Opposing Lieberman - cutting our nose to spite our face?

[question everything]

First, two questions:

Do we know who the Republican candidate be, yet?

Aside from supporting Iraq (and Israel, though most DUers wisely do not mention that point directly) what is the problem with Lieberman?

I am asking because many support PA Casey who wants to abolish women's right to privacy. We need as many Democratic senators as we can, DUers say; if we control the Senate we control committees. So Casey, too.

Fine, then, why trash Lieberman who is pro-choice?

Is Iraq more important than women's right to privacy?

As I've posted on many threads: for most voters Iraq and impeachment are not the top priority. Their jobs, their access to health care, schools quality, their retirements - are. And Rove makes sure that "killing babies" and "perverts" are there, too. At least, they hear about this every Sunday at church.

The news from Iraq are now a background for most voters. Even if they have loved ones in the front. I am no psychologist but I would think that the families have to support the war as justification of their anxious days.

And just a reminder for those too young to remember: the opposition to Vietnam started when college deferments were canceled. When middle class white men all of a sudden were in danger of being drafted and sent to Vietnam.

This is how voters vote. On issues that are "local" that are up close and personal.

If Lieberman loses the primary and wins as an Independent - why should he be obliged to vote with the Democrats in the Senate? How will "leaders" like Kerry and Clinton feel about asking for his vote?

I hope that I am wrong but I am afraid, especially after Kerry's statement, that we, Democrats, are cutting our nose to spite our face with the strong opposition to Lieberman before he even won or lost the primary.

[kentuck]

1. We are not "opposing" Lieberman - Lieberman is opposing us.

If I were in Connecticut, I would not vote for him in the primary, but if he won the primary, I would support and vote for him in the general election. However, with these threats to desert the Democratic Party and go Independent, I would not vote for him as an Independent. Because he will take votes away from the person we chose as the Democratic candidate in the primary. That is not right.

[Joe Bacon]

31. LIEberman goes out of his way to sabotage Democrats

Just look at the recent debate on Kerry's resolution. Who led off the opposition against it in the Senate?

LIEberman.

That liar has to go!

[LynneSin]

51. So you've checked EVERY SINGLE issue and he does it every single time?

I mean that's pretty shocking knowing that Lieberman gets 100% ratings from NARAL, LCV, ADA, Unions and a host of other progressive groups.

I'm not defending the guy, but I hate this stupidity when it comes to using just one issue (mind you, a very important one) and assuming that's it - nothing else counts.

The only LIEing I see is your statement - an extreme exaggeration in hopes of convincing other non-Connecticut residents that we need to jump on the anti-Lieberman bandwagon

[sendero]

59. Compared..

... to having his nose up Bush's ass 24/7, compared to undermining Democrats at every opportunity, compared to supporting the continuation of a FAILED ILLEGAL war, draining the treasury, destroying our military - compared to all that those other issues are meaningless. Because those other issues are in fact meaningless if America is on it's knees, which is where we are heading right now.

Do you think Lieberman would oppose an Iranian bombing/invasion? That will be the last nail in our coffin.

Your argument is akin to whining about getting a paint scratch on a car that is headed 70 mph into a brick wall.

[LynneSin]

73. You know you could have just said "no" I can't be bothered to check it out

I mean, I'll give you the war issue and I'll even agree with you on Iran.

But everything else you basically didn't bother - shame on you. And it's more than just a scratch my friend. With people starving, rights being violated and the earth warming at an alarming speed - you're foolish to disregard these other issues too - many of them important progressive issues not just to many of us but to Lieberman too

[sendero]

75. I don't have to check anything out..

... I am familiar with Lieberman's voting record, and it is not enough. The Iraq war, and surrounding policies of "unitary executive", our rapid loss of prestige and respect in the world, our slowly sinking economy,etc, etc, etc, render things like abortion rights and such moot. And especially global warming which, if we had 20 Liebermans, is not going to be addressed by our congress until it is a unequivocal crisis (i.e., we are indisputably feeling the effects) because that is the way human beings work.

Nothing personal, but I'm seeing a rash of these kinds of arguments here lately and I'm pretty fed up with them. If we lose all of our economic power and military prowess, none of these other things have a snowball's chance in hell.

We need to shake up our congress. Who could argue that this Dem senate is laughably ineffective? Why is that? I hear all of the excuses, that we are the minority party, shut out of power, etc, etc, etc. But if you look at several individual votes/confirmation, you see a pattern. A pattern of aqcuiescence. I think it is time for all Senators, not just Republicans, to understand this: you serve at the pleasure of the people. Piss us off too much and you will be on the next plane home.

I've sent money to Lamont's campaign (I was born in CT, does that count? :)) and will send him more if he wins the primary. I think sending Lieberman home would be a win for Dems even if we lose the seat. I realize that many of you cannot agree with that - but I believe it is time to send the senate a message - "piss on your base at your peril".

[LynneSin]

77. And this is why our party is doomed

The war is important but so are so many other issues and NONE of them will be acheived with our current strategy. Democratic party will be better IF that seat is kept with a democrat in it because even of Lieberman's absolutely WORST DAY EVER he's still better than any other republican out there.

[sendero]

78. We'll just have to ..

... disagree. None of anyone's goals are going to be furthered if the country continues on the path to oblivion that this effing stupid, disastrous war has put us on. And Dems who are more critical of other Dems than they are of Republicans can kiss my ass. Lieberman DOES SUCK as bad as 98% of the folks here think, and the boatload of chin-scratching "just a second" threads that are popping up all of a sudden won't change that. But you can keep trying, it's a free board.

And I'd prefer Lincoln Chafee over Lieberman any day.

Oh and BTW, to add fuel to the fire: I have WASHED MY HANDS of the abortion issue. I no longer give a RAT'S ASS about it. Women turned out for Bush in 2004, they must not care about it, and if they don't care, why should I?

And double lastly :) - if the Dem party has room for pointless, soldier-killing, genocidal, treasury draining wars in it's big tent, then I don't care if it IS doomed.

[purji]

79. Lieberman is better than a republican

But I think the issue here is,is he better than Lamont.
I am not from Ct so I don't know what the voters think there,but do you think that Lamont will lose to the republican?(I don't recall his name).
If Joe doesn't win do you think we will lose the seat? I'm not sure if Ct is Conservative or a liberal state? Please answer,It would help me in my opinion of the matter if I had more info about the voters of CT.
Thanks in advance

Edit to run spell check

[TankLV]

102. That's why we're supporting LAMONT - you know - the DEMOCRAT!

Not the repuke ass kisser.

