magistrate]

203. And Custom, Sir, Is Best Adhered To

Custom is what has grown up to be the accepted practice over time, and cannot do this if it is not a wise course more often then not towards some desireable end.

Where there is no viable opposition candidate, then the Party primary becomes the de facto election. Here in Chicago, where there is not much at all in the way of a functioning local Republican organization, everyone knows and understands this, and no one pays the least attention to the general election for local offices: all effort is concentrated in the primary, in which the various factions of the Democratic Party here fight it out with their candidates.

You seem, Sir, to be working around to acknowledging that the course Sen. Lieberman has resolved upon breaks faith with the Party. From the point of view of an adherent of the Party, whether it is also keeping faith with something else, as you suggest, is immaterial. It is the breaking faith with the Party that is paramount, and on which adherents to the Party will judge the matter. You may well, in analyzing the future prospects of Sen. Lieberman on this course, be underestimating this factor considerably. There are doubtless a number of Democrats in Connecticut who will have had a reaction to this development similar to mine.

"Law is made of paper: custom of old oak bound in iron."

[TheVirginian]

206. "More often than not."

But in those times where it is not the wisest course to obey custom, why then should we? As lip service? Out of fear of decay of that custom? Or to appease an impassioned and vocal minority?

In an election where there is no viable opposition, the primary doesn't become the de facto election; the primary still remains the primary. The consequences of that primary may be greater than that of the general election, but the general election remains. In the races that you refer to, because of the political environment, the loser of the primary would stand no chance in the general election. This is not the case in this race. It is a very unusual circumstance, I think we can all agree, so why then should usual protocol and usual customs be relied on exclusively?

Joe Lieberman has made it clear that his obligation is not towards the party, its towards the state. The party can and will judge him, but ultimately, its the general election that determines who will be sworn-in as the Senator from Connecticut on January 20th, 2007. While, with no viable opposition, the primary is technically the election of consequence, there is no maxim, no procedure, and no moral guide that says this must be the case. This is a very unique situation, and it is possible that it has never occured before. Instead of accepting a generalized view that is made to cover all bases, why not treat this race on its own merits?

[The Magistrate]

207. The Future Being Uncertain, Sir

To hew to the course that has most often proved beneficial is the wisest way. There must be very great and very clear imperatives to decide to vary from it, and these are not present in this case, save from the point of view of one man's personal ambitions. The gratification of one man's personal ambition is quite insufficient to compell my agreement to the propostion that his proposed contravention of sound custom is the best and necessary course.

[TheVirginian]

208. How are they not present in this case?

In most practice, there is a Democratic primary, the winner of which goes up against a viable Republican candidate. In that practice, the loser of the primary supports the winner in order to ensure that the Democratic Party stands the best chance of defeating the Republican. Clearly, this is not the case here.

In other practices, that you referred to, there is a Democratic primary, the winner of which is coronated in November because there is no other base of supporters from which to draw votes. The loser of the primary drops out of the race because he stands no chance in the general election, and would be committing political suicide at the feet of party bosses and union leaders if he did. Clearly, this is not the case here.

In very few (and perhaps none other before), there is no viable opposition candidate, and the loser of the primary has a good chance of winning by running in the general election anyways. This is a very unusual circumstance. Why should we follow usual customs, then?

[The Magistrate]

209. What You Are Ignoring, Sir

Is that the winner of the Democratic primary in that state, because there is, as you say, no viable opposition candidate, would doubtless win the nominal two-way match-up in November. Why should this be varied because it does not suit the personal ambition of one man unable to prevail in the primary? There is no pressing reason that requires Mr. Lieberman remain a Senator: the country and the Party will hum along quite well should he be absent. His personal desires in the question are of no consequence to me, or to the country or the Party.

"Graveyards are full of indispensible men."

[TheVirginian]

211. You don't need a reason; the voters of CT do.

Lieberman doesn't represent just the Democrats in Connecticut, he represents all of his constituents, the majority of whom are not Democrats. So absent a viable opposition candidate, and absent a political situation that you references, why should Lieberman not run? Perhaps it is connected to vanity, but it also gives all of the voters a chance to decide. Even if there is no pressing reason that requires Mr. Lieberman to remain a Senator, there is no pressing reason that requires him to stop being one, either. Since there is no pressing reason one way or another, would not the most democratic way of answering the question of "who represents Connecticut in the Senate" be to leave the question up to all who are represented?

[The Magistrate]

213. If He Fails To Win The Primary, Sir

That is a damned pressing reason for a Democrat to stand down.

You have yet to present any remotely compelling reason, Sir, why Sen. Lieberman should do other than adhere to the customary practices and usages of our political system. The nearest you have come to one is that he should because he can. Every so often one of my grandsons will commit some extraordinary act of ingenious curiousity or strenuous daring, and my wife will ask "Why did he do that?" My invariable answer, "Because he can --- what a silly question!" will get me the customary box on the ear before we proceed to sort out the mess and life continues its normal round. A reason most becoming to an energetic boy of five or six sits poorly on a grown man in his sixties ensconced in responsible national office.

[TheVirginian]

215. Why is that a damned pressing reason?

Because its customary in scenarios that in no way resemble the CT Senate race?

I've given a good reason several times: because Joe Lieberman represents all of Connecticut, not just primary voters. Since the effort here on DU is an effort to force Lieberman out of office, it is my opinion that the decision to force Lieberman out of office should be open to all voters, not just Democrats. This isn't the usual choice between Democrat and Republican, this is a choice between Joe Lieberman and somebody else. Therefore, Joe Lieberman should get a chance in the general election to go in front of his constituents and for them to decide his fate.

[The Magistrate]

218. You Have Given No Good Reasons, Sir

It is only as the designated champion of the Democratic Party that Sen. Lieberman has ever represented anyone in Connecticut. Without the favor and patronage of the Party, he would never have been in any position to possibly represent anyone, or ever represented anyone. By declaring he will not abide by the decision of the Party, as determined by its rank and file voters, he behaves very poorly, and further, does so from no better motive than careerism and personal ambition.

[TheVirginian]

228. What if he has better motive?

What if he truly believes that its in the best interest of his state for him to represent them? Or, at the very least, what if he believes its in the best interest for them to be presented with the choice?

I was a fan of Chuck Robb. He wasn't my favorite Senator, but I was a fan. I haven't officially affiliated with any party (for personal and professional reasons, but that's a different story), and if Virginia didn't have an open primary system, then its possible that, following these rules, that Chuck Robb could have been voted out of office without me even getting the chance to have a say. If I were an Independent or Republican in Connecticut, then there's an above-average chance that I would support Lieberman, and I imagine that they would be upset if Lieberman were forced out of office without their voice being heard.

I personally believe its better for the state and better for our democracy to have more options, not less. I believe the more voices that are heard, the better. I can't get on board with the argument that a Senator who has a 60% approval rating in his state doesn't deserve the opportunity to be voted on by the electorate.

[The Magistrate]

232. There Is No Reason To Believe He Does, Sir

When a person's action can be explained by naked self-aggrandizement, there is seldom any point to looking further. We are pretty low creatures, when all is said and done, and to expect much of human beings is to live in disappointment.

The representation of Republicans is certainly of no concern to me, and the representation of independents ranks little higher. Any in either group who routinely votes for a Democrat should leave off the pretense and own themselves Democrats, and participate in the Party's selection of candidates. Otherwise, my view is that they should have as little input into the governance of the country as can be contrived. Most persons who call themselves independents have no strong views on political questions, and no guiding philosophy for understanding them. They are chaff on the wind of various emotional appeals, and have very short memories. It is on many occassions necessary to court them, but there is no reason to or benefit from consulting them. They graze the buffet, but have no role in preparing it.

"When confronted by conflicting versions of events, pick the one that shows people at their worst."

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

[TheVirginian]

235. Respectfully, I disagree.

I would rather see evidence of his lack of concern for his citizens then to assume he's in this only for himself. Maybe I'm biased by my brief interaction with him. Maybe I'm biased because I'm trying to make a point, or maybe I'm just not that pessimistic yet, but I'm not just going to assume that he doesn't have his constituent's interests at heart.

As for the rest of your post, this is where I cannot go any further. I simply disagree. I think the Senator from Connecticut should represent all of Connecticut, even if he is a Democrat. I think the Senator from Virginia should represent all of Virginia, even if he is a Republican. I think they should represent not only the people who vote in every election, they should also represent the people whom you dismiss as the chaff on the wind, and even the people that never vote or can't vote. They're not the elected representative of the voting people, they're the elected representative of the entire state.

[The Magistrate]

238. If We Agreed, Sir, We Would Not Have Much To Talk About, Hey?

It has been a pleasure, Sir.

[TheVirginian]

240. You as well. n/t

[Zhade]

270. That's absolute fucking BULLSHIT.

You do know, don't you, that the National Review and Bill Bennett endorsed Lieberman when he first ran for the Senate, right?

He wasn't driven to the right by conscientious liberals, he was already on that path when he entered Congress. How DARE you blame his failures of character on those who oppose those same failures!

[TheVirginian]

278. You really like strawman arguments, don't you?

They're so easy to tear down.

I never claimed he was driven to the right by anybody. I never claimed he was even driven to the right. I claimed that Joe Lieberman has been the same Senator he's been for the last 18 years. And members of his party think that its a more worthwhile goal to kick him out of office than to win a majority in the Senate.

[Zynx]

257. The net approval gap is 24%

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=7b854ad9-9ebb-444b-b2ad-afef4fb509db

[kaygore]

12. Joe has supported Bush in too many critical areas--not just Iraq

Just because you have a 25-year record doesn't mean that at some point you won't sell your soul.

From what I have observed recently over the past six to eight years is that Lieberman looks out for Joe and NOT for his constituents OR his party.

Can you imagine what would happen to a Republican senator if he or she supported the Democratic agenda as Lieberman does the Republican agenda.

And as for his being nominated as VP: I still think that Gore lost his mind on that one.

Being a senator is a privilege, not a right, and Joe seems to consider it HIS right.

I hope that the good people of Connecticut have enough sense to boot him OUT!

[TheVirginian]

21. "Sell your soul"

"Just because you have a 25-year record doesn't mean that at some point you won't sell your soul."

Exactly how did he sell his soul? Because he developed an opinion that differs from yours?

"From what I have observed recently over the past six to eight years is that Lieberman looks out for Joe and NOT for his constituents OR his party."

Why do you feel he doesn't look out for his contituent's needs? They seem to think he's doing a great job.

"Can you imagine what would happen to a Republican senator if he or she supported the Democratic agenda as Lieberman does the Republican agenda."

As I stated in my original post, there are Democrats who vote Republican far more often than Lieberman does. And there are Republicans who vote Democrat more often as well, including Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and others.

"Being a senator is a privilege, not a right, and Joe seems to consider it HIS right."

Apparently not, since he seems willing, if not eager, to face all of his contituents as an Independent candidate.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

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

[TheVirginian]

31. I'll be happy to look like the apologist for a Democrat

The reason I say his contituents think he's doing a goob jobs is because 60% of those polled say that Lieberman definately deserves re-election. He's also favored to win any general election match-up that he's in. The reason why Lamont is running strongly in the primary is because primary voters are, for the most part, party activists, which make up anywhere between 1% and 10% of the state's voters.

And he hasn't given "all of his help" to Bush. If you think that's true, then you will need a bit more research in order to have a full understanding of this race.

[kaygore]

35. WHAT!!!!??? NO logic!!!! The polls are NOT just polling "activists"

Do you have any sense of what you are talking about or are you just wasting our time!

And, if LIEberman loses the primary (which he should just withdraw from since he has no intention of honoring the outcome--just shows how really dishonorable he really is) he will have to have all of his skeletons dragged out of the closet for another three months.

Joe Joe Joe, you are such an asshole!

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[TheVirginian]

48. When you're ready to address anything I've said, feel free to return.

In the meantime, please continue to contribute to Lamont. As I made very clear in my original post, which you either didn't read or didn't understand, I support his candidacy.

[roguevalley]

90. your patronizing tone undermines your argument. you should watch

your tone, virginian. By the way, I loved your show.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[TheVirginian]

63. Since I'm support Lamont, I'm guessing they would pay little.

Its pleasant to see that, instead of addressing any of the legitimate points I made, you chose to attack me. Do you find that this usually succeeds in distracting your opponents from realizing that you have nothing of substance to offer?

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

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

[4nic8em]

73. For what it's worth...

George Bush developed an opinion different than mine and I didn't think he should have been elected either.

[Cha]

5. Ol' bush kissy face

joe? That lyin' warmonger? he betrayed his party in 2000..and people are finally sitting up and taking notice and I couldn't be happier!

[ComerPerro]

6. Forget the Dem Party. I don't care. But Lieberman is helping Bush

screw AMERICANS.

He helps Bush betray AMERICA

[Ediacara]

7. Hmmm

There's no 'h' in Baucus, and Blanche Lincoln is from, ARkansas, not AlasKa.

[TheVirginian]

9. Thank you. n/t

[Skip Intro]

8. I'm sorry, that's just wordy spin - f*** joe lieberman

"Joe Lieberman made his full support for the war known after he travelled to Iraq unaccompanied. He made his decision on his own accord, and following no agenda other than his own. Yet because his opinion coincides with most Republicans and a handful of other Democrats, he's accused of being in lock-step with the Bush Administration. This is the inevitable dangerous result of the combination of group-think and embellishment that runs absolutely rampant in the far-left blogosphere, and on this board."

the "far left blogosphere" - ?


joe has had his lips glued to little hitler's ass for a long time, and never hesitated to publicly chastize those who would question the liar in cheif. What comes to mind most recently is when, at a time the nation and Dems were becoming vocal in calling bush to accountability, joe steps up and says words to the effect that we shouldn't question the dictator while we are at war. That's one in a long series of actions, beyond that of other prominent Dems, and some Repubs, that shows joe's bullshit clearly.

Not question the leader. Of the opposing party.

Not ask for accountabiliy - demand accountability - from the liars and theives.

To hell with that.

To hell with joe.

[TheVirginian]

11. I'd like to see that quote in context.

If you don't mind? Since you're willing to purge out a member of your party over his words, I'd like to see them in their original context. I figure that's not too much to ask.

[kaygore]

16. It's not just LIEberman's words--look at his actions these past six or so

years. I think that Bush has something very damaging on him!

[TheVirginian]

25. Is there anything in specific you're referencing?

[kaygore]

32. Good grief, man, read all these posts!!!! How much more do you want

Joe is toxic. He is evil. He is arrogant. And hubris always destroys in the end (read some great literature).

Joe is a tragic figure. A man small not only in height but also in stature, an empty vessel without integrity, filled with the lust for power.

A small man with an even smaller soul.

[TheVirginian]

34. I would like you to support your words with anything of substance.

So far, you have failed. Supporting empty rhetoric with more empty rhetoric is far from convincing.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[TheVirginian]

50. You could have just as easily said "see post #37" instead of copying it.

Since you had to wait for someone else to post a specific complaint with Lieberman, I'll just assume that you had none of your own before this thread was made. Its always great to see people making informed decisions.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

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

[TheVirginian]

83. I have made eight points that you're free to take a crack at.

Would you like to, or would you like to just categorically reject anything that you disagree with?

[regnaD kciN]

26. Not true (about the past six years)...

...Holy Joe had a reputation as a conservative from the moment he joined the Senate. In the 1988 election, he actually ran to the right of the Republican incumbent. During his first twelve years in the Senate, he was mainly known for his "family values" rhetoric and animus against video games. (As a computer game programmer for over a decade, I cannot forgive how he made political hay through a cynical, dishonest media campaign to present us as Threats To Our Nation's Youth.) And we shouldn't forget that he vaulted to prominence as the first Democratic congressman to attack President Clinton over Monicagate -- as compared, of course, to his silence over the myriad (predominantly Republican) scandals that didn't involve someone's penis.

He's been a pompous, self-righteous conservative for decades. His stubborn embrace of Bush and his Iraq policy is only the toxic icing on the very rancid cake.

:spank:

[kaygore]

29. Wow!!!!! Very well said!!!! I just started to notice Dinos when I saw

the terrible damage that Bushco was doing not only to the U.S. but the entire world.

[TheVirginian]

36. Quite a lot of your post depends on a specific view-point.

His reputation may have been that of a conservative to you, and perhaps others you know, but that is far from the conventional wisdom of Lieberman's reputation. Not to say that you're wrong or that your opinion is not well-founded, just to say that your opinion doesn't represent an infallible truth. It is equally possible that a large number of people see Lieberman's reputation as that of a centrist Democrat, and they remember his actions in the Senate for something other than video games. If that's what you chose to remember, then that's perfectly fair. But others might choose something else.

[kaygore]

39. You keep saying it's "our" opinion when it is YOUR opinion

[TheVirginian]

45. Actually, I've never once used the phrase "our opinion".

So just to re-iterate: what the hell are you babbling about?

[Skip Intro]

37. Here Ya Go! HIS WORDS, used to BASH DEMS!

Here's joe's own words, and their use to cloud the issues, and put Dems on the offensive.

--------------
And do go to Atrios to see the full transcript of the interview. The clip linked above only covers the last two minutes or so. The transcript reveals the following exchange:

BLITZER: About a month ago, Senator Joe Lieberman, the former Democratic vice presidential nominee spoke out, urging his fellow Democrats, including yourself, to restrain themselves in criticizing the president's position on Iraq. Listen to what Lieberman said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

--------------
--------------
SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (D), CONNECTICUT: 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.
--------------
--------------
BLITZER: What do you think? Is that advice good advice from Senator Lieberman?

DEAN: No. This president has lacked credibility almost from the day he took office because of the way he took office.

He's not reached out to other people. He's shown he's willing to abuse his power. He's not consulted others. And he's not interested in consulting any others.

And I think, frankly, that Joe is absolutely wrong, that it is incumbent on every American who is patriotic and cares about their country to stand up for what's right and not go along with the president, who is leading us in a wrong direction.

We're going in the wrong direction, economically, at home; we're going in the wrong direction abroad.
--------------


http://icantbelieveitsnotademocracy.blogs.com/weblog/dean_for_president_2008/index.html

[Skip Intro]

43. "we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril" - joe. n/t

[TheVirginian]

47. Unless Lieberman took the floor of the Senate to only say one sentence

That's not the full context of his quote. If you don't mind, I'd like to hear or see the entire context of his statement, and not just a ten-second clip that Wolf Blitzer and CNN parsed to create conflict and drama.

[Skip Intro]

54. you're kidding? fine - here ya go again:

the CNN transcript where joe chastized those criticizing the resident, just as I said:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0601/08/le.01.html



is that enough for you? it is for me. f*** joe.

[TheVirginian]

58. You misunderstand me.

CNN used one sentence from floor remarks that Lieberman made on the floor of the Senate. I was asking for a transcript of the full context of Lieberman's remarks, not of the entire CNN broadcast.

[Skip Intro]

64. He criticized those who criticized the "war president " - dissent.

that's clear.

It was all the talk here back in Jan.

Who do you think he was talking about and against? (the fact that blitzer would use lieberman's words to put Dean on the spot should be a big hint)

If you want the transcript of his floor speech, I'm sure it wouldn't take too much effort with Google. I think I've backed my assertions.

[TheVirginian]

68. This will be the fourth time I've asked for the context of his remarks.

If you're unable to provide me with them, then that's acceptable.

[Skip Intro]

70. oh, lol. you're really too much. do you take us all for fools?

go to senate.gov and look for what you want.

I said he said what he said, and provided a link to it.

Do you really think I'm going to sit here all night and play games with you about lieberman's glaring betrayal of Democrats, of patriotic Americans, of the goddamned truth? As if the past can be erased simply because the traitor needs his base?

Good luck trying to sell that bs here.

I'll leave you with a final thought for the evening...fuck joe lieberman.

[TheVirginian]

71. No, I simply take you for someone who can't produce a proper context.

Joe Lieberman said more than one sentence when he made his remarks. I'd like to know what else he said. Even though you are more than prepared to purge him from the party for one sentence, I'd like to know what led to that sentence, and what came after it. I don't mind if you feel this is too burdonsome a task for you to undertake. I assure you, however, after reading the full context of his Lieberman's remarks, I'll gladly take part fully in this discussion.

[roguevalley]

91. this isn't about 'purging out' a person. this is about an election in

which he must stand on his deeds and probably fall for them. its called democracy. i never blindly support anyone.

[TheVirginian]

95. Sure, but that doesn't prevent him from running again in November.

Where he'll probably win.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[klook]

10. Hey, thanks for reminding me

that I need to send the Ned Lamont campaign a contribution!

[kaygore]

19. I just did the same--more money for Ned!

[adwon]

14. Hostility toward Lieberman

People are having trouble telling the difference between him and Zell Miller. Zell had a solid Democratic record, though he was likely too conservative for most on this forum. It wasn't a major issue until he backed the GOP. Lieberman's posturing would likely be acceptable if he brought real results. The facts are rather clear. His closeness to Bush is a detriment, not a positive. Sometimes old dogs can't hunt anymore and need to go sit on the porch. That seems to be the case to me.

[Douglas Carpenter]

18. " 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.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[mkultra]

23. Screw joe

Its obvious hes playing to the right. He can collect all his votes from them for all i care.

[Vinnie From Indy]

30. This reads more like an indictment to me!

You do a great job of making a long laundry list of why I don't like Joe Lieberman.

