What Lieberman's Defeat Means

[Bobbieo]

· In the end, the real alternative to Bush's Republican extremism isn't Democratic extremism. It is bipartisan moderation—which has the additional advantage of being the highest form of patriotism and the only route to victory in a time of war.
·
·
·
· TIME.com: What Lieberman's defeat means

[Poppyseedman]

1. Lieberman's defeat means

he will win as an independent in Nov.

Now instead of having a liberal senator that votes 90% of the time "progressive" we will have a one less "Democratic" senator who will probably have a little pay back on his mind for trashing him because he stuck to his principles rather than cave in to the anti war contingent of the democratic party.

IMHO

[Bob3]

4. The 90% is b.s. -

When push comes to shove Lieberman's been a nice and happy corporate stooge, and in foreign policy he's been right there with * and the neocon's cheering them on. this we don't' need.

Lieberman's been a useful beard for the GOP with the :"See a liberal Democratic senator agrees with us we need to kill brown people". he can't do that anymore.

And what kind of liberal spends his time with Bill (double down) Bennett publicly fretting about video games and sexy dvd's.

And if Lieberman's Primary campaign is any indication, he'll be lucky to finish 3rd.

[Poppyseedman]

6. Better check his voting record

The reason we send people to the Congress is we want them to vote like we see fit.

Joe for all his "toolness" or "beardness" votes consistently progressive.

[Bob3]

9. Fine he was the most wonderfuliest progressive senator in history

and yet - on closure on Alito -the most regressive supreme court appointee since the 19th century - he vote yes to end debate ensure Altio got on the bench. that he voted no after wards meant nothing other than giving him that meaningless 90%.

And He voted yes on the Gonzales nomination - when it wouldn't have hurt to vote no. This is a progressive? Gonzales is the author the torture memos. And our wonderfulist liberal senator shamed himself by soft soaping the torture in Iraq. He's not alone in that but he's always presented himself as a very moral man. Except when it comes to brown people it seems.

he waffled on social security until it was clear that *'s attempt to gut the system was going to fail.

He said that rape victims could take a cab ride to another hospital if the ambulance they were put in after they were raped took them to Catholic hospital which doesn't dispense emergency birth control.

He supported the bankruptcy bill that is currently screwing people who are deep in debt, most of which are there because of medical bills or being unemployed. Again this is progressive?

And now he's going around saying that a vote for Lamont is a vote for terrorism. This is knuckle dragging reactionary fear mongering gibberish at its finest.

The GOP can bloody have him. At least the Democratic party won't have to worry about him showing up on fox news and cutting them off at the knees.

Last, I can't imagine Sean Hannity liking a progressive as much as dotes on joe.

[calimary]

25. And he certainly didn't mind bringing Big Brother Government into

the personal, private family anguish surrounding Terri Schiavo.

What's most galling, though, is how his views of Iraq seem to dovetail with everything rummy says... HOW BLIND ARE YOU, JOE?

[Upfront]

12. Except

When it mattered. Bush can no longer point to Joe and say some Democrats support him. Joe no longer is a voice for Democrats. He won't be missed by me. Besides, Lamont will win.

[depakid]

23. You've got to be kidding me

Joe's voting record on issue after issue is far to the right of being what any reasonable person would call progressive.

He's proven to be nothing but a Republican enabler.

Yep- allowing hospitals denying rape victims emergency contraception- real progressive.

Deregulating the financial industry- and consistently voting against consumer protection legislation- real progressive.

You can pull all the misleading stats out you want- and I'll cite you instance after instance where Joe's gone out of his way to legitimize Republican policies.

[LoZoccolo]

14. Document or retract. n/t

[Bob3]

15. retract? I'm sorry retract what that the 90% is meaningless?

to quote twain - There are lies, damn lies and statistics. People flung that 90% voting record around the entire primary. If he was really the progressive the aplogist say he was, he wouldn't have even had a challenger.

[LoZoccolo]

18. Would you say the same of Gore vs. Nader in 2000? n/t

[Bob3]

24. Actually both nader and Lieberman are about ego

so there is some similarities in the end.

both of them tend to say me me me a alot.

[Zhade]

16. Oh, just put him on ignore.

You're going to do it anyway.

[Poppyseedman]

19. Documentation. ..........Enough for you to choke on

Americans for Democratic Action 2005 - 80$
National Committee for an Effective Congress 2005 - 90%

Here is all the info you could possibly want to look at.

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0141103 See interest group ratings


http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=004110M
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=004217M
http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=S0141103

[LoZoccolo]

21. Heh, thanks!

I wasn't arguing with you though! :D But this is useful to my argument.

[Bob3]

26. if he's such a big old liberal

why is sean hannity crying over his loss? I mean come on. All the wrong people love just love Lieberman to death. Ted Kennedy is a progressive. Anybody think Lieberman's another Ted Kennedy?

anybody?

thank you and goodnight. I have a life to lead.

[alvarezadams]

5. Wha wha wha what?

"he will win as an independent in Nov. "

Perhaps.