We have to stand up for what is right and correct, and BE PREPARED TO LOSE.

What good does it do to have a dem that SABOTAGES the local and national dems at every turn?

We can and will do better!

[bemildred]

2. There is no "aside from supporting Iraq" for some of us.

The national security state and imperialist foreign policy are fundamental issues.

[iamjoy]

7. Privacy Is Fundamental To Me

It's very hard for me to stomach some one like Casey. It's more than just abortion, I really see it as a woman's rights issue (but that's another discussion).

I guess if Iraq is the most important issue to you, you are not going to like Joe Lieberman. But if other issues are more important, it's easier to forgive him.

I don't see what's wrong though with the DSCC and DLC supporting whoever wins the nomination. I thought that was the point of a primary. And it's a shame that Joe Lieberman doesn't feel the same way, but I guess his feelings are hurt.

[question everything]

14. Thank you. Certainly on these pages, Lieberman has been a pariah

for as long as he supported the war in Iraq.

And I have to wonder whether his decision to run Independent is a result of these bashing coming from all over.

Yes, it is up to the CT voters to choose their representatives but this race clearly has been meddled by many outsiders.

[skipos]

21. You are wrong

"his decision to run Independent is a result of these bashing coming from all over"

His descision to run as an independent is soley based on one thing: self preservation. He doesn't care what anyone has to say about, he doesn't care about honoring the choice of CT Dems, he doesn't care about splitting the vote or the damage he will do to the party nationally, so he is hedging his bets.

"Yes, it is up to the CT voters to choose their representatives but this race clearly has been meddled by many outsiders."

Only one group of people can decide who represents Democrats in CT and that is Democrats in CT. How about we let them decide, and you and I and Joe and Ned all respect their choice? Oh wait, Joe doesn't want to do that.

[bemildred]

18. The national security state is a fundamental pretext for erosion of our

Consititutional freedoms. It is used to justify surveillance and invasion of privacy and detention without trial, seizure of assets, and so on. It is also used as a political whipping boy to distract from the economic aristocracy now foisted on us. I strongly support a womans right to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term, but I think all of our freedoms are at risk when the current political and economic police state that we live in is not resisted, or worse yet is supported enthusiastically.

I don't have any personal beef with Joe, I hope he goes on to live a happy and productive life, but I will never vote for a pro-war politician when I have a choice, barring situations where we have been invaded and the war is against the invader (i.e. the War of 1812).

[jwirr]

23. You know some of us cannot be one issue voters: the poor, the

disabled, the elderly. I am not for Lieberman but I do fear a pug taking the seat.

[bemildred]

43. I am not a one issue voter.

Some issues are of higher priority than others, and one has to balance them out. In this case, I think the horrendously stupid foreign policy of the USA and the unconstitutional excesses of our self-appointed rulers are more important than the various progressive social issues that are habitually threatened to distract us. One should not ignore the forest in order to focus on one or two trees.

[tkmorris]

76. Really?

In that case it seems to me that you would have been VERY interested in the bankruptcy bill that was debated and passed in the last year. This one will have a real impact on financially struggling families all across the country.

Lieberman voted to allow cloture on that one by the way, thereby preventing a filibuster to block it. Then he turned around and voted against the bill, knowing full well that it didn't matter. The cloture vote was the one that mattered. He was just posturing to his constituents.

Please don't buy it.

[bemildred]

85. I remember that. What is it that I shouldn't buy? nt

[charlyvi]

91. Did the same thing with Alito. n/t

[Ken Burch]

110. That can only happen if Lieberman, beaten in the primary,

carries on a spite and vengeance-based conservative anti-Democrat independent candidacy.
If he does the right thing and endorses Lamont(and he'll have no reason not to, since Lamont's campaign has not done or said anything that is unfair to Lieberman)a Democratic victory is still assured.

[Betsy Ross]

3. He has already said he would abandon the Dems

if he loses the primary. Sour grapes? No party loyalty? Whatever. His character leaves a lot to be desired.

[vi5]

4. If people want to support him as the dem candidate if he wins..

..then fine. But the idea that nobody should challenge him, and if they do and he loses that he will take his ball and go home is idiotic. Democracy shouldn't be based on threats.

[WhiteTara]

5. Loserman could NOT win as an independent

he needs the backing of the party. The worst that could happen is that his seat will be taken by a repuklican. But I think if Lamont wins the primary, he'll win in November.

[MadMaddie]

6. Sometimes....we have to lose an appendage to live.....

Lieberman is a Democrat in name only.....he has done nothing for any Democratic American citizen in this country...yes he may have a couple of Liberal causes but overall he has voted with this administration lockstep.....

<snip>
why should he be obliged to vote with the Democrats in the Senate?
<snip>

Apparantly he hasn't been obligated to vote with the Democrats for the last 6 years.....

Ned Lamont has a chance if the Democratic voters don't get caught in the same trap that got into this mess....(voting for seat belt guy...his name escapes me now) the Democratic voters have to all pull for the same guy Ned Lamont...

[joemurphy]

8. Lieberman is hardly a two-fisted crusader for liberal values.

He's also Bush's "favorite Democrat" for a reason -- his uncanny knack for throwing a monkey wrench into what little party unity the Dems once in a while are able to muster. Iraq's not a "minor" problem. It's a big, big deal. It's costing us $250 Million a day, over 2500 dead and maybe 10,000 or 20,000 armless, legless, or both. Bush lied to us to get us in there and Lieberman was there cheering him on every step of the way because he thought it was good for Israel. Well, it didn't turn out too well, did it? But there's Holy Joe talking about all the "progress" we've made even in tonight's debate. He should eat shit and die as far as I'm concerned. By contrast, I liked everything Lamont had to say.

[saltpoint]

9. I don't think anybody on DU or anywhere else is meddling with the

senate primary in CT.

I think we trust Connecticut Dems to vote. If they're on vacation, we hope they'll vote absentee.

I believe a majority of us prefer one candidate over the other.

If Lieberman prevails in August, he can run as the Democratic candidate. More-left Dems will still resent his grandstanding for Bush, then and now, but it's the official decision of CT voters and we'll respect it.

If Lamont wins, it will likely be a jubilant night on these boards.

Primaries are supposed to happen. They take place on purpose and for good reason. CT Dems have a clear choice. Likely they'll let us know the evening of August 8th how they've decided.

I wouldn't worry about a thing.