There are two or three deal breakers for me to even consider Lieberman. The foremost is that with Lamont as the candidate, the world will get a Democrat Senator that holds the central tenants of our party AND a Democrat Senator that wins on a platform opposing the war, the assault on our civil liberties and the lack of accountability for incompetence. Joe has abandoned all of those things it seems.

[TheVirginian]

33. I intend to neither encourage dissent of Lamont or support of Lieberman

Only to correct very large mistakes that have been uttered in the course of this ongoing debate.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[roguevalley]

92. you put eight points on the table. you seem to present them as

holy writ. they are your points, your views, your 'truth'. so what?

[TheVirginian]

96. First, you are stumbling in the middle of a discussion

Myself and the poster who's post was deleted went at it for a while where he made baseless statements and I challenged him to back it up, before he got fed up and left.

Second, where do I claim that these are anything but my views?

[Vinnie From Indy]

49. I encourage folks to do what you have done.

Thanks for posting this. You obviously took time to write your post and as with all things allowable on DU, your opinion will be debated. For example, I had forgotten that it WAS Lieberman that was one of the first voices to attack Clinton over Monica. The previous poster that wrote that also reminded me that Lieberman has sat silent in the face of many GOP scandals. It is a shame that there are some here that resort to name calling rather than simply expressing their disagreement in the best terms they can. If they are unable, DU almost always has enough other informed folks to provide the details about the issue being discussed.

In the end, I like another poster's observation in regard to Joe. Sometimes old dogs just don't want to hunt anymore and they deserve some time just lazing on the porch.

[sandnsea]

41. Uhm, those aren't all myths

Sorry, but Joe Lieberman running as an Independent is a) screwing the Dem Party; b) betraying the Dem Party; and c) ignoring the fact that his first obligation should be towards the Dem Party. This is MORE true for Lieberman than some others because he has made his career on the election benefits of major party membership. When that same party decides it's time for someone new, then he either shows that the party meant something to him all along and steps aside - or exposes himself as a conniving weasel who used the party for his own purposes.

d) Lieberman will lose if he runs Independent; e)he is splitting the vote; - may or may not turn out being true. But most Democrats and many Independents are in full agreement that the primary purpose is to GET REPUBLICANS OUTS. It is simply wrong to ask other third party voters to help us when we aren't willing to step aside for them when the tables are turned. Joe may well win, but it's a stinky way to do it.

To the rest of your rant, the reason Joe Lieberman takes more heat than Landrieu or Nelson is because he doesn't have to worry about getting elected AND his state is a left leaning Democratic state. He also has a tendency to pop up on Fox News right when some very serious headway is being made against this Administration on the most important issues - unlike Landrieu or Nelson. They tend to know when to keep their mouths shut, Lieberman doesn't.

No Lieberman isn't the worst Democrat ever, some folks should remember that Trent Lott and Richard Shelby used to be Democrats, Shelby as recently as 1994. Defending his right to be in the party shouldn't be attacked as being against Lamont, just as defending Hillary as an even better Democrat than Lieberman shouldn't be construed as being against her challenger.

While there is certainly a large amount of unfair and hypocritical politics to go around, Lieberman's running as an Independent is among the worst I've seen. If he was going to do it, he should have just done it, not make it contingent on whether he loses the primary.

[TheVirginian]

55. I'm sorry, I just can't get on board with the notion

That his first obligation is towards the party, and not towards the state that elected him to represent them. When I vote for Jim Webb, it will be for Webb to represent the Commonwealth of Virginia, and specifically me. When Lieberman or any other Senator swears the oath of office, they swear to represent their constituents, as is their Constitutional duty. Their duty is to the people, not to the party.

Along the same lines, its not "the party" that gets to decide its time for someone new for Connecticut. Its the voters of Connecticut that are charged with that decision. While the Democrats of Connecticut can vote on someone new to carry the Democrat banner on the ballot, that's as far as their power goes.

And I think most people with an understanding of 8th-grade civics understand that the purpose of a primary is to choose the party's nominee.

[sandnsea]

66. Politics in the real world

Look, for many years a fair number of folks on this board have been persistent in pointing out the unfairness of our election process and how it's tilted away from third parties. On the one hand, it's true. But on the other, we have a winner take all system that creates its own political structure which pretty much guarantees 2 parties will have power. All kinds of little goodies are built into that package deal, from Secy's of State using their power to campaign finance money to a built-in electoral base. You simply do not use that system for 20 years and then when the people of that system tell you you fucked up and they don't want you anymore, sabatoge the system by playing the third party game. It's absolutely reprehensible. If I lived in Connecticut and Lieberman did run third party, I'd vote for goddamned Ralph Nader before I'd vote for Joe.

He lost the Dem Presidential primary. Do you think he should have run Independent in that election too??

[TheVirginian]

69. Of course not. But that's a completely different scenario.

In Connecticut, there is no chance of Lieberman splitting the vote and causing a Republican to win. Read #3 of the OP.

"You simply do not use that system for 20 years and then when the people of that system tell you you fucked up and they don't want you anymore, sabatoge the system by playing the third party game. It's absolutely reprehensible."

Who's telling Joe that they don't want him anymore? Primary voters, or his constituency? In the Senate primary in Virginia, there was a 1.5% turnout. Now, Virginia's primaries have historically low turn-outs and not as much attention as CT's primary has gotten, but fair estimates say it could be anywhere between a 5% turnout and a 15% turnout. Say its in the middle of that, and the CT primary has a 10% turnout, and Lamont edges out Lieberman 55%-45%. That means that just 5.5% of Joe Lieberman's constituency said they don't want him anymore. After serving for 18 years, I would want a larger sample of voters as well.

[sandnsea]

72. Maybe he should run as a Republican then

This is the system, he's taken advantage of the benefits it provides, now he has to deal with the disadvantages. If his constituents want him so badly, they'll get up off their butts and go vote. If Republicans want him so badly, they'll switch parties so they can vote for him. If he's done such a stupendous job and is loved by so many, the entire state would rise up to help him. Teddy Kennedy could tell us to stick Irish flags in our ears and march to our state capitals, and we'd do it because we love Ted. If Lieberman can't get that kind of support after 20 years, that ought to be a clue that it's a vote of habit and not gut level support.

And you do not know what will happen in a 3 party race. I've said the exact same thing to Lamont supporters. The idea that a "real Republican" could win just might be enough to make some of those sleepy Lieberman voters think twice. His numbers start to climb, a few more people think again, Schlesinger is calling for bringing the troops home too - hmmm. A few unpredictable news cycles, nasty Lamont-Lieberman fights, and the next thing you know it's a pox on both their houses and a vote for the Republican. Anything can happen, even in Connecticut. It's a risk for Lamont voters, and a risk for Lieberman as an Independent. If he really cared about this country, he would put getting the Senate out of Republican hands first and that means ONE Dem in the primary.

[TheVirginian]

74. There is nothing in the system that prevents his run as an Independent.

So why would he run as a Republican if he intends to caucus with the Democrats, and if he can run as an Independent?

And its easy to spin fantasy scenarios, but the truth of the matter is that there is zero viability for Schlesinger's campaign. Aside from lack of public support, he has almost no connections in the state, and only the nominal backing of the state party, since most Republicans will vote for Lieberman. And since he has no viability, he won't get any fundraising help from outside sources, either. Schlesinger is dead in the water, and he's barely even a factor.

[sandnsea]

85. Geez, it's like arguing with Nader voters

No, there's nothing in the legal system that prevents him from running as an Independent. I already said that. I'm talking about real world politics and the built-in benefits of the two party system. Lieberman has taken advantage of the benefits of belonging to a major party for 20 years or more. Now he doesn't like when that same party expresses its disappointment in him and he wants to turn around and kick that party in the teeth. It's morally wrong. It is reprehensible. Has nothing to do with Lieberman's legal rights, it has to do with a sense of ethics and apparently Lieberman hasn't near a code of ethics as I thought he did.

And like I said, anything can happen when a new element is introduced into an election. If it looks like Dems really are going to retake the Senate, who knows what some of those CT Repubs will decide to do if they think they can stop it. Anything can happen, it's a mistake to dismiss the possibilities.

[TheVirginian]

97. But its not the party's place to kick him out of office.

Lieberman was elected to represent of Connecticut. Why is it unethical to ask the people of Connecticut to vote whether he should continue to represent them?

[sandnsea]

100. Vote in the primary, that's how it's done

If Connecticut wants him so bad, register as a Dem and go vote. That's the way our system works. If people don't want him as the Democratic Party candidate, they vote for the other guy. And yes, it IS the Democratic Party's responsibility to tell him that he needs to respect the voters' wishes.

[TheVirginian]

102. "Respect the voter's wishes."

Lieberman IS respecting the voter's wishes, by not being a Democrat on the November ballot. That's the sole purpose of a primary election.

How can you argue that the system doesn't allow for Lieberman's course of action when everything he's doing is clearly legal and clearly within his rights?

[sandnsea]

111. He's NOT respecting the voters' wishes

If Connecticut really wants him, they'll go out and vote in the primary and put him on the ballot. That's the deal he signed on to. He either sticks with it or no longer claims to be a Democrat at all.

[TheVirginian]

113. He's not claiming to be a Democrat.

If he loses the primary, then he's not on the ballot as a Democrat. What part of this are you taking issue with?

Further, there's no "deal" that he signed, and there's no rule or law in either the state or in the party that says that he has to drop out if he loses the primary. There's also no rule or law that says he can't be a Democrat anymore. There's just a law that says that there can't be more than one Democrat on the ballot, and he's abiding by that law.

[sandnsea]

118. He's not a Democrat????

Well then he should get the hell off the Dem primary ballot NOW and just become an Independent completely.

He CANNOT take advantage of the party structure and all that that entails, and then turn around and piss on it when he feels like it and expect continued Dem support. It's just not going to happen.

And for the cazillionth time, nobody is saying he's doing anything illegal, so you can stop hopping around with your Lieberman rationales. Reminds me of some other guy that hopped around from excuse to excuse in order to rationalize doing something that was morally wrong.

[TheVirginian]

142. Why can he not?

Its not as if the relationship was a one-way street. Lieberman has given eighteen years of his life to public service and to the Democratic Party in the Senate, and has even put his name into consideration for higher office. And now the party that he's served for his entire life is throwing nothing short of a mutiny against him, in a futile and ill-advised quest for party purity? If Lieberman is failing the system, its because the system failed him.

Anyways, you seem to have in your mind that the system is either perfect, and no one should dare operate outside of it, or that the system is so fragile that no one should dare operate outside of it. I reject both of these notions. Our system is the inevitable result of 230 years of politics, but the characteristics it has emerged out of action and trends, not out of a reactionary clinging to the status quo.

Secondly, by putting so much stock in "the system", one would truly hope that there was any evidence that supports the notion that the system precludes Lieberman from running as an Independent. There's not. The system certainly supports it; Lieberman wouldn't be the first third-party candidate, and he wouldn't be the first Independent to caucus with a major party.

Your entire argument seems to simply be "He can't do that". Why? What are your percieved consequences of this action?

[sandnsea]

212. We need a broken record smilie

Because you just keep ignoring what everybody says and keep replaying the "but it's legal" record.

This isn't a question of just the war, otherwise you'd see a lot more "mutinies" across the country. It's a list of issues, from women being denied their reproductive rights to his support of truly awful judges to his unwillingness to filibuster anything to his outright support of George Bush. If this is what the people of Connecticut want, then they can prove that by voting for him in the primary. If Lieberman no longer wants to represent the core values of Democrats, he can become an Independent BEFORE the primaries and not pretend to be a Democrat. But if he wants to continue to BE a Democrat, then he either needs to listen to his CT Democrats and adjust his positions accordingly or step aside if he loses the primary. That is the party system he signed on to.

[TheVirginian]

216. Why is that the system?

You're claiming its a breach of the system, but apparently its not, because he's doing it. So I'll pose the same question to you that I posed to the Magistrate: is it wrong because you want to see Lieberman kicked out of office, or is it wrong on an objectively moral and ethical level? Given your comments, and your intangible reasoning, I'm inclined to go with the first one.

[sandnsea]

222. We've both outlined in plain English

I really don't know what your major malfunction is. Let's see if I can make it crystal clear for you.

1. Lieberman can legally run as an Independent. Nobody is disputing that. You don't need to ever mention it again because nobody has said Lieberman is doing anything illegal.

2. The political system favors two strong parties. Lieberman has benefited from the strength of being a member of one of those two srong parties for years. Because he is now way out of step with that party, he may not be elected. That's the system he signed on to and took support from for 20 years. If he wants to benefit from that system, he has to accept the down side too, which is the voters may decide a different party member better represents them. Period.

And you will not likely find any DUers LESS likely to make an argument based on partisan views than me or the Magistrate, so you can just stuff that idea. Particularly as it pertains to the Magristrate, egads.

[TheVirginian]

225. I understand what you're saying, I just don't understand its application.

"The political system favors two strong parties. Lieberman has benefited from the strength of being a member of one of those two srong parties for years. Because he is now way out of step with that party, he may not be elected. That's the system he signed on to and took support from for 20 years. If he wants to benefit from that system, he has to accept the down side too, which is the voters may decide a different party member better represents them. Period."

So if that's the reality that Lieberman is presented with, then why shouldn't he run third-party?

[sandnsea]

230. Do you favor the two party system?

Do you think there is a benefit in having a political system that tends to produce a clear majority concensus on how the country should be run? Or do you think it's better to have a spattering of ideas presented with no clear concensus?

[TheVirginian]

236. I don't believe there only exists those two options.

The two-party system is all that we've ever known. I don't know if its possible for us to operate any other way, but I don't believe that excuses or justifies clamping down on the freedoms and choices of the American public.

[sandnsea]

249. Well Lieberman signed on to the two party system

The voters express their free choice in the primary in a two party system. That's what Lieberman signed on to and if he loses under that system, he needs to step aside.

And as I said in my previous post, and every other post, nobody is arguing the legality of Lieberman running so you can stop pretending that's the issue. It's not.

[TheVirginian]

250. Then I don't understand what the issue is.

You're claiming that the two-party system is holier than everything, and if Lieberman loses in the primary, he simply cannot run as an Independent. I'm asking, why not? Where is that written? Who's rules are that? And what happens if he breaks the magical invisible rule and runs as an Independent?

You keep on going back to The System, as if Lieberman is dictated by contract to stay within its confines, but there's no reason to believe that this is the case. I'm honestly puzzled by what your point is.

EDIT: Is Jim Jeffords really a Senator, then? How does that work?

[sandnsea]

256. You're really not that stupid

You've been told it isn't illegal for Lieberman to run as an independent over and over and over.

You keep choosing to mix the legality of his run with the ethical betrayal of the Democratic Party.

You're intentionally acting like an ignorant doof. So go to it, but I'm done playing.

Bye.

[TheVirginian]

258. "Ethical betrayal".

I don't understand where you're getting this from. Maybe I'm being obtuse, maybe you're not explaining it to me well enough. All you've said so far is that he can't, because we have a two-party system.

[sandnsea]

260. No really - BYE n/t

[The Magistrate]

75. It Remains, Sir, A Course Offensive To Any Sense Of Honorable Behavior

The man is a member of the Party, and has had benefit and honor from it, including its nomination for the second highest office in the land. Accepting these things carries with it an obligation to adhere to the Party and to its procedures. To reject this obligation is to own oneself a small and mean sort of fellow, unworthy of the honors and benefits accepted previously.

If the voters of the Party should reject him as their candidate, the only honorable course for him is to congratulate the victor and pledge to do his damndest to see that the nominee of the Party is victorious in the general election.

Since the usual turn-out overall in elections nowadays is about half the elegible persons, the figures you assert for primary electorates are not so small a percentage as they appear to first glance. They are certainly a sufficient portion of the adherents of the Party to be determinative of the will of its committed rank and file.

[TheVirginian]

77. Where is it written procedure to drop out of a race?

Is it an actual rule/procedure, or is it a generally-practiced custom? I would argue that its the latter, and that custom exists to ensure that the party wins the general election. However, in a race where the Republican Party has no viable candidate, then this custom has no real purpose other than to appease the small percentage of his constiuency that doesn't like him anyways.

You are correct, it is inaccurate to compare 5.5% of Lieberman's constituency to 100% of registered voters, since those voters will not all vote. However, it is not accurate to claim that it is 5.5% of voters making a decision for 100% of the state, assuming that losing a primary means that Lieberman drops out of the race.

[The Magistrate]

84. What Does It Matter If It Written, Sir?

What does that have to do with whether or not the course a man takes is or is not an honorable one?

The purpose of the custom is the maintainance of the Party as a unified bloc while allowing its rank and file some considerable input into who is on the Party ticket. It allows for considerable dissent and even quarrel as this is done, while offering assurance of unity in the general election. Victory in a primary would mean no more tha defeat in one if it were otherwise.

The cry that people who did not go to the polls might have preffered a different result than the actual one does not move me, in any context. An election is decided by the people who move themselves to go out and cast a ballot, and people who do not care sufficiently to do this have no one to blame but themselves if they do not like the outcome. If Sen. Lieberman had a sufficient degree and intensity of support among rank and file Democrats in the state, he would face the event with confidence. His stated intention of pressing an independent run is a frank confession he lacks this confidence, and further, that he views as his leading constituency persons who are not members of the Democratic Party.

[TheVirginian]

99. I was making no such appeal at sympathy.

I'm not claiming that the primary shouldn't determine Lieberman's fate because no one votes in primaries. I'm claiming the primary shouldn't determine Lieberman's fate because he represents all of Connecticut voters, and not just the Democrats. If Democratic voters don't want them to be a Democrat on the ballot, then they'll vote against him in the primary.

As far as honor goes, this is subjective, and in the lens of the beholder. You would consider it more honorable for an incumbent to bow to the concerns of one wing of his party and give up his career of public service. Joe Lieberman, apparently, considers it more honorable to go a different route. Who is to say which is more honorable in an objective manner?

[The Magistrate]

115. That Does Not Quite Serve The Turn, Sir

Devil's advocacy is one of my hobbies, and you are reaching the limits of the impish art, where it becomes difficult to maintain the straight face necessary for success at it.

The primary should determine his fate because he entered it, and if he had no intention of abiding by its consequences should they prove unfavoreable, he ought not to have done so. What he is doing is tantamount to trying to shift your stake on the table once the wheel is in spin, and you really do not get to do that and stay in the game, or retain the respect of the players and spectators. A gentleman places his stake and stands to the consequences of the event, win or lose.

[TheVirginian]

145. Such clear analogies belie the complexity of the situation.

In politics, there's no such thing as "one roulette spin". If anything, there are at least two, but I would venture to say that there's a lot more chance and skill involved in it than that.

You say the primary should determine his fate because he entered it. I agree. I think the primary should determine his fate to the full extent of the impact of the primary. The primary determines the party's nominee for the ballot in November. If Lieberman loses the primary, then his fate is to not be the Democratic Party's nominee in November.

You and many others seem to think that the primary is an election for office itself, and that winning the primary is a neccesary part of being elected to office. While this ends up being the case most of the time, it is not automatic, and is certainly not guaranteed.

I don't think he's shifting his stakes as much as he's placing bets at two tables. They are two different elections with two different dynamics, and there is nothing in law, procedure, or morality that says one cannot participate in both, even if he loses the first.

As far as respect goes, the only respect that truly matters is that of his contituents, and thus far, with a small exception, they respect him. Beyond that, Joe still has many friends inside the party. And with concern to "spectators", specifically the liberal blogosphere, I think Lieberman has made his opinion of them quite well known.

[The Magistrate]

173. Such Clear Analogies, Sir, Serve To Highlight The Essentials

And thus focus the mind on the most important elements of a situation. The appeal to "complexity" is often employed to obscure these, and tangle thought in byways and alleys off the main boulevards.

In this instance the large question you are evading is whether what a person has a right to do is the right thing to do.

For a person who is a member of a political party, and has enjoyed and benefited by his membership in it to an extraordinary degree, the course Sen. Lieberman has declared he will take if defeated in the primary is not the right thing to do, though he has a right to do it.

[TheVirginian]

176. But that's entirely subjective.

You're saying you disagree with his decision. That's fine. But, for starters, not everybody shares that opinion. And second, what are your reasons for disagreeing with that?

You have the ability to make a well-reasoned argument about honor and about respect and the party system, and though that seems a bit transparent to me, I can buy that argument because you sell it well. The vast majority on this board who take a similar position base their position either in irrationality or in ignorance. They say that Lieberman is screwing the primary voter, even though that is demonstrably false. They say that Lieberman is a chicken-shit GOP operative, even though that's an irrational claim based out of emotion and not fact. In these situations, their opinion is not based on a reasonable assessment of the situation, but rather either a) a quest for ideological purity, or b) an overzealous support for Ned Lamont.

As I said before, Ned Lamont's only chance for victory is to keep Lieberman off the ballot in November. It makes sense, then, that people will go to great lengths, with no end in sight, to invent or think of reasons why Lieberman shouldn't be on the ballot. Perhaps your arguments right now fall under that rationale. Perhaps they don't. But others who have displayed less of a coherent position on the matter most certainly do.

If that's the case, and if a large amount of the reason why people here think it is not "right" for Lieberman to run as an Independent is based solely on the desire for their guy to win, then how can any meaningful stock be put in their opinion? For those who want Lieberman to win will simply say that it is right, for the same exact reason.