"Now instead of having a liberal senator that votes 90% of the time "progressive" we will have a one less "Democratic" senator who will probably have a little pay back on his mind for trashing him because he stuck to his principles rather than cave in to the anti war contingent of the democratic party."

So because he "sticks to his guns" he's going to "stop sticking to his guns" as payback, eh?

FWIW, the "anti-war contingent of the DNC" is the majority. And the majority of democrats applaud his defeat.

Finally, his "90% progressive" is misleading. When it COUNTED he wasn't progressive at all. He wasn't as bad as Zell but in a way he was worse (as the DLC is, in a way, worse than the GOP); he was part of a conscious effort to move a centrist party to the far right.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

[Poppyseedman]

7. I would disagree on the second part

FWIW, the "anti-war contingent of the DNC" is the majority. And the majority of democrats applaud his defeat.

I would propose the "anti war contingent of the DNC" is a lot more anti bush than anti war.

I have always had a suspicion in the back of my mind, if a democratic candidate had won in the last presidential election, we would still be in Iraq and the anti war position would be a lot softer.

Just my humble opinion

[Bob3]

11. Well * and the war are very intertwined

the war was his baby he wanted it, he lied to get it and now he's stuck with it like an albatross around his neck.

But the disgust with this disaster in Iraq cuts across party lines. The percentage of the american public thinking the war was a mistake hovers around 60% - as most, 40-35% of the American public identify themselves as democrats.

What ifs are meaningless in the end. there is a texas saying "if a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump its ass on the ground." Still I can't imagine that a Democratic administration wouldn't be taking steps to get the hell out of there, rather than going on vacation and leaving it for the next guy to solve.

[skipos]

22. So it is our fault if Lieberman wants "pay back?"

Jeeze, we better NEVER challenge anyone in a primary ever.

Please explain how Joe's descision to hedge his bets in 2000 has anything to do with "priciples."
So I guess you respect what Nader did in 2000 and 2004, right? After all, he was sticking to his principles.

[fujiyama]

27. His vote record is not all that matters

It's partly about how he behaved in front of the cameras.

When you start undercutting the party's message, that's when you know you have a problem. And he's done that constantly. Many forget he actually made light of the torture at Abu Ghraib. And he's made excuses every step of the way for the administration on the war.

His votes for both Alito and the bankruptcy bill were incredibly cynical - vote for cloture then vote against.

His constant use of equating the WoT with the war in Iraq was also typical of RW/Rovian talking points.

And of course, his decision to publically state in an op-ed in the WSJ that "Dems were undermining credibility" by questioning Bush on Iraq. Basically he was trying to stifle dissent.

[Bob3]

2. This is gibberish - and it reads pretty much the same back wards

and means god damn NOTHING. You can't DO bi-partisan moderation with a president who doesn't obey the law when he doesn't feel like it and has led the country in a disaster in the middle east, a vice president who likes secretive autocracy and no-bid contracts, elected Representatives who feel their only job is to say yes sir let's gut the Constitution, corporations who will sell the country down the river for a place at the government money feed trouth, and right wing religious fanatics whit hearts full of hate. You don't do moderation with Gangsters.

These are not moderate times, and should be understood as such. We have the most radical administration in the history of the country (and the worst - wonder if there is a connection). In order to stand up to this you have to say, No you will not do this, and repeat this as often as possible. This will cause the gangsters to get upset as well it should. The british didn't like our rebellion and the south didn't like the idea that they should not have the right to own people. As a rule of thumb, the more upset these swine get, the better you are doing.

Jesus. Bi-Partisan moderation. Has this clown been packed in ice for the last 6 years?

[salin]

3. Given that two other incumbents lost their primary bids on the same day

I would guess that the meaning is obvious to everyone but the mainstream media...

There is a swelling anti-incumbent sentiment among voters.

[ScreamingMeemie]

8. To me, Lieberman's defeat means, we must all stop supporting him

because he is actively campaigning against the Dem candidate. And the stoppage of pro Lieberman posts can't come soon enough for me. :hi:

[Desperadoe]

10. Amen

I am surprised to still be reading these pro-Lieberman rants. He is not a Democratic candidate for office. He lost the primary election. This is the way the American system is supposed to work and I am getting tired of his failure to grasp reality and his negative attitude toward the election process.

It is time to stop humoring the Lieberman supporters who fail to accept what has been smacking them in the face.

[mitchtv]

20. you are so right, Mrs G

and his supporters should give up trashing the party, they lost . This is the DEMOCRATIC Underground.

[Crunchy Frog]

28. Me too.

I keep alerting, but it rarely does any good. I'm hoping that will change soon. They certainly never let people get away with pro-Nader posts during the '04 campaign.

[PassingFair]

29. Our money will have to go towards defeating him?

Any democrat who votes for that turncoat should
be taken to the woodshed.

[Contrary1]

13. I think it all boils down to this...

If Lieberman is good enough for Rove/Bush, he's bad enough to keep out of office.

[Zhade]

17. Indeed, well-said!

NT!