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. Lieberman already made a public pledge to caucus with Democrats

Even if he wins re-election as an Independent. He made a big deal out of that when he announced he would gather the signatures needed to run as an independent if need be. His whole schtick is about "morality", it would be hard for him to win with that stand and then turn around and caucus with Republicans after all. His capital hill Democratic friends will welcome him back to the caucus if Lieberman wins as an Independent, and I would not blame them for that. But they shouldn't be helping Lieberman campaign against a Democratic candidate. At the very least they should keep hands off if they won't support the Democrat running with the party endorsement.

[MrSlayer]

11. Casey does NOT want to abolish a woman's right to choose.

He is personally against abortion but would not overturn Roe V. Wade if he had the chance. He states that quite clearly.

[Hippo_Tron]

37. Casey also doesn't bury fetuses in his back yard

There's a certain point where a senator is so bad that even a challenger you don't particularly care for is worth voting for.

[MrBenchley]

12. Schlesinger is the Republican, with an outside chance

against Lieberman and a better than average chance against Lamont the Unknown Millionaire....

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x11362.xml?ReleaseID=922

Remember, this was a seat that was a mortal lock for the Democrats earlier this year....but just a few months work by the far left, and they've managed to give the Republicans a chance. Meanwhile the GOP is also likely to take the Governorship in Connecticut too.

[question everything]

15. Thank you for these facts.

The moral of the story, of course, is that the hatred of Lieberman who stands by his conviction - as opposed to the ones who voted yes before they voted no - may cost us a safe seat.

And it seems that many DUers will still cheer.

[MrBenchley]

64. You're absolutely correct

Would that the far left was putting forth the same sort of effort actually trying to defeat a Republican...but they ain't.

[CTLawGuy]

87. the only reason that the Republican has a chance in this blue state

is that Joe Lieberman hates Democrats and will split the vote.

[MrBenchley]

89. The far left has given Schlesinger his chance

and before the Unknown Millionaire was dredged up, the far left was on here whoopingf for Republican Lowell Weicker.

[CTLawGuy]

96. whom Joe Lieberman is to the right of

or at least that's how he ran in 1988.

your contempt for liberals and liberalism is painfully apparent.

[TankLV]

104. Here here.

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

[Ken Burch]

112. There was never a chance to win the governor's race in CT and you know it.

There weren't any Democrats who could have won it.

[Selatius]

30. Your poll is terribly outdated at this point in time.

[MrBenchley]

65. Bullshit

But feel free to trot out another one.....

[Ken Burch]

113. Uh, simply saying "bullshit"

doesn't prove your poll is not out of date.

[AndyTiedye]

33. The Only Thing That Gives Schlesinger a Chance is Loserman Splitting Dems

The antiwar movement isn't the "far left", it's 2/3 of the country.

WE are not "giving the Republicans a chance", Loserman is,
by running an independent campaign and splitting the Democrats.

[MrBenchley]

66. Bullshit....

The far left is the far left. And you sure as shit DID give the Republicans a chance that they didn't have before.

[TankLV]

105. It's funny how the FAR RIGHT of the Democratic Party like to fling

adjectives around!

Very telling.

In case you haven't noticed, we are the MAINSTREAM.

[Hippo_Tron]

36. I don't call a 17 point deficit a better than average chance

I'd say that he has about zero chance in a two-way race against Lieberman and an outside chance at best in a two-way race against Lamont. Lamont has also gained more name recognition since this poll and would probably poll better in a potential two way race today. As I have said several times, if Lamont had to run against a better known opponent like Jodi Rell or Chris Shays, I would be very worried. Alan Schlesinger is just a sacrificial lamb that the GOP put up.

Also, Governorship in Connecticut is already under Republican control and Jodi Rell was pretty much unbeatable regardless of who is in the senate race. The only possibility is if she had been challenged by Chris Dodd.

[MrBenchley]

67. With 34% undecided? That's way better than average

and remember the GOP had NONE a few months ago.

"Jodi Rell was pretty much unbeatable"
So was Lieberman . But the far left HATES Democrats.

[Hippo_Tron]

90. I still don't see how Schlesinger has a chance

I think that according to the poll it's 43% undecided since it's 37% for Lamont and 20% for Schlesinger. Schlesinger needs a little less than 3/4ths of the undecided vote to win against Lamont. Lamont has probably gained a lot more name recognition and probably has higher name recognition than Schlesinger now since the debate was televised nationally on MSNBC (the poll was taken long before the debate). If you can explain to me how Schlesinger overcomes this and manages to get 3/4ths of the undecided vote with this disadvantage in a very democratic state in a democratic year then I am more than willing to listen. But it seems to me that as soon as Lamont were to secure the democratic nomination, he would poll near 50% if not above in a two way race simply because of the D next to his name.

[SOS]

97. Did you miss Lieberman's announcement

that he will be running a thrid party Independent campaign against the Democrat if he is voted out by Democratic Party primary voters?
The "34% undecided" is in a race that will never happen.

[TankLV]

106. As much as you of the FAR RIGHT hates Democrats?

Pot meet Kettle.

So far, it seems us that the ONLY one here criticizing OTHER DEMS PUBLICLY is LIEberman and you.

[Ken Burch]

114. Opposing Lieberman isn't hating Democrats

Geez, at least try to come up with an ORIGINAL slur now and then.

And Schlesinger would have to take more than two-thirds of that 34% to be competitive in a two-way race. No possible way he can pull off that kind of a swing. That 34% is not sharply to the right of all other Ct. voters.

And, once again, will you agree that Lieberman would be disloyal to run as an independent if the party defeats him in the primary, and would you pledge yourself to work hard for Lamont against him?

You've refused to say for weeks now.

[invictus]

53. Schlesinger is the Republican, with a snowball's chance in hell

He doesn't have the resources to beat either Lamont or Loserman.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[madfloridian]

81. That sounds like Bull Moose..,calling them the "mindless" claque

or clique. These insults need to stop.

[MrBenchley]

86. "Mindless" fits the Unknown Millionaire's whoopsters perfectly....

Now I suggest you go sulk about accuracy to somebody else.

And its rich to hear one of the leaders of the purist hate squad whine about "insults"--as if nobody can read any of the far left's malignant threads.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[Ken Burch]

115. It doesn't matter that he's a Millionaire...and even YOU have to admit

that Ned Lamont is no longer UNKNOWN...if he ever was.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[Ken Burch]

116. When the deletions pile up...you know Benchley's been busy...

deleted messages are his brain droppings.

[TankLV]

103. Thanks for your slandering of us progressives - again.

Just like clockwork.

You seem to like everything the repukes do in all your posts - and are against anything that would return America to the CENTER.

[Ken Burch]

111. There would be no reason that the Lieberman voters wouldn't go to Lamont

in the fall. They're Democratic voters first.