[The Magistrate]

191. What Is Not Subjective, Sir?

You may take it from someone who expends a good deal of energy towards the ideal of objectivity that it is not, as a practical matter, truely obtainable, however near one may feel to have approached it. At bottom, it is not possible for me to do more on any matter, than to state my opinion of it, trusting that some will agree and others not, and hoping my expression will be such that some are moved from the latter group to the former on encountering it.

My view in this matter was largely neutral, prior to Sen. Lieberman's declaration he would make a run as an independent if he lost the primary. Until that point, it was my habit to point out to his detractors that he was, after all, the elected Democrat from Connecticut, and the question of whether he "really" represented the rank and file Democrats of that state was up to them, and would be settled in the primary election. It is my view that he is wrong on the question of Iraq, and his comments during the run-up to the impeachment of President Clinton have inclined me against him for some while, but to agree completely with me is hardly a requirement of being a Democrat in good standing. But he has now crossed a line that makes it impossible for me to regard him as someone worth making allowances for, and by his own hand severed the cord of Party bond that made me hitherto willing to make those allowances.

Asked whether evil ought to be repaid with good, the Master replied: "With what, then does one repay good? Repay good with good; repay evil with correction."

[TheVirginian]

204. I have no problem with people not supporting Lieberman.

As you've articulately stated, there are many good reasons to stop supporting him or to try and correct him. But you take it too far when you claim that it is "wrong" of Lieberman to run as an Independent. You are ascribing your own negative opinion of him, along with your own desire to see Lamont win (and the realization that he can't if Lieberman runs), into a statement on morality and honor.

I am a student of politics and government, and as such I have a passion for objectively exploring the mechanics of the apparent chaos that dictates our government. And in this exploration, with specific concern to this race, I see a lot of personal motive and subjectivity clouding the debate. Do you think it is wrong for Lieberman to run as a third-party candidate because of some responsibility to political morality and adherence to party custom, or do you think its wrong because you would like to see Lieberman replaced by Lamont?

[The Magistrate]

205. Now That Senator Lieberman, Sir

Has announced that should he fail of victory in the primary he will run as an independent, my feeling is that Sen. Lieberman is unworthy of office, and certainly unworthy of office under pretence on any level that he is a Democrat. The man has chosen the wrong course, and its wrongness rebounds upon him. Prior to his making that choice, my view was, as stated above, wholly neutral, and my inclination to rest content with whatever the decision of the rank and file Democratic voters of Connecticut might prove to be.

[SaveElmer]

220. Self Delete

Wrong place

[Zynx]

138. So you want Republicans and Independents to choose a "Democratic"

senator? Yeah, sure, that makes sense.

[TheVirginian]

149. Its not about what I want.

[Zynx]

241. Joe Lieberman is lying when he says he respects the wishes of the Party.

At the very least you must accept that fact.

[TheVirginian]

245. If he runs as an Indepedent, then its true.

The party voters elected Ned Lamont as the Democratic nominee. If Lieberman isn't the nominee, then he's respecting the wishes of the party, is he not?

[Zynx]

248. Then we as Democrats must support Lamont.

Do you agree?

[TheVirginian]

251. Not neccesarily.

Since Lieberman has stated that he'll caucus with the Democrats, either candidate will contribute to a Democratic majority. Since I don't live in Connecticut and I'm not donating money on a safe race, then who I support ultimately doesn't matter, but if I lived in Connecticut, I wouldn't vote for Lamont simply because of party affiliation. I would look at each candidate and make a decision on which one I feel would best represent the state. If that was Lieberman and not Lamont, then so be it.

[Zynx]

255. When Lamont would be a much more reliable vote I would hope you

would vote for him.

[roguevalley]

94. and if his state butts him out the door, will that throw your arguments?

you know, there are greater issues than your state. our dimwit wants a bridge to nowhere and he wants it built with money the gulf coast deserves to have. it has caused such hatred up here against this and I can tell you, he thinks he's sticking up for the state. he isn't. Joe is sticking up for Joe. Period.

And your patronizing tone, your remarks about the knowledge level and intelligence of people in this thread is sad. There are more talented, capable, knowledgeable people here than any place else I've been.

[TheVirginian]

103. I'm sure there are. I just wish they'd post in this thread.

If Connecticut voters choose not to re-elect him, then that's democracy in action. It still doesn't change any of the points I've made.

[JanusAscending]

116. Well aren't you special..............

Gee guys , think of it!! The Virginian is the only intellegant poster on this thread, and we're all IDIOTS. Fancy that!! My, my, my, his mother must be so proud of him. Wonder when he got out of high school?? Has "uncle joe" been treating you well?

[sendero]

127. He argues...

... like a freaking lawyer as well. It brings all kinds of suspicions to mind.

But no matter. Joe has made his bed and he will have to lie in it. No amount of "wait, wait just a second y'all got it all wrong" bullshit posts are going to help him now.

I have a quote for Joe. "Support the lame, incompetent, mendacious, arrogant leader of the opposition party at your peril." You idiot douchebag.

[semillama]

194. He argues with logic and reason

So far as I have read, only The Magistrate (whose posts are a delight to read regardless of how I feel about his position) has taken a logical and reasoned stance on the opposite side of the argument.

On the other hand, I've seen a lot of passionate and not well thought out arguments thrown against the Virginian. I don't think he sounds condescending at all. He simply wants a reasonable debate, and many of the posts against what he originally wrote were far from matching those terms. If you think he's wrong, go back up to the 8 points in the original post, and come up with well-thought out arguments against them. Please, it would be great, and it would really improve this thread. Resorting to swearing, insults, generalizations and ad hominem attacks, however, do not construe a civilized discussion of important issues.

As for myself, I'd prefer to see a more liberal senator from Connecticut, but if it ends up being Lieberman, than that's the will of the people of that state, whether we like it or not. That's our democracy, and when it works, it's a thing of beauty. And the fact of the matter is that anyone is allowed to run for office in this country. Whether he should do so or not as part of a particular party is up to the individual. And even if I would prefer that Lieberman concede and support Lamont if Lamont wins the primary, it's Lieberman's right to run in the general election, and it's the people of Connecticut's right to vote for him as an Independent. Maybe Joe should be true to the Democrats. What I do know is that he should be true to himself, like Jeffords of Vermont. If that means that he wants to continue serving the people of Connecticut as a senator, then he should do what he needs to do to accomplish that.

I'd be curious to know what people would do in the reverse situation - Lamont loses the primary and runs as an Independent in the general election. Somehow, I feel that he would be recieving much less heat here and in the blogosphere for such an action. Of course, that's my feeling and I can't back it up with facts, just my general observations of this debate.

[sendero]

199. If logic and reason..

.. won elections, we wouldn't be having this debate. The Dems would own Congress and the Executive.

[semillama]

300. You have a point.

So shouldn't we strive to employ more of the two in our ordinary discourse?

[sendero]

306. We've been striving..

.. for 20 years now with little success to show for it. How do you think we wound up in Iraq in the first place? By appeals to emotions like fear and the desire for revenge, that's how. And Lieberman is going to play on those same emotions to try to justify his position.

Humans, despite what we'd like to believe, are not at core rational beings.

[Zynx]

136. Primaries are democracy within the party.

He is deciding that he doesn't care what the party thinks. He cares what Connecticut Republicans and Independents think.

[TheVirginian]

150. Not quite.

He cares what all of his voters think, and not just the left-wing of his party. Since he represents all of his constituents, and not just the Democratic ones, I don't disagree with him.

[Zynx]

242. Then he can't call himself a Democrat.

This is an issue of party loyalty.

[TheVirginian]

244. So Congressman that care about all of their constituents can't be Dems?

Is that the test of party loyalty?

[Zynx]

246. Those that disregard their Democratic constituents can't.

Or at the very least they can't expect the loyalty of their Democratic constituents.

[TheVirginian]

252. How is he disregarding them?

Explain this to me.

[Zynx]

254. He is saying that he doesn't care if he is out of sync with Democratic

voters. He only cares if he can put together a plurality to win.

[TheVirginian]

259. 56% isn't a plurality, its a majority.

[Zynx]

261. He doesn't get 56% in a three way race. He gets in the low 40s.

And if he wins, he doesn't win by Democratic votes. He only wins by getting a ton of Republican and Independent votes. He would be a legitimate senator, but he would do it just for himself. He doesn't care how he has turned his back on the majority of his state's party. He only cares about himself.

[TheVirginian]

279. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say...

That he's doing it for his constituents?

Where are you getting this low-40's number from?

[Zynx]

134. He seems to be more interested in what Republicans and Independents

think of him than his own party. Tell me, at what point does he cross the line into Zell Millerism?

[Pithy Cherub]

51. Holy Joe brought the Wrath of the Righteous Democrats on himself.

The Iraq War just exemplifies his deletorious effects on the nation that will last the remainder of your lifetime and mine! Joe by this egregious and ill-informed vote to pre-emptively and stupidly go to war has aided and abetted the neocon assault and armed robbery of America's precious blood, hard earned treasure and former high morals. Lieberman is an accredited traitor to principle after building up his "brand" by epousing personal morals on someone else's dime. When faced with his own VERY PUBLIC loss of moral rectitude, Lieberman says that Democrats don't matter nor does the DEMOCRATIC Party after the primary if he is defeated using the 230 year old tools of American democracy.

Joe is disregarding the principles of democracy as espoused by its tenants of a vote. That is self-righteous, sanctimonious and deserves a reply by those that believe the People of the Nation and the voter People of Connecticut would be best served by someone who is truly a Democrat in Word, Deed and Thought. Traitor Joe needs to be returned to Connecticut as a private citizen where he can vote in the privacy of the voting booth for the republican agenda. He is in trouble because he is being called and rightfully so on the fraud he is perpetrating on the people of Connecticut.

GO NED LAMONT GO!!!!!!!!!!!! Major Props to the Liberal & Populist-Loving BLOGOSPHERE!

[neverforget]

52. Joe's new party of one " Connecticut for Lieberman " says it all.

A little ego centric, eh?

[IndianaGreen]

53. Vote Smart is misleading!

For example, Vote Smart would show a Senator as voting against the Alito nomination, yet that vote was symbolic, it meant nothing! The real vote is usually a procedural vote, such as voting against cloture in the Alito nomination. Once Kerry's filibuster was stopped, the vote for the nomination was meaningless because the only way to stop Alito was with a filibuster.

DUer Rose Siding explains that better than me here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2378668#2378777

[TheVirginian]

62. Voting Smart isn't misleading at all.

Interest group ratings are determined by each individual interest group. Vote-Smart just itemizes them. As far as voting record goes, Vote-Smart doesn't ascribe any labels to votes, it just lists what they are. You have the complete freedom to weigh some votes more than others in determining your opinion of his voting record. They are providing a resource, not making any conclusions.

[Zodiak]

65. My system counts it, and my calculations make

Leiberman a poor Democrat indeed.

Got a list of crappy votes to back it up.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Zodiak%20Ironfist/4

[papau]

76. I like your system - and the result fits reality as I know it. :-)

:-)

[Zynx]

139. I like how you count major votes, rather than procedural ones.

[Zodiak]

195. That was the metric I wanted measured

I thought that a lot of DUers would agree with me. Funny how when you don't count all of those amendments and procedural votes, suddely half of our Democrats no longer look progressive.

I'll let you guess which half it is.

[IndianaGreen]

328. According to the graph, Lieberman is way to the right of Hillary

and way off the Democratic mainstream.

[The_Casual_Observer]

56. Joe supports the Iraq War. It was a mistake. He should pay.

[longship]

59. Ho-hum

Tired justification for a bad Democrat screwing his own party and the Democratic Party voters in his state.

It does *not* matter whether Lieberman has the right to petition to get on the ballot as an independant. Clearly he does. The issue is whether or not it's in the best interest of democracy to do so.

The primary principle in play here is "the voters have spoken". By going around the party rules to run as an independant, Joe Lieberman is undermining the very process by which our party is run. Delegates nationwide have come up with a process by which candidates get themselves on the ballot. But Joe SoreLoserman, in trouble politically, now intends to undermine that very process.

Why in the Sam Hell do you think that Democrats all over the nation have explicitly said that they will "support the winner of the CT primary election"? Do you think that they're doing it because they do not like SoreLoserman? Quite the contrary, as many of them are supporting SoreLoser in the primary. However, our democracy and our party demand that the voters' say is the last word. That's why *NONE* of them will support him in his attempt to preserve his power in the face of defeat.

[TheVirginian]

67. "Best interest of democracy?"

The best interest of democracy is an abolishment of the two-party system, but that's a much more complex debate for a different day.

At any rate, the primary process has little to nothing to do with the democratic process. Democracy in action is represented by Election Day. The primary process is a party process, and a party process only.

"The primary principle in play here is "the voters have spoken". By going around the party rules to run as an independant..."

And the purpose of a primary is to determine who carries the party's endorsement on the ballot in November. If the voters choose Ned Lamont, then Lamont will be on the ballot as a Democrat, and the voters have spoken. There simply do not exist any party rules that prevent or discourage running as an Independent.

"Why in the Sam Hell do you think that Democrats all over the nation have explicitly said that they will "support the winner of the CT primary election"?"

Because, if they didn't, they'd be under attack from a very rabid party base? Barbara Boxer is one of the most progressive Senators in office, and her name was burned in effigy when she said she supports Lieberman.

[longship]

109. Yes, the *best* interest, in spite of subversion of those interests

Can you imagine the horror in the Democratic leaders' minds on this issue.

Although I do not agree with them, I have no problem with people, even of liberal bend, supporting Joe in the primary. However, if Joe loses that primary, he will deserve the tag Sore Loserman if he follows through with his plans.

The two party system is a regrettable affectation of our political system. But just as Ralph Nader's presidential candidacy did absolutely nothing to promote the reformation of this system--the most important thing it accomplished was the presidency of George W. Bush--Sore Loserman's backstabbing will accomplish nothing except for the further subversion of the only system which we have. And thanks to the Chimp presidency, it is a system already under a great deal of stress.

If you want a multi-party system, you're going to have to set up structures and procedures to enable it. In the meantime, we must do everything in our power to protect the only system which we have, the two party system. We already have the Republicans doing their best to wreak havoc on the two party system. Hell if I'm going to stand still while a long-term Democrat does his best to create his own havoc.

I am all for reforms. However, before one can accomplish anything like what will be necessary we have to establish stability in the existing system. That means restoring the two-party system which we had prior to Chimp's ascendancy. Right now, with one party in total power, the undermining of the structure of the only other party with any possibility of gaining power is total madness.

[TheVirginian]

114. How will this cause further subversion?

[longship]

119. The "will of the voter"

Mo Udall said it best, "The voters have spoken. Damn them."
However, ol' Mo abided by the voter's will, as well he should have.

That's the basis of the whole thing. The Constitution gives the power to the people. Sore Loserman's actions reduces the people's power. It sets a dangerous precedent. Already prevalent in the system, "Win at all costs" has brought us Katherine Harris, Blackwell, Diebold, ES&S, and now it's given us Sore Loserman.

The whole thing sucks. If Lieberman loses the primary, he needs to step down.
Period.

[The Magistrate]

120. Thank You For The Reminder Of That, Sir

It is one of the very best lines ever uttered by a politician....

[TheVirginian]

152. The Constitution gives power to the people, but it doesn't mention primary

If the voters speak against Lieberman on August 8th, then Lieberman will not be the Democratic nominee for Senate in November. The voters will have spoken. There is nothing more that says that Lieberman must drop out of the race.

[longship]

214. No, you are correct.

There's no law against Joe doing this. The Constitution says nothing about this, which is precisely why the power must reside with the people. The Constitution explicitly states this.

But given that the Democratic Party *has* set out rules for the nomination of a candidate, and given that Sore Loserman has chosen to *not* abide by those rules, what is the Democratic Party to do? Certainly there should be some kind of sanction against Boltin' Joe, however I do not think that is something that anybody has ever considered. The sanction that will likely occur is that he will reap the whirlwind in the ballot box, which is what I hope will happen.

My argument that this damages democracy is apt. We've already have a party who has so little regard for the electoral rules, laws, to say nothing of common sense, that the last three national elections have possibly been tainted. How far will the people let this "win at all costs" attitude go? One must draw the line somewhere. At a time when these things are coming to a head, I would argue that preserving the people's faith in the process trumps all. Only by setting bar low, where all candidates follow not only the law, but also the common sense, can we preserve the system and restore the voter's faith.

I fail to see the validity of the justification that Sore Loserman is within his rights to run as an independant in the current circumstances. He may be within his rights, but I'll argue that it also erodes the system and the faith that the people put in a system which has worked fairly well for nigh over 200 years.

[TheVirginian]

217. Where are these rules enumerated?

I don't remember ever seeing a set of rules like you describe, and I certainly don't rememeber anyone swearing an oath to the Democratic Party. Its a custom based upon usual elections, but this is not a usual election.

If its not against any law or against any rules, then it doesn't damage democracy, it strengthens it. It gives people more options, more power. How could that possibly be bad? I think more CT voters will be upset if their incumbent was voted out of office by an election they couldn't take part in.

[longship]

231. Bah! More options.

Your claim of "giving more options" is special pleading, like more options are always a better deal. Given that the Repugs have been themselves looking for more options to win more elections, I'll leave to others to debate the value of using virtually any methodology to advance your perceived universal benefit of "more options".

We all want third parties to have equal power in the electoral process. However, Joe Lieberman is *NOT* a third party movement. He is merely a power-hungry incumbent who apparently feels that he has some entitlement to his office. No matter what you say or think, Joe's actions clearly undermine the spirit, if not the actual structure, of our primary governing principles that the "will of the voter" be our bond. Whether it is legal or not, Sore Loserman is clearly undermining that crucial principle.

I am utterly convinced that, in the current political climate, Lieberman is doing something for which we all may eventually curse him.

I do not see a single benefit, not even your universal "more options" ploy.

[TheVirginian]

237. What convinces you of that, though?

Is it a future where primary losers consistently run anyways as third-party candidates, even though there's no reason to believe this will occur anywhere else? Or is it a future where Ned Lamont is a Senator, and your desire to see that happen, no matter what?

When it comes to politics, I believe more options is always a better thing. Too many things in politics are reduced to black-and-white, polarized extremes, when in reality the best policy rests in the vast grey area. If so, then how then can we say that limited ourselves to two choices is the best way to go?

I don't think Joe Lieberman thinks he is entitled to his office. I think Joe Lieberman thinks he's entitled to have all of his state vote on his performance, and not just Democrats. Frankly, I don't disagree, and I don't see how anyone can.

[longship]

262. Don't you get it?

It's the premise that the "will of the voters be damned" instead of, as Mo Udall put it, "The voters have spoken. Damn them." and then abiding by their wishes.

It moves our political system into a realm which it historically has not been, one of get all for myself, and only for myself, to the exclusion of the voter, the party, the country. It's an illegitimate and smarmy politics which puts incumbency and entitlement above virtually every other criteria.

If you believe in third party rights and the ability of the people to control the country's future, I would think that you (and everybody else here at DU) would see this Lieberman affair, if it becomes a prevelant occurence, an absolutely horrifying turn for the worse.

[TheVirginian]

280. What the hell are you talking about?

How can a person's candidacy for office be about exclusion of the voter and of the country (or state)? That makes absolutely no sense. How can it be illegitimate? And how entitlement even a factor here?

I'm not even sure we're talking about the same thing. Please come back down to planet earth.

[autorank]

78. So you think Harris Miller should run as an indy in VA against WEBB

There's so much wrong with this I won't waste my time.

Primaries can be part of the party process and STILL be democratic. In fact the VOTING and MAJORITY RULE from the VOTING is an example of a democratic process. This type of illogic, claiming it's "party" and not "democratic process" pervades the post. Amazing.

I'm no Lieberman fan but I would be, will be hard pressed to, as a Democrat, advocate a third party "bolt" by his opponent.

In Virginia, Harris Miller, odious to me on multiple levels, lost the primary. He's not running as an independent. He's got the bucks, he's got the ego, and he could have an organization. He's not running. I recommend that Mr. Lieberman adopt the same level of political loyalty as Miller.

But it's not about parties or beliefs with Lieberman. I saw his performance in the televised debate. He is a desperate, weak man; a frightened man; a man who displays rudeness when he has always presented an image as a "wise elder." He was positively dreadful in demeanor, just a jerk.

But what can you expect from a guy who says he's Mr. Morality and Faith and then endorses heartily a war of aggression based on lies, total lies, that he know doubt knew were lies.

We'll see who wins but Lieberman may well go down. What follows will show everybody what type of man he is and that he was Al Gore's only major mistake in 2000 (when he threw in the towel gleefully during the recount battle; where was attack-dog Lieberman then?

The winners here are DU where there was a clear position taken at the first sign of Schumer's flight of fantasy.

The other winners are Hillary Clinton, in extremis, who said, NO WAY to joltin' Joe and Kerry who did the same, along with the others. Hillary was particularly succinct.

[TheVirginian]

81. Of course not. Read #3 of the OP.

There is no chance of the Republican candidate winning. In Virginia, Miller would pull votes from Webb, making it more likely that Allen would win. In CT, Lieberman would maintain his wide support from both sides, and the Republican would end up in last place. Like I said, this was covered in the original post.