Lieberman is not above the party.

[napi21]

13. It's NOT only Joe's siding with Shrub on the war that's the problem.

He sided with the Pubs on the Patriot Act, he's constantly quoted by Shrub, Cheney, Hannity, and O'Riley as being their favorite Dem. Doesn't that tell you something?????

More and more people keep asking why he just doesn't switch Parties and get it over with!

[question everything]

17. If I remember correctly, the Patriot Act was his idea

and I don't think that it was as draconian as it became once the Republicans grabbed it and changed it to fit their needs.

I would think that he is very unhappy at being supported by these thugs. I wonder whether any of them has ever invited him to give his version.

[napi21]

29. If he's not happy with their support, he should say so!

He never does, does he?

I could accept him supporting staying in Iraq IF he said WHY he believes that!

I could accept him supporting the Patriot Act if he would say it was changed a lot AFTER I supported it, but he didn't!

Sorry, but Joe's troubles are all of his own creation!

[TayTay]

16. Boy, you are wrong on so many things, it's hard to know where to begin.

And just a reminder for those too young to remember: the opposition to Vietnam started when college deferments were canceled. When middle class white men all of a sudden were in danger of being drafted and sent to Vietnam.

This is just flat out wrong. Johnson began to ramp up involvement in Vietnam in late 1963. There was opposition to this right away. By late 1967, polls were showing that most Americans thought that American involvement in Vietnam was a mistake. There was a demonstration in Washington DC on Oct 21, 1967 that drew 50,000 people. That was the beginning of the mass demonstrations.

This is a transcript of interviews with the people who lived through that period. Go read it. Some of the parallels to today are chilling: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/series/pt_10.html

It is beyond disgusting that you claim that Americans don't really care about Iraq and only care about pocketbook issues. Americans do care. They care about wasting precious resources in a war that has no goal, no purpose and no hope of ending. A kid from my small town who died in this war was just buried last night. Ahm, it is insulting to claim that nobody cared about that young kid or the grieving family that he left behind.

As to why should Lieberman respond if Kerry or Clinton asks for something and he is re-elected. Ahm, yeah, exactly. That is the Lieberman logic, all for me and only me. Exactly. No discussion of the issues, no principles to stand on, nothing that marks him as a Democrat, just the question, 'What's in it for me.' Maybe that's why there is such strong opposition to him from regular people.

[question everything]

24. Thank you for the link, fascinating recounting of the events

of course, in those days everyone had to register with the selective service. This was not a volunteer army the way we've had for, what 30 years now?

Earlier this year there was a program about the 60s on PBS. And it was reported that Humphrey did come as against the war but by then it was too late and many Democrats just stayed home. And one of those people who did expressed his regret in action that brought us Nixon and Ford and later Reagan and the Bushes.

So sometimes we do have to vote for an individual who does not match every point that we want but that we know that once elected will steer the country right.

I am not from CT but wonder:

How did he vote on Roberts? on Alito? on the "flag burning" on "estate tax" on renewing the offshore oil drilling?

[bobbieinok]

93. this claim is frequently made; as you say 'it just ain't so'

"And just a reminder for those too young to remember: the opposition to Vietnam started when college deferments were canceled. When middle class white men all of a sudden were in danger of being drafted and sent to Vietnam."

College deferments were abolished in the fall of 67; the anti-war movement on college campuses, including teach-ins, started at least by 65. Mississippi Summer, about civil rights, was in 1964; Vietnam Summer, with teach-ins, rallies, etc, was 1965.

My husband and I were in grad school (we got married in Dec 1965). He lost his college deferment in 67 and was called to a physical twice (I do NOT know why he was not drafted). He became 26 early May and was no longer eligible for the draft.

Like many science and engineering grad students, he bombarded the American Association of Physicists for help; all the professional science/engineering societies were swamped by pleas from grad students 'just this close to finishing the dissertation.'

[Bucky]

19. From what I've seen of the polls so far, the Republican stands no chance

I don't think that seat is endangered by either Lamont's challenge or Lieberman's potential independent candidacy. If Lamont gets the nom and Lieberman runs as a "purple" candidate, one of the two of them will win. I doubt this situation the Republican will even break 30%.

[EricWhitaker]

25. We Keep losing

..IMO based on this, "who will beat the Republican" mentality by many of us , instead of "who's the best candidate." IMO the best Candidate in 2000 Dem Primary was Bill Bradley. But Gore seemed like such a cinch over the "lighweight" George W. Bush (who knew Bush even had a son). "Marge, wouldn't it be cool to have a father and son as President." Much of it was simple novelty.

In 2004 the best overall candidate was John Edwards. But the lock was Kerry against Bush because of the war record etc. Remmember "Bush can't campaign against a guy who actually won the BRONZE STAR in Vietnam on the national Security issues etc. (lol in retrospect). Etc etc. Saw how that turned out, anybody can be smeared.

IMO this time around the best candidate hands down is Ned Lamont regardless. I'd rather have an enemy that acts like an Enemy than a "friend" that acts like an enemy.

[saltpoint]

26. I was a Bradley delegate to my state's convention, EricWhitaker, and

appreciated your comment there on Bill Bradley.

I threw full bore and all gears for Gore when the time came, but Bradley was by far my first choice early on.

And he wouldn't make a bad candidate now, or even a veep nominee.

Anyway, I'm late in saying it but welcome to DU.

[karynnj]

45. There is of course no way to prove something that didn't happen

I seriously doubt that Edwards would have been a better candidate. He had a pretty slim resume and had he been the choice he would have been attacked as hard as Kerry was. He did not have Kerry's vast range of expertise - which showed in the Democratic primaries.Kerry also had his 20 years as a Senator and 2 as Lt Governor. Even Kerry's legal career as a prosecutor was useful. In contrast, Edwards was a very successful trial lawyer for most of his adult life. He did help people hurt by big companies but he also demagogued on OB/GYNs - channeling a brain damaged baby's voice. During that time he was not politically involved. He became a Senator in 1998.

If Edwards was a strong candidate, the primary schedule would have helped him. The first multi-state day had SC,MO,NM,AZ,DE,OK and ND. These should have been great states for a Southern populist vs a New Englander - but Kerry won 5 and did reasonably well in the other 2. Edwards won 1 and nearly tied Clark in a second. The week before this day was when most of the news magazines profiled "sunny" John Edwards as the person who could stop Kerry. (CNN even framed the results as a big win for Kerry and a smaller win for Edwards. In truth, if Edwards couldn't take these states, which could he win?)

[AndyTiedye]

71. The Rethug Media Would Have Chewed Edwards Up & Spit Out the Pieces

[last1standing]

20. It's not just Iraq.

First, the only reason DUers and other other support Casey is to get rid of santorum, who is far worse than Casey ever would be. If we had a choice of a better Dem we would be supporting them.

Then there's Lieberman. Yes many of us dislike him because of his stance on Iraq, but that doesn't explain everything as many Dems still support the Iraq operation and are not being called to the mat for it like he has been. It's not his pro-corporate voting record that shows he has no interest in supporting the middle or lower classes - otherwise we'd out for Biden's blood as well. It's not even his lack of support for women when he suggests that they can always find another hospital if one doesn't want to prescribe the morning after pill - as you say, Casey is anti-choice but we support him.

I'd say it's really a combination of the above mentioned stances combined with his seeming love for attacking other Democrats in a way he would never go after cheney or bush in the 2000 election. When we look back and remember that Lieberman was one of the first to advocate censuring Clinton for oral sex and then look to today and see him defending bush for an illegal war we get angry. When he buddy's up to right wing judicial nominees we wonder who's side he's on. When he pushes to censure make-believe violence while voting to escalate real life violence in Iraq, we ask where his priorities lie.

I understand that Lieberman has a solidly liberal record if you look far enough back. The problem is he has become much more conservative in recent years - if you don't believe that, check out the 2004 primary debate where he said so himself. He no longer supports a progressive agenda and worse attacks those who do in a very personal and vicious manner. I would rather have a moderate repub win than have Joe "the attack dog" Lieberman back in office.

A vote for Lieberman is more assuredly a vote for bush than any vote for Lowell Weicker. A vote for Lamont is a vote for our future.

[question everything]

27. Thank you for a comprehensive analysis

yes, where is Lowell Weicker? Too old, I suppose. He probably won't be welcomed by the current Republican party anymore than Lieberman by the Democrats.

Those were the days when the Republicans were of the "live and let live" and did not promote the wedge issues. Those were the days when bi-partisan agreements were not unusual and when the Republican party was dominated by people from the Northeast and the Midwest, not the deep South and Texas.

[last1standing]

28. Now it's my turn to ask a question of you.

I appreciate your compliment regarding my post but did it change your view of Lieberman and his policies? If so, how. If not, then what do you see in him that justifies six more years in the senate?

[question everything]

49. It did. However I started with two main points:

First, I do not think that Iraq is the only issue though obviously this is a minority opinion here on DU.

I am not looking at Bill Bennett for any guidance, but earlier on CNN he did talk about this race and he quoted some Democrats who wonder whether there is a room for the ones who support the war in the party.

If I were a CT Democrat I would certainly have taken your points into consideration; if I were a CT Democrat I would have been familiar with them; I should be.

What bothered me is that so many outside CT have rushed to hand Lieberman just because of his stand on Iraq. And there are thousands of posts here. And this is what bothered me.

I supported the war at first because of Saddam Hussein. However, we should have transferred power to neighboring nations - that share language, culture and religion with the Iraqis. We should have welcomed companies from non-supporting nations like France and Germany into the rebuilding of Iraq - when this was still a real possibility.

Staying beyond toppling Saddam regime just confirmed what everyone suspected: that the reason was oil. (And this is why it is clear that Israel was not wagging this country).

After 9/11 we've had the support of the whole world. Pro-American rally took place even in Tehran. But we lost all of it.

Thus, my opinion was that we should have transferred most of the jobs to others some three years ago. Even now, I do not support a date for a full withdrawal but rather line of tasks. For example - Iraqis, or soldiers from other Arab nations - should man that type of checkpoint instead of now the notorious unit - of beheaded soldiers and of a rapist and a murderer.

I respect Lieberman and other Democrats who support the continuation of our forces there. Because if we don't - we are no better than the Republicans who would not tolerate anyone who is pro-choice, or pro-environment or who is offended by the encroachment of religion into the political life.

[last1standing]

62. I'll try to take each point in turn.

First, I do not think that Iraq is the only issue though obviously this is a minority opinion here on DU.

I've always found that the opinions here range from centrist (supporting tax cuts, anti affirmative rights, pro-censorship, etc...) to the extreme (ie. communism, America bashing, anti white rhetoric, etc...). In that mix I think most DUers are reasonably intelligent people who are able to manage better than one issue voting. Leiberman's views on Iraq are just the most belligerent of his many anti-progressive stances therefore incurring the most wrath.

I am not looking at Bill Bennett for any guidance, but earlier on CNN he did talk about this race and he quoted some Democrats who wonder whether there is a room for the ones who support the war in the party.

If I were a CT Democrat I would certainly have taken your points into consideration; if I were a CT Democrat I would have been familiar with them; I should be.

What bothered me is that so many outside CT have rushed to hand Lieberman just because of his stand on Iraq. And there are thousands of posts here. And this is what bothered me.

Of course there's room in the Dem party for those who support the war. But just as DUers take to task Dems who support tax cuts or anti-reproductive rights, we're going to hit anyone who's pro-Iraqi war at this point as someone who isn't in line with progressive thinking.

I supported the war at first because of Saddam Hussein. However, we should have transferred power to neighboring nations - that share language, culture and religion with the Iraqis. We should have welcomed companies from non-supporting nations like France and Germany into the rebuilding of Iraq - when this was still a real possibility.

Staying beyond toppling Saddam regime just confirmed what everyone suspected: that the reason was oil. (And this is why it is clear that Israel was not wagging this country).

After 9/11 we've had the support of the whole world. Pro-American rally took place even in Tehran. But we lost all of it.

Thus, my opinion was that we should have transferred most of the jobs to others some three years ago. Even now, I do not support a date for a full withdrawal but rather line of tasks. For example - Iraqis, or soldiers from other Arab nations - should man that type of checkpoint instead of now the notorious unit - of beheaded soldiers and of a rapist and a murderer.

Many DUers felt, and feel, the same way you did about the war. While I never supported it, many did based on information the bush administration supplied as absolute fact. Unfortunately, those "facts" turned out to be complete lies and propaganda meant to sway Americans into supporting mass murder for the sake of a few multinational oil conglomerates and defense contractors. Now that the truth is slowly leaking out most Dems, such as Murtha, who were once solidly pro-intervention have called this war a mistake and are seeking ways to extricate the US from a very tricky situation.