[autorank]

93. Ah ha, you're psychic. Party means nothing, the individual rules...

Whether there's a chance for winning or not is clearly not the issue. Worse candidates than that Republican have won. In fact there's an index out there of presidents who were elected against the grain of popular opinion for one reason or another. So you don't know. Even if you did, the idea that there are some rules that restrain behavior, i.e., that party discipline is a good foundation, is thoroughly trashed by your analysis.

Lieberman's performance in the debate showed who he really is...a rude, grasping individual who throws out the "Mr. Nice Guy" business when the chips are down. It's now hot you behave when things go your way, it's how you do in adversity. That's why I think Wilder and Warner are two of Virginia's best governors ever. They did very well in the midst of externally or internally created messes...created by Republicans. But old Joe, he's acting positively flumoxed...like a kid who had his ice cream cone removed just before oral satisfaction. It's really embarrassing to watch. I'm surprised and disappointed.

[TheVirginian]

105. I'm not quite sure what you're point is.

At any rate, there's no evidence whatsoever that points towards Schlesinger having any chance in November.

[AtomicKitten]

86. Lieberman has declared he will not abide by the primary voters' decision.

If he wins the primary, all this is moot.

However, if he loses the Democratic primary and runs as an independent in the general, he will be telling the Connecticut Democratic primary voters to piss off. It is they he has to answer to, not us. I'd have more respect for him if he bailed now, not if and when he loses the primary.

Regardless of what you think of progressive voters, clearly Joe knows they are coming out in droves to vote against him, and if they prevail, he is discounting their votes if he turns his back on that contest. And, quite frankly, that is the epitome of arrogance and narcissism.

Anyway, rumor has it Republicans are re-registering and crossing over to vote for Joementum in the Democratic primary, and that puts us right back at the beginning of this debacle.

[TheVirginian]

106. How is he not abiding by the primary voters' decision?

The purpose of a primary is to determine who the Democratic candidate is on the ballot in November. If Lieberman loses, he's not the Democratic candidate. Thus, the primary voters' decision is fulfilled.

[AtomicKitten]

172. Yep, and that means the Democrats reject Lieberman.

So, why are you peddling your 'yeah Joementum' spiel here?

I hope you aren't suggesting those that vote for him in the primary will follow him if he bolts third party. Now THAT is the epitome of narcissism!

[TheVirginian]

177. Sure, they will.

And I'm not peddling anything here. I'm a Lamont supporter who happens to think Joe Lieberman is a good guy.

[AtomicKitten]

201. I think Joe is a decent man, he's just made some WRONG decisions.

And for that he's in the political fight of his life.

This isn't just about the war. I acknowledge his otherwise liberal voting record and IMO it's a crying shame to seem him kiss GOP ass. This is about him telling Democrats we should stifle dissent while Junior wages his nonstop assault on the planet. Sorry, but Joe is asking Democrats not to be Democrats.

And I assure you most of the Democrats that support him now will not follow him if he runs as an independent. I agree some will, but to suggest that a wave of Dems will follow him is impugning their integrity. What Joe is doing is legal, but it isn't right.

This is up to Connecticut voters. If Lamont wins, the majority of Democrats will vote for him. Joe will not be able to hold all or even most of his supporters if he bolts. And as much as his pals at Faux News have pledged to hold rallies for him, the truth is they will be pleased as punch to see the unrest. (You do know the GOP supports the Green Party by getting them on the ballot and financially, right?)

Best of luck in your campaign here, but you're singing to the wrong choir.

[guidod]

87. Those aren't myths....

[TheVirginian]

107. Would you like to add anything else?

[guidod]

273. No, but thanks for asking...

3 words is all I needed to debunk your full page.:hurts:

[Seabiscuit]

338. Looks like a slam dunk to me.

Nice shot! That's quite a hockey stick you've got there.

[guidod]

363. Thanks, it was a

great Stanley Cup final! Are you into horse racing?

[Seabiscuit]

364. I was until they put me out to stud.

And that was over 60 years ago.

My mares have given birth to biscuits, muffins, pancakes, waffles, blintzes, bagels and cream puffs. Not a racer among them.

[guidod]

365. lol! Great answer!

:rofl: :rofl: :thumbsup: :hi:

[Totally Committed]

121. Joe is loyal to Joe. Period.

I will respond to each of your points here:

1. Why would anyone defend a candidate they could say the following about: "Sure, there are many issues with which to disagree with Joe Lieberman on. Most glaring of these is his support for the Iraq War"... "There are other issues, too. Lieberman supports trade agreements with other countries"... "And there has been much hay over his decision not to filibuster Samuel Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court"???? Funny, those are all reasons I DON'T support Joe.

2. "There is nothing in any state law, nor in any party platform, nor in any unwritten rules of politics, that say that the loser of a primary must drop out of a race. Generally, they do, in order to prevent splitting the vote." Right. And, since he refuses NOT to "split the vote", that makes him an asset to our Party?

3. "In fact, if Lieberman were to run as an Independent, he would likely bolster his support among Independents and Republicans, adding them to a strong cadre of Democratic voters who would remain loyal to him. This debunks the notion that Lieberman would "split" the vote. If anything, he would bring the vote with him." You've lost me with this one. I'm halfway through my second cuppa already, and I still can't wrap my brain around this logic. Let's just say I disagree and move on...

4. "Certainly, Lieberman wouldn't entertain the idea of running as an Independent if he thought he'd lose." I reiterate: Joe is loyal to Joe. Period. That, coupled with an ego the size of the iceberg that sank the Titanic make him nearly delusional on this point. Ever met Joe? I have. I am convinced there is no person or poll that could convince him he would lose UNTIL he actually lost. He actually tried to parlay his last-place finish in one of the races in the last primaries as being "tied for second". The man is delusional AND entitled AND arrogant.

5. "Joe Lieberman's first obligation should be towards the people of his state that he was voted in to represent, period." Which is why he's vowed to disregard their votes completely and run whether they want him to or not? The man is an arrogant ego-maniac who refuses to abide be the will of his electorate. Period. Next...

6. "How, then, to explain his sudden base problems in the last couple of years? The answer is easy: the liberal blogosphere. Never before have party activists been as vocal and unified in their voices, and suddenly a state-wide race in Connecticut has people as far away as Hawaii on the verge of taking to the streets. The overwhelming chorus of complaints against Joe Lieberman has nothing to do with any recent action on Lieberman's part, but has everything to do with the increased strength and viability of this party's far-left wing." I know. To quote Joe, we're a bunch of stinking "Jihadists". He should thank Rove for that piece of incendiary language. I resented it, and still do. He has consistently ignored the issues imprtant to the base of this Party. He's been a sort of "Big Daddy" acting like he can just vote as he sees fit because he knows better than we do. Arrogant and partenalistic, he feels that THAT entitles him to re-election. BULLSH*T.

7. "Why are state activists spending so much time and energy shouting at the wind about Lieberman when there are races to be won, with serious national implications. We need a 15-seat flip in the House to take control." Exactly the point. Why? The fact that this is happening should be some sort of indication, even to you, that Lieberman has beome such an albatross that his Party is willing to gamble to get rid of him, even in a year when every seat counts. The man has made himself a pariah!

8. "From where I'm sitting, it looks an awful lot like the Democratic Party, or at least a sub-section of it, is betraying Joe Lieberman." Not to belittle your opinion, but that is just so much steaming horse-hockey, I feel too insulted to even respond. I hope you're getting at least minimum wage from the campaign to come here and insult our intelligence and our integrity this way.

I feel like I need a shower. And, maybe another cuppa.

TC

[alcibiades_mystery]

125. "Certainly, Lieberman wouldn't entertain the idea of running..."

"...as an Independent if he thought he'd lose."

See also, Joementum :rofl:

Is it not clear that Joementum is completely delusional about his own popularity and prospects?

[TheVirginian]

154. A response.

"Funny, those are all reasons I DON'T support Joe."

Me, too. But my point was not that you should support Lieberman, my point was that he's not in lockstep with the Bush Administration, and he's far from the most conservative Democrat in the Senate. Say you disagree with him all you want, but leave embellishment and exaggeration to other people.

"Right. And, since he refuses NOT to "split the vote", that makes him an asset to our Party?"

Since there's no chance of splitting the vote, a point you tacitly ignored, then this doesn't make him a liability to our party.

"You've lost me with this one. I'm halfway through my second cuppa already, and I still can't wrap my brain around this logic. Let's just say I disagree and move on..."

No, let's not move on. By saying you disagree, you're saying that there's a chance that Schlesinger will defeat both Lieberman and Lamont in a three-way race. The last poll gave him 8% of the vote. On what are you basing your disagreement?

"I reiterate: Joe is loyal to Joe. Period. That, coupled with an ego the size of the iceberg that sank the Titanic make him nearly delusional on this point. Ever met Joe? I have. I am convinced there is no person or poll that could convince him he would lose UNTIL he actually lost. He actually tried to parlay his last-place finish in one of the races in the last primaries as being "tied for second". The man is delusional AND entitled AND arrogant."

Yes, I have met him. I was impressed by him. And I think Joe is loyal to all the voters of Connecticut, and not just the Democrats.

"Which is why he's vowed to disregard their votes completely and run whether they want him to or not? The man is an arrogant ego-maniac who refuses to abide be the will of his electorate. Period. Next..."

He's not disregarding anything, a point I made clear in #2. Primary voters are voting simply for the Democratic nominee for Senate. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. The "will of his electorate", such as it is, would simply be to not be the Democratic nominee. If you don't understand this, then re-read #2 of my OP.

" He has consistently ignored the issues imprtant to the base of this Party. He's been a sort of "Big Daddy" acting like he can just vote as he sees fit because he knows better than we do. Arrogant and partenalistic, he feels that THAT entitles him to re-election. BULLSH*T."

I think that Joe Lieberman is a sort of "Senator", acting like he can just vote as he sees fit because that's what he was elected to do. Its not arrogant for a member of Congress to vote based on their opinion. It is the job description of every member of Congress to vote based on their opinion. If that's arrogant and paternalistic, then your problem is not with Lieberman, its with the entire concept of representational democracy.

"The fact that this is happening should be some sort of indication, even to you, that Lieberman has beome such an albatross that his Party is willing to gamble to get rid of him, even in a year when every seat counts. The man has made himself a pariah!"

The "Party" is chasing the tail of the liberal blogosphere, and the only reason that its making this an issue is because it lets emotion cloud its judgement.

[Totally Committed]

169. My point is -- if there are that many reasons NOT to support someone,

why go there at all????

That's why I asked you if you'd ever met him. He's an arrogant, paternalistic, whiny, entitled a**hole. (Hadassah, btw, is lovely, but I digress...)

Joe needs to go. Period.

We should agree to disagree if you can't see that, because I find him, his views, his manner, and his disrespect repugnant.

TC

[TheVirginian]

181. I'm not asking for support,

Just rationality and a reasonable discussion. That's why the title of my post wasn't "Eight reasons why you should support Joe Lieberman", it was "Eight myths about Joe Lieberman". Notice Myth #8. I support Ned Lamont. But I've met Joe Lieberman and I've studied his career, and I have a great deal of respect for the man. That's why I get upset about the constant and increasing mischaracterization of him on this board.

There are many reasons not to support Lieberman. Why, then, do so many people feel the need to make things up?

[Juffo Wup]

122. Uh-huh

If Ned Lamont threatened to run as an independent if he lost the primary, you Lieberman supporters would be calling him a traitor, claiming he would siphon away votes, etc. But it's OK if Joe does it, right?

"From where I'm sitting, it looks an awful lot like the Democratic Party, or at least a sub-section of it, is betraying Joe Lieberman."

This is the stupidest fucking statement in your post, and that's saying a lot. We're betraying the man who takes every opportunity to tell the left-wing of the party to go fuck themselves? Give me a break.

[TheVirginian]

155. I have no problem with Lamont running as an Independent.

He won't, because he won't win and he knows it. But it wouldn't be traitorous.

[skipos]

123. Why should CT Democrats be loyal to someone who isn't loyal to them?

Because Joe has a right to run as an independent? No. Just as he has that right, we have the right to kick him to the curb.

Because Joe has often supported progressive issues? No. Everything indicates Lamont would be more progressive than Lieberman.

Because of his years of service? No. A candidate has to earn the right to be re-elected. Senatprs aren't appointed for life.

Because Lamont would lose the general election? No. There is no indication of that.

I can't think of any reason that DEMOCRATS should support someone who WILL NOT HONOR THEIR VOTE in this primary.

Another good question would be: why shouldn't CT Dems support Lamont? Because he is a newbie? Because he isn't a great debater? That was the case for every politician at one point in time.

Because he is a single issue candidate? He isn't, and anyone can see that in his positions on Alito, Shiavo, emergency contraception, etc. and his loyalty to the winner of the CT Primary.

The bottom line is that Lamont is going to honor the winner of the primary, and respect the will of CT Dems. Lieberman will not respect the will of CT Dems. Why should CT Dems respect Lieberman?

Please answer all of these questions if you can.

[TheVirginian]

156. One answer, and one general response.

I don't support Joe Lieberman. I support Ned Lamont. This post was not an attempt to gain support for Lieberman, it was a defense of a man that I have respect for, but I have disagreements with.

So why should CT Democrats support Joe? They shouldn't if they disagree with him.

I will answer your question concerning "respecting the will of primary voters". I covered this in #2. The primary's sole purpose is to determine the Democratic nominee for the November ballot. If Lieberman loses the primary, he's not the Democratic nominee. The purpose of the primary is fulfilled, and the will of voters is fully respected.

[skipos]

162. The purpose of a primary is to unify the party behind one person

and Lieberman is actively working against that. Why should any Democrat support someone who does that?

What would happen if more Democrats hedgded their bets like Joe? What would happen if Feingold and Clinton didn't win the 08 nomination and ran as independents? Are you cool with that too?

[TheVirginian]

164. As I've said, many many times before

This is a much different situation because there is no viable Republican candidate.

[skipos]

166. Wow this is a very slippery slope you operate on

So it is ok for Democratic politicians to ignore the will of Democratic voters and run as an indy AGAINST the Democrat when there is no "viable Republican candidate?" So what if Tom Delay is the Republican nominee in 08, is it ok for Hillary to run as an independent then? Would Tom be "not viable" enough?

What are you basing "not viable" on anyway? Two or three polls? Polls showed Tester and Morrison being neck and neck in the MT primary and Tester won by over 20%. Are you sure you want to base your theory on polls?

[TheVirginian]

185. For the 27th time, he's not ignoring the will of any voter.

Do you understand what the purpose of a primary is? If so, then how can you continue to say that Lieberman is ignoring it by running as an Independnent?

I'm basing my characterization on many things, all of which have been covered in my original thread:

First, polling. In general election match-ups, Schlesinger polls horribly against Lieberman, either in a one-on-one or in a three-way. In a three-way race, Schlesinger gets less than 10% of the vote.

Second, Lieberman's Republican support. 72% of Republicans think that Joe Lieberman deserves re-election. In a one-on-one matchup against Schlesinger, the Republican, 60% of Republicans would vote for Joe. Even if that number is inflated by 50%, Alan Schlesinger still is not a viable candidate.

Third, experience. Lieberman is a three-term Senator and before that was the president of CT State Senate. Alan Schlesinger's only political experience is as a former state representative. As I said in my Orginal Post, Lieberman is like an All-Star Shortstop for the Yankees and Schlesinger is a second-string shortstop for a Single-A team.

Fourth, fundraising. Lieberman has enough draw and money to keep himself on top of the polls. Schlesinger has very little money at his disposal, and since no one thinks he can win, he's not likely to fundraise well anywhere. Additionally, since so many people in Connecticut have a favorably opinion of Lieberman, he's not likely to get any major donors on his side in a campaign against Lieberman.

So how can a Republican in a blue state, facing a popular incumbent Senator who has a firm grip on the center, with no money, no fundraising, no advertisement, and no accomplishments to his name, be viable?

Its not a slippery slope. Its a case-by-case analysis. In 99.8% of scenarios, it is risky for a Democrat to run third-party. This is one of the exceptions, which is probably why its garnered so much attention.

[Don1]

124. Hello

The Top Eight Myths, huh? Can you please post a reference where these are named as the top eight myths? I haven't heard more than half of these until just now in your thread.

[TheVirginian]

157. I've heard them, and now you have, too.

You're welcome.

[Don1]

400. You didn't answer my question. n/t

[CTLawGuy]

128. If Joe actually just up and ran as an indpendent

it would be annoying but not as bad as this.

Now, he is using the threat of a 3-way race to cajole people into voting for him in the primary. That is not acceptable.

If he wants to be an independent, leave the party, drop out of the primary, and stop referring to himself as a Democrat.

that's his right. But he wants it both ways. He wants TWO bites at the apple. Even just flat out switching gives him only one bite. If he's so concerned about giving all the voters a choice, how would he feel about lamont filing as an independent? (which he won't do, becuase he has too much integrity).

No one has to be a Dem or get the Dem nomination. But don't stick your feet in both camps.

[Cha]

153. Typical joementum

bullshit.."No one has to be a Dem or get the Dem nomination. But don't stick your feet in both camps."

And this guy is so delusional of his own popularity that he ran for president..as if. What was that all about?

[TheVirginian]

159. You again.

"Now, he is using the threat of a 3-way race to cajole people into voting for him in the primary. That is not acceptable."

He's not threatening a three-way race, because there's nothing to be threatened by. And its not an attempt to cajole anybody. Its a back-up option.

"If he's so concerned about giving all the voters a choice, how would he feel about lamont filing as an independent?"

I'm sure he'd have no problem with it.

"which he won't do, becuase he has too much integrity"

Lamont won't run as an Independent because he has no chance in a general election against Lieberman.

[CTLawGuy]

233. me again

oh, there is something to be threatened by: a left wing candidate, an inucmbent in the middle and a right wing candidate. If the Republicans realize they can win outright, they will flock away from Lieberman, especially if he proves his weakness by losing the primary.

They'd rather have a real republican than a fake one, even if they would take a fake one over a real democrat. Joe's support among repubs would dry up fast.

The three-way race would be the repub's greatest chance and they, and everyone, know it.


Also, I take exception to your characterization of the primary as not being part of the democratic process. It very much is.

In CT the primaries are governed by state law.
They use state voting machines and workers.
The US Supreme Court has said that you cannot exclude someone from voting in a primary because of race (ie, white primaries in TX and other then-one-party states).

[TheVirginian]

243. Schlesinger's best chance is against Lamont, not Lieberman.

Lieberman wins any race he's in, period. Against Lieberman in a three-way race, Schlesinger wins 8% of the vote. There's no way in hell he can turn that around. Its impossible. Its not going to happen.

Against Lamont, though, Schlesinger gets 20% of the vote, against Lamont's 34%. With that number of undecideds, Schlesinger has a very slim outside chance of getting elected. So the only hope Schlesinger has is keeping Lieberman off the ballot. Strange bedfellows, huh?

Don't try and pretend that there's any hope for the Republican in a three-way race. There is all the evidence in the world that shows he can't win, and absolutely none to support anything you've just said.

Primaries are a party process, nothing more. They serve a single purpose, and they will serve that purpose in Connecticut, no matter what Joe Lieberman does.

[CTLawGuy]

271. you do know that polls change, right?

I worked for Howard Dean, and he went from front-runner to also-ran in two weeks in January 2004.

Just because Schlesinger is at 8% now, doesn't mean that in 4 months he won't be competitive, especially since most non-dems are not paying attention yet.

Lamont is doing pretty well against schlesinger, considering that neither candidate is well known in the state. CT is a democratic state and a unified Dem party would push Ned Lamont to easy victory.

The big thing about the three way race polls is that only the hard core dems are really paying attention to the race now. polls in september and october will be more instructive on what will happen.

[TheVirginian]

281. So the answer is, "No, I don't have any evidence to support what I said."

Polls do change. They don't change enough to allow a bottom-of-the-barrel candidate with no experience and no money rebound from 8% against a three-term incumbent who's polling over 50%. You're trying to make this scenario sound plausible, and you sound like an idiot doing it.

[CTLawGuy]

294. every dark horse in history that came up

came from 8% and no experience and no money, including Howard Dean.

What you are trying to prove is that based on polls 4 months out, this will happen, that will happen. You can't do that. You don't know what's going to happen.

I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't call me an idiot. Projection annoys me very much.

Thank you.

[TheVirginian]

299. But I do know what's going to happen.

I know that Alan Schlesinger isn't going to win anything in November. And I'd be willing to bet $1,000 on that.

[Clarkie1]

350. You vastly overestimate the party loyalty of most voters. nt

[CTLawGuy]

354. who, Republican voters?

the Republicans are very organized and if they thought they could win, they could sway people to their side, especially after Joe gets hit with the stench of loser (since the 3-way race cannot happen without Joe losing the primary).

[TheVirginian]

358. Again, have you anything to back that up?

The answer is no. So stop peddling your ridiculous assertions.

[CTLawGuy]

374. what I have said is hardly ridiculous

the Republican party is very organized and yes, they would have a decent chance of being competitive if there were a split Democratic party.

Also, remember that Schlesinger has not even started running yet. He has no ads, no debates, very few public appearances and little news coverage.

[TheVirginian]

378. There are many things you're not considering here.

First, while the Republican Party is organized, the state GOP is not nearly as strong. Additionally, the top players of the state GOP, Jodi Rell and Chris Gallo, support Lieberman more than they support Schlesinger. Schlesinger isn't going to get any in-state support, any fundraising, and he's barely going to pick up any votes. He's a lightweight, a non-factor in the race.

Your argument might have merit if two important things weren't true. First, what I explained above. Second, Joe Lieberman has an overwhelming amount of support from Independents in Connecticut, as well as a good amount in the Republican Party and Democratic Party. He's not splitting the vote.

You have nothing to back you up. You have offered nothing to back you up. You are just spouting theories off the top of your head, theories that history and current circumstances prove illogical and absurd. And you're doing it all in a vain attempt to rationalize keeping Lieberman off the ballot.

[CTLawGuy]

385. It's hilarious that someone from VA is telling me, someone from CT,

about CT politics.

The republican party likes Joe as long as Joe is the best they are going to get.

How many people here are going to back Lincoln chafee?

We like him if, for some reason there's no dem, and the only other choice is Laffey. But I guarantee you we'd like it if Chafee ran as an Indy, and there was a dem. But he has integrity, so he's not going to do that.

I guarantee you, if the repubs think they are going to steal a seat, especially this year, they will get their asses in gear.

[TheVirginian]

396. Based on what?

Honestly, I'm asking you. Back up your assertion with something, anything, instead of looking like you're pulling theories out of your ass.

I'm looking at the latest Qunnipiac poll that says that 70% of Republicans approve of the job Lieberman is doing and think he should be re-elected. Seventy percent. That's my proof. Where's yours?

[Clarkie1]

366. All American voters. nt

[Awsi Dooger]

129. I'm in greatest agreement with number 7

Not merely the other senate races and select house races. Where are the gov threads here? The grassroots interest in all the vital gov races that could shape the political course of the state, like Schweitzer is doing in Montana. Those gov seats produce future senators or even presidential candidates yet I see almost no emphasis. I'm sure there are secretary of state races that could use some help, to provide the type of election reform we pretend to care about. Frankly, I think Diebold is a welcome crutch for the inevitable close losses. The close wins we ignore.

My beef with Lieberman is it didn't have to be this way. Where was the foresight, the understanding this type of upsurge from Lamont was possible, if not probable, given how unpopular Lieberman had become with the far left? If he had prepared for this type of race maybe you wouldn't have had the stupid comments, and the sudden need to attack Lamont. I've never seen a 3-term incumbent who felt a need to rip his primary opponent in the first 30 seconds of his opening debate statement. Then he criticizes Lamont for using his personal wealth to be a factor in the race. Hello? Aren't we the party of Jon Corzine and Maria Cantwell, among others? Right now the parties are actively pursuing and prioritizing wealthy candidates to help get around the new financing rules, and since it takes so much money to win a high profile senate or gov race.

if Lieberman had handicapped this situation properly he would still have a commanding lead and very little jeopardy in the primary. Just ignore Lamont, for the most part. That's what I would have done. It's an upsurgent primary foe and the lifetime percentage in that category is near zilch. Then go on the air with positive ads throughout the summer. That would have been plenty, combined with Lamont's less than awesome debate performance. Let's face it, Lamont is a B caliber challenger who Kos and the bloggosphere embraced as the only hope against Lieberman. He's destined to fail in the primary but Joe's masochism is making it much closer than it ever had a right to be.

There is a bit of hypocrisy among Lamont's supporters. At least I see some. They are trying to take advantage of a very rare situation with a sleepy August primary to allow a select type of voter to decide the party nominee. If they can unabashedly take advantage of that, and I've even seen posts and diaries chortling that Lieberman's voters will be on vacation, why is it felonious for Lieberman to understand the potential for a rare trump card situation in his favor, running as an independent? I don't like it but I guess I don't see as much of a difference as the typical DUer. It would be entirely different in a competitive state, or with a top rung Republican. But for Schlesinger to prevail he needs two unlikely happenings -- at least 34% of the vote in his favor, and the two Democrats virtually in a dead 50/50 split of the remaining percentage. As a gambler, I'll smugly wager against both, wishing I had that much the best of it every time.

[oc2002]

130. 9. Joe LIEberman is a slimey politician that will do anything.

Yes, children he is a scum sucking lie bush supporter, that has turned his back on Democrats repeatedly.

[oc2002]

131. 10. LIEberman is a NEO-CON,

Joe is a firm supporter of the war in Iraq, and believes that there where WMD in Iraq or not makes no differance. He supports breaking the bank spending all our resources in this illegal war, going into debt that we will be paying for generations.

[Nutmegger]

132. I'm still supporting Ned Lamont in the Primary

http://www.nedlamont.com

[TheVirginian]

160. Me, too.

[CTLawGuy]

234. you are a person whose assertions about your feelings are lacking in truth

What Lamont supporter would excuse or apologize for what Lieberman is doing?

Somehow I don't believe you.

[Zynx]

133. Wow. I don't even know where to start with this one.

This is one of those cases where there is such an overwhelming pile of bullshit I don't even know what to do. Others have already said all that I could say.

[MadHound]

158. I agree with you

The fact is that many of these points were brought up a couple years ago in regards to the Green presidential candidate. At that time they were roundly dismissed by the centerists/DLC contigent of DUers. Odd isn't how these same talking points are fine with this same group of people when it is one of their own like Lieberman. Hypocrisy indeed.

[TheVirginian]

161. I wasn't on this board a couple of years ago, and I've never supported (G)

And I doubt that many of these points were brought up years ago, considering that these are all in specific relation to Joe Lieberman, and that these are with specific concern to the primary process, which third-parties have no bearing on.

[MadHound]

165. LOL, well I was here a couple of years ago, and longer than that

And yes, some of these self same "myths" were brought up vis-a-vis the Greens. Specifically your points 3-6 were used, changing the name "Lieberman" to either "Cobb" or "Greens". And looking at your OP, it seems pretty broad, and inclusive of both primary run and the general election where Lieberman could very well run as an independent.

Sorry, but I find the irony quite funny, and the hypocrisy rather foul, since I took a pretty large ration of crap sticking up for the Greens. You may have not been around back then, but many of your pro-Lieberman buds were, and I find their hypocrisy revolting.

[Totally Committed]

178. Why am I not surprised?

I wasn't around then, either, so I didn't kow. Thanks for cluing me in.

TC

[TheVirginian]

188. I know of no "buds" that I have on this board.

And I know of no allies that I have in this thread.

[The Magistrate]

219. You May Regard Me As A Friend, Sir

It is pleasure to cross words with you: you make the best case possible for the view you are upholding, and do so in an excellent manner. In some of its particulars, you are quite correct, though on the over-riding element of it it is impossible for me to agree with you. It is a fact that Sen. Lieberman has lost just about all his former supporters here with his decision to run as an independent should he lose the primary. His supporters here were in all cases main-line Democrats who feel loyalty to the Party, and strenuously oppose third party efforts from the left as divisive and destructive. Persons who maintain that view can hardly do a volte face when such an effort is announced from another flank, after all. You are facing here, indeed, an illustration of a weakness in your predictions of how the course of an independent run by Sen. Lieberman may play out. Loyalty is not numbered among the virtues for nothing, and persons who cast it aside for ambition are widely despised, and properly so.

[SaveElmer]

223. Ditto here Virginian

You make a great case. It is nice having an intelligent civil discussion. Though I disagree with your bottom line I gave this post a recommend anyway!

Also sounds like we are fellow Virginians!

[TheVirginian]

224. True enough, but there are two important facts about the people here:

First, the underlying, and in fact unifying, theme of people here is the Democratic Party. It is the identity of every poster, and so it would be nearly impossible for loyalty to the party to be held in a higher regard.

Second, most people here don't live in Connecticut.

Most people, left to their own devices, don't have the same loyalty to party as a collection of Democrats dedicated to discussion matters important to the Democratic Party. While I may be underestimaking the backlash against Lieberman, you also may be overestimating it.

[The Magistrate]

226. As A Matter Of Fact, Sir

We have, as even casual examination of the place should reveal to you, a number of people who spend a good deal of time berating the Party and many of its leading figures. It would be unseemly for me to press that point further, but we are not quite what you paint us as there.

It is of course possible both for me to over-rate the back-lash, and for you to under-rate it. It will be a difficult thing to gauge in advance. My point is simply that it is an imponderable it would not be wise to ignore in prognostication.

[TheVirginian]

229. That certainly has been revealed.

But those criticisms are made with the interest of making the party stronger or better. Its always made in the spirit of loyalty to the party. I don't mistake loyalty for blind support, and I imagine you don't either.

[IdaBriggs]

140. They aren't "myths" -- they are opinions or facts.

The will of the majority of voters (assuming election fraud does not occur) will prevail.

Joe Lieberman enjoys a "positive" relationship with George W. Bush, and an old saying goes like this:

"Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas."

Before the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994, I believe a "collegiate" atmosphere prevailed. People had to work together to accomplish their mutual goal of doing what was in the best interest of the country. Today, the perception is that DEMOCRATS try to do the right thing for the citizens, while REPUBLICANS try to do the right thing for the people who give them money.

When you play the "bi-partisan" card during a time of war, you run the risk of being called a traitor to your own cause. That is the risk Joe Lieberman took, and it has bitten him royally in the ass.

The base does not want someone who can get along with Bush and his cronies -- the base wants someone who can figure out a way to STOP THE SONS OF BITCHES FROM DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY.

Joe's way isn't working, so its time for him to retire. End of story.

[Spazito]

163. Here's an interesting column in a Connecticut newpaper re

your point #1:

Seasonal Memory Lapses

snip

So I went up to the attic and pulled out my Lieberman file, with clippings and documents collected from covering him during his three terms in Washington.

It was true. My memory was faulty. I had remembered that, out of the eye of voters back home, Lieberman developed working alliances with the most hypocritical and dangerous right-wingnuts like Ralph Reed and Charles Murray and Bill Bennett. But I had forgotten just how extensive a record he had accumulated.

I had forgotten how he played the leading role in 1993 to thwart Democrats who tried to close loopholes allowing companies to cook the books on millions of dollars of stock options. Thus began the regulatory abandonment that spawned Enron and its sibling rip-offs.

I had forgotten how that same year, Lieberman joined with Republican Sen. Alphonse M. D'Amato of New York and against Democrats to "work the cloakrooms" of the Senate, in the words of a news account, to "line up unanimous support so that a tax break eagerly sought by the real estate industry could be passed without senators having to vote on the record."

more

http://www.courant.com/news/local/northeast/hc-pbass0604.artjun04,0,7611693.column

[Bridget Burke]

167. Is losing the primary & deserting your party so you can still run....

The same as winning the primary & screwing your party by refusing to run?

Lieberman & Tom DeLay are both pushing the envelope this election cycle. I respect them equally.

[SOS]

183. Skimmed over Iraq in one short paragraph

With one truly remarkable sentence included:

"He made his decision on his own accord, and following no agenda other than his own."

McCain and Lieberman authored the Iraq Liberation Act back in 1998.

McCain and Lieberman were the co-chairs of the PNAC front group called the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, whose staff included neo-con right-wingers like Gingrich, Kagen, Kristol, Perle and Marshall.

Lieberman is a "Distinguished Advisor" at the neo-con think tank called the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, whose members include Gary Bauer, Gingrich, Perle, Woolsey and Kristol.

Yet we are to accept that Lieberman was not following an agenda? He took a trip "by himself" to Iraq and only then decided to help launch what General Odom has called "the biggest strategic mistake in American history'? And when was that solo trip? During the Hussein regime?

The idea that Joe acted alone is baloney. Lieberman and his pals have been pushing for war in Iraq since the mid-1990s. He got what he wanted and it's a total failure. Let the Democratic voters decide how they feel about this eager Iraq invader along with it's deadly, expensive, counterpoductive and disasterous results.

[SaveElmer]

187. Great Post...however

Though I have been a defender of Lieberman on this board for some timw...I have to disagree with some of your conclusions. Good read though...good summary of the argument for Lieberman. Recommended.

Point by point:

1. I agree with you here. An objective look at his record shows he is far more liberal than even the most moderate Republcan, and more liberal than many Democrats. Certainly on the liberal side of the spectrum

2. I wholeheartedly disagree with you here. Your point that this is a Party process is true, which makes what he is doing worse. Party means you subscribe to a set of principles which define a theory of governance. The idea behind joining a Party is that more power to effect this mode of governance can be gained by joint effort. By running as an independent only if he loses the Democratic primary, he is saying two things. First, he has no lasting commitment to the Democratic Party, and therefore no longer subscribes to the notion of "party" as the best way to gain powwer. The party for him apparently is only a vehicle by which he can gain power. As soon as it is no longer useful for that purpose he is showing no compunction about abandoning it. Second, he is showing that he does not trust Democratic voters to make the best choice for the party.

3. This may or may not be true. However, he is certainly putting the seat at greater risk by potentially splitting the Democratic vote. Given the popularity of their Republican Governor, it is not outside the realm of possibility that Joe is putting the seat in jeapordy. Even is Joe is reelected, how can he be trusted to put the interests of the Party (and the country), above his own?

4. Related to 3

5. As a discrete point you are right here. There is no mention of political parties in the constitution. In fact he founders were hoping party's would not form. Of course they did almost immedietely, human nature being what it is. However, belonging to a Party is more than a way to get elected. As I said above, it involves subscribing to the notion that belonging to a party is the BEST way to implement the notion of governance that we adhere to. By abandoning the party for reasons of personal ambition, is the same as abandoning what is best for the country.

6. By saying he does not trust the Democratic process (Big "D") he is betraying the Democratic Party. Many Democrats are subject to withering criticism from the liberal blogosphere - Hillary Clinton more than others - yet you do not see any hint that she is willing to abandon the party. In fact she was the first to come out in support of the Democratic nomineee in Connecticut.

7 and 8 I agree with you. Kicking out Joe Lieberman should not be the top priority of the Democratic Party. Nor am I particularly worried about others who support Lieberman in the primary. If they support his independent candidacy, as I see some have hinted...I do have a problem.

[TheVirginian]

190. #2 and #5, then.

If party means that you ascribe to a set of principles, then how did Lieberman get in the door 25 years ago? How did he get elected three times as a Democrat, and how did he get on the ballot as a VP Candidate in 2000? Why is this an issue now, in 2006?

Its not because Lieberman has left the party or has deserted it, its because a candidate more in tune to the base has come up. And that's all well fine and good, but support of Lamont doesn't have to translate into undue criticism of Lieberman. He's not the enemy, though many on here believe that to be true.

But the party is not a vehicle to gain power. The party is a collection of people pushing a common agenda. But with any large group, there are different sub-sections who push in different directions. I feel the reason Lieberman joined the Democratic Party in the first place was because he agreed with that agenda, for the most part, and he felt he could do well. Now that one part of the party is trying to push him out, does that make him any less a Democrat? Does that make him any less qualified or entitled to run for office?

Second, by running as an Independent, he's saying that he does trust party voters to make the best decision for the Democratic Party. But he's also saying that he trusts the voters from the entire state to make the best decision for their representation, and not just voters from one party.

Moving on to #5, I again disagree about the nature of party. Any organization of this many people will have disagreements. I challenge you to find somebody who agrees with every single part of the Democratic platform. I challenge you to find any politician who hasn't broken from the party line in some form or another. Its not about governance, its about a common agenda. Governance is about representation. 18 years ago, Joe Lieberman told the people of Connecticut who he was and what he believed, and they sent him to the Senate. His agenda largely coincided with the Democratic Agenda, but his responsibility is not to the party, its to the people that put him into office. The Democratic Party doesn't represent the state of Connecticut, Joe Lieberman does.

[SaveElmer]

198. Answers...

You say

"Why is this an issue now, in 2006?"

It's an issue because Lieberman has declared his intention to disregard the wishes of the the Democratic Party he claims to belong to because he does not like their decision. The day he declared his intention to collect signatures for an independent run is the day it became an issue (for me at least) He has left the Party for all intents and purposes.

"Now that one part of the party is trying to push him out, does that make him any less a Democrat?"

If he runs against the nominee of the Democratic Party, yes it does make him less of a Democrat. It makes him an independent.

"Does that make him any less qualified or entitled to run for office?"

I am not making that claim. I am not saying he should be forbidden from running as an independent. I am criticizing him for betraying the Party he claims to belong to, all the while still claiming to be a Democrat. Its hypocritical.

"Second, by running as an Independent, he's saying that he does trust party voters to make the best decision for the Democratic Party."

Not sure what you mean by this. If Democratic voters in the primary select Lamont, and he then runs as an independent, he is repudiating the wishes of Democratic voters.

"But he's also saying that he trusts the voters from the entire state to make the best decision for their representation, and not just voters from one party."

This is true, but proves my point that he no longer subscribes to the notion of "party" as the best way to implement Democratic values. He believes he is more important than the party. It is his right, but he is rightly subject to criticism for doing so.


"Moving on to #5, I again disagree about the nature of party. Any organization of this many people will have disagreements. I challenge you to find somebody who agrees with every single part of the Democratic platform. I challenge you to find any politician who hasn't broken from the party line in some form or another. Its not about governance, its about a common agenda."

Absolutely true, but how many of them have abandoned the wishes of the party members, and then opposed the preferred candidate of the party because of these disagreements. It is about a notion of governance, because as you point out, there is wide disagreement on many issues. As a party member you subscribe to a general set of principles (which change over time). When you no longer ascribe to those principles, the thing to do is to leave the party because it no longer represents your philosophy. Not use it to get as far as you can, then abandon it, all the while hypocritically calling yourself a "petitioning Democrat". I would venture to say Lieberman is still in agreement with Democrats about 90% of the time, which makes this betrayal all the worse.

"Governance is about representation. 18 years ago, Joe Lieberman told the people of Connecticut who he was and what he believed, and they sent him to the Senate. His agenda largely coincided with the Democratic Agenda, but his responsibility is not to the party, its to the people that put him into office. "

Yes it is...and Lieberman ought to clarify where he stands. If he believes the Democratic Party still reflects his worldview, he should immedietely announce he will support the wishes of the Democratic Party voters in Connecticut. If it does not, he should do the honorable thing, make that clear, leave the Party and run as a true independent. He has chosen a hypocritical middle road.

[TheVirginian]

202. Like a tennis ball...

"It's an issue because Lieberman has declared his intention to disregard the wishes of the the Democratic Party he claims to belong to because he does not like their decision. The day he declared his intention to collect signatures for an independent run is the day it became an issue (for me at least) He has left the Party for all intents and purposes."

People were calling for his head before he announced his. Why suddenly in 2006 is Lieberman a DINO, when from 1988 to 2005 he's a valued Senator?

"I am criticizing him for betraying the Party he claims to belong to, all the while still claiming to be a Democrat. Its hypocritical."

How is he betraying his party? I don't understand this argument.

"Not sure what you mean by this. If Democratic voters in the primary select Lamont, and he then runs as an independent, he is repudiating the wishes of Democratic voters."

This is just dead wrong. If voters select Lamont in the primary, then Lamont becomes the Democratic nominee for Senate. It does not mean, at all, that Lieberman must withdraw from the race.

"This is true, but proves my point that he no longer subscribes to the notion of "party" as the best way to implement Democratic values. He believes he is more important than the party. It is his right, but he is rightly subject to criticism for doing so."

If he no longer subscribes to that notion, then he wouldn't still be a part of the party, and he wouldn't be with the party afterwards. This isn't a change of heart on Lieberman's part, its a change of heart by party activists. And he believes that all of the voters in the state should get a say in its representation, and not just those activists.

"Absolutely true, but how many of them have abandoned the wishes of the party members, and then opposed the preferred candidate of the party because of these disagreements."

He's not abandoing the party, its the other way around. And it doesn't happen often because its too risky to chance the seat. But since there's no risk of a Republican pick-up, then that doesn't apply here.

"When you no longer ascribe to those principles, the thing to do is to leave the party because it no longer represents your philosophy. Not use it to get as far as you can, then abandon it, all the while hypocritically calling yourself a "petitioning Democrat". I would venture to say Lieberman is still in agreement with Democrats about 90% of the time, which makes this betrayal all the worse."

If you contend that Lieberman agrees with the Democrats 90% of the time, then how can you say that he's leaving the party, or that it no longer reflects his philosophy? His independent bid isn't a response to his changing beliefs, its a response to an attack from one sub-section of the party.

[SaveElmer]

210. In your court...

"People were calling for his head before he announced his. Why suddenly in 2006 is Lieberman a DINO, when from 1988 to 2005 he's a valued Senator?"

Well I am not included in that number. I did not believe Lieberman should be replaced until he made his announcement that he would run as an independent. In any case, it is hard to believe a bit of criticism should drive him from the party so easily.

"How is he betraying his party? I don't understand this argument."

A Party is more than just a loose coalition of people, it is an organization, with structure and rules agreed to by its membership. By becoming part of that party, particularly as an officeholder, you agree to follow those rules. One of them is that the Democratic voter gets to decide who the nominee of the party should be. By saying he will disregard that decision if he should lose, Lieberman is saying those rules mean nothing to him. He will be opposing the Democratic nominee in the race for U.S. Senate. Lieberman can hardly be considered a Democrat if he is opposing the official nominee of the Party.

"It does not mean, at all, that Lieberman must withdraw from the race."

I didn't say it did, what I said was he should drop any pretense of his being a Democrat. By opposing the Democratic nominee in the race , in my view, he has forfeited the right to call himself a Democrat. He is an independent.

"He's not abandoning the party, its the other way around. And it doesn't happen often because its too risky to chance the seat. But since there's no risk of a Republican pick-up, then that doesn't apply here."