Yes, once war was inevitable, we should have turned more of the reconstruction and infrastructure over to other Arabic nations who could have better assuaged the insurgents. Yes, we should have been more willing to include nations like France and Germany in the post war bidding for reconstruction. However, even those things would not have changed the facts. The people of this country were lied to in order to justify a coup on a non-threatening nation. Hussein, as bad as he was, did nothing that many other leaders in other countries have not done or are not doing as we speak. Our intervention was nothing short of a war crime and will have repercussions for many years to come, certainly past my lifetime or yours.

I respect Lieberman and other Democrats who support the continuation of our forces there. Because if we don't - we are no better than the Republicans who would not tolerate anyone who is pro-choice, or pro-environment or who is offended by the encroachment of religion into the political life.

I'm afraid I can't join you in your respect for Lieberman. Not merely for his views and actions on Iraq, but also the other items I mentioned in my first post as well as a myriad of other stances he has taken in the last few years. I do respect other people opinions, but not when they try to disguise right wing views under a progressive umbrella. I've listed out several instances where Lieberman has veered wildly to the right and yet, now that he is in a primary race he lashes out at his opponent calling him a closet repub. In fact, Lieberman has always appeared more willing to attack other Dems than repubs. It's something he really seems to relish. That does not garner my respect.

I'd also like to again mention of Joe's pro-choice and religious separation views as they are extremely questionable. To declare that women who have just been raped should have to shop around for a hospital willing to carry the morning after pill or other anti-pregnancy drugs is not pro-choice in my opinion. Also, Lieberman has consistently voted to allow the encroachment of religion into our schools and other public venues. I won't fault him on his environmental votes, but I wouldn't fault Lincoln Chafee (R-Rhode Island) too much on his either.

Yes, there's much more to dislike about Joe Lieberman than his stance on Iraq. I hope you will join the majority of us here at DU in supporting his opponent, Ned Lamont. If not, you're still welcome here, just expect a healthy debate when discussing a senator whom most of us feel has betrayed our trust.

[question everything]

74. Thank you for your detailed response

On some points we agree and on some we will agree to disagree.

I am grateful for the calm and reasonable way that you took to debate, an approach that too often is missing on DU.

[last1standing]

82. I'm going to take some exception to that statement.

Not the one about agreeing and disagreeing, of course I respect that completely. However, when you state that calm and reasonable debate is too often lacking at DU, I'm going to have to point you to the main instigator in this thread, MrBenchly. If you look at the chain of posts (which you participated in, by the way), it is MrBenchly who immediately begins a tirade of insulting and wild eyed claims that have no place in a calm and reasonable debate. To imply, as I feel you did, that it is those who dislike Lieberman, such as myself, who started the mudslinging is disingenuous.

Lieberman isn't Satan's latest appearance here on Earth, but he's not the only salvation of this country either. Let's debate whether he should retain his seat for another six years in a civilized manner, without the vitriol currently being spewed.

I've listed why I feel it's time to remove him and give Ned Lamont a chance but I've yet to hear anyone tell me why Joe Lieberman should continue representing Democrats as a US senator. Please tell me in some detail his acomplishments over that last six years worthy of our support.

[TankLV]

107. Thank you for saying what I am stewing about inside.

The point of the flame-thrower MrBenchley is spot-on.

Only you say it in a much more civilized manner.

I can't abide people who start flamewars and are then all upset when somebody throws back equally - like MrBenchley has a knack and history of doing.

[bornskeptic]

40. Weicker is supporting Lamont.

Although Lieberman still has the overwhelming support of Connecticut's Democratic establishment, Lamont recently won the endorsement of George Jepsen, a former chairman of the state Democratic Party. Former independent governor Lowell Weicker, who was a Republican when he lost his Senate seat to Lieberman in 1988, also has endorsed Lamont. Weicker co-chaired a fund-raiser for Lamont last week.

http://www.forward.com/articles/7999

[last1standing]

57. Thanks for the correction.

I was thinking about Weicker when I made that post. The repub running in the 2006 race is Alan Schlesinger.

[Hippo_Tron]

39. Lieberman still thinks that Iraq was a good idea in the first place

That is in contrast with nearly every single democrat in congress, no matter what their position on troop withdrawl is.

[karynnj]

22. I heard Lieberman about a month or so ago on one

of the talk radio shows. He was talking about how the Democrats were wrong on Iraq and other things. He was pandering to (I think - Hannity).

If Lieberman gets in - he will still vote with the Democrats on issues like the environment where he is in agreement. His values are what determine his votes - he clearly doesn't vote with the Democrats when he disagrees.

As to Kerry, look at it from the opposite side. Lieberman praised Bush's handling of Iraq when he was campaigning in FL for Kerry! He also was very uncomplimentary to Kerry, Feingold and Levin on the recent Iraq legislation. But if Lieberman wrote a bill for some issue Kerry agreed with, do you think Kerry would say - No! Not if your name is on it. (Kerry even sponsored a bill with Santorum - and their is no friendship there.

In 2004, many did vote on Iraq and National security - on both sides.

[AndyTiedye]

32. Lieberman is "Pro Choice" But Won't Oppose Anti-Choice USSC Justices

Lieberman wants us to make nice when Bush** packs the courts,
including the US Supreme Court, with judges who want to overturn
Roe v. Wade. He says he is pro-choice, but that takes a back
seat to being "bipartisan" and letting ** have his way.

[AndyTiedye]

34. Got it Wrong About the Draft Too

the opposition to Vietnam started when college deferments were canceled. When middle class white men all of a sudden were in danger of being drafted and sent to Vietnam.

The antiwar movement was well under way by then, sufficiently so to doom LBJ's Presidency.
Yes, we got Nixon, but even he was promising to end the war (said he had a "secret plan").

But they would be in danger as soon as they graduated, unless their Poppy could swing an assignment to a "champagne unit" well out of harm's way.
Certainly there was a great deal of organizing of anti-war and anti-draft activity on college campuses.
Cancelling the deferments and drafting people BEFORE college was an attempt to short-circuit that.

When they ended the draft, they had to end the war soon thereafter, because nobody was signing up to fight it.

[leesa]

35. Yes, war crimes and treason are a more immediate concern.

[Hippo_Tron]

38. Lieberman will not caucus with the Republicans

He would not be able to look a single one of his democratic colleagues in the eye ever again if he did that. They also have almost all supported him in the primary but their hands will truly be tied if he runs as an independent.

[western mass]

41. Opposing Lieb - Cutting out the cancer to save the body

CT is solid blue, and these sad attempts at Lieberman-boosting aren't fooling anyone.

Why settle for a right-leaning, Bush-lovin' traitor when we can get a real Democrat? That's the only question CT voters need to be asking.