By refusing to endorse the Democratic nominee he is abandoning the party. He no longer believes that the Democratic Party is the best way to victory. He believes Joe Lieberman is the best way, Democrat or not. By choosing Lamont in the primary voters are not kicking Lieberman out of the Party, they are merely saying they prefer a different nominee. The vast majority of office seekers ascribe to this philosophy - which is why we see so few primary rejects making independent runs.

If the Republican has no chance of victory, then Lieberman's grounds for running are even shakier, as the party does not need him to win.

"If you contend that Lieberman agrees with the Democrats 90% of the time, then how can you say that he's leaving the party, or that it no longer reflects his philosophy? His independent bid isn't a response to his changing beliefs, its a response to an attack from one sub-section of the party."

As I noted above, the Democratic Party is more than just a laundary list of policy positions, it is an organization with structure, rules, and principles, which have been arrived at by its membership to best insure victory at election time, and a coherent structure when it is time to govern. If we gave sanction to members to simply disregard those guidelines they deem inconvenient for their personal ambition, the concept of Party becomes meaningless.

If Lamont wins the primary it is more than a repudiation of a sub-set of the party, it is a repudiation of his candidacy by the majority of the party.

[TheVirginian]

221. And back again...

"A Party is more than just a loose coalition of people, it is an organization, with structure and rules agreed to by its membership. By becoming part of that party, particularly as an officeholder, you agree to follow those rules. One of them is that the Democratic voter gets to decide who the nominee of the party should be. By saying he will disregard that decision if he should lose, Lieberman is saying those rules mean nothing to him."

But he's not disregarding that decision. According to your interpretation of the rules, he's following that. If he loses the primary, he's not the nominee. Simple as that.

"I didn't say it did, what I said was he should drop any pretense of his being a Democrat. By opposing the Democratic nominee in the race , in my view, he has forfeited the right to call himself a Democrat. He is an independent."

So there's only room in Connecticut for one Democrat? Also, if Lieberman wins as an Independent, what then? Should he vote for Harry Reid as Majority Leader and Pat Leahy as Judicial Chairman, or since he's not considered a Democrat, vote for someone else?

"By refusing to endorse the Democratic nominee he is abandoning the party. He no longer believes that the Democratic Party is the best way to victory. He believes Joe Lieberman is the best way, Democrat or not. By choosing Lamont in the primary voters are not kicking Lieberman out of the Party, they are merely saying they prefer a different nominee."

I think what Lieberman is saying is that there shouldn't just be one option for the state. If Ned Lamont defeats him in the primary and he drops out, then a very small percentage of the state will have made a decision for the entire state. A better way, in his opinion, would be to run for re-election in front of the entire state.

"If the Republican has no chance of victory, then Lieberman's grounds for running are even shakier, as the party does not need him to win."

But its not about the party, its about the voters of Connecticut. Connecticut voters didn't pass their representation onto the Democratic Party for it to decide; whether the party needs him to win or not is irrelevent.

[SaveElmer]

227. Once more into the breach...

"But he's not disregarding that decision. According to your interpretation of the rules, he's following that. If he loses the primary, he's not the nominee. Simple as that."

My problem is that he continues to profess loyalty to the Democratic Party...calling himself a "petitioning Democrat." In my view you cannot be a loyal Democrat and simultaneously run against the Democratic nominee.

"So there's only room in Connecticut for one Democrat? Also, if Lieberman wins as an Independent, what then? Should he vote for Harry Reid as Majority Leader and Pat Leahy as Judicial Chairman, or since he's not considered a Democrat, vote for someone else?"

There's only room for one Democratic nominee for United States Senate in the 2006 election cycle...yes. By potentially splitting the Democratic vote he is putting the seat in danger. If he is elected as an independent I truly hope he does live up to his commitment to caucus with the Democrats, but I can no longer trust that he will. He has broken faith with his party, and it is going to take alot of work to regain that trust...at least as far as I am concerned.

"I think what Lieberman is saying is that there shouldn't just be one option for the state. If Ned Lamont defeats him in the primary and he drops out, then a very small percentage of the state will have made a decision for the entire state. A better way, in his opinion, would be to run for re-election in front of the entire state."

This works if you do not ascribe to the notion that the best thing for the country is for the Democratic Party to regain power and to hold together once elected. He has now shown a willingness to disregard the rules of the Party making his support shaky. I would have more respect for him had he simply renounced his Democratic affiliation and run as a true independent.

"But its not about the party, its about the voters of Connecticut. Connecticut voters didn't pass their representation onto the Democratic Party for it to decide; whether the party needs him to win or not is irrelevent."

Again, it is about a philosophy of governance. If one is not a member of a Party, or doesn't believe that adherance to a party is the most effective way to govern, than what you say is true. I am unshakably in favor of the Democratic nominee in all cases, no matter their idealogy, because I am convinced a united Democratic Party is the best hope this country has. Joe Lieberman does not believe that anymore, and so has lost my support!

[TheVirginian]

239. And again...

"My problem is that he continues to profess loyalty to the Democratic Party...calling himself a "petitioning Democrat." In my view you cannot be a loyal Democrat and simultaneously run against the Democratic nominee."

So that's the litmus test? What if Ben Nelson were running instead of Ned Lamont? What if it was Zell Miller? What if Jesse Helms changed his party affiliation, ran in the Democratic Primary, and by some fluke, beat Joe Lieberman in the primary. Would you support the Democratic nominee no matter what, or would you look at your options and pick the best candidate?

My point of this absurd hypothetical is because you're making the only litmus test for loyalty to be supporting the Democratic nominee. I believe in a big-tent party, and I believe that having more options results in better representation, and keeps politicians more honest. After we determine that there are policy differences between Joe Lieberman and Ned Lamont, then we can determine that there is a choice to be made between them. Why, then, can both not run at the same time?

In most cases, its because this would jeopardize the Democrat's chance at winning the seat. But since there's no viable opposition, this isn't the case.

"By potentially splitting the Democratic vote he is putting the seat in danger."

This needn't be a concern of anybody's anymore. There's no chance of this happening. And Alan Schlesinger would benefit more from a two-way race with Ned Lamont than he would a three-man race.

"This works if you do not ascribe to the notion that the best thing for the country is for the Democratic Party to regain power and to hold together once elected."

Why? They're not mutually exclusive. Joe Lieberman has been a Democratic Party stalwart for the last 18 years. Its not like he's not a tried-and-true member.

[SaveElmer]

272. ...

"So that's the litmus test? What if Ben Nelson were running instead of Ned Lamont? What if it was Zell Miller? What if Jesse Helms changed his party affiliation, ran in the Democratic Primary, and by some fluke, beat Joe Lieberman in the primary. Would you support the Democratic nominee no matter what, or would you look at your options and pick the best candidate?"

Ben Nelson yes...though he is more conservative than I like, he has been a loyal Democrat, and for Nebraska he is liberal...and he is a reliable vote for Harry Reid.

Zell Miller no...he actively supported George Bush in the last election. He has forfeited the right to call himself a Democrat. If Jesse Helms were struck by lightening and miraculously saw the light, and professed loyalty to the party I would support him...however lets deal in practical realities here...

"Why, then, can both not run at the same time?"

They can, but only one has earned the right to call himself a Democrat IMO

"This needn't be a concern of anybody's anymore. There's no chance of this happening. And Alan Schlesinger would benefit more from a two-way race with Ned Lamont than he would a three-man race."

This is more of a general principle. However, if the Republican is so lame in this race, why does Lieberman believe it is so vital to run, and to still call himself a Democrat. There is room for one Democratic candidate in the race.

"Why? They're not mutually exclusive. Joe Lieberman has been a Democratic Party stalwart for the last 18 years. Its not like he's not a tried-and-true member."

He has been up to now...his ambition, or his ego, or some other motivation has led him to abandon the imprimatur of the Democratic Party.

[ihelpu2see]

189. Look, I don't deny that Sen. Lieberman has been a solid Dem.

It does not mean he should not have a primary challenge. I does not excuse his continued support of the Iraq war.....for Alito, for the 2000 Dick Cheney energy fiasco, non-support for universal health care, poor record on the fiscal health of CT and the nation.

All of these are worth looking at and in this primary Joe should be more forth-coming instead of acting pissed.

[TheVirginian]

193. Who's trying to say he shouldn't have a primary challenge?

I'm just trying to correct some fallacies that have been repeated over the last couple of weeks.

[jfern]

269. If Lieberman gave a shit about the party

His supporters wouldn't be whining about how he was "terrorized" by a primary challange, and he would support the Democratic party winner, like Alan Dixon did when Carol Moseley-Braun defeated him in 1992.

Instead Lieberman still goes and trashes Democrats repeatedly.

Joe almost cost us the Senate in the 2000 election when he ran for re-election to the Senate even though he would have been replaced by a Republican if he had become VP.

[nickshepDEM]

247. Good post.

You articulated your points very well and backed most them with facts... not exactly commonplace around here.

K&R.

[Dr Fate]

253. Not much at all about the most important issue of my lifetime- IRAQ.

And on that most important, all encompassing issue, Joe sides with GOP/Bush/media.

And nothing in that post that explains Liebermans anti-dissent position- "Question Bush's credibility at your own peril"

Sorry, but we wont discount THE most important issue of our lifetime for the benefit of a Conservative leaning politician.

[jfern]

263. Pathetic straw man

In 1988, Lowell Weicker was the liberal, and Joe beat him with the help of the Republicans.
If Joe runs against the more liberal Lamont in the 2006 general election, he will be getting the support of those same Republicans.
Joe repeatedly attacks his party on FauxNews.
Joe is bad not only on the war, where he has called for "regime change in Iran", and was one of only a few pro-torture Gonzales votes, but he is also terrible on a number of domestic issues. For example, he called for privitization of SS.

How come we're not hearing anything about Senator Akaka's primary challenge?

No, it's time that Ann Coulter's candidate in the CT Senate race be defeated to send the establishment who has been kissing Bush and bending over for him for far too long a message. Us Democrats are sick and tired of the lack of party unity and the lack of leadership, and most of all people like Lieberman who do more harm than good by constantly trashing the Democratic party.

Lieberman is all about Lieberman, otherwise he wouldn't have run for re-election to the Senate in 2000, almost costing his party the Senate. He doesn't give a rats ass about anyone but Lieberman, and so it is time for him to be retired.

Why must you defend a Republican enabler who runs massive amounts of lying ads?

[TheVirginian]

282. I've never seen a title so aptly describe its post.

When you have a second to deal with the real world and not hyped-up inflation and spin, I'll be here to discuss it with you.

[Czolgosz]

266. Not so fast . . .

1. Joe Lieberman is a Republican who calls himself a Democrat.

I agree with you that this is an inaccurate argument. Joe is not a Republican. He's just a conservative Democrat who's out of touch with the Democratic voters in Connecticut. If he were running in Indiana, I'd cut him a lot more slack (just as I might be more tolerant of Chaffee if he were representing "deep red" state like Texas -- where I'm from -- and not a good progressive state like Rhode Island).

2. By gathering signatures to run as an Independent if he loses the primary, Joe Lieberman is screwing/ignoring/de-frauding the primary voters.

You are wrong when you say "Primaries are not a part of the democratic process." Under the US system of democracy, primaries are not just a "part" of the democratic process, they are the most important part of the process in "deep blue" states like Connecticut and in "deep red" states like Texas. That will remain true unless the US moves toward a parliamentary form of government, which will not happen in your lifetime or mine. By gathering signatures, Joe is telling the Democratic Primary voters that he intends to ignore their voice if they reject him. That is an uncharacteristically ham-handed gaff on his part. It will cost him the nomination, which was still his to lose until he started the signature drive.

3. By running as an Independent, Joe Lieberman will split the Democratic vote, allowing the Republican to win.

Joe's run as an Independent would likely bear the same fruit as Carole Strayhorn's in Texas. As a Republican, she was the top vote getter in either party during her last election, but she couldn't win the nomination from the far-right gubernatorial incumbent because the primary was stacked in his favor. She's running as an Independent and she's polling fourth because she has burned bridges within her former party but she's still not the first (or even second) choice among voters in the opposition party.

4. Joe Lieberman will lose if he runs as an Independent.

We'll see. I stand by my comparison to the failed Independent bid of Carole Strayhorn in Texas.

5. Joe Lieberman's first obligation should be toward the Democratic Party.

Joe's first obligation should be to his constituents and to their values as well as his own values. Unfortunately, Joe's Independent bid is a slap in the face to many of his constituents and it now appears that his values differ from those of most of his constituents. That's not a crime (even Zell is still running around as a free man), but it's also not a winning platform.

6. Joe Lieberman is betraying the Democratic Party.

I disagree with your argument. If he's going to run as an Independent, he should withdraw from the Democratic Party; if he's going to run for the Democratic nomination, he should abide by the voters' decision. The course of action Joe has chosen smacks strongly of betrayal.

7. Our resources are best put in kicking Joe Lieberman out of office.

I agree with you here. Defeating Joe isn't my top priority, but it would be a damn fine thing.

8. People who defend Joe Lieberman are opposed to Ned Lamont/progressives/the Democratic Party.

If it truly "boggles" your mind that "there is so much animosity toward Joe Lieberman on this board when far greater culprits like Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu escape scrutiny," you fail to perceive that Nelson and Landrieu as conservative Democrats in conservative States where a Republican may likely beat a progressive Democrat. Joe is a conservative Democrat in a progressive state where the voters have a right to demand a representative who shares their values.

[TheVirginian]

285. Okay, I'm slowing down...

"By gathering signatures, Joe is telling the Democratic Primary voters that he intends to ignore their voice if they reject him."

First, he's only telling it to the half or 60% that vote for Lamont, not all primary voters. Second, its not the primary voters' duty to decide who gets to be Senator, its their duty to decide who gets to be the Democratic nominee.

"Joe's run as an Independent would likely bear the same fruit as Carole Strayhorn's in Texas..."

The largest difference, of course, is that in Texas, there is a viable Republican and a viable Democratic candidate. In Connecticut, there are only two viable Democratic candidates.

"That's not a crime (even Zell is still running around as a free man), but it's also not a winning platform."

I'm not arguing its a winning platform, I'm arguing that he's not a traitor to the party for putting his state above it.

"If he's going to run as an Independent, he should withdraw from the Democratic Party; if he's going to run for the Democratic nomination, he should abide by the voters' decision."

If he runs as an Independent, he will be withdrawing from the party as a candidate. He's running for the nomination, and if he loses, he'll abide by the voters' decision by not being the nominee.


By the way, I want to point out to you, specifically, that the original post was not meant for people like you. You obviously have a firm handle of the situation, and your well-founded opinions are supported by reality and logic. My post was meant for those who easily let emotional zeal and half-truths substitute reason and rationality. You haven't strayed off the reservation, so please don't feel like I'm arguing against you.

[Czolgosz]

287. Two further points:

First, you say Joe is "only" telling "the half or 60%" of Democratic Primary voters who (hypothetically) support Lamont that he intends to ignore their voice if they reject him. I disagree. For example, I supported a candidate for the Democratic nomination for the Texas governorship who lost in the primary. I would have felt betrayed if my own preferred candidate chose not to accept defeat and instead decided to run as an Independent. Similarly, Joe is not merely betraying those who vote for Lamont in the primary by fleeing the party to run as an Independent. It is surely incorrect that those voters who vote for Joe in the primary all want him to run as an Independent if he loses the primary.

Second, you say that the analogy between Texas Independent Strayhorn and a hypothetical Lieberman Independent candidacy is a flawed analogy because "in Texas, there is a viable Republican and a viable Democratic candidate" whereas "in Connecticut, there are only two viable Democratic candidates." Not true. Think of Texas as Bizarro Connecticut. In a two-candidate race, the Democrat would stand ZERO chance of winning the Texas governorship. But in a race with ex-Republican now-independent Strayhorn (not to mention ex-Republican now-crypto-Independent Kinky Friedman), the otherwise-not-viable candidacy of the Democrat suddenly becomes a very viable candidate. The same (in reverse) holds true in Connecticut. In a two person race, the Republican stands no chance. In a three-candidate race with an ex-Democrat Independent, the otherwise-not-viable candidacy of the Republican suddenly becomes viable.

[TheVirginian]

291. Two further refutations...

"First, you say Joe is "only" telling "the half or 60%" of Democratic Primary voters who (hypothetically) support Lamont that he intends to ignore their voice if they reject him. I disagree. For example, I supported a candidate for the Democratic nomination for the Texas governorship who lost in the primary. I would have felt betrayed if my own preferred candidate chose not to accept defeat and instead decided to run as an Independent. Similarly, Joe is not merely betraying those who vote for Lamont in the primary by fleeing the party to run as an Independent. It is surely incorrect that those voters who vote for Joe in the primary all want him to run as an Independent if he loses the primary."

Its incorrect to say that the primary voters would want him to run as an Independent, but they're not voting on whether they want Lieberman to run as an Independent. The most important thing to remember is that the primary is a vote to determine who the Democratic nominee is, only. It has absolutely no bearing on whether someone gets to be on the ballot in November or not.

"Second, you say that the analogy between Texas Independent Strayhorn and a hypothetical Lieberman Independent candidacy is a flawed analogy because "in Texas, there is a viable Republican and a viable Democratic candidate" whereas "in Connecticut, there are only two viable Democratic candidates." Not true. Think of Texas as Bizarro Connecticut. In a two-candidate race, the Democrat would stand ZERO chance of winning the Texas governorship. But in a race with ex-Republican now-independent Strayhorn (not to mention ex-Republican now-crypto-Independent Kinky Friedman), the otherwise-not-viable candidacy of the Democrat suddenly becomes a very viable candidate. The same (in reverse) holds true in Connecticut. In a two person race, the Republican stands no chance. In a three-candidate race with an ex-Democrat Independent, the otherwise-not-viable candidacy of the Republican suddenly becomes viable."

While conventional wisdom says that this is true, its not in Connecticut. There is no chance of Alan Schlesinger being a viable candidate. He has no money, very little experience, no connections, and most of his base supports Lieberman. In a three-way match, he polls at 8% to Lieberman's 56%. In truth, the best chance Schlesinger has (which is still little) is in a one-on-one match against Lamont.

[Spider Jerusalem]

267. Point by point:

1. Joe Lieberman is a Republican who calls himself a Democrat.

No, but his social conservatism, pro-war stance and economic neoliberalism are decidedly at odds with the views of many Democrats.

2. By gathering signatures to run as an Independent if he loses the primary, Joe Lieberman is screwing/ignoring/de-frauding the primary voters.

Well, to be perfectly ACCURATE here, he's giving the Democratic voters of Connecticut a hearty 'fuck you', and saying in essence that he cares only about being re-elected, full stop. The apparently very real possibility that Democratic voters in a mostly Democratic state no longer wish to be represented by him doesn't seem to matter; declaring an intention to run as an independent the act of a thoroughly self-serving egotist, and a breach of faith with both the party he's supposedly a member of and the voters he seeks to represent.

3. By running as an Independent, Joe Lieberman will split the Democratic vote, allowing the Republican to win.

This can't be stated with any certainty; it's a definite possibility that Lieberman, as a Democrat who is in many ways acceptable to Republicans might split the Republican vote instead.

4. Joe Lieberman will lose if he runs as an Independent.

One hopes so, and he certainly deserves to.

5. Joe Lieberman's first obligation should be towards the Democratic Party.

No, Lieberman's first obligation should be to the voters of the state of Connecticut, which he has chosen to represent as a Democrat. If the Democratic voters of Connecticut no longer wish to be represented by Lieberman, he should accept the fact gracefully and fuck off, not make an ass of himself by affecting wounded pride and declaring that he's going to run anyway.

6. Joe Lieberman is betraying the Democratic Party.

Betraying Democratic voters in Connecticut, at least (see above).

7. Our resources are best put in kicking Joe Lieberman out of office.

That's up to the voters of Connecticut, who, if they feel that Lieberman's views are at odds with their own, have every right to replace him with someone who puts the will of the electorate above his own ego.

8. People who defend Joe Lieberman are opposed to Ned Lamont/progressives/the Democratic Party.

Anyone who defends Lieberman's dishonourable intentions to run as an independent if rejected by the voters in his own party (which is the Democratic Party, I remind you), quite obviously has at best a tenuous commitment to said party.

[TheVirginian]

286. Betraying the voters? How, exactly?

Joe Lieberman doesn't just represent the Democrats in Connecticut, he represents all of Connecticut. Primary voters don't get to decide the Senator from Connecticut, they get to decide the party's nominee for Senate. Its the general election where the voters get to decide who represents them in the Senate. How in the world can you claim that Joe Lieberman is fucking the voters of his state by running for re-election?

[Spider Jerusalem]

288. I'd suggest that you learn how to read.

I said he was betraying the Democratic voters, who, if they select a different candidate, have made it quite obvious that they no longer want Lieberman as their senator. For Lieberman to disavow his party affiliation to run for election as an independent is mercenary and self-serving, and shows that he's more interested in remaining in office than in paying heed to the wishes of the same voters responsible for putting him where he is now. (I don't see why I should have to repeat this, as I stated it quite clearly in my original reply.)

[TheVirginian]

292. Getting elected as Senator...

Relies on more than just the votes of your party. Approximately 34% of CT are registered Democrats. That means a majority of voters are non-Democrats, which means that for any candidate to win an election, they must get votes from non-Democrats. Since non-Democrats can't vote in the primary, then how would it be fair to only let Democrats choose who represents the state? In reality, by forcing Lieberman out of the race after the primary, you're fucking over the rest of the voters in the state who never got a chance to vote for or against him.

[Spider Jerusalem]

293. And I say again...

that if his party (who, remember, nominated him in the first place, lo these many years ago) make it clear that they no longer want him, he should leave the field. To do otherwise is a sign of obvious hubris, and a clear betrayal in the sense that he owes his position as senator to the voters and organisation of the Connecticut Democratic Party, whence he obtained his original nomination for the office, much funding and campaign support, etc.

And regardless of WHO the Democratic nominee is, there will be OTHER candidates on the ballot...so your saying 'how is it fair to let only Democrats choose who represents the state?' is so much disingenuous nonsense.

You seem to have a tremendous problem with letting the Democratic voters of Connecticut decide who their Senatorial candidate should be, and no problem at all with the idea of Lieberman running as an independent should he be denied the party nomination he seeks. One finds this rather curious.

[TheVirginian]

301. But that's not the way its supposed to work.

You're only reason for not allowing Lieberman to run as an Independent is because he wouldn't have won 18 years ago if not for the Democratic Party. That's a very weak-ass excuse.

I think a more rational argument would be that if his party doesn't want him, then he should run for office under a different party. After all, while he won as a Democrat, the only way that he won was by collecting the votes of non-Democrats as well. Therefore, under your logic, he owes it to non-Democrats to let them vote on him, as he owes his position as Senator to the votes and people of the state of Connecticut.

Its not disingenuous to say that. The majority of the people of Connecticut like Joe Lieberman. They like the person and they like the job he's doing. How would it be fair to kick the guy out of office without letting that majority have a say?

I have no problem with letting the Democrats decide who their nominee will be. If Ned Lamont wins the primary, he'll be the nominee. Where have I said I have a problem with that? In fact, I've said the opposite of that.

[Spider Jerusalem]

323. There's very obviously no point in continuing this discussion.

You don't seem to get that Lieberman is a DEMOCRATIC senator. He's in the Senate as a representative not just of the people of Connecticut, but as a member of a party. If you're totally incapable of seeing WHY his intention to run even if he LOSES the nomination of his party is INCREDIBLY bad form, then this is going to go nowhere.

[TheVirginian]

325. "bad form"

What exactly does that mean? Are you only saying that it pisses you off?

[Spider Jerusalem]

327. No...

What I am saying is that by rejecting the decision of the party he claims to be a member of (which is what a primary election result is, in case you haven't been following) and declaring his intention to run ANYWAY without party affiliation is a mercenary, dishonourable, and egomaniacal act. You seem to have a hard time understanding this; but then again, you describe yourself as a moderate independent and sometime supporter of Republican candidates, so I rather imagine that any attempt to make you understand such concepts as loyalty to one's party in the context of partisan politics is wasted effort.

[TheVirginian]

331. Where did I describe myself as that?

Explain why the term "mercenary" applies in this context? And why do you assume his motives are ego, and not loyalty to the state of Connecticut?

[Spider Jerusalem]

333. You described yourself as that...

elsewhere in this same thread; is your memory really so short?

The term 'mercenary' applies because it's quite obvious that Lieberman's desire to stand as candidate regardless of the decision of his party in the primary is motivated by self-interest--he's previously made statements to the effect that he sees himself as the only candidate fit for the Democratic nomination, and bugger the will of the Democratic voters--if that's not mercenary self-interest, then I don't know what is. And he's made it abundantly clear that his primary loyalty is to himself; it's really rather amusing to speak of 'loyalty' in relation to a man who is prepared to forswear a party allegiance of long standing out of political expediency, as he obviously has no conception of the term (and apparently neither do you).

[ButterflyBlood]

274. Joe Lieberman is a right wing Bush loving piece of trash

Period.

[TheVirginian]

283. Thank you for your original and well-thought out contribution. n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

275. Lamont is behind by about 15 points in a hypothetical three way race

Keeping in mind that this is a hypothetical and that the way polls are worded makes all of the difference in the world, I think that the gap will narrow significantly if Lamont actually beats Lieberman in the primary. It will narrow even further if Lamont gets the support of the national party, which looks like it will be the case should he win the primary.

And while Lieberman has every right to run as an Independent, it gives me very good reason to question his loyalty to the Democratic party when he makes that decision. Democratic elected officials are always expected to endorse the Democratic nominee for any office unless the nominee has been deemed so extreme that they do not share the views of the party (the last example that I can think of is for the Republicans when they did not endorse David Duke). Ned Lamont does not in any way fit that description.

[TheVirginian]

284. My point wasn't that Lieberman wouldn't lose.

If Lieberman loses and Lamont wins in the general, then that's fantastic news. It doesn't matter if that happens. The doomsday scenario that some are trying to push is that a split three-way race would allow the Republican to win. This is an absurd prediction.

If Lamont wins, then there's no harm at all in Lieberman's Independent candidacy. If Lieberman wins and caucuses with the Dems, as he said he would, then there's no harm at all in Lieberman's Independent candidacy.

[Clarkie1]

290. If I was a Connecticut Democrat I'd be more conscerned with

my representatives loyalty to me than to any political party.

Lieberman is doing the right thing as a long-time Connecticut statesman by putting himself before all his constituents should a minority take away his party endorsement in August. There are things more important than political parties, namely ones constituents. Lieberman understands that.

[CTLawGuy]

295. are you serious????

so any election where less than 50% turn out is invalid becuase its a minority?

Should an incumbent refuse to leave his seat if he loses such a race?
Should a loser refuse to concede such an election becuase it "didn't represent all the people?"

Understand the ramifications of what you are saying.

Also, it's Lieberman's responsibility to turn out his Dem supporters (if he has any)on primary day.

[TheVirginian]

303. I don't think you understand what s/he meant.

By most estimates, the turnout for the August primary will be between 5% and 15%, with 15% being nearly half of the state's Democrats, an extraordinary feat. So let's just say, for argument's sake, that the turnout ends up being 10%.

In that 10% turnout primary, let's say that Lieberman loses by ten points, giving Lamont far more credit than due at this point. Let's say that Lamont defeats Lieberman by a margin of 55%-45%. Since only 10% of the state's registered voters turned out for the primary, then that means that 5.5% of the state will have determined the Senator for Connecticut. What the poster is saying, and what I've been saying, is that its more fair to let the general election, where everyone can vote, determine the Senator from Connecticut than the Democratic primary.

[calico1]

310. I'm fine with that.

Lieberman should just declare himself Independent and run as an Independent. Not run in the primary and be ready and waiting to run as an Independent if the results are not to his liking. One or the other. And by the way, primary turnout is always low, so how is this different from any other primary and why should Lieberman get special treatment? I don't object to his run as an Independent candidate. Its the double dipping I don't like.

[TheVirginian]

316. "Special treatment."

I wouldn't say its special treatment. Everybody has the right to run as an Independent in the general if they lose the primary. Most people don't. Lieberman is doing so, and the reason why its okay in this situation and not others is because there's no chance of the Republican winning.

[calico1]

319. I disagree.

Although I respect your opinion. I think that if he is going to run in the primaries then he should abide by the rules. He is doing the same thing he did in 2000 when he refused to quit his senate seat. Had the fix not been in and Gore won, Lieberman's refusal would have meant the loss of that seat in the senate because he wanted to hold on to both. I think he should choose one or the other. If he chooses to participate in the primaries then he should abide by the rules. If not, then just get out and run as an Independent. The funny thing is that if he wins the primary, even if only 10% of the registered Democrats particapate he will claim that he won and its the what the Democrats want...and so I'm sure will his supporters.

[TheVirginian]

320. "Abide by the rules..."

What rules will be breaking by mounting an Independent bid?

[calico1]

321. If Lieberman wants to mount an Independent bid then

fine. I have no issue with that. But he wants to participate in the primaries as a Democrat and if he loses, run as an Independent. But if he wins, even if its with 5% of the eligible voters going to the polls, do you think he will then claim that all the people of CT have not been properly represented as is now his reasoning for mounting an Independent candidacy? Of course not. And neither will you or any of his other supporters! I have no objection to him running as an Independent. But one of his reasonings for doing so if he loses in the primary is that the primary does not sufficiently represent the true will of the voters of the State. Same as his supporters. Yet if he were to win the primary, I very much doubt he or his supporters will say that the will of CT voters was not properly represented. He will claim a huge victory as will his supporters. My feeling is that if he wants to participate in the primary as a Democratic candidate then it should be going by the rules that the loser support the winner. If he does not believe in that then he should just run as an Independent candidate.

[TheVirginian]

322. Ah, but there's another election after the primary.

If Lieberman wins the primary, he'll claim it as a huge victory, but the point about representing all of CT's voters won't matter because he'll go in front of all of the voters in November as a Democratic candidate.

Since I've heard this thrown at me before a couple of times, let me just get it out of the way: I would have no problem with Ned Lamont launching an Independent run as well, though he won't because he knows he wouldn't win.

[calico1]

324. So why doesn't Lieberman run as an

Independent if he and his supporters know he WILL win? And don't tell me its because he is the Senator for 18 years, blah, blah, blah. Anyone has a right to challenge him in the primary. It is Lieberman, not Lamont who wants to have both options. Lamont has already said that he will back the winner.

[TheVirginian]

326. Because he wants to be the Democratic nominee.

Lieberman has been a Democrat all of his life. Its his party, too.

[calico1]

330. If he is a Democrat then he should be willing to

accept the results of the primary (and so should his supporters who also claim they are Democrats). Lieberman is claiming to be a Democrat but intending to run as an Independent candidate if he does not win the primary. What kind of Democrat does that? I don't care if he's been a Democrat for 100 years. Ot how long he has been a Senator. He does not own the Senate seat. He is supposed to run for it every six year. Earn it. Other people have the right to challenge him. And voters have a right to choose someone else if they don't want him anymore. I have voted for him each time but this time I intend to vote for his challenger. (Haven't decided yet if I would vote for him if he wins in the primary). You either believe in the primary system or you don't. If you believe in it and particiapte then you should be willing to accept the results. If you don't believe in it, then you should leave the party and run as an Independent. Its not Lamont that does not believe in the primary system so its not he who should run as an independent if he wants to run. He has stated that he will accept the results. Lieberman is claiming that the primary does not represent all CT voters. Yet he will participate and if he wins, will he claim that the voters have spoken and they still want him as the Democratic candidate? You bet. So he believes in the system but only if it works out for him but he is prepared to bolt the party if he doesn't. Sorry, but to me he is not a good Democrat.

[TheVirginian]

332. He earns it by getting elected in the general election.

He's not trying to bypass the primary system, and he's not trying to bypass the general election. If he loses the primary, he'll accept the results of it and not be the Democratic nominee. If he loses the general, he'll accept the results of it and not be Senator anymore.

Whether he's a good Democrat or not is up to debate, but Lieberman, at this point, cares more about being a good representative to his constituents than being a good Democrat.

[calico1]

351. Well I don't agree with your assessment but you are

certainly entitled to your opinion.

[CTLawGuy]

342. very low % of people determine who gets into office all the time

lets try president, for example.

There are say 300 million US citizens...
75% of them are adults = 225 million
70% of the adults are registered to vote = 158 million
70% of registered voters turned out on 2004 = 111 million votes
51% of voters voted for Bush = 62 million

So, that means, the guy in office was the preference of:

51% of all voters
39% of all registered voters
28% of all adults
21% of all US citizens

And that means also that:

37% of the population had a say in picking the president
53% of the population COULD HAVE had a say

If Joe Lieberman wants to complain about low turnout and "giving ALL voters a chance" then he should realize that this country's in trouble.

And this is the PRESIDENT, mind you, not a senator running in an off year.

[TheVirginian]

347. I always love it when you think you made a good point.

You get all proud and sure of yourself.

[CTLawGuy]

352. yeah, tends to happen, doesn't it

:)

I love it when the person I'm making it to can't rebut it.

[TheVirginian]

359. I rebutted it in your other thread.

Or should I post the same thing here?

I'll make it easy for you:

Its not a matter of a low amount of people coming out for the general election. Its a matter of only 35% of the state being allowed to vote in the primary. You people want Joe Lieberman to drop out of the race if he loses the primary. That means you want 65% of the state to have no say at all in whether Joe Lieberman continues to represent the state. That's what I have a problem with.

[CTLawGuy]

375. if they want him so bad, non-dems can...

1. Change their party affilation to Dem and vote in the primary OR
2. They can write Joe in on the GE ballot.

[TheVirginian]

379. Why should they be forced to change their affiliation?

[CTLawGuy]

386. cause it's virtually costless and they can change back right after they

vote. And if they really don't want to do that, they can write him in in the GE.

[TheVirginian]

390. Or they can vote for him since he'll be on the ballot in the GE.

[CTLawGuy]

392. well thats true under the current circumstances

NT

[calico1]

297. I take it then you don't believe in

primaries? Sounds like you don't. Should we just get rid of primaries?

[TheVirginian]

304. This is a most unusual situation.

In 99.8% of all elections, it would be unthinkable for a person defeated in a primary to run in the general election. Not this time.

[calico1]

312. Why? n/t

[CTLawGuy]

334. cause lieberman is conservative

no other way to promote conservatives on this board other than misguided and contorted appeals to Joe's "right" to run as an indy.

[TheVirginian]

336. Here to make more unsubstantiated claims, are you?

If you don't understand it, attack it? That's a good strategy.

[CTLawGuy]

340. No, I'm here to defend the sanctity of the primary process

against a so-called "Lamont supporter" who thinks that it's fine and dandy that Lieberman should split the race, by running in his own self-serving party, all while still calling himself a Democrat.

If he can do this, there is no point to the primary at all. If any loser with delusions of grandeur can feel free to just run as an indy, we might as well let all candidates go forward to the GE.

What Joe is doing is worse than someone just deciding to ignore the result post-primary, he is publicly threatening to ignore the result in a pathetic attempt to extort votes. He's letting people know that voting against him will have consequences.

"If you vote for me, we will 100% win, if you vote against me, I'll run as an indy, then who knows whether we'll win or not...."

You may think you know everything about who's going to win, but you don't. In 4 months, anything can happen. Lamont himself went from 19% two months ago to 40%. In a 3-way race, high 30s, low 40s is enough to win.

What joe is doing is at BEST injecting unnecessary uncertainty into the equation.


My second objection is to the idea that an election is somehow not valid because the turnout is very low. Joe has a responsibilty to make sure that all his supporters turn out on August 8th. If they make the conscious choice to not vote on August 8th, then they have weighed in as "I abstain." If Joe were to not be in the general election and a voter wants him so bad, they have the right to write him in.

The fact that people might want the chance to vote for you is not a reason to ignore a primary result. I wanted the chance to vote for Dean in the general election in 2004, but he lost the primary, so tough shit for me.

Furthermore, if Joe thinks his base is independents, he should just leave the Dem party and run as an indy outright. At least stop calling yourself a dem if you don't respect the choice of the dems.

[TheVirginian]

349. I don't even know where to start.

You always provide the best material, so I must say, KUTGW. If I had the time or the energy, I would just copy and paste where I've answered all of this before. But I don't, so I'll type it out yet again for you.

"If he can do this, there is no point to the primary at all. If any loser with delusions of grandeur can feel free to just run as an indy, we might as well let all candidates go forward to the GE."

I'm not sure if you were aware, but every primary loser is free to run as an Independent, provided they meet the qualifications for petitioning their way onto a ballot (usually a collection of signatures). Most of the time, they don't, because 1) they'd know they wouldn't win, and 2) to prevent the opposition party from winning. Since neither of those conditions are true in this race, you don't see the same thing.

"What Joe is doing is worse than someone just deciding to ignore the result post-primary, he is publicly threatening to ignore the result in a pathetic attempt to extort votes. He's letting people know that voting against him will have consequences.

"If you vote for me, we will 100% win, if you vote against me, I'll run as an indy, then who knows whether we'll win or not....""

What in the blue fuck makes you think he's trying to extort votes? Its not a threat at all. Why? Because most people with a basic understanding of the situation know that there's no chance of the Republican winning. The only people threatened by Lieberman's Independent bid are people like you who don't know anything about politics.

"You may think you know everything about who's going to win, but you don't. In 4 months, anything can happen. Lamont himself went from 19% two months ago to 40%. In a 3-way race, high 30s, low 40s is enough to win."

I never said I know who's going to win. I just said I know that Schlesinger won't win. It could be Lieberman. It could be Lamont. Either way, the winner will caucus with the Democrats, so there's no threat of the party losing the seat.

"My second objection is to the idea that an election is somehow not valid because the turnout is very low. Joe has a responsibilty to make sure that all his supporters turn out on August 8th. If they make the conscious choice to not vote on August 8th, then they have weighed in as "I abstain." If Joe were to not be in the general election and a voter wants him so bad, they have the right to write him in."

Its not because the turnout is low, its because more than a majority of Joe Lieberman's constituents can't vote on whether they want him to remain their Senator. The majority of voters are non-Democrats. Why, then, should only Democrats get to vote on who represents the state?

"The fact that people might want the chance to vote for you is not a reason to ignore a primary result. I wanted the chance to vote for Dean in the general election in 2004, but he lost the primary, so tough shit for me."

The reason you couldn't vote for Dean isn't because he lost the primary, its because he voluntarily withdrew himself out of the race.

[CTLawGuy]

355. yes, anyone can LEGALLY get onto the GE ballot

but is there moral pressure that should exist to keep primary losers from doing so? Yes (In some states, there are sore loser laws to prevent the very act that Joe Lieberman is threatening).

Cnadidates who would do so contemplate being seen as disloyal, not team players, and the fact that that generally everyone would be mad at them. If Lieberman does his indy run and we find that the party generally accepts it, and worse, he wins, then that moral pressure is severely weakened. Other candidates will see it's acceptable (and they won't think it's acceptable because the republican can't win, because we don't know whether he can win or not)

What Joe is doing IS A THREAT. If you are a rational voter, you think "if I vote for Lieberman, we will win 100%. We are safe. If I vote for Lamont, Lieberman will make this a 3-way race. If that happens the chances of winning fall significantly from 100%. The party is better off if I vote for Lieberman, since the seat will be 100% safe."

Through this logic, one may be swayed to vote for Lieberman in the primary to avoid a Lieberman-induced 3-way race and the uncertainty that follows. Lieberman didn't just mention his intent in passing, he broadcast it all over the state, with robocalls and press conferences. Lieberman wanted people to know what he is going to do if he loses.

There are two things a non-dem voter can do to register their desire for Lieberman, despite the threat of losing the primary:

1. Register as a Dem (if an indpendent. They may do this up until 12pm on August 7th)
2. Write Lieberman in on the GE ballot. They are free to vote for whomever they want, whether on the ballot or not.

[TheVirginian]

362. "Moral pressure". You guys are so desperate to keep him off the ballot.

"If Lieberman does his indy run and we find that the party generally accepts it, and worse, he wins, then that moral pressure is severely weakened. Other candidates will see it's acceptable (and they won't think it's acceptable because the republican can't win, because we don't know whether he can win or not)"

Even if they don't think its acceptable, they won't do it for two important reasons: 1) Primary losers very rarely can win in a general election, and 2) There's almost always a viable opposition candidate. These two facts don't apply in this race. Why are you blind to that fact?

Incumbents very rarely lose primaries. If they do, its usually because they've fallen out of favor with the entire state. Very few Senators have as much Independent and Republican support as Lieberman. So the ability for Lieberman to win as an Independent, despite losing the primary, is one of the most unusual situations in politics. No challenger would dare go on the ballot as an Independent; it would be career suicide. They would get no party support, and if there's a viable opposition candidate, then there would be no place for them to pull votes from. Its a guaranteed loss. This isn't true for Lieberman.

Therefore, you can't use the conventions that apply to every other race to this race. Its unique in almost every way. There's no such moral pressure, there's no such bad example, because of how terribly unusual this race is.

Joe is not being a threat, because all rational people who know even a little about the race know that Schlesinger is not going to come close to winning. So far, you're the only person who thinks he has a chance. He doesn't. Abandon this absurd thinking.

You forgot a third thing Lieberman supporters can do: They can vote for him in the general election as an Independent.

[CTLawGuy]

376. You claim to be a Lamont supporter, yet are defending Joe tooth and nail

At least I'm being honest about who I support.

People don't repsect primaries by not running as an independent because of electoral concerns, people respect primaries out of a sense of loyalty to their party. That's why Howard Dean didn't form a third party in 2004. He said he's a Democrat and he supports the Democratic nominee.

Lamont has said the same thing. Lamont surely wasn't "electable" 3 months ago - no one knew who he was. Now he is very much in the race against a 3 term incumbent who inspires an unhealthy degree of loyalty from party bigwigs. Lamont is a Democrat and he is not running as an Indy because he believes in the party.

Contrast with Ralph Nader. Ralph Nader doesn't run as a Green because he can win. He runs as a Green because he is convinced the Ds and Rs are no different. He has no loyalty to the dem party.

It's called morality and you don't seem to know what that is - having a sense of right and wrong, and trying to do what is right. You think, like the DLC, only in terms of "electability." It's an electoral base instinct that civilized politicians can control. It's pure self-interest that Joe is working from.