[alvarezadams]

48. Zaxctly

eom

[lojasmo]

42. Lieberman is only so-so on choice

Iraq war
NCLB
Patriot act
wrong on Alito cloture vote.

Etc..etc...etc.

[Totally Committed]

54. I agree totally with lojasmo on this PLUS...

he badmouths other Democrats. He actually spouts Republican talking points.

He is a cancer that needs to be cut out of the Body Democratic to save its life. He needs to go, and since he won't allow his constiuents their Constitutional right of voting him out in the Primary, it appears that only a swift kick is going to make him go.

TC

[Norquist Nemesis]

44. Maybe when Lieberman decides to pander a little bit

I'll alter my opinion. Till then, he gets the mute button. He not only thumbs his nose at Democrats, he goes over the line with labels like "jihadists" and that he's being "terrorized" by "extremists". You'll NEVER hear him speak that way of ANY Republican Congresscritter (or even other Cons, for that matter).

No, the party hasn't left Joe. Joe's left the party and while putting a knife in it's back.

[alvarezadams]

46. "Do we know who the Republican candidate be, yet?"

Lieberman, obviously.

"Aside from supporting Iraq (and Israel, though most DUers wisely do not mention that point directly) what is the problem with Lieberman?"

His association with the DLC, funded by the Bradley's et al, supported by Murdoch - which therefore supportes neo-liberal economics (trickle-down) and neocon foreign policy.

It's been said ad nauseum - haven't you realized this yet?

"Fine, then, why trash Lieberman who is pro-choice?"

Because "choice" is a talkingpoint issue, a misdirection play. What matters is economics and foreign policy - token progressive stances are DESIGNED to fool the electorate.

"I support Adolf Hitler because he is progressive on healthcare and he's building the autobahns and Volkswagens." Get the picture?

"Is Iraq more important than women's right to privacy?"

False dichotomy. How about "is the committing of crimes against the peace and warcrimes and the deaths of tens if not hundreds of thousands more important than a woman's right to privacy?".

"This is how voters vote. On issues that are "local" that are up close and personal."

This sounds like the classic DLC red herring, "expediency". What SHOULD be the issue is right or wrong. If you vote "expediency" you might be confused with an "ends justify the means" conservative.

"If Lieberman loses the primary and wins as an Independent - why should he be obliged to vote with the Democrats in the Senate? How will "leaders" like Kerry and Clinton feel about asking for his vote?"

Indeed - why should he feel "obliged" to vote for a party he would change into a GOP light? And what difference would it make if he did so as an indie or a dem? As for DLC Kerry and DLC Clinton asking DLC Lieberbush for a vote, what's a favour between friends? Or what's honour between thieves?

"I hope that I am wrong but I am afraid, especially after Kerry's statement, that we, Democrats, are cutting our nose to spite our face with the strong opposition to Lieberman before he even won or lost the primary. "

Voting for a neo-lib neocon is cutting off the nose to spite the face. It is tantamount to voting GOP.

[DrGonzoLives]

47. Why do Lieberman supporters keep missing the point

Why is he somehow obligated to keep his seat and the party's nomination? Do you prefer the smoky rooms of the old days to choose candidates or something?

Imagine if Lamont said he would run as an independent if he lost the primary. You DLCers would be calling him a worthless traitor, an egoist, et cetera, but it's perfectly fine if Liberman tries to split the Democratic vote. Why?

"Is Iraq more important than women's right to privacy?"

For some people it is, and this attempt to marginalize anyone who thinks that Iraq is important is idiotic.

Furthermore, it's not just that he supports the war. It's that he's LOUD AND PROUD about it and constantly repeats the same Republican bullshit about how only the loony left and blah blah blah oppose the war. It's how he goes on Fox News and trashes his own party (whose support he apparently is entitled to for some reason).

"As I've posted on many threads: for most voters Iraq and impeachment are not the top priority. Their jobs, their access to health care, schools quality, their retirements - are. And Rove makes sure that "killing babies" and "perverts" are there, too. At least, they hear about this every Sunday at church."

Then they'll vote how they'll vote. That's what "campaigning" and "elections" and "democracy" are for, something that Lieberman supporters have forgotten about. And, honestly, the next person who starts using the "what would Rove say" argument is getting flamed. Maybe we should actually start trying to beat him at his own game instead of being little chickenshits afraid to have a backbone.

[SaveElmer]

50. Its about the Party....

If you believe, as I do, that belonging to a Political Party is about allying yourself with fellow citizens who subscribe to an underlying notion of governance, and if you believe, as I do, that the country will be in far better shape if the Democratic Party is in power, then what Joe Lieberman has done is put his OWN AMBITION above the good of the country.

A Party cannot be effective unless its members, particularly those running for office, are willing to follow the rules agreed to by the Party. The rules are conceived to provide the maximum chance that the Party will not only succeed on election day, but will be able to govern effectively.

It does no good to claim you are a Democrat when you are willing to thumb your nose at the decision arrived at by your fellow party members. It undermines the effectiveness of the party, hindering its chances on election day, and making it harder to govern once elected. By announcing he will run as an independent should he lose the primary, Joe Lieberman has decided that HE PERSONALLY is more important to the country than the possibility of a Democratic majority. And, he has made it more likely that the Democratic Party will not achieve that majority by breathing life into a moribund Connecticut Republican Party.

If Lieberman is as honest as he claims he is, he ought to immedietely announce that he is leaving the Democratic Party...I would have more respect for that than this charade he has created of the "petitioning Democrat."

[invictus]

52. If Lamont wins the primary ...

which appears more likely every day, he will win the election. Everyone loves a winner and hates a loser. All Loserman's friends will abandon him if he runs as an independent. His independent campaign will be as hopeless as his 2000 presidential campaign.

[Jacobin]

55. Support of GodAwful foreign policy endangers the very

survival of our nation.

This "aside from Iraq" thing is NOT an aside. It is at the very heart of the continued existence of this country. If we continue down the neo-con road, this country will be damaged diplomatically, economically and militarily beyond repair.

IraqNam is not a single issue. It is the CENTRAL issue.

[silvermachine]

58. Maybe we inhabit very different worlds because...

...where in the world have you heard this:

>><for most voters Iraq and impeachment are not the top priority.>>>

The impeachment part I get, but the Iraq part is a really astonishing statement. Then why is Holy Joe running scared?????

[kick_them_hard]

60. This is what I am concerned about

During the Vietnam War, the left was screaming to get out of Vietnam. Of course they were right, but it caused such divisive divide within the Democratic party, we lost and Nixon was re-elected. I'm worried this might happen again.