This race is NO different than any other race, if you think in terms of what is right and wrong. There's a party base who has a RIGHT to decide who the nominee is. If Joe wants to be a dem, he must respect their choice. It is WRONG to pursue an independent run after losing such a primary. It is wrong becuase such an act would undermine the purpose of the primary, which is to unify the party behind one candidate of the base's choosing.

[TheVirginian]

380. Its "morality" in most circumstances...

If you consider it to be moral to be more dedicated to a national party than the people you're elected to represent. The purpose of a primary is to select a nominee on the ballot. The party then attempts to unify behind that nominee, for the sole purpose of defeating the other guy. If there's no other guy to beat, then people are just going through the motions for no reason.

Don't try and characterize the motives of every single person who's lost a primary before. You don't know what their reasons are.

[CTLawGuy]

387. I only talked about Dean's and Lamont's motives

I know those for a fact.

The purpose of a primary is to give the base of the party a chance to choose the candidate they want to represent their party in the GE.

Again, indy voters are more than welcome to vote for anyone who is not on the ballot, and they are welcome to change affiliation to democrat. Also, it would be less irritating for Lieberman to just say "you know what, I'm more confortable being an independent, so I'm leaving the party and dropping out of the primary." I still wouldn't like it, bc of the 3-way race, but at least he's not trying to have it both ways and not inserting improper incentives into the equation (vote for me and spare the state a 3-way race).

So, the suggestion that he is doing this to be "loyal" to indies is silly.

[TheVirginian]

391. Who said he's being loyal to Indies?

I said he's being loyal to his state, many of whom don't wish to or don't know that they can change their affiliation in order to vote in a Democratic Party election.

[CTLawGuy]

393. Are you calling CT stupid?

again, anyone can vote for anyone (including Mickey Mouse) in the write-in line.

[TheVirginian]

397. No, I'm calling you unreasonable.

Quit acting like a write-in campaign is a fair subsitute for having someone on the ballot.

[CTLawGuy]

401. you said

that the voters were the ones who are being screwed out of a chance to vote for Lieberman and I'm telling you that is not true!

Or are you changing your story to say its about Joe now, rather than those poor disadvantaged indies?

[Awsi Dooger]

343. I'll answer that

Because in the vast, vast majority of cases it would be dangerous to split the Democratic vote in the general election. In that scenario you obviously dramatically lower the percentage the Republican needs for a cheap victory. In this case the Republican is basically a throw in, a senate nominee in strict definition only. He has almost zero chance to reach the 33 or 34% minimum that would be required to steal the race.

I say almost no chance because there is a number on Tradesports. They list the GOP with basically a 4% chance of winning this race. So that's a 24/1 shot and something to keep in mind whenever Lieberman is accused of potentially throwing the seat to the Republicans. For reference purposes, almost no one here thinks Santorum has any chance in hell and he's a 4/1 underdog.

[Exultant Democracy]

276. I appreciate the way that you have responded to so many of the posts

in this thread, it has been rather impressive to watch.

Personally I am looking forward to casting my vote for Ned on the 8th. Of course I would rather Lieberman dropped out after Ned won, but we live in a free country, and that is the only argument in favor of Lieberman continuing after the primary that matters to me.

[Clarkie1]

289. Best Post on Lieberman/Lamont I've Read on DU. Well Done!

All your points are valid, and #7 is something people expending energy against a fellow Democrats should particularly think long and hard about.

I tried recommending, but the posting period has expired. I wish this was on the greatest page. It should be, more DU'ers need to read this!

[alvarezadams]

308. Point 7?

I have certainly thought long and hard about the question - and followed it up by studying the background of Liberbush and the DLC.

The conculsion? What the hell difference does it make to support a conservative Dem or a conservative GOPer when there take on the key issues (economy, foreign policy) is the same?

For a democracy to prosper it is ABSOLUTELY VITAL that there be an opposition party. If a member of the opposition holds the same values with regards to the most important issues and only differs with regards to talkingpoint issues - he is NOT part of the opposition.

For me the enemies are the military/industrial complex, the plutocratic big business interests and particularly the wealthy ideologues that finance the far right. Two of the three principle perpetrators of the manipulation of our polity support the DLC and Lieberbush - the Olins and the Bradleys. For Joementum to have the trifecta all that he's lacking is the support of Scaife.

Dig deeper and forget about voting the shirt. If you want reform or a move away from the awful policies of the Reagan/Dubya/AEI/etc. cabal, Joementum is NOT the person to elect.

[Swamp Rat]

296. 9. He's a Human Being

[JerseygirlCT]

298. First, a confession

I've never been a Lieberman fan. Voted for Weicker rather than him when I had that choice.

That said, here are my current problems.

I could swallow the ridiculous support for this war. There's no doubt at all that he's horribly wrong, but everyone makes mistakes. I CANNOT, however, swallow his obsequious behavior toward Bush. As has been pointed out, Lieberman expected many kudos for speaking against Clinton. Now we have this huge evil, doing evil things on a daily basis, and Joe's only response is that we shouldn't critize the pres. during wartime? WTF?

Then his opinion on the state's Catholic hospitals -- saying they ought to have the right to deny complete medical care (emergency contraceptives) to rape victims. Yes, that's very pro-choice of him.

Then there are the recent Supreme Court nominations and his help in derailing any filibuster. Unconscionable. And sadly reminiscent of his dithering with Clarence Thomas. Wait until nothing he does will have an effect, then vote a safe "no" when the nomination was secured.

Finally, his tendency to look out for Joe first. He hasnt' been listening to constituents for quite a while, or he would have heard this and acted on it. Nothing. He appears terribly affronted that he'd have a challenger. That's obnoxious. Not to mention a stupid way to play this.

[TheVirginian]

302. I'm not asking for you to support Lieberman.

I'm just asking, when you talk about Lieberman, to remember that the eight myths I posted are untrue and invalid.

[alvarezadams]

309. Hardly

[TheVirginian]

317. Would you like to add anything to that?

Perhaps I can get two words out of you this time.

[JerseygirlCT]

315. I know there's a history of some good stuff there

I know about his work on civil rights issues way back.

I just think that he's gotten a little too comfy now. And a little to eager to be "liked" by the other side. Seems he's quite determined that he will make a place for himself like McCains, where all sorts of people adore him, b/c he's so "sensible", and "moderate". What he does, though, is stop standing for anything, and kowtow to whoever is in power.

And I'm really nervous when Holy Joe comes out to play. First ammendment, dude. He ought to read that as a bedtime story.

[Tarc]

335. "untrue and invalid" in your mind only

Don't come hear screaming that your opinion is the unvarnished truth; you sound like a fundie. Lieberman is as bad as Zell Miller, toss the dipshit overboard.

[TheVirginian]

337. No, I'm acting like my opinion is my opinion.

And if you disagree with it, feel free to type out a response to it. I'm sorry, but "dipshit" just doesn't hold up as well as you'd hope.

[Major Hogwash]

341. Is Leiberman your Senator?

You've made all the salient points about supporting him is why I ask.

[Tarc]

373. DINOs like you and Joe

aren't worthy of much else beyond one-liner responses.

[TheVirginian]

381. So well-reasoned logic and thought-out answers aren't worth it?

You must do swell when you get into political discussions.

"Hey, Tarc, what do you think of abortion."
"I'm right, and you're wrong, and people who disagree with me aren't worth the time for me to explain myself."

Good luck in the real world. Fastening those blinders on your head will help you thrive on this board, but not much past that.

[mmonk]

305. Anyone who empowers my political enemies

is my political enemy. Write all the theses you want.

[alvarezadams]

307. Naive or disingenuous?

Lieberman is DLC - which is tied to the same folks who support Dubya & Co. (the Olins, Bradley's, AEC, PNAC).

If token progressive votes are more important to you than a neo-lib economic platform and a neocon foreign policy, more power to you. This, however, is akin to a 1930's German progressive voting for Hitler because he was progressive with regards to health care and projects such as the autobahn.

Make no mistake about it - Lieberbush votes "progressive" on relatively unimportant talkingpoint issues. In the most important areas - the economy and foreign policy - he is indistinguisable from the most rancid GOP rw extremist. And supporting him or any other DLC candidate is just giving conservatives more ammo.

[alvarezadams]

311. Myths... REALITY

1. Joe Lieberman is a Republican who calls himself a Democrat. TRUTH:

Token votes as measured by a partisan source hardly cuts it. In a congressional environment where the most "progressive" issues are at best centrist if not outright conservative it is disingenuous to consider one's voting record as a lithmus test for a purported progressive. What is needed is not a count of yea or nay votes but a degree of proportionality; in the key areas of economy and foreign policy, how did Joe vote? He voted down the lines of the AEI and the GOP - ipso facto, a weighted average would show that he is indeed a reactionary conservative in the areas that most affect our nation and its future.

2. By gathering signatures to run as an Independent if he loses the primary, Joe Lieberman is screwing/ignoring/de-frauding the primary voters.
3. By running as an Independent, Joe Lieberman will split the Democratic vote, allowing the Republican to win. HALF TRUTHS

By abandoning the DNC and running as an indie, Liberman will be splitting the party that he purportedly supports, guaranteeing a GOP victory. If he truly supported the party that he purportedly belongs to he would not ruin the party's chances by running as an indie. This, in fact, further supports point #1 - he will be a de facto GOP supporter.

The idea that Liberman would attract GOP voters is absurd.

And watch his funding and the work of the likes of Rupert Murdoch if this scenario arises. If this isn't a dead giveaway you're a political neophyte.

4. Joe Lieberman will lose if he runs as an Independent - NON SEQUITOR

If he loses nothing is lost... unless you're a conservative.

5. Joe Lieberman's first obligation should be towards the Democratic Party
6. Joe Lieberman is betraying the Democratic Party. - TRUE

(The two questions are actually the same) IF he indeed believes in the values of the party that he has run with over the years. The rest of your argument is a compendium of logical fallacies - spin designed to justify an unpopular position.

7. Our resources are best put in kicking Joe Lieberman out of office - EMPHATICALLY TRUE

See a previous post of mine that shows that this is absolutely true

8. People who defend Joe Lieberman are opposed to Ned Lamont/progressives/the Democratic Party - SLIPPERY SLOPE

[alvarezadams]

313. The clincher

"There are other issues, too. Lieberman supports trade agreements with other countries. And while many on this board don't, a wide array of premier economists and foreign affairs specialists have repeatedly said that free trade is a pivotal, crucial step in working towards harmony. Perhaps you disagree with them as well; that's fair. But while the Iraq War becomes harder and harder to justify, the debate over free trade is, at its base, a question of balancing interests."

Translation: Lieberman supports neo-lib economics/globalization. "Agreements" is a disingenuous term and the "wide array of premier economists" is contentious. "Agreements" favour someone - and it isn't either the workers of the US or of the 3rd world nations that are to be conomically exploited. The "wide array of premier economists" means "a wide array of neoliberal economists", most likely from Cato, AEI, the Fed or the University of Chicago - a bunch of corporate whores aiming for serfdom and the erosion of the middle class.

"Free trade" is a rallying cry for cons around the world. Ultimately this translates into "we need to become competitive as a nation", which in turn should be translated into "we need to turn our workers into 3rd world workers so that companies can make a profit (and fvck the workers)."

Again and again, anyone with a modicum of sense and some curiosity that goes beyond "supporting the shirt" should see the question quite clearly.

WHO supports neo-lib economics and free trade? The Bradleys, the Olins, the Scaifes, the Murdochs, the Exxons, the Mobiles, the Boeings, etc... through billions spent on thinktanks such as AEI, Cato, Heritage, etc. Which support the GOP and... the DLC.

The above play the bait-and-switch in order to cover all the bases, for the sake of contingency. They could care less about abortion, gun rights, gay marriage or whatever else makes the difference between a Lieberman and a Bush. They see that where it counts they're the same - and support both. If Lieberman has to appease the progressives with token votes on liberal issues - he'll do it and his paymasters won't bat an eye. But when the chips go down in the areas that affect Americans - their wallets and their security - count of the DLC to go with the GOP.

A vote for Lieberman is a vote for Bush's backers. It's as simple as that.

[TheVirginian]

318. Its very cute of you to call me a neophyte.

How old are you? How long have you been in politics?

Lieberman attracts Republican voters. This is a proven fact. Lieberman will not split the Democratic vote. This is a proven fact. You call me a political neophyte but you have no sense of the politics involved in this situation. All you have is your fervent ideological purity that accuses anybody who doesn't agree with your world-view to be a reactionary extremist. And if that's what you want to base your support on and your vote on, you're more than welcome to do that. But don't march here and tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about.

[alvarezadams]

339. Indeed

I called you a neophyte - in the sense that your POV is parochial, near-sighted and naive. Right down to the talkingpoint comeback ("ideological purity"). As far as I know you might be a 5-term senator, but that means next to nothing these days, doesn't it?

And I can indeed state whatever I want - with all due respect. The amount of respect will be in direct proportion to the worth of the statements made.

The DLC's support structure is well known. Its policies with regards to economics and the world are also well known. For any progressive they are every bit as much "the enemy" as the GOP is - or even more so being the "trojan horse" that they are.

CYA

[JNelson6563]

314. Fact check this

Lieberman has had his nose up Bush's ass ever since the WH was stolen in 2000.

Perhaps that's why the Democrats in his state are not supporting him as they once did. Him running as anything but a Dem shows how truly loyal he is to Democrats.



Julie

[Strawman]

388. My sentiments exactly

And Ned Lamont would beat the Republican candidate in a two way race. At the point Lieberman loses the Democratic primary, he's not the Democratic and he potentially keeps the Democratic candidate from winning. So he's not on my team.

Bottom line? I don't wanna her this guy's bullshit about Iraq anymore. I'm sick of him blowing the president and John McCain at every turn. Fuck him. Time to send a message. Grassroots Democrats oppose the fucking war. Take notice. If the independents and Republicans in Connecticut want to vote for Joe Lieberman, fine whatever.

Certain issues have more salience. Like the war. And it's not just that he voted for the war. He has relished in his vote for the war and his support and he has the audactiy to lecture members his own party about surpporting the president.

I don't give a flying fuck about his ADA rating or anything else. His ass-kissing of Bush is revolting.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

329. Here's Joe with his support the President BULLSHIT!

http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/07/12/lieberman-tells-democrats-to-stfu-about-president-bush

[Awsi Dooger]

344. You're not fooling me

This thread looks like a cheap ploy for TheVirginian to reach 1000 posts.

Or at least it's turned out that way.:)

[TheVirginian]

348. Shhhhhh.....

That's hogwash.

[Crunchy Frog]

345. My fairly moderate mother

is convinced that Lieberman is a Republican mole. She finds especially disturbing the way in which he undermines and undercuts other Democrats and the Democratic party as a whole.

She doesn't read blogs either.

[saltpoint]

346. I think Joe's cooked. He's being chased out of his own party by his

own decision to align with the Bush administration.

He lost the debate with Cheney in 2000 because he wasn't prepared. He wasn't sharp. Cheney beat him up.

He lost the 2004 nomination, finishing well behind a large pack of other Democratic candidates.

"Joementum" was an illusion.

Lately he complains that "terrorist" lefty bloggers are out to get him. For god's sake. He's reeling. Major downward spiral. If he loses the primary, he's cooked. If he wins the primary the taint of 'self-important has-been' remains with him the rest of his career.

He could surprise me and mount an impressive come-back against increasingly longer odds, but right now I think the smart money may be on Ned Lamont.

[H2O Man]

353. Lieberman is a neoconservative.

Nothing more, nothing less.

[koopie57]

356. You wouldn't by any chance

be Joe Lieberman or his mom? I stopped reading when I realized you were not listening to learn, just to disagree, or maybe to feel good about your perceived superiority. And really, Lieberman is not worth talking about. Let's just get him out of the senate before he gives us all more ulcers.

There is a reason Imus and so many right wing conformants support Lieberman, cuz he is one of their own drinking the Kool-aid (or Kook-aid). Argue in favor of him or in support of him all you want, but he is still what he is, Droopy Dog.

*And I bet I know how you will respond to this.

[TheVirginian]

360. *I bet you don't.

[bedazzled]

369. definitely on joe's payroll someplace!

this isn't a thread - it's someone's life's work!

probably paid by the word

[Zhade]

371. "I support Lamont" - does he thinks we can't see through that lie?

No one who supports Lamont would go to the lengths he has to spin outright bullshit as 'facts' in defense of Lieberman.

[TheVirginian]

382. No, I'm just sick of people attacking what they don't understand.

You would never resort to that, would you though? You would never make accusations towards someone because you lack the ability to respond to them reasonably.

[Evergreen Emerald]

357. I am not "far-left"

YOur language attempts to dismiss the individuals on DU by minimizing us as "far-left" and that the opinions of the individuals on the board are simply a part of "group think."

I am not far-left. I am a middle of the road democrat who works too hard to put food on my family's table. I am moral responsible, well-read and have an opinion based on more than "group-think." I am disgusted by the way that Bush and his followers have undermined and are further attempting to destroy our Republic. Lieberman is one of his followers.

I resent your attempts--that by the way significantly match Bush and his buddies--to minimize me as nothing more than a far-left radical lemming who knows nothing and should therefore not be heard.

If you are in anyway speaking for Lieberman or his campaign, perhaps you could suggest that he take a look at the issues that are affecting me and those other Americans and think about his choices--rather than dismiss me as radical. I get enough of that from the republicans.

[TheVirginian]

361. Then clearly my post wasn't referencing you.

If you've made an opinion for yourself, then congratulations. That automatically puts you in the top 20% of this board. But look around you. The truth should be obvious. Most of the people here believe only what they read on this board. They don't have another source to counter the huge bias in favor of the Democratic Party that exists here. Not only is all the information they get slanted, but it is affected by groupthink. I'm sure you see it everyday; hell, there are many examples in this very thread. My comment wasn't a critism of everybody that posts here, just those that fall under it.

[Evergreen Emerald]

389. "The truth should be obvious"

That is your problem--and Lieberman's. You are so bent on fitting the facts into your "truth" that you refuse to look at the facts objectively or consider that perhaps, just perhaps, we have a point that Lieberman should consider. Instead he (you) dehumanize us as radical lemmings--and then dismiss us.

[alvarezadams]

367. Joementum Lieberbush is angry

..."There are growing questions about whether Lieberman's cozy relationships with prominent Republicans and support for Bush administration policies are making him vulnerable to challengers in the 2006 mid-term elections. On June 22, 2006, Lieberman was one of only six Democrats to vote against two resolutions aimed at limiting U.S. involvement in the Iraq War. In response, a spokesperson for Ned Lamont, who is challenging Lieberman in Connecticut's August primary, told the Washington Post: “This is further evidence of why a lot of people call Joe Lieberman ‘George Bush's favorite Democrat'.” According to the Post: “Lamont, a political unknown until a few months ago, has drawn national attention and rising poll numbers at home in recent weeks—especially after he drew support from a third of the delegates at a recent state party convention” (June 23, 2006).

Perhaps in an effort to assuage discontent among voters, Lieberman's campaign office has recently been emphasizing the senator's differences with Republicans. Sean Smith, Lieberman's campaign manager, told blogger Ari Melber, “Our main message is that Senator Lieberman understands the anger and frustrations and the concerns about the way things are going. The Republican president and Congress have the country headed in the wrong direction, and Senator Lieberman is as angry and as frustrated as Connecticut voters are. The premise of our campaign is let's not just protest, let's not just be angry—let's channel that into positive results.” The comments prompted Melber to ask: “ exactly is Lieberman so angry about? He looks content discussing his hawkish views on TV. He is comfortable cutting deals with the Bush administration … In fact, it is hard to recall the last time Lieberman gave an ‘angry' speech denouncing President Bush and backed it up with action in Congress. And as many observers have noted, the righteous fury that Lieberman publicly unleashed on President Clinton for his affair has never been deployed against any of President Bush's scandals. Not Katrina. Not Abu Ghraib. Not Plame. Not Abramoff. Not smearing veterans like John Murtha and John Kerry. And definitely not WMDs. If this is the angry Joe Lieberman, Connecticut cannot afford for him to ever calm down”...

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/3357

[JPZenger]

368. In Most States, can't be independent if run in primary

In most states, a candidate cannot run in a party primary and then file to run as an independent in November. There is a good reason for the rule - because there would be too many spoilers who would put their personal interests ahead of their parties. The votes for any political party would be split, and the minority party would end up getting elected. The intent of the rule also is that a person is supposed to have support of a party in order to be able to govern.

Lieberman will also find out if another myth is true: Can you get kissed by the man who is the most hated by members of your political party and still get elected?

[TheVirginian]

383. "Support of a party in order to govern."

Our founding fathers must be spinning in their graves.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

372. The Top Eight Myths About The Virginian

1. The Virginian doesn't have a dog in this hunt.
2. The Virginian doesn't have a dog in this hunt.
3. The Virginian doesn't have a dog in this hunt.
4. The Virginian doesn't have a dog in this hunt.
5. The Virginian doesn't have a dog in this hunt.
6. The Virginian doesn't have a dog in this hunt.
7. The Virginian doesn't have a dog in this hunt.
8. The Virginian doesn't have a dog in this hunt.

[TheVirginian]

384. Technically, that's one point, not eight.

I wonder how, being in Virginia, I would have a dog in this race, though.

[kaygore]

402. Great reply

I don't know why the Virginian is sooooo attached to Joe. AlterNet had a great article today on how screwed up Lieberman is.

[TheVirginian]

403. You topped this thread just to say that? n/t

[ray of light]

404. kickl