[kentuck]

61. I disagree with this characterization...

If we cannot depend on Democrats in times such as these, what can we expect when the times get really rough? Not only was Lieberman supportive of this illegal war, he was also supportive of Dubya's plan to make changes to the Social Security System. He's sounds and votes like a moderate Republican - Arlen Specter would be an improvement. But, surely we can do better. Otherwise, you get what you accept.

[coalition_unwilling]

63. Lieberbush has the blood of 100,000+ dead Iraqi civilians on

his hands. Hell yes, Iraq is more important than a woman's right to choose, unless you're upper middle class, live in a tony suburb, drive a $70,000 SUV and swing between Dems and Repukes as the mood suits you.

[Clarkie1]

69. Well, kudos to Senator Kerry!

I had not heard that he had made that statement. Good for him.

[iconoclastNYC]

70. I want his electoral head on a pike. Lieberman left the party years ago.

And thats what makes his little speech on Monday so pointless. He has higher loyalties don't you know?

Corporate America, the DLC, Isreal even maybe? But not the voters of CT, not the soliders he sent to Iraq to die for a lie and to get Bush relected.

Thank god for Lamont.

[Cha]

94. Amen! Lamont and the

"Common Good"!

[madfloridian]

72. A primary is not cutting off anyone's nose.

It is just that, a primary. It is a way for voters to choose. Joe seems to feel he is entitled. He isn't. No one is.

[Swamp Rat]

80. Why trash Lieberman? ... He's a Wannabe PNAC Lizard

[madfloridian]

83. Why are you calling it "opposing Lieberman", when it is just a primary?

Lieberman's supporters are taking this whole thing way too personally. It is not about Lieberman, it is about how our party works, how our country should work.

When a politician begins to think he is entitled, maybe it is time for change. Who knows?

[zann725]

84. Regarding "noses," none could be further up this Admin's but than Joe's.

It's not a matter of cutting "one's nose." But saving one's face...or in the case of Dem party...our "Kick."

[AtomicKitten]

92. Primaries are the essence of democracy within a party.

It's the voice of the people and that is what matters.

[JerseygirlCT]

95. On the choice issue:

remember that Lieberman is the guy who recently sided with the state's Catholic hospitals in their refusal to provide emergency contraception to rape victims. That says a great deal to me about just how "pro-choice" the man is.

We do know who the Rep. opponent is, but it doesn't matter. Either way, there will be a Dem in the office. The GOP candidate will run third in a three-way race.

[adwon]

98. Well

Unless the GOP gives him a deal, he has to remain affiliated with the Democrats in the Senate. If he doesn't, he'll be a 4-term senator with no seniority. I have my doubts as the GOP giving him a deal because, well, for his recent activities, he will not go over well with the religious types. There's a world of difference between Joe as a Republican and Joe as a Democrat.

As definitely one of the more 'conservative' people on this forum, I would like seeing Joe retired. His high visibility and willingness to compromise for the sake of compromise are detriments to his party. I believe compromise is essential for democratic governance, but compromise for the highest price, not any old price. Any Republican I know likes him. Why? He has become Bush's fig leaf.

I'm not saying vote against him in a general election. I am saying scare the shit out of him (at least) in the primary.

Final thought: Where is Al Gore in this debate? He brought this abomination to prominence. Without him, Joe would just be the guy who bitched about Clinton during the Monica parade. If Al is seriously considering another run, he'd do well to start by slapping Joe to sense.

[question everything]

99. Interesting thoughts. I think that Al Gore is tactfully staying away

Two years ago he was among the first to jump on the Dean bandwagon only to see this vehicle going up in flames (rightly or wrongly). So why stick his head this time into a hornet nest?

And he probably thinks that he owes him that much not to attack him. And the fact that he is silent speaks volume, in my opinion.

[adwon]

100. You're likely right

I just think that if Gore is serious about opposing the Iraq venture, a rebuke of Lieberman is necessary. Hell, Cromwell provided the perfect response to Joe's recent positioning:

You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!

[TankLV]

101. Because it is the MORAL and RIGHT thing to do - to oppose LIE-berman.

Like others have said - it's like cutting off a gangreenous limb - if you don't remove it - the whole body will die. That is what we must do to save the Democratic Party.

LIEberman:

Criticizes OTHER DEMS for daring to disagree with the repukes and bunkerboy on THE ILLEGAL IRAQ WAR OF CHOICE BASED ON LIES.

Has had an apparent LOVEFEST for everything REPUKE ever since his "defeat" in 2000.

Supports giving taxpayer funds to RELIGIOUS organizations.

Supports the demonizing of GAY persons.

Is our new "ZELLOUT".

Pretty damn good reasons for DOING EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO MAKE SURE HE LOSES IN NOVEMBER!

And these are just a few of the ones that quickly pop into mind.

[Wisconsin Larry]

108. Take the test and maybe you'll get it -- who said what Lieberman or Bush

The following is from Salon.com and can be seen in full at
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/07/07/debate/index.html

Listed below are some of the things Lieberman said during last night's debate, mixed in with some of the things Bush said during last night's Larry King interview. See if you can tell who's who.

1. "The decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision and I'm absolutely convinced it was."

2. "And I believe it was the right thing for us to overthrow Saddam Hussein."

3. "Things don't happen quickly when it comes to helping a nation go from a tyranny to a democracy. But the Iraqi people were given a chance to vote and they did overwhelmingly. And now we're working with a new unity government, to help succeed.

4. "The situation in Iraq is a lot better, different than it was a year ago. The Iraqis held three elections. They formed a unity government. They are on the way to building a free and independent Iraq. Their military -- two-thirds of their military is now ready, on their own, to lead the fight with some logistical backing from the U.S. or stand up on their own totally. That's progress."

5. "I'd rather be judged as solving problems and being correct, rather than being popular."

6. "And I have asked to respect me for having the guts to take an unpopular political position."

7. "We will succeed in Iraq, unless we decide to quit."

8. "... we have a choice. And that choice is between helping the Iraqis achieve a free and independent Iraq or abandoning them and letting the terrorists take over."

So which one is George Bush, and which one is the one who proclaims himself "not George Bush"? The Republican president is responsible for statements 1, 3, 5 and 7. The Democratic senator -- for now -- can take credit for 2, 4, 6 and 8.

[MzNov]

109. Nedrenaline!!!

There are many reasons the netroots is backing Ned Lamont. LIEberman has done this to himself, it wasn't the big bad bloggers decided to all get together one day and "get" Holy Joe. Some of us are really paying attention to his political career and voting record. And Ned Lamonts just don't come along every day.

Support Ned Lamont!

:bounce: